Receive instant notification of new columns:
Register Now to receive notification of new HDTV Magazine Columns via email as soon as they are published.
I watch Hulu. Do you? If you do, you know that most shows are interrupted several times for advertisements. These typically run 15 to 30 seconds, and aren’t long enough to get to the kitchen for a snack; you’ll have to put the show on pause before making a raid on the refrigerator. Content providers worry that they’re leaving money on the table, and Turner Broadcasting intends to find out. The company has indicated that episodes of the popular TNT show, “The Closer”, will be provided to cable companies’ “TV Everywhere” experiements with the full load of about 18 commercials per episode that are included in the broadcast airings of the show. One difference between the Internet and broadcast, however, is that you can record the broadcast to a DVR and then fast-forward past the commercials. Not so with the online streaming, as fast-forward can be disabled during the commercials. According to an article in the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, cable company Cox Communications has research that they say indicates viewers will tolerate the full complement of ads. I don’t know how this is going to play out. Clearly, some viewers would rather not watch commercials and will go to great lengths to avoid them. I expect that we’ll eventually see multiple tiers of service offered, just as we have now in the movie rental market. At Blockbuster, for example, you can rent individual movies or you can get a Netflix-like subscription that lets you get multiple movies for a monthly fee. For streaming video on the Internet, the choices could be “all you can eat” for a monthly subscription, pay-as-you-go for individual shows, or free service where shows are laced with a load of unskippable ads. The big question for me is whether we’ll see these tiers offered within a single service — such as Hulu — or will there be a Balkanization of the market where certain shows will only be available through certain services. I think the first solution will be the most successful, but it will take time before the industry shakes out enough to get behind a single solution.
Posted by Alfred Poor, November 13, 2009 5:00 AM
Reader Commentary In Order: Hulu must be one of those streaming rental places and what's "The Closer"? Never heard of "The Closer" before and have only heard mention of Hulu on a couple of recent occasions. That out of the way, there is an answer to commercials for "free" streaming content. Put all the commercials at the front. I really dislike anything that breaks the continuity of a show. That was why I loved the "wild feeds" we used to get on C-Band. However, as I've mentioned before, although I have high speed/broadband/cable (10 meg), it will occasionally pause on SD, and is a royal pain (at times) in the backside on HD. How well streaming content plays is not only a function of your equipment, but it's mainly dependent on how heavily your service is loaded, the route between you and the provider is loaded, and how heavily loaded the server(s) is/are at the provider. When I watch something I want full screen, not a small simulated screen in the middle of the wide screen monitor. ... So how much would you be willing to pay for TV shows to get them in full HD with absolutely no commercials? That's what I thought. :)... Actually there are a couple of shows on the sci-fi channel (it'll always be sci-fi to me), but the total shows I watch that have commercials are few. I don't know of any shows that I've watched on network TV in the past few years other than the local weather and news. But as to your question...To me, there are few worth watching with commercials so there isn't much I'd pay for, but I'd go a couple bucks a week for the ones I do watch. OTOH I figure a first run, hit movie download is only worth about $3 and that would be one I could burn to disk. BTW, you can get virtually any definition you want on DVD. If I record HD, I get HD, but most you purchase are not HD as it'd take 2 or 3 disks to get a full HD movie recorded, let alone extras.... So how much would you be willing to pay for TV shows to get them in full HD with absolutely no commercials? That's what I thought. :) ??? I take it by your condescending and presumptuous response that your foregone conclusion is that the answer is $0, and that everyone wants to "get it all", for free. You couldn't be more wrong. In fact, I (and many others) are doing EXACTLY that right now. For TV shows we care about, we buy them in box sets on Blu-ray disc (or rent them, in some cases). As for the question of "how much?", the answer varies, depending on whether the TV show is a "30-minute" sitcom (really 22m), versus an "hour-long" drama (really 40-43m), etc. But I'm willing to pay from $0.50-2.00 per episode for a personal copy of the content. Some will pay a bit more. However, that's NOT for degraded quality streaming content, and it's NOT for a one-time rental. Once I have them on Blu-ray, I can watch them as many times ... Good points, Tim. I think it's safe to say that the bulk of us are willing to pay for HD content. I say that with some confidence because at least three out of four U.S. households that watch television subscribe to cable or telco or satellite television service. And they're paying for TV programming that has commercials for the most part. I understand that those with HD subscriptions typically pay $100 a month on average for their service. So there is no shortage of people willing to pay for their television content, even without the ability to record it and watch it whenever they want. Personally, I'm not sure what I think a fair price is to "own" a movie so that you can watch it whenever you want. It certainly costs a lot more to produce a movie than a good book, so I think I'd be willing to pay at least as much for the movie. My guess is that somewhere between $12 and $20 seems fair. However, I don't buy many books (except by the bag at country fairs... akirby is right about one thing... there are a lot more people who are willing to pay for their "TV" content by paying a 50% viewing tax (sitting through 20 minutes of advertising, to pay for viewing 40 minutes of content), than those willing to pay with $$$. That's what the whole advertiser-based model is dependent on. Maybe a better question would be (in keeping with the issues that Alfred originally raised), is there some intermediate model for TV-content that would be attractive to viewers, and profitable for content-producers? Thinking about this in the context of episodic network programming (ABC, NBC, CBS, FOX, CW), I think it would be interesting to see them offer their shows via the net, in a downloadable streaming format with the following characteristics: - completely commercial-free, with no on-screen bugs or commercial announcements - that would also mean no aggravating local-station generated HOT NEWS or w... - completely commercial-free, with no on-screen bugs or commercial announcements - that would also mean no aggravating local-station generated HOT NEWS or weather overlays - Tim I think that what you suggest would be appealing to a lot of people, and perhaps to the studios and networks. But the two points you raise above have already reared their ugly heads, and in Hulu of all places. I was watching the pilot of "V" on Hulu, and the usual Hulu bug was in the lower right quadrant; no big deal. But in the left quadrant, there was a bug for "6 ABC". Now, an ABC bug would be fine; it's they're show, and if they want to clutter it up with in-house advertising, that's their choice. (A bad choice, but theirs to make.) But it wasn't that, it was for WPVI, the Philadelphia ABC station. Huh? This means that Hulu knows where I live (which I no doubt told it) and it was able to put the correct local station's bug overlaid on t... I think it's safe to say that the bulk of us are willing to pay for HD content. I say that with some confidence because at least three out of four U.S. households that watch television subscribe to cable or telco or satellite television service. And they're paying for TV programming that has commercials for the most part. I understand that those with HD subscriptions typically pay $100 a month on average for their service. So there is no shortage of people willing to pay for their television content, even without the ability to record it and watch it whenever they want. Well said. I pay ~$1,000/year for cable service, even though it's only one source of content for me, and is subject to the constraints you mentioned. Although I have the ability to record anything I want. Personally, I'm not sure what I think a fair price is to "own" a movie so that you can watch it whenever you want. ... I hadn't thought of it in those terms, but I my satellite bill runs on the order of $130 (give or take) a month while cable is an additional $40 plus. I have the cable for high speed internet. So I already pay on the order of $170 a month with over half the stuff containing commercials, or the obnoxious stuff on the screen during the program. In addition I have two large UHF antennas at 90-95' with antenna mounted preamps for the OTA stuff I rarely watch. That is an expensive antenna installation. OTOH, "To me" no movie is worth more than about $3.00, or complete program series on HD worth more than about $10. IF the industry would get rid of all the DRM stuff and associated research they are using to unsuccessfully stay ahead of the pirates, they could sell at $3.00 and probably make a larger profit than they do now. At $3.00 who would go to the trouble of pirating the stuff except for the challenge. That and they (the industry) could stop sticking it to the consumer and give us... Afred wrote: > the usual Hulu bug was in the lower right quadrant; no big deal. But in the left quadrant, there was a bug for "6 ABC". < That would kill it for me. Screen clutter is something I'm trying to get rid of. Not add to, by putting Hulu's up along with the local broadcaster's. (BTW, I had no problem with the size or position of the hulu logo, which for me was very tiny, and in the lower-left corner.) In addition to viewing on my PC, I could easily watch Hulu in my living room as well, just by taking a few minutes to set up Tversity on my PC, and then network streaming to the LG BD390 Blu-ray media player in the living room. Unfortunately, the last time I checked, Hulu still maxed out at 480p, which doesn't cut it in the PQ dept. on any of my viewscreens (any of the 6 24" HD monitors around the house, the 37" in the bedroom, 61" in the LR, or 8-foot wide screen (CRT projector) in the media room (all 1080... More from Alfred Poor
More in Category: General Interest
About Alfred PoorAlfred Poor is a well-known display industry expert, who writes the daily HDTV Almanac. He wrote for PC Magazine for more than 20 years, and now is focusing on the home entertainment and home networking markets. |
advertisement
Authors
Categories
Other Recent Discussion
|
||||||||
© 1998 - 2010 HDTV Magazine, Ltd.
Home |
Advertise | Contact Us | About HDTV Magazine | Help | 
RSS Feedsv3.0
