5 ms·

TV still has plenty of life in it. Be careful of those graphs with a non-zero y-axis minimum. But there is a shift happening. The biggest question to me is whe

by chaz 13y ago

TV still has plenty of life in it. Be careful of those graphs with a non-zero y-axis minimum. But there is a shift happening. The biggest question to me is whether brand advertising dollars are/can/will shift with it. We need new ad products. Especially ones that will reach younger audiences who avoid current ad products. Maybe opportunities for Snapchat/Twitter. Also, content production is going to see some challenges without large amounts of ads to support it. I think there's still --on average -- a big gap in budget, revenue, audience, and quality between successful online-only shows better suited for YouTube and near-filler content on niche cable networks that have managed to stay alive with advertising. Cost of content production is still quite expensive. House of Cards had a $100 million budget to produce 13 episodes. Shows need a lot of audience to make the numbers work, and I'm hoping we see some acceleration here.

hrkristian 13y ago
Question is, at what point does traditional TV channels become so unpopular that they're simply not worth operating anymore? Perhaps the better question is, when does traditional TV become so unpopular those satellites taking up geosynchronous orbit space get dumped into the oceans?
- spiritplumber 13y ago
  Roughly never -- the satellites would just be repurposed. Sending mass to geostationary is EXPENSIVE. Like, 100k$/kilogram.
  - gibybo 13y ago
    I've been wondering what Direct TV will do with its satellites in 10-20 years when it doesn't make sense to use them for TV anymore. I haven't been able to imagine any significant uses, have you? There's weather services (for ships and aircraft outside of ground station range), radio (but this is really niche), high latency internet (for, say, cruise ships), maybe some other small niche services. But what's going to replace the $30 billion in revenue they get from TV subscriptions today? Who is going to buy their multi-billion dollar satellite fleet?
    - BrandonMarc 13y ago
      Google
      - gibybo 13y ago
        What would Google do with them?
        edraferi 13y ago
        Watch you. All the time. From Google SkyNet.
        spiritplumber 13y ago
        Joke is on them, I am not wearing pants.
    - PhantomGremlin 13y ago
      Direct TV's current satellites won't last another 10 or 20 years. They are constantly replacing them with newer technology. I don't think things are as dire as you suggest, but worst-case DTV simply won't replace the satellites as they wear out. Orbital slots are valuable, but I don't think those are actually owned by DTV. If they're not using a slot, then someone else is free to ask the FCC for it. Which means that it behooves DTV to find something else to do with the slot. E.g. Internet.
      - gibybo 13y ago
        >Which means that it behooves DTV to find something else to do with the slot. E.g. Internet. Internet access is not very well suited to geosynchronous satellite orbits due to the high latency and limited bandwidth available.
InclinedPlane 13y ago
Much of this is true, but I think it's important not to look at the differences just through a lens of production values. Even worse to equation production values with merit or quality of the end product. There have been several low budget films and tv shows that have become highly successful and well regarded, the same is and will be true in the online realm. Look at Mad Max, which was made for around a third of a million dollars, Primer, or Napoleon Dynamite. But also it's not just production value or even quality but fundamental differences in character. TV was a different sort of beast than film, and even over the last decade commercial TV has changed a lot. Look at all of the independent content that sprang up on non-network TV channels, especially from HBO. A show like The Wire, or even more so The Corner, was very unlikely to ever be made within the confines of traditional network TV. TV has a different sort of character than film in terms of the sorts of productions that are suited for TV, and online video is different as well, but we haven't seen all of the ways that's so. One example I'd highlight is the Lizzie Bennet diaries, a modern adaptation of Jane Austen's Pride and Prejudice in vlog form of over 100 "episodes" of typical youtube length (~3-5 minutes). Another example would be Periodic Videos (and related projects). These are educational videos about chemistry but because they don't have the length limits or requirements of traditional TV they can be focused on a single subject without being forced to add in unrelated filler. Or, there's Lindybeige, who's likes to talk about medieval, classical, and bronze age technology and weapons. It's just a guy expressing his opinions and trying to back them up with experience or logic but it's frequently just as informative and interesting as watching a typical historical tv show.
majani 13y ago
I think the native advertising trend is taking care of the awful advertising problem. Ads that look and feel just like the product are way more palatable than banners. Only problem now is scaling native ads. The opportunity here is for a native ad network that can work with most of the top Content Management systems of the world
- vitd 13y ago
  I disagree. Native ads are extremely cynical and turn off users more than regular ads, which at least have the dignity to admit that they are ads. They're far less palatable (which is pretty amazing) because they seem so forced. They're like the uncanny valley of ads. They look close to the real thing, but something is so off it's creepy.
dinkumthinkum 13y ago
You mean YouTube shows like Difranco's aren't poised to destroy "evil traditional media?"
cylinder 13y ago
TV is in its heyday. Dramas are at the highest quality they've ever been. The protocol, cable (and satellite), is dying. Almost nobody in my age range, or younger (late 20s), has cable. Everyone has Netflix along with some other streaming services combined with iTunes purchases and such. If you want to watch live sports, the NFL is free over the air, you'll just miss out on the NBA (oh well). Cable television has no reason to exist. Get rid of it and use the bandwidth for streaming. I just bought a TV after not having one for half a year, and briefly considered getting Time Warner. After seeing what they charge for the basic service, along with $16/month for the "equipment rental," why would I bother? Life is better without cable anyways, the garbage on there just stresses me out and makes me hate our society! You do not need CNN, my life is so peaceful not knowing what their talking heads are spewing off about.
- eropple 13y ago
  > Almost nobody in my age range, or younger (late 20s), has cable. Are you sure that's not just selection bias? I'm 25 and almost everybody I know around my age does have cable. Some are sports fans (and you miss out on much of MLB, the NBA, and the NHL by cutting cable--the streaming prices for each are extortionate and there are cable-area blackouts for local games), some just really can't be bothered to put up with the delays to get to Netflix or other streaming solutions (for many there is a strong social component to being able to see, and discuss, television programs simultaneously with your peers).

by chaz 13y ago

hrkristian 13y ago

Question is, at what point does traditional TV channels become so unpopular that they're simply not worth operating anymore? Perhaps the better question is, when does traditional TV become so unpopular those satellites taking up geosynchronous orbit space get dumped into the oceans?

spiritplumber 13y ago
Roughly never -- the satellites would just be repurposed. Sending mass to geostationary is EXPENSIVE. Like, 100k$/kilogram.
- gibybo 13y ago
  I've been wondering what Direct TV will do with its satellites in 10-20 years when it doesn't make sense to use them for TV anymore. I haven't been able to imagine any significant uses, have you? There's weather services (for ships and aircraft outside of ground station range), radio (but this is really niche), high latency internet (for, say, cruise ships), maybe some other small niche services. But what's going to replace the $30 billion in revenue they get from TV subscriptions today? Who is going to buy their multi-billion dollar satellite fleet?
  - BrandonMarc 13y ago
    Google
    - gibybo 13y ago
      What would Google do with them?
      - edraferi 13y ago
        Watch you. All the time. From Google SkyNet.
        spiritplumber 13y ago
        Joke is on them, I am not wearing pants.
  - PhantomGremlin 13y ago
    Direct TV's current satellites won't last another 10 or 20 years. They are constantly replacing them with newer technology. I don't think things are as dire as you suggest, but worst-case DTV simply won't replace the satellites as they wear out. Orbital slots are valuable, but I don't think those are actually owned by DTV. If they're not using a slot, then someone else is free to ask the FCC for it. Which means that it behooves DTV to find something else to do with the slot. E.g. Internet.
    - gibybo 13y ago
      >Which means that it behooves DTV to find something else to do with the slot. E.g. Internet. Internet access is not very well suited to geosynchronous satellite orbits due to the high latency and limited bandwidth available.

InclinedPlane 13y ago

Much of this is true, but I think it's important not to look at the differences just through a lens of production values. Even worse to equation production values with merit or quality of the end product. There have been several low budget films and tv shows that have become highly successful and well regarded, the same is and will be true in the online realm. Look at Mad Max, which was made for around a third of a million dollars, Primer, or Napoleon Dynamite. But also it's not just production value or even quality but fundamental differences in character. TV was a different sort of beast than film, and even over the last decade commercial TV has changed a lot. Look at all of the independent content that sprang up on non-network TV channels, especially from HBO. A show like The Wire, or even more so The Corner, was very unlikely to ever be made within the confines of traditional network TV. TV has a different sort of character than film in terms of the sorts of productions that are suited for TV, and online video is different as well, but we haven't seen all of the ways that's so. One example I'd highlight is the Lizzie Bennet diaries, a modern adaptation of Jane Austen's Pride and Prejudice in vlog form of over 100 "episodes" of typical youtube length (~3-5 minutes). Another example would be Periodic Videos (and related projects). These are educational videos about chemistry but because they don't have the length limits or requirements of traditional TV they can be focused on a single subject without being forced to add in unrelated filler. Or, there's Lindybeige, who's likes to talk about medieval, classical, and bronze age technology and weapons. It's just a guy expressing his opinions and trying to back them up with experience or logic but it's frequently just as informative and interesting as watching a typical historical tv show.

majani 13y ago

I think the native advertising trend is taking care of the awful advertising problem. Ads that look and feel just like the product are way more palatable than banners. Only problem now is scaling native ads. The opportunity here is for a native ad network that can work with most of the top Content Management systems of the world

vitd 13y ago
I disagree. Native ads are extremely cynical and turn off users more than regular ads, which at least have the dignity to admit that they are ads. They're far less palatable (which is pretty amazing) because they seem so forced. They're like the uncanny valley of ads. They look close to the real thing, but something is so off it's creepy.

dinkumthinkum 13y ago

You mean YouTube shows like Difranco's aren't poised to destroy "evil traditional media?"

cylinder 13y ago

TV is in its heyday. Dramas are at the highest quality they've ever been. The protocol, cable (and satellite), is dying. Almost nobody in my age range, or younger (late 20s), has cable. Everyone has Netflix along with some other streaming services combined with iTunes purchases and such. If you want to watch live sports, the NFL is free over the air, you'll just miss out on the NBA (oh well). Cable television has no reason to exist. Get rid of it and use the bandwidth for streaming. I just bought a TV after not having one for half a year, and briefly considered getting Time Warner. After seeing what they charge for the basic service, along with $16/month for the "equipment rental," why would I bother? Life is better without cable anyways, the garbage on there just stresses me out and makes me hate our society! You do not need CNN, my life is so peaceful not knowing what their talking heads are spewing off about.

eropple 13y ago
> Almost nobody in my age range, or younger (late 20s), has cable. Are you sure that's not just selection bias? I'm 25 and almost everybody I know around my age does have cable. Some are sports fans (and you miss out on much of MLB, the NBA, and the NHL by cutting cable--the streaming prices for each are extortionate and there are cable-area blackouts for local games), some just really can't be bothered to put up with the delays to get to Netflix or other streaming solutions (for many there is a strong social component to being able to see, and discuss, television programs simultaneously with your peers).