![]() It gives the advertiser the power to change the viewer's preference between Brand X and Brand Y. What makes you think advertising is inefficient? For specific parties it's extremely efficient. > What I think is even more interesting is the fact that advertising, such a wildly inefficient method, right now props up so many industries. What would all of these major industries do for revenue? Some sort of beam that just got people to understand/like your product immediately. Imagine if Google released a product tomorrow that was 100% efficient at replacing advertising. What I think is even more interesting is the fact that advertising, such a wildly inefficient method, right now props up so many industries. You could imagine this getting so popular that it eventually becomes annoying and then eventually edited out of any shows/movies. I was day dreaming about how far they could take this and imagined them freezing the scene and the three of them breaking character/fourth wall to pitch a product and then unfreezing the scene and going back to acting. I recently saw this done pretty tastefully in an episode of 'Workaholics' where the group wove some product placement into the story pretty naturally. ![]() I think the answer is advertising inside the movie/show. Imagine a future where all movies/tv shows were given away for free/stolen, how would they profit? I agree, I wonder though if future Hollywood will be more or less profitable. > The future is definitely being able to stream all the shows and movies immediately after release anywhere on the web. But out of all the issues with Hulu, I'm not sure their failure to give us everything commercial free is actually that outrageous. On the surface, isn't that kind of an amazing improvement?Ĭoming back to the "theoretically," the problems I see with Hulu are certainly driven by stupid contractual obligations: they usually only have the last five episodes of any given series, so if you want to start watching something halfway through the season you're out of luck they sometimes don't have rights to stream things on Hulu Plus that they do on normal Hulu, which is banana crazypants and of course, there are shows and even whole networks they don't carry. Not for cable or satellite prices of $100+ a month (and that's not counting "premium" channels like HBO), not even for the promotional special prices of ~$30 a month, but for $7.99 a month, and with about half as many ads, given that Hulu's breaks are 60-90 seconds instead of 2-4 minutes. Plus a lot of back catalog stuff, plus weird independent stuff that they bring in. Hulu Plus theoretically works an awful lot like a DVR from your cable/satellite company (we'll come back to the "theoretically" in a moment): watch new shows the day after they aired, as many as you want. This will sound like I'm playing devil's advocate, but it's a serious question. I'd have to imagine that selling 'The Wolf of Wall Street' for $20 on Amazon is more profitable than selling it for say $19 and capturing a few pirate consumers.īut I wonder if theres a number between $0 and $19 that captures enough of the piraters to be more profitable than $20? Give the product away virtually for free, collect an enormous user base while you starve/kill the demand for the equivalent torrents, slowly increase the price of the service until you find equilibrium, then profit.īut hey, maybe piracy isn't really a problem? The greatest assumption people make is that because someone downloaded a movie illegally they were willing to buy it for $20. I think the industry should do what Hulu has done over the past 5 years. You can either try to increase the riskOfGettingCaught or decrease the legal price. On your popular torrent site virtually the same product is available for $0 + (riskOfGettingCaught * $1,000,000 fine) = $0.000001 ? ![]() Right now 'The Wolf of Wall Street' is available from Amazon Instant Video at $20.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |