A recent flurry of interest has been brewing regarding the value of online video as an alternative to television. Increasingly, we are seeing the spotlight move from single clip to shows and channels. This is a logical progression. YouTube was the beginning.. a validation that the computer could be used for entertainment consumption rather than just information aggregation. Now the NY Times is following up a thread regarding the arrival of a range of new video shows that could potentially “rival” television. Note the following from the article:
“The viral videos of YouTube 1.0 — dog-on-skateboard and cat-on-keyboard — are being supplemented by a new, more vibrant generation of online video. Production companies are now creating 10- and 20-minute shows for the Internet and writing story arcs for their characters — essentially acting more like television producers, while operating far outside the boundaries of a network schedule.”
Here is the question… Why rival television? Why is it important to to “act like television producers?” Does this mean the NY Times needs to act more like a traditional newspaper? The challenge with the television landscape begins with the infrastructure costs related to delivering a consistently attractive product over time. As audiences atomize, it gets increasingly difficult to effectively monetize the programming. In short, its not the video… its the business!
It is not the ability to operate outside of a network schedule that is the gating issue. It is the ability to underwrite and promote a new generation (and some old) of creative producers, actors, cinematographers, writers, etc. who have grown up outside of the network framework. And it is the opportunity to entertain what is now more than three generations of audience who have grown up WITHOUT television as the epicenter of their social environment.
In order to effectively create a new media industry, we must create a new model of generating revenue for the 100’s of thousands of creative people who’s work must fuel the revolution. It is not about the length of the content. Movies are movies… and they come to the net with literally 100’s of millions of dollars of promotion behind them, typically after exhausting all other channels.
So, if TV is the answer, then what is the question? Shorter? Longer? More dramatic? How about reality? This conversation sounds like its own sitcom… didn’t we just finish 50 years of this in mainstream media? While all of the talk is going on about video clips, a new model is quietly forming that will provide the platform that ignites the online entertainment revolution. It will utilize video, social tools, and the power of creativity and personality in partnership with innovative brands and companies who see that they can become intimately involved in a relationship with their audience through the power of this new format of entertainment. – It doesn’t matter if the network changes, the audience already has!
Coming up… What the TV business can learn from the Music Business (is there still one of those?).
No Comments, Comment or Ping
Reply to “The New York Times Still Doesn’t Get It. There is a Difference between being a Video Company and a Media Business.”