Its time to play....." When will broadcast TV Networks go away?!"...

[BRNout]

I'm going with the year 2027 when all this happens. This is what we may see as the broadcast lineup in that year:

Univision
A 2nd Spanish-language network (buying Telemundo from the remains of NBC)
A 3rd Spanish-language network (with stations from the ruins of FOX, ABC, NBC)

A major Asian network (stations from the ruins of Ion, MyNetworkTV)
A 2nd Asian network (stations from the ruins of FOX, ABC, NBC)

Replacement for The CW - there still will be a network for teens and young adults, funny enough, but it'll look more like LATV than The WB
CBS (owned by Univision)

I don't see much of this as happening.

For one thing, I think that the Spanish-language networks are pretty much built out right now. You're assuming that the growth trends will just continue at the same angle as they have been over the past 20 years and that never happens. The relative growth of the Spanish speaking audience will peak with 2nd and third generation Latinos speaking more English. With UNI, TEL and the smaller ones like Azteca - that audience is pretty much spoken for. Go 15 years into the future and much of the younger Latino audience will be totally bilingual and some of the channels as they exist now may be forced to look at altering their programming too - or catering to an increasingly aging audience of first-generation immigrants. What we have now should be able to serve that audience and it may even be too much.

Not to mention that Latinos and Asians will have an increasing tendency over the coming decades to subscribe to cable and satellite programming that fits their needs more than a local Univision or fictional Asian network station would.

As for which network will go down first, I'll tell you who it won't be and that's FOX. They are probably the healthiest of the big 4. As for the other 3, they'll stubbornly hold on to the present model until well after technology makes it obsolete. But, they will all branch out even more than now and that diversity of platforms will determine their relative chances of success. If NBC's presently very corporate-style handling of multiple platforms is any guide, they'll be the first ones down.

 

[willcail]

Univision is beating The CW in the weekly ratings. I do see Univision as the potential 5th network replacing The CW. DTV sets can support secondary audio close caption subtitles. Univision just provide an english close caption for their shows.

Right now I have an Mac Mini connected to the second HDMI port via a DVI-HDMI cable. If I missed a show or want to watch a recent episode of The Closer. If I want to watch any LPTV stations that streams or Netflix I can boot into WINXP via Boot Camp software.

It is possible that the networks might broadcast on the internet . The WB is a web only network does have at least two original shows.

 

[vchimpanzee]

Til' Death (referring to how long Fox will be forcing-feeding us this show).

And "According to JIm" will still be on ABC. The show that won't die.

Plus "America's Funniest Home Videos", since it can never run out of material.

And "The Simpsons".

 

[stdjsb25]

Plus "America's Funniest Home Videos", since it can never run out of material.

You think ABC by now would have put that show out of its misery, especially after Bob Saget left.

And "The Simpsons".

Now that show...some may say that it's past it's prime....I don't think so. The show manages to reinvent itself each year. It proved that mainly when the movie came out two years ago.

And let us not forget "America's Most Wanted" and "COPS" on Fox.

 

[Nate Wesley]

Rating don't matter, sales do. UPN was a great example, they had a wonderful niche market in African Americans, but no matter how high the rating or how big of a percentage UPN got, it never translated to sales. The African Americans watched but they didn't buy.

I can't 'buy' that last statement:

http://www.tvb.org/rcentral/mediatrendstrack/tvbasics/55_EthnicBuyingPower.asp

http://www.bizreport.com/2008/02/report_affluent_africanamericans_have_45_of_buying_power.html

The way I see things, UPN probably could've soldiered on just fine catering to minority audiences if Viacom/CBS really wanted. But like most broadcast and media entities, the lure of profiting from I'll call 'suburban mall demographics' was too great. Fox successfully made the transition, and both UPN and the WB tried copying that success too. The effort continues in a more pinpointed manner today under the 'CW' moniker.

 

[BRNout]

Univision is beating The CW in the weekly ratings. I do see Univision as the potential 5th network replacing The CW. DTV sets can support secondary audio close caption subtitles. Univision just provide an english close caption for their shows.

That's faint praise indeed - beating the CW! Hardly an achievement in itself. The CW sucks and I'll be happy when it goes away. Or is at least demoted to a programming service so that local indies can stop being "CW 28" or whatever. Bleech!

However, I'll agree that Univision is doing well. And with as little as they spend on their affiliates and pay most of their people, they're probably profitable as well. My point was that I see their growth curve leveling off over the next few years. They will not continue to grow at their present rate forever and they'll plateau at some point. Perhaps by mixing in some English or "Spanglish" they will find a way to be relevant to the U.S. born hispanic youth of tomorrow.

 

[stationless listener]

Like WPIX recently did when they changed themselves "WB 11", then "CW 11", finally changing to "PIX 11"?

Actually, I never understood that. They've always been known as WPIX, channel 11, being the home of The Honeymooners reruns on late nights and The Yule Log for the longest time. Good thing WGN never went for that, as they are arguably the most famous station not affiliated with a major network in the country right now. They simply put the logo of the network they associated with as part of their own branding.

I guess with respect to smaller or relatively unknown stations they have to do the "CW xx" thing to get people to recognize them as the CW station for that particular area. There are people who have to be told what the CW station of their area is, whether you like it or not.

As for Univision, I see them becoming a major player within the next 20 years. They already are a player in some respect or another. Univision has been around since the 1960s, when they were then called Spanish International Network. If they haven't broadcasted much in the English in that time, I doubt they'll do so in the future, outside of Secondary Audio services. Perhaps it is not because they're not broadcasting in English but because their programming has been mostly telenovelas and soccer on the weekends that Univision has yet to break into the Top 3. At least with me, soap operas from Mexico aren't my thing. Oh, and there's Sabado Gigante, with that Chilean guy who's been around forever, and Chespirito. Two shows that have been around forever. Then there's Telefutura, a network that's used to broadcast overflow soccer matches from the Mexican league or the World Cup, action movies either from Mexico or Hollywood dubbed in Spanish, and more telenovelas. Though I can't deny the "power" of telenovelas, they also retarded the growth of the network, as they became associated with the image of soaps and variety shows with scantily-clad women (or is that Telemundo? Can't figure that one out). But even then, they'll continue expanding just with the increase of the population. With more newcomers, there's less incentive to drastically change their formula. Soccer will continue to be a staple of their programming, as well as soaps.

 

[vchimpanzee]

Plus "America's Funniest Home Videos", since it can never run out of material.

You think ABC by now would have put that show out of its misery, especially after Bob Saget left.

It was only misery when Daisy Fuentes and John Fugelsang hosted. I didn't think it was coming back, because it was off the schedule for a while. Then various hosts were tried and Tom Bergeron became the permanent one. It's done very well since then. Because like I said, they'll never run out of material.

Numerous imitators have come and gone, but this is the original.

And "The Simpsons".

Now that show...some may say that it's past it's prime....I don't think so. The show manages to reinvent itself each year. It proved that mainly when the movie came out two years ago.

I am watching some of the older reruns, now that it has been so long I can't remember which ones I've seen. I'm starting to think maybe the show has lost its edge. Where they messed up was taking one plot and just making it the setup for the real plot.

And let us not forget "America's Most Wanted" and "COPS" on Fox.

Well, they do a community service.

 

[KyDXIn]

Broadcast Networks will stick around until TV as a medium dies out in another 40 50 years. Thats my opinion.

Just as the networks evolved from radio into television, I see television evolving into internet streamed websites with multiple live feeds. You see it already with some local broadcast outlets. My local NBC affiliate has its main channel, its own local weather channel, and "This TV" broadcasting old MGM-UA movies and television shows.

As for when broadcasting gives way to internet streaming... I'd say that will be at least 2 or 3 decades away. I think there are still people who are not technically inclined, and traditional broadcasting is simplier than using a computer to those individuals.

 

[ShawnHill1]

And let us not forget "America's Most Wanted" and "COPS" on Fox.

Well, they do a community service.
[/quote]

Well, at least in the respect of capturing criminals, America's Most Wanted does provide a vital community service. Let's not forget over a decade ago, Fox briefly cancelled AMW before many in the law enforcement community and others pleaded with the network to bring it back. AMW is also Fox's oldest-running program...it'll 22 years in February 2010. Cops is right up there, as it'll be 21 years old in March 2010.

 

[mleach]

Just as the networks evolved from radio into television, I see television evolving into internet streamed websites with multiple live feeds. You see it already with some local broadcast outlets. My local NBC affiliate has its main channel, its own local weather channel, and "This TV" broadcasting old MGM-UA movies and television shows.

As for when broadcasting gives way to internet streaming... I'd say that will be at least 2 or 3 decades away. I think there are still people who are not technically inclined, and traditional broadcasting is simplier than using a computer to those individuals.

I can see this happening...broadcast television evolving into internet streamed websites. However I wouldn't be surprised to see it happening a bit sooner than 2 or 3 decades say though, perhaps as soon as 15 years from now. The reason? I have noticed within the last few years a growing number of young people ( those under 30 ) who say "I don't watch TV nor do I listen to the radio". One of the most popular singers among that group right now is rapper Pitbull. A 28 year old man from Miami. Had some friends who recently saw his concert. They claimed that Pitbull told the sudience that he has never watched TV nor has he ever listen to the radio..in his entire life. Some months back I remember hearing some talk show host on Denver's KHOW radio who said that actor Seth Rogen had made a similar statement not that long ago..that he too "doesn't watch television". Of course one could debate this such as does Seth Rogen, Pitbull and the other 20 somethings who say they "dont do TV", does that mean they watch TV online from such sites as Hulu rather than NBC? Perhaps but lets say if this really is the trend as in "the kids and young adults dont do TV". As the 20 somethings get into their 30s and 40s ( Pitbull will be 43 in 2024, Rogen 42 ) then chances are quite good that by then they had long developed the "internet TV viewing habit" and since the 20 somethings is in that all ever important demo right now that the advertisers want to reach more than anyone else, then chances are it will be sooner than later when the broadcast networks go "internet streaming" only.

 

[Chad-Stevens]

But unless/until there is an explosion in the amount of readily available bandwidth, this is a pipe dream at best.

If, say, 200 million people want to watch the Super Bowl, or 2 billion people want to watch the World Cup final in HD, how much bandwidth would that take up?

 

[stationless listener]

Not only that, I read somewhere that there is a chance that the internet itself will run out of bandwidth sometime in the near future. Perhaps something else would replace the internet that would be much more spacious than the internet. Call it internet 2.0 if you wish. In the meantime, trying to watch a live feed of any entertainment program is a mutha, and that's with having broadband. Imagine the folks who still rely on the phone lines.

 

[Al Timiter]

Broadcast Network TV will be around in some form, perhaps diminished, until all the boomers are dead. That's the demo that's pretty much addicted to the same type of tv-watching. Just my opinion....

 

[LKellerIII]

Broadcast Network TV will be around in some form, perhaps diminished, until all the boomers are dead. That's the demo that's pretty much addicted to the same type of tv-watching. Just my opinion....

Gee- thanks for reminding me of my mortality...I'm a boomer, and I'm as computer savvy as any of my 3 kids. I don't have a Facebook page (though I'm a "friend" to a bunch of people), so perhaps I spend a little less time online than they do, but not much. I think most boomers are the same. Remember that most of us are still working, and have been using computers heavily at work for about 15 years now. And my computer savvy kids watch as much TV as I do ...different programming, but it's still traditional TV.

It's still very comfortable to sit down in front of traditional TV in the evening for a hour or three. With 200 plus channels, pay cable channels, DVRs and On-Demand, it's very versatile. On-line content doesn't come close to matching that versatility yet. Bandwidth issues aside, it will be awhile before it does.

 

[Nate Wesley]

But unless/until there is an explosion in the amount of readily available bandwidth, this is a pipe dream at best.

If, say, 200 million people want to watch the Super Bowl, or 2 billion people want to watch the World Cup final in HD, how much bandwidth would that take up?

Precisely. This notion that we're going to just ditch one tried and true distribution method (over the air broadcasting) for all online services is insane.

 

[KeithE4]

But unless/until there is an explosion in the amount of readily available bandwidth, this is a pipe dream at best.

If, say, 200 million people want to watch the Super Bowl, or 2 billion people want to watch the World Cup final in HD, how much bandwidth would that take up?

Precisely. This notion that we're going to just ditch one tried and true distribution method (over the air broadcasting) for all online services is insane.

I can see terrestrial broadcasters shutting down their transmitters and going cable/satellite only in the next 10 years. There won't be any business case for paying large power bills and upkeep costs on equipment that is used by very few viewers (currently 15% on average and dropping). Online broadcasting won't replace OTA anytime soon, but cable/satellite already have.

 

[vchimpanzee]

Not only that, I read somewhere that there is a chance that the internet itself will run out of bandwidth sometime in the near future. Perhaps something else would replace the internet that would be much more spacious than the internet. Call it internet 2.0 if you wish. In the meantime, trying to watch a live feed of any entertainment program is a mutha, and that's with having broadband. Imagine the folks who still rely on the phone lines.

Time Warner was talking about charging more for video. The people protested and got that stopped.

I have the slowest Internet that isn't dial-up and no desire to pay more just to watch TV, although that is what I'm doing in a sense. Two fancy antennas for digital TV and cable (just the broadcast channels and a few others--cheap) for the channels I can't get that way.

 

[mleach]

But unless/until there is an explosion in the amount of readily available bandwidth, this is a pipe dream at best.

If, say, 200 million people want to watch the Super Bowl, or 2 billion people want to watch the World Cup final in HD, how much bandwidth would that take up?

Precisely. This notion that we're going to just ditch one tried and true distribution method (over the air broadcasting) for all online services is insane.

But then again what about the Pitbulls/Seth Rogens and the many of other 20 somethings who brag " I don't do TV man" but they "do online"? If this is indeed a real trend and if the networks still want to reach that 25 year old..they may not have any other choice.

 

[vchimpanzee]

Plus "America's Funniest Home Videos", since it can never run out of material.

You think ABC by now would have put that show out of its misery, especially after Bob Saget left.

I saw "To Be Announced" in the newspaper at a time when the ABC affiliate showed a movie last week.

I turned on the TV and got this show, with Saget. I had forgotten how truly annoying the man was. In "Surviving Suburbia" he's edgier and therefore easier to take. I like the show a lot.

Oh, I kept watching "Videos" all the way through because there were a few I missed over the years and I couldn't remember anything from this one. Later I found out I had seen the movie on the other channel and I even saw that cat fall off the TV. That one has always been so funny.