Let’s Just Declare TV Dead and Move On

November 27th, 2006 at 4:12 pm

Like someone said on another blog, YouTube is a “lean in” experience. It’s something you have to be actively involved in to get the most out of it. You have to sift through videos, often broken up into smaller sections, in order to find what you want. TV, on the other hand, is much easier. Turn it on, and your content is delivered straight to you.

My family and myself use YouTube for finding stuff that has been censored from TV, in addition to finding old shows that are no longer on the air (i.e. copyrighted material). I rarely watch the “user generated” stuff…

November 27th, 2006 at 4:21 pm

Same here Robert , i rarely watch the “user generated” content.

But what is surprising me is the amazing view-rates for some stupid user generated content on Youtube like lonelygirl and the rest.

maybe its Conflict of Age:)

November 27th, 2006 at 4:37 pm

Mike,

marekt share - please!

and the question is no longer if, but rather when, more television consumption will occur via the Internet than traditional broadcast and cable television.

I can’t wait for that to happen, a lot of on-line video content that you have in the US is unavailable here in Europe.

November 27th, 2006 at 4:44 pm

Try that poll in America, I assure you that the pollsters will definitely get a different response.

People had the same thought years ago regarding not having to go to movie theaters to be entertained. How great would it be if you had a central box in your home that you didn’t have to go anywhere? Now apparently that’s too inconvenient, even with DVRs and being able to skip past commercials.

Another note, people like us (readers/posters), who are the biggest amount of internet consumers around, would obviously have a distorted view in watching television compared to watching 5 minute clips on YouTube. I can barely stand watching a video on YouTube and usually exit the page before the video is loaded.

We’re far from anything replacing the television set.

November 27th, 2006 at 4:55 pm

I think people overlook that user driven content was the only content online, for a reeeeeeally long time - of course it’s going to do well when there are few other options out there It’s hard to say how well it’s going to do when there’s a choice between it and something professionally produced. Do I think user driven material will always have a place in people’s hearts and online? Definitely but I wouldn’t build a business on it alone at this point. Just as readers are migrating toward high authority and professional journalist/media blogs from the random postings of so-and-so, we can expect the same from video users.

If I owned a video content site, I would be pushing right now to develop, distribute and market consistent, professionally produced 15 minute shows, like news “programs’ that focus on niches (cooking, working out, etc.) - similar to a tv network - and establish that among online users, growing it grass roots and virally since marketing directly to the offline market is probably pointless as they’ll be the last to adopt. If done right, you could have a pretty valuable property when the rest of the big players move into the space.

It’s very rare that I go to YouTube to see what new user driven content might be up, but I watch CNN video and Today show clips pretty regularly.

November 27th, 2006 at 5:12 pm

Um, that was a poll of British people, in case you didn’t notice. Have you ever seen British television? It’s no wonder they prefer YouTube.

Anyway, people like YouTube because there are no commercials. Once every YouTube video has a clip of John Mellencamp singing some horrible song stuck at the beginning, everyone will go back to pirating episodes of Heroes.

November 27th, 2006 at 5:27 pm

@ ginchy, it’ll probably more than likely be very creative and far less intrusive than the traditional advertising you’re used to. Everybody’s aware of how tough it’s going to be to move users from not having to watch ads to having ads present, so a lot of creative initiatives and ideas are being tapped into so that we can all make money but users won’t feel violated with the media they’re used to controlling.

What’s really scary is the amount of advertising agencies now taking on production roles and production companies opening advertising arms. This should have a very interesting outcome.

November 27th, 2006 at 5:43 pm

We watch 100% or our TV programming online. I realize we’re ahead of the cure but we’re not super geeks either (annemaddox.blogspot.com).

We canceled satellite in May. We planned to purchase shows on iTunes but now most of the shows we watch are on the network sites for free. Almost every week there is a new feature to one of the network’s video features. It’s fascinating watching them try to one up each other.

Each week we watch Lost, Prison Break, Survivor, Heroes, Jericho, Vanished, and Kidnapped for free. We pony-up the $1.99 for The Office and Battlestar Galactica. We’ve cut a $60 satellite bill down to $16 a month for iTunes and spend an extra $10 for a faster broadband connection. We love it and have no intention of having cable or satellite again.

Our original plan was to watch less TV but that’s not happening. What we want now, is a way to stream video from our laptops to our 30” flat screen that has been unused for 6 months. It’s amazing the number of things that have changed in the last few years.

Stamps – .32 the last time I purchased one
Bank – Last entered (lobby or drive thru) 1998
Long Distance – Last paid: domestic 2000, international 2004
TV Commercials – Feb of 2000 was the last time I watched a commercial (when I had the remote)
Home Phone – Only cell phones since 2001
Cable/Satellite TV – May 2006

November 27th, 2006 at 6:13 pm

Markets are changing, few are dying. Everytime there’s a technology revolution, people come out and declare that “old” technology is dead. When television came out, lots of people proclaimed the death of radio. The radio market changed, but it found a niche and is still around. Now the Internet is here and everybody is predicting the demise of Hollywood, the newspapers, etc. without looking at history and recognizing that this has happened in various forms before.

Bottom line: I think it’s extremely naive to declare TV dead. There will be major changes to the market and it will certainly have to share the spotlight with digital media distribution but the television studios produce and own the content people want so it’s unlikely that the television industry is going to die.

November 27th, 2006 at 6:34 pm

How many times has television been declared “dead”? Fact is, most people watch television. Many spend an inordinate amount of time doing so. (Any activity performed more than a few hours a week besides sleeping, eating, and working is more than enough, in my oh oh.) As Samuel Clemens once wrote, “Rumors of my death in the newspapers have been greatly exaggerated. Television, my good friend, will at least have the decency to move me to another channel.”

People thought TV would be dead when usage of the newspapers became widespread. Even the mighty radio couldn’t loosen its grasp on the human psyche. What medium has changed us so maximum? It’s still fire we gather around to listen to stories. Don’t go peeing on it just yet. You might get electrocuted.

November 27th, 2006 at 6:55 pm

Why don’t we declare blog posts about how TV is dead dead? Done.

November 27th, 2006 at 9:09 pm

Definetly looking for the whole shows. CBS, ABC, FOX have all posted a decent number now. Though they keep removing them and only letting you watch a few at a time - this is quite annoying.

November 27th, 2006 at 10:36 pm

TV dead? Puuuuuuuuuhhhhlleeeeeeeaaaaasssee!!!!!

It’s the networks that are in trouble. How is a network going to compete against a half million video producers who will be launching their video podcasts of quirky stand up comedy, innovative soaps and gritty on- location interviews, news and reality shows?

And don’t forget, the FCC can’t touch any of ‘em! Nobody knows what types of shows will becoming online and that’s what’s so incredibly exciting! Give me TikiBarTV over Friends reruns every day of the week! I for one have had more than my share of boring ass sitcoms, bad late night TV and stupid, stupid, STUPID Survivor wannabe’s!

The podcasts won’t be inundated by commercials like the networks and cable channels either. people are getting creative and it’s a welcome breath of fresh air.

Television/cable networks are the slow moving herd of elephants that happened to be crossing the river when a massive school of starving piranhas was in the water. It’s going to be a bloody, ugly downfall for the nervous networks.

The TV itself evolved into big bad HD at the perfect time in history. We begin to see the video podcast revolution migrate to the luscious 50 inch plasma’s in 07…….and not a moment too soon!

November 27th, 2006 at 10:57 pm

American television has been dead for years now. There are very few valuable minutes between the hours of advertising. But, the fact that so many people schedule their weeks around Lost, Deal or No Deal, The Apprentice, The OC, Laguna Beach or Greys Anatomy suggest that Americans like dead things.

After living abroad for 10 years, I was really looking forward to watching American Football again this season. Sadly to say, I am even finding that really difficult to watch, as the flow of the game is constantly interrupted by sponsor breaks - especially after being accustomed to watching 40 straight minutes of intense rugby each half in Europe.

American television is dead. Long live American television.

November 28th, 2006 at 12:50 am

Michael: The television networks are dead? Funny. Last time I checked, it was the content produced and owned by television/cable companies that is so popular on services like GooTube. People want to consume content in a variety of ways, but if the television networks die, as you seem to think they have, the content people love will cease to exist and be produced. Who is going to come in and replace it? Amanda Congdon? Last time I checked, she just signed a deal with HBO, has an ABC News video blog and a team of Hollywood agents. Looks like web stars are happy to sell their souls to the television/cable companies that are apparently dead. Guess their estates are still cutting checks.

As much as I personally think that most of the television shows, like Friends, are crap, it’s naive to assume that mainstream America is flocking to Zefrank, Rocketboom, etc. And those represent the good user-generated content. 99.9% of the user-generated content out there is crap. Television/cable companies will continue to produce the content that appeals to the majority of Americans, and they will be forced to make their content available through other distribution channels. They’ll also continue to sign up talented web stars who typically jump at the chance to make some real cash and tap into the resources of these companies instead of producing their content in makeshift amateur studios.

Anybody who thinks television/cable companies are dying should ponder this: why are companies like GooTube paying to license their content? If GooTube is in a position of leverage and the television/cable companies are desperate, why aren’t they paying GooTube to distribute their content? Obviously the television/cable companies hold copyrights which will always give them an advantage, but if user-generated content is truly replacing demand for mainstream, professional content, why would GooTube have any need to license the mainstream content? The answer: the average person still loves “Hollywood” content, but is demanding the ability to access it in different ways. Hollywood will adapt even though they are resistant to change. In fact, they’ve managed to force GooTube to deal with monetizing their content, and although it’s probably not advantageous over the long-term for the television/cable companies to have GooTube sitting between them and advertisers, they still make money.

The bottom line here is that the television/cable companies certainly have to adapt, and it may not be something they want to do, but I think you lose credibility making such an outrageous, extreme statement. There are also some problems with the logic in your post that I hope you’ll provide clarification on. You state that “more television consumption will occur via the Internet than traditional broadcast and cable television.” Okay. Fine. But if television companies are dead, then how is there any “television” consumption? You can’t have MobiTV and The Venice Project distributing television content if the television/cable companies that produce that content are dead, can you?

November 28th, 2006 at 4:38 am

I’m with Michael. The only clarification needed is maybe that TV “as you know if” is dead. Networks will still be around, but they will evolve.

Look at the way newspapers have evolved. Until my wife got into clipping coupons (thanks to thegrocerygame.com - a site in major need of a 2.0 alternative) I hadn’t subscribed to a paper since 1995 when I was in college. Now I read more than just my local paper and the Wall Street Journal, thanks to blogs, DrudgeReport, and GoogleNews. I read more news from “newspaper” companies today than I ever dreamed possible.

The FCC and other regulatory burdens will continue to stifle the networks. Poor customer service and monopolistic pricing will hurt cable and satellite as viable delivery options. Global access will force producers to rethink regional delivery schedules while lower costs will reduce barriers to entry allowing more “canceled” shows to survive. Actors, crew and producers will be compensated more directly in line with performance (not random sampling by nielson) and the oligarchy of Hollywood will adapt to the democratization of the web or succumb to it.

No, TV is not dead, but it will be difficult to recognize it at a family reunion. But that’s not the big news. The real story is that consumers win with more choices, better service levels, and lower prices.

The biggest impediment right now, is a device that connects the TV to your ISP. I don’t think iTV will do it, but I underestimated the iPod since MP3 players were nothing new. I don’t think xBox or PS3 will do it either but I’m not a gamer.

All I need right now is a way to use my wifi network to stream video from my laptop to my TV without having to rig something. Combine that with the a network moving some shows to exclusive access on their site and the online delivery of TV will begin in earnest.

This is one Soap Opera I plan to watch.

November 28th, 2006 at 6:42 am

You guys don’t get it.

First of all, Tivo has effectively destroyed the network TV advertising revenue model. How can the networks justify selling advertising on their programs when the technology to skip over ads is becoming commonplace?

Advertisers cannot justify paying the current ad placement prices in a Tivo world. It’s flat out suicide……nobody watches the ads. Everyone I know who has Tivo uses the ad skipping feature to save time. Many have bought Tivo specifically for this capability. If you have Tivo try and go watch 24 or CSI on someone’s TV who doesn’t have Tivo……actually don’t.

I was kidding…it’s fucking excrutiating!

So now what? The networks must begin to test the online waters. Scary stuff, people. The web is a very very scary place for the networks.

Why? because the production costs to produce a pretty professional looking program are now virtually nothing. A video camera, A Mac and some pirated software. All stuff that many, many people have. And when online revenue models become solidified they will all want to become the next RocketBoom. The next Congdon, The next Scoble, The next Web Superstar!

This is a paradigm shift of biblical proportions. As shows like Galacticast, Rocketboom and TreehuggerTV emerge on an almost daily basis (2007 should be an absolutaly insane year for radically new webisode podcasts/video shows) you are going to gradually see programming better reflect our diverse, constantly changing American culture.

I got news. We are more of a melting pot than ever and new media is going to reflect that. I look for major audience splintering and fragmentation along the lines of cultural, ethnic, foreign, religious, political, environmental, urban, alternative lifestyle (vegan, gay/lesbian, wikka, treehugger, etc), regional, hobbies, intellectual, academic…….you name it!

Don’t think there will be a show dedicated exclusively to organic cooking? There already is! It’s called Freshtopia and it has won some awards and is gaining viewers at a breakneck pace on Blip.TV, etc.

Of course it’s not going to happen over night. But keep in mind, big media has always been about scale to keep per unit costs to the end user at a feasible price (fifty cents for a newspaper, 20 bucks for basic cable, four bucks for a rental or VOD movie, etc) That’s why newspapers really do have one foot in the grave and are radically transforming themselves into multimedia news and lifestyle companies.

But how do they recoup all that classifieds revenue lost to Craig’s List? - They try to work with Google. How do they try and lure younger readers (their future) to read their articles? - They beef up their online efforts and create journalist blogs and now audio and video podcasts. But what happens when their advertisers begin to look at alternative media channels to find their old audience?

Another critical problem for newspapers is, as they begin to migrate more and more to the web, why will people stick with one news source when there are a gazillion other news outlets online? Yes I’ll look for local and regional stuff but even now hometown bloggers are stepping in to meet that demand.

That is why there is major consolidation by Gannet and the rest, because pretty soon there will be a tipping point and distribution won’t scale as daily circulation/subscription revenue won’t cover the publishing and delivery nut. That’s when you’ll see newspapers go PDF in a podcast delivered via RSS. That is how most “early adopters” get most of their national newspapers, magazines, journals and other niche content now. In the form of RSS. (soon to supplant the spam ravaged e-mail delivery model as well….but that’s another story).

Getting back to the networks, they have the industry muscle and know how, and to their credit, they are experimenting by going on YouTube, iTunes and beefing up their own websites. MTV in particular has seen the light. They announced that they’re moving from a horizontal distribution website network model to a bunch of vertical websites each dedicated to their different programs. Why? Because they know they’ve got to be able to harness that community. To leverage their programming to create a niche social network around each show. But what happens when there are thousands of decently produced video shows that all have vertical community websites?

That is when the networks wake up to a very harsh reality. While they’re dealing with pissed off shareholders, dissatisfied advertisers and complex legal issues related to royalties to their actors, writers and other production staff who will undoubtebly demand a piece of the new media revenue pie, nimble, web based video start ups will be eating their proverbial lunch.

For the networks this won’t unfold like a soap opera, it will unfold like Faces of Death.

November 28th, 2006 at 7:37 am

I loved the reference to the vloggies that PodTech put on. When you see the level of professional video blogging you know it’s for real. Tv is dead.

November 28th, 2006 at 8:01 am

Maybe TV is not dead, it is converging with broadband delivery…it is old wine in a new bottle the Web 2.0 team wanted..

November 28th, 2006 at 10:13 am

“First of all, Tivo has effectively destroyed the network TV advertising revenue model…Advertisers cannot justify paying the current ad placement prices in a Tivo world. ”

That’s funny. Last time I checked there were still advertisers paying big bucks to advertise on TV. Not everyone has a Tivo, and every ad hasn’t suddenly been blocked.

“Why? because the production costs to produce a pretty professional looking program are now virtually nothing. A video camera, A Mac and some pirated software. All stuff that many, many people have. And when online revenue models become solidified they will all want to become the next RocketBoom. The next Congdon, The next Scoble, The next Web Superstar!”

The idea that it costs virtually nothing to produce a professional-looking program is pure BS. When somebody produces the next Lost or Prison Break on $1000 let me know. Rocketboom is/was a decent effort as far as vlogs go, but I would love to sit 100 average Americans down in front of a TV and have them watch an episode of Rocketboom (3 minutes long) versus a full 30 minute show produced by a television/cable company. Which one do you think will be more popular? It’s quite amusing to see people who have no idea what it costs, both in terms of money, man-power, etc. to produce a television/cable show.

Secondly, you don’t seem to recognize that web superstars have been, and will continue to be, recruited and signed up by traditional talent agencies and television/cable networks. You mention that people want to be the next Congdon and she has now crossed over from her status as web star to deals with HBO, ABC News, etc. Why? Those (dead) companies can pay more money than AdSense or Revver. And the television/cable companies, contrary to your belief, have the resources (financial, staffing, equipment) required to create the truly high-quality productions that you just don’t find being made by your Average Joe on YouTube. I would venture to say that a significant number of web video producers out there are specifically looking to use web video as a platform to hopefully get themselves a deal in Hollywood. And many of those who aren’t would probably take the money quite willingly if the opportunity is given to them.

“As shows like Galacticast, Rocketboom and TreehuggerTV emerge on an almost daily basis (2007 should be an absolutaly insane year for radically new webisode podcasts/video shows) you are going to gradually see programming better reflect our diverse, constantly changing American culture.”

At best, some of these shows will gain a decent niche audience and find a way to make some money. Those that do are targets for “acquisition” by the television/cable companies. If Viacom comes along and is willing to pay you six or seven figures and can make you a star in Hollywood, most people will jump at the opportunity. Most vlogs, however, like blogs, will be crap and never find an audience. They will disappear because nobody is watching and there is no money being made to sustain the production efforts and costs.

The other point you have not really addressed is monetization. This is key, whether you’re a vlog or a television/cable company. There are a few points here:

- Major advertisers need major audiences. A vlog that has even 10,000 viewers is not going to appeal to the advertisers that need to generate tens of millions in revenues just to have a noticable impact on the bottom line. As such, I doubt that we’ll see any homegrown vlog that commands the same type of premium advertisers are willing to pay for American Idol or the Superbowl, at least anytime soon. And do not expect major advertisers to do 1,000 $5,000 deals with 1,000 relatively small vlogs. These advertisers are in the business of minimizing the number of relationships they have to manage and getting large audiences with as few ad buys as possible.

- If people don’t want to watch ads, this is a problem that will affect vloggers as well as television/cable companies. Americans want to have their cake and eat it too. We want to watch American Idol, Lost, Prison Break, the football game, etc. but we don’t want to watch the ads that subsidize the production of the content. We apparently lack the ability to recognize that if the producers of goods and services are not compensated appropriately for the production of those goods and services, its becomes unlikely that they will continue to produce them. While I’m oversimplifying it a bit, this same type of attitude has already played a crucial role in the destruction of the American manufacturing industry. We want goods as cheaply as possible and will cannibalize our own nation’s industries to get those goods cheaper. Obviously there are a lot of contributing factors that could be blamed (pensions, insurance costs, medical costs, labor unions, etc.), but the point I’m trying to make is that very few people here seem to be asking the question “What makes sense for us economically?” If you love The Daily Show, for instance, it’s in your best interest to find some way to make sure that you’re not cutting out the economic incentive Comedy Central/Viacom has to produce it.

I think it’d be great to come back to this issue one year from now and see how things have panned out:

- Are the television/cable companies still around and making money?
- Have services like GooTube effectively monetized? If they have, the television/cable companies are getting a share of the revenues.
- How many vlogs have emerged? What are the audiences of the top 10 and how do those numbers compare to the top 10 television/cable shows? Who is advertising on them? How is the advertising being done?
- How many web stars have been signed by Hollywood agents and/or “sell out” to a studio?
- How has the legal situation developed? As you know, there are a number of lawsuits which could literally put GooTube et. al. out of business.
- Is any online video company able to get a sweetheart deal with television/cable companies where the television/cable companies actually pay them for distribution?

I’m officially on the record as stating that television/cable companies have a lot of adapting to do, but will a) still be around and making good money, b) producing the most popular content and c) signing up many of the best web talent that emerges. The “television is dead” extremists seem be on the record as stating that television/cable advertising dollars will dry up, television/cable companies will start going bankrupt and that vlogs will overtake the mainstream popularity of Hollywood shows. We shall see, won’t we? December 1, 2007.

November 28th, 2006 at 12:40 pm

man..you guys writing essays on this topic how do find the time to watch tv

November 28th, 2006 at 1:45 pm

My concern with IPTV is that it is not an internet solution, it is an IP solution. IPTV requires a middle-man to negotiate deals with producers, aggregate content at a head-end, strikes deals with ISPs etc etc. This may be necessary now for VOD because of the huge bandwidth requirements of streaming HDTV, but it is not necessary for the offline DVR model. Without a true internet solution of delivery content will continue to reflect the tame and homogenous tastes of mainstream media and advertisers.

But internet solutions requires open standards. Are there open standards bodies which set-top box manufactures are turning to for internet connectivity, or is it Gold Rush 2.0?

As for reconciling the ad model with DVRs, I envision standards that allow for a tiered model of delivery: fee-based without ads, and free with ads and with markers disallowing fast-forwarding through commercials.

In the end, I don’t see IPTV VOD and DVRs in competition, because the DVR can always assimiliate what is thrown at it while integrating true internet video.

November 28th, 2006 at 6:01 pm

Drama..Jughead..Dudes, you’ve got something to say. On TV!. How about a debate? We’ll stream it….if we can put you guys in the same time zone. Lemme know. We can stream you (and anyone else) for “almost” free at gridfold.com.

December 1st, 2006 at 6:42 am

http://www.joshrussell.com/200.....-kills-tv/

Myself and Josh were one step ahead then