This News Corp/NBC Thing

Lot's of chatter on the tech blogs about this new NBC/News Corp thing that was announced today. I am thrilled that two of the four major TV networks recognize the power of web video and are making their content available for viewing on the web (and embedding on this blog?).

But like all things, let me get my hands on it. Let me run SNL on my blog. Let me see how easy it is to do that.

If it's as easy as YouTube, then they've got a winner on their hands.

I bet it won't be.

Comments

[Andy Swan]

“Anyone who believes in the value of ubiquitous distribution will find this announcement incredibly exciting,” said Jeff Zucker, President and CEO of NBC Universal

Those dudes that sold YouTube are looking like they caught the exact top more and more every day. Awesome story.

Google hasn't done much right since Adwords/Adsense....

[Preston]

The ability to post on another blog drives that viral phenomenon. Post-ability will make some people famous and others not. It will drive creative, unique, and quality content. Like you say, I hope this opens up big-time.

[gzino]

Similar announcement - last winter in Barcelona at 3GSM, the big news was the big (mostly international) mobile players had agreed on a set of standards and were going to co-develop and launch a mobile IM client. It would kill the Y!, AOL, etc. handset versions. This winter, the largest mobile players quietly admitted that they were going to market with various third party IM solutions. I knew the mobile carriers had no shot, as did most of the other non telco DNA people at the show. Big media has a better chance, but how much better? How much innovation have we seen from any of them individually? It will be that much harder collaboratively. And (theoretically) they only start to catch up this summer, only start to learn first hand exactly what they're playing with. Google won't stop learning and innovating in the meantime...

[Dan Buell]

I think you pegged it Fred...

[tomo]

The boys in Mt View are still chuckling over Terry Semel's pipe dream of Lloyd Braun floating in with his pie in the sky plan for the convergence of hollywood and silicon valley to form the basis of the turnaround plan for Yahoo.

[Rob Deichert]

One big challenge of anything snaggable is where it's being placed. Wrap it with an ad and you've got a potential for negative reactions if snagged content shows up next to controversial content.

[TheBillfold]

This could work as soon as they hack it and you can get any episode of any show free, without ads, and on-demand. that’d be da bomb.

[Marc]

Hi Fred- I'll take up that bet! Check your email.

- Marc

[James Nicholson]

I'm not convinced it's all that hard at this point to create a clean YouTube-like interface. There are plenty of start-ups who have done it.

Can the big boys screw this one up? Sure. But they don't have to reinvent the wheel. Copy YouTube's interface, put up more compelling content, and you've got a winner.

[jeremy]

while you are on the youtube subject. in regards to the viacom lawsuit, i think its ironic that the videos removed from youtube are still on google video.

[Grand Egress]

funny. all the talk about how youtube and google have so utterly nailed it ergo the futility of new entrants' efforts reminds me of nothing more than all the talk a few years back about how altavista, yahoo and others had so utterly nailed search ergo the futility of new entrants' efforts.

the stakes are so very very very big vis a vis music and film/TV distribution that we are definitely in the 1st inning of a 9,999,999,999.9 inning game

[Rob Long]

I have to agree with James. As much as I hate to admit it -- I've been working in the entertainment business for years, and have seen the laziness and stupidity and downright criminial wastefulness of most of these companies up close (not that I wasn't grateful for it a lot of the time!) -- this agreement accomplishes three key things.

One, because it's expensive and represents a large financial commitment, it sets the stage for a lot of cross-studio parterships. Whatever the eventual "thing" becomes -- and whatever it is, it's going to get modified and changed and end up something totally different from what they're talking about now -- it's at least an attempt to set the table for a lot of complicated and hard-to-wrangle deals between producers (like me), studios, and networks about who gets paid what, which, believe me, is what's been holding them back from any kind of innovation for a long time. The Hollywood economic model is a lot like the 1980 Subaru station wagon I drove to LA from Boston in back in 1989 -- it worked, it got me there, but don't fiddle with it because who knows exactly how it's held together. It also tacitly admits what we've all known for a long time, which is that the traditional "back end" profit bucket (reruns, syndication, etc.) is eventually going to fall victim to digital distribution. The back end was basically a method of hoarding and carefully releasing old material -- like the "Cheers" rerun residuals I enjoy getting on a regular (though dwindling) basis. How valuable are the reruns when every episode is a click away?

Two, it shows that the studios are finally ready to spend brand capital -- really spend it: I talked to a 20th guy today who listed for me all of the content that the studio was putting on the table, which was a lot -- and let a lot of stuff out for free in an attempt to build a new business. This is sort of like Google's free email, free calendar, free apps. It's a mistake, I think, to underestimate the huge promotional power of these companies once they decide to get behind something, and their ability to feed the public's appetite. Sure, a lot of what we make out here stinks, and fails at the box office, or dies in the ratings (take a look at my IMDB listing for a really gruesome Exhibit A of that) but even our failures get seen by millions of people. The last show I had on went 12 episodes, and got 6 million viewers a week -- we were on the WB, so that was considered so-so -- and cost us roughly $1 million and change per episode. So would those 6 million people pay 25 cents a week to see the show? 30 cents? Who knows. The point is, broadcast television, as weak and sickly as it is, is still a pretty powerful, unique platform to launch a product.

And most important, Three: maybe most of this isn't going to work, or they'll eventually balk at free content, widgetization, whatever. Maybe they'll revert to form, and we'll all keep gliding around LA in our BMWs like the Romanoffs in 1908, totally oblivious to the revolution to come. But it accomplishes a big thing for the studios: it gives them leverage. It's another game in town, another place to put your stuff. Every NBC needs a CBS, or, Christ, even a CW, to keep it honest. Eighteen months ago, people out here were wondering how much they'd have to pay YouTube to distribute their content. A lot has changed. I mean, it's sort of a no-brainer (something we love out here): it's a useful thing to build even if it sucks. Which it probably will because most things do.

Sorry for the long post, by the way. I'm new at this.

[Ayal Rosenthal]

The SNL clip with Justin Timberlake "A Special Christmas Box" has received nearly 20,000,000 views. Imagine how much revenue the copyright holders could have generated by having it appear on their site instead of the zero they received from YouTube.

[Greg]

we're already starting to do this at mtvn. want to embed a daily show clip on your site? just go to comedycentral.com and click "embed" to get the code.

or you could always just make your own daily show: http://www.comedycentral.com/motherload/player.jhtml?ml_video=84159

[NewShowTime]

NBC sucks I think they are biased but so is every other network. www.Media.com just sucks.