Tuesday, February 17, 2009
New media has unlimited shelf space
Listening to today's hearings at the CRTC's new media proceeding, I heard a number of complaints that Canadian broadcasters weren't being helpful enough in developing new media for distribution on the internet.
The sense I got was that today's witnesses felt that not enough broadcasters were interested in acquiring internet distribution rights for Canadian programs or the broadcasters weren't interested in working with the creators to develop interactive programming.
I was left wondering why distribution would be limited to websites controlled by the broadcasters. Why aren't creators developing their own platforms to attract viewers to lay claim to advertising revenues or sell content through global content aggregators?
The internet creates an opportunity to bypass the traditional broadcasting system. A limited number of channels with a finite number of hours in a day imposed a cap on the ability for creators to reach their audience.
No such limits exist in an internet world. As the Chair pointed out in one of his questions before lunch, there is unlimited shelf space in an internet world. No bottlenecks; no gatekeepers.
In this morning's opening remarks, the Chairman asked:
One of the presenters this morning said that their polling indicates that Canadian's support ISPs and WSPs paying into a fund to support Canadian content. Would support be as high if Canadians were asked if they want their own internet and wireless bills to increase by 3%?
Technorati Tags:
new media, CRTC
The sense I got was that today's witnesses felt that not enough broadcasters were interested in acquiring internet distribution rights for Canadian programs or the broadcasters weren't interested in working with the creators to develop interactive programming.
I was left wondering why distribution would be limited to websites controlled by the broadcasters. Why aren't creators developing their own platforms to attract viewers to lay claim to advertising revenues or sell content through global content aggregators?
The internet creates an opportunity to bypass the traditional broadcasting system. A limited number of channels with a finite number of hours in a day imposed a cap on the ability for creators to reach their audience.
No such limits exist in an internet world. As the Chair pointed out in one of his questions before lunch, there is unlimited shelf space in an internet world. No bottlenecks; no gatekeepers.
In this morning's opening remarks, the Chairman asked:
Are measures needed to support the promotion and visibility of Canadian broadcasting content in New Media?Is it really just about money?
One of the presenters this morning said that their polling indicates that Canadian's support ISPs and WSPs paying into a fund to support Canadian content. Would support be as high if Canadians were asked if they want their own internet and wireless bills to increase by 3%?
Technorati Tags:
new media, CRTC
Posted by Mark Goldberg @ 2/17/2009 03:22:00 PM 
Comments:
<< Home
Something that comes to mind regarding the New Media issue that that even if broadcasters pick up Internet distribution rights, the present caps that ISPs are imposing on consumer bandwidth transactions might cause consumers to more broadly start feeling the 'bite' of streaming HD content. While I appreciate that the CRTC proceeding isn't meant to address this neighbouring issue, I wonder if those who push for Internet distribution are aware of what the consequence of shifting to digital distribution systems may mean for end consumers...
As for your larger point of 'why don't content producers bypass existing broadcast mediums', I think that we'll start to see more and more of this as time goes on. What is required are some big names to take this up - Whedon, in the US, is running this way, as are a few others. I think that the industry is playing a wait and see game, wanting others to risk their IP before trying to bypass broadcasters themselves. Maybe in a few years this will be more widely pursued means of distributing content by content producers?
As for your larger point of 'why don't content producers bypass existing broadcast mediums', I think that we'll start to see more and more of this as time goes on. What is required are some big names to take this up - Whedon, in the US, is running this way, as are a few others. I think that the industry is playing a wait and see game, wanting others to risk their IP before trying to bypass broadcasters themselves. Maybe in a few years this will be more widely pursued means of distributing content by content producers?
Posted by 
: 6:06 PM, February 17, 2009
: 6:06 PM, February 17, 2009
I was left wondering why distribution would be limited to websites controlled by the broadcasters.
Generally, because traditional media rights are much more valuable than new media rights (which cost very little). Broadcasters typically require rights in all media, not just traditional media. The sellers of those rights are in an unequal bargaining position, and unable to refuse.
As should be obvious, the vendors of those new media rights would dearly like to hold them back and deal them to someone else. Usually, though, they can't.
The U.K. has addressed this problem through terms of trade that address this imbalance of bargaining power, including a use it or lose it clause. This has enabled much broader exploitation of new media rights, which need no longer sit on traditional broadcasters' shelves.
Generally, because traditional media rights are much more valuable than new media rights (which cost very little). Broadcasters typically require rights in all media, not just traditional media. The sellers of those rights are in an unequal bargaining position, and unable to refuse.
As should be obvious, the vendors of those new media rights would dearly like to hold them back and deal them to someone else. Usually, though, they can't.
The U.K. has addressed this problem through terms of trade that address this imbalance of bargaining power, including a use it or lose it clause. This has enabled much broader exploitation of new media rights, which need no longer sit on traditional broadcasters' shelves.
Posted by : 6:17 PM, February 17, 2009
: 6:17 PM, February 17, 2009
To Anon [6:17pm] I think you missed the first part of my comment that raised the question of wondering: The sense I got was that today's witnesses felt that not enough broadcasters were interested in acquiring internet distribution rights for Canadian programs or the broadcasters weren't interested in working with the creators to develop interactive programming.
This is what the witnesses said. They were saying that the traditional media folks weren't interested in the new media rights, so their content wasn't getting any pick-up.
This is what the witnesses said. They were saying that the traditional media folks weren't interested in the new media rights, so their content wasn't getting any pick-up.
Posted by 
Mark Goldberg : 6:24 PM, February 17, 2009
Mark Goldberg : 6:24 PM, February 17, 2009
No, I read your comments, and listened to the presentations. What they said was that the broadcasters are not interested in using these new media rights. They buy them, because the cost is very small, and because it prevents a competitor from doing anything with them. But then they don't use them. That is why what each of the interveners proposed was a "use it or lose it" clause.
Posted by : 8:30 PM, February 17, 2009
: 8:30 PM, February 17, 2009
New media has unlimited shelf space - this is a key. It means than microeconomic doesn’t work in digital era. If you put it into standard Demand and Supply rule, you could find that with unlimited supply the product price is zero! But any puzzle could be solved, if you are SMART !
Post a Comment
Posted by : 10:01 AM, February 18, 2009
: 10:01 AM, February 18, 2009 << Home
Syndicate
