They will. The strategy behind the freemium business model is that you give something away for free, then you upsell, charging for premium content or special features or services. Businesses that provide content have to think about what they can offer as a premium, because people will pay once they trust you, you've got them hooked, and they enjoy what you've given them for free. Just look at the success of Radiohead. Though we don't know the actual numbers on the version of In Rainbows that they gave away for free, we do know that the album was number one and that it did well again when the paid version became available. Thom Yorke claims that the band made more money on this album than they had on other albums that were backed by studios. So there just may be something to this freemium strategy after all.
Absolutely. First of all, not everything is available (legally) online yet. Nor is the experience of watching cable programming on one's laptop that enjoyable yet either. Streaming popular programming can only help cable networks with additional revenue from more advertising and can attract a larger audience base.
Yep. Completely agree with Rachel. Until more shows become available online, and the user experience of watching them on a laptop is more enjoyable, those who have cable will continue to pay for it. Those who don't have cable may watch the occasional show online but this will not be in place of purchasing cable, at least not yet.
At this point, watching TV on the internet is still too much of a hassle. Yet, if cable prices continue to rise at such a quick pace (up 77% since '96, according to NYTimes), why would you?
Interestingly, Comcast owns a few sites like fancast.com, where you can watch "The Daily Show" and others for free. And for Comcast, video-on-demand has increased traffic on its traditional channels. Time Warner, on the other hand, has not been so lucky and is outraged by the dissemination of free content. So this is definitely an issue we should pay attention to--a battle is coming, and hopefully cable companies have learned from the music industry.
Some people will keep paying for cable even if they can get some shows free of charge because they won't be able to get other shows that they value. Similarly, some people will be content with whatever limited content or number of programs they get free, and won't buy a higher-premium package no matter what. After all, people spend money because they believe they are getting more value for that money than the amount they spend.
Yes, for a couple reasons. First, not every show is available online or for free online. Second, viewing movies or television shows online has yet to go mainstream. Early adopters are most likely the majority users right now. Most of the people I know do not use the internet for much more than shopping and email, let alone watching cable shows.
Yes. Watching TV online may be convenient in that you can watch it anywhere (bathroom), but as Rip said, it still is a too much of a hassle. And I don’t think people will easily give up the simple act of turning on TV for waiting for your computer to boot and searching for the shows on a network’s website.
No. The TV/Internet divide will melt away. People will pay for a fast cable connection, but not for programming. They will watch the internet, in HD, on their Tvs. Hulu.com is a major step in what is an unstoppable trend toward this.
If all people want in their lives is The Daily Show, then yes, but most people want much more variety than that PLUS it is a lot easier to change channels on TV than find the same show on the computer. Besides my TV screen is much larger and easier to share with my family.
Yes, I will gladly continue to pay for cable. With all the potential internet connection problems i wouldn't want to have to deal with a faulty connection when the season finale of my favorite network show is about to start!
Yes. People will continue to pay for cable. There are some early adopters that are moving on without cable but I don't think that's anywhere close to the norm. TV still has a strong grip on our culture. PVR and tv on the web are starting to return control of people's time. The allure of cable is the lack of activity it requires on the audience. You just sit there and take it. As people grow to want to do more that will change - but for now people are more than happy to tune in and tune out.
Yes, especially topical programs like The Daily Show, sports, event-based entertainment, etc. instead of waiting for them to become available online. However, the way in which people consume TV shows will change, as more viewers time-shift programming to fit their schedules with DVR's, and fast-forward through commercials.
1. Not enough choice of [trashy] programs online as there is with cable. Perhaps also lack of teasers which would otherwise lure viewers to shows online.
2. We are too lazy to search for shows. Once programs are all accessible with one touch online, as they are with the tv remote, people may be more likely to turn to online television rather than traditional cable.
3. Streaming not dependable enough. When our internet provider can GUARANTEE that we will get dependable and fast service all the time, (Time-Warner, you guys are not a company of your word in this department) then people might cut the cable and hit the internet for television shows.
people will pay for it a little while longer, mostly because of HD content... but, the cable tv business model will need to change fast. bundling up ALL those crappy channels and shows is a waste and people are tired of it. especially when you can watch only the shows you want when you want. all you need is a computer (mac mini) or apple tv in your living room.
Some people will not necessarily know about the options. Others will be happy with the current arrangement (know in the market as consumer inertia) others will assume that online shows will be of the same quality (Which of course it will not) currently it takes longer to down load/stream a film than to watch it. Free nothing is for free. The money has to come from somewhere. However free content will change the market and end users will end up with less [choice] & or [quality] in the end. But they will probably pay the same for less quality.
The days of cable TV are numbered...as are video stores. Streaming online content will only get better (speed, reliability, content). Revenue will have to be earned via advertising and possibly product sales like T's, caps, cups. It's already begun.
I believe that people are going to pay for cable. firstly its convinient for them to watch it on TV or TIVO. Secondly the internet and cable bill doesnt make much of a difference if you look at it.Thirdly and most important point being that one has to depend upon one's computer/internet knowledge for searching such programmes
(in short they have to be computer geeks).
Money is becoming tight. Internet offers infinitely more and will get even faster. Cable will find ways to merge with the internet for certain. The bureaucratic old system will suffer.
Personally, I like the competition between cable and the new medium, whether it's on-line or not. What I will pay for is a basic package that provides the kinds of channel selections I like instead of the 100 channels I whiz by. Cable will innovate but so will the on-line mediums. Not sure about satelite dish at this point, but every generation has a new toy that is bigger and better than the last. I remember getting basic cable with only 13 channels. Now there are a ton. Networks will rise and fall but those of us who demand to be entertained may have to be internetained in the future. Comedy Central\'s The Daily Show and the Cobert Report are my primary sources for news and I find it supremely more engaging and entertaining than the networks who tell us what the news is. When my local news and weather fail, I'll be in trouble so whoever provides the basics will be my choice. And in the words of the Great Neo from the "Matrix" movies, therein lies the problem - choice!
Cable is the only reason people still pay for TV. The major networks are slowly adding their shows for online content, ABC is leading the way. Cable shows like The Daily Show or Real Time with Bill Maher are finding their way online but if you watch ESPN, HGTV, Discovery... you are stuck paying for at least 180 channels when you only watch five to ten at the most.
It depends on whether the tech industry developes more user friendly means to watch internet programing on our TV's. The best I have seen yet is a Wii that my brother owns. As long as you don't mind having to hunt for the programs using the wand. My grandmother can't figure out how to use it though, and like most people that age she doesn't want to. She would rather pay for cable. She knows what she wants to watch, when she wants to watch and where she wants to watch. She is not considering the cost, just the convience. Given the option for myself, I will continue to pay for cable because I don't want to hunt for programing and deal with web streaming that can be choppy.
Actually I gave up cable years ago because of terrible customer service, billing errors and bad back office operations. And have been using on-line access since then for the limited programs I want to watch. There's a multiple set of major wars brewing in the technomediatainment industry not least of which is the bandwidth and fatpipe wars between phone and cable providers as well as the exponentiating content wars. The latter will be about the 4A's- Anyplace,..time...,...way and ...device/thing. Right now cable turns out to have competed against phones on adding phone-like services but hasn't the bandwidth to support HD let alone provide widespread online access. Verizon may be onto something. If you'd like some more detail too rather lengthy and not too technical business discussions are blog posts..with graphics and everything. Part 1: http://tinyurl.com/6gwtnq and Part 2: http://tinyurl.com/5szata FWIW.
23 Total
June 4, 2008 at 9:10am by Lynne d Johnson
They will. The strategy behind the freemium business model is that you give something away for free, then you upsell, charging for premium content or special features or services. Businesses that provide content have to think about what they can offer as a premium, because people will pay once they trust you, you've got them hooked, and they enjoy what you've given them for free. Just look at the success of Radiohead. Though we don't know the actual numbers on the version of In Rainbows that they gave away for free, we do know that the album was number one and that it did well again when the paid version became available. Thom Yorke claims that the band made more money on this album than they had on other albums that were backed by studios. So there just may be something to this freemium strategy after all.
June 4, 2008 at 11:31am by Rachel King
Absolutely. First of all, not everything is available (legally) online yet. Nor is the experience of watching cable programming on one's laptop that enjoyable yet either. Streaming popular programming can only help cable networks with additional revenue from more advertising and can attract a larger audience base.
June 4, 2008 at 11:33am by Tyler Adams
Yep. Completely agree with Rachel. Until more shows become available online, and the user experience of watching them on a laptop is more enjoyable, those who have cable will continue to pay for it. Those who don't have cable may watch the occasional show online but this will not be in place of purchasing cable, at least not yet.
June 4, 2008 at 11:43am by Rip Empson
At this point, watching TV on the internet is still too much of a hassle. Yet, if cable prices continue to rise at such a quick pace (up 77% since '96, according to NYTimes), why would you?
Interestingly, Comcast owns a few sites like fancast.com, where you can watch "The Daily Show" and others for free. And for Comcast, video-on-demand has increased traffic on its traditional channels. Time Warner, on the other hand, has not been so lucky and is outraged by the dissemination of free content. So this is definitely an issue we should pay attention to--a battle is coming, and hopefully cable companies have learned from the music industry.
June 4, 2008 at 11:45am by Dan Schneider
No, as you can tell my the TV ratings. People are tuning out and turning on the computers.
June 4, 2008 at 11:48am by Carel Two-Eagle
Some people will keep paying for cable even if they can get some shows free of charge because they won't be able to get other shows that they value. Similarly, some people will be content with whatever limited content or number of programs they get free, and won't buy a higher-premium package no matter what. After all, people spend money because they believe they are getting more value for that money than the amount they spend.
June 4, 2008 at 12:18pm by Steven Heath
Yes, for a couple reasons. First, not every show is available online or for free online. Second, viewing movies or television shows online has yet to go mainstream. Early adopters are most likely the majority users right now. Most of the people I know do not use the internet for much more than shopping and email, let alone watching cable shows.
June 4, 2008 at 12:31pm by Haewon Kye
Yes. Watching TV online may be convenient in that you can watch it anywhere (bathroom), but as Rip said, it still is a too much of a hassle. And I don’t think people will easily give up the simple act of turning on TV for waiting for your computer to boot and searching for the shows on a network’s website.
June 4, 2008 at 12:45pm by Edward Sussman
No. The TV/Internet divide will melt away. People will pay for a fast cable connection, but not for programming. They will watch the internet, in HD, on their Tvs. Hulu.com is a major step in what is an unstoppable trend toward this.
June 4, 2008 at 12:57pm by David Gibson
If all people want in their lives is The Daily Show, then yes, but most people want much more variety than that PLUS it is a lot easier to change channels on TV than find the same show on the computer. Besides my TV screen is much larger and easier to share with my family.
June 4, 2008 at 2:08pm by Kelly Brent
Yes, I will gladly continue to pay for cable. With all the potential internet connection problems i wouldn't want to have to deal with a faulty connection when the season finale of my favorite network show is about to start!
June 4, 2008 at 2:48pm by Shaun Bala
Yes. People will continue to pay for cable. There are some early adopters that are moving on without cable but I don't think that's anywhere close to the norm. TV still has a strong grip on our culture. PVR and tv on the web are starting to return control of people's time. The allure of cable is the lack of activity it requires on the audience. You just sit there and take it. As people grow to want to do more that will change - but for now people are more than happy to tune in and tune out.
June 4, 2008 at 3:02pm by David Glicksman
Yes, especially topical programs like The Daily Show, sports, event-based entertainment, etc. instead of waiting for them to become available online. However, the way in which people consume TV shows will change, as more viewers time-shift programming to fit their schedules with DVR's, and fast-forward through commercials.
June 4, 2008 at 3:14pm by Erika Schneider
Three things:
1. Not enough choice of [trashy] programs online as there is with cable. Perhaps also lack of teasers which would otherwise lure viewers to shows online.
2. We are too lazy to search for shows. Once programs are all accessible with one touch online, as they are with the tv remote, people may be more likely to turn to online television rather than traditional cable.
3. Streaming not dependable enough. When our internet provider can GUARANTEE that we will get dependable and fast service all the time, (Time-Warner, you guys are not a company of your word in this department) then people might cut the cable and hit the internet for television shows.
June 4, 2008 at 3:31pm by justin powell
people will pay for it a little while longer, mostly because of HD content... but, the cable tv business model will need to change fast. bundling up ALL those crappy channels and shows is a waste and people are tired of it. especially when you can watch only the shows you want when you want. all you need is a computer (mac mini) or apple tv in your living room.
http://justinpowelldesign.com/blog/2007/12/world-wide-tv/
June 4, 2008 at 4:51pm by Robert Mackintosh
Some people will not necessarily know about the options. Others will be happy with the current arrangement (know in the market as consumer inertia) others will assume that online shows will be of the same quality (Which of course it will not) currently it takes longer to down load/stream a film than to watch it. Free nothing is for free. The money has to come from somewhere. However free content will change the market and end users will end up with less [choice] & or [quality] in the end. But they will probably pay the same for less quality.
June 4, 2008 at 7:41pm by Kevin Royes
The days of cable TV are numbered...as are video stores. Streaming online content will only get better (speed, reliability, content). Revenue will have to be earned via advertising and possibly product sales like T's, caps, cups. It's already begun.
June 5, 2008 at 4:56am by steven hyde
I believe that people are going to pay for cable. firstly its convinient for them to watch it on TV or TIVO. Secondly the internet and cable bill doesnt make much of a difference if you look at it.Thirdly and most important point being that one has to depend upon one's computer/internet knowledge for searching such programmes
(in short they have to be computer geeks).
June 5, 2008 at 3:07pm by mohan menon
Money is becoming tight. Internet offers infinitely more and will get even faster. Cable will find ways to merge with the internet for certain. The bureaucratic old system will suffer.
June 5, 2008 at 4:05pm by Jay Tatum
Personally, I like the competition between cable and the new medium, whether it's on-line or not. What I will pay for is a basic package that provides the kinds of channel selections I like instead of the 100 channels I whiz by. Cable will innovate but so will the on-line mediums. Not sure about satelite dish at this point, but every generation has a new toy that is bigger and better than the last. I remember getting basic cable with only 13 channels. Now there are a ton. Networks will rise and fall but those of us who demand to be entertained may have to be internetained in the future. Comedy Central\'s The Daily Show and the Cobert Report are my primary sources for news and I find it supremely more engaging and entertaining than the networks who tell us what the news is. When my local news and weather fail, I'll be in trouble so whoever provides the basics will be my choice. And in the words of the Great Neo from the "Matrix" movies, therein lies the problem - choice!
June 5, 2008 at 7:29pm by Shakiara Kitchen
Cable is the only reason people still pay for TV. The major networks are slowly adding their shows for online content, ABC is leading the way. Cable shows like The Daily Show or Real Time with Bill Maher are finding their way online but if you watch ESPN, HGTV, Discovery... you are stuck paying for at least 180 channels when you only watch five to ten at the most.
June 6, 2008 at 9:45am by Megan DaGata
It depends on whether the tech industry developes more user friendly means to watch internet programing on our TV's. The best I have seen yet is a Wii that my brother owns. As long as you don't mind having to hunt for the programs using the wand. My grandmother can't figure out how to use it though, and like most people that age she doesn't want to. She would rather pay for cable. She knows what she wants to watch, when she wants to watch and where she wants to watch. She is not considering the cost, just the convience. Given the option for myself, I will continue to pay for cable because I don't want to hunt for programing and deal with web streaming that can be choppy.
June 6, 2008 at 11:46am by Dave Livingston
Actually I gave up cable years ago because of terrible customer service, billing errors and bad back office operations. And have been using on-line access since then for the limited programs I want to watch. There's a multiple set of major wars brewing in the technomediatainment industry not least of which is the bandwidth and fatpipe wars between phone and cable providers as well as the exponentiating content wars. The latter will be about the 4A's- Anyplace,..time...,...way and ...device/thing. Right now cable turns out to have competed against phones on adding phone-like services but hasn't the bandwidth to support HD let alone provide widespread online access. Verizon may be onto something. If you'd like some more detail too rather lengthy and not too technical business discussions are blog posts..with graphics and everything. Part 1: http://tinyurl.com/6gwtnq and Part 2: http://tinyurl.com/5szata FWIW.