• 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

Zero TV

I read that too and came away with one significant thought. The broadcasters need to concentrate on content. Although they come up with winners every so often so many of their offerings (hello NBC and Fox) are just junk. It is no wonder they are losing viewers. So many viewers say they are fed up with so-called "reality" shows yet more seem to appear every year. Sports have become more expensive and have made their way onto cable channels so there go more broadcast viewers.

I see a limited future for advertiser-paid programming but don't know what kind of timeline might be in order.
 
The broadcasters can get this group of people because they do offer programming for free. They just have to actually go after them with the right marketing. Right now, they're not doing a thing to attract these people.
 
I got alot of New Episodes on TV

WWE Raw
WWE Smackdown
Lost Girl
Last Man Standing
The Simpsons
Family Guy
Ghost Adventures
New Girl
Revolution

Manly USA, SyFy, ABC, NBC, Travel Channel, NFL Network, VH1,VH1 Classics, Fuse, Fox, Local News
 
All I mainly watch is local news, sitcom reruns (mainly 2.5 Men/Big Bang), and movies. Anything on prime-time I do not watch, because 90% of it is crap!! I don't watch that "Voice" or "American Idol" thank goodness.

-crainbebo
 
tested said:
The broadcasters can get this group of people because they do offer programming for free. They just have to actually go after them with the right marketing. Right now, they're not doing a thing to attract these people.
That's because right now, too many of them are making money off retransmission consent fees, and cord-cutting isn't rampant enough yet that it means more than losing some of that dough.

If broadcasters do want people to get antennas, whether for their TV or their phone, they may want to focus on live programming first and foremost. What this article tells me is that, except for the biggest "event" programming, the traditional linear broadcast schedule may be obsolete. It takes a lot of doing to convince people to make an appointment to watch something at a specific time that they can watch anytime.
 
How should broadcasters market to this group? Its kind of the same dilemma radio faces from MP3 players: its hard to tell someone "we're your favorite network" when it is trivial to create your own programming schedule.
 
Morgan Wick said:
tested said:
The broadcasters can get this group of people because they do offer programming for free. They just have to actually go after them with the right marketing. Right now, they're not doing a thing to attract these people.
That's because right now, too many of them are making money off retransmission consent fees, and cord-cutting isn't rampant enough yet that it means more than losing some of that dough.

If broadcasters do want people to get antennas, whether for their TV or their phone, they may want to focus on live programming first and foremost. What this article tells me is that, except for the biggest "event" programming, the traditional linear broadcast schedule may be obsolete. It takes a lot of doing to convince people to make an appointment to watch something at a specific time that they can watch anytime.

appointment TV is dead
 
The days of broadcast tv are numbered. People, especially the younger generations, want to watch what they want to watch, when they want to watch it. Broadcast TV can't deliver that. On-demand streaming or paid downloads can. It can deliver it commercial free. I don't think there is anything broadcast TV stations can do to reverse the trend. Networks will soon no longer need them.

Pretty much every show I watch I can get on Hulu, with the exception of Game of Thrones which I am still waiting on HBO to launch a paid streaming or download option.
 
Scripted shows will soon no longer need TV stations, though the most popular of them may still drive social media traffic at a specific time. But you can't stream "on demand" or download the State of the Union Address, a breaking news story, American Idol, or live sports. The march of live sports to cable is sort of ass-backwards when you think about it.
 
Casey said:
The days of broadcast tv are numbered. People, especially the younger generations, want to watch what they want to watch, when they want to watch it.

Whaddya mean "younger generations?" Some of us geezers are doing the same thing, both with TV and radio. At least 50% of today's broadcast stations in both media are dinosaurs and won't be missed when (note that I did not say "if") they go under.
 
Morgan Wick said:
Scripted shows will soon no longer need TV stations, though the most popular of them may still drive social media traffic at a specific time. But you can't stream "on demand" or download the State of the Union Address, a breaking news story, American Idol, or live sports. The march of live sports to cable is sort of ass-backwards when you think about it.
Sure you can.

A lot of local stations and networks provide web streams for breaking news. When I was working in radio news, I'd often watch a web stream of CBS News special coverage, for example of the Ft. Hood shooting in 2010 (?).

The SOTU address was streamed live at WhiteHouse.gov as well as CNN.com and CBSNews.com (and others, I'm sure)

Much of the content on ESPN can be streamed via the WatchESPN app.

An exception is "American Idol," at least for now.
 
But you don't really gain any benefit from it compared to watching it on a traditional linear channel. And live streaming is probably always going to be inferior compared to watching something that's already complete. Casey mentioned watching it on demand or downloading it; a live stream is neither of those things.
 
Morgan Wick said:
But you don't really gain any benefit from it compared to watching it on a traditional linear channel.
Right, but a "zero TV" household by definition can't watch anything traditional linear channel.

Morgan Wick said:
Casey mentioned watching it on demand or downloading it; a live stream is neither of those things.
To me there is no difference between watching "The Hangover" on demand from Netflix and watching the SOTU address: both have plenty of laugh lines, and my TV is receiving bits in real time from a server somewhere across the country. But if your opinion is that these are distinct actions, I can't argue with it.
 
I'm zero TV but as most of you know, I didn't drop TV, TV dropped me.

I went from 13 analog TV to ZERO digital TV stations, in Chicago.

Oddly enough I don't miss it. This is the real danger, I never thought I could live without a TV, and the odd thing was how easy it was to give it up and not miss it.
 
KeithE4 said:
Casey said:
The days of broadcast tv are numbered. People, especially the younger generations, want to watch what they want to watch, when they want to watch it.

Whaddya mean "younger generations?" Some of us geezers are doing the same thing, both with TV and radio. At least 50% of today's broadcast stations in both media are dinosaurs and won't be missed when (note that I did not say "if") they go under.

Haha. True.

nomadcowatbk said:
watch espn requires a cable subscription, and hulu might be headed that way

That was considered for Hulu, but that idea has not been brought up again for some time. A lot of their subscribers are people who have cut the cord.
 
Status
This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.


Back
Top Bottom