Locals better prepare for ‘perfect storm’ of web video
Steve Safran September 18th, 2006
TVs are coming out next year with broadband connections. The final excuse in old TV’s arsenal is gone: people will be watching video from the web on their televisions. Bafflingly, the naysaying continues. LR Pal Terry Heaton’s latest essay, Local Television’s Perfect Storm has the facts and insight on this. Small cameras, cheaper production, decentralized advertising and viral video are coming to the television. Writes Heaton: “2007 will likely be an awful year for local broadcasters. National business is going away at an accelerating pace. Network compensation is all but gone. Stock prices continue to fall as investors’ nerves give way to full-blown panic attacks. Staffs are being cut, and there will be no election or Olympics to offset declining audience shares and sales. Some companies may not make it.” Are you ready? Do you have a strategy?
22 Comments Add your own
1. Troy | September 18th, 2006 at 10:12 am
And the beat goes on…broadcast is going to die a slow and painful death. However this next phase of TV technology will surely have the early adapters foaming at the mouth (whoops, just drooled on the keyboard) however, the very cool and exciting part for us electronics freaks and audiophiles will be the pleasure derived from plugging that new TV unit into the soon-to-be-released (shhh don’t tell anyone) Apple home media server… now that’s FRAGMENTATION BABY!
2. Jason | September 18th, 2006 at 10:42 am
I’m sure 2007 will be “awful.” If awful is defined as printing cash at a rate almost every other industry would be envious of.
3. Allen | September 18th, 2006 at 11:15 am
I live in a city where only 52% of the homes have cable and they are going to run out to get this? Will YouTube really look that much better on my tv set?
4. Z | September 18th, 2006 at 12:26 pm
That’s kinda my question too. An awful lot of Web video only looks okay on my 17-inch monitor. Am I really going to want to watch it on a 40-inch screen?
5. afm | September 18th, 2006 at 1:04 pm
The nay sayers seem to forget about streaming video all over the net. We all wonder who would watch a sports event on the little screen on the web when we can watch it on TV. Now we can get all of those streamed events to our TV.
I wouldn’t watch YouTube on my braodband TV but I might watch Australian Rules Football.
6. theminneapolischannel | September 18th, 2006 at 1:05 pm
i go back to the days when the original cell phone took up the space of a good size suitcase and a 5 minute call cost you $15…three minutes of which were static.
you guys have now lived through what technology can do but continue to question it.
safran only asked ” Do you had a strategy?”. if denial is a strategy then you guys are all set.
7. Allen | September 18th, 2006 at 1:29 pm
I don’t see the connection between cell phones getting smaller/better to people watching broadband on their tv sets.
I watch many videos on my computer, but feel no need to watch them on a 32″ screen. What do we need to do to get ready for this next great thing?
People thought satellite radio was the end of terrestrial radio too. Then again, I thought Betamax was better than VHS so what do I know?
8. Z | September 18th, 2006 at 2:01 pm
“The nay sayers seem to forget about streaming video all over the net. We all wonder who would watch a sports event on the little screen on the web when we can watch it on TV. Now we can get all of those streamed events to our TV.”
So you’d watch 640×480 video on a full-sized TV?
9. theminneapolischannel | September 18th, 2006 at 2:04 pm
z, you impress me as much smarter than that. (don’t get too excited, i’m easily impressed.)
what little software twist will it take to convert a format?
10. Troy | September 18th, 2006 at 2:26 pm
Just think about this broadband TV connection as a way to get information faster – like, I won’t need to walk to the back of my house and into my office just to just to check email or what have you – and I won’t be maximizing YouTube on my plasma, but I will like having a connection thru my TV, to my home network, family videos/pictures and pre-loaded music DVD’s in 5.1.
This technology is not aimed at signing up more cable subscribers; it’s about the continued consolidation and blurring of the PC and the TV. Oh, and being able to order a pizza thru it – commerce.
11. Anonymous | September 18th, 2006 at 2:31 pm
ahhh, porn and pizza.
and in that order too!
12. aidian | September 18th, 2006 at 2:47 pm
i don’t buy that the tv with broadband connection will provide the real tipping point.
The real ah-ha moment will be when we get “lean-forward” control easily available in our “lean-back” living rooms.
Two things for that to happen: bigger pipes (or distribution breakthrough) so we don’t HAVE to blow up 640×480 onto a 42 inch plasma, and an ipod/tivo/whatever to make it technophobe-friendly.
The thing is, if you wait until those technologies fully mature to have a plan, you’re done.
13. Allen | September 18th, 2006 at 3:17 pm
What sports is offered via broadband that we can’t already get thru cable or direct tv? Will email spam look that much better on a big screen?
By no means I’m I saying we should not be prepared for changes in technology, but to say this is “The Perfect Storm” seems like consultant hype to me.
14. theminneapolischannel | September 18th, 2006 at 3:29 pm
and your rebuttal of “consultant hype” seems like what?
denial might be a pretty strong word to use, but awfully close.
15. Ed | September 18th, 2006 at 3:37 pm
Allen -
you’re kidding, right?
First, you wouldn’t have to get cable or satellite.
Second, how about hundreds of sporting events from different countries. How about auto racing other then Nascar, when I want it, without halfwit US commentary over the top of it. How about soccer?
-=-=-=
Z - “So you’d watch 640×480 video on a full-sized TV?”
Geez, that’s what.. just slightly less then DVD resolution - especially if you take overscan into account? Compression’s come a long way, too, so the datarate isn’t that bad.
And, if its the only format you can get it in, then, yes, people will watch it.
I don’t seem to have any problems streaming HD quicktime trailers from apple over my cable-modem…
16. Cory | September 18th, 2006 at 4:49 pm
The issue isn’t whether people will want to watch random YouTube video on their TV sites — it’s that people will want to watch their FRIENDS AND FAMILY’S video on their TV sites.
This is about empowering anyone to shoot, edit, share and now seamlessly play video on their TV sets. The quality may suck, but imagine coming home to your TV, turning it on, and finding two new videos from your friends. Will you watch? Absolutely.
17. Allen | September 18th, 2006 at 4:53 pm
Yes, that seems like a cool thing, Cory, but do your friend and family produce that many videos to make it that worthwhile?
Hey, I’m addicted to my computer AND tv, so you’d think I’d be jumping up and down about this, but I’m not sold yet.
And as far as watching sports, just how much is that going to cost? Are we all really ready to spend that much money? I haven’t even bought an HDTV yet.
18. Steve Safran | September 18th, 2006 at 5:34 pm
This is another step toward non-networked television. There is no reason sports need to be on networks once broadband goes to the TV. MLB.com will simply stream MLB. NASCAR will be on NASCAR.com. Or a non-TV entity will buy the rights and stream the video from its site. (Michael Rosenblum posited this, and he’s right on.) Picture Bud.TV as the exclusive sponsor and host site of NASCAR. Or Coca Cola streaming sitcoms.
As with so many new concepts, this isn’t a “INSTEAD OF” so much as a “ALONG WITH” technology. New tech doesn’t usually kill the old tech, it changes the model.
No, broadband TV is not going to replace the channels — yet. But it is coming, it is happening and the smart people are preparing. That’s why we need Heaton - to tell us what’s on the horizon, and what’s here right now.
As Aidian put it so well up top - “if you wait until those technologies fully mature to have a plan, you’re done.”
Networks and channels are in place because of scarcity of distribution. Take that away, and then start thinking about the possibilities.
19. Allen | September 18th, 2006 at 6:05 pm
How exactly should local tv stations prepare for it then? By just offering a ton of content on their websites?
20. Z | September 19th, 2006 at 4:35 am
“z, you impress me as much smarter than that. (don’t get too excited, i’m easily impressed.)
what little software twist will it take to convert a format? ”
Actually, it was more about the pipelines involved in uploading larger high-quality video. If you’ve got an HDTV, you’re not going to want to watch poor-quality, pixelated video of a game. You’re going to want to watch something equivalent to what you see on cable or satellite or over the air.
21. afm | September 19th, 2006 at 4:10 pm
but cell phones have shown us that users are willing to accept degraded quality in exchange for access, speed and cost.
Agreed that a YouTube video or compressed stream might not be crisp and clean on the 40″ HD, but if it is the only way to get the content you want when you want it, you might just go for the degraded quality.
Or schedule it to your TIVO and wait until the higher quality download has completed.
22. Liey | January 18th, 2008 at 6:59 am
Wow, thanks for the excellent information!
Leave a Comment
(Please keep URLs out of the comment body or the spam filter will block you.)Trackback this post | Subscribe to the comments via RSS Feed