The BIG Problem: Why Paul Scrivens Is Smarter Than Les Moonves
broadcast television is dead.
deader than a doornail.
just like the internet killed the music industry it’s about to do the same thing to broadcast tv.
And I’m not talking about downloading.
That’s just one part of the story.
it’s not even the important part.
solving the downloading problem is easy.
solving the BIG problem is not.
television, just like the major label music business (and the movie business) was built for mass penetration.
It’s HUGE.
Everything about it is huge.
How many people do you think it takes to produce The Abrams Report on MSNBC?
It was watched in (on avg.) 215,000 homes per day last week.
Rocketboom was watched (on avg) in 200,000 homes per day last week.
Just like the music business, television has become economically unfeasable at it’s present size.
but like the music business screamed about napster the tv folks will scream about YouTube and it’s ilk.
Small is the new big.
Here’s the elephant over on your left:
Scrivs can give Les Moonves a run for his money in audience size and quality of programming.
Here’s the deal that’s keeping broadcast television alive.
The public is valuing new media much more than the old, but the advertisers still value the old.
But I wouldn’t worry too much about that.
Because their business is next.
March 2, 2006 at 7:57 pm
This is not only replete with good ideas, it is also well-written with a killer sentence ending. Bravo.
I agree. I agree. I agree.
March 2, 2006 at 8:10 pm
Char,
Your’re right abouit this. But how do you convince the advertisers of it?
March 2, 2006 at 9:01 pm
As Les Moonves fan David Letterman would say, “That’s not saying much for Paul Scrivens.”
March 3, 2006 at 9:14 am
Funny Brian.
I’m just pointing out the obvious.
Instead of writing another post I’ll just put some other thoughts here.
What we are in the middle of is a powershift.
The same thing happened in the music industry. Power shifted from the big labels to the artists themselves. Music artists can make more money doing everything themselves.
Not as much money as big labels pay. But big labels could only pay big money to a few people.
What’s going to happen to the video medium is the same thing.
Broadcast TV has barely survived cable. How are they going to win when everybody has a channel?
Everybody thinks that the broadcasters lost. They are not really lost. They are looking for liferafts that are not there.
the real people who are lost are the advertisers. They are going to have to have to fundementally change to survive. That’s the elephant on the right.
March 3, 2006 at 10:09 am
What you have to realize is that advertisers are lazy. So with this micro media world how do they quantify reach? How to they pay for ALL of these individual broadcasters? Today there is no platform for a personal content creator to create media on a regular basis, have it on a platform quantify traffic and create compelling and predictable enough value for an advertiser pay for it.
Your example of Rocketboom recently auctioned off its advertising space for $40k for a week’s worth of advertising on Ebay. Is this efficient? No. One 30 second spot each night during the week is at least $75k. So because of the disaggregated nature of this micromedia… there are too many inefficiencies of advertisers to adopt advertising in this media yet. And Google adwords as it is today isnt rich enough to replace traditional branding that these companies are seeking.
March 3, 2006 at 10:47 am
I think the advertisers are going to have to figure it out.
They are the ones losing.
Oh, and I love Youare.tv!
March 3, 2006 at 10:57 am
Thanks, we are just getting started!
March 3, 2006 at 12:14 pm
I watch from the sidelines of these discussions, and generally have to agree with the most of the ideas expressed.
That said, I think it is wrong to say that “advertisers are lazy”. What they REALLY are, like most people stuck in a business or lifestyle model that is outmoded, is simply risk averse. It’s always helpful to look at behaviour through a lens of how a professional (in this case advertiser’s or agency’s marketing manager) the potential collateral damage their career if they argue passionately for a new model. Most people opt for the safe choice…
March 3, 2006 at 12:39 pm
I think part of the problem is that advertisers only talk to advertisers and content producers only talk to each other as well.
I’m going to make an effort to get some advertisers/marketers to this site and see if we can figure some things out.
March 3, 2006 at 1:16 pm
And hence come the online networks if they are done right. Advertisers probably won’t go, nor care about the one hundred million blogs out there, but if they can optimmize their resources through a network that has a constant audience (gawker), then their money goes further.
The networks are the new “pimps” of the internet, taking on many sites, fitting them in categories and aggregating ads across the board. Personally, if I were an advertiser, Id rather see my ads go across many, if not all the sites on b5media rather than one populare like thesuperficial.com
March 3, 2006 at 1:17 pm
And hence come the online networks if they are done right. Advertisers probably won’t go, nor care about the one hundred million blogs out there, but if they can optimmize their resources through a network that has a constant audience (gawker), then their money goes further.
The networks are the new “pimps” of the internet, taking on many sites, fitting them in categories and aggregating ads across the board. Personally, if I were an advertiser, Id rather see my ads go across many, if not all the sites on b5media rather than one populare like thesuperficial.com.
Do you serve your readers or do you serve your advertisers? One has to outweigh the other.
March 3, 2006 at 1:19 pm
I really like thesuperficial.com
March 3, 2006 at 1:32 pm
When I say advertisers are lazy I only mean that they would rather go to one source than deal with hundreds of little bloggers or video shows. Call it “efficient or cost effective” if you’d like. I say they want one solution to reach a bunch of people who are consuming this new media.
If it weren’t for google… the great majority of bloggers and labor of love sites would have no keywords to make pennies that they currently make.
March 3, 2006 at 1:40 pm
It’s a pretty cool site run by Anticlown Media.
PS, sorry for the double comments, IE sucks
March 3, 2006 at 2:44 pm
Chart, do you know of something in the pipeline over at 9rules that we should be paying attention to?
Secondly, thesuperficial gets enough traffic that if they had video, they could compete with stuff like entertainment tonight, or access hollywood.
I think the proof will be if someone tries to come out w/a daily/weekly webcast/vlog that is a ful 42 minutes long. If that catches on I’d be surprised, the success in online video programming will definitely be the microchunk (create a series where each episode gets split across 5 days, if its good, it will get huge).
March 3, 2006 at 2:49 pm
I think if the superficial had video it would be way cool. But I would keep it short. Say 5 minutes or less.
I want someone to make The Angelina Jolie Channel. All Angelina info all the time. 3 minute clips updated thoughout the day. It would be popular. at least at my house…
March 3, 2006 at 2:56 pm
[...] Chartreuse has an interesting post about the future of TV (not bullish). [...]
March 3, 2006 at 5:13 pm
I’m all for a 9rules love fest, but you’re a bit all over the place with this post.
Nevertheless, suuureee… I can get onboard. Maybe my pal Rundle can get me in on some pre-IPO 9shares before the hostile takeover of News Corp.
March 4, 2006 at 9:06 am
your right…News Corp is buying everything…
March 4, 2006 at 10:38 am
George Gilder proclaimed the exact same thing in his 1994 book Life After Television. This is not a new concept.
Our current Broadcast Television system evolved in the Industrial Age world of scarce Mass Media where content was expensive and difficult to produce and distribution was scarce and controlled.
Today in our Information Age world of abundant easy and cheap to produce content and abundant friction free direct to consumer distribution, it’s not surprising that the Broadcast TV will die. Where’s the value prop on either end (consumer and producer)?
In the simplest terms this:
Content Producer—->Consumer
Will replace this:
Content Producer –> Broadcast Network —>Affiliate Broadcaster——>Cable/ Sat (90% of distribution) —–> Consumer
Classic disintermediation…;-)
Advertisers/Marketers have no choice….. Broadcast Television is dead! Mass Media is dead. The whole concept of “branding” mass appeal products to a mass audience is dead. Perhaps given the abundance of content choice, intrusive advertising is dead…
Welcome to world of Media 2.0!
March 5, 2006 at 12:03 pm
Adam, the shares are in the mail….. non-voting!!
March 7, 2006 at 3:58 pm
Brilliant! Your couple of paragraphs about rocketboom.com and its circulation gives more insight than the Wall St. Journal, NYT and other media\’s warnings of the coming change in broadcast media.
March 9, 2006 at 1:11 am
[...] Why Paul Scrivens Is Smarter Than Les Moonves nice and short post about tv vs. videoblogging…and what industry is next to feel the pain of the internet (tags: tv iptv video videoblog aweli advertising) [...]
March 11, 2006 at 12:27 pm
[...] The New York Times has an article that refers to Prince Campbell’s Chartreuse blog. [...]
March 12, 2006 at 10:53 am
[...] The NY Times quotes Prince Campbell, writing in his Chartreuse (Beta) blog. [...]
March 12, 2006 at 6:53 pm
Channel Surfing Internet TV
People do not watch television programs on their computers the way they watch it in their traditional television sets and the reason is because…
…
March 16, 2006 at 4:39 am
David said: Your example of Rocketboom recently auctioned off its advertising space for $40k for a week’s worth of advertising on Ebay. Is this efficient? No. One 30 second spot each night during the week is at least $75k.
Did Rocketboom increase their advertising revenue? If so I’d say that was damned efficient; an advertiser got a good deal and many $000,000 of the fluffy middle was trimmed. See Char’s last line.
March 17, 2006 at 12:51 pm
[...] Only last weekend Chartruse had his story on the death of Broadcast TV featured in the New York Times But at least he credited his source! [...]
March 20, 2006 at 1:09 am
All of it is leading to my brand of electro-telepathy, and I’ll be right there with my Wishomatic Dream Record & Playback units, to dominate, kindly, and voraciously, all that then exists.
March 22, 2006 at 6:18 pm
A Big Hello to All ; ) My name’s Betty Floyd Masterson. I’ll say to you now I’m kinda new to Blog stuff! I agree with the Post. You have a Totally awesome site here, just keep up the good work.
April 7, 2006 at 4:37 pm
Have you ever been to ‘you tube’? they let you host videos there and you can hotlink them on your blogs. it’s really cool and you don’t have to bandwidth on the videos, cause its free.
May 19, 2006 at 2:00 pm
Your blog is a nice one. Thanks
July 2, 2006 at 5:06 am
awesome blog! http://www.ashland.aalabama.com
July 17, 2006 at 8:31 am
[...] It’s interesting that Dan Abrams is at the helm of the network now. Rocketboom had more viewers than his show. [...]
October 11, 2006 at 6:50 pm
I have recently started my own blog and it has generated my interest in other blogs. I came across this one tonight and happen to know a fair amount of information on the subject matter. Broadcast Networks will not die in our lifetime. However, they are evolving and morphing increasingly each day. Content is much cheaper to produce today than it was only a few years ago. I am involved in a project for a major network that involves narrow casting of smaller venues and smaller audiences. Similar to the example stated in this blog. It is not even broadcast over the air. As far as advertisers, I do not believe they are lazy but rather concerned with the demographics of the audience they are paying to get to. It really depends on your product and your target audience. The old term you get what you pay for is still alive and well. Just my thoughts.