Hulu Takes Aim at Original Series
Like Netflix, Will Try to Bypass Licensing Lock Out
As Netflix becomes more and more powerful
, they're facing greater and greater challenges from the companies whose legacy business models they threaten, with ISPs trying to impose low caps and high overages -- and broadcasters raising rates on licensing. To get around this, Netflix has been pushing into original content, recently snapping up the rights to a new show by David Fincher and Kevin Spacey
, the rights to the cancelled-but-popular Fox show Arrested Development, and developing a new gangster show starring Steven Van Zandt. This path is also appealing to Hulu, who plans to launch their first series this February
and is putting money aside for more original and exclusive programming.
Hmmm... I'm completely behind such actions (if handled properly). If a sustained creative pipeline can be created that steers developers AWAY from the current entertainment industry-based paradigm, then I can see a necessary erosion of the industry's war chests and their ability to affect and influence politics in their favor.
Granted, that'd have to be a SERIOUS set of alternative content creation and delivery methods and--though it won't happen overnight--I can see it happening. Unless of course they get enough control over bandwidth consumption to prevent such a threatening growth (to them) from occurring. Which is what appears to be happening.
But I see the potential for this to go in positive directions (and not just because it gives us a greater body of new content to choose from).
Mark Cuban thinks cord-cutting is over-hyped and that all these bypass cable TV ventures will have limited success.
Mark Cuban thinks cord-cutting is over-hyped
The Big Lie = Online video views is the same as number of TV viewers.
The views of a video on Youtube includes all the showings over an extended period of time. The ratings for SharkTank or any tv show all happened during the 1 hour the show was on the air. Which is exactly why TV is still a much more valuable advertising medium. Would you rather have your ad seen by the audience all within one hour, or over some unknown extended period ?
At CES this past week it was popular to hear about the explosion of online content and how people were going to be watching it on TV now that the new TVs have internet connectivity to all the great providers from Boxee, Netflix, Amazon , etc. These content distribution companies are not competitors to TV as a lot of folks would like you to believe, they are CUSTOMERS of TV show producers. They dont hurt the TV business, they have made the TV business far, far more profitable.
The TV business isnt dead. It really isnt even morphing. Sure people will watch video online. They will watch it on phones. They will download it. But the videos that online distributors pay the most for will be those that have done the best on traditional TV. Which in turn means more money for the production of shows.
Bottom line is that the better the TV business does, the better Hulu and Netflix will do because their primary content will be in greater demand
It will seem very cool that when you hit a button on your remote a list of distributors like Amazon, Hulu , Netflix and others will pop up for you to watch. Some folks will make good money with it. But it still wont be the competitor to TV that everyone predicts. Why ? Because just like no one took the time to change the blinking 12:00 on their VCRs back in the day, having to hit the internet button on the remote, or even worse, the input button on the remote will not be the path of least resistance for watching tv. Believe it or not, it will be far too much hassle for most people when compared to just turning on and watching TV the old fashioned way. And on top of that, distributors like Dish, Directv, Charter, Comcast, etc are working hard to improve their guide experiences which will be faster and easier than their online counterparts.
The nine most terrifying words in the English language are, I'm from the government and I'm here to help.
| |fuziwuziNot born yesterdayPremium
Re: Mark Cuban thinks cord-cutting is over-hyped Mark Cuban is one of the biggest know-nothing blowhards on the planet. When he speaks, it should sound like Charlie Brown's teacher.
Teabaggers: Destroying America is Priority #1
| Cuban has a very valid point about the difference between short term and long term ratings. But what he seems to skirt around is that for a significant percentage of the population, the You Tube-style rating method has been a part of most households since the introduction of the VCR.|
Timeshifting allowed folks to grab OTA content with its embedded commercials and watch it when it was convenient. They might also then share the tape with friends, effectively doubling or tripling the number of viewers, viewers that did NOT get counted as ratings.
Does whomever distributes I Love Lucy in syndication REALLY know what the total cumulative ratings are for any given episode at this point over its entire history? Doubtful (though they know the current shares). I suspect that the Views counter on sites like You Tube are a lot more accurate than the Nielsen's are.
And Cuban's in complete delusional denial if he really thinks that online viewing and distributor-created content aren't going to swallow OTA and cable in the long run; it's been going on for years now (just ask any marketing company about the holy 18-35 year-old male market that's almost impossible to market to now. They barely watch TV and spend far more time online and playing video games, one of the reasons product placement in games has gotten popular).
So advertisers now have a couple of choices available to them: 1.) pay through the nose for broadcast, cable or satellite placement of an ad that will have a VERY limited run at fixed times with zero long term growth, or 2.) pay a much lower rate for an embedded online ad that will get run every time someone watches that show, guaranteeing an international audience for a much longer run (with potentially no content restrictions)?
I guess we'll find out.
And his assumption that the current model of TV viewing is easier and preferred is laughable. I'm sure he (or someone like him) made the same argument about having 900 channels available on satellite: "No one wants to sort through 900 channels or a 150 page TV guide. They just want to flip through ten or twenty channels to find something to watch." While internet viewing may still be a bit clunkier than it could be, it's far from the nightmare he seems to think is.
| |SnakeoilIgnore Button. The coward's feature.PremiumReviews:
I have seen some decent low value productions. One of which is the Guild, the other the Fallout 3 series called: Fallout: Nuka Break .
There are others as well.
Add to this, networks canning shows that fall below 5 million viewers. The minor networks will accept 1 to 5 million views per shows, so why can't the majors? If the show costs to much for 20-26 episodes, why not just order 13, per season. Seems to work for TNT, AMC, Sy-fy, etc.
Is a person a failure for doing nothing? Or is he a failure for trying, and not succeeding at what he is attempting to do? What did you fail at today?.
Re: I have seen some decent low value productions. They charge different prices to advertisers based on the time slot and the ratings they expect for that time slot.
It's *probably* more profitable to make and produce a show and get advertisers to pay up front for a advertising for a show expected to get 10 million viewers and have the show fail and be replaced then it is to keep airing a show and only be able to pull money for a couple million viewers.
But I agree, the problem with a lot of shows is the major networks almost always insist on 20-25 episode seasons and that's just too long for a lot of shows, so it ends up being a ton of filler crap, where if they went with shorter seasons they'd have much better shows.