Jeremy Toeman Explores the Concept of Buyshifting

[Jason Dunn]

<div class='os_post_top_link'><a href='http://www.engadget.com/2007/05/04/ins-and-outs-is-buyshifting-the-future-of-television-part-1/' target='_blank'>http://www.engadget.com/2007/05/04/ins-and-outs-is-buyshifting-the-future-of-television-part-1/</a><br /><br /></div><i>"Over the past few years, another trend has emerged, where viewers are buying TV shows on-demand and á la carte from digital resellers like iTunes, or on plain old DVDs. And these consumers are buying a lot of them. At the time of writing, seven of the top 25 DVDs on Amazon are TV shows, and one in five DVDs rented on Netflix is a TV show. Furthermore, many cable and satellite companies have teamed up with the networks to provide on-demand episodes available as early as the day following the original live broadcast -- that is, if their customers aren't among those who've bought over 50 million TV shows through iTunes. And with recent moves by major players such as CBS and NBC, as well as technology startups like Brightcove and Joost, it's clear that buying television episodes á la carte is no mere novelty -- nor is it going away. So perhaps it's time we gave this phenomena a name: buyshifting. We'll use that to refer to broadcast TV programming that you don't just watch -- you buy or rent. But where does buyshifting stand today? And is it really the future of television?"</i><br /><br /><img src="http://www.digitalmediathoughts.com/images/buyshifters-1.jpg" /><br /><br />I hadn't really thought about what name to give the process of consumers buying content instead of viewing/recording it off cable, but buyshifting seems as good of a name as any. Although I have to admit, it seems unrealistic to think that at this point there are more than a handful of uber-geeks that have given up on cable TV completely and are only buying TV shows a-la-carte. In <a href="http://www.engadget.com/2007/05/25/ins-and-outs-is-buyshifting-the-future-of-television-part-2/">part two of his article</a>, Toeman does the math, and it's pretty interesting to see how it all shakes out - and how bad cable does. <!><br /><br />For me at least, cable still offers one important advantage over buying TV shows individually: there's no DRM (except for the broadcast flag, which is thankfully still fairly rare). I really like the fact that I can record a TV show and put it on my laptop, burn a DVD, put it on a PMP. The TV shows and movies that I'd buy from my cable company are locked to my cable box. Plus, it has a limited hard drive so there's a barrier there if you want to keep the TV shows - which I'd certainly want to do if I was paying for everyone. There are a few other advantages cable has: because it's an "all you can eat" model, I can watch all sorts of new shows come new season time, and skip watching the new series that I don't like. I'd be more reluctant to watch ten premieres if I had to pay $2 for each one. Lastly, if you're a cable modem customer like I am, there are bundled savings: my bill is about $90 USD per month, but that's for digital cable and a 10 mbps Internet connection. So I think Toeman's math will vary depending on where you live.<br /><br />What do you think about this "buyshifting" issue - are you a buyshifter, having ditched old-school cable? Or does the math not work out for you?

[Felix Torres]

I don't think of it in those terms exactly but I actually have taken a few steps in that direction. And I expect that will continue.
So far, I've ditched the fancy digital cable package for the (Cheaper) HD+DVR package on cable, and moved to buying DVD sets for serialized shows with long gaps in scheduling (24, 4400, Galactica). Not so much to save costs, but for a better viewing experience. (USA and SciFi are analog SD channels on my cable system. Home and garden and knitting channels are digital. Go figure. :roll: )

That said, I don't see too many people doing this to the extent he proposes. Mostly because his scenario neglects sports, news, and weather which are the real backbone of subscription TV services. A more likely scenario is to switch to basic service with a few choice add-ons depending on people's taste supplemented by online and DVD buys. Say a 50-50 split between subscription and renting/buying.

Two things pop out:
First, the why over the big fight over ala carte cable subscriptions. With rising cable prices folks no longer see deep channel lineups as freebies but rather as stuff they pay for they don't watch or need.

Second, that advertiser-supported content broadcasting is not necesarilly the most efficient way to monetize entertainment content. Just as the 80's showed that independent producers could use first-run syndication to build themselves up (how many folks have noticed that the Atlantis crew behind the CSI empire on CBS started out doing syndicated shows Like Earth Final Conflict? big jump in audience), current trends on both boxed sets and online delivery indicate that even shows deemed losers by the network honchos can be very profitable in other venues. (What are the odds that a Firefly revival would fly if online and DVD sales were factored in?) This trend is being explored pretty carefully by NBC/Universal and the SciFi channel who surely have noticed the significant amount of revenue (and new viewers) generated by boxed sets for shows like Stargate and Galactica. Money speaks and for a lot of shows, the existing distribution channels (i.e., the networks) are more of an obstacle than an aid to finding an audience/customer base.

So, I'm guessing we'll see more of this.
Theoretically, I guess that if one relied on the internet for news, weather, and sports, one could get by with OTA TV and buy-shifting. But I also think the distributors (cable, satellite, etc) will react before this goes too much further and provide more user control. IPTV, in particular, lends itself to ala carte subscriptions and full-catalog VOD so the final outcome will likely be a new balance between bundled services and discrete buys.

But it *is* interesting to see discrete buys making themselves felt this strongly so fast; this is a very good development.
Now to see if the content producers and/or distributors are paying attention as to *why* this is happening. :wink:

[Dyvim]

Nitpick: seems like the best term would be simply "buying". Buyshifting doesn't make sense because you're not changing (shifting) the way or method that you're buying the TV shows. You're just buying it instead of watching it for free on advertiser-supported TV.

I rent TV series on Netflix. That way I get the better viewing experience + convenience and I don't have to purchase something I won't ever want to watch more than once. But that's not really buying, although I am paying for my Netflix subscription.

[Jason Dunn]

Nitpick: seems like the best term would be simply "buying". Buyshifting doesn't make sense because you're not changing (shifting) the way or method that you're buying the TV shows. You're just buying it instead of watching it for free on advertiser-supported TV.

I think the concept is that you're shifting your buying behaviour from cable to another source...hence the "shift" part of that. But it's just a word - you could call it "changes in buying behaviour" if you wanted to, but that's not as catchy. ;-)

[Jeremy Charette]

I'm at the point where I'm going to drop my cable service and use purchased content (Live, iTunes, etc) and OTA instead. There's just nothing compelling enough to keep paying $80/month for digital cable + DVR. I'd rather sink that money into $80 worth of DVDs every month, and OWN the content I watch, rather than paying for the right to watch it whenever they decide to show it.