I was just reading this in yahoo, I still watch TV
http://news.yahoo.com/broadcasters-worry-zero-tv-homes-154357101--finance.html
http://news.yahoo.com/broadcasters-worry-zero-tv-homes-154357101--finance.html
MarioMania said:I was just reading this in yahoo, I still watch TV
http://news.yahoo.com/broadcasters-worry-zero-tv-homes-154357101--finance.html
MarioMania said:I was just reading this in yahoo, I still watch TV
http://news.yahoo.com/broadcasters-worry-zero-tv-homes-154357101--finance.html
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.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.
Morgan Wick said: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.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.
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.
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.
Sure you can.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.
Right, but a "zero TV" household by definition can't watch anything traditional linear channel.Morgan Wick said:But you don't really gain any benefit from it compared to watching it on a traditional linear channel.
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.Morgan Wick said:Casey mentioned watching it on demand or downloading it; a live stream is neither of those things.
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.
nomadcowatbk said:watch espn requires a cable subscription, and hulu might be headed that way