As indicated, when the TV numbers hit the wires, the reaction was largely negative, with the main thought being a bad game deserves lower ratings. That is, however, until ESPN got a chance to spin the numbers to their favor. It should be noted, however, that pointing out facts about the BCS Championship viewer ratings isn’t necessarily spin, either.

The title of their related press release demonstrates ESPN’s commitment to a positive light — BCS National Championship: Cable’s Second Biggest Audience of All Time — as does the content:

ESPN’s telecast of the Allstate Bowl Championship Series (BCS) National Championship – Alabama’s 21-0 shutout of LSU — posted a 16.2 fast national household coverage rating, according to Nielsen, representing an average of 16,072,000 households, the second highest of any program in the history in cable television (records go back to 1987). The average of 24,214,000 viewers (P2+) was also second best in cable. It also is ESPN’s second-highest rating of all time.

The only telecast in cable television history with a larger audience was last year’s BCS Championship on ESPN (17,718,000 homes and 27,316,000 people, based on a 17.8 rating), a 22-19 Auburn victory over Oregon decided by a field goal as time expired.

To all the naysayers, downplaying the TV ratings, take that. While the viewer reception of the broadcast can be spun to represent both positive and negative reactions, one place where spin isn’t necessary is when dealing with ESPN’s online audience, otherwise known as the folks who watched the game on their PC, laptop, or other mobile device. As is the case with CBS’ March Madness On Demand, ESPN experienced a ratings increase for their online broadcast of the BCS Championship Game:

Across all WatchESPN platforms – computer, smartphone, tablet, Xbox – the average minute audience for the BCS National Championship game totaled 261,000 people, up 40 percent over last year’s game, and a record for college football on ESPN’s digital platforms. More than 523,000 people watched the game on WatchESPN.com, generating 39.6 million minutes and an average minute audience of 227,000 people, which is up 20 percent compared to last year [Emphasis added]

Not only did ESPN experience a noticeable ratings increase for their BCS Championship online broadcast, their audience for the entire BCS Bowl Game slate showed substantial increase as well, showing a 27 percent increase when compared to last year.

It’s pretty clear there is a sustainable business model for online broadcasts of live sporting events, but yet, the traditional entertainment industry stalwarts, especially those that depend on an viewing audience for success, are still hesitant to embrace online distribution of new content.

Apparently, the only time CBS thinks the idea is worthy is during the NCAA Men’s basketball tournament. Otherwise, you’re stuck with reruns of episodes that have aired at least a day before they are made available online.

It’s also becoming clear movies like Red State are the exception, not the norm.

What we have is the upcoming Ben Stiller movie, Tower Heist and Universal Pictures strategy of releasing it on VOD shortly after it made its theatrical debut. The VOD version was going to be available for the eye-popping price of $59.99. Misguided price points aside, the idea was a step in the right direction for an all new avenue of movie distribution: Direct to the consumer without the need of going to the local cinema(s), provided your town is big enough to support more than one.

However, thanks in large part to backlash from a number of national theaters — Cinemark, Regency Theaters, Galaxy Theaters, and Emagine Theaters — Universal Pictures is shelving its Tower Heist/VOD strategy. The theater chains listed said they would not be showing the new release because of the VOD plans, which, in turn, prompted Universal Pictures to cancel the VOD release.

Over at SlashFilm.com, they have a quote from the Galaxy Theaters president, which reads an awful like a “protect my right to make money” plea:

“We just feel it’s a time to draw a line in the sand,” said Galaxy Theatres president Rafe Cohen. “This is virtually a simultaneous release that we don’t think will be helpful to anyone. We’re standing on principle that it’s best to preserve the theatrical window.”

Perhaps I’m not being sensitive enough to the potential plight of theaters losing business to the ability to deliver VOD offerings to a large majority of homes in the United States, but it’s clear the reason for the outcry is because these theaters do not want to join the growing list of things killed by the technology of the Internet.

With all due respect, businesses fail all the time, and while it’s well within these companies’ rights to fight for their survival, sometimes evolution makes things obsolete. That’s the nature of advancement. While it may be true the silly $60 price tag on the Tower Heist VOD would, in all likelihood, limit its uptake, the fact the movie studios are even considering the option is a step in the right direction.

Too bad the various theater chains don’t feel the same, but isn’t business supposed to be on an “adapt or get left behind” playing field? Even if VOD does become commonplace, it’s not like every person in the world will stop going to theaters, if, for nothing else, the opportunity to get out of the house. Furthermore, how many domiciles have screens as big as a movie theaters? Not many.

With that in mind, here’s the trailer for Tower Heist:

Granted, it’s easy to understand why Netflix would try to spin their services in a positive, but the fact remains, it comes off like they don’t care about their members. Perhaps those who are minding the Netflix corporate offices would be better served laying the blame at the feet of the companies that deserve instead of responding to the issue with mere lip service reactions. The companies in question who deserve the blame for this lack of new movie releases (for the home, or course) are the movie studios themselves.

It’s really not Netflix’s fault Warner Brothers would rather a flaying Blockbuster and On Demand services get their new releases first, although, perhaps Netflix could’ve pushed back a little stronger.

As with most things having to do with access in regards to entertainment content, it comes down to money.

With that in mind, is Paramount’s latest marketing move for the home release of Transformers: Dark of the Moon a shot at Netflix or the entire middle man industry that makes up home movie distribution? The reason for query has to do with the fact that, if you are so inclined, you can rent the third installment in the Transformers series directly from Paramount via their video on demand service.

The rental, which costs $4.99 for high-def and $3.99 for standard, can only be seen — this soon — at Paramount’s VOD site. Previously, Paramount partnered with Facebook to show Jackass, but apparently, the buzz fizzled on that arrangement, and so, Paramount circumvented every middle man out there and decided to offer the stream on their own property.

Is this strategy a direct shot at Netflix? Is this the wave of the future in regards to home movie rentals/purchases? If so, why did Paramount (and others) wait so long to offer their own content, nixing out companies like Amazon and, of course, Netflix? Or does removing potential revenue streams — just HBO did with Netflix — about as misguided of business decision as one can make?

Or is this a case of these studios asking too much for their prime content, and so, services like Netflix and others simply decline the opportunity to participate? After reading about the Starz/Netflix break up, which, again, was all about money, Netflix not wanting to be held hostage by these distribution companies makes sense.

Unfortunately, however, such territorial pissings only hurt the consumer.

All things considered, it’s honestly surprising studios like Paramount haven’t said “screw the middle man” much sooner than they have, especially now that technology clearly supports the streaming of content, even content as large as high definition movies. Is Dark of the Moon the first step in an inevitable trend or is this simply a marketing ploy on Paramount’s behalf?

Let us know what you think.

All of Smith’s previous movies, save, perhaps his initial hit, Clerks, have been released to the theaters first, as is the standard Hollywood way. Now, however, thanks to the increasing quality of streaming video, releasing a first run title to the video-streaming audience first is a growing trend. Initially, the video on demand avenue has been reserved for foreign films that have built up some buzz in the United States. This includes movies like 13 Assassins, [REC] 2, and Monsters, to name a few.

Now, you can add Kevin Smith and his Red State movie to this list. Smith is, at least in terms of United States audiences, one of the most well-known, or at least infamous, movie makers to go the video on demand route. Red State is Smith’s first foray into the horror genre–unless you consider Cop Out to be a horror movie–and the during the film’s creation and subsequent rounds at various film festivals, Red State had to deal with some distribution issues.

As a result, Smith decided to self-distribute the movie, relying on word of mouth and the viral power of the web to help promote his latest film.

Part of this promotion includes the video on demand route, as Red State’s VOD release was announced on the Red Statements blog. With that in mind, Red State is now available to U.S. audiences on sites like YouTube, iTunes, and Amazon.

Red State is also available for your Android device as well.

To get access to Smith’s latest movie, would-be video on demand renters must pay $9.99, for which you are allowed access to the film for 48 hours. While the film has already had a limited engagement theatrical run–mainly to kick-start the word of mouth movement–the VOD release is considered a pre-theatrical release, something Amazon indicates, even in the title’s URL:

http://www.amazon.com/Red-State-Pre-Theatrical-Rental…

Because the film was released to the VOD world today (September 1st), it has enjoyed something of a Twitter trend. By and large, the buzz appears to be good. Meanwhile, Smith also went on Twitter to notify the masses and answer a few questions about the non-standard release.

As indicated, reaction to Smith’s newest movie has been largely positive, although, not all of it.

That tweet was made after a theatrical screening.

And then there’s this very astute nugget:

Considering Smith’s already-solid popularity and the fact that a lot of people are talking about it right now, don’t be surprised if Red State sets some kind of VOD record. If you’re unsure about whether or not to join in on the fun, start with the trailer first:

Nielsen will measure HBO On Demand and Cinemax On Demand, allowing HBO access to data about how many households are viewing its VOD programming and the demographics of the audiences viewing each specific program. The data will help the network tweak it programming in the future and could bring in more subscribers as well.

"Technology has changed the way people watch television and as our customers increasingly use our On Demand products to watch our shows on a timetable of their choosing, it is essential that we understand this growing shift in viewer behavior," said Jan Pasquale, Senior Vice President, Research, HBO.

"The knowledge gained from this service will enable us to drive additional consumer satisfaction by understanding the appeal of our programming to specific audiences and developing targeted offerings for the full range of our customer base."

Nielsen estimates that 35 million homes have access to on-demand services.

"Clients told us that VOD is a vital part of their business and Nielsen responded with a service that allows them to measure, analyze and understand audience preferences," said Sara Erichson, Executive Vice President Client Services, Nielsen North America