- Annual Walter Kaitz Dinner Raises Nearly $1.7 Million to Conclude Diversity Week
- Another Dominant Night as Premium TV Takes Big Emmy Wins
- Why NCTA is Now The Internet & Television Association
- Coming Together to Prioritize Diversity
- Cable’s Industry-Wide Initiative to Support Veterans Year-Round
One of the highlights of the SXSWi conference in Austin was the session “Pay TV vs. Internet – The Battle For Your TV,” featuring a no-holds-barred debate between Mark Cuban, Chairman and President of the programming service HDNet, and Avner Ronen, CEO & co-founder of Boxee. The two have sparred before on the topic whether “the Internet” is going to replace today’s existing television models and this clash was just as lively, punctuated early on by a fire alarm that emptied the room for a time.
…Cuban believes in subscription TV and sees Ronen… as representing free-only; Ronen believes TV over the internet is the present—and the future but a la carte. He’s not anti-pay per se—Boxee is working on a pay offering—but anti-establishment TV. Cuban doesn’t see an internet TV business model that works yet.
“How will content be paid for?” is a key question, and the Current Events blog notes that Cuban made strong points in this area:
Cuban pushed hard, arguing that other than a few big players, like Apple, you simply can’t get people to pay on a scale to make a solid business case for internet delivery of media. Ronen fired back with the question “What you are saying is that because you have lack of choice, you are going to win?” Cuban kept going back to the fact that Boxee can’t monetize their business, while Cuban won’t broadcast anything he can’t make a dollar on, and he has a point. Everyone wants to be able to pick and choose what they want to watch, but with the internet giving so much of it away for free, few are willing to pay.
At several points, Cuban argued that the Internet isn’t really set up for efficient delivery of video, but that cable’s infrastructure is. The Gearlog blog highlighted this point:
“But people are willing to pay for Internet video right now,” Ronan responded. “They are paying for Netflix, they are paying for MLB, they are paying for a lot of things,” he said. “It isn’t about free or not free. It is about whether the Internet can deliver video and it can.”
How much video and how reliably it can be delivered is a different question. And that is where Cuban made his strongest points. Having a few million users download programming a few times a week is one thing, but what about when it is tens of millions? The Internet simply wasn’t built to support that kind of delivery.
Ronen kept arguing that the old models are dying, that distribution via the Internet is the future, and that it is therefore foolish for content owners for Cuban to not make content available online. Cuban countered that no one is making significant money online and made it clear that he wasn’t going to give his content away for free. For example, Cuban joked, perhaps the producers of the show The Office should just give their program away for free and then tour the production as a play around the country.
Two colorful Cuban quotes:
- “The a la carte model is for morons.”
- “If you think that the Internet going to replace cable, you’re crazy.”
His larger point is that in an a la carte universe, content players have to include significant promotional expenses, because in a world of unlimited choices, you have to find a way to stand out. To an audience member who complained about “paying $100 a month to watch three shows,” Cuban responded, “In an a la carte world, you’re one of zillions. Marketing is expensive.”
But I think the key point of the whole discussion slipped by most of the audience, and I haven’t seen it reflected in the news coverage. An audience member asked how an Internet-based subscription service – one where the consumer contracts with a company, that then delivers video over the Internet for a fee – would differ from what we have now. Cuban said this was a good question. It is, because the answer is that it wouldn’t look different at all.
I went up afterwards to discuss this with Cuban and confirmed what I was thinking. Consumers don’t care how programming comes to their house, whether it’s over fiber or coax, by satellite or by IP transport. They turn on their TV and watch stuff. So, as long as the economics of producing content remain the same, and there’s no reason to think they won’t, then the technical means of getting programming into the home are immaterial.
Cuban said to an audience member after the session that many of the elements of Internet-based content look just like digital cable: streaming content on demand, storage costs, capacity issues. As cable becomes increasingly digital, those similarities increase. And if those two worlds – Pay TV and the Internet – are alike in many ways, then it becomes even more important to look at the ways they are different.
Cuban thinks that cable’s subscription model works better for him financially. He also thinks that cable does a better job of delivering video, especially as hi-def becomes more prevalent. Consumers aren’t going to care about the nuts-and-bolts of how it all works. As Cuban put it, “The future of television is… television.”
[NOTE: Photo above used by kind permission of Staci Kramer.]