The ‘commodization’ of the movies
July 27th, 2010 § Leave a Comment
Movies. We see the commercials/ spots on TV, ads in the newspapers , posters on the bus stops and digital ‘moving’ billboards, hear them tout them on radio and of course we still discuss them at the office and home. We still go to the theaters to see them, then we go home and wait for them to be available to us on…? well, not really DVD‘s anymore. Blockbuster is going away, we really don’t run to Best Buy or Fry’s to ‘rent’ them. Maybe RedBox in a grocery store too. Some of us now are using Netflix, iTunes and some in major metropolitan cities can find them for $5.00 on a table on a street corner (illegal copies albeit, if you know where to look). And fewer of us get them from Torrents, and even less from the newsgroups. But what has happened over the past 10 years to the DVD business has caused a major shift in perception for all of us. Its no longer the ‘event’ it used to be to wait to get a movie in DVD form to bring home and watch on a weekend night. Years ago, there weren’t 15-20 movies in the theaters at once. Movies started a run in the theaters and most lasted a few months. Now, most last a few weeks, if that. Or never see a theater at all. Back then, we could peruse Blockbuster along with our neighbors to grab a copy and return it the next day (if it was a new release). There was a sense of pent up demand to get that movies when it came out on DVD. That no longer exists. What happened? Where did that great feeling of waiting for that movie you liked so much in the theater to come out on DVD. I miss that ‘looking forward’ to a film at home. How did Hollywood lose that edge with all of us? They blinked.
Today, even ‘Avatar‘ released on DVD or to Netflix, iTunes, etc. is a non-event. True, Hollywood tries to make it an event. They really do advertise the DVD release. Target and Wal-Mart carry it but years ago Target and Wal-Mart were not even in the running for carrying and stocking an ‘Avatar’. I think to some extent that the loss of the trips to the local DVD store and the swing to the Targets and Best Buy seem to lend a feeling to each movie released that there a sense of ‘mass commoditization’ of the movies. You just don’t ‘run’ to Wal-Mart for a film. You can’t even rent them at Wal-Mart or Target – they must be purchased. To compound this, movies are being released sooner than ever before. This gives one a reason to stop before going to a theater right away to see a movie. Given the cost of a ticket, popcorn etc., a babysitter (if you need one) and you’re into 1 movies for nearly $ 100.00 if you go with 1 other individual. Ouch!
Years back, certain theaters carried certain films. There were ‘art’ houses (for independent films) , there were theaters that carried foreign films ( Goddard, Truffaut) and there were retro houses and mainstream theaters. With costs so high these days, theater owners must give way to larger bigger well advertised releases. When was the last time anyone saw an ad on TV, newspapers, bus stop, radio, etc for a foreign language film from a well known director. It used to be Directors could lure an audience into the theaters alone. It didn’t matter who was in the film, what the special effects were or if there were any at all. Few directors today can do this (Cameron and a handful of others can, but not too many).
Movies are a commodity today. One released after another, not much difference between them all. And once they are out and available after the theaters, they are all but forgotten. We have no more real teams of actors and actresses that are featured in several films (except for Tarrantino and now Rob Zombie, who do this).
I miss all of this. Do you?
Sshhh!…what’s real reason why Comcast is buying NBC? TV Everywhere of course.
December 4th, 2009 § Leave a Comment
G.E.’s decision to sell NBC Universal reflects the shifts in fortune that are battering the media business, especially network television. The broadcast division of NBC Universal could lose big, a remarkable downturn for a network that had earned roughly $400 million in past years.
Problem: the Internet has fractured audiences and few viable business models have emerged for the distribution of content online.
What the new Comcast venture looks like: Comcast will contribute its own cable channels, which include Versus, the Golf Channel and the E Entertainment channel, and a modest amount of cash, about $5 billion, to a joint venture in which it will own 51 percent. G.E. will retain a 49 percent stake, and would likely reduce its ownership over several years and in theory, Comcast-NBC Universal will be a company separate from Comcast’s cable assets.
Some interesting possibilities could be:
It could use its power in film, with Universal Studios, to expand video-on-demand offerings by altering movie release windows to make movies available on demand the same day they are released on DVD.
It could use its power in film, with Universal Studios, to expand video-on-demand offerings by altering movie release windows to make movies available on demand the same day they are released on DVD to all active basic cable subscribers that buy HBO and SHOWTIME or purchase at least 1 on-demand film per month.
Buying Netflix: Stream movies through this service coupling subscription on cable with certain consumer benefits through Netflix, i.e. day and date with DVD or perhaps even a scheme to stream films just released in theaters 1 time only to ‘frequent flyers’ or renters of the service, but at a big ticket price on-demand.
But here is the real reason why Comcast is buying NBC: TV Everywhere. “TV Everywhere” model, which promises to give their subscribers exactly what they want: anytime, anywhere access to any TV content. They have to do this to keep their customer bases and compete. In a TV Everywhere world, the role of the multi-system operator is diminished. Your cable or satellite TV provider will no longer be your only (legal) means of watching the current episode of HBO’s Curb Your Enthusiasm. In a TV Everywhere world, Curb Your Enthusiasm will be available on literally thousands of websites and mobile apps, as long as you can authenticate yourself as a paying cable or satellite subscriber with the HBO package. Comcast risks becoming a “dumb pipe,” providing little more than bandwidth. To avoid that fate, Comcast recognizes that it needs to move upstream and own or control the content itself, thus NBC/Uni. More to the point, a consumer COULD elect to turn off his cable basic subscription and turn around and subscribe to TVE thereby allowing him to see his basic cable channels but on his PC, phone etc. Now that Comcast owns content and some of those channels it can monetize the consumer whether or not they subscribe to the cable in the house or not.
In a TV Everywhere world, it will be a terribly crowded space, with a ton of noise and websites with similar content. The sites that perform best will be the ones that create the best user experience for viewing TV content – and right now, that’s Hulu ( and who knows, maybe Clicker ?). If Comcast buys NBC, Comcast will own about 1/3 of Hulu, providing an ideal launching pad for TV Everywhere it has a very passionate and loyal audience.
This online world is a very splintered and exceedingly difficult to measure, especially when you are asked to sell advertising against the content. The real problem is a lack of tools to properly bring the right economy of scale to online which equates to buying media in a traditional way. Therefore, instead of trying to monetize a cable channel online one by one, with TVE, you can monetize the whole package in a similar way that cable already is monetized. Its a structure already understood by the consumer now. Bundle a bunch of cable channels for a small monthly fee and let consumers have access to them everywhere, including home or NOT.
The Internet while very big, does not yet command the equivalent kind of media rates and fees that Cable or Network gets today. No agreed upon means of measurement exists to give advertisers a definitive ‘rate card’ for the internet. There is no Nielsen for the web, (yet, although it was announced yesterday by Nielsen that eventually, there will be). comScore, even though they do a great job with data can’t extrapolate the data to equate to viewers ‘watching a TV set’. Making the comparison when placing an ad on a video online and the same ad on TV impossible to compare TODAY. Hulu streamed 855 million video stream last month. What does that really mean? Did all 855m viewers who watched those streams watch ALL of each stream or were many of them counted as they ‘surfed’ through Hulu clicking on various videos for a few minutes or even seconds – were they counted among the 855m? What does 855m stream equate to in Nielsen ratings/eyeballs? Does anyone really know? Nielsen despite its shortcomings has some measurable statistics for this, but its still not apples to apples.
Furthermore, Hulu still has a long way to go to prove it can monetize its audience as effectively as its parent companies can do with programs viewed on-air. Why? Its uniques are flat. Hulu’s uniques are scarcely better than they were 6 months ago. Unless the unique number jumps in the coming months (which I doubt it will), Hulu will have to meaningfully enhance its value proposition to grow its audience (can you say “Hulu to-the-TV-via-Xbox/Roku/Apple TV/etc?”) says Will Richmond of Videonuze (Nov 30th 2009). He goes on to ask “What happens to Fox’s programs on Hulu should Rupert Murdoch expand his focus beyond his newspapers’ online content going premium? What if Disney decides to launch its own subscription services? What if Google or Microsoft or Netflix (or someone else) decides to open their wallet and make a bigger play in premium online video?” And, these questions become somewhat less mysterious now that Comcast has bought NBC/Universal.TV will NEVER be the same again.
Comcast chart above courtesy of VideoNuze.com
Posted via email from williamsager’s posterous
Cloudy With NO Chance of Meatballs for $24.95
November 11th, 2009 § Leave a Comment
Someone over at Sony must be watching too many 3 Stooges episodes late at night to think up a promotion like this.
What a terrible value for consumers. I guess their DVD outlets complained so instead of changing their thinking they upped the 24hr. ‘rental’ price. Yes, that’s right. If you’ve got a Sony Bravia TV you too can rent ‘Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs’ for the incredibly fair price of $ 24.95 for a 24 hour term. Don’t everyone rush at once. And, those renters will be proud to know that they got to see the film BEFORE their friends got it on DVD….ooooohhh. Sony thinks that there’s a rush to see THIS film 28 days before you can see it or buy it on DVD (Jan 4th, 2010) for less than $24.95 and own the plastic disc and box? I feel really sorry for the suckers who rent it on Jan. 3rd, 2010 the day before its DVD release. If they wait just 24 more hours they can OWN it for less.
Sony, why not offer consumers something of value? Netflix list of 20 Sony films for free? 3-6 month pass to EpixHD online? Something on iTunes? Anything? This is ridiculous.
TV Online – It’s NOT on TV and worse, everyone appears to be all the same.
September 14th, 2008 § 2 Comments
At first, CinemaNow and MovieLink were the 2 places for online consumption of movies at first, then TV shows were added. Well intentioned but clunky and smothered with restrictions on viewing the content, it was accepted only by the most avid online enthusiast with the fastest connections to the Internet. You could download Indiana Jones ( 30-45 days AFTER its DVD release) and by the time you were done, Indi 2 was in the theaters. It was painful. But your yardstick for measuring success was simple – in the number of downloads. 
Then came the notion of streaming video just like youtube was doing (and much illegal content on youtube ) and then came a crop of youtube look-alikes, then joost appeared and a whole slew of joost-alikes came along. Once the social networks hit big, there were social networks built around content, blip TV, veoh’s, revvers, myspaceTV, etc. Somehow, someone felt that if I was online at Facebook or a MySpace member then I must also like to watch a certain genre of films or type of TV show (which is mistake # 1) and that I’d watch it online (mistake # 2). The recommendation engine ‘notion’ applied to me in this way was all wrong! 
Soon, established brands launched their own ‘branded’ version/site of online TV and movie consumption; iTunes, amazon video on demand (downloads) 
, hulu, reeltime, tidaltv, jaman, babelgum, TheWB + and more. Then we have all the set-top ‘boxes’ that arrived, X-Box downloads, Vudu, Roku/Netflix, 
the late Akimbo, TiVo, Comcast, ATT-U-Verse and the list goes on. Now, after all of this ‘launching’ and all of these press releases and all of these disparate systems, I have 2 observations to make. The FIRST is that unfortunately, EVERYONE SEEMS TO HAVE MUCH OF THE SAME MOVIES AND TV SHOWS. There is no real ‘differentiation’ other than the domain. No one ‘programs’ a service anymore. It seems depending on the service and who they have been able to strike a deal with, they simply put every single piece of content up online in mass, categorize each piece with the usual tags like ‘adventure’, ‘sci-fi’, ‘suspense’ etc. Each is advertising not hundreds, but ‘thousands’ of titles…4,500..10,000, 40,000 +. There is no ‘guide’ other than search fields embedded somewhere on each site for the consumer to ‘search’ for his or her movie or show. The SECOND is that despite all of the many services calling themselves ‘online TV’ or ‘ IPTV’, NONE OF THEM ARE ACTUALLY CARRIED ON TELEVISION. Unless you’ve hooked up your PC/MAC to your LCD, your computer bound. With the exception of a few ‘boxes’, most online TV websites require you to watch and pay to watch this content on your computer. I can see watching some of this content for free on my computer, but I have a hard time seeing myself paying for any of it, especially since most of it I can already get on my cable or satellite TV in one form or the other (and I can find it easier with the TV guide on my cable or Direct TV). So, why should I be excited to see ‘Tropic Thunder’ show up online on my 21” PC screen for $ 5.99 ? It will show-up on my 45” LCD TV set anyway on PPV for the same fee, but I can sit on my couch and watch it. 
UGC is easy to understand why its so popular. Most UGC is 2-3 minutes in length, hardly an hour and a half movie.
There are a lot of people online and yes, movies and TV shows are popular. But the reason most of us are online was not to find a movie or TV show. Initially, it was for email and for information and communication. It still is and even more so. It’s simply that our connections are that much bigger today and therefore this allows for the ‘broadcasting’ of video whereas years ago, it just was a ‘pipe’ (sorry, bad joke) dream.
Now, if one day, somehow I can get access to any movie or TV show I can think of sent directly to my TV set, (using the internet as a dumb pipe) regardless of what pay or basic cable service had the film under license… now that’s something I’d pay for or watch with commercials. I’d love to collectively watch some of Hollywood’s grandest and biggest failures that I choose like Michael Cimino’s ‘Heaven’s Gate’, ‘George Lucas’s Howard the Duck’ , Warren Beatty’s ‘Ishtar’, ‘Under the Volcano’ etc. Or, watch all of the ‘Thin Man’ films (William Powell, Mynra Loy and Asta). Ahh…maybe one day.
My data = ‘invisible advertising’
November 25th, 2007 § 1 Comment
There’s a discussion that’s been going on for some time now about data ownership. Dave Winer at Scripting.com has probably said it the best on his blog for some time now – he’s right on target concerning data ownership. Huh? What does this mean? Read on….I belong to Facebook 
(and other social networks as well, but I’m using Facebook as an example for today’s post). I filled out the answers to many questions, identified some people as friends or acquaintances, have used some of their plug-ins/3rd party apps. and participated in a few polls. Facebook has this (my) data and is in complete control of it and owns it right now – my preferences, opinions, friends, and even some of my buying habits. I also use Amazon and eBay – they too have my data and they know which books and items I’ve bought or bid on, they even built a profile of items I’ve looked for for future ‘recommendations’ (OR what I call, ‘invisible advertising’). The same for Netflix 
and iTunes. 
Now, think about all of this for a minute. Collectively, these services by virtue of the fact I have used their websites know more about my own real interests, likes and dislikes and specifically what I’d prefer to watch (Netflix), read (Amazon), who I talk to (Facebook), what I listen to (iTunes) and buy (Amazon 
& eBay 
) better than anyone else other than myself. What if this cumulative profile of me was something I could use and take with me and ‘offer’ to a prospective website retailer that might like to ‘sell’ me something because that ‘something’ is very likely something I’d want to buy from them? Would my profile and data be worth something to this retailer? There is something of value I can offer them and in return I can get something of value to me, from them (i.e. a discount or other services). Could I use my profile then to negotiate a better deal for myself for that item if I purchased that item at their website? Conversely, why not let several web retailers offer me big discounts on certain items I am most likely to buy? And finally, when do advertisements no longer resemble advertisements? When they appear as ‘information’. The ‘ad’ part becomes invisible when I am properly targeted using my own data. I’ll no longer see an advertisement but rather some information I want to know about because I’m already interested in receiving that information (hence the term ‘invisible’ advertising). But, I want to control my own data. I want to be able to use this information about myself that OTHERS collect and use it for me, after all, I created it. I gave it up voluntarily to these web sites but I still want control of it – where it goes and to whom. If I had a simple XML file that resided on my own hard drive collecting this information, then I’d have my bargaining chip! And ultimately this will lead to less advertisements and more information being given to me. A better web experience all around. A win-win for me and the retailer. Thoughts?
