If Networks don't want to make shows, maybe we don't need networks?
Hey CRTC, maybe you should read this article in USA Today.
The service is not yet live, and details are under wraps. It's difficult to say why The Venice Project will be much different from YouTube or AOL TV, except that it will — like Kazaa and Skype — be based on P2P technology. That could make The Venice Project cheaper and more flexible than other Internet video services, which centrally host videos on server farms.Venice, anyone?
Zennstrom describes it this way: "We're trying to do the full TV experience by taking the good things from television and putting them together with the Internet and video sharing." A blog on theveniceproject.com says, "We're fixing TV, removing artificial limits such as the number of channels that your cable or the airwaves can carry, and then bringing it into the Internet age, adding community features, interactivity, etc."
Significantly, The Venice Project will be a secure, rights-protected service that intends to work with content producers such as film studios and sit-com creators, not against them. This is Zennstrom learning from past mistakes.
And it will be ad supported. Zennstrom insists that The Venice Project will work in ways that are familiar to TV viewers — as simple to use as iTunes or an on-screen TV grid.
Interactive features
So The Venice Project is intended to be a pipeline directly between content producers and consumers, with relevant ads inserted on the fly — the way Google plops ads onto websites. Interactive features will let viewers rate content and form social groups around videos and programs.
If it takes off, The Venice Project could be Zennstrom's third disruptor, because it stands to knock cable TV services like Comcast and network TV affiliates out of their middleman positions. Of course, taking on such powerhouse industries is a tall order, and The Venice Project could get squashed before it makes a dent.
A few years from now, maybe Zennstrom will take charge of The Venice Project, or maybe he'll move on to a new target.
"Three to four years seems like a good time frame to make commitments," he says. "That's what I told Meg. I'm here and committed for some time. I want to build the business and contribute to eBay as well."
23 comments:
I’m no prognosticator, but I don’t think this project will end broadcast television any more than Skype has ended telecoms or Kazaa ended the recording industry. But … it’s definitely a step into the future that might put even more of a dent into the TV industry’s profits and maybe scare them even more into changing with the times.
I doubt Internet-based TV will seriously affect broadcast TV until there’s a simple way to put that content - and make it look great – on those giant high-definition screens. So the future of television could well be an integration with Internet, but the technology isn’t there yet.
But it raises another question, too. Up and comers and even established people are already creating their own content and putting it on YouTube and other sites as a way to get experience, get noticed, and get an audience or, if very lucky, a TV deal.
Are too many Canadian wanna-be creators sitting back and waiting for the industry to fix itself and hand them a grant without developing their talent and building an audience through this method that’s open to anyone with a webcam and an Internet connection? Why wait for Venice?
The CRTC has no control over the Internet, which means both freedom to do what you want, and the fact that Canadian content is irrelevant. Canadian creators are either there because they choose to be, or they're not in the game because they choose not to be. But there's no scapegoats with this media.
We're all going to have to stop whining now. Diane's found her beat 'em stick.
It's not there yet, but the fact that anyone is even thinking about it means it is coming. I've just started talks with a group of people (from tv, film, radio, new media, music etc.) about turning publicbroadcasting.ca into a content creator - starting very small and working up.
A generation from now I don't think that people will really know the difference between internet, television and radio (other than the audio vs. video thing). It will all pretty much be the same. The problem is that people who start thinking that way a generation from now the cost of entry into the market will be higher (it will be harder to get noticed if you aren't established already.)
We're all going to have to stop whining now. Diane's found her beat 'em stick.
Noooo, do you think I'm calling you and DMc or most people 'round these parts "wanna-be"s? If so, beat me with that stick. I just mean there are opportunities now to get a foot in the door that didn't used to exist. The huge question is where's the money in it. Not sure it's the right route right now for people who are already making a living in it unless they've got a passion for the medium.
I think online media has a future as a component in the landscape. (guh! what a lot of buzzwords in that sentence.) But I don't see it immediately replacing TV because no one's found a way to make money off it yet.
IE, I can produce stuff for youtube as self-promotion or for fun but I can't make a living producing stuff for youtube. And I don't think I ever will be able too -- I've love to be proven wrong.
I think all this online stuff is currenlty a great way to promote a show and one day it might be a great second window for shows or even contribute part of the revenue stream, but I doubt that anyone will be able to produce contemporary-style TV shows for an exclusively online audience (unless it's being subsidized somehow).
It's a good thing to keep your eye on the ball. But some times it's also good to look at the trajectory and see where the ball will likely end up.
If you look at all the technology that has emerged over the last decade - TiVo/PVR's - the iPod and then the Video iPod - podcasting and vlogging (podcasting w/ video) etc., and then look where the industry is leaning (downloads of shows, the O.C. appearing on MySpace video before it airs...
I think that it's easy to see a world where shows are subsribed to and downloaded, where broadcast towers are replaced by servers and big pipes and eventually where 'broadcasters' are marketing and distribution companies at best with many production companies going directly to consumers.
It's not there yet, but it appears that I'll be working for IWT/theRealNews.com in 07. You should read their business plan, a facinating foward looking document (although primarily concerned with news and current affairs) and as I said, I'm talking to people about heading in a similar direction with publicbroadcasting.ca (although primarily concerned with arts and culture).
I believe it will happen faster than most believe.
We all love our PVR's and TIVO's. Soon the world will be our PVR.
What you want, when you want. The internet generation expect this.
I love the concept.
For those of you out there who haven't done anything in television - now is your chance. The future is here. Opportunity knocks.
DIY Television. It's here and yes, you can make money off of it (and do what you want creatively)IF you think like a businessman. Where's the money in free internet download programs? Advertising.
(Not to forget that venture capitalists would kill to get involved in a company that would create a new business model for media via the web.)
You're a writer-producer and you go out to advertsing agencies and tell them what you are going to do. Their clients buy time and issue product placement for the project. Their participation ensures the project is funded. Their ads will always be part of the file that will have an indefinite shelf life. The producer keeps the DVD and cable rights, compiles episodes and issues a set through a distributor.
(and yes, this is already happening. I know some people who have done it).
This is the time and place where people with talent can develop - writers, directors, actors, etc... This is the time and place where established creators can take a chance and branch out into other media (something they are going to need to do as the job shortage increases for all of us).
It's a strange world out there.
My people.
How come comments are duplicating lately? The Venice Project perhaps?
I've been hearing this stuff about walls coming down and the internet fixing TV now for over a decade, but it hasn't happened yet. Wish it would but it's getting a little hard to beleive.
I agree that distribution will probably some day be digital -- right now you can buy TV shows through the itunes store, at least in the states. But that won't change the business model, and the reality is you still need money to create TV shows.
(At least, you do to create TV shows as we know them today. Maybe in the future we'll all be watching lonelygirl-type 3 minute one actor low-budget things, and that's fine, but it's not the same as saying someone's going to be able to produce Lost for an exclusively online audience.)
Advertising as a revenue model on the internet: does anybody make money from advertising on the internet? I don't mean as a broker selling advertising. I mean as a content provider selling ad space to pay for content? Maybe enough to suppliment your income doing a podcast or something but the impression I get is most of even the highest profile podcasters only make a portion of their income that way. The real value of podcasting (or running a blog) is, I think, self-promotion.
So, again, I'd love to be wrong, but I'm dubious. If someone out there is already producing TV shows, real dramas and comedies, not Dave Chalk-style infomercials, exclusively for the internet, and making a living at it, who are they?
http://soupmovie.zabberbox.com/
This is from he guys who produced COMIC BOOK: THE MOVIE directed by Mark Hammill. They also produced the E! TV show REALITY KILLS about the reality stars making a horror movie. The series and the movie have both been released.
SOUP OF THE DAY has led to talks with Myspace Movies and Fox Atomic as well as other entities. It already has a distribution deal for DVD.
and for some reason i cannot delete my extra posts from before. Damn beta blogger...
Bill:
Maybe we're talking at cross purposes a bit.
When this thread started it was about how online media is going to make the current broadcast infrastructure irrelevant: affiliates, networks, none of it would matter. That's what I'm dubious about -- I think you need those people to raise the sums of money you need to make "big budget" TV shows. (I put big budget in quotes because I'm comparing it with more indy/guerrilla stuff.)
I haven't watched an entire episode of soup of the day yet but from a quick look at the website I think it's exactly the sort of thing the internet can support: short, low-budget, lower-production value (nothing wrong with that), more indy stuff that's either self-promotional or subsidized for some other purpose.
(Like I say I haven't watched it yet but this doesn't seem to be ad-supported: it looks to me like myspace is giving them some money to do a myspace promotion and they're going to try to sell DVDs afterwards.)
Which is all well and good, but I don't think these sorts of productions will ever be high budget enough to support writer's rooms, full crews, etc. etc. I don't think they're going to replace the current TV industry.
Maybe the current TV industry is going the way of the buggy whip and there will be no "big budget" TV shows in the future. Hope not, but I find that easier to believe than small creators walking into an advertising agency and getting handed the kind of cash you need to go out and create the next Seinfeld or House or whatever.
I even question how many of these shorter professional scripted (or improv-ed) things will thrive when, honestly, there's always going to be some guy getting kicked in the nuts on youtube -- youtube gets that content for free so why pay you to create something?
It seems to me online video is like blogging: it wants to be amateur. I mean amateur in the best sense of the word: it can be great, it can be of professional quality, but not a lot of people are going to make a living at it.
Again, I'd love to be wrong about all this.
This is all moving to fast for me.
I mean, I can't even accept the idea that TBS is doing original series'. What the hell is with THAT?!
Another point that occurs to me, and may end if not settle part of the argument is: I believe that most of the people here are writers (I could be wrong) - If you're a professional writer, then which way things go is not something you have to be terribly worried about. If you're paid to write television, then you take the jobs (or not) that are offered and it should really matter very little to you who the production company is or how they want to distribute their product.
Personally, I think things are going to change; that the internet (or a hybrid version of it) is how people will distribute in the long term; and that affiliates and networks will only be as valuable as what they produce in house. I'm hoping to jump a little ahead of the curve and create a 'media company' (still in the process of defining structure) that serves a niche market and has a little more room for experimentation and creativity.
I could be wrong about all of this. If I am though no one is out much and if I'm right what I'm working on promises to be both fun and rewarding in a number of ways.
This Venice Project sounds interesting, but I'm not so excited.
First off, the problem is not bandwidth. We have loads of it. The problem is making money from it all.
A serious question for YouTube now. And ads are great, but what makes YouTube popular is that the clips are ad-free, and you can post them on your own myspace site, which sucks them out of the YouTube adspace.
I really wonder how patient people will "with relevant ads inserted on the fly" when they can look at something else, ad-free.
I also wonder how many billion dollar acquisitions the "users" will sit through before they want some money from their "user-generated" content? I would guess one more.
Bill might be right - maybe it will all be about corporate sponsorship and product placement.
Did you read about those kids who wore a Nike shirt to a concert, filmed it, put it on YouTube, then asked Nike for $1000?
Fast indeed.
I don't know about the time frame, but of course the current television business model is going to change, since it's done nothing but change since the day it was born. This is part of the next step, but it's only a part.
If you read or listen to popular material from the '30s and '40s - everyone knew something called television was coming, and there were a lot of very amusing ideas of what it would be. It doesn't seem to have occured to many people that it would be radio with pictures (Sorry, gang). We probably have some visions of the next step in entertainment evolution that will be just as amusing to our grandkids.
Changes are coming, but change is constant and talented people with stories to tell will continue to do so. And as the audience migrates, those people will figure out how to make money at it, if that's what they want to do. The people who really have something to fear from change are the mid-level industry types who are less likely to be needed and more likely to be dropped as profits fall.
I think the comment that one day TV and the internet will be the same thing is probably right. There is already an Interactive TSN station emerging that lets you flip around to scores and stats while you watch the endless parade of highlights that is Sports TV. It's another tiny step towards what's next.
Hmm yeah, a lot of people here have made the point that I was making, that I guess didn't come across.
I don't think creative people should despair.
What I'm saying is that up there in Ottawa, both the networks and the commission seem to be obsessing over backing the wrong horse.
I'm perfectly comfortable with whatever comes. Cause I can write. Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!
I need more coffee now.
Bill:
Maybe we're talking at cross purposes a bit.
Not at all.
When this thread started it was about how online media is going to make the current broadcast infrastructure irrelevant: affiliates, networks, none of it would matter. That's what I'm dubious about -- I think you need those people to raise the sums of money you need to make "big budget" TV shows. (I put big budget in quotes because I'm comparing it with more indy/guerrilla stuff.)
And you would be exactly wrong. Already, Hollywood guilds and unions are up in arms over product placement and advertising integration in programming. It's happening.
Also, you have the fact that MOST movies these days are being funded from private equity sources instead of the usual studio method (Example: Legendary Pics co-funded Superman Returns). Studios are focussing on what they are good at - marketing and distribution - and taking their fees. Producers such as Michael Bay, Joel Silver and yes, our boy Sascha Baron Cohen are raising money from outside to produce movies and tv.
I haven't watched an entire episode of soup of the day yet but from a quick look at the website I think it's exactly the sort of thing the internet can support: short, low-budget, lower-production value (nothing wrong with that), more indy stuff that's either self-promotional or subsidized for some other purpose.
(Like I say I haven't watched it yet but this doesn't seem to be ad-supported: it looks to me like myspace is giving them some money to do a myspace promotion and they're going to try to sell DVDs afterwards.)
The DVD deal is already done and sealed.
Which is all well and good, but I don't think these sorts of productions will ever be high budget enough to support writer's rooms, full crews, etc. etc. I don't think they're going to replace the current TV industry.
As HD televisions and internet collide, that is exactly what is going to happen. People will be able to download the programs they want to watch when they want to watch them. They will be ad supported, product placed, etc...
Maybe the current TV industry is going the way of the buggy whip and there will be no "big budget" TV shows in the future. Hope not, but I find that easier to believe than small creators walking into an advertising agency and getting handed the kind of cash you need to go out and create the next Seinfeld or House or whatever.
Well, obviously you have to show them something that they perceive as having value. Several years ago, advertising was presold on a show called THE DAYS that aired on sunday nights here in the US. All ABC had to do was air it. Advertising paid for all of the production - before it was made.
I even question how many of these shorter professional scripted (or improv-ed) things will thrive when, honestly, there's always going to be some guy getting kicked in the nuts on youtube -- youtube gets that content for free so why pay you to create something?
There's always going to be amateur stuff on the web. It's too easy for any yahoo to post something up. Look at me, I'm a frikkin' caveman when it comes to this stuff and I can do it.
That said, people will watch those programs that target their demographic and interest - especially since we have the remarkable Tivo at hand to search for programs we might like.
It seems to me online video is like blogging: it wants to be amateur. I mean amateur in the best sense of the word: it can be great, it can be of professional quality, but not a lot of people are going to make a living at it.
Gee, just like any other media distribution channel. There's a lot of crap out there - at theaters, on DVD (guilty), on TV (yes, I'm looking at you over there in the corner). Since when has that stopped anyone? Ever?
The fact is there is going to be attrition. People will watch what they want to and advertisers will support those programs that are branded and have an appealing demographic for their products.
The people who will be really happy about all of this will be the Comcasts, the Warner Cables, etc... they have a hold on that big fat pipe of information pouring into everyones houses.
Again, I'd love to be wrong about all this.
Be happy...
Okay one more round...
And you would be exactly wrong. Already, Hollywood guilds and unions are up in arms over product placement and advertising integration in programming. It's happening.
I never said product placement wasn't happening. I said I doubt the Internet will make it commonplace for independent creators to make big-budget TV shows.
Also, you have the fact that MOST movies these days are being funded from private equity sources instead of the usual studio method (Example: Legendary Pics co-funded Superman Returns). ... Producers such as Michael Bay, Joel Silver and yes, our boy Sascha Baron Cohen are raising money from outside to produce movies and tv.
Sorry I don't see what this has to do with the conversation we thought we were having.
The DVD deal (Soup of the Day) is already done and sealed.
(Sorry, is Soup of the Day yours? I didn't get that from earlier in the conversation.)
Anyway, regardless, doesn't the fact that selling DVDs is a part of the revenue model actually strengthen my point that it's not easy to make money solely through airing things on the internet?
I don't think these sorts of productions will ever be high budget enough to support writer's rooms, full crews, etc. etc. I don't think they're going to replace the current TV industry.
As HD televisions and internet collide, that is exactly what is going to happen.
I don't think so but I've been exactly wrong before.
(And why are HD televisions more internet-friendly than traditional TVs for that matter? If anything lower-resolution downloaded content is going to look comparatively worse than HD signals... I think HD will actually help the current model in the short run.)
People will be able to download the programs they want to watch when they want to watch them. They will be ad supported, product placed, etc...
People can download TV programs from itunes right now but it's a small part of the revenue for the shows. That portion might grow over the years but what I'm saying is I not so sure it'll ever be enough to support entire shows or that the ad supported product placed thing will fall into the place without networks or equivalent middle men to broker the deal between content creators and advertisers.
Several years ago, advertising was presold on a show called THE DAYS that aired on sunday nights here in the US. All ABC had to do was air it. Advertising paid for all of the production - before it was made.
When somebody does the same thing consistently without any normal method of TV distribution then I'll stand corrected. I'll stand happily corrected.
It seems to me online video is like blogging: it wants to be amateur. I mean amateur in the best sense of the word: it can be great, it can be of professional quality, but not a lot of people are going to make a living at it.
Gee, just like any other media distribution channel.
Hey don't drop the G-bomb on me, there might be kids reading.
I'm saying the percentage of people within the entertainment industry who make a living from online video is never going to be that high. If I had to bet.
Again, I'd love to be wrong about all this.
Be happy...
Done.
Okay one more round...
I never said product placement wasn't happening. I said I doubt the Internet will make it commonplace for independent creators to make big-budget TV shows.
Also, you have the fact that MOST movies these days are being funded from private equity sources instead of the usual studio method (Example: Legendary Pics co-funded Superman Returns). ... Producers such as Michael Bay, Joel Silver and yes, our boy Sascha Baron Cohen are raising money from outside to produce movies and tv.
Sorry I don't see what this has to do with the conversation we thought we were having.
Independent money (equity financing, product placement, direct advertising, co-branding, etc...)is replacing the financing of development and production that studios used to bear. It is one of the pieces of the puzzle when it comes to independently financing television and movies. It will also be one of the major components of independently financing internet content. Producers are putting together the financing and production themselves. They are turning to Wall street and Madison Ave. for that funding. Remember how much money floated around in the previous dotcom surge? That money is now going into specific internet content creation.
The DVD deal (Soup of the Day) is already done and sealed.
(Sorry, is Soup of the Day yours? I didn't get that from earlier in the conversation.)
It's not my deal, but I know the principals involved.
Anyway, regardless, doesn't the fact that selling DVDs is a part of the revenue model actually strengthen my point that it's not easy to make money solely through airing things on the internet?
NO MEDIA makes its money solely by anything anymore. 24, LOST, DESPERATE HOUSEWIVES - you name it - all operate at a deficit unitl the other media is factored into the equation. FAMILY GUY was cancelled until the DVD numbers came in and everyone saw they had a goldmine. We are not just making television or movies anymore - we create properties that are moved across multiple platforms of distribution. Theatrical releases are now considered advertising for the DVD sales.
The internet will do for television what DVD did for movies - that is, create a financial incentive for people to create work directly for the web that will later be spun off into DVDs, toys, games, etc...
In other words - who would have thought that the small, shitty B&W comic book TEENAGE MUTANT NINJA TURTLES would have become the multimedia cash cow it has become? I'm sure somebody said to the creators, "You can't make money off of a b&w comic book you self-publish". Same principle, different media.
I don't think these sorts of productions will ever be high budget enough to support writer's rooms, full crews, etc. etc. I don't think they're going to replace the current TV industry.
There were a ton of people who went over to the web when the first dotcom craze happened. People like a steady paycheck and the chance to write/create. You also never know what will hit with an audience. You have to make the best guess you possibly can and get the word out there to the masses.
People can download TV programs from itunes right now but it's a small part of the revenue for the shows. That portion might grow over the years but what I'm saying is I not so sure it'll ever be enough to support entire shows or that the ad supported product placed thing will fall into the place without networks or equivalent middle men to broker the deal between content creators and advertisers.
Those middle men will be producers and agents. Remember when HBO started out? Everyone thought that they were crazy and no one would pay for television. If people can find the way to make money at it - they will.
Several years ago, advertising was presold on a show called THE DAYS... All ABC had to do was air it. Advertising paid for all of the production - before it was made.
When somebody does the same thing consistently without any normal method of TV distribution then I'll stand corrected. I'll stand happily corrected.
With Lonelygirl15 and other folks burning up the bandwidth with publicity, etc...you won't have long to wait.
Gee, just like any other media distribution channel.
Hey don't drop the G-bomb on me, there might be kids reading.
Sorry. Shazam! then...
;D
I'm saying the percentage of people within the entertainment industry who make a living from online video is never going to be that high. If I had to bet.
I'll take that bet.
Again, I'd love to be wrong about all this.
Post a Comment