Other than The Sopranos and Toronto Maple Leaf hockey games, I rarely watch TV. If I had a few spare moments, I'm usually on the Web. So how come I'm not a couch potato? As Bruce Springsteen aptly put it on the "Human Touch" album, "there's 57 Channels, and there's nothing on". Sure, HBO has some really good shows, and think "My Name is Earl" is pretty good but TV is mostly crap. So that's why I found a long feature in today's New York Times about "slivercasting" so intriguing because it looks at how niche programming is being delivered over the Internet to small, but enthusiastic, audiences. For example, it leads with a guy named Andy Steward, who wanted to start a sailing channel but balked at the how cost of doing it on the Sky satellite service. Instead, he started sail.tv for a minimal investment a,nd now attracts viewers from around the world. Is this is the new way TV is going to be distributed and consumed? Should traditional broadcasters be worried that upstarts such as Rocketboom - with its three-minute news broadcasts - will make them look like dinosaurs soon? Well, that may be a bit of a stretch but the low-cost delivery of programming to audiences within a specific demographic, community or interest group has exciting possibilities. If you think the 500-channel universe is complicated for advertisers, think about a 100,000 or 1,000,000-channel universe with programming for everyone. If you're an advertiser, how do you approach this new world? Or do you even try to engage it given how fragmented and diverse it can be. And how do traditional broadcasters fit into the "slivercasting" world? Do they adapt their existing programming for TV 2.0 or create new forms of content for the Web? Stayed tuned (no pun intended), this is going to be disruptive.
|
||||
|
Comments
Re: Is Slivercasting TV 2.0
by
Mark Kuznicki
on Wed 15 Mar 2006 08:31 AM EST | Permanent Link
Disruption ahead - absolutely. On-demand pay/subscription models appear to be more appealing to the slivercasting audience than advertising models. This is a big problem for advertisers and broadcasters alike. For an interesting scenario to consider, read Bob Garfield's "Chaos Scenario" piece in Advertising Age.
Re: Is Slivercasting TV 2.0
by
Matt Dickinson
on Sat 25 Mar 2006 01:12 AM EST | Permanent Link
Mark - I enjoyed your article. Raised some interesting questions. I agree that broadcasters are in trouble if they don't change their models, but advertisers are fine. Garfield's article was a little bleak - he seemed to underestimate the fundamentals of basic capitalism; if advertisers have money to spend on reaching a specific audience, someone will come up with a solution to meet their demands. I say this with confidence, becuase the company that I just launched is in the process of doing just that. (www.endlesseurope.com)
We're creating the web's first interactive reality show. The premise is we're following 2 backpackers around Europe for the summer as they party like rockstars and live the life that everyone talks nostalgically about. All expenses will be covered in exchange for letting our film crew capture the entertaining content that's bound to ensue. Currently, anyone from around can apply, suggest destinations, suggest challenges, or suggest music for the soundtrack. As of May 1st, people will be able to vote on each of these elements. You can think of it as Choose Your Own Adventure 2.0. We're going to release 15, 22 minute episodes starting mid-September. They will be available for viewers to stream online, watch on their phones, or download to their computers, iPods, PSPs, or Palms. This is going to be the go-to show for people around the world of the 18-26 year old generation that want to watch an entertaining show whenever and wherever they want. Are we against Advertisers placing products in the show? Absolutely not. In fact, we have a unique model that's going to take product placement to the next level. Are our viewers against product placement? Absolutely not. Our generation isn't stupid. We know that if we want high quality, entertaining content, someone has to pay the bills. What does piss us off is when ads are mistargeted or non-entertaining. I've actually hit the rewind button on my DVR to watch an ad I like...it's only the uninteresting one's that aren't applicable to me that I skip. Do I mind that the star of the show that I love is wearing Oakley Sunglasses? I couldn't care less. Does Oakley care? According to Garfield, if they don't now, they will soon. As Rishad Tobaccowala elegantly concludes, “Those who come to destroy TV are those who are eventually going to save it.” I don't like to think that our intentions were ever to destroy TV...but I certainly would like to take credit for saving it. matt.dickinson@endlesseurope.com |
My blog has moved.
Check out the new Mark Evans. It's part of my mini-blog empire that also includes All About Nortel and Twitterrati. You can subscribe to Mark Evans Tech by clicking on the RSS symbol above.
Check Out These Blogs
Search
Login
|
|||
|
||||