Does No One Remember That The NBA Tried And Failed To Do Paid Internet Videos A Year Ago?
from the reporting?--bah! dept
Perhaps it's not surprising to find reporters who can't remember events in the tech world from 10 years ago when the same things are repeating themselves today, but is it really so hard to expect a reporter from a major publication (say, the NY Times) to at least remember what happened a year ago? In January of 2006, Google announced its Google Video product to tremendous fanfare. At the time of the launch, the big story wasn't about a YouTube competitor (YouTube still wasn't that big), but that Google had signed a bunch of deals with content providers to let users buy online videos. One of the big brand name partners was the NBA, who had agreed to post videos of basketball games (both recent and classic) that could be downloaded for just $4. Lots of folks wrote about it -- even the NY Times. It was a "big deal." Of course, what followed was that no one wanted to pay to see basketball games online. Instead, everyone gravitated to free content on YouTube. So, Google just bought YouTube and the deal with the NBA was quietly shuttered, receiving a lot less attention than when it was announced. So why is it that when the NBA decides to let fans buy both new and classic games from its own site for $3 (getting cheaper!), it's written up as a big new thing in the NY Times without a single mention of the fact that the NBA failed at doing nearly an identical thing just a year ago?
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
DejaVu
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Press releases
This is largely what journalists do now, often without changing the words from the release, so you end up with 4 or 5 competitive newspapers carrying not just similar but identical stories.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If at first you don't succeed, try try try again
$4 a show was expensive, given the going rate for cable is something like $10 a channel a month max. So they've got a long way to go to get their packages assembled and prices correctly, but thats true of other business too. At least they're trying different tweaks.
It's just a different cable, if people pay for content down one cable, they'll pay for content down the other. I like it that NBA are trying again and don't think it's necessary to dwell on past failures.
Oh and Google Video too, the flat pricing was too expensive, and I'd waste an hour to select an hours entertainment. Why they don't assemble channels and sell them as subscription channels? Or flat price per days entertainment or or or... i.e. tweak and try again.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: If at first you don't succeed, try try try aga
...not sure where you live, but around here (toronto, canada), that would mean my 70 channel package would cost me $700.00 per month? I am pretty sure I am not paying quite that much....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Cheaper because it is direct
Sure, if you look really hard, you can get great deals at Swap Meets, but the Internet is about ease/convenience. It only makes sense that you'd sell these games to people that come to your site if you must sell them at all.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This is nothing new. News stories as advertising and PR is a very old concept. Sometimes it's easy to identify the source and motive for a story, and sometimes it's not...although in this age of googling, it's easier now.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Lock down...
It's nice to see that they are trying again instead of going to the government to pay for a few laws to protect their online services though. And as for why the Times is acting like this is a brand new idea? Simple, the NBA wants to bury that failed project in order to create the image of getting it right the first time.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Er...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Grasping at straws
The problem is that the NBA is not "cool" anymore. Once upon a time, kids would become sports freaks in school and the trend would follow them into the real world, where they could live vicariously through the players on TV. In todays world you go through most schools of any significant size and you won't hear much said about professional sports. A stigma of middle aged men with beer belly's and bad hair cuts has replaced the idealized view of professional sports.
You could compare the state of the NBA to the state of NASCAR a few years ago. They began to fade and the numbers of viewers started falling. Of course all NASCAR had to do to revive some interest was give back to the people a little more and get more penetration into the advertising world. Now even snickers commercials have NASCAR's drivers on them. The problem for the NBA is that their players look really goofy and don't make good spokes people. They also lack "good" people that the fans can relate to. Everyone in the NBA wants to be a badass, but it doesn't appeal to anyone when they are among the most pampered people in the world.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Rediculous
You might find a few folks willing to pay for this, but if they have the internet connection to download this, they most likely have cable and as everyone knows cable is a big enough rip off on its OWN... if you're already paying for that, why would you want to pay more to download something you can set your dvr to record, or just watch?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I think there's a misunderstanding
Nowadays it could be up to $10 a month for the 7 or 8 various channels that HBO or Showtime or whoever broadcasts, but most people think of it as only one channel, rather than multiple channel packages.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I think there's a misunderstanding
That could be because only one channel in the bundle is worth paying for, so people look at it as buying the channel they want and getting a bunch or crap that was stuck to it.
When I ordered the speed channel, they forced me to take 5 other sports channels. Of course there was no way they were going to let me get away with just the good channel...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
#11 - "In todays world you go through most schools of any significant size and you won't hear much said about professional sports". In my world, I know quite a few kids that pretend to be their favorite players while playing the game. And the only thing that "saved" NASCAR was the fact their Redneck God died. His death alone probably contributed the most to a NASCAR revival, if one exists.
Why shouldn't the NBA try again? I would pay $3 for a "classic" game I haven't seen in 15+ years or for a highlight real of my favorite players.
I think what is more interesting in the article is the upcoming search functionality and how highlights or events in the games are being logged so that you can search on things like "dunkenstien" and not come up with crap like this.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Funny
[ link to this | view in chronology ]