Andrew Baron is founder of Rocketboom and is extremely well versed in the [new]media industry. After reading a recent NYTimes article about the Television industry, he was reminded of a blog post he wrote in 2007. He revisited that post this week to question its relevance in the current market.
Read what Andrew's post and decide whether you either accept or reject his points. Consider how this economy is changing your industry. Consider how technology is changing your industry. Think critically and respond in the comments.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Blog Roll
About DMA 250
This blog is maintained for the students enrolled in MCCC's Digital Media Art's Digital Portfolio class. All posts on this blog are written by the instructor, Meg McGrath, but all are invited to participate in active discussion through the comments.
19 comments:
Since I'm usually the last to post a comment I decided to get a head start.
After reading the post, I did see that there were some points he gave that may point to the downfall of these television industries. To be honest I never really gave much thought to how these networks were handling the increase of people going online rather then watch them. It is going to be even harder with the way the economy now, not to mention the ongoing writers strike. Some of the point I found help his thesis are, Dependent on Exclusivity was a good point and (from what I took from it) how these TV industries try to hold on by those hit shows they have, but how long will they have those show? Another point was the one he added for 2009 and because of how the economy is those huge number of expensive equipment may have to be cut.
The article was interesting, I find the demise of the television industries to be true. For the past few years I've been watching all my TV shows on my computer. I rarely turn on the TV to watch anything because most of the shows where available online. There are scene groups that record the TV show when it airs on TV and put it online with out commercials. I download these because I cannot watch them when it airs on TV and the quality of the video is better than the ones the online services offer due to compression.
Most television studios are afraid of new show succeeding. Every time I see a new show it does not last long, they stick to the shows they know will succeed. The studios are releasing an online version of the hit shows, which I think was a good choice because people can watch the show at their own time and not a preset time.
With videos being very easy to share online and everyday people acting instead of the same well known actors, it is letting the lesser known people have a chance to be known. Like people on youtube, some people on their got famous for doing things mainstream actors do not do, like for example the Numa Numa guy all he did was lip sync to a song and did a weird dance and millions of people watch his video. I think people online are getting famous for the wrong reasons.
As for how this is affecting my industry, lately I've been seeing post on a gaming blog that the video game industries are laying off their workers. I'm thinking since they are laying off so many people that I might not get a job with them. For the technology in my industry, I think it is making it easier for people to make content in 3D. Every year a new version of Maya appears with new features making it easier to model but with a high price tag many people are not going to upgrade every year (unless they know how to get it free online.)
I've been following the problems that newspapers and TV stations have been having. Being an ad person, I'm really interested in the lack of funding towards these media outlets because it's not worth the money for the ad space any more. People simply aren't watching the commercials or reading the ads.
I laugh at my mom constantly for her love affair with the DVR remote. Setting the thing to record her shows when she's busy and returning to watch, skipping through the commercials.
The internet, especially YouTube, makes TV's scheduling bend at my will. I don't actually watch a whole lot of TV. But when i want to see a certain episode of a show, I'm not waiting for reruns. I don't know when to catch them, first of all, and second, I just don't feel like waiting. So i hop online and if the network has episodes online, I'll watch them there. But if they don't, I'll Youtube it. Of course they'll be there. This lets me bypass all commercials.
@Omar. I like that you brought up the Numa Numa guy. He always comes to mind for me when talking about online stars. When the TV stations do die, ok we'll still have movie stars. But if I see one more romantic comedy with Jennifer Aniston in it, i will flip out on someone. I actually like that these nobodys can become stars. Ok, it's not for the greatest reason sometimes. But it opens a gate for nobody's with real talent to have a place. Webisodes? Such a cool idea. Nobody's making episodes for anybody. Whether they place ads on the page or not, i don't care. I'm going to ignore them anyway and it doesn't interrupt my viewing.
I really responded to the very last line of the blog post: "While the studios themselves used to be bigger than the content they served, now its the content that is more the king." i totally agree with this. NBC is so crutching along on Heros. ABC on Lost. It's not like the "old days" when there were a few channels so everybody would stop what they're doing to watch their favorite TV show each night.
Basically, if TV doesn't become more like Web 2.0; as in it's very viewer driven, things won't turn out well. I think also, technology is drowning our old TV habits; DVR, the internet, dowloadable episodes to watch on my MP3. Something needs to happen with the TV. People like interaction and control. But TV is a one way communication device with the only control being through a DVR, which allows commercials to be skipped through. No ads, no funding, no stations.
I don't want to do actual commercials, but I'm sure print ads are related to TV ads. sometimes a print ad will be part of a TV ad campaign. I've seen Geico cavemen on trainstation posters. There's always going to be a place for advertising. I think there's just going to be a new way to get people to pay attention to the ads instead of fast forwarding through.
oh god. leave it to me to ramble.
I think the major TV studios will definitely struggle if they don't find a way to integrate what they have with the new technologies and give viewers what they want. I agree with Chelsea that advertising will always find a place to survive though it is becoming more ineffective on TV with the use of DVR (or the internet for the really interesting commercials. Who sits through the SuperBowl just for the ads when you can see them online?)
I recently changed over to Dish and noticed that some channels like CNN have interactivity so the viewer can choose what they want to view or go more in depth when a certain story is aired. The big networks should do something like this - offer something that they can't otherwise get from another source. They do that a bit now by offering behind the scenes look or extras by going on their website.
Overall though, it's the programming that needs to improve. People will go where the interesting programming is. If there's something more interesting on the internet, then that's where they'll keep going.
I've always felt that the internet would kill television so this isn't really an eye-opening read for me. In the past year I have found myself watching less and less TV than I used to. Not because of the internet, but because I've completely lost interest. I agree with Vibha that the programming needs to improve, but even then I doubt I'll go back to watching more. I think TV is too 'slow' and boring for the new generations of people growing up with the internet as their primary source of entertainment.
There's so much overhead involved with producing, advertising, and broadcasting a television program to make it successful, that if you trim the fat, and cut out the middleman ad agency as it was discussed in the article, you're saving tons of $. The internet has the advantage in nearly all aspects of advertising. To get a name, face, or product on a television screen costs $, lots of $. Use the internet and it's vast extents as your advertising model, and while your at it, your distribution model, you're saving so much $ it's enough to make the tv exec's cry. Soon it will be, "Well, why should I pay you Mr. Television Exec $xx,xxx for 30 seconds of air time, when I can network in a more sophisticated, broader, and direct manner using free or inexpensive resources online.?"
i think we'll see the demise of these services:
1. quarter arcades
2. newspaper
3. tv
4. video rental stores
I don't think it's a necessarily bad thing. Let's get the majority of people employed with these services trained on greener, newer, more efficient jobs that can be more productive to society. newspapers = how many trees?
I say absolutely not. While Andrew makes a couple of interesting points regarding the internet and advertising, television is still accessed in more homes across than computers. While the economy is taking a slump, the advertising will still always be there and vice-versa for television. I actually see the opposite of this theory coming true. With the advancements in technology today, studios will someday improve. When the digital switch-over happens, channels will break up into smaller channels creating more airtime to sell for advertising and more jobs to fill. The bottom line is that TV will always be lucrative no matter what the situation is.
He makes some very good points, but I am not sure if i agree with him. In times of trouble people want escape and that's what the entertainer industry provides. I uses his blog from during the writers strike he talks about how ratings went down on the Daily Show and Colbert Report, but that is from during the strike. Have the Viewers returned in the year the strike has been over he does not talk about that. I read that the ratings on a post that i found went back up as soon as Stewart and Cobert returned to the air even without their writers ratings in January 2008 were up 17% for Stewart and 21% for Colbert over January 2007
I completely agree with Vibha. It is also a point Meg has made before as well. To remian relevant, TV has to become more interactive. However, I'm not sure if down the line, Television shows which depend solely on online viewership wouldn't face hardships as well. Isn't that the issue facing news papers right now? They jumped on the online band wagon thinking the ad revenue would support them, and it hasn't. I've read articles that suggest news papers provide their information with a subscription fee just as the would for the hard copies of their papers.
I still rue the demise of the Studio System – the “Golden Age of Hollywood” – when the major studios (MGM, Paramount, Warners, etc.) controlled production and distribution of their product. Samuel Goldwyn (and other studio bosses of his generation) was generally regarded as a benevolent tyrant in his own day by his subordinates, including the stars he had a hand in creating: Betty Davis, Joan Crawford, Tyrone Power, Clark Gabel, etc. To quote Norma Desmond (Gloria Swanson) in Sunset Boulevard, “We had faces then!” Scene Spoiler Alert: Poor Norma couldn’t adapt to the advent of sound and instantly became obsolete.
Gradually, the Studio System crumbled from within – as the stars themselves, chafing under what was perceived as lack of creative control, rebelled and in some cases established their own production companies (with varying degrees of success, I might add) – and from outside forces, TV in particular.
The advent of TV afforded a new generation of creative professionals an alternative venue to the motion picture studios. The studios were no longer the only game in town and responded with technical innovations of their own: improved color and sound (who can forget 3-D?!) to lure audiences out of their living rooms and back into the theatres. The results of that strategy were mixed: TV was a force to be reckoned with no matter how many bells and whistles motion pictures pulled out of their bag of tricks.
My point of this abbreviated trip down memory lane is: Those who don’t remember history (TV) are condemned to repeat it.
I agree with Baron’s speculation that TV cannot survive in it’s present form and that it will probably “become engulfed by something much bigger and/or morph into a sub-faction of the greater media industry.” I mean, we see that happening every night on the evening news – these poor, elderly anchormen/women gamely referring us to their websites for more details… I wonder if Charlie Gibson can read the handwriting on the wall?
Getting our entertainment and news from the web is just a cleaner and leaner vehicle than TV. That’s not to say TV was asleep at the switch; rather, a new kid (the Web) unexpectedly arrived in town and promptly re-wrote all the old rules. Presently, TV’s challenge is how to repurpose itself to at least remain relevant in the new media landscape.
We are going to see this kind of slow death in a lot of different industries. We've already seen it in the music business, when the product was made portable and available online, there was no need for the traditional brick and mortar retailers. Thus eliminating the middleman. The television industry is experiencing the same thing, with the viewers flight to other mediums, the advertiser is chasing the audience. TV studios are losing money from the traditional revenue stream. They are now forced to be creative in seeking new ways to recapture the ad dollars. But that may mean they would have to abandon the traditional TV model. Yesterday we saw the biggest music company in the world form an alliance with youtube to distribute their music videos. It used to be MTV as the primary way to promote the new music, but as we all know, MTV is not what it used to be. This is the kind of creativity that is needed, but this kind of creativity has to come from forward thinking people.
I Hear Ya Kyle, but, does the video rental store still exist? I haven't rented a movie in YEARS, i forgot you could actually do it until you mentioned it. I just watch my movies on my computer. It is a shame though that everything is going online, going out to rent a movie was still getting people out of their houses even if it was for ten minutes at a time.
I hope some the TV industry collapses, not all of it but some of it going away would be nice, as well as a major crash on the internet because if it doesnt happen, who knows, we could end up like sorry pathetic slob of a species portrayed so perfectly in WALL-E. i personally hate sitting on my ass watching TV with my computer on my lap, it makes me feel like a piece of S*!t and i don't understand how it can be all that appealing to people. TV does not affect me all that much, what little i do watch, whether it be on the television or on my computer its mainly the history channel a flyers game or for filler noise when i've listened to too much music that day while i look on google earth and vacant nj to try and find abandoned places and forests to go explore.
sorry people, i dont give a damn that the TV industry is falling apart thanks to the internet. i believe it is happening, i see new sites online all the time where you can go get your latest episode and watch for free at your leisure. If the TV industry is going to survive its going to have to evolve, Go ONLINE For Christ's Sake, are you mentally ill? EVERYTHING is online, people can "fall in love" online people can get a thousand different pills for "male enhancement" online and the commercials you see on TV direct you to the internet for further information.
Think about it, advertisements on the television are directing potential customers the the internet to get more information. add space is so much cheaper on the internet. The TV industry is cutting its own throat and letting itself bleed to death by charging companies so much to show a 30 second commercial. The TV industry thought it had a firm foundation and was nearly invincible so it could do whatever it wanted. Sorry, didn't happen, this little thing called the internet has turned into the king of the hill in no time at all and TV is scratching and clawing to get back into the game.
Thanks for the opportunity to rant a little more as i do quite often, its a beautiful day out, i'm going for a hike.
While I understand the points that Andrew is making, I do not believe it will lead to the end of TV. I agree with Carl in that TV's are in more houses then computers, thus giving them access to a bigger audience. The other edge that I believe TV has over the internet is it's simplicity. Computers are constantly evolving at a level that not everyone can keep up with, financially or other wise. For example, up until about a last summer, my family was using dial up on my computer. This is because we didn't want to pay the expensive fee for faster internet. The only reason my dad caved in is because when you have three siblings trying to get homework done on one computer, the internet needs to be moving at a faster pace. I am sure there are still many households out there still on dial up. Making it a waste of time waiting for a show to load on your computer, when you can turn on the TV and be good to go.
TV will never die! regardless of how are economy is and here are MY top 5 reasons why!!
1.The super bowl is on TV, more then have the nation watches the super bowl no tv no super bowl....yeah right
2.who can live with out jeopardy, or wheel of fortune?
3. if people cant afford TV bet there freind can!
4. who can live with out Brian Williams or ANDERSON COOPER!!!
5. now i under stand Andrews points and the are all valid points how ever i strongly disagree that what he is saying will end TV as we know it!!! people need to relax and tv provides the medium
Funny coincidence...my mum was watching tv tonight and for some reason stopped on some show with the lovely tina faye. 30 rock, which airs on NBC.
The funny thing is, the set is an NBC set. The characters, in the show, work at NBC. Just made me think of this post.
NBC put themselves in a show. Not an amazing show, but the logo's everywhere. If it ever makes it to syndication on any other channel, you'll always know where it originated.
So after reading this post, it reminds me of something Meg said a few classes ago about the less need for watching TV, when a novice can post something on YouTube and become an overnight celeb. TV is struggling compared to the internet. Why watch all those commercials when you can watch the same show online with no interuptions. I think it was Omar that I saw said something about rarely watching TV because all he has to do is log online to watch his shows. This is very true and I agree that networks like NBC, CBS, and ABC are stuggling. Like Andrew Baron said, we don't need these networks to find talent for us when all we need to do is go online and it is right in front of us.
TV IS still a powerful media. I watch TV regularly, but most of what I watch is college basketball and Mets games, and late night comedy shows like SNL. I do watch other shows like House sometimes and other programs, but am not so upset if I miss because I can "surfthecannel" and watch those shows whenever I want.
I think that although tv may be dying, even if the studios are slow to do it they should adapt. It could be something tying in the internet with television. All I know is that the studios have to be pretty stupid to let something as huge as television be broken down so easily. It just might happen though. I have always assumed that the people running the economy were genius's and nothing terrible could ever happen but I was proven horribly wrong so maybe tv will die and people will move on.
Post a Comment