web
counter
 

The Solution to Lost Television Revenue Due to Piracy is Simple: Make Everything Available Immediately and Free

By Dustin Rowles | Posted Under Trade News | Comments (28)



community-a-fistful-of-paintballs-11.jpeg

In an effort to force people to pony up for cable or watch live television, the Fox network recently widened the window between the time it allows its shows to be rebroadcast on Hulu from 24 hours to a full week. The result, perhaps, was not what they were hoping for. According to Torrentfreak (via Slashfilm), pirated downloads of “Hell’s Kitchen” rose by 114 percent while downloads of “MasterChef” rose a whopping 189 percent. The end result: Lost ad revenue from both live television viewing and from Hulu and increased ad revenue for Torrentfreak, none of which will be returned to the people responsible for making the shows.

A smart man or woman might one day propose this idea: Make everything that airs on ad-supported networks immediately available for streaming. In fact, allow it to stream simultaneously with live broadcasts. For free. It’s much more difficult to avoid ads on streaming shows, so theoretically, everyone gets what they want: Viewers get to see their shows on any platform immediately and without charge, while the networks get to force more of their ads on viewers. And we can all get rid of our TiVos.

In fact, given the large number of existing subscribers and the infrastructure already set in place, this could be the new model for Netflix, allowing viewers to watch these programs on their phones, their iPads or on their archaic television sets via the Wii Fit consoles that they rarely use.

Ultimately, this is a win-win situation for everyone, except cable providers, who’d likely see subscription rates drop dramatically. But it would free the rest of us from the tenuous hook monopolistic cable companies still have on some of us, particularly those who subscribe because of live sporting events. DirectTV has already worked around this, in some respects: For an outrageous fee ($400 a year), we can watch any and NFL games on our computers or phones through the DirectTV app.

Better still, it would finally give viewers that À la carte choices, only instead of channels, we could choose individual television shows. We wouldn’t have to pony up an extra $40 to get the cable package with AMC, while AMC would likely see a substantial increase in viewership for programs like “Mad Men” and “The Walking Dead” (and could thus increase their ad rates) from people who choose to watch their programs. Moreover, streaming programs would theoretically be much easier to track for ratings purposes, so many of the shows that are watched online or via illegal downloads would get more credit for their viewers, and we could abandon the Nielsen diaries and the idea that a handful of Nielsen families dictate what is and is not cancelled. Theoretically, with more ad revenue coming in from commercials all but impossible to ignore (you cannot fast forward through streaming commercials, after all), networks wouldn’t have to resort to as much product placement. That’s good for everyone.

The unintended consequence of Fox’s decision to delay rebroadcast of their shows on Hulu is more piracy. The intended consequence of making everything available free and immediately is a better user experience, more ad revenue, and — ultimately — the death of television piracy. And if you wanted to avoid the commercials, you could still download the shows on iTunes for a fee. In the end, the greatest advantage of all would be that viewers would be choosing television shows and not networks. Quality would trump quantity, thereby forcing programmers to come up with better shows. Programs that thrive in places like Hulu — like “The Daily Show,” “Parks and Recreation” “Community” “It’s Always Sunny in Philadelphia,” and even “Glee” would thrive, while shows that others watch because they are most convenient, like “The Biggest Loser” or “Extreme Body, House, and Genitalia Makeover” would be the ones facing the prospect of cancellation at the end of each season.










Each Time You Like, Share, Tweet or Stumble a Pajiba Post, An Angel Does the Paul Rudd Dance



Compiling Armond White's Greatest (Contrarian) Hits (2007 - 2011) | A Sweaty David Tennant In Leather Pants May Only Be Reason Number Ten Why You Should See Fright Night, But He's A Perfect Ten.









Comments

Yeah. Fuck Comcast. (They have NBC now anyway.)

Posted by: Socrates_Johnson at August 24, 2011 9:40 AM

Well played, Ramsey fans. Well played.

Posted by: , at August 24, 2011 9:43 AM

You are awesome, ,

Posted by: jamiepants at August 24, 2011 9:47 AM

I'm a damn dinosaur with an archaic TV. I watch a few shows during the week and otherwise entertain myself by reading. Not enough time, you all, not enough time.

Posted by: DenG at August 24, 2011 9:47 AM

EHEM "." (whoopsies)

Posted by: jamiepants at August 24, 2011 9:48 AM

What about all the non-US downloaders of US shows?
This posited streaming would, I assume, be restricted to US IP addresses. There's ways around that, of course. But most people wouldn't bother, they'd just keep downloading so they could avoid the commercials.

Posted by: Tarn at August 24, 2011 9:50 AM

I approve of this plan SO LONG AS it reaches non-US viewers as well. As a Canadian, I am often left with no choice but to download shows online because the legit ways to watch them (through the network website for example) aren't available to me. This especially applies to shows that air on networks we don't have here (F/X, Starz, USA, etc).

Other than that, I can't see a single fault. It would be FASCINATING to see how the ratings would change if people picked their entertainment on an a la carte basis. The cable companies have had far too much control for far too long - if they don't want to find better ways of doing business that incorporate the ways that people want to watch television (on their computers), I say fuck 'em. This plan would allow the networks to provide the content directly to the viewers and cut the middle man out completely. And if we all saved the ludicrous amounts of money we spend on cable every month, think of all of the extra disposable income we'd have to buy the stuff they advertised during the shows. A classic win-win-win (unless you're Comcast, Rogers, Shaw, et al).

Posted by: Nicole at August 24, 2011 10:12 AM

pathetic as i am, i've become a fan of Gordon Ramsay from his countless BBCAmerica shows. once i'd exhausted all of the available episodes on xfinity, it became apparent that i would have to settle for his amerrrrican persona (once an addict always an addict, folks) via the FoX network. Masterchef an Hell's Kitchen suck so much ass that i seriously resent being forced to acknowledge my addiction when i have to wait for a new episode to air (rather than watching a bunch in succession whilst simultaneously cursing my existence and getting steadily more intoxicated).
thanks for continually reminding me how sad and pathetic i am, Fox. i hope you and your pig children have a dreadful lunch at the Olive Garden.
And i hope you're fucking happy that i no longer watch House.
oh yeah, an Piss on you new red hat!

Posted by: beet salad at August 24, 2011 10:15 AM

Hear, hear! I'd also stop downloading some shows if only the websites that stream them would stop being so incredibly shitty. I tried to watch Project Runway on the Lifetime website but it was so incredibly slow, and it kept crashing my browser and generally being a pain in the ass, so I just went ahead and downloaded the show. Why won't they just play it on Hulu? I'll happily watch all the ads in exchange for a good stream.

MTV.com's streaming is also incredibly shitty, which is mostly due to the truly ridiculous amount of shit they load on the page--moving ads, connections to facebook, comments pages, ads for their shows, video ads, sound ads. You can NoScript some of them, but at some point you can't even watch the video itself. It's incredibly frustrating.

I wonder how much downloads of Mad Men decreased once it went on Netflix Instant? I confess I had planned to download the show at some point, but stopped once I heard Netflix was getting it.

Posted by: figgy at August 24, 2011 10:17 AM

Whatever, that would make too much fucking sense. As it is, I give $0 to TV providers. I find something to watch on Netflix (admittedly, using my brother's account**). 'Cause, come on, a lot of the time you're just looking for something to occupy your time. I rarely pirate anything. For years I've thought that I would buy a few channels a la carte if I could. Of course, no one offers that. I don't really care anymore, though. I haven't had TV for a few years now. When I go to my parent's house I usually just quickly scroll through all 200+ channels they have and settle on something that I can tolerate. I don't miss it much.

** - I'm a fucking ruining his shit on recommendations. "Based on you liking of rom-coms and bottled water documentaries we can't recommend a damn thing for you." Though, he and I agree on Best Of The Best.

Posted by: pissant at August 24, 2011 10:22 AM

Want to make it even *more* representative of what people really want to watch? Release all your primetime shows available for streaming at the same time. So all the programming that runs from 8 to 11 every night, you pick what you want to watch first. I get up at 5:30 a.m....and I TiVo a lot of stuff just because I don't want to stay awake till 11 p.m., or sit around and watch mediocre crap till 10 when the good stuff comes on.

If you don't want your little kids watching Breaking Bad, you no longer have to wait for the network to decide that 10 p.m. is when they're all likely to be in bed. You just set parental controls or send 'em out of the room yourself.

Posted by: Wednesday at August 24, 2011 10:35 AM

"In the end, the greatest advantage of all would be that viewers would be choosing television shows and not networks."

That's probably what troubles networks. If you are a network executive, you understand the power networks have, the power you have when someone is hooked by a show that you air (exclusively). Network executives don't understand the internet; nobody really does. It changes fast, and nobody knows who has the power (is it Hulu? Is it the viewer? That would be really scary for them...) so they just try to hold on to the model they have, where they can still control how people watch their shows. Any other scenario is scary, and they are right of being scared. If everyone gets used to watching shows on the internet, if they get bored by it, they have an infinite amount of content from which to chose; on TV, even cable, the content is limited, and a few people control it.

They are not just worried about losing money now, but about what the future will be. They know it won't be like this forever and are trying to get the most out of it while they can.

Posted by: zito at August 24, 2011 10:41 AM

hear, hear

Posted by: haplo at August 24, 2011 10:50 AM

I think it's inevitable that this is exactly where things are going after a while. All the shows that make their stuff available for free shortly after airing have shown that it works.

I only ask advertisers for one favor: PLEASE make your ads be able to pause and load before watching. I'm not the kind to pay attention to commercials but the people who do (the whole reason you're advertising in the first place) aren't actually going to take in any information when your commercial stops and buffers every other second. You can't skip over them so you might as well let people load them up first so your ad actually gets seen.

Posted by: Paultera at August 24, 2011 10:55 AM

*golfclap*

Posted by: Green Lantern at August 24, 2011 11:16 AM

But how would this plan affect Pajiba-approved, but small drawers like "Community"? If the same amount of people who watch it now, all turn to online, it may not be long for the world?

Posted by: Fredo at August 24, 2011 11:31 AM

I have worked in the cable television industry for over thirteen years and I can tell you that the cable companies and networks are not going to be going this direction anytime soon. I agree that it is a good idea and the way things should be. I have not had cable for four years (we "cut the cord" when we bought and moved into our house) and I don't miss it much at all. Granted, I have missed watching shows with friends and "watercooler" talk the next day, but I work from home so there really isn't a watercooler anyway. I do feel like it is my dirty little secret though and something I don't really broadcast to co-workers and CERTAINLY not to my network clients.

All that being said, the whole network revenue model is based strongly on subscriber fees from distribution partners. Obviously, ad sales is the largest piece of the pie but when ad revenue is soft, the subscriber fees become the bread and butter of any network to help fund the development of new programming and the continuance of existing shows. Maybe in 15-20 years we'll see things going the way Dustin has described but it won't be in the next few years. Of course, by then there'll be even more advanced technology that will allow consumers to get their content how they want it, when they want it and the mode described above will be old news, too.

Posted by: prairiegirl at August 24, 2011 11:45 AM

This makes complete and utter sense to me. Quite a few times in the past couple of years I've gone looking for television shows to watch and ended up resorting to piracy because either A: I missed a few episodes and the network website only kept the most recent episode available for streaming, or B (this is much less frequent now, thankfully): the show I was looking for simply wasn't available for streaming.

Not having past seasons up for free streaming I can understand, but to not have the full current season up is absurd. You know when a new show comes out, and the buzz really starts building about halfway through the season? That's when I'll sit down on a Sunday afternoon and burn through all those episodes. And I have no problem watching the commercials; I understand that that's the price of admission. But that's a whole lot of lost advertising revenue these companies are giving up by not having this content available.

Christ, for how long now have people been saying that on individual, on demand content is what they want? And that they're willing to pay for it in either time or money? You'd think all these Harvard MBA's would jump on this and supply it.

Posted by: APOCooter at August 24, 2011 12:39 PM

prairiegirl, I work in the ad distribution business and I agree with your assessment. However, I don't think it's going to take 15-20 years...probably more like 5-10. Technological advancements are leaping and bounding and making it easier to buy time, traffic and run ads on websites. If ad revs start bottoming out because of pirating and keep going in that direction (which they surely are) it's only a matter of time before the advertisers themselves start pushing for web-based solutions. Don't fuck with the car companies ad revenues. They'll fucking cut you, yo.

Posted by: JenVegas at August 24, 2011 1:23 PM

Also, I would totally pay HBO directly for an internet subscription to watch their shows online than pay the stupid jillionty dollars to add HBO to my current service. I just want to watch Treme and Game of Thrones. Is that too much to ask?

Posted by: JenVegas at August 24, 2011 1:31 PM

I think this is a great idea. I have cable pretty much to watch Breaking Bad, Mad Men and The walking Dead. Fuck The Killing by the way.
I wish AMC would stream them online.
I worked nights the first four weeks of Breaking Bad. So I was forced to download those episodes.

It would be cool if AMC,HBO and channels like that would offer a some kindd of online subscription. I would gladly pay something like fifteen bucks a month for each. Because Im basically paying 70 clams a month for one channel, anf ESPN.I think this is a great idea. I have cable pretty much to watch Breaking Bad, Mad Men and The walking Dead. Fuck The Killing by the way.
I wish AMC would stream them online.
I worked nights the first four weeks of Breaking Bad. So I was forced to download those episodes.

It would be cool if AMC,HBO and channels like that would offer a some kindd of online subscription. I would gladly pay something like fifteen bucks a month for each. Because Im basically paying 70 clams a month for one channel, anf ESPN.

Posted by: junierizzle at August 24, 2011 1:35 PM

Here's the problem: if the TV networks started offering their own web-based channels where, for a fee, you could sit down and enjoy their programming, then that'd cut out the middle men (AT&T, Time Warner, Cox, DirecTV, Dish Network, Charter, etc). The cable companies and satellite providers would be cut out and that'd start a right riot between them.

Posted by: Fredo at August 24, 2011 5:14 PM

This wouldn't stop TV piracy at all.

The streaming stuff is only available in the US, a lot of people outside the US just torrent shows when they get released because they have no other options. Free streaming wouldn't change that.

Posted by: Shambrook at August 24, 2011 8:34 PM

To all the people complaining about not getting to see stuff online outside of the US...take the 10 freaking minutes to google how to set up an IP address in the US. Its not hard and its free. Jesus people...

But I digress...the idea that the Cable companies are going to move to a free broadcast format, it ain't happening. Neither is the hope that one day you'll only have to pay for the channels you want. Annoying crap like the religious channels and home shopping networks subsidize pretty much the rest of the content. No one wants to pay for that and it generates way too much money for anyone in charge to want that to go away.

Posted by: Diablo at August 24, 2011 8:37 PM

@ Diablo
Why would I set up an American IP address when I can get a torrent with thousands of seeds hours after the show airs?

Posted by: Shambrook at August 24, 2011 9:08 PM

@Shambrook
Try upload sites instead (like warez-bb). They're faster and most episodes are up within a few minutes. Tend to find fewer fakes as well.

Posted by: Chugga at August 24, 2011 10:28 PM

jamiepants,

Forgiven.

Posted by: , at August 25, 2011 12:37 AM

Because Shambrook...its quicker and easier. Also, there are other benefits with having an IP address not in your general location. I don't give a shit what you do. I am just sick of people acting like Hulu is impossible to get around when all it takes is a fucking google search and some common fucking sense.

Posted by: Diablo at August 25, 2011 8:42 AM