|
It used to be so easy to identify who are the buyers and who are the sellers at a trade show. But in the converging and convoluted-not to mention contrary-world of digital programming, figuring out such distinctions has become a problem. Content aggregators are sometimes producers themselves, trying to peddle their material onto new platforms. Veteran producers are trying to option digital rights, especially for the emerging broadband networks.
That's what made the recent National Association of Television Programming Executive's annual convention so complicated.
To the consternation of veteran TV syndication executives (the core of NATPE's constituency), the show's Las Vegas venue was overrun with digital developers, peddling shows and services for the broadband, streaming and webcasting environment. At the same time, some of these veteran syndicators are tiptoeing into Internet transmission on their own. Witness Jack Valenti's statement on the eve of NATPE. The Motion Picture Association of America president predicted that within six months his member studios "will be launching" deals to put their products on the Web. Just a few days earlier, Lions Gate Entertainment unveiled plans to license its feature films to run on the Internet simultaneously with the title's pay-per-view debut.
At the core of this buyer/seller schizophrenia are the evolving business models for digital distribution. One NATPE speaker proudly identified eight distinct revenue models, albeit most seemed to be variations on the classic three: user fees, transactions or advertising. The flaky nature of some concepts, let alone the lack of marketplace validation, is a reminder that these revenue models are just that: concepts, rather than proven moneymakers.
That's one of the factors that unnerves prospective dealmakers. Adding to the uncertainty is the curious question that often pops up as content suppliers and distributors introduce their visions to each other.
"Who pays whom?" someone asks, acknowledging that the classic distribution arrangements (licensing, flat fees, ad bartering) are not necessarily the models for this broadband programming scheme.
No wonder the promoters cannot firmly distinguish buyers from sellers.
Any exploration of this nascent broadband programming plan wouldn't be complete without a reference to "monetizing" the business. Clinton Wolf, chief marketing officer of start-up Cache$tream Corp., coined the idea of "profitizing" broadband content-a more meaningful approach to evaluating digital content deals.
If only we could "prophetize" how these interactive deals will succeed.
One reason for this chaotic process is that the elements of digital distribution will be different from classical syndicated programming. The on-demand characteristics and pay-per-use aspects are beyond the ken of most traditional broadcasters. Companies like SpiderDance, SteepleChase Media and Screamingly Different Entertainment are creating and packaging digital services whose financial support transcends conventional advertising and pay-per-view business models.
To make the situation even more complicated, NATPE was laced with technology suppliers whose capabilities will encourage further financial variations. The sprawling pavilions of Sun Microsystems, Microsoft, Liberate and WorldGate featured their middleware partners-offering "solutions" (not exactly a TV term) for digital content production and packaging. For example, Sun's line-up of Geocast, SpectraRep, Alticast, Interactive VideoTechnologies, among others, presented a menu of options for developing and delivering digital content. Each had a significantly different way of charging for their services and for generating revenue from target audiences.
Separately, iBlast's demonstration of data broadcasting suggests that broadcasters can add extra channels-and by implication extra revenue-to their digital mix. Wavexpress's new "TV Tonic" service, integrates broadcasts (including analog signals) and the Web. For all of these plans, though, the real deal-the way that money actually changes hands, is still a concept, not an actual practice.
At NATPE, there were other reasons to be afraid-very afraid-about the future of interactive programming. At the Second Annual Interactive TV Pitch session, an evening event during which 15 hopeful producers unveiled their plans for interactive programs. Industry executives from Comedy Central, Microsoft, Oxygen and others judged the 3-minute pitches. The session, sponsored by Microsoft, featured a Gong Show element-allowing the judges to cut short any of the pitches. The gong was struck on about half the pitchers-cutting short the painful process for an often-disbelieving audience. Most of the "interactive" programs were informational or entertainment concepts with a simple polling or shopping add-on feature.
Not exactly pushing the envelope for broadband capability.
Even hostess Tracy Ullman fretted that it would be disappointing if ITV were strictly about selling things.
Of course, we can assume that the A-list ideas already have been snatched up and are in development-without need to disclose them in a public arena such as the NATPE pitch session. On the other hand, the first wave of original interactive content may indeed be this kind of derivative programming.
Which brings us back to the question of who will buy it?
In one way, the buyers and sellers of the emerging digital market, as represented by NATPE's participants, are very much akin to one real-world market: the swap-meet flea market. You're both a buyer and seller-unloading some of your goods, while picking up other people's castoffs.
In the case of digital content, however, the stakes are so much higher.
|
