TV vs. the Internet: Who Will Win?
Television Is the New Television: The Unexpected Triumph of Old Media in the Digital Age
by Michael Wolff
Portfolio/Penguin, 212 pp., $26.95
Over the Top: How the Internet Is (Slowly but Surely) Changing the Television Industry
by Alan Wolk
Self-published, 166 pp., $12.95 (paper)
1.
Between 1999 and 2009, annual revenues in the music industry declined from $14.6 billion to $6.3 billion, according to the market analysis firm Forrester Research. The music business was first attacked from below by illegal file sharing on Napster and subsequently from above by Apple’s iTunes, which unbundled fourteen-dollar CDs into ninety-nine-cent songs. Even as user habits have shifted again, away from owning digital audio files such as MP3s and toward renting music from streaming services like Spotify and Pandora, recording industry revenues have remained flat, below the level where they were in the 1970s.
Newspapers followed a similar pattern, sustaining a much greater destruction of value in a shorter period of time. From 2006 to 2012, revenues fell from $49.3 billion to $22.3 billion, according to trade association figures. The challengers from below included Craigslist, which turned the multibillion-dollar print classified business into a multimillion-dollar online business. Google diverted other advertising dollars while online news sapped print circulation.
These disruptions left the question of when the television business would face its turn on the dissecting table. But despite sharing the vulnerabilities of other long-standing media—shrinking audiences, changing consumption patterns, new competition for ad dollars—the television dinosaur has only grown fatter. According to the research firmSNL Kagan, cable TV revenues rose from $36 billion in 2000 to $93 billion in 2010. Profits of the giant conglomerates—ABC/Disney, NBC Universal, Fox, Viacom, andCBS—have continued to climb in the years since. Cable operators thrive despite antiquated technology, extreme customer dissatisfaction, and the challenge of Internet streaming services like Netflix and Amazon, which now create their own original content as well. Even local broadcast stations remain highly profitable despite the declining audiences for their core news product, thanks in part to a surge of political spending following the Citizens United decision in 2010.
How the television business has eluded the bitter fate of other media is the subject of Michael Wolff’s new book, Television Is the New Television. “For sixty years, television, given massive generational, behavioral, and technological shifts, has managed to change…not so much,” he writes. To Wolff, the industry’s imperviousness to digital disruption counts as nothing short of heroic. In an assemblage of digressive riffs, he praises television’s stodginess in defense of profits. This stands in contrast to newspapers and magazines, which he derides for embracing digital transformation in ways that have only accelerated their decline. For example, he criticizes The New York Times for relinquishing its attachment to a print edition that still provides nearly 80 percent of its revenue in favor of the much smaller, “profitless space” online.
Wolff contends that television learned a useful lesson from the gutting of the music industry. The record companies were at first lackadaisical in protecting their intellectual property, then went after their own customers, filing lawsuits against dorm-room downloaders. Under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, passed in 1998, sites hosting videos such as YouTube appeared to be within their rights to wait for takedown notices before removing pirated material. But Viacom, led by the octogenarian Sumner Redstone, sued YouTube anyway. Its 2007 lawsuit forced Google, which had bought YouTube the previous year, to abandon copyright infringement as a business model. Thanks to the challenge from Viacom, YouTube became a venue for low-value content generated by users (“Charlie Bit My Finger”) and acceded to paying media owners, such as Comedy Central, a share of its advertising revenue in exchange for its use of material. “Instead of a common carrier they had become, in a major transformation, licensors,” Wolff writes. Where it might have been subsumed by a new distribution model, the television business instead subsumed its disruptor.
Wolff is dismissive of newer threats to the business. He regards cord cutting—customers dropping premium cable bundles in favor of Internet services such as Netflix—as an insignificant phenomenon. But even if it gathers steam, as recent evidence suggests may be happening, cord cutting leaves Comcast and Time Warner Cable, the largest cable companies, in a win-win position, since they provide the fiber optic cables that deliver broadband Internet to the home as well as those that bring TV. Even if you decide not to pay for hundreds of channels you don’t watch, you’ll pay the same monopoly to stream House of Cards. (This won’t provide much comfort, however, to companies that own the shows, which stand to lose revenue from both cable subscribers and commercials priced according to ratings.)
For Wolff, the resilience of the TV business finds its embodiment in Les Moonves, whom he describes as the “self-satisfied, overpaid” CEO of CBS, “with his singular passion and talent for old-fashioned American television.” In 2005, Viacom spun off its less desirable assets, including CBS and its storied news division, and handed them to Moonves to deal with. A decade later, CBS is worth more than the rest of Viacom combined, including MTV, VH1, and Nickelodeon. Moonves accomplished this through skillful negotiations with the cable operators, whom he realized couldn’t very well offer their customers channel packages that didn’t include CBS local stations. In 2013, Moonves demanded dramatically larger retransmission fees from Time Warner Cable and made his stations unavailable to Time Warner when he didn’t get them. After a month without CBS, TWC capitulated.
Thanks to these “retrans” fees, you pay eight dollars a month for ESPN whether you watch sports or not. It’s not the cable operators who are denying consumers the à la carte option many would prefer. It’s the big five television companies who refuse to parcel out their offerings—(1) ABC/Disney, which owns ESPN, A&E, and Lifetime; (2) NBC Universal, which owns USA, Bravo, and the Weather Channel; (3) Fox, which owns Fox Sports, F/X, and National Geographic; (4) Viacom, which owns Comedy Central, BET, and MTV; and (5) CBS, which owns Showtime, the Movie Channel, and the CW. For these companies, the indirect charges they receive for their content have become the pot of gold at the end of the advertising rainbow.
The positive aspect to this consumer-unfriendly economic model may be better television. Most commercials are directed at young people, based on the advertising industry’s belief in establishing brand loyalty early. That’s why so much ad-supported programming caters to the tastes of teenagers. Adults, however, pay cable bills, and this fosters the kind of long-arc narratives and complicated antiheroes that appeal to more mature audiences. Wolff argues that the economics of pay TV have driven the emergence of “storytelling on a riveting, epic, how-we-live-now scale: the baby boom trying to understand itself and the world it had wrought.”
There is indeed some wonderful stuff on TV these days, but prestige programs likeMad Men and Breaking Bad may owe more to obscure cable channels trying to distinguish themselves in a vast marketplace than to the third-party payer system embedded in the mumbo-jumbo of cable bills. The independent cable channel AMCcontinues to depend on advertising, and its competitors like Bravo, A&E, History, and Lifetime make their money from the advertising revenue of prime-time lineups of tawdry reality shows. Wolff idealizes the new television in a way that suggests he hasn’t spent much time watching Duck Dynasty. He doesn’t appear to be all that interested in what’s actually on TV. His broad embrace of it serves a different purpose: as a cudgel to attack the digital media that have been getting much attention. Wolff devotes a lot of his book to smacking the latest generation of digital media companies:BuzzFeed (a “staff of engineers able to game the social media world”); the Forbeswebsite (“a shell game, in which, through a series of ever-developing stratagems, random eyeballs…were tricked or promoted into coming to the site”); and Vice (“so bizarre is the notion that Vice’s young male audience will watch international news that puzzled media minds can only seem to conclude it must be true”).
To Wolff, good old-fashioned television delivers something that these social optimizers, clickbaiters, and video clip-jobbers can’t, which is to keep audiences immersed in stories with a beginning, middle, and end. The economic reason for this, he asserts, is digital overabundance. On the Web, any given page can be seen many times so there are countless opportunities to advertise. This inexorably drives CPMs—cost per thousand page views, the unit by which advertising prices are typically measured—below the level that can support the creation of high-quality content in any form.
Some of Wolff’s judgments about digital trends hit their mark. But his analysis is too categorical and in places simply wrong. As younger audiences shift from television to digital consumption of media, advertising dollars are following them. Prices for desirable ad placements on the Web remain high, even as the value of generic traffic on most websites goes down. In the end, Wolff’s hostility toward digital media leads him to overstate both TV’s immunity to disruption and his case that, because of the law of supply and demand, nothing of value can ever become a real business online.
2.
You can’t understand Wolff’s scorn for new media without reading Burn Rate (1998), the entertaining, self-lacerating account of his first foray as a digital entrepreneur. In the earliest days of the Internet, Wolff had the insight that people would need to know what sites were worth visiting, and he began publishing books and online reviews to guide them. Your Personal Network, as his site was called, was soon swept away by web portals like AOL and Yahoo that provided e-mail, news, and search engines all on a single site.
But before that happened, Wolff nearly became rich, nearly went bankrupt, and finally walked away disillusioned both with the Internet and with many of those trying to build a business around it. In that book, Wolff depicts himself as both a visionary and a charlatan, ready to cheat and deceive in the attempt to cash out of his ticking time bomb of a start-up before it blows. “How many fairly grievous lies had I told?” he asks himself. “How many moral lapses had I committed? How many ethical breaches had I fallen into?” The justification for his bad behavior is implicitly that, hey, other people were even worse. If Wolff remains hyper-vigilant about new media con artists, his own confessions should be kept in mind.
At the conclusion of Burn Rate, Wolff declares himself sick of the Internet racket and ready to go back to the honest business of journalism. He turned his hand to writing a column for New York magazine, then for Vanity Fair and a variety of other publications before arriving at his unlikely present home, USA Today. By the time of Autumn of the Moguls (2003), a book derived from his New York columns, Wolff has turned as cynical about the old media world as he was about the Internet. Now it is the “titans, poseurs, and money guys” of his subtitle, surveyed with a gimlet eye from his table at Michael’s, who can’t possibly get away with it much longer. The media business, Wolff declares, is collapsing because of inflated salaries, bloated egos, and dumb ideas. In view of his liberal politics, it is curious that the one mogul who wins his admiration is Rupert Murdoch, whom he praises for the purity of his ruthlessness. This relatively flattering portrayal might have helped to provide the entrée Wolff required for his next book, The Man Who Owns the News (2008), a biography with which Murdoch, his lieutenants, and all of his family inexplicably cooperated.
As a media writer, Wolff specializes in sizing people up and cutting them down. An hour spent with Alan Rusbridger, the former editor of The Guardian, he writes in British GQ, is “unpleasant in the exertions required to penetrate his lack of transparency.” The secret of Tina Brown’s career is “failing upward.” Even among “semi-retarded” newspaper business reporters, the late David Carr was “quite a nitwit.” Contempt expressed so promiscuously has a tendency to lose potency. But if Wolff the columnist is consistently mean, he is seldom dull, often writing what others inside the New York media bubble think about each other but would only say in private.
In recent years, Wolff has continued to ricochet back and forth between old media curmudgeon and new media visionary. In 2007, he founded a site called Newser, whose goal, he declared in an interview at the time, was to replace the network news. This was a grandiose notion for an undercapitalized would-be competitor to the The Huffington Post, which did little more than rework stories found elsewhere and crown them with punchier headlines. Go to Newser, whose motto is “Read less. Know More,” and you’ll find a collection of editorial content in a form adapted to generate Facebook traffic: “Set Foot On This Island And You May Not Leave Alive” and “Super 5-Year-Olds: 5 Great Things This Week.”
According to the site, “Michael Wolff is the founder of Newser and guides its overall direction.” The experience of launching and running a second digital content startup goes unmentioned, however, in his new book, perhaps because Newser embodies the kind of bottom-feeding clickbait that the author of Television Is the New Televisiondismisses as “lower-end junk.” While he ignores the awfulness of most television programming, Wolff offers no respect to even the better digital-first destinations—Vox,Vulture, 538, The Atavist, The Awl, Quartz, Slate, Salon, Tablet, Politico Magazine,The Onion, Funny or Die, and—on their better days—BuzzFeed, The Huffington Post,Business Insider, Gawker, and Vice. As businesses, these free sites are challenged by heavy dependence on advertising, but they produce a great deal of original, high-quality content.1 May the real sin of some of these outlets be that they’ve found traction that eluded Your Personal Network and Newser?
Like the venture capitalists currently pumping investments into the new startups, Wolff can be counted on to reverse his biases every few years or so: content is king; content is a dismal commodity; content is king again. The chief difference is that he is on a countercycle, endorsing old models when others embrace disruption and vice versa. Wolff has the right to change his mind, of course, and it is hard to think of any media sage who has been either consistent or correct over the past two decades. But at some point his blanket assertions, unsupported by evidence and animated by the conviction that anyone who thinks what he thought not very long ago must be weak-minded, begin to lose their charm.
3.
Whatever he believed ten years ago, is Wolff right that it’s now springtime for the old television machers? To answer that question, it’s necessary to step back from his latest embrace of the pre-digital in favor of more evidence-based analysis. An excellent place to start is Alan Wolk’s self-published book Over the Top: How the Internet Is (Slowly but Surely) Changing the Television Industry. Wolk, a well-connected industry analyst, points to a very different future for the television business than the one Wolff depicts. Wolk thinks that the sector is poised for major disruption, even if it’s unclear from which side or how quickly the transformation is likely to come.
In an industry where all the big players are still making loads of money, Wolk explains, no one has an interest in upsetting the apple cart. But that hardly makes the current disposition secure. If “the world still sits in front of a television,” as Wolff asserts, that becomes less true with the passing of every measured month. Time-shifted viewing (recording programs so you can see them when you want) and streaming video (watching video on the Internet) mean that conventional television audiences are shrinking fast, except for live sports and news events like the Fox News Republican debate.
For the June–July period, the top thirty cable networks were down more than 10 percent in prime-time viewers compared to a year earlier, according to Nielsen. Viewership in the eighteen-to-forty-nine category, which advertisers care about most, fell 20 percent.2 The audience for live TV appears to be contracting to a smaller base of passive, older viewers. Most worrisome from a financial perspective is that television is reaching fewer fifteen-to-thirty-five-year-olds, who spend more time engaging with social media on smartphones than staring at freestanding screens. The promise of access to this generation of consumers explains recent investments in the new outlets Wolff regards as valueless, including ABC’s stake in Fusion, NBC Universal’s interest in BuzzFeed and Vox, and nearly everyone’s investments in Vice.
When it comes to advertising revenues, declining audiences have so far had an ambiguous impact, sometimes driving up advertising prices for demographic segments that are becoming harder to reach, like children. But this is a melting iceberg model: shrinking real estate may drive prices higher, but at some point, there’s not much ground left to stand on. The total volume of “upfront” sales, in which networks command their highest prices for advertising sponsorships on prime-time programs, has been declining along with the reach of live television. What’s more, as audiences migrate away from live television, Netflix and Amazon are training viewers to expect entertainment without the interruption of ads.
What used to be television advertising dollars continue to migrate toward several different kinds of ads, whether online video, mobile, search, or digital display advertising. According to a forecast by the Forrester research firm, spending on digital advertising will surpass spending on television advertising in 2016. For television companies, retransmission fees may pick up more of the slack, but recent media company earnings reports indicate that those fees, and the ability of cable companies to pass them along to consumers, may have hit a ceiling. Smaller cable systems have recently been holding out against price increases demanded by Viacom and others as cable subscription numbers fall.
Today, digital content hubs like YouTube, AOL, and Yahoo that deliver the largest audiences, as well as premium sites like The New York Times, can demand high prices for ads. They do so especially for “native” ads, i.e., ads similar in form to the surrounding editorial content, and for those that run just before short-form video. Conversely, the future of television may come to look more like digital, with more and more advertising sold “programmatically,” meaning that it targets specific audiences across multiple networks rather than buying on the basis of guaranteed ratings of individual shows. This shift brings the risk for the big five not only of lower prices per thousands of viewers. It also heightens the risk that more of the value of the advertising will be raked off by “ad-tech” intermediaries that target, track, and verify that commercials have been viewed by their intended audiences.
Never underestimate the durability of a monopoly, but the cable companies, with their anachronistic two-thousand- channel grids and 1990s-era set-top boxes, face real vulnerabilities as well. Here the disruption might come through an alternative way of receiving high-speed Internet, such as national or municipal Wi-Fi networks that would transmit the same materials now delivered by cable. Alternatively, the government could force the cable companies to open, for use by competitors, the “last mile” of wiring that brings high-speed Internet into the home. The 1982 breakup of AT&T’s “natural monopoly” on phone service provides a precedent here. A legislative fight on this issue would pit unlovable Comcast and Time Warner Cable against GAFA—Google, Apple, Facebook, and Amazon. The gafa companies would like to be able to sell pay TV through cables of their own. Or, before any of that happens, the balance of power in the industry may simply shift more dramatically to the GAFA companies, whose long-rumored entry into the TV market is already taking place in the form of original shows available only online, such as the Amazon series Transparent. These tech companies also have the financial resources to compete for exclusive rights to stream live sports events, another shift that could sound the death knell of live TV.
Wolk’s book is also more interesting than Wolff’s about the way media economics is changing the shape of filmed content. The all-at-once release model, which Netflix pioneered with the Norwegian-American crime comedy Lilyhammer in 2012, was the experiment that immediately expanded the market for television auteurs. When a twenty-two-episode season was shown over six months, writers could introduce or kill off characters and plot lines in response to audience reactions. Now writers must rely mainly on their own instincts to deliver a finished season designed for binge viewing. This is another factor making scripted TV more novelistic.
Do these evolving patterns of content distribution and consumption represent disruption or persistence? Wolff’s bias against new media leads him into tautology: that which succeeds demonstrates the durability of television. That which fails to earn immediate profits exposes the shell game of digital media. It’s true that someone binge-watching a bulk-released season of Orange Is the New Black on a Wi-Fi-connected laptop is in some recognizable sense watching TV, just as a person reading The Washington Postvia Facebook on his or her iPhone is reading the newspaper. But it’s hard to accept Michael Wolff’s view that the former represents the triumph of the old and the latter foolish acquiescence to the new.
- 1For a contrary point of view, see Michael Massing, “ Digital Journalism: How Good Is It? ” and “ Digital Journalism: The Next Generation,” The New York Review, June 4 and June 25, 2015. I should declare my own interest as chairman and editor in chief of the Slate Group. ↩
- 2“Cord-Cutting Weighs on Pay TV,” The Wall Street Journal, August 6, 2015. ↩
I feel that there is such an overlap between television and internet that I don't think either will beat out the other. Instead, both are pretty dependent on each other in this day and age. Television exists through the internet by means of Netflix, Hulu, and other streaming services. The internet gets permission from networks to display content as long as the networks receive a share of advertising revenues. Cable companies are responsible for providing internet as well, so even if someone opts to cut out cable and rely on streaming, the companies still benefit. Whereas print journalism is taking to the internet, affecting physical newspapers, there isn't really anything to challenge the entertainment provided by television shows. We refer to "watching TV" now as watching Netflix, or truly watching TV. So unless television or internet offers some time of perk that gives it a one-up over the other, I think they are both fair-game and dependent on each other.
ReplyDeleteRiley,
DeleteI wouldn't be surprised if the internet found a way to provide the "perk" you mentioned. I agree that neither side will beat out the other, but if I had to put money on who would come up with the best gimmick to attract viewers, the internet seems like the safest bet.
I completely agree. They really are not competitors at this point of time. Cable is too dominant to let the Internet pass it and I don't think it'll ever happen. Really the only way that the Internet can catch cable companies is through viewers - more people use Netflix, Hulu, etc. Having said that, cable has created such a significant amount of profit that it will take the Internet decades to catch up.
Delete-Nick
As the internet and the streaming services it provides continues to grow in the 21st century, I think America will eventually become a nation in which every house has a "Smart TV" where normal programing from outlets such as CBS and NBC is just a channel change away from whatever Netflix and Hulu are streaming at the same time. The content is so similar in terms of its quality, that most people I now include streaming shows on their laptop as part of "watching TV."
ReplyDeleteReed,
DeleteThat is a really good example of how television and the internet are working together and not really competing.
Reed,
DeleteI agree with you, most households that I encounter have a "Smart TV" and do exactly that. However, streaming to me isn't "watching TV" I don't get the same connection with other people as when on television a current event or a new episode airs and everybody sits down and watches it at the same time. Streaming might have a similar effect but majority of people have been watching television since they were young and are slow to adapting to new entertainment technology.
Reed,
DeleteI think that this technology already exists to satisfy television and internet needs is proof that this is the future of technology. Apple TV is the first example of this that I can think of, as well as the Amazon Fire Stick. I have Apple TV and if you have an existing subscription to cable, you can access many of the networks through smart television. I think putting all forms of entertainment in the same place is efficient, so I do agree that this is the road we are heading down.
Reed,
DeleteThis is a very interesting point and a very valid point. The rise of "Smart TVs" could have a major impact on the way Americans watch their programming. This would allow Americans to watch their television and Internet programming on the same device, which would mean the two are no longer competing.
This is a very valid point. However, how would old timers like our parents want to latch on to this new form of TV? Would not it be difficult for them to move in this direction? Also how do you think the smart TV could become better to serve the needs of the future?
DeleteI think this is a great thought. I agree. I don't really think either will really win. They will just eventually all end up in the same place. I think more and more people get involved with technology a every year. Children growing up will grow up with it and eventually as time goes on, everyone young and old will know how it works. That will take years of course, but I think that will move along the transition to a newer form of TV.
DeleteI totally agree with you, Reed! Most people I know have both Netflix and cable and I think using both will only continue to grow in the future. I have a Smart TV here and at home just because it is so convenient to have all of your platforms located on one device. I can definitely see them catching on even more in the future!
DeleteNow a days it is really hard to tell the difference between television and radio. with websites like HBO go and Hulu you can access all of the same content. The part of the article I found most interesting was the part of the article where it discusses how customers are forced x amount of dollars for programs they might not watch. An example given was Disney and ESPN. The article says "hanks to these “retrans” fees, you pay eight dollars a month for ESPN whether you watch sports or not." I feel this is very self explanatory and later in that section it says how this is where the companies make most of their money. This also allows them to start early on brand loyalty. Overall this article is just showing that if both tv and the internet continue what they are doing, it will be an even playing field.
ReplyDeleteThis is by Taylor Catz, for some reason it won't display my name
DeleteI think this was a very interesting article and to see other people's point of view on this subject matter. As someone who rarely watches actual television, and rather goes on the web to find my tv shows, I do think at some point in the future, cable and television in general will die out. Although, even if this does happen, the cable companies will be smart enough to start posting more online so the younger generation can stream it. I think people are also more willing to pay for Netflix or Amazon Prime because they can watch whatever they want whenever they want. They might be paying the same price, or cheaper than what they would pay for a cable company. In the end, Netflix (or something of the like) might team up with cable companies and split the price. As of right now, clearly one does not beat out the other because I know the older generation (my parents' age, around 50s) still watch actual tv rather than Netflix or Amazon Prime. Their generation still doesn't fully understand why we enjoy binge watching or why we wouldn't want to gather in front of a tv with friends. It's easier for us to find the tv shows online due to what we do in our lives and the lack of time we have.
ReplyDeleteJess,
DeleteI completely agree with what you're saying about the cable companies and companies like netflix teaming up and splitting the cost. Eventually I see cable or TV dying out or at least cutting back, but I don't see any major companies loosing money because of it.
Jess,
DeleteI hardly watch much TV, aside from Netflix, etc. myself. The only real television I watch is live sports. For this reason almost exclusively, I don't think that television will fully decline. Additionally, sites such as Netflix provide us with shows that have already been aired on cable or television networks already. I think you have a lot of valid points!!
For me, I don't watch television all that much. I will watch it at a friends house or take a glimpse if there is a television playing at a sports bar. I just don't want to pay for things that I don't watch. I do pay for internet and use the internet daily. With streaming, I can still be entertained on my time, and I can typically find something that interests me. I have found that when a popular current event airs on television I can mostly find it the next day posted on YouTube so I can see what happened. I can see the cable companies charging ahead of time for certain shows. For example, pay $4.99 to stream this live episode, or game, or movie on the networks website.
ReplyDeleteI agree with you Bryan, but I would take it a step further. I think the in the not so distant future, cable companies will sell channel packages charged by monthly subscriptions that can be accessed via the internet to ensure that the consumer only pays for what they want.
DeleteI don't think that television will completely die out, but I am expecting to see some major cuts in the amount of programing that is on television. I personally had never streamed much of the programming I watched, until now. Being a large part of the target audience is in college, and most of us don't have cable, it definitely adds to the amount of people streaming and using services like netflix. The major studios and players in the Television industry are smart enough to already have their hands in online streaming, as are the cable companies. That being said, I think we will see a shift in how we watch our programming, but the providers we get it from will just become internet based rather than cable.
ReplyDeleteHey Kristen, I agree. These companies are smart in making us, college students, their target audience for streaming. Maybe since more people are going to college nowadays, streaming will become more prevalent than ever?
DeleteI definitely agree with you, Kristen. Television just seems, to me, like something that will never really die out. I think people enjoy watching shows at specific times daily or weekly. But it is possible that TV will begin to cut certain programming as it becomes less popular due to streaming and online sources. I do believe though that we still have quite a bit of time before the major effects of streaming on TV really start to show.
DeleteHi Kristin! I definitely agree. I think television is still going to exist (mainly for live sports and news), but eventually a lot of the programming will be cut out. I also agree that the television industry is smart enough to already have their hands on online industries. I'm excited to see what the world of television will look like in a few years.
DeletePeople like to live in the past, that’s for sure. Nostalgia is, for some reason, something our society clings on to and talks and talks and talks about in hopes that our current situation will somehow backtrack to “the way it used to be.” This example can also be used when talking about television and it’s rising competitor, the internet. Wolff states that the world still sits in front of a television, but, as the article continues to say, “that becomes less true with the passing of every measured month.” Now’s not the time to analyze Wolff like I’m his therapist (although I’m sure his own does), but perhaps he believes that everyone still sits in front of a television to make himself feel better about the world changing before his very eyes. It’s certainly a bit scary, even to me, that society as a whole doesn’t do things in the most conventional way anymore. However, we can’t deny it––the internet is slowly and steadily winning the race against classic television. It sucks but also has a silver lining, as people who haven’t been able to afford cable or a television in general in the past can now have easy access to watching their favorite shows just with the click of a button. The way we view media is changing, and we have to get over the whole nostalgia feeling that consumes us.
ReplyDeleteI found your points very interesting. People seem to be afraid of change, and the switch from TV to the Internet is a big one. By the way, I like your joke about Wolff's therapist.
Deletel believe that television and internet streaming will eventually become one and the same. As may channels already allow users to access their programs via the internet and many online outlets such as Netflix have been producing original programming, it is only a matter of time until both mediums meet in the middle so to speak and become nearly indistinguishable. This will be good for the consumer as each will compete with the other to try to offer better programming in ways deemed more convenient. Whether we choose to watch TV or stream will just become a matter of personal preference.
ReplyDeleteI agree with this 100%. I think in the end, all that will matter is what audiences are watching, not how they are watching. Soon enough (if not already), everyone will have access to both television and streaming, so personal preference on shows will begin to matter more than the platform that people watch television on.
DeleteI also think this is the direction television will go. The Internet and television will have a stable relationship in the future, its just a matter of time until it does. People will be watching content regardless, and eventually the spread of content will be distributed and created evenly between the two.
DeleteI actually think that TV and the Internet are not competitors. They coexist together - cable companies actually make money off of the Internet through subscription packages. Television can be streamed through the Internet; networks such as CBS, NBC and FOX offer live streaming through their websites. Networks also release their programs to be streamed through Netflix, Amazon, and Hulu. The only aspect that may go in the Internet's favor is viewership; more people are starting to watch their favorite shows online. Having said that, they need an Internet package to stream those shows. So, the cable company is still making money, granted they'll lose viewers, regardless of if people watch television or use the Internet. Cable is the most dominant type of TV system and Netflix, Hulu and Amazon Prime will have to begin to produce their own shows to catch cable's profit. I really do not see this happening in the near (5-10 years) future; cable networks will continue to dominate the TV industry. Therefore, cable companies and Internet streaming sources will continue to coexist; currently, Internet streaming sources do not have enough substance to pass cable networks.
ReplyDeleteNick,
DeleteI agree on multiple points. Netflix and Amazon will have to up their productions in order to really increase their standing. So until they begin to have a larger network of shows...cable will dominate.
Television will not die for a good long while. These companies have the money to keep everything up and running for years to come. They can offer bundles/exclusive deals and have endless methods of holding onto their market. Yes...netflix and other streaming services will certainly continue to gain an increasing foothold but they can never dominate the market. They don't have the rights nor the revenue to do so. Also, TV is a cultural activity as well. I just don't see it losing any momentum anytime soon. I do however believe that after about five decades a change in the industry can perhaps start to occur. If humans becoming increasingly lazy and more reliant on getting things faster and more efficiently than yeah, amazon and Netflix will gain increasing popularity (Not that they already don't have enough infamy). I also believe that Television companies and their parent company could buy out netflix/amazon if they really wanted to. They could strike deals that the entertainment industry had never once foreseen. These companies have big bucks and with that comes the power to rule the talent and the creativity in the industry. As of now Netflix thrives off syndication. Of course they have OITNB and House of Cards but unless they increase there productions...they will remain at their current status.
ReplyDeleteWhat is television? This question is what a person needs to think about when thinking about the future of media content will go. I think "Smart TV" is where normal programing from outlets such as ABC and CBS are just a channel change away from whatever Netflix and Hulu are streaming at the same time. Television is ever changing and the internet is scooping it it up. A smart TV is a television specialized for entertainment that is solely connected to the internet. This is not exact even a new concept because this type of television has been around for a couple of year however, it will become more prominent in the coming years. The only hard thing with this is not making this portable for the younger generations and making the older generations want to buy into this. I do not think, “the future of television may come to look more like digital, with more and more advertising sold “programmatically,” meaning that it targets specific audiences across multiple networks rather than buying on the basis of guaranteed ratings of individual shows”. I furthermore think that the “big five networks” will eventually peter out and have to give up shows. These shows will be owned by the GAFA- Google, Apple, Facebook, and Amazon. I also think that if live events/ shows of this “new” type of television will become more pay per view making the majority of the revenue for ESPN and CNN (but only during debate season).
ReplyDeleteThe TV and Internet will always be competing against each other, but they will have to learn to deal with each other. TV has been around since the 1920's, so it's not going anywhere anytime soon. The Hollywood Studios will always come up with creative ideas for new movies and shows and the advancing. technology will will be a nice plus to the ending product. As for the internet, it is and will always be successful because of online streaming services, such as Netflix and Hulu. Also cable companies like Comcast will benefit from online streaming services because in order for people to stream online, they need wifi, therefore, more customers. Another reason why I say that the TV will never die out is because books and newspapers are still around. Ebooks and kindles are very popular and people use them a lot, but it doesn't mean that people will never read an actual book and same goes for newspapers. People nowadays use social media to read the news. This doesn't mean that, for example, New York Times is going to stop printing out daily papers. In conclusion, just because internet services are very popular nowadays doesn't mean that TV is going to fade.
ReplyDeleteArchna
DeleteI do agree with how you said that TV and the Internet have always been competing. I believe that with in the upcoming years they will mold together and create one system.
Ignoring the fact that at times I couldn't tell if this was an article about TV vs the Internet or an opinion piece on Michael Wolff, I believe that we're en route to where TV and internet aren't competing. Networks already have websites where you can catch the latest content from your favorite shows. Sure you can watch it there without a cable box, but you can't watch it live. Streaming services like Netflix are convenient and all, but I'l admit that I like watching new content on TV sometimes. Unless the content is exclusive for the streaming service, the acquisition of more current shows does not happen quickly. Maybe viewership has declined, but will it get to the point where actual television through broadcast, cable, etc. isn't relevant? Will it reach the point that newspapers have reached? I don't think so. I think the worst that will happen is that networks will have to be more selective in what shows they spend money on. Otherwise, advertising on television, advertising on online content and whatever money comes in through cable will, in my opinion, keep television afloat for the foreseeable future. The internet is available for television networks to use and they have the potential to work in harmony for ultimate effectiveness.
ReplyDeleteConnor, I completely agree. I believe that the internet and television, in fact, both coexist with one another. Because television shows are aired both on television and on premium services, it benefits both. In the future, i hope to see the existence of television more than fully around. I do not think television and these services will ever merge either.
DeleteThe television industry has had a monopoly on the way Americans view their programming. Americans have traditionally watched shows on the major cable networks. Recently, online streaming sites like Netflix, Hulu, Amazon, etc. have all become sources for Americans to watch their TV programming. This incredibly convenient for Americans because they do not always have to watch live TV in order to watch their shows. The online streaming sites allow you to access the shows whenever you are able to. This is why they Internet and television are now competing. Now that television shows can be accessed at any time, viewers are beginning to realize that they do not have to tune in live to watch their show. In effect, the cable companies are losing money. The competition between television and the Internet is heating up, and I believe that the Internet services and "cord cutting" could become the new norm.
ReplyDelete-Andrew Carey
As Netflix and Amazon has been taking a new idea on TV by providing their own programs exclusively on their systems more people will be driven to the streaming services with no commercials for a "semi" affordable price rather then the TV where you pay "Insert High Cable Bill Here" amount to watch commercial along with programs. If one of the major cable companies made the jump to strictly streaming on Netflix it would open the flood gates for people to stop paying for cable and move to a flat rate streaming service to watch the shows you want to watch with no commercials. I believe that over the next up coming years, streaming will become more prevalent and watching TV from a cable provider will become less abundant. Most Seasons of programs are available on Netflix and Amazon Prime, so the question who needs to pay all that extra money for channels you don't watch?
ReplyDeleteI completely agree that people will be migrating toward streaming companies because of the wide variety that is offered at such a low price. Also, your point at the end about paying for channels that you don't watch makes so much sense because most people probably only watch a few of the channels provided by cable. Streaming has so many options at such a low price, so there is no doubt that TV will fade away and streaming companies will grow.
DeleteDestin, I agree with you. I think that more people will stop paying for cable and switch to streaming sites such as Netflix.
DeleteTelevision has always been a big part of our lives, no matter what. Whether your favorite show has aired once a week and you tune in at 8 pm for it, or you watch Sunday night football with your family, TV will never run out of date. Television provides features that Netflix, Amazon Prime, and Hulu can't offer; it's the ability to show the latest episodes out that can't be found on these services. Also, television doesn't need wifi to run and can usually access programs on TV during harsh storms. On the other hand, I believe these premium services are such an advantage to Americans and people around the world. When you pay for Netflix, you don't see ads, you can watch whatever show you want how ever many times you wish, and if you have wifi, you're good to go. Both programs offer different things which is why in my opinion one is not better than the other and that the internet and television are not competitors.
ReplyDeleteI think you make some really great points. I know i watch Sunday night football every week, plus lots of cable/broadcast TV shows like arrow, breaking bad, walking dead, etc. However i think if companies like amazon, netflix, and hulu start making good content that people love than more and more people will switch to streaming services because of cheaper monthly fees and no adds. Plus i think if these companies continue on the path their own they may make enough money to buy rights to programs like Sunday night football. For the time being though i think TV is dominate and will be for the next few decades.
DeleteI personally don't watch a ton of shows on TV, but I do watch TV everyday. Everyday at 4:00, I watch The Ellen Degeneres Show. I absolutely love watching ellen. I watch her daily because she makes me happy and that 4:00-5:00 window is just a time for me to relax and take a break from my busy day. I don't think it would be the same if I were to start watching online or through some streaming service. Now, I definitely do use Netflix to binge watch shows that are no longer on the air, or that I need to catch up on (The Office, Criminal Minds, Lost, The Fall). But I feel there is such a difference between these shows and shows like ellen. Some shows are just meant to be watched on TV at a specific time. For this reason, I feel that, although internet streaming is becoming more and more popular, cable just isn't going to go anywhere anytime soon. I think both are here to stay for a while and will continue to work together as a unit.
ReplyDeleteYAS ELLEN! I agree with you on the majority of your points. I still kind of forget that people have set times where they watch their favorite shows. I think I would be the same way if I didn't have such a busy schedule. Because of that, I think you're right that television will stay for a little while.
DeleteI also agree with you because before going to college, I never used to use Netflix because all my shows were on TV and even if I was busy I would just use the recording option on my cable box. Now since I am not home, I watch my shows online so I would agree that TV will still stay but it is just easier especially for college students to watch their shows on the Internet.
DeleteThe Internet is a beautiful abyss of Netflix (does anyone even get the discs delivered anymore? 2007, what's good?), cat videos on Youtube, and the beautiful debate over The Dress (it's gold and white, don't even try that blue and black trick on me). However, television has always been the older and more modest cousin to the Internet. It has boundaries. Why do people love the Internet so much? Because the Internet knows no boundaries! I think the Internet is definitely going to be, or maybe it already is, the preferred method of watching programs like How to Get Away with Murder or Friends or if you wanted to watch the movie Groundhog Day again because you like to be ironic and witty. Competition between different broadcast networks like ABC and NBC and CBS will diminish and transform into competition between Netflix and Hulu and Amazon Prime. It's hard to say what will happen to things like the Superbowl and the Grammys, the Internet isn't stable enough to stream things like that to 11 million or 111 million people.
ReplyDeleteWhile reading this article, I feel that our generation, will turn to Internet to watch their TV shows because of how easy it is to access their shows. While there is a lot of competition between TV and the Internet, they will both exist in the future because need each other. According to the article, cable companies will not phase out to the Internet because Comcast and Time Warner Cable are starting to provide fast Internet to the country that allows people to watch Netflix online. Also without Internet, people won't have the access to major digital companies like BuzzFeed, Forbes, and Vice. In addition to providing Internet, they are creating applications that will allow people to bring their TV wherever they go. For example, Comcast created the application Xfinity to go, which allows people to access their favorite shows, and movies anywhere they are. Especially for me, now that I watch most of my shows through Netflix and the Xfinity to go app because it is easier to catch up my entire favorite TV shows while on my bed doing homework. The article does bring up an interesting point that broadcasting companies are still making money even though they had a decline of people watching. In my opinion, TV will never phase out because the Internet would never become as popular as it is now without the help of TV
ReplyDeleteI completely agree with your statement "they both.....need each other" in regards to the Internet and TV. Yet, for the point you brought up at the end about the Internet never becoming as popular as it could be without TV, couldn't the same apply vice versa? I mean, I didn't hear about Buzzed from TV, but I know it exists (as do many others) and it's incredibly popular. I don't mean to claim to discount your point at all, I just mean to bring up another observation.
DeleteThough the article certainly poses some interesting points on how the Internet is slowly draining the life out of general TV, I believe it's a bit drastic to come to the conclusion that TV will phase out completely. Though it's true that the Internet is available to almost everyone and provides just about all types of media, it's also true, that, as the article states, the TV industry is still doing well. If anything, the stories that are being produced are becoming more stylized and plot-centric in order to garner an audience (not to say that shows on Netflix and Amazon are not). It's a competition that forces both to better themselves (if they're not already partnered, as many networks have websites as well). Moreover, there are plenty of people who enjoy tuning in at a specific time to catch their favorite shows (see the "premiere" of an episode etc.), and are more likely to continue watching TV by channel surfing and ending finding something nice (I know that my parents, grandparents and I enjoy turning the TV on and surfing for something semi-enjoyable while doing chores). In any case, I believe that the Internet still has a long way to go if the end goal is to eradicate television (yet the same goes for television). However, seeing how interconnected and powerful both are, as long as they both are making money, then neither will seek the destruction of the other.
ReplyDeleteI agree, Ellie. It doesn't seem feasible to completely eliminate TV, and while the Internet does have its clear perks, television has them too. How will things like local news mesh cohesively into an online-only world? Internet viewing is great, but the TV is here to stay.
DeleteTo begin with, this article brought to light the fact that the internet has been pretty much responsible for the decline of the music industry and print news. As someone who grew up with my family owning Maryland News, the magazine industry in Maryland, and as someone who is considering pursuing a career in music production, this saddens me. However, after reading this article (among others), I truly believe that while internet does pose a slight threat to the integrity of television, that one will not ultimately prevail over the other. Sites like Netflix often do not air shows until after they have first aired on television, and while these sites do make their own shows, I cannot imagine that they will ever come close to the amount of shows produced by cable and television networks. Most families still pay for television in some form. As of right now, I don't know any sites in which you can (legally) watch sports live. For this reason alone, my family still pays for cable as well as Netflix. Thus, while internet may cause television popularity to decline, I don't think that it will lead to its demise.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteWhile Reading this article, I began to realize and learn the online services, such as Netflix and Amazon aren't hurting cable as much as we think. Personally, I never use cable anymore only and I figured everyone else is the same way. However unlike news papers and other "old fashion" services television isn't that hurt by these online providers. Comcast and Time Warner, the biggest cable providers, still provide the internet in which you'd watch Netflix. And seeing how there are only six main providers of television they aren't really hurt and remain profitable. Television at this point seems that it is too big to fail. They remain profitable and advertisers still pay a lot to advertise, unlike Websites like Netflix that are only subscription based.
ReplyDeleteWhile the television companies themselves will not be hurt by the cutting the cord trend, I believe television will be. I believe that since the big five companies have an incredible amount of revenue, that they will soon be the leaders in online content. The industry itself will not fall, but I feel as if tv will become like radio is now; It will be an industry that makes an incredible amount of money, but will be a shadow of its former self, because there is now a more efficient way for the user to access the same content, But the irony is that all of the new content will be owned by the same companies.
ReplyDeleteAgreed! Anyone would take an easier alternative find something that they want. Maybe, services such as Netflix or Hulu will eventually buy out the rights to produce scripted shows since that is where they are predominantly seen.
DeleteFor the longest time I thought that the internet was completely wiping away the television industry, but after reading this article I think differently. I feel like the television industry and the internet are slowly becoming one entity, take Comcast for example. The article mentioned that they provide cable as well as internet, so without the television monopolies, we wouldn't be able to watch Netflix!!!! In fact, I agree that "cord cutting" is insignificant. The television industry is so huge, and if they truly feel threatened by the Internet, then they'll join them. Honestly, Comcast could end up owning Netflix and they would be a HUGE corporation. I do feel, however, that the style of television is changing because of the more narrative-like shows that are designed for binge watching. I still agree that the digital world is prevailing over television, but eventually the tv industry is going to make sure that they take over the Internet.
ReplyDeleteI definitely agree that the television industry is not going to go down without a fight. While I don't think that they are going to take over the internet (the time for that was a long time ago), I do think that they will find ways to compete. They already have an advantage in that they are the ones who provide internet services as well, and therefore are profiting from it regardless. Cord cutting is not a problem in that sense, but I think that it could be an issue when it comes to live sports and news.
DeleteRegarding who will ultimately win, television or the Internet, there can be a lot said of what TV can do that the Internet can not and vice versa. For starters, television can broadcast sports, and as of now, they are the only ones able to do so. Of course, with the Internet, you are able to watch shows and movies at any time; you can watch what you want when you want, which can’t always be said for television. Also, Internet streaming services offer their own content, usually of higher quality than television just for the simple reason of trying to outdo the television business. Famous directors, actors, and writers are hired just to get more subscribers to these Internet streaming services. It is realistic that like the music industry, the television business will decline, but people do love their sports and unless something changes with government regulations, television will “win.” If sports could be viewed on the computer, however, Internet streaming services would gain followers because streaming is a cheaper alternative to TV. From a cultural standpoint, TV has been romanticized as the norm where every household has at least one television, but with changing times, every household has at least one computer as well.
ReplyDeleteI honestly have trouble believing that the internet will win the battle against television. In the early days of television, the film companies were in the same position as the tv companies are in against the internet. The only reason the film companies "won" was because they bought out all the cable companies and channels. I feel that sooner than later the big five television companies will either create their own streaming services (not those awful apps they already own) and then create their own digital media, or rather they'll buy out all the streaming services such as Netflix, Hulu, and Prime. HBO has shown they can make money through their streaming service and it won't be surprising to see the broadcast companies follow suit.
ReplyDeleteJake,
DeleteI hate to say that your points are valid. But, I do not agree that if television companies create online services they will not buy out streaming services. We can settle our differences another day.
Jess
Day by day more content is becoming available online to users. I think that sooner or later the 5 big companies will cross over to the internet and start producing shows for services such as Netflix. I haven't watched regular cable TV in a long time and I have just stuck to Netflix and I know a bunch of people who have done the same. Since the big companies own multiple networks, there won't be a shortage of programs to watch online. The exception to this would be shows such as So You Think You Can Dance, talk shows such as Jimmy Kimmel, and even SNL are shows that I could never see being on Hulu or Netlifx. That is why I think that although premium services such as Hulu and Netlfix are growing, I believe that Cable TV isn't going anywhere anytime soon.
ReplyDeleteRuby, I completely agree! I haven't watched cable tv since I arrived at Ithaca! However, since you can watch episodes of SNL and Jimmy Kimmel online anyway that it would be even more efficient to host these on premium channels.
DeleteIf there is a huge disruption in the media system, it will not happen over night, and in now way happen within the next year or two. It will be a slow process. There will be large steps along the way but ultimately, the cable companies have such a monopoly on media that they will not go without a fight. Wolff is too floppy floppy to create a considerable argument and I feel like he is too impulsive to make strong claims. I see television and the internet overlapping or joining forces instead of duking it out.
ReplyDeleteI think that shows on television have a certain appeal that some people will just never stop watching. The traditional time slot that a TV show might occupy is something set in stone that a lot of people might appreciate (seeing one show per week). I don't think cable television will ever die, but I do think that streaming services such as Netflix or Hulu will begin to grow, especially if their shows appeal to the audiences that typically like to watch shows on the go. These services could certainly continue to grow if they keep producing popular shows. People would just continue to watch whatever shows they wanted, regardless of where they would be able to watch them.
ReplyDeleteYes! My family and I will actually sit down weekly during the summer to watch certain shows and those moments translate to happy, unwinding laughs and conversation. It just becomes a tradition and I can't imagine it not being a thing.
DeleteI completely agree! Netflix and Hulu will continue to grow but TV itself will never die. Having family moments through television is something that will never be forgotten. Television has those memories and people are not going to want to see them go away.
DeletePersonally, I believe that both utilities will survive, neither one will become completely extinct. Many people prefer to watch TV on the go, wherever they may be. In that case, online TV is clearly superior because you can watch it on a laptop. On the other hand, it is sometimes preferred to sit down on the couch and watch TV, which is nice because there's a bigger screen and it's more comfortable and you don't have to charge your TV as you would a laptop. Depending on people's preference, they can choose which type of TV to watch, which is why I think both will survive. That being said, obviously TV has dominated thus far because it has been the only source from which to watch shows. Now that internet has made its way onto the scene, it will certainly take some viewers away from TV. So although I don't think TV will fail, it will definitely lose some viewers.
ReplyDeleteI agree. I think that convenience plays a major role in what delivery method people chose to get their entertainment. Sometimes its reading or listening, other times it's watching. The internet is just another GOOD option to choose to consume butt tons of rick and morty
DeleteI agree with you, I think it will definitely depend on who is watching and what their preferences are. The internet would be better suited for some lifestyles, however, the same thing goes for television. Personally I agree that moth utilities will survive.
DeleteTelevision has been around long before the internet has. The 20th century alternated the way people think about both. The world wide web offers many opportunities to viewers that TV doesn't provide. For instance, you can live stream shows illegally or legally if a TV isn't available. So personally yes, I do believe internet will dominate television. It will certainly take some time however the internet will soon become our television. Netflix, Hulu, Amazon Prime, etc., these are a few programs the internet offers. Advertisers will keep paying networks to broadcast their commercials while online services don't provide commercials, just subscriptions. I don't believe TV will fail, I believe it will lose its spotlight.
ReplyDeletei don't agree just because the television companies have establish themselves. I really can't see them losing unless they give into the streaming companies.
DeleteJake your opinion is irrelevant
DeleteI think that tv is going to become the next radio, and the internet is going to become the next TV. It's just a transitional phase between popular information delivery methods. Overall, the internet has more going for it than tv does (you can watch anything that's on tv on your computer through some legal and some illegal methods...as well as do internet things) being the collective brain of everyone that uses it, but there are certain SPECIFIC characteristics that television has that it can do better than the internet. Right now that's live content, and exclusive broadcast programming that cannot be found online (a relatively small amount of content at that). Who knows where that's going to go though. Television may still be a landmark in every american home just like the radio is in every car, I just think it's purpose is going to shift. Radio became so popular because of 'the news'. When tv came out, the news was bigger and better than ever because you could WATCH IT LIVE! Now, I get live updates minutes after explosions happen across the world on twitter and CNN online. It all goes straight to my phone...where coincidentally I can watch Always Sunny pretty much anywhere. So I think as the internet becomes a more and more popular choice to get entertainment, television's role will change from being a star, to a supporting actor.
ReplyDeleteI absolutely agree with the transitional idea, I really see tv evolving into something like radio. Reliable, constant, and not payed nearly as much attention to as other forms of media.
DeleteNow that's an enthralling idea! I never saw it as a transitional phase, but you have a good point here. Also, the whole star versus supporting actor analogy- kudos to you. I appreciate it so much.
DeleteI totally agree with you. The point you made about how it's a transitional process is a cool idea and is very visible in current technology. Also, having the ability to legally or illegally download content for free or for a fraction of the cost of cable is a supporting case that the internet has won out.
DeleteWhile I believe that TV is going to stick around for quite some time, I do not think that it will be around forever. Streaming services are more suited to our mobile society, as you can watch content whenever and wherever on multiple devices. If you’re on a train commute in the middle of the night, you have the ability to stream episodes of Orange Is the New Black on your smartphone. For TV, you have to watch programs at certain times and have to sit through commercial breaks. Recording a show is an option, but you still have to watch it on a TV. With streaming, the customer has complete control over their viewing habits. In addition to being a mobile society, we are also finding less time to dedicate to certain activities. It is much faster to just stream shows over Netflix than surf TV channels and then sit through commercials. TV will still be active for a while longer because people often watch sports, award shows, and news live. However, once Netflix, Hulu, or Amazon Prime can provide all of the programs that are offered by cable companies, television will be a thing of the past. In my opinion, there is no doubt that one day, streaming companies will be able to provide all that cable companies can.
ReplyDeleteI definitely agree with this Lauren. TV wont' be hear for a long time as much as online streaming will. TV is just going to be useful for just news, ESPN Sports, and award shows.
DeleteAsk yourself, would Netflix be what it is today without television? How about, would television be what it is today without Internet? I honestly don’t know who would win a battle – television or internet – because I honestly think they feed off of one another. The content on Netflix is aired after it is originally aired on a television first. When it comes to the internet, you don’t have permission to watch certain shows without signing into a cable account first. For instance, programs such as ABC, and ABC family require an account of some sort corresponding to a cable company. I also think this applies for ESPN as well. When you cut to the chase television and internet work in unison, and are pretty much dependent on one another. I know television is very important to the older generations so I am interested to see if and when it will truly die out if it even does. The generalization associated with TV watching these days is Netflix so until one pans out over the other, then the battle shall continue.
ReplyDeleteYou have brought to my attention that television and the internet do in fact work in unison in the entertainment program business. You pointed out that sites like Netflix put content up after the shows air on television. Although one can argue that Netflix has its own original shows, it doesn't make up all of the television content on Netflix. I didn't think about how the internet helps promote television and shows on television use internet for viewers to interact.
DeleteI don't see internet or television beating the other out any time soon. Profits are still high for television, and I don't think they're falling low enough for TV to disappear. I think everything is going to eventually end up in one place though. One day, everything will be online, and we won't need cable. It's pretty much heading in this direction, but I believe network and cable stations will find a way to stay alive and place their programming exclusively online. CBS is already starting in this directon through CBS All Access. You can live stream what's on TV as well as watch the previous episodes.
ReplyDeleteI don't think that tv will fall anytime soon. Television, the networks, and the studios will have to adapt to the changing audience expectations. I am sure that tv will still exist for as long as we are alive, but the generations that come after, the ones that grew up with streaming alongside television will be the ones to phase it out. Tv will stick around, but it won't be the industry it once was. Ultimately, streaming and tv will have to share the market, as it's up to the consumer which they perfer.
ReplyDeleteTotally, agree that TV and Streaming will share the market in the long run.
DeleteI agree with Maya, TV will definitely still be around for as long as we are alive. Though eventually I think streaming will take over the market.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteSince TV has been the longest running competitor to beat , I think the Internet is still adapting. Whereas, TV is still up and running strong. However, I feel that there is an overlap between TV and Internet. One thing I feel strongly about is that TV and Internet might join forces in the long run. They may be very strong competitors now but every piece of technology is constantly evolving. I do feel that the youth tend to stray more to mobile streaming rather than TV. While the more older people of our society probably do less streaming and more TV. There seems to be this significant gap between age and technology. In the end as the youth that has been exposed to this digital age as we grow older this gap will not have been so unknowledgeable to us.
ReplyDeleteI feel cable companies will be an example of the time that "FREE BROADCAST TV" was a thing and then you needed an adaptor to watch it then you needed cable... so pretty soon we will have a repeat in time.. Where cable becomes lost and Online Streaming becomes the norm for our society.
I agree with what you're saying. Theres a huge gap between age and technology. For example, my grandparents don't even know what Netflix is, but ask anyone else and they do.
DeleteI don't see one side completely winning this battle anytime soon due to the fact that older generations rely heavily on television and not online streaming and younger generations seem to favor online streaming. Television has been such a prevalent force in society and technology it can not completely disappear. As Wolff said, even if you cut the chord on cable, cable companies are still going to win because Time Warner and Comcast still provide fiber optics for internet, basically no matter they're going to win. How you watch TV is really just a preference. At home, I watch more scheduled TV but at school I only watch Netflix. I don't know many people that prefer to watch live sporting events or news via streaming verses just watching them on actual television. Television isn't going to go away, but it won't be the force it used to be once Netflix and Amazon start creating more television shows to watch.
ReplyDeleteWhile television has always seemed to separate itself from other forms of media due its popularity, I've noticed a shift in the scale. Throughout the past few years, services such as Netflix and Hulu have begun to make names for themselves. For me, it's easy to understand why: everything is in one place. While some shows aren't provided to people through these types of services, having a library of content, that continues to grow, right at your finger tips certainly makes life easier than searching through the channel guides, in the hope that what your looking for is on. Unfortunately, it isn't one sided because there is a essential component that TV has the upper hand on: live events. Whether it's sports, an award ceremony or a concert, the achilles heel of sites such as Netflix or Hulu is their inability to stream these events. Television networks having the rights to these events and not syndicating them is a strength that keeps them in business. In the end, we all watch TV but, if the interest towards the internet continues to grow as rapidly as it has been, television may no longer be the dominant force in media. Eventually, the internet may acquire the title as the most dominant form of media.
ReplyDeleteI totally agree with all the points you made here! Netflix is super convenient, but sports, award shows and other live TV events are also great to watch every now and then. I cannot imagine having to pick between TV or the Internet, but the Internet definitely seems to have more options, making it more dominant nowadays.
DeleteMy initial reaction to ready this article is WOW! I never knew what a complex that the TV industry was so complex and with so few companies holding all the power, hopefully that will change. My biggest take away from this article is to convince my family to cut our cord, personally i think our service is shit to begin with but there are plenty of cheaper alternatives as well. i am convinced that eventually TV will be aged out but i think that is far in the future for know i think the best thing that can happen from a consumer standpoint is more competition among the large companies and maybe room for smaller companies to enter the field good work to our benefit. I also have a lot of interest in what Alan wolk has to say in his book, so i think ill give that a try.
ReplyDeleteCable TV is still doing satisfactorily and Netflix, Hulu, Amazon... they're all doing good, too. Will one surpass the other? Eventually, perhaps. I don't think the chance of that occurring within the next ten years is anything we have to worry about.
ReplyDeletePeople tend to like the things in life that sound complicated in the fancy sense, but in reality are quite simple to use. Purchasing CDs and newspapers became less convenient, and so obviously the amount of customers for those items depleted. People who still buy those items will do it because they want- even if only for a moment- to live in the past. TV is, in a sense, the opposite scenario. It has always been a part of day-to-day living and it still is. Networks have gained loyal customers over the years that won't be lost easily.
Netflix and the likeness... they're the biggest contenders for the entertainment spotlight and I doubt they could 100% replace networks or cable TV in general. Yes, they're super convenient- especially for college kids,but it's not the same. There is a perk that comes with cable that can't be matched in the same sense. Watching cable TV brings an excitement that Netflix, Amazon Prime and Hulu Plus can't duplicate and that is watching LIVE TV. You can't beat that feeling and in the back of their minds, people probably realize this and that's why they won't let go.
I completely agree with you! That feeling of watching your favorite TV show live and not having to worry about people spoiling it for you the next day is priceless. It's a feeling I love and that's why I keep watching TV because I need to watch shows like Scandal live or else I risk huge plot twists being spoiled for me later. For that feeing I agree, TV is not going anywhere.
DeleteI completely agree with you! That feeling of watching your favorite TV show live and not having to worry about people spoiling it for you the next day is priceless. It's a feeling I love and that's why I keep watching TV because I need to watch shows like Scandal live or else I risk huge plot twists being spoiled for me later. For that feeing I agree, TV is not going anywhere.
DeleteI personally am a cable TV person because I have never owned Netflix or Hulu. All the shows I love to watch are on cable and I can not imagine not having cable in the future to watch these shows. Probably if i did have Netflix or Hulu, I might find something to get hooked on, but at the moment nothing can rip me away from the current TV shows I am watching on cable TV. So yes, there will be many loyal customers like me that will continue to pay for cable TV. The question is, will the price for cable go up or down due to the slow decline of cable subscribers.
DeleteSince having Netflix, I completely understand the popularity in comparison to Cable TV. Netflix has an abundance of options that are available at any time the viewer likes. In my experience, My favorite shows, Modern Family and The Middle, are both not on Netflix. I'm perfectly fine with this. There's something harmful with a company like Netflix; it's able to completely steal the day from you because you never run out of options. This really might be one of the reasons for it's popularity. For me, I enjoy walking away form a TV, making cable my option of choice. There have always been loyal cable customers, and there will continue to be in the future.
DeleteI do think that the Internet has already started to beat TV. TV will not entirely fade away since they still provide us with aspects such as award shows, sports and news, but that is usually not what attracts the eighteen-to-forty-nine category that TV networks want. This category would much rather “binge-watch” shows without commercials instead of waiting an entire week for a new episode to come out when you can easily watch an entire season of a show on Netlfix in that amount of time. Not only does the Internet provide entire seasons at the click of a mouse, but it also provides us with ways to contact each other without speaking over the phone, watch viral videos, or even just play a game or take a quiz of Buzzfeed. Also, the fact that spending on digital advertising will most likely surpass spending on television advertising by 2016 definitely signifies how big the shift is from TV to Internet streaming. Although, I do understand the point in the article that acknowledges in order to be able to stream shows online you still need to pay for cable to receive internet even if you are not watching the hundreds of shows they provide on your actual TV. Internet may be surpassing TV, but you cannot have one without the other.
ReplyDeleteI believe that streaming has already started to beat TV in a way because when you ask people what TV shows they watch, they usually refer to series on Netflix, or just say they watch Netflix. More people lean towards watching Netflix or other streaming sites such as Amazon Prime, instead of cable because they can binge watch a whole series and not have to wait or sit through commercials. I feel like people today mainly watch cable TV to get their news, watch an awards show, or a sports game. I don't think that TV will completely go away, but I do think that streaming sites will become the main source of show watching sometime in the future.
ReplyDeleteI think it is really interesting how the television providers (like Comcast and Time Warner Cable) are still profiting off people even if they aren't watching TV because they are the ones who are providing the internet services. Without that, consumers would not be able to view websites like the Huffington Post or stream shows on Netflix. However, even though they are benefitting from heavier internet traffic, it is evident that the television providers are going to have to start competing with online services. They are losing people to Netflix, Hulu, and Amazon. I believe that they are going to have to start finding ways to adapt and draw people back to the traditional TV model, especially key demographics such as 18 to 35 year olds.
ReplyDeleteWhen looking at the television industry it's easy to say that its revenue is declining. However I don't believe that its going to phase out completely. The older generations still love watching conventional TV. The television providers are not that good no matter wear you go and its a lot easier to hop on Netflix and watch a TV show without commercial interruption. This article proved to me that the entertainment business is changing faster then I originally thought. However I think that streaming and TV will eventually share the entertainment industry equally. It gives us access to news and other resources like weather that for a while could only be accessed on TV. If being asked about which I watch more of I would say it depends on availability. At school I watch more internet streaming programming like Netflix because that is what is available to me. At home I watch more TV because it is what I was used to and to be honest sometimes I just miss the funny commercials. I don't want to ever see TV completely go away. I was not aware of the huge advertising revenue shift that is actually taking place, that surprised me. When looking at the big picture for the future I think they will share the industry at some point because people are going to want both. Without each other neither will be able to succeed.
ReplyDeleteI agree with what you're saying about how television will never fade out completely. I can attest that older generations love watching TV- my grandparents almost never turn their TV off. I think that we will probably do the same since TVs are easier to watch than on a computer screen as you get older. I can't believe how fast the business is changing; I don't personally want to cut the cord because I like the traditional idea of watching television. But I agree, here at school, I prefer online streaming because that it was it more available to me but as soon as I go home, I would be watching on my TV. Also yes, advertising would be cut which would affect other businesses because television watching gets ads lots of viewers and then potential customers.
DeleteWhile internet streaming is undoubtedly a very rapidly growing industry, it is unlikely that it will surpass the popularity and revenue of television, at least in the near future. When you think about it, a decline in television consumption could actually harm the business of internet streaming services as the vast majority of their content comes from television to begin with. While companies like Netflix and Amazon Prime have begun producing their own original content, the content they produce on their own is a very small percentage of what they have to offer. The problem is that television is slowly making less money as streaming grows in popularity and this is mainly due to issues involving advertising. Like the article says, one of the most crucial money-makers in the television industry is advertising. With advertising, companies can only make money based on how many people are watching their network at a given time. If less people are watching, the company makes less money. If television stations begin to lose money, they will most likely start producing less content, thus providing less content for services like Netflix to put on their platform. Looking at it this way, we can see just how much internet streaming services rely on television. Instead of looking at the two as separate industries, we could start looking at them as two different parts of a single industry. While it is practically impossible that TV will completely go away (at least in the next 10-20 years), it is interesting to look at just how important of an industry it is in today's entertainment society after being around for as long as it has been.
ReplyDeleteLooking at Television today it is obvious that they should be scared of Netflix and Amazon. They got rid of ads, which works great for people now because there's no need to sit around and waste time watching something you didn't plan on watching. No one like ads, it's the time during live TV that everyone uses as a bathroom break. And as it is mentioned in the article people can not only watch TV on the computer but on the Smart Phones and tablets anywhere their heart desires. No longer do people have to stand in front of a TV to get the latest news. Sure TV won't go away anytime soon, but it will change and keep changing in order to compete with online competitors. Especially since shows like "Orange is the New Black" and "Transparent" are getting more critical recognition than most prime time shows are. Which means TV will have to make a come back by producing more compelling shows to bring in audience and make it capable of watching it anywhere in order to compete with online competitors. As a result, in my opinion, we are living in the best age of Television online and on the screen.
ReplyDeleteTelevision is beginning to go by the waste side but I don't think they will ever be completely phased out. We are becoming more and more unattached to it because we able to access most shows online. People are no longer being held down by a television set or a DVD player. Instead we are becoming more attached to our smartphones, tablets, and laptops, all portable items that are able to be brought anywhere. It is surprising that even with the less attachment to television, cable companies are still making money on their monopolies that supply the wifi for the internet services that people want. I think eventually, some of these cable companies will lose enough money to be phased out or they may combine forces to have a wider area and a bigger audience but there will still be a few that are still strong. As we age, we watch more television and although our generation might be okay with watching shows, sports games, and news online, the older generations still prefer to use televisions. Most baby boomers and the generation below are not technological advanced as we are today and would prefer to use what they know. Although we are living in the digital age and all the newest technology is at our fingertips, I believe that we will never do away with television, but just use less of it.
ReplyDeleteI agree that television will never be completely phased out. I think it's like print media in that it will always have a place as a form of communication, just that it may also have a new digital counterpart. I wouldn't be surprised to see more cable packages/programming available for viewing on other devices like laptops and phones (some networks already have this), but I think people still enjoy watching things on a larger screen with friends and family. Television is also definitely still profitable enough to stick around, and I wouldn't be surprised if online subscriptions from cable companies bring in even more revenue in the future.
Delete(Reposting because I can't find my comment from yesterday): While companies like Netflix and Amazon can definitely be seen as a threat to cable companies, traditional TV offers a wide variety of content (both critically-acclaimed shows like Breaking Bad and lower-end fare like Duck Dynasty) consolidated into one place. On-demand and DVR options still give users the control over what to watch, when they want to watch it that streaming services offer. If every television channel that currently exists were to simply become an individual online network, I don't think that their shows would ever find their audience. There's space for both traditionally televised and online content in the market, and consumers want a blend of both. Just like television, digital content is a mixed bag: there's plenty of wonderful high-quality stuff out there, but there's also a lot of junk to sort through. A lot of online media seems to be evolving into something separate from standard TV -- short-form content is very different than what most networks produce and online series are, as the article eloquently put it, "more novelistic." Different types of storytelling offer variety in the market and provide viewers with more choice: do they want to commit a weekend to watching a season of House of Cards or do they want to watch a more serialized comedy like The Big Bang Theory on CBS? An NFL game or a YouTube recap? There's still money to be made on television, and unless they face a larger loss of revenue like the music industry, I don't expect traditional TV to disappear anytime soon.
ReplyDeleteToday our favorite songs and television shows seem to be at the palm of our hand. Because of the Internet we can watch all of our favorite shows at any time we like. Some people might think that one day the Internet will take over television and soon we will have no use for television. But what is true is that the television industry is continuing to grow. For many decades television has been around and each decade the television industry is more successful. Though Netflix and Hulu have also been very successful there is no way that the Internet will take over television because there are so many programs that television can provide us with that the Internet does not.
ReplyDeleteStreaming is definitely becoming more popular than TV but I don't think it will phase the TV industry out completely. In our lifetime TV and Streaming have gone hand in hand. I for one watch TV and stream shows off Netflix all the time. The generation after us if anything may completely phase TV out. For now though I think TV and Streaming will just share the market.
ReplyDeleteI agree with the statement that TV and Internet streaming coexist, one can't be something without the other. In order to get internet you have to order the cable package that goes along with it. It's funny how that's the way it works because we always see these two as tough competitors but I don't really think one will win as long as the way you get your internet is through cable. Although I do believe Internet streaming has the upper hand ,on television right now, I don't believe television is going down. The push by Netflix, Amazon, and Hulu to attract viewers to the idea you can watch any show at any time has been attracting lots of viewers there's no doubt about that. However, you can't forget about the power live sports has on our culture. Last Sunday the Seahawks vs Packers Sunday Night Football game on NBC attracted 26.2 million viewers which blew the rating predictions out of the water. Television will adapt to the push that the Internet is making, they're too big of an industry not to.
ReplyDeleteI never really considered what live shows mean to the industry, such as sports games. I think that for now the live TV programs will keep cable TV alive but honestly if streaming is our future, who's to say netflix and Yahoo Sreen and Hulu won't start stream live shows? -Amanda Spiezio
DeleteAs many above have said, I believe that while TV will be challenged by the Internet, and maybe even changed in small ways, it will perpetually survive. I equate it to radio. When the television was created, it brought an entirely new channel to media and entertainment. It was better than the radio- you could see!! Everyone who could afford one went out and got a television and soon it became almost a necessity for every one. But, radio still lived on. It still DOES live on. Radio, in fact, has expanded even after being out-shined by TV. This is my prediction for the TV vs. Internet debate. The Internet will sweep in. It will be loved and everyone will want it and use it BUT, it won't eliminate the television. There are perks to both, just like there were perks to radio when television slipped into the picture. There is no feasible or cohesive way that television could cease to exist in our world, no matter how enticing Netflix, Hulu, Amazon, live streaming, and other services may be. We're Americans...we'll take it all.
ReplyDeleteI agree that television never will completely disappear. I think it's like radio, like you said, as well as print media.It will never be completely dislodged from its place in our society. It will simply be different because there will also be a digital component. The development of internet radio has helped greatly in the expansion of the radio industry you mentioned, so perhaps what is needed in this competition between internet and television is for there to be more overlap and for them to work more in conjunction. Therefore, I agree with you that TV will never be completely eliminated, and either this competition will go on for a really long time, or they will learn to work together.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis article made the point that cable companies will be (more or less) in a win-win situation if people cut the chord because they will still provide the Internet that people use to watch the streaming sites. But I also think in a sense companies like Universal and Disney will still be ok for a while because people will still want to watch old shows so they will kind of syndicate those shows to be put up on Netflix and Amazon. Also advertising companies that advertise on live TV and re runs, still will have a place in the industry. Though Netflix doesn’t ads or commercials, I expect that if they become the primary way to watch TV there will be ads on there sooner or later. So though the article expresses concerns for the industry I I think if cable TV ever goes away (which seems rare) most aspects of the industry will be ok. The article also mentioned that the top 30 cable networks went down 10% in prime time viewers than the pervious year, which to me was expected. Netflix and companies similar to it are where most people I know watch their TV. The industry is changing and for the most part, that is clear to everyone. But in the end I think most areas of the TV industry will find a way to fit in the new system of streaming. -Amanda Spiezio
ReplyDeleteI agree with you on this. Netflix was an instant success and Americans are ready to switch to internet-based writing. Television will still be relevant in the future, but I agree with you on the fact that the TV industry is quickly changing.
DeleteI agree with most of the comments above. A lot of people have said that although the television industry will be challenged by the original content produced by online media distributers such as Amazon and Netflix, television will still be a major way people will view shows or receive information. The article also pointed out that cable companies are in a win-win situation because they provide the technology to view the media in both ways. Another big part about this article was the focus on advertisement in the media. No matter what platform advertisement companies choose to present the ads, I feel as if they are also in a win-win situation. Online media distributers such as Amazon and Netflix need the money from advertisers to produce the shows, and the television studios need the money from the advertisers to produce there shows. This creates a more competitive environment for both forms of media. Something that stood out to me was when the article stated that the top thirty cable networks went down ten percent in prime time viewers than in the previous year. This statement didn't surprise me because when I look back at the different ways I view media, I fall into the category of people who view the majority of my shows online. I would like to point out that the shows that I watch online are shows that have previously aired on television. They are not shows that were originally created for the purpose of release on a platform such as Amazon or Netflix. The television and online industries have undoubtedly changed in a massive way over the past few years and will continue to change. In my opinion, whether they effect either industry in a positive or negative way will remain unsure.
ReplyDeleteWe are all currently living in the digital age. As we become more advanced in our technology, expectations of services increase as well. The result of this increase was the boom of internet streaming services like Netflix and Hulu. While the statistic provided by the article stating that cable providers profits increased from $36 to $93 billion dollars from the year 2000 to 2010 it is hard to believe that such exponential growth will continue with increased competition. However, in looking at many of the other media industries like newspapers and music, we see a shocking decline. I believe that it's only a matter of time before cable networks begin to take hits like the other industries did. The only way that I see the cable networks being able to maintain their profit margins is through providing free streaming services to all of their monthly cable subscribers. In doing this not only will they protect themselves from having their customers leave for other rising streaming options like Amazon and Netflix who are beginning to generate their own content. Cable networks have already established a bond with our generation and we've come to expect certain programming on certain channels but if it becomes more convenient to get the content we want elsewhere, if by streaming or other means, their is no guarantee of customer loyalties. In my opinion, whether we want to accept it or not, the internet has already won.
ReplyDeleteThis generation knows how important television was growing up. We watched it all day everyday and it was because the shows were all good. We still reminisce today about how great those childhood shows were compared to shows nowadays. Up until my junior year of high school everyone I knew talked about some show on television. Once I hit junior year, everyone started talking about these shows I did not know about until I was introduced to the world of Netflix my senior year. I still refuse to get Netflix because my favorite shows are on cable and those are all I have time for during my busy week to watch. I have noticed that Netflix and other similar companies are getting more customers than cable is in this generation of teens. The more entertaining Netflix shows become, the more competitive it will become for cable and the faster cable will lose their customers. It is true that cable companies are staying afloat with their internet and cable plan that forces customers to get both in order to get the better buy. Although, like all markets, customers will find ways to substitute cable internet service for another way of obtaining internet service. It is possible that cable will be struggling to stay afloat in the near future and they should start finding alternatives to achieving profit and success.
ReplyDeleteI agree with what you are saying and I think cable companies will find a way to stay afloat just as newspapers did. Advertising will be done have to be done in other ways such as during shows on Netflix as Hulu currently does or displaying company logos more prominently within shows and on the bottom of the screen. Network exclusive content (such as 60 Minutes) will have to be sold to online viewers as well in order for cable to remain relevant.
DeleteWhile I can't imagine the internet taking over television anytime soon, I do believe it is inevitable. Websites like Netflix and Amazon will continue to grow their libraries and produce more original content and the technology they do this with will continue to evolve. At the moment television is the best place to go to if you want to find live content but that could absolutely change in just a few short years. And to the argument that watching shows on the internet isn't ideal when there are more than one or two people, there are already ways to remedy that. Chromecast and the Amazon Fire stick are specially designed to bring the internet onto the larger screen. Television may never completely go away but it is very unlikely that it will continue to be the dominant source of media.
ReplyDeleteI completely agree with this. I see a couple of people saying that it doesn't matter, because the elderly is television's main source of viewers. However, we will become the elderly. There just doesn't seem to be a way in which television will say the dominant source of media for long. You bring up live content as one of TV's stronger attributes, but how long do you think it will be until everyone just streams live news from an app. The times have changed and TV needs to adapt to fit changing consumer platforms.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI found it shocking that prime-time viewership in the top thirty cable networks went down more than 10 percent from the year before. I knew that more and more people were watching Netflix than tv, but these actual numbers proved to me that there is a significant amount of people in the country basically no longer watching live television. But even though the numbers are dropping, I don't believe television will be phased out. The beginning of the review mentions newspapers decline, but today in 2015 there are still newspapers being printed. Newspapers have been hit twice in history-- once when television came out with news broadcasting and another time when everything was being put on the internet. If newspapers can make it through those rough patches and still exist, I believe live television is here to stay. So to answer the question of the title, who will win? I think neither will win and that both television and the internet are here to stay.
ReplyDeleteI agree with you seeing the actual percentage of people that were not watching live television but instead streaming from the internet or watching recorded shows really did come as a shock to me and I did not know the numbers were so significant. I also don't believe television will be phased out because no matter what there will always be someone counting down the days until they get to watch their show on live television or people who watch live games and live debates.
DeleteThis article was no shock to me considering the quick rise in online television. Even though ABC/Disney, NBC Universal, Fox, Viacom, and CBS are super successful networks, the internet seems to be their underdog. Websites like Netflix, Hulu, and Amazon. Wolff compares the music industry to the television industry, saying that pirated music made the industry lose money, and he compares this to tv. The media business, Wolff declares, is collapsing because of inflated salaries, bloated egos, and dumb ideas, but in my opinion, this is the beginning to a whole new generation of TV. Every college student is addicted to Netflix, this is a fact. Cable and internet television will coexist with each other, but not without crazy competition. Only time will tell on who will come out on top in the next couple of years.
ReplyDeleteThrough the use of flowery language, this article spoke about the new frontier of television having no new frontier. It spoke television using the same advertising methods in different formats. As more people move to online watching, advertisements will just follow. As previously stated, if a television show can not spark online conversation, it will not succeed. Television and online content depend on one another. Television, whether online or on air, will always be a discussion point for people, who most likely communicate online. It is clear that the internet is the new frontier that helps unite all forms of media, newspaper, television, and radio all into one place. This one place provides more reaction from the audience than capable before, and therefore more feedback for advertisers which is more effective than television.
ReplyDeleteI think television is here to stay and the internet helps better connect the audience to advertisers.
DeleteThis article did not really come as a surprise to me because I am aware of the fact that a lot of people, especially college students and kids in my generation, have switched from watching live television to watching from their computers. I do not think that just because more people may be watching Netflix on their computers or recording shows to watch later, means that tv will be phased out. It is a fact that older people in their 40s to 70s are the primary audience for television. Without television there wouldn't be anywhere to watch your late night shows or constant re-runs of friends, and you wouldn't be able to keep up with your tv series even if you can watch it online the following morning. Television is essential and even though it may seem like a lot of people have switched to watching on their handheld devices, it is still used by the majority of the population.
ReplyDeleteJust as newspapers still exist and are being phased out by online forms of media - traditional forms of television will do the same. Newspapers aren't going anywhere but it comes down to an audience preference just like television vs. online streaming. There will always be arguments for both but I think it would be in the best interest of the Big 6 Companies to invest in at least "dipping their toes" in the waters of online streaming. Personally, I do not own a television on campus so I rely on my Hulu & Netflix accounts. If ya can't beat em, join em. I believe television companies would agree that they would rather lose some money investing in streaming on premium channels than losing all money by having content illegally downloaded and watched.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis article wasn't a great shock to me. I found Wolff's opinions to be pretentious and borderline narcissistic. The article itself, makes note that Wolff's biases seem to switch and reverse every few years. He criticizes fun informative sites such as BuzzFeed and Vice while founding Newser- the site which seems to be the lowest of the low when it comes true news. I do believe that TV and the Internet are becoming more entertwined with each passing generation. The future of TV is, most likely, the internet. I agree with Wolk that there is an impending major disruption that will happen in the television industry because of this. The question is when will it happen. That being said the television industry, is in itself, too big to fail. Already Netflix and Hulu are sweeping the devices of the nation, and I believe there will only be more and more companies that switch to similar platforms. One things for certain streaming is here to stay.
ReplyDeleteAs reading the article, I see how both the TV and internet streaming are becoming different. I believe that TV will always be there. The older generations are more to watching TV for the news and classic shows that. Young generations are introducing to Netflix, Hulu, and Amazon prime. What I believe is that TV is useful because it is where we view our shows when it premiers before streaming online. Streaming you can take anywhere and watch whatever you want with many options to choice from. Schools, programs, or other places with groups of people makes online streaming more convenient then cable because cables aren’t everywhere only most available to people’s home. However, slowly I will say that online streaming will become more advance than cable. Cable companies will not die out because of the one thing online streaming needs, internet service. TV will for sure cut out some programs on their channel that isn’t useful. Even those we’re paying for broadcast networks, cable companies will start to become losing views and only some networks will become useful. Online streaming is increasing. College students, for example, use it very much on their laptop, phones and iPad. Employees use it on their breaks at while while being on breaks, kids use it more when they come home to watch TV and pick the multiple shows that attracts them. The shifting is happening and its time to actually realize that as time comes, the TV companies and online streaming is differencing out with one another.
ReplyDeleteBoth TV and the internet have aspects that cannot be duplicated by the other, so it is currently a toss up between who will eventually come out on top. For example, television can broadcast sports, unlike internet services. Television will always win when it comes to sports, unless restrictions somehow change and internet services are allowed to stream sports as well as their content. On the other hand, unlike television, you can watch shows and movies anytime you want, or even on the go with internet services, which can’t distinctively be said about television. Internet services also tend to produce higher quality content, as they receive their users' subscription fees directly. More and more big names in the industry are being paid high amounts to put out content on these internet services. Internet services also do not share the same censorship restrictions that most television does. Overall, it is unlikely that one will win out over the other unless they can both begin to feature aspects that are currently inaccessible to one or the other. However, I do believe this shift is coming, and the viewers be very definitive in their response to it.
ReplyDeleteAlthough internet services such as Netflix and Hulu are a major threat to TV I don't think that TV will ever completely go away. Even though Netflix has become a huge sensation especially among busy, young adults, television still offers things that internet cannot. Most of Netflix's series are series that once were or still are on TV. Without television Netflix and other internet television services would simply be left with the few shows that they originally produced. Also television has the opportunity to show live coverage of sporting events and award shows, something that online services don't have. Although Netflix does cost money, the amount of people who pay for the service is substantially less than the amount of people using the accounts. Netflix also doesn't have the same kind of advertisements that television does, therefore it is not bringing in money that cable companies will. On the other hand, Netflix allows viewers to watch their choice of movies or tv shows on their free time, which is something that young adults greatly appreciate. I am curious to see wether this has an impact on tv in the future. Since many college students and young adults use these internet services now, i wonder wether it will have an impact in their television-buying habits as they get older. I do believe there will be a shift in the way that people watch tv, whoever I don't see cable television going anywhere anytime soon.
ReplyDeleteAlmost every American family owns a television and pays for cable in their home, despite also having Apple TV or Netflix. While it's highly likely the Internet will surpass TV, I believe it will do so slowly, over time. If you think about it, a majority of the TV shows we watch and subscribe to are made for TV cable networks, not for the internet. With that said, internet-based TV shows do exist, like Netflix or HBO original shows. However, these internet original shows are small in number to the amount of shows produced for cable. On top of this, we are paying for cable in our homes, while at the same time paying for internet based entertainment which these large cable companies make a profit off our subscriptions. The most interesting thing I found from this article, was that YouTube was challenged by large cable companies for copyright, and instead of continuing to deliver pirated or cable produced content, it completely transformed its image, it's users, and it's audience. It transformed into a platform for user made media, and as the article said, "low-value content." I found this extremely interesting, and it was something I never knew about YouTube's foundations.
ReplyDeleteI don't believe that streaming will ever truly "win" over cable television. While streaming services such as Netflix and Hulu are extremely popular with college-age students currently, it's definitely not as popular for our parents and grandparents. I don't think the older generations completely understand the concept of "binge-watching". I can't see them becoming as obsessed with Netflix as my generation is. I think that it will take many years for streaming to become so prevalent that watching cable television won't be as common. Even when the cable viewership drops the companies will still be making money. Netflix has to buy the rights to their shows and figure out a way to have advertisements or they won't bring in anywhere near as much revenue as cable television companies. I also can't see them having live events and sports offered on Netflix. People will always enjoy watching those types of things live because of the sense of comraderie and community it brings. I think that cable television and streaming will both continue to thrive because people will always enjoy both. It honestly just boils down to personal preference.
ReplyDelete