Are companies going to pay enough for advertisements that they KNOW MOST people are going to skip? Enough to say finance a whole TV show? Also, is streaming video really a "quality format"? Is everyone going to be content with watching tv shows on a small computer screen especially when HD is becoming so bid and people want their TV big and in good quality?
I don't think you're wrong though, the market seems to be drifting toward more control in TV and all media, but I don't see TV as we know it dying out any time in the forseeable future. The music industry is in much bigger trouble. You'll see CDs die out long before you see scheduled programming die out. I personally don't watch TV streaming on the internet because I want to watch it on my TV. Perhaps a subscription service, kind of like an ON Demand service but for ALL shows instead of just some is more likely to come in the near future. TV shows aren't free to make and I just don't think companies will pay big bucks for ads people won't watch. People are predicting a similar thing about CDs, They will die out and there will be a subscription service for music. Personally, I hope they're wrong because I love physical product, but perhaps all media is drifting that way. Sorry for not being very coherent.
Also, buy records, please.
Hugz 'n' kissiz,
Sean
8 comments:
No, no.
The way ABC's player works is that you can't skip the commercials. But there are only four or five of them and they last thirty second each. The cool thing is that they're interactive - games, videos, reminding you to order a pizza at Papa John's and link to do it online.
The ads are really effective, I think and easier to track, since you can tell who clicked, who played the games, who ordered pizza, etc.
Also a) ABC's player is in HD and you can play it on full-screen mode. Plus if you could DL the epised to your comp you could hook them up to your big TV and watch them there - except whenever you wanted.
Yeah, but who wants to go through all that?
I mean I think your idea is right, but I think they'll probably cut out the middle man of the computer and have it straight to the TV and also I don't think people in general will give up watching real TV. And I don't know about you, but I generally just ignore ads on the computer even if I have to watch them. Maybe that's just me.
The real goal for most company's is integration, ultimately. Media in general is becoming much more similar and congruent between different end systems (TV versus computer, etc), and on-demand features are definitely the future - whether accessed from a TV or from the internet.
Normal broadcast schedules aren't likely to disappear any time soon, even with online viewing, especially when you take into account how many people have televisions (98% of Americans have at least one) as opposed to high speed internet (around 21% of Americans), which is really necessary to take advantage of internet broadcasts.
Some of the major broadcast channels are scrambling to have some sort of online-access to shows because they've done a poor job adapting to a changing market. Despite major changes in connectivity and global mindset, most networks are offering essentially the same content they were 40 years ago - and similar to the MPAA and RIAA are wondering why there once captive audience is no longer will to pay for the same service.
Like other sean said, internet broadcasts aren't likely to become mainstream simply because the social norm of sitting in front of a TV is already too ingrained in our society. You might argue that internet TV's might change all of that, but simply put it's not practical for viewing because there are too many random variables: network connectivity, video codecs, server volume, etc. The big advantage cable companies have in distribution is proprietary systems to ensure quality.
Having streaming media for consumers might be a nice gesture by broadcast companies, and an attempt for them to try and squeeze a few more dollars in add revenue, but the overall costs of widespread distribution wouldn't make it terribly profitable in most cases.
I digress, but if firms really want to try and keep up with the times they should focus more on altering their pay-out structure for writers and such to promote quality products and cut some of the outrageous overheads in paying executives and actors ($500k an episode for a lead actor, but only $80k a year for the dude writing his scripts? That's just not right). On that topic if the Writer's Guild's strike happens next week I'm going to be a sad panda...no office and no scrubs...doesn't bear thinking about.
Ha! So I totally ignored almost everything you've both said on your respective blogs and just had my own little rant. Go me.
tangent - ashe I'm kinda interested why your invention train of thought went "lightbulb, airplane, NUCLEAR WEAPON!!!"
hey sean,
i want to buy records as you so often suggest, but can you recommend some that lean more toward MY musical preferences?
this has NOTHING to do with what you guys are talking about. but in response to what ashe said, because of streaming video, i was able to see ME ON TV! thanks, ABC!
in other news, there are rats in the loveshack.
snugz
Sure Keri, you can buy The Secret Handshake, Cobra Starship, or anything else. Buy whatever you like, anything except Soulja Boy.
actually, soulja is borderline allowed as long as it's the travis barker remix; because then all you hear is him drumming and it might as well be a different song entirely.
tangent, sean have you heard anything about when the next cure cd is coming up? anticipation is killing me.
last I heard was April/May 2008
Post a Comment