The New York Times recently noted the consumer shift towards online consumption of content. "It's ridiculous", said one person, "to pay for this service I rarely use when I can get the same stuff online and save a lot of money." But then the Times made an accusation that doesn't seem to match up with the reality we're seeing...
Does an economy in tatters slow down or speed up the shift to watching TV shows and movies on the Web and mobile devices? The entertainment industry doesn't like the answer that is rapidly becoming clear: A global economic crisis almost certainly means a sharp acceleration in the move to new ways of consuming content, setting the stage for a new clash between consumers and studios. [...]
Moreover, consumers now have cheaper ways to see movies and TV shows. Hulu. Vudu. YouTube. Netflix. Amazon Video on Demand. iTunes. Crackle. FunLittleMovies.com. Movielink. CinemaNow. The list goes on. As a result, movie and television studios seem more intent than ever on protecting their established businesses from cannibalization by new media, which are growing rapidly but still generating very little revenue comparatively.
It's difficult to understand why the New York Times would claim movie and television studios are "more intent than ever on protecting their established businesses from cannibalization by new media" right after pointing out 10 places (and "the list goes on") where movie and television studios are busy rolling out their content online.
These "cheaper ways to see movies and TV shows" that the Times says consumers now have, exist precisely because movie and television studios are working so hard to eliminate a "clash between consumers and studios." Perhaps people have gotten so used to thinking in terms of a conflict between creative rights and digital distribution that it's hard to see what is happening right now, but the "clash" is being eliminated by great new ideas, technology and progressive collaborations.
That's something the New York Times ought to cover.
Leave a comment