Broadcasters, Cable Bicker Over 'TV Everywhere'
Disney feels cheated while Time Warner suggests they stop whining...
by Karl Bode 09:43AM Thursday Sep 17 2009 Tipped by caco
So far Disney isn't playing along with the cable industry's "TV Everywhere" project, which aims to offer existing customers free Internet video as an incentive not to cut the cord. Speaking at an investor's conference, Disney this week complained
the new system doesn't deliver "proper compensation," while Time Warner CEO Jeff Bewkes fired back
, saying that broadcasters are "not the ones who are going to the effort and expense of making this possible." Meanwhile, there continues to be a push to take the offline ad model online:
The networks participating in the Comcast trial have different approaches to commercials in the online environment. Some are experimenting with an abbreviated ad load, which might include an ad before and after the program with few interruptions in between. "And then there are networks on the other end of the spectrum who are very interested in testing a full ad load, similar to what you would watch on television," said Matt Strauss, senior vice president of new media at Comcast, in an interview with MarketWatch last week.
Disney and Time Warner's lover's quarrel comes on the heels of news that TV Everywhere is so far a jumble of non-standards
, with each carrier approaching implementation of the system differently. Ironically, bickering between broadcasters and TV operators, limited selection, walled gardens and unskippable ads are exactly the sort of thing that will drive consumers to alternative video operations or piracy -- the very thing TV Everywhere was supposed to stop.
said by SLD:Then I hope you don't mind paying a subscription fee per channel. Otherwise, ads are here to stay.
If they want to interrupt a show, they can find another viewer. I refuse to watch a show that keeps breaking out of context into ads.
Talk about losing the effect of being in the movie!
If they need to show ads, show them before, not during.
said by SLD:I agree 100% that ads can disrupt and ruin the viewing experience. That's why I don't watch movies on broadcast TV. Actually, I don't watch broadcast TV that much at all and when I do it's usually PBS.
5 solid minutes of ads! By the time you'd watch those, you'd forget what show you were trying to see.
But now that I think about it, I should have posted:
"Ads no longer make me irate because I'm not paying cash for content access."
I think that would be a better statement =)
Re: Do it right.
said by maartena:Yes, and lose the monthly caps too....
I would be willing to add $5 to my monthly bill if it adds online video, to which I must log on using a verified account name and password (that I would able to create using my account number), which then includes the ability to watch online, a selection of say....100 channels, including the LOCAL channels, on ANY online PC in the world.
But do it the RIGHT way.
Re: They're missing a key point
said by Michael C:actually, statistically very few people DVR everything and skip commercials. i think the assumption always is that DVR owners do this frequently, but statistically even in 2009 that's not what the numbers are saying.
A full ad load on offline TV is pointless. Most people now DVR everything and skip commercials.