Jump to content


Welcome to DBSTalk


Sign In 

Create Account
Welcome to DBSTalk. Our community covers all aspects of video delivery solutions including: Direct Broadcast Satellite (DBS), Cable Television, and Internet Protocol Television (IPTV). We also have forums to discuss popular television programs, home theater equipment, and internet streaming service providers. Members of our community include experts who can help you solve technical problems, industry professionals, company representatives, and novices who are here to learn.

Like most online communities you must register to view or post in our community. Sign-up is a free and simple process that requires minimal information. Be a part of our community by signing in or creating an account. The Digital Bit Stream starts here!
  • Reply to existing topics or start a discussion of your own
  • Subscribe to topics and forums and get email updates
  • Send private personal messages (PM) to other forum members
  • Customize your profile page and make new friends
 
Guest Message by DevFuse

Photo
- - - - -

Intel to Offer A La Cart?


  • Please log in to reply
458 replies to this topic

#26 OFFLINE   pdxBeav

pdxBeav

    Godfather

  • Registered
  • 447 posts
Joined: Jul 05, 2007

Posted 03 January 2013 - 09:37 AM

I'm guessing that was a few years back when all programming was cheaper. For me when I selected the channels I wanted it always was cheaper just to get a package that contained those channels than it was to pay for them individually.


Yes, same here. But there were also many more smaller packages to choose from. And then you could add 1 or 2 channels to a package to get exactly what you wanted.

...Ads Help To Support This Site...

#27 OFFLINE   EricRobins

EricRobins

    Godfather

  • Registered
  • 463 posts
Joined: Feb 09, 2005

Posted 03 January 2013 - 11:33 AM

I don't see a la carte channels ever working.

What we will see is a la carte PROGRAMMING. Instead of buying whole channels for 24/7/365, we will be just buying individual shows. We kind of already have that through, e.g., iTunes and the various sports league packages.

#28 OFFLINE   tulanejosh

tulanejosh

    Godfather

  • Registered
  • 426 posts
Joined: May 23, 2008

Posted 03 January 2013 - 12:13 PM

I don't see a la carte channels ever working.

What we will see is a la carte PROGRAMMING. Instead of buying whole channels for 24/7/365, we will be just buying individual shows. We kind of already have that through, e.g., iTunes and the various sports league packages.


You should really read the Gizmodo article and sync it up with SatRacer's last comment. The process of bringing a program from concept to production will grind to a halt. Like it or not - the entertainment industry works on what is known as "the hits" model. Simply put - successful programs support and fund development of new programs. Most of those new programs fail but a few succeed, and the process repeats itself. This model works because of the existence of the channel and the bundle. Take those away - and you take away new programming.

Now we can all sit here and take the pie in the sky approach of "well good programming will find a way", but quite frankly that ignores the business aspect of this business. Banks and investors and studios - for all their New York and Hollywood eccentricities - are very very good with money. And they don't really make a habit of tossing money into a project without some reasonable degree of confidence that their going to make their money back. And today, the hits model provides them with that confidence. But you take that away, and you kill their security. You find me one power player in New York or Hollywood that will put money into new programming projects that have a such a high failure rate, and I'll show you a liar.

This model just does not work.

#29 OFFLINE   Guesst925XTU

Guesst925XTU

    Legend

  • Registered
  • 223 posts
  • LocationOcean County, NJ zip code 08008
Joined: Jan 28, 2004

Posted 03 January 2013 - 12:29 PM

That would be GREAT if it happened. I would save soooo much money by not being forced to pay for channels like ESPN/ESPNews/ESPN2/etc.

-------------------------
Note to DirecTV:
My Zip code is 08008.

I live 60 miles East of Philadelphia.

I'm 83 miles South of NY.

Comcast provides KYW, WPVI, WCAU, WHYY, WPHL, WTXF, WPSG & WMCN all in both SD & HD in Ocean County.
Why don't you?


#30 OFFLINE   tulanejosh

tulanejosh

    Godfather

  • Registered
  • 426 posts
Joined: May 23, 2008

Posted 03 January 2013 - 12:33 PM

That would be GREAT if it happened. I would save soooo much money by not being forced to pay for channels like ESPN/ESPNews/ESPN2/etc.


I don't believe that that's true. The consumer would not pay the wholesale price that their provider pays. If you think you are going to get your favorite 15 channels for about a $1/piece because that's what Directv currently pays - that's just not how this works. You would not get ESPN (just using that as an example - i know you don't watch it) for $5/month. You'd pay $25 or $30 month. Look at HBO as an example of channel valuations. HBO currently costs - a la carte - around $17.99 per month. And it have a fraction of the interest/penetration as an ESPN or some of the other channels. Expect to pay in the neighborhood of $20 - $25 for even low rated channels - per channel.

Here's the thing people always forget. The companies that own these channels are not altruistic - they are in it to make money. And there's not a public company in the world where it's acceptable the shareholders to make $2B in profit one quarter, and then to turnaround the next and make only a fraction of that because they killed their bundles in favor of a la carte and they have less penetration than before. Networks are still going to get their money. Its just a question of whether $2B is divided by 20M customers or 100,000.

For me personally - if i am still going to pay $100+ per month - i'd rather get 200 channels than 10.

#31 OFFLINE   pdxBeav

pdxBeav

    Godfather

  • Registered
  • 447 posts
Joined: Jul 05, 2007

Posted 03 January 2013 - 12:39 PM

You should really read the Gizmodo article and sync it up with SatRacer's last comment. The process of bringing a program from concept to production will grind to a halt. Like it or not - the entertainment industry works on what is known as "the hits" model. Simply put - successful programs support and fund development of new programs. Most of those new programs fail but a few succeed, and the process repeats itself. This model works because of the existence of the channel and the bundle. Take those away - and you take away new programming.

Now we can all sit here and take the pie in the sky approach of "well good programming will find a way", but quite frankly that ignores the business aspect of this business. Banks and investors and studios - for all their New York and Hollywood eccentricities - are very very good with money. And they don't really make a habit of tossing money into a project without some reasonable degree of confidence that their going to make their money back. And today, the hits model provides them with that confidence. But you take that away, and you kill their security. You find me one power player in New York or Hollywood that will put money into new programming projects that have a such a high failure rate, and I'll show you a liar.

This model just does not work.


Then that model will have to change. If there are fewer new shows then so be it. New shows were produced before forced bundling and if forced bundling ever goes away new shows will continue to be produced.

I know everyone has a different opinion, but why do a lot of people think the current business practices can never change and are the only way it can ever work? Successful businesses will adapt to the current conditions.

#32 OFFLINE   tonyd79

tonyd79

    Hall Of Fame

  • Registered
  • 12,945 posts
  • LocationColumbia, MD
Joined: Jul 24, 2006

Posted 03 January 2013 - 01:09 PM

Then that model will have to change. If there are fewer new shows then so be it. New shows were produced before forced bundling and if forced bundling ever goes away new shows will continue to be produced.

I know everyone has a different opinion, but why do a lot of people think the current business practices can never change and are the only way it can ever work? Successful businesses will adapt to the current conditions.


Maybe because the current model evolved o where it is. Finding its natural foothold.

The closest we have to an a la carte model is the movies. Well, when the broadcast media became available, the number of movies created dropped like a stone and we are down to very few and even fewer good movies to watch. The only thing that saved the movies was the blockbuster. Good luck finding many niche movies. Good luck finding quality.

The current system does work. What is threatening it is some greedy people, most of whom fall into the sports arena. Correct that problem and you will still have tons of programming relatively cheaply.

Changing the whole paradigm just because a few are messing up is not a solution. Especially going to one that dismisses creativity.

Not to mention the higher burden and cost (alluded to by you on your BUD answer a while back) that no one wants to take on.
LR: HR34-700, H24-200, Fios DVR, BD350 Blu Ray, Roku Netflix Player, Chromecast, Sony 65w850 TV
BR: HR21-200, Viso 32LX, DB350 Blu Ray
Dish: Slimline, SWM8
Other: genieGo

#33 OFFLINE   JoeTheDragon

JoeTheDragon

    Hall Of Fame

  • Registered
  • 4,324 posts
Joined: Jul 21, 2008

Posted 03 January 2013 - 02:32 PM

Maybe because the current model evolved o where it is. Finding its natural foothold.

The closest we have to an a la carte model is the movies. Well, when the broadcast media became available, the number of movies created dropped like a stone and we are down to very few and even fewer good movies to watch. The only thing that saved the movies was the blockbuster. Good luck finding many niche movies. Good luck finding quality.

The current system does work. What is threatening it is some greedy people, most of whom fall into the sports arena. Correct that problem and you will still have tons of programming relatively cheaply.

Changing the whole paradigm just because a few are messing up is not a solution. Especially going to one that dismisses creativity.

Not to mention the higher burden and cost (alluded to by you on your BUD answer a while back) that no one wants to take on.


putting sports in there own packs can work. Having the other basic Channels stay as they are.
I want CLTV / CLTV HD on direct tv.

#34 OFFLINE   pdxBeav

pdxBeav

    Godfather

  • Registered
  • 447 posts
Joined: Jul 05, 2007

Posted 03 January 2013 - 02:43 PM

putting sports in there own packs can work. Having the other basic Channels stay as they are.


This would be a great start.

#35 OFFLINE   tulanejosh

tulanejosh

    Godfather

  • Registered
  • 426 posts
Joined: May 23, 2008

Posted 03 January 2013 - 03:14 PM

Then that model will have to change. If there are fewer new shows then so be it. New shows were produced before forced bundling and if forced bundling ever goes away new shows will continue to be produced.

I know everyone has a different opinion, but why do a lot of people think the current business practices can never change and are the only way it can ever work? Successful businesses will adapt to the current conditions.


That's not realistic. It's not that it can't change, it's that it has no reason to change. Everyone involved in the actual business side of this is happy with the way things are. The networks, the studios, the providers (despite Directvs public claims otherwise) they all make a metric sh*t ton of money and they would make less with an a la carte by the program model. Why would anyone change from a model that is a license to print cash to one that doesn't offer that type of return?

And besides that - to rip off the Gizmodo article - unlike the Music industry, which was on life support before Apple swooped in and offered a life line, the video distribution business is not on life support, it's stronger than its ever been. Billions in profit per quarter. No company will turn its nose up at billions in profit per quarter because a relatively small number of people are demanding change.

What consumers want is largely irrelevant because quite frankly while you might gripe about it you still pay under the current model. And most will continue to pay. And some people may cut the cord sure - but not nearly enough to form a critical mass to force change.

Edited by tulanejosh, 03 January 2013 - 03:20 PM.


#36 OFFLINE   pdxBeav

pdxBeav

    Godfather

  • Registered
  • 447 posts
Joined: Jul 05, 2007

Posted 03 January 2013 - 03:21 PM

That's not realistic. It's not that it can't change, it's that it has no reason to change. Everyone involved in the actual business side of this is happy with the way things are. The networks, the studios, the providers (despite Directvs public claims otherwise) they all make a metric sh*t ton of money and they would make less with an a la carte by the program model. Why would anyone change from a model that is a license to print cash to one that doesn't offer that type of return?


I couldn't agree with this more. The current system is a cash cow and won't be easily changed.

#37 OFFLINE   saleen351

saleen351

    Godfather

  • Registered
  • 478 posts
Joined: Mar 28, 2006

Posted 03 January 2013 - 03:33 PM

Foolish to think this is not going to happen.

Two keys reasons:

1. HD cameras are now dirt cheap, can be hand held and produce stunning HD/Movie quality video. This is going to be the un-doing of Hollywood's control and they know it. Anyone can now produce a movie or tv show on the cheap and distribute it without Hollywood's blessing. Content is dirt cheap and getting cheaper.

2. Pure economics. TV is an elastic product. This means if the price of coke increases to a certain level people will buy a substitute. If no substitute exists they will stop drinking soda. Don't be fooled, at a certain price people will stop watching tv and find an alternative which includes torrents. To think otherwise means you don't understand economics or read history.

Look at google fiber, this is the first shot across the bow of the content providers but they had no choice but to work with google. Why? Google could produce 10 tv shows without anyone ever noticing a blip on their balance sheet. Netflix is already going down this path.

Hollywood is losing control due to these cameras and that is the key here. Sat racer et al, you guys are kool aid drinkers. History is filled with markets being decimated. Half the dow companies from the 1980's are gone. Just a few years ago it was sears then walmart now amazon is killing them all. Some comedy writer is now sticking it to the shaving industry to the point they lowered prices and are now fighting back via commercials. I can go and on and on and on. Content providers are no longer immune from market disruption due to these cameras.

Kid, you're on a roll. Enjoy it while it lasts, 'cause it never does.
Lou Mannheim:


#38 OFFLINE   harsh

harsh

    Beware the Attack Basset

  • Registered
  • 20,512 posts
  • LocationSalem, OR
Joined: Jun 14, 2003

Posted 03 January 2013 - 04:13 PM

You will have many fewer new shows, much less of the riskier ones because there will no incentive to create them.

The question is whether or not channels that are supposedly documentary in charter should be concentrating on documenting such things as whack job individuals and messed up relationships without a balancing exploration of successful people and surprisingly successful collaborations. [See more at Only In America].

Why show countless hours of spectacularly destructive fighting that obviously isn't worth saving when there are so many important persons and concepts that need to be placed prominently in the public eye?

While I'm at it, family TV is no place for professional wrestling much less ultimate fighting.

Too often we enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought. -- JFK


#39 OFFLINE   RunnerFL

RunnerFL

    Hall Of Fame

  • DBSTalk Club
  • 16,236 posts
Joined: Jan 04, 2006

Posted 03 January 2013 - 04:40 PM

Already running into all kinds of delays.

http://online.wsj.co...MjEwNDIyWj.html
THIS SPACE FOR RENT

#40 OFFLINE   Hoosier205

Hoosier205

    Hall Of Fame

  • Registered
  • 6,617 posts
Joined: Sep 03, 2007

Posted 03 January 2013 - 05:13 PM

Foolish to think this is not going to happen.

Two keys reasons:

1. HD cameras are now dirt cheap, can be hand held and produce stunning HD/Movie quality video. This is going to be the un-doing of Hollywood's control and they know it. Anyone can now produce a movie or tv show on the cheap and distribute it without Hollywood's blessing. Content is dirt cheap and getting cheaper.

2. Pure economics. TV is an elastic product. This means if the price of coke increases to a certain level people will buy a substitute. If no substitute exists they will stop drinking soda. Don't be fooled, at a certain price people will stop watching tv and find an alternative which includes torrents. To think otherwise means you don't understand economics or read history.

Look at google fiber, this is the first shot across the bow of the content providers but they had no choice but to work with google. Why? Google could produce 10 tv shows without anyone ever noticing a blip on their balance sheet. Netflix is already going down this path.

Hollywood is losing control due to these cameras and that is the key here. Sat racer et al, you guys are kool aid drinkers. History is filled with markets being decimated. Half the dow companies from the 1980's are gone. Just a few years ago it was sears then walmart now amazon is killing them all. Some comedy writer is now sticking it to the shaving industry to the point they lowered prices and are now fighting back via commercials. I can go and on and on and on. Content providers are no longer immune from market disruption due to these cameras.

Kid, you're on a roll. Enjoy it while it lasts, 'cause it never does.
Lou Mannheim:


So your reasons why a la carte will happen boil down to the greater availability of HD cameras (ignoring the many other production elements, expertise involved, and the talent at every level) and that the economics of pay TV will turn people away from pay TV? That's it?

You believe that content owners and producers felt threatened by...Google Fiber? I don't think you know what Google Fiber is.
DTV = Digital Television

#41 OFFLINE   tulanejosh

tulanejosh

    Godfather

  • Registered
  • 426 posts
Joined: May 23, 2008

Posted 03 January 2013 - 06:34 PM

Foolish to think this is not going to happen.

Two keys reasons:

1. HD cameras are now dirt cheap, can be hand held and produce stunning HD/Movie quality video. This is going to be the un-doing of Hollywood's control and they know it. Anyone can now produce a movie or tv show on the cheap and distribute it without Hollywood's blessing. Content is dirt cheap and getting cheaper.

2. Pure economics. TV is an elastic product. This means if the price of coke increases to a certain level people will buy a substitute. If no substitute exists they will stop drinking soda. Don't be fooled, at a certain price people will stop watching tv and find an alternative which includes torrents. To think otherwise means you don't understand economics or read history.

Look at google fiber, this is the first shot across the bow of the content providers but they had no choice but to work with google. Why? Google could produce 10 tv shows without anyone ever noticing a blip on their balance sheet. Netflix is already going down this path.

Hollywood is losing control due to these cameras and that is the key here. Sat racer et al, you guys are kool aid drinkers. History is filled with markets being decimated. Half the dow companies from the 1980's are gone. Just a few years ago it was sears then walmart now amazon is killing them all. Some comedy writer is now sticking it to the shaving industry to the point they lowered prices and are now fighting back via commercials. I can go and on and on and on. Content providers are no longer immune from market disruption due to these cameras.

Kid, you're on a roll. Enjoy it while it lasts, 'cause it never does.
Lou Mannheim:


That's not how the Walmart and Amazon P&L sheets tell the story. Your comment about Sears might be accurate, but not Walmart. Amazon.com in no way is killing Walmart. Walmart posted a $27 Billion profit in 2012. Capital B. Amazon on the other hand lost 60 cents a share in Q3. Amazon isn't even in the same league as Walmart. They are Northern Illinois to Walmart's Alabama.

Hollywood is not losing control. The companies that own the networks report record profits. How is that losing control?

I think you under estimate the cost to produce programming. How much does something like Game of Thrones cost to produce? Google says $60M dollars for the first season. Even for Google, that's a lot of cash to risk on something that might fail.

Tech history is also not on your side re your comment about HD cameras being cheap... Just because a camera is cheap doesn't mean that people who know how film, direct, edit, write and act are. This is the same argument that anti-luddites made when YouTube came out, and when Amazon started selling independently authored books, and when Apple made it easy for any garage band in America to "professionally" record their own music and release it through iTunes. And to this day - truly professionally produced content from the major publishers and record lables still dominates. And YouTube is nothing more than a gathering place for people to watch the latest oddity - i.e Gangnum Style. History is not on your side.

Edited by tulanejosh, 03 January 2013 - 06:53 PM.


#42 OFFLINE   tulanejosh

tulanejosh

    Godfather

  • Registered
  • 426 posts
Joined: May 23, 2008

Posted 03 January 2013 - 06:37 PM

The question is whether or not channels that are supposedly documentary in charter should be concentrating on documenting such things as whack job individuals and messed up relationships without a balancing exploration of successful people and surprisingly successful collaborations. [See more at Only In America].

Why show countless hours of spectacularly destructive fighting that obviously isn't worth saving when there are so many important persons and concepts that need to be placed prominently in the public eye?

While I'm at it, family TV is no place for professional wrestling much less ultimate fighting.


Furthermore, google fiber was an experiment to show other companies that Gigabit Fiber buildouts can be done profitably and that remains to be seen. Google is not building out the entire nation.

#43 OFFLINE   tulanejosh

tulanejosh

    Godfather

  • Registered
  • 426 posts
Joined: May 23, 2008

Posted 03 January 2013 - 06:39 PM

The question is whether or not channels that are supposedly documentary in charter should be concentrating on documenting such things as whack job individuals and messed up relationships without a balancing exploration of successful people and surprisingly successful collaborations. [See more at Only In America].

Why show countless hours of spectacularly destructive fighting that obviously isn't worth saving when there are so many important persons and concepts that need to be placed prominently in the public eye?

While I'm at it, family TV is no place for professional wrestling much less ultimate fighting.


That's your opinion, and you are entitled to it. But this is about business, and businesses serve up what the public demands. If they public demanded more Downton Abby, it would be blasted on network television instead of quarantined on PBS. But instead, the public demands Honey Boo Boo and WWE. It's not the studios or distributors responsibility to instill their cultural values on the rest of the nation.

#44 OFFLINE   saleen351

saleen351

    Godfather

  • Registered
  • 478 posts
Joined: Mar 28, 2006

Posted 04 January 2013 - 11:14 AM

That's not how the Walmart and Amazon P&L sheets tell the story. Your comment about Sears might be accurate, but not Walmart. Amazon.com in no way is killing Walmart. Walmart posted a $27 Billion profit in 2012. Capital B. Amazon on the other hand lost 60 cents a share in Q3. Amazon isn't even in the same league as Walmart. They are Northern Illinois to Walmart's Alabama.

Hollywood is not losing control. The companies that own the networks report record profits. How is that losing control?

I think you under estimate the cost to produce programming. How much does something like Game of Thrones cost to produce? Google says $60M dollars for the first season. Even for Google, that's a lot of cash to risk on something that might fail.

Tech history is also not on your side re your comment about HD cameras being cheap... Just because a camera is cheap doesn't mean that people who know how film, direct, edit, write and act are. This is the same argument that anti-luddites made when YouTube came out, and when Amazon started selling independently authored books, and when Apple made it easy for any garage band in America to "professionally" record their own music and release it through iTunes. And to this day - truly professionally produced content from the major publishers and record lables still dominates. And YouTube is nothing more than a gathering place for people to watch the latest oddity - i.e Gangnum Style. History is not on your side.


You can't correlate current profits to a nascent paradigm shift in the market. Example Amazon's profits are lower due to their prime program and their new expansion to offer same day delivery which will cause Walmart huge headaches in the future.

I'm looking at the long term trend and it's not favorable to content producers.

Napoleon Dynamite was filmed for less than 500k, it grossed 46m and that doesn't include TV, DVD etc.

Clerks was filmed using Kevin's credit cards for 27k, did 3m in the theaters but had a cult following on DVD.

These were 1994 and 2004, imagine what they could do with today's technology.

Just check out the numbers on Roger and Me.

I work in the tech startup world, you should see the wacky companies who get funded. Now you can raise money and shoot films for practically nothing. More and more of these films will hit it big and guys like Mark Cuban will be right in the middle of it. (he owns a chain of movie theaters.)

Hollywood is on the run, there was a great article a few weeks back in one of the financial papers (I'll try and dig it up) about how they are running scared. I look at my own friends who shoot video for famous djs, you'd think major Hollywood studios are producing these, but it's just a guy with one single 7k camera. (Red Camera) Some of them are now filming commercials here locally. My other buddy shoots these funny videos for his night club and posts them on youtube, they feature celebs and even a famous director, all done with one cheap hd camera, one writer in an afternoon. (These are espn spoofs and get millions of hits) 5 years ago this was impossible. My other friends worked on the Jersey Shore show, this show did not have a huge buget, a crew of about 30 people, a few tiny cameras and mac books.

#45 OFFLINE   Hoosier205

Hoosier205

    Hall Of Fame

  • Registered
  • 6,617 posts
Joined: Sep 03, 2007

Posted 04 January 2013 - 11:46 AM

You can't correlate current profits to a nascent paradigm shift in the market. Example Amazon's profits are lower due to their prime program and their new expansion to offer same day delivery which will cause Walmart huge headaches in the future.

I'm looking at the long term trend and it's not favorable to content producers.

Napoleon Dynamite was filmed for less than 500k, it grossed 46m and that doesn't include TV, DVD etc.

Clerks was filmed using Kevin's credit cards for 27k, did 3m in the theaters but had a cult following on DVD.

These were 1994 and 2004, imagine what they could do with today's technology.

Just check out the numbers on Roger and Me.

I work in the tech startup world, you should see the wacky companies who get funded. Now you can raise money and shoot films for practically nothing. More and more of these films will hit it big and guys like Mark Cuban will be right in the middle of it. (he owns a chain of movie theaters.)

Hollywood is on the run, there was a great article a few weeks back in one of the financial papers (I'll try and dig it up) about how they are running scared. I look at my own friends who shoot video for famous djs, you'd think major Hollywood studios are producing these, but it's just a guy with one single 7k camera. (Red Camera) Some of them are now filming commercials here locally. My other buddy shoots these funny videos for his night club and posts them on youtube, they feature celebs and even a famous director, all done with one cheap hd camera, one writer in an afternoon. (These are espn spoofs and get millions of hits) 5 years ago this was impossible. My other friends worked on the Jersey Shore show, this show did not have a huge buget, a crew of about 30 people, a few tiny cameras and mac books.


...and what does any of this have to do with Google Fiber?
DTV = Digital Television

#46 OFFLINE   tulanejosh

tulanejosh

    Godfather

  • Registered
  • 426 posts
Joined: May 23, 2008

Posted 04 January 2013 - 12:47 PM

You can't correlate current profits to a nascent paradigm shift in the market. Example Amazon's profits are lower due to their prime program and their new expansion to offer same day delivery which will cause Walmart huge headaches in the future.

I'm looking at the long term trend and it's not favorable to content producers.

Napoleon Dynamite was filmed for less than 500k, it grossed 46m and that doesn't include TV, DVD etc.

Clerks was filmed using Kevin's credit cards for 27k, did 3m in the theaters but had a cult following on DVD.

These were 1994 and 2004, imagine what they could do with today's technology.

Just check out the numbers on Roger and Me.

I work in the tech startup world, you should see the wacky companies who get funded. Now you can raise money and shoot films for practically nothing. More and more of these films will hit it big and guys like Mark Cuban will be right in the middle of it. (he owns a chain of movie theaters.)

Hollywood is on the run, there was a great article a few weeks back in one of the financial papers (I'll try and dig it up) about how they are running scared. I look at my own friends who shoot video for famous djs, you'd think major Hollywood studios are producing these, but it's just a guy with one single 7k camera. (Red Camera) Some of them are now filming commercials here locally. My other buddy shoots these funny videos for his night club and posts them on youtube, they feature celebs and even a famous director, all done with one cheap hd camera, one writer in an afternoon. (These are espn spoofs and get millions of hits) 5 years ago this was impossible. My other friends worked on the Jersey Shore show, this show did not have a huge buget, a crew of about 30 people, a few tiny cameras and mac books.


Sure i can correlate it. Businesses only existing to make money. I dont care what industry it is - if it can't turn a profit after a certain period of time, it goes away. Amazon has struggled from day 1 to turn a profit. They have these crazy idea about buying market share.... Well, let me tell ya, they are still a long long way off from grabbing the kind of market share that Walmart has. If you don't want to talk profit, look at revenue ($450B vs $48B).

That's all great that your freinds are using cheap equipment to make small time videos (no disrespect intended). But videos for DJs that most of america has never heard of and doesn't care about, local commercials, and youtube videos doesn't exactly translate into a multi-billion dollar entertainment industry. YouTube and ESPN video clips have been around for quite a while (at least in tech terms) and they have failed to be disruptive to the traditional model. Clerks and ND might be indie, cult favorites, but on their best day they never garnered the attention of an Avatar or even a John Carter. Think about that. John Carter, a universally labeled flop and a horrible 2 hours of film if ever there was, grossed nearly 8x more than ND. Why? Well - my belief is that independent movies and art house cinema just don't garner the maintstream's interest. And independents such as your friends just don't have the financial backing to produce something like Avatar. Or John Carter. A music video is a far cry from a full length feature film or even 60 minutes of well produced television. And again - no dispresect - they'll never get the backing to produce something like Avatar. or John Carter. Or Game of Thrones. without a business model that provides some reasonable degree of certainty of financial success.

Edited by tulanejosh, 04 January 2013 - 12:53 PM.


#47 OFFLINE   Satelliteracer

Satelliteracer

    Hall Of Fame

  • Registered
  • 3,042 posts
Joined: Dec 06, 2006

Posted 04 January 2013 - 12:54 PM

Foolish to think this is not going to happen.

Two keys reasons:

1. HD cameras are now dirt cheap, can be hand held and produce stunning HD/Movie quality video. This is going to be the un-doing of Hollywood's control and they know it. Anyone can now produce a movie or tv show on the cheap and distribute it without Hollywood's blessing. Content is dirt cheap and getting cheaper.

2. Pure economics. TV is an elastic product. This means if the price of coke increases to a certain level people will buy a substitute. If no substitute exists they will stop drinking soda. Don't be fooled, at a certain price people will stop watching tv and find an alternative which includes torrents. To think otherwise means you don't understand economics or read history.

Look at google fiber, this is the first shot across the bow of the content providers but they had no choice but to work with google. Why? Google could produce 10 tv shows without anyone ever noticing a blip on their balance sheet. Netflix is already going down this path.

Hollywood is losing control due to these cameras and that is the key here. Sat racer et al, you guys are kool aid drinkers. History is filled with markets being decimated. Half the dow companies from the 1980's are gone. Just a few years ago it was sears then walmart now amazon is killing them all. Some comedy writer is now sticking it to the shaving industry to the point they lowered prices and are now fighting back via commercials. I can go and on and on and on. Content providers are no longer immune from market disruption due to these cameras.

Kid, you're on a roll. Enjoy it while it lasts, 'cause it never does.
Lou Mannheim:


Explain the HD camera thing to me. It seems to me we've had channels with amateurs running around with HD and SD cameras creating content....Current TV, You Tube, etc.

My guess is most consumers want professionally done content, with professional actors and hosts...those people do not come cheap, nor do their production units.

I'm all ears, but I'd like you to expand on this because I don't see where people are leaping to purchase content that is not attractive to watch, let alone throw dollars at to consume.
DIRECTV employee

All comments are my own. Unless specifically stated, my views do NOT represent the views of DIRECTV

#48 OFFLINE   tulanejosh

tulanejosh

    Godfather

  • Registered
  • 426 posts
Joined: May 23, 2008

Posted 04 January 2013 - 12:57 PM

...and what does any of this have to do with Google Fiber?


Not directed at you... but whoever brought google fiber up really misses the point on what Google is trying to do with that experiment. Google really wants America to have gigabit internet. It wants its ISP partners to invest in it. Google is trying to show then that it can be done profitably, but Google itself has no intention of embarking on a national fiber build out. While they might have $72B in assets on hand, that's not where close to what it would cost to build something like google fiber out nationally. Verizon and ATT are much much larger companies than Google and have way more cash on hand, and even they are hesitating at the cost of build out.

#49 OFFLINE   Satelliteracer

Satelliteracer

    Hall Of Fame

  • Registered
  • 3,042 posts
Joined: Dec 06, 2006

Posted 04 January 2013 - 01:06 PM

Napoleon Dynamite was filmed for less than 500k, it grossed 46m and that doesn't include TV, DVD etc.

Clerks was filmed using Kevin's credit cards for 27k, did 3m in the theaters but had a cult following on DVD.

These were 1994 and 2004, imagine what they could do with today's technology.

Just check out the numbers on Roger and Me.


I'm a big fan of some of those films. Those are the exceptions, not the rule.

At the end of the day, you need distribution. There have been independent films around since time began. With new technology, new distribution, I have no doubt that distribution will expand in terms of availability. Now, does that translate into eyeballs? Hmm, not so sure. Very fractured world out there in media, getting eyeballs is tough. Takes marketing muscle, PR, etc. Something indie films and people running around with HD cameras typically don't have.

As far as me being a Kool Aid drinker, well I believe I am someone that is grounded in facts and not emotion. I have no doubt things will change because that's what happens pretty much in all walks of life. The pace of change is something that we can all debate. The adoption and success of those changes is ripe with further debate.

Happy New Year
DIRECTV employee

All comments are my own. Unless specifically stated, my views do NOT represent the views of DIRECTV

#50 OFFLINE   HinterXGames

HinterXGames

    Godfather

  • Registered
  • 313 posts
Joined: Dec 20, 2012

Posted 04 January 2013 - 01:53 PM

This would be a great start.


Part of the problem not discussed too, is that, I believe, some content providers now require a certain portion of their programming be sent to a percentage of a companies customer base, or penetration rate.
--
Maybe Satracer can confirm this, but I believe I read in another post that the penetration requirement for ESPN is something ungodly, in the 90%'s, which is why you only see one package without it, the Family package 29.99.
--
It would also explain why some packages include certain channels above others. I"m pretty sure package bundling isn't just one thing, but a multitude of things. Providers also have to go through the 'bundle hell' with networks.
--
DTV could tell Disney we just want your main Disney channel and they will so, no, to get it you have to take A, B, C and D. You get the picture.




Protected By... spam firewall...And...