I can't give it away on 7th Avenue

Probably the least impressive of all the on-demand announcements to come down the pike in the past month was this one from AOL announcing it is launching six broadband channels for streaming 300 TV shows owned by Time Warner. The news was spun thusly by Media Daily News:

In yet the latest sign that television programming is migrating to the computer screen--and that even a huge, formerly dysfunctional corporation can persuade its various divisions to cooperate in the interests of synergy--two Time Warner units are joining forces to bring vintage TV shows to AOL's subscribers. Warner Bros. and AOL will bring In2TV to the recently relaunched AOL.com in January.

I would take issue with the idea that Time Warner is a "formerly dysfunctional corporation," or at least the idea that this deal signals some sort of coming together for the common good. The fact is there's nothing to lose. These are tired, worn-down retreads of shows: "Welcome Back Kotter," "Growing Pains," "Me and Mrs. Scarecrow." The best of the lot appears to be "La Femme Nikita." Take a look at the selections listed in the B&C story. Would you watch these, even for free?

I think this particular deal is driven less by the demand for these shows than Time Warner's need to generate cashflow, and its calculation that its tired old reruns, which have no value whatsoever in the syndication marketplace, could be used to reap some revenue in the money bonanza that online advertising has become.

***

While we're discussing silly ideas, how about the notion that the Parents Television Council pressured Toyota to drop ads from a top 10 cable show?

Dollars to donuts they were shifting some ad dollars ... to online, say.

***

Did you listen to that clusterfuster I took part in yesterday on NPR? I was the "swing guest" for an hour on on-demand TV. It was remarkably unsatisfying, and not just because I couldn't get a word in edgewise.

The idea that prime time is going away, that advertising as we know it will end, all that ... interesting ideas, but not rooted in any reality I know of.

The fact is that prime time TV could get a lot smaller, in terms of its audience, and it will still be the biggest thing going. As I told Paul Harris yesterday afternoon -- during our always-satisfying weekly radio chat -- there are three things in media that cannot be replaced: the Hollywood blockbuster movie, the daily newspaper, and prime time television. It's not the quality of these products so much as the fact that, this is what you get when you throw a lot of people at something. Usually it's passable, sometimes it's awful and occasionally it's brilliant. But it has an imperative quality to it that nothing else in media does, and no matter how many little nibbles or medium-sized bites are taken out of its audience, these three institutions remain huge in their influence because no one has come up with anything that quite takes their place.

(Here's a challenge to all the MSM-hating bloggers out there: Stop quoting the MSM. Then see how interesting your little notepad is. We can do a before-after: This is your blog. This is your blog on Thorazine. And quoting CNN or Fox is a cheat, because all their editors do is read newspapers.)

And then there was this complaint. The program I was on is distributed in an inordinate number of rural markets, particularly in Iowa and Wisconsin. You would think the Bostonians running that program would be alert to the needs of their listeners, but no.  Here's an email I got from one listener after a caller's question was not very well answered:

Why do those in media neglect the rural customers. The question from a listener was blown off as it (broadband) will be fixed in the future. This is not true, and current network affiliates ABC, CBS, and NBC who transmit weak signals to rural areas will not even allow for satellite connections to receive a East or West coast broadcast for fear of losing local ad funds. I have tried for variances and been denied. I have a HDTV and get a PBS HD broadcast on two stations. Fox has allowed for a east coast HD satellite access. Local networks for CBS and ABC are as fuzzy as my 1950s TV, no HD will even lock on.  I am not allowed 21st century access using new technology. I can not get Cable or DSL so the 21st century will pass the northwoods, and few will know.

He's right. In fact, what needed to be said yesterday, but wasn't because of time constraints (ironically), is that this current on-demand revolution requires broadband access or cable TV. Satellite just doesn't cut it. The whole reason DirecTV did the deal with NBC Universal is because it is trying to position its hybrid DVR as an on-demand device, and it needed content to bank on the part of each DVR's hard drive that isn't consumer-programmable.

My DVR isn't a hybrid, but that's only because I have the luxury of two-way communication, through my remote control, with the central server where all the on-demand content is stored. The day is coming when thousands of hours of ever-changing inventory will be available to anyone with a satellite, cable, or who knows, even dialup connection out in the sticks. Maybe that will change everything. But whether that's two years or 15 years away, who can say?

***

Meantime, here's an outrage that is right here and now, brought to my attention by Harry Shearer. It's a TV commercial being aired that's paid for by something called the High Tech DTV Coalition:

(On Screen: Images of Fire Fighters, Police Officers, and other First Responders in the Line of Duty)

Announcer: Fire Fighters. Police Officers. They’re America ’s first responders and this time they need our help ….

(On Screen: Learn More  www.supportamericasfirstresponders.org)

There’s a bill in Congress that will help first responders by improving communications.... It’s called the digital transition.  Switching TV signals to digital. …. Which improves picture quality and gives us more choices …

(On Screen: “Digital Television; Improves picture quality; Gives us more choices” with images of children watching television in the background)

While freeing more airwaves for public safety

(On Screen: “Digital Transition; Frees more public airwaves for public safety” with images of firefighters in the background)

It’s a win-win solution. Call Congress today.  Tell them to get the picture and support the Digital Transition.

(On Screen: “Support the Digital Transition.  Call Congress.  Tell them to get the picture: 202-224-3121.  www.supportamericasfirstresponders.org.  Paid for by the High Tech DTV Coalition.” With images of children watching firefighters on a television)

And here's the commentary from FactCheck.org:

The ad calls digital TV a "win-win solution" benefiting both consumers and the emergency responders. The ad is true as far as it goes, but misleading because it implies that the digital-TV bill taking shape in Congress would have only winners. In fact, there would be losers, too.

According to the GAO, an estimated 21 million households now get TV only through a standard, analog TV set, and would be forced either to junk their set and buy a new digital set, or to obtain a new converter that manufacturers estimate will cost about $50.

Also not mentioned is that taxpayers will be asked to contribute up to $3 billion to subsidize the conversion. That money would come from the proceeds expected from auctioning off some of the airwaves now used by TV broadcasters. The funding of the ad is also something of a mystery. One source told us it was financed by Motorola, which stands to profit from the transition by selling new police, fire and emergency radio equipment. Motorola wouldn't confirm that, nor would they deny it.

OK, this is stupid on a couple of levels, and FactCheck only picks up on the emergency responders v. digital TV angle, rightly noting that the win-win refers to firefighters and Motorola (or whatever corporate entity stands to gain).

But that $50 estimate for a converter box ... c'mon. That was quoted by somebody with an interest in making money off converter boxes.  $49.50 of that is pure profit.  After all these years, a converter chip costs nothing to make. Put it in a discrete little plastic box that mounts to the back of the TV and that's it.

Not one red cent should be spent on those converter boxes. Make the manufacturer pay. The manufacturer, in turn, will seek to pass along the cheapiest, least effective converter chip that gets the job done to the consumers who didn't even want digital TV in the first place. That ain't worth $3 billion. So make the manufacturer pay and you'll get the bare minimum, and if there's a problem they'll have to fix it.

Now that's what I call a win-win.

Comments

[Mark Jeffries]

You meant "Scarecrow and Mrs. King"--but I get your point. Potentially, In2TV could find an audience in that relatively-small group of old TV buffs who complain that TV Land shows a relatively-limited number of episodes of the same shows over and over again (along with all of those original documentaries and reality shows), but unless "Maverick," "77 Sunset Strip" and "Dr. Kildare" are in the mix (and they could be), I don't think the initial lineup will please those people.

And I may be wrong, but it seems to me that I saw somewhere that either DirecTV or Dish were offering Internet access to their subscribers--did that go by the wayside?

[Joanna]

Regarding your queston: "Would you watch these, even for free?"

I'd definitely watch Pinky and the Brain. Great show. Alas, there's no way I'd pay for AOL so I won't be watching it.

[Mark Jeffries]

The In2TV service will be available to anyone with broadband--you do not have to be an AOL member, as they are taking a lot of their proprietary content out from behind the membership wall and refocusing membership AOL as an ISP/E-mail system.

And yes, I'm glad to see "Pinky and the Brain" on the list, too.

[Bob]

Babylon 5 is about the only show in the line-up that really interests me. I miss a decent space fantasy these days. :)