Another article in Ad Age that focuses on the ever changing landscape of cable, where often, shows seem mismatched to their brands. Interestingly, the article doesn't actually come out and focus on the reason this typically seems to happens: cable networks targeting adults are in a constant quest to lower the age of their average viewer.
Strangely, three out of the four networks Ad Age showcases (Syfy, USA Network, History and truTV) are networks that are are usually true to their network name brands, or in the case of USA Network, the "Characters Welcome" branding. Can you guess which of those four networks I don't think is always (or perhaps even usually) true to its brand?
Anyway, it's worth the read just for the data on ad revenue estimates for 2009 for those four networks.
That's more ad dollars than I would have predicted for USA.
On the subject of branding and niche programming I think its a shame that its slowly dying out but also not especially surprising and the writings been on the wall for a long time. These niches were pushed onto cable because not enough people wanted to watch them on broadcast and now as cable grows and the cable networks are fighting for a larger share of the same as the broadcast networks the niches will slowly be pushed out further.
What the next step for the niche branded programming is would be an interesting avenue to explore. Do they migrate to premium cable or are they pushed into online streaming? I'd guess eventually they'll move to being the tester for more dedicated online streaming, with the irony being that the cable model will then just repeat itself there as well…
No mention of Cartoon Network and, of course, MTV?
Alex — I don't think the same issues will be found in terms of pushing to online streaming. The online model, I believe, will be closer to that of a cable provider rather than a network. More specifically, I see it pretty much as Hulu is set up — one platform to access your shows and then multiple channels for those who are specifically interested: http://www.hulu.com/channels.
Stage 2 involves a greater focus on tagging, user profiles, viewing habits, viewing habits of ones social networks, and individual user reviews. This will bring it closer to the Netflix model, where genre-specific programming is subverted by user-specific programming. So we'll have the “Alex” channel and such.
Well, that's my prediction anyway.
Chaos Amoeba: my prediction is you are wrong and you will not see much (almost ZERO) content; at least of a quality you'd want to watch that isn't coming from a network for some time to come.
Hulu's existing model is already doomed anyway. It will either have to change to charge, add lots more commercials or both to satisfy the content providers who participate.
Exactly the problem with niches is that these niches ultimatly lose some level of interest or the need to growth requires them to diversify. It's like business 101. Why does McDonalds sell more than burgers and fries. There's something to be said for sticking to what works and what you know but in entertainment especially, the fad for “what you know” can end at any time.
And for all the complainng about NBC, USA is a prime example of why Zucker's job is safe
And a note, who owns the rest of these networks? NBCU right?
Without even reading the article, a safe guess would be the History channel with shows like Ice Truckers, and those fishing and logging shows.
You left out their best (ratings) show: Pawn Stars!
I'm pretty sure Robert was referring to TruTV AniMatsuri
What? You're kidding, right, Tommy? I was definitely referring to History Channel. Whatever you may think of tru's shows, they mostly seem on brand to me.
Time Warner owns truTV.
They've certainly gone far from their “roots” as CourTV, but they are *way* up in ratings on a year to year basis. Something is working.
True, I guess I was thinking back to the roots of TruTV when it was still called Court TV. To be honest I have never watched it so I assumed it was a name change only.
Pawn Stars is more brand specific than the shows I mentioned since most of the stuff brought into the shop do have a interesting -history- behind them.
Animal Planet shows 'Haunted'. Somebody must have classified ghosts as “animals” and failed to notify me.
Hm… so the earlier post got me thinking. Here's a faux business plan, if anyone wants to steal it. I'll call the new service “Iris” after the Greek Goddess, and your eye.
————
Iris Business Plan
Users pay a nominal monthly fee (~$1/month) to set-up an account. After paying the fee, they will have access to a full library of television shows, including archives. The first episode of any series can be viewed commercial free, whereas all additional episodes will come with only two or three commercials.
Iris will stream videos to users televisions, computers, or mobile devices. Users can select the programs they wish to watch and Iris will also make recommendations based upon the user's previous viewing history, the viewing history of their friends and their ratings of the programs that they are watching.
For viewers: Get access to a vast library of television programs for almost nothing and with only limited commercials. Find out what your friends are watching and get special streaming content based upon where you are. Stuck in the nose-bleed seats of your favorite sporting game? Catch streaming commentary and automatic replays from your mobile phone right in the stadium! Discuss your favorite shows with your friends on your personal message boards or on our public forums!
For advertisers: Using both data collected about viewer's viewing habits, their demographics, and viewers who share a similar taste, we can target your advertisements to the users which will provide the most impact. In addition, for viewers who are watching programs on mobile devices, we can use geotagging technology to provide location-specific advertisements. For example, if your viewer is a fan of science-fiction and is watching on his mobile device in Macy's, we can send them an advertisement about a sale of Fringe going on at the Best Buy, which is conveniently next door. Move from traditional spray-and-pray marketing to more sophisticated marketing analytics with our partnership with Nielsen consumer panels (see below).
For AC Neilsen: Tired of random people who don't know about your business complaining about your ratings system? Ask your consumer (not tv) panels to join our program and link their profiles to ours! This will provide a system that can actually track conversion rates of advertising from views to sales at a consumer level.
————
The nominal fee is to avoid users creating multiple accounts; of course, it can be waived for the first month or so. The advertising is basically a more sophisticated version of Google's adsense type targeted advertising. It may be viable to pay not to watch commercials.
————
Rob — it's my prediction, but I didn't say it was a short-term prediction. I agree that it won't come “for some time,” but if it does, I'm guessing that's the form it takes. The most likely candidate to do something like this is Netflix (not a Hulu), although a Netflix/Hulu partnership would certainly be interesting. The key infrastructural difficulties would be the networks, as such a set-up (above) doesn't really require the networks as distributors and as it stands, no one under this system is directly paying a fixed fee to television producers — so that channel hasn't been sussed out.
As you'll note the plan above is a pay + commercials plan (as you suggested), with user's able to decide which way they want to go (to a degree), i.e., if you're the type that prefers cable service you go for the pay plan, if you're cheap, you can go for almost free.
While this reeks of anecdotal evidence, I do know quite a few people who have abandoned television sets for Netflix and Hulu exclusively, myself included. For all that I post on this site, I actually haven't owned a television set for two years — so all my television program watching has been through those two mediums — and I haven't felt particularly out of the loop.
It seems at the moment Adult Swim is the only one who can get those adults 18-34 consistently, especially men 18-34. I remember reading last week that Adult Swim was by far the number one cable network with adults 18-34 in total day with over 500,000 viewers. I think the second highest was Nick at Nite and they didn’t even crack 400,000.
Most Networks that come out with a name that has specific niche branding do so to capture the attention of a consolidated audience. But once that type of programming starts to become warn, then they start reaching for whatever type of programming that will get ratings.
The most obvious being A&E, Mtv(which barely has any music anymore) and Court TV, which finally went ahead and changed it's name to Tru tv.
Just checking to see if my email verification worked.
Chaos Amoeba the problem with the 'Iris' model at least in regards to 'niche programming' is that someone still has to make it and therefore people have to believe there's money to be made from it. In the early days of cable the niche branding was used to sell the service and so investments made in the programming at that time was seen at worst as a long term investment. As the popularity of cable has grown the niche brands are no longer needed to sell the service so the networks (and more importantly the parent companies behind them) are seeking to expand into more mainstream programming and branding so that rather than being an alternative to broadcast they're a direct competitor to it.
From where I'm sitting the online model will ultimately follow the same path as cable.
The niche brands will lead the way and as the popularity grows and more people opt to use online streaming the need to produce more original mainstream content to make the most of the increasing advertiser dollars available will present itself. And the key here is original content. Current online providers like Hulu or your fictional Iris service are all well and good but they don't provide original content and therefore their market for growth is tiny. I maintain that at this stage people aren't going to pay for Hulu (at least not a significant number) when they can get the service and content free from the broadcast networks and/or as part of their existing cable subscription.
Online streaming only becomes and then grows as a viable alternative to broadcast/cable/traditional television when high quality original content is part of the package. The networks all have the existing model on how to grow online streaming via cable. They know that if you invest in some core niche networks/programming that people will slowly but surely start to subscribe particularly if that content isn't available to them anywhere else from there the service grows and the need for mainstream expansion kicks in.
The really interesting/suspect thing about all this is that as the cable networks remove the niche programming they're just setting up the next evolution of the industry via online streaming. You starve the audience of specific content and then when you present (an expensive) alternative that will provide that content they'll consider it.
I think it's fun to speculate about how channels might try to translate their presence online, but I think the bigger question is whether somehow content producers figure out how to “cut out the middleman” online. I know content companies desperately want to control what people watch online. That doesn't mean that they can. “Online” has a growing track-record of being much more disruptive than reasonable people generally predict.
What is the growing track-record you base that conclusion on? Details, please.