Wil Wheaton Discusses TV, Cord-Cutting, Piracy... And Trying Desperately To Make Sure Fans Can Watch His Show
from the still-being-awesome dept
Look, we already know that Wil Wheaton is awesome (and I don't just say that because he's admitted to being a big Techdirt fan). He has consistently been awesome to fans, building up true connections with those fans by being more open, human and awesome, as can be seen in just about every story we've had about him. As you hopefully already know, Wheaton has a new TV show, the Wil Wheaton Project on Syfy. Ever since he announced the program, he made it clear that while it was out of his control, he would do his damnedest to make sure the show was available online.The show is now two weeks in, and Wheaton has put up a fascinating blog post about "ratings, cord-cutters, and torrents" in which he notes that the ratings of the second episode were down a bit, and he's trying not to let it get him down. However, he then realizes that the first episode was available (in an authorized fashion) online, while the second episode is not. So he checks out the Pirate Bay, and sees much greater interest in the second episode. Because duh.
Now, here's something interesting that I'm probably going to get yelled at by the network goons for sharing, but it's important and relevant. A lot of people have told me that I haven't been able to watch our second episode online. I understand that if they try to watch it at Syfy.com, and they don't have a cable or satellite provider, they can't see it. I understand that it isn't even on Hulu like our first episode was, and the show isn't on Hulu+ at all.Rather than do what many less awesome folks might do (which is freak out or even scold people about it), he pulled a Louis CK, and basically just addressed people honestly.
With that in mind, look at this, from about an hour ago, from The Pirate Bay:Last week, our first episode had a total of about 800 seeders and about half as many leechers. Math is hard, but I'm going to estimate over 2300 seeders and almost as many leechers, for our second episode alone. That's pretty huge growth and interest from people who probably want to watch our show, but can't, because they're cord cutters, or they're in a country that doesn't carry the show. Yes, I know there are people who want everything for free and won't pay for anything, but I don't count them as "lost" viewers, because they were never going to be scored by advertisers or the network, anyway. 
Our show costs a lot of money to make. It's possible to make our show because Syfy licenses it from us, and then sells advertising on the show to cover their investment. If everything goes according to plan, it's profitable. If it's profitable, we get to keep making more episodes. The best way to help us be profitable, then, is to watch the show on Syfy when it airs during the week. I don't fully understand the realities and nuances of licensing and all that, but I do know that the world is rapidly changing, and a lot of people don't want to watch TV live. I know that lots of people don't want cable because they can't afford it, or because they hate cable companies. I know that a lot of those people would gladly pay for Amazon on demand, an iTunes subscription, whatever Google Play does, or watch some ads on Hulu or Hulu+. I'm doing everything I can to let the people who make those deals know this, but I'm a very small voice in a very loud room. If you want to help make that voice louder, you can write a polite email to Syfy and let them know that you want to watch the show in a way that supports us.And, as we've seen time and time again, people want to support the artists they love and the artists that respect them back. This is Wheaton being perfectly respectful, and totally open about the situation. Hopefully the folks at Syfy get that -- and figure out a way to get the show online in an authorized and convenient manner soon.
[....]
Before I go, I just want to reiterate that I want you to watch our show, and I want you to like our show so much that you keep watching it. I'm trying my best to make it easy for you to watch our show in a way that helps us pay for it, so we can keep making more of it. I know for some of you it's easier to just fire up a torrent client and go to down, and I'm sympathetic to that. But I'll ask all of you, please, if you can watch the show in a way that counts for our network and our advertisers, please do.
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: access, cord cutting, file sharing, piracy, the wil wheaton project, tv, wil wheaton
Companies: syfy
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Besides, "official" doesn't mean anything on P2P and time of release depends on when people expects it to be there - 2 hours early is not gonna catch that many more cats - just as this specific case is about the "people who didn't catch the show live".
Your idea is commendable, but the distributer needs a lot more control of the platform to get the data needed to satisfy advertisement agencies.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
I still haven't caught up with Justified because I missed 1 episode 2 years ago, and I don't have Amazon Prime.
I know there are other ways of watching it, but there are other shows that I can get on demand or on Netflix without any extra effort.
So... someday. Maybe.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
What most of these companies need to do is release it DRM free as MP4, and have a paid for tracker that only does their releases. Don't bother with adds, just charge $X a month for access to the tracker.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
It's why the various companies fighting so hard against offering their stuff online because someone might pirate it or strip the commercials out makes no freakin' sense, they're already doing that, but if people are provided with the real thing, from an official source, for a reasonable amount, I'm sure most people would be happy to switch.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
obviously, that can't be technically feasible...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Man that thing sucks. I'd almost rather pirate a show than watch it on that horrible box.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Step one to selling your product: Make it available to buy
Make signing up reasonably easy, watching easy without too many hoops to jump through, and the price decent, and I'm sure they'd have a bunch of people that would be willing to pay for something like that.
But of course that makes too much sense, and would threaten the deals they already have with the handful of cable companies, so naturally something like the above would be considered nothing more than crazy talk, and never put in place. Gotta cling to the past in hopes you don't get washed away by the future after all. /s
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Step one to selling your product: Make it available to buy
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Step one to selling your product: Make it available to buy
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Step one to selling your product: Make it available to buy
Don't think of no desire for online, which can occur, as a simple deal. Money goes to the Artist's unit managing the show. The network then sells ads, collects Cable OnDemand $ and viewing stats. The live rating, replay, DVR viewing, ondemand viewing are the cold hard facts of making $ or losing money.
The "Deal" for Amazon Instant Video is a box nobody can see into except the buyer/seller. Also, distribution rights have to be thought out from the beginning (CBS Person of Interest got No online per Warner in 1st season; DVD sales.).
And it gets better, however, that's your homework.
Headache starting...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Who is Wil Wheaton?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
oh look, he shot his own foot
It's fun to watch him squirm. He understands very clearly that the downloaders do absolutely nothing to support him, and that unless the channel makes the videos available in a manner that makes some money, he will find himself at the end of the day out of a job.
The real trick of the future will be in finding ways to monetize content that doesn't involve selling swag.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: oh look, he shot his own foot
the idea that downloaders do not support artists is patently false
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: oh look, he shot his own foot
The idea that pirates are pirates is patently false. It has been indicated at a non-ignorable level that there are several distinct reasons for pirating.
Lumping all downloaders together to create a one-liner is quite comparable to MPAAs dishonesty...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: oh look, he shot his own foot
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: oh look, he shot his own foot
The executives and moneymen in the business....less so.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: oh look, he shot his own foot
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: oh look, he shot his own foot
Of course YOU are not supported, but that is because you are an absolute ass.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: oh look, he shot his own foot
...which he has already done.
If you don't know this already, Wheaton has an awesome show on Geek and Sundry called "TableTop."
For the first two seasons, it was funded by YouTube/Google through their paid channels. But that funding dried up after the second season.
So, they launched an IndieGoGo campaign:
https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/tabletop-season-3-with-wil-wheaton
They initially asked for $500K to fund a shortened third season, with $750K funding a full season, and one million dollars funding a spin-off show.
By the time the campaign ended, they had raised nearly a million and a half dollars, over three times the original goal.
All of this from people who had never once paid for the show, who had only watched it on YouTube, and who simply wanted to see the next season happen.
In fact, I'll bet dollars to donuts that the success of TableTop is a major reason why Wheaton got a show on the SyFy network in the first place.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: oh look, he shot his own foot
The actual name of the program was the "YouTube Original Channel Initiative." I meant that Google paid to produce the shows on the Geek and Sundry channel, not that users had to pay to view the channel.
Sorry if that caused confusion. Couldn't remember the program's name when I wrote the last comment.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: oh look, he shot his own foot
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: oh look, he shot his own foot
The reality is, and this scares the hell out of all the marketing companies etc is that advertisement in its current form is barely working anymore. people are becoming either too cynical or too inured by multiple ubiquitous advertising forums for the advertising to actually work anymore.
The solution? Buggered if I know
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: oh look, he shot his own foot
"swag" is the whole bidness model of dizzy world, et al...
it is ALL about the marketing of chinese-made crap to pre-pubescent grrls...
swag makes money...
mere artistry -no matter how excellent- does not, in and of itself, make money...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: oh look, he shot his own foot
The question isn't if you can sell swag, but if there is in fact a long term, reliable, durable market that can support all of the entertainment choices we want. It's hard to imagine that it really works out. Swag generates huge income, but would it generate enough?
Oh, and the chinese made crap? Well, they produce double that and flood every market in the world with the stuff and don't pay for the rights, sucking the money out of the system. If there is anything that is more easily pirated than music and movies, it's image. If you can print it on a t-shirt and sell it, everyone else can too - and probably cheaper.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: oh look, he shot his own foot
i.e. George Lucas proved you can make a fortune on swag.
The trick is making swagable films, which is all Hollywood seems to be interested in these days. Comic book movies sell, but comic book swag sells even better.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: oh look, he shot his own foot
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: oh look, he shot his own foot
Swag is generally marketed toward tweens/teens to incessantly bug the shite out of their parents until they buy it for them.
I have a 13-year old girl, and trust me, this stuff works.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Online TV
We've had 10+ years for them to figure this out. What is the holdup?!?!?!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Online TV
ONE of the major playing cards in this 'game' among the Big Media oligarchy, is 'sports'...
and particularly live broadcasts of the major sports...
i have no idea what the percentages are (apparently a LOT less among the younger set), but a LOT of people -including this formerly avid, now mild-medium sports fan- want live sports broadcasts at a minimum, and base their cable/satellite/etc teevee packages on that factoid...
like dune: he who controls the sports, controls the teevee universe...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I'm suddenly very interested in this show. If I can watch it legally, I will...if not, I'll probably watch it anyway. I understand the argument of "support the artists!" Totally get it. But here's the thing; if you won't sell me your product, I can't buy it. If I can't buy it, I can't support it.
Here's the problem that I (and a lot of people here on Techdirt) have. We aren't going to buy stuff that's worthless to us just to buy the stuff we do want. It's sort of like saying "well, you want some new tires, and we want you to support us, so here is some new tires...but you can only buy them along with this new car." You already have a car, you say, and it works perfectly fine. "Sorry! Pay for the whole car or nothing."
Offer us the service we want at a reasonable price and we'll buy it. Note that "reasonable prices" are set by what the consumer is willing to pay, not what the seller wants you to pay.
Note that this is directed to the cable companies, not Will Wheaton. Will Wheaton rocks.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
How much do the advertisers pay per eyeball on the show?
Is it just some magical made up number from Neilson Families or secret spying by Smart Tvs?
How do they count people who DVR, or catch it at a friends house?
Despite the snark, I'm actually curious.
Using advertising to support the shows is an age old pattern, that really no longer applies.
We have DVR's, we have DVR's that despite idiotic lawsuits offer commercial skipping. Instead of paying for a lawsuit that if you win will make your customers hate you more, could they have done some math and figured out how much they earn per person?
Let us say, that they earn 10 cents a head they can count.
So then why not offer the show via an online portal for 15 cents, as it aired. They earn the ad revenue, we can show x downloads and a portion of the payment (after paying for the portal).
Then could they offer the same show for 50 cents without any advertising in it?
Yes my numbers are contrived, but the theory is sound.
If they made it available for purchase at an attractive price, wouldn't viewership go up earning them more?
If people weren't spending $100+ a month for 6983 channels they never want to watch, would they then put that money to use to get what they really want?
And before they go insane, don't tie the portal to some sort of idiotic DRM scheme. Consider that even if it makes it into the wild out of your control, you might get even more viewers as they decide the price is right and there is no reason to find an alternative way to get it. Yes some people will never pay you, so? You weren't going to get that money ever anyways.
People will pay for what they like provided...
- the price is right
- they get to "own" what they paid for
- they get to decide the how, where, when of how they watch it
- you stop treating them like crap
I'd really love to see how many of these execs who talk about all the different "awesome" failed platforms they subject the customers to actually ever used them personally.
If they faced the same things their customers did, perhaps they would finally get why what they are doing isn't going to work.
14,000,000 people pay you $1 for an episode... seems like a win for a 24 episode season.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
90% of all marketing/sales presentation I dealt with at one of the primary studios in LA, were created by taking last years numbers and and just making shit up. The other 10% is from whoever created the original PowerPoint and had access to Nielsen etc.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
If sales support "It", then "It" is what you sell.
Good to know where you come from.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/numbers-102/
They are not very specific about their methods and since 2013 the online measurement program has been discontinued etc.
Also, be cautious about the specifics and realize where their interests lie. However they are pretty clear about the challenges as they hear about/see them.
If you read between the lines, they are basically saying that the networks are having trouble finding a suitable model online, but the excuses they use seems inevitably solvable (1/4th the price seems mostly a problem with the advertisement agencies work and depending on the conversion issues that cause those problems they can be reduced in severity. Low sales in online stores is a standardisation of distribution problem.).
It also smells like the networks really do not want to face reality. Advertisement is all about creating an appearance. Appearance for the networks come from Nielsens. If Nielsen cannot uphold the facade online, the advertisers will of course look at lowering the price...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
It is REALLY hard for an advertiser to look at cold hard facts.
We sold 5,000,000 copies of the standard episode with ads.
We sold 9,000,000 copies of the ad-free version.
You pay us 4 cents a viewer, while we like the 200,000 you are paying for this episode this other company has offered 6 cents. We can show you exactly what we are selling in real time, and yes some people can/will fast forward but perhaps you just need more interesting ads.
Perhaps a hybrid system where before you get your DL link you have to watch an ad. How much would an advertiser pay for a premium slot like that?
I think there will always be an avenue for advertising supported episodes, some people are cheap.
I don't think this will gut the "plastic disc collectors" editions, but force them to offer better "extras" on them and maybe justify an extra buck on the price for the no freaking forced ads/content/upsells on the discs.
Of course the other portion that needs to happen here is they need to gut the current distribution & rights systems.
They can offer clear numbers, no magic accounting, we pay you X per episode sold. We price the content the same globally, we offer it everywhere at once, we cut you a check every 2 weeks. Our portal keeps selling the content forever, never going out of print, and the checks space out a bit more for older seasons but you can check the real numbers right here on your screen when you want.
Imagine actually using all of the "evil" technologies to be transparent to your partners & workers, streamline operations, end the death by 10000 microcents per region per copy, and cut your overhead raising profits without making your customers the enemy.
And they called me a freetard pirate...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
On the internet, almost everything can be measured to some degree and the costs per thousand viewers and its scaling for some of the ad companies is already somewhat deobscured. Now that the entertainment production has skyrocketed on the internet and the attention span of people with enough money has become a limiting factor, the shift to such a fiercely competitive market will seems like a significant downgrade if enough users cross from their other options to online (That is one of the assumptions people question!). I imagine the cpm used for TV has been extremely inflated for years and now the descend to half or a third of their values after an appropriate repurposing just doesn't sound delicious at all (They probably do not count the added foreign viewership since the advertisement value towards them is negligible!). I think the problem is stock-ownership among the decission-makers and that they still believe they can squeeze more out of TV, radio and print than online distribution models. In a decade or two things will have to have changed a lot, but the horizon for future-proofing the business-model of a modern company is 5 to 10 years in the future. That is probably not enough to warrent as radical and sparsely documented changes as the ones proposed here. Especially not with the improved export conditions through forcing foreign companies to change through trade agreements. Unless a trade agreement screws over the other side more, it is not worth having!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
The bid for position system is amazing, because there is almost always someone willing to overpay for customers. There is always someone with a dumb business model that says they will pay $5 to get a $1 customer, and make it up in volume. As a result, Google ads for most popular terms are incredibly expensive and dominates by a rotating cast of idiots blowing their seed and round A money looking for a market.
Better yet, Google's system sucks 50% of the action out of the game right up front. They demystified the process in a way that assures that new suckers come in the door every minute, and their very accurate numbers are just bait for the fish.
Modern rating systems use various systems to determine what is being watched and listened to, where and when. Considering the size of the audience, it's pretty impressive to have viewership numbers in the "overnights" that seem to pretty accurately reflect who watched what, and when.
So far it's harder to monetize those people working off the grid for a bunch of reasons. One for sure is that most people who use Tivo, recorded, or downloaded shows are skipping the commercials. I don't think anyone has found a way to extract any real value from these people, outside of product placements that got so blatant, that people tuned them out.
When too many of the people are enjoying the product without a viable business model to support them, the problems start. Nobody has come up with a really good answer for this yet.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Modern rating systems for TV are better than in the past, but the elephant in the room is that viewership-numbers aren't even close to the end all value it has been cranked up to be for advertisers!
The problem with the cable cutting is that you have to provide a service as an alternative on their services. If you neglect several of the online markets as most media companies do, well, you are dooming people to find unfortunate solutions. Providing the solutions may have a smaller profit margin, but to some degree they will make gains on new segments and that is also worth taking into account. Not to mention: Distribution upkeep is very limited and the availability period is eternal theoretically.
Skipping commercials is a real problem, I agree, but we can easily get to a point where we make going to the toilet during an ad on TV piracy, so legally it doesn't seem viable to combat it.
The Tivo-problem is cross-platform, but far more severe on traditional TV than other markets since countermeasures are more limited and harder to implement. Not actually sure how networks will handle that one in the long run!
I know several Youtubers and Twitchers are seeing adblockers as an inevitability and they are simply advertising not using it and seeing increased numbers as a service problem (mostly too many ads and inadequate arms race from the service). Instead of building a business model based on these services, it may be worth it to simply see it as a feedback on the service and discourage the use of it through inconveniencing/appeals.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I'm far from convinced that the numbers accurately reflect any such thing.
"One for sure is that most people who use Tivo, recorded, or downloaded shows are skipping the commercials."
This is true. If I had to watch commercials, I wouldn't watch the show at all. Same with product placement -- "Bones" is a great example. The product placement was so obnoxious that I quickly stopped watching that show entirely.
"I don't think anyone has found a way to extract any real value from these people"
Nobody has done this in a realistic way yet (outside of Netflix, I guess), but it would be very easy to extract value from me: charge me a reasonable amount of cash to watch. Perhaps the amount they'd get from ad revenues from me. I'd be happy to pay.
Most of the attempts to do this so far have been failures out of the gate for two reasons: the service completely sucked or I had to watch ads in addition to paying cash.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
i was a temporary nielsen 'family' (of a single guy) who was supposed to keep a 'diary' of my viewing for -as i recall- a month...
they gave you a little digest sized calendar, and you were supposed to write in every time you turned on the teevee, who -if anyone- was watching (and their gender, age, etc) for what time frame, what channel, what show, blah blah blah...
you know how long that lasted ? less than a week, before i would forget, or just didn't want to bother... *then*, when it came time to send it back, i just sat down and filled in a bunch of the diary to reflect what i *would like* to have watched, NOT necessarily what i actually watched...
and another bogus nielsen number was born...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Yeah, but the reality is a few people pay, most people just download for free and that ends that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Show me where they offer a simple inexpensive alternative that consumers can chose. Welcome to competition, you can compete with free... if you can remember you need to get off your ass and compete rather than lay on the laurels of the 50's era of television.
The current model of pay us for the platform, now pay for each episode, now leave it in our cloud and watch it when we say you can... yes it contributes to infringement.
Some people may never pay, this is true. But if they made their offering more attractive and EASY for consumers they can get revenue another way... see the example of the ad supported stream that isn't 97 minutes long for a 28 minute episode and 69 minutes of commercials.
It's really easy to naysay, but I suggest you offer a better idea rather than sit there claiming it won't work.
Flight, Electricity, Moving Pictures, Sound Recordings, Printing Presses... they all had people like you ready to bellyache about how it would never work... do you need a few more examples to help you understand how wrong you are?
Look a minimum of snark from me, how refreshing.
Oh... and go fuck yourself.
Mr. Wheaton says don't be a dick, I can't live up to that goal.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Far from it, downloaders also are buyers, your assertion is demonstrably false.
http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/binaries/research/telecoms-research/online-copyright/deep-div e.pdf
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
There are a lot of cost-per-point models for advertising pricing in Television. Although arguably very unreliable, the Nielsen ratings are the standard for the industry. They are based on samples taken in different demographics throughout the country. The samples are taken essentially rhough a box that keeps track of what people are watching (people selected by Nielsen and have agreed to this). There are also some surveys that they take.
It is not a great way of tracking TV usage, but people don't seem to want their smart TV's to track it for them, so it is basically the best they currently have.
The model is flawed and could be greatly improved upon with the current technology, but Nielsen has not been able to get networks to buy into new ways of doing it. I am sure because they are afraid of changing business models and certainly because the big networks don't want to face anything that indicates that their audience is not the largest and most important.
As far as embedding commercials into legal torrents and mp4's available on network websites - I can tell you one of the majors has been looking into this very seriously. The problem is they get stuck with the commercials in the file and you end up with crazy legal arguments from the commerical actors as well as no way to change out the ads when you want to re-sell the program.
I am still convinced that the best thing a big network could do right now is to give their cable deals the finger, partner with Amazon, and get an amazon streaming player with their network channel streaming on it live, with commercials based on customer Amazon usage and a giant "Buy Me" button on the remote.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
From what I know, only the Nielsen devices count viewership. Yes? So, me watching (or not watching) the show on that network *shudders* does absolutely nothing for, or against, the sustainability of the program. It's like ABC encouraging me to "Watch it live."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Like Tosh.O for Nerds
In contrast to the teaser previews, he does NOT seem like an asshole at all. (I've always liked Wil's work, but wasn't familiar with his personal attributes. I'm not big on celebrity worship, unlike the rest of you slave
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Like Tosh.O for Nerds
pffft it'll never work.
:D
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
my problem and their problem...
If this show had to show up on the top 25 shows on my local torrent site i might be interested in downloading it, but there is so much content out there right now it is lost in the amazing shows i do watch.
I do not have loads of money to buy every show i like , in fact i don't have enough to buy anything other than kids shows if i wanted to, as the kids come first...
I love GOT just as most people do and would love to support them but there is no way for me to do so unless they are on the bbc channels on my tv where i can pvr them and watch when i want.Sadly i cannot transfer them to any of my other devices that i watch content on when i either go out or am in bed.
So i tor them all and store them for when i want to watch them, sadly not this show as i don't see it very often and there is so much more to download as said above.
I at the moment download every week about 10 different shows maybe more, but i download these as i can easily transfer them on other devices, even if they are on the bbc, same for all the kids stuff i download, my internet connection is used by the kids to watch shows from youtube mainly. But there are shows they love which i download and install so there are no problems watching them if we go out to the caravan for the weekend.
I would love to pay a little but i am paying my tv license and believe that is enough investment into the entertainment industry at the moment.
What i would not mind would be having a donate button in a show showing up on the screen which i could click to donate for a specific episode. Damn i would be tempted to use the donate button many times during a show like GOT. I would most definitely have thrown a few pounds at GOT when they showed the red wedding.(have not watched any of the latest episodes as i want to watch them all in o0ne sitting.
Damn even if they had a 5 minute break in the middle of each episode so i could make a coffee or go to the loo or whatever would be acceptable if i could skip it.
I refuse to register and pay numerous accounts on netflix verizon , itunes ,Amazon, hulu, and all the others just to be able to watch what i want when i want and even then not or be able to download the shows, damn again even the bbc iplayer allows you to download shows, sadly they have drm but 30 days storage and 7 days to watch once you have started watching is not too bad and is moving in the right direction, I pay for this ability with my TV license fee which should be abolished and so that i could use that money to purchase the rights to download all content they produce without restrictions. or they could do as above and insert advertising.
All in all i am not against paying for content, but not on so many different websites and not a huge amount , damn if i wanted to access all the content i watch i would be paying almost £100 A MONTH WHICH IS NOT POSSIBLE FOR ME TO DO.
I want to pay for content but i refuse to pay hundreds a month for something that has advertising in it or that has drm or any other restrictions. there are months where i don't watch more than 1 or two shows and only 1 or two episodes, why am i or should i pay £100 for that.
Now i am sure there are many ways hey could assist me and the millions of others that want content but they refuse to even consider us and so i continue downloading from torrent sites until they do.
Sorry for the long post but even with this i cannot write all of the frustrations i have and the simple solutions they should at least be trying.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: my problem and their problem...
and that is just the what the average joe like yourself runs into in *attempting* to 'legally' view current media: we pay exorbitant fees for temporary license to view 90% crap; we are restricted in so many ways that ONLY legal buyers are encumbered, while pirates have nicer, free-er versions; and THEN we get pilloried for making and end-run around their artificial restrictions...
a handful of dedicated amateurs make BETTER versions of THEIR products, and they sic the police state on you...
why don't they try -i don't know- COMPETING ! ! !
i heard tell once, that *used* to be the American way...
now, its just hit-them-over-the-head-and-take-their-shit thuggishness...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
He might be an "awesome" guy... but
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Cost a lot of money to make?
But this show was pretty bad. It's him standing in front of a green screen for the whole show (cheaper than a real studio with a desk/chair), with one bad bad static computer graphic as his background. Content is covering SciFi with really bad humor layered on top.
It is really, quite bad.
Sorry Wil.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This capability is one of the reasons cable companies fought so hard against cable card standard. Cable card didnt provision for return channel.
Cable companies know exactly, down to a single household by name, who watches what. This is their bread and butter, this is where the money comes from advertisements.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Barriers to entry
But what baffles me most is why the big networks make it so hard for someone with a casual interest in a show to get "hooked". While I hadn't watched broadcast in a decade, outside of PBS or a random ball game, this year I had much more time and tried to watch 3 shows regularly (Agents of Shield, the Blacklist, and Believe). You can't really build a weekly habit, because the shows "weekly schedule" is anything but. Re-runs and "special events" spread 20 episodes over 40 weeks, and on any given night, it's not obvious if you're going to get new content or not, without chasing down a third party scheduling guide.
And god forbid you miss an episode. All 3 of these shows had "streaming", but unless you could prove a cable subscription, you couldn't stream a missed episode until 8 days after broadcast. Utterly useless to get "caught up" on a show, unless the missed episode happened to be followed by a rerun.
I was briefly tempted to buy a PVR to record shows, but I just don't watch enough to justify it. However if I did, I'd PVR everything and skip the commercials.
It seems that the networks have built their economics around cable and families that watch 2 or 3 hours of TV every night. For everyone else, the system is user-hostile and effectively designed to push people into solutions that undercut TV revenue. Fantasyland stupid.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Wil Wheaton Project
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Pleading for eyeballs seems rather stupid given the limited access to the 'offical' methods. I'm not willing to pay the 'vig' demanded. They can continue to increase rates just as fast as they wish. Here's one that won't be paying them.
Most of the crap on TV is just that, crap. Not even a good time waster.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Business model
I happened to see his show (on SyFy channel) and enjoyed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
commercials
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: commercials
The difference is to a large degree driven by reputation:
If people wait commercials out a few might have braved through and watched them. Those are gone in mechanical skipping!
The real question is if those skipping wouldn't have avoided the commercials anyway? I guess the value in the uncertainty of how many actually watch the commercials is a good bargain for the networks!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: commercials
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Here is an idea
i simply cannot watch tv because i work all day and is easier to me to stream in small segments at my leisure
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I got tired with paying for TV with most of the channels I didn't watch and that included the Most expensive ESPN and other sports channels I could care less about. If you want SyFy you have to get one of the higher more expensive packages. What a joke.
So a few shows I get on Usenet Automatically, and watch with PLEX. I don't have to do anything. The first show of his I got a SD version and it took like 3 days before I had a copy. Later that week the HD version downloaded. The second show I got the same day and in HD. So things do seem to be picking up!!!!
I like the show. I do get his Humor. If it could get into more places LEGALLY, like I get a season pass of "The Walking Dead" from AMC from Amazon. The Episodes are released on Monday after their Air the night before on Sunday. It's also commercial free, so it's not a bad deal. I support a show I like and it's not delayed for a week or more. We need more of this. Move with the times.
I'm a fan of Wil Wheaton. I hope the show turns into a big hit for him. I've like him on the "Big Bang Theory". I thought he was just fine on STTNG also. Instead of turning into another Child Star that just couldn't make the transition. Or one that just got on Drugs and Alcohol and out partying every night. I've never heard of any of that Negative stuff like you do with so many others. The show is new. I hope it's given a chance to grow. Find out what really works, and what doesn't so much.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
For the record, I haven't watched it. Anything listed as a talk show or reality show usually gets an automatic pass from me.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You chose the distributor
The first mistake you made was choosing SyFy to finance and distribute your show. Finance and distribution should never be tied together. The distribution services they offer are not what your customer's demand, and are actually an affront to many of those customer's ideals. Their distribution model is also outdated and hasn't been effective for 10 years. Best of luck with your next project!
billy
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Back to Wil conning his kids into believing they don't need Christmas presents again
[ link to this | view in chronology ]