FTFY

… but now that everything is using chroma key, I simply don’t see it.

*****

Is that a fix? Maybe you’re right. We should increase the price and cut off the digital versions! Go theater model and make sure there is only one version available and charge $40-300 per viewing. Instead of seat position, it will be based on bit rate.

Glad to see you also think compositing is so easy too. Just a chroma key eh? I guess most of us must suck at vfx, pulling 10hr days on norm, 20hr days during crunch with no overtime paid.

Please tell me what you do for a living. Because I see that I am a fool for using my extended years of math and computer science education as applied to entertainment is of no value. What job do you feel is worth being paid for?

Doesnt explain time lag though. You think there is any excuse for an already established show to wait months before showing it in another country.

The bbc run mad men. It should be on the same week as in the US. No excuses, until this happens keep all your theories to yourself.

As I see it, the main problem is that the channel’s real job of maximising revenue is getting in the way of their apparent job of providing content to the viewer.

There is an alternative model, which would solve this problem, but will probably place several cats amongst the pigeons.

The BBC.

Fortunately for us we’re also the people who are contributing most to the proliferation of filesharing within and across these contractually bound regions. Which should be enough reason for TV producers and networks to listen to us:

-We prefer to view the shows we like on demand.
-We prefer not to pay for shows we don’t like.

This is a problem solved for us by filesharing (which may or may not lead to the purchase of DVDs).

Lamentably though for them and us both, filesharing does little to prevent the cancellation of the shows we do like – there is still room for improvment (read ‘profit’). Because there’s a third caveat:

-We are willing to pay for what we do like.

Personally I love the online streaming, limited as it is, because it can only evolve into what we want from here – all the shows we want to see on demand, at a price that keeps them airing.

I think they’ve already thought this through and cleverly, it will not remove the middle man or regular TV. Computers are being sold with TV tuners much like the latest ipod has a radio tuner.

For the sake of my favourite shows, I just hope they’re quick about it!

1) i pay for Sky TV. satellite in the UK. i’m international, so dont count as much, but since the best shows come from america, it matters to me that they do well.

2) i am indeed, and have one of the largest collections of TV DVD’s of anyone i know. i have over 300 seasons of various shows on DVD, Bluray or for a few, HD-DVD. in fact for some shows i have copies on multiple formats.

3) if a non nielsen family changes viewing patterns, how does it make the nielsen families irrelevant? when they are the ones being monitored? thats my whole point, no one knows what the viewing patterns of most people as they are not being monitored!

my viewing in the UK isnt recorded. so it doesnt matter if i watch a show live. i often do, cause i enjoyed it and have no problem with watching again, but i’ve usually already seen it. but it doesnt matter if i watch live or not, cause no one knows i did. i’m not counted.

“Cut out the middleman & go direct!”

Well, turns out that doesn’t work. The cost of producing shows and movies are in large part people costs. People involved with creating thigns want to get paid. The actors, writers, directors, composers, musicians, cinematographers, electricians, make-up artists, gaffers, painters, set builders, wardrobe, effects, craft services, etc. all want to get paid. And they have good unions to represent them that insist on minimum levels of pay and hours worked that are part of agreements with production companies.

In other words, the costs of making a show are in large part due to the fees of the people needed to make the show. Sure, if you get people to work for free, your costs are low, but that is not a realistic model. You won’t get many talented people, even if you pay the standard day-rates. Good people want good money.

Cutting out the middleman doesn’t change the cost of production.

Trying to make shows for cheaper is possible, but if you want something like Battlestar Galactica, it costs money because it takes a lot of hard for a lot of good people to make.

Yes, pirated content is available and competing business model. Many in television have tried to make shows available for free the next day after airing to please those looking to see the programs. Unfortunately, the revenue from this does not equate to the same revenue from cable subscriber revenue and advertising dollars. A web only model cannot sustain the costs of production for any modern television program.

The Long Tail idea is interesting, but largely impractical to the same rights issues mentioned previously. Going back and getting the rights from the actors, writers, musicians, etc. to re-air old programming on the web is expensive, let alone the costs of steaming it to a tiny set of consumers. 1000 true fans cannot cover the costs of bringing back a series from the 80s, clearing the rights, and publishing it to the net. We’ve done the math, it just doesn’t pencil out.

I wish I had the answer as to how we all will make the transition away from the traditional subscription TV model. I’d be rich if I did. But no one does.

In the end, people want to get paid. The old system of cable pays. The web doesn’t pay anywhere near as good. Until that changes somehow, we all will be stuck with rights issues and geoblocking.

Welcome Craig, good to have you at BB.

There’s not just one middleman, but at least two. There are the networks, who offer production companies money in exchange for putting their ads all over their content. (ick.) Then they in turn must work through the cable companies, who have huge infrastructures to support. (ugh.) Take out those two giant revenue sucks and suddenly there’s a lot more money available to the production company. Take on a partner like Google, who already has an established, streamlined network for selling advertising to targeted and localized markets (through AdSense) and there’s your funding. And Google (through YouTube) has the infrastructure to distribute your videos and charge people to watch episodes if that’s something you think is worth exploring.

What can I do to kill the old business model faster? I don’t really watch that much TV, but it looks like its time to put this horse out of its misery.

Yeah, I know, it isn’t right. Just adding my 2 Kroner.

We will never see the series in the U.S., as it’s just too British. In point of fact, there was a Time Team special about Stonehenge. I torrented the Channel 4 version with Tony Robinson, Phil Harding and the rest of the crew. It was delightful, with lots of details and insights provided by the Time Team archeologists.

A year later, it showed up on the Discovery Channel. No Tony, no Phil and with narration by (IIRC) Donald Southerland. It was a weak and pale shadow of the original.

So, I will download Time Team (And Doctor Who and Merlin and any other U.K. TV series I fancy watching) Because I can and I will not settle for chopped to pieces version suitable for American TV.

Why…

I have cable; used to be Comcast, now it’s TWC. They have something called OnDemand. Why are SOME shows from a given network available and others aren’t? If you are an NBC/Universal channel, you seem to be stuffing lots of commercials in there, so why isn’t EVERYTHING available via OnDemand for at least a short time, much like the Hulu model? I am already PAYING for cable TV after all.

What to do about people stripping the ads out and torrenting the ad-free results? Just make sure your own torrents are the best seeded and not get too greedy with the ads and people will not bother with the ad stripped versions.
When I watch a show on Hulu I don’t mind the ads because they are few and far between.

Did you even read the article posted? The purpose of Syfy and the other networks is to provide the guarantee of funding to get the series off the ground in the first place. Much like the purpose of movie studios. They put up the promise of money to get the series made. That’s not “useless middle men” – they’re mitigating the risk that the show’s producers have to front to get the show made in the first place. As the article points out, shows lose money in general.

That’s not to argue that this is a good system – clearly it’s a system that has a lot about it that sucks. And better systems are probably also going to crop up as new technology makes new methods of distribution more attractive to producers. But the networks are not yet at the point of “useless middle men” if they’re the primary source of funds to get new shows off the ground.

It’s interesting to see that the studios follow the “blockbuster” model (one big hit pays for a million little flops} that movies and music also follow, and that the internet poses the same basic risk (not being able to make as much money on blockbusters).

However, I think for better or worse, TV is going online. I don’t even HAVE a TV in my apartment — everything I watch is from Hulu or Netflix — but my TV show viewing has skyrocketed since discovering the services that, essentially, allow me to control the shows I watch and when I want to watch them. Without having to pay extra fees for a DVR or a monthly fee for cable (though the cable company also supplies internet, so they’re getting my money either way).

So the blockbuster is dying, and the mass market doesn’t exist any more. How do you make money in that climate?

A: Cultural Floatsam. Collectibles (like boxed DVD sets, or limited-edition toy lines), easter eggs (Warehouse 13 Brand Purple Goo), Simpson/Star Wars-style hyper-branding (Syfy cookie jars!), events (SyFy Con for public consumption every year ($20 tickets! Costume contests for cosplayers!), actors who perform scenes or even special, limited-run episodes on stage, etc.).

Many TV stations and studios seem to be under the mistaken impression that they need to sell access to their product in order to make a profit.

They don’t.

They need to sell things.

Combine that with a massive industry re-structuring, jettisoning middle-men like studios (each “channel” is a brand that finds its own shows, looking to fan-produced material on YouTube and the like to find cheap but viable programming, actors, effects guys, shows…), and I think you have a pretty viable alternative business model.

The challenge is in shifting from one to the other, and ignoring the cries of middle-men all along the ranks who claim you can’t or shouldn’t do it.

SyFy should produce and broadcast its own shows, with as big a net as possible, and sell ways for people to engage with the shows and the network itself, rather than access to the creative works.

If Bob in Norway wants to watch Boing Show, he can and will watch it for free on the internet. Bob loves Boing Show and would like to watch it on Boing Co’s website, so that he can contribute to Boing Show’s future by dutifully watching the 3 minute ads that give the show revenue (however small this revenue may be). But, if Boing Co won’t/can’t make that available for him, it’s not going to stop him from watching Boing Show. He’ll just watch it online, for free, ad-free. Like you can with every other show.

A more accurate title for this article would be, “Why TV companies shoot themselves in the foot by not making all of their episodes available online where they can get revenue for them, since every show is already available online for free whether they like it or not”

The solution is as obvious. Have regional advertising firms separate from the actual channels streaming the show, so you can easily stream Norway ads for IPs from Norway and US ads for IPs from the US, on the same site. It will take forever for this to work out, but that’s the only sensible solution. Unfortunately, this would make many traditional TV channel models obsolete and they will fight like a raging giant till the end. Until then, Norwegians will continue pirating.

I apologize for sounding like one of those cruel pirate types (which, coincidentally, I am), but doesn’t it seem like your lesson in supposed economy reality is just an excuse to maintain economic irrelevance? If I want to watch a show, I torrent it or download it directly. Sure, you could hunt me down and sue me, but while that’s a comfortingly familiar scenario for you, it’s not a very practical, profitable business model for your company.

Instead of going out of business while crying about the impossibilities of your current business model, wouldn’t it be better for everyone if you came up with a business model that actually worked? It’s up to you and your corporate masters, of course. I just want the occasional piece of entertainment, delivered as quickly, easily, and in the best quality that I can get it. I have nothing against you personally, but if you’re not doing anything for me, I have to say that I won’t even notice when your company hits the skids and you lose your job.

My apologies, but that’s the real economic reality of things.

FFS, just turn the advertising over to the professionals (i.e. Google adwords) – They’ve figured out how to display relevant ads, how to serve markets large and small and how to reach global without having to pound the streets looking for advertisers.

BSG was a great show and did great things for the SciFi channel. Caprica is just awful. Airing old monster movies on weekend afternoons probably brought in lots of viewers. Now we are inundated with incredibly lame made-for-SciFi-Channel movies like “Stan Lee’s Harpies” and “Chihuanhas.” Wrestling and reality TV have built-in audiences of young viewers, so now SciFi has mutated into that other monstrosity containing the letters “S.F.” which shows professional wrestling and reality TV series.

All of these “safe” changes have steadily eroded the initial fan base. SciFi channel used to be one of the 3 or 4 (out of the 500+ that my cable package provides) that I watched regularly. Now I’ve deleted it from my favorites rotation because all they show is crap that has little to do with science fiction.

All of these arguments about why shows can’t be broadcast online to multiple countries is just rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic. The big problem that SciFi has to solve is how to return to what made it a great channel in the beginning and win back the fans that made it a ton of money with original, good, real Sci Fi shows like BSG.