Is Network 1.0 also Network 2.0?

11 thoughts on “Is Network 1.0 also Network 2.0?”

  1. Didn’t “Long Tail” anticipate what is being argued here? After all in Long Tail, the audience knows how to locate the content thereby negating the need for a distribution channel?

  2. In the extended version of this scenario where the local network affiliates are cut out- what happens to local advertising? We already see this “problem” with sat-tv/radio. Sat-tv can only offer so many local stations. The local weather/traffic is the only station currently playing ads on XM.

    Will producing local news soon be the only thing left for affiliates to do? At some point syndicated content (re-runs, talk shows, etc) will be affordable to web content aggregators and their unique local content mix will be reproducible by the consumer directly. I don’t even know anyone who still has a non-sat tv-antenna…

  3. I think your linked alexa graphic offers an answer, in fewer words. Networks have a long way to go before they are competing online with what are now leading internet portals. Even the addition of some webcasted shows won’t be enough to equalize the distance. In fact, it would be worthwhile to your readers to look into which sites are now comparable to network sites, in terms of traffic and time.

    The two sectors operate under different business models, a fact made more obvious by News Corps’ acquisition of MySpace, rather than the attempt to build one internally. Networks are not dead in the water, but just like the music industry, it will be a long time before we see growth.

  4. Aswath, the long-term implications of long tail economics are precisely the reason why the broadcast networks may be trying to be pre-emptive. They essentially have a small window of opportunity to set up new business models and agreements that will assure them of lucrative payments for redistribution. Put another way, they need to offset the growing reluctance of traditional distributors to pay for retransmission rights.

    And Matt M, while the future for affiliates looks bleak indeed, today they are collectively still a very powerful group with deep pockets. Even Murdoch needed their financial support to secure NFL rights. And it seems that the broadcast networks will force them to pay-to-play when it comes to digital, non-linear programming.

    Put those factors together and you have a situation where the broadcast networks may be doing what they do best… creating artificial scarcity and competition in the market, but this time between their affiliates and the portals. So to your point, David T, if the portals with the high traffic are hungry enough for content, the broadcast networks may end up getting exactly what they want.

  5. When the networks zig, expect Yahoo and google to Zag. I think you may see a bifurcation whereby the networks offer long form video and the internet sites offer short form (read: Youtube and Metacafe) video. Google video is already populated with a bunch of short form video and yahoo is linking to many of those short-form sites on yahoo video. (full disclosure: my firm is invested in metacafe).

  6. Where is User Generated Content?

    the main media player is missing here, and it will not be newscorp, NBC or ABC.

    it will be User Generated Content. hundreds of thousands of clips are uploaded to the web each week. out of these are a lot of user generated content. with incentives and filtering in place – they are going to beat the old networks.

    They may soon find that their old digital assets are worthless and being replaced by an avalanche of cash crazed college students with webcams and mobile cams looking to make a fast buck selling their content on the net.

  7. Great article. Regarding the “chess board where they can’t lose” statement though, let’s not forget that it’s not the TV networks who actually create the shows in most cases. It’s the production companies. Desperate Housewives was a “show” before ABC decided to buy it and put it on the air. Yes, it was not produced yet, but the idea was property of the creator and all it was missing was two things: A) money to get it produced and promoted, and B) distribution to get it delivered. The equation for ABC is pretty simple. If we provide A and B, will it be profitable for us? The equation for the production company is even simpler: Who will pay us the most money for this?

    One thing a lot of people don’t realize is that when production companies have negotiated the deals for their shows over the last 50 years, there have almost never been internet rights included in those deals. Only over the last few years have networks wised up and insisted that full internet distribution be included in any production deal. That’s a huge part of the reason why this TV-over-IP thing has taken until now to release. Trust me, I worked on the ABC OnDemand product at Disney over two years ago. It was practically ready then from a technology perspective. You just have to wait until you have the rights in order to make good use of it.

    But back on point, and back to the equations mentioned above. If internet distribution of “TV” shows really takes off, what’s to stop companies like Yahoo from disintermediating the whole thing and offering these bright up-and-coming production companies the money they need to produce the shows themselves? They have the money part covered already. And they have the internet distribution part covered as well. The only disadvantage is that as long as traditional “TV” is still the vehicle of choice for most viewers, they can’t offer the breadth of distribution that big networks can. But wait, did someone say Apple set-top box? 🙂

  8. Michael E and Arik… I totally agree that short-form video, which is increasingly consumer-generated, is a growth business. It’s also a new art form in many ways, so just like TV didn’t put radio out business, I don’t believe short-form content competes directly with long-form storytelling (except at some broad level of consumer attention). And for this reason, portals should not ignore one or the other.

    And Mike D, your point about digital distribution rights is a highly relevant factor. But even with the huge internet audiences that portals have, it’s not yet for viewing long-form video… which makes the economic equation very tricky and difficult to justify at the moment. Therefore, when it comes to paying for production, the broadcast networks have a built-in advantage to secure those digital rights. But that advantage will diminish over time, which is precisely why I believe they are making the necessary pre-emptive moves now to lock-up the portals.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.