Furthering my belief that NBC doesn’t understand digital media…
Posted by Jishman under Dumbass of the Week , Technology , Television , RantThey are canceling their contract with Apple to sell their content on the iTunes Media Store. NBC, owned by General Electric, has had a history of attempting to squeeze every nickel, dime and penny out of its NBC-Universal owned content. Now, I genuinely believe they are killing the cash cow that is their product on the iTMS. Three of their largest sellers, “Heroes,” “Battlestar Galactica” and “The Office”, make a killing at the “store” and all rank in the top 10 in sales weekly, especially after they first air. Plus, Universal was the second, following Disney, to sign onto the iTMS two years ago.
However, NBC and Fox are attempting a “YouTube” killer by signing on with Hulu.com. Now, though, the timing of this is curious but further underscores NBC’s lack of understanding digital media. I’ll be the first to admit, I don’t know the specifics of any company’s deal with Apple, but, this is just crazy. Hulu will not be selling video, only showing it like YouTube does (down-streaming). Movielink, another iTunes-esque option, has been a colossal failure, with absolutely no one that I know using it, and I’m sure the sales have been infinitesimal comparatively to iTunes. And if this is just about piracy, that’s one thing - a stupid thing, but understandable. It is something else. Its about pricing and margins.
Sujal and I were talking about it earlier today. These companies do not understand digital media. They do not understand the benefits, but more importantly so rabidly protect margins that are impossible to sustain in today’s market. Bit Torrent, Handbrake and other products/services like them make the market unsustainable in the long run. Moreover, services like iTunes, et al., provide a greater secondary market for their shows than the syndicated market ever will in the long run. (Though, this is just my opinion, Sujal can put his own opinions in here, if he so chooses.)
This, along with Universal’s decision to pull its music off of iTMS, just shows that Universal - alone - doesn’t understand the realities of the digital world, and will never so long as they feel as if margins mean more than profits. Profits only come with understanding of the digital world. People who own DVRs don’t watch commercials. Moreover, they further lose those ad rate dollars. People won’t watch the program in syndication if it doesn’t exist, and won’t be able to “buy” it if it isn’t on a service they can watch when they are not connected to the internet - Hulu.com fails that way (if it works the way it is being purported). And with HDTV’s increasing, if you can’t buy a program that can be watched in HD or on a HD set, you’re not going to buy it on your computer - AppleTV solves that problem, not that I think its a good solution yet.
HBO gets it. Showtime gets it. They allow their creators to own their product, and only own it so long as it is on their channel. After that, they get no more control. Other companies are starting to get it (see Comedy Central and the South Park guys), and the secondary, syndication market is starting to fail because those channels are broadcasting original programming.
Fools. The mindsets might change in one decade….then again….maybe not.
August 31st, 2007 at 11:34 pm
[…] has a worthy rant on the NBC/Apple debacle on his blog right now, but I just read on The Machinist that the sticking […]
August 31st, 2007 at 11:35 pm
they wanted the shows to be $4.99 an episode. F me, that’s nuts.
http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2007/08/31itunes.html
September 1st, 2007 at 8:57 am
Jish,
I have a stupid question because I am not that well advanced in the content for fee on the internet.
Sujal posted an interesting post on fatmixx back in May:
http://www.fatmixx.com/2007/05/10/living-without-cable-in-an-internet-world/
What if anyone was able to do what Sujal suggests in his post, wouldn’t that eliminate millions of dollars annually in advertising revenue for the TV Networks?
I know when I watch content via the web, I get something like 3 thirty second commercials for the entire show. I don’t have to really pay attention and the 18 minutes of ad revenue that shows during an episode or that I FF through on TiVo isn’t there. So, if content is available only on the NBC or ABC or CBS web site, don’t they control the medium and in effect protect their ad revenue for their regular broadcasts over the air?
Like I said, not well versed on the topic, just a dumb question.
September 1st, 2007 at 9:49 pm
The networks would lose millions (billions, actually) in ad revenue, but they would be making a per household, per show charge instead. Each episode of Lost, for example, would bring in something like 12mil*$1.99. While it’s not the sort of revenue they make now, it’s not exactly chump change.
Also, an update on my iTunes post, it looks like NBC is disputing the $4.99 per episode figure. http://www.tvsquad.com/2007/09/01/nbc-to-apple-we-never-wanted-to-sell-episodes-for-4-99/
Sujal
September 1st, 2007 at 11:54 pm
[…] a comment at Josh’s place, slugfest asked what would happen to network TV if everyone bought TV shows online rather than watching them via ad […]
September 3rd, 2007 at 7:45 pm
Sujal has a good post on the cost of TV -vs.- an online purchase of the show… go read it. I do hav two residual questions after his post:
1) the comparison works assuming that everyone switches to itunes method… I never have and therefore, what would be a true comparison based on sales or is it possible that the ratings are so out of the times with true predictions of how many people are actually watching?
2) Because there are 52 weeks of television, don’t the networks make residual ad rates on broadcast TV that wouldn’t be available at itunes? granted it may not be $400,000 per 30 second slot but the ad dollars have to still exist to some extent and therefore it’s a form of double and triple dipping that wouldn’t be available ones itunes sells it to you.
I must agree that NBC is stupid for trying to get $4.99 per ep and/or redoing their contracts to ad more money to their pockets but it has been my experience that when suits get antsy over revenue, they start doing some very peculiar/stupid things…
(btw, thanks sujal for taking the time to take a look at the numbers and examining the topic in depth. I am not well versed and other than what I have read in Jish’s and sujal’s posts, haven’t had the time or inclination to get up to speed. So thank you for pulling the info together for some of us less tech savvy (itunes neophites) people)
September 4th, 2007 at 10:02 pm
Well, unfortunately, yes, the Nielson ratings are based solely upon how many people and for how long they have their TV set watching a program. Moreover, it doesn’t even seem to care if anyone is watching it, just how long the TV set was changed to that channel. So, if I had my TV on PBS, but was actually watching something recorded on Tivo, that would count as me watching PBS - even though I never caught even one minute of it.
So, therefore, there really isn’t a fair comparison. Plus, you, like many other people, don’t really watch TV on the computer. It is definitely made for a different market, and sad to say, you’re not really a part of it (from a TV perspective - movies might be different some day).
As for your second point, yes, networks make money no matter what time of day it is. And if they produce the show, they air the show, and then they sell the show to iTunes, yes, they have made money many times over on the product. And even if they don’t air the show, but simply make it and sell it on iTunes, if any one buys it, they have made money again on teh show.
No one will spend $4.99 per episode, and NBC will have cut off their noses to spite their faces. No one will buy their programming, and if there is any charge to Hulu.com, no one will buy it there, like they didn’t on Movielink. GE has been continually reducing their budget year in and year out. Now we see why. They’re just idiots.
September 5th, 2007 at 12:43 am
I need to get home, but here’s my quick reaction to the two comments above (6 & 7). First, the Nielsen ratings I used are Live + Same Day (SD) which includes same day Tivo/DVR viewing. They’re actually quite savvy about the DVR situation and are getting better over time (They’re nowhere near perfect from what I’m reading, but they’re trying to adjust). I think the PBS example above is actually not a problem for the current gen of sampling methodology.
Second, to slugfest’s point above, sure, the TV networks make money showing you reruns or syndication. I think it’s important to keep in mind that it’s not an either/or situation. I might buy the DVDs but may still watch the reruns because it’s on. The Simpsons or Seinfeld are good examples… I’ve seen every Simpsons probably 3 times or more at this point and yet… I still keep watching.
Perhaps that erodes as people get more and more on demand programming. I guess that’s the long term fear.
Even then, though, it sure looks like the dollars raked in via a $1.99 price (keeping in mind the middle-men cut out, e.g. local affilliates, cable companies, etc.), it might be a good situation for them.
TV should be relegated to the role it best serves: Live or shared experience viewing. The Internet, without widespread adoption of a multicast protocol or a Joost-like (but more advanced) P2P distribution just will never be as efficient as our television network at broadcast.
Something tells me that even in a world where 80-90% of people buy their content, people will tune in at 8 to see American Idol and see the latest episode of Lost or Grey’s Anatomy.
Sujal
April 24th, 2010 at 9:08 pm
I really love following heroes episodes, it started from boring into a very good tv show now. During the first few episodes, I was like, its just an xmen . Now its really fun to watch, I really hope new season will be out soon.