Bud.TV falls flat with launch programming, registration
Steve Safran February 4th, 2007
I have been pointing to bud.TV as the model of broadband channels to come. Indeed, Budwesier has the concept down: create programming on your own broadband channel and you can do an end run around the problems facing traditional television advertisers. However, Bud has made two very bad choices: the programming is lousy and the registration process is onerous. Cory wrote in a post below how the requirement to input your mobile phone number would, alone, doom the project to failure. And the idea that they can accurately verify your age by asking your birthday is laughable. It’s like using an index card to make a fake ID. (Plus: Why does one need to be 21 to watch? It’s not like you can download a beer. Yet…) The “shows” are disappointing. “Ice Vision and Chef” wastes Tim Meadows. “The Future Show” has Chris Parnell as Dr. Lawrence Bird (The joke is that his announcer calls him “Larry Bird.” Get it?). “The Arrogant Fake British Rich Guy” requires no further explanation. And “Guided Mediation with the Billy Lama” and “Donnie Briggs: Life Coach” may have converted me to drinking Miller Beer. “Puppet News Team” is mildly promising if they send up news conventions more. The programming was produced, in part, by an ad agency. That may be part of the problem. And forget embedding the video on your blog, a la YouTube. bud.TV’s idea of a sharing function is giving you a URL to cut ‘n paste in an email to your friend. I still think bud.TV is a model of what’s to come - but so far the thing’s skunked.
6 Comments Add your own
1. Dan | February 4th, 2007 at 10:36 pm
The Puppy Bowl on the Animal Channel was great.
No beer required, although it did enhance it in my case
dr
2. theminneapolischannel | February 5th, 2007 at 8:11 am
the best thing traditional tv has going for it are misguided launches such as this.
i would suggest a landing page that loads quickly on even a dial up connection…wet the taste buds so to speak.
asking for personal info upfront is a definite turn off. but earn the user’s trust by giving them limited access without registration and they’ll give you nearly everything you want (including their proper home address if you want to send them a combination bud mouse pad/beer coaster or something like that). then you’d offer a “premium access pass” to those who “give it up”. it’ll work.
of course, marketers want it all upfront. that’s why they wind up with members like E. Sterbunny or Val N. Tine.
3. Photogonfire | February 5th, 2007 at 10:09 am
Page is blocked by Hearst corporate as being “Spam”. Isn’t this where the special webisode of “The Shield” is supposed to be? The content you listed sounds pretty lame and ditto for the cell phone # requirement… It’s “Miller time”
4. thebeijingchannel | February 5th, 2007 at 10:36 am
“it’s miller time”
it’s also about time “hearst corporate” rethink the practice of blocking pages.
5. Safran | February 5th, 2007 at 11:41 am
The media companies that internally block websites are making a big mistake. We are in the news gathering business. How on Earth can you use the web as a news gathering tool if you’re going to block competitors or blogs that say nasty things about you.
Hearst could also have a filter that’s mistaking the site for something else. Happens all the time - perhaps a note to the IT department would clarify it.
Often, the filters are in place to block porn and save a potential lawsuit. All I can say to that is “Google Image Search” and newsgroups. Better to trust your employees and fire the troublemakers than to assume everyone is guilty until proven innocent.
A station would never block a competitor’s TV channel internally. Why a website?
6. Matt_ | February 5th, 2007 at 2:18 pm
I tried to register but as an Aussie that lives in the US my data doesn’t seem to to have been appropriated by the US data collection companies ;).
Leave a Comment
(Please keep URLs out of the comment body or the spam filter will block you.)Subscribe to the comments via RSS Feed