Slashdot Mirror
Pay-Per-View Downloads of TV Shows?
An Extremely Anonymous Coward asks: "I've been thinking about the mass downloading of TV episodes. The TV companies appear to not be so desperate to sue people into bankruptcy for watching an illicit episode of _Friends_ or _The OC_. Does this mean they really are wondering about using this new media, rather then foaming at the mouth and suing twelve year olds? Will TV show production companies be the first to show some sense and offer their own downloads on a pay per view basis?"
"I'd be happy to pay a monthly subscription of around ten dollars, so I could get access to tv shows without being branded a criminal.Alternatively, I'd happily pay around a dollar a show, if the quality was good. The argument that this would give no incentive to buy the series DVD's can easily be dealt with, since the sales from downloads might easily replace the revenue from the DVD box sets, and there are some people (myself included) who'd still like the higher definition versions and box sets of a few shows.
Adverts in the deal would change the amount per episode I'm willing to pay. Perhaps options like a free stream with unavoidable adverts, or a subscriber download with either very few, or no adverts, with price determining the amount of adverts included might help entice more users to use the service. A free stream of a popular show with adverts would probably stop most illegal downloaders, simply because their aim of watching the show would be achieved.
DRM is inevitable, which may be why it's taking so long for the executives in control of such things to pull their fingers out. The fact that it's essentially pointless doesn't seem to have stemmed their lust for it. I own lots of DVDs, and yet curiously I've never once had the urge to copy them, making their included anti-copy technology pointless. Also those who do want to copy them seem perfectly able to anyway, but that's another issue.
I find this delay in legal downloads of TV shows surprising, it seems to me that legal downloads of TV media could be the Internet's next gold-rush phenomena, but maybe that opinion isn't shared by many.
If any kind of service were offered I'd join it, even if only to encourage it. How much would other Slashdot readers be willing to pay? And on what sort of terms?"
Adverts in the deal would change the amount per episode I'm willing to pay. Perhaps options like a free stream with unavoidable adverts, or a subscriber download with either very few, or no adverts, with price determining the amount of adverts included might help entice more users to use the service. A free stream of a popular show with adverts would probably stop most illegal downloaders, simply because their aim of watching the show would be achieved.
DRM is inevitable, which may be why it's taking so long for the executives in control of such things to pull their fingers out. The fact that it's essentially pointless doesn't seem to have stemmed their lust for it. I own lots of DVDs, and yet curiously I've never once had the urge to copy them, making their included anti-copy technology pointless. Also those who do want to copy them seem perfectly able to anyway, but that's another issue.
I find this delay in legal downloads of TV shows surprising, it seems to me that legal downloads of TV media could be the Internet's next gold-rush phenomena, but maybe that opinion isn't shared by many.
If any kind of service were offered I'd join it, even if only to encourage it. How much would other Slashdot readers be willing to pay? And on what sort of terms?"
Think about it, you catch show #10 of '24' and realize "Hey, this show looks damn cool!". Now, if you could PPV rent the firs nine shows of the season that you missed - wouldn't you?
DAMN YOU OCTODOG! DAMN YOU TO HELL!
One day, if the media companies are smart, they'll start distributing shows with commercials intact. That way they can still rake in the ad revenue, and customers get what they really want--to be able to watch and rewatch what they want, when they want. Personally, I could care less whether commercials are in the mix. I wonder if others agree
Similarly, local networks get a specified amount of revenue from showing these shows. Take the distribution method out of the loop by allowing the end user to directly access the media content and you'd have some pissed off affiliates.
Furthermore, allowing off network viewing of a show would not only hurt a network's bottom line, but also its brand image. People know FOX is channel 7, or 11, but what channel is it when you're downloading from a website? Even if it is fox's website.
I'd be happy to pay a monthly subscription of around ten dollars, so I could get access to tv shows without being branded a criminal
And this is where AOL / Time Warner really missed the boat.
Can you imagine how many new AOL Broadband subscribers there would be if your $20 / month fee included the ability to watch all of the previous seasons Sopranos? or Carnivale?
...they can't enforce their copyrights as aggressively as Hollywood can. In the US you are allowed to tape a television broadcast and give that tape to a friend. The US Supreme Court said that like 20 years ago.
You're not allowed to do that with a motion picture DVD you bought or rented.
In other words, they have very little to gain from going after people who are taping TV shows.
The stations make their main dollars from advertising by charging based on viewership. It does not really matter that people get up during the ads to get another beer/take a dump etc. Anything they can do to hike the viewership numbers is considered a GoodThing. If they can do this through counting downloads then they win.
Pay per view is a barrier to hiking the viewership numbers.
Engineering is the art of compromise.
To watch their cranial bubble gum. $50 a month doesn't seem too steep. I'd even leave commercials on while I'm out to take a leak.
Downloadable TV is different because unlike music, viewers are used to seeing commercials on TV.
It will take off when it's free. TiVo and the like are giving advertisers fits. But if they could let you D/L the show/get a free DVD of it at the grocery checkout counter with non deletable/no fast forward allowed commercials intact, it may prove to be even more profitable than broadcasting to millions of people.
Besides the movie chanels, about the only thing I watch on TV is the Food Network and Speed channel. What's an advertiser's cost per viewer to air a single ad on either of those shows? Would it be more profitable for them to buy time on a DVD of "Barbecue with Bobby Flay" that was free with a bag of groceries at the local upscale grocery store? A copy of "The Ferrari Story" DVD free with any $10 purchase at the auto parts store?
Now instead of broadcasting to people who just happened to tune in cause nothing else was on, they're targeting people very likely to be interested in their product.
These guys will eventually catch on to new media: it's either that or die, and they'll die hard.
As you point out, "MOST" is pure crap. Having said that, thanks to Tivo, I can pick out the maybe 10 shows that are actually worth watching. So let's se, between 12 and 24 episodes for a given show per year. Let's say $2/episode.
That'd be 18 episode average times $2/episode or $36/year for a given show. Somewhat less than they'd make on a DVD box set, but that's assuming I wouldn't end up buying that anyhow. Furthermore, that $36 has very low distribution costs, especially if the download software incorporates some P2P technology.
Now, Like I said, maybe 10 shows at $36/show. So $360/year. I'm paying roughly $80/month for comshlock cable, so that's $960/year. So I could double the number of shows I watch and still save a huge amount of money. Furthermore, all that money that Comcast would normally get would go right to the production studios who actually make the stuff.
Now, think about it, if everybody was going out and selectively buying TV shows, they'd actually have to be good to compete for money. Why go download that one episode that's nothing but cuts from previous episodes. Give that new reality show a try and if it doesn't pique your interest after a few episodes, just stop downloading it.
Now, broadcasters have to think in terms of, ratings, which means getting either a large audience, or a very well defined niche. One thing that hurts enterprise is that it's a pretty broad audience, but not a big one. If you got all the trekkies to pay $2/episode, that would solve that problem nicely.
The other nice thing is that this opens up the possibility for small independent producers to make small and more creative shows. You have to be able to guarantee delivery of a fairly large audience to cost justify making a television show. That's why reality TV is so popular, it gets good ratings and it's cheap to produce. But if you could make a 12 episode television show for say $120K, or $10K/episode, then if you get 5000 people interested, you at least broke even. Plus, if you aren't sure about the appeal, you can do a pilot, and give it away to see how it goes.
This sig has been temporarily disconnected or is no longer in service
First, awesomely thoughtful, insightful, and informative post.
I can see how the cost might not be $1.00 per show, but shouldn't it be less than or equal to to the $4.00 or $5.00 Blockbuster charges for a movie rental?
Also, wouldn't it be possible for a new series to be developed that bypasses the studio altogether? What would prevent Bad Robot (production house behind Alias and Lost) from maintaining the production rights and distributing via Tivo or DirectTV without going through one of the traditional networks? Networks were great when you needed a transmitter in each market in order to broadcast your programming, but it seems that technology has evolved such that traditional networks *could* be made irrelevant.
Someday a Slashdot ID of 177180 will mean something.
The thing is that I don't trust that the price of episodes will be $1.
I'm not sure if I'd want to pay even $1 an episode. I could go to a local theater tonight and spend $2 on a ticket to see any of Being Julia, Fat Albert, Incredibles, Lemony Snicket's A Series of Unfortunate Events, Ocean's Twelve, Polar Express, Ray, SpongeBob SquarePants Movie, or White Noise, all of which have twice the runtime of current "hour-long" dramas (except possibly SpongeBob at 85 minutes). Tomorrow brings in Elektra and Meet the Fockers.
I certainly wouldn't pay $1/episode for a half-hour sitcom. Not unless I get to retain it, play it back whenever I want however many times I want, and make backups and other fair uses of the content.
Oh, say does that Star-Spangled Banner entwine / The myrtle of Venus with Bacchus's vine?