Last week, DirecTV announced it was reducing the amount of 3D content aired on its n3D 24/7 channel due to “lack of content.”  To see if this story held water, I turned to the Stereoscopic 3D Professionals Worldwide Linked-in group to see what they thought was the full story behind this move. The posted comments were very insightful.  Below is a synopsis of these comments. We invite you to continue the discussion in the comment field below.

Some of you may recall that two years ago DirecTV launched the n3D 24/7 3D linear channel, as well as pay-per-view and video-on-demand 3D content services with heavy support from Panasonic. But in the DirecTV announcement, the company said, “While 3D adoption continues to grow and more programming is being developed, DirecTV has decided to moven3D to a part-time channel.”

We asked DirecTV to comment, but they did not reply to our inquiries and there is no mention of the cut back on their web site. Apparently, Consumer Reports’ James Wilcox noticed there was no programming on the n3D channel – just a note saying it would be broadcasting the summer Olympics in 3D. n3D will continue to air some content, but only on a part-time basis. The company still airs the 3net 3D channel and has now moved ESPN 3D from part-time to full-time broadcasting.

I have taken the liberty to paraphrase some of these comments as noted below:

• I’m not surprised. I have DirecTV and they show mostly documentaries and repeat them incessantly.
• Of course it is due to lack of content! But broadcasters could have more content if they were to agree to pay its price.
• The channels can’t complain about the lack of content if they’re not investing in the cost of them.
• There is so much 3D content buying going on in Europe and Asia. China is scooping up bunches! LG, Sony, Samsung and Panasonic are all featuring 3D channels on their smart TVs, so I am not buying the lack of content line.
• This is not a lack of content issue — it’s a lack of budget issue. The key challenge is attracting marketing dollars to ultimately underwrite production costs — aka the traditional TV model.
• If the 3D programs were on the regular channels marked with a logo that says, “This program is available in 3D,” loads of people would be watching.
• The real problem is that everyone’s thinking in “Hollywood-sized” money, when they need to think about lower budget production and distribution. We need more realistic expectations that reflect the age of the industry.
• I agree with all of the above observations: not enough platforms, not enough content, not enough money. But some recent developments are concentrating production in fewer hands, which means less money for the small independent producers of 3D.
• There is a huge space between indie producers with low costs, and shooting everything with the AG-3DA1.
• Granted, these comments come from the content creation side of the discussion and we have not heard what advertisers, sponsors or the operators say about these issues.

These content creators are not amateurs and they can create quality 3D content at more modest price points, so companies like DirecTV have options.

But this does not answer the business model issues which still loom. Sponsor-supported 3D programming is unsustainable, so the industry needs to offer compelling 3D content that viewers want to watch and advertisers want to support. And, I certainly agree that offering major TV shows in 2D or 3D on the same channel is the answer to wider adoption.

With the rapidly expanding base of 3D-capable TVs, the eyeballs will be there – we just need more leaders to step forward to prove that 3D can operate just like a 2D TV business. That’s easier said than done, however.