Quantcast
Connect with us

Why 2015 was the year that changed TV forever

Published

on

- Commentary

“The end of television” is a headline that’s been liberally thrown around for the past 15 years.

Indeed, the past year saw audiences becoming more and more amenable to adopting new ways to watch TV shows, with live audiences for broadcast and cable programs declining sharply.

Even entities like ESPN – which many thought immune to these changes in audience behavior – acknowledged subscriber losses this year. In response, Wall Street engaged in a mass sell-off of media stocks. Most rebounded by year’s end, but the volatility is indicative of the uncertainty in a sector that finds its core business model being disrupted.

ADVERTISEMENT

But viewers are actually watching more TV than ever before. They’re simply shifting to on-demand options from cable operators and broadband services.

Over the last five years, an influx of new broadband-delivered offerings has driven changes in audience behavior that challenge the businesses of traditional broadcast and cable television channels. Likewise, cable providers find themselves scrambling to adapt to new competition from leaner channel packages that offer flexible pricing options.

Contrary to what the headlines often suggest, the internet – or rather, broadband distribution – hasn’t come to kill television. Instead, it’s radically improving it.

A tenuous peace

In the 1990s, many assumed the ascendance of what was dubbed “new media” (anything digital or delivered via the internet) would bring about the demise of “old media” including television.

But media don’t die. Rather, their distribution technologies are frequently replaced. So while new media assassins still haven’t killed – or even maimed – television, a revolutionary transition did begin for the medium in 2015.

ADVERTISEMENT

The most disruptive form of “new media” for television is broadband distribution (what most casually think of as internet streaming). Companies that deliver video over broadband – Netflix, Amazon, Hulu, YouTube – use a new (and in many ways, better) technology for delivering traditional television shows.

Since 2010, broadband-delivered video services and “legacy television” (a more generous name for broadcast and cable TV than “old media”) actually enjoyed an unexpected symbiosis. Rather than battle to the death, the two quietly became neighboring options for viewers, and to some extent, partners.

Broadband television distributors (Netflix, in particular) provided a much-needed new revenue stream to traditional networks by paying them high fees to use their shows. In exchange, Netflix was able to disseminate the high-quality television content needed to woo viewers. As a result, Netflix slowly reacculturated expectations of how television should be experienced: that it needn’t be watched at a specific time, with a week between episodes, and interrupted every 10 minutes with commercials.

ADVERTISEMENT

But this past year, the tenuous détente fell apart when some of the biggest players in the legacy television industry decided to launch their own broadband-distributed services.

The biggest developments were HBO’s launch of HBO Now and CBS’s debut of CBS All Access. Like Netflix, both services require a subscription payment (though All Access has ads too) that allows customers to access a deep library of content they can watch according to their own schedules.

ADVERTISEMENT

Several other services also launched, including Nickelodeon’s Noggin, which has hundreds of episodes geared toward preschoolers. And NBC and Disney jumped in with the comedy portal SeeSo and DisneyLife, respectively.

Netflix no longer has the huge market share it once enjoyed.
Mike Blake/Reuters

It’s broadcast technology that’s in peril

Traditional broadcast technologies allowed for the transmission of only a single stream of programming at a time. This gave rise to almost all of the TV conventions that viewers have come to know: a schedule, channels, fixed program lengths and intermittent advertising.

ADVERTISEMENT

If you think about it, these aren’t conventions specific to the television medium. Rather, they’re responses to broadcasting’s technological limitations.

Sometimes the arrival of new distribution technologies introduces only moderate change, like when the music industry shifted from records to cassettes. Other times, new distribution technologies require a radical reconfiguration of business models and completely change the user experience of a medium.

This is what’s now happening for television.

And just as streaming makes for a very different viewing experience, it is also changing the nature of the shows that are made. Streaming services produce content targeted to narrower niches and sensibilities. They’ve also allowed for much greater experimentation and diversity in the ways stories are told and structured.

ADVERTISEMENT

A post-network era

These recent developments illustrate how profoundly norms of making and watching television will continue to shift in coming years.

When announcing the new version of Apple TV in September, Apple CEO Tim Cook said that the “future of TV is apps.” That’s one way to characterize the new services. They also could be thought of as the “channels” of the post-network era of broadband distribution. At their core, they’re portals to content; most require a monthly fee, but many are also ad-free and can be easily viewed on a number of devices, from smartphones to traditional television sets.

Apple CEO Tim Cook discusses Apple TV at a media event in September.
Beck Diefenbach/Reuters

As portals have introduced new ways to view content, traditional cable bundles also appear to be at a crossroads. The cable bundle is the package of over 100 channels required in even the “basic” digital package. Since most viewers watch fewer than 20 channels, many feel that they’re overpaying for content.

ADVERTISEMENT

Dubbed “skinny bundles,” Sling TV, Sony Vue and Verizon’s Fios Custom TV all began offering packages of channels that can be experienced as a typical channel with scheduled programming, in addition to some on-demand content. Like the portals, these skinny bundles are delivered via broadband and add to the competition by providing a cheaper alternative (though also far fewer channel options) for consumers who want to reduce their cable bill.

Despite the added competition, cable providers still find themselves in an enviable position. The portals and the skinny bundles both require high-speed internet service, which most receive from those very same cable companies. And in 2015, internet subscribers surpassed cable subscribers at Comcast, the nation’s largest “cable” company.

In response to the growing reliance on high-speed internet, several broadband providers are moving forward with plans to shift to usage-based billing, similar to data-use pricing from mobile phone companies.

History suggests that fewer than half of the portals or broadband distributed bundles announced this year will exist once business models catch up with technology and the experimenting of the past year gives way to consolidation. It’s not clear who will eventually dominate the post-network era of broadband distribution. But based on the scope of new broadband delivered entries, it’s obvious that legacy companies have been preparing to pivot to broadband distribution. The embrace of broadband technology makes clear that television’s future innovation won’t be confined to a linear schedule.

Whether the portals are the chicken or the egg, a vision for the future of television is flickering into focus.

ADVERTISEMENT

The Conversation

Amanda Lotz, Professor of Communication Studies and Screen Arts & Cultures, University of Michigan

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

ADVERTISEMENT

Report typos and corrections to: [email protected].
READ COMMENTS - JOIN THE DISCUSSION
Continue Reading

Breaking Banner

Impeachment Day One: Republicans weaponized nihilism by trying to defend Trump and destroy reality

Published

on

Watching the incoherent, 52 Pickup-style performance of Republicans on the House Intelligence Committee on Wednesday — which seemed less calculated to defend President Trump for his obvious crimes than to convince onlookers that President Trump is a fictional character, crimes are not crimes and that nothing, strictly speaking, can be said to exist at all — I was reminded of two things. Neither of them was directly relevant, but that’s where we are.

I started thinking about “Dialectic of Enlightenment,” the 1947 philosophical treatise by Max Horkheimer and Theodor W. Adorno that pretty much launched the field now known as “cultural studies.” A lot of semi-educated right-wingers, not coincidentally, appear to believe that the “Frankfurt School” (to which Horkheimer and Adorno belonged) essentially ruined liberal arts education in America in the ensuing decades and turned it into a system of indoctrination in “cultural Marxism.” It’s a better-developed anti-Semitic conspiracy theory than most (and yes, that’s exactly what it is), which falls apart mostly because the people who believe it are relying entirely on Glenn Beck’s SparkNotes versions of the books in question and have no idea what they’re talking about.

Continue Reading

Breaking Banner

Trump’s latest and most ludicrous con job

Published

on

Donald Trump is con artist in chief of the United States. His many apparent and impeachable crimes, such as the Ukraine scandal, collusion with Russia and violations of the Emoluments Clause, flow from that fact. Of course, Trump’s long con involves millions and perhaps even billions of dollars. But Trump’s big score, his ultimate goal, is permanent control of the presidency of the United States and the power for him and his family and allies to engage in legal theft indefinitely.

This article first appeared on Salon.

Continue Reading
 

Breaking Banner

I was an impeachment skeptic. Here’s why I’m now convinced Trump must be removed

Published

on

Despite all the uncertainty surrounding impeachment, we can capture the current moment succinctly: President Trump’s fate hinges on whether Republican senators are more fearful of losing in a primary or in the general election. Now that the live impeachment hearings are about to fuel nationwide prime-time programming, those senators’ fears are likely to intensify.

While that dynamic will determine whether Trump will be removed from office, it doesn’t tell us whether he should be.  I am generally an impeachment skeptic. My recent book—Impeaching the President: Past, Present, Future—argues that impeachment should be regarded as a last resort that, as a general proposition, is inappropriate in a president’s first term.  The American people are capable of rendering judgment and should be given the first crack.

Continue Reading
 
 
Help Raw Story Uncover Injustice. Join Raw Story Investigates for $1 and go ad-free.
close-image