100% OT ( maybe ) Is TV Dead/Dying?

Grazie wrote on 11/8/2005, 10:33 PM

I just heard that advertising can now be "filtered-out" from programmes. Would this mean that the "traditional" revenue streams are drying up for the purposes of innovative and creative programme creation and accelerate the headlong rush towards even more TV pap? Can we see a time - not far in the future, if not already here, even more and more creative and further innovative expansion of web-based creative uploads? Personally I now KNOW this is happening, it is starting for me. . .

TV-ad streams > Internet Broad/Pod-casting "The King IS Dead . .. . Long Live the King!"

Same old . .same old . . .

Being able to use Vegas, and its "family" suite of software, I guess this wasn't "OT" after all!

Grazie


Comments

farss wrote on 11/8/2005, 10:48 PM
Mate of mine had an idea for an ad filter decases ago but we never persued the idea as back then there was nothing you could do about the ad being there apart from mute the audio and put something else on the screen.

I don't think however that it's just the ability to filter ads that's killing the business. The issue I think is too many choices. The Sunday night movies are gone from free to air down here, replaced with pulp, after all we all like to watch what we want when we want so no one was watching them so they got killed off.


The Sunday night movie was an event, we stopped whatever we were doing and watched it. Now we don't have to stop and watch it cause we can watch it anytime but I'd bet most of us never get around to it, too busy making movies of our own, that no one will ever get around to watching either! Replace that last bit with whatever the rest of the world finds as an excuse to avoid relaxing these days.

Bob.
Steve Mann wrote on 11/8/2005, 10:59 PM
"I just heard that advertising can now be "filtered-out" from programmes. "

Uh, this is news? Beyond TV has been doing this for a couple of years.

John Dvorack made a prediction in his column (PC Magazine) a few months ago when the ABC/Apple deal was just a rumor. He said that the networks are going to find more profits from selling programs without ads over the internet than they ever realize from ad-based programming.

Just like ipods and podcasting lets anyone set up an internet radio station, when people start downloading their TV programs, just think of the opportunities for us.

DrLumen wrote on 11/8/2005, 11:33 PM
It would be nice to have all video on demand but can you imagine all the DRM and MPAA/RIAA tirades... Not to mention that finding one rootkit was bad?! <shudders>

intel i-4790k / Asus Z97 Pro / 32GB Crucial RAM / Nvidia GTX 560Ti / 500GB Samsung SSD / 256 GB Samsung SSD / 2-WDC 4TB Black HDD's / 2-WDC 1TB HDD's / 2-HP 23" Monitors / Various MIDI gear, controllers and audio interfaces

JL wrote on 11/8/2005, 11:34 PM
“The King is dead. Long live the King.”

I for one say good riddance to the institution we have come to know as TV. I don’t know how it is in other countries but it’s claimed that the average American watches three hours of TV a day. In other words, by the time the average American reaches 50, he/she will have spent nine years of their life watching television. I guess they don’t call it the ‘boob tube’ for nothing.

JL

B.Verlik wrote on 11/9/2005, 1:08 AM
TV dead? No! There are too many idiots out there, that don't know how to do anything but sit and stare. They have no interest in hobbies, doing constructive work, even figuering out how to skip over commercials. TV has a long way to go.
Grazie wrote on 11/9/2005, 1:35 AM


Well, not wishing to be too unkind to myself - I don't do that very well anyway - I said I had just heard. Not that it was old or new NEWS. I had just heard/seen this on . . well . . the BBC ( ADVERT free) TV.

My musing was that of the - yes >50 year-old - bloke who sees the upcoming and to continuing upcoming value of the INTERNT for broadcasting.

The other thing that is worth more than a 5 minute "muse" is the accelerating convergence of TV and INTERNET.

Users have/are watching INTERNET on their lounge flatties. Very shortly I will be having my work SEEN in a lounge within walking distance of where I edit; by a person I don't know; affecting/creating another market base I wasn't aware of and potentially having another revenue stream I just could NOT have had even envisaged 5, 4, 3 years or even 12 months ago!

This is a truly exciting and opportunity-rich growth in our industry.

People? There just aint enough hours in the day now with what I'm feeling . . There is just so many opportunities and ways for us to be creative and interactive with our communities, both local and global, I sometimes can't sleep!

If I have done ANYTHING, here on our forums, I do hope some of my passion has infected others . . .

Grazie

RexA wrote on 11/9/2005, 2:11 AM
>> I don't think however that it's just the ability to filter ads that's killing the business. The issue I think is too many choices.
<<

Yes, too many choices and too little content. Seemed like a few years back the multiple cable channels actually had a few shows worth watching. There was a short period where your cable subscription actually precluded ads.

I admit I watch too much tv, but its getting hard to do since almost none of it is watchable now. I susbscribe to HBO cause I liked some of their shows like Sopranos and they had recent movies. Now it seems they have like two or three weeks of new semi-good original programming a year. All the stations show the same stuff over and over. ABC has a couple hit shows but they keep repeating during the short season.

HBO's selection of movies is horrible crap. They show the lowest common denominator over and over and if they have a good movie, you have to pay attention to catch it. After the holiday season I may drop HBO.

The last couple years are dreck, both for the networks and the other channels. I've been thinking that they are trying to break my tv addiction, and I think it is working.

Surely they could buy some independent movies, like ones I have seen recently, for little money and be way ahead of the crap they are broadcasting. However, even channels like Sundance or IFC can't seem to afford to buy new material.

Arrrg. How did it go so bad so fast? I guess all the channels trying to catch enough attention to survive has reduced it to the lowest common denominator. Its all about the money. Pretty soon all channels will be all boxing for sports and reality shows for the rest.

TheHappyFriar wrote on 11/9/2005, 5:30 AM
I saw last night that CBS & NBS are going to start selling their shows via on demand for $0.99. Ironic considering the networks were the ones in a hissy about giving people to much freedom with digital content in the first place. :/

Anyway, this is most likely one of those stats that's full of "hot air." Majority of pepole in the world don't have net access, yet from the sounds of it staticts would say otherwise. Now, majority of people aren't watching TV, yet there's more channels & TV distribution then ever. Go figure. :)
PumiceT wrote on 11/9/2005, 5:38 AM
I didn't see it mentioned here, but I could see commercials disappearing, and surprisingly bring us around 180° to the early days of television (radio, too) when shows would simply be sponsored by one major company. They'd get mentioned once in awhile, but nothing like the barrage of commercials we're slammed with now. I'd accept a logo in the corner for a sponsor, or if the show is letterboxed, perhaps a string of STATIONARY low-contrast logos top and bottom. Not much different than you'd see the score during a sporting event. It doesn't completely detract from the program. Once they start animating these logos, they'll get too distracting and demand too much attention. That's when we'll be here complaining again.

So, check this post in another few years, and let me know if I predicted anything correctly. :)
GenJerDan wrote on 11/9/2005, 6:10 AM
"Once they start animating these logos, they'll get too distracting and demand too much attention. That's when we'll be here complaining again."

Nah...that's when the gaffer tape comes out and we re-mask the TV. :)
RalphM wrote on 11/9/2005, 6:22 AM
500 Channels and nothing on...

Hate to give away my age, but I remember when the local TV station (WDTV -the Dumont TV network -in Pittsburgh, PA) did not begin broadcasting until 5PM. It was not long until it began at 12 noon.

There was only one station and we were glued to it. Some of the shows were locally produced and really corny, but they were fun (and maybe it was the novelty that kept us glued).
Shortly thereafter, more stations and 24 hour programming - mostly every old movie that could be found.

If this post has a point it would be that the more hours of content from multiple sources, the more mediocre the typical show becomes. Aside from cable channels like Discovery, the History Channel, the news channels, and the BBC comedy re-runs we get here, there's nothing on. (Sorry PBS - you garbage up the good stuff with your incessant fund raising commercials).

Rant over.
BrianStanding wrote on 11/9/2005, 8:35 AM
I know at least a dozen people in the past year who have cancelled their $80 a month digital cable TV service in favor of a $10 a month subscription to Netflix. With entire TV series seasons coming out on DVD so fast, its worth it to wait a bit. A lot of folks are also looking for a wider variety of offerings -- including independent works not available on broadcast or cable.

I think the whole "we're the broadcasters, so you'll watch what we give you" model is starting to fall apart. About time, too.
RexA wrote on 11/11/2005, 4:06 AM
>>Hate to give away my age, but I remember when the local TV station (WDTV -the Dumont TV network -in Pittsburgh, PA) did not begin broadcasting until 5PM. It was not long until it began at 12 noon.
<<

Ha ha. I grew up in Pgh. too and remember the time when there was only one channel. Thanks for reminding me. It was a big deal when the second channel started. Was it 4? PSB started early too.
RexA wrote on 11/11/2005, 4:08 AM
>>I know at least a dozen people in the past year who have cancelled their $80 a month digital cable TV service in favor of a $10 a month subscription to Netflix.
<<

I'm ignorant. What is Netflix?
Jay Gladwell wrote on 11/11/2005, 4:41 AM

See Netfilx.
Grazie wrote on 11/11/2005, 4:49 AM
We kinda got this with BLOCKBUSTER? - After all, this is only a delivery platform . . yeah? G
Jay Gladwell wrote on 11/11/2005, 6:39 AM

Yes, Blockbuster jumped on that band wagon. Actually, Netflix was the one that statred it all--mail-order movie rentals.


VOGuy wrote on 11/11/2005, 9:56 AM
CBS and NBC started in the late 20s - and 30s - It's complicated, but it's hard to define their actual starting dates due to ownership/name changes, etc. CBS was actually started 'cause a talent agent was ticked off at David Sarnoff - the head of RCA/NBC.

NBC owned two networks. In the mid 40s when the government decided that it was improper for one network to control too many stations (Times have changed!) it required NBC to divest one network, now known as ABC.

-Travis
RalphM wrote on 11/11/2005, 10:17 AM
For RexA, the fellow Pittsburgher

As I remember, Dumont first started on Channel 3, then moved to Channel 2. I think Ch4 was the next one added, but there was only one station in town for quite a while as I remember.


Erk wrote on 11/11/2005, 7:42 PM
>I know at least a dozen people in the past year who have cancelled their $80 a month digital cable TV service in favor of a $10 a month subscription to Netflix. With entire TV series seasons coming out on DVD so fast, its worth it to wait a bit.>

I for one understand this sentiment completely. My TV set is rapidly becoming merely a monitor for my DVD player. In addition to all the movies available at Netflix, my new slogan is "TV on DVD: the only way to fly." I never watched the X-Files when during the '90s, and only after it was cancelled, I happened to rent the first episodes on DVD. I was immediately hooked, and was able to watch all 9 seasons in a row, one after another, in great DVD quality, with no commercials. Now that's entertainment!

Speaking of the broader changes in our media landscape, another thing I'm noticing, again personally speaking, is my declining tolerance for not only commercial interruptions, but how cable news channels constantly flit back and forth from news I care about (politics) to crap I don't care about (this week's missing blond woman). Reading news and opinion on the web is so much more efficient, and now waiting around for a thimbleful at a time of this from CNN, Fox, whoever is just intolerable.

This all speaks to your point that "the whole 'we're the broadcasters, so you'll watch what we give you' model is starting to fall apart."

Oh, yeah, one more thing: when watching regular TV, I find myself reaching for that "rewind" button to an amusing degree...... and I ain't got no TiVo.....
fldave wrote on 11/11/2005, 8:00 PM
I keep reaching for the rewind button on regular TV too. Also, I'll be in my car and miss a comment on the radio. I then reach for the invisible remote to rewind to hear it again.

That's the next tech feature. Rewind radio.
Grazie wrote on 11/11/2005, 9:35 PM
We have this "rewind radio" on the web already. This would be a totally feasible install in a car - we have CD players why not ones whole collection on hard drive and a small portion of that small hd being used as a real-time "cache" - as far as I know not been done yet, but it has to be an executive feature on any good BMW or Lexus very soon! Don't you think? . . .there goes another patent!

Grazie
fldave wrote on 11/11/2005, 10:18 PM
Yes, A patent I don't own!
Grazie wrote on 11/11/2005, 11:05 PM
Dave? You think it would be feasible? - G