homerbr
12-30-2004, 11:32 AM
So you missed your favorite TV show last night. If you want to see it you have the option of either waiting for weeks to catch a rerun or just download the episode via P2P (Peer to Peer) software. What difference does it really make if you download the program rather than watch it on TV?
The success of a TV program is not directly based on quality but whether it attracts enough viewers that the network can make the desired level of profit from advertising revenue. The price the network charges to air a commercial is based on the shows TV viewer ratings. The price increases as the number of viewers increase so by watching programs on TV we are adding value to the networks product.
The important difference with the downloaded episode is that the commercials are always removed. When the ad-free episode is viewed we are circumventing the process that is responsible for the creation, success and continuation of the TV programs we enjoy.
This is not healthy if we want American TV to continue as it is today. If most people downloaded episodes then the viewer ratings would drop and network revenue would decrease so they would be reluctant to pay as much for the episodes. Special effects would suffer; there would not be the budget to fund them. You might be less apt to find popular movie actors in TV programs; they would not want the cut in pay. After the actors in a successful series have completed their initial contract they negotiate a higher salary than they were initially paid. The TV shows we like cost money, lots of it. If the revenue from advertisers was low the network would not pay the high salaries demanded by such talents as Ray Romano and Kelsey Grammer who were both paid over $1.5 million per episode. After 4 or 5 years in a series the actors are often tired of it and are ready to move on except for the large amounts of money they make. How many seasons would Seinfeld or Home Improvement have lasted if the stars hadn’t received enough pay to bribe them to overcome their frequently expressed boredom with their shows? Would Stargate SG-1 be so popular if their budget was set low enough that special effects were of a quality comparable to the original Star Trek?
A significant drop in TV viewer ratings will impact American television greatly. With a much lower budget per episode TV shows would be different than they are today. For instance a TV show may be more apt to star unknown actors since they don’t require the pay necessary to attract big name stars; but unknown doesn’t mean less talented. Since there won’t be as much financial incentive for actors to stay with a series once they get tired with it, a series will likely not last as long as they do now; but there is a certain appeal to a series going out on a high note rather then decreasing in quality and viewers until eventually it gets cancelled. TV shows will have less spectacular special effects; but with less glitz they will hopefully focus more on character development and episode quality. American Television could more closely resemble British television.
The popularity of downloading TV episodes on P2P today is growing each day. According to the British Web analysis firm CacheLogic, Bittorrent traffic accounts for 35 percent of global bandwidth usage. The MPAA (Motion Picture Association of America) lawsuits have brought attention to the availability of easy to download free TV episodes and movies so now more people than ever are learning to access P2P. These lawsuits are hurting rather then helping the industry as the number of people who watch TV episodes on the network will dwindle to some degree just as it occurred in the music industry when the general public became aware of Napster through the RIAA (Recording Industry Association of America) lawsuit and of the ease in which they could download free music. Unless the movie industry eliminates the P2P threat the download of TV shows and movies will increase and the number of people who view the episodes on TV (who watch the ads and increase the TV ratings) will drop correspondingly. The movie industry appears to be desperate as they are losing control over their product and they are taking an ill-advised response of intimidation and legal action. It is doubtful that they will succeed in reversing the trend of P2P downloading even if they win their lawsuits. Relocating Bittorent sites and trackers to countries not signatories to either of the two global copyright treaties the US belongs to (Universal Copyright Convention and the Berne Convention) seems to be an obvious defense to render the MPAA crackdown impotent. The MPAA were within their rights to initiate lawsuits but they failed to consider how it would damage their image. When the American public sees a large corporate entity attack they tend to side with the ‘underdog’ irregardless of the facts like when the RIAA sued a 12 year old girl that was guilty of downloading copyrighted music. Both the RIAA and the MPAA seem to be viewed by the public as evil giants out to get the little guy who just wants to watch a show or listen to a song.
If you fight a poorly chosen battle even if you win it can cost you the war. The TV industry is making a big mistake. P2P is too widespread and powerful to attack directly and win. They need to take control of the situation and make P2P irrelevant. The only way for the networks to succeed in the long run is to embrace internet delivery of TV Episodes and provide the shows we want to watch to us themselves. Why don’t they stream TV episodes (commercials included) on the website after the program has aired on TV? They could make it so that viewers are unable to skip commercials. Then they will be making their money and they will be keeping many people from being lured to P2P by providing an easy and legal alternative. The diehards will still download via P2P no matter what but the general public wants convenience and ease of use. Most people would not bother to download TV episodes if they could go to the network website and have their choice of the latest episodes streamed to their computer for free. The convenience is worth enduring commercials. With internet delivery the networks would have a large enough audience to charge advertisers enough to prevent the loss in revenue feared. There is a potential to increase the number of viewers for their TV programs online. People might watch more TV shows on the computer if the older as well as current episodes of the shows we like were available to watch on demand. More viewers increase ratings which means increased advertising revenue, how could they lose?
I welcome feedback. If you would prefer to comment or reply via email my email address is robert13@hotpop.com
Homer Brown
robert13@hotpop.com
The success of a TV program is not directly based on quality but whether it attracts enough viewers that the network can make the desired level of profit from advertising revenue. The price the network charges to air a commercial is based on the shows TV viewer ratings. The price increases as the number of viewers increase so by watching programs on TV we are adding value to the networks product.
The important difference with the downloaded episode is that the commercials are always removed. When the ad-free episode is viewed we are circumventing the process that is responsible for the creation, success and continuation of the TV programs we enjoy.
This is not healthy if we want American TV to continue as it is today. If most people downloaded episodes then the viewer ratings would drop and network revenue would decrease so they would be reluctant to pay as much for the episodes. Special effects would suffer; there would not be the budget to fund them. You might be less apt to find popular movie actors in TV programs; they would not want the cut in pay. After the actors in a successful series have completed their initial contract they negotiate a higher salary than they were initially paid. The TV shows we like cost money, lots of it. If the revenue from advertisers was low the network would not pay the high salaries demanded by such talents as Ray Romano and Kelsey Grammer who were both paid over $1.5 million per episode. After 4 or 5 years in a series the actors are often tired of it and are ready to move on except for the large amounts of money they make. How many seasons would Seinfeld or Home Improvement have lasted if the stars hadn’t received enough pay to bribe them to overcome their frequently expressed boredom with their shows? Would Stargate SG-1 be so popular if their budget was set low enough that special effects were of a quality comparable to the original Star Trek?
A significant drop in TV viewer ratings will impact American television greatly. With a much lower budget per episode TV shows would be different than they are today. For instance a TV show may be more apt to star unknown actors since they don’t require the pay necessary to attract big name stars; but unknown doesn’t mean less talented. Since there won’t be as much financial incentive for actors to stay with a series once they get tired with it, a series will likely not last as long as they do now; but there is a certain appeal to a series going out on a high note rather then decreasing in quality and viewers until eventually it gets cancelled. TV shows will have less spectacular special effects; but with less glitz they will hopefully focus more on character development and episode quality. American Television could more closely resemble British television.
The popularity of downloading TV episodes on P2P today is growing each day. According to the British Web analysis firm CacheLogic, Bittorrent traffic accounts for 35 percent of global bandwidth usage. The MPAA (Motion Picture Association of America) lawsuits have brought attention to the availability of easy to download free TV episodes and movies so now more people than ever are learning to access P2P. These lawsuits are hurting rather then helping the industry as the number of people who watch TV episodes on the network will dwindle to some degree just as it occurred in the music industry when the general public became aware of Napster through the RIAA (Recording Industry Association of America) lawsuit and of the ease in which they could download free music. Unless the movie industry eliminates the P2P threat the download of TV shows and movies will increase and the number of people who view the episodes on TV (who watch the ads and increase the TV ratings) will drop correspondingly. The movie industry appears to be desperate as they are losing control over their product and they are taking an ill-advised response of intimidation and legal action. It is doubtful that they will succeed in reversing the trend of P2P downloading even if they win their lawsuits. Relocating Bittorent sites and trackers to countries not signatories to either of the two global copyright treaties the US belongs to (Universal Copyright Convention and the Berne Convention) seems to be an obvious defense to render the MPAA crackdown impotent. The MPAA were within their rights to initiate lawsuits but they failed to consider how it would damage their image. When the American public sees a large corporate entity attack they tend to side with the ‘underdog’ irregardless of the facts like when the RIAA sued a 12 year old girl that was guilty of downloading copyrighted music. Both the RIAA and the MPAA seem to be viewed by the public as evil giants out to get the little guy who just wants to watch a show or listen to a song.
If you fight a poorly chosen battle even if you win it can cost you the war. The TV industry is making a big mistake. P2P is too widespread and powerful to attack directly and win. They need to take control of the situation and make P2P irrelevant. The only way for the networks to succeed in the long run is to embrace internet delivery of TV Episodes and provide the shows we want to watch to us themselves. Why don’t they stream TV episodes (commercials included) on the website after the program has aired on TV? They could make it so that viewers are unable to skip commercials. Then they will be making their money and they will be keeping many people from being lured to P2P by providing an easy and legal alternative. The diehards will still download via P2P no matter what but the general public wants convenience and ease of use. Most people would not bother to download TV episodes if they could go to the network website and have their choice of the latest episodes streamed to their computer for free. The convenience is worth enduring commercials. With internet delivery the networks would have a large enough audience to charge advertisers enough to prevent the loss in revenue feared. There is a potential to increase the number of viewers for their TV programs online. People might watch more TV shows on the computer if the older as well as current episodes of the shows we like were available to watch on demand. More viewers increase ratings which means increased advertising revenue, how could they lose?
I welcome feedback. If you would prefer to comment or reply via email my email address is robert13@hotpop.com
Homer Brown
robert13@hotpop.com