"There's a train coming and you can either get on board or get run over."
So said Andrew Eddy of Movie Central at the Banff World Television Festival. He was introducing "The Evolution of Content: Programming in a Multi-Platform Universe," a panel session exploring how the Internet, cell phones, video iPods, and other technologies have begun to revolutionize what audiences expect from the television experience.
It was a recurring theme throughout the festival, and the consensus seemed to be that while no one knows where the train's going, they have to at least go along for the ride until the destination becomes clear. Otherwise, they risk losing the agility to finally hop on board when others have succeeded in finding the way.
And now that I've tortured the train metaphor almost as much as the panelists who had fun with it during the "Evolution of Content" session did, it's time to introduce another overused expression: Show me the money.
While 30-second commercials are still a large source of revenue for a broadcaster, advertisers are looking for other ways to reach consumers in the post-TiVo era, when we can easily bypass ad breaks. And broadcasters are looking for new ways to generate income as their viewers flee to the Internet and elsewhere.
The big question in all the talk about webisodes or mobisodes (that's "mob-" as in mobile, not as in Tony Soprano), online games, ringtones, and other non-broadcast content is not only how to fund their production, but how to find ways to generate - and then fairly divide – new revenues.
A Virtual Circle of Content
Many of the executives were predicting that short video for cell phones is the next big thing, a phenomenon that is already exploding in Europe and is gaining ground in North America. But no one seems to have a clear picture of the present, never mind the future. The prevailing philosophy seemed to be try a little of everything, see what sticks with the audience, and worry about how to make money out of it later.
ABC has seen success with streaming ad-supported episodes online, and Bernard Gershon, an executive with that broadcaster's digital media group, joked that "$1.99 adds up" when enough people download Desperate Housewives and Lost from iTunes. But placing existing content on additional platforms, and creating new content related to a series, is not intended to fund production costs or even to simply promote the show.
Article comments
1 - Joan Hunt
Ah, but what of the viewers who just want content on TV? I don't want to have to buy "extras" for my phone (which is enough of an expense on its own), search for stuff online, or be denied the full show experience just because I'm not participating in these alternative universes. I want my TV on TV. I, of the broke and without disposable income ilk, want to be considered just as worthy of the extras as anyone else.
Will the drive for dollars leave a portion of a show's fans out in the cold? It's a possibility. And that possibility could spell disaster in the long run, me thinks.
2 - Joan Hunt
Congrats! This article has been placed on Advance.net
3 - Diane Kristine
Thanks Joan, and it's a good point, though not one anyone there was talking about ... yet. This alternate universe is still reaching such a small proportion of the audience that a show like Lost, for example, has to be able to stand on its own without people needing to see the mobisodes or catch up on the websites to understand and appreciate the show itself. But the extras add new layers for those who want to seek them out.
I'm with you in that I don't necessarily want to participate in all these extras, but I do believe this is the way they need to go to satisfy younger viewers and future viewers. But they still have to make shows people want to see, exclusive of any of the rest of it, and no one seemed to be forgetting that.
Whether people are willing to pay for the extras - and how much - is what's such a huge unknown right now. Some of the models are ad-supported, so there's no added cost to the consumer other than time. But how the industry gets money out of these extras is going to depend on how consumers and advertisers react, and so far, it seems it's too soon to say.
4 - Eric Berlin
Great stuff, Diane, I believe that most people have no idea that (nearly) everything they know and are used to in terms of consuming media is about to change forever.
5 - Joey
I already see the change on network (frequency spectrum) television. I live in a fringe area.
"Is there a move to move towers and broadcast area further out as the sprawl continues?"
"No. Get Cable"
"But I don't want cable, or satellite"
"Listen to radio, or put up a 100 foot tower for better reception."
Note: Living out in the fringe areas means you are just over the curve of the earth. VHF and UHF signals travel line of sight (straight line) and as the earth curves (about 20 miles or so) the signals pass over your house (antenna) rather than through it.
So, you are stuck with the following options.
1. Buy a tower tall enough to grap a fatter signal.
2. Subscribe to cable service
3. Subscribe to satellite service
4. Rent movies (Netflix, or some outlet store)
5. Work on projects around the house while listening to the radio.
What's a entertainment starved person to do?
1. Surf the Academy awards, rent winners and contenders (usually works).
2. Watch PBS, which sometimes comes in okay if the propagation and sporatic E inversions are playing around the atmosphere.
and what I end up doing...
3. Work on projects
4. Read
5. Play some guitar
6. Garden
Besides, I can always catch up on crappy T.V. in the hotel rooms I end up in while I'm traveling around.
What's the old (sort of) saying?
(Sigh) 120 channels and still nothing to watch worth a darn.
I do miss Sports Center and Speed's Tuesday night Motorcycle race.... oh well.