In my opinion, I think that the traditional networks (CBS,NBC,ABC,Fox) are all going to be a thing of the past 20 or 30 years from now. This is due to the rise of websites such as Netflix, Hulu, Yidio, and such, they have revolutionize TV watching as we know it. When my mom and dad bought a 55 inch TV last year, it had an internet ready app that would load videos off of Hulu and such, you could even download videos from YouTube on the app. Even Nintendo has a Hulu channel where you could watch videos on your Wii. That's my opinion, what do you guys think?
-
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.
Death of the Networks
- Thread starter edward1978
- Start date
This has been my theory, a bean counter at Comcast is going to ask the question one day, "Why are we negotiating with local stations to carry a network we own?" When that happens NBC will become a cable network or better yet an online program provider and the affiliates will be cut loose. It's a theory but in a few years, perhaps by the end of the decade, there will be some kind of a paradigm shift when it comes to video delivery.
radiorob2.0 said:This has been my theory, a bean counter at Comcast is going to ask the question one day, "Why are we negotiating with local stations to carry a network we own?" When that happens NBC will become a cable network or better yet an online program provider and the affiliates will be cut loose. It's a theory but in a few years, perhaps by the end of the decade, there will be some kind of a paradigm shift when it comes to video delivery.
Rob, I made an April Fools' joke thread about that very thing a couple of years ago. I'll give NBC another 10 years tops, and ABC and CBS perhaps 15 or so. By the time I reach retirement age, there won't be TV sets per se anymore. The technologies of laptops/PCs/smartphones/tablets will have merged with cable, with physical transmission of images and sound made unnecessary by the ubiquity of Wi-Fi. I'm not going to prognosticate further, but everybody knows the writing is on the wall.
Turning NBC into a cable-only network has a number of complications and could end up being an all-or-nothing gamble. No cable network today gets ratings close to that of network TV stations.
Network owned and operated stations are quite profitable. Would Comcast want to give that up? Much of this is from the local news that serves as a lead-in to the evening schedule. To maintain this as a cable-only service, they would still need most of the overhead of a local TV station. The power bill for the transmitter is not a big part of this.
Secondly, in markets where they have affiliates, would it make sense to go without news and local programming that is currently offered, or would they go to the expense of setting up a new news operation that would have to compete with their former affiliates? Those former affiliates aren't likely just to shut down. They would remain as competitors, running another network or becoming news-heavy independents.
I'm not saying changes to the current model won't happen, but I think it will changer over a much longer period of time. It may be less of a question of whether OTA will succumb to cable-only delivery, and instead be whether programming that is designed to be viewed simultaneously by large audiences gives way to people watching more specialized programming at whatever time is convenient.
Network owned and operated stations are quite profitable. Would Comcast want to give that up? Much of this is from the local news that serves as a lead-in to the evening schedule. To maintain this as a cable-only service, they would still need most of the overhead of a local TV station. The power bill for the transmitter is not a big part of this.
Secondly, in markets where they have affiliates, would it make sense to go without news and local programming that is currently offered, or would they go to the expense of setting up a new news operation that would have to compete with their former affiliates? Those former affiliates aren't likely just to shut down. They would remain as competitors, running another network or becoming news-heavy independents.
I'm not saying changes to the current model won't happen, but I think it will changer over a much longer period of time. It may be less of a question of whether OTA will succumb to cable-only delivery, and instead be whether programming that is designed to be viewed simultaneously by large audiences gives way to people watching more specialized programming at whatever time is convenient.
That might happen if US Cable and satellite companies don't pay their fair share for Local television, we might want to tell the FCC we support local TV.
I could see NBC & Fox going this route, if the FCC actually goes thru with removing channels 31-36 & 38 - 51 (channel 37 already removed for astronomy use). Fox especially isn't trying too hard to keep affiliates in smaller markets, that if they do stay on in a smaller market, they're getting relegated to a .2 or .3 channel. I definitely see NBC going that route, while I see CBS trying to stay in the traditional network as long as they can continue to do so. ABC will also try to hold on as well, but I believe Fox will be the first to actually go a cable only network (they have more channels on cable than NBC does).
Dave said:I could see NBC & Fox going this route, if the FCC actually goes thru with removing channels 31-36 & 38 - 51 (channel 37 already removed for astronomy use). Fox especially isn't trying too hard to keep affiliates in smaller markets, that if they do stay on in a smaller market, they're getting relegated to a .2 or .3 channel. I definitely see NBC going that route, while I see CBS trying to stay in the traditional network as long as they can continue to do so. ABC will also try to hold on as well, but I believe Fox will be the first to actually go a cable only network (they have more channels on cable than NBC does).
CBS and ABC still try to program to the entire country...for now. Fox, and especially NBC, make no secret that they program mainly to the biggest markets - NBC being especially New York-centric. Add to that, the total viewership in markets 101-210 is only around 15% of the country's population - about the same as NYC, LA, and Chicago combined - and most national advertisers don't really care too much about that audience. They'll take anyone's money of course, but that rural/mostly-older demo is not who they target.
I can see Fox and NBC ending their affiliations with their small-market stations and going cable in those areas, similar to CW+ and what Fox did years ago. And I can see it happening within 10 years. CBS and ABC will hang on longer, just like they did with prime-time entertainment on radio in the mid/late '50s after NBC shut that programming down.
I think the major nets will continue to exist, but they'll change their operation significantly over the next couple of decades:
There'll be more of a focus on live events, whether it's a sporting event or Dancing With the Stars. They need to give you a reason to sit down in front of the TV at 8/7 Central rather than DVRing the show and watching at 2PM on Saturday or watching online.
However, at least in the short term, the TV networks still lead the way. Sure, a lot of people watch shows on Hulu or Netflix. But there aren't a lot of popular series on any of those sources that weren't on network TV first.
Look at The CW: it probably couldn't exist with the ratings it gets for people actually watching shows in prime time or even via DVR. But those shows turn a big profit once they get into syndication, the DVD market, etc. So the network is kind of a loss leader--the best promotional tool.
On the other hand, networks might be threatened if local stations figure out a better way to make money. Both their prime time and syndicated show audiences are fragmented by cable, Netflix/Hulu, etc. Don't get me wrong: major net affiliates still make big money, but the ratings have dropped over the years. If you're not watching CSI, then the station doesn't get the lead-in to the late news. (11/10 PM news is still the biggest moneymaker in most net affiliated stations, but if that starts to change, you'll see stations change their business models.)
There'll be more of a focus on live events, whether it's a sporting event or Dancing With the Stars. They need to give you a reason to sit down in front of the TV at 8/7 Central rather than DVRing the show and watching at 2PM on Saturday or watching online.
However, at least in the short term, the TV networks still lead the way. Sure, a lot of people watch shows on Hulu or Netflix. But there aren't a lot of popular series on any of those sources that weren't on network TV first.
Look at The CW: it probably couldn't exist with the ratings it gets for people actually watching shows in prime time or even via DVR. But those shows turn a big profit once they get into syndication, the DVD market, etc. So the network is kind of a loss leader--the best promotional tool.
On the other hand, networks might be threatened if local stations figure out a better way to make money. Both their prime time and syndicated show audiences are fragmented by cable, Netflix/Hulu, etc. Don't get me wrong: major net affiliates still make big money, but the ratings have dropped over the years. If you're not watching CSI, then the station doesn't get the lead-in to the late news. (11/10 PM news is still the biggest moneymaker in most net affiliated stations, but if that starts to change, you'll see stations change their business models.)
ercjncpr said:Broadcast networks are probably irrelevant to most viewers anyway
The broadcast networks are increasingly irrelevant to me - but not so much because of the most recent technology, as the fact that there are so many great programs now on basic and premium cable. I think I'm down to watching only about 3 hours a week on the Big 4 networks.
I just bought an Apple TV box, and I'm sure I'll use it to stream movies from NetFlix, watch YouTube videos, etc. But using it to buy streaming content through iTunes could get VERY expensive. For example, new release movies are $5.99, same as Comcaset OnDemand.
F
FreddyE1977
Guest
There is an episode of the original Star Trek where Mr. Spock informs a visitor from the
20th Century who inquired about television that "that particular form of entertainment did
not survive much beyond the start of the 21st. Century".
20th Century who inquired about television that "that particular form of entertainment did
not survive much beyond the start of the 21st. Century".
FreddyE1977 said:There is an episode of the original Star Trek where Mr. Spock informs a visitor from the
20th Century who inquired about television that "that particular form of entertainment did
not survive much beyond the start of the 21st. Century".
Spock was a bit off on that. Certainly computers and TV will merge to a greater extent, but television is NOT going anywhere.
I'm old enough to remember the widespread predictions of the future that were suggested in the 1960s. Though many predicted the rise of computers, it was more along the lines of water-heater sized mainframes that would run our homes - turn our lights and heat on and off automatically, and that kind of thing. NOBODY predicted the small size or influence of PCs, much less Smart Phones and the internet.
newsmark said:Look at The CW: it probably couldn't exist with the ratings it gets for people actually watching shows in prime time or even via DVR. But those shows turn a big profit once they get into syndication, the DVD market, etc. So the network is kind of a loss leader--the best promotional tool.
aren't the all the networks just loss leaders for syndication?
nomadcowatbk said:aren't the all the networks just loss leaders for syndication?
Not yet. Shows on the major networks still make money on shows the first time around. But not as much as they used to.
There will still be a major need for live, real-time delivery of live news and sports programming.
But for entertainment, I could see a swing back to live (or at least more interactive programming).
One bold prediction I'm going to make: I expect that ABC, CBS, and NBC will all reduce prime-time from 22 hours a week each to 15 hours a week each (except for some sports events) within the next couple of years (although I don't expect any of the three to do it this year, 2013, it could happen in 2014 or 2015, with whichever of the three is in "worse" ratings shape doing it first, likely to be followed quickly by the others).
The 10-11 P.M. ET/PT hour will be handed back, but in return, I can see ABC, CBS, and NBC reclaim the 11-11:30 P.M. ET/PT half-hour, with the "big three" giving back a half-hour very late at night to the local stations.
This way, late local news would come on an hour earlier on ABC/CBS/NBC stations than it does now, and except for the smallest markets, be a full hour instead of the 30 or 35 minutes stations now offer.
Under such a plan, a lot of people win:
Networks Win:
(1) By having seven fewer hours of prime-time programming a week, there will be fewer commercial spots to sell (which means each spot will sell for more money) and with fewer hours of programming, less to spend on the prime-time broadcast week.
(2) Late-night shows would start 30 or 35 minutes earlier than they do now, which would mean more viewers, and again, higher spot rates.
Local Stations Win:
(1) Local stations (except in smallest markets) would probably expand their late local news at an hour.
(2) With more spots to sell on a newscast airing earlier, and more people may be watching a late local newscast on an ABC/CBS/NBC affiliate at 10 than at 11, stations will be able to make more money on late local news.
(3) And I suspect that in medium and large markets, the added cost of expanding the late local news from 30 or 35 minutes at 11 to a full hour at 10 is minimal. This will be pure profit.
Viewers Win:
(1) Viewers will get to sleep earlier having been able to watch a full hour of late-evening local news at 10 ET/PT on an ABC/CBS/NBC station.
(2) The late-night shows will gain new viewers (especially in the Central and Mountain time zones, since Jay Leno, David Letterman, and Jimmy Kimmel would say "Good Night" at 11 P.M. CT/MT) with the shows being on earlier.
The only real losers: Fox, CW and My Network TV affiliates who run late local newscasts at 10 P.M. ET/PT. But these stations could push their late news back to 11 ET/PT ("You Want 11 O'Clock News? You Get 11 O'Clock News---And A Full Hour Of It--Every Night On Fox 25!"), and carry sitcom reruns between 10 and 11 P.M. ET/PT against the expanded-and-earlier late newscasts on ABC, CBS, and NBC stations.
But for entertainment, I could see a swing back to live (or at least more interactive programming).
One bold prediction I'm going to make: I expect that ABC, CBS, and NBC will all reduce prime-time from 22 hours a week each to 15 hours a week each (except for some sports events) within the next couple of years (although I don't expect any of the three to do it this year, 2013, it could happen in 2014 or 2015, with whichever of the three is in "worse" ratings shape doing it first, likely to be followed quickly by the others).
The 10-11 P.M. ET/PT hour will be handed back, but in return, I can see ABC, CBS, and NBC reclaim the 11-11:30 P.M. ET/PT half-hour, with the "big three" giving back a half-hour very late at night to the local stations.
This way, late local news would come on an hour earlier on ABC/CBS/NBC stations than it does now, and except for the smallest markets, be a full hour instead of the 30 or 35 minutes stations now offer.
Under such a plan, a lot of people win:
Networks Win:
(1) By having seven fewer hours of prime-time programming a week, there will be fewer commercial spots to sell (which means each spot will sell for more money) and with fewer hours of programming, less to spend on the prime-time broadcast week.
(2) Late-night shows would start 30 or 35 minutes earlier than they do now, which would mean more viewers, and again, higher spot rates.
Local Stations Win:
(1) Local stations (except in smallest markets) would probably expand their late local news at an hour.
(2) With more spots to sell on a newscast airing earlier, and more people may be watching a late local newscast on an ABC/CBS/NBC affiliate at 10 than at 11, stations will be able to make more money on late local news.
(3) And I suspect that in medium and large markets, the added cost of expanding the late local news from 30 or 35 minutes at 11 to a full hour at 10 is minimal. This will be pure profit.
Viewers Win:
(1) Viewers will get to sleep earlier having been able to watch a full hour of late-evening local news at 10 ET/PT on an ABC/CBS/NBC station.
(2) The late-night shows will gain new viewers (especially in the Central and Mountain time zones, since Jay Leno, David Letterman, and Jimmy Kimmel would say "Good Night" at 11 P.M. CT/MT) with the shows being on earlier.
The only real losers: Fox, CW and My Network TV affiliates who run late local newscasts at 10 P.M. ET/PT. But these stations could push their late news back to 11 ET/PT ("You Want 11 O'Clock News? You Get 11 O'Clock News---And A Full Hour Of It--Every Night On Fox 25!"), and carry sitcom reruns between 10 and 11 P.M. ET/PT against the expanded-and-earlier late newscasts on ABC, CBS, and NBC stations.
Lkeller said:FreddyE1977 said:There is an episode of the original Star Trek where Mr. Spock informs a visitor from the
20th Century who inquired about television that "that particular form of entertainment did
not survive much beyond the start of the 21st. Century".
Spock was a bit off on that. Certainly computers and TV will merge to a greater extent, but television is NOT going anywhere.
I'm old enough to remember the widespread predictions of the future that were suggested in the 1960s. Though many predicted the rise of computers, it was more along the lines of water-heater sized mainframes that would run our homes - turn our lights and heat on and off automatically, and that kind of thing. NOBODY predicted the small size or influence of PCs, much less Smart Phones and the internet.
Predictions for the future almost always off by a few years or decades, if they happen at all. I remember back in about 2005 when some people were saying "TV is dead", that TV as we know it wouldn't even exist by 2012. Likewise back in 1998 I remember people predicting the end of bricks-and-mortar stores by 2008 due to the rise of online retailing. We all know how that turned out. Online retailing has grown and continues to grow, but bricks-and-mortar stores are still doing very well.
Heck, I've heard predictions of the "self-driving car" completely replacing our current cars, worldwide, within 10 years. It's not happening.
I don't think TV as we know it is going anywhere for a long, long time. The programming will continue to change as it has been over the past 30 years, but I don't think traditional networks are going anywhere anytime soon.
"Self-driving cars" are not that far off, really it will come down to how much they will cost as to whether it will be something only rich people will be able to afford. As for brick and mortar stores, I think the online sales industry has killed these stores, "Tower Records", "Borders Books", "Circuit City", "CompUSA" and many others have bit the dust, not to mention newspapers too. I wouldnt be surprised if the next two major stores to bite the dust are "Best Buy" and "Barnes & Noble". I also would not be surprised if "Sears" or "KMart" went completely out of business too.
In a way I'm surprised, given that it works for Fox, that
ABC, CBS, and NBC don't end prime time at 10/9 and give
that time back to the affiliates for local news. Given the
amount of commuting going on at 5 and 6, it would make
sense to have a 10 PM newscast that people could watch
before they go to bed. Look at the Central and Mountain
time zones: the big ad money goes to the 10 PM newscasts,
not the 5 and 6 PM ones. Also, look at Birmingham (Central
Time), where Fox affiliate WBRC beats all the competition with
its 9 PM newscast (and hasn't WGN had one for umpteen years?).
We already have 10 PM newscasts on Fox affiliates WGHP and WRAZ,
and they're doing just fine. Personally, I like the idea of the other big
networks following suit, and since some Fox stations are expanding their
newscasts into the 11-11:30 period, there's the possibility that Leno,
Letterman, and Kimmel would not have to move.
ABC, CBS, and NBC don't end prime time at 10/9 and give
that time back to the affiliates for local news. Given the
amount of commuting going on at 5 and 6, it would make
sense to have a 10 PM newscast that people could watch
before they go to bed. Look at the Central and Mountain
time zones: the big ad money goes to the 10 PM newscasts,
not the 5 and 6 PM ones. Also, look at Birmingham (Central
Time), where Fox affiliate WBRC beats all the competition with
its 9 PM newscast (and hasn't WGN had one for umpteen years?).
We already have 10 PM newscasts on Fox affiliates WGHP and WRAZ,
and they're doing just fine. Personally, I like the idea of the other big
networks following suit, and since some Fox stations are expanding their
newscasts into the 11-11:30 period, there's the possibility that Leno,
Letterman, and Kimmel would not have to move.
F
FreddyE1977
Guest
Lkeller said:FreddyE1977 said:There is an episode of the original Star Trek where Mr. Spock informs a visitor from the
20th Century who inquired about television that "that particular form of entertainment did
not survive much beyond the start of the 21st. Century".
Spock was a bit off on that. Certainly computers and TV will merge to a greater extent, but television is NOT going anywhere.
I'm old enough to remember the widespread predictions of the future that were suggested in the 1960s. Though many predicted the rise of computers, it was more along the lines of water-heater sized mainframes that would run our homes - turn our lights and heat on and off automatically, and that kind of thing. NOBODY predicted the small size or influence of PCs, much less Smart Phones and the internet.
You forgot the prediction that the major network soaps were all going to be featuring
full-frontal nudity by 1987...
- Status
- This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.