-
Get involved.
We want your input!
Apply for Membership and join the conversations about everything related to broadcasting.
After we receive your registration, a moderator will review it. After your registration is approved, you will be permitted to post.
If you use a disposable or false email address, your registration will be rejected.
After your membership is approved, please take a minute to tell us a little bit about yourself.
https://www.radiodiscussions.com/forums/introduce-yourself.1088/
Thanks in advance and have fun!
RadioDiscussions Administrators
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Both Radio *and* network TV are losing younger listeners/viewers
- Thread starter Brian Bowers
- Start date
There's way more content being produced than can ever be consumed.
And the Internet makes everyone who uploads anything to it, from a video to a blog to a Facebook comment, a content producer.
Personal example, illustrating why I cut the cord years ago and never regretted the decision: I enjoy watching boxing. Just about every day, I go to YouTube, search for "full fight" with "today" checked, and get at least a dozen fights, new and old, to check out. I also like tennis. There's always a tournament going on somewhere, even in the morning, when I do most of my viewing -- if ESPN3 has nothing on from Asia or Europe, plenty of offshore streaming sites do. I could easily fill up 12 hours every day watching just boxing and tennis events that are either live or that I've never seen before. Now expand this to people who like other sports, or other video content available on the Internet -- Hulu, Netflix, you name it. It boggles the mind. Who needs TV?
In a way, it's wonderful, but it threatens huge numbers of jobs in corporations that are in the content business, as we saw today at ESPN.
In a way, it's wonderful, but it threatens huge numbers of jobs in corporations that are in the content business, as we saw today at ESPN.
By the same token, who is paying to broadcast those YouTube matches? It costs money and takes staff to shoot a boxing match. It comes from somewhere, and someone is getting paid. Today YouTube announced a subscription version of their service, perhaps to address this.
By the same token, who is paying to broadcast those YouTube matches? It costs money and takes staff to shoot a boxing match. It comes from somewhere, and someone is getting paid. Today YouTube announced a subscription version of their service, perhaps to address this.
The Premier Boxing Champions people are putting a lot of their fights (and they promote a card or two every week, seen on several channels) on YouTube a week or so later. And many big fights get onto YouTube briefly for several hours after they end before YouTube catches and bans all the guilty uploaders. (Yeah, I know, YouTube is the devil.) Apparently, European and Latin American promotions/producers don't care, because fights from TV there wind up on YouTube quickly and stay there. Oh, and other uploaders keep classic fights coming, too. It's just a big game of Whack-a-Mole.
From what I've read, the subscription service just removes the ads. That's no big deal to me. If I'm in the mood to watch 12 rounds, what's 30 seconds of advertising at the start? TuneIn, on the other hand, seems to be putting radio content behind a paywall. Now that's a monthly fee I'd be willing to pay if the content were compelling or unavailable anywhere else; so far, it's neither.
I'd be willing to pay if the content were compelling or unavailable anywhere else; so far, it's neither.
At one time, there were fights on the radio. I think Gillette sponsored them. Would you find boxing to be compelling radio?
At one time, there were fights on the radio. I think Gillette sponsored them. Would you find boxing to be compelling radio?
Not particularly. It's a sport I pretty much have to be able to see to enjoy. Same goes for tennis, although the British do about as good a job as possible with it during Wimbledon (available via internet or on Sirius XM). I do appreciate baseball and football on radio, but I pay Sirius XM for those.
At one time, there were fights on the radio. I think Gillette sponsored them. Would you find boxing to be compelling radio?
If auto racing and golf are aired on radio, why not boxing, at least in theory? Too bad boxing isn't worth watching anymore, let alone listening to.
- Status
- This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.