[opendtv] Re: A Perfect Storm Hits Media Businesses
- From: "Mike Tsinberg" <mike@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Wed, 02 Sep 2009 13:53:50 +0000
The brodacsters controlled the content because they build the pipes and by
defentoition need to build the content to feed the pipes. In current Inetrnet
sitiuition the telcos and cablecos do build the pipes but it is diffuclut to
image how they can control the content unless it is done on fare competition
basis by investment into good quality content and competing with everybody else
attached to these pipes.
Mike Tsinberg
http://www.keydigital.com
-----Original Message-----
From: Tom Barry [mailto:trbarry@xxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Wednesday, September 2, 2009 09:43 AM
To: opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [opendtv] Re: A Perfect Storm Hits Media Businesses
"Content producers should thrive if their content is good. " Once broadcasters
had a monopoly on distribution of video into homes. And the networks eventually
controlled much of the content. This was not because their content was good but
because they controlled distribution. Much of the monopoly over Internet
distribution is moving to the telcos and cablecos. But maybe we would not want
them to also get a monopoly on content just because they control the pipes. -
Tom Manfredi, Albert E wrote: > Nothing we haven't already talked about on
here. > > I think this threatens most any ideas of walled gardens with emphasis
on > proprietary hardware gizmos. Or would cable companies, repurposed as IP >
broadband providers only, try similar tactics for IP broadband > connectivity?
Non-standard STBs for IP broadband? > > I wouldn't go for that, but then again,
I object to proprietary STB > restrictions for TV even now. > > Content
producers should thrive if their content is good. Otherwise, > they will become
lost in the huge jungle that is the Internet. > > Bert > >
--------------------------------- > http://www.tvtechnology.com/article/85926 >
> A Perfect Storm Hits Media Businesses > by Frank Beacham, 08.25.2009. > > The
transition to digital technology finally hit those of us in the > media
industries with the violence of a sledge hammer. And I don't mean > the
transition to digital television, which-sorry to say-is a small part > of a
much larger story. > > The year 2009 will most certainly go down as an historic
turning point > in our industry. It was the year when the rooster finally
crowed and the > reality of digital technology met a nasty economic downturn.
As I write > this, we continue to be tossed about in a perfect storm. > >
Suddenly-as far as media people are concerned-most of the world's money > dried
up, previously solid businesses collapsed and many talented people > were left
scrambling to reinvent themselves in a very new world. > > This, of course, has
been building for a long time, but most of us were > still not ready. Few could
have predicted even a year ago how fast jobs > would be lost and businesses
decimated. What appeared to be stable, > strong media outlets suddenly became
vulnerable and are probably > unsustainable. Many will not ride out the storm.
> > Finally, in all the wreckage around us, we can see where things are >
headed. What's not so clear at all is how to make money at it. There > will be
much experimentation, pain and loss ahead. Sadly, most will fail > and a few
will chart a new future. > > This economic destruction covers a wide swath of
media-especially print > publications, the music business and all kinds of news
operations. But > this publication focuses on television, so we'll limit this
column to > that business. > > Internet technology has now enabled television
viewers to watch any > program at any time on any device at any location. Once
viewers got a > taste of this new phenomenon, the attraction was instant. The
cat was > out of the bag and now there is no turning back. > > The problem is
most media businesses don't allow for such flexibility. > The business deals
weren't made that way. Pay television providers > aggregate programming and
sell channels as bundles. Thus, the most > popular programs pay the freight for
less popular fare. Pay operators > have long protected their subscriber-based
systems by insuring that > viewers pay large monthly fees, mostly for
programming they do not want > or watch. > > The national broadcast networks,
on the other hand, are increasingly > moving their ad-supported content to the
Internet. They are quickly > building an audience for their programming through
services like Hulu. > > For those who don't want to watch the commercials
attached to those > network programs, much of the same programming without
commercials is > available on a delayed basis from services like Netflix for
less than > $10 each month. Add to that thousands of movies, also without >
commercials. > > ENTER MAJOR LEAGUE BASEBALL > > Yet, change in this
increasingly cruel digital age comes with lightning > speed. On June 20, the
day after Apple's iPhone 3GS went on sale, Major > League Baseball introduced
what it called a "game changer." It streamed > its first live baseball game-the
Cubs vs. the White Sox-directly to > iPhone users equipped with its "At Bat"
application. > > That's significant because it's the first time a content owner
has > bypassed the television broadcast infrastructure to bring programming >
directly to the end users. The new iPhone 3.0 software allows its > developers
to charge users for video content from within applications. > Watch out
broadcasters! > > The game video-with full DVR features that can pause and
rewind > video-will play whether an iPhone is connected to a WiFi network or is
> on AT&T's 3G network. MLB.com said its servers will detect the strength > of
the phone's connection and adapt the quality of the video > accordingly. > >
The MLB did an end run around mobile aggregators like FLO TV and MobiTV, > who
have tried to act as video middle men for mobile phones. The > broadcasters are
still testing their mobile system. Who knows what will > be in place by the
time they get it working. > > What's significant here is the end user gets and
pays for exactly the > content he or she wants. They buy it directly from the
owner of that > content and watch it when and where they want. No more middle
men and no > more bundled stream of channels at a stiff monthly fee. > > Of
course, mobile phones are simply wireless computers. Desktop > computers-many
hooked directly to home television sets-emulate this > experience at home. A
viewer watching the first half of a game on his > iPhone could arrive home and
watch the second half on his > Internet-connected television set. > > Remember,
any program, at any time, on any device, at any location. That > is now the
reality for many programs. It has pay television operators, > the networks, and
other broadcasters running scared. > > GETTING IN ON THE ACTION > > In
response, HBO, the premium pay television programmer, just launched > HBO Go.
This limited experiment allows cable viewers to view HBO > programming on the
Internet, but only if they go through the cable > operator's Web site. The idea
is to prevent noncable subscribers from > watching HBO's content. > > History,
however, is against HBO Go working. The music industry taught > us that years
ago. No one yet has succeeded in cutting off content > desired by the Internet
audience. Pirates will see to that in no time. > > The day has begun when
specific shows are delivered from the producer > directly to the viewer. MLB
did it first. It has begun with smaller > producers, but soon will reach the
level of established enterprises like > HBO. > > Take the HBO hit "The
Sopranos." The owner of that show could sell the > series directly to viewers
over the Internet, without the need of pay > television carriers or any
middleman. And, with all the fat and bundled > channels cut out of the
equation, the price will be much lower than on > cable. > > In effect, the
Internet becomes a huge magazine stand of television > programs, which viewers
can select, pay for and watch with very low > micropayments. The same is
happening with movies, sports programming and > other genres. > > About 150
million Internet users in the United States now watch about > 14.5 billion
videos a month, says comScore, the measurement firm. That's > an average of 97
videos per viewer. Interestingly, the average length of > the videos watched
has extended in the past year as compression and > online quality improves. The
online video business is expected to be > worth over a billion dollars by 2011,
says eMarketer. > > WHAT THE FUTURE HOLDS > > To see what will happen to
television, we only have to look at the music > industry in recent years. Only
the very largest, most established > artists still operate within the confines
of record companies. Most > newer talent market their work independently,
directly to their > listeners. They use MySpace, Facebook, YouTube, and Twitter
to find > audiences and sell digital downloads over the Internet. The same
model > will probably be true for all file-based media in the near future. > >
With this radical change comes a huge human toll. Disrupted businesses > mean
lost jobs and personal turmoil. Expert skill sets that took years > to acquire
become almost meaningless overnight. Salaries fall > dramatically and an
increasing number of businesses seek nonpaid > "interns" to avoid paying
employees altogether. > > Worst of all, in the media arena, this business
turbulence results in a > dramatic loss of quality. The trivialization of
news-both television and > print-is a good example. Citizen journalists replace
real reporters. > News staffs are cut to the bone. Stations pool crews to do
stories. > Bureaus in Washington, D.C. are closed down. And forget about
long-term > investigative reporting-it's over. > > Thankfully, this won't go on
forever. It's mainly the work of > incompetent, risk-averse management that
doesn't know anything else to > do. In a few years, the old business models
will disappear and new ones > will emerge. The next generation of media
professionals will appear as > the winners who figure out how to build
audiences and generate a profit. > Most certainly, a new media establishment
will rise from the rubble. > > The whole scene today resembles the shift at the
beginning of the last > century from the horse-and-buggy era to the automobile
age. Mega shifts > in technology bring a huge level of disruptive change. We
are living > through it right now. > > Frank Beacham is an independent New York
City-based writer. Visit his > blog at www.beachamjournal.com and his Web site
at www.frankbeacham.com. > > >
---------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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:
