
Google to Finance $100 Million Worth of Original Programs for YouTube - acconrad
http://mashable.com/2011/04/07/original-youtube-programs/
======
macrael
Netflix, too, is getting into the production business.
<http://blog.netflix.com/2011/03/house-of-cards.html> I guess it is
inevitable, but it makes me sad. What makes either of these developments any
different from Comcast trying to buy NBC, something that most observers seemed
to think was a bad idea? I think this is bad for a couple of reasons.

First, production seems way outside their area of expertise. These companies
are primarily good at distributing video, secondarily perhaps at negotiating
for rights with production houses. Producing video is a completely new
endeavor.

Second, it changes the rules of competition between today's video services.
Instead of competing on prices and business models (monthly subscription vs.
ad supported vs. owning videos outright) they may now be competing more on
what actual videos are available. If a number of different distribution
channels all end up with some hit exclusives, we'll want to pony up for
several mostly redundant channels. Seems pretty similar to the setup we have
right now with cable.

Meet the new boss.

~~~
jokermatt999
You make a good point about video availability between different channels
(something I hadn't really considered here, surprisingly), but I'm somewhat
more optimistic. Some of the best television I've seen over the past few years
has been exclusive content. The example I always come back to is The Wire.

On one hand, I'll be sad to see online services becoming the new premium cable
channels, but on the other, I look forward to more excellent shows. It's worth
the problems with distribution if we can get some more high quality content.

~~~
macrael
You're quite right about The Wire. Maybe this is just naturally the way that
the art is going to be funded in the future.

Really, all television is developed exclusively at the network level. NBC,
CBS, and HBO all fund the creation of TV that they then broadcast exclusively
at a specified time. They go out through the cable wires to their subscribers
who either pay by watching ads (NBC), or by paying for access (HBO) (or both,
right? (basic cable?)). Then after a while, it comes out on DVD, and can be
syndicated by other channels.

In that light, these new digital distributors really are changing things up.
The idea that the show would be watchable somewhere besides the cable channel
at the specific time and date is quite novel. So, the networks now make shows
available on their own websites, on Hulu, on iTunes, eventually on Netflix.

I guess I just saw the digital distributors as competitors to cable as a whole
instead of new 'networks'. There is some truth to my original impression: many
different networks, creators of video, distribute their wares on these sites.
You see shows from NBC, Fox, etc. all sharing space on Hulu. My guess is that
those relationships are going to be strained by having these distributors also
pushing their own video.

My worry is that now these distributors are becoming networks too, and that
that is going to cause problems that didn't exist in the past. Perhaps it is
going to solve some problems too, but we'll see.

------
tzs
> It was unclear when Google would begin spending the money to create the new
> programs, but the source said that Google has visited top Hollywood talent
> agencies in search of ideas, and will probably end up making deals with
> production companies and directors to produce the content.

Buy rights to Firefly and make new episodes.

------
jonburs
Interesting that Google plans on throwing money at the established players in
the industry, while Amazon attempts to change how projects are selected and
funded: <http://studios.amazon.com/>

------
dave1619
Wow, is this the beginning of the end of cable companies?

~~~
guelo
No, just another chess move. Besides the wires Comcast has all the content
deals.

