(01-05-2015 11:23 PM)cuseroc Wrote:  

(01-05-2015 10:51 PM)WakeForestRanger Wrote:  Not sure what you want Swofford to do with this information. A la carte makes starting a conference network riskier because you can't force people to pay for it that don't want it like the current model does.

That's why the Acc should go direct to the consumer, similar to Netflix, maybe even have the channel on Netflix. That way they can cut out the middleman, and get even higher subscriber fees than the chump change that ESpn would have shared with the Acc network.

that only works if you have a way to make them pay for it. That is why the Big Ten and SEC are still making more than the PAC 12 on their networks. And for that matter, as good as MLB TV is, or the WWE Network (uses the same technology) the subscriber numbers for both are horrendous.

The SEC model is truly the way to go. Perhaps do something differently on the digital front but, the SEC model is by far the more guaranteed.

(01-07-2015 10:47 AM)Marge Schott Wrote:  Free tv channels? I've heard it all now! Sign me up for that!

(01-07-2015 10:52 AM)Lou_C Wrote:  With all due respect, I think you are completely wrong. There's virtually no possibility that a network could produce the type of programming they currently do with the revenue from purely ad-supported or a nominal charge.

What you could get with that is stuff like Funny or Die, or repackaged Youtube clips, etc. Stuff with a negligible financial investment in content. The kind of stuff that currently exists. But you're not going to get original programming like say the History Channel or SyFy on that model.

Advertising revenue is going to be almost nil without bundling. How much do you think can be charged for advertising available to 700-800k people, which is currently available to 20 million?

There is no model where anything that is currently thought of as a major cable network is available for small costs, and continues to look anything like it does. Smaller more niche networks will just go away completely without the "socialism" of bundling.

The more logical outcome will be more variety in bundles, both of an online nature, and from traditional cable companies. Probably also some a la carte services made available. There will create things to go after that group of people who really have dumped cable, but would be willing to pay for a couple channels. Getting $20 from those folks instead of nothing will be worth it.

But true 100% a la carte will never be the norm, because for the vast majority of consumers, they won't want it when they see what it looks like. They just want some more varieties of bundles at lower costs.

You're on the track of what I'm thinking -- YouTube. It is no major leap for several major YouTube / online groups to become solely ad supported TV content. They're already solely ad supported. Pewdiepie. 28,000,000+ YouTube subscribers. Estimated monthly income off YouTube ads alone? $200,000+/mo. VICE made the jump from only ad supported only to being paid by HBO. I know I use to watch TechTV a ton. Ever since it died the void has been dutifully filled (carrying me along with it!) by Revision3 (now ruined by Discovery Networks who purchased the whole operation), TWiT.tv (still running strong), and various other YouTube based operations like PC Perspective, Linus Tech Tips, and others.

You're thinking of keeping the current TV production hierarchy. I'm fully expecting that to be completely destroyed, like it was when the music industry surrendered to the internet. No more preposterously huge dedicated studios in expensive locations. No more multi-story production rooms with on-facility render farms. A team of 2 or 3 with $10,000-$20,000 can produce professional grade 1080p content easy peasy.

(01-07-2015 04:06 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  

(01-07-2015 10:47 AM)Marge Schott Wrote:  Free tv channels? I've heard it all now! Sign me up for that!

(01-07-2015 10:52 AM)Lou_C Wrote:  With all due respect, I think you are completely wrong. There's virtually no possibility that a network could produce the type of programming they currently do with the revenue from purely ad-supported or a nominal charge.

What you could get with that is stuff like Funny or Die, or repackaged Youtube clips, etc. Stuff with a negligible financial investment in content. The kind of stuff that currently exists. But you're not going to get original programming like say the History Channel or SyFy on that model.

Advertising revenue is going to be almost nil without bundling. How much do you think can be charged for advertising available to 700-800k people, which is currently available to 20 million?

There is no model where anything that is currently thought of as a major cable network is available for small costs, and continues to look anything like it does. Smaller more niche networks will just go away completely without the "socialism" of bundling.

The more logical outcome will be more variety in bundles, both of an online nature, and from traditional cable companies. Probably also some a la carte services made available. There will create things to go after that group of people who really have dumped cable, but would be willing to pay for a couple channels. Getting $20 from those folks instead of nothing will be worth it.

But true 100% a la carte will never be the norm, because for the vast majority of consumers, they won't want it when they see what it looks like. They just want some more varieties of bundles at lower costs.

You're on the track of what I'm thinking -- YouTube. It is no major leap for several major YouTube / online groups to become solely ad supported TV content. They're already solely ad supported. Pewdiepie. 28,000,000+ YouTube subscribers. Estimated monthly income off YouTube ads alone? $200,000+/mo. VICE made the jump from only ad supported only to being paid by HBO. I know I use to watch TechTV a ton. Ever since it died the void has been dutifully filled (carrying me along with it!) by Revision3 (now ruined by Discovery Networks who purchased the whole operation), TWiT.tv (still running strong), and various other YouTube based operations like PC Perspective, Linus Tech Tips, and others.

You're thinking of keeping the current TV production hierarchy. I'm fully expecting that to be completely destroyed, like it was when the music industry surrendered to the internet. No more preposterously huge dedicated studios in expensive locations. No more multi-story production rooms with on-facility render farms. A team of 2 or 3 with $10,000-$20,000 can produce professional grade 1080p content easy peasy.

But all those things, as you say, exist. But you're not talking about Mad Men, Orange is the New Black, or even CSI and Two and a Half Men and American Idol. There is a massive, massive gulf between what you are talking about and what most people watch TV for.

MOST people are not near ready to give up their 30-60 minute shows for 2-5 minute clips. $200,000/mo doesn't come close to paying for The Blacklist or whatever.

(01-08-2015 10:03 AM)Lou_C Wrote:  

(01-07-2015 04:06 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  

(01-07-2015 10:47 AM)Marge Schott Wrote:  Free tv channels? I've heard it all now! Sign me up for that!

(01-07-2015 10:52 AM)Lou_C Wrote:  With all due respect, I think you are completely wrong. There's virtually no possibility that a network could produce the type of programming they currently do with the revenue from purely ad-supported or a nominal charge.

What you could get with that is stuff like Funny or Die, or repackaged Youtube clips, etc. Stuff with a negligible financial investment in content. The kind of stuff that currently exists. But you're not going to get original programming like say the History Channel or SyFy on that model.

Advertising revenue is going to be almost nil without bundling. How much do you think can be charged for advertising available to 700-800k people, which is currently available to 20 million?

There is no model where anything that is currently thought of as a major cable network is available for small costs, and continues to look anything like it does. Smaller more niche networks will just go away completely without the "socialism" of bundling.

The more logical outcome will be more variety in bundles, both of an online nature, and from traditional cable companies. Probably also some a la carte services made available. There will create things to go after that group of people who really have dumped cable, but would be willing to pay for a couple channels. Getting $20 from those folks instead of nothing will be worth it.

But true 100% a la carte will never be the norm, because for the vast majority of consumers, they won't want it when they see what it looks like. They just want some more varieties of bundles at lower costs.

You're on the track of what I'm thinking -- YouTube. It is no major leap for several major YouTube / online groups to become solely ad supported TV content. They're already solely ad supported. Pewdiepie. 28,000,000+ YouTube subscribers. Estimated monthly income off YouTube ads alone? $200,000+/mo. VICE made the jump from only ad supported only to being paid by HBO. I know I use to watch TechTV a ton. Ever since it died the void has been dutifully filled (carrying me along with it!) by Revision3 (now ruined by Discovery Networks who purchased the whole operation), TWiT.tv (still running strong), and various other YouTube based operations like PC Perspective, Linus Tech Tips, and others.

You're thinking of keeping the current TV production hierarchy. I'm fully expecting that to be completely destroyed, like it was when the music industry surrendered to the internet. No more preposterously huge dedicated studios in expensive locations. No more multi-story production rooms with on-facility render farms. A team of 2 or 3 with $10,000-$20,000 can produce professional grade 1080p content easy peasy.

But all those things, as you say, exist. But you're not talking about Mad Men, Orange is the New Black, or even CSI and Two and a Half Men and American Idol. There is a massive, massive gulf between what you are talking about and what most people watch TV for.

MOST people are not near ready to give up their 30-60 minute shows for 2-5 minute clips. $200,000/mo doesn't come close to paying for The Blacklist or whatever.

I just don't think it is that hard to leap from 5-10 minute shows to 30 minute shows for a lot of internet content. Two shows I watch weekly are in fact an hour long plus.