Cable Exec Suggests Changing Consumer Behavior, Not Business Model

Techdirt has pointed out yet another cable exec that just doesn't quite get it. Comcast's COO, Steve Burke, recently urged the TV industry to find ways to "get consumers to change" rather than figure out better methods to cater to demand. "'An entire generation is growing up, if we don't figure out how to change that behavior so it respects copyright and subscription revenue on the part of distributors, we're going to wake up and see cord cutting.' How many consumers, in any market, are focused on 'respecting' vendors' revenue streams? How, exactly, does he propose to effect this sea change? And why not just develop products that consumers will willingly pay for, rather than trying to change consumer behavior in such a fundamental way?"

Comments

dinero

[digitalsushi]

If I was making 2.2 million dollars a year salary I would probably say exactly what my bosses wanted to hear, too.

Re:Just release TV shows for free

[Kethinov]

Just release TV shows for free

And make your money on touring.

Hardy har, so funny. Or maybe instead they could make their money the way broadcast television has successfully done so for longer than most of us have been alive? Hint: advertising does actually work. Then just offer a subscription service to folks who don't want to see ads. Easy as pie. Shame the cable companies are too busy double dipping (subscription AND ads) to realize consumers hate it.

Entitlement

[sqrt(2)]

The sense of entitlement is sickening. No business has a right to make profit, and I certainly don't have to "recpect" their revenue stream. This generation grew up wanting certain things, the dinosaurs in the content industries refused to adapt and now people are used to getting music, movies, and games they want for free. There are now millions of people who will go their entire lives without purchasing much content, and they were created by the greed and incompetence of the RIAA/MPAA and friends.

Re:Entitlement

[AcidPenguin9873]

Entitlement goes both ways. The entire generation you speak of feels entitled to enjoy free content because its *distribution cost* and *replication cost* is $0. The creation cost for the content has always been, and will always be, non-zero, but it was always amortized into the distribution cost. Distribution via broadcasting always brought in advertising revenue, which covered all the costs. Distribution via BitTorrent brings in $0 in revenue and covers no costs. [1]

This generation grew up wanting certain things, the dinosaurs in the content industries refused to adapt and now people are used to getting music, movies, and games they want for free.

I disagree. There is iTunes/Amazon for music, Hulu for TV (*even* if they go to a subscription model), Netflix on demand for movies. I would say lots of good content is now available on-demand, via the Internet, pretty easy to get to. The business models weren't going to change in the one year that Napster came out. It's taken 10 years. But it has happened. The only thing that hasn't happened is content creators giving away stuff for $0, and if these creators are going to stay in business, I don't see how that's ever going to happen.

Look, everyone here can make up plenty of reasons for why they deserve free content, but in a capitalist economy I have yet to hear a single good one. "Live performance" isn't good enough. Many TV shows that I enjoy can't be live. Software developers should *not* have to go on speaking tours to make money, like that ridiculous study out of Harvard said they should. I do not want to go to a book reading.

[1] As an aside, I fully support the notion that *distributors* should get much less of the money. They are just a pipe, a utility for the content creators to sell their content. No one on Slashdot ever wants to make the distinction between distributors, who are invariably big media conglomerates that are easy to hate, and content creators, who might be a team of talented writers and actors and filmmakers that actually produce enjoyable stuff.

Perspective

[Anonymous Coward]

And why not just develop products that consumers will willingly pay for, rather than trying to change consumer behavior in such a fundamental way?"

Because he feels the same way you do. You don't seem at all eager to adapt your behavior to the terms on which products are being marketed. You instead want to force the providers to change.

So, you don't want to change, you just want to do things your way and force others to change. The provider also doesn't want to change. They want to do things their way and force you to change.

Both parties want to give little and receive much. Consumers want to pay little and get lots of high quality content. Providers want to expend few resources in content provision and receive lots of money.

I'd say the two groups are more alike than different. One just has more members than the other.

Re:Perspective

[camperdave]

Perhaps you're forgetting the fundamental law of free markets: The customer is always right. If the bulk of customers want X and you offer Y, then don't be surprised when some other vendor comes along offering X and winds up with all the customers. As the vendor, you either offer what the customer wants, at the price they want it, or you go out of business.

Re:Perspective

[whoever57]

Because he feels the same way you do. You don't seem at all eager to adapt your behavior to the terms on which products are being marketed. You instead want to force the providers to change.

Yes, I do expect the providers to change.

I, and other customers have something Comcast needs: subscription revenue. In order to obtain that revenue Comcast must provide something of value to me. If Comcast wants me to change my behavior, it has to provide a compelling reason for the change. Comcast must provide some benefit to me to induce my change of behavior.

This exec shows no inclination of providing any benefit in return for any change of behavior, so why should I (and millions of other customers) change our behavior?

Re:Perspective

[Jason Levine]

I think you missed the memo. The new fundamental law of free markets is: If the bulk of customers want X and you offer Y, then you lobby the government to make X illegal and raise the price of Y. Then you complain to your bought and paid for government officials that Y is still not selling and you need more power to force consumers to buy Y and raise the penalties on purchasing, owning, or even thinking about X. After all, customers' refusal to buy Y clearly indicates that they are all buying X illegally and the only reason for a customer's existence is to funnel money into your pockets.

(The sad thing is, this could be modded as Funny or Insightful and either would be true.)

Re: say exactly what my bosses wanted to hear

[Anonymous Coward]

The arrogance of the business community is far worse. How can anyone honestly believe someones skills could be worth 2.2 million per year? Are his skills really that rare? Or maybe it's because big business leadership is an exclusive club where friends reward friends with huge sums of money?

Re: say exactly what my bosses wanted to hear

[PitaBred]

That's why you go to Harvard or Princeton or Yale. It's not for the education. It's for the contacts.