Big surprise. NBC and Apple have been at odds for a long time. It will only get worse if the Comcast/NBC merger happens. Really bad for consumers.
Unless the cable model collapses -- which could happen but probably not in the next few years -- Apple is not going to get a comprehensive content deal without having the networks and the local cable providers on board. The networks don't want to sacrifice their retransmission revenue, and the local cable providers will squeeze the broadband cost if Apple goes around them.
So go to the networks and the local cable providers and make it happen.
Work out deals with Comcast, Time Warner Cable, Charter, etc., to create a cable package that works off the Apple TV platform and provides for live news, sports, and special event programming. Let consumers watch the content on their TV, their computer, and their Apple devices. Charge a premium for the product, and let the market decide if it's worth the cost.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stourque
As far as renting TV shows go, if I were NBC, I'd take he money and run.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69
Whether you buy it to own or rent it you'll most likely watch it only once, so why not make double the money?
NBC is less concerned about the incremental revenue from iTunes rentals than making it easy for you to drop your cable. They want to price the episodes at a level where you WON'T rent every episode; they want you to watch most episodes on your local cable and rent only the few that you miss.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rdjlexky
Or for free on their website.
You can't watch that on your 60-inch HDTV. I suspect the networks would cut way back on putting their shows online if they felt like it was causing a move away from cable. So far, people are supplementing their cable with online viewing, but they're not -- at least not in large numbers -- canceling their cable to watch shows on their computers.
It would be nice to know what the networks make per household now. The add rates from a few years back indicate middle of the pack shows get about $6 million per episode in total ads, some of that goes to affiliates of course. Top but not peak rated shows have about 8 million viewers. So right now the Networks are making under $1 per household, probably near $.50. So renting for $1 per show is more money that first broadcast gets them and for little added expense. One other question is how does this affect syndication rights and that sort of thing?
As I understand it, the networks don't really make a profit on the first-run of an episode, anyway. Most of their profit comes through product placement, DVD/BluRay sales, syndication rights, etc.
Advertising these days has gotten so sophisticated, that commercials are structured so that even if you're fast forwarding it on your DVR, you still catch the gist of the ad. So I don't really understand how people paying 99 cents to rent a show to watch one devalues it.
If they can't understand the limitations of a lot of consumers to add another $100 a month for television shows then there are other channels.
As long as NBC can keep their commercials in the shows to be rented why do they need 99¢ every time we want to watch something via AppleTV?
1. They won't be keeping their commercials. The files are the same ones used for purchases just with a slightly different flavor of DRM.
2. They make more money with OTA and are worried that one of the precious few will rent instead of watch and hurt them big time.
See typically you are looking at a minimum of 10k per 30 seconds of ad time on a show. And that's for a really crappy show that they figure won't go that night in the ratings. Something like American Idol that has really great numbers it's more like 100k per spot. Now that money is based on the show scoring a particular amount in the ratings, particularly in the sacred 18-35 demo. Which is the same group that buys tech like crazy and would have little issue with not buying a tivo and paying $40-50 a month for service and just rent the eps.
So what if a few folks do that right. i mean shows get millions of viewers. Actually they don't. The ratings is based on a sample of some 25k viewers whose OTA, Tivo etc is counted weekly. Those numbers are then used to guesstimate how many folks are watching. If even one ratings viewer doesn't watch something it can mean a drop of several thousand to hundreds of thousands for a show. Which means make good paybacks that are at least 1000x what said person paid to rent the episode (which the network only gets 70c from anyway). So the networks are freaking out.
Now that said, I'm not really keen on this censorship by a select few or that the networks are clinging to a 1950s way of life so hard. I want them to embrace the future and credit shows with all forms of income. If a show makes or beats it's budget, it stays. If not, buh bye. And stop treating folks like all (for example) hispanic males 18-25 think the same. Cause they don't. Demand a change in the ratings system. Get a better sample and better numbers. Give us better stuff to watch and here's a wild thought, you might make more money
Quote:
Originally Posted by VisualZone
Heroes was the only show worthwhile on NBC for me. Now that it's canceled, NBC, you just don't matter anymore.
Heroes was a good show turned into a crap show by the end. And NBC was part of the blame. Season 1 was tight, well written and intriguing. The rest were a mess. In part because they lacked the time limit that season one had. It happens a lot with shows. The networks don't want to have to spend the money on new shows so they want to keep what they have for as long as they can, particularly when it is super popular. So they don't end date things and force the writers to drag out stories that shouldn't have been. The Nets just don't get that the age of I Love Lucy and her new zany trouble each week is gone. Tight mini series and extended minis do work. Not all seasons have to be 22 eps long. Not all shows have to be 10 seasons. Let the schedule serve the show, not the other way. That's something they haven't learned.
I just looked through NBC and ABC's listings and I dont watch a SINGLE show on either network. I admit I watch 3 shows on CBS (Big Bang, How I Met Your Mother, and NCIS), but the rest is SciFi - rarely anymore, Food Network, Travel Channel, History Network, etc.
I REALLY need to dump my Uverse and just go pure internet.
All three channels are crap nowadays. I haven't watched SyFy in quite a while, mainly because they rely on second-rate shows now like Stargate Universe and Sanctuary, as well as their invariably awful Sci-Fi Original films. USA hasn't had anything worth watching since Monk went off the air. Chiller isn't bad, but it's relatively new. Another five years and it'll be down the crapper, too.
I love those cheesy Saturday night movies on SyFy. I also find myself watching Eureka and Warehouse 13. I guess I like crap.
1. They won't be keeping their commercials. The files are the same ones used for purchases just with a slightly different flavor of DRM.
2. They make more money with OTA and are worried that one of the precious few will rent instead of watch and hurt them big time.
See typically you are looking at a minimum of 10k per 30 seconds of ad time on a show. And that's for a really crappy show that they figure won't go that night in the ratings. Something like American Idol that has really great numbers it's more like 100k per spot. Now that money is based on the show scoring a particular amount in the ratings, particularly in the sacred 18-35 demo. Which is the same group that buys tech like crazy and would have little issue with not buying a tivo and paying $40-50 a month for service and just rent the eps.
So what if a few folks do that right. i mean shows get millions of viewers. Actually they don't. The ratings is based on a sample of some 25k viewers whose OTA, Tivo etc is counted weekly. Those numbers are then used to guesstimate how many folks are watching. If even one ratings viewer doesn't watch something it can mean a drop of several thousand to hundreds of thousands for a show. Which means make good paybacks that are at least 1000x what said person paid to rent the episode (which the network only gets 70c from anyway). So the networks are freaking out.
Now that said, I'm not really keen on this censorship by a select few or that the networks are clinging to a 1950s way of life so hard. I want them to embrace the future and credit shows with all forms of income. If a show makes or beats it's budget, it stays. If not, buh bye. And stop treating folks like all (for example) hispanic males 18-25 think the same. Cause they don't. Demand a change in the ratings system. Get a better sample and better numbers. Give us better stuff to watch and here's a wild thought, you might make more money
Heroes was a good show turned into a crap show by the end. And NBC was part of the blame. Season 1 was tight, well written and intriguing. The rest were a mess. In part because they lacked the time limit that season one had. It happens a lot with shows. The networks don't want to have to spend the money on new shows so they want to keep what they have for as long as they can, particularly when it is super popular. So they don't end date things and force the writers to drag out stories that shouldn't have been. The Nets just don't get that the age of I Love Lucy and her new zany trouble each week is gone. Tight mini series and extended minis do work. Not all seasons have to be 22 eps long. Not all shows have to be 10 seasons. Let the schedule serve the show, not the other way. That's something they haven't learned.
Personally I think that nearly all TV shows over stay their welcome. I think 3 seasons is about the maximum I can watch anything. After that, they're just repeating themselves - over and over again.
Im confused though, ABC made an app that lets me go and watch all their shows, well at least the ones worth watching. Why would I even want to rent???
online with ads, or pay to ditch them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ColinB
What's wrong with these guys? Don't they get that the rental cost can be a downpayment?
So you pay 99 cents to rent an episode. You like it. You'd like to see it later, over and over again, but your claim to the show has expired. But no need to sniffle, because NBC will sell it to you, for only an extra buck.
doesn't work like that. You can't pay the difference and get the regular copy. If you pay a buck it will be to rent it again. Or you'll pay the full $1.99 to buy
Quote:
Originally Posted by Curmudgeon
99 cents devalues the content? Isn't this the same content they broadcast for FREE over the air? What am I missing?
Quote:
Originally Posted by rdjlexky
How can their content be 'devalued' at 99 cents when I can view it for free over the air?
Quote:
Originally Posted by rdjlexky
Or for free on their website.
Do you pay for cable. For internet access. If yes, then you aren't getting it for free. And that's without considering the ads.
Very simple, NBC is getting a lot more than $1 per viewer per episode from the advertisers. Maybe show producers should sell/rent their shows directly to end users instead of going through the networks.
Let NBC and everyone else dictate the price; more precisely, let NBC dictate the wholesale price to Apple, then let Apple mark it up to the selling price. It's their product, Apple is only the distributor. This is how it works in the capitalist world with most products.
Of course, NBC will do very poorly with their higher pricing. They'll have to match everyone else if they want to make sales. Either way, we're better off with an overpriced option rather than no option.
"doesn't work like that. You can't pay the difference and get the regular copy. If you pay a buck it will be to rent it again. Or you'll pay the full $1.99 to buy"
It doesn't work like that now. It could though, that's my point.
While watching 30 Rock tonight, I noticed the commercials during the broadcast advertising that you can watch the very same episode at NBC.COM.
I watched this episode, for free, on an over the air HD broadcast.
So, then the stuffed shirt comes out and says that a $.99 rental via iTunes for the same episode is devaluing content that is available for free via multiple routes? They want me to buy an episode of TV show for $1.99 that I will never watch more than once? Is this guy a moron or what?
This sounds to me like simply a land grab where they want you to watch on their website. But do they really make more than $0.99 per episode if we watch on their website and view their ads?
What are these TV execs smoking? Sorry, I disagree with Steve Jobs, a lot, but this is bordering on insanity.
Message to NBC, take the $0.99 that you would not have been getting from people who don't know that they can watch the same episode from your website for free.
While watching 30 Rock tonight, I noticed the commercials during the broadcast advertising that you can watch the very same episode at NBC.COM.
I watched this episode, for free, on an over the air HD broadcast.
[?]
Message to NBC, take the $0.99 that you would not have been getting from people who don't know that they can watch the same episode from your website for free.
You can?t say it?s the same basic content and leave it at that. There are differences in the services provided.
that is exactly the point though - NBC/CBS/ABC/Fox are all **FREE** to anyone in the US who wants it. the fact that NBC's head is up their butt in terms of monetizing digital rentals is asinine.
79% of the US population lives in an urban area, that means that a relatively cheap antenna (less than one month's worth of cable) can get them about 20-25 channels, just like me. in HD. for no monthly fee.
two months cable subscription can get you an HD recorder for your free television:
http://www.amazon.com/Toshiba-DR570-...p_ob_e_title_0 i started with a similar device in 2006 when Philadelphia stations started to broadcast ATSC, and now i have a full blow computer-based DVR that blows the pants off Tivo, and allows me access to my music and photos and the web as well as ATSC "free" tv. http://www.sagetv.com
all together, i still haven't spent what a year's worth of Comcast would have cost me, and i have added an $8 a month Netflix subscription so i can get the HBO/Showtime series i want to watch as well.
That's a smart way to get a lot of TV without paying a lot of money, but too few people are doing that to move the needle.
That fact is the networks make as much money from cable retransmission fees as they do ad sales, and they're not going to worry much about people getting digital antennas and ditching their cable until a measurable number of people actually do that.
That's a smart way to get a lot of TV without paying a lot of money, but too few people are doing that to move the needle.
That fact is the networks make as much money from cable retransmission fees as they do ad sales, and they're not going to worry much about people getting digital antennas and ditching their cable until a measurable number of people actually do that.
I totally agree.
At the same time, while it isn't a tital wave, there are a surprising number of geeks that have ditched cable. Free HD OTA + internet streaming services have made this cheaper option more and more viable.
Admittedly, I have a hard time imagining most people going through the trouble of switching to OTA TV. ATSC frequently requires an attic or roof-top antenna. That's enough of a hassle that some people wouldn't even consider switching. Ironically, it isn't much harder to install an antenna than it is to be patched into the cable network.
Comments
99 cents devalues the content? Isn't this the same content they broadcast for FREE over the air? What am I missing?
Or for free on their website.
Big surprise. NBC and Apple have been at odds for a long time. It will only get worse if the Comcast/NBC merger happens. Really bad for consumers.
Unless the cable model collapses -- which could happen but probably not in the next few years -- Apple is not going to get a comprehensive content deal without having the networks and the local cable providers on board. The networks don't want to sacrifice their retransmission revenue, and the local cable providers will squeeze the broadband cost if Apple goes around them.
So go to the networks and the local cable providers and make it happen.
Work out deals with Comcast, Time Warner Cable, Charter, etc., to create a cable package that works off the Apple TV platform and provides for live news, sports, and special event programming. Let consumers watch the content on their TV, their computer, and their Apple devices. Charge a premium for the product, and let the market decide if it's worth the cost.
As far as renting TV shows go, if I were NBC, I'd take he money and run.
Whether you buy it to own or rent it you'll most likely watch it only once, so why not make double the money?
NBC is less concerned about the incremental revenue from iTunes rentals than making it easy for you to drop your cable. They want to price the episodes at a level where you WON'T rent every episode; they want you to watch most episodes on your local cable and rent only the few that you miss.
Or for free on their website.
You can't watch that on your 60-inch HDTV. I suspect the networks would cut way back on putting their shows online if they felt like it was causing a move away from cable. So far, people are supplementing their cable with online viewing, but they're not -- at least not in large numbers -- canceling their cable to watch shows on their computers.
Likewise, you don't get it for free on your PC. You get it with online ads.
Advertising these days has gotten so sophisticated, that commercials are structured so that even if you're fast forwarding it on your DVR, you still catch the gist of the ad. So I don't really understand how people paying 99 cents to rent a show to watch one devalues it.
Hate to say it, but who really cares about NBC.
If they can't understand the limitations of a lot of consumers to add another $100 a month for television shows then there are other channels.
As long as NBC can keep their commercials in the shows to be rented why do they need 99¢ every time we want to watch something via AppleTV?
1. They won't be keeping their commercials. The files are the same ones used for purchases just with a slightly different flavor of DRM.
2. They make more money with OTA and are worried that one of the precious few will rent instead of watch and hurt them big time.
See typically you are looking at a minimum of 10k per 30 seconds of ad time on a show. And that's for a really crappy show that they figure won't go that night in the ratings. Something like American Idol that has really great numbers it's more like 100k per spot. Now that money is based on the show scoring a particular amount in the ratings, particularly in the sacred 18-35 demo. Which is the same group that buys tech like crazy and would have little issue with not buying a tivo and paying $40-50 a month for service and just rent the eps.
So what if a few folks do that right. i mean shows get millions of viewers. Actually they don't. The ratings is based on a sample of some 25k viewers whose OTA, Tivo etc is counted weekly. Those numbers are then used to guesstimate how many folks are watching. If even one ratings viewer doesn't watch something it can mean a drop of several thousand to hundreds of thousands for a show. Which means make good paybacks that are at least 1000x what said person paid to rent the episode (which the network only gets 70c from anyway). So the networks are freaking out.
Now that said, I'm not really keen on this censorship by a select few or that the networks are clinging to a 1950s way of life so hard. I want them to embrace the future and credit shows with all forms of income. If a show makes or beats it's budget, it stays. If not, buh bye. And stop treating folks like all (for example) hispanic males 18-25 think the same. Cause they don't. Demand a change in the ratings system. Get a better sample and better numbers. Give us better stuff to watch and here's a wild thought, you might make more money
Heroes was the only show worthwhile on NBC for me. Now that it's canceled, NBC, you just don't matter anymore.
Heroes was a good show turned into a crap show by the end. And NBC was part of the blame. Season 1 was tight, well written and intriguing. The rest were a mess. In part because they lacked the time limit that season one had. It happens a lot with shows. The networks don't want to have to spend the money on new shows so they want to keep what they have for as long as they can, particularly when it is super popular. So they don't end date things and force the writers to drag out stories that shouldn't have been. The Nets just don't get that the age of I Love Lucy and her new zany trouble each week is gone. Tight mini series and extended minis do work. Not all seasons have to be 22 eps long. Not all shows have to be 10 seasons. Let the schedule serve the show, not the other way. That's something they haven't learned.
I just looked through NBC and ABC's listings and I dont watch a SINGLE show on either network. I admit I watch 3 shows on CBS (Big Bang, How I Met Your Mother, and NCIS), but the rest is SciFi - rarely anymore, Food Network, Travel Channel, History Network, etc.
I REALLY need to dump my Uverse and just go pure internet.
All three channels are crap nowadays. I haven't watched SyFy in quite a while, mainly because they rely on second-rate shows now like Stargate Universe and Sanctuary, as well as their invariably awful Sci-Fi Original films. USA hasn't had anything worth watching since Monk went off the air. Chiller isn't bad, but it's relatively new. Another five years and it'll be down the crapper, too.
I love those cheesy Saturday night movies on SyFy. I also find myself watching Eureka and Warehouse 13. I guess I like crap.
1. They won't be keeping their commercials. The files are the same ones used for purchases just with a slightly different flavor of DRM.
2. They make more money with OTA and are worried that one of the precious few will rent instead of watch and hurt them big time.
See typically you are looking at a minimum of 10k per 30 seconds of ad time on a show. And that's for a really crappy show that they figure won't go that night in the ratings. Something like American Idol that has really great numbers it's more like 100k per spot. Now that money is based on the show scoring a particular amount in the ratings, particularly in the sacred 18-35 demo. Which is the same group that buys tech like crazy and would have little issue with not buying a tivo and paying $40-50 a month for service and just rent the eps.
So what if a few folks do that right. i mean shows get millions of viewers. Actually they don't. The ratings is based on a sample of some 25k viewers whose OTA, Tivo etc is counted weekly. Those numbers are then used to guesstimate how many folks are watching. If even one ratings viewer doesn't watch something it can mean a drop of several thousand to hundreds of thousands for a show. Which means make good paybacks that are at least 1000x what said person paid to rent the episode (which the network only gets 70c from anyway). So the networks are freaking out.
Now that said, I'm not really keen on this censorship by a select few or that the networks are clinging to a 1950s way of life so hard. I want them to embrace the future and credit shows with all forms of income. If a show makes or beats it's budget, it stays. If not, buh bye. And stop treating folks like all (for example) hispanic males 18-25 think the same. Cause they don't. Demand a change in the ratings system. Get a better sample and better numbers. Give us better stuff to watch and here's a wild thought, you might make more money
Heroes was a good show turned into a crap show by the end. And NBC was part of the blame. Season 1 was tight, well written and intriguing. The rest were a mess. In part because they lacked the time limit that season one had. It happens a lot with shows. The networks don't want to have to spend the money on new shows so they want to keep what they have for as long as they can, particularly when it is super popular. So they don't end date things and force the writers to drag out stories that shouldn't have been. The Nets just don't get that the age of I Love Lucy and her new zany trouble each week is gone. Tight mini series and extended minis do work. Not all seasons have to be 22 eps long. Not all shows have to be 10 seasons. Let the schedule serve the show, not the other way. That's something they haven't learned.
Personally I think that nearly all TV shows over stay their welcome. I think 3 seasons is about the maximum I can watch anything. After that, they're just repeating themselves - over and over again.
Im confused though, ABC made an app that lets me go and watch all their shows, well at least the ones worth watching. Why would I even want to rent???
online with ads, or pay to ditch them.
What's wrong with these guys? Don't they get that the rental cost can be a downpayment?
So you pay 99 cents to rent an episode. You like it. You'd like to see it later, over and over again, but your claim to the show has expired. But no need to sniffle, because NBC will sell it to you, for only an extra buck.
doesn't work like that. You can't pay the difference and get the regular copy. If you pay a buck it will be to rent it again. Or you'll pay the full $1.99 to buy
99 cents devalues the content? Isn't this the same content they broadcast for FREE over the air? What am I missing?
How can their content be 'devalued' at 99 cents when I can view it for free over the air?
Or for free on their website.
Do you pay for cable. For internet access. If yes, then you aren't getting it for free. And that's without considering the ads.
Of course, NBC will do very poorly with their higher pricing. They'll have to match everyone else if they want to make sales. Either way, we're better off with an overpriced option rather than no option.
It doesn't work like that now. It could though, that's my point.
I watched this episode, for free, on an over the air HD broadcast.
So, then the stuffed shirt comes out and says that a $.99 rental via iTunes for the same episode is devaluing content that is available for free via multiple routes? They want me to buy an episode of TV show for $1.99 that I will never watch more than once? Is this guy a moron or what?
This sounds to me like simply a land grab where they want you to watch on their website. But do they really make more than $0.99 per episode if we watch on their website and view their ads?
What are these TV execs smoking? Sorry, I disagree with Steve Jobs, a lot, but this is bordering on insanity.
Message to NBC, take the $0.99 that you would not have been getting from people who don't know that they can watch the same episode from your website for free.
While watching 30 Rock tonight, I noticed the commercials during the broadcast advertising that you can watch the very same episode at NBC.COM.
I watched this episode, for free, on an over the air HD broadcast.
[?]
Message to NBC, take the $0.99 that you would not have been getting from people who don't know that they can watch the same episode from your website for free.
You can?t say it?s the same basic content and leave it at that. There are differences in the services provided.
Do you pay for cable. For internet access. If yes, then you aren't getting it for free. And that's without considering the ads.
Uh, it streams for free over the air.
that is exactly the point though - NBC/CBS/ABC/Fox are all **FREE** to anyone in the US who wants it. the fact that NBC's head is up their butt in terms of monetizing digital rentals is asinine.
79% of the US population lives in an urban area, that means that a relatively cheap antenna (less than one month's worth of cable) can get them about 20-25 channels, just like me. in HD. for no monthly fee.
two months cable subscription can get you an HD recorder for your free television:
http://www.amazon.com/Toshiba-DR570-...p_ob_e_title_0 i started with a similar device in 2006 when Philadelphia stations started to broadcast ATSC, and now i have a full blow computer-based DVR that blows the pants off Tivo, and allows me access to my music and photos and the web as well as ATSC "free" tv. http://www.sagetv.com
all together, i still haven't spent what a year's worth of Comcast would have cost me, and i have added an $8 a month Netflix subscription so i can get the HBO/Showtime series i want to watch as well.
US population in urban area:
http://wwwcf.fhwa.dot.gov/planning/census/cps2k.htm
That's a smart way to get a lot of TV without paying a lot of money, but too few people are doing that to move the needle.
That fact is the networks make as much money from cable retransmission fees as they do ad sales, and they're not going to worry much about people getting digital antennas and ditching their cable until a measurable number of people actually do that.
That's a smart way to get a lot of TV without paying a lot of money, but too few people are doing that to move the needle.
That fact is the networks make as much money from cable retransmission fees as they do ad sales, and they're not going to worry much about people getting digital antennas and ditching their cable until a measurable number of people actually do that.
I totally agree.
At the same time, while it isn't a tital wave, there are a surprising number of geeks that have ditched cable. Free HD OTA + internet streaming services have made this cheaper option more and more viable.
Admittedly, I have a hard time imagining most people going through the trouble of switching to OTA TV. ATSC frequently requires an attic or roof-top antenna. That's enough of a hassle that some people wouldn't even consider switching. Ironically, it isn't much harder to install an antenna than it is to be patched into the cable network.