TV Execs Are Finally Recognizing The Landscape Has Shifted
from the took-'em-long-enough dept
Honestly, it's a bit scary that this needs to be discussed at all, but after years of clearly clueless statements by television industry execs over how to deal with new technologies, there's some indication that they may be waking up to what's been happening over the last half decade or so. Following their friends in the recording and movie industries, TV execs have leaned towards fighting new, useful technologies like TiVo and BitTorrent. However, as Adam Thierer is pointing out, execs are starting to realize they need to embrace new technologies, embrace what consumers want, and embrace the fact that TV is no longer the main way people consume media. Of course, some still don't get it -- and some who are starting to recognize this will stumble around for a while making bad decisions. But, the simple fact that some TV execs are finally recognizing what's happening is at least a step in the right direction.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
No Subject Given
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: No Subject Given
Face it, a pilot episode is created to see if the show has potential. TV execs don't make the decision until, say, June for a fall series show. The show's producers now have to gather the talent (actors, actresses, writers, etc.), and episodes have to be written. There are rehearsals and then filming.
A typical series runs 13 or 26 shows/season. During this season, the network execs will make suggestions about "future" episodes (which may already be in the can and thus may need to be edited).
In addition, situtations change for people involved (an actress may get pregnant, an actor may be involved in a costly and public legal case, etc.). Of course, these are the things that insurance can cover, but insurance can only pay money--not get the episodes made!
For these reasons, episodes may be late. If the network has nothing new to show and a time slot to fill, what other choice do they have other than reruns?
Anyway, I just wanted to point out that reruns aren't a diabolical conspiracy. The networks don't like airing reruns during the first few months of a show because people tune out when they air for the very reason you state. If they don't have a choice, they can either air a rerun or air another show or special in that spot. Making these decisions aren't easy, since you have to satisfy advertisers (I paid $10 million to air at 9:00 on Wednesdays, and I'm not sponsoring a Scott Baio variety special!) and other concerns.
Hope this helps.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: No Subject Given
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Value?
But the way the article makes it out, it's like he thinks that folks on the internet are going to start paying $20 a month for television episodes, simply because it's available, probably while trying to force DRM on us at the same time. And while that might make some money, it would be tiny compared to a business plan that publishes content via normal p2p outlets, without DRM, but with commercials encoded in them.
Could you even imagine how many people would download it? I can, because legal high-quality video content is always highly received on the networks. And while some people might end up cutting out the commercials like they do with TiVo, most people would simply watch it, because happy customers of progressive companies always actively support said companies.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Value?
But the way the article makes it out, it's like he thinks that folks on the internet are going to start paying $20 a month for television episodes, simply because it's available, probably while trying to force DRM on us at the same time. And while that might make some money, it would be tiny compared to a business plan that publishes content via normal p2p outlets, without DRM, but with commercials encoded in them.
Could you even imagine how many people would download it? I can, because legal high-quality video content is always highly received on the networks. And while some people might end up cutting out the commercials like they do with TiVo, most people would simply watch it, because happy customers of progressive companies always actively support said companies.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]