TV on the Net

On March 4, 2013, the New York Times featured article entitled "Don't Touch That Remote: TV Pilots Turn to Net, Not Networks" which can be found at http://nyti.ms/15ydEwf. It was how the traditional model for show pilots over the airwaves had been disrupted by the internet with new players like Netflix now playing an important role. In that article, the Times wrote:

"Internet-delivered TV, which until recently was unready for prime time, is the new front in the war for Americans' attention spans. Netflix is following up on the $100 million drama "House of Cards" with four more series this year. Microsoft is producing programming for the Xbox video game console with the help of a former CBS president. Other companies, from AOL to Sony to Twitter, are likely to follow.

The companies are, in effect, creating new networks for television through broadband pipes and also giving rise to new rivalries - among one another, as between Amazon and Netflix, and with the big but vulnerable broadcast networks as well."

However, at its core is something I've been saying since I began this blog: Internet-delivered content, combined with the dramatic reduction in content production costs (inexpensive, high-definition video cameras, for example, can be had for a few hundred dollars these days) could soon challenge big media's dominance of TV. Indeed, what we think of as TV may already be changing. These days, many people watch shows on their tablet computers, phones, and just maybe, a traditional television, though that is not as common as it once was.

Content quality for stuff distributed online, on the other hand, is literally all over the map. Some stuff is truly phenomenal, while other things are utterly disposable. Then again, the same can be said about stuff on traditional TV (I have almost no use for so-called “reality TV”). What has changed is that instead of content we watch being firmly controlled by its self-anointed gatekeepers at big media companies, there's been a much-needed democratization of sorts. Today, anyone can produce content and post it on YouTube. And, you can probably watch it on your TV if you really want. Or your laptop, tablet, smartphone or iPod (which many more are doing anyway).

Incidentally, the trend of WHERE we watch TV being redefined isn't limited to the U.S. Sweden, the European country perhaps best known for progressive taxes and the one with the highest quality of life in the world (not to mention the highest levels of affluence in the world, including the über-wealthy Wallenburg family), has taken the bold step of having the TV tax assessed on taxpayers to fund Swedish state television not only on physical television sets, but now includes mobile devices like iPads and tablet computers (see http://on.wsj.com/14uSJHX for details) in recognition of the fact that more and more so-called “TV content” is now being consumed on those devices. That’s unlikely to ever happen in the U.S. where there is hardly any public support for state-funded television (PBS being a notable exception, and what exists doesn't fund anywhere near the network’s full operating expenses), but the point is that we’re no longer required to watch content on TV sets anymore. The Swedes rely on an honor system, but the fact that the Swedes are now including devices suggests where things are going.

While I'm not sure we can yet say that Netflix is necessarily the next ABC, CBS, NBC, Fox or CW, we can say that we’re approaching a point where "broadcast" no longer means over the airwaves exclusively. As the lines between TV and online content blur with new TVs and devices like Roku players, we may also soon reach a point where content could be managed from our desktops rather than our cable boxes. We’re not quite there … yet.

"These are the very first lab tests in a very grand experiment," said Jeff Berman, the president of BermanBraun, a media company that makes programming for NBC, HGTV, AOL and YouTube, among others.

As he suggested, the competition from online content has really only just begun, but the distributors are companies including Netflix, Amazon, Microsoft and maybe Google's YouTube.

To be sure, it's still pretty early. At this point, I can safely say that managing all that online content is still a VERY, very cumbersome process, and frankly, Apple's “Apple TV” device does nothing to make managing all that content any easier, it’s just another TV input and it does nothing to help organize all of the disparate content on DVDs, DVRs and online. Google did a bit better with its inexpensive Chromecast dongle (priced at just $35), but a host of others including Intel and Amazon are pursuing similar set-top box (or plug-ins) concepts.

On Wednesday, March 6, 2013, the NPR show "The Takeaway" with John Hockenberry had an interesting show entitled "More Reasons to Cancel Cable" about how soon, Netflix would have more competition from the likes of Amazon and Microsoft's X-Box (although Microsoft’s studios in Hollywood later shut down), as well as other providers. It discusses the aforementioned New York Times article and more. That can be listened to below, or by visiting http://bit.ly/ZgMy7w:



Brian Stelter, media reporter for The New York Times, says that online programming is very likely the future of television -- and that cable networks should be very wary. (Note: one of my previous posts featured an interview with Brian Stelter, see http://goo.gl/3Ic0S for details).

What streamed content offers is a few things, including no need to worry about editing content that would be unable to be broadcast, as well as programming length. For a half-hour broadcast sitcom, they must allot for several minutes of commercials, which means that the programming is limited to 22 or 28 minutes. That limits what can be covered in each episode. Pay cable programming offered a way around that, and now streaming does, too.

That’s one reason many top producers are actually drawn to do programming online on services like Amazon Prime or Netflix. Co-creator and producer Marta Kauffman said that was one of the things she really liked about doing a series for Netflix (her previous work includes the sitcom 'Friends'). She was speaking about the Netflix series 'Grace and Frankie' (which stars Jane Fonda, Lily Tomlin, Martin Sheen and Sam Waterson and the series was just picked up for s second season, catch my blog post on that at http://bit.ly/1BvWByS for more background)

"What's lovely and what worked so well being able to work at Netflix is if a story can only bear 28 minutes that's fine, and if it needs 37 minutes that's fine. So it allows the story to tell you what it wants. That's pretty awesome, that's a great way to be able to write. I'm sure novelists have that ability to be as long as they need to be (see the interview at http://ow.ly/OB9zX for more details). 

The other thing is that content can be more refined to reach particular audiences. That’s created a whole new environment where niche programming can be created cost-effectively without even having a network. No longer limited to traditional confines of television production, the web has enabled a variety of shows to find audiences that way, ranging from immigrant groups, to religious groups to lesbian and gay audiences.

Leon Acord who produces the web series 'Old Dogs & New Tricks' which is now entering its fourth season, told Huffington Post reporter Brad Liberti (see http://huff.to/1I8t8MT for the article) that the experience of doing a web series had its origins in regular television, but the validation was that producing a web series' had fewer of the restrictions than regular TV does, which makes it very alluring for would-be content producers. That suggests we are still in early stages for web series generally.

Acord had been watching a lot of TV comedy with his father, something they’d often bonded over when Acord was just a kid. We loved 'All in the Family.' Now it was 'Two and a Half Men' in particular that his dad enjoyed, and while the Chuck Lorre half-hour comedy wasn't exactly known for its diversity and or sophistication, it did affirm one thing for the budding writer: "I had fantasized about doing a web series, but I guess I always, in the back of my head, thought, 'No, this kind of stuff you couldn't get away with,' and then watching 'Two and a Half Men', I was like, 'Oh, my god, this is raunchy and on network!'"

In the meantime, sifting through all of this disorganized digital content grows ever more challenging every day. So far, Apple has done little to enlighten or turn this around. Apple TV is, at best, an Apple-branded Roku box offering no major advantages but has its characteristic higher prices. For the moment, a basic PC seems to be the best way to manage content. Maybe we’ll see some innovation in the future. However, the good news is that there’s no shortage of exciting new TV content out there for viewers.

Can Soaps Left For Dead See New Life Resurrected In A New Era Of Internet TV?

The humble soap opera (a.k.a. "soaps"), which got their name from the original dramatic serials' broadcast on radio which soap manufacturers, including Procter & Gamble, Colgate-Palmolive, Dial Corp. (now owned by Germany's Henkel AG) and Unilever, once sponsored.  Soaps as a genre of television programming are (or were), by definition, ongoing, episodic works of dramatic fiction presented in serial format on radio or as television programming.  Its also worth noting that a number of actors and actresses (and a few musicians) began their careers on soaps.

For decades, soaps were a staple of daytime radio, which migrated to TV, yet this particular genre of television content faced extinction when the new millennium began.  Indeed, in recent years, ratings for most soaps fell in the U.S.  As a result, many of America's longest-running soaps ended between 2009 to 2012.

Wikipedia reports that the longest-running drama in television and radio history, "Guiding Light", barely reached 2.1 million daily viewers in 2009 when it ended after 72 years.  As a point of comparison, Luke and Laura's wedding on ABC's "General Hospital" soap in 1981 attracted 30 million viewers (a peek for soaps).  But the decline for soaps in more recent years was true for many other once-lucrative soap operas.  “The Guiding Light” was hardly alone.  “World Turns" aired its final episode in 2010 after a 54 year run, and it was the last of 20 soap operas still produced by Procter & Gamble.  "All My Children" and "One Life to Live", each having an over four-decade run, were both cancelled in 2011, with "All My Children" airing its finale in September 2011 and "One Life to Live" last airing in January 2012.

Behind Soaps' Decline

A confluence of factors contributed to the decline of soaps.

Until the 1970s, advertisers of consumer products (like soap) made by companies like P&G and Colgate-Palmolive could reliably advertise to (and reach) the female homemakers who typically buy such products for their households.  But starting in the 1970s, as more and more women worked outside of the home, daytime TV viewership declined.  Add to that the fact that new generations of potential viewers weren't raised watching soap operas with their mothers, which left the shows' long and complex storylines unknown to younger audiences.  Beyond the shift in roles for women who largely work outside the home today, the trend was accelerated by technology in the new millennium.

Technology: The Final Nail in Soaps' Coffin, Or The Genre’s Resurrection?

We saw digital television multiply the number of channels available to viewers (whether via traditional broadcast or on cable/satellite).  At the dawn of the new Millennium, it looked as if that might be a potential savior for the soap opera format.  For example, on January 20, 2000, Disney's Soapnet (stylized as SOAPnet) started broadcasting current (and perhaps even more old reruns) of soap operas and prime time dramas (note that Disney also owns the television network ABC).  However, Soapnet's success in attracting viewers proved elusive.  Indeed, plans for a rival network from Sony Pictures Entertainment to be dubbed SoapCity (also showing soap content) were abandoned early in 2000 after Sony failed to acquire cable carriage.

Soapnet itself, in spite of already being carried on some systems, was discontinued on a number of cable and satellite providers starting in March 2012, with Disney Junior replacing it in its channel space.  Although Soapnet continues for providers who have not yet made carriage agreements for Disney Junior (such as Dish Network) and for those providers who have kept Soapnet in their lineup and have either taken on Disney Junior as an additional channel or opted not to carry Disney Junior (e.g. DirecTV, etc), it's future is unclear as to whether Soapnet will might cease operations on all cable and satellite providers.

That put us in a situation where the soap opera category of television programming appeared doomed to extinction, perhaps taught as an example of historical marketing by consumer products manufacturers and distributors, or used by network programming executives on how a genre of programming which had endured from radio into broadcast television would ultimately succumb in the new Millennium, caused by failing economics and new technological advances.

As I've blogged about in the past, the day of internet-delivered video content (what we now collectively call "television") has emerged, and with seemingly unlimited capacity to stream original (or old) programming content to digital televisions or on various computers (PCs, laptops and tablets), often providing programming at times far better suited for viewers since it is all on-demand, which means soaps may yet continue their story, complete with the twists and turns soap plots were known for.

On April 25, 2013, the Associated Press ran an article entitled "Back from the dead! 'All My Children,' 'One Life to Live' revived on Web", with news that two long-running (but recently cancelled) soaps would be resurrected on the web.

In his article, Associated Press Television Writer Frazier Moore wrote:

"Taped to a wall at the entrance to the Connecticut Film Center in Stamford is this greeting: 'Welcome (back) to Pine Valley.'  (Author P.S.:  I cover the Connecticut Film Center in another post, see http://goo.gl/B73dP for that particular post).

Pine Valley, of course, is the mythical setting of 'All My Children,' a daytime drama that ran on ABC for nearly 41 years until it was snuffed in 2011.

But now, in one of those plot twists so common to soap operas but so rare in the real world, 'All My Children' has been raised from the dead.

Was its cancellation just a bad dream, from which the show is now awakening? In any case, 'AMC' will be back starting Monday [April 29, 2013] with much of its august cast intact (including David Canary, Julia Barr, Jill Larson, Debbi Morgan and Cady McClain, and perhaps even Susan Lucci eventually returning to the fold), along with shiny new actors to add more pizazz."

Check out the video commercial for the resurrection of "All My Children" resurrection on Hulu below, or by visiting http://youtu.be/od1LeaCDK5E:

It added:

"So will 'One Life to Live,' another venerable soap cut down by ABC after 44 seasons. It, too, will spring back to life on Monday. (Welcome back to Llanview, everybody!) Returning fan favorites include Erika Slezak, Robert S. Woods, Robin Strasser and Hillary B. Smith, each of whom has logged decades on the show."

For what its worth, the two shows had been on TV a combined total of 84 years.  Variety, long an entertainment business go-to trade publication, featured an entertaining if descriptive headline for the news (see http://variety.com/2013/tv/news/inside-the-online-revival-of-all-my-children-one-life-to-live-1200412961/):

"The Bold and the Digital: Production and distribution getting a radical rethink"

That's an obvious play on the name for another soap known as "The Bold and the Beautiful".  But the headline suggests, the day for content we once passively turned our television receivers on to watch has finally seen major technological changes in how that entertainment content is delivered, which has disrupted other types of entertainment such as music.

The two venerable soap operas noted will come back to life, but will be distributed online.  Each serial will unveil four daily half-hours per week, plus a recap/behind-the-scenes episode on Fridays, with 42 weeks of original programming promised for the first year.

NPR recently addressed this online resurrection of these two soaps.  You may listen below, or by visiting http://n.pr/13DKI4y:



Marketplace talked about the soaps migration to the online platform, which can be listened to below, or by visiting http://bit.ly/16bqWl4:



The resurrected shows will be available for streaming on computers on the Hulu website (http://www.hulu.com/). Subscribers to Hulu Plus can watch on a variety of other devices. And the episodes will be available for purchase on iTunes.

This resurrection could reverse the doomsday scenario that has plagued soaps in recent decades as viewership withered and numbers sank (there are now only four soaps left on the broadcast networks; there were a dozen in 1991).

The details of this soap resurrection online are as follows:

Starting Monday, April 29, 2013, brand new 30-minute episodes of both "All My Children" and "One Life to Live" will appear each Monday through Thursday on the free Hulu.com website and the paid monthly subscription service Hulu Plus.  Fans can also buy episodes in Apple's iTunes store.

Reuters reported "The producers, former Walt Disney TV chairman Rich Frank and talent management veteran Jeff Kwatinetz, hope to ride a wave of interest in first-run series online, highlighted by the recent buzz for Netflix original drama 'House of Cards' and its coming revival of the former Fox comedy 'Arrested Development'".

Commercial Success for Soaps Delivered Online Not A Sure Thing

As I already noted, internet-delivered "TV" programming does something networks like Soapnet did not (could not or would not): provide on-demand, anytime, anywhere entertainment programming to a number of computerized electronic devices connected to the internet, whether its a traditional television set (possibly with an add-on device like Roku), or on a tablet computer that someone can watch at their desk during their lunch break at work.

In fact, "All My Children" star Jill Larson (known Opal Cortlandt to soap fans) had this to say: "It's no longer daytime -- it's anytime now."

Will Older Viewers Tune Into Soaps Online?

There is still some skepticism that such an older-skewing audience will necessarily tune-in.  For example, one subsegment of traditional soap viewers, notably elderly women, may feel technologically challenged to even find the show, although that does sell their skill sets short, and newer, smarter televisions may yet turn it into a plug and play even if the technology isn't there today.

TVs sold today have so many wires and connections that its a bit of a hassle to set up, and even worse to move within your home.  Many observers thought that Apple, which made computer operating systems user-friendly with the Mac, or made an entire library of digital music (and retail store) accessible via the iPod is a logical choice to bring ease-of-use back into the digital television.  So far, however, Apple TV is significantly more expensive and certainly no easier to set up, yet is more restrictive in terms of content than rivals from Roku, therefore Apple has not quite enlightened or created a new market ... yet.

In my mind, at least, new technology may actually help ventures like managing an ever-growing body of entertainment delivered via the internet.  After all, imagine if you could use a TV remote control and enter a particular channel number to retrieve online-distributed content from all over the internet?  That may lure in a bunch of viewers who simply want the ease that television once represented: turn it on, change the channel and watch.  No one wants to spend several hours programming all that stuff to help us navigate, connecting different wires (or entering wifi and network passwords).  Roku, while decent, still limits itself to just a few providers (YouTube is not among those, although I believe Hulu is).

Smaller Still Works With Online Delivery

Technology aside, the resurrection is credited to a man named Mr. Kwatinetz, the former head of a Hollywood talent agency, and Mr. Frank, a former president of Walt Disney Studios, who now own a production company known as Prospect Park, which snapped up the rights to the two soaps shortly after ABC canceled them in 2011.  The New York Times reports (see http://nyti.ms/11vq70A) they don't necessarily need every single one of the three million viewers who watched "All My Children" or "One Life to Live" on ABC to watch online to make the economics work.

The New York Times, reported "By some estimates they need only about one-sixth the viewers, or 500,000, to break even. That's because the episodes cost far less to produce than they used to; ads on Hulu can be much more targeted than ads on television; and some viewers will pay out-of-pocket, either through iTunes, where episodes will retail for $0.99 each, or through the $8-a-month Hulu Plus service. (The most recent episodes will be available through the free version of Hulu, while the whole library will be on only Hulu Plus.)"

Mr. Kwatinetz also told the New York Times he expected the audience to come from two camps: longtime fans and "younger people who are already watching most of their TV online." (To entice the latter group, the new shows are faster-paced and racier than the ABC versions.) Still, Ms. De Kosnik said, some former viewers could be "confused by the thought of trying to find TV shows online."

Unlike in the past, these days, the options of WHAT viewers can watch seem to be expanding) and those entertainment options are now being delivered in innovative ways - online.  Right now, Hulu is the channel for this, but rival Netflix has inked deals with a few others to resurrect shows like "Arrested Development".  This will be a test to see whether grannies in nursing homes with iPads in hand will tune in to some old favorites.

Author P.S. (September 9, 2013):  NPR reports that after an arguably very successful reboot on Hulu, the long-running soap "One Life to Live" is now facing new, legal challenges.  A legal dispute has shut down production all together, which has fans worried the show's days may be numbered in spite of a successful reboot online.  See "How Many Lives Does 'One Life To Live' Have?", and have a listen at http://n.pr/17QhQFK.

More Cracks In Cable's Fortress

I've written several times in the past about the pay TV business model, and many presume that particular business model is still pretty solid, in spite of evidence to suggest otherwise.  See the following posts as examples:

Why Must-See-TV Is History; But Is It The End of "Shared" Pop Culture? (or visit http://goo.gl/Vzbcn)


What Happens to TV As We Know It When The Business Model No Longer Works? (or see http://goo.gl/G7z0A)


Is the Future Pay TV Model As Safe as The Atlantic Believes It Is? (or see http://goo.gl/3Ic0S)

I believe that model is likely to unravel soon.  At the core of the argument for the business model is that cable is somehow not susceptible to the same disruptive technology that in caused the music business to collapse.  That belief is flawed for many reasons.

We've seen signs that glass house is indeed cracking.

Aside from the growth of online services like YouTube (which is free), Netflix (which is subscription), Hulu (there's a free version and a subscription version) and others, big cable companies that have the most to gain from fighting that model are now starting to fight back.

In the one entitled "Is the Future Pay TV Model As Safe as The Atlantic Believes It Is?", I noted that during the first six and a half months of 2012, there were 22 fee disputes involving the price of broadcast TV signals have caused channel blackouts, according to the American TV Alliance. That was up from 15 blackouts in all of 2011, and just four in 2010.

Then, there are business initiatives such as the Barry Diller-funded effort called Aereo.com which began in the town I live in (New York City) but is expanding to other cities in 2013.  In spite of dozens of legal copyright-infringement lawsuits filed by the major media conglomerates which accuse Aereo of unlawfully copying their content, Mr. Diller argues what he's doing is entirely legal because customers are assigned individual antennas at its data centers, so they're basically just renting the use of their own antennas and have that delivered via the internet. Aereo uses a dime-sized TV antenna and crams hundreds (or perhaps thousands of them) into boxes located at the company's data centers.  AP claims each box is the size of a dishwasher.  As a result, the company says it's similar to what viewers would get for free by installing the same equipment at home.  By contrast, cable companies use a single antenna or direct feed from a broadcaster to pick up a station for thousands of subscribers.

Ultimately, the courts will decide.  But last July, a federal judge in New York refused to give the broadcaster conglomerates (Newscorp's Fox, Disney/ABC, CBS/Viacom which Mr. Diller himself used to run, and NBC Universal/Comcast) who were suing Aereo a preliminary injunction to stop the service, although the case remains pending.

More recent moves have bypassed broadcast networks altogether, in effect, cutting the media conglomerates out of the equation.  Netflix, for example, signed a deal with Disney.  As the cost of production has declined, some producers can make high-quality content at a low cost and do the same thing.  Beyond that, online content is finding its own audience without the help of big broadcasters to distribute it.

Indeed, YouTube is living up to its name.

Anyway, we saw one major cable company finally push back.  Last month, Cablevision sued Viacom over alleged antitrust violations, another challenge to the business model of consumers being forced to pay for channels they don't want to get the few they do want.

Personally, I couldn't have imagined this would happen quite as fast as it is happening.

By the way, I Google'd the headline "Cablevision Picks at the Ties That Bind" and found that Newscorp was giving the content away anyway, so I think this particular article is safe to share since the company isn't doing anything to safeguard it.  You can find it online (with a WSJ subscription) at http://on.wsj.com/WnD0wq:


Cablevision Picks at the Ties That Bind
By Miriam Gottfried, The Wall Street Journal
February 27, 2013

Cracks are forming in the pay-TV fortress. And Cablevision is the latest to deliver a blow.

The cable provider's announcement Tuesday that it has sued Viacom over alleged antitrust violations ups the ante in the continuing battle over the rising cost of TV content. Pay-TV providers say they can't pass along the escalating prices being charged by media networks to customers already paying more than $70 a month for video alone. At the same time, they are facing increasing pressure from a rapidly changing media-technology environment in which some viewers are getting video from other sources such as Netflix.

n its suit, Cablevision alleges Viacom forced it to carry and pay for 14 "lesser-watched" channels for the right to carry its more popular "must-have" networks, including Nickelodeon, MTV and Comedy Central. The practice of packaging channels together, known as bundling, is standard for network agreements with distributors.

To show Viacom did anything illegal, Cablevision must demonstrate the terms are so onerous it was essentially forced to take all the channels, a practice known as tying. Viacom has said it will defend itself vigorously against the claims.

If the case undermines typical channel-bundling contracts, it could have far-reaching implications. Media companies may have to allow pay-TV operators to sell channels separately or in different groupings, possibly forcing less popular channels—which generate advertising revenue for networks—to shut down.

But the lawsuit is unlikely to get that far or produce such an extreme outcome. More likely, Cablevision hopes to push Viacom to the settlement table to work out more-favorable terms.

The following graphic from AP shows how the frequency of such disputes have increased in recent years.

Indeed, Cablevision may be targeting Viacom rather than other content providers because of its apparent vulnerability. Viacom has no sports programming, among the most popular and lucrative content. And ratings at Viacom's top networks have been suffering.

Beyond the specific players involved, the dispute reflects widespread industry pressure. Time Warner Cable Chief Executive Glenn Britt said last month that his company's content costs have risen 32% in the past four years, while average revenue per residential user has risen only 16%.

Time Warner Cable has openly threatened to cut less-popular channels, dropping arts channel Ovation at the beginning of the year. And other pay-TV providers have lashed out. Last summer, Viacom's channels went dark on DirecTV for nine days before an agreement could be hammered out.

While Cablevision's suit isn't likely to set a legal precedent, it may succeed in driving home the point to consumers that the bundling of channels and rising costs to carry them are what is pushing up their monthly bills.

This wasn't lost on a number of Cablevision's peers, including Time Warner Cable, Charter Communications and DirecTV, which issued statements in support of the lawsuit. If it keeps up the vocal push for à la carte channel offerings, pay TV may find itself with a rare ally: its own subscribers.

Write to Miriam Gottfried at Miriam.Gottfried@wsj.com

A version of this article appeared February 28, 2013, on page C8 in the U.S. edition of The Wall Street Journal, with the headline: Cablevision Picks at Ties That Bind.

URL for this article (WSJ subscription may be required for access, but if you search on Google or Bing by the article headline, probably not):
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323293704578330663947606892.html

American Public Media's Marketplace.org covered the story, which can be listened to below, or by visiting Marketplace.org at http://bit.ly/YK2yOe:

However, even more telling was a separate article on the next day (February 28, 2013) from The Wall Street Journal entitled "Imagining a Post-Bundle TV World" by Shalini Ramachandran and William Launder, http://on.wsj.com/WKh21l which looked a bit deeper into the underlying payments and just how much the media companies get for their bundled networks.  Consider the following example:

Disney earns more than $10 billion in such bundled fee revenue, mostly from its majority-owned ESPN group of channels, according to estimates from market researcher SNL Kagan. That's about a third of the $31.6 billion expected to be generated industrywide by such fees this year, excluding premium services like HBO and broadcast outlets, Mr. Kagan told the Journal.

It added that the size of these fees varies widely, noting that while ESPN gets $5.54 per subscriber a month, Viacom's MTV gets just 41 cents per subscriber.  Niche channels get much less.  MTV Hits, for instance, gets two cents, according to Kagan.

The following graphic shows just how much these fees contribute towards the bottom lines of companies like Disney, Time-Warmer, Comcast's NBC Universal unit and News Corp.

The article writes:

"Now pay-TV executives—as well as its customers—are openly pondering a world where the bundle no longer reigns, even though such a scenario could be years away."

The media giants argue that costs will go up if cable operators can unbundle content, but the article suggests that the outcome isn't certain:

"There has long been intense debate about whether unbundling would save consumers money. Two studies by the Federal Communications Commission in the past decade came to opposite conclusions. A Temple University study, meanwhile, concluded only incremental savings for consumers, and that was before accounting for the higher costs for customer service and programming that distributors would likely pass along."

The closing statement in the article reads as follows:

"Mike Fricklas, general counsel at Viacom says the conversation will change only if 'cutting the cord' becomes a widespread reality. 'As of right now,' Mr. Fricklas said, 'the cable packages are expensive to some people but not so expensive that people aren't choosing to subscribe.

But another pay-TV executive said improved Internet distribution of video will 'force the change.'"

Super Golden Friends: Are Internet Sitcoms the Future of TV?

My readers may recall that I wrote about the Super Friends back in May 2012 (see my post HERE or at http://goo.gl/9fUIm for details). But the Super Friends as we Gen Xers knew them were actually in their prime back in the 1970s, and I know they're super and all, but they have to retire sometime, don't they?! So what happens when a group of four, aging Super Friends move to Miami in and share a ranch house, spending their golden years together? Well, that was basic idea behind this YouTube video created by artist Kevin Bapp which he calls "Super Golden Friends". Catch his video on YouTube below, or by visiting http://youtu.be/pBkAi-giu-g:



Mr. Bapp also commented in the accompanying YouTube video commentary: "This is a pilot I'd like to propose to Cartoon Network's Adult Swim, if I knew anyone who worked there, and if all the licenses could be obtained."  It's an obvious spin on the 1980's sitcom "The Golden Girls", but with aging comic book characters instead of live actors/actresses.

Hmmmm, although I mentioned "The Avengers" in my May 28, 2012 post, and even commented that Warner Brothers already had the rights to some of the DC Comics library, and we learned that the company is indeed looking at a return of the Justice League sometime in the summer of 2015 (see HERE or http://lat.ms/OUlCKL for details).

It looks as if this will be an animated feature, as opposed to one featuring human actors. Still, the concept of a new Justice League cartoon movie seems destined for the big screen in the not-too-distant future (2015 to be exact). Could Super Golden Friends Find a Home on the Internet? While the Justice League may not have the humorous edge that Kevin Bapp's version does, it does make me wonder if Warner Brothers might actually be willing to consider such a concept?

To be sure, the rights to the "Golden Girls" may be a Disney property, but the theme song certainly doesn't belong to Disney, which means that's potentially up for grabs. That song, incidentally, was from Andrew Gold, who released (and it was actually played on the radio) "Thank You For Being a Friend" back in 1978. My aunt kind of liked the song and I remember she wanted to buy his album "All This and Heaven Too".  That song can be download by visiting http://amzn.to/Vi6qFr.

I should acknowledge that Andrew Gold himself passed away on June 6, 2011 (see http://bit.ly/mICzjk).  If Warner (or DC Comics) don't want to license the characters, I think Mr. Bapp could always do what Pixar did with "The Incredibles" ... they just wrote around it with familiar enough if not exact superhero characters. Mr. Incredible?

Nope ... not from any Marvel or DC Comics from what I can recall.  But it didn't matter.

Internet Sitcoms Arrive

Having said all of this, the concept of licensing the characters for comic value might be appropriate to an online audience. But the idea that television is needed to produce a series is, to some extent, becoming history. For example, there are already a few series already in production exclusively for the Internet. Some even have big-name Hollywood talent behind their efforts. One such example is Jane Espenson, who has written for shows including "Buffy the Vampire Slayer", "Angel", "Firefly", "Gilmore Girls", "Ellen", "The O.C.", "Star Trek: Deep Space Nine", "Dinosaurs", "Andy Barker PI", "Battlestar Galactica", "Dollhouse", "Caprica", "Game of Thrones", "Torchwood: Miracle Day" and others.

While I wasn't really a huge fan of any of those shows, the fact is that she had the experience and credentials in the entertainment industry to do pretty much what she wanted. She raised some eyebrows in Hollywood when a recent project, notably a sitcom, which follows all the rules and conventions of any sitcom, except it's about a gay married couple.  Oh, and it airs on YouTube.  As she described it: "Mad About You but with two guys." When she and her co-writer Brad Bell came up with the idea, they realized it was such an obvious concept for a series that if network TV had wanted to do it, they already would have. So instead of going around pitching the show, they made it on the cheap, with their own money, on the Internet. A sitcom veteran, Jeff Greenstein, who did countless episodes of "Will and Grace", directed.

The end result is a YouTube series known as "Husbands" (http://husbandstheseries.com/) which is now entering it's second successful season, perhaps a sign that the era of internet series has finally reached a new phase of maturity.

Indeed, guest stars on "Husbands" in Season 2 will include some big-name talent from the small screen, including John Cryer of "Two and a Half Men" (although at least a few of us remember him equally as "Duckie" from the John Hughes' film "Pretty in Pink").

NPR's "This American Life" blogged about this effort HERE, writing: "Jane's hope is that some brave network – AMC? NBC? – will notice their little experiment and give them a budget larger than the cost of a Hyundai to blow people's minds on real TV. If they do it right, of course, they won't be blowing minds at all. They'll just be the New Normal."

I would dare say that the producer Jane Espenson seems to be breaking new ground not only with the content covered in her series "Husbands" but also with delivering sitcoms via the internet. Why Viacom's gay-themed network Logo hasn't picked the show up is beyond me.  Instead, Logo is running reruns of "16 and Pregnant", like any gay man or woman can even relate.  However, I would not be surprised if the "Husbands" show starts to have it's own sponsors in the not-too-distant future.

But the series' success also indicates that the role of the big media "gatekeeper" of what audiences are entitled to see may be over. Indeed, WNYC's "On the Media" program discussed this in a May 2012 broadcast, which can be listened to at http://wny.cc/SKi4t1.  For example, this year's Upfronts - the model that has been used by television channels to sell advertising and show off their slate of shows - featured a new competitor, and a new platform: online.  Digital programmers held the first-ever event to show off their online programming, which they've dubbed the "Newfronts".  Again, WNYC's "On The Media" covered that, which can be listened to at http://wny.cc/Ub9J65.  This is really a continuation of what began with the proliferation of cable stations with their own programming, but takes it a step further.

Time magazine (see http://ti.me/RPKaSh for the review) wrote:

"A lot of TV sitcoms about gay couples stick to very personal stories (adoption, surrogate parenting) and work from those to strike themes about larger changes in society. Husbands is doing the opposite: it starts from a high-satire topic about the public debate over gay marriage—its leads, being celebrities, know their marriage will be in the press no matter what—and through that, ends up telling a very sweet story about two guys trying to find a way to have a relationship simply as people."

They close by writing:

"It's the sort of thing that, in a bigger-scale TV show, might just collapse under its own sense of significance and topicality. Not so, so far, in Husbands, a show that manages to make a very little go a long way."

Regardless of whether someone has an interest in "Husbands", that show's success on the Internet goes a long way towards opening show content once deemed "inappropriate" (by the network executives) for mainstream television audiences. In doing so, the concept of there being a "Super Golden Friends" doesn't seem so far-fetched after all!