Slashdot Mirror
How Television Is Fighting Off the Internet
HughPickens.com writes: Michael Wolff writes in the NY Times that online-media revolutionaries once figured they could eat TV's lunch by stealing TV's business model with free content supported by advertising. But online media is now drowning in free, and internet traffic has glutted the ad market, forcing down rates. Digital publishers, from The Guardian to BuzzFeed, can stay ahead only by chasing more traffic — not loyal readers, but millions of passing eyeballs, so fleeting that advertisers naturally pay less and less for them. Meanwhile, the television industry has been steadily weaning itself off advertising — like an addict in recovery, starting a new life built on fees from cable providers and all those monthly credit-card debits from consumers. Today, half of broadcast and cable's income is non-advertising based. And since adult household members pay the cable bills, TV content has to be grown-up content: "The Sopranos," "Mad Men," "Breaking Bad," "The Wire," "The Good Wife."
So how did this tired, postwar technology seize back the crown? Television, not digital media, is mastering the model of the future: Make 'em pay. And the corollary: Make a product that they'll pay for. BuzzFeed has only its traffic to sell — and can only sell it once. Television shows can be sold again and again, with streaming now a third leg to broadcast and cable, offering a vast new market for licensing and syndication. Television is colonizing the Internet and people still spend more time watching television than they do on the Internet and more time on the Internet watching television. "The fundamental recipe for media success, in other words, is the same as it used to be," concludes Wolff, "a premium product that people pay attention to and pay money for. Credit cards, not eyeballs."
So how did this tired, postwar technology seize back the crown? Television, not digital media, is mastering the model of the future: Make 'em pay. And the corollary: Make a product that they'll pay for. BuzzFeed has only its traffic to sell — and can only sell it once. Television shows can be sold again and again, with streaming now a third leg to broadcast and cable, offering a vast new market for licensing and syndication. Television is colonizing the Internet and people still spend more time watching television than they do on the Internet and more time on the Internet watching television. "The fundamental recipe for media success, in other words, is the same as it used to be," concludes Wolff, "a premium product that people pay attention to and pay money for. Credit cards, not eyeballs."
Hulu + isn't free, and neither is cable or satellite television. I don't mind paying for content I want, but I don't want to pay and be forced to sit through tons of commercials. Providers, make your pick. If I'm paying, layoff the adverts. If it's free, then feel free to load it up with advertising, but I'm much more likely to turn it off or install an ad-blocker.
Ever since cutting the cord two years ago its amazing how much extra time I have per day and now more alive you feel not watching tv. Now I haven't gotten rid of it all yet, still have Netflix and we watch a few Star Trek episodes at night but the medium no longer controls out lives. Now internet had eaten up quite a bit of my life but that is one more thing I'm slowly removing also.
by TheSpoom (715771) Uncaring Linux user here. I have nothing to add to this but please continue. *munches popcorn*
It's always comes down to the same thing. If you want people to get your product, make a damn good product. Some things will naturally be a fad, but will fade away. Lasting revenue is based on making something people actually want/need. For so long, many networks have been shoveling our crap content - now that there are ways to view exactly what you want, they have the incentive to make something you really want.
...many years ago, we were told, "in the future, you will pay for TV". And we said "WHAT!? We get it for free, off our antenna now!" And they said, "but since you will pay for TV, there won't be any need for advertising." Many years later, I am paying for TV, PLUS, getting ads that run across the screen all the time. It it any wonder I am feeling ripped off? Oh yes... I think these were the same people who said, "we will put catalytic converters on cars. it will cost more, but they will convert the noxious fumes into harmless water and carbon dioxide." So years later, we are, indeed paying more, PLUS being clobbered by the "carbon crisis"
He's not really using his terms very well. He seems to be defining Netflix and Hulu as primarily television companies as opposed to internet companies. He says so at this point:
Netflix bills itself as a disrupter of television - except that it is television, paying Hollywood and the TV industry almost $2 billion a year in licensing and programming fees.
You can certainly make an argument for that. They are certainly a blend of the two. His argument is really much more about subscription services versus ad-supported services.
The subscriber base is ratcheting down.
The only thing keeping the cable model going at this point is sports.
That's it. And the instant the sports leagues think they can make as much money on line... cable is done.
Would you pay a 100 dollars a year for access to every NFL game streamed to your machine of choice? A lot of people would.
Total up the sports leagues people care about... football, basketball, soccer if you swing that way... Its a finite number of leagues that people care about and you could charge 10 bucks a month for access, discounting for a yearly subscription, and maybe throw in minor leagues of the same sport. So the NFL package gets you all the college games etc.
Its entirely viable. And if that means no blackouts and the ability to watch the games on your smartphone or tablet... Sure, there is sling boxes and some cable services let you stream anything to your devices. But the underlying problem with cable is that it isn't fully a la carte. And until it is... there's going to be a problem.
The vast majority of what people pay for with their cable package is something they have zero interest in watching. None.
We're spending a lot of money on other things besides our cable now as well. We've got all these new streaming services. And on top of that the cable bills have gone up.
Something has to give there. The reality is that people tend to prefer netflix for general entertainment programming... the only edge cable has is the dubious value of cable news stations and sports.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
Why would you be willing to pay that much to watch a bunch of sweaty men running around hitting a rubber sphere with their feet? How can that be so entertaining you'd pay $100/month? I understand how sports can be fun for the players, I just don't get people paying money to watch others play them.
The thing people are avoiding isn't "television" (video dramas, comedies, etc). The thing people are starting to avoid is "television" (getting those shows via cable companies). I don't think any predicted the death of video as a form of entertainment.
The ideal situation is for all the content creators, to still make their content, but sell it to the public over the internet, bypassing the cable companies. It is the cable companies that need to die (or just be relegated to being ISPs). They just aren't up to the task of delivering media in the 21st century. They have stopped being a distribution channel and more of a gatekeeper for old people who can't use the internet.