What happens when nobody needs a TV?
Cory Bergman February 17th, 2008
Last week, a Broadcasting & Cable editorial warned that TV newscasts could follow the way of the newspaper. This week, B&C’s Jennifer Yarter asks, “What happens when the web starts to replace the television?” Yarter said the catalyst of her column was a dinner with a group of tech-savvy 20-somethings who said they don’t watch TV or even subscribe to cable or satellite. They just watch whatever they want online. Yarter writes, “Most of these young adults are falling into a new territory of media consumption that could potentially eliminate the need for local television stations.”
Absolutely, and consider this: the only thing that most local TV stations produce is local news. Local TV news in its current form, when translated online, looks very similar to everyone else’s news. If it’s not truly original or unique, it’s a commodity (especially in aggregated environments). And as more people get their local news online instead of making an appointment to watch it on TV, revenue loss will accelerate. A solution here is to start producing original content that bridges platforms — that’s unique enough to not only to attract an audience but create fans. Fans are people who accept no substitutes. Can local TV news, by itself, create this kind of online loyalty? I don’t believe so. It will require new, innovative, locally-produced niche programming that spans TV, mobile and the web. In other words, a whole new approach. Similar to the newspapers, it will be a matter of survival.
22 Comments Add your own
1. Allen | February 17th, 2008 at 11:02 pm
She’s basing her whole article on dinner with a “group of tech-savvy 20-somethings”?
I didn’t watch a lot of tv when I was a “20-something” either. I can only remember a few shows that I found “appointment television”.
I continue to have a hard time believing people, especially those with families, will flock to their computers to watch tv shows, sporting events and movies. I know many people like myself that watch both tv and surf the net at the same time. I refuse to throw away my 42″ HDTV.
That said, stations do need to do more to attract audiences whatever way possible.
2. George | February 17th, 2008 at 11:16 pm
I’m 48, work in the TV industry and watch HALF of my TV viewing on my laptop or iPhone. The trend to online is happening quicker than I ever thought.
3. Garrett | February 18th, 2008 at 4:02 am
Me and my roommate just got rid of the television. Paying 55 bucks a month just wasn’t worth it when you’ve got joost or any of the other free online TV. Hook that up to a projector and you have one nice set up.
Believe it, people that know the practicality and ease of use of online television or downloading their favorite shows are making this kind of switch. I attend a school where football is huge, and that’s about the only time we ever have to go out to somewhere to watch local television.
4. Contrarian | February 18th, 2008 at 6:51 am
I guess people really don’t care about quality, because I have yet to see streaming video in any format that looks as good as an OTA HD signal does on a large HDTV screen.
5. mpc | February 18th, 2008 at 9:01 am
Joost? very slow and nothing is really available is it?
6. tish grier | February 18th, 2008 at 9:20 am
I tend to agree with Allen here–when I was a 20-something (don’t ask when!) I didn’t spend a lot of time in front of the TV either. And that had to do with a very active social life, not computers. It seems a shame that young people today don’t seem to have social lives
But, seriously–someone’s habits in their 20’s are not their habits in their 30’s (when they get real jobs) nor are they the habits in their 40’s (when they might begin to have families *and* real jobs.) It’s way too early to tell whether TV or the Internet will rule. But one thing that might rule is anything that can help folks time-shift. That’s what I see as most popular among tech savvy friends with real jobs and families.
7. jst | February 18th, 2008 at 9:27 am
When I was 20-something I didn’t watch as much TV, either. I don’t think a group of tech-savy peeps of any age represents the population as a whole.
The arguement could be made that online local news is becoming more important and needs to have stand-alone qualities - BUT, to say that means local new stations will eventually go the way of the newspaper is a bit dramatic.
8. Eddie | February 18th, 2008 at 10:04 am
Come on, are any LR regulars really surprised by this?
Every one of us who is working in a local TV newsroom should be nervous. When TV as we know it and the dead-tree version of the newspaper are gone and the playing field is leveled in terms of distribution, it will be game over. Newspapers will win–if they can last that long. A typical newspaper has about 5-10 times the number of content-producing employees than does a TV station in the same market. When we’re all sending our content down the same fiber-optic line and displaying it to our audiences on the same device, content really will be king and newspapers will rule. The only catch is whether the newspapers can survive until then.
9. Dave | February 18th, 2008 at 10:09 am
The reason they live without cable is most likely financial. On a limited budget, cable (versus web and cell) would likely be the first to go.
10. Allen | February 18th, 2008 at 10:52 am
I had dinner with a group of 80 year olds the other day. They told me they don’t own a computer and spend their time playing crossword puzzles and shuffle board.
Take that tech savvy 20 year olds.
11. Grant | February 18th, 2008 at 11:39 am
Living without cable doesn’t mean living without local TV stations. Once the digital transition is complete, HD transmission power will be boosted and people will be aware that you can get HD over the air. Then they’ll start looking at that huge cable bill.
12. Grant | February 18th, 2008 at 11:41 am
Also, I’m a big fan of local news. But I live in Houston; your mileage may vary.
13. Cory | February 18th, 2008 at 1:24 pm
I should’ve pointed this out in the original post, but expand the definition of “internet” to include any video over IP, such as IPTV and gaming consoles.
Networks are cutting these distribution deals sans the affiliates. So as all on-demand delivery of network television skips local affiliates, what is local TV left with?
Local TV news.
Again, my point.
14. Pete Liebengood | February 18th, 2008 at 2:00 pm
Making an TV appointment for anything other than a pre-scheduled news or sports event will soon be a concept to be found grazing with the Wells Fargo ponies. Local TV news will evolve into a stable of VJ’s doing stories for a station’s website. No anchors, no sports guy, no weather personality. Those 20-something tech savvy folks are the future.
15. Ryan | February 18th, 2008 at 2:10 pm
Regarding quality … ABC has some episodes available in streaming HD. With a fast connection (2Mbs) and a big screen, it’s really high quality. Not ‘HD on a 60-inch screen’ quality, but getting there. That wasn’t possible two years ago, so who knows what two more years will bring?
Bandwidth is going to be the key here. A few hundred people watching HD streams works. A few million would choke our current bandwidth capability.
16. theTVaddict | February 18th, 2008 at 3:33 pm
For what it’s worth. I just purchased an Apple TV this weekend and am absolutely amazed at the new content available directly on my TV. It’s one thing to watch podcasts and news on my small computer screen. But to now seamlessly be able to watch cnn’s podcast on my HD TV at my own convenience without commercials. In a word, “WOW”
17. Hussman | February 19th, 2008 at 6:59 am
@ Grant… DTV will only really succeed when stations offer something that matches most people’s cable habits. ‘RTN’ and ‘Create’ are cool, but a bit more is needed.
18. tdc | February 19th, 2008 at 8:36 am
tv folks in general seem in the mindset today (as the web moves to video) that newspaper people were in years back when it was text-based—
denial.
19. John | February 19th, 2008 at 8:41 pm
I think Ryan summed it up. There will always be a need for a broadcast model… the ability to send a program stream to an infinite amount of viewers. Even a tech-savvy 20 something should realize that.
20. TR | February 19th, 2008 at 10:00 pm
Using this hypothesis would not Cable and Satellite TV become irrelevent also?
21. Anonymous | February 20th, 2008 at 2:53 am
They were already ten years ago. Digital TV was nearly stillborn until digital video camcorders came about. It was Jimmy’s baseball games and let’s send the file to Grandma, not any shows.
22. baker | February 20th, 2008 at 11:41 am
“What happens when the web starts to replace the television?”
Man, that’s sooooo 1999. The internet will not replace television, but it will eliminate appointment-television news coverage, just as it’s replacing the newspaper. “In this day and age,” If you’re broadcasting at 6 or 11 or arriving on a doorstep, you’re old news. This isn’t actually up for debate anymore, is it?
However, we’re talking about a cultural transformation which trumps the technological one we keep focusing on. LR readers, Jennifer Yarter, analysts and the people they poll on this popular topic do not necessarily represent Joe or Jane America. Nothing will be replaced anytime soon, but over the course of our lifetime (a long time for us, but a blink of history’s eye). Some organizations will adapt and flourish during that time (many already do), many will fail miserably. It will be a long and drawn-out process with exciting innovations and terrible missteps along the way.
Leave a Comment
(Please keep URLs out of the comment body or the spam filter will block you.)Subscribe to the comments via RSS Feed