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

[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

[UserGoogol]

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

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.

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!

[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!

[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.

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.

Old proverb

[Eric Giguere]

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

Eric
My AdSense blog

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.

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

[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.

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.

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!)