tv online efforts to watch

Article on why tv networks fleeing online

others to watch
distribution points such as Hulu have begun to act as networks or studios. (Hulu, which has just been up for sale, is actually owned in common by several of them.) Sony Pictures' Crackle has some of the Web's flashier offerings, including "The Bannen Way," with its wiseguy con-man hero, stylish split screens and hot-girl assassins; "Angel of Death," penned by comic-book writer Ed Brubaker, with Zoe Bell ("Tarantino's #1 stunt woman") as a hired killer who acquires the compulsion to kill her old masters; and the sci-fi "Trenches," picked up from Disney's now-defunct Stage 9 Digital, which sports impressive "Battlestar Galactica" special effects. All have completed their single seasons but remain available for download in the timelessness of the Web.

Of all the emerging neo-networks — also including My Damn Channel (home to the immigration comedy "Gigi: Almost American," starring Josh Gad, Tony-nominated for "The Book of Mormon"), and Babelgum, which hosts the clever sci-fi sitcom "Date a Human" — perhaps the most compelling is Koldcast, which bills itself as "The Other TV" for the sheer volume and breadth of its offerings. Most of what I've seen there is fairly accomplished, which is to say that much of it is not derivative or artistically immature. (Many of these shows have their own websites or YouTube channels as well.) Among the interesting scenery there is "Ruby Skye P.I.," a Canadian tween mystery; "Verse," a mystery story that features cameos from several estimable poets and the New York underground legend Taylor Mead; and the popular "Anyone But Me," co-created by "thirtysomething" vet Susan Miller, a teen lesbian dramedy that makes up in sweetness and likeness to life what it sometimes lacks in polish.


For the moment, Web-exclusive video is far from a moneymaker. One study of 250 new media titles made available on YouTube, Hulu, Netflix and other major digital platforms revealed that such entertainment attracted sizable audiences — about 1.3 billion views. But the payback to producers was relatively paltry: a combined $15 million paid by 13 major distributors last year.

"This is a tough business to make money in," said Arash Amel, the digital media researcher at IHS Screen Digest who conducted the study. "Original new media brands are just voices shouting in the wilderness, without the support of a major media marketing campaign to make them stand out for the consumer."

That's why digital studios like Vuguru script and structure their new media series with old media in mind. Fox International Channels, News Corp.'s international multimedia business, acquired rights to "The Booth at the End," which it aired on its pay-TV channels, as well as on the Web.

"They're rolling it out online, putting it on TV; they're experimenting, cross-promoting," Tanz said.

The studio is applying familiar "old-media" business models to underwrite the cost of digital production. Vuguru strikes foreign distribution deals that can cover roughly half a given project's budget, in a funding approach borrowed from the world of independent film. And it structures its original series like interlocking Lego bricks that can be snapped together or pulled apart for viewing on multiple platforms.

YouTube's Technical Hiccups

Dan Rayburn reminds that YouTube player does not currently have the ability to auto-detect when a user should get the HD copy instead of the SD copy. And why all the buffering issues?

Internet Provides TV with Virtual Water Cooler

* Big Olympics, big Super Bowl, big Grammys, big VMAs - Twitter, Facebook buzz helps attract big audiences.
* Nielsen Company says one in seven people who were watching the Super Bowl and the Olympics opening ceremony were surfing the Web at the same time.

Cheaper to Distribute on Cable than Internet

Mark Cuban has been the laytech person's best explainer about how the Internet can't support high quality video. He writes, "There are maybe 3 companies that can stream to 1mm or more simultaneous users. Google, Limelight and Akamai. And that 1mm simultaneous users isnt just for your content. That is for EVERYONE’s content and they cant get much beyond 2mm without big problems. More importantly, if you want to stream your content to millions of users at once, its going to cost you an incredible amount of money." He concludes that if newcomers want to serve these audiences, its cheaper to pay the cable companies to make a new channel. He says "Maybe someday over the top video will be a realistic alternative to traditional distribution of content, but its not now and its not this year or next or the next and probably not the year after that."

Distribution Cheaper on Cable than Internet, Actually

Mark Cuban has been the laytech person's best explainer about how the Internet can't support high quality video. He writes, "There are maybe 3 companies that can stream to 1mm or more simultaneous users. Google, Limelight and Akamai. And that 1mm simultaneous users isnt just for your content. That is for EVERYONE’s content and they cant get much beyond 2mm without big problems. More importantly, if you want to stream your content to millions of users at once, its going to cost you an incredible amount of money." He concludes that if newcomers want to serve these audiences, its cheaper to pay the cable companies to make a new channel. He says "Maybe someday over the top video will be a realistic alternative to traditional distribution of content, but its not now and its not this year or next or the next and probably not the year after that."

The New Content Economy

http://paidcontent.org/article/419-in-the-new-content-economy-consumers-want-access-not-ownership

Music lawyer Fred Davis says everyone knows future on "access" not "ownership." He says :

By studying the data about access to music and video, one has to realize the potential of monetizing access. If you add up the views of music videos on YouTube and the audio streams of music on MySpace alone, they are in the billions per year. The popularity of access is enormous. The value of access is enormous. The monetization potential is enormous. But try to remember, for a moment, how long it took the radio industry to evolve into a profitable TV industry? (Hint: a lot longer than a decade.)

As he notes, What is TV Everywhere but ubiquitous access to content? What is Hulu but ubiquitous access to content? Spotify?

Can big media really not figure out how to benefit from this? Yes, the share of the big is smaller (with so many competitors) but won't popular content still command the biggest audiences?

Online market size

http://www.mediapost.com/publications/?fa=Articles.showArticle&art_aid=116670

"Why license all that content to something that works that well, that seamlessly, yet without the economic model around it?" - Quincy Smith, formerly of CBS. Points out market size

online video: $700 million
TV: $120 billion

Adds "half of those [TV ad buyers] are spending 90% of their time doing Google keywords, not buying online video." Does that show a nascent market or a non-working model that won't get premium content?