Time Warner and the War Against Free (Bloomberg BusinessWeek)

At a trade show that celebrates the wonders of low-cost digital distribution, [Jeff Bewkes is] an emissary from the land of paid content. His message is simple and sharp: The devices may be cool, but anything that costs money to produce must be paid for, and any service or channel that doesn't carry its weight is destined to die.

For Bewkes, 58, the solution is a Time Warner initiative called TV Everywhere, which essentially forces customers to keep paying their $75-plus monthly cable bill to access television and movie content on any Web-enabled device they choose.

...The man who built his career over 23 years at HBO will not make his hit movies or shows available for cut-rate streaming at Amazon. Nor will he offer them for instant viewing at Netflix, where CEO Reed Hastings recently rolled out a $7.99-a-month deal for unlimited streaming of TV shows and movies. And Bewkes certainly won't let his product be given away on Hulu, which distributes most of its advertising-supported programming for free. Netflix has wooed more than 16 million subscribers, usually paying a fraction of what cable and satellite owners pay TV channels to run content. And while about 70 percent of the ad dollars Hulu takes in gets back to the content owner, those online ads don't draw anywhere near the audience or revenues of TV. That's why Amazon, Netflix, Hulu, and iTunes are potential enemies to Bewkes. He holds the view that companies such as Time Warner can only continue to make high-quality content if they preserve a business model that requires consumers to pay for the whole buffet. Any Web distributor can stream his content, says Bewkes, "if they pay us a billion dollars for a marquee show."

I tend to think the cat's out of the bag on this one. The ability to watch shows and channels on demand (either on the Internet, via iTunes, or from the "On Demand" button on the cable menu) is pretty ingrained in people now, and I'd venture a guess that most of us see that as the future of television.

Then again, I don't have cable, so I don't have a choice but to use alternate viewing options. Perhaps I have no idea what I'm talking about. What do you think?

Read the full article here.

Names You Need to Know In 2011: Comcast’s Steve Burke (Forbes)

...He’s months away from redefining what can – or can’t – be done when you marry the pipes of the country’s largest cable system with the offerings of a content giant behind shows like 30 Rock, The Biggest Loser and The Real Housewives franchise. In his new position, Burke has the opportunity to (re)shape the entertainment landscape, making pivotal decisions on topics ranging from retransmission consent to video-on-demand to the business of online viewing.

Yes, it's yet another list from Forbes. This one is "Names You Need to Know in 2011." But this quick summary of Steve Burke's household-name-worthiness is right on target -- I'm with the author in thinking we'll be hearing his name constantly next year.

Read the full article here.

Violence, Nudity, Adult Content: The Comeback of Chris Albrecht (GQ)

For years, Chris Albrecht was unstoppable. He was the man who made HBO, the programming genius who brought us The Sopranos, Six Feet Under, The Wire and more, revolutionizing the way we watch, and revere, TV. Then, one night in Vegas, he seemed to throw it all away: He roughed up his girlfriend outside the MGM Grand, and his life exploded in a spectacular blaze of shame. Now, more than three years later, he talks for the first time about what happened that night—oh, and how he plans to turn Starz into the next HBO.

Really interesting article about Albrecht. It doesn't shy away from making him sound like an ass, nor like a TV genius. But bottom line, I think we can safely say this guy gets it, and isn't that kind of what it's all about?

Read the full article here.

The Big Cable Channels Keep Getting Bigger (NY Times)

Chalk it up to an incredibly competitive environment among programmers and an appetite for new shows year-round among viewers. Speaking to TV critics in Los Angeles this month, John Landgraf, the president of FX, said cable had become a “much more crowded marketplace” in the last 10 years. When FX’s groundbreaking series “The Shield” started in 2002, “there were about 40 scripted original series in all of cable,” he said. “And now there are 140.”

Personally, I'm definitely a bigger fan of cable channels vs. the networks. I think it's safe to say that many of the shows that have been hits on cable (The Shield, Army Wives) would have been yanked from a network schedule within a handful of episodes - too edgy or too narrow a focus. Since when were those bad things?

Read the full article here.

'Leverage' and the Rise of 'Nerd-Friendly' Television (The Wrap)

I'm a member of the target audience for said nerd-friendly television, and don't find the term nerd to be terribly offensive. Personally, I interpret it as a label defining the way in which I and others approach certain shows -- as complex, evolving and entertaining beasts that demand or deserve our full attention.

But in truth, the qualities that define shows that might appeal to audiences previously devoted to shows like "Battlestar Galactica" or "Buffy the Vampire Slayer" don't always involve genre.

Yeah, what she said. And if you haven't checked out "Leverage" you definitely should! "White Collar" is another fun show on cable that would fit the bill of "nerd TV" in case you're looking for another show to put on your Netflix queue.
Read the full article here.

TV’s New Summer Dramas Are Struggling, But They Still May Be the Networks’ Best Option (New York Magazine)

However, as awful as these [network] numbers might seem, they're in line with the ratings of most mid-level scripted cable summer shows, like Lifetime's Drop Dead Diva and TNT's Leverage. More important, most are actually doing better than the ratings Fox and ABC generated last summer with repeats. "Even at a 1.1 [in the key demo of 18-49], The Gates is doing better than the 0.6 we did last year in the time slot with a repeat," notes ABC scheduling chief Jeff Bader.

The summer TV season includes many of my favorite shows, but what networks don't seem to understand is that the reason they're successful on the cable networks is because they're actually good shows, not just cast-offs made on the cheap. Will anyone in this town ever get that it's about quality content?!
Read the full article here.

Q&A: TV Land president Larry W. Jones (THR)

The one thing we have in our clear focus is our audience. We had spent a lot of time talking to our audience, and when we decided to get into scripted sitcoms about a year and half ago, it was really clear in their minds and our minds that they were looking for the multicamera format they basically grew up with. The ratings and popularity of "Hot in Cleveland" proved the fact that there was something missing in their TV diet. The future for us is about balance, it's about superserving this audience of 40- to 54-year-olds, and that's the core sweet spot. There is nobody out there focusing on that demographic, and we want to do it with light-hearted entertainment. I often say you are never going to come to TV Land to learn anything. You just really want to have a good time, kick back and relax, and whether we do that with scripted or reality, that's what we are going to do it with.

I think it's interesting that TV Land has gone back to the "old ways," with live audiences and everything. I'm also happy to see people who are willing to look beyond the 18-24 demographic and take the "If you build it, they will come" attitude. Create quality entertainment and people will watch. Plus, any network who is smart enough to get Betty White is alright by me.
Read the full interview here.

For cable channels, the niche is expanding (USA Today)

Once defined by clear content niches, many cable TV networks are scrambling to broaden their audiences by reaching beyond their original mission. Some are shedding entire identities, others are overhauling formats, and many are sprinkling traditional lineups with reality, food, dramas and comedies — popular genres that viewers are accustomed to seeing on rival cable and broadcast networks.

"Sometimes you have to strike outside your comfort zone," Jones says. "The question is, how far can you go?"

Read the full article here.
And check out "A look at how some cable channels are tweaking their brands and traditional prime-time lineups" here.