How much is a TV episode download worth?

Posted: Thu Mar 31, 2005 1:46 am

lol /. I submitted this but got turned down, stupid editors with their dupes.

Generally good points so far, my summary and additional thoughts:

- the internet IS the cable
- ads should be tailored to the internet medium, and targetted by geography where it's downloaded
- internet download metrics have to supplement cable network ratings
- internet distribution is new market, TV viewing behaviour is transitioning
- internet enabling P2P distribution = VCR enabling the home video market
- ignoring the internet or suing people to try to stop it only hurts new business
- majority of ad and pay-per-download revenue can go directly to content production companies, with little "middleman overhead"
- "cheap" internet distribution means more money for production, and more poor producers with talent gets to produce
- more production means more consumer selection, and more quality required to succeed
- international distribution via internet means simultaneous release to more markets than ever possible
- what works for "free" P2P also works for business

My many cents. For those who thinks TV or content in general should be cost-free and ad-free, I'm sorry to say you are naive. Internet makes information cheap, but nothing is free. Society is not ready for communism.

Posted: Thu Mar 31, 2005 8:39 am

romeo615 wrote:

Why cant we just share it with our friends without the Man taking us to court and taking everything we own?

MPAA (the Motion Picture Association of America) goes after people who post movies, because the movies that they actively chase--frequently movies that are still in theatres, if not movies that have just come out on video--are NOT being aired for free on network television. For every person who downloads a movie, the company is missing out on a rental--or sale.

I haven't heard of a TV producer suing somebody because they're distributing a program over the internet. The MPAA dictates films, not television shows.

The way it works now, the networks would be the ones with the power to sue for copyright infringement--but they aren't losing anywhere near the amount of money that the MPAA is through piracy, so they haven't found it necessary to actively hunt down people who are serving the shows.

Which is a smart move on their part, because they've already got the MPAA fighting their battle for them.

Quote:

Like i said if i was into a show,and it had a fansite.I'd be one of those guys that would have it all on disk and wouldnt mind sharing it with people that wanted it.Screw 1.00 a show.Thats a rip.You can see a movie for that.....

This is why an ad system would be the most prudent way of paying for an online series or miniseries. If you downloaded it and showed it to your friends, the advertisements would be seen by those friends.

Seeing a movie for a dollar, though--legitimately, anyways--seems kind of far-fetched. Again, probably a regional thing.

Posted: Fri Apr 01, 2005 9:53 pm

I run www.DiscussTV.net and offer free http downloads of many shows, and i feel it actually helps advertise for the netoworks. Alot of people in other countries end up buying the dvd set so i feel a per show charge shouldn't exist.

Posted: Sat Apr 02, 2005 4:14 pm

I wont bother offering possible solutions as many well thought out arguements have already been presented here and elsewhere. Most, however, have already been thought of by the networks, MPAA, RIAA, etc. as well as many other ideas not listed here. Most still rely on a business plan that will not suffice for the web.
The bean counter suit's primary interest is making money. Unfortunately they are trying to apply outdated business models on a young, emerging technology. The wet dream of scores of these suits is to CONTROL the web. After all, what good is it except to produce PROFIT.
It is much easier to proclaim ALL file sharers as CRIMINALS rather than attempt a cooperative exchange, benificial to all, with a more educated market segment that will be consumers for many years to come. Innovation and growth are secondary to immediate bottom line RESULTS.
It was not too difficult, I'm sure, for someone to decide the best way to handle the situation was to attack these consumers with LAWSUITS and a massive negative PR campaign. After all, everyone knows all computer users are deviant hackers with minds warped from years of television, movies, video games, crap music and preprocessed food.
I would personally like to be compensated for the billions of brain cells I've used to store the years of commercial messages contained in my head but that's not likely to happen. The media SUITS should get over it, embrace the future and interact with their new audience rather than attack it.
After all, THEY are the PIRATES. They always have been. They already know you've each bought loads of DVD's, CD's and all the other crap they advertise in the billboards of your minds. They simply want more!

Posted: Sat Apr 02, 2005 4:56 pm

I pay around $40 dolars for a season of a TV show. For shows that I like I am comfortable with that. For that reason, I would not be willing to pay more than $2 an episode. I would accept advertisements, but only if I did not have to pay for the episode. It would be nice to be able to watch a show whenever I want without having to buy a tivo. The charge for downloading a song is comperable to the cost of buying a CD ($1 songs vs. a $15 CD with around 15 songs) The benefit to downloading a song is if you only like one song from that CD. This has not been my experience with TV. I either like a show or I don't. I am not going to only buy one episode. Therefor the only incentive for me to pay to download a show, is if it becomes available much sooner than the DVD. I would assume that that would not happen, because it would affect the Networks syndication deals, which are worth a lot of money. I guess I am just skeptical that this will work out with a cost-benefit to me. I will be happy to continue buying the DVD's of shows I enjoy. I do wish that the cost per episode was lower for the HBO shows.

Posted: Mon Apr 04, 2005 11:15 am

I would definitely donate 1USD for a very good quality ad-free ep of e.g. simpsons, or a BBC documentary. I use the word 'donate' becuase it would essentially be a donation - given the ease of aquiring such things for free. IMO producers of information products (video, audio, games, books etc) will be forced to adopt a donation economy as computers, the internet and p2p networks become ever more widely available to the rich (consumers).

The donation economy, which is already visible, but is only just beginning to show its potential, may have wonderful benefits for consumers - since we are most likely to donate to those producers which we both respect and percieve to need our support most. So for instance a small but excellent local band will likely have a loyal following of donators keeping them fed while millionaire pop stars (who's work is only popular due to enourmous media attention and advertising) are unlikely to be so supported. Thus wealth distribution among producers will reflect quality of work to a much greater extent than today and quality of work will become the focus of effort among those producers. Since people are unlikely to donate money to the super-rich - it will be impossible to become super-rich by making these products. This will decomercialise art and open the market for real, passionate artists. Viva la donation!

Posted: Mon Apr 04, 2005 12:17 pm

Gladly pay a dollar or two per episode to download them. My biggest problem with buying seasons/movies on dvd is you are not just paying for the content. You are paying for the dvd dics, the labels, the pretty box it's in, the cd case, the cost of the shipping from manufactuer to the store warehouse, the shipping from the warehouse to the store, the pimple faced stock boy to stock them on the shelves, the cashier to total up the cost, the security people who make sure you don't steal anything, the lady who waves bye to you at the store entrance after she checks your recipt, the government for trash pick up to take away the pretty box it came in, a cut for the store you buy it from, the company who manufactues the little security strips that make the door alarms go off, and a whole host of other shit, plus tax. There are to many extra costs involved in buying a dvd. On top of that, it's on a disc that can be damaged beyond playabilty by a single scratch. If not for the fact I have a dvd burner and can back up my dvd's at will, I would never buy anything on dvd.

Posted: Mon Apr 04, 2005 7:47 pm

Dohpaz wrote:

The donation economy, which is already visible, but is only just beginning to show its potential, may have wonderful benefits for consumers - since we are most likely to donate to those producers which we both respect and percieve to need our support most.

You're forgetting one key rule-of-thumb about people in general:

People are scum.

Yes, there are people who would donate. But these people are in a vast minority--paritcularly beneath the "amass all the wealth you can, by whatever means you can" philosophies that lie beneath Capitalism (which happens to be where the 'big money' is).

It wouldn't work unless you could somehwo factor out the base-greed of human nature.

Posted: Tue Apr 05, 2005 5:53 pm

Quote:

You're forgetting one key rule-of-thumb about people in general: People are scum.

Not at all. Of course some people are scum, but equally some people are not. people are a mix which is why there is always a tension between left- and right-wing politics. I believe enough people are not scum to support good artists the world over.

Posted: Tue Apr 05, 2005 10:48 pm

Dohpaz wrote:

...some people are scum, but equally some people are not.

Yes, of course... but a functional pay-per-view system or release-with-commercials would ensure that you make money from both the non-scum people and the scumbags.

And I'd say that the latter has, as of late, been the vast majority.

A volunteer service would only profit from the generous few. Even if you were optomistic and say that the scumbags are in the minority, it still wouldn't earn as much as charging everybody.

And, as was mentioned earlier, this is capitalism, bay-bee. It's all about the Benjamins. (Or the Elizabeths... or the Old Guy with the Funny Moustache that Canadians have on THEIR hundreds)

Posted: Wed Apr 06, 2005 12:42 am

We are not quite ready for an entirely gift-based economy (donations). It's economic communism: nice ideal, but not practical. Capitalism with all its faults, gives people incentive to produce quality work in order to compete.

However, we have seen rabid rescue attempts of tv shows such as Enterprise and Firefly , so people (fans) do donate if there's quality. So donations should supplement/subsidize a pricetag, not replace it.

Posted: Thu Apr 07, 2005 5:14 pm

Quote:

Yes, of course... but a functional pay-per-view system or release-with-commercials would ensure that you make money from both the non-scum people and the scumbags.

Sure you could set up such a system. You might call it ITunes, or Sky T.V. or something else, but ISOHunst will still exist and continue to grow. Eventually you'll have to admit that the majority of conusumers dont HAVE to pay for your product. That's when you enter the donation economy.

I'm not just advoacting it. I'm telling you its unavoidable. It really doesn't matter whether you think its a good idea or not. Its here (baybee) and its here to stay.

Quote:

A volunteer service would only profit from the generous few.

That's the beauty of it. People won't donate to britney spears. "Artists" like that will go and bug other industries where they can still become millionaires. Meanwhile movies, music and games will get better because they will only make money if they gain a very loyal band of supporters - and even then they wont make much. That means they've got to be in it for the love of art and nothing else. I would donate money to The Incredible String Band or the producers of Festen becuase those are excellent and deserve (and need) my support. I also enjoy the music of The Beatles but they don't need my money (hell - most of them are dead!) Big movies like The Incredibles will still make thier cash in the cinema and selling crappy toys to MacDonalds, but the consumer will be presented with a far greater choice and will be able to support those excellent artists that deserve it - without lining the pockets of venture capitalists.

Quote:

We are not quite ready for an entirely gift-based economy (donations). It's economic communism: nice ideal, but not practical. Capitalism with all its faults, gives people incentive to produce quality work in order to compete.

Hey - I know communism is a dirty word over there. The idea that people might do things for anything other than hard cash maybe strange to you - (hell - are YOU working for money IH)? but look at the world. You think Bill Gates works for money? Ridley Scott? The Moscow State Ballet? Great artists work for art and if they can get even minimal funding they will continue to do so. The donation economy will cut out the dead wood of gold diggers in the world of art, opening the road for the really inspirational people. If you dont like it then you'd better start campainging to turn the internet off. Meanwhile I'll be downloading, donating and enjoying!

Posted: Sun Apr 10, 2005 10:01 pm

Hey, my first post. Smile

I read recently that advertising revenue for television is 15 - 45 cents per viewer per hour. That's it. That includes show like the Superbowl. It was in an article about how much a viewer would pay for commercial free TV. I have no idea how much the production company gets or what the cost breakdown is but if someone could sell Stargate or Buffy or I Love Lucy directly to viewers they wouldn't have to charge much to make a bundle.

I think that $1 a song is a ripoff given the production and distribution costs (even including royalties).

Posted: Sat Apr 16, 2005 5:30 am

Why doesnt all the big companies pool together and create a web site where all shows can be accessed. (eg "Lost" "The O.C." "24" "Stargate SG1" etc.) Put out adverts on the tv for web site. (let the public know about it.) Train all those redundant people from the rover car factory in Uk to run it (give em a job). charge 1$/1Â£ per episode. or 5$/5Â£ per season. Then big companies get big profit people from rover get a job beneficial all round.

Posted: Wed Apr 20, 2005 7:29 pm

Eh, If I wanted to pay for things, I wouldn't have come looking for a service like Bittorrent or a site like isohunt. Really, I would gladly pay a measley $.50 for a t.v. show or movie, with or without commercials. But paying over the internet is such a hassle for me. Using credit cards, paypal, it's just aggrivation that I didn't come into this looking for.

I wouldn't mind a few more ads on the site IH, but you'd be commiting suicide, making people pay. People come here because it's fast, easy and free. Plus, lawmakers are seeking companies that make money off sites like this.