WangFubar
join:2003-10-02
Paradise, CA
 ·AT&T DSL Service
 ·Comcast
| Its like on demand but free...er
Grabbing popular TV shows off the internet "after" they have aired in their prime time slot doesn't hurt anyone. Leaking it before hand does. Movies are different but thats not what Im talking about.
Let me elaborate...
Because none of us can watch all the content that is out there, the networks are competing fiercely for your attention. Cable and satellite providers are quick to bring you a DVR or on demand service for a few dollars a month. Great you can watch the shows that you already like when you want. What about the people that have never seen your show? Why get all huffy that someone helped you advertise your show by spreading it around for people to see? Why not embrace the model and let people see your shows after you have aired them. If its not just crap, they will come back for more. If its crap well the networks are familiar with that and how to respond.
So my point in a nutshell is give your shows some bandwidth and let people stream them to see if they are worth watching. If you draw in more viewers its great, if not.. well at least you controlled the distribution (which is what this is really about anyway).
whimpering about what is happening in the dark corners of the internet and on college campuses across the nation doesn't grow your market share or ad revenue one bit... |
|
captnhook
join:2001-02-20
NY
| said by WangFubar  :So my point in a nutshell is give your shows some bandwidth and let people stream them to see if they are worth watching. If you draw in more viewers its great, if not.. well at least you controlled the distribution (which is what this is really about anyway). whimpering about what is happening in the dark corners of the internet and on college campuses across the nation doesn't grow your market share or ad revenue one bit... Exactly 
Television (and radio) have more than had their opportunities to embrace the new technology and become integrated into Web.
They could have easily provided streaming online broadcasts to mirror their local feeds and thusly ended up with their largest audience ever but instead they choose to limit what you can access (newscasts and crappy flash versions of prime time shows) via their bland websites.
The networks are run by a bunch of suit wearing baboons. |
|
AnonShawUser
join:2006-06-17
Calgary, AB
| If only I could get a good audio stream from local radio stations, without having to use their strictly web-based players, when it's even an option.
They would make a lot more money, especially on the AM band, by allowing for player-neutral streaming audio(m3u feeds would be best). Maybe even sign up different advertisers at a different rate, just for that, since then they could properly monitor just how many listeners they really do have. |
|
