An eye level perspective of communications and how they're evolving

Crazy as this might sound, I’m actually fine with television networks and other content producers charging a fee for their online content. I’m even okay with watching commercials during the programs. As long as it’s done in moderation, I support some sort of pay-per-view model for watching movies and shows online.

Not everything on the Internet can be free.

I’m not sure exactly when the convenience of fast and easy file transferring got intertwined with the concept of being free, but it seems like a lot of us think it’s unfair to pay for shows and movies we get online. (NOTE: I’m consciously omitting music here, not because I think it should be free, but because I honestly don’t give a rat’s ass.) And God forbid you should be subjected to a commercial break in this day and age!

Why? What is the justification for thinking movies and television shows should come without commercials and free of charge to you, on demand, through the Web? You figure Hollywood has enough money so they can afford it? Time for them to give a little something back to the people?

Bull.

This doesn’t make any sense. To produce the (relatively) high-quality shows and movies we all like to download, it costs money. This money is generated by selling ad spots. If you eliminate the ads, you eliminate the income for the production, so there’s no budget to produce any more. Plus, it’s not as if you can offer on-demand online viewing from a standard desktop computer and internet connection. Producers are now having to make some significant investment in their online infrastructure, thus driving costs up even more.

So to my mind it makes sense to pay a couple of bucks, say $5 or $10 a month, for unlimited access to a service such as Hulu.com. It might not have as much variety as cable at the moment, but it’d  be cheaper, and you can watch almost all of the top rated shows at your convenience without having to buy or rent a recording device. Plus, I’d sit through the two or three minutes of commercials they currently show.

Such a pay scheme would not generate as much money for the television/film producers, but I’m not convinced this is a bad thing. For decades they’ve held all the keys, charging advertisers whatever they wanted and subjecting us to infuriatingly long and/or frequent commercial interruptions. So I think they can stand to be taken down a few pegs in this regard. However, they shouldn’t be taken down so far as to be run out of business.

{ 3 comments }

Likely you’ve already heard that the next season of Oprah Winfrey’s talk show will be the last. Now I don’t have a great deal of reverence for Oprah, but I have to respect the cultural force she has made herself into. And I wonder, given the tremendous changes that have happened to the media landscape in the 25 years since she began, can any one individual ever repeat her incredible rise to fame and influence? Or, have things become so fragmented that such a single source of power is no longer possible?

Oprah is on a first name basis with every A-list celebrity there is, and even the President of the United States. If she even looks at your book, you’ve made it as a writer. Generally speaking, she has the Midas Touch with anything, or anyone she endorses.

Along with the enormous ratings (and ad revenue) generated by her daily talk show, Oprah’s influence extends into a magazine, spin-off shows, films she’s involved with and all sorts of other behind the scenes projects. She is literally helping to shape the very culture we live in.

And she did all this herself, growing her unprecedented career from humble roots. Oprah’s gift for connecting with people on a genuine level was recognized early on, and she was given the reins of a low-rated local morning show on an ABC affiliate station in Chicago. Immediately, her magic began to work, the show became The Oprah Winfrey show and was syndicated, and the rest is history.

Can this history ever be repeated, though, is my question.

At least in terms of infrastructure, the career path Oprah took no longer exists. There are no longer only three major networks for us to watch. Instead there are hundreds (thousands?) of channels thanks to to cable, and who knows how many more equivalents in online content, both professional and amateur.

So let’s say there is a second coming of Oprah. Does he or she stand a chance of having themselves heard above the din of countless others? Will there even be a dominant channel, such as a syndicated talk show, for a new Oprah to have his/her shot at? If not, will it be possible to create another media powerhouse, in front of the camera/microphone, on the scale of Oprah Winfrey?

A platform such as a top-tier TV network, is bigger and higher than everyone else’s in today’s market, so when you’re on it you can convince people to look at you more than at anyone else. It’s implied that you are important enough to listen to by virtue of being on the network. Without such a large platform to start from, you have only your content to draw people in. Realistically, does any individual or organization have anything compelling enough to say to garner the kind of following Oprah has? For that matter, would Oprah herself have been interesting enough to gain such strength without the opportunity to appear on network TV?

Right now, it feels as if our media is breaking off into smaller and smaller pieces, with smaller and smaller market shares. Cable channels are proliferating, and are focusing on narrower, and narrower segments of the audience. The rise of online “user-generated" content” (e.g. YouTube videos, blogs, podcast) is giving some spotlight to writers, singers, actors and artists of all stripes who didn’t have that access to the public before. Plus, there are more interesting ways to deliver content, which also detracts from the monopolistic sway TV has held over us.

The theme of our relationship with media is changing to an “on-demand” model, whereby we have much more variety in content to choose from, and a slew of more options for when, where and how we consume it. We’re no longer all just staring at the same screen waiting to see what the cultural/information powers-that-be put on for us next. Now we’re accessing things for ourselves, and even creating them.

Without us being forced, to some extent, to watch a new “Oprah,” because alternatives are limited, will we ever again give so much credence to a single media figure? And would the end of such an era be a positive or negative change?

{ 7 comments }