[opendtv] Re: Where is television heading?
- From: "GerryK" <gerryk@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2004 14:10:44 -0700
Very impressive, John.
The "non-scripted" programming is what free-to-air TV has devolved to
because of the economics of their situation.
If your market has shrunk because thinking people are watching programming
that they are willing to pay for, the the free-to-air people need to reduce
their
costs of production to the barest minimum, and rake in whatever market is
left for
cheap trash. That's where a lot of over-the-air television has drifted.
Fox has admitted that it's not high-brow, and with programs like
Judge Joe, Judge Judy, and their local talking head fluff,
HDTV just didn't seem like an important thing for them, until
they got pressured and they are now showing some sporting events in HDTV.
I don't think the technology has nearly as much to do with television as
people think.
It's more about having access to an audience, and delivering the lowest cost
programming
that the largest audience will tune into.
In my humble opinion, television is still heading where it has always
headed -
finding an audience, serving the audience at a low enough price point that
you can make money from the advertising
if the free market teaches that "you get what you pay for"
then free to air TV shouldn't be expected to be much more than
circuses for the masses - it's free!
Gerry Kaufhold
----- Original Message -----
From: "John Willkie" <johnwillkie@xxxxxxxxxx>
To: <opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Friday, October 15, 2004 9:05 PM
Subject: [opendtv] Where is television heading?
>I think it's high time we start thinking -- and not posturing -- about the
> future of television, instead of whining about the present.
>
> I think that we can do this in such a way that deals in broad and perhaps
> smaller strokes with a variety of countries.
>
> I use the term "television" because it's broader than broadcasting and
> more
> relevant to the plethora of sources of content in most countries.
>
> I have been thinking a bit about this since I saw "Dog: The Bounty Hunter"
> on A&E a few weeks ago. For my part, I can even address this subject
> without saying a bad thing about cable.
>
> Here's an idea: cable's best chance for truly competing with broadcasting,
> even flanking broadcasting, is to emphasize localism: local sports, local
> news, local public affairs. That may sound like competing head on with
> broadcasting, but who thinks that broadcasting truly covers ANY market?
>
> I see this starting to be emphasized in San Diego, if even baby steps.
> Cox
> Cable San Diego offers most of the Padre games, most of them live in HDTV.
> That's a satellite-killer: even if you subscribe to a full Padres or MLB
> package on satellite, you'll see fewer Padre games, and they won't be in
> HDTV. The Padre games are on analog, digital and HDTV tiers, at no extra
> cost to viewers beyond the tier. For Padre fans, this super-serves them,
> at
> a very modest price point.
>
> It can even be offered as a reason to not permit ala carte cable pricing,
> which I think is inevitable. If the Padres were ala carte, few fans could
> afford to watch.
>
> In a perfect world, cable would have local channels, regional channels
> done
> by a consortium of cable companies (not necessarily like Fox Sport's
> regional channels) and the more popular national programming services.
> Broadcasting would increase local programming in this perfect world, yet
> still have high value, first run programming that is exclusive to the
> market.
>
> And, satellite would provide the 500 channel universe that is long hyped
> but
> otherwise unseen. If you wanted to see live news from Iran in Farsi, that
> would be available on the national satellite services, and would be
> featured
> on cable (perhaps even broadcast) in markets or systems with high
> percentages of Farsi speakers.
>
> What we have right now is vaguely differentiated services.
>
> I was talking about "Dog." It used to be that cable firms had low-wattage
> programming and off-network reruns.
>
> In recent years, broadcast networks -- almost emulating the late 1970's
> when
> they ruled without rivals or pretenders -- have gone for programming
> stunts.
> Instead of the high-quality dramas and comedies that require much talent,
> capital and resources to produce, the networks went for fads, stunts and
> low-quality, high interest programming like, well, I won't mention titles,
> but the genre is aptly called "unscripted, staged" programming.
>
> Doing such stuff at this time -- particularly among the big three or
> four --
> is, IMHO, the single dumbest thing that U.S. network television is done.
> The only step down from this is the frenetic, hyperbolic, "game shows" and
> such that was and is a staple of Japanese commercial television -- the
> kinds
> of programs that are used as voice-over fodder on Spike TV.
>
> The current phase is, however, bad enough. A&E, with the same number of
> viewers as a middle market TV station, can present one of the so-called
> reality shows at the same or better quality, and with at least a little
> less
> irreality, than can the major networks.
>
> If anyone has seen the attempts at dramatic programs that A&E has tried
> recently, they have the lesser quality of production and writing as the
> average Canadian network show; this eye can spot a Canadian show (like
> "Doc") in about four frames. If you need to listen to hear it, just
> listen
> for a show where the city is called "metro."
>
> There is nothing wrong with shows commissioned or produced by Canadian
> networks, except they have lower production values, generally weaker
> writing, and actors who struggle to have a half-American accent.
>
> They are immensely better, to this eye and ear, than the best "reality"
> show.
>
> With the advances in digital media production systems, and if network
> shows
> follow the current trends, in short order, people working out of garages
> in
> Idaho will be doing shows that are as well written and produced as the
> average network show. Tactically, reality shows might be good for this
> quarter's bottom line; they are long-term liabilities of immense
> proportion.
> Little or no re-run value (aside from perhaps being shown on a cable
> affiliate of the original licensee.)
>
> Let's face it folks, distribution of programming is getting cheaper to
> accomplish on a national scale, and will get even cheaper. You don't need
> to reserve satellite time: just send the digital media assets via IP
> networks.
>
> I believe that local into local is likely to be the bane of satellite TV.
>
> I just noticed on cable that "Desperate Housewives" is being shown on
> Lifetime a few weeks after airing on ABC. I guess that helps with the
> license fees, but as DVRs become more prominent, there will be less
> advantage to such short-time-frame repurposing.
>
> I tuned around during the three election debates I saw on TV. What a
> waste
> of spectrum. Not the content, but the 8 or more channels showing the same
> thing live. I hope that at least ABC News Now aired the debate later,
> since
> people who work at night (bartenders, cops, medical people, waitrons) feel
> disconnected enough from real life.
>
> I've had a hunch for sometime that there would be at least one fewer
> network
> news divisions in the future than there are now. Can't a network "farm
> out"
> their news to another company?
>
> I've said this before, but I also see programming lining up on linguistic
> markets, at least until dual audio decoders are available and until the
> day
> that graphics (logos, titles, special offers) are rendered and overlayed
> in
> the STB/tuner instead of being in the video stream.
>
> Rather than charging for programming perse, stations and networks could
> provide busy screens to free TV viewers, and provide payers with an
> uncluttered screen, or give them the ability to watch commercials that
> don't
> talk about four-hour erections, or with no pharma ads, or targeted ones.
>
> I don't think that the model is broken, but there are cracks in them, and
> one doesn't need to have much foresight to perceive a few train wrecks in
> the making.
>
> This list is a good place to discuss these issues/items (and the many
> others
> that I am unable to perceive or articulate.
>
> All television systems need to do more with less in now, and in the
> future.
> Some people at stations and systems know this innately. There are
> reasons,
> and legal schemes available starting sometime next year, to merge cable
> and
> broadcast systems, even without merging, we can have unified program
> guides.
>
> For media that cover and foster change, television can be very resistant
> to
> the need for new thinking in their own businesses. It's time to CHANGE
> that.
>
> John Willkie
>
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> You can UNSUBSCRIBE from the OpenDTV list in two ways:
>
> - Using the UNSUBSCRIBE command in your user configuration settings at
> FreeLists.org
>
> - By sending a message to: opendtv-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with the word
> unsubscribe in the subject line.
>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You can UNSUBSCRIBE from the OpenDTV list in two ways:
- Using the UNSUBSCRIBE command in your user configuration settings at
FreeLists.org
- By sending a message to: opendtv-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with the word
unsubscribe in the subject line.
Other related posts:
