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.
Wordpress by the Minute
Limestone New Media Group
For Immediate Release: The Hobson and Holtz Report
Inside PR
The Canadian Podcast Buffet
{ 5 comments… read them below or add one }
I hope this isn’t you way of telling us that you’re going to put your blog behind a pay wall!
I am mostly in agreement with you. I love free but it’s killing a lot of news media outlets right now. The big problem as I see it has to do with the homogeneity of content. You may like one newspaper’s reporting about a big event, but if it’s behind a pay wall and you don’t want to cough up, you can get the info from thousands of other sources. Even if all the news media could agree to charge for their content, and policed it with the same reckless abandon as do the recording/film/TV industries do the copyrighted news would still get out much as music/TV/movies do.
I too would pay for (some) TV/Movie content subject to several considerations.
1) Cost: I sure as heck won’t be paying $10 to watch a 30 minute guilty pleasure sitcom, but a buck or two would be fine for a single episode or $20 for a season would be reasonable.
2) Format: The problem I have with many current “watch full episodes on our website” systems is that you get a small square box, about the size of a Blackberry which streams the video to you. Were I to download the episode I can get a much larger picture (even if it isn’t full screen) and I don’t have to worry about my ISP throttling my stream making the experience frustrating and unenjoyable.
3) Commercials: Like the ads in the newspapers they pay the bills. And if the content owners want to throw one or two in, I can live with it. But if I am paying for it (even a nominal amount) I don’t think I should be inundated with them. I compare it to the ads the run before the trailers in movie theatres. I’ve already paid you $10-15 for the ticket and now I have to sit and watch ads too? No thanks.
4) Options: For your average show, getting it the next day is fine, but if you want to watch a sporting event that isn’t broadcast in Canada on a network that the CRTC hasn’t approved then you’re SOL. You don’t want to wait for the next day to see the game do you (although most sports leagues don’t allow that anyway)? Most fans would pay to see their team if it were offered and they couldn’t get it any other way. When there are no other options fans go the free streaming route.
5) Don’t Treat Online Viewers as Second Class: Not all online viewers as watching their shows to avoid commercials, or because they were tuning into another network. Some of us have work and other commitments that keep us away from the tube, even in Prime Time. If our only choice is small screen “official” versions surrounded by distracting ads and promos or a larger screen download (even if it takes longer to get the file) most will take the download. We would have been at our TVs to watch it, if we only could, so why should we have to miss out again.
6) Get Creative: Perhaps networks should get creative and offer a multi-tired approach. For free you get a streamed Blackberry sized view with lots of commercials. For a couple of bucks you get a larger screen with fewer commercials. And for a premium fee you get a commercial free, durable digital download that you can watch, keep and even burn for your personal use. This will never fly as execs will think it will kill DVD sales (isn’t that what all those extras are for?) and just fuel piracy (which it might although I’m sure some geek somewhere can find a way to prevent a file sharing program from breaking the file down into packets). That would be worth paying for.
We’ve been living without cable television for over 3 years. Thanks to the marvels of technology, we still enjoy all the same, downloadable programming, as those who choose to shell out. The upside of downloading is that one doesn’t have to pay extra, nor do they have to waste time/brain power absorbing commercials. Instead, we are faced with uninterrupted shows such as 30 Rock, which blatantly, and humorously incorporates random product placements throughout. They’re no different than most other shows, but at least 30 Rock doesn’t try to hide these product placements, hoping you won’t notice the subliminal adverts. Drinking Coke, driving a GM, and using a Blackberry all help the network pay the bills and keep the show on the air. Financially, they’re no different from commercials.
Nowadays you can’t keep a show on the air with product placements alone, and sans commercials. Or vice versa for that matter. In my opinion the financial model for television is messed up, as the actors and execs are simply paid too much. I would argue that if concessions were made by either actors or execs (never going to happen), either commercials or product placements could be let go. Then again, that would net less money.
While I could see myself paying for something like Hulu, presently there is simply no need. Shows are readily available online without having to pay subscription fees.
I demand an update…or else, money.
Gord,
As always you bring up some hearty food for thought.
The two underlying themes I’m seeing throughout your commentary are:
1. Business has to come up with a new model to keep up with technology, and how it’s changing us–the customer.
2. Technology needs to be moulded to fit better with business interests.
Sometimes it feels as if never the two shall meet, but I think we’re getting there, eventually.
Slowly, some of the more progressive thinkers in business are recognizing, as you mention, that not everyone consuming online is trying to escape commercials, and that there are very practical (and potentially profitable) ways to apply these new content delivery systems. At the same time, they’re also accepting that their monopoly is over, and that they’re not free to overwhelm us with ads because we’ve no alternative source for thier wares.
Mind you, I acknowledge that even as I write this, a certain portion (majority) of those in business (and their government puppets) are trying desperately to institute draconian laws to curtail our online freedom for the sake of “intellectual property rights,” or, if you’re more honest about the whole thing, money, money, money. (For commentary about this online copyright crap that’s far more interesting and infomred than I’ll ever be, I really encourage you to read Michael Geist’s materials on ACTA and related issues. Find him at http://www.michaelgeist.ca/.)
But even with the resistance, I think a more reasonable outlook on online content delivery is on the horizon. As I see it, the evidence is already there in the form of networks–even Canadian ones–offering their prime(time) stuff on demand.
Where the real redevelopment has to happen is with advertizing. Namely, professional content producers need to come up with a more creative way of offering effective ad space. For years they basically charged outrageous fees because hey, it’s not like we could run our own TV studios, radio stations and printing presses from home. If and when a advertizing price and product scheme more geared toward todays online reality is reached, there won’t be so much fear-based retardation of online TV, movies, etc.
Harvey,
Interesting idea about paying the execs, actors, etc. less money. I guess the argument in Hollywood, and business in general, is that you have to pay top dollar for top performance. It’d be interesting to see the change in culture if we just didn’t play the game anymore, and opted for the “cheaper” shows, movies and other content made available via social media and other easily accessible means of production and distribution.
Unfortunately, I doubt this would democracize culture, or really impact it much at all. It seems we’re hard-wired to crave elites in entertaiment, business, politics, etc. We make it possible in our society for a certain few to “be better” than the rest of us, and get rewarded for it. This gives us something to revere, and subsequently pay for.
I do agree that a new business model is necessary, but I think that it will simply be a new way of promoting the existing order. Specifically, the high-end, expensively produced shows/movies will be pushed on us, while the truly independent remain on the fringes, occasionally producing a gem and being “discovered” by everyone…including the overpaid actors and producers who will do their utmost to incorporate/corrupt them into the way things are.