The Emmy's this year had a fun interruption when Dr. Horrible took over the show. In his short time on air he made the very astute point that the Internet was taking the place of television. As the main character in the short movie "Dr. Horrible's Sing-Along Blog," which premiered on the Internet during the writers' striker of 2009, some bias can be assumed on his part. But he was very correct in suggesting that the Internet might be taking over TV.
There are a large number of shows that you can watch online from major television stations. The stations themselves are happy to supply Internet viewers with clips and episodes, probably as encouragement for people to get into the series and buy the DVDs later down the road. There are even things like Dr. Horrible or the Guild which were never aired on TV, made specifically for the Internet.
However, such easy access may begin to present an economic problem. Television stations could be in trouble if people continue going to the Internet for their viewing needs. As long as one has Internet access, you don't necessarily have to pay to watch certain channels on your television--you can just watch it online. The most worrying thing is that it is very easy to stream or download content that people couldn't normally watch for free; it's difficult to police something like the Internet.
Already the Internet has begun to take the place of printed newspapers. It wouldn't take much for it to replace television viewing as well. After all, computers offer much greater accessibility and less commercials than most television stations would.
Right now it doesn't seem as if television stations are doing too poorly. In time, though, they may start to feel the pinch.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I agree that TV may loose some of its business to the Internet video hosts, but I doubt that it will suffer the same devastating losses that many big name newspapers have in the past year. I think network stations have caught on to the trend early enough so that they can actually turn it into even more profit by hosting exclusive videos on their official sites.
ReplyDeleteE
I've actually been wondering about this. We don't have t.v. at home, so my sister watches shows on her laptop. It reminds me, in a way, of the problem with illegal downloads and c.d. burning and the affect that that has on the music industry. It's true that people are getting their news from the internet for its quick, convenience, and less cost, and that this has had a huge impact on newspapers. Most shows online though are on the t.v. channel's website. They're not illegal, so I wonder if it even does have a huge effect or why would these companies put it online for viewers?
ReplyDeleteIn my own experience I am someone who would rather watch the T.V and in case I missed one of episodes on a show I would relied on the internet to watch what I missed but rather than that I prefer to watch T.V. Although I agree with the article that many people relate to the internet for many shows; they have been able to manage their ratings by creating new shows and I think people will most likely be attracted to what’s just coming up. (A,E)
ReplyDeleteI think that tv is going to be more and more online, but I agree with Bridgett. I watch almost all of my tv online, but rarely can I not find a legal way to do so - most shows are either on thier hosting network's website or hulu. Even though these sites usually have commercials, they are fewer and less frequent than televeision commercials. I think the availability of shows on the internet will help television networks from struggling in the way that the record industry has. (E,A)
ReplyDeleteI agree that television stations will likely be able to adapt quite well to the growing popularity of the internet. They can still advertise on the shows they post online, and the easy availability and obvious legality of these network run sites will make them more attractive than any non-network sites.
ReplyDeleteTelevision stations are likely to adapt to the growth of the Internet and developing high-speed communications technologies. I doubt it will be long before the division between classic cable television and television streaming online begins to blur. Especially if they simply stream their feeds, commercials and all, to viewers on computers, the only real cost is the initial investment in servers.
ReplyDeleteAs we have seen with Hulu and Netflix, streaming, on demand video has been devastating to traditional sources such as Blockbuster. Rupert Murdoch has threatened to force users to pay for streamed Fox content on Hulu (beyond just advertisements), but this is likely to fail just as much as the NYTimes change.