« Chiming in on the iPhone SDK discussion | Main | Light Emmitting Fabric Available to Endusers »

Neilsen changes rating : Network TV sees end of life?!

Neilsen ratings - the american monopoly that tracks what and how many viewers watch on TV based on a "statistical measure" that noone really knows how it actually works - has bend down and changes its rating system after decades with the same one. This move will be seen in the future as the biggest pin into the coffin that will bury TV as we know it. The new rating system is based on DVRs and how many people actually watch ads (and not skip them). As we all know – DVRs are just a stop gap measure until delivery mechanism of the internet are fast enough to stream high quality content into the couch potatoes living rooms. Now why is this such a big move? A quote from an article on popular mechanics gives a very good explanation: Why should this matter to us—you, me, my wife? Because if the way television is funded changes, then the way it’s programmed probably will, too. That means PER SHOW advertising models which in return means there is NO FREAKING NEED for a television network at all if there is an ADVERTISING network and we all know that google just bought a big advertising network and looks how it can incorporate this into its adsense program. The monopoly of the airwaves is sinking very fast. Now people argue that "books and radio and cinema also has not gone away even there was 'new' technology like television itself, though in return TV will be around forever". There is one big problem in this equation. Books (text) and radio(music, spoken word) are a complete different medium then television (moving pictures and audio) – cinema is/was a social experience (compared to the couch potato sit ins you actually have to go into public). Therefore these are all distinctive different medias in themself - yet the internet is a new delivery media with completely different rules. The interesting thing is that they all - except for cinema (which faces different dilemma) - face revolutionary change with the internet. Books might be the most robust media to survive the storm but not without much "damage". Books will have an "ebook" version soon as much as you will say "i need to turn pages have a heavy thing in my hand" your grandchildren will not be so "old school" and just enjoy having a fold open ebook in their backpack with ALL schoolbooks ALL comic books ALL handwritten loveletters, everything searchable indexed sharable light and readable under any condition (darkness for example). With this change books will invitably change especially nonfiction books who will mostly be read by skimming through keywords or are even live recomposed with other books based on a keyword search or whatever. But as said books in their current will have a slim survival in a niche chance. Radio already faces problem. iPods fastly exchange the "always on" radio in the car during jogging/communiting. So radio as a "musicjukebox" with commercials is already dying out fast (they just have not noticed it yet). I am for one completely switched to internet radio streams (mostly just jukeboxes) and podcasts and I was a very regular radio listener. Give me a networked radio in the car where I can access my music at home (basically all thats needed is a stable on the road internet connection and this is coming fast at least here in germany) and for me there is no need with traditional over the air radio. I would just listen to the program that I want, if they have too much commercials I am already switching to others. There is noone that can have a say over my time anymore and force me to hear things that I have no interest in (especially commercials). Too much interaction for the normal person? Maybe today but just watch how proficient modern day young people are and you see that this is only half a generation away. But then TV. Its such a passive medium. Everyone wants to just sit on the couch and be brainwashed right? Wrong. Over 17% of all households in the US already have a DVR. a DVR is interactivity. It requires you to record specific shows that are of your interest. Thats highly interactive and - much more complicated, timeconsuming and nonrealtime then the internet would give you, me us. Because with enough fat pipes (100Mbit upward) this is all instant its all bi-directional (sender and viewer can be the same person). You wanna watch something specific? Its a search engine question away. Don´t know which news to watch? Go to a blog which objectively/subjectively rates newsprograms. This is a nightmare scenario for every TV network. First independent production companies just will market their shows without a TV networks, why have a middle man when you can get the whole cake. Its a self inflicted wound as TV networks have been outsourcing all productions these days to safe costs. So the most successful shows/magazins or whatever will leave the networks first and a death spiral follows because no content worth watching no viewers no ad revenue no nothing to continue and this spiral is starting to spin now because with the new rating system two things will happen. Shows where everyone just skips ads will drop off the networks. Now these are not necessary the shows that the fewest people watch, its only shows people watch that are clever enough to skip the advertising - these are the shows that the most technical knowledgeable educated people - the multiplicators - watch. If these go to the internet in return (because the production companies see a hit and now have a distribution model without network dictating price taking 90% of the income and having control over you) you have the multiplicators go to the internets and tell their friends that this is so cool and that you do not need a TV anymore because all "the cool shit" is in the series of tubes. You might ask now: What about YouTube/Blip and the like? Isn´t that already what you are talking about and it hasn´t hurt TV? YouTube solves a very imminent problem that was huge just a year ago: how to serve up video content without going broke when your show hits 100 watchers. This is fused with a "community" styling. So is MySpace/Virb the other way around - a social network with the ability to freely host video content. Both are small version of what the internet in general is just with a nice interface and controlled by mega corporations. Because the internet IS a social network - the biggest one of all. YouTube has been a great platform to host experiments of the early times of mass internet video. What is shown in only very very small quantities is quality content - in content as in style. These sites are hard pressed to resist the pressure that will come to them when the network companies will grasp the last straw - their IP catalog. They have made sure that every show ever produced FOR them is now partially theirs (happily there are lots of blocks in the way so they can not "just put it on the web" without paying extra money to the makers). That works for another 25 years until their copyright runs out (in my opinion the number one reason why there is such a push for 200+ years copyright laws at the moment). So to stay alive and generate money these monoliths are flocking to YouTube and offer "their" content. This is a much more apparent commercialization of those "social networking" sites then just slapping adsense ads on the webpage and the users - so initially happy - will probably be offended - at latest when their "illegal" rips of TV shows or "mash up" are removed due to the pressure of the "tv" networks that actually do not have any much say in the big world as such. Its an easy way for ANY social networking site or "internet video portal" to go the drain. In the long run there is no need for these anyway other then to specialize in a certain topic (a snowboard video portal, a news portal, a cooking... ) because the emergence of a internet wide functioning track-back system (it will come rather sooner then later maybe through something like yahoo pipes where you can link up your site with your friends sites through pipes or whatever) will eliminate the need for "all your friends to be on one social network platform" as is the case at the moment. So the internet itself will be redefined the social network platform and you just host your stuff yourself. A good hosting service today already installs mostly everything you need for you and the administration time of this will also be less in the future. Or you just choose to partner with a specialized site and produce content just for that or both or all but you DO NOT NEED and WILL NEVER NEED (except if they pass laws which is not out the question these days) the middle man that is today a TV network no matter how big or small your Video/Filmproduction is. The only worrisome thing is that at the moment they have tremendous power and they must be well aware of these things and I have not a single moment of doubt that they will use their power to a) limit the internet itself (why do we still have DSL with only 1/10th the upload speed? there is not a single technical explanation why they do not start rolling out 100Mbits normal ethernet! How is this done? By pushing "conservative" candidates in TV who will just not run ahead and lay new fiber... b) they will fight with all their lobby might tighten the copyright laws until everyone is choked to death. then they will patent certain camera moves/angles and disallow anyone from shooting new content. Ok a) is a conspiracy theory but its not too far fetched and if you see the traditional media bias towards "conservatives" you have to wonder why and how they gain and then this is much clearer somehow (they help them by slowing down innovation in every step) and b) is already happening we have seen one successful push in the US and in Europe in the last years to extend the copyright and a new push is in full swing as I understand it. Which means that they are afraid very afraid and they should be, but never underestimate a bleeding dog. Timeframe? Well 2012 is all over like the Mayan calendar or the collapsing money-cycle so I also go for 2012 to see the freedom of airwaves (firstly eminent that you can now get airwaves for free from the government because nobody wants them :) The Nielsen rating was just the beginning and it will make them do one stupid "stop gap measure" that I have not commented on - it will make them try to interbreed commercials with the content - the worst stupid dumbass idea ever because that will certainly drive more people away in the long run. There is also an interesting Slashdot discussion with very insightful comments about this.

Technorati Tags: , , , ,

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://prototypen.com/cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.cgi/1794

Post a comment