Comments on: The problem with unlimited on demand video

By: Craig

Craig — Mon, 28 Aug 2006 11:05:02 +0000

Although, as a customer I am a proponent of an On Demand world and I utilize the services around me to make my life more convenient. I think it might cause problems if programming would be completely On Demand. No one would ever watch commercials and then the cable services would force commercials upon the customer much like when you watch clips on sites like espn.com.

By: Seth

Seth — Mon, 28 Aug 2006 11:05:02 +0000

I am surprised you missed this. It is all about tailoring the unlimited on demand content to the individual consumer.

On Demand is the best possible system for video consumption period. Giving consumers control over when they watch the programming they are interested in is a FAR BETTER experience than is delivered today on open broadcast plastforms.

Why this works: On Demand programming can be easily tracked. If I watch a lot of comedy shows, there is a strong likelyhood that I am going to like the new show that Comedy Central is putting out or the new comedy that NBC is going to be “airing.” This is why Netflix has been so successful. You know how they work, they track all of your rentals and make recommendations based on how you rated a movie you rented from them. The feedback process is incredibly easy to use and filtering through recommendations is just as easy as channel surfing today.

Encouraging the cable networks to move away from VOD is a HORRIBLE move. The idea that I should be tied to my show in a certain time slot is rediculous. If the cable companies/tv networks want to make money off selling advertising, then they better come up with a way to cater to my television consumption needs, on demand, or I will just move to a model that cuts out the ads and lets me watch what I want, when I want. bittorrent.

By: Richard Bowles

Richard Bowles — Mon, 28 Aug 2006 11:05:02 +0000

- I agree totally, linear is an amazing accident. We didn’t intend linear to lock us in the way it did. Its referred to in my mind as the idea of where you get a MP3 playing CD player installed in your car, you rush to get all your favorite songs, around 60 or so of them ( JUST YOUR FAVS!) then after song 3 or 4 you hit the radio button. Because nothing you put on the CD seems as good as it used to.its the mediocre` songs that make the Great songs Great. I think it is the decent movies on HBO that make the great movies great. Also I think there are two other issues.
1. Over choice: Too many choices like yahoo “5 millon Songs for 5$ a month” Who needs 5 million I can’t think of 100 I need… too many choices simply confuse the buyer.
- Solution – Yahoo Radio, make smart programming free, you can skip songs you really can’t stand you can rate them and lower so you dont hear them as much and the station learns, this provides yahoo advertising information that is very vaulable
2. A Feeling of being disconnected. When I don’t get a live person, and maybe some dead air somewhere – .. Also if I know exactly what song is coming up or what song it is within a few secs, it gets un real. Also mundane-`
-solution, Have a randomizer based on your likes, that occasionally introduce new songs into your play list, also a program that takes your favorites off for 2-3 days at a time and replaces them with new songs, leaving a 50% of favorite play list base ….

– Just another waster comment, Richard BOwles

By: positing on alternate realities

positing on alternate realities — Mon, 28 Aug 2006 11:05:02 +0000

If I were a billionaire speculator heavily invested in media, I’d set up a blog and post flamebait and wait for the ideas to fly. Then I’d don a straw farmer’s hat to shield from the scorching rays of the sun. I’d shuffle through the field and pluck fruit from those trees. 99% of the yield would be unsuitable for consumption, it’s the nature of the beast. But occasionally, a jewel would dangle from those twisted boughs. Isn’t that right?

By: Ben Hobbs

Ben Hobbs — Mon, 28 Aug 2006 11:05:02 +0000

If somethings good, then people will find it, hear about it and download/watch it. Its not always about marketing, I’ve never seen a genuinely great film do badly because of a small marketing budget.

How much money was spent marketing the star wars kid video? none, yet most people have heard of it, downloaded it and seen it, at least once. Why? Because it was funny, and people told other people – personal recommendations carry so much more weight than hollywood hype or expensive marketing.

Ben Hobbs
http://www.h3-digital.com
H3-Digital are a smart home automation and home cinema company based in Phuket, Thailand.

By: Keith

Keith — Mon, 28 Aug 2006 11:05:02 +0000

First there has to be a way to advertise during the entertainment. Make it a certain section of the screen, or even subliminal (as long as the viewer was initially made aware of the products being subliminally advertised at the beginning of the show).

At that point, it’s the advertisers (Budweiser, Ford, IBM) that want the show promoted, and would pay to advertise on other shows that they also advertise in. Let’s say Budweiser determined their customers would be watching King of Queens, Monday Night Football, and Sportscenter. Well, Budweiser simply pays for cross-advertising among those shows…so when the viewer watches the new shows they will see MORE Budweiser ads.

If the viewers can be made comfortable with ads during the entertainment then it opens up so many options that are good for everyone. “Cheap/Free availability of your favorite entertainment whenever you want” for the viewer and “The more available and watched the entertainment is, the more of your ads are seen” for the people paying for it all.

Hell, it should be all on demand. The only thing linear should be from when you have not chosen anything on demand to watch. Monday Night Football just ended on your set? King of Queens starts up immediately…it might just become one of those shows that you find yourself choosing on a regular basis.

Count me as one person willing to accept subliminal advertising (as long as I knew which products at the start) if it means I can watch any show I want, whenever I want for virtually no cost.

By: Josh

Josh — Mon, 28 Aug 2006 11:05:02 +0000

Gotta agree with Dave O’Hara. I remember when I first went from cable to satellite. It would take me 1/2 hour to just go thru the channel guide. What I want is a Video Genome Project. Good technology makes our lives easier not harder. Until something fetches video content I want without me telling it to, TV will rule.

By: Jared Carter

Jared Carter — Mon, 28 Aug 2006 11:05:02 +0000

It may be tougher to create a new hit show, but networks that already have a big name are going to love on demand TV shows. Take for instance during the afternoons with Soap Operas. When the commercials come on, they are for laundry detergent and products that are targeted towards housewives. Well my college roommate likes to watch Soap Operas, but he’s a guy. He’s not interested in laundry detergent. On Demand TV can personalize which commercials you will see. It can be determined by a questionaire that customers fill out before the service or by the the programs that they watch. Different market segments will be fed different advertisements depending on what their preferences are. This will make marketing more effective.

By: Share Trading

Share Trading — Mon, 28 Aug 2006 11:05:02 +0000

There will always be an evolution… those who stay abreast the wave of change will succeed.

Those who stick to old models will die off.

By: Share Trading

Share Trading — Mon, 28 Aug 2006 11:05:02 +0000

It’s all about the evolution of global media, commerce and business… Just as people fretted that “TV killed the radio star” so is the case with the Internet killing off tv and unlimited on demand video killing TV… There will always be an evolution… those who stay abreast the wave of change will succeed. Those who stick to old models will die off.