The state of conventional TV today has been described as 'a war' and as in any war, the propaganda just flies.
The battle lines have been drawn, and ideas like 'fee-for-carriage', 'saving local TV' and 'the future of the industry' are the weapons of choice.
As the global economic system struggles to determine what is real value (as opposed to toxic assets, for example), Canada's broadcast and media industry is simultaneously fighting to determine the value -- and price -- of TV program delivery.
One of the oft-cited salvos says that Canadians will soon have to 'pay more' for the 'free TV' they have apparently enjoyed for years.
Let's disarm that notion right away: TV has never been free!
It has, however, long managed to hide its costs behind the curtain.
Viewers (even if using an antenna) have always paid those hidden costs, also called TV advertising, whether they knew it or not.
Each and every time we buy an advertised product or do business with an advertised company, we pay for free TV. Built into the purchase price is an operating margin that helps the company pay for its ads.
So, the cost of watching TV is concealed in the price of an advertised product or service. What's worse, that cost is not distributed fairly or equally among TV viewers in the first place.
If we watch a certain show and then buy the advertiser's product, we actually do pay for our TV enjoyment, albeit in a roundabout way. If we watch the show and don't buy the advertised product, well, that's closer to getting something for nothing. But if we didn't watch the show, yet nevertheless do some business with the show's advertisers, we are unwittingly paying for something we never got!
Let's call it 'free-conomics'. And the freaking business model is freaking out newspaper publishers, website owners, and magazine writers, too! Much of the online content available now is being 'paid for' in equally convoluted and unaccountable ways.
The increasing availability of alternate distribution methods (Internet streaming, mobile media, VoD, etc.) complicates the matter while pointing to possible solutions. New technologies can enable authenticated-user and content-bymicropayment relationships. Because the time, amount and type of TV programming being watched can also now be measured, quantified and monetized, a direct relationship can easily be established between the customer and the provider -- heck, utilities do it, why not media?
Rather than 'fee-for-carriage', 'fee-for-content' models in which users are charged for the content they consume by the bit (on the Internet) or by the channel (on cable and satellite), or by the program (regardless of medium). Attractive multi-platform, multi-program bundles and packages could be creatively marketed and fairly priced.
This approach also embraces the technical ability to identify the content type itself -top Hollywood shows can be priced one way, local origination content yet another. Movies, music, video, even user generated content can all be 'tagged' or 'digitally watermarked' and priced accordingly, thereby taking into account the characteristics of the medium, the users, and of the content itself - whether with or without advertising.
The price we all pay for media content must be more widely understood and more properly valued -- by creator, provider and consumer alike.
-- Lee Rickwood editor@broadcastermagazine.com