Just starting a thread on the Apple conference today. Usually there are a lot of expectations going into these events. This year, it all seems rather low key, and not a lot is expected.
I know that the big hardware launches usually happen in the fall, but it will be interesting to see if there is something unexpected that comes out today. Usually, there are excessive rumors that don't become reality. This year, there are fewer rumors and maybe a surprise is in the works. But, it seems that the only way to surprise is to announce something well in advance, before production starts, and that is not the Apple way.
A lot of improvements and big developments on the developer side of things, but for the consumer no new products. I guess pretty typical and what I should have expected.... no hardware.
Quote from: GOO on June 02, 2014, 10:45:10 AM
Just starting a thread on the Apple conference today. Usually there are a lot of expectations going into these events. This year, it all seems rather low key, and not a lot is expected.
I know that the big hardware launches usually happen in the fall, but it will be interesting to see if there is something unexpected that comes out today. Usually, there are excessive rumors that don't become reality. This year, there are fewer rumors and maybe a surprise is in the works. But, it seems that the only way to surprise is to announce something well in advance, before production starts, and that is not the Apple way.
Ehh, Apple's lost it's punch. This isn't just a Steve Jobs is dead thing, but they really seem to have become an also ran as opposed to a trend setter. I think Google is probably the standard bearer in the tech market in terms of pushing the envelope.
No doubt that Google has the bigger vision, etc, with their entry into robots, home devices, cars, internet, etc.
Apple is still trying to stay very focused in a small device area, with a risk of commoditization of this area (which has happened to some extent) and the risk of lack of differentiation issues.
They will need a big fall to show they are a player for the mid-term (3+ years). A larger iPhone gets them a lot of sales for up to 2 years, but beyond that, they need to bring some new hardware and not just incremental changes.
Haven't you heard, they are going to redefine the television landscape in 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on June 02, 2014, 02:46:43 PM
Haven't you heard, they are going to redefine the television landscape in 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
I know that's a criticism, but to be fair, I don't use cable anymore.
I stream Netflix and Amazon via my Apple TV to my MacBook, Mac desktop, iPad, and iPhone.
They may not control the content but they help coordinate the devices with ease.
I'm not an Apple fanboy, but having had PCs before, I find them more user-friendly.
Quote from: 77ncaachamps on June 02, 2014, 04:56:56 PM
I know that's a criticism, but to be fair, I don't use cable anymore.
I stream Netflix and Amazon via my Apple TV to my MacBook, Mac desktop, iPad, and iPhone.
They may not control the content but they help coordinate the devices with ease.
I'm not an Apple fanboy, but having had PCs before, I find them more user-friendly.
I stream as well and I like Apple products, actually. My sarcasm was about the yearly news that Apple was going to take over the television world and streamline everything...then Apple had to deal with Disney, NewsCorp, CBS, Discovery, Viacom, etc, and found out that it isn't so easy. Same lesson Google and Intel learned in the last year.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on June 02, 2014, 02:46:43 PM
Haven't you heard, they are going to redefine the television landscape in 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
The TV landscape is vastly different than it was in 2010.
Quote from: mu03eng on June 02, 2014, 02:06:33 PM
Ehh, Apple's lost it's punch. This isn't just a Steve Jobs is dead thing, but they really seem to have become an also ran as opposed to a trend setter. I think Google is probably the standard bearer in the tech market in terms of pushing the envelope.
+1
I think it is the nature of the Tech business. There are just a ton of brilliant guys out there, so it is hard to stay on top.
And I think the fact that Google is the front runner was the impetus for the recent mergers.
Quote from: brandx on June 02, 2014, 06:38:46 PM
+1
I think it is the nature of the Tech business. There are just a ton of brilliant guys out there, so it is hard to stay on top.
And I think the fact that Google is the front runner was the impetus for the recent mergers.
Don't you mean Hooli?
Quote from: brandx on June 02, 2014, 06:36:54 PM
The TV landscape is vastly different than it was in 2010.
Apple was supposed to redefine it, they haven't....neither has Google, Intel, or anyone else. The content makers won't allow it.
They were supposed to make it a la carte and bring the whole thing down. Which of course, they haven't. My point was then and is now, so many people thought this was going to be a snap of the fingers and sooooo easy to do. As if a ton of smart people haven't thought about this for many many years. It has been rather humorous each time I read an article over the years how they are going to just waltz in and change things.
Quote from: mu03eng on June 02, 2014, 02:06:33 PM
Ehh, Apple's lost it's punch. This isn't just a Steve Jobs is dead thing, but they really seem to have become an also ran as opposed to a trend setter. I think Google is probably the standard bearer in the tech market in terms of pushing the envelope.
My concern as a shareholder is what the hell are they doing spending $3 billion for Beets. Then again, if the consuming public is dumb enough to spend $350 to $450 for a pair of head phones that has a bill of materials of $16, well that's America.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on June 02, 2014, 09:25:05 PM
Apple was supposed to redefine it, they haven't....neither has Google, Intel, or anyone else. The content makers won't allow it.
They were supposed to make it a la carte and bring the whole thing down. Which of course, they haven't. My point was then and is now, so many people thought this was going to be a snap of the fingers and sooooo easy to do. As if a ton of smart people haven't thought about this for many many years. It has been rather humorous each time I read an article over the years how they are going to just waltz in and change things.
It has been redefined, but not completely by Apple. Ask your average college kid if they have cable or ever intend on getting it. They have no desire to have cable and never will because it doesn't fit their needs.
The millennials are not keen on cable and many have cut it out of their lives. The current generation of young people 18-25 and those younger will never be big cable subscribers.
Apple was on the right track it is just a slower process.
Quote from: forgetful on June 02, 2014, 09:58:38 PM
It has been redefined, but not completely by Apple. Ask your average college kid if they have cable or ever intend on getting it. They have no desire to have cable and never will because it doesn't fit their needs.
The millennials are not keen on cable and many have cut it out of their lives. The current generation of young people 18-25 and those younger will never be big cable subscribers.
Apple was on the right track it is just a slower process.
We'll see. The data is actually suggesting you may be wrong. That was the prediction 3 years ago, but the last year that has already started to change. It is amazing that when college age kids actually are able to get a job, they will actually spend money on television. One of the reasons, they aren't very happy with the offering that is out via OTT (over the top). We'll see what happens ultimately, I don't particularly care as I'll be retired by then. Yes, slow is a good way to put it...if I had a nickel for every time I read here or elsewhere how it was all going to be blown up by now. ::) About $70 billion at stake and Disney, NewsCorp, Viacom, etc aren't going to just roll over....these are not stupid people.
Having just jumped from Android to iOS in the past 3 months I must say I am excited to have Swiftkey back in my life soon.
Quote from: g0lden3agle on June 03, 2014, 06:42:50 AM
Having just jumped from Android to iOS in the past 3 months I must say I am excited to have Swiftkey back in my life soon.
As a convert to Android the last year, and not to start a nerd flame war, but when Apple finally does something to improve the user experience, like using 3rd party folks to improve their products (Swiftkey), they are applauded like they are some kind of game changer. It only took, what 5 years to improve that sh!tty keyboard? Is it just Apple ego, like the Apple maps fiasco?
Want to know what the new iPhone will look like? A phone with 4.7 inch screen, made out of aluminum and glass.
(http://www.gadgetmac.com/storage/product-images/apple_iphone_reinvented_htc_one_mockup.jpg?__SQUARESPACE_CACHEVERSION=1366589821128)
Quote from: reinko on June 03, 2014, 06:55:31 AM
As a convert to Android the last year, and not to start a nerd flame war, but when Apple finally does something to improve the user experience, like using 3rd party folks to improve their products (Swiftkey), they are applauded like they are some kind of game changer. It only took, what 5 years to improve that sh!tty keyboard? Is it just Apple ego, like the Apple maps fiasco?
I think the lack of innovation stems from the fact that Apple is concerned about not allowing as much Hardware/Software fragmentation as there is in the Android ecosystem. More 3rd party folks in your environment leads to less overall control over the quality of experience your consumers are having with your phones. This control over the experience allowed me to trust in the fact that when I picked up a 5s it would probably be able to chug along much longer than my Droid RAZR did. I certainly miss the tinkering I could do with my Android phone, but don't miss all the hiccups that came along with that ability.
Quote from: g0lden3agle on June 03, 2014, 07:15:41 AM
I think the lack of innovation stems from the fact that Apple is concerned about not allowing as much Hardware/Software fragmentation as there is in the Android ecosystem. More 3rd party folks in your environment leads to less overall control over the quality of experience your consumers are having with your phones. This control over the experience allowed me to trust in the fact that when I picked up a 5s it would probably be able to chug along much longer than my Droid RAZR did. I certainly miss the tinkering I could do with my Android phone, but don't miss all the hiccups that came along with that ability.
Absolutely. They want a walled garden, and I don't blame them in many ways. I have both apple and android products. I still find the apple products more reliable and less clunky, but there are features on the android that are very cool.
What should be especially worrisome if you are an Apple shareholder, is that they are starting to go down the same path that got them in trouble in the 90s. In the 80s, they were a gamechanger in the PC market. In the 90s, they tried simply to improve the PC hardware and software, while PCs were eating at their margins and they lost all sense of innovation.
Well, then Jobs came back...iMac...iPod...iTunes...iPhone...iPad...
Now what? You can't just keep churning out improved hardware and software. That's not innovation.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on June 02, 2014, 10:45:40 PM
We'll see. The data is actually suggesting you may be wrong. That was the prediction 3 years ago, but the last year that has already started to change. It is amazing that when college age kids actually are able to get a job, they will actually spend money on television. One of the reasons, they aren't very happy with the offering that is out via OTT (over the top). We'll see what happens ultimately, I don't particularly care as I'll be retired by then. Yes, slow is a good way to put it...if I had a nickel for every time I read here or elsewhere how it was all going to be blown up by now. ::) About $70 billion at stake and Disney, NewsCorp, Viacom, etc aren't going to just roll over....these are not stupid people.
To be fair, the record industry never considered altering their business model until Napster forced their hand, and then itunes came along and defined the business model.
I'm not saying Apple is going to do the same thing to television, but there is a track record of technology radically changing entertainment and content delivery.
Quote from: Guns n Ammo on June 03, 2014, 11:19:23 AM
To be fair, the record industry never considered altering their business model until Napster forced their hand, and then itunes came along and defined the business model.
I'm not saying Apple is going to do the same thing to television, but there is a track record of technology radically changing entertainment and content delivery.
Again, why people compare the recording industry to the television industry is beyond me. Might as well compare the car industry to watermelon growers. They have zero to do with one another, totally different models.
I don't think he is comparing industries so much as pointing out what happens when technology changes and people demand change. The record companies had long-term contracts said "never". When people changed their buying habits, "never" happened real quick.
Kinda like the Revolutions throughout mankind's entire existence. The rich and powerful always said "never" to the change that people wanted. "Never" didn't always last too long.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on June 03, 2014, 11:22:27 AM
Again, why people compare the recording industry to the television industry is beyond me. Might as well compare the car industry to watermelon growers. They have zero to do with one another, totally different models.
You're getting too tied into the details. It's not apples to apples, but it ain't watermelons to cars... and if people in the television industry really think that, then they are going to get crushed and Apple/Google/(Virgin?).
Music & television
- They are forms of entertainment.
- The delivery model is a form of media (tape, record, VHS, DVD) or broadcast (radio & television)
- The content is largely created by "artists", while the bills are paid for the studio/label.
Now, Apple/Napster changed the music delivery model overnight. I don't think that's going to happen to television. HOWEVER, the idea that we will all be hooked into some form of coax and paying for 100's of channels is probably antiquated as well.
Content, and content delivery is going to change. Companies that don't evolve will get left behind. Happens in every industry. It's the beauty of capitalism.
We can stomp our feet and hold our breath all we want, but content delivery is going to change in the next 10 years.
Quote from: The Sultan of Sunshine on June 03, 2014, 09:33:53 AM
What should be especially worrisome if you are an Apple shareholder, is that they are starting to go down the same path that got them in trouble in the 90s. In the 80s, they were a gamechanger in the PC market. In the 90s, they tried simply to improve the PC hardware and software, while PCs were eating at their margins and they lost all sense of innovation.
Well, then Jobs came back...iMac...iPod...iTunes...iPhone...iPad...
Now what? You can't just keep churning out improved hardware and software. That's not innovation.
This....my concern would be that Apple is currently in market spaces(hardware) that are rapidly becoming commoditized. As more and more capabilities go to cloud and thin client applications, what the hardware is becomes irrelevant. iPhone eats into iPod sales because the iPhone can now do that as well as the iPod(in some cases better) with streaming services. That's just apple vs apple let alone the broader competitive landscape. Same goes for the PC market. Apple has the edge with iTunes right now, but that won't last forever.
As the hardware becomes a commodity, Apple's historically huge margin becomes eroded, they no longer have the funding to support R&D, and so begins the death spiral.
I don't think Apple will die any time soon as they have a huge war chest, but they are at a cross roads that could see them become a middling tech company or try and change the paradigm....right now I'm betting they end up the former.
Quote from: Guns n Ammo on June 03, 2014, 01:06:44 PM
You're getting too tied into the details. It's not apples to apples, but it ain't watermelons to cars... and if people in the television industry really think that, then they are going to get crushed and Apple/Google/(Virgin?).
Music & television
- They are forms of entertainment.
- The delivery model is a form of media (tape, record, VHS, DVD) or broadcast (radio & television)
- The content is largely created by "artists", while the bills are paid for the studio/label.
Now, Apple/Napster changed the music delivery model overnight. I don't think that's going to happen to television. HOWEVER, the idea that we will all be hooked into some form of coax and paying for 100's of channels is probably antiquated as well.
Content, and content delivery is going to change. Companies that don't evolve will get left behind. Happens in every industry. It's the beauty of capitalism.
We can stomp our feet and hold our breath all we want, but content delivery is going to change in the next 10 years.
I think one of the things that gets overlooked in the TV/Music debate, is the key changing point in the music industry. Napster was a catalyst but the straw that broke the camel was Apple getting two major record labels(can't remember the two...RCA was one I think) to sign up to a new model....the change came from within the industry.
Someone from the TV content model is going to break ranks and is going to sign a deal with a new delivery company. That will force a reaction from the other players.....almost all paradigm changes like this happen from within. Someone will cave.
Quote from: mu03eng on June 03, 2014, 02:04:40 PM
I think one of the things that gets overlooked in the TV/Music debate, is the key changing point in the music industry. Napster was a catalyst but the straw that broke the camel was Apple getting two major record labels(can't remember the two...RCA was one I think) to sign up to a new model....the change came from within the industry.
Someone from the TV content model is going to break ranks and is going to sign a deal with a new delivery company. That will force a reaction from the other players.....almost all paradigm changes like this happen from within. Someone will cave.
Agreed, and the really smart media/distribution/content companies will try to evolve and partner with the new technologies so they can make it profitable.
If you just stand pat, eventually you'll get swallowed/crippled.
See: Detroit vs Japan
Quote from: mu03eng on June 03, 2014, 02:04:40 PM
I think one of the things that gets overlooked in the TV/Music debate, is the key changing point in the music industry. Napster was a catalyst but the straw that broke the camel was Apple getting two major record labels(can't remember the two...RCA was one I think) to sign up to a new model....the change came from within the industry.
Someone from the TV content model is going to break ranks and is going to sign a deal with a new delivery company. That will force a reaction from the other players.....almost all paradigm changes like this happen from within. Someone will cave.
Why would they cave when they saw what it did to the music industry? Since Apple, Google, Intel, Amazon have all tried and the major execs at all the content creators have flat out said NO, for obvious reasons, what makes you think they will cave?
The models are totally different. Creating a song or an album, is peanuts compared to creating video content. They have to be able to monetize that content and the model you suggest as a comparison (music) CANNOT do this. It is not financially possible. Unless Apple, or Google or someone else is going to write huge checks to these content makers to cover the cost of the product creation, there is no reason for them to do so.
Totally different model, but the mistake of comparing continues to be made each and every day.
Quote from: mu03eng on June 03, 2014, 02:04:40 PM
I think one of the things that gets overlooked in the TV/Music debate, is the key changing point in the music industry. Napster was a catalyst but the straw that broke the camel was Apple getting two major record labels(can't remember the two...RCA was one I think) to sign up to a new model....the change came from within the industry.
There was a reason those labels dealt with Apple. Trying to stay ahead of the inevitable.
Quote from: Guns n Ammo on June 03, 2014, 02:09:54 PM
Agreed, and the really smart media/distribution/content companies will try to evolve and partner with the new technologies so they can make it profitable.
If you just stand pat, eventually you'll get swallowed/crippled.
See: Detroit vs Japan
They are profitable now, what you are suggesting will make them unprofitable. Why would they do this? The only ones to "break ranks" are small independents or companies like WWE that are getting absolutely destroyed in the process. Do you guys not think that HBO is made up of really smart people? Disney \ ESPN? If they could make this work by going direct, or parsing it off "like the music industry", why wouldn't they already be doing it? There is a simple reason, they can't make as much money or guarantee their cost structure right now. Perhaps years down the road they can, but right now they cannot.
The comparison to Detroit and Japan....non-starter. Detroit had to deal with union costs per vehicle of over $1,500 that Japan did not. When you are competing on price and you are already 1,500 in debt before the first rivet is put in, you are screwed. You end up cutting corners and the consumer won't buy crap for the same price, whether it says made in America or not. The comparison, like the music industry to television, is just not appropriate.
Chicks is still under the impression that nothing changes till the rich and powerful say it will change. History would beg to differ with him.
On another topic discussed here, I see Seattle passed new minimum wage law going up to $15/hr. So in 3 years we may have definitive evidence whether it helps or hurts economy.
Quote from: Guns n Ammo on June 03, 2014, 01:06:44 PM
You're getting too tied into the details. It's not apples to apples, but it ain't watermelons to cars... and if people in the television industry really think that, then they are going to get crushed and Apple/Google/(Virgin?).
Music & television
- They are forms of entertainment.
- The delivery model is a form of media (tape, record, VHS, DVD) or broadcast (radio & television)
- The content is largely created by "artists", while the bills are paid for the studio/label.
Now, Apple/Napster changed the music delivery model overnight. I don't think that's going to happen to television. HOWEVER, the idea that we will all be hooked into some form of coax and paying for 100's of channels is probably antiquated as well.
Content, and content delivery is going to change. Companies that don't evolve will get left behind. Happens in every industry. It's the beauty of capitalism.
We can stomp our feet and hold our breath all we want, but content delivery is going to change in the next 10 years.
You are painting way to broad a brush. The delivery isn't the concern, the technology is there to do it today. It is the COST for that content which is key, and the content makers control that.
A la carte isn't happening any time soon. The content companies have flat out said that is the case. They aren't going to give up their golden goose. Plus, consumers would be wise to understand the implications. http://www.thestreet.com/story/12459069/1/a-la-carte-cable-tv-could-cost-consumers-more.html
I am someone without cable, by choice, and love my Apple TV's. I get over the air TV, and I get a lot of great channels that I wouldn't get with cable including a lot of PBS channels. But I know that I am not the typical consumer as my favorite show is Charlie Rose.
The Apple TV is simply an easy way to get additional content on demand, from PBS, Netflix, Bloomberg, etc. The nice thing about Apple TV is that they are cheap and allow one to buy dumb TV's. No need to get some poorly executed over priced TV with a built in TV interface/software and wifi to watch Netflix, etc. Just get a basic TV with a good picture and a cheap Apple TV and you have the start of a great set up.
Apple is going to have to cut a deal to run cable TV through the Apple TV. Unless a lot more people start cutting the cable cord, which seems like it will be a very slow process.
Chico's, you're getting too tied into minutia. (again). Don't be so myopic.
Detroit didn't get "crushed" by Japan because of $1500 worth of union dues.
They got crushed by Japan because they didn't evolve and deliver a quality product to meet the demand. Think BIGGER PICTURE. Detroit's future was determined when they couldn't figure out how to produce a good car that Americans actually wanted. They kept producing their IDEA of what Americans wanted (large, fuel-ineffecient, rust out in 5 years), and it left a HUGE hole in the marketplace. It was easy for Honda to fill the void.
Music and television may be wildly different at the microscopic level, but on the whole, it's just content/entertainment. So are books. (seen a lot of new bookstores lately... hmmm... maybe technology changed that?).
How consumers receive and consume content is changing. I don't know how it will all actually work in the future for television... but the idea that the network execs/content makers are holding all of the gold is a mistake (IMHO). It leaves a gaping hole in the marketplace that somebody will eventually figure out how to fill.
The gold is the CONSUMER EYEBALLS, NOT THE CONTENT. That's the real GOLD. If I can figure out how to make a good "show" on youtube and get enough viewers, boom, I can carve out a career. How many more people could do the same thing?
You want more examples?
- Google Louis CK and look at how he's producing and distributing his own stand-up (no more ticketmaster, no more HBO, etc.). Louie's loyal audience is the gold. That's how it works. You don't need (insert studio) to be successful.
- Google Marc Maron and look at how his podcast has changed everything in his career. How can he do it offering free content without major network distribution? OMG. GASP.
History is FILLED with companies/brands/people that fail to evolve.
Big picture, dude. BIG. 10,000ft view. Use whatever business cliche you want. Content delivery is going to change. That's it. No way around it. It won't look the same in 10 years. Book it.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on June 03, 2014, 02:39:02 PM
Why would they cave when they saw what it did to the music industry? Since Apple, Google, Intel, Amazon have all tried and the major execs at all the content creators have flat out said NO, for obvious reasons, what makes you think they will cave?
The models are totally different. Creating a song or an album, is peanuts compared to creating video content. They have to be able to monetize that content and the model you suggest as a comparison (music) CANNOT do this. It is not financially possible. Unless Apple, or Google or someone else is going to write huge checks to these content makers to cover the cost of the product creation, there is no reason for them to do so.
Totally different model, but the mistake of comparing continues to be made each and every day.
They will cave because it will give one of the content creators an edge eventually. Yes, the record labels regretted the deal they made with Apple(even said so in the Jobs bio-book) but it wasn't that they made any deal it was the value they assigned to it. The content providers have that as a lesson, so yes they won't make a bad deal, but I think one of them will make a deal.
The model is already changing, look at what Fox is doing with it's pilots and season orders. It is ordering fewer pilots, ordering more shows direct to a season order, and decreasing in some cases the number of episodes that constitutes an actual season (22 was standard, I think Sleepy Hallow was a 12 episode season and there are others). With the exception of the all at once model that is pretty close to what Netflix did with Orange and HoC. As the legacy model moves closer to the "future" model the barriers get lowered.
I completely agree that the content providers are insanely expensive and don't compare to the music costs, but some of those costs are brought on by the content providers themselves...if they can reduce those costs they can maintain margin and lower what they charge to the delivery folks. The content providers should also want to bring Netflix and Amazon Prime, etc into the fold...more places to put their content and more leverage in negotiating a deal.
Just wait, one of these days, one of the big networks is going to get smart and sell their rejected pilots to a Netflix who is going to push it and you'll see a show get a season order based on the reaction....not that different then what's going on between over air and cable. In the last 4 years there have been at least 3 over the air shows that have been picked up by cable when canceled by over the air, I think 3 more are in talks for this fall, not that far to slide into the Netflix model.
Quote from: Guns n Ammo on June 03, 2014, 04:08:21 PM
- Google Marc Maron and look at how his podcast has changed everything in his career. How can he do it offering free content without major network distribution? OMG. GASP.
Or Adam Carolla....podcasting is his main revenue stream, he now is funding his own movie via fund anything as well as a fight against patent trolls. There are the tools available to get eyeballs that don't require a big studio or a major network.
Quote from: mu03eng on June 03, 2014, 04:14:26 PM
Or Adam Carolla....podcasting is his main revenue stream, he now is funding his own movie via fund anything as well as a fight against patent trolls. There are the tools available to get eyeballs that don't require a big studio or a major network.
Yep, and you don't need network infrastructure to produce good content, either.
Network content is expensive because it's BLOATED and it's an old business model.
You can get most/all of the equipment you need from Amazon and have it shipped to your house. Boom. You're making a movie.
Podcasts have proven to be very good to a lot of comedians and writers because it allows them to showcase their abilities, cultivate and audience, and then sell sponsorships, or themselves directly to the consumers.
And just to be clear, I'm not saying that youtube/apple/podcasts/etc. are going to bring Time Warner or NBC to it's knees tomorrow. (it won't).
But, think long term. The marketplace is segmented. The traditional studio-network-distributor-consumer business model is going to evolve.
Quote from: Guns n Ammo on June 03, 2014, 04:27:43 PM
Yep, and you don't need network infrastructure to produce good content, either.
Network content is expensive because it's BLOATED and it's an old business model.
You can get most/all of the equipment you need from Amazon and have it shipped to your house. Boom. You're making a movie.
Podcasts have proven to be very good to a lot of comedians and writers because it allows them to showcase their abilities, cultivate and audience, and then sell sponsorships, or themselves directly to the consumers.
And just to be clear, I'm not saying that youtube/apple/podcasts/etc. are going to bring Time Warner or NBC to it's knees tomorrow. (it won't).
But, think long term. The marketplace is segmented. The traditional studio-network-distributor-consumer business model is going to evolve.
No kidding, look at the Scrambled Eggs podcast. We spend roughly $5 a month on that plus time and effort(pretty minimal) and use only free social media to "promote" it and we average 3000 downloads an episode with a peak of 10,000 for one episode. Zero marketing or cost. We don't even have any talent to fall back on
;D
Quote from: mu03eng on June 03, 2014, 04:39:47 PM
No kidding, look at the Scrambled Eggs podcast. We spend roughly $5 a month on that plus time and effort(pretty minimal) and use only free social media to "promote" it and we average 3000 downloads an episode with a peak of 10,000 for one episode. Zero marketing or cost. We don't even have any talent to fall back on
;D
It's actually a good example of an extremely segmented marketplace.
I don't think you're ever going to get rich doing a MU podcast.
But, that doesn't mean you can't produce quality content that a specific market demands. (much like this site), and in theory, if enough people do that, it'll hurt the large content providers. The cost of entry for a normal person is pretty low now, and that has ruined some of the scale advantage that networks and studios have always had.
10 years ago I'd visit ESPN.com several times per day. Now it's maybe once per week. Obviously my readership isn't hurting ESPN, but multiply that out for a growing segment of the population, and now multiply that by 20 years, and it's not hard to imagine the traditional content providers changing their business model.
Look at the music industry, books, newspapers, etc. You either evolve, or you die. That's it.
The JS used to have the best MU information because they had a "beat reporter"... well, now Paint Touches is providing way better content, and they are doing it for free. Think JS should keep doing the same thing? They hold all of the best content, right? They have a "real" reporter.
How/where people receive their entertainment/content is changing. This includes traditional broadcast radio, television, cable, etc.
Also, I'm not saying that there isn't a marketplace for "traditional" content/viewership... but the landscape is going to change.
Quote from: brandx on June 03, 2014, 02:45:29 PM
Chicks is still under the impression that nothing changes till the rich and powerful say it will change. History would beg to differ with him.
On another topic discussed here, I see Seattle passed new minimum wage law going up to $15/hr. So in 3 years we may have definitive evidence whether it helps or hurts economy.
Not really, but I am a product of history and I know smart people want to avoid repeating the mistakes others. I heard Randall Stephenson speak to us for 2 hours yesterday, he is the CEO of AT&T. Much of it was on mobility of video. As I've said many times, technology isn't the issue, it is all about rights. He recognized that as well. They can build the greatest delivery system in the world, and arguably are doing that right now....get it in your car, train, plane, whatever. Your video, wherever you want. Awesome, everyone wants it...go do it. Still comes down to what are you able to put on those devices or vehicles? What do you legally have the right to put up there, and what will those that create that content allow?
That, still, remains the key.
Good for Seattle. I don't get why they didn't increase it to $1000 an hour...I mean, it should lift all boats, why stop at $15. Makes no sense why they capped it.
Quote from: mu03eng on June 03, 2014, 04:12:46 PM
They will cave because it will give one of the content creators an edge eventually. Yes, the record labels regretted the deal they made with Apple(even said so in the Jobs bio-book) but it wasn't that they made any deal it was the value they assigned to it. The content providers have that as a lesson, so yes they won't make a bad deal, but I think one of them will make a deal.
The model is already changing, look at what Fox is doing with it's pilots and season orders. It is ordering fewer pilots, ordering more shows direct to a season order, and decreasing in some cases the number of episodes that constitutes an actual season (22 was standard, I think Sleepy Hallow was a 12 episode season and there are others). With the exception of the all at once model that is pretty close to what Netflix did with Orange and HoC. As the legacy model moves closer to the "future" model the barriers get lowered.
I completely agree that the content providers are insanely expensive and don't compare to the music costs, but some of those costs are brought on by the content providers themselves...if they can reduce those costs they can maintain margin and lower what they charge to the delivery folks. The content providers should also want to bring Netflix and Amazon Prime, etc into the fold...more places to put their content and more leverage in negotiating a deal.
Just wait, one of these days, one of the big networks is going to get smart and sell their rejected pilots to a Netflix who is going to push it and you'll see a show get a season order based on the reaction....not that different then what's going on between over air and cable. In the last 4 years there have been at least 3 over the air shows that have been picked up by cable when canceled by over the air, I think 3 more are in talks for this fall, not that far to slide into the Netflix model.
Ironic you bring up Fox...I work with them daily.
What does the head of Fox say about what you are proposing.... he says it is a FARCE. http://www.thewrap.com/fox-coo-chase-carey-la-carte-cable-farce/
At the end of the day, that's what those that own the content are saying. You want to change it, convince them that they will make AS MUCH MONEY as they do now. For the last 15 years, no one has been able to do that. Not McKinsey, not Stanford's innovation team, not Apple, not Google, not Intel, not Amazon, not scores of Ivy league grads running around. Not even the little guys, who you think will break away and do this. Not the WWE, which just tried it and is getting destroyed in their earnings as a result. http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/envelope/cotown/la-et-ct-wwe-stock-falls-tv-deals-20140516-story.html
Again, it's not about the technology. You guys need to stop with that argument, everyone gets it. Everyone wants it. It is about the rights of what can be sold and HOW it can be sold. The owners of the content have that control.
Quote from: mu03eng on June 03, 2014, 04:39:47 PM
No kidding, look at the Scrambled Eggs podcast. We spend roughly $5 a month on that plus time and effort(pretty minimal) and use only free social media to "promote" it and we average 3000 downloads an episode with a peak of 10,000 for one episode. Zero marketing or cost. We don't even have any talent to fall back on
;D
You've pointed out exactly why that doesn't work in big boy land. Your $5 to create a pod cast is MILLIONS of DOLLARS to create television series, that they MUST pay regardless. They need to get an ROI on that. We're not talking about small investments, this is why the recording industry comparison is so ludicrous. It costs next to nothing to produce a record in comparison. With video, huge huge huge difference. They can't go out and spend millions and millions to create content and hope a bunch of people buy it individually, it cannot sustain itself.
That's the problem and they've gone on record many times flat out telling you why. Does HBO go out and make Game of Thrones without having 30 million built in subscribers paying them more than $10 a month whether they watch 1 minute of HBO a month or 50 hours a month? Nope. But they have guarantee revenues that allows them to make that bet. Same for AMC, same for ESPN, same of MTV or anyone else. They rely on the guaranteed revenues to back that investment. Those guaranteed revenues are from bundling, not a la carte.
This is the critical different. You guys are smart guys, I know you understand this difference.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on June 04, 2014, 09:41:34 AM
You've pointed out exactly why that doesn't work in big boy land. Your $5 to create a pod cast is MILLIONS of DOLLARS to create television series, that they MUST pay regardless. They need to get an ROI on that. We're not talking about small investments, this is why the recording industry comparison is so ludicrous. It costs next to nothing to produce a record in comparison. With video, huge huge huge difference. They can't go out and spend millions and millions to create content and hope a bunch of people buy it individually, it cannot sustain itself.
That's the problem and they've gone on record many times flat out telling you why. Does HBO go out and make Game of Thrones without having 30 million built in subscribers paying them more than $10 a month whether they watch 1 minute of HBO a month or 50 hours a month? Nope. But they have guarantee revenues that allows them to make that bet. Same for AMC, same for ESPN, same of MTV or anyone else. They rely on the guaranteed revenues to back that investment. Those guaranteed revenues are from bundling, not a la carte.
This is the critical different. You guys are smart guys, I know you understand this difference.
You're coming at it from the studio/business side.
Come at this from the consumer side.
I quit listening to terrestrial radio because podcasts better fit my interests.
I quit reading the JS because other news sites have similar/better content and they are free.
I quit watching ESPN because I can get all of my sports new and highlights online.
I quit watching HBO, because I can find entertaining content elsewhere.
See where I'm going with this?
YES, I'm aware the studios and the networks have HUGE infrastructure, and everything costs a lot. I know that. I get it.
But, if I (the consumer) can find entertaining content elsewhere, I don't need the huge studio with the huge infrastructure to entertain me.
Also, this isn't an all-or-nothing scenario. People aren't going to wake up tomorrow and quit watching television. But, in an increasingly segmented marketplace, the traditional business model is going to change.
The economies of scales aren't the same anymore, and ROI on a quality independent film or television series isn't nearly as tough. Add to that things like kickstarter (google Reading Rainbow), and the entire demand/delivery system is changing.
DELETE. REPEATED POST BY ACCIDENT.
Quote from: Guns n Ammo on June 04, 2014, 09:53:24 AM
You're coming at it from the studio/business side.
Come at this from the consumer side.
I quit listening to terrestrial radio because podcasts better fit my interests.
I quit reading the JS because other news sites have similar/better content and they are free.
I quit watching ESPN because I can get all of my sports new and highlights online.
I quit watching HBO, because I can find entertaining content elsewhere.
See where I'm going with this?
YES, I'm aware the studios and the networks have HUGE infrastructure, and everything costs a lot. I know that. I get it.
But, if I (the consumer) can find entertaining content elsewhere, I don't need the huge studio with the huge infrastructure to entertain me.
Also, this isn't an all-or-nothing scenario. People aren't going to wake up tomorrow and quit watching television. But, in an increasingly segmented marketplace, the traditional business model is going to change.
The economies of scales aren't the same anymore, and ROI on a quality independent film or television series isn't nearly as tough. Add to that things like kickstarter (google Reading Rainbow), and the entire demand/delivery system is changing.
Most of your comparisons here offers FREE content elsewhere, that is your mistake.
Sports news...free...available elsewhere.
Terrestrial radio...free.
HBO...not free....and guess what, their paid subscriptions at an all time high in Q1 because people are buying it and find the content worth it. In your view, your replacement content is "good enough". For many others, it isn't. You want HBO quality, you get to pay for HBO quality.
So no, I don't see where you are going with it. You are a guy that likes free stuff and you find other free stuff to get. Most on the business side aren't going to do charitable works to deliver a bunch of quality stuff for you to get for free....or you will get it many months or years later, after it has already been monetized. If you stifle the monetization funnel at the top, then the quality content goes bye bye.
This isn't about getting sports news on ESPN or going elsewhere for it. That is a commodity. Watching the game tonight, that isn't a commodity and someone OWNS the rights to it. That is the difference. You want Game of Thrones, you have ONE place to get it...HBO. You want Madmen, only one content company makes Madmen production, not 20.
So yes, I am coming from a business side because it is a business and a unique one at that. You are basically arguing you can not watch Breaking Bad because someone else is going to come up with as good Breaking Bad AND give it to you a la carte at next to nothing. From a business side, good luck with that. Who is going to invest the money to develop that kind of program knowing that risk?
Back to the podcast example of Scrambled Eggs. How much is that costing consumers? FREE....that's a lot different than having to pay for it.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on June 04, 2014, 10:12:58 AM
Most of your comparisons here offers FREE content elsewhere, that is your mistake.
Sports news...free...available elsewhere.
Terrestrial radio...free.
HBO...not free....and guess what, their paid subscriptions at an all time high in Q1 because people are buying it and find the content worth it. In your view, your replacement content is "good enough". For many others, it isn't. You want HBO quality, you get to pay for HBO quality.
So no, I don't see where you are going with it. You are a guy that likes free stuff and you find other free stuff to get. Most on the business side aren't going to do charitable works to deliver a bunch of quality stuff for you to get for free....or you will get it many months or years later, after it has already been monetized. If you stifle the monetization funnel at the top, then the quality content goes bye bye.
This isn't about getting sports news on ESPN or going elsewhere for it. That is a commodity. Watching the game tonight, that isn't a commodity and someone OWNS the rights to it. That is the difference. You want Game of Thrones, you have ONE place to get it...HBO. You want Madmen, only one content company makes Madmen production, not 20.
So yes, I am coming from a business side because it is a business and a unique one at that. You are basically arguing you can not watch Breaking Bad because someone else is going to come up with as good Breaking Bad AND give it to you a la carte at next to nothing. From a business side, good luck with that. Who is going to invest the money to develop that kind of program knowing that risk?
Back to the podcast example of Scrambled Eggs. How much is that costing consumers? FREE....that's a lot different than having to pay for it.
You sound just like the newspapers did back when people started getting their news on the internet.
"We have all of the reporters. We produce all of the content. You can't do what we do for free. People will always want to read the paper."
Also, this isn't as polarizing of a topic as it appears. I'm saying there is going to be an evolution as the demand for content changes. This doesn't mean ESPN or HBO are going out of business. Or that Ala Carte (IMPOSSIBLE, I know) is going to happen.
I'm simply saying that the current business model (big studios, big networks, big providers, big contracts, etc.) is going to change because the demand is changing.
The EYEBALLS are the valuable commodity, not the content. When the eyeballs start looking elsewhere, then the content model will HAVE to change.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on June 04, 2014, 10:12:58 AM
Most of your comparisons here offers FREE content elsewhere, that is your mistake.
Sports news...free...available elsewhere.
Terrestrial radio...free.
HBO...not free....and guess what, their paid subscriptions at an all time high in Q1 because people are buying it and find the content worth it. In your view, your replacement content is "good enough". For many others, it isn't. You want HBO quality, you get to pay for HBO quality.
So no, I don't see where you are going with it. You are a guy that likes free stuff and you find other free stuff to get. Most on the business side aren't going to do charitable works to deliver a bunch of quality stuff for you to get for free....or you will get it many months or years later, after it has already been monetized. If you stifle the monetization funnel at the top, then the quality content goes bye bye.
This isn't about getting sports news on ESPN or going elsewhere for it. That is a commodity. Watching the game tonight, that isn't a commodity and someone OWNS the rights to it. That is the difference. You want Game of Thrones, you have ONE place to get it...HBO. You want Madmen, only one content company makes Madmen production, not 20.
So yes, I am coming from a business side because it is a business and a unique one at that. You are basically arguing you can not watch Breaking Bad because someone else is going to come up with as good Breaking Bad AND give it to you a la carte at next to nothing. From a business side, good luck with that. Who is going to invest the money to develop that kind of program knowing that risk?
Back to the podcast example of Scrambled Eggs. How much is that costing consumers? FREE....that's a lot different than having to pay for it.
(http://[/url)
You've got to look at both sides of the equation, because you are right content providers aren't going to deliver quality content for free....but are eyeballs going to continue to pay for quality content. If I can watch a low budget tv show and get nearly as much enjoyment out of as I can for the high budget tv show I now have to determine if the cost difference to ME is worth it to ME.
Just because it's high cost content from a studio standpoint doesn't mean it's a high value product to the customer.
The timing is a bit inconvenient for my point given that Kevin Reilly is now out at Fox, but he was interviewed by Andy Greenwald on his podcast where to talked specifically about killing pilot season.
http://grantland.com/hollywood-prospectus/the-andy-greenwald-podcast-fox-chairman-kevin-reilly/]
Most of your comparisons here offers FREE content elsewhere, that is your mistake.
Sports news...free...available elsewhere.
Terrestrial radio...free.
HBO...not free....and guess what, their paid subscriptions at an all time high in Q1 because people are buying it and find the content worth it. In your view, your replacement content is "good enough". For many others, it isn't. You want HBO quality, you get to pay for HBO quality.
So no, I don't see where you are going with it. You are a guy that likes free stuff and you find other free stuff to get. Most on the business side aren't going to do charitable works to deliver a bunch of quality stuff for you to get for free....or you will get it many months or years later, after it has already been monetized. If you stifle the monetization funnel at the top, then the quality content goes bye bye.
This isn't about getting sports news on ESPN or going elsewhere for it. That is a commodity. Watching the game tonight, that isn't a commodity and someone OWNS the rights to it. That is the difference. You want Game of Thrones, you have ONE place to get it...HBO. You want Madmen, only one content company makes Madmen production, not 20.
So yes, I am coming from a business side because it is a business and a unique one at that. You are basically arguing you can not watch Breaking Bad because someone else is going to come up with as good Breaking Bad AND give it to you a la carte at next to nothing. From a business side, good luck with that. Who is going to invest the money to develop that kind of program knowing that risk?
Back to the podcast example of Scrambled Eggs. How much is that costing consumers? FREE....that's a lot different than having to pay for it.
[/quote]
You've got to look at both sides of the equation, because you are right content providers aren't going to deliver quality content for free....but are eyeballs going to continue to pay for quality content. If I can watch a low budget tv show and get nearly as much enjoyment out of as I can for the high budget tv show I now have to determine if the cost difference to ME is worth it to ME.
Just because it's high cost content from a studio standpoint doesn't mean it's a high value product to the customer.
The timing is a bit inconvenient for my point given that Kevin Reilly is now out at Fox, but he was interviewed by Andy Greenwald on his podcast where to talked specifically about killing pilot season.
http://grantland.com/hollywood-prospectus/the-andy-greenwald-podcast-fox-chairman-kevin-reilly/
Also, something that has been forgotten along the way.
OTA television isn't "free". It's paid for by advertisers getting spots to sell products.
In the past 30 years, Americans have shown a willingness to pay for content as well (first cable TV, then subscription stations like HBO).
I think Americans will still continue to pay for some quality content (movies, television shows, etc.).
But, I also think the marketplace is becoming extremely segmented, which is going to hurt the larger production companies ability to see a good ROI on a show. It's going to become harder and harder to draw a significant audience.
Advertisers will get smarter as well, and they will go after specific targets. White, middle aged, goth, vampire loving, IT professionals all watch "Dracula is your IT guy" on (insert internet streaming network). There are companies that would love to have that segment, they will pay for it.
Quote from: Guns n Ammo on June 04, 2014, 10:24:11 AM
You sound just like the newspapers did back when people started getting their news on the internet.
"We have all of the reporters. We produce all of the content. You can't do what we do for free. People will always want to read the paper."
Also, this isn't as polarizing of a topic as it appears. I'm saying there is going to be an evolution as the demand for content changes. This doesn't mean ESPN or HBO are going out of business. Or that Ala Carte (IMPOSSIBLE, I know) is going to happen.
I'm simply saying that the current business model (big studios, big networks, big providers, big contracts, etc.) is going to change because the demand is changing.
The EYEBALLS are the valuable commodity, not the content. When the eyeballs start looking elsewhere, then the content model will HAVE to change.
I don't sound like the newspapers at all, because I knew what they were selling was a commodity. Why do you think a certain television distributor took a hard stand against the Weather Channel? Because weather information, like news, is a commodity. You can get it anywhere and no one owns it. No one owns the news, but companies OWN the rights to the Lakers, or Marquette, or Breaking Bad, or Game of Thrones. They are not commodities.
You can change the demand all you want, those companies are not in the business of giving stuff away for free, they have to monetize it. The guys that love Netflix and Hulu and say really dumb things like "see, it's only $8.99 a month". Is it really? First, it was already monetized prior and how they are just remonetizing it again further down the funnel. They can do this because they are already getting billions from pay tv subscribers whether they watch it or not. If that money goes away as you suggest it will (which I suggest, may happen...but there is a big difference...you will pay the piper) there has to be another way for them to monetize it. This stuff isn't free and it isn't a commodity.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on June 04, 2014, 11:38:44 AM
I don't sound like the newspapers at all, because I knew what they were selling was a commodity. Why do you think a certain television distributor took a hard stand against the Weather Channel? Because weather information, like news, is a commodity. You can get it anywhere and no one owns it. No one owns the news, but companies OWN the rights to the Lakers, or Marquette, or Breaking Bad, or Game of Thrones. They are not commodities.
You can change the demand all you want, those companies are not in the business of giving stuff away for free, they have to monetize it. The guys that love Netflix and Hulu and say really dumb things like "see, it's only $8.99 a month". Is it really? First, it was already monetized prior and how they are just remonetizing it again further down the funnel. They can do this because they are already getting billions from pay tv subscribers whether they watch it or not. If that money goes away as you suggest it will (which I suggest, may happen...but there is a big difference...you will pay the piper) there has to be another way for them to monetize it. This stuff isn't free and it isn't a commodity.
Few things:
#1 You're projecting.
Not once in this thread have I said anything about Netflix or Hulu. I understand that those systems are subsidized by "traditional" content, and without people paying for cable, Netflix wouldn't be what it is.
#2 Look at how technology has changed content delivery and entertainment.
- 20 years ago, Pearl Jam was fighting against Ticketmaster.
- Flash forward to today, and Louis C.K. is distributing his own tickets, booking his own venues, directing his own comedy special, and selling it all through his site. 20 years ago, that was IMPOSSIBLE.
- Radiohead released an album in 2007 that was pay what you want to pay and download it. That idea would have been INSANE just 5 years earlier.
(the list goes on. JayZ's mobile partnership, SNL's Digital shorts, etc.)
#3 Entertainment as a commodity is a whole additional debate, but I'll just say this:
Television isn't in the television business... and if the studios, networks and distributors think they are in the TV business, they are going to get steamrolled.
They are in the content/entertainment business. There are sharks in the water, and any inefficiency in the current studio-network-provider-consumer supply chain will be discovered and exploited. Just like music. Just like books. Just like radio. Hooray free market!
Again, I don't know what this will evolve into... and it probably won't even be free. But, the idea that the content creators and the providers are holding all of the cards is a mistake. Ultimately, consumers hold the cards.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on June 04, 2014, 11:38:44 AM
You can change the demand all you want, those companies are not in the business of giving stuff away for free, they have to monetize it. The guys that love Netflix and Hulu and say really dumb things like "see, it's only $8.99 a month". Is it really? First, it was already monetized prior and how they are just remonetizing it again further down the funnel. They can do this because they are already getting billions from pay tv subscribers whether they watch it or not. If that money goes away as you suggest it will (which I suggest, may happen...but there is a big difference...you will pay the piper) there has to be another way for them to monetize it. This stuff isn't free and it isn't a commodity.
Why the two sides will never agree!
One side (Chicos) thinks Supply is the only factor. The other thinks it is all about Demand.
Neither side considers that either can alter the equation.
Money does not trump Everything. If it did, large companies would never go out of business, but it happens all the time.
Quote from: brandx on June 04, 2014, 01:58:57 PM
Why the two sides will never agree!
One side (Chicos) thinks Supply is the only factor. The other thinks it is all about Demand.
Neither side considers that either can alter the equation.
Money does not trump Everything. If it did, large companies would never go out of business, but it happens all the time.
I actually would love to go a la carte, so would most tv distributors. Said this many times. Our hands are tied. Talk to the content creators.
Of course, I wish that buying ticket to a Marquette men's basketball game went 100% to the men's basketball team, but instead some of it pays for other MU teams. I wish that paying my taxes I could have it only go to certain things I care about, but instead it goes to pay for many things that I find faulty and ultimately counter to a productive society. I wish that when I pay for soda or beer at the story, I could buy it by the can or 12 oz bottle, rather than them forcing me to buy a 12 pack or 24 pack and "forcing" me to drink all of it.
Quote from: Guns n Ammo on June 04, 2014, 01:35:52 PM
Few things:
#1 You're projecting.
Not once in this thread have I said anything about Netflix or Hulu. I understand that those systems are subsidized by "traditional" content, and without people paying for cable, Netflix wouldn't be what it is.
#2 Look at how technology has changed content delivery and entertainment.
- 20 years ago, Pearl Jam was fighting against Ticketmaster.
- Flash forward to today, and Louis C.K. is distributing his own tickets, booking his own venues, directing his own comedy special, and selling it all through his site. 20 years ago, that was IMPOSSIBLE.
- Radiohead released an album in 2007 that was pay what you want to pay and download it. That idea would have been INSANE just 5 years earlier.
(the list goes on. JayZ's mobile partnership, SNL's Digital shorts, etc.)
#3 Entertainment as a commodity is a whole additional debate, but I'll just say this:
Television isn't in the television business... and if the studios, networks and distributors think they are in the TV business, they are going to get steamrolled.
They are in the content/entertainment business. There are sharks in the water, and any inefficiency in the current studio-network-provider-consumer supply chain will be discovered and exploited. Just like music. Just like books. Just like radio. Hooray free market!
Again, I don't know what this will evolve into... and it probably won't even be free. But, the idea that the content creators and the providers are holding all of the cards is a mistake. Ultimately, consumers hold the cards.
Again, you are talking delivery. That isn't the issue. You keep coming back to it. Technology, delivery...NOT THE ISSUE.
The creators want to be paid. For now, the content creators do hold the cards.....you're projecting, I never said the distributors do, though they are the pipe right now to get it. The content creators that have deals on sports through 2026 on most major properties....that's a long time to be waiting for much of this stuff.
And you can count on it....it will not be free. It will cost people an arm and a leg on a per unit basis, much more than they spend today. The content creators have no choice on that front. Instead of 100,000,000 people buying ESPN, you'll have 35,000,000 but ESPN needs the revenue from the 100Million they used to get, which means the 35,000,000 are going to spend a LOT more for it. Simple math.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on June 04, 2014, 02:17:28 PM
Again, you are talking delivery. That isn't the issue. You keep coming back to it. Technology, delivery...NOT THE ISSUE.
The creators want to be paid. For now, the content creators do hold the cards.....you're projecting, I never said the distributors do, though they are the pipe right now to get it. The content creators that have deals on sports through 2026 on most major properties....that's a long time to be waiting for much of this stuff.
And you can count on it....it will not be free. It will cost people an arm and a leg on a per unit basis, much more than they spend today. The content creators have no choice on that front. Instead of 100,000,000 people buying ESPN, you'll have 35,000,000 but ESPN needs the revenue from the 100Million they used to get, which means the 35,000,000 are going to spend a LOT more for it. Simple math.
#1 Technology is an issue because it's brought down the cost of production and distribution, and has leveled the playing field. I can create a Milwaukee based sitcom in my house and distribute it on youtube. 10 years ago, not possible. 5 years ago, difficult. Today, not that tough. 5 years from now, who knows.
#2 VALUABLE content will always have value. NFL, Breaking Bad, 60 Minutes, etc. I get it. There has been a lot of money paid for that content, it gets ratings, people watch. It obviously has value.
But, do you really think "How I Met Your Father" is really going to be a valuable show? How about "Storage Wars: Alberta"? If that is the content we are receiving, the content creators can save it. I don't want it. unnatural carnal knowledge off.
#3 I know ESPN LIKES to make money (just like the B10 likes to make money), but there is a breaking point where consumers just won't be interested. The price and interest aren't inelastic.
People aren't going to quit watching football, but if google offers funny original sitcoms (for free), and youtube puts out interesting original reality television (like deadliest catch), WTF are CBS and Discovery going to do? Distribution is the biggest advantage they have. They have now been undercut.
Might want to read this....again, technology isn't the issue. Those guys are still getting paid which is what they are demanding.
http://www.theverge.com/2014/6/4/5778824/tv-everywhere-soaring-in-popularity
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on June 04, 2014, 02:52:50 PM
Might want to read this....again, technology isn't the issue. Those guys are still getting paid which is what they are demanding.
http://www.theverge.com/2014/6/4/5778824/tv-everywhere-soaring-in-popularity
I know that dude.
But, guess who doesn't want to get paid a lot?
Every struggling actor/writer/comedian in Hollywood.
Guess who could probably put together a pretty good show for not a lot of money?
I know that Charlie Sheen isn't going to do a free youtube sitcom. I GET IT.
But, there are a lot of free podcasts out there... what's to stop those people from putting out free shows on the internet?
As long as you guys keep buying displays to watch all this content on, I can keep paying my mortgage.
I had an interesting meeting yesterday afternoon before the hockey game with a studio consultant. We were talking about Netflix and kinds of stuff. His comment that struck me most "the studios are set in their ways, old school, been around for 100 years many of them. They are hellbent to make sure they do not succomb to the same stupidity of the recording industry"
It was interesting considering the conversation we had here the last few days.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on June 05, 2014, 01:18:26 PM
I had an interesting meeting yesterday afternoon before the hockey game with a studio consultant. We were talking about Netflix and kinds of stuff. His comment that struck me most "the studios are set in their ways, old school, been around for 100 years many of them. They are hellbent to make sure they do not succomb to the same stupidity of the recording industry"
It was interesting considering the conversation we had here the last few days.
The thing is - they had to succumb. They had no choice if they wanted to stay profitable.
Napster allowed people to download music for free, but I have always thought that the most important thing Napster did was give options. People quit buying albums because they didn't want to pay a premium for the crap on the album they didn't want. Napster showed it was possible to go "al a carte". Record companies either had to change their business model (make deals with Apple, Rhapsody, Spotify, Amazon, etc. - or go under.
To say that is "stupidity" shows me the studio execs still don't understand what has happened and will continue to happening. Just because they haven't had THEIR Napster moment makes them think they are invincible.
THAT is really the only thing I disagree with you about in all of the conversations we have had about this.
Quote from: brandx on June 05, 2014, 04:40:19 PM
The thing is - they had to succumb. They had no choice if they wanted to stay profitable.
Napster allowed people to download music for free, but I have always thought that the most important thing Napster did was give options. People quit buying albums because they didn't want to pay a premium for the crap on the album they didn't want. Napster showed it was possible to go "al a carte". Record companies either had to change their business model (make deals with Apple, Rhapsody, Spotify, Amazon, etc. - or go under.
To say that is "stupidity" shows me the studio execs still don't understand what has happened and will continue to happening. Just because they haven't had THEIR Napster moment makes them think they are invincible.
THAT is really the only thing I disagree with you about in all of the conversations we have had about this.
There are Napster type things already. Many young people use things like projectfreetv to get whatever tv they want. Technically not legal just like Napster wasn't, but people use it. They can try to fight these things through litigation and constantly chasing the next "free service" and punishing consumers (legally) who are getting content through illegal means, but ultimately at some point they have to give in and realize that the "old ways" are not sustainable, because of a change in culture. If they don't adapt, someone will fill in the gap.
I believe you commented on it earlier, that there are a lot of very good film makers and actors/actresses that are looking for work. They create sometimes great content that they offer through non-traditional means and the younger generation like/prefer some of this content. All that needs to happen are a few more of these non-traditional approaches to balk at the big network dollars and the old system will have to be replaced.
Not saying it will happen soon, but the current system is unsustainable.
Quote from: brandx on June 05, 2014, 04:40:19 PM
The thing is - they had to succumb. They had no choice if they wanted to stay profitable.
Napster allowed people to download music for free, but I have always thought that the most important thing Napster did was give options. People quit buying albums because they didn't want to pay a premium for the crap on the album they didn't want. Napster showed it was possible to go "al a carte". Record companies either had to change their business model (make deals with Apple, Rhapsody, Spotify, Amazon, etc. - or go under.
To say that is "stupidity" shows me the studio execs still don't understand what has happened and will continue to happening. Just because they haven't had THEIR Napster moment makes them think they are invincible.
THAT is really the only thing I disagree with you about in all of the conversations we have had about this.
My problem with you guys on this stuff is you keep arguing with me about delivery and technology. That's not the argument, it already exists.
Whether they have their "Napster" moment also depends on how much the US Gov't will let them. Considering liberals own Hollywood and the tv business and considering who is in charge of the govt right now, they don't want those dollars not going into their reelection coffers. A ton is being done right now on piracy and it's going to be very ugly for a lot of people, all the way down to the college level when all is said and done. I work on an initiative with HBO and universities right now. A very big hammer is coming and a lot of parents of college students that will be paying the fines are going to be unhappy campers. Is what it is...stealing is stealing, but some people think it isn't if they are cute and use a laptop rather than a crowbar.
Quote from: brandx on June 03, 2014, 02:45:29 PM
Chicks is still under the impression that nothing changes till the rich and powerful say it will change. History would beg to differ with him.
On another topic discussed here, I see Seattle passed new minimum wage law going up to $15/hr. So in 3 years we may have definitive evidence whether it helps or hurts economy.
Seattle min wage.... pure hilarity
http://www.ijreview.com/2014/06/144019-results-seattles-minimum-wage-hike-deserve-big-fat-told/
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on June 05, 2014, 11:48:32 PM
My problem with you guys on this stuff is you keep arguing with me about delivery and technology. That's not the argument, it already exists.
Not at all. I don't think you are getting my point.
Not to steal from Malcolm Gladwell, but there will be a tipping point. It may be next year or it may not be for 10 years, but it will happen. Once that is reached, whatever it will end up being, changes will happen fast. If and when people start leaving the cable companies in droves (as they quit buying CDs in droves), the cable companies and studios will team up and will take steps to maintain their revenue stream just as the record companies were forced to do. The contracts won't matter. Keeping the revenue flowing will.
Record companies said they couldn't change because they already were locked into contracts. But once the tipping point was reached (when people changed their CD buying habits because of what they learned from Napster), the old line about contracts didn't matter.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on June 05, 2014, 11:59:10 PM
Seattle min wage.... pure hilarity
http://www.ijreview.com/2014/06/144019-results-seattles-minimum-wage-hike-deserve-big-fat-told/
Not an attack, but this essentially a blog, with zero sources. How can you take this seriously? C'mon man, you know you are better than this CBB. Now read this. http://seattletimes.com/html/localnews/2022905775_seatacprop1xml.html
Surprise surprise, both positive and negative impacts. Not everything is black and white.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on June 05, 2014, 01:18:26 PM
"the studios are set in their ways, old school, been around for 100 years many of them. They are hellbent to make sure they do not succomb to the same stupidity of the recording industry"
I think this quote is very telling and so is your interpretation of it. As I said, the stupidity of the record industry was not that
A deal was made, the stupidity was the terms of the deal reached. The record industry greatly undervalued the model Apple was proposing. As a consequence Apple got the lion share of the profit, not the content providers.
The studios are aware of this and will not make the same mistake, and they also have the benefit of time as the pressures to change aren't as significant as the music industries. However, the other part of the quote is something I tried to point out earlier. The studios have been around a long time and are bloated/inefficient. They have been doing things the same way for 30 years. There are plenty of ways to reduce to the cost of content development but the studios don't want to do it, which leaves them vulnerable to someone being able to create content at a lower cost and sell it into a different delivery model. Or one of the studios will break from the heard because they see an opportunity in the short term to get a leg up on the other studios.
You hear that being said and think it means the studios are fighting tooth and nail to resist the delivery change...I hear them looking for the right opportunity to potentially switch.
Think about it, you said yourself the only way to fight the content creators largesse is scale and that's what is driving the M&A activities with ATT, DTV, Comcast, etc. So if the delivery folks get a bigger stick, that might be something that forces the studios to look at things fresh. DTV/ATT merger may actually be the catalyst that forces a revolutionary change. Not saying it will, but to think the studios will continue to do things as they've done them for the last 30 years is just folly.
What about from a mirco level?
Right now, studios and networks are HUGE businesses that take advantages of economies of scale (infrastructure, staff, marketing, etc.).
But, what if you had talented people writing, directing and producing their own content? Now, ultimately, they are in control of their entire program.
Here is a specific example:
http://youtu.be/uSDR3w6-Kzw?t=4m18s
The guys from It's Always Sunny wrote, directed, and produced their own pilot.
Now, obviously, being on FX has helped them tremendously, but how long before another group of talented people figure out a way to create their own show and distribute it on the internet and it legitimately becomes popular? How long before a major player (google, apple, virgin, whatever) starts a mini-network of this type of content?
The barriers for entry have gotten a lot lower as the technology has gotten better.
In theory, talented people could just cut out the studio and network all together. It's what Louis CK has done with his stand-up, it's what Seinfeld has done with his web show. It's what Adam Carolla has done with his podcast.
You don't need huge ratings if your costs of production are 1/100 of what the other studios are doing. Plus, if the marketers can monetize that content, then you'll have something.
Quote from: reinko on June 06, 2014, 07:25:50 AM
Not everything is black and white.
You take that back you son of a bitch.
Quote from: Guns n Ammo on June 06, 2014, 11:23:34 AM
What about from a mirco level?
Right now, studios and networks are HUGE businesses that take advantages of economies of scale (infrastructure, staff, marketing, etc.).
But, what if you had talented people writing, directing and producing their own content? Now, ultimately, they are in control of their entire program.
Here is a specific example:
http://youtu.be/uSDR3w6-Kzw?t=4m18s
The guys from It's Always Sunny wrote, directed, and produced their own pilot.
Now, obviously, being on FX has helped them tremendously, but how long before another group of talented people figure out a way to create their own show and distribute it on the internet and it legitimately becomes popular? How long before a major player (google, apple, virgin, whatever) starts a mini-network of this type of content?
The barriers for entry have gotten a lot lower as the technology has gotten better.
In theory, talented people could just cut out the studio and network all together. It's what Louis CK has done with his stand-up, it's what Seinfeld has done with his web show. It's what Adam Carolla has done with his podcast.
You don't need huge ratings if your costs of production are 1/100 of what the other studios are doing. Plus, if the marketers can monetize that content, then you'll have something.
You are so right. When ABC, CBS, NBC and the local movie theatre were the only entertainment options available the bean counters were in control. Talent today can have their fanbase (enthusiastically) pay to produce their next record, movie etc. or produce it no frills themselves. Young people are comfortable searching for and sharing information on content. Lots of waste, redundancies, etc., in the corporations that produce content. Not saying NBC, HBO or AMC is going the way of the dinosaur but in the future we'll see downsized, streamlined versions of them. As competition comes from new sources people will demand lower costs.
Quote from: Lennys Tap on June 06, 2014, 11:51:56 AM
You are so right. When ABC, CBS, NBC and the local movie theatre were the only entertainment options available the bean counters were in control. Talent today can have their fanbase (enthusiastically) pay to produce their next record, movie etc. or produce it no frills themselves. Young people are comfortable searching for and sharing information on content. Lots of waste, redundancies, etc., in the corporations that produce content. Not saying NBC, HBO or AMC is going the way of the dinosaur but in the future we'll see downsized, streamlined versions of them. As competition comes from new sources people will demand lower costs.
Maybe I'm wrong but I think that's the point we're all making that Chico's misses. Yes content development right now is very expensive and therefore the alternative delivery streams can't support it from a revenue standpoint.....however, there will be a time when the content will become cheaper and the alternative delivery methods will support, the same, if not better the content developers.
Quote from: mu03eng on June 06, 2014, 11:56:20 AM
Maybe I'm wrong but I think that's the point we're all making that Chico's misses. Yes content development right now is very expensive and therefore the alternative delivery streams can't support it from a revenue standpoint.....however, there will be a time when the content will become cheaper and the alternative delivery methods will support, the same, if not better the content developers.
If you go back and look at his posts, Chicos always sides with the rich and powerful. Not making a judgement, but that is just his viewpoint.
So he sees this issue in that context. The people in charge with money say they won't change, so it's not going to happen. But the technology has opened so may other options. I honestly believe the whole cable/studio influence would be blown up already if not for Sports programming. That is the one area, so far, that cannot be overcome by new technology. It is the
ONLY reason I have cable and I would suspect that is also the case for millions of others.
With the online providers, there is no reason to spend $2000 a year on cable just to watch a few shows you like. Just wait a few months and use the cheaper options. But it doesn't work with Sports.
Quote from: brandx on June 06, 2014, 12:09:59 PM
With the online providers, there is no reason to spend $2000 a year on cable just to watch a few shows you like. Just wait a few months and use the cheaper options. But it doesn't work with Sports.
I would caution you here. Chicos is correct, the Netflix content, especially tv, is "pre-monitized" when it gets to Netflix. Take Big Bang Theory, a very popular show both on tv and streaming services. If CBS did not buy BBT and put it on air, the show wouldn't exist. So if everyone cuts the cable to wait a couple of months for it to come to Netflix, one of two things happen:
-Show never exists in the first place
-The cost to Netflix goes up, therefore Netflix has to charge subscribers more to sustain itself.
Now, of course this is a MAD situation, content creators aren't going to want kill the viewers...they need them and obviously the viewers want the content. So the delivery mechanisms are going to change from the model we have now, but they will also be different than the Netflix "alternative" model we have right now as well.
Quote from: mu03eng on June 06, 2014, 11:56:20 AM
Maybe I'm wrong but I think that's the point we're all making that Chico's misses. Yes content development right now is very expensive and therefore the alternative delivery streams can't support it from a revenue standpoint.....however, there will be a time when the content will become cheaper and the alternative delivery methods will support, the same, if not better the content developers.
Bingo.
I know that (insert big TV star) isn't going to start doing a show on the internet. Got it. I also know Sony Pictures isn't going to start giving away it's content for free. Got it.
But, could a talented young actor, write, direct and produce his own content that is really good? Could that content eventually be monetized online without a network?
Another example:
Andy Samburg and the Lonely Island guys were putting out video content before SNL ever picked them up. Now, obviously SNL is a tremendous opportunity for exposure, so they had to take that step.
But, maybe the next "Lonely Island" figures out a way to monetize their own online content and they make a good living before they are ever even on TV. They simply don't need SNL. They don't need NBC.
How about "Android TV", where the content you subscribe to is automatically downloaded to your personal device each week? It's just like podcasting, but it's video content.
Quote from: brandx on June 06, 2014, 12:09:59 PM
If you go back and look at his posts, Chicos always sides with the rich and powerful. Not making a judgement, but that is just his viewpoint.
So he sees this issue in that context. The people in charge with money say they won't change, so it's not going to happen. But the technology has opened so may other options. I honestly believe the whole cable/studio influence would be blown up already if not for Sports programming. That is the one area, so far, that cannot be overcome by new technology. It is the ONLY reason I have cable and I would suspect that is also the case for millions of others.
With the online providers, there is no reason to spend $2000 a year on cable just to watch a few shows you like. Just wait a few months and use the cheaper options. But it doesn't work with Sports.
I think it's tough to think big picture when you are involved in execution (in any industry).
Ask the an automotive plant manager how you should redesign a vehicle, and he will start talking about the logistics involved, not what the vehicle should be. It's the manager's point of view. It's hard to think big when you are the one actually doing the work.
Quote from: mu03eng on June 06, 2014, 12:31:23 PM
I would caution you here. Chicos is correct, the Netflix content, especially tv, is "pre-monitized" when it gets to Netflix. Take Big Bang Theory, a very popular show both on tv and streaming services. If CBS did not buy BBT and put it on air, the show wouldn't exist. So if everyone cuts the cable to wait a couple of months for it to come to Netflix, one of two things happen:
-Show never exists in the first place
-The cost to Netflix goes up, therefore Netflix has to charge subscribers more to sustain itself.
I agree with what you say.
I probably wasn't clear enough in my last post since I had made a couple points earlier as well. I stated in several of my posts that they would find other ways to monetize. I would expect the cost of a Netflix subscription to go up when the model changes. They have already raised prices for new users. And I would expect that trend to continue as they fund and develop more and more of their own shows or when producers create content that they would sell direct to Netflix, Amazon, Apple, etc.
Record companies used to make almost all of their money off of record/CD sales. They limited users as to what they could buy individually. Certain songs were released on 45's or single CDs, but otherwise you had to buy the entire album even if half the songs were crap.
Now there are options. I actually have spent more on music over the last 3 or 4 years than I have since I was young. For years I quit buying albums/CDs - until I had the chance to listen to whatever I wanted online and could choose individually what tracks to buy.
Quote from: Guns n Ammo on June 06, 2014, 12:52:10 PM
Bingo.
I know that (insert big TV star) isn't going to start doing a show on the internet. Got it. I also know Sony Pictures isn't going to start giving away it's content for free. Got it.
But, could a talented young actor, write, direct and produce his own content that is really good? Could that content eventually be monetized online without a network?
Many, many musicians are making a very good living providing content online and bypassing record companies as well.
While they lack the advertising/promotional arm of the record companies, they obviously receive much more than the pennies on the dollar that almost all artists get from the record companies.
Quote from: mu03eng on June 06, 2014, 11:56:20 AM
Maybe I'm wrong but I think that's the point we're all making that Chico's misses. Yes content development right now is very expensive and therefore the alternative delivery streams can't support it from a revenue standpoint.....however, there will be a time when the content will become cheaper and the alternative delivery methods will support, the same, if not better the content developers.
I don't think I'm missing that at all. Show me how content is going to become cheaper AND of same quality? Certainly not on the sports side and that bed has already been made through 2026 with the current contracts. On the entertainment side, with the union power and Hollywood machine...well, dream big I guess.
Had a great meeting with two premium channels this morning on this, talking a lot about going direct to consumers. Huge chicken and egg issue. As one said, they are spending well over $100M on their current series, no way they could ever justify that expenditure without built in audience. Cannot do it, not worth the risk.
I keep hearing how there is all this great, new content available for super cheap online. But is it really? Let's not get too far ahead of ourselves in terms of how great it is, furthermore how much accretive value it will truly provide. It's like saying a guy in instructional ball is really good. OK, at that level he's really good, but does that translate to anything further down the road?
Quote from: brandx on June 06, 2014, 12:04:55 AM
Not at all. I don't think you are getting my point.
Not to steal from Malcolm Gladwell, but there will be a tipping point. It may be next year or it may not be for 10 years, but it will happen. Once that is reached, whatever it will end up being, changes will happen fast. If and when people start leaving the cable companies in droves (as they quit buying CDs in droves), the cable companies and studios will team up and will take steps to maintain their revenue stream just as the record companies were forced to do. The contracts won't matter. Keeping the revenue flowing will.
Record companies said they couldn't change because they already were locked into contracts. But once the tipping point was reached (when people changed their CD buying habits because of what they learned from Napster), the old line about contracts didn't matter.
CD habits...again, you're talking delivery. STOP TALKING ABOUT DELIVERY. And comparing the record companies again. Good lord, how many times can the same bad analogy be made time after time. JESUS
Yes, things could change in 10 years, there will be some changes, at the end of the day, the consumer is still going to pay. My point is how many people that it was already dead, already done, done 2 years ago, 3 years ago, next year. Just because you want it to be done, doesn't mean it will get done.
Quote from: reinko on June 06, 2014, 07:25:50 AM
Not an attack, but this essentially a blog, with zero sources. How can you take this seriously? C'mon man, you know you are better than this CBB. Now read this. http://seattletimes.com/html/localnews/2022905775_seatacprop1xml.html
Surprise surprise, both positive and negative impacts. Not everything is black and white.
Agree Reinko, not everything is black and white. Though, usually when I see who implements these things, typically people with zero business acumen, they are dumbfounded when reality comes into play.
Look, prices have to go up in this situation. Poor people that rely on cheaper food, they won't be able to buy as much. People that want the hours, there will be cutbacks. Some businesses will choose not to be in Seattle at all. Overall, prices will go up across the board because the cost of doing business just went up considerably. It's just basic math.
I am absolutely convinced that every person in this country should be mandated to take a few basic business courses because so many people just have no clue how the business world works. In the end, the cost to live in Seattle will go higher, ultimately hurting the poor when this supposed magic wand was to help the poor. Ironic.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on June 06, 2014, 02:28:49 PM
I don't think I'm missing that at all. Show me how content is going to become cheaper AND of same quality? Certainly not on the sports side and that bed has already been made through 2026 with the current contracts. On the entertainment side, with the union power and Hollywood machine...well, dream big I guess.
Had a great meeting with two premium channels this morning on this, talking a lot about going direct to consumers. Huge chicken and egg issue. As one said, they are spending well over $100M on their current series, no way they could ever justify that expenditure without built in audience. Cannot do it, not worth the risk.
I keep hearing how there is all this great, new content available for super cheap online. But is it really? Let's not get too far ahead of ourselves in terms of how great it is, furthermore how much accretive value it will truly provide. It's like saying a guy in instructional ball is really good. OK, at that level he's really good, but does that translate to anything further down the road?
I think guys like Louis CK and Jerry Seinfeld are established at a level above the instructional league.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on June 06, 2014, 02:28:49 PM
I don't think I'm missing that at all. Show me how content is going to become cheaper AND of same quality? Certainly not on the sports side and that bed has already been made through 2026 with the current contracts. On the entertainment side, with the union power and Hollywood machine...well, dream big I guess.
Amazon Prime and Netflix have created content for themselves. Other folks can start created content as well. Why does the quality have to be the same cost? Are you saying a quality product couldn't be made cheaper? Why would television programming not be subject to the same forces that govern all free markets? I absolutely believe that technology has gotten to the point where a group of really smart, talented people could create a show like The Office, as a quality product and deliver it to an audience that will generate at least as much profit as a studio backed television show. The pieces are available, just needs someone of vision to do it. I think this is like when Bannister broke the 4 minute mile....3 people broke it within a month of him doing it I think. Not because we suddenly got faster, but because we mentally knew we could do it. Someone with vision will pull the pieces together to make it happen, everyone will see it and so will begin the creative destruction process as everyone joins in. The bottom line is that there is FAR too much bloat in the television industry for it to not happen, just a matter of time.
I absolutely concede that sports changes the game significantly and I think that is the only real reason we haven't seen a change yet. I think that's a lot of why the sports contracts have exploded, its the one way for the content delivery folks to stay in the game. However, sports content will not be immune forever.
Quote from: Guns n Ammo on June 06, 2014, 11:23:34 AM
What about from a mirco level?
Right now, studios and networks are HUGE businesses that take advantages of economies of scale (infrastructure, staff, marketing, etc.).
But, what if you had talented people writing, directing and producing their own content? Now, ultimately, they are in control of their entire program.
Here is a specific example:
http://youtu.be/uSDR3w6-Kzw?t=4m18s
The guys from It's Always Sunny wrote, directed, and produced their own pilot.
Now, obviously, being on FX has helped them tremendously, but how long before another group of talented people figure out a way to create their own show and distribute it on the internet and it legitimately becomes popular? How long before a major player (google, apple, virgin, whatever) starts a mini-network of this type of content?
The barriers for entry have gotten a lot lower as the technology has gotten better.
In theory, talented people could just cut out the studio and network all together. It's what Louis CK has done with his stand-up, it's what Seinfeld has done with his web show. It's what Adam Carolla has done with his podcast.
You don't need huge ratings if your costs of production are 1/100 of what the other studios are doing. Plus, if the marketers can monetize that content, then you'll have something.
You're proving the point, all those guys, Carolla included, got big on the macro level first. Its easy to monetize stuff in the area you are talking about when someone already has a built in name or reputation. Quite the opposite coming the other way, and that's why the dollars for investment aren't there either. Scale is everything.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on June 06, 2014, 02:54:19 PM
You're proving the point, all those guys, Carolla included, got big on the macro level first. Its easy to monetize stuff in the area you are talking about when someone already has a built in name or reputation. Quite the opposite coming the other way, and that's why the dollars for investment aren't there either. Scale is everything.
Just be honest, did you even click the link and watch the stuff about It's Always Sunny, or did you just respond so you could disagree with me?
Click the link and listen to what the guys are saying, and then think about what that actually means. They didn't need a studio. They didn't need a network. They needed distribution and revenue. That can be obtained through channels other than major networks. It's only a matter of time.
Seinfeld, Carolla, Louis CK are on the other end of the spectrum, but that's part of my point. If young, up-and-coming guys bypass the networks and go straight to consumers via web, and the older, well established guys bypass the traditional networks and distributors, that just leaves the middle guys for the networks.
And for the 100th time, NOBODY here has said television, or pay television are going to go away. But, the idea that the networks or content owners are in control of the evolution is silly and close minded.
We can rehash this thread in 2025 when "My Dad is a Vampire IT Guy" is a big hit on Google.TV.
Quote from: brandx on June 06, 2014, 12:09:59 PM
If you go back and look at his posts, Chicos always sides with the rich and powerful. Not making a judgement, but that is just his viewpoint.
So he sees this issue in that context. The people in charge with money say they won't change, so it's not going to happen. But the technology has opened so may other options. I honestly believe the whole cable/studio influence would be blown up already if not for Sports programming. That is the one area, so far, that cannot be overcome by new technology. It is the ONLY reason I have cable and I would suspect that is also the case for millions of others.
With the online providers, there is no reason to spend $2000 a year on cable just to watch a few shows you like. Just wait a few months and use the cheaper options. But it doesn't work with Sports.
With all due respect, Brandx, I side with reality. I side with both the business reality and that of the worker in this industry...that little guy, who demands to be paid for his work...the screenwriter, the camera operator, the copywriter, the key grip, etc. You are painting way too broad a brush because you don't like the fact content costs money....athletes want to be paid, directors, producers, actors, writers, most of them on your side of the political aisle...those damn rich bastards only caring for themselves ::) want to be paid in an ultra competitive industry.
The average consumer spends $1,032 a year, so you're off by double. That's for 24/7 entertainment, news, sports, etc. How much are people paying per year on their cell phone? Their Lattes, etc? Their internet provider? Are you a season basketball ticket holder? You must be furious that a good chunk of your dollars for MEN's basketball actually go to women's basketball, soccer, track, etc...you didn't choose that...you were told that money was for MEN's basketball.
About those young, startup artists making money on music streaming....come again
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/09/business/media/free-music-at-least-while-it-lasts.html
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on June 09, 2014, 09:22:54 PM
About those young, startup artists making money on music streaming....come again
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/09/business/media/free-music-at-least-while-it-lasts.html
I know some of those young startup artists and they all love the new system. I actually read an article about how in a single generation they rewrote the book on how music is produced leading to more independent artists who can now make a living doing what they love.
The low cost of music production has always been present, but the high cost of distribution kept young creativity out of the market. The streaming and youtube channels and other internet distribution methods has led to increased involvement, increased quality and greater diversity of choices.
Quote from: forgetful on June 09, 2014, 10:43:41 PM
I know some of those young startup artists and they all love the new system. I actually read an article about how in a single generation they rewrote the book on how music is produced leading to more independent artists who can now make a living doing what they love.
The low cost of music production has always been present, but the high cost of distribution kept young creativity out of the market. The streaming and youtube channels and other internet distribution methods has led to increased involvement, increased quality and greater diversity of choices.
Well apparently these guys aren't so happy. At some point you want to be paid.
"Many labels and the musicians and songwriters they work with say streaming outfits risk wiping them out by paying tiny royalties, but the people who make all that yummy music are actually being loved to death by fans who expect it to be free."
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on June 09, 2014, 10:52:22 PM
Well apparently these guys aren't so happy. At some point you want to be paid.
"Many labels and the musicians and songwriters they work with say streaming outfits risk wiping them out by paying tiny royalties, but the people who make all that yummy music are actually being loved to death by fans who expect it to be free."
That's not new, I mean, there have been struggling musicians for as long as there has been music.
The new distribution model isn't going to make everybody rich, it simply provides a different opportunity for people to produce and distribute content.
And again, NOBODY in this thread has said the internet is magic and its going to make all content free for consumers and the content creators will magically make a lot of money. I apologize if we have given you that impression.
What everybody here has said (or implied) is that the delivery model of ALL CONTENT is changing. Music, books, news, radio, television, etc.
How consumers receive and intake content is drastically different today compared to just 10 years ago.
Now, as the delivery model continues to evolve, it's not just the content creators or providers that are in charge, that's short sighted.
Ultimately, consumer demand will determine how the model evolves, and IMHO, that demand will not only be met by "traditional" content providers (studios, cable, HBO, etc.), but also (as the cost of production go down) independent content providers (independent films & independent series, etc.).
How all of this is ultimately funded and paid for is actually up to the marketers. It's a bit of a throw-back, but more and more brands are paying to produce and sponsor specific/exclusive content, not unlike television in the 1950's. What's old is new again.
Quote from: Guns n Ammo on June 10, 2014, 08:56:57 AM
Ultimately, consumer demand will determine how the model evolves, and IMHO, that demand will not only be met by "traditional" content providers (studios, cable, HBO, etc.), but also (as the cost of production go down) independent content providers (independent films & independent series, etc.).
I've said this to Chicos at least a dozen times and he hasn't bought it, so I doubt if he will when you say it.
Here I am caring about the musicians and their ability to make money.....I'm waiting for the "Chico only cares about the rich" diatribe to begin.
Quote from: Guns n Ammo on June 10, 2014, 08:56:57 AM
That's not new, I mean, there have been struggling musicians for as long as there has been music.
The new distribution model isn't going to make everybody rich, it simply provides a different opportunity for people to produce and distribute content.
And again, NOBODY in this thread has said the internet is magic and its going to make all content free for consumers and the content creators will magically make a lot of money. I apologize if we have given you that impression.
What everybody here has said (or implied) is that the delivery model of ALL CONTENT is changing. Music, books, news, radio, television, etc.
How consumers receive and intake content is drastically different today compared to just 10 years ago.
Now, as the delivery model continues to evolve, it's not just the content creators or providers that are in charge, that's short sighted.
Ultimately, consumer demand will determine how the model evolves, and IMHO, that demand will not only be met by "traditional" content providers (studios, cable, HBO, etc.), but also (as the cost of production go down) independent content providers (independent films & independent series, etc.).
How all of this is ultimately funded and paid for is actually up to the marketers. It's a bit of a throw-back, but more and more brands are paying to produce and sponsor specific/exclusive content, not unlike television in the 1950's. What's old is new again.
LOL....when is production going to go down on the tv side? We're not talking about making a record, or a 5 minute You Tube video. Production costs right now are SKYROCKETING because that is what people want...or as you say, what consumers demand. Well known actors, exotic story lines and scenery, special effects, etc. All cost lots of money and that's what people are paying for. Stuff isn't free.....as musicians are finding out.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on June 10, 2014, 12:34:41 PM
LOL....when is production going to go down on the tv side? We're not talking about making a record, or a 5 minute You Tube video. Production costs right now are SKYROCKETING because that is what people want...or as you say, what consumers demand. Well known actors, exotic story lines and scenery, special effects, etc. All cost lots of money and that's what people are paying for. Stuff isn't free.....as musicians are finding out.
Key items highlighted....what people want and will pay for can, has, and will change. Lower cost content might come into vogue and the model will change.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on June 10, 2014, 12:34:41 PM
LOL....when is production going to go down on the tv side? We're not talking about making a record, or a 5 minute You Tube video. Production costs right now are SKYROCKETING because that is what people want...or as you say, what consumers demand. Well known actors, exotic story lines and scenery, special effects, etc. All cost lots of money and that's what people are paying for. Stuff isn't free.....as musicians are finding out.
Right, the Rolling Stones aren't free.
Again, I've NEVER said pay-content is going away. HBO will be around. ESPN will be around.
Do you think it's possible for somebody to create and distribute their own show outside of the traditional studio/network system?
http://youtu.be/uSDR3w6-Kzw?t=4m18s
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on June 10, 2014, 12:34:41 PM
LOL....when is production going to go down on the tv side? We're not talking about making a record, or a 5 minute You Tube video. Production costs right now are SKYROCKETING because that is what people want...or as you say, what consumers demand. Well known actors, exotic story lines and scenery, special effects, etc. All cost lots of money and that's what people are paying for. Stuff isn't free.....as musicians are finding out.
You would know better than I, but isn't reality TV a lot cheaper to produce that sitcom TV? Clearly the market is demanding a TON of reality-based TV, again you know would better than I, it makes up what, 30% of TV?
The most fascinating study on musician income, those that are "tech savvy" are making less than those that are. Or as the article states, those that are trying to sell direct to consumers are making less than those that are going through traditional models. Why? Pretty simple, scale and marketing and resources. The very same reason why HBO and others haven't peeled away. You can go it alone, or you can have a lot of huge companies spend a ton of money promoting and marketing you, bundling you, etc, to drive purchases.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on June 10, 2014, 02:25:24 PM
The most fascinating study on musician income, those that are "tech savvy" are making less than those that are. Or as the article states, those that are trying to sell direct to consumers are making less than those that are going through traditional models. Why? Pretty simple, scale and marketing and resources. The very same reason why HBO and others haven't peeled away. You can go it alone, or you can have a lot of huge companies spend a ton of money promoting and marketing you, bundling you, etc, to drive purchases.
Absolutely right.
If you're a crappy musician, but really tech savvy, guess what? You probably won't make much money. You have to actually be good at what you do, and offer a sellable product.
I'm a crappy author and I self published. Guess what? I haven't made any money on it.
On the high end, the studios, the record labels, publishers etc. have the marketing $ to help drive awareness and sales. Thus, Justin Beiber or whatever.
On the low end, self-published musicians, writers, comedians, actors, etc. have trouble breaking through. That's why PR people get paid. They put the book in Oprah's hands, Oprah pretends to read it, and BOOM, I'm a famous author.
Anybody who can't see that is stupid.
BUUUUUUT...
Some self-published things HAVE broken through, and it will continue to happen. AND, IMHO, as people become more comfortable with the technology, I think we're likely to see a "hit". Podcasts are a great example. Word of mouth is really what is driving their popularity, and the people doing them seem to be doing ok.
Also, you may see larger names continue to peal off and do exclusive projects/content for specific brands. Lebron and Samsung, Jay Z, Pharrell, etc.
Quote from: mu03eng on June 10, 2014, 12:49:03 PM
Key items highlighted....what people want and will pay for can, has, and will change. Lower cost content might come into vogue and the model will change.
It might, but I'd wager to bet that most viewers are going to migrate toward stuff that is worth watching and that typically comes with a price tag to make. Those gravitating toward the free stuff, one of two things will happen. The guy that is good at creating the free or low cost stuff will eventually want to be paid. Or, that content will live at the bottom and the content companies that create this stuff will not care about it just as they don't care about YouTube and similar types of content today because it doesn't impact their bottom line. Just a guess, we'll see. Quality usually comes with a price tag. Or if not quality, tonnage does simply for the variability of the library, but depending on what is in the library (A's, B's, C's, D's, or just pass content), will determine how buffet style oriented the pricing and consumption is.
The point on the music post was a few years ago you couldn't stop reading an article about how musicians were going to sell their wares direct, make a bunch of money, the playing field leveled, etc. Of course, those articles were speculating as there was no data. Now that data is available....reality.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on June 10, 2014, 05:42:48 PM
It might, but I'd wager to bet that most viewers are going to migrate toward stuff that is worth watching and that typically comes with a price tag to make. Those gravitating toward the free stuff, one of two things will happen. The guy that is good at creating the free or low cost stuff will eventually want to be paid. Or, that content will live at the bottom and the content companies that create this stuff will not care about it just as they don't care about YouTube and similar types of content today because it doesn't impact their bottom line. Just a guess, we'll see. Quality usually comes with a price tag. Or if not quality, tonnage does simply for the variability of the library, but depending on what is in the library (A's, B's, C's, D's, or just pass content), will determine how buffet style oriented the pricing and consumption is.
The point on the music post was a few years ago you couldn't stop reading an article about how musicians were going to sell their wares direct, make a bunch of money, the playing field leveled, etc. Of course, those articles were speculating as there was no data. Now that data is available....reality.
#1 Nobody here in this thread has said anything about every musician getting rich by cutting out the record labels. Specific examples of talented bands/people have been provided (Radiohead, Louis CK). Again, not EVERYBODY is going to get rich by cutting out the middle man. It can't work like that. There is still competition in the marketplace. I can't get rich by cutting out ebay and selling my own stuff online. I still ultimately have to make a product people want to purchase.
#2 20 years ago, newspapers weren't concerned about online, and bookstores weren't concerned about amazon.
10 years ago, they were concerned, but probably said things like: "People may read SOME things online, but they still like the feel and portability of a newspaper. I mean, what are people going to do, take their computers with them? hahahaha."
Today, many newspapers and bookstores are shrinking or are gone. They missed the boat. They've gotten swallowed up.
Now, newspapers and books are NOT like television. HOWEVER, the example I'm providing is about how industries often don't see it coming. They are too ingrained in their own business model, and they can't pivot and evolve efficiently.
"traditional" television isn't going to go away, but I think you'll see a trimming of the heard as more efficient delivery models come to market and segmentation of the marketplace continues.
Hell, you might see "shows" put specifically on brand websites. Go to bankofamerica.com to see this week's episode of "My father is a vampire lifeguard."
Well Guns and Brandx, my new gig is going to bring me very very close to this stuff. Going to be fun. Again, technology and delivery isn't the issue, but I'll get to live that every day. All about content and can anyone crack the code on getting these guys to trade dollars for digital dimes. Shall be interesting.
I just bailed on DirecTV and cable/satellite providers as a whole.
I'll be missing some stuff, but the $1200 per annum savings will be worth it. If I really want to watch a game, I'll go to the tavern down the block
AT&T buying DirecTV was the last straw. There are zero ways that's good for any consumer
Quote from: Guns n Ammo on June 10, 2014, 01:00:47 PM
Right, the Rolling Stones aren't free.
Again, I've NEVER said pay-content is going away. HBO will be around. ESPN will be around.
Do you think it's possible for somebody to create and distribute their own show outside of the traditional studio/network system?
http://youtu.be/uSDR3w6-Kzw?t=4m18s
To create with true scale, not likely. If you're talking about throwing a program up on a direct model like YouTube, sure. That can be done today but at what scale? It takes an extremely popular clip a month to get a million views. It takes a broadcast platform 1 second to do that. But let's say it does happen, at the end of the day the consumer is still going to have to pay good money for good content.
Quote from: MUsoxfan on June 12, 2014, 09:12:30 AM
I just bailed on DirecTV and cable/satellite providers as a whole.
I'll be missing some stuff, but the $1200 per annum savings will be worth it. If I really want to watch a game, I'll go to the tavern down the block
AT&T buying DirecTV was the last straw. There are zero ways that's good for any consumer
Just like "nothing" in your other thread. I hear comments like yours and just shake my head.
Let's start with innovation....it will be a big deal for mobility and video. Let's talk about pricing. Prices go up every year because content costs are going up about 10% a year from Disney, Viacom, NewsCorp, etc. When you have scale of size, you can help to beat that back. Imagine a Viacom that wants a 15% increase annually for Cartoon Network or whatever, and a company with 25 million subscribers saying NO. We'll give you COLA increase, but not that much. That is what scale brings, and that is passed on to consumers. The smaller you are, the more you get clobbered by those selling the content.
I could go on, but nothing, never, always, zero benefit, etc. Well, that's lazy and shows a fundamental misunderstanding of how things really function.
Why not stand up more for your principles and not even go to that bar to watch a game, afterall you're giving that television provider and evil ESPN your money still, at a Commercial rate I might add (which is many X times more costly). Want cheaper beer at a bar, go to one without games on TV. The costs to them is very high, brought to you by Fox, ESPN, CBS, etc.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on June 11, 2014, 10:38:33 PM
Well Guns and Brandx, my new gig is going to bring me very very close to this stuff. Going to be fun. Again, technology and delivery isn't the issue, but I'll get to live that every day. All about content and can anyone crack the code on getting these guys to trade dollars for digital dimes. Shall be interesting.
The technology might exist, but I think we are just scratching the surface of it becoming user friendly and cost effective for smaller productions.
To clarify again, I don't think Two and 1/2 Men is suddenly going to take a pay cut and go on youtube.
BUT, out-of-work actors, writers and comedians are making ZERO dollars. So, if they can create some content and monetize it on the internet and make a reasonable salary per year, you can bet your ass they will be interested in doing it. That's where the shift will could come.
Also, at the high-end, guys like Seinfeld are pushing the boundaries of what is possible, especially because he's been able to monetize it.
http://jalopnik.com/what-jerry-seinfeld-gets-about-the-internet-that-most-d-1589305773?utm_source=recirculation&utm_medium=recirculation&utm_campaign=wednesdayPM
I was paying about $1,700/year to watch TV. TO WATCH TV!
On top of that, I have a much lesser interest in sports than I ever have. So I don't watch the White Sox lose or the Blackhawks win quite as often anymore.
Netflix, Amazon Prime, Hulu Plus and the network apps will keep my television needs met for quite some time.
I understand that there are costs involved all across the board. What I don't understand is why the cost of watching TV is so astronomically high. To me, the answer is a simple one: when ESPN says "Hey, DirecTV...we're gonna need some more dough from you so you can keep showing us", the answer should sometimes be a hard line "No".
I'm not taking some political stance against TV, just a financial one. Now that costs are sure to go up again, with customer service getting even worse, I can't think of a real reason to pay so much money to simply watch TV
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on June 12, 2014, 09:36:43 AM
To create with true scale, not likely. If you're talking about throwing a program up on a direct model like YouTube, sure. That can be done today but at what scale? It takes an extremely popular clip a month to get a million views. It takes a broadcast platform 1 second to do that. But let's say it does happen, at the end of the day the consumer is still going to have to pay good money for good content.
What about Seinfeld's show?
That's good content, and it's free.
Now, it's not easily replicated because it's Jerry F-ing Seinfeld, but still, the idea that content HAS to go through a "traditional" channel to be effective is silly.
Also, nothing is "free". Acura is paying big dollars to sponsor Jerry's show. That's a throwback to how television was funded from the start. Advertising was sold to fund programs.
Quote from: Guns n Ammo on June 12, 2014, 09:51:55 AM
The technology might exist, but I think we are just scratching the surface of it becoming user friendly and cost effective for smaller productions.
To clarify again, I don't think Two and 1/2 Men is suddenly going to take a pay cut and go on youtube.
BUT, out-of-work actors, writers and comedians are making ZERO dollars. So, if they can create some content and monetize it on the internet and make a reasonable salary per year, you can bet your ass they will be interested in doing it. That's where the shift will could come.
Also, at the high-end, guys like Seinfeld are pushing the boundaries of what is possible, especially because he's been able to monetize it.
http://jalopnik.com/what-jerry-seinfeld-gets-about-the-internet-that-most-d-1589305773?utm_source=recirculation&utm_medium=recirculation&utm_campaign=wednesdayPM
You'll always have the high end guys, because they have the brand and already monetized it through. I give you credit that you recognize this, too many people have zero clue on this. They will make comments like Louie CK is doing it, or fill in blank of guy that's been around 30 years and built up that cache.
I get the comment on new tech, ease of development, etc....but it's the same thing with musicians. They have access to that now, selling direct, etc and they are making LESS, not surprisingly. It makes it even that much more difficult on the video side. A musician can do it on his own essentially...mix, background tracks, etc. Technology is there for a one man show. Video, regardless of how cheap it is, needs many people. The cost to produce, to film, to write, to act, to edit....lots of moving parts.
Quote from: GOO on June 02, 2014, 02:04:14 PM
A lot of improvements and big developments on the developer side of things, but for the consumer no new products. I guess pretty typical and what I should have expected.... no hardware.
I think the real issue is that back-end services has created a step change in the baseline technology. There is game changing development happening around Big Data. The next several years will be exciting.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on June 12, 2014, 10:00:30 AM
You'll always have the high end guys, because they have the brand and already monetized it through. I give you credit that you recognize this, too many people have zero clue on this. They will make comments like Louie CK is doing it, or fill in blank of guy that's been around 30 years and built up that cache.
I get the comment on new tech, ease of development, etc....but it's the same thing with musicians. They have access to that now, selling direct, etc and they are making LESS, not surprisingly. It makes it even that much more difficult on the video side. A musician can do it on his own essentially...mix, background tracks, etc. Technology is there for a one man show. Video, regardless of how cheap it is, needs many people. The cost to produce, to film, to write, to act, to edit....lots of moving parts.
Bad musicians are having trouble making money.
I don't mean "bad" technically (they might be brilliant), but "bad" because they aren't producing the content that people want to pay for.
That's the key.
The free market is still in play. Supply and Demand still matter, even with digital content.
TALENTED people, CAN make a living cutting out the middle man and distributing their product themselves. Happens all of the time. Comedians sell their own tickets/albums. Musicians produce their own album. Authors self-publish.
Television has different execution requirements, but the hurdles are far less than they used to be. Listen to Seinfeld. He says 5 years ago, he could never do what he is doing now. He also said "experts" told him keep it under 5min. Well, he's doing just fine going longer than 5min. Sometimes "experts" are wrong.
The marketplace is changing. Traditional cable/network distribution is expensive for the consumer, and often ineffective for marketers. The model is going to change.
Quote from: Guns n Ammo on June 12, 2014, 09:51:55 AM
The technology might exist, but I think we are just scratching the surface of it becoming user friendly and cost effective for smaller productions.
To clarify again, I don't think Two and 1/2 Men is suddenly going to take a pay cut and go on youtube.
BUT, out-of-work actors, writers and comedians are making ZERO dollars. So, if they can create some content and monetize it on the internet and make a reasonable salary per year, you can bet your ass they will be interested in doing it. That's where the shift will could come.
Also, at the high-end, guys like Seinfeld are pushing the boundaries of what is possible, especially because he's been able to monetize it.
http://jalopnik.com/what-jerry-seinfeld-gets-about-the-internet-that-most-d-1589305773?utm_source=recirculation&utm_medium=recirculation&utm_campaign=wednesdayPM
You guys need to get out of the 20th Century. The best starting point is to understand how data has changed, enabling new, exciting delivery mechanisms that integrate multiple feeds and are presented in best of breed rich formats. The whole ecosystem is undergoing radical change and the focal point is personalization. Content has nothing to do with the evolution of consumption patterns. A revolution is happening right now that centers on UI/UX and is redefining the how, when, what, and why of content. The two epicenters of this are Mountain View and Bellevue.
I hate to say it but the pipes will likely become redundant if not entirely obsolete. Sorry, Chico.
Quote from: keefe on June 12, 2014, 01:46:08 PM
You guys need to get out of the 20th Century. The best starting point is to understand how data has changed, enabling new, exciting delivery mechanisms that integrate multiple feeds and are presented in best of breed rich formats. The whole ecosystem is undergoing radical change and the focal point is personalization. Content has nothing to do with the evolution of consumption patterns. A revolution is happening right now that centers on UI/UX and is redefining the how, when, what, and why of content. The two epicenters of this are Mountain View and Bellevue.
I hate to say it but the pipes will likely become redundant if not entirely obsolete. Sorry, Chico.
You put it very well. This is the point that I, and a couple others, including Ammo, have been trying to make.
Quote from: MUsoxfan on June 12, 2014, 09:58:40 AM
I was paying about $1,700/year to watch TV. TO WATCH TV!
On top of that, I have a much lesser interest in sports than I ever have. So I don't watch the White Sox lose or the Blackhawks win quite as often anymore.
Netflix, Amazon Prime, Hulu Plus and the network apps will keep my television needs met for quite some time.
I understand that there are costs involved all across the board. What I don't understand is why the cost of watching TV is so astronomically high. To me, the answer is a simple one: when ESPN says "Hey, DirecTV...we're gonna need some more dough from you so you can keep showing us", the answer should sometimes be a hard line "No".
I'm not taking some political stance against TV, just a financial one. Now that costs are sure to go up again, with customer service getting even worse, I can't think of a real reason to pay so much money to simply watch TV
$141 a month? Looks like if you didn't like TV you were subscribing to a bunch of stuff you clearly didn't need. That's way over what most people pay. I'm paying over $2000.00 a year JUST TO TALK ON THE PHONE. ;)
In your scenario, if someone told ESPN no, what would happen to their customer base? That's the issue. You can take stances against the Dodgers, or Lakers, or Weather Channel or even some others, and when one does, you lose customers. That's the issue, all kinds of different folks subscribe to TV, those on the high end that want it all and cost is no issue and those where cost is very much an issue. A TV distributor has to be all things to all people, problem is that the content creators require a distributor if they wish to carry their channel to penetrate them deeply, meaning most of the subscribers have to receive it. That means costs have to be born across the board.
Many people do not understand the cost of video, it's complex. You're certainly not in the minority on that front nor would I expect most people to understand. Just as most people don't understand how the cost structure are setup with video games and how X dollars go to Sony or Microsoft and X dollars to Best Buy to put it on shelf space, and so on and so forth.
Quote from: Guns n Ammo on June 12, 2014, 09:59:27 AM
What about Seinfeld's show?
That's good content, and it's free.
Now, it's not easily replicated because it's Jerry F-ing Seinfeld, but still, the idea that content HAS to go through a "traditional" channel to be effective is silly.
Also, nothing is "free". Acura is paying big dollars to sponsor Jerry's show. That's a throwback to how television was funded from the start. Advertising was sold to fund programs.
Yup, Seinfeld's stuff is free. I never said it HAD to go through there. I said how is the next guy going to become Seinfeld, not by giving it out for free.
Yes, advertising used to run that way. We'll see how much ROI Acura sees on that kind of investment. How many cars they feel they will sell, ultimately that's what advertisers want to know. What am I spending, what is my cost per sale, how many units am I moving, how efficient is it.
Quote from: keefe on June 12, 2014, 01:46:08 PM
You guys need to get out of the 20th Century. The best starting point is to understand how data has changed, enabling new, exciting delivery mechanisms that integrate multiple feeds and are presented in best of breed rich formats. The whole ecosystem is undergoing radical change and the focal point is personalization. Content has nothing to do with the evolution of consumption patterns. A revolution is happening right now that centers on UI/UX and is redefining the how, when, what, and why of content. The two epicenters of this are Mountain View and Bellevue.
I hate to say it but the pipes will likely become redundant if not entirely obsolete. Sorry, Chico.
You haven't been paying attention Keefe. As I've said a thousand times here, it ain't about the pipes. It ain't about the delivery mechanism. Of course that's going to change. Whether it is P-Cell or whatever. That's a given. That's not the point, it's about who owns the content and what is the price for that content.
Cable, fiber, wireless, satellite could all blow up tomorrow...Disney is still going to get theirs, HBO is still going to get theirs, CBS, NBC Universal, Discovery, A&E, etc. They're all still going to demand they get theirs. They could not care less how you get it, as long as they get theirs and that's what they control...the content.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on June 12, 2014, 04:43:38 PM
You haven't been paying attention Keefe. As I've said a thousand times here, it ain't about the pipes. It ain't about the delivery mechanism. Of course that's going to change. Whether it is P-Cell or whatever. That's a given. That's not the point, it's about who owns the content and what is the price for that content.
Cable, fiber, wireless, satellite could all blow up tomorrow...Disney is still going to get theirs, HBO is still going to get theirs, CBS, NBC Universal, Discovery, A&E, etc. They're all still going to demand they get theirs. They could not care less how you get it, as long as they get theirs and that's what they control...the content.
That's kinda what I have been saying all along. I don't expect content for free.
But consumption patterns change and when they change enough, the cable, wireless, satellite companies will change their model. Content will still cost, but it will be a different distribution model.
The only things I want are Internet, Sports channels and HBO (and even that is iffy as I am willing to wait 8 months and watch shows over the period of a week or so). That combo is not possible, but the point
will come where I can get those - and not in the too distant future. I'm not looking to get them for free or even at a discount - I just don't want anything else. I can get local channels with an antenna.
HBO is about $15 a month. I and millions of others would pay that standalone where we could watch on Roku or whatever along with Netflix and Amazon Prime.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on June 12, 2014, 04:40:40 PM
Yup, Seinfeld's stuff is free. I never said it HAD to go through there. I said how is the next guy going to become Seinfeld, not by giving it out for free.
Yes, advertising used to run that way. We'll see how much ROI Acura sees on that kind of investment. How many cars they feel they will sell, ultimately that's what advertisers want to know. What am I spending, what is my cost per sale, how many units am I moving, how efficient is it.
Don't add qualifiers.
You said this:
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on June 12, 2014, 09:36:43 AM
It takes an extremely popular clip a month to get a million views. It takes a broadcast platform 1 second to do that. But let's say it does happen, at the end of the day the consumer is still going to have to pay good money for good content.
Seinfeld's program is already free and good. If Acura has terrible ROI, it doesn't really matter. Cat is already out of the bag. You can put GOOD content. For FREE. Online. It's been proven.
Now, can it be replicated? Well, probably not in the same way, but the iphone couldn't be replicated when it first came out either. Takes a while for people to catch up when an innovative idea hits the market.
Podcasting was a really new idea 5 or 6 years ago. Now you have guys developing a lot of good content and becoming well known for their podcasting, not their previous career. More people know who Marc Maron is from his podcast vs his television work. Ironically, his podcast has put him back on television in a scripted show.
NOW... how long before somebody like Maron doesn't sell his scripted show to a network, and just distributes it himself? It costs a lot more than a podcast, so they just have to figure out a way to monetize it... but it's probably more of a "when", not an "if".
Guns, as I said, I'm not right in the middle of all of this with my new gig. Fun times. The entities you have to convince to make this happen are the big boys...Disney, A&E, NewsCorp, CBS, etc. Any change will have to come from them.
If I had a crystal ball, you will start to see broadband based packages of video content in the next 6 months to a year, but it will still have bundled TV services...again, delivery isn't the issue, the pipe doesn't matter. What will be of most keen interest is how much "value" is in those packages because those guys will not want to trade dollars for digital dimes.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on June 13, 2014, 12:22:16 PM
Guns, as I said, I'm not right in the middle of all of this with my new gig. Fun times. The entities you have to convince to make this happen are the big boys...Disney, A&E, NewsCorp, CBS, etc. Any change will have to come from them.
If I had a crystal ball, you will start to see broadband based packages of video content in the next 6 months to a year, but it will still have bundled TV services...again, delivery isn't the issue, the pipe doesn't matter. What will be of most keen interest is how much "value" is in those packages because those guys will not want to trade dollars for digital dimes.
So that's a fair point.
Disney isn't suddenly going to accept less for their product. I get that. The mouse wants his money.
Here's an example though:
Disney's kids programming is a monster, but how long before an alternate company starts making good children's content and starts selling an app for $2 per month? They won't have any of the overhead that disney has, so they really don't have to sell that many monthly subscriptions to be profitable. Most good children's programing can be "evergreen", so they can collect and keep quite a library of content and offer a good amount of content and value for the $2 per month.
I think the existing infrastructure and networks will have their place, but I think the comp. is going to become a lot fiercer as we go. People find a lot of content organically now, or maybe it gets recommended to them on social media, or a blog.
ABC/NBC/CBS can't just produce crap and expect people to watch. The options are almost limitless, and the competition is only going to increase.
EDIT:
I realize I'm just rambling over and over again.
Put it this way, if "regular" television costs continue to rise for the consumer, I think there is a very real chance that several different online sources will be able to undercut it to the point where consumers cut the cord. I'm not talking about netflix of hulu either. I'm talking about original content, created and distributed via the web.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on June 12, 2014, 04:43:38 PM
You haven't been paying attention Keefe. As I've said a thousand times here, it ain't about the pipes. It ain't about the delivery mechanism. Of course that's going to change. Whether it is P-Cell or whatever. That's a given. That's not the point, it's about who owns the content and what is the price for that content.
Cable, fiber, wireless, satellite could all blow up tomorrow...Disney is still going to get theirs, HBO is still going to get theirs, CBS, NBC Universal, Discovery, A&E, etc. They're all still going to demand they get theirs. They could not care less how you get it, as long as they get theirs and that's what they control...the content.
Then we agree on the pipes. The real step change has occurred in back end cloud services. What people are not seeing is that personalization and individual control is reshaping consumption and enabling new content formats. Incipient technologies in Bellevue and Mountain View will alter the ecosystem in a fundamental form that will shift authorities from a handful of loci into a multi-mode decentralized system of production. The next five years will bring radical change in content.
Quote from: keefe on June 14, 2014, 12:30:31 PM
Then we agree on the pipes. The real step change has occurred in back end cloud services. What people are not seeing is that personalization and individual control is reshaping consumption and enabling new content formats. Incipient technologies in Bellevue and Mountain View will alter the ecosystem in a fundamental form that will shift authorities from a handful of loci into a multi-mode decentralized system of production. The next five years will bring radical change in content.
Not radical change in content, radical change in aggregation and how it is delivered, but not in content itself.
Those companies you mention, we are tied at the hip with many of them as well as many here in California. Personalization, etc, will go to an all new level, but the content itself is still the content.
I appreciate Guns idealistic world of someone is just going to come in and create Disney like content and offer it at a $2 app. Sounds cute, then there is reality.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on June 14, 2014, 12:34:39 PM
Not radical change in content, radical change in aggregation and how it is delivered, but not in content itself.
Those companies you mention, we are tied at the hip with many of them as well as many here in California. Personalization, etc, will go to an all new level, but the content itself is still the content.
I appreciate Guns idealistic world of someone is just going to come in and create Disney like content and offer it at a $2 app. Sounds cute, then there is reality.
Back end services offers a significant uptick in aggregation and integration. But the proliferation of devices, connectivity, and enhanced UI/UX is enabling an explosion of content generation. Stop thinking like a middle aged guy in the entertainment biz who sees content within 4 or 5 verticals. The very definition of content is morphing through personalization.
Quote from: keefe on June 14, 2014, 12:38:58 PM
Back end services offers a significant uptick in aggregation and integration. But the proliferation of devices, connectivity, and enhanced UI/UX is enabling an explosion of content generation. Stop thinking like a middle aged guy in the entertainment biz who sees content within 4 or 5 verticals. The very definition of content is morphing through personalization.
I'm well aware of the content enabling, at the end of the day all of that "stuff" is being offered for free. Sure, some people will end up paying for some of it, but I believe (as do many of us) that the monetization of that content is a small piece of the pie. Sure, a huge pie means a small piece of it is still a big nut, but in the grand scheme of things still small by industry standards. That content enabling is going to be good for comedy, animation and things of that nature. It is not going to replace live action, larger production, story based content. It will have its place. How much will people pay for that?
My new gig, I'm in the very space you are talking about with OTT and mobility and where the future is going. Smack in the thick of it. Couldn't be more in the thick of it if I tried. :)
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on June 14, 2014, 12:43:50 PM
I'm well aware of the content enabling, at the end of the day all of that "stuff" is being offered for free. Sure, some people will end up paying for some of it, but I believe (as do many of us) that the monetization of that content is a small piece of the pie. Sure, a huge pie means a small piece of it is still a big nut, but in the grand scheme of things still small by industry standards. That content enabling is going to be good for comedy, animation and things of that nature. It is not going to replace live action, larger production, story based content. It will have its place. How much will people pay for that?
My new gig, I'm in the very space you are talking about with OTT and mobility and where the future is going. Smack in the thick of it. Couldn't be more in the thick of it if I tried. :)
Give a call and we can discuss. Mobile remote sensors is the future. Sports/entertainment is a big vertical but there are others that are far more significant from a societal contribution and financial standpoint.
Quote from: keefe on June 14, 2014, 02:22:53 PM
Give a call and we can discuss. Mobile remote sensors is the future. Sports/entertainment is a big vertical but there are others that are far more significant from a societal contribution and financial standpoint.
Happy to....and yes, mobile is a big deal. I hear some mobile company just put up about $50 billion for another company to expand in that space. ;)
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on June 14, 2014, 02:37:22 PM
Happy to....and yes, mobile is a big deal. I hear some mobile company just put up about $50 billion for another company to expand in that space. ;)
That's just distribution. I am happy to sit in the middle tier. That's where the jaw dropping innovation is happening. The Internet of Things has arrived and is shattering the definitions of content, production, and consumption. Back end cloud services around Big Data is empowering personalization. C'mon up to Bellevue and I'll show you.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on June 14, 2014, 12:34:39 PM
I appreciate Guns idealistic world of someone is just going to come in and create Disney like content and offer it at a $2 app. Sounds cute, then there is reality.
I don't know if you're trying to sound dismissive or whatever.
I might be COMPLETELY WRONG, and that's fine. I've been wrong lots of times in my life.
But, pretending like there is NO CHANCE that technology in production, distribution, consumption and personalization change the marketplace is short sighted.
Quote from: Guns n Ammo on June 16, 2014, 08:39:34 AM
I don't know if you're trying to sound dismissive or whatever.
I might be COMPLETELY WRONG, and that's fine. I've been wrong lots of times in my life.
But, pretending like there is NO CHANCE that technology in production, distribution, consumption and personalization change the marketplace is short sighted.
The reality is that the WHY of content and consumption is evolving. If the Masters of the Entertainment Universe are missing this it is, in fact, a good thing.
Quote from: keefe on June 16, 2014, 11:42:53 AM
The reality is that the WHY of content and consumption is evolving. If the Masters of the Entertainment Universe are missing this it is, in fact, a good thing.
If they are really missing it, and I mean, REALLY MISSING it... the entertainment/content landscape will look entirely different in less than 10 years.
The evolution will be lightning fast as the free market will work quickly and efficiently eliminating slow-to-adapt companies.
Quote from: Guns n Ammo on June 16, 2014, 11:48:11 AM
If they are really missing it, and I mean, REALLY MISSING it... the entertainment/content landscape will look entirely different in less than 10 years.
The evolution will be lightning fast as the free market will work quickly and efficiently eliminating slow-to-adapt companies.
I think that the step change in technology now unfolding combined with new consumer behaviors will have a dramatic impact on the entertainment vertical. Chico cited "Disney quality" content but he is missing what is happening within key demographics that simply do not value the traditional model.
One of my projects is funded by MS and our team includes the guys who built the Azure stack as well as the Win8 and Surface design teams. The future of content generation and presentation will shatter the current paradigm.
Quote from: keefe on June 16, 2014, 12:37:24 PM
I think that the step change in technology now unfolding combined with new consumer behaviors will have a dramatic impact on the entertainment vertical. Chico cited "Disney quality" content but he is missing what is happening within key demographics that simply do not value the traditional model.
One of my projects is funded by MS and our team includes the guys who built the Azure stack as well as the Win8 and Surface design teams. The future of content generation and presentation will shatter the current paradigm.
Perhaps Keefe, though we've heard MS make these claims about many things for the last 15 years and struck out way too often for a company of their prestige. Apple the same. We will see. We have lots of folks from MS, Apple, Google and such that have come over in the last 5 years for various reasons. Georgio Vanzini being one, former MS'er.
One thing is for certain, the idea of a $2 app for Disney content or whatever....if that is going to happen, Apple better change their model. I'm guessing 99% of people here don't realize that Apple gets a cut of 30% of the app revenue. That means on a subscription service, each and every month they get a cut. The margins for video are already shrinking like crazy, having to share 30% with Apple makes it that much more difficult.
Quote from: Guns n Ammo on June 16, 2014, 08:39:34 AM
I don't know if you're trying to sound dismissive or whatever.
I might be COMPLETELY WRONG, and that's fine. I've been wrong lots of times in my life.
But, pretending like there is NO CHANCE that technology in production, distribution, consumption and personalization change the marketplace is short sighted.
I'm telling you at that price point, it isn't happening. Either you aren't going to get the quality, or those of quality sure as hell aren't going to sell at that price. They aren't going to kill their revenue streams by doing that. No reason to do so. Disney can't contractually, literally cannot contractually. A startup might be willing to do it, but at that price point or anything close to it, they are going to struggle.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on June 16, 2014, 05:10:17 PM
Perhaps Keefe, though we've heard MS make these claims about many things for the last 15 years and struck out way too often for a company of their prestige. Apple the same. We will see. We have lots of folks from MS, Apple, Google and such that have come over in the last 5 years for various reasons. Georgio Vanzini being one, former MS'er.
One thing is for certain, the idea of a $2 app for Disney content or whatever....if that is going to happen, Apple better change their model. I'm guessing 99% of people here don't realize that Apple gets a cut of 30% of the app revenue. That means on a subscription service, each and every month they get a cut. The margins for video are already shrinking like crazy, having to share 30% with Apple makes it that much more difficult.
Next 100 days should be interesting!
Quote from: keefe on June 16, 2014, 10:43:54 PM
Next 100 days should be interesting!
For many reasons, I would agree
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on June 16, 2014, 05:15:05 PM
I'm telling you at that price point, it isn't happening. Either you aren't going to get the quality, or those of quality sure as hell aren't going to sell at that price. They aren't going to kill their revenue streams by doing that. No reason to do so. Disney can't contractually, literally cannot contractually. A startup might be willing to do it, but at that price point or anything close to it, they are going to struggle.
I think we're getting too literal again.
I don't know if there will be a specific $2 children's app. It's an just a scenario or idea.
As the cost of content goes up (let's say the average cable bill continues to climb), that leaves an opening in the marketplace for an alternate content provider(s) that can operate more efficiently than it's competitors because it doesn't have the same built in costs (huge studio, salaries, equipment, marketing, PR, etc.).
That's it.
Now THIS, is what could be a deal breaker. If the courts ultimately rule against the content creators on this stuff, THEN there is an interesting dynamic at play. Right now, the force everyone to purchase all the channels and thus, passed on to consumers. We shall see where this ends up. Round 1 to the distributors and against the content creators.
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2014/06/cablevision-bid-to-end-viacoms-forced-channel-bundling-survives-challenge/
We've already seen the model change once in the last 15 years....reality television. Think about it how much TV content is reality television especially on the lower tier networks? Would it be fair to say 30-40%? How much was on 15 years ago, zero? One of the main drivers I think is that they are so damn cheap to make as compared to the big shows with stars and expensive sets. Same with the "talent" shows. It's like an arms race, when one channel hits on a big idea they all jump in the pool.
All it is going to take is one content maker to find a different way and get noticed and the lemmings will want to recreate their own version of that success.
I see Chico's company made the local news. See weblink for photos.
Back9Network Signs Deal With DirectTV, Set To Open Studio
http://courantblogs.com/dan-haar/back9network-signs-deal-with-directtv-set-to-open-studio/
Back9Network, the startup golf lifestyle TV and online programmer, said Monday it signed a multi-year deal for a channel on DirecTV, its first television contract.
Back9, with offices in the Phoenix building and a studio under construction across Constitution Plaza in downtown Hartford, said it will open the studio in August, in time to launch the DirecTV shows in September. Founder and CEO Jamie Bosworth had told me earlier this year that work was progressing on the $7.5 million studio at the site of the former Spris restaurant, but many people were skeptical it could thrive without a national TV contract.
Back9 has raised about $30 million including a controversial state package of $5 million, and has hired some big names, notably Ahmad Rashad as executive producer and host. Although Bosworth and others at the media company had said they could make it work with an online audience only, a national TV contract was widely seen as the sole route to success.
Rashad will host The Ahmad Rashad Show, a "behind the scenes" look at the world of golf, as one of three, half-hour shows at the core of the Back9Network programming.
The others are "Ball Hogs, "inside the never-before-seen world of the men and women who risk their lives diving for 'white gold' in ponds and lakes; and Golf Treasures, which will "follow prominent golf collectors Ryan Carey and Bob Zafian, owners of Green Jacket Auctions, as they travel the globe on a mission to hunt down and acquire the world's rarest and most sought after golf memorabilia."
In all, Back9 will produce about 1,100 hours of original programming in its first year, including ten original prime time series and live shows three times a day.
Terms of the DirecTV deal were not disclosed. It remains to be seen whether this deal leads to a cable deal with one of the major carriers, including Comcast, which owns the Golf Network. Bosworth, who testified earlier this year in Congress about the dangers of the proposed, $45 billion Comcast-Time Warner Cable merger, said Comcast was initially negative about signing on Back9, while Time Warner was warm to the idea — until the merger was announced.
DirecTV is seeking federal approval for its own merger with AT&T, a $49 billion deal that would catapult AT&T into a major position as a TV provider. It's unclear whether AT&T would pick up Back9 on its U-verse TV package if the merger were to go forward.
Bosworth had also said that the satellite providers, including DISH Network and DirecTV, did not typically roll out their own new programming. But that picture is changing as everyone from Amazon to Netflix is producing or buying exclusive content.
DirecTV will place Back9 on channel 262, near other lifestyle channels, Back9 said.
"This long-term agreement provides us with a strong initial television distribution-base and sends a clear message to the marketplace of our goal of becoming a fully-distributed lifestyle network," Bosworth said in a written release.
Quote from: mu03eng on June 23, 2014, 03:30:35 PM
We've already seen the model change once in the last 15 years....reality television. Think about it how much TV content is reality television especially on the lower tier networks? Would it be fair to say 30-40%? How much was on 15 years ago, zero? One of the main drivers I think is that they are so damn cheap to make as compared to the big shows with stars and expensive sets. Same with the "talent" shows. It's like an arms race, when one channel hits on a big idea they all jump in the pool.
All it is going to take is one content maker to find a different way and get noticed and the lemmings will want to recreate their own version of that success.
Absolutely cost is a big reason why those programs are produced...but even then, the cost of producing a reality show is tremendously higher than a music album or song, which is why I've always felt the comparisons were so out of line.
The cost of doing high quality shows, about $2.5M to $5.0M per show. Things like House of Cards...$4.5M per. Game of Thrones, off the scales, $6.2M per episode. Reality shows about $150K to $500K per episode, though most are north of $350K that have any quality. You get into Duck Dynasty, north of $1.3M per episode. Cheaper, but still worlds more expensive than an album or song, plus you have to fill 24 hours of programming every single day. That's the conundrum they face. They need to be able to cover off on what doesn't make it. If you have songs or albums that crash, life goes on. Much tougher in the tv biz.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on June 23, 2014, 04:09:48 PM
Absolutely cost is a big reason why those programs are produced...but even then, the cost of producing a reality show is tremendously higher than a music album or song, which is why I've always felt the comparisons were so out of line.
The cost of doing high quality shows, about $2.5M to $5.0M per show. Things like House of Cards...$4.5M per. Game of Thrones, off the scales, $6.2M per episode. Reality shows about $150K to $500K per episode, though most are north of $350K that have any quality. You get into Duck Dynasty, north of $1.3M per episode. Cheaper, but still worlds more expensive than an album or song, plus you have to fill 24 hours of programming every single day. That's the conundrum they face. They need to be able to cover off on what doesn't make it. If you have songs or albums that crash, life goes on. Much tougher in the tv biz.
Well, what you've described is exactly why the model isn't efficient.
A. It's expensive
B. It's hard to create good content
c. You need to have a lot of content because you can't just go off the air when you run out of good shows
I'm not entirely sure what the solution is, but clearly we've identified the problem(s), which is step 1.