Looking for Soccer Fan Videos

http://halbzeit.in/files/mediaplayer.swf

If you are a) into soccer (or fussball or football …) and b) own a cam corder (or a mobile which handles a video a bit better than my SE K610i), you’re invited to put your fan video on halbzeit.in, which translates into halftime.in and is our little video sharing site.
Why are we doing this? On YouTube, MyVideo, Sevenload, there’s already tons of fan related material. Sure. But a) we like soccer and b) we want to put the stuff on our tv channels (don’t try this with bootlegged flash encoded video material).
And not to forget c). Yes, on YouLoadMySevenVideo, there are already some trillions of uploaded videos. So your pretty cool fan action will have neighbors like this one.

Neue Medien, echt alte Schläuche

Nachdem Bertram gerade so schön das Thema Das Internet und die öffentlich rechtlichen Sender aufgemacht hat, kam gestern die Ernüchterung. An Stelle von ARDtube mit Embed-Codes für alle Inhalte und was man sich sonst noch so schöne Dinge überlegen kann, rückte die Realität. Ich durfte beim rbb eine Podiumsdiskussion verfolgen. Das Thema: Total digital? Die Zukunft der Medienwelt in Berlin und Brandenburg

Als ich reinkam, frage ich den Portier: Ich suche die Zukunft der Medienwelt? Sagt die neben ihm stehende Frau hinterm Tresen: Die suchen wir hier auch schon länger. Aber wenn sie zur Veranstaltung wollen, dann geht’s hier schräg rechts nach hinten. Das war denn aber auch so die einzig pfiffige Bemerkung des abends. Der Grundtenor ging eher so: Ja wollen die Leute überhaupt diese vielen verwirrenden Sachen wie DAB, DVB oder [schluck] Internet, bildungsbürgert gutmenschlich Moderator.

Der Printmann von der Märkischen definiert das Netz immer noch als ein “weiteres Distributionsmedium”. Leserkommunikation ohne Medienbruch ist für ihn bestimmt ein Zeitungspapierflieger, der ihm ins offene Redaktionsfenster geworfen wird.

Und Dagmar Reim, allgewaltige Intendantin des rbb, ist stolz auf ihr digitales Sendezentrum (recht so). Und findet werbefinanziertes Lokalfernsehen durchweg suspekt und popelig (nachdem Wolf Siegert aus dem Digitalisierungsbericht der Landesmedienanstalten zitierte, dass gerade lokales Fernsehen von Digitalisierung und immer günstiger werdenden Technik profitieren würde). Suspekt weil: das lokale Autohaus ja mit ein paar hundert EUR den Sendebetrieb finanzieren würde und demnach auch das sagen hat.

Je nun. Ich finanziere auch via GEZ den Sendebetrieb des rbb, und hab dorten, wie allen andren gebührenzahlenden Zuschauer auch, erstmal rein gar nichts zu melden. Und die rbb Media GmbH verkloppt nur nichts an lokale Autohäuser, weil der rbb lokal schlicht nicht vorhanden ist. (Nicht das im lokalen Rundfunk alles zum Besten steht. Aber dafür finanziert TV Winzstadt auch nicht die Tour D’Oping und muss nicht alle naselang einen Sportkoordinator wg unsportlicher Umtriebe freisetzen.)

Kinder, Kinder. Zurück zur Sache. Da sitzen die Kollegen auf Bergen von Inhalten, und alles versendet sich wie zu Grossmama Dampfradios Zeiten. Muss doch nicht sein. Geht doch auch anders. Aber lieber wetteifern die Fernsehfrau und der Zeitungsmann um ewiglichere Themen: wer stirbt zuerst aus – Zeitungsleser oder öffentlich-rechtlicher Fernsehzuschauer? Vanitas vanitatum, macht nix. Die Berlin/Brandenburger Unternehmen EOStv und http://www.der-billigbestatter.de helfen ihnen gerne weiter.
Na eben. Poppt doch, die Zukunft der Medienwelt in Berlin und Brandenburg.

TV 2.0?

First thing I have to say: Bertram and Harald did a phantastic job. This is grand. But unfortunately, I’m a bit in a nitpicking mood.

Let’s start with some of the basic assumptions. The assumed basic cost structure for a free tv network doesn’t make too much sense. Yes, the key areas are right: content licensing/production, marketing, and distribution. But distribution is not a variable. At least not, if you need national reach. The more coverage you want, the more you pay. Let’s just assume that German mega broadcaster RTL pays annually about 12 million Euros to reach its tv audience. 9live has almost the same distribution. And therefore pays about the same amount of money. The big difference: RTL has renevnues of round about 2 billion Euros. 9live makes about 60 millions.

This has of course serious implications. The cost of distribution limits the access to the public (as do the technical limitations, e.g. available spectrum). It’s called mass media, because you need the masses to watch (or interact, as it’s the case with 9live). Otherwise, you’re going to be out of business pretty fast.

Pay tv is kind of different. Essentially, as a channel operator you have to convince a gate keeper, that the he should shoulder the cost of distribution, against a revenue share. Joost seems to aim to become some kind of funny in between. A gate keeper for a p2p -based distribution of free tv.

Both approaches pose quite serious barriers of entry. That’s why one of the key factors in tv 2.0 is the lowering of the cost of entry. With web based distribution, you can reach an international audience for zilch. Hey, that’s a start.

Now, what’s going on with this audience? As a side note: tv networks (as most traditional media players) do not like Google. But the media sales organizations of tv networks do not (yet) feel the sting of Google’s AdSense. Yes, Google is a juggernaut. But the bauty of the text ad system has been, that Google found a whole new pot of gold. Google isn’t making it’s billions with the handful of mega brands, that fill the koffers of the tv networks. That’s why traditional media is much more scared of bud.tv and the likes. If the media buyers become audience aggregators of their own … As it turns out, it’s not that easy. Especially, because as a media buyer, you’re buying into consistency of reach. Ventures like bud.tv are, like any new media brand, a risky thing. And don’t forget: one of the heaviest spender in media is media itself.

But back to tv 2.0. OK, web based video lowers the barrier of entry. That’s good. The same reasoning applies to the cost of production. Not because of the web, but because the hard- and software for video production and editing is finally approaching zero. This applies to all areas. With my own company, we’re deploying professional broadcast playouts into cable headends. Unthinkable a couple of years ago. same with professional video editing. HDTV cameras. Post production and 3D animation. You name it.

This is good. But still: producing a video is still quite some effort. Will “moving images replace HTML pages”? Never ever. Producing a video is too much effort for the producer. And, for most parts, watching a video takes is too much equally. Why? Video is a linear medium. You can scan a written page in light speed. Speed watching isn’t that easy.

OK. Enough nitpickin’. Bertram and Harald are of course right. TV is going to change. The means of access to video content are changing. Channels as the main organizers of content access will have to change.

The funny thing is: we really don’t know, what tv really is. Do we define tv by content. Most likely not. Otherwise, we wouldn’t make a difference between tv and DVD. Do we define tv as a technology? That’s probably a bit closer.
It’s tv, if it’s broadcasted and displyed on a tv set. But how about PVRs? With video and DVD, we distinguish between a solid media and ethereal broadcast receptions. PVRs are a virtual broadcast.

tv reception itself won’t change that much. Why? tv is a linerar medium. If it’s good, you watch. If not, you switch. Or tune off. That’s all the interacton you ever need.
What going to change is how you find and access content.

The main difference between tv (as is) and tv (2.0) is the enhanced on Demand factor: on Demand with an URL. Because the URL opens up all other means of access, business models, and social feature you can imagine.

TV2.0 – Digitaler Film

Hype.tv

It’s a funny idea: ditch cable and/or satellite, use AppleTV instead. Steve Rubel goes wild again: At home I have a Microsoft Xbox 360 (they’re one of our clients) and an Apple TV connected to my Sony HDTV. The content I download off the Internet for the two set top boxes has definitely eaten into my time with cable. The latter cannot be beat for live news and sports – yet.

But is this scenario really ready for prime time? And, if not yet: when? Serving 110 Million US tv households their daily dose of tv content via the Internet isn’t even a pipe dream – it’s actually a nightmare for the guys running the pipes. Just a small handul of people are currently heavy users of Bittorrent. But the p2p brethern is already clogging up 60 percent of the net (sez Gartner). Currently, you cannot scale net video to mass markets (not to mention HD deliveries). And don’t anybody YouTube me now. According to Compete, this February the top 20 videohosters served round about 260 million web videos. Which is about 2.5 videos per householf per month. Meaning an average viewing time of roughly five minutes. Per month. TV is currently eating of 4.5 hours per person and day. So puh-lease: yes, it’s exciting. And yes: it’s great to be ahead of the curve. But the debroadcastization of the tv world won’t happen any time soon.

Micro Persuasion: Between All-You-Can-Eat and A-La-Carte TV

The Bandwith Blob

Most telcos agree: the future of TV isn’t about broadcasting anymore. It’s on demand, IPTV, server based, what ever. The idea of the network as a programming entity will be replaced by networks as a technical layer, where the videos are hosted and delivered, and a social layers, which assists you in choosing programming you want to get.

Sounds godd – but has some ramifications. That’s why Google and cable firms warn of risks from Web TV As Vincent Dureau, Google’s head of TV technology, explained at the Cable Europe Congress 2007: The Web infrastructure, and even Google’s (infrastructure) doesn’t scale. It’s not going to offer the quality of service that consumers expect.

Statements like this have always to be taken with a grain of salt. But to deliver high quality TV content you need either have to wait for multicasting to finally take off (whcih means just broadacsting). Or you need quite some barns full of servers and access to cheap bandwith (The Google Way of life). One nice looking solution might be peer 2 peer networking. Joost is doing a great job here, trying to push p2p from the digital fringe into the consumer mainstream. But mind that: currently, the biggest chunk of all Internet traffic is alreday related to p2p-file transfer.
How can you scale this as an ISP? Only if you own your network from core to edge, from backbone to the last mile. And you will have to host as many peers as possible, so that you can keep as much traffic in your own network. Even than, it’s a rat’s race. As one Cable Operator explained at the Cable Conference: People (Internet service providers) don’t like to talk about (the fact) that just to stand still, they have to invest.

Tom Evslin has a nice post on this. If we all shift to watching TV on the Internet, the total bandwidth (Internet and other) required INTO our homes will decrease and the load on the Internet backbone and the regional distribution portions of the Internet will be – well – interesting. Of course, his calculation is a bit misleading. Most of your home-bandwith of today, used for broadcasting, is one way traffic on a shared medium.

As there’s no such thing as a free lunch: where’s all the bandwith coming from? And who’s going to pay for it? That’s why operators want to build up their walled gardens. And charge everybody else for putting stuff on their networks. Question is: do we really want to upgrade the delivery network monopolies of today into virtual content distribution monopolies, with some wholly owned social networking attached?

TV revolutions

Here we go. The Bill is merging PCs and TVs. Again (remember webTV?). And according to his Davos-speech, it will take just about five years to revolutionize the tube.

Of course, Mr. Bill is right. “I’m stunned how people aren’t seeing that with TV, in five years from now, people will laugh at what we’ve had,” he told business leaders and politicians at the World Economic Forum. Yes. What we‘ve had. Let’s not forget. Microsoft is the leading supplier of IPTV backend software for the leading telcos of the world. So it’s very much likely, that in five years, with Windows Vista being slowly replaced by its successor, Microsofts TV foundation will finally deliver on its promises.

Currently, IPTV isn’t any different from any other broadcasted multichannel tv. Same content, same linear delivery. That’s going to change. Slowly. Because for building huge proprietary interactive applications, you’ll need a huge audience. For building small proprietary interactive applications for micro audiences, you’ll need a huge incentive.

That’s where the blur starts. Huge IPTV deployments currently means a quarter million subcribers. That’s a lot if you have to start from scratch. But essentially equals the online population of Memphis, TN. And if you want to revolutionize a mass medium reaching billions of people all over the world, fueled by a global content industry, revolutionizing Memphis will be an important first step out of several gazillions.

That’s why The Bill is making a switch. To quote Reuters: The rise of high-speed Internet and the popularity of video sites like Google Inc.’s YouTube has already led to a worldwide decline in the number hours spent by young people in front of a TV set. Uhm. Interesting math. But Douglas A. McIntyre is making another point here: Using YouTube is actually a poor example of what is likely to happen. Making money from teenagers lip syncing music or farting in the tub is not likely to supplant content like the Superbowl. Unless, of course, Mr. Gates has odd tastes.

Broadband TV à la YouTube and IPTV à la Gates aren’t twins, separated after birth. It’s two completely different business models. Merging them will happen as soon as Microsoft publishes its software under a GNU license.
Let’s get back to the revolution. “Certain things like elections or the Olympics really point out how TV is terrible. You have to wait for the guy to talk about the thing you care about or you miss the event and want to go back and see it,” explains the software tycoon. “Internet presentation of these things is vastly superior.”

Yes, tv is (sometimes) terrible. An commented on demand features of live events would definitely be a very nice thing to have. But let’s put it like that. TV content is software, too. PC software and tv software a.k.a. broadcasting content are both increasing return businesses. Both are businesses because of the underlying intellectual property rights. But the major difference is: Windows XP has a life cycle of half a decade, at least. Events like the Olympics are good for month and a half. So a real Microsoft TV would be the only available channel, broadcasting a single event for a couple of years in a row, with monthly updates, thank you.

OK, unfair. Microsoft is in the enabling business. With Office being the premier User Generated Content-production suite. “Because TV is moving into being delivered over the Internet — and some of the big phone companies are building up the infrastructure for that — you’re going to have that experience all together,” sez Bill. Nope (No, he doesn’t have to care, as he’s delivering some building blocks for this infrastructure). But just because SAP data and YouTube-vids are delivered via IP, you will not be able to tune into TheWallStreetJournal.tv.

Pipe classic, Pipe lite

Yes, I like the virtual pipe (thanks, Bertram, for the pointing me to Andy Kessler). But, uhm, what exactly is a virtual pipe? As opposed to a real pipe, virtual pipes try to emulate a lock-in situation. To understand what he’s talking about, we have to remind ourselves that Andy is a) American and b) a VC. His real media pipe looks like a typical cable walled garden to me. Here’s the media, there’s the pipe, that’s your home. In the US, it’s a billion Dollar market. Break up this lock in situation, and you’ll be offering what VCs are looking for.
pipe1.jpg

A virtual pipe is just trying to emulate this lock-in situation. His prime example is convincing. The business model of console games is about a technologywise totally closed shop, built upon the razor model. The more boxes you sell (in the beginning even at a loss), the bigger your reach. And if everything goes well, you make a killing from the software licenses. BTW, brought into perfection by Microsoft. Not with Xbox, but yer olde Windows. As they outsourced the risk of shipping hardware, just keeping the increasing returns business of peddling software.
As it happens, it’s one of the oldest business ecosystems, in regards of media and technology. Edison and Berliner sold their hardware (OK, I doubt the grammophone was ever a loss leader). And started successful software subsidiaries, whose leftovers are now known as the music industry majors.

Apple’s iTunes takes this model topsy-turvy. The software a.k.a. music is the bait (a loss leader? I doubt that. Maybe micro business). The hardware is the game, and usability, design, and branding the driving forces. The virtual lock-in into the iPodsphere by DRM is actually pretty much non-existent. You won’t see too many poeple filling up their umpteen Gig hard drives with music bought in the iTunes store (S. Jobs could afford that. But could you?). And even then: you still have your desktop application which allows you to unlock the DRMed file. It’s a minor hurdle. But if you bought into the Applespace because of superior usabilty and convenience, this might be the virtual virtual lock in.
pipe2.jpg

Let’s take another step back. Media is a software business. Traditionally, the content is tied to a physical thingy. The model behind is milking a scarce ressource. Spectrum (if you’re a broadcaster), right of way (if you do cable), advertising (hold on – now it’s getting mushy).

Because for some strange reason, capital puts the telco, media, and, entertainment eggs into a single basket. Which only makes sense, if you never worked with a telco AND a media company. Telcos think infrastructure, decadelong depreciations. TV is about yesterdays ratings. And even if there’s sometimes a symbiosis going on, they are as much related to each other as a lactobazillus to my family. Can’t live without both of them, but that doesn’t make me the grand uncle of little acidophilus.

Of course, sometimes the strategic interests of telco and/or hardware companies led them to gobbling up some media properties (what’s content, compared to cash flow?). And, with the notable exception of Time Warner, you won’t see too many fully integrated telco-media-companies. Usually, the telcos wield the stick (Vodafones EBIT dwarfes the combined revenues of the whole music industry). John Malone used to play hardball with his media “partners”, or, remember the Japanes-led invasion of Hollywood? Ted Turner might have been the only media player, who successfully quenched his telco partners for the monies he needed.
In this concert, media plays the second fiddle. And content is as much king as the Green Giant the duke of Broccoli.
Yer olde media equation looks like this:

– raise lots of capital
– hook up with a large entity which controls a scarce ressource (governement, if it’s spectrum or just a license you need, a telco, if it’s cable bandwith, a game console company, if … and so on)
– aggregate/produce and distribute content
– make some money by either selling eyeballs or selling the goods (discs, cable subscriptions, paper …)
pipe3.jpg

With networked media and entertainment, this equation starts to change. The gridlock onto scarce ressources is weakening. Anybody gets global distribution by pressing an upload button. Which might make life kinda complicated for traditional media outfits. But, on the other hand: obviusoly, this new environment seems to serve new media companies Google pretty well.

And so we’re coming back to last posts final question: Is content now really king? Looking out of the window leads to the following idea. Olde media used to pay for content. Google’s positions itself more like an intelligent remote control (at least you do not have to pay for integration, like in the yellow pages). To Google, all content is created equal and just piece of data store in the indices of Google’s server farms. (The YouTube-deal might chance this comfortable postion; suddenyl, it’s all about licensing and copyrights.)

Does this mean, content will be demoted fiscally from lackey to lactobacillus? OK, this might be the logical path from the intern-executed media production style of the early 21st century. But, fair enough. More likely, that’s what happens if you look out of the window and outside everything’s greyish, wet and fall.

Mostly, the de-piping of media pomme1.jpgmeans:
– As abundance replaces scarcity as a driving factor, media’s distributional power is reduced to the power of being a brand. Which, in an environment of abundance, ain’t that bad a position.
– Network neutrality assumed, the media’s gatekeeper position won’t be taken over by the telcos. Or, at least, you’ll have a choice which gated (or open) commuinty you’re going to visit today.
– Meta-media like plain search engines, dedicated search engines plus hosting (ASPs like YouTube, Flickr), social networks et al drives the audience to the content. Old media mostly picks up what’s already on their screens.

But what’s the effect on content? The medium is the package. Which, by it’s commercial needs and restrictions, defines the content. TV shows are produced around commercial breaks. A pop album is defined by the capacity of vinyl records and CDs. Which, after this little excuriosn, leads us back again to last next stop: the content value chain ….

A Google Job

TV Engineering Project Manager – Mountain View

This position is based in Mountain View, CA.

Television remains the single most important source of information and entertainment for billions of people around the world. Google is looking for a talented Project Manager to be the driving force in managing our cross-functional launch team and stay on task and target. In this role, you will work with Engineering, Product Management, QA, Partner Services, and Business Development to ensure a smooth and seamless release of software products to the market. You will also be responsible for special projects within the Engineering area, driving projects to completion and helping to document decisions and progress.

Hm-Hmmm. The single most important source of information and entertainment for billions of people around the world.

GoogleTube in search of tv riches

Is the Googleplex really the Dark Star, which attacks with sheer mental power all media conglomerates in the whole world? As we learned once from a tiny startup from Redmond, Washington: softwarebased world domination schemes are doable. It’s mostly a matter of the right timing combined with right cash flow.

Of course, Big G is to Microsoft what Austin Powers means to Mini-Me. They are much younger. Now look at that: Both are going after tv riches. The Microsofties conquer ally with old media since the nineties of the last millenium. From WebTV to WinCE STBs – nothing ever worked out. Their final (?) quest: selling Windows-based IPTV backend systems to telcos, so they can sell Windows-based STBs to consumers. Let’s see.

Googlianism works differently. The first law: For every problem there’s an algorithmic solution. The second law: If there’s no algorithmic solution, hire somebody who might find it. And, not to forget: As long as it might sell ads, it’s good.

And that’s how Google is going after the stupid box. Their cuckoo-approach, as published two months ago (listening into everybody’s home to serve the right ads) could have been a part of a Think Different! campaign. Their last move makes more sense. Google just hired Vincent Dureau, CTO of iTV/IPTV middleware company OpenTV.
FierceIPTV knows: Dureau was responsible for developing OpenTV’s key technologies, global business relationships and, in the early days, building its engineering team from scratch. OK. Quite a standard move, so far. But the good part starts here: Most interestingly, Dureau took the lead of OpenTV’s advanced advertising technologies, even penning a white paper that reads: “We believe that addressable advertising, where specific video ads are targeted to specific audiences will become central to advertising on digital television within the next 5 years… advertisers will be ready to pay premium rates to cable operators who can demonstrate increased efficiency of their advertising network through targeting.”

Here we go: Old media, be afraid. The main difference between the big tv networks and the cable networks with their smaller reach is: well, the footprint of the large networks allows them to sell their ad inventory with a premium. But IPTV means the possibility of a gazillion channels. AdSense-based IPTV should mean. the playing field gets more even. And as ad spending won’t explode, the monies have to come from some other segment.

But now the caveat: People spend onliy 5 percent of their time searching, but search commands over 40 percent of the online advertising market, writes Guide.

Via FierceIPTV

TV – all Ad-Free, A-La-Carte?

There’s a new (?) meme on the block: ad-based tv is/should be dead. The future of tv is ad-free, no-tier, and totally à la carte. Listen to Steve Rubel of Micro Persuasion fame: As the technology gets more sophisticated and the generation that grew up with the Internet , iPods and always on connections become adults, I see a day coming when a lot of TV content will a) be paid for and b) consumed ad-free. Nice try. But, guess what: a) is already here and b) is highly unlikely to happen.

The fundamental misunderstanding starts with the words as the technology gets more sophisticated. Of course, technology is crucial. But at this point, usage patterns and applied business models are more important.
a) is easy. It’s called pay per tier, and is basically the pretty successful formula which has propelled US-based cable networks from MTV to CNN to Discovery into the global top position regarding multichannel tv. The basic math behind it: a multichannel operator sells easy to understand program packages to the consumer. The programmer gets a certain portion of the subscriber fee and decides by gut and market research in what programs to invest. So why not breaking it down into selling separate pieces of content?
Let’s make a sidestep. In the Boston Globe, Alex Beam toots almost the same horn (at least, according to Steve). Remind me again: Why am I paying $50 a month for services I don’t want? Oh, that’s right. Because the cable TV monopolists say I have to.

The basic principle of a successful multichannel tv environment is simple. Networks are packaging shows into a channel. Cable operators are packaging channels into tiers. According to Beam, selling tiers is just a greedy, oversimplistic one size fits all approach. According to Rubel, selling ad space is just an annoying habit of channels inc., to be broken by the powers of technology. Vivat, à la carte.

Beam proposes. I pay to get 80 channels, about 20 of which I actually want to watch. Hey, Mr. Comcast, let’s make a deal. I’ll pay you, say, $25 a month, and you beam me the 20 stations that I want to watch. Makes a fiver for the connection and one Dollar per channel each. Sounds good, true and populistic. But, unfortunately, not feasible. Ask Mark Cuban. He did the math (trust him, not me: I’m just running my micro tv network somewhere in old Europe – he’s a selfmade billionaire). The big difference is, that in an à la carte world, the cost of reaching an audience is outrageous.

And it’s not just the price tag. Because of the cost of reaching an audience, à la carte  programming favors inherently the big, the established, the incumbents. Mark’s example is the movie market. Look at which content rises to the top in terms of revenues from consumers and visibility. The content from the biggest companies who have spent the most money to market.

OK, you might say. Unbundling tiers might not be that great an idea. But the unbundling of channels into separately sold pieces of content is a technological given. Everybody builds it. So it has to come, it’s already happening.

According to Steve, in the future – as technology progresses – you will have to pay for the best programming, even if it’s carried by ABC, NBC, Fox or CBS. These shows will be sold a-la-carte, as subscriptions or in packages and they will all be delivered over the Internet protocol. Nice try. But technology’s just one (important) piece of the puzzle.

To quote myself (sometimes, I like that): can $1.99 downloads substitute broadcast tv? Only if you’re a Hollywood producer. Or could you imagine every tv household shelling out $200 a month at least just for watching tv content (and that number’s not even based upon the real tv usage hours)? So even in a virtually broadcast-free world, we’ll have to look for ad support. Otherwise, people will have to find themselves some new (and cheap) hobbies pretty soon.

So one thing is the business model applied to usage patterns. You can’t beat free beer with almost free beer. But free beer and premium imported Pilsener can peacefully coexist. Because they’re catering to different markets.

Would you pay for a download of Jerry Springer? Nobody would. Those who watch, can’t afford. Those who could afford, don’t watch. Would you pay for a download of Desperate Housewifes – if it would have never been aired on network tv? Most likely: not. Because you would never ever heard about it (if somebody didn’t spend some gazillions on marketing). Because it would never ever had been produced (if somebody didn’t wager some gazillions on production).