New purchases are down for the first time in 20 years. source: NYT
Source link: http://archive.mises.org/16764/the-beginning-of-the-end-of-television/
The Beginning of the End of Television
Previous post: Orajel: the Silent Killer?
Next post: Links from IHS “Liberty and Society” Seminar
{ 10 comments }
I’ve been thinking about this too with the increasing popularity of gadget “stuff” that connects to Netflix, even game consoles. I think this is the precursor to TV’s overdue replacement. The market has long wanted an a-la-carte system where people could either pay for only the channels that they want, or only the shows that they want. Or for only the time that the TV was on, as I’ve heard suggested before. Again with Netflix, I’ve increasingly found that people are dumping cable entirely, and now just wait for their few favorite shows to be available on DVD.
Almost everybody finds the quality of TV deplorable in some way, but there is little alternative. Anecdotally, I’ve noticed more and more people that people are dumping cable entirely, and now just wait for their few favorite shows to be available on DVD. Cable is also an easy bill to cut off when a) household budgets are tighter and cable costs more each year, and b) the content is increasingly poor and more ad oriented than content oriented. Customers just aren’t getting what they are paying for, and that vague dissatisfaction will do TV in.
I’d expect that TV will be replaced by an entirely different, super customizable (more like Youtube or DVD-on-demand services, for example) format. This revolution has already happened to music. Let’s hope TV dies sooner than later. And TV news with it.
……..I’m afraid I do not understand the analysis here.
While it is true that online programming capabilities are hurting the current structure of the content providers, that is not what the article is talking about. It is talking about physical television set purchases.
I do not really understand why physical television purchases should be going down. If anything they should be going up, because instead of just cable and dvd’s, most computers and all the game consoles still use them which means there are a greater number of possible inputs which can be utilized for using the TV.
The only obvious reason is just the poor economy and a change in people’s mindset to not get into so much debt.
I don’t own a television. I used to own 2-3 and I was much poorer then then I am now.
Of course I am in the ‘heavy tech savvy’ group. I watch shows online, prefer to surf and play smaller video games. I even have a television with a digital receiver that I stream over the network to my laptop and computer. Just over the air HDTV.
If I want to watch a show with friends or play some video games I have a projector and a portable screen that spends it’s life rolled up and sitting in the corner of my living room.
Television is far to expensive to pay for cable anymore. I watch maybe 2-3 shows regularly and when you add up the cost of this I am paying hundreds of dollars a year for minimal entertainment. It’s just not worth it. I’d rather just buy the DVD and watch everything commercial free. And it is cheaper that way also. Television shows are mostly uninspired. Commercials are far to loud, brassy, annoying, and are too numerous and too long.
I used to just leave the TV on to make noise as I did other things around the house. Now it’s just too annoying to put up with most of the time.
Slim: I wondered (after the 4 minute edit time expired, of course) if I should have clarified that bit.
The article, which comes to little conclusion of its own, questions why people are not buying new TVs. Watching TV programs is still the primary purpose of having a TV. Games and DVDs, etc are still secondary uses for most. The article supports this with its emphasis on Neilsen as a source.
The Times then speculates as to why people don’t want to pay for the physical sets (a one time cost). For some reason, people don’t find TV to be worth their scarce money anymore for various reasons, and the article hints at technological obsolescence. Also, the article fails to mention the fact that TV sets costs you money long after you purchase it because of some kind of cable bill. You typically pay more in a cable bill for a single year than the entire cost of the physical set.
The rest was my own speculation, of course. I’m saying that current TV program distribution is becoming obsolete because people are generally dissatisfied with the product (programming) and don’t think the set is worth the money anymore. A computer monitor now does for many what a TV used to do. The article does not consider monitor sales or Netflix. And as I said, I think a-la-carte distribution is what the market is actually demanding, and thus will replace the current methods. The article does touch upon this somewhat:
“young people who have grown up with laptops in their hands instead of remote controls are opting not to buy TV sets when they graduate from college or enter the work force, at least not at first. Instead, they are subsisting on a diet of television shows and movies from the Internet. That … reason is prompting Nielsen to think about a redefinition of the term “television household” to include Internet video viewers.”
“Then there are the tech-savvy Americans who once lived in a household with a television, but no longer do. These are either cord-cutters — a term that refers to people who stop paying for cable television — or people who never signed on for cable.”
Good point. TV and monitors are interchangeable nowadays.
Not even the insane amount of resources (unnecessarily) spent on policing piracy could stop the inevitable downfall of television. THINK OF ALL THE JOBS THAT WILL BE LOST IN THE TELEVISION INDUSTRY AND RELATED FIELDS!
Horrors! Has Jesse Jackson, Jr. come out against this yet?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D5X8W7MgbhM
On the other hand, radio shows still air and some radio transmissions have gone digital . . .
Good riddance. Cable/Satellite TV has blown chunks for years now. While my parents own a television or 2, they are old school in many ways. In my entire adult life (I’m 23) I have never owned one. In contrast, I have been in perpetual ownership of a computer since the age of 13. I watch everything on my computer through Netflix/Hulu, etc. This is pretty much the norm among my generation, there is so much free and/or cheap TV & music online that we just don’t see the need to waste money. $50 a month for that mind-numbing crap on cable is obviously a big waste. For me, internet is one of the most important utilities. More important then phone, electric, and heat (alright I couldn’t have internet without electric, but you get the idea).The internet bill gets paid first and will be one of the last utilities to go if the budget gets tight. It’s just too important.
The Internet media revolution is a good example of the creative destruction mechanism in the market. The government may have created the net, but the market actually did something useful with it.
Next thing you know there will be unions lobbying to force us to buy TV’s, cable, etc so that it keeps their protected classes in business.
I love this site and wanted to recommend them if you can
this website
Comments on this entry are closed.