David Dworsky responded: "When will we stop talking about internet content as one thing and TV content as something totally different?" His full comment is below.

Congratulations Jason and David, you've each won a $30 Amazon voucher - courtesy of our competition sponsors AdaptiveBlue and their Netflix Queue Widget.

"When will we stop talking about internet content as one thing and TV content as something totally different? People like to watch quality video - it doesn't matter if they use a Mac Book Pro or a Sony Bravia screen. The distribution channel is one thing and the content is another.

To have a rating system that's only based on TV viewers is plain stupid. Some people like to watch on their computer, some like to sit in the TV sofa, some like to use the ipod, some use Youtube - it's the choice of the individual.

To separate the content as TV- versus Internet-video is just an old habit from a business that haven't been fast enough to embrace new technology. It's like saying that the text in a newspaper is more worth than the same text on the newspaper website. Internet fandom is primetime (or at least it should be)."

Oprah image via The Last Podcast

Last month we reported that web-to-TV drama "Quarterlife" had a less than stellar network TV debut. After the first episode drew disappointing Nielsen numbers, NBC canceled the show and moved the remaining episodes to cable channel Bravo.

So why doesn't a lage online following mean success offline? I can think of two reason. First, many media consumers on the Internet are just that, media consumers on the Internet. Yeah, they want more episodes of their favorite shows, but they want to keep consuming that content their way: via the web on sites like YouTube or BitTorrent. Which until online video monetization is figured out, may not really be feasible (a single episode of a scripted drama like "Jericho" can cost in the millions of dollars to produce).

Second, and perhaps more significantly, social networking tools have provided a means for people to organize more quickly and effectively around a shared passion than we've seen in the past. We noted last month that Facebook has been used to organize large political rallies and successful online fund drives, and we saw the same phenomenon in this year's US presidential elections. Specifically, Ron Paul supporters were able to use the web to effectively organize around their candidate and dominate coverage on online social media sites like Digg and YouTube, as well as raise a ton of money. But just like with the TV shows, that online movement didn't translate to offline support.

Simply, online tools have provided a way for a small group of impassioned people to make a lot of noise.

What do you think? Are there any other reasons why strong online numbers haven't translated well to the TV? Do you think Internet fandom will ever be ready for primetime? Share your thoughts in the comments.