The bit at the end about people "cutting the cord" on broadband and going to free wifi rings... not just false, really, but simply ridiculous. To a reasonable approximation, nobody is relying on Starbucks (or whatever) for their Internet access - that's simply not a substitute.
TV Is Dying, And Here Are The Stats That Prove It
141–150 of 197 posts
Re: TV Is Dying, And Here Are The Stats That Prove It
#142The Sandra-Bullock movie "Gravity" cost as much to produce as the Mars mission recently launched by India (~ 100Million USD).
Gravity made 500Million USD.
Something does not sit right.
Re: TV Is Dying, And Here Are The Stats That Prove It
#143Earlier quoted context omitted.
Good riddance The downside is that cable subscribers subsidize the handful of TV shows I actually want to watch. Individually, every person who quits makes a rational decision, but when everyone quits we don't get a lot of good shows. Maybe Netflix or Amazon or whoever will take up the slack. Or maybe those shows will just go away.
This is an important point that everyone really misses. Cable companies make (50M subscribers * $100 /month * 12 mo/yr)=60B dollars per year. TV advertising is another $80B /year. Overhead and profit might eat up 20-50% of that, but we're still left with a bill, to create the TV we want to watch, of a few hundred dollars per US man, woman, and child. Why would people imagine that we can replace that market with a hun…
If the eyeballs move to netflix, the billions in ad revenue will move too.
Re: TV Is Dying, And Here Are The Stats That Prove It
#144Earlier quoted context omitted.
Good riddance The downside is that cable subscribers subsidize the handful of TV shows I actually want to watch. Individually, every person who quits makes a rational decision, but when everyone quits we don't get a lot of good shows. Maybe Netflix or Amazon or whoever will take up the slack. Or maybe those shows will just go away.
This is an important point that everyone really misses. Cable companies make (50M subscribers * $100 /month * 12 mo/yr)=60B dollars per year. TV advertising is another $80B /year. Overhead and profit might eat up 20-50% of that, but we're still left with a bill, to create the TV we want to watch, of a few hundred dollars per US man, woman, and child. Why would people imagine that we can replace that market with a hun…
[deleted]
Re: TV Is Dying, And Here Are The Stats That Prove It
#145Earlier quoted context omitted.
Have you tried using a cheap box and rabbit ears? You probably don't need a fancy setup unless you're in a building that blocks reception or MANY miles from a major city.
My friend who was (recently passed) a telecommunications engineer made one of those "clothes hanger" antennae and stuck it on the side of his house -- not even high up. Worked a charm. And they're a good 25 - 30 miles from most of the broadcast locations. He sent me a YouTube link to instructions for one. Not hard to do. Of course, results vary. But perhaps worth looking into.
Please share the YouTube link. Thanks.
Re: TV Is Dying, And Here Are The Stats That Prove It
#146TV still has plenty of life in it. Be careful of those graphs with a non-zero y-axis minimum. But there is a shift happening. The biggest question to me is whether brand advertising dollars are/can/will shift with it. We need new ad products. Especially ones that will reach younger audiences who avoid current ad products. Maybe opportunities for Snapchat/Twitter. Also, content production is going to see some challeng…
I think the native advertising trend is taking care of the awful advertising problem. Ads that look and feel just like the product are way more palatable than banners. Only problem now is scaling native ads. The opportunity here is for a native ad network that can work with most of the top Content Management systems of the world
I disagree. Native ads are extremely cynical and turn off users more than regular ads, which at least have the dignity to admit that they are ads. They're far less palatable (which is pretty amazing) because they seem so forced. They're like the uncanny valley of ads. They look close to the real thing, but something is so off it's creepy.
Re: TV Is Dying, And Here Are The Stats That Prove It
#147The demise of TV in a single chart: http://www.bloomberg.com/infographics/2013-10-21/less-time-i... Younger the viewers, less TV they watch.
Wow - these graphs show 20-46 hours of viewing per week . Per week. I had no idea.
Same here! I don't even have kids and I can barely fit in 8-10 hours per week. For my demographic, they're claiming 30+ hours per week. Next time my friends with kids complain about "not enough time in the day," I think I'm going to smack them!
Re: TV Is Dying, And Here Are The Stats That Prove It
#148Making me turn on the TV at a specific time and date to watch something is such alien notion to me at this point. All of these shows worry about schedules and what's on other networks, but that's eventually not going to matter at all.
I think Sports will be an exception. Watching games live is always going to matter.
Twitch.tv! Youtube!
Re: TV Is Dying, And Here Are The Stats That Prove It
#149Earlier quoted context omitted.
I've been wondering what Direct TV will do with its satellites in 10-20 years when it doesn't make sense to use them for TV anymore. I haven't been able to imagine any significant uses, have you? There's weather services (for ships and aircraft outside of ground station range), radio (but this is really niche), high latency internet (for, say, cruise ships), maybe some other small niche services. But what's going to…
Direct TV's current satellites won't last another 10 or 20 years. They are constantly replacing them with newer technology. I don't think things are as dire as you suggest, but worst-case DTV simply won't replace the satellites as they wear out. Orbital slots are valuable, but I don't think those are actually owned by DTV. If they're not using a slot, then someone else is free to ask the FCC for it. Which means that…
>Which means that it behooves DTV to find something else to do with the slot. E.g. Internet.
Internet access is not very well suited to geosynchronous satellite orbits due to the high latency and limited bandwidth available.
Re: TV Is Dying, And Here Are The Stats That Prove It
#150I used to watch a fair amount of TV, now I have three young kids and watch less than an hour per month. I wonder what I actually got out of those 30+ hours a week of watching television. What a waste of life. how many people on their death bed say... I wish I had watched more television. Some people are going to spend 1/4 of their life watching television. Seriously? think of what you could have done with that time.
Online gaming is becoming as much of a time drain. It at least does not have as much of a social, political and interpersonal agenda as television (though it does warp you mind in other ways) but still, what a waste of precious life.
What would the world look like if television was gone tomorrow. No more marketers and hidden agenda writers and directors programming your mind subtlety.
What happened to board games? getting together with family and friends to socialize? I would like to see numbers on what television, media, and gaming has replaced (as far as time spent). Eventually, humans won't even act like traditional humans. All social skills and collaboration, perhaps even empathy one day will be far diminished or lost. Our very humanity.
See how much your demographic watches (or is influenced/brainwashed by): http://www.bloomberg.com/infographics/2013-10-21/less-time-i...