Dear Jeff Zucker, Whether You Like It Or Not, Content Will Stay Free
from the economic-confusion dept
It's sometimes entertaining when powerful executives don't seem to understand the rather basic market forces that they're facing. Take Jeff Zucker, CEO of NBC Universal, who's done a pretty good job driving the operation into the ground over the past few years. In a recent interview, he apparently said (as he's hinted in the past) that it might make sense to charge for TV content online, noting that:I do not think that it is a foregone conclusion that content should be free on the Internet.The problem, of course, is that we're well beyond should. Sorry, Jeff, but you don't get to decide that. The technology and the market have already decided that the content is or will be free online. It might not be authorized. It might not be legal. But the content is free. "Should" has nothing to do with it, because the technology and the market don't care about "should." Yes, this sucks for those who only understand how to run a business when they're a gatekeeper who controls things, but it doesn't mean there aren't really good businesses built on free content. NBC should know this, since an awful lot of its history was built on exactly that... And I don't recall Zucker's predecessors whining about that darn "free" broadcast TV.
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
Filed Under: content, culture, economics, free
Companies: nbc universal
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Y'know...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Y'know...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Y'know...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Y'know...
After they start collecting for that; you'll have people with herb gardens complaining about how they never got paid.
; P
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Y'know...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Y'know...
So if I shit on their garden, what do I get?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Y'know...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Y'know...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Cable
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Cable
like this one? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QIgZHZpiq1U
the materials may have been discarded so there is not a historical record.
thank god we have unauthorized copying today to fix that problem.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Well...
To be fair, TV on the internet and on television aren't even remotely the same thing. The former is a broadcast medium where NBC has all the control. After all, if you're watching at the time of broadcast, it's not as if you can simply skip the commercials (the basis for their FREE! model). Unauthorized shows/seasons on the internet don't have those commercials.
That said, they could still make it work and the economic reality is clear. I just think we should avoid the "TV is FREE!" potshots as I'm not certain they make sense....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Well...
I can't understand how broadcasters have totally failed at commercials online when it's the entire reason for their existence in broadcast tv, except for the fact that they still don't understand that people actually want to watch online.
Unless they haven't failed and they are just whining for some government handout.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Well...
During Soccer season --with nothing but adblock-- the streams simply stopped when there were commercials and continued when the action started again.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I'm wondering what type of paywall Jeff is going to put up that people are going to run away from?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
In fact I'd call Jeff's prediction rather accurate. Hulu is charging for content, and people are paying.
iTunes is charging for content, and people are paying.
netflix is charging for content, and people are paying.
All for content that is easily available online without any DRM.
It always seems rather funny to me to see techdirt continually attack new business models instead, of, you know, watching them fail or succeed. I knew they'd jumped the shark when there was no analysis of RadioHead's jump back in the sack with the RIAA as a semi-admission of failure of their online experiments. We'll just put that over there with the "let's-not-talk-about-that" stuff.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
The people who are even willing to pay, let alone be able to in the current climate, is nowhere near the number who watch TV on an ad-supported, "free" basis. Maybe they can still turn a profit, but it's the wrong way to go to remain mainstream.
As for your other comments, you just show a typical lack of understanding of most of the topics discussed here, the motivations behind certain experiments and fail to notice that most of the business models criticised here do, in fact, fail for the reasons discussed (check back next year for the results of the pathetic Kazaa relaunch).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
convenience mostly. convenience is a scarce, salable commodity.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Hulu just started charging. I've seen no evidence that a large number of people are paying.
iTunes is charging for content, and people are paying.
And if you look at the numbers, you realize it's still a tiny percentage. No one said that *no one* will pay, but it's not a particularly large business model.
netflix is charging for content, and people are paying.
Netflix is charging for a service, not for the content itself. It's an important distinction.
It always seems rather funny to me to see techdirt continually attack new business models instead, of, you know, watching them fail or succeed.
Giving an economic analysis of a business model is not "attacking new business models." Thanks for playing.
I knew they'd jumped the shark when there was no analysis of RadioHead's jump back in the sack with the RIAA as a semi-admission of failure of their online experiments. We'll just put that over there with the "let's-not-talk-about-that" stuff.
Huh?!?!? First of all, that's wrong on every single point. When Radiohead *first* announced the download project, they said that they were going to do a traditional distribution deal for the CDs. In fact, we POINTED OUT at the time, how this was smart (http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20070930/214524.shtml) contrary to your claim we ignored it. They were using the "free" digital music to get people interested, and then offering a really, really nice physical box set to get people to buy. And, it makes sense to work with the labels on that part of it, since they do have the distribution expertise there.
So, there was no "jumping back in the sack" with the RIAA. In fact, Radiohead appears to only have used the distribution arm of the label, and kept the copyrights themselves.
As for the claim that Radiohead admitted that their online experiments were a failure... um, no. That's wrong. Blatantly wrong, as we just discussed earlier this week!
Radiohead has said that the experiment earned them more directly than any previous release:
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20081015/1640202552.shtml
Radiohead has also said that the RIAA is dying and almost dead (and this is very recently):
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090806/1726455790.shtml
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/201 00609/0651119751.shtml
Radiohead's manager has said that file sharing should be legal (again, well after the experiment):
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090506/0229264765.shtml
Also, the band has continued to release music for free, well after the experiment, showing that your claim that they think it was a failure is blatantly wrong:
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090818/0053565911.shtml
So it's hard to see a single accurate point in your statement. Radiohead didn't "jump back in the sack." It had, from the beginning, always planned to use the distribution prowess of the labels to sell a physical product (which made lots of sense). The digital product is still all Radiohead, and they're still embracing free, don't believe the RIAA model of selling music works, and have made it quite clear that their experiment was a HUGE success.
And we've talked about all of it, rather than hidden it as you claim.
Care to retract your blatantly false statements?
No wonder you always post anonymously. What a joke.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
It's a massive business model that is far outpacing growth of retail. Digital downloads are responsible for a large portion of music sales, at over 2 billion for music alone. That is a significant portion of retail sales.
Netflix is charging for a service, not for the content itself. It's an important distinction. The service includes the content. Are you claiming people would pay for netflix service without included content? I don't understand your important distinction here.
Giving an economic analysis of a business model is not "attacking new business models." Thanks for playing.
"Whether You Like It Or Not," This is an attack. This isn't an analysis, either, as you have already claimed that his service is doomed to failure even given free content. I see no reason why free AND paid content can't coexist. I certainly don't see any alternative opinions provided within your "blurb" above. This isn't the first time you blatantly ignore actual examples (of which I've given above) of services and content that works just fine.
Huh?!?!? First of all, that's wrong on every single point. When Radiohead *first* announced the download project, they said that they were going to do a traditional distribution deal for the CDs. In fact, we POINTED OUT at the time, how this was smart (http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20070930/214524.shtml)
and from that article we have: "Funny how it's the musicians, and not the record labels, who seem to realize that adding value and getting people to pay for it is a business model that beats suing fans." And yet the band still used the RIAA to protect the revenue providing portion of their album sales. Rather hypocritical, wouldn't you say? And rather unscalable? I mean, is every band going to release online for free, and back it up with RIAA CD-sales, asking protection from the RIAA? How does this scale beyond those that experiment? I can sell lemonade on the corner with some cute kids, but when every corner has cute kids, will that revenue scale out appropriately or equally?
contrary to your claim we ignored it. They were using the "free" digital music to get people interested, and then offering a really, really nice physical box set to get people to buy. And, it makes sense to work with the labels on that part of it, since they do have the distribution expertise there.
So other than hating the RIAA for the protection racket, they want to keep the distribution racket. How fun! Might I recommend looking into a band that isn't so hypocritical? Alas, they were business savvy. The RIAA is still attacking on their behalf.
So, there was no "jumping back in the sack" with the RIAA. In fact, Radiohead appears to only have used the distribution arm of the label, and kept the copyrights themselves.
Then why would radiohead allow the RIAA to attack on their copywritten behalf?
As for the claim that Radiohead admitted that their online experiments were a failure... um, no. That's wrong. Blatantly wrong, as we just discussed earlier this week!
I suppose we'll find this out when they release their lawyer hounds on the RIAA, right? Why have another organization attack your fans? Why no response from them after torrentfreak contacted. Hypocritical!
Radiohead has said that the experiment earned them more directly than any previous release:
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20081015/1640202552.shtml
I should expect so! I applauded the PR move myself! How many other bands are raking it in with free online pay-as-you-go releases? Is this part of your "significant portion of the market" referred to above?Radiohead has also said that the RIAA is dying and almost dead (and this is very recently):
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090806/1726455790.shtml http://www.techdirt.com/ar ticles/201 00609/0651119751.shtml
But they are still using them!Radiohead's manager has said that file sharing should be legal (again, well after the experiment):
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090506/0229264765.shtml
I think so also! I hate war too! The world is overpopulated! How does this conflict with Hippocrates all up in the band?Also, the band has continued to release music for free, well after the experiment, showing that your claim that they think it was a failure is blatantly wrong: http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090818/0053565911.shtml And interesting comment right in there that we see that they haven't released the attached album with that free song. To date, the [revenue producing] album is on hold.
We also have no way to independently verify the digital music sales they claim, and since they are proven to feel one way about an organization but still use them, what should we do, believe them?
So it's hard to see a single accurate point in your statement. Radiohead didn't "jump back in the sack." It had, from the beginning, always planned to use the distribution prowess of the labels to sell a physical product (which made lots of sense). The digital product is still all Radiohead, and they're still embracing free, don't believe the RIAA model of selling music works, and have made it quite clear that their experiment was a HUGE success.
Experiment, sure. WHy do you praise the experiment of Radiohead doing this but not Zucker, above? Perhaps, a tad bit of "Hippocraticness" yourself?
"And we've talked about all of it, rather than hidden it as you claim."
I see no point of view of Techdirt from the other side. I see attacks against an industry that is attempting an experiment, something you praise.
Care to retract your blatantly false statements? I see no false statements. I see no analysis, as before, how successful RIAA bands can scale giving free content alone. To date you have not provided this. To date the industry isn't moving towards this.
No wonder you always post anonymously. What a joke.
I haven't always posted anonymously, however it's a feature YOU supply. If you find it amusing to post anonymously then take it away. Again, something YOU control, but I'M being attacked? Right.
Ask me to leave and I will. I'm not registering an account, ever, however. As you state often, offer me a benefit to doing so and I would, otherwise, meh
Finally, I'm just posting this, without much review. Your HTML parser is closing my paragraph tags in a strange way, so fuck reviewing it further.[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
No, it's not. Or it is, but not in the way that you seem to think.
As mentioned below, iTunes, Amazon, Netflix, Rdio, MOG, Rhapsody, and more are all working paid business models.
People buy from them because they provide music, movies, and more in ways that they want. Quickly. Easily. Conveniently. You can insist that they are only paying for the service or mechanism or store, but a service without content isn't a service at all.
I don't pay Netflix for a "service". I pay Netflix for movies.
In short, all of the services mentioned above are, as you point out, giving consumers a reason to buy content... from them.
And if they're buying, then the "market" really hasn't "decided" that all content must be free, has it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
That IS the service.
A service with content I can get elsewhere is a useless service. Unless of course the service offers me something else, like giving me ways to watch movies in the way I want. Quickly. Easily. Conveniently. A service without a unique benefit isn't a service at all.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
The service is access to the movies, quickly, easily, and conveniently. You're not purchasing movies, but temporary access to them, which is a service. Since you can't retain the content, you must be paying for the use of the content, and not the content itself.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Yes, the content is EXTREMELY important. This is what Mike is always talking about - the content, which is abundant and therefore it's price will fall to free - has tremendous value. When combined with something scarce like a convenient service to get the content to you (which is worthless without some actual content) you end up with something scarce with value that someone is willing to pay for. That's economics and you have been involved in these transactions for a long time.
Take, for instance, water. If you have city water, you pay for the convenience of the water being cleaned, tested, and delivered to your house. You could drill a well and get it for free, but then you have a well and have to maintain the well and make sure your free water is safe and that there is enough of it for you. Water has lots of value (anything you need to LIVE is very valuable) but it is abundant (in the US anyway) making the price essentially free. However, the water company can make it more convenient with their system of pipes (which are pretty much worthless without some water to pump through them) and that convenience is something lots of people think is worth paying for.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
a limited pay model if properly researched might work
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: a limited pay model if properly researched might work
Only the lower classes find advertising acceptable, because their time drooling to marketspeak is less valuable than firing off a few neurons.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: a limited pay model if properly researched might work
So, you admit that intelligent people are the ones torrenting to avoid them? Interesting...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: a limited pay model if properly researched might work
That, or using PVRs.
My cable TV experience hasn't included commercials in over 10 years.
So to me Hulu seems a bit absurd and intolerable.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: a limited pay model if properly researched might work
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Free Copies not the same as Free work
However, this does not mean that intellectual work cannot be commissioned or sold to those who want to receive it or have it produced.
The copy is a distribution mechanism. It may convey the work, but it is not the work. The conflation by 'content' of work with copy is due entirely to copyright indoctrination (publishers sell containers of work and use copyright to pretend that the copy IS the work).
In the future intellectual workers sell their work. Copies are subsequently free for anyone to make, modify, remix, sell, share, etc.
So really, we should stop using the term 'content' just as we should stop using the term 'consumer' in the context of enjoying the intellectual work that has been commissioned and published.
There's intellectual work and there's copies.
The market for copies has ended.
The market for intellectual work continues.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Free ain't the issue
If copyright holders want to be compensated, they first have to come to market with an offering so folks who want to be legal can have an opportunity to buy!
I'm tired of copyright holders blaming consumers for not being willing to pay. That's just FALSE.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Provide music, movies, TV shows, and books at a reasonable price. Make it easy and convenient to find and consume. Make it available in standard, high-quality formats. Make sure it's known that the artist is getting his cut. Make it safe (no embedded malware). Make it current.
All of those things provide value, and people are willing to pay for value.
Above all, make it faster and better than finding some torrent site, hunting for the file you want, and downloading it only to find that it's a crappy, shaky cam-captured version of the film.
Some people trade their time for "free". Other people realize their time is valuable, and prefer to pay for convenience.
And some people also realize that the people who create the things we desire need to eat in order to continue creating them, and in turn pay them to do so. Not everyone is a free rider.
In short, I don't think that the "market" has decided anything at all.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
If the price is reasonable and there aren't any commercials, I might bite.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Some people want to pay for it. It is available for free.
So hard to understand?
The Market has decided. It hasn't decided that it will forbid anyone to pay. It has decided that it is free for anyone who wants it for free.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I got rid of Cable TV a long time ago, total waste of money. I watch shows on Hulu now, and since they are there, there is no need to download them or watch them on illegal sites. I am sure a lot of people feel this way.
A pay system for being able to download them onto your Ipod, etc...would be smart...but not like the ones we currently have. There is no way in He.L I am going to pay $35 for a severely restricted set of episodes. I also stopped buying DVD box sets a while back because they simply take up way too much room and are a waste of resources. I ended up giving away most of my collection because I didn't have room to store them anymore. Thus, digital makes way more sense.
There is a fine line between greed, profit and usefulness. Right now, the industry is greedy, the market is setting the price, so the fight continues.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
So, by extension, if you didn't use Hulu it wouldn't work??
I thought you were Anonymous Coward and not Arrogant Coward.
"The problem is that the advertisers don't think they should pay as much for ad space on the internet, so it's not as appealing to the industry."
This will change as:
1-More people watch shows on the net.
A-This is still far off
2-Younger executives move into positions of power.
"I got rid of Cable TV a long time ago, total waste of money. I watch shows on Hulu now, and since they are there, there is no need to download them or watch them on illegal sites. I am sure a lot of people feel this way."
1-This works for the tech savvy only.
2-Joe and Josephine 6 pack are still going to get cable.
"There is a fine line between greed, profit and usefulness. Right now, the industry is greedy, the market is setting the price, so the fight continues."
Agreed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Poor legal options only drive piracy.
> So, by extension, if you didn't use Hulu it wouldn't work??
> I thought you were Anonymous Coward and not Arrogant Coward.
His DVD remark caught my attention because it's easy enough to create your own virtual jukebox with them. Rip them and then file them away in some corner of a closet somewhere.
It's like iTunes but with much more flexibility and some genuine ownership rights.
I think my setup is the bee's knees but I can see how it might not appeal to everyone. The whole DMCA thing gets in the way of course.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I don't mind watching the forced commercial when I watch The Daily Show and Colbert online. Comedy Central doesn't care where you are.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Torrents with embedded commercials
Their argument is:
1) "We don't want torrent sharing to go mainstream."
2) "People will re-edit the file and take out commercials."
My answer is, those things are already happening. Your way, you get no money. My way, you get paid for something that's happening anyway.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Torrents with embedded commercials
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Torrents with embedded commercials
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Torrents with embedded commercials
> currently no good way to skip the commercials in an avi
> player. Major headache of them, eliminated.
Then you are simply using the wrong avi player.
There are media players with Tivo style skip controls for every desktop OS platform.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Torrents with embedded commercials
Of course, in order to have a global market, you'll need a global solution. The spots for commercial breaks are already set for a given episode, so all that would be needed is to connect to the closest ad server and get the content based on the location of the user's IP address and language preference. I'm not sure how that would work with a torrent, as it would require a special client, but it would be doable with streaming. Streaming could also allow the user to select any number of language subtitles for foreign shows too. Hell, you could even do alternate language soundtracks, but that would be limited to the languages that have been recorded for that episode.
Say, I lived in Germany and wanted to watch a show from the US. I choose to watch in German, but then decide that the actors that dubbed the lines were horrible, so I change it back to the original English track and add German subtitles. The ads of course would from Germany, as the ones for New York or LA would be irrelevant, and the German advertisers would be the ones paying for the stream.
Now say I was only visiting Germany and want to watch the same show. I can still watch the show in English rather than German, and I don't need any subtitles either. The ads would still be for Germany, as the ones from the US would mostly be irrelevant at the moment. However they could be played, or at least subtitled, in English.
So, that's my plot for taking over the world--a global network for both TV distribution and advertising.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Torrents are available, but for whatever reason, they aren't mainstream, even given the ease of getting the content. Looking at basic numbers, torrents don't begin to represent even a percent of the online community (at well over 1 billion potential people online.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I sure am not paying it, but that is just me, I will leave other to decide for themselves what they should do.
My wife doesn't pay either and she doesn't know how to turn on the computer, but she does know how to copy and paste video and music onto a USB thumbdrive and go to work and exchange files with her friends, which is a bit strange for a bunch of 50's old girls, and she was the one who told me to download things from the internet for her because all of her friends were doing it even though laws were passed making it against the law.
Some people can believe what they want, but I don't see them making money out of beliefs alone, I mean c'mon there is got to be some practicality on those things no?
How will they enforce it, how will they change how people think?
They don't control the media anymore, they don't have the money to monitor everybody, they don't have a government in the world capable of doing it either and that is why when I see some nutt jobs crying about piracy and how they will send everybody to jail I just laugh and tell them "Come and get me I'm a pirate" even though I don't download anything illegal to my knowledge the key word being "to my knowledge" here as I can't tell if some video on Youtube is legal or not, if some linux app is violating some law.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The 20/80 percent rule doesn't seem to be good enough to those people they want a 100% percent market, and that is impossible.
Artists of today could probably end up hungry in the future because they don't have fans, consumers are not fans, they don't by merch, they don't buy concert tickets when you got to your 50's. What are the songs they will sing in 20 years?
Michael Jackson and Maddona are big not because they have a lot of consumers, is because they have a lot of fans, that didn't have money when they were young and got a job after and bought everything they couldn't on those hard times.
Now some stupid people think they should get paid for every instance of what they call "their work", that is fine by me, I don't pay, so I don't hear and don't see(despite my wife nagging me to download things for her).
Those new TV shows coming out of the U.S.? I don't know about it, but ask me about what is on youtube? 30 seconds clips don't entice me anymore, with so much crap coming out, if I can't see some episodes I'm sure not paying to see anything because of 30 seconds clips that are deceiving.
There is a line between the public and commercial interests, and they crossed that line. Be prepared to pay through the nose for that mistake.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
retard much???
[ link to this | view in chronology ]