Finding the Long Tail of Television

prostoalex writes "The New York Times runs the story on the long tail of television, where the channels that would not be hits on the mainstream media are migrating to the Internet and finding interested audiences there. The article mentions Sail.tv - TV programming for those into sailing and yachting, TrioTV - the cornucopia of pop culture and music, BrilliantButCancelled will rerun the reruns of old TV shows, and OutZone will feature programming pertaining to gays and lesbians."

Comments

Brilliant But Cancelled

[From A Far Away Land]

I'd like to have them show Vengence Unlimited, and Brimstone. It's not often that Fox creates something worth watching, but Brimstone certainly deserved more than the 1 season it was granted in 1998.

Re:Brilliant But Cancelled

[Otter]

It's not often that Fox creates something worth watching...

On the contrary, I'd expect Fox to be way overrepresented on that network. Get A Life reruns, anyone?

As long as I'm commenting:

1) Maybe an All Poker, All The Time network would fly. Or ESPN Poker. That would free up ESPN2 to bring back nightly World's Strongest Man showings.

2) Whatever happened to the much-hyped Al Gore TV network? Is it still in development or has it already come and gone?

Re:Brilliant But Cancelled

[Grey Ninja]

I have mod points, and I was about ready to give you a +1 Informative, but I decided that I would rather just reply to you, and say that you are 100% correct regarding Brimstone. It was the first thing that I thought of when I saw this story. I remember being part of the attempt to get Fox to change their minds about the show. And I am partly responsible for the show being something like #6 on online TV Show ratings stats more than 3 years after it was cancelled. I eventually gave up, as I realized it wasn't going to happen.

But it's EXTREMELY nice to see that I'm not the only one who's still pissed off that Fox cancelled it in the first place.

Sorry for not giving you your mod point. But I just thought that this post would say more about it than the mod point. I would strongly advise anyone reading this post to hit a bittorrent site up for the 13 Brimstone episodes. They are really good.

Re:Brilliant But Cancelled

[generic-man]

Current TV exists, but I have an extra-long attention span* and so I cannot watch a TV network where the average program is 5 minutes long.

* Mitch Hedberg reference

Re:Brilliant But Cancelled

[NewKimAll]

I wish there was a channel devoted to great shows for the small amount of people that actually love these shows. They could still make money with that premise, couldn't they? I loved the show Firefly and just as it was getting into a groove, they go and cancel it.
--
You can't take the sky from me.....

Re:Brilliant But Cancelled

[Baricom]

Whatever happened to the much-hyped Al Gore TV network?

I watched Current when it launched. I guess I'm not the target market, but it really wasn't that entertaining to me. Only a fraction of the programming is actually submitted by viewers - the rest is professionally-produced. The commercials were very, very frequent - it wasn't uncommon to get a spot between every "pod." I almost prefer a long block of commercials at the same time. There's also been some controversy about the launch - altered policies resulted in producers having less control of their shows and less viewer created content than originally planned.

The funny thing is, during the two weeks before Current launched, I really began to respect NewsWorld International (the news channel Current bought out and cancelled as an easy way to get channel space). They provided an alternative perspective to CNN, Fox News, and MSNBC, and they did so very well. During the brief period I watched the two networks, I decided that NewsWorld matched my tastes much more closely. I miss them.

I don't know for sure, but based on the channel listing on the web site, it doesn't look like they picked up any new cable systems since the launch.

It was a good idea, but I don't think Current is ready for prime-time yet. Current's goal was to enable people to get their voice out. Public access does a better job of this.

Re:Brilliant But Cancelled

[Musteval]

Hit up a 'torrent site? What are you, Starforce?

Re:Brilliant But Cancelled

[Grey Ninja]

No, if I was Starforce, I would probably post a link to a torrent site. As it is, I just suggested it. :)

Re:Brilliant But Cancelled

[Anonymous Coward]

What's the big deal in this case?
Fox cancelled it years ago because they thought it wasn't going to bring them any viewers or money. They essentially abandoned the show.

So what's the problem with people getting a chance to see it, when it has no other way of being seen? There is no DVD set, there is unlikely to be a DVD set. There is no harm in watching it via any way people want.

Fuck Fox. They threw the show away. I don't see the problem with someone deciding to save it for others to enjoy.

Re:Brilliant But Cancelled

[Comatose51]

"2) Whatever happened to the much-hyped Al Gore TV network? Is it still in development or has it already come and gone?"

Well you see, his vision expanded and evolved into something we call the "Internet" these days. j/k

Re:Brilliant But Cancelled

[From A Far Away Land]

You wouldn't happen to know how to obtain Vengence Unlimited legally or otherwise?

Re:Brilliant But Cancelled

[Pugzilla]

I would love to find that tv show with jack Black and thae talking motorcycle ..Does anyone know what im talkin about??

Re:Brilliant But Cancelled

[UserGoogol]

You know, that joke isn't really funny if you write the B in lower case.

Re:Brilliant But Cancelled

[mattcoz]

On the contrary, I'd expect Fox to be way overrepresented on that network.

You could probably make an entire network where all they have are shows that were prematurely cancelled by Fox.

Re:Brilliant But Cancelled

[Anonymous Coward]

He planned to invent it after the internet, just didn't have enough time.

Then the group funding it voted for it, before they voted against it.

It just didn't have a chance.

Re:Brilliant But Cancelled

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd like to have them show Vengence Unlimited, and Brimstone. It's not often that Fox creates something worth watching...

Really? That's what Fox does, creates a really good show then sabotages it.

Re:Brilliant But Cancelled

[Anonymous Coward]

More importantly, GvsE. I would sell my soul for a copy of GvsE.

Re:Brilliant But Cancelled

[Grey Ninja]

Unfortunately, I do not. I tried all my usual sources. Sorry man.

Re:Brilliant But Cancelled

[Anonymous Coward]

Ugh, i guess thats a matter of opinion, i think fox and it cable sibling FX have some of the most interesting shows on television, 24, the shield, of course i could do without another show on Michael Jackson

Re:Brilliant But Cancelled

[MaxQuordlepleen]

'Heat Vision & Jack', a pilot from 1999 with Owen Wilson, Jack Black and Ben Stiller. It's out there on p2p.

I've seen it - it is funny, but I remain unconvinced that it was a 'real' pilot - I can not imagine a weekly show based on that premise, it seems they get most of the laughs that are there to have in the pilot episode.

Re:Brilliant But Cancelled

[From A Far Away Land]

Thanks for trying, I look every few months and never see it. I guess my VHS copy of one episode is all that remains of that entertaining and innovative crime/dramady.

Re:Brilliant But Cancelled

[Anonymous Coward]

It lareayd exists. Casino and Gaming TV: http://www.cgtv.com/

They say Casino and Gaming, but it should be Poker TV. Funny that this article came up. I was just complaining about crappy small channels that have been showing up recently. They're free for now but I wonder how many will keep them.

Great, Where can you find Max Headroom ?

[Anonymous Coward]

Mma Mma Mmaxxxx Hed Hed Headroom!
Headroom.

Re:Great, Where can you find Max Headroom ?

[Anonymous Coward]

always just 20 minutes away, eh?

Re:Great, Where can you find Max Headroom ?

[Anonymous Coward]

I have the 5 or so episodes of Max Headroom on VHS tape. I also have both versions of the movie on VHS tape too. The first movie was in european format. They remade the movie for the American market, replaced everyone except the reporter and the female sidekick. Well, they also kept Max. The story changed a little too. The ending of the movie is completely different too.

The saddest part is the replacement of the teenage punk kid that controls the computer. The european version, the kid does look like a 13 year old punk kid that is a computer geek. The american version it looks to be like a 10 year old that picks his nose often can could care less about computers. The 10 year old kid is completely unbelieveable. Don't you just love american version of things?

Maybe it is time to dig out the old VCR and do a bittorrent.

Nathan

bah!

[Janek Kozicki]

outzone already slahdotted.

Re:bah!

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not resolving for me.

Re:bah!

[Anonymous Coward]

try outzonetv.com

Of course, there's the REAL mainstream...

[Ritz_Just_Ritz]

pr0n. Say what you want about it, but it drives the Internet and probably pulls in a LOT more jingle than all "legit" music/movie sites on the Internet combined.

Re:Of course, there's the REAL mainstream...

[babbling]

I'm starting to believe that there's some truth to this. I've noticed, while browsing the "popular" category on Google Video, that a lot of the videos are borderline porn.

I can't help but think that if Google allowed porn videos, the "popular" category would eventually be filled with them.

Re:Of course, there's the REAL mainstream...

[G-funk]

If by "eventually" you mean "in about five to ten minutes" then, yes!

Finding the Long Tail? That's easy!

[Anonymous Coward]

It's called a plug. Given the lousy selection of shows on the air nowadays, it's better off unplugged most of the time.

Re:Finding the Long Tail? That's easy!

[eMartin]

"Given the lousy selection of shows on the air nowadays..."

I don't get this. Can you name a time when things were different?

I'll admit that the majority of TV isn't worth watching, but I'd bet that was always the case, or at least has been as long as we've had hundreds of cable channels.

With that said though, there is more than enough great stuff on TV. I've got about ten shows that I watch every week, and along with Cartoon Network and Comedy Central for when nothing else is on, there is more good TV than I have time to watch.

Sure, if you spend five hours a day channel surfing, you may not be able to keep yourself entertained, but that's your own fault. Watch the good stuff, and do something else with the rest of your free time.

Re:Finding the Long Tail? That's easy!

[MBCook]

This is going a rather off topic, but I see the early to mid sixties as "better" than now. Shows like The Dick Van Dyke Show, which I find funnier than most of the current sitcoms.

There are really two possible meanings for "television is worse now." One is that there used to be more shows on worth watching. The other is that shows were "better".

I'm sure television has almost always been mostly "junk". There is tons of stuff on right now that isn't worth watching. I'm sure that was true in the 50s, 60s, 70, and 80s (I know it was in the 90s).At the same time, I think there is more good stuff on now than there used to be. But this is a numbers game. There used to be 3 TV networks. If you assume that 80% of TV is not worth watching, then that was x shows. Now there are 100 networks. If we assume that 50% of that is repeats and reruns, then that is 50 networks worth of content. If 80% of TV is not worth watching, there is now about 16x shows worth watching. So there is more on worth watching, but there is also more on not worth watching.

The other meaning is that TV is worse for you. This would be the idea that the morals/values/lessons/messages/whatever are worse than they were, and I personally agree with this wholeheartedly. The current top rated shows (minus reality) include Two and a Half Men, and Desperate Housewives (along with ER, Grey's Anatomy, and a few others).

Two and a Half Men is a show about a inept cowardly chiropractor, his hedonistic brother, and the son of the first. There is no downside to the hedonism shown. It is basically encouraged. The lessons that kid would be learning would be disastrous in real life. The hedonist can't even take care of himself. There is an insane neighbor who is basically stalking the hedonist. And the mother of the son is portrayed as someone who only cares about herself. Hardly "wholesome" TV. Desperate Housewives is the same way. The shows are, at best, relativistic.

Most other shows show indiscriminate sex, no regard for marriage or religion (both of which are openly mocked), and more. Just about every man in a sitcom is shows as a sex-hound who is incapable of even surviving for one day without his wife to "rescue" him. The kids are usually shows as smarter than their parents, whom they disobey with basically no consequences. The only time this isn't the case is during "after school special" moments, which quickly give way to the status quo.

Watch the Dick Van Dyke show. It's full of great stories that still work today. No degrading humor. No sex triangles. Richie (the son) learns a valuable lesson once in a while. People are nice to each other (instilling of trading insults, which seems to pass for interaction on TV these days). If you tried to raise your kids without vales back then, TV did nothing to stop you. If you tried to raise them with values, TV would only help.

Today, if you try to raise your kid without values, TV is there to help you. if you try to raise your kid with values, TV is openly trying to subvert you.

You may not think this is bad, or even agree with me. But there are many who do.

But in comment to the parent of this, I agree. There is tons of entertaining stuff on TV these days. Get yourself a TiVo so you can catch things no matter when they air, and you'll always have something on and be able to watch more stuff.

Re:Finding the Long Tail? That's easy!

[Carbonated Milk]

I see the early to mid sixties as "better" than now

What a coincidence! The "Vast Wasteland" speech was made in 1961!

Re:Finding the Long Tail? That's easy!

[DreadfulGrape]

I agree the orig. Dick Van Dyke show was great, but that's mainly because it was written by Carl Reiner, back when he was great. But then, like now, for every one great show there's eight or ten that sucked hard: My Mother the Car. My Favorite Martian. Gilligan's Island. Hogan's Heroes (funny ol' WW II).... etc. etc.

Re:Finding the Long Tail? That's easy!

[techno-vampire]

The kids are usually shows as smarter than their parents, whom they disobey with basically no consequences.

Nothing new here. I remember people making the same complaints about sitcoms in the '50s.

Re:Finding the Long Tail? That's easy!

[UserGoogol]

For what it's worth, yes, I want to subvert America's values.

But really, comparing 1960s Sitcoms to 2000s Sitcoms is really an unfair comparison. Sitcoms are really one of modern television's weaker points. Everyone knows that Two and a Half Men sucks. The better sitcoms on TV are ones which break the traditional sitcom format. (And now that I think of it, shows like Arrested Development and My Name is Earl very often have some sort of moral involved.)

Re:Finding the Long Tail? That's easy!

[Bing Tsher E]

There are really two possible meanings for "television is worse now." One is that there used to be more shows on worth watching. The other is that shows were "better".

The third possible meaning is that all the really awful programming from that era, and there was a LOT, either was never recorded or nobody bothers to take it out of the vault. Hindsight is always 20/20, and it's easy to hearken back to the 'good old times' while forgetting that 'the good old times' the way we remember it consists of the rare examples of good television programming back then that were worth saving.

Re:Finding the Long Tail? That's easy!

[Cylix]

Odd isn't it....

A show about doing the right thing... that isn't bad at all.

Re:Finding the Long Tail? That's easy!

[evilviper]

I'll admit that the majority of TV isn't worth watching, but I'd bet that was always the case, or at least has been as long as we've had hundreds of cable channels.

"As we've had hundreds of cable channels"? So, basically, you're limiting this to, oh, the past 5 years or so?

Cable TV has been around much longer, but until digital broadcasting in the last few years, you couldn't get more than 100 channels.

Sure, if you spend five hours a day channel surfing, you may not be able to keep yourself entertained, but that's your own fault. Watch the good stuff, and do something else with the rest of your free time.

1000 channels, for at least $50 per month, and you should only expect to get a total of 4 hours of interesting content per day? That's not just setting the bar low, that's having NO expectations at all. Who, in their right mind, would consider that a good deal?

Re:Finding the Long Tail? That's easy!

[drsquare]

I thought that walking-stick shaking, moral guardians didn't watch TV anyway. Wouldn't you rather be at church or whipping yourself with a cane as punishment for impure thoughts? Maybe you could go for a ride on your penny farthing?

Re:Finding the Long Tail? That's easy!

[dangitman]

So, was the Dick Van Dyke show responsible for the degenerate values you put on display here, like the fear of sex and liberty, and your appeals to authority?

Re:Finding the Long Tail? That's easy!

[archgoon]

Arrested Development? In a very deranged sense, I guess you're right!

Re:Finding the Long Tail? That's easy!

[eMartin]

I didn't really mean having a cable box that goes past 99, but I'm sure that when I had one of those around 1990, other people had channels on theirs that I didn't get on mine. Basically, I meant the last 10-20 years.

"1000 channels, for at least $50 per month, and you should only expect to get a total of 4 hours of interesting content per day?"

There is always something on that is interesting to someone out there, and maybe you could get more than five hours with your 1000 channels (I only watch the network channels and a handful of basic cable channels, so I'm sure there's plenty else on that I don't know about).

Re:Finding the Long Tail? That's easy!

[evilviper]

(I only watch the network channels and a handful of basic cable channels, so I'm sure there's plenty else on that I don't know about).

Don't be so sure. Thanks to my DVR, I actually have a detailed record of what I watch... I was quite surprised to discover that something like 90%+ of what I watch is on OTA channels.

If I could get The Daily Show/Colbert Report shows, and History/National Geographic channels, I'd cancel my cable subscription as soon as I could install a (very good) antenna, and buy an HDTV reciever.

It's only been about the past 2 years or so that things have been so bad. Discovery and TLC, in particular, used-to have extremely interesting programs. The rise of the unscripted "reality" shows like American Choppers and Trading Spaces turned 99% of cable programming into an ultra-low-budget crap-fest. Sci-Fi channel had stuff worth watching most of the time, too, before the monster-of-the-day movies. And on and on it goes. Plus, OTA channels are now the only place you can watch shows without MASSIVE distractions, like 1/3rd of the screen being covered for several minutes with pop-up ads for other shows, sound effects designed to distract you, etc.

I'm very much on the verge of canceling my subscriptions, and I can't imaging how other people can justify spending so much money on so much crap.

Re:Finding the Long Tail? That's easy!

[fm6]

Jeez, somebody isn't a "walking-stick shaking, moral guardian" just because they like TV shows that are tamer than what you like. Some of us are entertained by stories that don't involve bestality or rape.

Long Time Coming

[Lifyre]

This is something that should be a suprise to no one especially with the increasing popularity of BT and other p2p software to share shows from netwrok TV. Finding new shows on the internet and providing them with dedicated viewers should also inprove the quality of regular television, while it lasts, as some of these shows get picked up by the networks. They would likely be popular because they're good and hopefully original instead of being popular because they're better than the rest of the trash on TV.

Re:Long Time Coming

[generic-man]

1. People BitTorrent new TV show
2. Network picks up TV show
3. People continue to BitTorrent TV show stripped of advertisements
4. ??
5. Profit!

Re:Long Time Coming

[Lifyre]

Very well would be the case however if the show is good they will likely pick up less tech savvy viewers as well who won't download the episodes. Besides I think regular Tv's days are numbered so even if they don't it's a win win for me.

Re:Long Time Coming

[Anonymous Coward]

1. People BitTorrent new TV show
2. Network picks up TV show
3. People continue to BitTorrent TV show stripped of advertisements
4. ??
5. Profit!

This kind of reasoning always amuses me. The *vast* majority of people don't download TV shows... not because they can't... but because they can't be bothered. They would much rather flop down in front of the TV and watch.

Let me give you an example: I used to download 'The Daily Show'... because I couldn't watch it otherwise. Now the UK channel More 4 shows it (with adverts) the day after it is shown in the US, and I don't bother downloading it now. I just watch it on TV. And I am a highly technical user. I still download The Colbert Report, because it still isn't shown in the UK. If they start showing it here, I won't need to download it any more.

There will always be those who download regardless of whether it is shown on TV because of some rabid desire to avoid adverts, but they are a small minority. People like you are getting all worked up over nothing. The downloaders are, in fact, signalling to TV networks which shows to buy, and spreading the word about quality shows.

Where TV networks would have to worry is if TV downloading became something legal and commercial -- if people started making money off it and they weren't getting a share.

How is this not YouTube / iTunes?

[dmorin]

Maybe I missed something in my skimming, but what's the difference between sail.tv and, say, a video podcast of the same content? Surely they're not betting the whole farm on streaming video content. You'd think that with the rise of the video ipods and the whole timeshifting concept that new companies would immediately embrace the watch-whenever concept. After all, that's crucial to acting on the long tail. You don't just say "here's what I've got, showing at 9pm" you say "here's everything I've ever had, and if you happen to stumble across it and like it, then welcome."

Re:How is this not YouTube / iTunes?

[Pichu0102]

I'd say the difference between streaming content and video podcasts is simple: Unavoidable ads versus avoidable ads. If you place a stream up, everyone watching the stream will have to wait for the ads instead of fastforwarding through them. With video podcasts, people can either fastfoward through the ads , and some people might just download the programs but never watch them, thus wasting the server's bandwidth since the person downloaded something they didn't really care about.

Re:How is this not YouTube / iTunes?

[Anonymous Coward]

a video podcast

WTF is a video podcast? How is that different from, say, a downloadable video?

Re:How is this not YouTube / iTunes?

[Ash-Fox]

It's in a RSS feed, so you can see when new episodes/shows are availible.

Re:How is this not YouTube / iTunes?

[Nurgled]

I think the answer to the advertising problem is to make the advertising short and unobtrusive. All you really need is a little bit at the start of the video saying "This programme is presented in association with Acme Corp: Widgets for your Business!" along with some eye candy. Over within 15 seconds, so not really worth fast-forwarding through. If the named company is relevant to the target audience of the content, they're likely to remember the name and check it out later. For bonus points, include a link to the named company's website in the text accompanying the video, so the viewer doesn't have to remember the URL.

Long Time Coming-Coattails.

[Anonymous Coward]

The other thing driving it is the unbundling of cable channels. No longer will such niches ride the coattails of the more popular programs.

Old proverb

[Eric Giguere]

One must jump the shark to find the length of its tail.

Eric
My AdSense blog

Re:Old proverb

[TubeSteak]

If a TV show jumps the shark in a forest, while no one is there, does it make a sound?

Re:Old proverb

[Cheapy]

Wouldn't The Fonz need to be there?

Trio TV

[LochNess]

I really liked watching Trio TV when it was on DirecTV. Unfortunately, they got into some sort of dispute, and were dropped.

The internet solves one problem

[Anonymous Coward]

We had a radio station in our small city that was listened to by a large population over a hundred mile radius. They specialized in country music. They had great listenership over a large geographic area but not a very great percentage of the local listeners. The local businesses wouldn't advertise. There weren't enough ads from national advertisers to make a go of it. So, in spite of the fact that they had lots of listeners, they had to change their format and focus on the local market.

With the internet, you can have local advertisers on these national or even international web sites. The local ads are seen only locally, the advertisers pay per click and apparently the advertising is effective. Given that model, these 'specialty channels' could be profitable.

Re:The internet solves one problem

[Anonymous Coward]

Reminds me of the situation with WLS-AM in Chicago back in the 80s. Nobody in Chicago cared... but at night, half the kids in the Bible Belt listenend to them, because there was no other way to get your rock-and-roll fix if you didn't live in a major metropolitan area. Apart from the occasional Clearasil ad, the station's idiot advertisers and programming directors didn't realize what a gold mine they had.

Re:The internet solves one problem

[quanticle]

Its a great concept, but you're defeated by the fact that IP doesn't keep track of location very well. If you're a local advertiser, you don't want to spend money showing your wares to someone a hundred miles away. Until there's a scheme that will link your physical and network locations you'll have trouble convincing advertisers. And even then, how do you keep track of mobile devices? If I live in Chicago and I access online content on my laptop in LA, do I get local ads from Chicago, or LA?

Oblig...

[Anonymous Coward]

The internet is for porn

The internet is for porn

Grab your dick

And double click!

The internet is for porn!

Digitial Distribution

[MBCook]

Well this is where digital distribution is going isn't it. Cable was the first step. Thanks to cable, you didn't have to make shows that would appeal to everyone. Things that wouldn't have made it on the big three could suddenly find a home. Digital distribution is the next step. Cut out the middle man. Tivo has already show us this (if you have a TiVo).

With a TiVo TV runs on your schedule. A show that wouldn't survive prime time or day time under normal circumstances could be run at 2:00 AM. TiVo users would record it and to them it wouldn't seem any different than if it ran at 8:00 PM. TiVo killed time slots, for TiVo users.

Digital distribution takes it one step further. That will kill channels. We are seeing this with the popularity of TV on DVD. I couldn't care less if Battlestar Galactica ran on ABC, UPN, Bravo, or The Home Shopping Network. If the show is the same, then where it came from doesn't matter. This is where iTunes and such will bring us.

You won't watch ABC. You won't say you like the stuff NBC shows. You'll say you like things made by Dick Wolf or David E. Kelly. Just like people don't say they like Paramount stuff (as they might back before the big studio breakups), they say they like Spielberg stuff, or Tarintino stuff.

I think this is great. There are so many great shows that never made it for various reasons (including but not limited to not finding their audience, terrible time slot, chronic time slot changes, etc). Dead Like Me, Keen Eddie, The Critic, John Doe, Threshold, Firefly, Futurama, and many others have been canceled. Half the shows on TechTV/ZDtv too.

We've already seen it happen. DVD sales brought back Family Guy (which Fox killed, like so many shows, with the deadly 7:00 PM Eastern time slot on Sunday). There are always rumors of that happening to Futurama too. Firefly fans have been trying.

When you take having to be on at a decent time out of the equation, it becomes much easier to program to the long tail. The problem is that enough people don't have DVRs yet. If you give them digital distribution that works too (just let my TiVo download the shows straight from the network off the 'net), I think we'll see programing move more towards the tail as networks are no longer "forced" to program towards the middle of the bell curve.

Re:Digitial Distribution

[Anonymous Coward]

Basic Econ:

Long tail works only if the cost is less than the money you get from distributing on the long tail.

If the show has already been made, you can milk extra money out by putting it on the long tail. Same as publishing (selling off the remaindered books online) or E-bay with discontinued electronics and stuff.

Firefly will never fly because the cost to start it up again is huge (probably $3-4 million per hour) and revenues uncertain but very low. There's no potential pot of gold at the end of the rainbow (a hit for syndication and DVDs etc).

Music works because it's cheap to produce. So too with stuff that's already been made and you want to create some extra money for.

But that's not a revolution. Just a marginal add-value.

(Family Guy is CHEAP to produce. It's cheap-o animation plus voice overs).

Re:Digitial Distribution

[tinrobot]

Family Guy is CHEAP to produce. It's cheap-o animation plus voice overs

I work in animation. Believe me, Family Guy is not cheap to produce. The animation is actually good quality for television. I don't know the exact numbers, but a show like that costs upwards of a half million an episode at the very least - and my guess is it costs a lot more than that because of creators fees and voice talent.

Voice actors are also not cheap. They can be one of the biggest expenses in an animated show. Simpsons actors make several hundred thousand per episode. Multiply that by six actors and you're topping a million per episode just for the talent. Factor in top-shelf writers, producers and directors and you're talking a lot of money.

Re:Digitial Distribution

[Anonymous Coward]

Firefly will never fly because the cost to start it up again is huge (probably $3-4 million per hour) and revenues uncertain but very low

You know why these shows are so expensive? It's because they typically rake in lots of money. Make money = people making them get higher wages, the suppliers of equipment charge more. Make less money = it costs less to make.

It always suprises me that media companies get away with pushing the bullshit argument that they can only make TV/films if they have vast amounts of money. You know that most of the money in films is made during production... it's the production companies that get rich... they get paid before the film is ever shown.

Re:Digitial Distribution

[Anonymous Coward]

If you google a bit, it appears that Family Guy costs about 1.1 million per episode. At that rate, I'd prefer if they resurrected Futurama, which cost about 1.5 million per episode, but - at least in my opinion - was significantly better in acting, writing and drawing.

Re:Digitial Distribution

[poot_rootbeer]

Voice actors are also not cheap. They can be one of the biggest expenses in an animated show. Simpsons actors make several hundred thousand per episode. Multiply that by six actors and you're topping a million per episode just for the talent.

Sure, the voice talent on The Simpsons make top dollar -- the show couldn't exist without them. Same is true for a lot of the big names in cartoon voices: Maurice LaMarche, Frank Welker, Tress MacNeille.

I'm not so sure Family Guy would fall into the same category of expensive-but-worth-it voice talent expenses. Most of the voice are done by creator Seth McFarlane himself (note I didn't say plural "voices", as they're all pretty much that same), and the other voices are more or less replaceable. As they already did when Mila Kunis replaced Lacey Chabert as the voice of Meg.

Re:Digitial Distribution

[dbIII]

Here's where we should learn from the Japanese.

First - large numbers of talented voice actors who are chosen for their voice abilities and not how good they look or name recognition. Cartoons with Trek actors doing the voices would have been better off with talented people unknown to TV or movies for the sake of quality and wage costs - how many people actually watched those cartoons becuase they knew a paticular actor was in it? I don't know about the USA, but radio plays out of the UK and other places show there are some very good voice actors out there that have never been on TV (but probably have more stage experience than most of Hollywood combined).

Second - when a Japanese show starts production they have their budget for a season - which may be thirteen episodes or twenty six or even fifty two. Risky ventures get even less - but they get their full run of X episodes if people were impressed enough with the pilot episode. None of this uncertainty that each episode will be the last, pointless meetings with producers over actors haircuts and other micromanagement from investors. Directors should be allowed to direct - part timers should just set general policy and decide whether to allocate funding or not. This way you get a story with a start, middle and end.

Third - after it's over if it's successful there's the straight to video episodes instead of a very expensive movie that will take so long to produce that the original series in long in the past.

Fourth - show the series it in the order that the director intended.

Re:Digitial Distribution

[Anonymous Coward]

surface too.

kolchak deserved wanst good enough but was lush and delicious.

maerica can make art even on tv.

pity it always has ot make money or wil die.

i as a brit salute you.

cycling.tv another

[markk]

I am not usually on the leading edge of things, but even with multiple cable channels I could never get decent coverage of one of my favorite sports - bicycling (Beyond Lance Armstrong who was almost a sport to himslf). I looked around and the only place I could find actual race coverage was on the internet. All sports channels seem to want to show are high volume shows, poker, and hunting and fishing, with hour a week of coverage max. This internet TV thing is great - even if they do seem to be super Microsoft focused in technology and still not very much resolution. Cable was supposed to lead to differentiation, but I think the overhead of the cable distribution network is stifling this, and I don't want to pay $100/mo for tons of channels I will never watch. The article says that the 500+ cable channels are full, but I don't see them available anywhere without very big cash outlays by me. That same infrastructure (cable modems) can also deliver programming not under the control of the cable provider through internet TV. I wonder as this develops when it will hurt them so they notice?

I had to laugh at the ESPN spokesman - yeah they will put $ in quality production of Poker or dumb commentary shows but don't want poor quality shows, like actual coverage of sporting events. Typical big corp talk - it doesn't match the walk.

CSpan

[Saeed al-Sahaf]

Whatever happened to the much-hyped Al Gore TV network?

CSpan has that market all tied up.

Let's just put all the Firefly comments under here

[timiscool999]

Lord knows every person on slashdot (ok there's probably like 2 people on here that haven't seen the show...) wants this show back on the air.

I stayed home sick with the flu yesterday from work and I felt like garbage. Then I was flipping through the digital cable programming guide and what do I see: a Firefly marathon on Sci-Fi!

Best...sick day...EVER!

Can we have the old ZDTV or TECHTV back?

[ApewithGun]

Now that G4 has killed ALL tech (and most game programs) in favor of old reruns can we please have a tech channel back?

Re:Can we have the old ZDTV or TECHTV back?

[TheZorch]

Ahmen ApewithGun, ahmen brother!

There is little if nothing of TechTV left alive on G4 nowadays. I really miss stuff like The Screensavers, one of the best techie shows on TechTV, or what about Call For Help which really made strides towards making it easier for computer noobs to learn how to use their computers. I used to watch TechTV for coverage of CES, COMDEX, e3 and more.

The truly sad thing is that G4 itself has sunk low in the quality of its own programming. Not that G4 didn't have its problems to begin with but it did have a rather good lineup of shows on its own before it suddenly went out of control. Some of the shows are wilder than a few "way out there" MTV shows I've seen in the past. About 70% of G4's programming is just Plain-Jane vulger garbage targeted towards pop culture fanboys who'd just as soon drop out of school and go rob a liquor store than make something of themselves.

Merging G4 and TechTV I think was the biggest mistake that could have ever been made on cable TV. I had a really sick feeling in my stomach when I learned the two channels were mergering a few yeara ago, and now I see why. I knew this day was coming, it was bound to happen. G4 is today what would happen if Jerry Springer & Howard Stern were to start their own cable network.

I'd gladly welcome the return of TechTV, even if we have to do it from a browser or from within Windows Media Player or Winamp (which has been playing Internet TV streams for more than a year now).

The Green Tennis Shoes Principle

[lheal]

The Green Tennis Shoes Principle:

The Internet makes a market out of the smallest segments, and enables producers to enter those markets.

Re:The Green Tennis Shoes Principle

[shmlco]

I'm glad you didn't say, "...and enables producers to PROFITABLY enter those markets."

Yes, there may be dozens of green tennis shoe fanatics out there, but one still has the age-old problem. How do you find them, or how do they find you? And which brings us to the even bigger question: Are dozens of green tennis shoe fanatics enough to sustain a business?

Firefly has been tossed around, so I'll use that example. Yes, there's a market. But is it large enough? IIRC that show cost about a million per episode, so the real question becomes whether or not producers could make a profit selling iTMS downloads at $1.99 a crack.

Sponsors and advertisers could eat some of that cost, but will people accept ads if they also have to pay for it? What else? Bump the price to $4.99/ea.?

In short, there may be a niche, but is that niche large enough to stand on?

Reruns of Rerun? Rerun is dead!

[Ohreally_factor]

Netcraft confirms it!

Re:Let's just put all the Firefly comments under h

[Cheapy]

Well, I make up one of those two people.

I wonder who the other is. I hope it's a girl.

Your mama is a car

[technoextreme]

I'm sure television has almost always been mostly "junk". There is tons of stuff on right now that isn't worth watching. I'm sure that was true in the 50s, 60s, 70, and 80s (I know it was in the 90s).At the same time, I think there is more good stuff on now than there used to be. But this is a numbers game.

This is the sixities right?? Well here is horrible show number one. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/My_Mother_The_Car I couldn't stop laughing at my dad until he said two words: Knight Rider.

Re:Your mama is a car

[Anonymous Coward]

Knight Rider.
aka My Boyfriend the Car

Internet TV?

[Anonymous Coward]

What of
http://freepcskytv.co.uk/
I know nothing of it and am too cheap to try :-(

streaming only saves BW for mediocre stuff

[2008]

If something's good, I often watch it again within a week or so. And then again in a year or so when I'll watch the whole series in a row. Bandwidth costs just increased by a factor of 3...
Streaming is about control over the medium - i.e. unskippable ads that can change every week, ability to deny re-runs. It also has its place for live events, and for people too impatient to download yet with high tolerance for "buffering..." messages.

Re:streaming only saves BW for mediocre stuff

[jibjibjib]

Anyone can download a program to receive a stream and save it to a file, so it can be watched later. It's impossible to deny reruns without DRM and trusted computing.

Brilliant But Cancelled is way over now...

[YesIAmAScript]

It was the only thing Trio was ever successful with. They managed to buy the pilots of a few shows that were cancelled. They started with series that had short runs, like "Gun" or "Action". They later picked up a few shows that were only pilots (like "LA Confidential", "Lookwell!"). There were various reasons these shows didn't make it. Some were very good (like "Action").

They certainly got the idea from Moomba, a club in West Hollywood that used to run cancelled TV pilots and received a lot of notice for it. Specifically it contributed to the legends of "Lookwell!" (which starred Adam West and was written by Conan O' Brien and Robert Smigel) and "Heat Vision and Jack" (which was written by Ben Stiller and starred Jack Black and Owen Wilson).

These shows were easy to get rights to (except apparently Heat Vision and Jack), and cheap too, the shows were considered almost valueless. There was no market in syndication for shows with short runs, and DVD sales of TV shows were not a factor yet. But Trio was jumping in only just ahead of the curve, and suddenly there was a market for these shows and Trio simply couldn't afford to pick them up anymore on a shoestring budget. Then, DVD sales of TV shows became big, and it was all over.

Trio picked up a few other shows that were very cheap, like "Kolchak: The Night Stalker" and "The Ernie Kovacs Show" (which was brilliant), but really, they were done for by that point. The channel couldn't sustain any ratings, was dumped by DirecTV and it was over. NBC (who owns the channel) pulled the plug.

I would have modded you funny instead...

[YesIAmAScript]

Or at least wryly funny.

Stupid ESPN. I can't believe there are TWO ESPN HD channels. They barely have enough real content for one channel, let alone HD content.

World's Strongest Man, Lumberjack contests, etc. Brings to mind Letterman's old "Dog Hockey" joke (http://www.ehumorcentral.com/Directory/Jokes/731. html) and "The Ocho".

Re:I would have modded you funny instead...

[generic-man]

When I had Dish Network, I had access to ESPN, ESPN2, ESPNEWS, ESPNU, ESPN Classic, ESPN Deportes, ESPN Alternate Feed, ESPN2 Alternate Feed, and ESPN-HD. There's also ESPN2-HD but Dish didn't carry it.

The alternate feed channels didn't always broadcast, and ESPN(2)-HD is pretty much the same content as ESPN(2), but that's a lot of sports. I'm not even counting OLN, FSN, or any of the other sports channels.

Re:Let's just put all the Firefly comments under h

[jibjibjib]

Sorry, it's not a girl, it's me.

Endless Europe

[IndieYuppy]

This idea of TV 2.0 seems to be popping up everywhere. I found this link last week: http://www.endlesseurope.com/ . If I understand it correctly, these guys are putting together the first fully-interactive reality travel show and will be distributing it on multiple platforms for free. Seems like a pretty cool concept if they can pull it off. iY

Re:Endless Europe

[Mcdrinksalot]

all I know is that Swedish girl is crazy hot http://www.endlesseurope.com/backpacker-detail.php ?ID=15 . If this thing is for real I definitely want to see her chosen to go. McD

opt in

[Scrameustache]

Or ESPN

Oh dear god YES! Get that crap on a "pull" model on the net and out of my TV!
And get off the damn news! I don't care! "Who threw the ball the most yesterday" isn't news! It's gossip, at best.

Naked News

[roach2002]

No discussion on the topic would be complete without a thorough examination of a href="http://www.nakednews.com/">Naked News.

Re:Naked News

[Deliveranc3]

I was watching the naked News with 5-6 other guys.

We watched for 10 minutes and someone said This is Great.

Then I asked if anyone could remember a SINGLE peice of information from the show.

Silence.

Naked News

[roach2002]

No discussion on the topic would be complete without a thorough examination of Naked News.

(For once, a post so easy that I figure I don't need preview, and what do I do? I screw it up!)

Next on OutZone

[tod_miller]

...We go over to 24 hour live coverage of the GLBT-pride march that is happening in World Of Warcraft. This is truly an exciting moment as we are expressing our gay, I mean gblt, rights, in cyberspace. Thats right, Cyberspace (echo).

And after that, call in with your horror stories about your violated rights!

Hi caller on line 1:

Caller: Yes, hi, I love this channel, me and my partner stayed up all night watching your WOW march.
Presenter: Well, that's comforting.
Caller: I am calling because yesterday, I got a parking ticket...
Presenter: Why was this? This is an outrage? Were you in a handicap zone? over your meter? Did the store not have GLBT friendly parking zones?
Caller: (indignantly) Not they did not have GBLT friendly parking zones, I had to park with the others. Well I was in a disabled parking space, but the real problem?
Presenter: Tell us caller, tell the world your horrific experience!
Caller: (emphatic) The ticket wasn't sensitive to my choice of sexuality!
Presenter: (amidst canned horror sounds) That is unbearable, explain!
Caller: Well, firstly it did recognize or acknowledge my sexuality...
Presenter: TERRIBL!
Caller: ... It didn't apologies to me, as a minority, I mean, you have to expect some reverse discrimination just to be sure you are not being discriminated against right?
Presenter: Of course, that is the only reason I became gay
Caller: Me too! And because I was a 6'5" tomboy with lank unattractive hair, and I repressed my sexual desires by joining the feminist society, working for NASA as an engineer and slandering the good name of Joan of Arc by saying she was a feminist.
Caller: OK, I am getting Lambda legal onto the case (catchy Lambda Legal jingle, sounds like Power Rangers)
Lambda Agent: (shouting) Yello Lambda Agent Online!
Presenter: We need to get all states to recognize peoples' sexuality on parking tickets!
Lambda Agent: (wtf, still shouting!) Yello Lamdba Agent, AFFIRMATIVE!!

Wtf, where did that come from.

please type the word in this image: illusion random letters - if you are visually impaired, please email us at pater@slashdot.org

Re:Next on OutZone

[SachiCALaw]

Not funny, son. I know the woman who filed the complaint about WoW's refusal to permit a GLBT guild. It is really too bad that you think that your "right" to make fun of gays and lesbians is worth more than their dignity.

Re:Next on OutZone

[Abuzar]

This is basically hatred disguised as a bad attempt at humour

Re:Next on OutZone

[tod_miller]

haha, funny. Who said I am making fun of gays and lesbians (and you missed two of the letters from the acronym there, bad bad!)

I am making fun of those people who protest for rights in WOW for issues that are irrelavant and not advertised in WOW. Let me tell you something, I sell you a ticket to a virtual world, and I don't advertise something when I sell it to you, by all means use virtual lawyers to sue my virtual ass, but don't bring in your real life to my virtual world and start getting all politically correct on me.

When about when we have a virtual world with asexual creatures that are orange and purple? Will someone find a way to politicize that?

You are dumb. But I say that with the respect your deserve. The second sentence was more damning.

Re:Next on OutZone

[tod_miller]

Who is to say that their right to be offended by what I say is worth more than my right to say it?

That is the question.

Re:Let's just put all the Firefly comments under h

[Grey Ninja]

He's lying. It's me. But I'm not a girl either. =(

Re:Let's just put all the Firefly comments under h

[jibjibjib]

Let's just say he was right, for sufficiently large values of 2.

Zing!

[Inoshiro]

"Simpsons actors .... Factor in top-shelf writers, producers and directors and you're talking a lot of money."

Well, given the recent 5-6 seasons of The Simpsons, I think we can rule out top-shelf writers as being the reason the show costs so much to produce.

trekkie

[wwmedia]

it be cool if some website starts showing new series of star trek!

i dunno continue with enterprise, it was getting good

or have the imagination to create and bring out new series

Old Favourites

[pipingguy]

Everyone point and laugh:

"When Things Were Rotten"
"UFO"
"Quark"
"Futurama"

Re:Outzone: why just gays?

[Anonymous Coward]

Well just because we've been showing up in the tech news lately is no reason to hate us any more than people like you normally do.

As for homosexuality being a mental illness, I suggest you take a look at a DSM published more recently than 38 years ago. There have been four versions published since then, and homosexuality was only listed as a mental illness for a grand total of five years as opposed to the 54 years since the DSM-I was first published.

Further, you evidently know nothing about animal sexuality, since homosexual behaviour is present in a rather large number of species. Penguins, for example.

Read some books some time. I know big words are confusing, but I know you can do it if you try.

recycled tv, by the studios

[TheHawke]

I did a WHOIS search on the links in the article and came up with some not-so surprising results.

TrioTV, brillantbutcancelled are owned by, take a guess? Universal Studios.

Looks like they are trying to push some of their old crap to wring a few dollars more out of the viewing public.

cheap to produce: SURVIVORMAN

[mosel-saar-ruwer]

I work in animation. Believe me, Family Guy is not cheap to produce. The animation is actually good quality for television. I don't know the exact numbers, but a show like that costs upwards of a half million an episode at the very least - and my guess is it costs a lot more than that because of creators fees and voice talent.

The awesomest show on TV [with the possible exception of SG1] has gotta be Survivorman.

Dude has zero production costs [hell, he films the whole thing himself] and his "producers" won't buy him a rifle or even a fishing pole.

Well, there was the time when they made him take a rifle to the arctic circle on account of the polar bears - but then he caught a ride back to town with an eskimo seal hunter, so he saved on transportation right there...

Re:cheap to produce: SURVIVORMAN

[uberdave]

I've met Les Stroud. Trust me, there is a lot of background work that happens before he goes out there and films it all himself. After he and his team decide what scenario they're going to shoot, they scout out locations, talk with local experts, rent equipment, etc. Hooking a lift from the local seal hunter only gets you to Mittimatalik (Pond Inlet, Baffin Island, Nunavut territory, Canada). It doesn't get you back to Toronto.

When Les is out there filming, there is a crew on standby, ready to pull him out. There are airfare costs, helicopter rentals, satellite phone (Les carries a satellite phone with him on these outings so that he can call for help if need be). None of this is free.

well, it's a lot of channels...

[YesIAmAScript]

It's not a lot of sports.

I DirecTV and I have all that crap. Right now, it is 8:16AM, West Coast time on a Sunday. That's 11:16A East Coast time, so the day is started.

ESPN is airing SportsCenter (in HD on HD, although almost none of the clips are)
ESPN2 is airing Inside Drag Racing (not in HD on HD channel)
ESPNNews is of course airing recaps.
ESPN Classic is airing the 2004 World Series.
all 4 ESPN alternate feeds are off.
ESPNU is showing Women's College Lacrosse.

So they're airing one recent sporting right now. And it's one just about no one cares about.

But hey, let's try later in the day. Let's try 4P, which is 7P Eastern. That's virtually prime time.

ESPN2 will be showing Tennis, the early rounds of the Pacific Life Open (not in HD)
ESPN will be showing ESPNU Bracketology (in HD).
ESPNNews will be looping.
ESPN Classic will be showing 1994 Final Four highlights.
All 4 ESPN alternate feeds will be off air.
ESPNU will be showing ESPN Bracketology.

So, in virtual prime time, there wil be one recent sporting event being aired, early rounds of a minor tennis tournament. And there will be one thing in HD, a non-sporting event.

This doesn't count all the FSN channels, ESPN Deportes, SpeedTV, GOL or channels like Spike TV or OLN which are starting to pick up sporting events.

But still, it shows one thing. ESPN commands the highest fees for non-pay channels from operators because they used to have a lot of content that a young male might watch. That's really slipping now. And HD? When ESPN bought their new equipment (when SportsCenter went to HD) ESPN said they were hoping to produce 200 events in HD in the first year. That's 600 hours of HD sporting events across two channels in a year. It's near a sham. Even if ESPN exceeds their goal by 33%, that's 800 hours. That's 8 hours a week per channel, or roughly 6 events a week total.

Re:well, it's a lot of channels...

[generic-man]

You're right -- I had missed the "HD" in "can't believe there are two ESPN HD channels" in your earlier post.

I think the point is that many channels are recording shows in HD as a planning measure. A friend told me that new "Good Eats" eps are taping in high definition -- and there's no Food Network HD channel yet! Because ESPN has two HD channels they'll be able to use them for the times when they're most needed, like March Madness and the various major league playoffs.

There's also a need for that much bandwidth in major sports markets. In New York, for example, I've seen The Weather Channel bumped off the air because Cablevision needed the bandwidth to broadcast six sporting events at once.

Re:Let's just put all the Firefly comments under h

[east coast]

I will admit that I'm another one of the two... Maybe I'm not geek enough but aside from old Twilight Zone episodes I have zero interest in "sci-fi" on TV.

For as much as people on slashdot are more than willing to point out even the smallest flaw in any story here I'm actually amazed that most of them can tolerate the pseudo science that goes into most of the shows that make it to the sci-fi channel.

Re:Let's just put all the Firefly comments under h

[toad3k]

Don't get me wrong, I love the Twilight Zone. And the Outer Limits.

But at the same time I can't understand how any geek could watch the new bsg or firefly or the middle seasons of sg1 and not be completely amazed. There was literally a 20 year gap where there was practically no good scifi (that I know of). We are truly in a golden age.

The season finale of BSG alone lived up to my best expectations.

Re:Let's just put all the Firefly comments under h

[east coast]

No good sci-fi? ST:TNG? Not that I think it's great sci-fi but it's a great show.

Beyond that I don't find a lot of sci-fi entertainment outside of reading.

Re:Outzone: why just gays?

[ObitMan]

Penguins screw each other in the butt?

I'd pay to see that.