[quote name=\'MSTieScott\' date=\'Oct 19 2004, 06:49 PM\']I'm not entirely sure where advertising enters into this picture. I'm assuming there have to be commercials somewhere in order for the media companies to make money from their old libraries (viewers are too used to television being a "free" medium; I don't think they'd be willing to pay per program).[/quote]
Whenever I've pondered this possibility, I've assumed that it would be either a pay-per-view service or the equivalent of the (legal) digital downloading of music. It might be so difficult to create fast-forward-proof advertising that they would go directly to the purchase mode anyway.
Semi-off-topic: As an aspiring producer, I'm not a big fan of video-on-demand. If viewers can watch a wide range of older programs that they already know they'll like, then why would they bother with my new, unknown show?
--
Scott Robinson
[snapback]61416[/snapback]
Your position is entirely reasonable, and completely on topic. I would not dismiss it entirely, but a little history: The musicians' unions did not like it when radio stations started playing records, because they thought it would take work away from live orchestras. (Why pay an orchestra to play each time if you can get a recording for a fixed price?) In the end, people liked having their own copy to listen to at leisure so much that it changed the music industry, which worked to the ultimate benefit of musicians, radio stations and music lovers alike. I think once the business paradigm settled in, you as the producer would benefit because your show would make as much money from 100,000 broadcast viewers and 5,000 purchasers as it previously did from 1,000,000 viewers. (I'm making these numbers up, of course, but the point is there.)
