toggle

Time Warner exec joins chorus against 99-cent TV rentals

updated 09:50 am EDT, Wed September 29, 2010

Claims idea jeopardizes syndication sales


Time Warner CEO Jeff Bewkes has joined others in the TV industry in criticizing 99-cent TV show rentals and purchases from Apple and Amazon. The executive recently spoke at the Royal Television Conference in London. "How can you justify renting your first-run TV shows individually for 99 cents an episode," he said, "and thereby jeopardize the sale of the same shows as a series to branded networks that pay hundreds of millions of dollars and make those shows available to loyal viewers for free?"

"These new entrants must meet a few criteria," Bewkes added. "They must provide consumers with a superior TV experience, and they must either support or improve the overall economics that funds and creates the programming in the first place." Some in the industry have worried that setting prices too low could make it difficult to fund TV shows, which can cost as much as $1 million or more per episode in the case of high-profile entries.

Warner Bros. head Barry Meyer recently complained less about the loss of syndication revenue than the potential effect on season collections. Box sets are an important source of revenue for TV networks, helping to justify the production costs of some shows. At 99 cents per episode, it may be cheaper to rent or buy episodes individually than pick up a discounted season on DVD.


Share


By Electronista Staff

print
email
(27)

TAGS :  

Amazon, industry, iTunes, TV, Time Warner

Related Articles

Recent Articles

Other Articles

toggle

Previous Comments

  1. Foxypaco

    Fresh-Faced Recruit

    Joined: Apr 2010

    +10
    09/29, 09:59am | report spam | reply

    TV Shows

    Aren't these same TV Shows on regular TV for free anyway?


  1. starwarrior

    Fresh-Faced Recruit

    Joined: Mar 2006

    +11
    09/29, 10:01am | report spam | reply

    Has anyone noticed?

    There is so much old good stuff, why waste time on the new bad stuff.
    One Terabyte of the old stuff with no time to watch it. The man was right: Who needs it let alone have time to watch it.?


  1. Geoduck

    Fresh-Faced Recruit

    Joined: Jan 2010

    +9
    09/29, 10:06am | report spam | (1 reply) | reply

    The Subtext

    "and thereby jeopardize the sale of the same shows as a series to branded networks that pay hundreds of millions of dollars"

    In other words you would cost the middlemen our cut. Much of the money doesn't go back to the people who create the material, it just lines the pockets of brokers.

    There is a change coming. YouTube was the first salvo. The change will eliminate the middlemen. People will, and in many cases are already, be able to buy or rent shows directly from the people who make the material. Networks, big studios, all the agents and middlemen will be made redundant. Music is starting to go this way already. More and more bands are selling their music directly through their own web storefronts. Video and movies are going to go the same way.

    Time Warner and Mr. Bewkes are terrified that their gravy train is about to end.


  1. njfuzzy

    Fresh-Faced Recruit

    Joined: Apr 2001

    +12
    09/29, 10:11am | report spam | reply

    I agree, conversely.

    I agree. Renting a TV episode for a dollar is insane! For most shows, that's over $20 a season to rent. In my opinion, that's the appropriate price to sell a digital copy. For a temporary rental, it's highway robbery.


  1. macwisdom

    Fresh-Faced Recruit

    Joined: Jul 2010

    +5
    09/29, 10:21am | report spam | (2 replies) | reply

    Free?

    Free?
    Most "viewers' pay for cable and have to sit through commercials that is what pays the networks for their broadcasts. Where is the data on this to back up this guys assumptions?


  1. macemoneta

    Fresh-Faced Recruit

    Joined: Jun 2009

    +4
    09/29, 10:22am | report spam | reply

    Translation:

    Translation: "Good lord! Why on earth would we want to make money? Our content is available for free for anyone that wants it, both legally and illegally. Charging people for free content would stem the tide of blood draining from our financial reserves. You act like we want to stay in business - that's crazy talk!"


  1. jdonahoe

    Fresh-Faced Recruit

    Joined: Jul 2006

    +1
    09/29, 10:26am | report spam | reply

    Does this guy have constant brain farts?

    How can he argue that 99 cent rentals will eat into their DVD sales? The DVD sets work out to a little over 99 cents an episode, so it's six of one and half a dozen of the other. He can have his cake and eat it too, but no brain farts are getting in the way of clear thinking. Of course I think back to the day when you liked a song by an artist and bought the CD only to find that the rest of the CD was pure c***. Packaged TV sets are usually a better deal all around, but there may be a delay of six months or never as in "Malcolm in the Middle" to being able to buy them.


  1. kerryb

    Fresh-Faced Recruit

    Joined: Aug 2001

    +1
    09/29, 10:33am | report spam | (1 reply) | reply

    A mighty is wind is blowing...

    One has to love the digital revolution, major shifts in how business is done have occurred in the music industry and now the cable companies and film industry needs to figure out how to keep up with the way it's customers want content delivered. The smart ones that understand this will evolve to profit from these changes the other will figure this all out way to late.
    Content is up for listening and watching whenever we want it now and consumers seem to prefer that way. Get with the non program boys!


  1. Wingsy

    Fresh-Faced Recruit

    Joined: Apr 2005

    -1
    09/29, 10:34am | report spam | (1 reply) | reply

    A Million Bucks?

    Wow, that's news to me, that it can cost nearly a million bucks to make just one episode. Judging by the quality I was under the assumption that their budget was around $1,000 per.

    (With the exception of NetGeo, Disc, SCI, etc)


  1. hayesk

    Professional Poster

    Joined: Sep 1999

    +9
    09/29, 10:54am | report spam | (1 reply) | reply

    Still don't get it.

    First of all, I will watch the show on network TV, because it's free, so they'll get their advertising revenue.

    Rentals are for when I miss an episode. If I miss an episode, I have a few options:
    1. Download it via Torrent
    2. Wait and buy the DVD set
    3. Rent it for 99 cents
    4. Do without.


    I'm not going to wait a year for the release and spend $30+ to get a missed episode. If I can't rent it, I'll likely go without - others will download via torrent - either way the studios get no money. Is that what they want?

    Wouldn't it make sense to rent it to me and make some money on it?

    Also, to other commenters comparing the price of renting to buying DVD packages (let alone renting DVD packages at a video store), I don't think renting is a good model for all of your TV watching - it's a model for when you miss a few episodes, or you just discovered a show halfway through it's airing and want to catch up.


Show More Comments
Login Here

Not a member of the MacNN forums? Register now for free.

Recently Commented Articles

 
close
Photo
toggle

Network Headlines

toggle

Most Popular

10 Most Read

Recent Reviews

iHome iW2 AirPlay speaker

iHome generally isn't known as a luxury brand when it comes to audio, but it is prolific -- the company's docks and speakers are every ...

Logitech Ultrathin Keyboard Cover

One of the iPad's main weaknesses has always been productivity. It's not a question of apps; while it has taken a little time for a na ...

Logitech UE Air Speaker

If maybe a little more slowly than Apple would like, AirPlay is becoming a staple of the wireless speaker market for iOS devices. The ...

toggle

Most Commented

10 Most Discussed

 
toggle

Popular News