And, as to Bell’s privileged and advantageously timely access to information, you’re right: it is deeply troubling. Here we have opposing interests– petitioner and intervener–facing one another in a “hearing” before an adjudicator. Are there other any other kinds of hearings in which the adjudicator dispenses advantages to one side or the other? It happens In some places in the world and we cry foul at the abridging of rights. My rights have been abridged in this instance.

As for your comments about coverage, for right now the best data that I know of — the Media Technology Monitor/CBC studies — indicate that the ‘outside the system’ kind of experience is still quite minor, while those who do the things that you suggest typically add them on top of existing uses of television. What you are referring to could become more significant over time and I will have to come up with new ways of addressing ‘total resources’ within the media economy, with ‘total resources’ right now including all revenue sources. As of yet, I don’t think a good method has been devised to include these things but I am keeping my eyes wide open and will always consider good suggestions.

I’ll check into the Lillyhammer situation and revise as required. The other points you make also all spot on serious considerations. The third is one that’s been around for a couple of years now and still Netflix keeps on defying those who make it, but when we take the long view, I think the correct response is probably still too early to tell.

As for your last point, I’m not so sure on this one. The forces of ‘unbundling’ and the idea of the publisher model that I was hinting at towards the end of the post are quite strong and with the decrease in vertical integration in the US in particular — home of Hollywood and massive tv production capabilities — means that those who make and own tv programs and movies are less wedded to those who own the pipes than we find in Canada. I think that pattern is also becoming more prominent in the biggest media economies around the world, so am less inclined to line up with you on your last point. Again, though, I have no crystal ball and won’t be betting any farms on this one.

cheers and trust that you’re well!
Dwayne

1. “Lillyhammer” preceded “House of Cards” as NFLX’s first original program;

2. Netflix was most definitely a menace to the video rental industry (Blockbuster, Rogers Video), which I find tends to be forgotten when examining the threat to vertically integrated BDUs (I suppose this belongs in the “distribution window” category);

3. I’m uncertain of the sustainability of Netflix’s business model. It’s easy to pad content holdings (the only thing that guarantees continued subscriber revenue) using market cap, but NFLX’s price to earnings ratio is astronomical. What Happens if Carl Icahn decides he wants to dump Netflix?

If I had to hazard a guess, it would be that the upshot of the “Netflix disruption” will be a subsumption of the SVOD model by existing BDUs, advertising increasingly being used to bolster the cost of content on streaming services, and a potential increase in broadcasting efficiency. Perhaps a back door to à la carte programming in Canada?

No doubt that there are other sources of income available for content producers. Kickstarter, pay-per model etc. That income will work along side advertising revenues. I still believe advertising will have a significant part in production revue when the dust settles. There’s too much money involved for that sector of the industry not to evolve, especially in the age of big data and targeted adverting. I think they just need their livelyhood threatened enough before they kick into high gear on digital. I believe that will start as people start cancelling their cable tv services and switch on online video services. That’s already happening, and will probably be more so next year.

So as a producer once the dust settles, you should have a wide range of independent sources of income, which I think ad revenue eventually will become a big part. You also have the benefit of lowering production costs due to new tech, several distribution options…great time to be in media production once the dust settles.

On the consumer side, ” internet access, cable subscriptions, wireless and basic old telephone service, etc. ” plus having to purchase media on top of this using the pay-per model, These two sides look a bit of a distance apart to me. And as the big media companies fight it out, I do agree the gap between the media rich and media poor will expand. I think that’s only temporary however. The digital age is a good equalizer. How temporary will be determined by how long the media rich can drag this out, and how the market reacts to increasing costs in basic services. Pay-per model may look good to some today, but we are far from completing this transition to digital especially in media.

Lots of unknowns factors. The way I’m seeing things could also be completely wrong as well, but I do believe that it’s worth on checking in once in a while to see what the media ad market is up too. Keep an eye on it

The mass model is wasteful as advertising efficacy goes, missing too much of the target demo while bludgeoning everybody else.

By comparison, Web technologies, Netflix included, make targeting insanely easy. But then how would Netflix target advertising without attaching directly to the content? None of us would otherwise allow advertising in our private programming domains, would we? Advertising avoidance is the reason we pay for the service.

Or is time/convenience more important to Netflix subscribers?

Or maybe they are equal, and if so, is there any reason Netflix couldn’t offer me a choice to endure advertising or pay to avoid it, or even select some mix of the two? (And wouldn’t this be another example of the long tail of personalization?)

On the other hand, maybe Netflix is ushering in the day when P&G (among others) returns to the golden age and its former glory, the progenitor and inheritor of the mass model. The once and future king of soaps and sitcoms.

And as to government’s role, I think that any government’s first, perhaps ill-conceived objective is to impede the progress of anything that is headed away from any legitimate industry’s status quo, (but how would I ever prove it?)

Generally, the advent of digital advertising and services should have created a substantial shock in the system like they have in the US, but Canada lags in terms of adaptation because the biggest distribution system – TV – continues to be protected by our government.

Given the tone of the discussion, my concern is that our government and media companies will do everything in their power to screw up a good thing by either forcing Netflix to carry ads or slow the service down to a crawl using tactics like UBB or throttling (both of which should be deemed illegal by the Competition Bureau).

So … to Dave’s earlier question: Netflix is both a menace and messiah. They represent a menace to the status quo media establishment and messiah for those that want flexibility and options when it comes to entertainment.