Point 'n Click TV
YouTube is just one more challenge that the television networks have to face. If it isn't bad enough that television watching is down among young adults, it's even worse (from a network executive's standpoint) when young adults watch whatever it is they watch on YouTube. The programming is detached from its advertising, which is good for the viewer, but bad for the network that originally aired the program.
Viacom is dealing with this the old fashioned way: they are suing YouTube for copyright infringement (RIAA vs. Napster, only this time both sides have deep pockets). News Corp. (Fox) and NBC-Universal are trying a different approach. They are creating an online rival to YouTube that will carry shows from a variety of networks without the copyright problems and, presumably, supported by advertising. We talked about this move after listening to a National Public Radio story about it.
Gabcast! Club MediaNote #30
posted by Mike Eberts (AKA Your Humble Blogger) @ 1:20 PM
1 Comments:
This idea,notion and/or thought of a network backed version of youtube must go down the drain if the networks want to capture the market. Here's Why:
If it is to be seen as a "network backed version of youtube" then it implies that it will be a knock off with no real originality and will forever be seen as "that copycat" in one function or form or another.
Youtube is the equalizer so to speak in the world of television media and by its nature, it implies that there are a lot of amature, home made stuff (not that there is anything wrong with it, I've even got stuff on it).
To want to "rival" youtube is also an inherant weakness that will become a nightmare. This scheme to make a network backed television must set itself apart from Youtube. Be it in the features, the benefits, the enhancements, the outcomes and advantages this scheme of theirs will produce.
The real distinction and benefit I think of this scheme of having network backed "youtube-like" internet site are:
No copyright problems
No legal concerns
Of a standard, viewable quality (ie, a standard dictated by the networks in terms of broadcasting and film qualities)
An aggregate, massive, and complete internet database for viewing the goodies
Making it much easier to see "altnerative" versions and endings of a show (This is a big one)
More customizablility for the end user and the providers (Also, a very big one)
Youtube cannot do any of those things. So I think, an appropriate way of making their scheme distinctive is to call and position it as...
"Network Internet TV" (NITV)or something to that affect.
A similiar thing happened a few decades ago. Enter Fedex, the first express delivery company. After they entered their major rivals tried to do the same thing but regardless Fedex still holds the market share. FedEx is still the prefered or the first corp that comes to mind when a client is thinking about "Overnight delivery". Everything else is just a knock off. Not everyone will agree with me on that last statement but its not the point. The effect is.
Perhaps the biggest, single advantage I'd venture to say of this Online Network internet TV is that the network televisions can allow for customis-ability. Imagine that, instead of having this guy die, he survives and you wonder what happens and how it affects the ending and the whole premise of that film story. Its something I'd certainly like to see and I'm sure many others would.
Of course, I am not accusing that this scheme had any intentions to rival youtube, but I don't have any praise for wanting to differ from youtube either.
Just my thoughts
As for suing youtube...well hell, Youtube should have foreseen and enforced this whole copyright issue.
Post a Comment
<< Home