> On Sep 23, 2014, at 6:38 PM, Manfredi, Albert E > <albert.e.manfredi@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote. > > And they do all of the above. Then, to compete more directly against the > others, unless they're happy with an eventually flat growth curve, they have > to get into other products, which may include original content. Original content DOES NOT compete more directly against the others. It provides differentiation AND exclusivity - i.e. The only place you can get this content. > >> Original, EXCLUSIVE content is the way content portals create demand >> for THEIR service. > > Exclusive DOES NOT have to mean creating original TV content, Craig. They > could compete on the basis of really low cost. Exclusive means the only place you can get it BERT. Low cost is not exclusivity - it is price differentiation. If you are the only low cost service it may provide a competitive reason to subscribe. Then again, low cost but nothing to watch is not going to attract subscribers. > They could compete on the basis of different bundling formulas. They could > compete on exclusive but still recycled material. For instance, my contention > is that the TV networks could effectively compete elsewhere in the world by > offering nothing more than the original, undubbed, no subtitles version of > current TV shows, in places where these are not otherwise available. It's > their content. They can do this. All of the above is happening at some level. Exclusive but still recycled is an oxymoron. You can maintain exclusivity and offer reruns, as HBO did With the Sapranos. But when you sell the Sapranos to another service like Amazon it is no longer exclusive. > Not to be overly blunt, but did it ever occur to you, Craig, that you "hammer > for weeks" on many topics that don't necessarily make a lot of sense? You > hammered for years on how great 480p could be. And I was RIGHT! Much of what we watch on mobile screens is 480p; 360p is also used extensively. Resolution is relative; you can derive excellent quality from high quality masters at many levels of resolution. Matching resolution to the target device and bandwidth limitations is GOOD practice, and used broadly for OTT streaming. > You hammered for years on what digital TV would be, and how it was part of > "the Internet." Got that one right. > You hammered for a long time on converting the unwalled OTA TV model into yet > another MVPD (spectrum utility). Disconnect. A spectrum utility is an infrastructure management solution. It is unrelated to the business model offered via the service, which can easily remain unwalled. > And now you're hammering about how the MVPD formula, which evolved from a > technical necessity dating back 40+ years, will go on ad infinitum. Another disconnect. The MVPD bundling formula evolved from a business imperative - charging subscriber fees to help fund new networks that could not generate sufficient add revenues to grow. It proved so attractive that the content congloms got their buddies in Congress to cut them in on the deal with the 1992 Cable Act, then used this to take control of the content side of the MVPD industry. I see absolutely NO indication that the congloms will revert to a single ad supported revenue model. > Don’t be frustrated if everyone doesn't drink the kool aid! No problem. We can depend on you Bert. No Kool Aid. And no MVPD bundle. By the way, how's the wife like Netflix and the Roku box? Regards Craig ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 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.