|
|
|
|
|
|
March 2006
Shaken, Soon To Be Stirred: Who Will Save TV?
by Neal Weinstock
|
Because we're human, we lie to ourselves. Immerse the human animal in deep, deep trouble, though, and
we may experience a divine
moment of truth, realize who we really are, and change our ways. Such a moment of truth has been granted to the
television business by the
looming digital-broadcast deadline of February 17, 2009, by the growth of program downloading, by DVRs, by the shift of ad
dollars from TV to the Internet
and by a few other elements of stormy weather. Some results: - Programming executives
always used to claim that what
they cared most about was the advertiser.
They probably really believed it, though their customers had their
doubts. Now they are frank,
at recent industry conferences, at saying they are doing something like migrating towards being content companies. In other
words, they really care
mostly about making and selling shows, only incidentally (if necessary) about pulling in audiences for spots.
Surprise--they'd rather schmooze
with the talent than with the soap company guys!
If they can sell the show through iTunes or their own website, then carve out a DVD window, think how many ad
salespeople they can lay off. The art
of schedule-making is dead, too: only total dolts and old people stay hooked to the tube from one show to the next these
days. And who needs affiliate
relations guys, either, when you're screwing the affiliates to sell downloads? Programmers have been liberated to be who they
really always were
anyway.
- Media company owners and managers used to believe they were important.
Politicians and bankers wooed them,
they bought and sold stations, built conglomerates and then got to lay off lots of employees. When the dot-com bubble burst,
they celebratedat least they
still had jobs. But the ad sales of Yahoo!, MSN, even AOL and especially a little startup called Google kept rising, while
big media companies share
prices have now slowly decayed for a decade. A reality check: Google had Q4, 2005 revenues of $1.919 billion. This is more
than CBS, ABC, Fox Broadcasting
or NBC. TV company managers now know they are in a rust-belt industry. They woo politicians, hoping for
regulatory crumbs, but the best they
can hope for are spot buys in election years...but only for stations in competitive districts. They break up their companies,
hoping for a share-price
boost that doesn't materialize. They pay billions in ransom to Steve Jobs, hoping he will bring magic to their kingdom. They
barely escape a bungled
breakup attempt, console themselves with monstrous salaries and new office towers, and yet still can't make money for their
shareholders. The
truth is now generally accepted: Big Media has grown so big that it cannot grow much more. The causes of such low growth are
multifarious. Corporate
survivors and backstabbers (often the same guys) are nurtured, rather than the next Rupert Murdochs. India and China want to
nurture their own media, not
ours. And then there's the download problem, DVRs and the rise of gaming. Few truly intelligent businesspeople will gravitate
to Big Media (though many
lovers of programming willsee above); rather, they'll go start a business elsewhere that monetizes eyeballs Big Media has
somehow lost the ability to
monetize, then probably cash out by selling to Big Media.
- Engineers used to know they were
unimportant.
When one station buys another, an engineer becomes redundant. When one station group buys another, an engineering staff
becomes redundant. Even at the
heights of Big Media engineering departments, we all know that let's just do it as cheaply as we can has been, shall we say,
a significant trend. And
these are all demoralizing trends. But as a business becomes a rust belt, eventually no more engineers are
redundantable (though that word
probably is). And eventually some creative engineers figure out how to build something cool out of rust. This happened in
steel, and lots of people made
fortunes in scrap-metal mills. It happened in that big, unprofitable ball of copper known as the telephone industry, and we
got the Internet.
Engineers have already figured out that they are the guys bringing HD to the rickety old video factory, and that HD is
important. The most obviously
important people in the TV businessthe advertisersstill have not figured this out: they provide almost all their spots in SD.
Well, I've spent a little
time lately watching sports in HD in a fine drinking establishment. The drop-off in attention during SD segments of any kind,
spots included, looks
significant to me. And it seems self-evident. And engineers are not only important to making HD look the way it
should. Some of them might
figure out other stuff that digitized TV spectrum might be used for, alongside TV. Specialized consumer devices that deepen
consumers attachments to their
favorite station or network. Googles and iPods and MySpaces for TV, and other stuff that people smarter than me think of,
that I can’t, that actually makes
a lot of money. - Content and container used to be joined, in TV.
Why should they be joined, after all? Not too many dairies make their own milk cartons. Yes, broadcasters probably need to
own their own facilities and
transmitters, lest the FCC deem them unworthy of a license. But programmers have (properly) lost their allegiance to
particular forms of distribution, and
so particular forms of distribution may be set free to evolve new forms of programming. I will wager that some
smart station or cable-system
owners are already figuring this out. Maybe an owner of stations dropped by the WB/UPN merger. Maybe an entrepreneurial
mini-station group or cable op in
teeny little markets. Because they know they're living in a rust belt, and all the corporate survivors have left for likelier
riches someplace else. So
now's the time to start a scrap mill. They just need to do some serious R&Dlike Nucor Steel did in the 1980sto figure out how
to build one. It
will be a very strange change for television to become a technology industry again, after many long years as an entertainment
business with as few techies
as possible working behind the curtain. But let’s be grateful for the gift of truth that our industr's hard
times have brought us. In most
for-profit industries on earth, entrepreneurial techies rule. This will never happen in the entertainment industry, but a
shaken-up TV industry may allow
for a next generation of leaders who seem more like those ad wizards over at Google than the guys with the good suits and
pinkie rings who are running the
place now.
Neal Weinstock is editor-in-chief of Weinstock Media Analysis and can be reached through
www.weinstockmedia.com.
|
|
|
|
The Advanced Media Report is part of the NewBay Media Community
copyright 2006© NewBay Media, Inc.
810 Seventh Avenue, 27th Floor New York, NY 10019 T (212)378-0400 F (212)378-2160
|
|