m

Wednesday, January 31, 2007

TV Lovers Simply Don't Get It

For quite some time the rumor has been that TV is in trouble because of the rise of the Internet. The theory is that, with the rapid expansion of more portable devices, the growth of bandwidth in Internet connections, and the 24/7 availability of entertaining content, will make the TV increasingly obsolete. Geoff Colvin of Fortune Magazine begs to differ and believes that either in spite of the Web or because of it, more people are watching more TV than ever. Colvin argues that since (according to polls) the average American is spending over four hours a day watching TV, the box has nothing to worry about. He couldn't be more wrong.

Americans are already spending a significant amount of time watching DVDs on TV. Others are watching TV programs online, making the distinction between TV and computer time quite blurry (e.g., the average age of nightly news viewers is 60, younger viewers are getting their stories online and when they want it). In my opinion, people only spend time watching TV because the link between the computer and TV hasn't become more simplified (although it is getting there). When people begin to instantly pull what they want from the Web to their TVs, individuals will become their own program directors and will largely ignore what is being offered by broadcast or cable.

Sure, some shows and their networks will survive, but the television landscape will be changing forever. Colvin is right that the boxes and screens that we are watching today will continue to survive (and even improve), but the content that goes into them will be increasingly driven by the Web and not by the networks. And all the more the Web is driven by users. I believe the best proof of this is YouTube, which I call the first major TV network of the 21st century that happens to be on the Internet. Google knew exactly what it was doing when it purchased that site for over $1.6 billion. They know that the future of the programming you will want to watch will be driven, not surprisingly, by you.

Labels: , , , ,

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

<< Home