Oh ja, dem kann ich mich durchaus anschließen. Mich nervt Broadcast-TV ohne Ende, die Distribution von Inhalten kann man mittlerweile auch intelligenter anstellen. Aber dabei geraten einige Geschäftsmodelle ins Wanken und daher werden lieber die Konsumenten gegängelt.
Mark Glaser hat daher ein paar Forderungen in The Cord-Cutters Manifesto aufgenommen, die ich alle unterschreiben kann:
1. We would like to watch the TV shows we want when we want on the device or screen we want. Sounds simple, doesn’t it? We all know as cord-cutters that nothing is ever that simple. You often have to wait a day, a week, a month or a year to see a show that aired last night. Give us the shows we want when we want them and we’ll be willing to pay a fair price. Without a cable subscription.
2. We will pay for the shows and sports we want most. This is a business model you understand well: pay-per-view. Some people will pay $4.99 for a movie that just left the theaters and others will pay $50 for a top-flight boxing match. Just move that model over to TV, so that some people pay 99 cents for a regular season show, $1.99 for a season-ending show and $9.99 for a season’s pass. iTunes already offers this up, but this needs to be broken out of Apple’s closed system for everyone. Without a cable subscription.
3. End the blackouts for sports-on-demand. Ah, the most difficult one for you to pull off because of multibillion-dollar contracts between sports leagues and the TV networks. But consider the new revenues that would come in if everyone in the nation (or maybe the world, if you do it right online) could pay $1.99 to watch each New York Knicks game with Jeremy Lin playing. Or if you’re a fan of a hometown team, you could buy a season’s package to watch the games at home. We repeat: Without a cable subscription.
4. Yes, we mean one service that plays on all devices. If we rent or buy a show with one service, we expect to watch it on our big-screen TV, our smartphone, our tablet, our computer monitor, and on whatever invention comes next that has a screen. You’ve already been building such a system, called “TV Everywhere” or Xfinity (at Comcast). It’s great, but it assumes only people paying for cable can watch. All you have to do is come up with a fair fee for non-cable subscribers, and we’ll be hooked.
5. Good shows swim; bad shows sink. The argument from cable providers is that the only way to support quality programming is to have everyone pay for every channel. If they switched to a la carte programming, everyone would choose a few channels and we’d lose the diversity. And who would pay the “Mad Men” their escalating salaries? Guess what: The good programming would rise to the top, and the bad programming would go away. If the current crop of actors can only survive on $1 million per episode, we can probably find a new crop of actors who can survive on $10,000 per episode. More likely, the less middlemen who are involved in TV production and distribution, the more money that actors will get directly from fans.
Die Disruption der Inhalte-Distribution ist in vollem Gange und die Reaktanzen werden weiterhin hoch sein, denn für die meisten derzeitigen Marktteilnehmer steht die Existenz auf dem Spiel.