Are you willing to pay...?
A few years ago everybody thought people would never be willing to be for music content. Then along came iTunes and most of us had to change their mind.
Now the debate is on again regarding video content. Do you think... actually, would *you* be willing to pay for the latest episode of your favourite TV show if a legal way was offered to you?
Alternatively, would you accept to sit through a few seconds/minutes of advertising in exchange for video content?
Group audience:
Comments
It's an interesting question.
It's an interesting question. In the UK, OTT TV services LoveFilm (recently acquired by Amazon) and Netflix (already well established in the US) are in mega competition for subscribers and pricing is down to £6 (€7) per month unlimited (for a decent, but of course not very recent, film/TV catalogue). What's happening elsewhere in the EU?
The UK is the only European
The UK is the only European country, together with the US, where streaming consumption not exceeds DVD consumption, so I don't think it's a coincidence that you mentioned UK case studies.
There is some German turmoil going on there, somewhere, though. Ever heard of Vivendi and Tunedin?
The easiest and best way to
The easiest and best way to solve this issue would be a european fund which should be managed by a new EU agency, after this a "tax" could be added to each internet connection to provide to fund with capital. From this fund copyright owners should be payed.
With this method all media content (music/books/ect.) could be free of charge for EU residents. This would also solve all current piracy issues because the earning model would be based on a request from the fund because content is already paid for.
Next problem: Will this "evolution" ever be accepted by the current entertainment industry?
Sounds easy but effective.
Sounds easy but effective. Has this been tried anywhere, that you know of? Are you aware of anyone looking for scientifical evidence in support of this theory?
I'm not aware of any
I'm not aware of any workgroups / research for this theory so it would be interesting to see the EU to atleast consider this solution especcally because I think this is not something which should be managed by local governments (which is now the case) but much more globally.
From what I know people are for sure willing to pay for good content, but the current earning models are to old fashioned and illogical for the internet model.
The reason for this is because the origin of the internet is build to share. While the current earning model is build against this. It's impossible to stop the people / internet from sharing, because that would be the end of "open internet".
Above solution will overcome this completely:
- It's very cheap to maintain.
- Content is already paid for ie: piracy is impossible.
- One agancy will manage and verify the fund.
thanks very much. this seems
thanks very much. this seems to pose an interesting challenge. Miguel, do you think the EC could be interested in running a feasibility study on this?
The economics of content all
The economics of content all revolve around the ability to access it. The faster and sooner an audience wants to consume content the more they will be asked to pay. Supply and demand valuation of information-based products is a function of the passage of time.
Creating a regional pool of content which is then accessible by any citizen is a grand scheme indeed. In fact, thematically, it's already in place in areas such as the UK where taxpayers are levied a license fee per TV they own. Proceeds which go straight to funding the BBC.
The success of that model is hotly debated but in terms of data points for this new idea you probably can't much richer.
The challenges with creating a government sponsored fund of this type would be massive to say the least. Least of all it would threaten competition across service providers and aggregators.
Nor would it solve the piracy issue as again that is about immediate access. Any formal fund that is set up would have to enter the content marketplace and pitch for specific access windows of content. For the same reason that LoveFilm, NetFlix and YouTube don't get access to films whilst they are in the cinema then so would a new fund struggle economically (and without artificially disrupting the market) give levels of access demanded by the populace to such an extent to remove piracy. (here is a blog post I wrote on the subject of content windowing http://streamfoundations.com/2012/03/05/youtube-needs-to-close-the-windo...)
It's also a dangerous game to equate the consumption patterns of audio (music via iTunes) with video in a like-for-like scenario. Primarily an audio product is a companionship model. You listen to audio whilst doing something else. Video (traditional entertainment) is a command-control model. The better it does its job in delivering relevant content the more captivated the audience and less that audience can do in the meantime. Put simply you 'veg' out in front of the TV but you don't 'veg' out beside the radio. That fundamental difference is pivotal to how digital video will need to be charged for in the future.
It goes without saying that the current content industry works on a zero-sum game - again I wrote a post about the Walls of Hollywood needing to fall http://streamfoundations.com/2012/03/30/the-walls-of-hollywood-wont-fall...
The interesting point to this thread is more to ask what has the World Wide Web, founded on principals of universal (free) access to information, done to our perception of the value of content? via traditional web browsers it's proven to a be a real struggle to get viewers to pay for content - however when delivered to a different context, say a tablet like the iPad, studies are showing that viewers are more willing to pay.
If that can be well understood then new models for premium video pricing and access can be developed.
-- Cameron Church
http://www.twitter.com/cameronchurch
Indeed, was this approach
Indeed, was this approach tried anywhere? What link to the digital excahnge mentioned in the post from Nico Perez, also in this group?
I vote against, because I
I vote against, because I really can't imagine any way to do this:
"From this fund copyright owners should be payed."
that is both fraud-resistant AND not a privacy nightmare
I would pay, but only if the
I would pay, but only if the added value/differentitation in comparison to linear tv is big enough.
Right now, I'm often just fine with linear tv. Researches show both aspects, namely cutting the cord, but also that linear tv is not going to dissapear anytime soon. It's a generation and behavior thing above all. Technology -often- follows.
also worth noting the recent
also worth noting the recent study by Accenture. Their findings is 69% of users are willing to pay for digital video
http://www.accenture.com/SiteCollectionDocuments/PDF/Accenture-Video-Ove...
I think there are different
I think there are different types of users / user profiles. What we stand for is that people are offered the freedom of choice.
Some are satisfied with lineair TV, paying for their subscription and viewing the content as it is served. This is also fine for content providers as long as users are prohibited to fast forward. And OTT TV can, specifically for this model, deliver a lot of added value to content providers and aggregators on the advertising level.
A second option is to have a premium ad at the start of a show, preferably targeted to the viewer his or her profile.
A third option is to pay for an S-VOD subsciption.
A fourth one is to pay for VOD on a per video basis.
The option a users selects will not only be based on her or his preference, but also on the how he or she values the content.
I don't think a one size fits all approach is favourable and as a consequence I'm very sceptic in the general tax suggestion.
Do you think OTT is having
Do you think OTT is having any impact on traditional pay TV models - i.e. on people no longer being willing to pay for their TV subscriptions?
Yes, I do. I am convinced it
Yes, I do. I am convinced it will increase the population of 'cable cutters', who don't want to pay for a lot of content they are not interested in at all. The 'I only pay for what I want to watch - but give me as much to choose from as possible' model is difficult to offer in a non-OTT or IPTV model. We experience substantial demand from people who can't get access to the content they want to watch via the traditional pay TV model. In these cases, OTT can move from 2nd screen to 1st screen.
YES! We want to be able to
YES! We want to be able to pay for next day episodes of American TV shows!
You need to ask the question
You need to ask the question differently.
The main problem in meaid is "the pay through abuse of data" model is creating unfair competition and distorting markets.
The real question is how to eliminate (yes eliminate) out of context behaviroual-based profilling to re-establishing markets. Fine to use the transaction data in the process but it should be impossible to reuse data against he same person in another context.
Of course people will pay - for value. If it is not value, it is a vaste of ressources.
Thanks for pinpointing the
Thanks for pinpointing the problem, Engberg. I would try to take it a little bit further, if I may, by asking: why do you think the market is not offering quality content within Europe? And do you think things are different elsewhere? If yes how? What should we learn from them?
I can't speak for Europe or
I can't speak for Europe or the rest of the world, but here in the UK the general feedback I get is that people who have a good connection are happy to pay for content via iTunes etc, but people who don't have a good connection have to rely on torrents. Its far easier to download content illegally because you can leave your connection running overnight to get a song. It isn't possible to download in one hit, so a torrent patches it all together for you as it gets the packets down.
I think there would be far few pirates if it was easy to get what you wanted quickly and simply.
The digital economy act in our country is also pretty poor, as it is influenced by the media industry and takes no account of the voice of the people.
It also doesn't take into account the outdated laws on copyright. Its time that politicians understood more about the technology they are trying so hard to control.
How is creative content (the
How is creative content (the book, the film, the game, the TV show etc) financed currently, and how realistically can it be financed in the future? That is the key question for Europe's creative and cultural industries, and so far we have come up with very few convincing answers. Worse, much public discourse on these topics is frankly delusional.
We need to be more rigorous, more evidence-based and more commercially aware in our approach, just as investors have to be, otherwise they lose their shirts! To take one example, the much vaunted "Freemium" business model has repeatedly failed: it only works for superstar writers/performers who have already established a powerful market profile. It's a completely useless model for new and emerging talent in any creative genre.
Creative content is exceptionally hard to finance even in good times - and we are not living in good times. There are far more failures, or "misses", than "hits" in all hit-driven businesses (music, film, publishing and so on). This is an ineluctable fact.
Moreover it is getting progressively harder to pay for the misses with the hits through commercial cross-subsidisation because, with rare exceptions, the hits are much smaller than they used to be. That is the main reason why we at Ingenious no longer invest in recorded music in spite of the fact that we have had the occasional big hit in the past. Note that we continue to invest extensively in live music in several genres because "live" cannot be pirated and there is a huge public appetite for well-run festivals.
The digital environment is enormously challenging for everyone engaged in trying to produce stuff. Digital advertising rates are being dragged downwards remorsely, and most consumers don't like advertising anyway. We are currently in a race to the bottom in this respect.
Leaving aside a handful of aggregators like Google, who of course don't produce anything themselves, "pure" digital content businesses and platforms struggle to generate any significant revenues, let alone profits, and will continue to do so until consumers start paying for stuff at price points they regard as acceptable. We are still at the beginning of this process, but in the meantime check out Digital Theatre, a great UK company in which we have recently invested. This is the kind of business model that should work, or at least we hope so!
The fact is that creative content is still overwhelmingly paid for through "old" media business models and that most digital-only models have failed. We have to learn from that experience.
I agree with most of the
I agree with most of the things you say - so just one question and one observation on my side:
- are you saying that, copyright-wise, we need to find a comprise between those who maintain that "the internet is no one's private property" and those who argue that "copyright should be preserved no matter what, for ever after"?
-you say that "Leaving aside a handful of aggregators like Google, who of course don't produce anything themselves, "pure" digital content businesses and platforms struggle to generate any significant revenues, let alone profits, and will continue to do so until consumers start paying for stuff at price points they regard as acceptable."
However, please take the following into consideration: Discovery Communications has very recently purchased Revision3 for 30/40 million dollars; Google just bought 15% of Machinima for 35 million dollars.
To me this means that Google is starting to produce in-house (therefore no longer relying on UGC only) and that digitally-native content producers *do* have a role in the new market. Question is: how do we let our market fly, instead of sitting and watching other countries do innovation?