TV Broadcasters One Step Closer... But Still Missing The Value Of The Net

from the it's-a-step...-but... dept

The buzz today is that UPN and Google are doing something worth noting in offering up Chris Rock's new TV show for streamed viewing online. Honestly, this isn't all that different than what others have done before them. However, it's still getting the model wrong. It's still looking at the web as a broadcast medium, rather than a communications one. The show is only available to be streamed. You can't take it with you. You can't pass it on to others. You can't move it to another device to watch. You're stuck watching it the way it's offered -- and not so well at that. In attempting to watch it, it seems to be taking an incredibly long time to download, so I'm getting plenty of stops and buffering, which is exactly the impression that neither Google nor UPN should want to be giving. They could have set it up as a BitTorrent (or equivalent) download, saving their own bandwidth issues and letting people actually view the episode how they wanted to. That would generate real excitement and real interest. Instead, this just seems like a cheap marketing stunt that doesn't work very well.
Hide this

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


  • identicon
    Rikko, 26 Sep 2005 @ 4:12pm

    Oh goodie

    A new stream ripper project I can work on.. What a treat, the SHOUTcast one is done.

    link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Camp, 26 Sep 2005 @ 4:50pm

    Rock's TV Stream

    I just watched the new Chris Rock show on Google Video and it looked great. It started as soon as I went to the site and didn't stop or slow until the show was over. I'm only working on cheap dsl too. I don't know what you're talking about, but my experience was a good one. I enjoyed the show, and don't care too much about being able to watch on a different medium either. If I had the option of downloading the file, and sending it to friends and all that, I'd still just watch it the way I just did: streamed.

    link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    tvnetdude, 26 Sep 2005 @ 5:11pm

    TV Broadcasters

    TV programs cost money to produce, they are sponsored by commercials for the most part. When a TV network purchases a series it purchases each of them for a finite number of runs.

    The people that produced it, own it, as it should be. The internet is still a free-for-all.

    I don't see anyone complaining that HBO isn't going to stream "The Sopranos" and you pay dearly for that.

    News and public affairs should be streamed because its part of a TV station's license to serve the public, but that is soemthing they produce themselves and it has an expiration date.

    If quality TV programming is streamed or can be recorded, how can the producers possibly sell their programs overseas?

    Mike

    link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Mike (profile), 26 Sep 2005 @ 5:30pm

      Re: TV Broadcasters

      TV programs cost money to produce, they are sponsored by commercials for the most part.

      So why not offer the program as a download with the commercials included. That way you get a lot more people watching those commercials.

      link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        AZ, 26 Sep 2005 @ 7:29pm

        Re: TV Broadcasters

        Being able to download it and watch it whenever you want to would be great. Some shows though do not want you to be able to download it free. They want to sell you each season on DVD.

        Good point though about adding those comerials along with the download.

        link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Kevin, 26 Sep 2005 @ 7:58pm

        Re: TV Broadcasters

        Because Commercials are geographically limited whilst the internet is global.

        How many of you want to watch a commercial about my local car dealer? Or look at it from the business's point of view...would you pay for a commercial where more than 90% of people viewing your commercial are outside your market area?

        link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Scott, 26 Sep 2005 @ 8:54pm

          Re: TV Broadcasters

          Of course a lot of advertisers are NOT local. So this would actually be a second chance to generate revenue by selling advertising (besides, I imagine the local advertising is often sold by the station, not the network). Include the opportunities new technology provides of having links to purchase, and maybe even being able to click on items IN the show -- see a nice watch you just have to have, click on it and it takes you to buy it. Truly entertaining home shopping.

          link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Aaron, 26 Sep 2005 @ 11:26pm

        Re: TV Broadcasters

        TV programs cost money to produce, they are sponsored by commercials for the most part.

        Or, instead of a station identifying "bug" in the bottom right hand corner, a picture of a pair of Levi's jeans, or the AMD logo, or any other product sold internationally...or one in the bottom right and another in the bottom left...mini-commercials that pay for the production, are on the screen for far longer than a 30 second spot, can't be skipped, and reach a much larger market (international). This and a torrent based distribution channel would more than likely generate more income for both the producers and the advertisers.

        link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Ralph, 26 Sep 2005 @ 5:58pm

      Re: TV Broadcasters

      "If quality TV programming is streamed or can be recorded, how can the producers possibly sell their programs overseas? "

      All quality tv programming is already widely distributed on the internet by millions of people via p2p, and I don't see producers having any problems selling their programs overseas. If anything its making them more money because it, in marketing terms, "generates buzz".

      link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Just Me, 27 Sep 2005 @ 6:21am

      Re: TV Broadcasters

      But your analogy is flawed. You've chosen a pay-to-watch show to illustrate your point, and that's missing the point. Let's look at the business model for my local UPN station.

      Sure, it costs money to for the network to create a show. It costs money for the local affiliate to broadcast that show. Of course, they are using public airwaves and there are no barriers to entry for a UPN show (like buying cable/DirecTV or signing up for the additional HBO programming). This this means they are giving away a product in exchange for advertising revenue. The people buying commercials hope the product (TV show) is good enough to have eyeballs watch the show and the commercials.

      Again, since there are no barriers, then the only thing limiting viewing area is signal strength. The local affiliate pays for each megawatt and pays for the rights to broadcast. If they remove these two limitations by re-distributing the TV feed via the Internet then they can reach a wider audience at the same cost and (maybe) also be able to charge more in ad fees. This seems like a win-win situation to me.


      And yes, I've considered the results of having 37 different versions of the same show from 37 different stations. I decided to ignore that problem.

      link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Mark, 26 Sep 2005 @ 5:26pm

    broadcast vs. communications

    "However, it's still getting the model wrong. It's still looking at the web as a broadcast medium, rather than a communications one."

    Actually, I'd say it's a flexible medium, that can be used in a variety of different ways. If someone chooses to broadcast over the net, more power to them. If I don't want to watch it, I vote with my feet -- but if they find an audience that way, where's the harm?

    link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Mike (profile), 26 Sep 2005 @ 5:29pm

      Re: broadcast vs. communications

      The point is they're making this out to be a big deal, and they're barely taking advantage of what the internet is good for. This isn't a big deal at all. It's just the same old thinking. That's why it's disappointing.

      link to this | view in chronology ]


Follow Techdirt
Essential Reading
Techdirt Deals
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Techdirt Insider Discord

The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...

Loading...
Recent Stories

This site, like most other sites on the web, uses cookies. For more information, see our privacy policy. Got it
Close

Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.