What I've already noticed is that there are a lot more players in the sales/pitch stage than there used to be. As little as 5 or 6 years ago, you basically took your show to the only buyers in town: the big 4 networks, and if you struck out there, the basic cable networks. A few incremental changes have taken place. 1) These days, the big 4 networks are seldom the only destination in the primary pitch stage. They're still the preferred destination, but basic cable is pulling numbers as big -- and sometimes bigger -- than networks, and usually offers greater creative control. 2) People are starting to pitch to Netflix and Amazon at the same time as the networks, or even in lieu of them. 3) Big companies are getting into the content buying game, in the so-called "branded entertainment" wave that's hitting Hollywood right now. These companies will typically help finance a show in exchange for product placements or other financial ancillaries.
I believe all of these things are leading indicators of more change and evolution to come. The marketplace is expanding. And the buying power of the big 4 nets has diminished in the face of the new buyers in the marketplace.
If this change accelerates, then the oligopsony on the buy side of the market crumbles, and the path is paved for broader and less channel-exclusive distribution deals.
Of course, B doesn't necessarily follow from A. It's entirely possible that we replace the current oligopsony with a new oligopsony, or even a new quasi-monopsony (i.e., Apple in the music business). But I think the smarter folks in the production game are leery of trading one total master for another, and they won't be as eager to set up a new boss, same as the old boss. Accordingly, terms on the sell side will be written increasingly in favor of the sellers.
Content creators are looking for rents (recurrent economic gain) on intellectual property. In their eyes, they've manufactured a property, and now they're looking to make a return by way of charging people (not always customers directly, but somebody) to use it. At its simplest, this is no different from how a real estate developer builds a property, then seeks ROI by leasing the office space or apartment buildings.
Putting aside the age-old debate about whether IP is actually something tangible, or whether the system is worthwhile, we can certainly agree that studios and networks are clinging violently to their current ways of earning those economic rents on IP.
What would it take to get them to overturn the current model? What would it take to get them to see the value in an "open ecosystem"? Well, we'd need to convince TV studios and production companies that there's more money to be made in open distribution than there is in direct distribution to TV networks.
TV networks are relatively safe, cash-rich (sometimes cash-stupid, even) places to "lay off" a property. They're willing, one-stop buyers for the IP the studios have been investing in and developing. Apple, Microsoft, Netflix, Amazon, Google, et al., will need, collectively or individually, to represent a distributed market for content that is at least as economically attractive as the TV networks, if not moreso, before we'll see a lot of movement.
I am fairly confident that that will happen. And relatively soon. I work in the entertainment business, on the creative and production side. I can't tell you how many big names in talent, writing, producing, etc., are f-ing sick of the network system. Or how many big and small production companies are sick of it, and realize how much richer the open ecosystem could be. But nobody's doing anything major about it -- not yet, at any rate -- because the current cash cow (sale to networks) is still the best and easiest in town.
I don't necessarily believe that Apple will, or should, get into the content development game. It's a crapshoot, and it's not suited to Apple's business model. But I do believe that production companies will, increasingly, start selling their content to everyone, and not just the networks.
Conversely, I don't think the networks will change their tune. Not willingly. They will not be the first to change, at any rate. They'll resist, kicking and screaming, because their business models are inherently predicated on maintaining very tight control over distribution of the properties they've acquired. Unfortunately for them, they're stuck holding a piece of the overall content value chain that is increasingly outdated.