Hulu Admits: Content Companies Boxee'd The PS3 Too

from the not-making-people-happy dept

Earlier this year, there was an uproar when Hulu and Boxee got into a back and forth "blocking" of Hulu content on Boxee (with Boxee posting workarounds for every Hulu block) at the request of Hulu's content partners, who were worried about pissing off cable companies. The whole thing was silly. Boxee wasn't doing anything illegal or wrong. It just provides a specialized video web browser. Today, already, anyone who can hook up a computer to a TV can access Hulu on their TV using a regular browser. The only difference with Boxee was that it was a better browser for the TV. It's hard to see why that should be blocked. Then, a few weeks ago, the same thing happened with the PS3 suddenly being blocked from displaying Hulu content as well. Not surprisingly, Hulu has now admitted basically the same thing: it came under pressure from content partners. Hulu is (again) reasonably apologetic and open and honest about the situation, but again it raises questions about whether or not Hulu can really survive as it serves two masters, one of whom is so backwards looking it thinks that pissing off consumers who are doing something completely legal is a good business strategy.

Filed Under: content, internet, ps3, tv, video
Companies: hulu

Cable Walled Garden TV Plans To Include Too Many Ads

from the of-course-they'd-screw-it-up... dept

We've already been incredibly skeptical of the plans by certain cable companies to get TV networks to limit their content such that it can only be accessed online if you have a cable TV subscription. The whole thing is based on setting up artificial barriers and artificial scarcity to hold back the inevitable. Such plans never do well. They piss off users and drive them to alternatives. And, of course, you just knew that the likes of Comcast and Time Warner Cable would like screw up the execution too. Many folks (myself included) have been surprised at how well (for the most part) Hulu executed, but just leave it to big cable companies not to learn from Hulu's success.

Reports are coming out claiming that when the shows are put online for this "TV Everywhere" program they'll include the full slate of ads seen during the regular TV version. Studies have shown that this is a bad, bad idea. Having so many commercials -- especially on a platform (the internet) with so many other options, simply drives people away. Hulu learned very quickly to limit the number of ads to just a few -- and it's discovered that (1) people actually pay attention to them and (2) they can charge higher rates. One more sign that this TV Everywhere program is a disaster in the making.

Filed Under: cable, online, tv, video
Companies: comcast, time warner cable

Should Safe Harbors Apply To TV Advertising As Well?

from the seems-reasonable dept

Paul Alan Levy alerts us to an interesting situation (and question raised) involving General Motors appearing to suppress speech that it did not like, and wonders if Section 230 safe harbors should apply in broader media, as well. The case involves a consumer group that was concerned that the bankruptcy restructuring that General Motors is going through would protect it from certain liability claims from owners of cars with defects. So, they took their case to the public by creating a TV commercial and buying airtime via Comcast. GM, rather than refute the content of the ad, simply told Comcast that the ad contained inaccuracies, so Comcast pulled down the ad. However, as Levy notes, this allows GM to suppress the ad at the moment when it would be most effective, without ever needing to prove the inaccuracies (or respond to the "accuracies" of the ad).

In the last few months, we've seen some claim that Section 230 safe harbors should be scaled back because it's somehow "unfair" to treat online different than offline. I've taken issue with that line of reasoning, because in most cases the situations are quite different. The purpose of the safe harbors is to prevent the platform for being blamed for the actions of a user. But in a traditional newspaper, we're talking about content that has been approved and put in place by an editor.

Levy takes that point into account, but suggests why expanding (rather than limiting) Section 230 might make sense here:

There are, of course, significant differences between the burdens that a cable company like Comcast faces with respect to assessing ads and the situation facing an Internet host (such as Comcast, wearing a different hat) that enjoys the protection of Section 230. There are only so many hours on which ads can be shown on cable; and when Comcast receives a proposed ad, it must take the step of placing those advertisements amidst its programming. Thus, Comcast is in a position to perform pre-broadcast review of the text. This is very unlike the situation facing the provide of an online interactive computer service, which allows thousand or even millions of users to place content online with not opportunity for review. And equally important, Comcast earns significant revenues from each broadcast of a single ad, and hence is able to offset its profits from those broadcasts against the cost of review. This is unlike the situation for most statements posted online, with respect to which the host earns tiny sums, at best, either through a modest monthly fee for web server space, or through advertising on the web page.

But the potential impact on speech is the same -- the sponsor of a message on an important issue of public policy sees its message suppressed merely by claims of inaccuracy. Why should the broadcaster face the prospect of secondary liability for carrying the ad, and why shouldn't the opponent of the speech be put to the burden of responding in the marketplace of ideas and, if it really wants to suppress the speech, why shouldn't it have to go to court and persuade a judge that the speech is both false and defamatory before it gets the relief of suppressing the speech?

This makes a rather compelling point. While I still argue the entire concept of safe harbors like this shouldn't be needed if common sense worked, since common sense isn't so common these days, it does make sense to include safe harbors for situations like this where the company that acts as the "platform" has no reasonable expectation to thoroughly research the content first.

Filed Under: advertising, safe harbors, tv
Companies: gm

Can Someone Explain How Video Games Are Worse For Kids Than Plain TV?

from the demonizing-video-games dept

For years, video games have been a convenient bogeyman/scapegoat for politicians to use in complaining about the sort of thing "kids these days" do on a daily basis. In the past, it's been other things -- from TV to music to comic books. But, these days, video games pop up an awful lot. So I guess it should come as no surprise at all that a recent study in Canada found that parents put much greater limits on how much time kids can spend playing video games than they do on TV or movies. Of course, this seems entirely backwards. Not that parents should let young kids just randomly play any video game, but if they're playing age-appropriate video games, you would think that would be a lot better than just sitting there watching TV with no interactivity whatsoever. Plenty of studies have shown that the interactivity of video games helps kids have better hand-eye coordination and (in some studies) problem solving skills. So why not encourage that? It's not examined in the study, but I'd guess that the constant complaining about these "awful video games" has an impact on a busy parent.

Filed Under: canada, movies, parents, tv, video games

Dear Comcast: The Idea When You Bundle Is That People Are Supposed To Get A Discount

from the just-saying... dept

When companies offer "bundles" of the various services they offer, part of the point is that if you're buying multiple packages together, you get some sort of "discount." It doesn't make much sense to go in the other direction, but apparently Comcast thinks it does. Reader Lucas points out that the company is currently offering the following "Digital Double Play" bundle, which consists of both the "Comcast High Speed Internet, with Powerboost" and the "Comcast Digital Starter Package" for the temporarily discounted bundle price of $69.99/month for six months (after which, the price jumps to $109.90/month). Ok. But let's look up the components separately. It appears that the basic high speed internet with Powerboost is available separately as a promotion at $19.99/month for six months, after which it becomes $42.95/month. And then there's the Comcast Digital Starter Package. That appears to be offered as a promotion for $29.99/month for six months (after which it jumps to $59.95): So... at a first pass, it looks like you could order each package separately and pay $49.99/month for six months and $102.90... or you can buy the "bundle" and pay $69.99/month for six months and then $109.90/month afterwards. What a non-bargain! Of course, if you start to look closer, it's a little bit different. The digital TV package, even though it's described as the "Digital Starter Package" also includes the on-demand library. So if we dig deeper into Comcast's options, we find that the equivalent tier isn't actually the "Digital Starter Package" but the "Digital Preferred" package. Kind of odd that you'd sell the digital "preferred" package while claiming it's the starter package -- but that appears to be what Comcast is doing. So, with this package, the six month promotion is $44.99/month and then it jumps to $76.90/month: So, now, the "unbundled" combined offering is actually $64.99... Still $5/month cheaper than the "bundle" -- and without the bundle at least you get the satisfaction of knowing you have the "preferred" package, rather than the "starter" package (oh yeah, and of paying $5 less than the suckers who bought the bundle.). But then, finally, after six months, your price will jump to $119.85 -- or $10 more expensive than the bundle. So perhaps there is some method to the madness, but Comcast sure doesn't make that very clear.

Filed Under: bundles, cable, discounts, internet, tv
Companies: comcast

Cable Companies Aren't Immune From The Economy As More People Go Online-Only For TV

from the take-your-500-channels-and... dept

People are cutting back on lots of spending these days, but one area that was supposedly relatively safe was in-home entertainment expenditures. Things like cable and satellite TV and Netflix were thought to even thrive during economic downturns as people looked to limit going out, choosing instead to stay in and be entertained. While that seems to be working out for Netflix, cable companies are starting to feel the pinch as people drop their subscriptions and get their TV fix online. While it's a relatively small number of people that are making the move, it's the sort of thing that cable companies have been concerned about for a while. The WSJ story talks about some moves by the likes of Comcast and Time Warner to grab more online viewers, but if the cable companies continue to try and treat their online efforts in the same way as their traditional offerings, it's hard to see much success. It doesn't seem like a coincidence that this is happening as cable companies are looking to introduce caps on their broadband services. They say it's because some consumers are creating too much traffic, in part because of their online video viewing, and it's straining their networks. But perhaps it's just a way to try and capture lost TV revenue from cord-cutters? Of course, trying to get users who are going broadband-only for their TV to take on metered broadband seems like a good way to drive them to competitors with uncapped plans.

Filed Under: cable, online, tv, video

Is Hulu 'The Greatest Destruction of Media Value In Our Lifetime'?

from the that's-one-way-to-look-at-it dept

Hulu, the online video site that has content from most of the major networks, has largely been an early success. While it's thrown up some barriers to users, it's done a decent job of putting attractive content in an easily accessible format, and users have flocked to it. Still, we've wondered if the site will be able to survive in the long run because of the demands of its content providers, which seem to be behind its user-unfriendly moves. To get a glimpse of the thinking that drives these actions, check out a piece over on Paidcontent called Memo To Networks Re Hulu: You're Making A Big Mistake, written by a former TV development exec. He says that giving users what they want -- in the form of Hulu -- isn't a good idea because it undermines the TV networks' brands. He uses the example of NBC, saying its value isn't its programming, but rather "the more than 70 years that it has taken the network to create expectations for generation... The years that it has taken the network to train consumers to expect a level of quality that can't be matched."

Wow. We've talked a lot before about how media companies overvalue their content and don't realize the importance of the services that distribute it, but completely ignoring the value of the content in favor of a TV network brand seems only slightly ridiculous. The guy is right in that network brands don't have any meaning any more, but it's not Hulu that did this. It was because the networks failed to keep up with changing viewer preferences and demands, and responded to the rise of the DVR and other new technologies with attempts to set up obstacles, rather than innovation. Viewers' loyalties now lie with individual shows, and the channel upon which they're transmitted is meaningless. The strong brands are the shows, not the networks. People simply set their DVR to catch all the programs, or they go to Hulu, ignoring the network. Even people who watch their TV the old-fashioned way don't have much awareness or interest in the network brands, beyond the evening newscasts (maybe). The former exec's advice for networks is to keep their shows locked up on their own sites so they can "stand by their brand." But where does the brand ever deliver the value that he thinks they have? Sure, the networks can try to prop up their brands by making things more difficult for their audience online -- but they've tried that strategy, and it hasn't worked. So perhaps opening up access to their content, and getting themselves (and their brands) out of the way, is a better way forward.

Filed Under: brands, hulu, tv
Companies: hulu

Will Content Company Greed Destroy The Pay TV Business?

from the it's-getting-there... dept

While we've noted that the various studios, such as NBC Universal have, in the past, laughed off the idea that people would ever cancel their cable TV service in favor of just getting their content online, they're clearly waking up to the problem. That's why they freaked out about services like Boxee, despite the fact that Boxee is just a TV-optimized browser for legal content. Still, Saul Hansell, over at the NY Times, gets to the heart of the matter, by noting that the content providers have kept jacking up their prices to cable providers, and those costs keep getting passed on to users. Right now, it hasn't been a clear problem, as subscribers have increased, but the costs keep getting higher, and it's eventually going to drive customers to seek alternatives. We've seen this in the past, of course: Hollywood execs try to squeeze more and more out of people now with no thought for how that will impact revenue in the future. That's not a very good way to run a business, and the TV content providers are going to start discovering that sooner rather than later, if they don't start paying attention.

Filed Under: cable companies, content, internet, tv

Network TV's Reinvention, Minus Much Reinvention At All

from the smoke-and-mirrors dept

It's no secret that these are tough times for network TV: dwindling ad spending, viewers moving away from linear channels in favor of DVRs, and others getting their shows from the web. So it's time for some reinvention, BusinessWeek says. The only problem is that its outline of the networks' reinvention doesn't really sound too different from the status quo, saying TV networks' big upcoming innovations are cutting production costs and slicing an hour out of prime time. It's clear that something needs to happen on the cost side of the equation, so perhaps these are incremental steps forward, but those cost cuts aren't going to help much if the networks don't do more to serve the changing desires and needs of their audience. But to that point, BW also says that "programs will be tailored to audiences" in the future, making one wonder exactly what they're tailored to now. The problem is, of course, instead of doing that, they're more interested in locking up their content and making it more difficult to access. There is one bit of "innovation" in the BW article, tacked on in the very last paragraph: evidently there's a new service being tested that will let friends send text messages to each other about shows they're watching. Now that sounds like a savior...

Filed Under: networks, tv

No Surprise: UK Film And TV Execs Insist They Need Gov't Help Or They'll Disappear

from the sigh dept

Pretty much any industry is going to use any opportunity to ask for more help from the government, so it should come as little surprise that film and TV execs in the UK are claiming that they need more help from the government in fighting piracy or they will "fade into insignificance in five years." Of course, if you look back at the history of the entertainment industry, they've basically been claiming this as far back as you can look and there's zero evidence to support this. Yes, it may be true that if they do not adjust their own business models, these laggard companies may disappear, but it hardly means the end of video entertainment production. Others will step into the void, embracing newer and better business models. But, of course, you won't hear that. Instead, the government will rush in to help and protect, and the end result will be that it actually harms the newer more innovative and efficient producers of content in favor of the inefficient legacy companies. It harms overall society, but politicians never seem to take that into account.

Filed Under: copyright, film, protectionism, tv, uk