The "turn on, tune in, and put your feet on the ottoman" model of television marketing has been in decline since the invention of the first remote control. Network loyalty has repeatedly been shown to be a function largely of limiting viewer choice. The final nail in the coffin of such a model came when "theme primetime blocks" finally devolved on the major networks some years ago. Programming coherence is at an all-time low as Cartoon Network picks up live action shows and SciFi picks up pro wrestling. The shows have always been all that mattered, and increasing viewer choice only creates increasing amounts of mercenary behavior where pairing viewers with shows is concerned.
VOD is just the ultimate realization of that. Content providers, once they can figure out the business model for it, will leap on this like nothing before. Until then, content providers know they can't keep people loyal based on their content, so they find themselves losing in so many directions, and they fight for what they have left. -- Rhett. http://www.weatherlight.com/freetime > I think the point of what he said was that if a channel was better than > just > a few shows, you might care a bit less about wanting video on demand. but > since TV in general sucks and for the most part the traditional > programming > model is still in full effect... people turn to where they CAN get video > on > demand, on the internet a la YouTube etc. > > VOD might even become law at some point. I unsubscribed from cable tv > last > April (just get internet) because i am fedup with the force feeding of > crap > i dont want. So netflix fills in the void and I'm also very interested in > any new VOD service like Joost etc which i can also take advantage of. > > Anyway.... > > On 13 Mar 2007 09:11:05 -0700, J. Rhett Aultman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: >> >> I don't follow your logic. You say that if they put out more good >> shows, >> we would watch them on TV instead of "viewing their good clips online". >> If we're already getting the good stuff online, by this logic, wouldn't >> making a good show just mean it would end up being posted and viewed >> online? >> >> -- >> Rhett. >> http://www.weatherlight.com/freetime >> >> >> > Maybe if networks like MTV and Comedy Central put out more then 1 or 2 >> > interesting shows instead of some of the crap they are trying to pass >> > off as TV more people would be interested in watching them on >> > television instead of posting and viewing their good clips online. If >> > the big network execs are worried about losing money they should look >> > internally at who is choosing the programming? >> > >> > --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com >> <videoblogging%40yahoogroups.com>, >> "Heath" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> >> >> Check it >> >> >> >> http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17592285/ >> >> >> >> I mean seriously, 1 billion dollars?!?! Give me a freaking >> >> break...I worry about the future I really do....I mean yeah, they >> >> have got content but 1 billion?!? Get real..... >> >> >> >> Interesting that this announcement comes on the heals of Viacom >> >> saying that they are going to create a site where people >> >> can "leagaly" mash up their work.......Ah...corprate politics at it's >> >> finest..... >> >> >> >> NEW YORK - MTV owner Viacom Inc. said Tuesday it has sued YouTube and >> >> its corporate parent Google Inc. in federal court for alleged >> >> copyright infringement and is seeking more than $1 billion in >> damages. >> >> >> >> Viacom claims that the more than 160,000 unauthorized video clips >> >> from its cable networks, which also include Comedy Central, VH1 and >> >> Nickelodeon, have been available on the popular video-sharing Web >> >> site. >> >> >> >> The lawsuit marks a sharp escalation of long-simmering tensions >> >> between Viacom and YouTube. Last month Viacom demanded that YouTube >> >> remove more than 100,000 unauthorized clips after several months of >> >> talks between the companies broke down. >> >> >> >> In a statement, Viacom lashed out at YouTube's business practices, >> >> saying it has "built a lucrative business out of exploiting the >> >> devotion of fans to others' creative works in order to enrich itself >> >> and its corporate parent Google." >> >> >> >> Viacom said YouTube's business model, "which is based on building >> >> traffic and selling advertising off of unlicensed content, is clearly >> >> illegal and is in obvious conflict with copyright laws." >> >> >> >> A representative for Google didn't immediately respond to a request >> >> for comment. >> >> >> >> Other media companies have also clashed with YouTube over copyrights, >> >> but some, including CBS Corp. and General Electric Co.'s NBC >> >> Universal, have reached deals with the video-sharing site to license >> >> their material. >> >> >> >> Universal Music Group, a unit of France's Vivendi SA, had threatened >> >> to sue YouTube, saying it was a hub for pirated music videos, but >> >> later reached a licensing deal with them. >> >> >> >> Viacom filed the lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern >> >> District of New York and is also seeking an injunction prohibiting >> >> Google and YouTube from using its clips. >> >> >> >> >> >> Heath >> >> http://batmangeek7.blogspot.com >> >> >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > Yahoo! Groups Links >> > >> > >> > >> > >> >> >> > > > > -- > Sull > http://vlogdir.com (a project) > http://SpreadTheMedia.org (my blog) > http://interdigitate.com (otherly) > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links > > > >
