Viacom Nudges Some Premium Content Online, For Free
amplt1337 writes "Debates about the profitability of 'free' continue to rage, but at least one major media conglomerate — Viacom — is pushing forward with releasing paid-for content for free on the Internet. Of course, the prospect of free and easy full-length Daily Show episodes has caused some tension with cable providers, who pay a hefty premium for a heretofore-exclusive right to distribute the conglom's content (there are obvious parallels with the conflict between labels and musicians). What strikes me as really interesting is that even an old, entrenched company like Viacom has enough vision to see the opportunity for increased profits through free distribution — provided they can control that distribution (see their YouTube lawsuit) and have discretion over just how free they go. Of course, the NYT itself has had its own experience with expanding access to previously fee-based content ..."
Free is all well and good, but all too often it leads to crappy ads and abridged enjoyment.
I'd still gladly pay for this content -- just not $2 per episode that I'll only watch once. What I can't imagine I'm alone in really wanting to see here, and what I have yet to see tested, is a nice, simple subscription model like Netflix that lets me pay a single monthly fee to watch a reasonable amount of new programming.
Netflix almost offers that right now for a number of shows, except that the streaming of shows is tied to their DVD release, so you can't watch anything until the season's over. But all that's keeping them from becoming a genuine alternative to broadcast viewing is a bit of licensing, for which I'd gladly pay a few more Washingtons a month.
All things considered, isn't skipping a few beers each month worth not having to deal with ads?
Your mind is clear / The things that you fear / Will fade with how much you / Believe what you hear
I love the daily show and the colbert report. I had been watch TDS since cason daily was hosting it even. Two years ago I was paying $40 a month for essentially those two shows.
But I quit watching during the writer strike and coincidentally I moved and started working more during that same time.
When the episodes had come back, I didn't get the memo and didn't want to go through the hassle of catching up on the week or so of shows I'd missed using bittorrent.
So I just quit watching. To viacom: you want to know why? Because it would just kill me to watch something so good by myself (or occasionally with a lady) and not be able to send friends links to particular segments on youtube. You want to selfishly hoard all your copyrighted content? Fine by me. I just won't watch it (even though I'm paying for it in some way). I won't tell my friends about it. And I won't buy anything on the commercials I'm not seeing.
Jon and Stephen could do better. Personally I'd like to see them operate without viacom and have control over the content, but I know the challenges in making that work and making it profitable.
I could see that as the reason. What will probably happen is like the relationships that labels have with online music stores.
Advertising is put in the video, Youtube gets a cut, Viacom gets some.
As far as the loss of free copies...I could see some arguments. For one, if you want to pull an episode (want to drum up DVD sales or something), you can do that if you publish the content- you can't just pull other copies. They probably want copyright information included, station, producers, etc.
Personally, I'm glad that Viacom is embracing such an idea. I don't mind a little advertising if the quality is consistently good, in sync, and I can send friends links/bookmark shows without worrying that they'll be pulled for copyright in five minutes.
Or hell, distribute it with bittorrent with the fucking ad's in it on the day it airs!
Its brilliant. They pay virtually nothing for a few servers to seed it until the swarm takes off. They get their adverts out into the open. There's very little reason to track down some ripped version with no commercials as you can get the legit one 8-12 hours sooner!
Where is the downside to this?
Heck, they could even require a DRM license(which would be given to anyone for free) and track exactly how many views it gets! They can do a pay per viewer model with the advertisers.
If sharing a song makes you a pirate, what do I have to share to be a ninja?
So?
There is a remedy in law for Viacom: tell Google to take down the offending content.
If Viacom doesn't like the law they subverted democracy for, they really shouldn't whine like a spoiled child.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.