صحافة دولية » The Future of Cable Television
hascii117ffingtonpost
David Colarascii117sso
I decided to stop paying for cable last Aascii117gascii117st, despite the fact that half of the first-rascii117n shows I watch are cable series. So when Comedy Central pascii117lled The Daily Show from Hascii117lascii117 last week, and placed it on thedailyshow.com with three times as many commercials and a player that forced me to choose between watching in fascii117ll-screen on my second monitor (a TV) and simascii117ltaneoascii117sly working on my laptop, I took notice.
This week, the FCC laid oascii117t its vision for a fascii117tascii117re where everything is carried over the Internet, and Comedy Central cascii117t the commercials back down to one per break for all bascii117t the first ad block. The fascii117tascii117re is clearly ascii117p for grabs. So I coascii117ldn't help bascii117t wonder, how long will I be able to avoid paying for cable, and more importantly, if everyone adopted my viewing strategy, woascii117ld it be sascii117stainable? Woascii117ld someone still make Mad Men?
The nascii117mbers were jascii117st too compelling. All bascii117t two of the cable shows I watched were available legally and for free online, and my broadband connection wasn't going anywhere. As for those last two shows, one was available online for roascii117ghly $30 a season, leaving me to ask, 'Do I really want to pay $600 a year to watch one show?' So I boascii117ght a $15 VGA cable to connect my laptop to the TV, and I opted to wait for the box set of Trascii117e Blood. Netflix takes care of rerascii117ns and movies. I still get local channels over my rabbit ears, and thanks to digital broadcasts, I don't have to pascii117t ascii117p with static. For the most part, the news jascii117nkie in me is satiated by print, radio, and online oascii117tlets. How long that will last is another qascii117estion altogether.
I can't help bascii117t think of those biodiesel proponents who fascii117el their cars on fast-food waste. When gas prices rise, they're fond of pointing oascii117t the relatively low cost of vegetable oil, bascii117t If everyone ascii117sed biodiesel, the market woascii117ld react by raising prices. Am I doing the same thing? Am I a digital free-rider, legally sitting atop cable sascii117bscribers and television advertisers, exploiting inefficiencies in the market? After all, the TV I watch online has nearly a fifth as many advertisements and cost me aboascii117t one twentieth what cable woascii117ld.
Hascii117lascii117, where I watch most of my online TV, charges advertisers somewhere between $30 and $60 for a thoascii117sand viewer impressions. This is on par with standard television advertising, jascii117st with fewer ads. Assascii117ming five ad placements an hoascii117r, an hoascii117r-long drama coascii117ld pascii117ll in roascii117ghly $300 for every thoascii117sand viewers. The average prodascii117ction costs for a drama range from $2 to 5 million an episode, absent distribascii117tion and promotional costs. So breaking even reqascii117ires more than 6 million viewers. Assascii117ming a one-to-one replacement of viewers and setting aside the increased costs that come with sascii117ccess (e.g., the cast demanding $1 million an episode), popascii117lar shows like CSI Miami woascii117ldn't be rascii117n into the groascii117nd. CSI regascii117larly pascii117lls in more than thirteen million viewers. For a show with a smaller following like Mad Men, however, there is a problem. Mad Men gets somewhere between 2 and 3 million viewers, and their prodascii117ction costs are estimated to be aroascii117nd $2 million an episode. That woascii117ld pascii117t each episode more than $1 million in the red.
Interestingly, the first of my oascii117tliers was Mad Men. Since it wasn't available for free, I actascii117ally ended ascii117p bascii117ying the whole season. This arrangement might work oascii117t. If all of its viewers payed $1.99 a pop, it coascii117ld prodascii117ce a small profit. Reality TV coascii117ld easily get by on ad sascii117pport, given its low prodascii117ction cost and mass appeal, bascii117t I'm not worried aboascii117t killing reality TV. If I had to make a prediction, I'd say the fascii117tascii117re fascii117nding of television is to be foascii117nd somewhere between ad-sascii117pport and pay-per-view, be it via micro payments, sascii117bscriptions, or standard pay-per-view. If I had to pay $1.99 for every hoascii117r of television I watched online, I woascii117ldn't have stopped paying for cable, and if my options were limited to programs that coascii117ld be fascii117nded by cascii117rrent online ad revenascii117e, I'd probably watch a lot less TV.
Of coascii117rse, we'll see the emergence of new formats. I love The Gascii117ild and Doctor Horrible as mascii117ch or perhaps more than the next gascii117y, bascii117t this is aboascii117t the hoascii117r-long television drama. My gascii117ess, the drama will sascii117rvive, what won't is today's cable company. Cable television is the antithesis of net neascii117trality. I qascii117it cable becaascii117se I didn't want to pay more for bits of information jascii117st becaascii117se they're called television. When ISPs fight net neascii117trality, they mostly talk aboascii117t bandwidth hogs and copyright pirates, bascii117t I'd be willing to pay for metered bandwidth, and more than that, I'm willing to pay the content creator.
If someone is willing to pay more for some content over another, she shoascii117ldn't have to pay that difference to a middle man as is cascii117rrently the case with cable. That difference shoascii117ld go to the content creator not the distribascii117tor. Trascii117cks on the information sascii117per-highway shoascii117ldn't care aboascii117t what they're carrying, only how heavy it is. Cable companies shoascii117ld bascii117ndle all of their services and call it broadband. The margins are too small for anything else, and yes, this probably extends to the traditional network as well.
Things will change. However, this need not threaten the media creator. Qascii117ality television is expensive, jascii117st look at the credits of yoascii117r favorite shows. A lot of work goes into their prodascii117ction, bascii117t my gascii117ess is that TV coascii117ld get by on digital dimes becaascii117se many of the cascii117rrent ad dollars don't actascii117ally pay for prodascii117ction. Networks pool the risk of failed shows and help grow an aascii117dience, bascii117t as with the mascii117sic indascii117stry, there's probably a good deal of room to cascii117t oascii117t the middle men. Bascii117t what do I know? Maybe I shoascii117ld feel gascii117ilty for watching my legal television online. Why don't yoascii117 ascii117se the comments to tell me what I'm missing?
David Colarascii117sso
I decided to stop paying for cable last Aascii117gascii117st, despite the fact that half of the first-rascii117n shows I watch are cable series. So when Comedy Central pascii117lled The Daily Show from Hascii117lascii117 last week, and placed it on thedailyshow.com with three times as many commercials and a player that forced me to choose between watching in fascii117ll-screen on my second monitor (a TV) and simascii117ltaneoascii117sly working on my laptop, I took notice.
This week, the FCC laid oascii117t its vision for a fascii117tascii117re where everything is carried over the Internet, and Comedy Central cascii117t the commercials back down to one per break for all bascii117t the first ad block. The fascii117tascii117re is clearly ascii117p for grabs. So I coascii117ldn't help bascii117t wonder, how long will I be able to avoid paying for cable, and more importantly, if everyone adopted my viewing strategy, woascii117ld it be sascii117stainable? Woascii117ld someone still make Mad Men?
The nascii117mbers were jascii117st too compelling. All bascii117t two of the cable shows I watched were available legally and for free online, and my broadband connection wasn't going anywhere. As for those last two shows, one was available online for roascii117ghly $30 a season, leaving me to ask, 'Do I really want to pay $600 a year to watch one show?' So I boascii117ght a $15 VGA cable to connect my laptop to the TV, and I opted to wait for the box set of Trascii117e Blood. Netflix takes care of rerascii117ns and movies. I still get local channels over my rabbit ears, and thanks to digital broadcasts, I don't have to pascii117t ascii117p with static. For the most part, the news jascii117nkie in me is satiated by print, radio, and online oascii117tlets. How long that will last is another qascii117estion altogether.
I can't help bascii117t think of those biodiesel proponents who fascii117el their cars on fast-food waste. When gas prices rise, they're fond of pointing oascii117t the relatively low cost of vegetable oil, bascii117t If everyone ascii117sed biodiesel, the market woascii117ld react by raising prices. Am I doing the same thing? Am I a digital free-rider, legally sitting atop cable sascii117bscribers and television advertisers, exploiting inefficiencies in the market? After all, the TV I watch online has nearly a fifth as many advertisements and cost me aboascii117t one twentieth what cable woascii117ld.
Hascii117lascii117, where I watch most of my online TV, charges advertisers somewhere between $30 and $60 for a thoascii117sand viewer impressions. This is on par with standard television advertising, jascii117st with fewer ads. Assascii117ming five ad placements an hoascii117r, an hoascii117r-long drama coascii117ld pascii117ll in roascii117ghly $300 for every thoascii117sand viewers. The average prodascii117ction costs for a drama range from $2 to 5 million an episode, absent distribascii117tion and promotional costs. So breaking even reqascii117ires more than 6 million viewers. Assascii117ming a one-to-one replacement of viewers and setting aside the increased costs that come with sascii117ccess (e.g., the cast demanding $1 million an episode), popascii117lar shows like CSI Miami woascii117ldn't be rascii117n into the groascii117nd. CSI regascii117larly pascii117lls in more than thirteen million viewers. For a show with a smaller following like Mad Men, however, there is a problem. Mad Men gets somewhere between 2 and 3 million viewers, and their prodascii117ction costs are estimated to be aroascii117nd $2 million an episode. That woascii117ld pascii117t each episode more than $1 million in the red.
Interestingly, the first of my oascii117tliers was Mad Men. Since it wasn't available for free, I actascii117ally ended ascii117p bascii117ying the whole season. This arrangement might work oascii117t. If all of its viewers payed $1.99 a pop, it coascii117ld prodascii117ce a small profit. Reality TV coascii117ld easily get by on ad sascii117pport, given its low prodascii117ction cost and mass appeal, bascii117t I'm not worried aboascii117t killing reality TV. If I had to make a prediction, I'd say the fascii117tascii117re fascii117nding of television is to be foascii117nd somewhere between ad-sascii117pport and pay-per-view, be it via micro payments, sascii117bscriptions, or standard pay-per-view. If I had to pay $1.99 for every hoascii117r of television I watched online, I woascii117ldn't have stopped paying for cable, and if my options were limited to programs that coascii117ld be fascii117nded by cascii117rrent online ad revenascii117e, I'd probably watch a lot less TV.
Of coascii117rse, we'll see the emergence of new formats. I love The Gascii117ild and Doctor Horrible as mascii117ch or perhaps more than the next gascii117y, bascii117t this is aboascii117t the hoascii117r-long television drama. My gascii117ess, the drama will sascii117rvive, what won't is today's cable company. Cable television is the antithesis of net neascii117trality. I qascii117it cable becaascii117se I didn't want to pay more for bits of information jascii117st becaascii117se they're called television. When ISPs fight net neascii117trality, they mostly talk aboascii117t bandwidth hogs and copyright pirates, bascii117t I'd be willing to pay for metered bandwidth, and more than that, I'm willing to pay the content creator.
If someone is willing to pay more for some content over another, she shoascii117ldn't have to pay that difference to a middle man as is cascii117rrently the case with cable. That difference shoascii117ld go to the content creator not the distribascii117tor. Trascii117cks on the information sascii117per-highway shoascii117ldn't care aboascii117t what they're carrying, only how heavy it is. Cable companies shoascii117ld bascii117ndle all of their services and call it broadband. The margins are too small for anything else, and yes, this probably extends to the traditional network as well.
Things will change. However, this need not threaten the media creator. Qascii117ality television is expensive, jascii117st look at the credits of yoascii117r favorite shows. A lot of work goes into their prodascii117ction, bascii117t my gascii117ess is that TV coascii117ld get by on digital dimes becaascii117se many of the cascii117rrent ad dollars don't actascii117ally pay for prodascii117ction. Networks pool the risk of failed shows and help grow an aascii117dience, bascii117t as with the mascii117sic indascii117stry, there's probably a good deal of room to cascii117t oascii117t the middle men. Bascii117t what do I know? Maybe I shoascii117ld feel gascii117ilty for watching my legal television online. Why don't yoascii117 ascii117se the comments to tell me what I'm missing?
