Online TV May Stop Being Free, Thanks Recession
source: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/30/business/media/30cable.html?hp=&adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=123842582...
-
-
- St_Alia_10191
- added this
But many in the industry are now questioning whether free is a sustainable model. And some are trying to make sure people have a reason to keep paying hefty cable bills.
Time Warner Cable, the second-largest cable operator in the country, is working with customers here to test a subscriber model for online TV viewing. Residents who pay for HBO can watch “Big Love,” “Entourage” and other programs on their computers, using special software and a personal log-in. People who are not HBO subscribers are barred from the service.
The free video Web site Hulu, a joint venture of NBC Universal and the News Corporation, counted 35 million unique viewers in February — only a fraction of the hundreds of millions who watch TV every month, but a 42 percent jump from January, according to comScore. The ratings for some programs, like “Lost” on ABC, would rise as much as 25 percent if online views were included, according to the ratings service Nielsen.
Nevertheless, television executives are developing a different model in which only subscribers to traditional cable and satellite services would be able to access the full breadth of shows online.
Leading the charge are the cable and satellite companies, who worry that the proliferation of free video on the Web — and downloadable shows on Apple’s iTunes — may be harming the $60-billion-a-year subscription video business by allowing people to unplug their cable services.
The revenues and stock prices of the major media companies have fallen significantly in the last six months, giving ammunition to the critics who think an online approach solely supported by advertising is flawed."
-
-
Mikeysfake1
-
That's when you start downloading it and copying it and giving it away to friends.
- 2 years ago
-
Mikeysfake1
-
-
loustriker
-
free internet content is the future of entertainment. Advertising has been supporting Hulu, quite generously, as I understand it.
The major broadcast networks "ABC, CBS, NBC," didn't charge people for years, and they made money. They supported themselves solely on advertising revenue.
I don't understand the argument.
- 2 years ago
-
loustriker
-
-
CalgarC
-
first current is free... second companies want to make some money... they have to pay the actors. a true actor is willing to take a small paycut because he/she loves acting.
i can understand why giant companies would want to charge for online tv. they are just taking their crap on throwing it online
- 2 years ago
-
CalgarC
-
-
JSmith44
-
I be willing to pay say $9.99 for the entire season of American Idol with no commercials or stupid so called Group video's. Man that shows sure knows how to take something good and destroy it with commercials. That is how Fox is making it's money. Online Video does nothing for me with a family. We still watch regular TV and have DirectTV and pay for the movie channels.
- 2 years ago
-
JSmith44
-
-
Ayahuasca2012
-
Doesn't bother me much... I rarely watch TV and what little I do choose to watch I can always get on Netflix at some point.
- 2 years ago
-
Ayahuasca2012
-
-
good_stuff
-
Aren't the providers attacking this entirely wrongly? Aren't they the ones providing the online capability?
Aren't they then still in complete control by inflicting penalties for exceeeding download limits by watching a tone of stuff on the internet? - 2 years ago
-
good_stuff
-
-
smallgod
-
Well that's funny. At this point, t.v. has to be free or it will fail. I can't feel bad for a $60 billion a year business losing a little bit of money.
- 2 years ago
-
smallgod
