Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by janrinok on Monday June 29 2015, @04:55PM   Printer-friendly

Michael Wolff writes in the NYT that online-media revolutionaries once figured they could eat TV's lunch by stealing TV's business model with free content supported by advertising but online media is now drowning in free and internet traffic has glutted the ad market, forcing down rates. Digital publishers, from The Guardian to BuzzFeed, can stay ahead only by chasing more traffic — not loyal readers, but millions of passing eyeballs, so fleeting that advertisers naturally pay less and less for them. Meanwhile, the television industry has been steadily weaning itself off advertising — like an addict in recovery, starting a new life built on fees from cable providers and all those monthly credit-card debits from consumers. Today, half of broadcast and cable's income is non-advertising based. And since adult household members pay the cable bills, TV content has to be grown-up content: "The Sopranos," "Mad Men," "Breaking Bad," "The Wire," "The Good Wife."

So how did this tired, postwar technology seize back the crown? Television, not digital media, is mastering the model of the future: Make 'em pay. And the corollary: Make a product that they'll pay for. BuzzFeed has only its traffic to sell — and can only sell it once. Television shows can be sold again and again, with streaming now a third leg to broadcast and cable, offering a vast new market for licensing and syndication. Television is colonizing the Internet and people still spend more time watching television than they do on the Internet and more time on the Internet watching television. "The fundamental recipe for media success, in other words, is the same as it used to be," concludes Wolff, "a premium product that people pay attention to and pay money for. Credit cards, not eyeballs."


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2) by VLM on Monday June 29 2015, @06:10PM

    by VLM (445) on Monday June 29 2015, @06:10PM (#202926)

    TV beat the Internet? The war is over? I don't buy it. This article is based on a bunch of assumptions and implications I think are wrong.

    Specifically I think they're straw dogging it that all the 70 year old angry men who watch fox news agitprop all day were supposely going to obsessively click refresh on gawker and kotaku for 12+ hours per day to get their agit prop fix, and that didn't happen therefore the entire internet, all of it, is a failure and TV is the winner.

    It would be interesting to look at age stats of your typical PBS viewer vs your typical youtube viewer and we'll see who wins in the long run. Locally the PBS stations are still pushing pre-boomer and early boomer content, I'm not old enough for any of it to appeal to me, so I'm guessing that's 55+. The average youtube viewer age is probably still in high school.

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2