February 25th, 2009 at 5:38 PM

Content doesn’t get made for free and the production costs are paid for by advertising or subscription.  If the revenue stream goes away, then eventually the content will go, too.  There may be stuff to download for free, but it will likely be worth the price.

February 25th, 2009 at 8:48 PM

I’m not convinced yet. Maybe I’m just hopefully optimistic. I don’t spend much time thinking about this topic (vs other topics on this site), but here are my thoughts:

Cable and Satellite providers have been shooting themselves in the foot for years- “upgrading” (via a monthly fee) their subscribers to DVR systems that their viewers can use to skip over advertisements.  The result is that the advertisers aren’t getting the same result out of their investment. The proliferation of DVR’s would be nowhere near today’s levels if it hadn’t been for providers ‘pimping’ these boxes. To the consumer, a small line item on their bill means they don’t have to be on time to watch their favorite show. In fact, if they’re late, they can regain that time skipping over advertisements.

To me, it would seem that the C&S providers have really given up a lot of their bargaining power. Advertisements are less effective partly because they have been collecting monthly fees to rent out DVR’s. I think that was really short-sighted thinking on their part.

Now, content providers have a way to connect to us directly (albeit… though a cable internet connection in many cases.. but that’s another discussion…). They can allow us to stream directly to our computers on our own time, and make us watch the advertisements that pay their bills. Most people are very comfortable with this idea. I’d much rather watch a few ads than pay for content in most cases.

I know I’m fed up with paying over $60/month for basic cable. That could buy quite a bit of content in iTunes (content that I actually want to buy, not what Cable wants to feed me). I’m also tired of the cable company’s tactics to force upgrades. I recently got a flier in the mail that said they were moving their TV Guide “listings” channel to a range that you need digital cable and a cable box to get. But once you get the cable box, you don’t need that channel because you have built-in listings.

The writing is on the wall for C&S providers. They’ve held us hostage for years without realistic alternatives. But now, in this economy, you’re right John.. some drastic things will happen.  All it will take is an iTunes store type one-stop shop for us to pick our own content.. ‘a la carte’ like we consumers have been asking for for years from C&S providers. Maybe it will be iTunes, but their model isn’t quite there yet. They’d need to offer complete content from individual channels for it to be the last nail in the coffin. Imagine if you could get each of your favorite basic cable channels for $5-$8/month (streamed, with advertisements.. but available anytime).  Wouldn’t you rather do that than pay for what they want to give you?

Just my thoughts…

February 26th, 2009 at 6:06 AM

The arguements as made in this article sound suspiciously familiar. Oh yea, radio. You see, the owners of music never wanted their content to be played, for free, on radio. They wanted people to pay for their content. Course, 80 some years later and the only subscription based radio I know of is Satelite radio which is on the verge of complete failure, otherwise it’s *free*.

Here’s what’s going to happen. Hulu is going to do fabously well because it will show all the current shows from over-the-air broadcast channels, along with some really great old shows that most people love, but haven’t seen in forever. HBO and Showtime will hook-up with Netflicks to offer subscription based downloads of their shows, and life will continue on.