WIRED has an excellent couple of articles regarding the nature and future of television and the internet.
Let's be clear - THIS IS MUST READING FOR ALL OF US - Writers, producers, cameramen, directors, everyone. Anyone in this industry who has ever felt, "Damn, I'm on my own with this one."
ARTICLE ONE
ARTICLE TWO
These are the must-read articles which we will discuss in the next couple of days as I pull them apart. There are also several articles on web attention-getting strategies, some How-To's, and just general good stuff to know - Bookmarked!
Oh and let's add Kay Reindl's new post on Dr. Horrible to the mix.
Get ready to put your debate blazer on...
----------------------------------------------------------------
Alex Epstein weighs in on the topic here.
DMc puts his spin on it here.
1 comment:
Whatever the model is, something that should be considered is less intrusive revenue generation. Pay-per-view is fine, but I think it has the tendency to carve your audience down to the true believers. You lose a majority of the impulse-watch audience. ("Do I really want to pay $5? What if I don't like it?")
Cable has a lot of strengths with less-intrusive revenue, because the consumer is paying for the "service", not for the show. If you see a bad episode of Survivor, you don't cancel your cable, and cable's multiple channels allows for the impulse-watching that can grow audiences and keep shows alive.
Is this a stop-gap measure? Possibly. When you boil it down that way, eventually cable will carve through all the shows that aren't good enough to keep people watching, but then, that was the challenge all along, wasn't it?
Post a Comment