“The business model is unraveling at ABC, CBS, NBC and Fox and the local stations that carry the networks’ programming. Cable TV and the Web have fractured the audience for free TV and siphoned its ad dollars. The recession has squeezed advertising further, forcing broadcasters to accelerate their push for new revenue to pay for programming,” Vanacore reports.
“That will play out in living rooms across the country. The changes could mean higher cable or satellite TV bills, as the networks and local stations squeeze more fees from pay-TV providers such as Comcast and DirecTV for the right to show broadcast TV channels in their lineups,” Vanacore reports. “The networks might even ditch free broadcast signals in the next few years. Instead, they could operate as cable channels – a move that could spell the end of free TV as Americans have known it since the 1940s.”
“‘Good programing is expensive,’ Rupert Murdoch, whose News Corp. owns Fox, told a shareholder meeting this fall. ‘It can no longer be supported solely by advertising revenues.'” Fox is pursuing its strategy in public, warning that its broadcasts – including college football bowl games – could go dark Friday for subscribers of Time Warner Cable, unless the pay-TV operator gives Fox higher fees,” Vanacore reports.
Much more in the full article here.
MacDailyNews Take: You know, there’s one company in particular that likes to take broken, antiquated industries and fix them…
If the government regulators are on board with this scheme, then the government and the public just wasted a lot of money and goodwill with the whole Digital TV transition. What are they going to do now…tell everyone just to ditch their antenna and fork over a subscription fee?
Additionally, I would think that there would be a drastic reduction in the number of shows that get produced, because most people are not going to subscribe to something unknown. If it comes down to a case of me having to pay for what I watch, then I likely won’t watch. I know many viewers like the iTunes subscription model; that’s fine if the product is a known entity, and if forced into it, I would move to that, since I regularly use Hulu to watch stuff, but even there I’m subjected to ads. If I’m going to pay for content, then it is going to have to be ad-free, and its cost is going to have to be in line with present pricing. This whole concept is looking messy already.
I would hate to see local affiliates go under. I like to watch local news, weather and sports.
If true, it’s ridiculous. The vast majority of Americans still do the vast majority of the TV viewing via OTA broadcasts. Not cable, not satellite, not the internet.
The revenue issues that broadcasters have are the result of (among others) every idiot advertising agency (and their clients) who think the “next big thing” is online this or that, and who are pulling critical needed revenue from broadcast media and throwing them down the blackhole of the “next big thing” before the “next big thing” is anywhere capable of generating the response needed to justify this actiity.
The term short-sighted comes to mind… along with the phrase “the emperor has no clothes”.
Since Rupert made his comments I’ve monitored my watching habits. Sorry, Rupert. The channel I watch the most is <drum roll> The Weather Channel! It has way more intellectual content than any Fox offering. And, unlike Rupert’s endeavors, the weather channel is only wrong half the time!
The aspect that really troubles me is the lack of responsible reporting anywhere. I can only find “me, too” sites that parrot the party line of whatever creed they adhere to — Edward R Murrow and Walter Cronkite, we desperately need you!
A agree, Silverhawk. And, to take an odd position, I think we all learn from and make decisions based on the commercials and ads that we see. The biggest problem for me is the quantity, the placement, and the too often tacky production quality. But we do learn from, and even enjoy, SOME commercials. I suspect few of us tune out when an Apple spot is on, even if we’ve see it a number of times already. And there are new products we put on our list that we would likely never even know about. So, I am not objecting to commercials just because they’re a commercial. There are some really good ones out there. But for a network to crank up the volume on them, or to have to watch some that are just classless, or to have so many, so often, that we forget what we were watching… I agree that I, too, have no interest in that kind of waste.
The culture and cultists who produce the content presented as “television” are the tail that wags the dog. A tiny percent of our society produces the content, and they broad cast to a barely significant fraction of the population . . . ” We are ZYX cable news, the highest rated cable news channel” – – as if that matters when only 20 million of us 300 million (6% if the US population) people tune in to that channel. It is a self amplifying self contained echo chamber.
The sooner TV dies, the better. It is particularly intriguing to think about possibilities that the mega dollar political advertising on TV might be undermined. The current model is more $$$ = more TV ads = won elections. If that equation no longer functions, the USA may be headed in a better direction.
My TV has been cold and dark for years. When I am exposed to TV, and especially the advertising, the mental framing that is required is repugnant and entirely non rational. It requires a child mind, not an adult one, and an additional element of borderline hypnotic trance. This is most importantly relevant to election year political advertising, which preys on and reenforces stupidity and emotionalism. Voters’ minds need to be informed and open adult minds, not frightened ignorant insular child minds. TV is far more effective at encouraging and cultivating the latter.
So if people have to pay for TV then that undermines advertisers (HBO anybody?) Nothing but good.
Die Commercial Television! Die! Good riddance!
I do know that if people got to hang around some of the “producers” of the fare we get on TV and in some movies, they’d say they wouldn’t want their kids in the same room as them, especially some of the younger ones. Some end up with money to make something, but have no life experience to know that there are better quality things in life to bring to others. We can have quality whether it is on commercial or non-commercial TV. We’re short of it and have been for a number of years. That’s fixable, though I haven’t seen it happening. But losing the vehicle of OTA broadcasts may not be fixable at all.
I don’t watch TV.
All I need to watch from TV is available for free as Apple Store Podcasts.
Who needs TV?
“We think basically you watch television to turn your brain off, and you work on your computer when you want to turn your brain on.”
— Steve Jobs, 2004
Well, I like my brain on!
@ CountryYokel
If the UK government rolled the cost of running the BBC into your annual tax, would that 39p a day (about 62c) be an issue. More to the point would the BBC get the money or would the government of the day spend it on “other” pursuits
Public broadcasting services need money to broadcast their programing.
At the BBC most of the money spent on TV goes towards programmes on BBC One and BBC Two, but it also pays for the BBC News channel, CBBC, CBeebies, BBC Three, BBC Four, BBC Parliament, regional versions of BBC One and BBC Two, BBC HD and Red Button interactive services.
Radio
The BBC broadcasts music, speech, sport, entertainment and news on Radio 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 Live, and on the digital-only stations 1Xtra, 5 Live Sports Extra, 6 Music, Radio 7 and Asian Network. It also serves communities throughout the UK with national stations for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland and 39 English local radio stations.
Online
The licence fee pays for the BBC website, one of the most trusted and popular sites in the UK, as well as the hugely popular iPlayer, which is making it even easier to watch and listen.
Digital switchover and other costs
The licence fee doesn’t just pay for broadcasting content; it also has to cover our investment in new technology, our running costs, and the costs of collecting the licence fee. Money is also set aside to support the UK’s switchover to digital TV. This benefits the whole broadcasting sector, not just the BBC.
…by “younger ones” I meant the ages of the producers, not the kids. But producers of all ages are affecting what people know and think even when it is groundless or blatantly wrong. Historical revisionism in film and on TV has not helped people to know their own history, or that of others.
The entire constitution and bill of rights is going down the pan, why worry about just the TV?
Correct, Zek.
Been there, done that: Time Warner Cable had a similar battle last year, then the year before that. It always caved in.
However, this year the pressure is on Time Warner Cable to fight back. They have a website where they’ve collected votes and comments regarding the eternally beyond-inflation escalation of cable TV fees for consumers.
http://rolloverorgettough.com/
What they heard back was a resounding response of ‘get tough’. No surprise there considering the fact that Time Warner are infamous for gouging their customers, such as in the 10x above cost markup fees on Internet downloads in ‘tests’ they conducted with their RoadRunner ISP service.
But how about the Fux end of the stick? Around here we all know that Rupert Murdung has his own price gouging in mind, charging for every little service, in total opposition to how the Internet works. It is as if he was Rip VanWinkle, a geezer from the last century who woke up and got angry that things had changed from the way he likes them. We all know as well that he will FAIL. This kick up has ass from Time Warner et al. will be his first wake up call, of many I am sure. I wish the old rat would go back to AUS and STFU.
Meanwhile, I am looking forward to no longer having to program my DVR box to skip over FUX stations and other News Corp Crap.
@ derekcurrie,
I voted on the ‘Get Tough’ website, and like most people believe Time Warner should tell that evil c********r Rupert Murdoch to go piss up a rope.
I don’t have any great love for TW, but Fox is wanting a lot more than other networks. I do wish Time Warner had to offer everything à la carte.
Screw Rupert Murdock and all his channels. Let them go. Good riddance!
I stopped watching tv almost 20 years ago – i found out there were way better things to do (like chicks – plus other things) but now that there’s TiVo, DVDs, iTunes, etc – there’s no reason for anyone to sit and wait for a program to come on – or be stuck watching commercials. Same with radio – why listen to randomly hear your favorite music, when you can go on someplace like Grooveshark and program it in – or listen to a podcast with more than enough new music. Choice – is at an all time peak.
Sir Bill sez: “I do wish Time Warner had to offer everything à la carte.”
I understood their arguments against it from years back. But these days every set top box from the cable company is a mini-computer. The cards you toss into them are entirely customizable. And the fact is that the cards aren’t even necessary any more for filtering/enabling channels. The entire thing can be done on a box-by-box basis, account-by-account. Then add in modern encryption and there is no way some Joe Blow can hack the settings sent into the box by the cable company.
Conclusion:
Lazy lazy lazy! There is now no excuse for cable companies not allowing à la carte TV channels. All it takes is the technology and billing comprehension to set it up and implement it at Time Warner, etc. One of the cable companies will catch up and offer it one of these days, then watch it become the standard. I’m betting that Verizon offers it first. We shall see. In the meantime, nag nag nag!
I haven’t watched TV in years, and I’ve NEVER let advertising influence me in my purchases in ANY way.
Of course, I work in advertising, and rely on the dumbed-down mentality of the human race to keep me employed…
I can remember when television broadcasting didn’t start until 4 PM and each broadcast day ended at midnight with the Star Spangled Banner. If you turned on your television before 4, you saw the indian test pattern.
In 1980, Ted Turner changed all that, going 24/7 with the news and shortly thereafter all the channels followed suit, broadcasting 24-hours a day creating a vacuous space filled with mind-numbing paid-programming.
Television is broken and has become an instrument of torture, vis-á-vis “reality” television for an audience who no longer has an appetite for fiction.
Did things change with the first generation of children who abandoned books for cartoons?
@ G4Dualie,
I remember when my town got its first UHF station in 1964. Added to the two VHF stations, we then had a veritable smorgasbord of network programming. We didn’t get our first PBS station until 1972. It sure was a lot simpler back then.
In the ’50s I had my favorite Saturday morning shows, but most times I was outside playing with other kids. Moms at that time didn’t put up with us on decent days and threw us out of the house. It was for the best; too bad most parents don’t do the same today.
with the current model is that those viewer ratings used to decide where to pay that ad money is a sample of only like 25k viewers. which is pretty much censorship since the rest of us have to take what they decide is worth watching. thus all that ‘good’ Fox programming like American Idol.
the whole TV industry needs an overhaul starting with ratings and the networks ignoring online viewing/itunes etc as a way to supplement ad money and keep the actually good shows on the air