Crowdfunding Product Review: Globe

Browsing the interwebs, I came across this fun Kickstarter for an LED sphere, called Globe.



It's not a particularly flashy product, but I thought the campaign itself was interesting because it looks like a classic DIY project that Kickstarter was originally made for.

These days, many of the high-profile campaigns are just marketing and sales devices for larger companies. A lot of products are already developed and are just using crowd-funding for advanced sales.
While I can't object to the opportunism of using the platform for this purpose, I still lament what it has become and get excited when I see a true DIY project.
Also, I was pleasantly surprised to see that the development timeline is very reasonable for a new hardware product and expect the creator, Edward Catley, to be able to deliver on time.

With 5 days to go, the campaign has raised £20,427 of its £60,000 goal (at the time of publishing), so I don't think it'll make it, but I admire Catley's initiative to try and make some money off his hobby.


Features:
At its most basic, it's a spinning disk with blinking LEDs.
However, having a spherical display is pretty cool and isn't just limited to the Earth or other planets.

I mean... Nyan Cat

Originality:
There are dozens of spinning LED kits out there, but the most prolific are the basic 2D displays.
I'm sure many of you have seen the LED clocks:

A 3D sphere is not something I've seen before, but apparently they're already commercialized.
Still, pretty cool that the creator made one himself.


Pricing:
£595 (about $770) is a pretty steep price, but on par with the others I saw.

Most vendors are positioning them as marketing devices. This makes sense as I can't imagine too many individuals paying for one to sit on their desk
But apparently at least 33 people have on this campaign (at the time of publishing).


Summary:
So it's not very flashy or particularly original, but again, I admire Catley for trying to do something with what I'm guessing is a hobby.
$26,000 is nothing to sneeze at, but didn't reach his all-or-nothing goal. Because it's a pet project, I bet Catley could still sell one-offs to backers, so maybe he could contact backers to do so after.



Side Note: If you're interested in hearing about side projects that turned into significant sources of revenue for people, I recommend listening to the podcast: Side Hustle School.
While not every project is going to be successful or make money, its encouraging to hear about success stories to motivate you to continue hustling.

Amazon should buy Zara... or not, and put them out of business

At the suggestion of my friend Josh, who also publishes a great food newsletter, I gave this recent Recode Decode episode a listen.

I'm typically a fan of Kara Swisher, but not a huge podcast listener. There is a lot of  content out there and it's hard to find the nuggets among all the noise, so if you have any suggestions for good podcasts/episodes, send them along!




In this episode, Swisher speaks with Scott Galloway, a professor at NYU and futurist of the tech scene. Swisher noted his prediction of Amazon's purchase of Whole Foods just a few days before it happened.

They discuss a lot of fun stuff, at one point mocking Mark Zuckerberg and noting his oddities, but one of the things that caught my ear was Galloway taking out his crystal ball again and suggesting that Amazon should buy Nordstrom next. He noted the relatively low price and strong branding as reasoning, but both Galloway and Swisher agreed that Amazon is not likely to make another big purchase. Instead, it will probably digest the Whole Foods acquisition and see what they can learn from it first.


I agree that Amazon will likely make another retail purchase, but I don't think it'll be a department store like Nordstrom (if anything, maybe Sears). Instead, I think they're more interested in a business that more closely mirrors their own and has equally impressive logistics knowledge: Zara.

Zara has been case studied to death by business schools and drooled over by logistics professors for years. Their "fast fashion" expertise and time to market is unparalleled; often they beat designers to market with their own copycat pieces.

Zara's low inventory strategy would play well with Amazon's logistics management system. Using limited supply and exclusivity, Amazon could drive faster purchasing and delivery quickly to customers who want the latest designs. However, Inditex, Zara's parent company, has a market cap of over $100 billion; and Zara has been bucking the retail tailspin and is actually growing; so a buyout is unlikely.

Oddly enough, this article came out a couple days ago while I was contemplating this. Worth a quick read (only two paragraphs), but it highlights a new Amazon initiative where you can purchase clothing you see during a fashion show and get it via one-hour delivery.

This could hint at Amazon's actual strategy: not buying a brand, but developing their own reputation within the fashion community and become a go-to retailer for designers. This would also eliminate the retail middle-man, something it has done consistently across industries.


To become successful in fashion, I see Amazon needing to do three primary things:

1. Get product to customers quickly. Obviously, Amazon has this and can do it better than anyone in the world.
2. Get products in inventory quickly. In order to sell quickly, they'll need the inventory in stock almost instantaneously. They're not there yet, but it could acquire or partner with companies and manufacturers to streamline this. Possibly consider niche companies like Ministry of Supply for their IP.
3. Get access to designers. Amazon could follow Zara and hire their own designers to quickly replicate whatever's seen on the runway, however I suspect they will more closely replicate what Target has done and partner with designers to get designs before they're presented and get exclusives.

There are certainly barriers, but if Amazon is serious about fashion and clothing, they're not anything it can't overcome and quickly take over the market.

Crowdfunding Product Review: Baserock

I was going to do a write up on a low-cost 3D printer, but thought that was too boring, or maybe a "smart ring" you could use to make calls (maybe next week); but I enjoy making fun of really dumb products too much to let this one go.

I present to you, the Baserock: the world's first backpack that truly enhances how you feel your music.
i.e. a backpack with a speaker that vibrates your back.

Perfect for next year's Fyre Festival!

In the words of the campaign creators:

Baserock is a technology that allows you to physically feel music by vibrating bass frequencies throughout your body. It is a completely new and immersive way to experience the music you love.  

Baserock has an integrated microphone input, so you can take it to a live show and it will listen to the same music you are listening to. It is the most immersive way to experience a live show. Period.

Incredibly, at the time of posting, it's made over $69K and is 462% funded.


Features:

First, because all good crowdfunding campaigns need one, a video!



Now, some more on those features (listed in the order presented on their campaign page):

1. Hydration:

AKA a water bladder

This makes sense, unless the venue you're going to doesn't allow liquids or non-sealed containers.
Not a bad feature, but nothing revolutionary.


2. Straps:

This is the #2 highlighted feature for this product.


3. Storage

Can be used as a bag.


4. Water Resistance

Made of common bag material, but useful when things get crazy in the foam pit.


5. Bass Boosting Back Panel

Finally.

Here we go. The raison d'être!
From what I can tell, there's really nothing special about this. It's just two low frequency (bass) speakers pointed at your back.

On the Kickstarter page, there is not one, but two gifsand a video displaying the assembly of the speaker package.

I understand the concept of what it's trying to do, but I have serious doubts about the execution.
For someone to feel physical pressure generated by the speaker, it would have to be very close to, if not in contact with, their back.

If you're relatively close to the stage at any festival, I would hope their sound system is good enough that you could not only hear the music, but feel it as well. Also, if you're dancing, the bag will likely be bouncing around. This would likely both eliminate the contact on your back and your own movement would override any pressure from the speakers.


Originality:
A quick search (surprisingly) yielded a couple of similar products.

The first was the SubPac M2, a strap-on device that has a similar intent, without the storage feature:

It looks like it has the same fundamental technology, but a better fit on your back will result in greater physical response.

Second is the Basslet, which also ran a successful Kickstarter campaign and raised an incredible €600,000.



I'm sure there are numerous other products out there that try to give listeners a more immersive, physical experience to music.
Clearly Baserock is not the first company to do this, but it's packaging is pretty novel incorporating more utility into a single product.


Pricing:
The SubPac sells for $349 and the Basslet is on sale for $129, so the $199 Early Bird price seems reasonable. I'm not sure the expected MSRP of $399 will sell, but those numbers are generally inflated to give a sense of greater savings on crowdfunding campaigns.

I wouldn't buy it, but $199 isn't a crazy price for a decent pack with tech features.


Summary:
I really don't see the benefit of this bag over other bags and doubt it will even work well to enhance your experience, but it's nice to have a bag and water at a festival. However many don't allow outside liquid or bags at all, so that negates two features.

As for the "bass boosting", I am highly skeptical that it will work well as it would need to be secured close to your body to get sufficient sensation from the transducers and even then, if you're moving around a lot, I doubt you'd feel any difference.

But then again, maybe I'm just a grumpy old man who doesn't understand these millennial kids and their festivals.


Would you buy the Baserock or a similar product?

Crowdfunding Product Review: Scorkl

For the second entry to my Crowdfunding Product Review series, I thought I'd highlight a product that looks technically sound and I'd actually want.

The Scorkl is basically a miniature scuba tank that you can refill via larger tank or with a hand pump.
It lasts up to ten minutes and divers can go a recommended 10 meters maximum, if you are scuba-trained, or 3 meters for everyone else.

The campaign for Scorkl is actually over, but you can still pre-order on their Kickstarter page.
In total, they raised AU$1,294,688 (Australian) of a $30,000 goal. (4316% funded).


Features:

Kickstarter video:



1. Handheld
A couple of the biggest problems with scuba diving are all the advanced planning needed and extra gear you need to haul around: tanks, regulator and hoses, weights, etc.
By creating a compact solution, divers are able to hit the water at a moment's notice with little more than a single back of gear.

2. Available hand-pump
Unless you are in a popular diving spot, finding a place to refill a tank can be a chore.
Having an available hand pump to recharge the air tank is a great, portable option. It also saves money in the long-run by not having to pay for your air.

While this doesn't allow for air mixtures (Nitrox, etc.), you don't require them if you stick to the recommended depth limits and, unless you're doing dozens of dives, you won't exceed any time limitations.

3. Pressure Gauge
This is the weak point in the design of the product.
While it's helpful when filling the tank, it's difficult to see the gauge when the mouthpiece is in your mouth.
You could take it out of your mouth to check, but that's a huge hassle and inexperienced divers may have issues re-inserting the mouthpiece without taking in water.


Originality:
Adding this section to reviews because, while the Scorkl is cool, I remembered seeing something similar a while back.

That product: Spare Air, which was created over 35 years ago.

Looking at Spare Air again, the similarities are uncanny.
I'm not sure if it is the same manufacturer who is just rebranding and capitalizing on crowdfunding or an enterprising person who realized any applicable patents will have expired.


Pricing:
A single Scorkl and scuba tank refill adapter was priced at $199 ($295 MSRP). Add in the hand pump and it'll run you $398 ($591).

An equivalent Spare Air model is priced at $320, so $199 is a relative bargain and even at full MSRP, you'll save $25 compared with the original.

The more expensive option is the hand pump, which costs an additional $199. This seems excessive for something that looks like a bicycle pump, but it's a multi-stage compressor as well, which definitely adds cost to manufacturing.
I'm sure they're making a good profit off the $199 pricing, but for those who want to dive in more remote areas without tanks or shops nearby, it may be worth paying that premium.


Summary:
As I said before, the Scorkl is a product that looks cool and one I'd actually want.
While not as original as I initially thought, the crowdfunding pricing is cheaper than its projected MSRP and significantly less than the original Spare Air.

I live in New England with ice-cold-Atlantic water almost year-round, so I wouldn't get much use out of it, but for people who live in warmer climates (or have a drysuit), this is a nice alternative to the sometimes significant prep time for a full diving excursion.
Additionally, it may save some money in the long run if you typically do shorter, shallower dives anyway.


Thoughts on the Scorkl? Would you buy it?
Own a Spare Air? I'd love to hear your thoughts/comments!

Crowdfunding Product Review: Smartduvet Breeze

I'm always fascinated by the innovative products people come up with and create crowdfunding campaigns for. I wanted to highlight some of the more interesting ones that catch my eye and share a few thoughts.

Some are actually ingenious products that I wish I had though of, others are superfluous contraptions of little real value, but raise a bewildering amount of money.

To kick things, I'll start with a product that manages to be both: The 'Smartduvet Breeze'.

From their Indiegogo Overview:

The new Smartduvet Breeze is the world's first dual-zone climate controlled self-making bed. The Breeze doesn't replace your existing bed or bedding, it simply makes them better. In addition to making the bed for you, the Breeze allows you to set your preferred temperature individually for each side of the bed.

At the time of writing, the campaign has raised $415,448 (2077% above its $20,000 goal with 17 days to go).

Is this funding warranted? Let's take more in depth look.

Features:

Here is the introductory video from the campaign:

It highlights the two primary benefits of the Breeze:

1. Individualized climate control:


This is the feature that I would most want to have.
Anyone who has shared a bed or bedroom knows that it is a pain when each person has a different preference for sleep temperature.

Limiting the temperature control to the bed is also smart because it limits the area of the room you need to regulate.

From a technical perspective, I wonder what they're using cool and heat the air. The engineer in me sees obvious energy conservation by taking the excess heat of one side and moving it to the other.
If the box under the bed is both heading and cooling air, it would be highly inefficient and use a lot of electricity.


2. Self-making feature:


This is the feature that Smartduvet was founded on and one that I can't believe people bought into enough that the company was able to produce a follow-up product.

The amount of energy necessary to power the compressor and inflate the cover, only to have it deflate right after seems like a big waste.

Also, without a flat sheet, does it really take that long to pull one corner up to the top of the bed, walk to the other side and pull up the other side?


Pricing:

With Early Bird pricing sold out, the "regular" crowdfunding price is $199 for any size cover.

You can get an inexpensive comforter set for less than $50, so the $199 price point seems excessive. This is a new product and technology, so you can expect to pay a premium and $199 is about the limit of what I'd consider paying for it. However, the expected MSRP of $359 (usually inflated to increase "savings" in crowdfunding campaigns), is far beyond any value I'd place on this product.

I still can't justify paying either price for it, but over 1,700 people have.


Summary:

As with many products, particularly first generation ones, there are many things to like and dislike about the Smartduvet Breeze.

I like the targeted air conditioning concept and I think it could be made even more efficient to use minimal energy and the cost could be brought down. I'd also want to know how well it works passively as a blanket without the heating/cooling features on.

However, the self-making feature is excessive and seems like a complete waste of money/energy.


Would you pay for this?
Other thoughts? Reply in the comments!

Anatomy of a 'New York Times' Article

The 'New York Times' has seen record (digital) subscriptions, but is it coming at the cost of impartial, quality journalism?

Don't get me wrong, the Times has always had some awful features and other outlets aren't much better; but for the supposed "Newspaper of Record", there is a surprising amount of shoddy reporting and lazily constructed articles.


How so? Let's break down a typical Times article:

Part 1: Include "Trump" in the title

Part 2: Start with a vague lead that reiterates the title

Part 3: Include healthy dose of social media (Twitter) posts

Part 3a: Make sure they're from partisan sources

Part 4: A couple sentences of actual content

Part 5: Finish with a joke only staff will laugh at

Part 6: Rinse and repeat

Part 7: Profit

New York Times Co. Reports Rising Digital Profit as Print Advertising Falls

The Computer Generation: Games of the 90s (Part 2)

Part 2 of my list on computer games of the 90s that stand out to me.

Shorter than Part 1, but there are some good ones:

Civilization II (1996)

I never played the original Civilization, but spent countless hours on Civ2.
I'm pretty sure Sid Meier is some sort of time-bender, because time just disappears whenever I play Civilization. The first major turn-based game I played, something about the gameplay makes 5 hours seem like 5 minutes.

Diablo (1996)

The ultimate hack-and-slash video game, it was so simple, yet so addictive. There's really nothing better than running into a room full of monsters and killing everything inside.

Starcraft (1998)

Blizzard could do no wrong in the 90s and got its biggest hit yet with Starcraft.
The first of its games to use Battle.net extensively, it took some getting used to; everyone hated it and its servers were constantly down. However, it was also one of the first PC games to get a lot of attention as an e-sport, particularly in South Korea.

Profession leagues still exist, 20 years after its release

Command & Conquer: Tiberian Sun (1999)

I didn't play the original series too much, but really got into C&C with Tiberian Sun (later backing in to Red Alert).
I was definitely led into the franchise because of Warcraft and Starcraft, but C&C has its own unique aspects and worth mentioning on its own.

Diablo II (2000)

Blizzard hit the magic formula with the original, then somehow improved it in Diablo II.
Arguably the game with the best balance of hack-and-slash clicking, drop-rates, variety and customization of characters, and multi-player ability, it is one of my all-time favorite games.
It ultimately led to the creation of World of Warcraft and the  (unfortunately?) more profitable model of monthly subscriptions and never-ending expansion sets.

That's all I got for now. I'm sure I missed many others.

What were your favorite games of the 90s?
Did you prefer PC or console?

The Computer Generation: Games of the 90s (Part 1)

Last post I reminisced about my first experience with the Internet and how interesting it is to have grown up, not just with the internet, but with the rapid evolution of computers (specifically, PCs) and home computing.

As a kid in grade school, games were my primary form of interaction with PCs (aside from MacPaint or that fun text-to-voice feature on classroom Macintosh computers).

That would quickly evolve as school work would incorporate writing more papers or doing research, but here are a few favorite games that stick out in my mind from the early 90s:

Gertrude's Secrets (1984)

This was one of the first computer games I remember playing and one of my first interactions with MS-DOS. I remember having to type out the exact command to launch it and the frustration of having to do it again if it was wrong.
It was a simple problem solving game, but there was an element to it where you collected digital trophies for each of the tasks completed - and I wanted them all. (In hindsight, this should have been a clear indicator of the power of gamification).

The Oregon Trail (1990)

Obviously a pivotal game that was, for some reason, allowed (and promoted!) in classrooms across the country. I think we were supposed to be learning something about Westward Expansion, but all I knew is that whoever was good at hunting was a rockstar in class.
And for the younger Gen-Xers or older Millennials who would rather not be associated with either, Anna Garvey has cleverly given us an out with her Oregon Trail Generation theory.

I don't care that I can only carry 100 lbs of meat. Shoot all the animals.

Treasure Mountain (1990)

I think I played this game more than any other in the early 90s.
The purpose was to solve problems and find treasure as you make your way up the Mountain. It also featured a collection aspect that made repetitive playing enjoyable.

These elves stole your coins and were general jerks.

The Oregon Trail Deluxe (1992)

Exact same game, updated graphics!
Still acceptable to play in class.

Now with FPS hunting!

SimCity 2000 (1993)

I love this game.
First world-building game I played and what's better than playing God?

"buddamus"

Warcraft: Orcs & Humans (1994)

I never played 'Orcs & Humans' that much, but this was the first I experienced multiplayer over LAN with.
Only one of my good friends had a home network and his dad hated setting it up for us. (I think we also kicked him off his own computer to play).

MechWarrior 2: 31st Century Combat (1995)

Another I didn't play that much, but my best friend loved it and really introduced customizable characters. I could spend hours on each mech, playing with different armor vs. weapon combinations to get the perfect balance of strength and speed.

Warcraft II: Tides of Darkness (1995) & Warcraft II: Beyond the Dark Portal (1996)

As opposed to the first Warcraft, I played a lot of II.
Warcraft II was the first game I had with multiplayer over modem and would spend hours tying up the phone line with it.

That takes care of the first half-decade. I'll continue in another post!

Thoughts or memories of any of these games?

I know it's not a comprehensive list, but did I miss any of your favorites?
Let me know!

First Internet Interactions of a Not-Quite Digital Native

I recently started listening to the "Internet History Podcast" and Chapter 1, naturally, covers the "first" web browser, summarizing the history of Marc Andressen and the creation of Netscape.

It got me thinking about what a unique time it was growing up at the same time as the internet and some of my first interactions.

The first was purely observational, watching someone at the public library typing in a console of pure green-illuminated text. I don't know how (I probably heard about it somewhere), but somehow I knew he was accessing information beyond the contents of that machine.

My first experiences with a graphical internet and browser were probably around 1995. While the first couple times signing on are a bit fuzzy (once was at school and another was at my friend Zack's house, in which order I can't remember), I very clearly remember the third time since it was the first time I went through the process myself.

It was in Mrs. Hayes's 4th grade on a computer donated to the school. Zack and I had previously gone online at his house after his dad had shown us and we wanted to show our other friend Matt. Up until that point, I had played with graphical computers, but only executing local applications. Having the multi-step process of connecting the modem then launching the browser seemed so complicated.

I have no idea what we did once we got online, but the process of getting there is what stands out the most.
As a not-quite digital native, I'm still amazed by certain aspects of internet technology and can't quite imagine what it would be like to grow up today.


Any defining stories of internet/technology from your youth?
I'd love to hear about them. Please respond in the comments below!

Can Walmart Out-Kick Amazon Down the Last Mile?

Galen Rupp out-kicks Bernard Lagat down the stretch to win the 5K at the 2012 Olympic trials (Runner's World)

Walmart recently announced that it will offer discounts to orders that are placed online, but picked up in-store.

I thought this was an interesting, and very smart, decision for a few reasons:

1. Drives traffic (and sales) to stores
Browsing dynamics differ greatly between online and in-person shopping. Recent studies even show more shoppers actually preferring and spending more in-store. However, sometimes the hardest part is getting people in to your store. Once in, impulse often takes over and customers end up buying more than they came for.
By encouraging customers to pick up packages at their stores, Walmart is increasing traffic and, likely, sales.

2. Continues use of physical stores
Walmart has over 5,000 brick & mortar stores in the United States. While they are rapidly growing their e-commerce operations to compete with Amazon, their strength is still their physical presence and a significant point of differentiation. Continuing to support, rather than taper off, their physical stores will enable Walmart to leverage them as both retail and distribution hubs.
(Side note: Staples has tried something similar, even renting part of their stores as co-working space to monetize excess floorspace stores. However, I believe success has been limited).

3. Utilizes existing networks
Walmart already has thousands of trucks moving products from warehouses to stores daily. While it adds complexity, adding a few boxes to a truck is negligible in terms of additional shipping costs per individual item.

Most importantly:
4. Solves the "Last Mile" problem
Okay, maybe it doesn't completely solve the Last Mile problem, but it does lessen the costs and complexities associated with it.
There is an intense race to find the most cost efficient way to transport packages the last leg of their journey and significant research has been done in the past few years regarding Last Mile logistics.
Companies are experimenting with ways to reduce costs and improve delivery times hoping to be the first to find the solution. Two of the most notable being the use of existing third-party networks and drones, with Amazon investing heavily in both, as well as in its own network of delivery trucks and vans.

I'm fairly certain Walmart's attempts to bring customers in-store won't be the ultimate solution, it makes sense and helps to alleviate the cost and some of the problems associated with delivering to individual homes, while utilizing some of their existing assets.


Thoughts on Walmart's new strategy or other logistics?
Who will win the race down the finish line to finding that disruptive model that will change the Last Mile for everyone?

The Future of Streaming: Broadcast Television

To say the streaming video industry has been growing at an incredible rate is an understatement. However, there are signs that the industry is starting to become saturated, despite its continued growth.

Netflix is the clear industry leader; but to compete and further differentiate, all the major players have been pouring money into creating original content. Even Apple has decided to enter the fray with two new shows that nobody asked for.

With the increase in competition in an increasingly saturated market, other avenues for growth are needed.

My solution: Broadcast television.

While this may seem counter-intuitive, I think it would be a mutually beneficial partnership for both the content creators and the broadcast networks.

I don't believe Netflix or Amazon should sell content to the "Big 3" (ABC, CBS, NBC). Rather, they should look for established independent channels that are looking for content. I'm not sure how big that market is or how many still exist, but in the Boston market, there is a perfect opportunity.

While I recommend partnering with independent stations, content providers could also partner with larger corporate stations or even cable. However, this would create a strange dynamic where the stations' own shows would be competing with the streaming companies. This conflict would be even more pronounced with cable, as many consumers are cutting cable TV in favor of streaming-only.

Example: WHDH Boston

WHDH, (Channel 7 in Boston) it is a independent locally-owned station that had NBC affiliation for years; i.e. it was a distributor of shows and newscasts produced by NBC. This used to be standard in the industry, but NBC-corporate has been trying to consolidate and buy local affiliates instead of paying them as distributors.

This WHDH-NBC affiliation was set to expire at the end of 2016 and NBC offered to buy the station, but its owner refused to sell. NBC, in turn, refused to renew its affiliation; instead, it is now broadcasting its content on other channels it owns.

Obviously, losing NBC-related content severely impacted the programming for WHDH, which can be seen in the 2017 schedule seen below:

WHDH

WHDH's strength, outside of NBC-affiliation, is its local news team (my personal favorite). Naturally, when it lost affiliation, it expanded to broadcasting news almost 12 hours a day. This may be an easy short-term fix, and great for the news team, but not sustainable long-term unless it wants to be "the CNN of local Boston news". (I'm no expert, but I don't recommend this as a strategy).

Being starved for content, WHDH would gladly add some of the highest rated shows, but what's in it for the streaming companies? Expanded viewership.


Netflix continues to expand at a rapid pace, but it is on track to spend nearly $6 billion in 2017 on new content. To continue to compete with other companies, it will need to continue spending on new content and the success of its shows is not guaranteed to last, nor is the growth in subscriptions.

"Number of Netflix streaming subscribers worldwide from 3rd quarter 2011 to 4th quarter 2016 (in millions)" (Statista)

"SymphonyAM's data is based on engagement in the first 35 days of the show's release in the US. Netflix, Amazon, and Hulu don't release viewership numbers for individual shows." (via Business Insider)

As streaming becomes increasingly standard for the tech-familiar, there is a large portion of the population that will be left behind and never able to see any of these great shows. To address this, streaming companies could sell their content to standard broadcasters and air episodes weekly (much like the current model). This would increase viewership, while providing additional revenue streams for their content.

Content providers are not likely to lose any significant number of subscriptions over this because most shows are now binge watched and streaming viewers are now accustomed to on-demand content in full. I doubt many would trade instant gratification to save $10/month. In fact, it may even lead some over-air viewers to subscribe to streaming services to access the remaining episodes immediately.


This may be a sympathetic view to try and save one of my favorite local stations, but it makes sense to me.

Other thoughts on how to expand this potential business opportunity?