abatt

Live In HD "Cannibalizes" The Audience

34 posts in this topic

http://www.nytimes.c...t.html?ref=arts

This an article from today's NY Times, in which Gelb of the Met points out the pros and cons of the Live In HD opera broadcasts. He attributes a decline in "live" attendance in the house, in part, to these broadcasts. I thought this might be an interesting topic for discussion.

Personally, since I live in New York City I go to very few of the HD movie broadcasts. There is nothing that compares to hearing the opera live at the Met. However, since all of these HD operas are ultimately broadcast on PBS, I have seen them on TV. I have to agree with the author that a lot of these new productions, which seem awful in the Big House live, make a much better impression on the small screen of my TV. (The new Ring, as an example.)

Share this post


Link to post

Thank you for putting this up for discussion, abatt. I thought this was interesting:

It makes sense that a majority of those attending HD broadcasts are already hooked on opera. They know how to enjoy the special qualities of the video broadcasts because they know what the real thing is. And, as Mr. Gelb said in the phone interview, the Met can rightly take pride that broadcasts have “extended the operagoing life of older customers,” those people who have become too frail to make as many trips to Lincoln Center as they used to.

Surveys have shown that the decline in the Met’s audience has come from “outlying areas of New York,” Mr. Gelb said, with people who used to visit the Met now simply finding it easier to stop by the local movie house on Saturday.

This would suggest that as an effort to reach new audiences, the HD broadcasts may be having a limited effect - preaching to the choir, as it were. Those living in Manhattan who can afford it will certainly attend live performances, but it's easy to see why others who have to travel farther might opt for the cineplex.

Thoughts?

Share this post


Link to post

You couldn't beg, borrow or steal a ticket to see Jonas Kaufmann live at the Met in Parsifal. It was a sell out for every show. In that case, the HD certainly didn't cannibalize the live attendance at the Big House. However, there are very few opera stars who can sell out the Big House. (Netrebko is also a huge draw who mostly sells every seat in the house.) If they are experiencing difficulty in selling seats at the Big House, it's because some of the singers are not terribly interesting, and the prices are out of control for mediocre performers.

Share this post


Link to post

The other issue I have always wondered about is whether these HD transmissions harm regional opera companies. I agree with abatt that the best way to see opera is "live" in person. There is nothing like the human voice carrying above an orchestra into your ear in the same room. By the way, I think the new Met Ring looks terrible on the movie screen, not just in person.

But anyway, my thought is that if you can go see Kaufmann as Werther and Fleming as Rusalka, etc. at the movies you might not care to see Joe Smith as Werther at your local company or Mary Jo Smith as Rusalka. The star system is still alive and well in the opera world. When a regional company gets even one well known star, I suspect it actually helps ticket sales. But often they can't afford stars, so they are relying a lot on Also Rans, Has Beens, and Never Will Bes.....

I guess my point is that if people can see international level singers at the top of their game in HD for a cheaper price than seeing "nobodies" in person, I suspect some people will just go to the HDs.

The only thing you totally miss out on is the size of the voice and the unique acoustics of a live experience (orchestral sound also), but if given the option: 1) no opera or 2) lousy regional opera (some of it can be rather good but that's not my point) or 3) international level opera at the movies......a lot of opera fans will choose the latter if on a limited income.

I noticed when the HDs first started the host would almost always announce paying a visit to your local company. But then the big economic crash came and they stopped saying that. They started saying, "Come to a live performance at the Met," but now that things are picking back up, they have started saying we should visit our local companies again! LOL I find it sort of humorous.

Share this post


Link to post

I think opera buffs love the art - whether live or broadcast to the cinema, TV, etc. I think we've heard for about 125 years now that technology is destroying the audiences for live performances. But is that really the case? Most of my friends who go to the opera HD performances attend the local opera as well....

For those who only attend the HD cinemas, it is because of the Great Recession, not the lack of passion to see live opera. They are thankful for the HD broadcasts and the local classical radio station that does a broadcast of the Seattle opera performances. They just wish they made more money so they could resume buying opera season tickets.

Has a decent Ring ever *not* sold out? Because the 2013 Ring in Seattle is selling really well:

http://seattleopera....ility_chart.pdf

(check out all the lavender colored "SOLD OUT" seating sections

Like the Nutcracker at Christmastime, or Book of Mormon on Broadway or on tour, some operas just sell better than others. And people are willing to pay high prices. Plus it is the 200 year anniversary for Wagner, so there is more media interest this year.

Finally, this is fun eye candy look at Georg Solti recording with the Vienna Phil:

I think he's trying to kill himself.

Share this post


Link to post

Maybe the Opera (and Ballet) HD cinema need to look at other models. I'm not a sports fan (except for figure skating and gymnastics) but don't some local teams ban local TV broadcasts of games that are not sold out? The Opera/Ballet might adopt the same rule for broadcasts within, say, 100 miles. I suppose one problem would be the movie theater owners who wouldn't commit to something like this. (Not great for fans, but better than abandoning that mode of delivery altogether.)

Another model: the traditional release of books was hardcover first and cheaper paperback much later, sometimes a year or so later. (The book publishing model is in chaos right now, of course, because of e-books, but that was the old model. If you just couldn't wait, you'd pay premium price for the hardcover -- or get onto a waiting list at your local library.)

Opera/Ballet HD might show things on delay -- perhaps months later, so if you were eager to see something special, you'd get to New York, but otherwise wait a while to see it in the movie theater or on PBS.

I'd hate to lose this new delivery mode and wish ballet would do more of it. So many people can't afford to ever get to New York (or Moscow or London or St. Petersburg) to see these in person and some compromise that balances accessibility with the continuing need of companies to sell tickets to live performances should be possible.

Share this post


Link to post

I am a relatively new opera fan. A friend took me to the Met Opera a couple of years ago and I really enjoyed it (not the love I feel for ballet, but really enjoyment). I have not been to a live opera since. The tickets are pretty pricey and I spend a lot of money on ballet tickets. I suppose I could afford to buy seats in the upper regions of the Met, but instead I can go to the HD movie and really see the action. I love being close. If there was no HD movie, I'd probably go to a live opera now and then but I wouldn't be building the familiarity with singers and rep that I now am developing. I've become a Stephanie Blythe fan - and went to see her at Carnegie Hall and in Carousel at the New York Phil. I guess this is my long winded way to say that things are complex.

Share this post


Link to post
The other issue I have always wondered about is whether these HD transmissions harm regional opera companies.

I wonder too. For one reason or another I'm only seeing one HD this season, but I've seen as many as a half a dozen, and I plan to catch a few when they're rebroadcast this summer.But the regional company here, which introduced me to live opera 20 years ago, and which now performs in the same theater that shows the broadcasts, last year charged almost twice what HD tickets cost. Between seeing their Boheme and taking the opportunity to see . . . well, anything from the Met's HD season, none of which my local company will probably ever do, despite the fact that this is a moneyed, educated town . . . the choice is easy.

Share this post


Link to post
The other issue I have always wondered about is whether these HD transmissions harm regional opera companies.

I wonder too. For one reason or another I'm only seeing one HD this season, but I've seen as many as a half a dozen, and I plan to catch a few when they're rebroadcast this summer.But the regional company here, which introduced me to live opera 20 years ago, and which now performs in the same theater that shows the broadcasts, last year charged almost twice what HD tickets cost. Between seeing their Boheme and taking the opportunity to see . . . well, anything from the Met's HD season, none of which my local company will probably ever do, despite the fact that this is a moneyed, educated town . . . the choice is easy.

Yes, it is rare for a regional company to do things like Thais, the Ring, Tristan und Isolde, Parsifal, Armida, etc. (all HD transmissions from the Met). So for many it is the only way to see these things. Regional companies have to have a heavy dose of La Bohemes and Rigolettos to survive.

Share this post


Link to post

Opera/Ballet HD might show things on delay -- perhaps months later, so if you were eager to see something special, you'd get to New York, but otherwise wait a while to see it in the movie theater or on PBS.

The problem with that is that the allure for me is to see it as it is happening live. I even read an article that the Met's HDs (because they are live) are much more popular than the pre-videotaped European operas on Emerging Pictures (pre-taped b/c of the time difference).

For me (and possibly others) seeing a pre-taped opera is like watching a dvd except I do not have the remote to pause it. But seeing it live as it is actually happening creates an excitement.

Share this post


Link to post

I am a relatively new opera fan. A friend took me to the Met Opera a couple of years ago and I really enjoyed it (not the love I feel for ballet, but really enjoyment). I have not been to a live opera since. The tickets are pretty pricey and I spend a lot of money on ballet tickets. I suppose I could afford to buy seats in the upper regions of the Met, but instead I can go to the HD movie and really see the action. I love being close. If there was no HD movie, I'd probably go to a live opera now and then but I wouldn't be building the familiarity with singers and rep that I now am developing. I've become a Stephanie Blythe fan - and went to see her at Carnegie Hall and in Carousel at the New York Phil. I guess this is my long winded way to say that things are complex.

A good way around this is to sit far away in operas. You actually hear how large or small the various singers' voices are, and it can astound you. And take binoculars to get close ups of the singers' faces from time to time.

When I have attended special things like a Ring or an opera with a particular singer I adore I go ahead and pay the big bucks, but if it is mainly an opera I am interested in seeing but have no favorite singers in the cast then I buy a cheap ticket and take binoculars, and it actually is okay, b/c opera is about the singing to me, and you hear sometimes way better in the faraway seats.

Ballet is different. It is much more important to see and have a good seat.

Share this post


Link to post

Maybe the Opera (and Ballet) HD cinema need to look at other models. I'm not a sports fan (except for figure skating and gymnastics) but don't some local teams ban local TV broadcasts of games that are not sold out? The Opera/Ballet might adopt the same rule for broadcasts within, say, 100 miles. I suppose one problem would be the movie theater owners who wouldn't commit to something like this. (Not great for fans, but better than abandoning that mode of delivery altogether.)

Saturday afternoon performances at the Met always sell out anyway, so it's not the broadcast performance itself that is going to be cannibalized by an HD transmission.

On March 28 the Royal Ballet is planning a live broadcast of Alice's Adventures in Wonderland, and the run is completely sold out. I would guess that if some performances are not selling out, it has more to do with repertoire than with accessibility to a multiplex version.

http://www.roh.org.u...topher-wheeldon

As for subsequent PBS retransmission of the Met's broadcasts, I'm sorry to say it does not apply to all markets. As producer of Great Performances at the Met, I imagine that WNET airs all the operas, but last season, the two PBS stations I get (one East Coast, one West Coast) skipped four of the productions, and after showing this season's initial broadcast, they're skipping the next four.

I share Birdall's concern that the greater victim may be regional opera and ballet. For example, I've fallen out of love with my local ballet company because they're doing awful repertoire, so I've greatly reduced my attendance and have come to rely on movie-house access to the Bolshoi and Royal Ballet as a substitute, though I've also followed through on my threat to use my air miles to see live ballet elsewhere.

Share this post


Link to post

Okay, here comes some dissent: I went to the MetHD Aida "encore" presentation recently, and enjoyed it musically, but I thought the camera-work was often - well, what did I just say? - idiotic. A camera in the flies, looking down? But I picked this over playing my fave recording of the music in order to have a look at the Ratmansky ballet. Turned out there were two, but they were hard to see, because of the unsympathetic camera-work, although it was different from the treatment the rest of the production got. But good very good voices, except for the Aida, who was better than that, ravishing! And decent conducting and good playing.

So I'm unlikely to go back. I'd rather just listen, and on records, I think you may find performances that beat most opera houses, even the Met.

But to the point of the thread: How do they figure out what effect these things have on theater attendance? My bedrock concern is how to share the fun I have with some ballet with others who might be similarly susceptible, but performing-arts marketing just bewilders me.

Yeah, I watch ballet in Emerging Pictures more often than the Joffrey, our local troupe if you don't count Ballet Chicago, which I very much do, in spite of it's being mainly a school, because EP lets me enjoy the Royal dancing Fille Mal Garde in what looks like authentic style, while Joffrey's Cinderella, for example, while still charming and a good time, fell short. (And Fille was better shot than the Met's Ratmansky dances.)

(As to Solti's antics in that clip, I never saw anything quite like that in Orchestra Hall! But he did actually injure himself a couple of times - elsewhere - by driving the point of his baton into his forehead or the palm of his left hand - IIRC, his hand was still bandaged when he received his knighthood, arousing the Queen's solicitude, we read. One can infuse that musicwith a different, more funereal tension.) (Note that the dynamics in the clip I've linked to are compressed compared to the original.)

Share this post


Link to post

I think we will always be upset by cameramen! Some of their choices bewilder us, because they may not actually be as familiar with the operas (or ballets) as we are.

One of the worst camera work or maybe editing on a video that I ever saw was in the otherwise wonderful Tristan und Isolde video with Waltraud Meier and Ian Storey from La Scala. She is singing about meeting Tristan and the camera focuses on a light. She does plan to extinguish it as a sign to Tristan to meet her (so the light plays a pivotal role), but give me a break! We want to see Meier's face as she sings, not minutes focusing on her cape or a light! Then, as Tristan is dying the video director (I assume) has the picture go black multiple times as if we are dying and our eyes closing multiple times. The same video director did the La Scala Aida with Alagna and she does the same thing and focuses on spears and other inanimate objects while singers are singing. You look at objects over and over. Meanwhile, the singer's face is missed. So I guess this is more a video director's choice in the editing process.....

But I think the Lopatkina Swan Lake video cuts off her legs at the beginning of her fouettes if I remember correctly.

There are always going to be infuriating camera moments in video or even movie transmissions. Even if we were doing the filming we might infuriate someone, because we each might consider a particular moment more important than another.

In the Met's previous traditional Ring (video) during Wotan's farewell to Brünnhilde, you get an overhead shot also.....an angle no audience member would ever have. I have to admit that I do not like that sort of thing either. I do like to basically see the opera the way I might see it in the theatre, although I do think close ups at choice moments is important too. I think a close up of Wotan saying goodbye to his daughter is appropriate. A shot overhead is unnecessary. Overhead shots in ballet sometimes make some sense b/c seeing the patterns can be interesting, even if it is not what we usually see in the actual theatre.

In cameramen's defense, however, I have been to a performance and focused on one performer and then missed something in the action on the other side of the stage and been mad at myself. So these things happen even to us. So it makes sense it happens to the cameramen too. But overall, I understand someone being frustrated with the cameras at the movie versions or videos.

Share this post


Link to post

I think the basic idea with putting dancing on screen is to show the space and let them dance in it, and other theater similarly.

...

I do like to basically see the opera the way I might see it in the theatre, although I do think close ups at choice moments is important too. I think a close up of Wotan saying goodbye to his daughter is appropriate. A shot overhead is unnecessary. Overhead shots in ballet sometimes make some sense b/c seeing the patterns can be interesting, even if it is not what we usually see in the actual theatre.

In cameramen's defense, however, I have been to a performance and focused on one performer and then missed something in the action on the other side of the stage and been mad at myself.

...

So there can be an opportunity for the people behind the cameras - the director, basically - to help us to see more than we might if distracted, to keep us on target - but subjective darkness descending, examination of spear points? No, when many cameras are available, some principles of cinema need be kept in mind - the sequence of the shots edited together can make or break your experience of the whole event - but, yes, if it "works" in the theater, it'll work the same way on screen if you let it, don't cut it up, don't make sausage meat out of it.

Share this post


Link to post

I think the basic idea with putting dancing on screen is to show the space and let them dance in it, and other theater similarly.

...

I do like to basically see the opera the way I might see it in the theatre, although I do think close ups at choice moments is important too. I think a close up of Wotan saying goodbye to his daughter is appropriate. A shot overhead is unnecessary. Overhead shots in ballet sometimes make some sense b/c seeing the patterns can be interesting, even if it is not what we usually see in the actual theatre.

In cameramen's defense, however, I have been to a performance and focused on one performer and then missed something in the action on the other side of the stage and been mad at myself.

...

So there can be an opportunity for the people behind the cameras - the director, basically - to help us to see more than we might if distracted, to keep us on target - but subjective darkness descending, examination of spear points? No, when many cameras are available, some principles of cinema need be kept in mind - the sequence of the shots edited together can make or break your experience of the whole event - but, yes, if it "works" in the theater, it'll work the same way on screen if you let it, don't cut it up, don't make sausage meat out of it.

I agree with you completely, but to play Devil's Advocate.....I know in film (both from taking a film class in German Studies and having an aunt who was an art director) simply filming what happens is not the goal of a director and I am guessing not the goal of a video director either. Each director is creating (in his or her mind) a piece of art separate from the actual sequence of events that an audience sees. That is why that lousy Tristan und Isolde video director had the picture fade in and out while Tristan was dying. She was making an artistic choice and statement by making us feel Tristan's tentative state of consciousness. I personally think it was a FLOP decision on her part.

This is also why we get furious when a movie version of a beloved novel comes out. They sometimes combine characters (due to length of novel) or cut out scenes or combine scenes or even redo the story somewhat. This is because directors do not feel they are taking a great work of art and simply translating it into a visual image. They feel they are creating a whole new work of art and not simply a recreation of the novel. Sort of like how the ballet Don Quixote was a new and totally different work of art than the novel.

And that happens when the person is also filming opera and ballet. They often have their own agenda which frustrates us.

Share this post


Link to post
And, as Mr. Gelb said in the phone interview, the Met can rightly take pride that broadcasts have “extended the operagoing life of older customers,” those people who have become too frail to make as many trips to Lincoln Center as they used to.

Surveys have shown that the decline in the Met’s audience has come from “outlying areas of New York,” Mr. Gelb said, with people who used to visit the Met now simply finding it easier to stop by the local movie house on Saturday.

Anecdotally I can confirm this. I have an aunt who lives right across the GWB. At one point in her youth she was going to the Met practically every night as a standee; later she was a subscriber for decades. But she can no longer afford the subscription, and limited mobility makes it difficult for her to get into Manhattan. While seats high in the Family Circle may be within her reach financially, they're not accessible to her physically. But she does occasionally attend the live transmissions, because in suburban New Jersey she doesn't have to pay the bridge toll, she doesn't have to pay for parking, she doesn't have to negotiate a lot of steps, and she finds the experience more satsifying than watching the television replay.

Share this post


Link to post

so maybe the problem is the greying of the subscribers? They are living on limited pensions, have limited mobility and limited tolerance for evening events. So the Met HD broadcasts help keep them involved.

Share this post


Link to post

so maybe the problem is the greying of the subscribers? They are living on limited pensions, have limited mobility and limited tolerance for evening events. So the Met HD broadcasts help keep them involved.

I'm sure that's part of it, but attracting younger audiences surely is a problem, too, for both opera and ballet. Major companies seem to have all sorts of programs to attract younger audience members, but I don't know how successful they are. And people of limited income at all ages can only experience the arts in these secondary ways. The big companies need to figure out how to exploit the new technologies without destroying their major revenue sources. (But this is also a problem for newspapers, book publishers, and music studios.)

Share this post


Link to post

When I was living in Tampa an elderly woman fell almost every single HD transmission. This is because the dumb movie theater had varying lengths of steps instead of a ramp going down. It was a stadium type movie theater, and people expected steps going up to the stadium type seats but the ground floor seats had steps instead of a ramp, for some reason. These steps were lit up on the edges but they had unexpected changes in length. Some of the steps were long platform steps and others were short steps. It was horrifying to see an old woman fall flat on her face almost every single time I went. I picked up a couple who fell near me and said they were okay. One could not get up and we called 911. I started warning elderly people as they walked past me to be careful. I suspect that the movie theater got away with this b/c all the steps were lit (did what they legally had to do), but it was still hazardous!

I had a similar situation in NY at a restaurant near Lincoln Center. The restaurant is on the second floor and you enter these glass doors and you immediately see stairs leading up to the restaurant and "Watch your step" sign but you think they mean the stairs and you are looking around as you enter to see if a hostess will greet you and to see what paintings are on the wall and BAM! I tripped completely on a long landing step that comes soon after you enter and I was flying into the stairs. I had to hold out my fingers to avoid slamming my face into the stairs, so my fingers took the full brunt of my 6 ft. almost 200 pounds frame!!!! When I got home my doctor said nothing was torn or broken, but it should heal in 3 months. My fingers ached horribly for 6 months despite what he said, and I finally went to acupuncture and just a few times of acupuncture made them almost as good as new. The restaurant has a colored strip on the landing step and a "Watch Your Step" sign but you still don't expect that landing step at all on the ground floor despite all those legal precautions. The fact that they have a sign and colored strip tells me that I am not the only person to fall.

So watch out if you know the restaurant that I mean. I can't remember the name but it was a seafood place.

Anyway, I think some movie theaters can actually be dangerous for elderly people (and clumsy people like myself) to navigate!!!!!

Share this post


Link to post

Were I the Met, I would welcome the elderly who can no longer travel to the Met or afford the tickets. I would welcome the 20- and 30-somethings with younger families who might be able to sneak out for a morning to a cinema -- maybe meet up with their spouse and children in the mall afterwards -- to see opera, when the cost and complexity of arranging babysitters and an evening out after a long day makes it a dead "in-between" demographic.

I would also welcome the Met Opera as a worldwide brand with which people are involved, not just a name association or a "maybe" on a trip to NYC jam packed with other things.

This Sunday's magazine section will have an article on Gelb that is now available on the NYT website that argues differently:

Annual new productions at the Met have nearly doubled; geriatric demographic trends have been arrested, if not reversed; fund-raising is setting records. The Met now has a 24-hour channel on SiriusXM radio; an iPad app; education programs in more than 150 schools in 21 states; subsidized tickets; free dress rehearsals. When Gelb became general manager in 2006, the number of subscribers surged and the percentage of sold-out shows rebounded off historic lows. Subscriptions and the percentage of house seats sold have tailed off in the past few years, and the Met recently had to roll back last season’s 10 percent ticket-price increase, but these negative box-office trends have been offset by the growth of the audience for the Met’s “Live in HD” broadcasts, which Gelb initiated and which last season drew 2,547,243 viewers in 54 countries.

and it includes a link to another NYT article from last year that argues that Met HD is an expansion and an offset.

Fundraising setting new records is critical for the Met. In the US, a $125 donation to the Met allows a person to get tickets before the general public, crucial for cinemas that have reserved seating, unless the first few rows are preferred. I wonder how many extra donations and memberships they get for this purpose, and also how many older people are sending small checks because they're still involved through HD's. The HD's keep the Met in sight and in mind.

I've mentioned before that think the perfect experience is Operavision, which is offered at three performances of each opera at San Francisco Opera. There are two screens that are dropped from the ceiling in the Balcony that provide a directed, HD-like experience to people at the top of the theater. The acoustics are still there, it's a live experience, and there's always the option of looking at the stage, which I did regularly for Jun Kaneko's brilliant sets. I can only imagine what it would be like at the Met given the extraordinary acoustics of the Family Circle.

Share this post


Link to post

I don't see any major contradiction between the new NYT piece and the quotes from Gelb in the NYT piece abatt linked to at the beginning of the thread. Overall things are good and the broadcasts appear to be a net plus, it's just a question of analyzing who's going to the cinema instead of the theater and why. So far the answers don't seem very threatening.

Share this post


Link to post

I think the implication of the latest piece is that people who would have gone to Met are staying local, because it's cheap and convenient, while the another take is there was a drop-off in attendance separate from the fact of the HD's that was countered partly by the increase in attendance for HD's. There are many reasons for an independent drop-off such as an aging population that can't do the physical commute and/or afford the tickets, Gelb's productions and choices of singers being unpopular among different long-time opera-goers, Gelb's honeymoon period having ended.

There haven't been any stats released to show who constitutes the drop-off in attendance vs. any offsets by visitors, a critical revenue stream for the Met, and whether the attendance would be a lot worse without the interest generated among those who've seen the HD's and turn Met attendance from "Nice to have" to "Must see."

Share this post


Link to post

Overall things are good and the broadcasts appear to be a net plus, it's just a question of analyzing who's going to the cinema instead of the theater and why. So far the answers don't seem very threatening.

I think it's clear the HD broadcasts are clearly a net plus. The important thing to remember is that the Met-attending audience may be a somewhat smaller piece of the pie, but the broadcasts are making the overall size of the pie bigger. Actually, i suspect the Met audience as a whole is a lot bigger. Yes, there will probably be some drop-off in attendance, but there are large swaths of the public who will never get to a live Met theater performance for one reason or another (financial, physical, geographic, etc.) that Gelb has now made performances accessible for.

From personal experience, I can tell you that a number of my friends here in Los Angeles cannot make it to New York for Met performances because well, frankly, they can't hop on a LAX-JFK flight on a weekly basis, but they faithfully go to virtually ever single one of the Met HD performances.

Share this post


Link to post

Maybe the Opera (and Ballet) HD cinema need to look at other models. I'm not a sports fan (except for figure skating and gymnastics) but don't some local teams ban local TV broadcasts of games that are not sold out? The Opera/Ballet might adopt the same rule for broadcasts within, say, 100 miles. I suppose one problem would be the movie theater owners who wouldn't commit to something like this. (Not great for fans, but better than abandoning that mode of delivery altogether.)

Another model: the traditional release of books was hardcover first and cheaper paperback much later, sometimes a year or so later. (The book publishing model is in chaos right now, of course, because of e-books, but that was the old model. If you just couldn't wait, you'd pay premium price for the hardcover -- or get onto a waiting list at your local library.)

Both those models would be a step backwards. Gelb's model with the HD Met broadcasts actually is closer to what's going on in sports these days. In the sports markets, the value of the TV rights is outstripping the value of live attendance. I seriously can't think of any football or baseball games that are blacked out anymore. (I don't watch basketball, but I suspect it's the same). You can pretty much watch watch every game your favorite team plays from coast to coast . You can even watch internationally in most cases. And as you pointed out the publishing model is going digital as well.

Share this post


Link to post