[dweebe]

In the Friday January 23rd USA Today "Sports in TV" section by Michael Hiestand there is the following quote about the Daytona 500 being in high-def:
Quote:

NBC will offer the first high-defenition coverage of the Daytona 500 stock car race. But Fox Sports head David Hill, at a TV industry conference this week, said the spread of HD coverage might not be inevitable, noting that it adds to networks' costs but doesn't provide anything that allows networks to turn around and charge more to advertisers.

 

[dweebe]

In the Friday January 23rd USA Today "Sports in TV" section by Michael Hiestand there is the following quote about the Daytona 500 being in high-def:
Quote:

NBC will offer the first high-defenition coverage of the Daytona 500 stock car race. But Fox Sports head David Hill, at a TV industry conference this week, said the spread of HD coverage might not be inevitable, noting that it adds to networks' costs but doesn't provide anything that allows networks to turn around and charge more to advertisers.

Looks like he's still drinking the Fox company cool-aid.

 

[CycloneGT]

I guess he doesn't have a legimate business point then.

 

[auribe14]

Quote:

it adds to networks' costs but doesn't provide anything that allows networks to turn around and charge more to advertisers.

Advertiser fees are not currently charged on quality of broadcast- they are charged based on ratings. Once Nielsens come on line for HDTV, this thinking should change. This kind of reasoning has been discussed in relation to ESPN-HD, and their looking at a competitive advantage to broadcasting in HD first.

 

[RaymondR]

Quote:

it adds to networks' costs but doesn't provide anything that allows networks to turn around and charge more to advertisers.

Does this just scream the need for tracking of HD viewership.


After flipping back and forth between all the networks during the State of the Union Address I finally settled on FOX.

 

[TAdams]

quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

NBC will offer the first high-defenition coverage of the Daytona 500 stock car race. But Fox Sports head David Hill, at a TV industry conference this week, said the spread of HD coverage might not be inevitable, noting that it adds to networks' costs but doesn't provide anything that allows networks to turn around and charge more to advertisers.


Typical FOX BS as they are dragged kicking and screaming like a whining baby into broadcasting HD.

 

[steverobertson]

Maybe he needs a HDTV set in his house that he can watch what CBS and the rest do concerning HD and stop watching is own network

 

[Chuck_IV]

It's all about getting viewers. The question to ask is, are more people going to view the Major events, if it is presented in HD vs if it is just in SD?


As of right now, the additional viewership will probably be nominal and may not be worth the added cost. However, as more and more networks get on the HD bandwagon, more and more people will only watch if it is HD. The trick is to not be left behind. If FOX waits too long to go HD, then they will suffer viewership loss.

 

[dufusdad]

What worries me is that the same guy that owns Fox now owns Directv.

 

[Mr.Poindexter]

And one of the first things they did was get CBS HD up and running on DirecTV and will be doing the same for FOX soon with their Digital Widescreen and any HD if they ever get it going.


The thing about live sporting events is that there is no revenue from it at a later date, just like reality TV. Syndication of shows will happen and generate more revenue. CSI is playing earlier seasons on other networks, etc, and in the future, the HD syndicated shows will be worth more than NTSC - just like color vs. B/W shows are today.


Live sporting events, news and reality TV don't get that benefit, so there is no additional revenue past the time of broadcast. I can see the point a little. Still, I am not a NASCAR fan, but I would probably watch it if it was in HDTV. Then again, we need our local affiliate to pass along more than 480i digital.

 

[mmost]

Quote:

Originally posted by Dave Beebe Looks like he's still drinking the Fox company cool-aid.

Why? Because he's stating facts that happen to be very true?


Wake up and smell the real world. If you owned a business, would YOU be "happy" to spend many millions of dollars on something for which you have no idea when of if that investment will ever be returned, let alone be profitable? People here need to stop looking at all of this as "gee, it's cool, it's got wow factor, it looks great, it gives the "window effect," it makes me the envy of my family and friends, NTSC is crap, Fox is crap, I will never watch any television that isn't HD ever again," and look at reality instead. Reality is exactly what the Fox Sports exec said, regardless of your rosy view of the wonderful, audience grabbing, profit generating HD of the future, because at the very least, it's only that way in the very distant future.

 

[stickyfingers]

I'm not quite as angry as mm, but I agree w/most of his points. I, for one, am very happy about the HD I get - I even drop my station engineers thank you emails every now and again when something tremendous is one because I do appreciate it. I sorta agree w/the FOX fellow in that, though I think there is *some* value in producing HD programming, if I was a local affil I don't think I'd spend the money to put out the HD signal - but I'm certainly glad mine chose to. They are guaranteed monopolies as to their viewers for their networks broadcast, and as that they don't need to compete why bother?


Brian

 

[fender4645]

Quote:

Originally posted by mmost Why? Because he's stating facts that happen to be very true? Wake up and smell the real world. If you owned a business, would YOU be "happy" to spend many millions of dollars on something for which you have no idea when of if that investment will ever be returned, let alone be profitable? People here need to stop looking at all of this as "gee, it's cool, it's got wow factor, it looks great, it gives the "window effect," it makes me the envy of my family and friends, NTSC is crap, Fox is crap, I will never watch any television that isn't HD ever again," and look at reality instead. Reality is exactly what the Fox Sports exec said, regardless of your rosy view of the wonderful, audience grabbing, profit generating HD of the future, because at the very least, it's only that way in the very distant future.

Gee. I wonder what would have happened if ABC or NBC said the same thing when a little thing called "Color TV" came out 50 years ago. Sometimes smart business means getting nothing monetary in return.

 

[JeffC]

Quote:

Originally posted by RaymondR Does this just scream the need for tracking of HD viewership.

Sure does ROI (return on investment) comes to mind and in these early stages there is not a mechanism that provides the data needed to make sound business decisions. Maybe AVS and others could provide a sounding board to the networks? I am fairly new to HD but I find myself watching it more and more. I have changed my programming line up to included HD broadcasts that I never used watch in SD.


One more thought can the network get marketing data on HD equipment sales? Now sat companies would have the data on HD subscribers but OTA is a different annimal.

 

[Barry928]

A more practical business plan for HD would be to wait for the majority of the TV households to buy a digital TV and then get the ratings service in place to measure them before you begin to spend money on digital infrastructure to provide programming. This would be much more cost effective and would produce a much faster ROI.


It seems like these chicken and egg discussions just keep going around and around.

 

[Darin]

I don't know, I think there is a percentage of the population that will let the quality of the broadcast affect what they watch. I know when I turn on the TV, I ALWAYS look to see what's on the HD channels first. Only if there's nothing interesting (and I usually find something), will I go to the Tivo and see what's on there. But I'm also not the type of person who watches a lot of network series... (what's the plural of series?).


I really doubt that I'm alone in this respect, and the important thing now is that while HD is still at a point where it's mostly watched by the type of people who are willing to spend extra money on those types of gadgets, they basically have a very captive audience handed to them by broadcasting in HD. If they can't demand more advertising value from that, then THEY aren't marketing it properly.


Sure, maybe the majority of the people who will watch the Daytona 500 will watch it regardless of how it's broadcast. But RIGHT NOW, while there are some things that are HD and some things that are not, there is going to be a certain percentage of (rather spendy) viewers for which the format may be the deciding factor between two (or more) shows they may be interested in watching. In the world of 200+ channels of constant media saturation, HD can be a differentiating factor that they apparently don't recognize, and aren't marketing to their advantage.

 

[Bill Johnson]

Fox reminds me a little of Adelphia. The underlings as well as the overlings don't get the word on a change of direction in many cases until long after the change has occurred. Eventually, they'll stop fighting HDTV and fully embrace it. The downside is in the meantime customers are angry and in misery and I speak from experience.

 

[mikey p]

mmost..... Thank's for shedding some light on this issue, Like fender4XXX, I'm happy with the all majors and even WB and UPN for all the offerings this year. Every AMERICAN DREAM has made it in HD so far this year. ;-) (read, I can stand repeats, and / or pre-empts rather than showing a SD print) Plus UPN's Enterprise actually look all OK, IMHO.


Overall, I for one, sure understand your point a lot better a year later than back then. But reading page after page of whining about anything under the sun will give you some opinions for sure. HD Sports is so funny it's sad beyond words.


Take care..... good to see you again here.

 

[MickeyGee]

Quote:

Originally posted by fender4645 Gee. I wonder what would have happened if ABC or NBC said the same thing when a little thing called "Color TV" came out 50 years ago. Sometimes smart business means getting nothing monetary in return.

Exactly. Sometimes I am amazed at the myopia. Another analogy: the man who started Fedex (Mr. Smith) got a "C" on his term paper in business school when he first proposed the business model for Fedex. How are you going to make money charging people $10 to send a letter when the Post Office will do the same thing for 15 cents (back then)? Not to mention the cost of buying/leasing a large fleet of airplanes. Crazy idea. The numbers just didn't work.


The first PC was another product introduced to a market that did not exist.


I say, let Fox die under its own sword.

 

[mmost]

Quote:

Originally posted by Bill Johnson Fox reminds me a little of Adelphia. The underlings as well as the overlings don't get the word on a change of direction in many cases until long after the change has occurred. Eventually, they'll stop fighting HDTV and fully embrace it. The downside is in the meantime customers are angry and in misery and I speak from experience.

The networks' and local affiliates' customers are advertisers. Not viewers. The advertisers are most definitely not angry and in misery for any other reason other than network viewership being down considerably over the last 10 years or so - HD or no HD. Viewers are simply beneficiaries of the fact that there is still a model for keeping networks, programs producers, and affiliates in business - although clearly that model is not as strong as it once was.