What happens if TV goes the way of music and newspapers?

This is quite simply nonsense.<p>Will the cost of channels rise for some of the reasons he says, sure. But one of three things will happen:<p>a) total spend/investment (in aggregate of time and surplus attention arbitraged to ads) across ALL channels will rise - this will hit us all in the pockets, but also raise the overall budget for content production... this doesn't lead to his conclusions.<p>b) total spend and therefore the same amount will be available as is available now for content<p>c) total spend will go down. This might superficially appear to support his conclusions but it doesn't if you think about it. If ESPN rises but other things fall in price and I lose a few things I virtually never watch, and my overall bill is lower - which it will be on average if the total spend is down - then I don't CARE that ESPN is $20 per month instead of $5.<p>What will happen is called a market!<p>We'll have a marketplace for content. There will be a certain amount that people are prepared to spend on content, and how much surplus attention they're prepared to pay for ads which will subsidize content. The allocation of these resources will be made more efficient by a more efficient market dynamic. We'll invest more in things we value, less in things we don't. So the BBC and NFL Network will make money out of me for Dr. Who and the football season. But I'll no longer be squandering monthly bills in shit I never watch.<p>Plus as content moves to apps on TV the playing field is leveled for independent producers to rise up and the barriers to entry will be much lower than they are today for a show to garner - or KEEP - an audience and revenue stream large enough to sustain it.<p>Imagine if Firefly had been able to say: Fox has bailed on us, but if we can get a million of you to pay just $20 a year we can keep it on the air and send you a copy of the season on DVD after it's over... or something to that effect.<p>This article is garbage. It's amazing how much ink old media dedicates - even on their new media sites - to trying to argue against the inevitable changes ahead. Perversely it also highlights why old media doesn't have some natural right to survive and have us all protect it against this onslaught. Their content is often mediocre, like this. (And yes I know the Atlantic has a ton of great content, that's not the point.)

We mostly use Netflix and Youtube for things we watch. I don't remember last time I wanted to see something (a show, a move) and then followed through and watched something on TV. Of course I don't look for it and I don't know what is playing. And I don't know what is playing because I don't watch TV to begin with.<p>Also, Netflix has trained me to not be able to stand commercials. When I am at a relative's house or catch a glimpse of TV in the background, commercials stand out like a sore thumb and irritate the heck out of me.

If only there existed some channels not subsidized by cable industry to give us a clearer picture of what's possible. If only those channels existed as for-profit enterprises in the US. If only they charged subscribers and covered the costs of productions through paid television and merchandise sales. If only their costs also included the cost of HD streaming, maybe they would name such venture with channel name + the word "Go" to drive a point that it's available to subscribers on the go.<p>But alas, outside of HBO, Starz, Cinemax, Showtime and The Movie Channel none come to mind, so let's engage in theoretical discussions.

Is it possible ESPN will just make less money? The article assumes ESPN will charge an individual subscription rate such that it will make the same revenue as it would via cable bundles. If TV is like music or newspapers, it's entirely possible ESPN or similar cable channels will just make less money.

"If the universe changes and they [viewers] want us to bring the content directly to them, then we can."<p>What does he mean <i>if</i> the universe changes?<p>I'm also not entirely sure that people would continue subscribing to "ESPN" in this new world. More likely, you'd subscribe to individual sports or sporting events. Similarly, I don't think you'd be subscribing to "CBS", you'd be subscribing The Big Bang Theory, or whatever individual show you're actually interested in.<p>To be honest, though, I don't think he really means what he says there. They're going to fight tooth and nail to keep the status quo.

I'd say, "don't let the door hit you on the way out."

"And that's before we get into paying the cost of delivering the video in high quality to your HDTV or iPad, since it's hardly cheap to house and stream hi-def to tens of millions of homes".<p>Except it IS cheap to distribute content on the Internet. Shows are already being distributed to millions of homes without costing the content owners a dime (It's just currently being done illegally using bit-torrent).

His blog shows an image of shot from The Big Bang Theory. TBBT has done excellent job for on-demand content. The minute their weekly show ends, they post that video on their website (<a href="http://www.cbs.com/shows/big_bang_theory/" rel="nofollow">http://www.cbs.com/shows/big_bang_theory/</a>) for week. I haven't watched a single episode on TV since they started doing this. It's currently free and supported by pre-roll video advertising. I don't mind ads as I'm getting content on-demand and free.<p>I don't buy that TV is going to be dead. I'd love to watch TV along with my family in our living room. However, I also want flexibility that on-demand offers. I'm sure TBBT is getting lot of money with this experiment.<p>The question about Netflix is complicated one and I hope author goes into unit economics in his future column. I also agree, at the current rates (for netflix subscription), it will be hard for Netflix to show latest on-demand content. I imagine we will have premium fees for such feature.

Sites like Hulu and Netflix generate money from content that has already been created. The budget was found to create the initial content and publishing sites like these create residual income from targeted advertising. Great.<p>The content providers know the direction things are heading and probably know $20-30 a month for one channel from each subscriber is a tough pitch. So what's the ingenious model to offset the loss of big money cable television advertisements?

Cheaper does not mean lower quality. [Insert snide comment about 24 or Downton Abbey here]

<p><pre><code> "So now, ESPN Watcher, the price you have to pay to watch the same network you love has to cover all those lost homes and all that lost advertising." </code></pre> That's assuming no alternative revenue streams in the "TV is dead" world are worked out. Failure of imagination?

This analysis completely ignores the fact that producing a TV show is (or should be) far, far cheaper than it used to be.

file under: yet another piece about "the future of TV" as written by someone from the outside looking in. it's quite a different world from the other side...

It's when not if.<p>This is the same old romantization of the status quo that always occurs. Is TV really so fantastic today? For every gem that manages to squeek its way through the byzantine television production system there are a thousand bombs. Most television is horrific. Badly written. Badly premised. Badly executed. Badly acted. Bad.<p>Being cut loose from a ready stream of massive advertising revenue will affect some of the production values of video content, certainly, but will that be such a bad thing? Modern television is a product of committee and bureaucracy. And it shows. Bowdlerization is commonplace. Mediocrity is the norm.<p>A more democritized, more guerilla, more individual "television" landscape offers the possibility of raising the medium to a true art form.<p>Movies have been around for over a century, television for half that, but both mediums still have trouble grappling with serious subjects. Consider the fundamental difference in gravitas between an emmy, an oscar, and a pulitzer or nobel prize in literature. Why is that? I would contend that it's because up until now creating a movie or a tv show has been inhibited by being beholden to commercial interests and established publishing powers. Perhaps the brave new world of more individualized video production will result in a revitalization of that medium.

This article makes no sense.<p>I predict<p>1) TV will merge into the internet<p>2) Channels will go away, and there will be individual shows/event broadcasts that the viewers will choose to pay for.<p>3) There will be bundled packages of the best shows.<p>4) Most profits will go to the people who produce the shows, unlike now.<p>You can actually see it in action right now - look at the top Youtube channels (which should really be called "shows"), and multiply by $2 per 1000 video views.<p><a href="http://socialblade.com/youtube/top/500" rel="nofollow">http://socialblade.com/youtube/top/500</a>

The same content will be pretty much available on the web in some places. Take a look at the daily show.com, It's almost a carbon copy of the broadcast version complete with five minutes of commercials between sections. Networks will take advantage of the web audience when it's financially feasible. Comedy Central has a young audience so it makes sense for them to embrace the web earlier.