Blog - Saturday September 22, 2007 - 6 Comments

Online Video Is Not Broadcast TV

MySpace recently announced a deal with Marshall Herskovitz and Edward Zwick, the team behind Thirtysomething and My So-Called Life to create Quarterlife, an online show about post-college twenty-somethings. Unless it was a very slow news day, this would not be on most people’s radar — at least not until the show was a hit. However, what makes this particular press release interesting is that the producers have announced that the hour long show (which will be broken up in to segments for online viewing) will have “TV-level production values” and “TV-level production costs.”

Yes, Quarterlife is being touted as the first “TV quality” show made for the Internet.

What?

First of all, quality is in the eyes of the beholder. There are hugely popular television shows that I would not watch with a gun to my head. And, I promise you, there are plenty of shows that I love, that you personally hate.

Assuming you could get a dozen television professionals to agree on what “TV-level production values” might be, applying the term in 2007 is just silly. Production techniques and equipment are fully democratized. Anybody who knows what they want to see on the screen can get it done for less money than it cost to produce yesterday and more money than it will cost to produce tomorrow.

To be fair, Herskovitz and Zwick may simply be talking about producing a show that will be aesthetically pleasing to the establishment in Hollywood. And, to that end, it will probably look like a show you might expect to see on a broadcast network. Considering who one would hire to work on such a show, you’d better believe that it’s going to cost a fortune to produce.

As for looking like TV — if you watch the trailer on MySpace you will notice that the colorspace for online video is quite different from its broadcast counterpart. To say nothing about contrast, brightness, and all of the other image tweaks that video geeks like to talk about. Online video in 2007-2009 cannot look like TV for 99.99% of the viewers.

Now that we have covered “quality” and “cost” in Quarterlife terms, let’s get to the fun part. Could you imagine an MTV exec in 1980 telling the creative and production teams to use tripods, leave shot up longer, make smoother transitions (you know more like a theatrical motion picture), make the graphics more readable, etc. With the new medium of Music Television came the creativity of a new generation — what we consider “old school” today, was anti-conventional wisdom, anti-accepted aesthetic and downright ugly to grown-ups back then.

Short-form online video is just coming into its own. It is nascent and raw and its beauty is truly in the eyes of the digital natives who consume it. Strategically, trying to make an online video look more like a network television show sounds like a really bad idea. One look at the Quarterlife trailer and you instantly know that it is manufactured to look like something is quite obviously isn’t. That being said, subjective criticism is not the today’s focus.

I’m interested in exploring the economic model for the show. The plan is to break the show up into six segments. They will premiere on MySpace and then be syndicated around the Internet. Most expensive, “TV network quality” shows are deficit financed by someone. The ROI comes from foreign and domestic broadcast rights, home video and syndication windows. The content is repurposed, repackaged and distributed in different physical form factors as many times as the market will bear. Content that starts its life as a digital file distributed over the public Internet probably can’t use the same methodology. It’s hard to charge someone for something they can already get for free. And, online video has no geographic or temporal restrictions.

Since this is an online property designed to mimic broadcast television, let’s look at that model. A network television hour show is approximately 42-44 minutes long. The rest of the time is taken up by promos for other shows and paid advertising. The standard unit for paid advertising is 30 seconds on the networks and they charge for the airtime based upon how many people are watching and, in most cases, what kind of people are watching. All of these viewership numbers are estimated, but the system is highly evolved and self-regulated. Last year the commercial television business charged their sponsors about $66 Billion.

Most of us think that there are too many commercials on TV. 16-18 minutes per hour of promos and commercial messaging is a lot. But if they cut the number of ads by 10%, you’d still think there were too many, and their business would be off by 10%. So, in practice, you will never see fewer ads on TV.

How many ads will you be willing to watch attached to a six-minute segment of “TV quality” online video? The answer is a five second pre-roll and a post-roll of any length than might keep your attention. Will you tolerate a :15 or :30 second commercial in the middle of a six minute segment? I wouldn’t, and you probably won’t either. Is that enough commercial advertising space to pay for “TV Quality” production and make a profit? Not unless 10 million people watch each segment. Which simply won’t happen.

Broadcast television comes with a 25-30% advertising/promo load. Using that formula, you should be happy to watch :90 seconds of ads per six minute segment. Will you? And, even if you do, how much will a sponsor pay for each video viewed. Wait — they won’t know that number either. You’ll only know how many people have downloaded it or, if they choose to stream it, watched the streams. And, no, you still won’t know who is in the room watching with them.

If the segments are truly wonderful, it will take a heartbeat after the first video is posted to find the segment re-edited and commercial free on the P2P networks. Or worse, with someone else’s parody ad or counterfeit ad in place. If you’re expecting an ad, how will you (the viewer) know which one you were supposed to see. Even though this show is supposed to be the first “TV Quality” online video — an average 12 year old with average digital native skills and a semi-current-vintage computer can reedit and repost it with no perceptible loss of quality as casually as you use email. Remember, production technology is fully democratized. Just as a proof of concept, you can view the same trailer on media30.com with a short post-roll that we added.

There are several good ways for advertisers to use online video that yield respectable ROAS and ROI. But, there is absolutely nothing about the financial reality of broadcast television that translates to online video. So, it may be fun to think of a multi-million dollar online video project as groundbreaking — but I think it’s more realistic to think of is as bank-breaking.

Shelly Palmer is Managing Director of Advanced Media Ventures Group LLC and the author of Television Disrupted: The Transition from Network to Networked TV (2006, Focal Press). Shelly is also President of the National Academy of Television Arts & Sciences, NY (the organization that bestows the coveted Emmy® Awards). He is the Vice-Chairman of the National Academy of Media Arts & Sciences an organization dedicated to education and leadership in the areas of technology, media and entertainment. Palmer also oversees the Advanced Media Technology Emmy® Awards which honors outstanding achievements in the science and technology of advanced media. You can read Shelly’s blog here. Shelly can be reached at shelly@palmer.net

Comments

6 Responses to “Online Video Is Not Broadcast TV”
  • » Online Video Is Not Broadcast TV September 22nd, 2007 7:29 pm

    [...] Original post by shelly@palmer.net (Shelly Palmer) [...]

  • Random Thoughts on Online Ads and Blogging » House of Naked September 24th, 2007 1:01 pm

    [...] The always smart Shelly Palmer explains why the broadcast model doesn’t work online. [...]

  • kevin September 24th, 2007 1:52 pm

    this is dead on. watching the dinosaurs of old wrestle with this new medium is intriguing. i read this article just after i read about chris crocker, the kid obsessed with britney spears, being picked up by a tv production company to resell him as a tv star. these are different mediums, and we are living in the in between, while they both compete for our attention. generations straddling the fence and trying to make each others money off of the vastly different ways to tell stories and connect to each other. while it works for some it will mostly not work for all. the ‘trailer’ for the show looks like some old folks got together and made a show about the internets and blogging. heck, they even included a definition of blogging for those up in the attic adjusting their tv antenaes. the real new media will be made by those using this medium and the business model will look like nothing we have seen before. if you cant make money doing it, it will be hard to keep on making it. art is art and well, business is business. it will be interesting to see how show business keeps moving forward. the sad part of this story is that while the old dinosaurs are clever enough to get myspace to pay them lots o’ money for a ‘groundbreaking’ show like this (even if it feels like thirtysomething or my so called life with a blog thrown in!) when it fails to make a dime, it makes it even harder for the real talent out there on the internets to actually find success. as soon as we get over this in between period where all mediums share the same bank accounts, the creativity will be able to flow freely!
    for now, there is comfort in knowing that good storytelling is good storytelling, whether it be around a campfire or on your phone or in your ultra 3D super surround glasses.

  • mary aguiar September 24th, 2007 5:48 pm

    While I share your concerns about the business model of online TV-level production, I dispute your quarrel with the potential market for better aesthetics and for better and smarter content– not addressed by you in this piece. Lots of high cost network shows are now being watched online.

  • Mike Hirshland October 17th, 2007 7:19 am

    I am the first to jump on the bandwagon and criticize old media TV execs trying to make it on the web. And, to that end, it obviously is an open question whether Quarterlife succeeds online.

    That said, I could not disagree more with your position. Have you watched much of Quarterlife? I actually have watched the first full hour — from a DVD, ON A TV. And guess what? It is a great show — TV show. My whole family was glued to the TV.

    The one thing you CAN say about Quarterlife is that it IS TV quality. It may or may not make it on the web, but it is a damn good TV show.

  • madison paige October 18th, 2007 1:33 pm

    As a producer of television-style content designed for the internet but one who does NOT come from the old school model, I can agree that the runaway production costs of the old-schoolers will prevent them from recovering costs or being profitable.

    It stems from professional rigidity and a fundamental lack of understanding about the medium (internet). Companies like ours (Oasis Media Productions)think WAY outside the box and are able to produce TV quality programming for a cost that will be able to be recovered within the confines of an online distribution system. To spend 300K to produce one episode of an online series is - at best - ill-advised. They think it’s an accomplishment because it would be - in network world.

    What they don’t ‘get’ is: that to the average internet viewer that 300K production won’t necessarily be more attractive to them than some ‘junk’ on YouTube. Its the CONTENT, stupid. Then production quality. Maybe.

    Shelly is dead on: they have NO IDEA about the differences between TV and internet visually or commercially.

    One unique thing our company focuses on is INTERACTIVITY with our programming - something that cannot be done as easily (right now) in a broadcast environment. The internet is inherently interactive. To ignore this fact is foolish. We believe you can produce programming that looks like ‘TV programming’, involves the viewer AND doesn’t cost a fortune to produce (i.e. ad sales don’t need to be in the millions of dollars to enable us to make more of it or turn a profit). En example: right now we have three episodes of a legal crime drama in production (premiering March 2008) and a reality show scheduled for production next summer. For the same 300K they would use to produce one episode, we could produce between 5 and 7 episodes!

    The dinosaurs are used to their old models and cannot conceive of how to do things any differently. Meanwhile new media producers like myself are meeting with marketers and ad agencies themselves and devising on creative solutions that work for everyone.

    And we’re all flexible enough to make the necessary adjustments as this area of entertainment develops.

Post a Comment

Login
Register

Cyber-Terrorism vs. Cyber-Warfare: Defending The United Networks of America

Seven-year-old, Mark Fielding looked up from his computer. He was very annoyed. "Mommmm!" He yelled in a way that was sure to get her attention. "The Internet is down again." It was the last thing she heard before the lights went off. Mark turned on his iPod touch and opened ... Read More