The above clip from This Hour Has 22 Minutes (from Oct 20, 2009) is a great bit about the fears of new technologies and their impact on the recording and television industry. Of course, the fears of new technology destroying the living of artists stretches all the way back to the player piano. Somehow we’ve managed to survive this far…

In other news, the Globe and Mail today has an interesting article about how Canadians are being left out in the cold (no ’snow’ wisecracks please) when it comes to digital content. Their main focus is the difference between the Hulu service in the US, and the disparate anemic offerings from the various TV networks in the Great White North. There are a couple of points where I think they’re missing some points…

The overall challenge is that streaming video content online is still a money-losing proposition because the advertising revenue derived from it is not enough to cover the costs. Advertisers aren’t willing to pay the same premium for online content that they would through traditional channels, and broadcasters aren’t particularly eager to jump full steam into something that isn’t profitable yet.

Targeted advertising, which is already taking place with banner ads on the Web, might loosen the shackles, but until the technology is perfected and the distribution rights are settled, the current ad hoc system of geoblocking will likely continue unabated. “Targeted ads are one of the biggest challenges for TV broadcasters right now, but the technology will be there to enable it online first,” he says.

When it comes to targeted advertising, there’s already mechanisms to determine a lot more demographic details from viewers online, than there is via traditional broadcasting, and doesn’t depending on averaging out based on Nielson families. As it stands, Hulu doesn’t require registration, but if they implemented a simple log in, like most other web services, they could make the data even MORE granular.

A second point is that when it started out Hulu was charging MUCH less to advertisers per eyeball than traditional broadcasters. Although that has changed recently, only certain ‘premium’ shows, like The Simpsons and CSI are beating the traditional rate. If you can garner more details about a viewer via a website (or dedicated application provided the same log in), a show viewed online should be more valuable on a per viewer basis than broadcast. Generally, there’s less than 1 minute of advertising in a half hour show online, as compared to two 4-5 minute breaks on broadcast. As we know, people often use this time for a bathroom break or to grab something from the fridge, or even check their email, especially since more and more people are watching TV with a netbook in their lap or a smart phone at their side. The cost-per-eyeball math is painfully obvious…

Of course, all this is irrelevant to Canadians until broadcasters and content providers can come up with a way to get a Hulu-like service running here.

Share and Enjoy: These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.