Not sure if it deserve his own thread but whatever, what he says is spot on and for those who didn't saw it already here it is :
TLDR :
TLDR :
Speech of Kevin Spacey regarding the state of TV
- Thread starter Eorkern
- Start date
-
Guest, it's time once again for the massively important and exciting FoH Asshat Tournament!
Go here and give us your nominations!Who's been the biggest Asshat in the last year? Give us your worst ones!
BrutulTM
Good, bad, I'm the guy with the gun.
- 14,762
- 2,644
Dandai
<WoW Guild Officer>
- 5,918
- 4,504
Thanks. The thread title being "Speach ..." gave me a heavy dose of skepticism as to the value of the videos in question.
I always like listening to people talk shop for people that aren't in the industry being discussed (ie not over the heads of the uninitiated). I wonder if the success of House of Cards will compel the networks to try out the pilot season over the pilot episode as he suggests.
iannis
Musty Nester
- 31,351
- 17,657
It's kind of interesting if you're the type that likes to read essays.
The tl;dr is basically Spacey saying "stop being a bunch of incompetent jewbags. Times are changing and you will lose your money if you don't change with them. There are proven ways to be entirely competent jewbags. You can turn a profit and create something worth watching at the same time. You just can't do it the safe and easy way network television has been trying to formulate for the past 20 years. The numbers prove that jig is up."
The tl;dr is basically Spacey saying "stop being a bunch of incompetent jewbags. Times are changing and you will lose your money if you don't change with them. There are proven ways to be entirely competent jewbags. You can turn a profit and create something worth watching at the same time. You just can't do it the safe and easy way network television has been trying to formulate for the past 20 years. The numbers prove that jig is up."
Lithose
Buzzfeed Editor
- 25,946
- 113,036
Yeah, he's essentially saying what a lot of us said in the internet/google thread...That the current control over TV is artificial, and only maintained via profit for a few companies. That control is hurting TV right now, a lot, because it's purely artificial in nature--it's the last vestiges of an antiquated system that the different parts of the industry are finally realizing is no longer required. TV of the future is someone investing in a show, making the show, and then it being sold as a package to distributors (Like Netflix and Amazon). If TV networks refuse to become more like distributors, because they think they can stop the penetration of the internet, they will die out. The only way TV survives is if the networks change it to be more like Netflix/Amazon, where show seasons are bought as packages and tossed up for on demand.
Combine that with a reasonable price for the network, and small embedded adds (Yes, some people will fast forward, but that's what your sub fee is for) and you can have a brave new medium in which to make more money for the people actually producing, airing and financing the shows. What, however, there is no longer room for is the media companies to get between that little triad and fuck over everyone in order to make a buck with shady shit like package deals which cost networks millions, or inflated lending prices which hurt production and compromise the stories.
In short, adapt or die. The roads (Content delivery, internet) have become public goods and people are not going to accept your hoops just to use them anymore--deal with it. If anyone ever wondered why roads needed to be built by the government? The TV--Cable industry is a good example. It's not that private industry couldn't build them, it's that by allowing them to so, it crushes market forces and will actually reduce overall trading between third parties.
Edit: Of course this could all go to shit if net neutrality isn't supported. Control over a market place is the golden goose of profit making.
Combine that with a reasonable price for the network, and small embedded adds (Yes, some people will fast forward, but that's what your sub fee is for) and you can have a brave new medium in which to make more money for the people actually producing, airing and financing the shows. What, however, there is no longer room for is the media companies to get between that little triad and fuck over everyone in order to make a buck with shady shit like package deals which cost networks millions, or inflated lending prices which hurt production and compromise the stories.
In short, adapt or die. The roads (Content delivery, internet) have become public goods and people are not going to accept your hoops just to use them anymore--deal with it. If anyone ever wondered why roads needed to be built by the government? The TV--Cable industry is a good example. It's not that private industry couldn't build them, it's that by allowing them to so, it crushes market forces and will actually reduce overall trading between third parties.
Edit: Of course this could all go to shit if net neutrality isn't supported. Control over a market place is the golden goose of profit making.
Rengak
Blackwing Lair Raider
- 2,879
- 2,761
Unfortunately Netflix's strategy of releasing everything at once is not working as well as planned.
http://variety.com/2013/biz/news/net...ws-1200585971/
http://www.uproxx.com/tv/2013/08/netflix-binge-viewing/
http://variety.com/2013/biz/news/net...ws-1200585971/
http://www.uproxx.com/tv/2013/08/netflix-binge-viewing/
Lithose
Buzzfeed Editor
- 25,946
- 113,036
It sounds like an accounting issue. From what I understand, they most likely have fees based around views--licensing, profit agreements (Actors) and other things. They probably have a host of agreements/estimates in place around this cost, so the overall cost is not the issue. The problem is their costs were based around a large dispersal. So they expected the costs to be defrayed over say, 2 years, but instead they are getting most of it in one year. And while it will eventually balance out, the problem is, it will make this quarter, or whatever quarters the costs come out of, look abysmal, while making others look great, which can cause stock volatility.
At least, as far as I understand it, I could be wrong. If I'm right though, I imagine what will need to change is how the associated view costs change, so licensing and all will have to adapt to the new block consumption model (So costs payments out will need to be aggregated over time even if use is front loaded.)
Void
BAU BAU
- 9,919
- 11,930
I'm all for everything Spacey said, but aside from the massive conglomerates not wanting to release their stranglehold, there are a ton of other changes that would have to be made that I haven't seen brought up (admittedly I only watched the abridged video). Take sports, like the NFL, NBA, MLB, hockey, Olympics, etc. If there isn't someone that is able to pay $15 billion for the next 8 years (ESPN) of just Monday Night Football, let alone all the other programming, what happens then? Obviously the answer is they make do with less, players make less, new stadiums don't get made as often, etc. But that's a huge change to make. It can be done, sure, but without the profits they make from all their other shady market control practices, the whole thing has to take on a new model.
Like I said, it can be done, but there is going to be a huge resistance to it, and not just from the places we would expect. Personally I hope it happens, but I'm not very optimistic for it to change much in my lifetime.
Like I said, it can be done, but there is going to be a huge resistance to it, and not just from the places we would expect. Personally I hope it happens, but I'm not very optimistic for it to change much in my lifetime.
chaos
Buzzfeed Editor
- 17,324
- 4,839
It absolutely is not, Kevin Spacey is woefully misinformed in this instance, even if the rest of his content is pretty spot on.