[opendtv] Re: Distribution outside of "the bundle"
- From: "Manfredi, Albert E" <albert.e.manfredi@xxxxxxxxxx>
- To: "opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx" <opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 6 Dec 2014 02:18:51 +0000
Craig Birkmaier wrote:
> You've got this completely wrong. The content owners have ALWAYS made
> their stuff available via multiple middlemen - it is the essence of
> their business.
You're missing it with an overly vague comment. We are dealing with content
previously available only inside "the bundle," for current episode delivery,
which the content owner has decided to provide through a parallel pipe. To
remind you of your former positions on this score, two quotes from the recent
past.
Re: "The TV model is broken," says ISP that stopped offering pay-TV
Tue, 7 Oct 2014 07:54:37 -0400
> Dream on!
>
> The marketplace distortion we are stuck with is called the content
> oligopoly. Viacom DOES INSIST that their content be bundled with
> Disney content, and Comcast NBCU content and FOX content. That's
> the way they keep the subscriber revenue stream flowing. Each of
> the congloms has a few flagship products that everyone wants - the
> bundle allow them to force us to take the rest.
Glad you picked Viacom, because it was in fact CBS that decided on a direct to
consumer scheme recently. And this The Walking Dead example is also
contradicting your notion.
And
Re: Forbes: Old Media Can Still Thrive, But Business Models Need To Adapt
Sat, 27 Sep 2014 06:49:21 -0400
> The bundle is making both the content owners and the distributors
> who license their content A BUNDLE!
>
> On top of this new business models are emerging that allow the
> content owners to make more money off of their old program
> libraries.
Not old libraries either, as The Walking Dead example shows.
> The story you posted included iTunes pay per episode for The
> Walking Dead.
Close, but ultimately irrelevant. That iTunes option is a pay per view model,
which is different from a live or VOD distribution of "the bundle" content such
as this. The Amazon package is that same bundle content, available VOD (as it
could be within the walled garden), episode by episode right after they are
aired, for a single fee, and the content is provided outside the bundle
entirely. No MVPD subscription required. No subsidy of ESPN required. No "old
library" involved either.
> Nothing you showed me in that article undercuts the fact
> that AMC believes in the extended basic bundle - I even
> posted an article where their CEO said exactly that.
Not true. Take the consumer considering cutting the cord. He is addicted to The
Walking Dead. If he can watch the current season, for $27, with only a
broadband connection, do you think he will be encouraged or discouraged from
cutting the cord? If he can catch similar other favorites, over Amazon or Hulu,
or direct to the network site, will he be encouraged or discouraged to cut the
cord?
We are seeing more of this, not less of this. There *are* counterexamples, like
the Aljazeerza decision to hide behind garden walls exclusively, which only
makes them seem out of sync with the times. Or perhaps, they were so
less-than-popular the the artifical "the bundle" enforced revenues were way
better than they could get in a market demand model. Obviously not the case for
this AMC series, eh?
Bert
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You can UNSUBSCRIBE from the OpenDTV list in two ways:
- Using the UNSUBSCRIBE command in your user configuration settings at
FreeLists.org
- By sending a message to: opendtv-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with the word
unsubscribe in the subject line.
Other related posts:
