5 Streaming Video on Demand Offerings I'd Like to See in 2016: #5: Something Old--Anything Old--Nothing New

For the final installment in this series, I just want to throw this out there: How about a service dedicated to quality (read: uncut) presentations of vintage material--TV, films, or both? Believe it or not, there are people who like older stuff AND don't have medical bracelets. We know that advertisers hate (that's right, I said it: openly LOATHE) older people, but now digital subchannels have proven there is an audience out there just waiting to buy motor scooters.

Ah, but the beauty of SVOD is you don't need to get ads. No, you can market directly to the old geezers and have them sign over a portion of their Social Security checks each month!

OK, I'm being somewhat facetious, but the fact is vintage material is already an afterthought in this streaming video revolution. I believe there is a market for a service focusing on this niche. And by that I mean I have no idea if it would be profitable, but I don't care because I want one.

Some of us thought Warner Archive Instant might be that service a few years ago, but it inexplicably stopped updating while maintaining the same high premium price. Netflix bleeds pre-1990 content each month and seems to have little interest in replenishing it.  There are only a handful of SVOD services really offering decent  amounts of "old" content: Pub-D-Hub, which is all public domain; Shout TV, which is hardly limited to older stuff; and Hulu, which is Hulu and, to its credit, has not yet given up on adding new library programming.

It would be fantastic to see someone offer a selection of commercial-free classics at an affordable price. Even a rotating collection of titles each month would be all  right as long as the service was up front about when material would be leaving. Sure, media conglomerates are hogging a lot of the content now, but perhaps it could be licensed to streaming as a separate proposition from those diginets. It's not like Netflix is interested in any of it.

Warner may want to save its material for its own channel (Ha!), and Disney is Disney, but Fox isn't doing anything with its old movies other than running them mornings on one of its obscure cable channels. Same with Universal and Sony. CBS isn't doing anything interesting with its All Access service, and it has a whole lot more than just "Perry Mason" and "Twilight Zone."

How about something called "Retrovision," which for 5 bucks a month would offer an assortment of films each month? The vintage TV shows would last a little longer. The short license periods might make acquiring a wide variety of properties more affordable. Every month, a lot of material would leave, and I'd hate that, but a lot more would arrive. I would prefer unlimited content for longer periods of time, but I think this model is more feasible for an entity relying on other people's material (even though it might be bidding against itself).

Here's another idea: Make everything available on demand, but also add a live feed. Have some fun with it, including a Retrovision-branded Robert Osborne knockoff (I'd pay an extra buck or two a month if you could get the actual Bobby Osbo to introduce, say, episodes of "Coronet Blue")  to introduce movies and episodes from the library each day. People could choose on demand or just veg out in front of the live stream.

Depending on the price, I don't think an overwhelming amount of content would be necessary to make this a worthwhile experience if the presentation is done right. Someone make this happen!

5 Streaming Video on Demand Offerings I'd Like to See in 2016: Cartoons--LOTS of cartoons

Next up in my series of posts explaining my ideas for new SVOD offerings: Cartoon Time. Or Toon Fiesta. Or Animated World. Or Drawring-a-palooza. Whatever. I just want a decent service devoted to classic cartoons.

You can find a lot of cartoons on Netflix, Hulu, etc., but most of them are relatively modern television shows. Finding the old theatrical classics is a different story unless they are public domain (or they are Disney, some of which are on Netflix). Heck, finding the old theatrical classics anywhere is becoming more difficult. Even Boomerang, which is a clear afterthought in the Warner family, has abandoned most of the old-school animation.

Speaking of the Warner family, the fact that it already HAS a niche SVOD service, Warner Archive Instant, that it has virtually abandoned doesn't inspire one with confidence that it will make another one, let alone one worth a subscription. But think about it: With the animation libraries scattered among the big companies, Warner Brothers is the one entity that controls enough product to make an attractive channel.

How much would you pay for access to uncut and uncensored (and even unrestored, but that would be fine as long as they were there) Looney Tunes, Merry Melodies, Tom and Jerry, Popeye, Tex Avery, and more? Then you throw in the television properties Warner controls: Scooby Doo, Flintstones, Yogi Bear, Super Friends...

There may be existing deals that would preclude some of these libraries showing up on Cartoon Kingdom, but you'd think that Warner could put together a great service quickly without licensing any outside content. If it got ambitious, though, it's not like anyone's doing a whole lot with Woody Woodpecker, Terrytoons...or anything else.

Back when Warner Archive Instant still added new content, it would rotate in stuff like "Marine Boy" or the Filmation "Aquaman" toons. Is it too much to ask that the company at least put some effort into a cartoon-only channel? Yeah, it probably is. But, oh, what a streaming service it COULD put together.

5 Streaming Video on Demand Offerings I'd Like to See in 2016 #3: NFL Films

We all know one of the most powerful/evil entities on the planet is the National Football League. We also know that if  there's one thing the league loves, it's  making money (If it can stick it to a metropolitan region while doing so, all the better). Why, then, does the NFL seem uninterested in monetizing its cast library?

Last year, the NFL trotted out a half-assed Roku channel called NFL Now. It offered (very) limited free clips, and for a small fee per month, subscribers had access to SOME of the NFL Network programming like the "America's Game" and "A Football Life" documentaries. I don't think anyone even promoted it, and it died. I would say it predictably died, but it's always a surprise when the NFL fails at making money on something. Plus I made a New Year's resolution to cut down on adverbs.

This season, NFL Channel relaunched with an emphasis on access to condensed in-season games, the same short mobile-friendly clips tailored by team interest, and no original programming. I don't know how well it's doing, but it looks like an even more half-assed effort than last year's version, and I don't get the strategy.

Here's what I don't want to see on an NFL Roku channel: in-season games. Well, actually, I'd love that access, but the league has a service called NFL GameRewind that offers coaches film and everything, and it is supposed to be great, but I don't want to pay for that.

I would "settle" for a simple NFL channel that offers, at a minimum:

1) All current NFL Network original shows within 30 days of premiering on the network
2) All NFL Network original shows that have aired
3) Extensive material from the NFL Films library: NFL Films Presents, Football Follies, NFL's Greatest Games, etc.

I mean, we all love the work NFL Films does, right? Let's see all the archival stuff with John Facenda's narration. I want to see the Raiders and Steelers of the 1970s. I want to see Montana. I want to see Namath. Right now, some of it turns up occasionally on the Network or on ESPN, and there are some DVD collections, but there is a ton of content not available anywhere.

Now let's get ambitious. Let's get not just the NFL Films specials and documentaries, but old episodes of "This Week in Pro Football" with Tom Brookshier and Pat Summerall. That should be owned by the NFL. It might be a pipe dream to get old "ESPN NFL Primetime" episodes, but I'd love to see what for years was THE source for highlights.

And what I would really, really love to see: actual complete game broadcasts. Does the league have retransmission rights for these after all these years? I don't know, but I'll bet it does, and besides, what, is CBS going to complain that the NFL shows a 1982 Vikings/Bears game? Give them a piece of the pie. Make all of it available on demand, or at least launch with a bunch, then add games each week. How much fun would it be to see the old pregame shows, too? And throw up old "Monday Night Football" telecasts with Cosell, Meredith, and Gifford each Monday in the offseason.

Would you pay 5 bucks a month for this? I sure would, especially with any kind of presence of old (and I mean pre-2000s) *complete* games in original broadcast form. I'd even be willing to consider just a package centered around NFL Films programs and documentaries if it were affordable  and not limited in terms of selection.

Unfortunately, the fiasco that occurred last week when the NFL trumpeted a screening of Super Bowl I may indicate how the NFL feels about offering its archival material at an affordable price. It lowballed the owner of an actual videotape of the game, then put together something based on footage from other sources and ruined it by having people talk over it the whole time. 

I'm not optimistic about something like my vision becoming reality, but a guy can dream. I'm surprised the league isn't at least trying something with that goldmine of archival content.

5 Streaming Video Services I'd Like to See in 2016: Vault Disney?

I've been complaining for weeks about the disappointing deterioration of catalog content on Netflix in general and the particular loss of a batch of Disney library movies in January. It's clear the Disney/Netflix deal isn't what I hoped it would be, with tons of material still withheld from Netflix.

(Note that many of the titles that left happened to show up on Disney Family Movies, a premium cable on demand offering, this month. Coincidence? Perhaps not. Maybe those titles return after they cycle through DFM, but we'll get to that later.)

What if it isn't Netflix being too cheap or Disney being too stingy that is keeping so many old movies and TV shows away? What if Disney is planning its own standalone "over the top" channel?

An existing Roku Disney channel is basically just a hype machine, with clips, promos, and an assortment of complete episodes of recent shows. I am talking about a true Vault Disney, a channel that would dig deep into the House of Mouse's archives and unleash some of the stuff it's hoarding. Ever since Disney killed off its acclaimed Treasures DVD line, which itself was focused on collectors and not the general public, its library content has been neglected. There are super-niche products like the Disney Movie Club and the overpriced Disney Family Movies (a handful of movies and shorts each month for about the price I think they should charge for a much more comprehensive service), and of course we'll get Platinum editions of the prestige animated classics, but there is a plethora of material that is largely unseen.

Disney is one of if not the only content provider that could make big money by using its name to push an SVOD service. Even if it tightens up the flow of new TV shows to Netflix, it has stuff like "Hannah Montana" and the like it could park on a new channel. And where is all the "Walt Disney Presents" from over the years, or "Mickey Mouse Club" or "Davy Crockett"? How about that endless stream of Dean Jones films? And for the love of Odin, where are the 1960s Marvel cartoons I've been anticipating for years? It's not like anyone is cranking this out on Blu-Ray. And you never see any of it on Disney Channel. Why not monetize it?

Disney has so much stuff and has such a powerful brand name that it could hold back the new theatricals for Netflix, rotate some stuff out for Disney Family Movies, and still give subscribers a whole lot of value in a Vault Disney. I think most people would be reluctant to pay 5 bucks a month for Fox Classics, but Disney could probably get a lot more from families all over the world just by loosening the vault doors a little and making this stuff available.

I mean, I would love to see pre-1980 content on such a service, but Disney could throw in plenty from recent times to make it a true "big tent" offering. The original Disney Channel was a premium cable channel showing material for the whole family but including a variety of programming, from classic Mickey Mouse shorts to licensed "Ozzie and Harriet" reruns. Vault Disney wouldn't even have to pay for content. It already has everything! The big catch that I can see is that there may be a lot of pre-existing deals giving other outlets first crack at it.

But what if Disney is starting to look forward to a time when it controls all of it and can save some gems for its own streaming service, whether exclusive or not? I would love to see something like this, as long as it's not a total ripoff like Disney Family Movies. If Vault Disney could adapt to the current SVOD landscape and offer a wide array of library materials for a reasonable monthly fee, I think it could make some money. I think it could have its cake and eat it, too, saving some things for that Netflix deal (It looks like Netflix isn't adding catalog content from Disney each month anymore, anyway) and for other clients while still going directly to the customer.

5 Streaming Video on Demand offerings I'd like to see in 2016 Part 1: NBCU Sleuthy Thing

NBC Universal's SVOD offering Seeso, which focuses on hip comedy, marks its official launch this week, and I won't be a charter subscriber. I signed up for the beta last month, checked out what was available, and mostly forgot about it until the beta expired. Now, granted the holidays took a lot of my time, but still I was unimpressed by a bunch of "Parks and Recreation"  episodes, other reruns that had been widely available for years, and I just wasn't into checking out the original content without a Roku app. The only thing I really wanted to see? The 1980s "Saturday Night Live" episodes, and I was disappointed to learn Seeso has the same heavily edited versions Netflix and Comcast Xfinity offered.

So Seeso is not a winner for me yet, but I will  keep an eye on it. I am also looking ahead to 2016 and the possibility of more of these niche SVOD services springing up.  In fact, in this great interview with Decider, Universal's Evan Shapiro says that 9 different platforms are in the works at his company alone, though he indicates not all of those will actually be developed.

Over the next week or two, I will pitch some ideas for SVOD services. In reality, I don't want a  bunch of new things to pay for. I want the existing big guns--Netflix, Hulu, and even Amazon Prime although I don't have that one--to keep adding library content and giving it to me as part of my existing subscriptions. And, oh, yeah, I am focusing entirely on library content--the old stuff--and also on niches that existing cable channels should be covering but aren't.

Let's start with NBC Universal. It's likely that one of those "platforms" Shapiro mentions has something to do with crime/detectives/etc. Wouldn't it be great to have a whole channel devoted to nothing but old detective shows? Well, there was one called "Sleuth." Now it's called "Cloo," and it is basically USA Network 2, showing "CSI" "House," and such.

As part of Netflix's ongoing purge of catalog programming, it has lost Universal properties like "Quincy," "Magnum P.I.," and "Miami Vice" over the past year. Is it possible that it isn't entirely Netflix refusing to renew the deals, but Universal holding out for more money and/or reserving content for an online version of Sleuth? So far, Netflix still has "Columbo" and "The Rockford Files," but maybe they will be next.

If you give me a whole library of decent crime shows that are unedited and commercial free and unavailable elsewhere, will I pay 3.99 a month (Seeso's current price point) for it? Eh...depends.  it sounds like a great idea to me, but not if the content is rotated in and out, nor if it's just these old standbys. I want to see "The Snoop Sisters," "Ellery Queen," "Banacek," even 1950s programs like "Johnny Midnight." And how about giving us the rest of "Kojak," only half of which has ever been on Hulu?

I'd be interested in a Sleuth SVOD service, but it should be BETTER than the Sleuth network was.  At its launch, Sleuth sounded like a good idea, but it showed a handful of different series over and over again, and nothing was from before the 1980s.

I don't have high hopes for my vision coming to fruition. If Seeso is indicative, Universal will be a lot stingier with its selection of content than I would prefer for a pay service. Plus Shapiro seems to be most excited about new original content, not library stuff. Still, I imagine the company is looking at ways to monetize some of the archives. I wouldn't be surprised to see offerings related to science fiction and horror, either, but given how NBC Uni has treated those genres in its cable channels, I can't be too optimistic about them.