Cable Exec Suggests Changing Consumer Behavior, Not Business Model 675
Techdirt has pointed out yet another cable exec that just doesn't quite get it. Comcast's COO, Steve Burke, recently urged the TV industry to find ways to "get consumers to change" rather than figure out better methods to cater to demand. "'An entire generation is growing up, if we don't figure out how to change that behavior so it respects copyright and subscription revenue on the part of distributors, we're going to wake up and see cord cutting.' How many consumers, in any market, are focused on 'respecting' vendors' revenue streams? How, exactly, does he propose to effect this sea change? And why not just develop products that consumers will willingly pay for, rather than trying to change consumer behavior in such a fundamental way?"
dinero (Score:5, Insightful)
If I was making 2.2 million dollars a year salary [forbes.com] I would probably say exactly what my bosses wanted to hear, too.
Re: say exactly what my bosses wanted to hear (Score:5, Funny)
I hereby declare that I'm willing to do exactly this for half that price!
Any takers?
Hello?!
Re: say exactly what my bosses wanted to hear (Score:5, Funny)
the arrogance of the tech community at slashdot it quite astounding.. what makes you think you can really do whatever he does at half the price... I am not saying that this guy is great shakes but being the COO of a multi-billion dollar company is not an easy job at all and takes very different skills from being a tech whiz. Have you carried any revenue targets ever in your life ? This post has been marked funny but it is time that slashdotters understand that running a business is tough.
Re: say exactly what my bosses wanted to hear (Score:5, Informative)
Some of us have done what he does, for 5-10% of his price. Beyond a certain point in the size of a business your actual roll, responsibilities and work load no longer increase, you delegate. Since he doesn't actually assume more responsibility by working at a larger company, then yes, some of us are capable.
It may be different if he was somehow going to be held to a higher standard, but he isn't, its just the opposite actually. If he fails, he will get treated no differently than I would. Actually thats not true, he has a golden parachute and someone else would be more than happy to hire him elsewhere, ignoring his failure, because he 'knows people'.
Being the COO of a multi-billion dollar company is no different than being the COO from a multi-million dollar company, contrary to what you would expect.
Re: say exactly what my bosses wanted to hear (Score:5, Interesting)
Easier, even. With a multi-million-dollar company, it's small enough that if you screw up, you might bankrupt the company. That means that you have to be at least moderately familiar with what's going on in the company. With a multi-billion-dollar company, you have a dozen divisions that are each multi-million-dollar companies, each run by someone who has to think the same way.
Up a tier, however, the management of each division is left to the VP for the division. Half the time, the CEO doesn't even know what the company makes. It really doesn't matter at that level. They just have to know enough to understand what the VP means when they ask the VP why the division is losing money and when they expect to get back on track, or at least enough to know if they're getting a snow job from their underlings....
Tell you what, put me in charge of such a cable company at 10% of this clown's salary. I'll show you how it's done. The right fix for cable companies is to tear down about ten layers of management between the top brass and the people who know what's going on, spend money on building out data infrastructure further, and finding new services to offer that make your offerings more attractive. I have many ideas for new services that I'd roll out if I were running a cable company, any one of which would make a huge difference in users' lives and would significantly cut down on piracy by doing so. Of course, the notion of piracy when you have a cable signal coming in at a flat rate is absurd anyway, and always has been....
Re: say exactly what my bosses wanted to hear (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: say exactly what my bosses wanted to hear (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
...but it is time that slashdotters understand that running a business into the ground by failing to adapt is tough.
FTFY
Re: say exactly what my bosses wanted to hear (Score:4, Funny)
How about I try it out for a year? If it doesn't work out, I'll take my $10 million golden parachute and jump out. Sounds fair to me.
Re: say exactly what my bosses wanted to hear (Score:5, Funny)
I assure you I could run a multi-billion dollar company at least as well as some CEOs have in the past few years (I could manage to put it into a steep decline, not a precipitous one), and I'd charge less.
Re: say exactly what my bosses wanted to hear (Score:5, Interesting)
Shakani,
In china, there are 1,200 equally qualified people to the executive in question. With such a gross oversupply of talent, the only reason we are paying these bozo's extra is that the current shareholder laws have removed all shareholder power to do anything about it.
Likewise, with regard to the article, there is an *ENORMOUS* amount of entertainment. This presents two problems for the potential consumer.
a) Most of us are able to spend, maybe, $200 to $400 a month on entertainment. Filling an Ipod would take $10,000. Do the math. Consumers are not going to cripple their life to fill an ipod. They will find a way around that price point. Once they *lose* the songs on the ipod and are asked to lay down ANOTHER $10,000 for the same songs- they get really pissy. yet this is the primary goal of the entertainment industry- rental payments anytime you use any entertainment until "forever-- less one day".
b) On the flip side, the sheer amount of entertainment is exploding. I spent 3 hours the other night just watching homemade stuff for free on Youtube. And there were a couple hours spent watching Star Wreck. There are cable stations with real programs, there are multiple real programs, which I'll never see. I ruthlessly trade down to less expensive entertainment and, in many cases, simply wait 6 to 8 months and get the same entertainment for pennies legally. The price of entertainment is not supportable-- too many people want our entertainment dollar.
Re: say exactly what my bosses wanted to hear (Score:4, Informative)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comcast [wikipedia.org] (yeah, yeah, wiki, but it copy/pastes nicely)
Comcast fiscal data:
Revenue US$ 30.895 Billion (2007)
Operating income US$ 5.578 Billion (2007)
Net income US$ 2.587 Billion (2007)
Total assets US$ 113.417 Billion (2007)
Total equity US$ 41.340 Billion (2007)
I'd say Comcast is a textbook definition of a multi-billion dollar company.
Perspective (Score:5, Insightful)
And why not just develop products that consumers will willingly pay for, rather than trying to change consumer behavior in such a fundamental way?"
Because he feels the same way you do. You don't seem at all eager to adapt your behavior to the terms on which products are being marketed. You instead want to force the providers to change.
So, you don't want to change, you just want to do things your way and force others to change. The provider also doesn't want to change. They want to do things their way and force you to change.
Both parties want to give little and receive much. Consumers want to pay little and get lots of high quality content. Providers want to expend few resources in content provision and receive lots of money.
I'd say the two groups are more alike than different. One just has more members than the other.
Re:Perspective (Score:5, Insightful)
Oh, consumers are willing to change all right. We are willing to stop consuming - legally or otherwise - expensive music and movies ridden with restrictions that do not work for our lifestyles. I saw like 2 movies in the theater in the two years after our first child was born and, now that the "prove that we still can" feeling is out of the way, were are not going again for at least another 3 years. Had they offered the movies on our home TV, we would have payed and watched. But we are not going to buy a new, enhanced DRM TV just to have a privilege of paying more money for the movies. Similarly, I bought a few DVDs for my daughter, but they show 15 minutes worth of unskippable, not age appropriate ads and then get stuck on the menu rather than automatically playing the content. I think I will just teach her to play with other toys or watch free cartoons from broadcast TV rather then going through the hassle of trying to burn a fixed copy with complicated tools or buying expensive hardware to stream H264. I can buy some nice bikes and dolls for the same money.
If producers are similarly ready to stop producing and go out of business, we are truly more a like and different. I can save my money for family trips to Hawaii and they can ask me "do you want fries with that". It's funny how people who are losing sales fail to consider the simplest explanation rather than assuming that the majority of society is composed of malicious criminals.
Re:Perspective (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
You should check out Transformers 2 on Blu-Ray. I was completely and utterly shocked to see the disk go straight to the movie when popped-in. No FBI warning, no previews, no commercials, no menu, just the movie, starting to play automatically. It was awesome. Now to get all future movies designed in this very way.
Of course, because it was Transformers 2, the fact that it went to the movie right away was the only good part about this particular movie experience...
Re:Perspective (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes you do. If you buy a plane ticket but don't like the flight do you not get to pay? Really people that try before you buy line is just silly. If you think you should get to try before you buy then ONLY use products that offer it. You do not have the right to force a content provider to do what you want by any other means than not consuming their content and then not paying for it.
To use their content and not paying for it is piracy.
Dude READ THE REVIEWS!
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I would say yes, if you watched the whole thing.
But if you quit watching after 10 minutes, then no.
Re:Perspective (Score:5, Funny)
You should check out Transformers 2 on Blu-Ray. I was completely and utterly shocked to see the disk go straight to the movie when popped-in. No FBI warning, no previews, no commercials, no menu, just the movie, starting to play automatically. It was awesome.
The proper way for your Blu-Ray player to handle a Transformers 2 disc is to eject it immediately at high velocity, causing it to shatter on the opposite wall. That would have been much better than jumping straight to the movie.
Re:Perspective (Score:5, Funny)
Not to put too fine a point on it, but their marketing research probably found that anyone who wanted to watch Transformers 2 on Blu-Ray probably couldn't figure out the menus and would return the disk after 2 minutes without explosions before the movie started.
Yeah, that was a joke, and it was funny for everyone except you.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Not to put too fine a point on it,
say I'm the only bee in your bonnet?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Unfortunately, you have to sit through a pretty boring two and a half hour ad for plastic dolls made by Hasbro...
Re:Perspective (Score:4, Insightful)
Like I am going to spend $200+ on a Blu Ray player for my 2 year old daughter's $240 TV with a built in DVD player, much less for each room where we might need an hour of diversion. Even then, who is to say that they will release "Dora the Explorer" on Blu Ray, for a reasonable price, and without ads for PG13 movies?
I just wish they made a few DVDs with 6 episodes each that automatically start and play in infinite loop as soon as inserted. I already have episodes from iTunes, but these would require an $220 Apple TV in every room and the damn thing loses network connection and thus triggers tamper tantrums every time microwave is started. Bottom line, someone hates making money and makes the simplest thing overwhelmingly complicated, annoying and expensive. The cartoons already play free on Nickelodeon. Just sell watermarked videos for $2/each and get done with it.
Re:Perspective (Score:4, Insightful)
Yes you can suggest that I stop eating meals, cleaning the house or spending time with my wife or attending after hours conference calls with offshore coworkers. However I am more likely to listen to - and financially support - someone who gives me realistic options for when diversions are necessary. Increasingly, it's looking like "suggestion" from entertainment industry are about as helpful as yours is.
Re:Perspective (Score:4, Insightful)
I guess you are either too young to realize or too old to remember that being a decent parent means staying profitably employed, cooking meals, cleaning the house and keeping one's marriage viable. None of these activities, and especially not the last one, are compatible with an undistracted 2-year-old.
Now go get off my lawn.
Comment removed (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Perspective (Score:5, Funny)
What low UID?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Apparently, not enough of you are stopping.
I saw like 2 movies in the theater in the two years after our first child was born ...
The last theater I went to was for Serenity. I don't remember the last one before that. Theaters don't seem to have noticed my absence.
Had they offered the movies on our home TV, we wo
Re:Perspective (Score:4, Informative)
That makes me think you are angry at the wrong people. Why do you blame the DVD authors? Why do you put up with DVD players that you cannot control? Aren't they the real problem?
The people who put the flags on the DVD ttat don't let you skip things are the same people who wrote a DVD licensing agreement which CE manufacturers must sign in order to make DVD players. So he is, in fact, angry at the correct people.
There is another way around them besides ripping and stripping. My DVD player has UOPs disabled through some hacked firmware. All buttons work all the time.
Re:Perspective (Score:4, Interesting)
Ok, another unstated rule about paying and watching, you won't pay and watch anything older than 6 months. I'm not sure why 6 months makes a movie unviewable, but it's your rule.
I can not watch the movie when people are actually talking about ...
Ok, another rule is you won't watch anything that other people aren't currently talking about.
and there is rarely a motivation to proactively scan iTunes store or Comcast On-Demand months later on an off chance that it is available for rent at that exact time.
And another rule that says you won't watch anything that is "too hard" to find in the on-demand menu.
It seems that most of these rules are yours and not based on DRM or Comcast.
Each DVD sets you back $15.
You said that you would pay and watch on your home TV. Now you don't want to pay. Your rules get more restrictive by the minute. By the way, that $15 gets you unlimited viewing for as many people as you can pack into your living room. Compare that to $6 matinee or $9 or more evening shows at the movie theater, one viewing, per person.
Now that you ripped the DVD, just how do you make it accessible in every room of the house?
I don't need to because I'm seldom IN every room in the house at the same time. I didn't know that this was yet another rule you apply to what you will pay for and watch.
Wireless-enabled H264 players are not cheap...
I don't need wireless, and I can get a used PC from the local surplus for $100. Problem solved.
Even after all that, suppose I started Dora in the nursery to eat my dinner in peace. Now if I want to heat up some more food in microwave, Apple TV is going to promptly lose its wireless connection...
Wow. Layer after layer of rules about what you won't do. You don't need wireless to play a file you've ripped off a DVD, and I have no idea what "Apple TV" is or why you need it to watch that file. All so you can park the baby somewhere and ignore it for awhile.
On the other hand if I go with original DVD, I need to wait in the room for 15 minutes listening to protests about "Doda" not playing...
So now we're back at blaming the production house for the poor design of DVD players, and ignoring the fact that the computer you have in the room to play DVDs doesn't care about ads nor does it take 15 minutes to start playing. (Maybe a minute as it deals with deCSS on a disk it has never seen before, but not much longer.) And guess what? This "region" coding that people whine about -- completely ignored by the ripping software. FREE software.
I suspect that the only reason that babykins complains about "Doda" not playing is because Papakins is standing in the room complaining about how Doda isn't playing. If Papakins started the DVD and then said "let's read a book" and spent 15 minutes reading a book with Babykins, I bet Babykins wouldn't even notice the lack of DVD. I dunno, maybe you've miswired Babykins too badly at this point.
I suppose there are some ways to eventually hack around all this without spending hundreds of dollars just to be able to play cartoons which are free on broadcast TV.
The only good cartoons on broadcast TV are much older than 6 months. You can't watch them. Nobody with a vocabulary of more than 20 words talks about them, so they fail the "talk about" test, too. As for finding them to play "at that exact time", that's even harder than looking in the on-demand menu. Eight PM and there are few, if any, broadcast TV cartoons that are "age appropriate" for babies used to Dora.
I just can't imagine that the idiots are so resistant to making money.
I suspect that even were the "idiots" to do everything your way, you'd find some other rule that would prevent you from paying for their content. "It's letterbox and I want full screen"?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
They have been trying to alter our behavior for years
It's not like there is not much content worth pirating on cable anyway, at least on basic cable. They have already watered down the content of once popular and worthwhile channels such as MTV, VH1, Discovery, and the History Channel, so that you pretty much have to upgrade a tier to actually get music videos or real science and history programs instead of mostly reality programming. Don't even get me started about the commercials and self promotion spots
Re:Perspective (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Perspective (Score:5, Interesting)
That's not the fundamental law of free markets. That's the fundamental law of customer service.
The fundamental law of free markets is: there is no such thing as an ideal free market.
But that's semantics, the meat of your post is:
And the foundation of TFA is that it's possible to change what the customer wants. This is what marketing is all about.
The big 3 automakers were successful at this for a very long time. When they were no longer able to shape demand, then they failed because they were unprepared for what people actually wanted to buy. But it amazes me that they were so successful for so long.
Re:Perspective (Score:5, Insightful)
Perhaps you're forgetting the fundamental law of free markets: The customer is always right. If the bulk of customers want X and you offer Y, then don't be surprised when some other vendor comes along offering X and winds up with all the customers. As the vendor, you either offer what the customer wants, at the price they want it, or you go out of business.
Unless you are a monopoly. Unless you get the laws changed in your favor. Unless you use strong arm tactics to buy out your competition or put them out of business. Unless you steal all your competition's employees. Unless your marketing is so strong the consumer cannot make an educated decision. Unless you undercut all other stores until you are the only one left. Etc. Etc.
Re:Perspective (Score:5, Insightful)
I think you missed the memo. The new fundamental law of free markets is: If the bulk of customers want X and you offer Y, then you lobby the government to make X illegal and raise the price of Y. Then you complain to your bought and paid for government officials that Y is still not selling and you need more power to force consumers to buy Y and raise the penalties on purchasing, owning, or even thinking about X. After all, customers' refusal to buy Y clearly indicates that they are all buying X illegally and the only reason for a customer's existence is to funnel money into your pockets.
(The sad thing is, this could be modded as Funny or Insightful and either would be true.)
Re:Perspective (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, I do expect the providers to change.
I, and other customers have something Comcast needs: subscription revenue. In order to obtain that revenue Comcast must provide something of value to me. If Comcast wants me to change my behavior, it has to provide a compelling reason for the change. Comcast must provide some benefit to me to induce my change of behavior.
This exec shows no inclination of providing any benefit in return for any change of behavior, so why should I (and millions of other customers) change our behavior?
Re:Perspective (Score:5, Informative)
Did any of you click through to the original article being quoted?
http://www.broadcastingcable.com/article/366272-CTAM_Summit_2009_Comcast_s_Burke_Tells_TV_Biz_To_Help_Stop_Cord_Cutting.php [broadcastingcable.com]
The context of his comments is online video.
Comcast is worried that people will ditch cable for streaming tv/video.
What he really wants is Comcast Cable on the web.
Keeping the subscribers but moving eyeballs (and ad dollars) to the web.
They call it "TV Everywhere" [google.com] and there was apparently a press conference about it in June:
The top google result: http://newteevee.com/2009/06/23/what-you-need-to-know-about-tv-everywhere/ [newteevee.com]
Re:Perspective (Score:5, Informative)
>>>Keeping the subscribers but moving eyeballs to the [Cable subscribers] web.
Comcast, Cox, and Time-Warner are all working on this together. Their ultimate goal is to remove the free videos from scifi.com, abcfamily.com, tnt.com, and other cable websites to a central location that is locked behind a wall. No more free rides for us non-cable subscribers.
QUOTE: "TV Everywhere is an authentication system whereby certain premium content (TV shows, movies, etc.) are available online -- but only if you can prove that you have a subscription to a multiservice operator (e.g. cable, satellite, telco TV)..... Cable companies pay big chunks of money to cable networks (USA, MTV, FX) to carry their programming. Comcast and its ilk are none too happy when these networks then turn around and put said content on the Internet for free."
So basically slashdotters are correct to be suspicious of this guy's "change consumer habits" statement.
Re:Perspective (Score:4, Interesting)
The problem with our society is everybody WANTS something, and they expect the government to provide it. Nobody stops and thinks, "Does our company (Disney, MGM, or whatever) really need to hang-onto copyright for another 50 years and earn another billion dollars from sales of Snow White?" The answer is virtually all cases is no. The answer is that you could think about your fellow man and donate your wealth (or movies) to the public (domain) instead of only thinking of yourself.
Re:Perspective (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Perspective (Score:4, Insightful)
Actually America has long been the nation of volunteerism. Americans donate more money than any other nation (per capita). It's only the corporations that are being greedy self-centered tyrants (which makes sense since megacorps are not people & don't have souls or morals).
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
If you were talking about almost any other situation, I'd probably agree with you, except that the one group exists solely to provide content to the other group. If the group that exists to provide content is not providing the content in a manner that is acceptable to the consuming group, then they are unnecessary and by rights should no longer exist, at least not in their current form.
No, I'm not saying we should necessarily get rid of the cable companies, but apply the same rules to all service industrie
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
So, you don't want to change, you just want to do things your way and force others to change. The provider also doesn't want to change. They want to do things their way and force you to change.
This is a bit of a false dichotomy... another solution you overlooked is: 3rd party comes along with some better alternative than the existing provider.
This is what I did concerning my cable subscription, as of a few months ago. I don't have a problem with cable TV - I paid for it and enjoyed it, for years. It's just that the cost increases finally "broke the camels back" for me, and made me take a hard look at what I was consuming, what alternatives there were, all weighed against how necessary their pro
In other Words (Score:2)
"It's better for millions of people to change instead of a couple thousand! I know because I'm COO! Say it twice! COOCOO!"
Crap article, again. (Score:5, Informative)
I was all ready to pop out a funny, pithy comment like "Cable Consumer Suggests Changing Cable Exec", but decided to RTFA (yeah, stupid me, here, let me turn in my geek card ...), when I realized that it's just a bunch of manufactured hype. The Techdirt article that the Slashdot article is based on is based on is a piece of crap. Here's a link to the original article [broadcastingcable.com] rather than the Techdirt regurgitation.
I get the feeling this guy is being quoted somewhat out of context. Techdirt goes on a rant about how the cable companies need to develop new business models, not just beat up consumers. From a quick glance at the www.broadcastingcable.com article, it appears that he's saying that if cable doesn't evolve their business models, they'll bet run over by internet-based content providers. The original article discussed targeted ad content and better-than-Nielsen viewing measurement as future directions cable could move in to improve their business model. So, yeah, the Techdirt guy has his head up his ass.
Now, with that being said, I'm sure that whatever "new" business models the cable companies dream up will largely consist of overcharging consumers, providing crappy service, and extending DRM tentacles into everything they touch, and hence won't really be seen as a win here on Slashdot, and certainly won't be all that different from their current customer abuse.
Re:Crap article, again. (Score:4, Funny)
Congratulations on ruining everyone's Friday with your facts and information. Everyone would have been better off left alone in their 2-minute hate session.
WE must change? (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm sorry it is your business model that needs to change, not US.
There were many fine works when copyright didn't even exist; hell, if copyright existed, we wouldn't have had Shakespeare's.
Well, if they expect to live off the same franchises over and over in perpetuity, and not really work, I can see where their problem is.
After all, it's all men in suits who would kill themselves just for money.
Re:WE must change? (Score:5, Insightful)
There were many fine works when copyright didn't even exist; hell, if copyright existed, we wouldn't have had Shakespeare's.
We would have had Bacon's.
Re:WE must change? (Score:5, Interesting)
So the business model will most definitely change, but most likely not in a way that will make any of us ( with brains ) happy. Then agian, I don't watch tv much. Already pulled that plug a while ago.
Re: (Score:2)
Just release TV shows for free (Score:5, Funny)
And make your money on touring.
Re:Just release TV shows for free (Score:5, Insightful)
Hardy har, so funny. Or maybe instead they could make their money the way broadcast television has successfully done so for longer than most of us have been alive? Hint: advertising does actually work. Then just offer a subscription service to folks who don't want to see ads. Easy as pie. Shame the cable companies are too busy double dipping (subscription AND ads) to realize consumers hate it.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Just release TV shows for free (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Just release TV shows for free (Score:5, Interesting)
But advertising does work, period. Not all ads work. But in general, companies pay billions of dollars to advertise because it makes them billions more. If it didn't, advertising wouldn't be a multi-billion-dollar industry. Even people with DVRs are not fast forwarding through commercials as much as producers and advertisers feared. Now, there's no guarantee people are watching those commercials. My twelve year old daughter likes for me to mute the commercials and we take turns making up our own audio. It's usually a lot of "look at this car. isn't it a cool car. it costs more than you can afford. Look at it drive in ways you can't safely drive. it's an awesome car you can't have...and here's a cute girl...sell everything you own and buy our car."
I'm always at a loss for what to say when the Cialis commercials come on.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You're ignoring the part of my post where I mentioned that they should also offer the product in a free, ad supported way as well. Why pirate The Simpsons when I can watch it on Hulu for free? Both Hulu and Pirate Bay show ads, so there's little difference except the fact that Hulu is the legal option.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I am familiar with the subtleties of the business relationships, bu
Re:Just release TV shows for free (Score:5, Insightful)
"I fail to see how the cable companies are double dipping but this seems to be a very common misconception around here."
Sigh. I'm old enough to remember when cable TV was first rolled out. There were NO commercials. It was touted as a subscription-based alternative to over-the-air, advertising-supported programming.
Didn't take too long for greed to take over. Now, the only non-commercial channels are the premium ones, like HBO, Showtime, etc. - and they're all busy advertising themselves between shows.
I see the same thing eventually happening to satellite radio. The siren-song of advertising dollars is just too strong to resist.
My favorite button on the remote control is 'mute'.
It's both (Score:4, Insightful)
On one hand, yes, media companies (and indies, etc) should develop things that people are willing to pay for, instead of putting out remakes and rehashes on a regular basis (i.e. Fark's "In yet another sign that Hollywood has truly run out of new ideas...")
On the other hand, there's no real ethical or legal excuse for pirating something, simply because you don't like the price of it. If you don't like the quality of the offering at the price it is offered, then don't buy it. It's quite simple.
I now expect 4 dozen posts, making car analogies, expounding on the "false" argument of lost sales, and pointing out that I'm likely an astroturfing RIAA/MPAA shill.
Have fun!
What about a mountaineering excuse? (Score:3, Interesting)
On the other hand, there's no real ethical or legal excuse for pirating something, simply because you don't like the price of it.
Because...it was there.
Re:It's both (Score:4, Funny)
You're not an RIAA/MPAA shill, but after:
"I now expect 4 dozen posts, making car analogies, expounding on the "false" argument of lost sales, and pointing out that I'm likely an astroturfing RIAA/MPAA shill.
Have fun!"
you're definitely trolling. :)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
>Digital reproduction isn't killing babies
Agreed.
I like to think that for every act of piracy, I deprive some media suit a line of coke.
Completely clear conscience here, I can tell you. I almost feel it's my civic duty to do it.
How stupid can he possibly be? (Score:5, Interesting)
Ask any IT professional what's the hardest thing to change?
User behavior.
Technology is supposed to make out lives easier, not the other way around.
Re:How stupid can he possibly be? (Score:5, Funny)
Ask any IT professional what's the hardest thing to change?
User behavior.
Well, in my experience, I've found that really depends on how hard you hit them.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Err locked in phones are consumer driven. We want cheap ass mobiles and we are more than willing to sign over our souls for them, business will provide this.
Nothing new (Score:3, Interesting)
Changing customers' behavior is exactly what advertising and marketing are meant to accomplish. It's just usually aimed at getting people to buy your product. Here, instead of "Buy our $FOO now!" the message is "Don't download our $FOO!". I don't see why I should be angrier about this than about advertising in general.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
This is because they've been screwing up for years.
Their marketing efforts have all been directed towards "Want our $FOO!"
Only now are they realizing, no, they really meant "BUY our $FOO!" That's a much harder sell, because people naturally have an inclination to want things, and don't naturally have an inclination to pay for them.
Might I be the first (Score:5, Interesting)
Might I be the first to give a gigantic "Whoosh!" in Comcast's general direction. I cut that cord a few years ago and with the help of MythTV, Boxee, Hauppage, Turtle Beach, Netflix, and Xbox Live have never looked back for a second.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Might I be the first (Score:5, Funny)
And the Internet connection required to make any of that less than worthless come from where exactly?
My neighbor's WEP-protected access point.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Might I be the first (Score:4, Insightful)
So yeah, just another industry that failed to adapt to change when they had the opportunity. Well, you missed it buddy.
Of course we'll see a shift (Score:4, Interesting)
If nothing changes, producers will stop producing when they realize they'll never make back their $250 millon in production costs. The cable companies won't be able to keep subscribers if all they're showing are Gilligan's Island reruns. They'll be poorer and we'll be richer as a result. Is there still a problem?
Re: (Score:2)
ACTA. If legislation makes them more money than actually producing stuff that's what they'll go for.
Re:Of course we'll see a shift (Score:5, Funny)
I'm hoping for a Gilligan's Island "reboot". Something darker and edgy. Too bad Chris Farley is dead, he would have made an awesome, cocaine addicted Skipper. I would still download torrents of it instead of paying for cable, because I believe great art should be a labor of love, unsullied by commercial interests :-D
He's Right! (Score:4, Funny)
We should all change to meet his business goals. You all need to stop being so self centered.
Entitlement (Score:5, Insightful)
The sense of entitlement is sickening. No business has a right to make profit, and I certainly don't have to "recpect" their revenue stream. This generation grew up wanting certain things, the dinosaurs in the content industries refused to adapt and now people are used to getting music, movies, and games they want for free. There are now millions of people who will go their entire lives without purchasing much content, and they were created by the greed and incompetence of the RIAA/MPAA and friends.
Re:Entitlement (Score:5, Insightful)
Entitlement goes both ways. The entire generation you speak of feels entitled to enjoy free content because its *distribution cost* and *replication cost* is $0. The creation cost for the content has always been, and will always be, non-zero, but it was always amortized into the distribution cost. Distribution via broadcasting always brought in advertising revenue, which covered all the costs. Distribution via BitTorrent brings in $0 in revenue and covers no costs. [1]
This generation grew up wanting certain things, the dinosaurs in the content industries refused to adapt and now people are used to getting music, movies, and games they want for free.
I disagree. There is iTunes/Amazon for music, Hulu for TV (*even* if they go to a subscription model), Netflix on demand for movies. I would say lots of good content is now available on-demand, via the Internet, pretty easy to get to. The business models weren't going to change in the one year that Napster came out. It's taken 10 years. But it has happened. The only thing that hasn't happened is content creators giving away stuff for $0, and if these creators are going to stay in business, I don't see how that's ever going to happen.
Look, everyone here can make up plenty of reasons for why they deserve free content, but in a capitalist economy I have yet to hear a single good one. "Live performance" isn't good enough. Many TV shows that I enjoy can't be live. Software developers should *not* have to go on speaking tours to make money, like that ridiculous study out of Harvard said they should. I do not want to go to a book reading.
[1] As an aside, I fully support the notion that *distributors* should get much less of the money. They are just a pipe, a utility for the content creators to sell their content. No one on Slashdot ever wants to make the distinction between distributors, who are invariably big media conglomerates that are easy to hate, and content creators, who might be a team of talented writers and actors and filmmakers that actually produce enjoyable stuff.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Does that price include the root kit?
Times they are a changin' (Score:2)
I don't care for commercials and I want to watch my programs at my convenience. That's really all that has changed.
Is it really that huge a leap for Cable Companies to figure out how to supply a video-on-demand only service?
not without precedent (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm no financial wizard, but... (Score:2, Flamebait)
...I'm guessing he is correct. Its the spin being put on what he is saying that is outrageous:
The quotes really are quite stunning. Burke basically seems to be saying the focus needs to be on figuring out ways to get consumers to change, rather than changing to match what customers want. A business model based on going against what consumers want doesn't seem likely to last that long.
What I'm stunned by is the assumption that Comcast's COO should be looking for ways to give people as much content as they want without them paying Comcast a penny to receive it. Because lets be fair - this is exactly what customers want.
To color every contrary desire as stunning or greedy is just ignorant.
Re:I'm no financial wizard, but... (Score:4, Insightful)
Comcast's COO should be focused on giving people what they want at a price that will make money for Comcast.
And for all we know, this is exactly how he intends to go about getting those behavioral changes he is advocating. Though, I suspect he'd advocate instilling some sense of value in these customers first.
If people want downloadable media and the existing corporations refuse to provide it legitimately, it is clear that people will simply take it illegitimately.
That is clear, you're correct. What is unclear is whether there is a middle ground. It is entirely possible that even with penny DVD's people will still take it illegitimately. It doesn't take a huge imagination to see where that would wind up leading.
If instead the large content providers had simply created distribution mechanisms where digital media could be obtained easily at a reasonable price with reasonable usage terms then people would have had much less incentive to search out pirated media.
Again, absolutely true. There would be less incentive. Whether 1% or 100% less, is unclear.
I for one don't find fault in the content providers for having their own point of view, even when it doesn't match my own.
Too late (Score:3)
It's a bit too late, you missed our generation, and it has already spread to our parents (who are pissed that their TVs now require several boxes and don't just 'work') and our children certainly aren't going to 'rebel' by embracing the corporate message.
The only way to earn respect is by showing respect. And, last I checked, my television/vidcard/cablebox/musicplayer/gameconsole all don't seem to want to trust me or each other. I'll continue to go with the more convenient, fully compatible, more functional, product.
When my iPhone decides it won't try to automatically erase itself after I reinstall my OS,
When my cable box outputs an unencrypted signal... hell, when I don't need to rent cable boxes just to access channels my TV can technically display,
When I can install a new hard disk in my game console without thrashing the firmware...
Start with that, and then I'll listen again. At that point, then we can discuss some of the other built in annoyances you have contrived.
Segmented Marketing (Score:3, Interesting)
When you go to the supermarket to buy a particular product... Let's say KETCHUP... You'll usually find you have several different brands available to you. The more expensive name brands are usually placed right at eye level, whereas the least expensive store brands are usually on the bottom shelf, where you're only likely to notice them if you're really looking for a deal. This is called SEGMENTED MARKETING. The name brand is targeted to the people who have the high-stress, well-paying jobs and don't have the time or energy to try to find the best deals. But the best deals are still available for those who need them.
I'm yet to see cable companies and "content providers" doing anything equivalent. But they really ought to. The vast majority of people who spend time and energy on piracy are students and low-income people who couldn't buy the content legitimately. People who have active, stressful lives and who make enough money will frequently fork over the money for legitimate copies of the content they're interested in just because it's less of a hassle to do so.
What cable companies and content providers ought to be doing is trying to come up with that deal saving "store brand" version of their content. The content that could still appeal even to the starving college students and minimum wage slaves that they'd consider shelling out a few bucks on it here and there.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
for legitimate copies of the content they're interested in just because it's less of a hassle to do so.
Unfortunately, this is where you are wrong. Things have gotten so out of sorts that it is often less of a hassle to use the non-legitimate version. The problem with these companies is that the legitimate version costs more, can be less reliable, and comes with burdens and accusations. I am left wondering why I would bother to pay them when they add zero value to the transaction.
as a comcast customer... (Score:4, Insightful)
... I say maybe I'll start to worry about what is fair to you a little bit when you start to worry about the level of service given to ME.
The corporations of the U.S. are not monarchy (yet) so it's not our job to make sure you live high on the hog. Maybe if you treated me like a customer I would feel some loyalty.
Comment removed (Score:3, Interesting)
Cut the cord! (Score:3, Insightful)
Cable TV free and proud, two years running.
Improve your life. Cancel your subscription.
Those are two separate things, not one (Score:3, Insightful)
... if we don't figure out how to change that behavior so it respects copyright and subscription revenue on the part of distributors ...
"Respecting copyright" is not really the same thing as "respecting subscription revenue". There are a significant number of people that do respect copyright, even if the typical Slashdot discussion doesn't seem to support that statement. But even if every music and movie "pirate" stopped downloading illegal copies as of today, it wouldn't fix the broken revenue model the music and movie industries still want to cling to - the technology available today has irreparably destroyed their old-school business plan.
hello media industry (Score:3, Insightful)
before the internet, you were a necessary evil. someone had to distribute the media, and you needed to be respected in order to provide that service. that portion of copyright law that provided for your protections was valid... then
you have been replace, by the internet
authors, musicians, directors: they distribute their media for free. it serves only as advertising for their real source of revenue: ancillary streams like advertising, promotion, concerts, the cinema house, pulp copies, specialized content, speaking engagements, movie adaptation deals, etc.
you are no longer necessary, and the laws that protect you are defunct. the laws that protect you are not pronouncements from god that say the economic model that allowed for your existence is a permanent state of being
direct artist-consumer links, that is the internet. books, video, music, anything of value that is consumed digitally: its all free. revenue sources are all ancillary streams. ONLY FOR THE ARTIST. NO DISTRIBUTOR NEEDED, SO NO REVENUE FOR YOU
YOU ARE EXTINCT AND YOUR LAWS ARE DEFUNCT. DEAL WITH IT. FUCK OFF AND DIE ALREADY
On Demand (Score:3, Insightful)
What people really want it on-demand television. No more channels, just menus of shows to pick from. Haven't DVRs proven that. The only people that seem to get that are the fine folks at Apple, that are working on a subscription service for the TV portion of the iTunes Music Store.
Heck, Hulu was awesome for that. And it took off. Now they want to charge for it. Entertainment execs still don't get it.
As you raise prices and gouge consumers, people starting downloading illegally. When you make things more reasonable, like Amazon and Apple did with music, then people come flocking and making money.
Any belief that people are ignoring copyright now, when they didn't before is folly. If people could have copied LPs back in the 50s, they would have done so. Technology has finally caught up with desire. That's all.
doth protest etc.etc. (Score:4, Interesting)
Your cable company will sell you a DVR, but it doesn't want you to have a copy of anything?
An entire generation of CEOs has grown up believing utter nonsense about the relative values of money and freedom.
Apparently, several trillion dollars in collapsed economy hasn't improved their common sense.
Too late (Score:3, Interesting)
I already cut the cord. And no downloading (legal or otherwise) was responsible. Why? I realized that every show I watched was on the broadcast channels. So why pay $50/month (up to $60 now) for the broadcast channels (available over the air), plus a load of cable channels with nothing I watched on them. There's some good shows on the premium channels, but those few I can get later on a (rented) DVD, at far lower cost.
Re:It's way too late for change (Score:5, Interesting)
I lived in a house for a year with six other 18-25 year olds.
We had no TV.
Well, we did have a TV, but you couldn't watch TV on it. It was rigged up to a PS3, Xbox, Wii, and when neccessary, laptops. We played games, watched downloaded films and TV shows, the odd youtube video, in fact on occasion and actual webpage. We'd get a hanking for a show, say Heroes, we'd download the whole thing in one slurp at watch it all. Come Halloween, it was Friday 13th marathon(Do not watch 4). The TV was not even rigged up to terrestrial channels. If I'd been so inclined, I would have set up a central server we could have all thrown our movies, etc onto. Bit of a missed opportunity now that I think of it.
I can actually remember sitting down to watch TV for a fews hours, or waiting for a good show to come on that evening, and I swear its like I'm remembering a past life. The idea to me now, of sitting down to watch TV for more than a half hour, sitting through all those ads, actually making my leisure time fit someones else schedule; this idea is by now a completely foreign notion. I cannot imagine doing it anymore, and I don't.
It's going to be very difficult to explain to the generation currently growing up exactly how we managed to waste so much time in front of the TV. If they see what we had to put up with, they're just never going to believe it. When the time comes, and they are asked to stump up $50 a month for such garbage, they are literally going to laugh in the face of the likes of Comcast. The notion of TV itself will be absurd to them, let alone paying for it. It will be as absurd to them as those old 1950's informational shorts are to us now.
This business model has perhaps, 20 years before the bottom falls out, and this article shows that the know it.
Re: (Score:3)
Umm, no.
What customers want is the programs they want to watch.
What the cable companies are selling is bundles of hundreds of channels.
That's why he used the words "subscription revenue". What really scares the cable company is that Internet people understand that there is no technical reason why they can't be sold just the channels they want; and on the Internet, there's no reason why they can't be sold just the shows
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Also stop broadcasting the shows. Best just to keep them in a vault somewhere, where no one can see them. Perhaps as a compromise some sort of peep show type interface could be used, with armed guards and strip searches to make sure no one brings a camera or microphone near the viewer.