The cable companies are terrified of people like me. Terrified. It's pretty obvious when the president of Disney/ABC tells her daughter, upon hearing she didn't need a TV to bring to school, “You’re going to have a television if I have to nail it to your wall. You have to have one.” But the truth is, it's a unnecessary expense to digitally inclined folks. A TV with cable is expensive and cumbersome and the opposite of the way we are used to experiencing the programs that entertain us.
As an industry where people pay between $70 and $92 a month, that’s a lot of money to a young person today who is getting their first job when they can go out and watch Hulu for free and Netflix for $7.99. So it’s a threat.
– "The children are our future, and they’re not paying for TV" by Ryan Lawler
So, dear cable companies, I, as a random young person in the tradition of the internet, am going to offer you some free advice. I'm going to tell you what you can do to access the huge population of young people who are no longer bothering to pay for cable.
The one advantage that cable has over streaming/downloading is to that it airs in realtime. This is really valuable with programs that are popular (my friends routinely have viewing parties for the Oscars or a show like Lost or The Bachelor at our sole friend with cable's house), but is inconvenient most of the time (unless you also have PVR). And now, watching a show live is supported by realtime online discussion. It's common practice to livetweet your reactions to a show's twists and turns, linked to other watchers by hashtag. It's common to "check-in" to a program using GetGlue. If you've missed a TV event, you avoid Facebook et al. to avoid spoiling it for yourself until the latest Megavideo is uploaded. Live TV is the biggest reason why I or any of my friends would want to get cable. Why aren't cable companies using that to their best advantage?
The biggest takeaway from a recent read of mine, What Would Google Do? by Jeff Jarvis (now woefully out of date in some respects, as evidenced by Google's massive Google+ fail), is that the old model for content distribution is dead. The old model for content disseminators was to attract users to a centralized hub, then feed them content. You were a big ol' honey pot attracting flies, which was great for the companies but not really for users – it was far easier to organize and plan all of your content in one location, and to attract advertisers to you. The best current example of this is a site like Yahoo, which can be helpful for mainstream news at a glance, but is shit for just about everything else.
Now, the model as Google has established best, is to put the honey where the flies already are. People are now used to organizing content as they please – reading their favourite blogs in RSS feeds, downloading or PVRing shows to watch at their leisure, saving articles to Evernote to read even when they're offline. They are used to having content tailored to their interests, when they're interested. Google started doing this well when it snuck ads into your inbox and alongside your searches, with its content based on your viewing habits. Facebook does this too, but isn't nearly as subtle. The main goal of this method is to be where the users already are, and it has been massively successful. It's become the backbone of successful internet marketing, and users (while creeped out when they realize what's happening) find it unobtrusive and very useful.
So cable companies, what should you do? In my humble opinion, in order to remain relevant you need to a) start offering livestreaming via the web and b) offer subscriptions to individual channels.
If people are already using the internet to watch their shows, then offer it to them legitimately. The reason why black markets exist is because they fulfill a need not being met by the current markets – if that need isn't being met by a legal option, people will be inclined to use the illegal one, like streaming sites and torrents. Apple and iTunes, in response to the huge amount of music being downloaded illegally, cornered the market by offering cheap, easy downloads and went gangbusters. People like having a legal option. Follow their lead.
The most attractive benefit of cable is that it plays in realtime, so offer live TV online. Just a paid subscription and the ability to stream TV live on the web. Bam. It's a more attractive option than the free one, because given the option of legal livestreaming, who would want to wait until the episode has already aired and miss out on the discussion? (Well, some people, but fewer then the current average, I'd wager). This also allows you to reach users who cannot afford/do not want a TV, with content you're already broadcasting.
I know Rogers has been dabbling with web streaming (it offers certain shows, usually a day or two after the original air date) but the first company to adopt the livestream TV model is going to be rolling in scads of money. Bonus points: for the Big Guys who offer both cable and internet services (like Rogers and Bell), if you REALLY want to make young hearts go pitter patter, you'd offer free or discounted bandwidth on livestreamed content. Take THAT, Netflix! (But so unlikely, look who's getting away with herself!)
Secondly, cable companies need to cut the bloat. If I wanted to subscribe to a blog and they told me I also need to subscribe to their five sister sites, I'd flip them the bird and unsubscribe, or Google some web-savvier person's workaround and jailbreak my subscription. Offer individual channels that aren't rolled into a package. If I know I only watch the Food Network and HGTV (sad, but kind of true), why assume that I also want Twist TV and Fashion Television?
Admittedly, these packages are much more pared down than they once were, but offering individual channels would allow you to a) capture users who may not be able to purchase full basic cable plus a premium package and b) charge more per individual channel. To extend the iTunes comparison a little further, think of this as offering the ability to purchase individual tracks rather than the whole album. In addition to that, you can advertise other channels to those users (who otherwise would be completely outside your reach) and potentially gain more business from them down the line.
So, dear cable companies, stop clinging to an old model that is becoming increasingly outdated. I get it – you're really afraid that parcelling out your hard-won content is going to seriously weaken your coffers. But I really don't see how you can lose here. You'd gain a captive audience of new users (young ones with long lives, at that) and diversified income streams on content you're already sharing. Your current model is sputtering and you know it. All it takes is a little thinking outside the cable box.
And readers, I really want to know what you think about this. Am I on the right track? Would you subscribe to livestream web TV or individual channels?
 |
| via |
The one advantage that cable has over streaming/downloading is to that it airs in realtime. This is really valuable with programs that are popular (my friends routinely have viewing parties for the Oscars or a show like Lost or The Bachelor at our sole friend with cable's house), but is inconvenient most of the time (unless you also have PVR). And now, watching a show live is supported by realtime online discussion. It's common practice to livetweet your reactions to a show's twists and turns, linked to other watchers by hashtag. It's common to "check-in" to a program using GetGlue. If you've missed a TV event, you avoid Facebook et al. to avoid spoiling it for yourself until the latest Megavideo is uploaded. Live TV is the biggest reason why I or any of my friends would want to get cable. Why aren't cable companies using that to their best advantage?
The biggest takeaway from a recent read of mine, What Would Google Do? by Jeff Jarvis (now woefully out of date in some respects, as evidenced by Google's massive Google+ fail), is that the old model for content distribution is dead. The old model for content disseminators was to attract users to a centralized hub, then feed them content. You were a big ol' honey pot attracting flies, which was great for the companies but not really for users – it was far easier to organize and plan all of your content in one location, and to attract advertisers to you. The best current example of this is a site like Yahoo, which can be helpful for mainstream news at a glance, but is shit for just about everything else.
Now, the model as Google has established best, is to put the honey where the flies already are. People are now used to organizing content as they please – reading their favourite blogs in RSS feeds, downloading or PVRing shows to watch at their leisure, saving articles to Evernote to read even when they're offline. They are used to having content tailored to their interests, when they're interested. Google started doing this well when it snuck ads into your inbox and alongside your searches, with its content based on your viewing habits. Facebook does this too, but isn't nearly as subtle. The main goal of this method is to be where the users already are, and it has been massively successful. It's become the backbone of successful internet marketing, and users (while creeped out when they realize what's happening) find it unobtrusive and very useful.
So cable companies, what should you do? In my humble opinion, in order to remain relevant you need to a) start offering livestreaming via the web and b) offer subscriptions to individual channels.
 |
| via |
If people are already using the internet to watch their shows, then offer it to them legitimately. The reason why black markets exist is because they fulfill a need not being met by the current markets – if that need isn't being met by a legal option, people will be inclined to use the illegal one, like streaming sites and torrents. Apple and iTunes, in response to the huge amount of music being downloaded illegally, cornered the market by offering cheap, easy downloads and went gangbusters. People like having a legal option. Follow their lead.
The most attractive benefit of cable is that it plays in realtime, so offer live TV online. Just a paid subscription and the ability to stream TV live on the web. Bam. It's a more attractive option than the free one, because given the option of legal livestreaming, who would want to wait until the episode has already aired and miss out on the discussion? (Well, some people, but fewer then the current average, I'd wager). This also allows you to reach users who cannot afford/do not want a TV, with content you're already broadcasting.
I know Rogers has been dabbling with web streaming (it offers certain shows, usually a day or two after the original air date) but the first company to adopt the livestream TV model is going to be rolling in scads of money. Bonus points: for the Big Guys who offer both cable and internet services (like Rogers and Bell), if you REALLY want to make young hearts go pitter patter, you'd offer free or discounted bandwidth on livestreamed content. Take THAT, Netflix! (But so unlikely, look who's getting away with herself!)
Secondly, cable companies need to cut the bloat. If I wanted to subscribe to a blog and they told me I also need to subscribe to their five sister sites, I'd flip them the bird and unsubscribe, or Google some web-savvier person's workaround and jailbreak my subscription. Offer individual channels that aren't rolled into a package. If I know I only watch the Food Network and HGTV (sad, but kind of true), why assume that I also want Twist TV and Fashion Television?
Admittedly, these packages are much more pared down than they once were, but offering individual channels would allow you to a) capture users who may not be able to purchase full basic cable plus a premium package and b) charge more per individual channel. To extend the iTunes comparison a little further, think of this as offering the ability to purchase individual tracks rather than the whole album. In addition to that, you can advertise other channels to those users (who otherwise would be completely outside your reach) and potentially gain more business from them down the line.
So, dear cable companies, stop clinging to an old model that is becoming increasingly outdated. I get it – you're really afraid that parcelling out your hard-won content is going to seriously weaken your coffers. But I really don't see how you can lose here. You'd gain a captive audience of new users (young ones with long lives, at that) and diversified income streams on content you're already sharing. Your current model is sputtering and you know it. All it takes is a little thinking outside the cable box.
And readers, I really want to know what you think about this. Am I on the right track? Would you subscribe to livestream web TV or individual channels?
