[opendtv] Re: 20040601 Twang's Tuesday Tribune (Mark's Monday Memo)
- From: "John Willkie" <johnwillkie@xxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 3 Jun 2004 18:26:13 -0700
I believe that what you say is not too far from the technical mark, but none
of those brand extensions is enough to get me excited about DTV. Maybe
over-promoting will help.
My mantra is that they will need to create ENTIRELY NEW, very UNIQUE,
EXCLUSIVE and FIRST RUN content. You know, just like TV itself (Well,
perhaps not all TV is very unique, and not all first run, but ...)
John Willkie
P.S. ABC Family still has the exclusivity arrangement (not as iron-clad as
that of the Disney Channel) but they buy off-net and off-cable content for
most of it's fare. Of course, the Soap channels are all re-runs. That
might have some traction, since few cable systems or satellite systems carry
Soap, and broadcast station operators never did like the idea of giving up
that exclusivity (same or next-day airings of soaps seen on their station.)
-----Original Message-----
From: opendtv-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:opendtv-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of John Shutt
Sent: Thursday, June 03, 2004 6:08 PM
To: opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [opendtv] Re: 20040601 Twang's Tuesday Tribune (Mark's Monday
Memo)
John,
There are currently half a dozen Discovery Channel derivatives, and there is
no reason that Disney couldn't make a "Mickey Ears" channel for the
exclusive use of DTV, as well as Fox making a "Fox Headline News" strictly
for DTV, or for NBC to make DTNBC news. Don't forget that ABC also has
ABCfamily and Soap Channel on digital cable and DTV, so there's even more
content in them thair vaults that can be repurposed for the cost of a video
server and some satellite spectrum.
John Shutt
----- Original Message -----
From: "John Willkie" <johnwillkie@xxxxxxxxxx>
To: <opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Thursday, June 03, 2004 8:40 PM
Subject: [opendtv] Re: 20040601 Twang's Tuesday Tribune (Mark's Monday Memo)
> You ARE QUITE INCORRECT. Disney cable and FNC are -- by contract --
> non-broadcast services. Cable and satellite companies pay HARD CASH for
Fox
> and Disney, and they get cable/satellite exclusivity. Of course, the
actual
> laws (physical and legal) that affect things are NEVER an impediment to
you.
>
> Let me put it into easy to understand terms: if ABC offered Disney (which
> ABC doesn't own; it's the parent that owns the Disney Channel) or if the
Fox
> Broadcasting Network offered Fox News Channel (which is not owned by Fox
> Bcst, but is a sister company of Fox) they would get sued THAT DAY by most
> of their cable affiliates, and the cable affiliates would win millions.
>
> John Willkie
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: opendtv-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:opendtv-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of Manfredi, Albert E
> Sent: Wednesday, June 02, 2004 12:19 PM
> To: opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: [opendtv] Re: 20040601 Twang's Tuesday Tribune (Mark's Monday
> Memo)
>
>
> John Golitsis wrote:
>
> > But then there has to be agreement amongst the local
> > broadcasters as to which
> > channels to carry in order to make an attractive package.
>
> Not necessarily, right? I mean, no one can begrudge ABC
> stations for carrying the Disney Channel as part of their
> multiplex. Or a Fox affiliate can certainly carry Fox News
> without asking anyone's permission.
>
> And any station can make its own arrangements for carrying
> program streams *or other innovative services* from any
> independent source, should the station determine that
> doing this helps them to establish a "brand identity."
>
> So each individual station can become its own mini-utility,
> even if they don't collaborate efficiently to produce
> something even better. Which I believe OTA stations could
> do, to benefit all of them.
>
> > But why would this effort be attractive to the
> > broadcaster?
>
> I think John Shutt already explained why. For the same
> reason that auto dealerships tend to cluster together.
> If OTA broadcasters want to compete more effectively
> against the providers who serve 85 percent of
> households, they now have an infrastructure more
> flexible than their old NTSC network to do this with.
> And if people see lots of interesting stuff on this
> OTA DTT infrastructure, they will be that much more
> likely to tune into the multiplex of your favorite
> station. It benefits all broadcasters if the DTT
> system is used by many. Conversely, it hurts all
> OTA broadcasters if the medium is ho hum to the
> public.
>
> 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.
>
>
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
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:
