Broadcasters Afraid of Dying Like Newspapers Yet some have decided to act just like them... Tuesday Mar 31 2009 09:24 EDT It has been interesting to watch cable industry executives talk about online video lately, few really understanding that broadband and piracy have changed video forever, and that there's no stuffing the genie back in the bottle. Some execs, like Time Warner CEO Jeff Bewkes, seem to think they can simply take the existing business model (with its bi-annual rate hikes) and move it online. While that idea has its flaws, Rainbow Media CEO Josh Sapan goes one step further, believing that if he digs in his heels, the threat from online video will simply disappear. From Multichannel News: quote:
"If everyone engages in putting cable TV shows on the Web shortly after they air on cable television, they're doing nothing other than creating what I would call very bad habits. They're bad for the health of the industry. . ." Sapan said consumers won't see episodes of AMC's Emmy Award-winning drama Mad Men or shows from other Rainbow-owned cable networks online. . .because he said such actions will eventually undercut the healthy advertiser/affiliate-fee dual revenue stream that networks enjoy and use to make the programming that he says has ushered in a new "golden era" of television over the past decade.
Of course Sapan sees a future where cable and broadcasters become less relevant like print newspaper, as content becomes free (or cheaper), and competitors spring up from behind every bush. Ironically though, clinging to the old model and grumbling instead of adapting is precisely why many newspapers went under. Perhaps Sapan's successor will understand that and help usher the cable and broadcast industry into the "platinum era" of television? |
Xure
join:2003-11-14
Beverly Hills, CA |
Xure
Member
2009-Mar-31 12:44 pm
Let 'er ripIt is called progress. The inventor of the light bulb or the car did not really care about the candlemakers or coachbuilders.
No commercials? How about subscription services? There are other revenue stream than commercials. And maybe these media executives can take a pay cut? Why should we prop all these bloated media empires built on inefficient distribution models? How many media moguls with big downtown offices, personal assistants, vacation homes in Aspen? How many actors and divas that we spoil rotten with our money can we sustain? The better get used to being closer to the masses and closer to their actual trade than stacking money. How many Loren Conrads do we have to prop up? What the hell do they actually do that deserves all that money?
Get lean, get smart and figure it out. Netflix has it right. A monthly fee for all you can watch... And the media empire just might need to tighten its belt too. Maybe they just need to set their profit sights a bit lower. What makes them think they deserve all that revenue that they were able to siphon off to their own pockets? | | davepk
join:2003-10-02
Santa Cruz, CA |
davepk
Member
2009-Mar-31 5:22 pm
Product vs CustomerViewers are not the customer to network broadcasters.
We viewers are the product. More specifically our eyes are the product.
The true customers of the networks are those that buy commercial time slots.
The problem networks face is in maintaining their product (my eyes). For with out a product to sell they are finished. | |
How about .. |
