My new friend Keith over at Adventures in Dubai speaks about the changing state of television in the UAE. His post led me to regurgitate my theory about the future of television here in the US. In the comments I wrote:
In the US people in the various entertainment industries talk about this convergence as "Siliwood" the unholy matrimony of Hollywood and Silicon Valley. Pointy headed prognosticators think that your PC and home entertainment centers will merge sometime in the near future. I tend to agree. In the US TiVo is becoming very popular which further complicates/distorts the market by frustrating market segmentation. How can they pitch advertisers to buy a premium time slot of they can no longer provide demographic data showing dominance in the highly prized 18-49 demo? Bottom line, they can't. Now that I have TiVo, I don't care when anything is on. I program the thing and whenever I feel like watching something, I do. Plus I have the added benefit of knowing that whenever I get the chance something I will want to watch will be on. Now add to that my ability to skip advertising altogether because I seldom watch live tv. All this could well create a 'race to the bottom' in terms of ad costs/revenue. Recently, Jack Valenti said that people who skip commercials or change channels during commericals are "thieves". That is, advertising pays for the shows we watch so we are duty bound to sit with rapt attention to yammering pitchmen who try to sell me the latest carbonated beverage that will make me young, good-looking and appealing to bikini clad women. (If only!)
Rather, I think we're (read: US) going to see further segmentation to that we're not only seeing each channel become a subscriber service but even individual shows. We'll have a free week at the beginning of the season to get you hooked and then you'll have to pay $20 for the season or whatever it is. Here's hoping.
I think it will be quite some time (if ever) before we see this sort of business model. However, with the rise of broadband and OnDemand services it's becoming more plausible. People scoffed at the notion of paid radio service. Why would anyone pay for something that is available for free? Same thing happened when cable TV first arrived. Simply put; you get what you pay for. Look at the programs available on HBO vs. the networks. Networks provide mind-numbingly stupid programming with a few bright spots here and there. Cable networks are uneven but the production value is equal or, in many cases better. I don't care for most of the movies that HBO shows but the original shows are first rate. Carnivale, Deadwood and of course, The Sopranos are exemplars. The characters are deep, they don't play for cheap laughs and the plot is absolutely engrossing. I cast a skeptical eye on Carnivale as I didn't care for the setting. After ONE episode, I was hopelessly hooked. I don't have HBO now but I am considering getting it if only for those shows.
I must admit to a bit of hypocrisy here b/c I always complain that TV is crap and people (read: me) should read more but now that I don't have to wade through the crap (Thank you, TiVo) to get to the gems, I appreciate it much more. Of late, I've taken an interest in Ancient Greece and Rome. To my surprise there is a fair amount of weekly programming on these topics. One program called Western Tradition features a lectern bournd professor with a most pecular cadence describing various events. They feature some kludgy graphics over that to show either locations or troop movements or what have you. It's a bit dry but also intersting. There is another program that features an eye-friendly British woman who drives from site to site in Greece and explains the various events that took place wherever she happens to be visiting. I prefer this format as it is more helpful to see the agora when describing life for the average citizen. Lastly, there is another program on the History Channel (name escapes me) and it shows cgi re-enactments of various battles. This is an exceptional program that would be hugely useful for teachers of High School/College students.
In the end I don't think that TV is crap, rather that the signal/noise ratio is very low.
In the US people in the various entertainment industries talk about this convergence as "Siliwood" the unholy matrimony of Hollywood and Silicon Valley. Pointy headed prognosticators think that your PC and home entertainment centers will merge sometime in the near future. I tend to agree. In the US TiVo is becoming very popular which further complicates/distorts the market by frustrating market segmentation. How can they pitch advertisers to buy a premium time slot of they can no longer provide demographic data showing dominance in the highly prized 18-49 demo? Bottom line, they can't. Now that I have TiVo, I don't care when anything is on. I program the thing and whenever I feel like watching something, I do. Plus I have the added benefit of knowing that whenever I get the chance something I will want to watch will be on. Now add to that my ability to skip advertising altogether because I seldom watch live tv. All this could well create a 'race to the bottom' in terms of ad costs/revenue. Recently, Jack Valenti said that people who skip commercials or change channels during commericals are "thieves". That is, advertising pays for the shows we watch so we are duty bound to sit with rapt attention to yammering pitchmen who try to sell me the latest carbonated beverage that will make me young, good-looking and appealing to bikini clad women. (If only!)
Rather, I think we're (read: US) going to see further segmentation to that we're not only seeing each channel become a subscriber service but even individual shows. We'll have a free week at the beginning of the season to get you hooked and then you'll have to pay $20 for the season or whatever it is. Here's hoping.
I think it will be quite some time (if ever) before we see this sort of business model. However, with the rise of broadband and OnDemand services it's becoming more plausible. People scoffed at the notion of paid radio service. Why would anyone pay for something that is available for free? Same thing happened when cable TV first arrived. Simply put; you get what you pay for. Look at the programs available on HBO vs. the networks. Networks provide mind-numbingly stupid programming with a few bright spots here and there. Cable networks are uneven but the production value is equal or, in many cases better. I don't care for most of the movies that HBO shows but the original shows are first rate. Carnivale, Deadwood and of course, The Sopranos are exemplars. The characters are deep, they don't play for cheap laughs and the plot is absolutely engrossing. I cast a skeptical eye on Carnivale as I didn't care for the setting. After ONE episode, I was hopelessly hooked. I don't have HBO now but I am considering getting it if only for those shows.
I must admit to a bit of hypocrisy here b/c I always complain that TV is crap and people (read: me) should read more but now that I don't have to wade through the crap (Thank you, TiVo) to get to the gems, I appreciate it much more. Of late, I've taken an interest in Ancient Greece and Rome. To my surprise there is a fair amount of weekly programming on these topics. One program called Western Tradition features a lectern bournd professor with a most pecular cadence describing various events. They feature some kludgy graphics over that to show either locations or troop movements or what have you. It's a bit dry but also intersting. There is another program that features an eye-friendly British woman who drives from site to site in Greece and explains the various events that took place wherever she happens to be visiting. I prefer this format as it is more helpful to see the agora when describing life for the average citizen. Lastly, there is another program on the History Channel (name escapes me) and it shows cgi re-enactments of various battles. This is an exceptional program that would be hugely useful for teachers of High School/College students.
In the end I don't think that TV is crap, rather that the signal/noise ratio is very low.