The Guardian
topics
Close Box

News From Us:

Our latest report; our new video section; and jobs with paidContent.org and paidContent:UK


Interview: Jeff Bewkes, Chairman & CEO, Time Warner: Part One: TV Everywhere Front And Center

image

Jeff Bewkes doesn’t hit the stage of the 2009 Cable Show until Thursday afternoon but his idea for ubiquitous pay TV is already front and center – right where he wants it. It’s been a month since the chairman and CEO of Time Warner (NYSE: TWX) went public with TV Everywhere, his initiative to give multichannel video subscribers access to the same programming across platforms at no extra charge. It isn’t the only idea out there – Comcast (NSDQ: CMCSA) is planning its own beta for this summer – but, for now, it is the most ambitious. It’s also a one-man band of sorts on the programmer side, perhaps something that could change during his session today with Viacom (NYSE: VIA) CEO Phillipe Dauman. ContentNext Media Co-Editor Staci D. Kramer spoke with Bewkes on the eve of the show about TV Everywhere, the spinoff of Time Warner Cable (NYSE: TWC) and more; here are some edited excerpts of their conversation. (Part Two of the interview is here)

You may have noticed attention on Disney (NYSE: DIS) the last few days and the idea of Disney and Hulu and the short-form deal they did with Google and YouTube. How does that fit in with what you’re trying to do with TV Everywhere and how does that challenge what you’re trying to do?

It fits in fine. I don’t think it challenges it. The approach that Disney, for example, is taking with YouTube is very similar to the discussions we have with YouTube so we understand that. I guess I would conceptually say the same thing about the approach with Hulu, but one cannot start talking about specific deal points. Conceptually, I don’t see any inconsistency with how we’re thinking about it. I think it all fits in with how TV Everywhere will work.

Say if ABC makes a long-form deal with Hulu or with YouTube, it does lock them into open-access broadcast online. Are you just resigned to the fact that broadcast networks are going to be out there and freely accessible?

I don’t think “resigned” is the way you should look at it. Right now, what you have, and this is for broadcast networks only, you have some of their programming at NBC, Fox and maybe ABC going long-form onto Hulu. You shouldn’t have me speaking for them but there’s several questions you should ask about whether that broadcast programming is available on the same basis as it is broadcast for free on television. You can watch ABC or NBC TV tonight. I’m not sure whether you can watch the same stuff from ABC or NBC on Hulu tonight. I think they have a slight windowing delay. If they go in here, I don’t know to what extent the broadcasters are going to put their whole networks on and I don’t know what their windowing strategy would be.

It may be that over time if they see some carriage fee support or retransmission ... most of the viewership of ABC, CBS, NBC and Fox is on television through cable or satellite multichannel packages in people’s homes so there’s a big question for the economics of those broadcast networks of whether they will or should get some form of carriage-fee compensation for those networks because they provide a lot of ratings points on television for the cable and satellite distributors and that’s what they’re selling to consumers. Nobody knows whether broadcast networks will eventually move to some form of access fee in addition to their advertising.


You’ve said that you see what you want to accomplish as being at no additional charge to the user. Do you expect additional payment in order for that programming to be made available to the user?

No.

You don’t expect Time Warner Cable or Cox or Comcast to pay you more for the programming that they get from you?:

No.

Do you expect it to help you hold the value of what you have, what you’re getting from them already?

Yes.

How does that work for you?

If you separate the broadcast-network business from the very large cable-branded network business, as you know all of the hundreds of channels – not cable, the multichannels, somebody ought to get a good word for this —it’s the branded channel business of TBS and MTV, Disney Channel, etc., and all of those have clear identities, loyal audiences that watch them on television—all we’re saying is that all of those branded channels delivered by cable, satellite and telecom, they should be available on demand on your television set and they should be available on demand on your PC and your mobile-broadband device. What we’re saying about TV Everywhere, we’d like to move in the direction of having all of those networks and certainly all of the ones that we [run] to be available to you for no extra charge, for free on broadband. You’ll be adding the other platforms – broadband and mobile – to your television experience for no extra charge.

You can look at HBO for a pretty good example of this. HBO is available on demand—current episodes, current movies—right now,  widely available on video on demand over your set-top box.  I think the way people should think of this is, take TNT, which you mentioned, and other networks we don’t own, and have those available the same way HBO is available.  You’d have current episodes, the last few episodes, you can keep up with your favorite series, whatever the schedule of that channel would be …I wouldn’t envision a windowing. I would envision whether it’s available literally at the same time or the next day remains to be seen but there’s no conceptual reason why you couldn’t with a TV Everywhere model have it all available at the same time. If the idea is you should be able to watch your show whenever you want, why should there be a difference if you watch it on a laptop using broadband or on a mobile device?

The practicality of it is do you stream all networks, which is hard for most networks to do because they don’t have the rights so they’d simply be moving in that direction. The idea would be for most networks, they’d want to put their best foot forward and have programs that their fans most desire. HBO offers a choice. Every network may view this a little differently because they’re trying to make available what the audience is most interested in when they’re using VOD or using broadband. That could be different in different cases.

Related Stories
Apr 2, 2009 12:58 AM ET
Share

Posted In: Companies, Time Warner, jeff bewkes

  • Attn: Jeffrey Bewkes @ Time Warner - The answer is right under your nose!

    According to Wikipedia today, Time Warner Inc. is the THIRD largest media and entertainment conglomerate in the world, behind News Corporation and Walt Disney and I have to confess, (which some may say is a little strange), that ever since I was child, I have dreamt that I might one day build a company which I might sell to one of the above for gazillions and perhaps earn myself a seat on the board, where I may then have the opportunity to contribute on a much bigger scale again, to the kind of magic I grew up on… for my children and grandchildren. I'm afraid I didn't dream of being a footballer or astronaut rather, I have always wanted to make dreams come true for others and be at the heart of one of the few industries that defines and challenges who we as human beings are.

    If you write down a list of say 20 of the biggest moments in your life and then think of the music that you associate with those moments; or the news at the time; the hollywood star of the day…etc.etc., it is nigh on impossible that one of these names isn't responsible for providing a backdrop to those moments in some capacity.

    So what's the point?

    Because ideas are two a penny and execution is king, together with the fact that I have my own agenda for our current business which down the line I believe will realise the dreams mentioned above anyway; I believe it is in all our interests that the dreammakers like Time Warner, Walt Disney etc.  survive, thrive and preserve all that experience and history and not allow the current media equivalent of an ice age to destroy them.

    In less than ten years time, it will be the 100th anniversary of Warner Brothers and this year on 4 February 2009, Time Warner posted a $16.03 billion loss for the final quarter of 2008, compared with a $1.03 billion profit for the same three months of 2007. This doesn't bode well for my shamelessly stated ambitions above in about ten years time, so here (finally) is what I think could make at least part of the difference…

    TIME - The media landscape is changing at break neck speed and as every day goes by, the previously incumbent positions taken for granted by the old guard of media conglomerates are being eroded right in front of our eyes as the likes of Google, Facebook et al plant their flags on ever growing swathes of the new frontier. Some have tried to buy into this space, but not necessarily in the right places and most importantly, the world's audiences will, especially in brand recognition terms, more and more be thinking Google, Microsoft and Facebook first and Warners and Disney et al as subsequent and hardly recognisable mere content providers, assuming you can still provide that content in such a way so as to keep your brands visible.

    The one thing that every individual on the planet owns and we media creators buy, borrow or steal from them is their 'TIME'. Social networking, communication, entertainment, news, work, play, sleep, love, family, travel etc. etc. is all routed in TIME, and the one thing that noone has yet done successfully is stake a claim on helping 'me' or one of my fellow human beings manage our TIME.

    I'm one of those people who, for better or worse, always looks objectively at everything, so to me this seems a pretty obvious opportunity to use a brand you already own to create perhaps the most appealing and unifying platforms possible and cement your future in the process. People will always assume AOL still means America Online only and Bebo, simply can't in its current guise hope to do anything other than spiral in the wrong direction. Imagine however a single online window, which I can log into and work, connect, stay informed, play, buy, be entertained, learn, give, create and so on…but above all be somewhere I can trust to make the very most of my TIME.

    Now I know that Time as a magazine format has a long history of its own and so the thought that the brand might be sacrificed for a higher cause will scare many of the old school, but let's face it, losing a brand name in favour of a refreshing new alternative is better than losing their job surely?

    I'm not about to describe what this should all look like, because I'd expect to be paid a king's ransom for that, and in a quixotic sense, I'd prefer to see this as a collaboration between otherwise competing content providers or even some of the current enemy too. I can in any event see, as clear as day, a vision for a brand that is right under your nose, defines in itself the necessary journey you so need to take and ensures that on your 100th anniversary for Warners, your wider reputation becomes again one that; my son as he grows up and then his children, still believe is synonymous with trust, magic and that noblest of all things; serving the human condition!

  • Staci D. Kramer

    Hulu may do something with cable distribution but Bob Iger was very clear today that he isn't interested in options that wall off broadcast programming.

  • JRS

    “Say if ABC makes a long-form deal with Hulu or with YouTube, it does lock them into open-access broadcast online.”

    Not true. Look for Hulu (on behalf of NBCU/Fox/Disney) to introduce premium access for paying cable customers.

  • The top comedy series on TBS, Tyler Perry's House of Pane, averages nearly 500000 viewers a week during its VOD runs. With athe"TV Everywhere" approach there are rich possibilities on multiple platforms, no?

  • What impact in the DVR having on ad revenue I wonder?

  • Yes, the cable TV must give multiple channels at the same time with no extra charges. What you said about the Disney is excellent. It is a good channel which not only children but every person will enjoy by viewing that channel.

  • Jon

    The cable companies need to focus on first mastering the delivery of cable TV. I have Time Warner and their service is awful. My cable goes out, my TW provided DVR drops recordings, etc. Oh, and "give multichannel video subscribers access to the same programming across platforms at no extra charge?" Yeah right. TW just increased my monthly bill by $5 with no change of service. Am I really supposed to believe they're going to offer all this for free?

The Economics of Content | paidContent Newsletter

Know something we don’t?

Send Us a News Tip

All tips are anonymous and untraced.

Sponsors

Contributors