NBC Universal chief calls for 'Net-savvy TV pitches'

[S0V13T]

Jeff Zucker wishes TV producers would catch up to the iPod craze. As the CEO of NBC Universal Television Group, Zucker wants to see executive producers come to NBC with ideas that will play well in what one might call TV 2.0. From cell phones to iPods to Origami devices, TV is quickly reaching beyond the boob tube to computers and mobile devices, and some of it is even legal. The coming paradigm shift in television has convenience and cash written all over it, as the big players slowly figure out that providing users with content on their schedules could turn out to be a lucrative idea.

 

One instantly wonders how such a paradigm shift might actually affect the way in which new shows are born. For Jeff Zucker, the question isn't one of audience profiling or broadcast frequency. It's about planning from the earliest stages.

 

"What it really means is producers can no longer just come in with a TV show," Mr. Zucker told TelevisionWeek. "It has to have an online component, a sell-through component and a wireless component. It's the way we're trying to do business on the content side, giving the consumer ways to watch their show however they want to watch it."

 

Zucker is calling his new outlook "TV 360," an homage Microsoft surely appreciates. But what does this mean in practice? After seeing how iTunes could actually lend a helping hand to TV ratings, Zucker clearly has symbiosis on the mind. But also on the minds of many is money, and when we're talking about television programs, there's a lot of minds to account for. For instance, mildly popular shows such as NBC's My Name is Earl (which is now stuck in a terrible rut) might seem ripe for monetization, but having been produced by a non-NBC studio, NBC's options are limited. As the revenue potential builds up, so does the queue of people waiting to be paid.

 

Not everything boils down to selling TV shows online, however. NBC and others have also been experimenting with creating web-only or phone-only mini episodes. SMS messaging, desktop wall papers, outtakes, and other promotional features should be part of the package too, in Zucker's view.

 

"I don't want to make it a hard-and-fast rule, but certainly I think everybody knows that that's what we're looking for and it's really the way we're trying to do business on the content side," Mr. Zucker said.

 

Selling shows online may be the future, and it may not be. The bigger picture for Zucker relates to development. Rather than take on new shows to see how they fare on traditional networks before monetizing them via other means, Zucker wants to see the options solidified up front. This does two things. First, it sends the message that traditional TV models aren't going to cut it anymore. Perhaps more importantly, it says that NBC isn't interested in doing business with producers who want to take a "wait and see" approach to monetizing their shows. In short, NBC doesn't want to end up with a hot show that it can't monetize because a studio won't agree to terms. Moving those discussions upfront is one way to address that.

The un-TV networks

 

As part of the overall paradigm shift that I've been talking about lately, this move is bigger than it might look. It signals a kind of metamorphosis whereby the TV networks are starting to think of themselves as content producers for the next-generation of entertainment delivery schemes. While we have talked much about the notion of "repurposing" content for online sales, Zucker is moving the bar such that "repurposing" may become an anachronism. At NBC (and likely every other network), programming pitches will soon need to take these new delivery mediums into account from the very beginning when planning both their content and their contracts.

 

Full article

[str82u]

Networks are making money of iTunes, but they could certainly put the brakes on that and do what OnDemand does for cable on the web. That's a little off topic, but in the same strain, I could see that if a show had some kind of "Hook" to keep people coming back for more, the ondemand society (instant gratification) would be exploited further.

Psycologically speaking, this allows unsavvy/average schmoe users to participate in what they see as the hip internet. They can also participate in discussions and become more web involved/evolved this way. The people I'm speaking of don't use video editors or the like, so putting advertising, perhaps even some type of coding that includes fresh ads each time a movie or program starts (they already do this in porn each time it checks the license).

I think I would rather see things in the hands of the Networks than companies like apple.

 

[wahaha]

He's looking for the WRONG people.

 

It's MARKETING people like me who come up with the ideas, not brain cell depleted executives. They ASK for ideas, not give them.

 

And I'm not about to watch any goddamn TV show on a tiny 1.5 inch pathetic 16bit color cellphone screen. You want to watch that kind of thing, goto Japan where they HAVE the technology and bandwidth for that kind of thing. America does NOT. Jesus Christ, we can't even get broadband to everyone at over 1mb up AND down. And you're going to wait to watch a jerky TV show on a 128k phone network?

[slug]

Damn right. Things should just be charged for reasonably for download, at home, to watch at home. If the industry adapts, then maybe illegal downloading Should (somehow) be irradicated, there wouldn't be much excuse for it in a world where Media distgributors have caught up with the times. Perhaps then, Tv shows could actually be of a reasonable length, not throwaway 40-42 minutes, removing the bulk of advertising, which, maybe a flawed concept, I mean look at spyware, that shows you how truely insane advertising really is, its almost as insane as writing "Coca Cola' on to airplanes then flying them into buildings to get attention. Or maybe it is all a good idea the way it is, and people really are just a bit dumb. Maybe we don't deserve to survive.