Quote: Original post by BeanDog
This should not be beholden to advertisers. Most reputable publications have a commendable record of keeping their editorial and advertising departments very separate. Assuming in some alternate-reality future my dream does happen, news should be a paid service.

I'm not sure that "news for the wealthy elite" is the way of the future. Lower-income families without the disposable income to pay for "subscriber-pays" news would simply not get any, and that's much worse than news outlets that generate revenue from advertising (at least, that's my opinion).

Quote: Original post by Codeka

Quote: Original post by BeanDog
This should not be beholden to advertisers. Most reputable publications have a commendable record of keeping their editorial and advertising departments very separate. Assuming in some alternate-reality future my dream does happen, news should be a paid service.

I'm not sure that "news for the wealthy elite" is the way of the future. Lower-income families without the disposable income to pay for "subscriber-pays" news would simply not get any, and that's much worse than news outlets that generate revenue from advertising (at least, that's my opinion).

Most of the lower-income news watchers I've met subscribe to cable currently. But maybe it'd be different if they were forced to make that granular a spending decision.

Quote: Original post by BeanDog

Quote: Original post by LessBread

Quote: Original post by BeanDog
In my view, the somewhat distant but inevitable future of entertainment programming (i.e. TV) is 100% internet-delivered ad-supported free content. Not necessarily web-delivered content, since it may eventually arrive over BitTorrent or some other protocol, but definitely over the internet.

Is the advertising supported business model working out for content driven internet sites in general? If the model works for the most popular sites, is that sufficient for the less popular sites?

I recently read that YouTube is bleeding a few million bucks a day, so maybe not. But then, maybe they just have a very poorly-conceived advertising program. What about a forced 2-minute commercial break with your standard crowd of regular commercials (there, no Orwellian crap for you), but you get to click a button saying "I hate this commercial or product, please move on to the next." That would save me from watching the 45-second ad for Girls Gone Wild with my wife, while simultaneously giving me an opportunity to view another, hopefully more relevant, commercial.

That sounds good to me, but I'm not in the advertising business. How would a television station sell advertising if it couldn't guarantee the time let alone the viewers? A consignment model might work, but I think stations would balk at having to compile which advertisements were actually viewed. I realize that keeping track would be trivial for a computer, but bear in mind that the human end of the transaction would involve marketing and sales departments.

Quote: Original post by BeanDog

Quote: Original post by LessBread

Quote: Original post by BeanDog
But don't tell that to cable and satellite operators. They only exist because it was much easier and still is much cheaper to beam the same content to a whole world simultaneously than to each consumer individually. They will use whatever stupid or silly tactics their own market position provides to maintain the profitable status quo (see: low Time Warner Cable internet bandwidth caps).

I don't think cheaper and easier delivery is their only motivation. They have a strong desire to establish a brand name and it's easier to brand a single package than a plethora of products listed in a catalog.

That's fair. But I think Hulu is doing a fair job of building up a brand. They're a very early, very rough, very unprofitable version of what I think the future of TV is.

Hulu doesn't generate content. For all we know it could be the "Friendster" of content delivery, soon to be replaced by future competitors. So far, it seems that what Hulu offers is a way to catch up on missed NBC shows without having to pay for them. The NBC shows available On Demand via Comcast are pay per view. ABC and CBS shows there are free.

Quote: Original post by BeanDog

Quote: Original post by LessBread

Quote: Original post by BeanDog
* Similarly, there's no concept of otherwise "missing" an episode. If I go on vacation a few weeks, or just forget to watch my favorite show for whatever reason, I'll be back to watch every missed episodes--again, with all the ads that go along with it.

That's only if they decide to keep their back catalog available. It's theoretical possible, but it seems to me that is a feature they would want to charge extra for.

And it's something I'm willing to pay for--as evidenced by my current Netflix subscription, which I've been using lately to watch the back catalog of 30 Rock.

Netflix has a really good catalog. That might not be the case with similar endeavors.

Quote: Original post by BeanDog

Quote: Original post by LessBread

Quote: Original post by BeanDog
* The advertisements could be actionable. I see this once in a long while on satellite ("Press the Select button now to see more information on the Snuggie!"), but when the content is being delivered to an Internet-enabled device, you could take the viewer straight to an order page with their billing and shipping address already filled in. And their show would just pause as long as it took to finish the order.

That seems Orwellian to me. Big Brother says Buy Now! because we know where you live...

You're thinking way too much about this. It's no different than Amazon.com keeping your billing and shipping addresses from your earlier purchase so you don't have to enter it again. And no worse than any banner ad on the web today in telling you to click through and Buy Now!

Actually, I didn't think much about it at all. I see Big Brother lurking in the shadows behind any technology that enables two way communication between a user's residence and a centralized operation of any kind.

Quote: Original post by BeanDog

Quote: Original post by LessBread
One point in the Time magazine article I linked to above is worth repeating, even though it pertained specifically to journalism, the point resonates beyond that:

Quote:
Henry Luce, a co-founder of TIME, disdained the notion of giveaway publications that relied solely on ad revenue. He called that formula "morally abhorrent" and also "economically self-defeating." That was because he believed that good journalism required that a publication's primary duty be to its readers, not to its advertisers. In an advertising-only revenue model, the incentive is perverse. It is also self-defeating, because eventually you will weaken your bond with your readers if you do not feel directly dependent on them for your revenue.

Luce is not above criticism, but the point here is worth raising, even if only in question form. What is the primary duty of television? Who should television be for, viewers or advertisers? What are the incentives?

This is why I like having you in a conversation. You ask interesting questions.

I think television has a few major roles. One is entertainment. Entertainment is beholden to advertisers, period, unless it's good enough to maintain a directly paying audience. Entertainment is the part of TV I was really referencing in my original post.

I don't agree that entertainment is beholden to advertisers or that it should be. I would think that you wouldn't want your entertainment beholden to "Girls Gone Wild". I know I wouldn't. I think entertainment should be beholden to viewers. Without viewers there are no eyes to sell to advertisers.

Quote: Original post by BeanDog
Another role is news dissemination. This should not be beholden to advertisers. Most reputable publications have a commendable record of keeping their editorial and advertising departments very separate. Assuming in some alternate-reality future my dream does happen, news should be a paid service.

I agree that news organizations should not be deferential to advertisers, but I don't think that's so much the case. (I could find examples if you want them). I also think that the line between editorial and news departments has blurred considerably for the last decade. And also that the line between advertising and news has begun to blur as well. See Fake TV News: Video News Releases, Video news releases and Hospital Flacks Spread Fake News.

Quote: Original post by BeanDog
Another role is broadcasting to a specific audience. The recent LDS General Conference is a prime example of this--the public at large probably didn't care about the conference, but enough millions of Americans did that it made it onto many network TV stations, especially in Utah. In my future, this would be paid for by the sponsoring organization (in this case the LDS church) and provided as a free service to viewers.

It didn't make it to stations out here, at least, not in a way that came to my attention. It seems to me that if I lived in Utah, even though I'm not LDS, there might be portions of the conference that I would pay attention to. I'm not a Republican, yet I always watch the RNC. I think there are some events that everyone should watch (not be forced to watch), because it's important to know what your neighbors think, what they care about and so on. I see it as part of one's civic duty.

I have two real-world experiences with which to back up my position. I think it's a good idea but I certainly can see why it's not happening on a large scale.

1. I had network tv (no cable), for 3 years. We watched what was on tv and were ok with it. After purchasing cable, I feel like nothing good is ever on and now spend my time "surfing" instead of forcing myself to watch a show that is not my top pick out of necessity.

Given a broad choice of what to "watch", I can see people spending more time looking at choices than watching shows, which translates to less time watching ads.

2. Psychologically something happens when you have the ability to watch something at any given time. The best example of this that I have is my DVD collection. I love The Matrix, it is one of my favorite movies, but I have only watched my DVD version once. Whenever I am about to pop it in I say, "Nah, too many boring parts." However, without fail, if I see it on tv I will watch the entire movie, commercials and all. This happens with almost all of my dvd's.

MY TV watching habits are a bit odd. I prefer to watch episodes from start to finish. For example Heroes, thats a a series I want to watch from start to finish, adds or no adds. Same As Tudors, Dexter, TrueBlood, Smallville, Star Trek Enterprise etc. I Just want to search for a series, and watch it from start to finish without having to wait for the seasonal releases.

Well, I agree that there's a lot of advantages to going to a internet-driven model (one of my friends in The Netherlands works for a company there that does this already) but, personally, I don't and won't watch ads. I mute tv commercials as-is, *when* I watch tv, which is rare (it's usually only background noise while I program and most of the time is a DVD or VHS tape). I don't support the world becoming Idiocrisy with ads everywhere, so I just don't watch any ads. I know what I need, I don't need to be brainwashed with someone else's idea of what that should be.

I do, though, like Southparkstudios.com's site. Being able to watch South Park whenever I want is great! No ads, no nothing! Awesome! But I still prefer to have something that actually changes my focal distance from the typical < 2' that it is 10+ hours a day when I'm programming or reading crap online.

@ ChurchSkiz on point 2: I'm the same way with my tv-watching. I think it comes down to tv being a somewhat mindless activity. Too many choices and control lead to choice-overload. It's easier to have this decided in a random fashion (pick whatever's on. Let the networks decide what's on when). Though, I have gotten good at just throwing something in my DVD/VHS before I have time to really give it too much thought and usually find that I don't regret my gut-instinct first choices on what to put on.

[Edited by - Running_Wild on April 20, 2009 3:56:48 AM]

Quote: Original post by BeanDog
Am I missing something here?

What would people whine about, if they couldnt rave forever about how this newfangled technology thing is going to be the end of us all?

A friend of mine is researching protocols for on-demand television. He told me about the politics of it once; im paraphrasing, but it has a lot to do with investments that people arnt quite mentally ready to declare sunk yet. Its an industry that hasnt seen any real change for deccades, run by complacent morons. They are starting to realize they will have to catch up sooner or later or bite the dust though. Give it a few more years.

Quote: Original post by Eelco

Quote: Original post by BeanDog
Am I missing something here?

What would people whine about, if they couldnt rave forever about how this newfangled technology thing is going to be the end of us all?

A friend of mine is researching protocols for on-demand television. He told me about the politics of it once; im paraphrasing, but it has a lot to do with investments that people arnt quite mentally ready to declare sunk yet. Its an industry that hasnt seen any real change for deccades, run by complacent morons. They are starting to realize they will have to catch up sooner or later or bite the dust though. Give it a few more years.

Just supporting something because it's new and tre-hip without considering the social impact value is just as bad. And, let's be honest here, many companies are run by complacent morons....

Quote: Original post by LessBread

Quote: Original post by BeanDog
Currently, some content owners are being dragged into this kicking and screaming. Old pathetic movies and a couple TV shows are available streaming on Netflix. A smaller but different selection is available free via Hulu (and other similar services). Individual content creators and distributors host dozens or even hundreds of major video delivery services themselves.

It seems to me newspapers are kicking and screaming the loudest. For example, How to Save Your Newspaper. This article explores the questions I raised above. It makes some good points, but I don't agree with it's conclusions.

Fun fact: if you were Dutch, youd totally be kicking and screaming with them.

These institutions such as newspapers and television are under the iron grip of an unspecified political current that i suspect youd identify with. As you might guess: their withering, and the accompanying kicking and screaming, is an endless source of amusement for me; even better entertainment than fox news.

Quote: Original post by Running_Wild
Just supporting something because it's new and tre-hip without considering the social impact value is just as bad. And, let's be honest here, many companies are run by complacent morons....

'considering the social impact value'? What does that even mean?

There is a demand for a certain service. Now all we need is someone to offer it. Such happens, or it doesnt happen. End of story. How do your, or anyone's opinions regarding 'social impact value' factor into this?