[opendtv] Re: Incrementalism
- From: Craig Birkmaier <craig@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: "opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx" <opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 14 Jan 2014 11:35:55 -0500
> On Jan 13, 2014, at 5:40 PM, "Manfredi, Albert E"
> <albert.e.manfredi@xxxxxxxxxx>
>
> You're describing someone who is too greedy for his own good. All because
> you're unable to get past the MVPD mindset. I already explained that a lot of
> US TV programming is actually not aired overseas, simply because of time
> restrictions. Then you add that some people prefer the program dubbed into
> their own language, and delivered the old-fashioned way. So for the
> foreseeable future, the old-fashioned way will soldier on.
Greedy?
More like realistic, as you appear to be by the end of the paragraph.
Anyone with content they want people around the world to see can stream it
today, although the ability to monetize this content may be very limited.
I completely disagree that there is a huge audience for U.S. Content overseas,
that IS NOT being licensed today. And MVPDs have little to do with this, as a
significant portion of what we export goes to FOTA International broadcasters.
It is likely, however, that global MVPDs may license less popular U.S. Content
to fill up their channels; I would also add that many of the U.S cable networks
operate international channels.
Check out all the International brands that Turner has at the bottom of this
page:
http://international.turner.com/
> But you're still left with a whole lot of potential new eyeballs, which would
> be taken into account by the advertisers, when this stuff is made available
> internationally. Content that was previously not available, and/or people
> lured into watching US shows in their original form. (Ever watch, say, Tom
> Selleck dubbed into Italian? They get it all wrong. You lose in the
> translation.)
Get over this misguided notion Bert. These ARE NOT potential NEW eyeballs. They
are eyeballs of the people who have the highest existing level of access to
U.S. Content. At best you would just provide these viewers with earlier access
to content they already watch.
For decades international viewers have had access to undubbed, .U.S. Movies and
TV shows via VHS, DVD, and English language TV channels. Ever hear of closed
captioning? There are alternatives to dubbing in soundtracks.
> Augment, and potentially/eventually replace entirely. Not "undermine." You
> continue to forget that US TV networks already make their content available
> on more than just MVPDs, here in the US. So at some level, they did figure
> this out, Craig. Internet distribution adds value, and may eventually totally
> displace the old single-purpose, broadcast-oriented infrastructures. With the
> opportunity to add so much viewership ("only" 500M broadband households
> internationally right now), only you can think this is a "stretch."
Timing is everything. We are not disagreeing about the disruptive impact that
the Internet has already demonstrated in other markets, just the rate at which
the transformation of global video distribution will progress. It has already
taken much longer that I expected, and I am pessimistic that fundamental
transformations of business models will happen quickly.
>
> If the networks aren't restricted anymore by the limitations of legacy
> international distribution monopolies, including simple time limits imposed
> by the requirement of foreign local content mandates, they stand to gain.
> Even if they make less per show, which is a big if, they still stand to gain
> in the aggregate. And way, way more so in the future, when that "only" 500
> million broadband customer numbers is bound to grow.
All in good time.
>> Congratulations. And, ditto in the opposite direction. Whenever you see
>> "MVPDs" or even "OTA broadcasters" as mandatory middlemen, try to think
>> "gatekeepers." Not just in the US, but everywhere. Internet distribution can
>> bypass these.
Yes, there are gatekeepers all around the world. It is the nature of
governments to control and use the media for their benefit. But the big money
and big exports of TV and movie content have been controlled by U.S.
Gatekeepers. This "picture" is changing, albeit slowly.
>
>> This us not a question of what the viewers prefer.
>
> That's hysterical, Craig. As long as we're just arm-waving with vague
> verbiage, it's ALWAYS what the customers prefer. Business models have to
> adapt to technology and customer preferences, which have this nasty habit of
> changing over time. Those who adapt fastest have a way of winning at this
> game.
I would prefer free electricity, water and gasoline.
Monopolies and oligopolies, especially when propped up by governments, rarely
give the customer what they want or prefer. These forces may not be able to
control evolving technologies, but they sure can delay the inevitable change.
>
> Your mention of people with no electricity is so totally beside the point!
Of course. Spoken like an Apple fanboy!
Market share is not important; focus on the folks that have the money and are
willing to spend it.
But you're not a fanboy. You ask that technology disrupt existing realities and
give you the benefits...
For free.
Regards
Craig
Other related posts:
