- Nov 6, 2005
- 20,984
- 3
- 0
I ran across the following on the NYT website, and I find its message perhaps right, but hope fully wrong.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02...s/media/28network.html
I personally would argue it could pave the way for a new rebirth of broadcast television, especially during tough economic times.
Because before the digital television transition, television NETWORKS could offer one and only one piece of programming in a given time slot. And because the advertising driven revenue stream that kept them in business depended on user ratings, it tended
to drive all programming to a lowest lowbrow common denominator. One either had a run away hit, or the network was in second, third, or a lower place that commanded even lower advertising revenues. Occasionally, one might get something, IMHO, descent, a 60 minutes, or a All in the Family, but by in large, one gets mindless drivel,
and fail to cater to the lowbrow tastes of the vast majority of the American people, and that network that dares offer something of quality, and that network is going to be in second, third, or an even lower place in the rating.
But the new joker in the deck is the digital television transition. In my case, I am in a medium sized market, and in analog over the air mode, I could get a fairly clear CBS, NBC, ABC, PBS, Fox, and a few other networks in lesser quality. Were I in a major market, I would just have more overlap, and would have the choice of watching the exactly same Network drivel, on two, three, or more given stations.
But now that we soon have a total digital television, every television station can now opt to offer the same network fare in super high definition, plus offer up to five other totally different multicast programs on its sidebands. All of which, can generate additional advertising revenue. And suddenly, over the air programming, which is free, directly competes with satellite, cable, and other forms of paid broadcasting. Of course the downside risk is always 500 channels and nothing on,
but it also offers the networks a chance to cater to all tastes. And Tivo, VCR's, and blueray recording not withstanding, by in large, the TV listener can watch one and only one program at a given time. In my case, thus far, I get a pile of additional religious based programming, quite a few 24/7 weather radars, and news more customized to only local content, but only one extra PBS option. And as time goes on, I expect there will be more informercials aired. Hopefully the FCC will limit to one or two, the number of informercials any one station can offer at a time.
In my case, I used to have the DISH Satellite TV, but dropped it when the price kept going up, and the quality stayed the same or went down. The only thing I miss are CNN, the science channel, and the history channel, and not the other 57 channels of mindless drivel I was forced to buy in a package. And since Dish does not offer any custom choices, I just flat out refuse to pay their prices. And since the internet competes for my free time hours, I am less dependent on television.
IMHO, the quality future of over the air broadcasts can be greatly influenced by an FCC that demands that networks act in the public interests. And start offering those other choices that keep everyone happier. And since even drivel can cost 3 million an hour to produce, surely broadcast television can offer 1-2 million per hour to air something like the science channel, the history channel, and CNN to the masses for free, while they reap that advertising benefits to pay for it. And at the same time, reap the low brow advertising bucks on other sidebands.
With the right FCC and major network decisions, it could be the cable and satellite TV industry that has the unsustainable model.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02...s/media/28network.html
I personally would argue it could pave the way for a new rebirth of broadcast television, especially during tough economic times.
Because before the digital television transition, television NETWORKS could offer one and only one piece of programming in a given time slot. And because the advertising driven revenue stream that kept them in business depended on user ratings, it tended
to drive all programming to a lowest lowbrow common denominator. One either had a run away hit, or the network was in second, third, or a lower place that commanded even lower advertising revenues. Occasionally, one might get something, IMHO, descent, a 60 minutes, or a All in the Family, but by in large, one gets mindless drivel,
and fail to cater to the lowbrow tastes of the vast majority of the American people, and that network that dares offer something of quality, and that network is going to be in second, third, or an even lower place in the rating.
But the new joker in the deck is the digital television transition. In my case, I am in a medium sized market, and in analog over the air mode, I could get a fairly clear CBS, NBC, ABC, PBS, Fox, and a few other networks in lesser quality. Were I in a major market, I would just have more overlap, and would have the choice of watching the exactly same Network drivel, on two, three, or more given stations.
But now that we soon have a total digital television, every television station can now opt to offer the same network fare in super high definition, plus offer up to five other totally different multicast programs on its sidebands. All of which, can generate additional advertising revenue. And suddenly, over the air programming, which is free, directly competes with satellite, cable, and other forms of paid broadcasting. Of course the downside risk is always 500 channels and nothing on,
but it also offers the networks a chance to cater to all tastes. And Tivo, VCR's, and blueray recording not withstanding, by in large, the TV listener can watch one and only one program at a given time. In my case, thus far, I get a pile of additional religious based programming, quite a few 24/7 weather radars, and news more customized to only local content, but only one extra PBS option. And as time goes on, I expect there will be more informercials aired. Hopefully the FCC will limit to one or two, the number of informercials any one station can offer at a time.
In my case, I used to have the DISH Satellite TV, but dropped it when the price kept going up, and the quality stayed the same or went down. The only thing I miss are CNN, the science channel, and the history channel, and not the other 57 channels of mindless drivel I was forced to buy in a package. And since Dish does not offer any custom choices, I just flat out refuse to pay their prices. And since the internet competes for my free time hours, I am less dependent on television.
IMHO, the quality future of over the air broadcasts can be greatly influenced by an FCC that demands that networks act in the public interests. And start offering those other choices that keep everyone happier. And since even drivel can cost 3 million an hour to produce, surely broadcast television can offer 1-2 million per hour to air something like the science channel, the history channel, and CNN to the masses for free, while they reap that advertising benefits to pay for it. And at the same time, reap the low brow advertising bucks on other sidebands.
With the right FCC and major network decisions, it could be the cable and satellite TV industry that has the unsustainable model.
Facebook
Twitter