[mythtv-users] Data Direct Subscription Expires?

[Bruce Markey]

Brad Templeton wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 04, 2005 at 03:00:00AM -0800, Bruce Markey wrote:
...
> Who else is using datadirect besides PVRs?

You can start with "Related projects" on http://xmltv.sf.net/ .
Most of these are for displaying and searching listings. Only
a few are PVR projects and many of those are dead.

>  That is not a rhetorical
> question, I don't know the answer.  Datadirect is not sold via any
> product, or so they say, it is only given to end-users.  What other
> applications are significant with end-users other than video recording?

I don't know either but as I said, TMS would have some very
detailed data by now.

> And seriously, while yes, some PVR users still watch some commercials,
> let's face it, we're a pretty poor audience for somebody who plans to
> base their business model on people watching interstitial ads!  Really,
> really poor.
> 
> And yes, while the folks who go to the bathroom are "stealing TV" according
> to some TV executives, that's factored into their equation already.
> Existing commercial avoidance, from surfing to VCR use to going to the
> bathroom probably cuts commercial viewing as much as in half, to make a
> rough guess.   PVR use probably cuts it 20fold, an order of magnitude
> difference.
> 
> When everybody gets a PVR it is going to be a real issue, and require
> a reworking of the free TV business model.  Which is fine by me.

TV will change over time and these are all good points but none
of this in any way proves that TMS is about to start charging
for DataDirect.

>>to jump to the conclusion that the listings services want
>>to punish certain classes of users. They don't. They get paid
> 
> 
> I don't think they do.  You just said that it was the TV networks
> who were paying to subsidize the listing services.  The TV networks would
> indeed want to differentiate.

Until this sentence, I've never typed the word "subsidize". That
is your spin word. If stations did not publish their schedules,
how would anyone know what was on? Shows could only be found
by promos during commercial breaks or stumbling across them when
channel surfing. Stations have to advertise their product by
publishing their schedules to as many potential viewers as possible.
Listings services evolved to fulfill this need. They are not the
result of newspapers demanding to have a TV listings feature in
hopes of selling more papers and the stations just played along
for free.

Take movie listing as another example. It is the movie theaters
that want their show times to appear in the paper. Say, papers
are delivered to prisons. The prisoners can't go to the theater
and buy over-priced popcorn. Do the theater owners insist that
papers cannot be delivered to the prison? Will the paper charge
a higher price for newspapers that they know are going to people
that cannot or will not go to movies? Will they press a special
run that doesn't have show times or deliberately wrong show times
for no apparent reason? Of course not.

TV stations are paying to have their schedules published to good
people, bad people, blind, VCR owners, non-English speakers and
people that don't even own TVs.

CBS wants you to watch CBS shows rather than NBC shows and hopes
that Nielsen finds that people like you prefer CBS programs. If
you record with a VCR or a DVR, they want those recordings to
include CBS' sponsor's messages rather than NBC commercials.

As for TMS, they are competing with Gemstar for market share
and branding and have no interest in limiting their reach as
a response to the fact that the advertiser's messages may not
be as effective for some viewers.

And when commercials come on, apparently Charmin would rather
you see their message than use their product.

>>to promote the lineups. CBS wants you to know when CSI is on
>>whether or not you own a DVR. If a listing service refused to
>>do the job they are being paid to do, somebody else will do
>>the job instead.
> 
> 
> Why should CBS care if DVR owners know when CSI is on?  They care that
> non-DVR owners know, of course.  But I would have to venture they
> will eventually be making close to zip from us.

The majority of CSI viewers never buy any of the products that
sponsor the show. CBS isn't selling toilet paper, Charmin is.
CBS is selling air time. It is a matter of negotiations between
the networks and the sponsors to determine what those Nielsen
ratings are worth. CBS wants you to watch or record CBS rather
than NBC and want everyone to know what they have to offer.
They can not benefit by excluding potential viewers.

> Now, today, that's not factored in.  DVR owners are 2% of the TV population,
> not enough to worry about.   They will only start caring when the ratings
> people start measuring accurately not simply the audience but commercial
> viewership (which is what the ad buyer really cares about) and they
(the buyer cares about how effective their ad dollars are in
selling their product. Commercial viewership is one factor and the
rate they pay for the timeslot is another and the demographics
of the audience for the show is another and so on).
> start breaking it out according to has PVR vs. not.

[This is so contrary to your premise that I have no choice but to
follow suit] They absolutely worry about it already. Ya, you betcha.
There are thousands of people that spend at least 40 hours a
week studying how effective advertising is. There was a recent
90 minute Frontline that included a large segment on the impact
of DVRs and they are actively gathering data.

mysql> select title,subtitle,description from oldrecorded where description like "%advertisers%"\G
*************************** 1. row ***************************
      title: Frontline
   subtitle: The Persuaders
description: Marketers and advertisers use research and public relations to deliver their messages.

> And once that happens -- and I don't think it has happened yet -- I
> think the TV networks would say, "I see no reason for us to run around
> subsidizing the process of watching our shows without ads."

First of all, they sit behind desks and talk on the phone all
day. They'd get winded rather quickly if they tried to run. Next,
it is the sponsors that suffer if their ad dollars are not effective.
The stations will be impacted by the rates that advertisers will
negotiate for placing ads. Impact on listings services is pretty
much zilch. The advertisers will not sell more product as a result
of fewer people receiving listings. The stations will still need
to publish their schedules no matter what their ad rates are.

> Actually, listings services exist to make the most revenue from
> the mix of sources they can get revenue from.  That's sometimes a trite
> statement in business, but it's always true.    I would still like
> to see confirmation that commercial networks pay to put their listings
> in the TMS & TVGuide databases.  If they do I am impressed with TMS and
> TV Guide!

That's Gemstar. I can't imagine a world where they would come
begging for the stations to give them their schedules. Would the
stations respond 'oh, we were trying to keep that a secret but
I guess if the newspapers want them that badly, here you can
have this' ;-).

> Well, my personal view is that the concept of a broadcast schedule
> will eventually go away, but as long as there is a schedule, I agree,
> it will be out there to get.

Don't hint at some pie in the sky crud that all video will be
digital and it will be downloaded on demand from video service
providers and leave it at that. There are schedules rather than
menus of archives to select from so listings do still need to
be published (just like they still needed street sweepers a
century ago before all those horseless carriages).

> But that doesn't mean it will be accurate enough for PVR use, for
> example, without paying.   Or in a highly convenient, reliable format
> without paying.

The commercial DVR's services pay and they don't get sub minute
data. Besides, this is a little foggy. It is the stations that
send out their schedules. The listings service pass this info on.
I don't see how the listings service would charge more for some
more accurate data than the stations provide. This goes back
to the idea of the stations providing, or the service
manipulating good and bad data. I'm not buyin' it. Certainly
not proof that DD will become a pay service any time soon.

>>On the other hand, if anyone thought that by jerking around the
>>schedule, users would decide that 'a DVR is a bad idea because
>>NBC might screw me over so I better watch Live TV from now on
>>so I don't miss anything', then they are truly hopeless fools.
> 
> 
> Correct.  Again, while I don't know what they would do to actively
> thwart PVR users, they have  -- or will have in the future at least --
> little incentive to go out of their way to help us, by subsidizing our
> listing data etc.

... and I'm not buyin' the "subsidizing" interpretation. They're
publishing their schedule plain and simple. No one benefits
by discriminating.

>>The role they play is to distribute listings. If they turn away
>>recipients, they reduce their reach and can not command high fees.
> 
> 
> Before we go further we should find out if it's really true that
> they do command high fees from the commercial networks.  The example
> cited, for PBS, is a different story.  PBS stations don't run commercials
> the same way and work by entirely different economics.

[sheez, had someone else answered their phone...] Ya, they
don't stand to gain from selling ads and they still need to
pay to publish.

>>>then they've got a sweet little deal going.
>>
>>See, this is what I've believed all along. Don't know if I'd
>>heard it somewhere or if it was just obvious to me. The way
>>advertising generally works is that a company with a product
>>or service pays to get the message out to potential customers.
> 
> 
> Right.  This is where it doesn't make sense to be getting the money
> from both ends.

See your own comments above. Make money where ever you can. The
newspapers like the service of the data collated for them, the
stations absolutely must have their schedules published.

>    If I were a TV network, and I was paying TMS to
> put out my listings to newspapers, I would say, "Why are you charging
> the newspapers for my listings?   Why are you discouraging some
> newspapers from getting them when I pay you to get them far and wide?"

I'm thinkin' it's more like the Cygnus support model for gcc.
They are paying to hold someone accountable for reliable data.
Newspapers aren't getting rich just because they have TV listing
so I don't see how listings services could charge them enough
to be profitable.

>>I can't imagine a business model where some company went around
>>begging stations for data in hopes of selling it to newspapers
>>just for the TV listings on the entertainment page. I believe
> 
> 
> In the old days, there were just a handful of TV stations, all local,
> and the local newspaper built its own TV listing page.   The page
> got bigger and bigger.  Eventually newspapers were happy to pay
> somebody else to work it all up for them, it was taking staff time.

And stations were even happier to reach viewers without having
to report to every single paper and magazine.

> I can't say for sure, but I doubt the local TV stations paid the
> newspaper to run the listings.  Perhaps they did at first.  I wasn't
> alive in the earliest days.

Alive or not, I can't imagine it working any other way. The
stations are the benefactors of having there product promoted.

>>>I am concerned about the suggestion they would charge the stations for
>>>feeding the PVR users data so the PVR users can watch commercial free,
>>>it just isn't in the station's interests to subsidize that.
>>
>>Sounds like a good argument on paper for why users should feel
>>afraid but it doesn't add up. Stations cannot force people to
>>not use DVRs by telling the services to withhold data from them.
> 
> 
> Sure, they think they can.

That's paranoid ;-). If you choose to believe that, we'll
have to agree to disagree.

>   If, as you say, the stations are paying
> to subsidize the free datadirect,

No, no. Don't put words in my mouth. I've never said anything
of the sort and have been trying to tell you otherwise. The
stations need to publish to everyone possible, period.

DataDirect is TMS' self initiated effort to extend their reach
and branding, reduce their on-line cost and gather valuable data
while they're at it. If they tried to charge for it, they'd lose
these benefits.

>  I can certainly see that once they
> fully understand it, they pass the order to say, "Look, we're paying
> so stop giving the data out free to the PVR users."  If they are
> paying.

This has drifted so far off track. You posted (as many before
you have) an alarmist statement to this list which pre-suppose
that DD is a scam to sucker people in so that they will screw you
over by charging subscription fees once you become dependent and
it is only a matter of time. (okay, maybe I'm being dramatic here).
It's easy to make that assumption but I honestly don't believe
there are any facts that support this assumption. All the wide
ranging FUD in the world won't prove that they plan to charge in
the foreseeable future. The fact remains that they chose to pursue
setting up this service for their own benefit and nothing has
changed since then that proves they were mistaken and now must
change course.

--  bjm