Let people have what they want, how they want it and, more to the point, WHEN they want it (it's called "marketing").

Oh how I'm enjoying these Webby 2.0 times with new industries emerging...entire sectors scrambling...and others striving to get a clue. Sometimes it's annoying but mostly it's just so enjoyable watching all the ups, downs, innovations and, yes, the frustrations from new worlds demanding the old to hurry up and get new (read: relevant).

Jeff Jarvis has posted on mommas who sell grass to maintain the salary once afforded them, but now no longer, due to being left a widow in an expensive suburb with two sons to raise. It's a TV show called "Weeds" starring Mary-Louise Parker (the one with the snake) and I've watched it since it aired, as well as the season premiere last night.

But Jarvis can't.

While the momma and all her drugs and drama is available through a Showtime Network subscription and via Showtime On-Demand--it's not available via iTunes....at least not in a timely manner. Which begs the question, shouldn't all TV be downloadable? And downloadable at the same time as original airing or very close thereto?

Being people pay for it on iTunes there is a profit model (btw, can readers tell me: when you download an episode off iTunes are commercials still in there?). Hmm, if following the model--which I understand is the model upon which marketing is founded--of giving people what they want, how they want it and, moreover, WHEN they want it...what industries, other than TV, would need to get with the program?

In my post on Mad Men (the AMC show), I applauded the network for releasing the episodes on iTunes the next day (or, now looking back, I guess I praised them for practicing "marketing"). But in that post Toad brought up an interesting point on ratings. In his comment he said: "Putting the show on iTunes the day after isn't a novel idea: lots of network TV shows do that. Helps make money, but messes with the ratiings: Studio 60 was a top download on iTunes and also big on DVRs, but the ratings were mediocre. Much was made over that- did the more educated upscale audience the show reached in those formats make up for the low ratings. NBC said no. (I think it was on NBC)."

So my question is, aren't revenues more important than ratings? And couldn't the networks use "downloads" as a new way to prove popularity? I mean, people go on and buy the show, and those people are tracked. It's not just that the show was on, they were "engaged" enough to seek out the show and "loyal" enough to pay for it. Doesn't engaged + loyal + here's my money = good ratings? I know it equals good marketing.

Funny aside: I once had a guy say to me, "You look just like Mary-Louise Parker...no, wait, Parker Posey...no, I mean Ashley Judd." To which I said, "No, you mean Pamela Anderson." I guess you had to be there but everyone present did giggle.

Pretty aside: Since Showtime is focusing on the woman-with-a-snake theme for its current season (see above), I must pay homage to my favorite woman-with-snake photo by the inimitable and late Richard Avedon. Here's his famed shot of "Nastasja Kinski and the serpent." I've always thought this shot was stunning (and elegant) and I'm not  even a snake-with-woman kind of woman. Ok, you got me, I am.

Comments

[David Reich]

"aren't revenues more important than ratings?"
Essentially, ratings ARE revenues since that's how the nets and advertisers determine what they will chargte/pay for spots. Recent decisions by Nielsen now figure ratings as live +3, which adds 3 days for those watching via DVR. I don't know if downloads are counted in the total.

I'd love to get stuff for free, but the nets aren't putting out content just to be nice guys. They sell their time. If they can get added revenue by selling downloads or offering it as on-demand content that you pay for, good for them. The alternative would be even more ads than we now have to endure as we watch free TV.

For the networks, I don't think it's about popularity. It's about ratings, which translates directly into revenues. Can't blame them, although I get as frustrated as anyone when they lose patience with low-rated shows like "Studio 60," which I thought was fantastic. But then, what do I know?

[David Reich]

PS -- I don't like snakes. Even on a plane.

[CK]

@David: FYI, the eppies are always paid for (the model is $1.99 per episode instead of $40 for a month of the network). Just not sure if you knew that, pal. So reveneus are always part of the package (not talking free content like with Napster songs, talking paid for downloads where some networks do it, like with Mad Men and others make people wait a season).

[CK]

Reich: If you had gone to the NYC opening of Snakes On A Plane last year, you would have liked snakes--and you would have a fun memory of how much we all screamed, hissed and cursed with Sam Jackson. Too bad you had a commit, next time.

[Mario Vellandi]

I love this show! Started watching from ep.3 and was hooked. I knew it was supposed to air soon and was checkin' on-demand Sunday night to no avail. Now I remember it's Dexter that's on Sunday (my other favorite show) and Weeds on Mon.

If people want the program, you have to make it available as a side-order. Cable companies should recognize this as additional rev opps. They could offer free episodes of other shows to sample (to which the viewer could also subscribe), or just purchase that channel package.

[Tangerine Toad]

As per David, it's unfortunately the case that TV networks still make their money from selling advertising time which is tied in to ratings.

And CK, I think the model you propose is exactly where we are headed: at some point TV and the Interweb will merge, and you will be able to either download shows without commercials for say $1.99 or you'll be able to download them for 99 cents with commercials or watch them for 24 hours for free with commercials. (Or some sliding scale structure like that.)