An interesting read that lays out the future barreling towards us ~ I can't help feeling that the constancy of 24/7/365 "entertainment" is eroding personal interactions and stifling personal imagination ~ then again, I'm one who loves getting lost in a good read ~ ~ Sooz

After destroying newspapers, the Internet is now poised to disrupt television
By Agence France-Presse
Wednesday, August 14, 2013 10:57 EDT

Having turned print media upside down, the Internet now is disrupting television, forcing broadcasters to adapt to tablets and video-on-demand to hold onto views and advertisers.

“The gap between what consumers want and the way the industry is delivering it has grown so big that the industry now has to start to make some moves,” Forrester Research analyst Jim Nail told AFP.

Viacom, Time Warner, Disney, 21st Century Fox, CBS — the second quarter results of the big US media groups confirmed that cable networks remain their cash cows.

For the first time this year, however, American adults are spending more time with the Internet than in front of television sets — about five hours a day compared to 4.5, according to a study in eMarketer this month.

The independent market research firm notes that users sometimes use the Internet and watch television at the same time — and that video represents only part of online consumption.

That doesn’t stop a group like Netflix, which offers films and original programming on demand, from growing and spawning imitators such as Amazon’s online streaming service.

The formula is favored by youngsters who relish cartoons on their tablet devices and TV binge-viewers who watch multiple episodes of their favorite shows in one sitting.

Internet giant Google has joined the party with Chromecast, a device that plugs into the HDMI input of a TV set to provide streaming video.

Apple is meanwhile consistently rumored to be developing online television services.

“There will still be some linear real time viewing of TV for the Super Bowl or breaking news events … but entertainment-based video will move to more on-demand,” Nail said.

“If you own a TV station, you are in the same position as a newspaper. There will be other ways to watch content and you’re going to be very challenged,” he explained.

On the other hand, “if you are the content owner, you should not worry at all.”

You might have to abandon cable distribution and get a slot on Netflix, but content is in such high demand “that you will be able to make money… It really shouldn’t change your financial outlook or your survival.”

Media groups see the risks in relative terms.

Time Warner chief executive Jeff Bewkes, whose corporation includes HBO and CNN, told financial analysts in a conference call that he regards Internet streaming as complementary to broadcasting — something that adds value to programming.

Viacom talks about adapting to changing public behavior.

“Certain kids are going to consume content on tablets, and if you want your content to have a shot at being consumed you have to have it on a tablet,” its chief operating officer Tom Dooley said.

Viacom is “aggressively” positioning itself in the tablet market with distribution partnerships like the one it forged with Amazon for such children’s shows as “SpongeBob SquarePants” and “Dora the Explorer.”

It has also launched what Dooley called a “phenomenally successful” mobile app for Viacom’s Nickelodeon children’s channel.

“Streaming continues to be a terrific growth driver for us,” affirmed CBS chief Leslie Moonves, whose network has struck an exclusive deal with Amazon guaranteeing the profitability of its summer series “Under the Dome,” based on a Stephen King novel.

Viacom and CBS have seen their income stemming from program distribution rights leap 28 and 22 percent respectively, due in part to the Internet effect.

For those who own content, the multiplication of online video services can have a favorable effect by bidding up the money they can get from selling distribution rights.

In Nail’s opinion, there is “a lot more to do before (television companies) meet consumer demand and create the new business model they need to profit” from Internet-driven change.

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/08/14/after-destroying-newspapers-the-internet-is-now-poised-to-disrupt-television/

Newspapers destroyed themselves by abandoning their journalistic standards. Instead of providing a high quality alternative to mindless, second-rate TV news they lowered their standards.

They are rushing to do the online entertainment bit. My one favorite station, Bravo, had gone with that but it doesn't work right yet. I can view some things, but not others. For instance, I can watch episode 5 of a program, but not episode 1-4. Other programs are even more random. I can watch #1 and #3, but none of the others.

I've sent them a barrage of emails, lol. They only responded to my first with a general "we will be adding new content....blah blah blah". That's fine, but dammit, add them in sequence please!

I watch several series online while I cycle. They are ones that the hubby doesn't like, so it's a good time for me to watch them. So far Bravo is the only one to go to this format (online and mobile) as far as I know. I'm sure the others will follow, if they haven't already. They may have and because it's seamless, I haven't noticed lol.

Newspapers don't get paid for their work. They pay actual reporters to go out and watch the world, talk to people, develop contacts, write it up, be objective about it. Then the aggregators read their stuff and use it on their blogs as though they had done the work. Newspaper sales go down, so advertisers fade away or pay less for space, so newspaper companies can afford fewer reporters, so coverage isn't as good, and so on down the line.

How many local TV stations actually have reporters who go out and cover events, other than the occasional car crash and the high school football team?

In regards to advertisers, I can attest to the fact (and so can you) that the digital versions of any news media have ads up the wazoo. Pop ups, scroll downs, "waves" and traditional sidebars etc. I'm sure those are paid ads, so the news media still get advertising $$$ and probably at a higher rate.

It's about time this started happening. TV broadcasters are late in the game. Sites like Justin.tv have had people - private citizens - broadcasting 24/7/365 for several years now. I cut the chord at the beginning of 2010 and I haven't missed anything. In fact, I'd wager I'm much better informed than most people who relying on television news.

Interesting! Our "on demand" list seems to grow with them adding content all the time, like tv show episodes and such. Those are free too!

I like having my tv shows online, Chaos. I need something to keep me occupied (distracted) while I pedal away. The doc suggested audio books, but I found that my mind would wander and I'd lose the story, lol.

The Washington Post had all of its content online for free until just a couple of weeks ago. New York Times started charging for anything after 20 articles a couple of years ago, then more recently for anything over 10 articles. Periodical publishers also now finally are requiring you to subscribe before you can read them online. I finally stopped subscribing to Newsweek and time because by the time they arrived in the mail, I had already read almost everything in them.

I don't know how their online advertising revenue compares with the print ad revenue.