Comments on: When It Comes to Television Content, Affiliate Fees Make the World Go ‘Round

By: Quick Solutions Of Cable Tv And Internet Packages Simplified « My Internet TV Blog

Mon, 16 Apr 2012 09:54:39 +0000

[...] distracting venues. Before the space age we can count premium HDTV and cable services. The months ago kind of generic greeting and creating cancer. For free [...]

By: Stanley W. Fields

Stanley W. Fields — Sun, 18 Mar 2012 15:34:46 +0000

This is one powerful article that makes the case for my 2nd pilot to prove an online video news revenue model. First pilot proved that we could gather and distribute CNN quality news at a 10th of the cost.

Thank you!

Stanley W. Fields

By: SocialTV: The Second Screen | Jeremy Andrew Busch | Jeremy Andrew Busch

Wed, 22 Feb 2012 23:38:42 +0000

[...] they plan on keeping it that way. This may change, but I doubt it. Read this article, “Affiliate Fees Make the World Go Round,” to further understand why this is the [...]

By: Apple’s iTV and the implications of what Steve said | iPhone Developers

Mon, 13 Feb 2012 20:29:46 +0000

[...] You guessed it; the cable and satellite providers. Why? Because as noted venture capitalist Bill Gurley sagely pointed out, “When it Comes to Television Content, Affiliate Fees Make the World Go ‘Round.” [...]

By: » Join the protest against SOPA/PIPA n0tice

» Join the protest against SOPA/PIPA n0tice — Mon, 16 Jan 2012 15:47:44 +0000

[...] As Bill Gurley notes, the big media businesses will fight hard to protect the stability of their value chains. For example, affiliate fee revenue at companies like Viacom and Disney is $1.5B and $2.0B respectively. Reductions in affiliate revenue at the corporate level will mean reductions in fees paid out to creative people. That’s not good. [...]

By: Brian Hayashi (@connectme)

Brian Hayashi (@connectme) — Thu, 29 Dec 2011 20:25:48 +0000

The big insight that I get here is that an increasingly vocal audience is responding reflexively to what they view as an unfair profit, whether it’s a carrier, studio, or even the actors themselves. (And when they say unfair, I get the feeling that if you have more than the commenter does, then that’s unfair.) I suspect many won’t really understand things unless they actually make the leap from passivity to having some skin in the game. After all:

“Tragedy is when I cut my finger. Comedy is when you walk into an open sewer and die.”

By: Dish TV India Analysis- Bright Future ?? | amitkumarblog

Dish TV India Analysis- Bright Future ?? | amitkumarblog — Mon, 26 Dec 2011 10:50:48 +0000

[...] http://abovethecrowd.com/2010/04/28/affiliate-fees-make-the-world-go-round/ [...]

By: ENS

ENS — Sat, 24 Dec 2011 01:20:57 +0000

The central pivot of your argument is that theft is just something we’ll have to learn to accept. It’s not only something that is happening but it’s a “rite of passage” == cool. Would you walk into a 7-11 and steal a candy bar? You probably would not. If you would, we, as a society, have people to arrest you for breaking a societal law. Society has not decided that copyright laws – whether easy or hard to break – are ok to violate. Societally we value the idea that people should be paid for the ideas they create. We have extensive laws to insure that those ideas – whether highly valued by the market or not – are not stolen. Laws are laws and breaking them with code or a crow bar are the same thing. Dressing up that law breaking with the term “disruption” or “innovation” or “inevitable” does not make it less of a crime. You argued about the disruptive nature of technology in its ability to lower the cost of productions. But cost has nothing to do with this. If someone can produce a great film using handheld cameras and it costs them 20K to make and they make $200M, that’s not an excuse to violate the law and steal from them. The market – derivative from the laws we create to protect it – will dictate what the revenue and profit is from creative work – regardless of the cost that went in to creating that work. How much “cost” goes into making an Andreas Gursky photo? Should that have any bearing on how much the art sells for? If we don’t protect creative work, then we will not have financial incentives for it to be created and the results are predictable.

Lastly, I don’t understand the argument about different monetization models. The model by which copyrighted product is monetized is a completely orthogonal topic to whether or not copyright laws are good laws and should be enforced. If content is easily stolen and we don’t enforce laws against doing so, supply will be glutted and prices will fall – in most any monetization model.

If thought leaders make it acceptable to steal ideas (call them bits if you want), then we are undermining an age old copyright system that we have societally deemed necessary. If and when we, as a society, change those laws then it won’t be theft. Until then, it’s theft no matter what you call it.

By: LIVEdigitally » The Dirty Little Secret of The Future of TV: Data [Guest Post]

Tue, 20 Dec 2011 19:06:42 +0000

[...] all of its various incarnations, but let’s not forget content rights, content cost structures, and the economic realities of unbundling. It’s not as simple as cracking a new navigational paradigm for on-demand video or acquiring more [...]

By: Understanding Why Netflix Changed Pricing | My Blog

Understanding Why Netflix Changed Pricing | My Blog — Mon, 21 Nov 2011 15:37:45 +0000

[...] Valley leaves we ill-prepared to know what creates Hollywood parasite (for some-more on this see: When It Comes To Television Content, Affiliate Fees Make The World Go ‘Round). Very few people know a pivotal underpinning of a Netflix “original” business indication — a [...]