Medialoper

We're Not Who You Think We Are

Archives for February 2006

CBS Bypasses iTunes, Common Sense

by

In the latest twist on the road to anything, anytime, anywhere, CBS has decided to sell downloads of Survivor directly from its online store rather than going through iTunes or some other middleman. This is the first time one of the major networks is doing this, so it will be interesting to see what happens. Good.

The network is calling it an “experiment,” and saying that it doesn’t mean that they won’t be going through iTunes for other shows in the future. Also good: one wonders how long the exclusive deals like what NBC & ABC have with iTunes should and will last (though with Steve Jobs becoming a huge stakeholder in Disney, it’s not likely that AOL or Google will be getting Lost any time soon), or whether or not a more traditional model of the networks making the videos available (for a price) for any outlet willing to host them will end up taking hold.

However, there is one caveat on all this. A big enough issue toss the whole experiment right off of the island: the downloads will “expire” 24 hours after purchase. Sigh. Even if this works on the technological tip, and people don’t immediately figure out how to hack it, it still never works as a long-term business strategy. It didn’t work for videos in the 80s; Divx in the 90s, and it probably won’t work for CBS now. (Or Napster, but that’s another post for another time.) And it taints the whole “eliminate the middleman” part of this story, because they aren’t offering the same service as iTunes or AOL.

Here’s the thing: price it low enough so I want to purchase it. And let me play it when I want to play it on whatever device I choose. And let me copy it forward to play on my other media.

That’s all.

  • CBS Cuts Out Download Middleman

    • The First Crack In The Window

    by

    Windows — those periods of time a motion picture (defined as a movie or television show) are available for viewing via a specific media — are sacred in Hollywood. Each window provides a certain type of revenue stream. Using movies as an example, the dollars flow more-or-less in the following order: theater, non-theatrical venues (airplanes, for example), pay-per-view, home entertainment (DVD is the pre-eminent source here), regular pay television like HBO, network television, various international television markets, domestic syndication (for those who like to watch their TV on Saturday afternoons), and a never-ending stream of subsequent television sales.

    As we’ve seen with product developed for the network market, some products are being released (almost) concurrently with the network window. This is causing all sorts of heart palpitations among the traditional set — windows are set and shouldn’t be toyed with.

    Which is why there’s more than a little gloating that, for perfectly logical reasons, the window-free release pattern for Steven Soderbergh’s new movie Bubble is being viewed as less-than-successful. Except for those who view it as a huge win for the new world. Soderbergh partnered with Internet-savvy Mark Cuban’s 2929 pictures, and the product was licensed to a range of media concurrent with the theatrical release, including the Landmark theater chain.

    Though an experiment in breaking windows, the film suffered from short-sighted attitudes of established theater chains:

    While the film’s box-office performance was modest because major theater chains refused to run it, the film’s backers declared victory for their release strategy.

    Considering that more viewers than ever are staying home from theaters, the fears of the theater chains are understandable. But, considering that more viewers than ever are staying home from theaters, it makes sense that content providers would capitalize on advertising dollars by hitting all media types at once. Another consideration for both theater owners and content providers is the fact that there is not necessarily crossover when it comes to theater-going audiences and DVD-viewing audiences. Why penalize one group in favor of another?

    It is a matter of time before the next day-and-date release comes from major studio. The next time, it probably won’t be a small-budget film aimed toward a limited audience. Then the question of whose gloating now will become a Hollywood game.

    Pending Game Show Smackdown

    by

    The nascent Internet-based video entertainment business is poised for its first big clash: Mark Burnett and AOL versus Yahoo and Steven Spielberg. Both sides have decided to launch online game shows, and coincidentally, both game shows feature treasure hunts. Burnett’s Gold Rush will compete with Spielberg’s (provided Spielberg remains attached) Treasure Hunt. But this may not be a case of the best game show winning.

    There are suggestions that Burnett was aware of Yahoo’s plans, and, depending on how the players approach the game (shows), tensions could escalate. Or both parties could realize that treasure hunts are not that novel and decide the online eyeballs and the accompanying ads are more lucrative than litigation. Plus, if one factors in general human desire to get rich, it’s likely that both game shows will draw big audiences.

    While narrative programming continues to be developed, the Burnett/AOL venture makes use of a variety of AOL-owned resources:

    Burnett said Monday that his new Web offering would kick off with armored trucks delivering gold to secret hiding places across the U.S. AOL would pepper its websites and its services, such as instant messaging, with clues that players can use to find prizes. As is common with Burnett’s projects, he expects the show to include traditional ads and product placement deals.

    We can expect a lot of old and new media coverage of the game show ventures as they grow closer to launch. In the meantime, Hollywood insiders will be paying close attention to the projects, if only for traditional reasons:

    After years as the king of televised reality programming, Burnett said he was intrigued by the possibilities — and profits — that could come from expanding the definition of “prime time.”

    iTuning Inside Out?

    by

    Someone broke down what it would cost them to watch every episode of every TV show that they watch and is currently on iTunes, and decided that, because it was way more than their cable bill, it wasn’t worth it. Especially when they figured that iTunes doesn’t cover the full extent of what they could watch like, presumably, Cable or Satellite does.  Though I need to point out that I never saw Brilliant But Canceled because my cable provider never carried Trio.)

    Still, it’s an interesting piece, but I would argue, misses the point the point of the iTunes (or anybody else’s) downloads.  This isn’t a choice between say, Cable or iTunes.  The choice is between Cable and/or iTunes.  And it’s the “and/” which makes all of the difference.  It isn’t going to replace the experience of watching on my HD TV in my living room, but its going to supplement it. If I missed the end of Lost because those frackheads at ABC decided to run it an extra minute and not tell my Replay about that fact, now I have the choice of downloading it.  If I’m going on a trip to the U.K., and want to prove to a broadband-challenged friend over there that the U.S. of The Office has discovered its own groove quite outside of what Ricky Gervais did (perhaps with the back-to-back eps touting the iPod and the Prism DuroSport), I can now do that. 

    Which, I think, is more to the point.  Shelling out a couple of bucks occasionally for reasons you can’t always forsee right this second.

     

    Warner Brothers “Brave” P2P Experiment

    by

    On the surface Warner Brother’s new plan to sell movies and television programs online using file sharing networks seems brave and brilliant. Brave, because the company is making the effort to fight Internet pirates on their own turf, and brilliant, because the company is using an established P2P infrastructure that requires no investment on their part. Forget trying to build an iTunes killer, just take advantage of the delivery opportunities that are already in place.

    Upon further investigation, however, the new In2Movies service looks like it might need some retooling.

    Some issues immediately come to mind:

    1. While they may be popular with millions of early adopters, file-sharing networks are too complex for the masses.

    2. File sharing networks have virtual zero quality of service guarantee. How will WB ensure that downloads are quick and painless?

    3. File sharing is just that – file sharing. Essentially, consumers will be asked to take an active role in distribution of WB’s product. Even more amazingly, WB will be asking consumers to pay for the privilege.

    4. Presumably WB’s products will be competing along side pirated products that are available for free download (including, probably, some of the same titles WB is hoping to sell).

    5. The initial test is limited to a small group of countries. The pilot will launch in Germany and expand to Austrian and Switzerland in March. The last time I checked it was nearly impossible to restrict file sharing to a single country.

    Unless WB plans to create an entirely new file sharing system this pilot program is full of fatal flaws.