Is the internet disrupting entertainment?

The question isn't will it disrupt it, but how. Simply replacing television with something television-like (i.e. YouTube) isn't the biggest way the internet disrupts things.

Each person's time is fixed. 1 person has 24 hours a day to spend in some way, and it doesn't look like that's going to change any time soon.

Take out time for sleep, and time for work, and most people have 8 hours or less to 'spend' on activities like watching TV.

TV used to consume the largest block of that elective time. For teens that's already changed, with them spending more time online than watching tv. Some of that time is spent watching videos on youtube, but a lot more of it is spent on facebook, twitter, news sites, or posting in forums asking what lens they need to get deep DOF from their DSLR.

From an advertising standpoint that's a problem - while it's technically easier to identify an online user as being part of a given target demographic, the truth is the overall audience is so fragmented across so many different destinations online that it's difficult to reach a large chunk of your target demographic.

We've gone from a few channels (early TV) to dozens of channels (early cable TV) to hundreds of channels (current cable TV) to tens of thousands of channels (cable TV plus the internet plus mobile apps). The time spent per viewer is the same for each step, so the viewership just gets spread out more thinly each time across all the possible venues.

That means you have to spread your marketing out across more 'channels', which means you're going to spend less per 'channel' to buy advertising space/time. That in turn means less revenue for the content creators at every level.

So television, which consists of fairly expensive content, is really being most disrupted by things like facebook, which basically consists of free content ('user generated'). Youtube falls somewhere in the middle - they get mostly free content, but they do pay for some of it via shared advertising revenues. That works for them, but it's not much good for the content creators because that advertising revenue is split between millions of 'channels' just within youtube itself. This falls into the 'long tail' discussion that was popular a few years back, and the outcome is that the long tail can be very profitable for content aggregators, but doesn't provide much to the individual content creators.
 
The internet has permanently changed the way we look at entertainment forever. The television networks know they're in trouble and have no need to exist. Every filmmaker from George Lucas to Sonnyboo is on the same level now and this scares the pants off the Hollywood billionaires--there's no reason for them to exist anymore.

Hollywood is going to implode within 10 years and broadcast television networks will follow (if not drop off the face of the earth first or not).

Personally, I can't wait for it to happen. Hollywood should collapse within itself to give the world a taste of what else is out there. The monopoly in California ends soon.

/Just my two cents. Take with a grain of salt, your mileage may vary.
 
To be honest, I grew up in the 80s, watching certain shows on certain nights (NBC on Thursday nights, CBS on Sunday… but I don't even know what's on these channels anymore. I haven't watched commercial TV in years. And for me, it' not because of the internet, it's because there's nothing interesting on anymore (Well, there wasn't when I stopped watching years ago). I look at the current programing and nothing interests me at all.

I honestly believe they did it to themselves. When you stop trying to entertain and simply "go with whatever's popular," you insult your own viewers and stop being intellectually interesting.

They did it to themselves. I have no sadness for them. If they went away, I'd never know about unless someone here would post it. hehe
 
I've found some shows recently that I really like (Homeland, White Collar, and a few others) but I never watch them when they're originally broadcast. I either catch them on cable on demand, or on line via Hulu Plus, Netflix (when I'm getting up to speed with an older show), or sometimes itunes.
 
Loud Orange Cat said:
I haven't watched commercial TV in years. And for me, it' not because of the internet, it's because there's nothing interesting on anymore (Well, there wasn't when I stopped watching years ago). I look at the current programing and nothing interests me at all.
Click to expand...
This has less to do with the content and more to do with your (and
everyones) changing taste as we grow older. What you now find
insulting you would have watched in the 80's. That's why TV focuses
on a younger demographic. They tent to watch more TV than older
people. Teen watch more than 20 somethings. 20 somethings watch
less Friday and Saturday nights than 40 somethings. Parents watch
more Friday and Saturday nights than non-parents. Late 40's to early
60's tend to dislike the current shows, liking that they grew up
watching and seeing the current offerings geared towards teens and
20 somethings. Which it is.

TV always has gone with whatever is popular. It's how they attract
young viewers. You, LOC, have slipped out of the desired demographic.
TV is not programing for your age range. They program for your 1980's
age range.

TV is where the good writing is. TV is still a writers medium - the Show
Runners are writers, the producers are writers. Network TV is changing
(slowly) because cable is producing very well written shows that are
attracting a wider demo.

That Business Insider article is nothing more than a "Chicken Little"
story. People are changing how they access content. That's all the article
is really saying. So what? If 100% of all people in the U.S. dropped cable
(including the networks) and watched content only using broadband
internet that means absolutely nothing. People will still be watching
content. If all viewing goes the way of Netflix, HBO, Showtime (pay per
month with no commercials), VOD or commercial supported and all
networks stop over the air or cable distribution and only uses broadband
internet (as the Business Insider article says) I guess it “technically”
means the death of TV as we currently know it. But we will all be
watching content on a television and we will all still be paying for it.

CD's may have been the “death” of vinyl and mp3 may have been the
“death” of CD's but we still listen to music and music is still being created.
It's just more difficult to make money.

Some may wish for the collapse of “Hollywood” and broadcast TV, but
that's how people make money. Sure, it's much easier to make movies
today than it has ever been and it's much easier to get that movie into
the public square, but it's nearly impossible to get people to pay to watch.
I wonder if the collapse of the huge “Hollywood” distribution machine will
drive people to pay to watch more independently produced product. If
the “death” of TV will push people to pay to watch independently produced
webisodes.
 
I read somewhere that more people watch youtube every day than watch tv.

Aspiring Mogul I know someone in the uk who made 60k last year off youtube plus a lot of free products
 
First Son said:
I know someone in the uk who made 60k last year off youtube plus a lot of free products
Click to expand...
Do you think that is becoming standard? That many people can, and
will, be making that kind of money? Or is your friend, perhaps, the
exception? Is YouTube the path to making 60k plus per year?
 
directorik said:
Is YouTube the path to making 60k plus per year?
Click to expand...

I think there certainly is a path there - the problem is it's not necessarily the one "filmmakers" are looking for. It seems like most of the people who have had success with youtube are in more of an infotainment/edutainment space - think reviews, how-to/tutorials, etc. These are low-overhead productions which can draw in a significant audience because of their utility (although the most successful ones tend to be entertaining as well), and they naturally lend themselves to the type of ongoing production/release schedule that is necessary to grow an audience over time. They also naturally lend themselves to keyword-driven advertising, and thus likely attract higher per-click rates - plus they can generate additional revenue by linking to related products through affiliate programs with amazon, etc.

Unfortunately the same model just doesn't work as effectively with narrative content.
 
directorik said:
How about posting a link to the YouTube page. I'd love to see
what it takes to make 60k a year.
Click to expand...

Rik, check this link, which I referred to earlier in this thread. Basically, they don't make much money on Youtube alone, but they can use it to get other sources of income.

As for broadband etc being the death of TV, you're right to say we will still be watching content. But the implications, as of now, seem to be twofold - first, more and more people can post material on the internet without going through the networks; second, with the proliferation of free content, there's going to be less and less money made. As Louise Levison said, the big money is still in movies.
 
What everyone's forgetting is that hollywood has stars.
it's star power that gets people to pay for movies

If you put up a movie on the internet about will smith rescuing emma watson from cybernetic aliens, people will go online and pay you money to see it

also if you can get millions of youtube subscribers for your videos, i think you could probably arrange produce placement at that point and get additional money that way
 
It's difficult to believe that the internet isn't disrupting the entertainment business. Or, changing it.

About the idea that less people are going to the movies because we're said to be an instant gratification society, that we need to get it now and get it at home, or hanging out at or friend's house, or at the Cool Cafe, I'm skeptical. It's true that I rarely go to the theater on my own these days. But that's simply because I can't afford it. It's not about shunning the theater. And many people in my daily life shake their heads about the cost of going out to the cinema. The cost of living is nuts, and many of us have lower incomes, especially since 2008, globalization, automation, etc etc. The fact is that if I could afford to go to the theater often, I would. I think that's true of many of the regular people around me...they'd go more, if it didn't take such a chunk out of their wallets.

That's a pretty sad forecast, Jax. Makes me feel sorry for the Australian TV industry and for those who work or would work in it.

Yeah, that's a pretty important question, wreckerman, for book lovers, anyway. I was just saying the other day that I hope to God Barnes doesn't go under like Borders did. I can't spend near as much money as I should be these days to support them. But again, that's not a choice thing, as in shunning books, or shunning the purchase of books in brick and mortar stores. I, like I'm sure a lot of people these days, simply can't afford to patronize them as often as I'd like to.

Cable. Love it. Miss it. I hate to be a broken record, but I gave it up long ago due to it's high cost. And that's just expanded basic, not to mention the cost of premium channels. I, like many of us, love the premium content being produced these days. But I see it downstream --borrowing the home videos from family and friends, or seeing it on Netflix, etc. Anecdotally, well, maybe our numbers are actually quite small, but I've certainly heard of others giving cable up due to the high cost, and going back to OTA.

Anyway, I wouldn't want to bet against the Great and Powerful Google to figure out how to make Youtube turn more of a profit. I wouldn't want to hold my breath until they did it. But I wouldn't want to bet against them, either.

I heard a "talking head" on TV recently give a really high number for people who are still watching TV, and still getting it OTA, no less. Just doing a little Googling, these web finds don't seem to bear out what she said.

On the other hand, sounds like TV is pretty far from dead yet.

I don't know about the credibility of all these sources, cannot vouch for them, and really don't feel like thinking too hard about them at this time.

Forbes: Don't Worry, We're Still Watching Plenty Of Television (2012)

Wired: People Still Watch TV, Says Study — Who Knew? (2008. Oh, so a little old.)

The above Wired article reports it, acknowledges it, and not surprisingly, I suppose, seems to pooh-pooh it.

TheJournal.ie: More than 85% of people still watch TV content on their televisions at home [in Ireland] (2013)


About Over the Air.

Broadcast Engineering: How many TV households rely on terrestrial? Depends on whom you ask (This one seems to minimalize it.)

NAB: Over-the-air TV Viewership Soars to 54 Million Americans (2012)

TVNEWSCHECK: OTA's Silver Lining Also has a Looming Cloud

How 'bout that Aereo? How 'bout that ATSC 3.0?


I hope they don't kill OTA. I'd be without TV. But I'm not much help to the advertisers; I watch little commercial TV.

Anyway, to sum this little essay up ( :P Oops), yeah, oh, I guess I'm pretty clueless about what that all means for Television or for YouTube. And I understand that, apparently, according to those studies above, the numbers of people still watching TV consist mostly of us old folks ...who have become irrelevant to advertisers and to their clients. Oh well.
 
Last edited:
ItDonnedOnMe said:
I think there certainly is a path there - the problem is it's not necessarily the one "filmmakers" are looking for. It seems like most of the people who have had success with youtube are in more of an infotainment/edutainment space - think reviews, how-to/tutorials, etc.
Click to expand...
I agree.

So that's why I always ask who is making high five figures on YouTube.
No offense intended First Son but that number isn't relevant to filmmakers
making movies. I had never heard of Dan Bull so thanks for that. I can
see why he's making money - 400,000 subcribers - but he's not doing
what we all are doing. I'm not a gamer or a rapper but I quite like his work.

It's encouraging to read about people doing sketch comedy and
"infotainment/edutainment" and making money. YouTube is still in its
infancy (as that "The Globe" article states) so I think it's way to early to
call for the "death" of TV. It looks like we are seeing the rise of "pick and
choose" subscription based viewing. That's what cable subscribers have
wanted for 20 years and cable can't do that. So Netflix is competing with
Hulu for high profile content. But they aren't looking for "indie" content.
As sfoster points out, they are bringing names.

The internet is not disrupting entertainment - it's allowing entertainment
to grow. TV is not dying - the method in which we get our entertainment
is simply changing.
 
richy said:
I was just saying the other day that I hope to God Barnes doesn't go under like Borders did. I can't spend near as much money as I should be these days to support them.
Click to expand...

Do you have any local bookstores left? SF has gone from having 3 Barnes & Nobles and 3 Borders to having none - and as a result the local bookstores are thriving again (at least the few that managed to survive this long). So I'd actually count it a positive thing to see the big retailers struggling, although I realize that outside of a major metropolitan area like this there may not be many small bookstores that have survived so it may be specific to here.

Anyway, I wouldn't want to bet against the Great and Powerful Google to figure out how to make Youtube turn more of a profit. I wouldn't want to hold my breath until they did it. But I wouldn't want to bet against them, either.
Click to expand...

The problem isn't really one for Google to solve... If a million channels each generate $20 a year in ad revenues, they've made $20 million dollars. If they can figure out a way to get that up to $100 or $200 per channel, that's great for them - now they've made a couple hundred million dollars. But that doesn't do anything for the people creating content who each get a check for $30 at the end of the year. The problem of making it profitable is really going to fall to the individual content creators to solve, and for all but the biggest of those it's going to involve generating profits outside of youtube itself.

On the other hand, sounds like TV is pretty far from dead yet.
Click to expand...

Make no mistake, we are in a golden age for television. It's arguably better than it's ever been, and it probably won't ever be as good as it is now. This is being driven largely by cable subscriber revenues and the licensing fees cable systems pay to carry channels, but we've probably got less than a decade before the combination of rising rates and non-cable options fragment the market enough that licensing fees will have to drop.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top