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This discussion has been archived.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: 5, Insightful) by davester666 on Monday June 29 2015, @06:55PM

    by davester666 (155) on Monday June 29 2015, @06:55PM (#202950)

    And the summary seems to be confused about advertising. The TV industry is NOT weaning itself from advertising, but enthusiastically going down on it.

    Commercial breaks are longer now...5 minutes isn't unusual anymore.

    The shows themselves are blatantly promoting more and more products within the shows. Multiple lingering shots of cars front and rear logo's. Zooming in on the Toshiba laptop nameplate
    . Zooming in on the Samsung label on a cell phone. It's not quite as bad for Apple as they have the clear iconic Apple logo that you can see from a distance, so it doesn't have to shoved into your face for you to know it's an Apple product [obvious, but they don't have to do a shot that is only to to show the product name].

    Personally, I think the turning point came when cable companies and content producers starting buying each other.

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +4  
       Insightful=2, Interesting=1, Informative=1, Total=4
    Extra 'Insightful' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   5  
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 29 2015, @07:47PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 29 2015, @07:47PM (#202969)

    The industry is bifurcating. The "free" stuff is doing exactly what you describe. The paid stuff is going in the opposite direction. That doesn't mean there isn't product placement in the paid stuff, but it is far less common. For example, Penny Dreadful and Game of Thrones - zero product placement. The paid stuff is getting better and more common. That's what he means by saying it is weaning itself from advertising.

    • (Score: 2) by dyingtolive on Monday June 29 2015, @11:44PM

      by dyingtolive (952) on Monday June 29 2015, @11:44PM (#203080)

      I'm trying to picture where you COULD have product placement in Game of Thrones if you wanted it.

      There was zero product placement in Lord of the Rings too.

      --
      Don't blame me, I voted for moose wang!
      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 30 2015, @12:17AM

        by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 30 2015, @12:17AM (#203093)

        That's the point. If shows needed product placement in order to be funded then shows like those wouldn't even be greenlit.

        • (Score: 2) by dyingtolive on Tuesday June 30 2015, @12:46AM

          by dyingtolive (952) on Tuesday June 30 2015, @12:46AM (#203109)

          I think it's a question of the format (both being fantasy settings taking place before modern brands). Show me a movie/series that takes place in a modern or close future setting that don't relentlessly do the same thing, regardless of what channel they show up on or how much money is behind it.

          Seriously, please do. I.. don't really get time to watch much stuff anymore. I'm asking out of ignorance, based upon what I remember from some 5-10 years ago, which might not be accurate anymore.

          --
          Don't blame me, I voted for moose wang!
          • (Score: 2) by tathra on Tuesday June 30 2015, @02:55AM

            by tathra (3367) on Tuesday June 30 2015, @02:55AM (#203156)

            I think it's a question of the format (both being fantasy settings taking place before modern brands). Show me a movie/series that takes place in a modern or close future setting that don't relentlessly do the same thing, regardless of what channel they show up on or how much money is behind it.

            correct. anything set in modern times is going to have cars, cellphones, computers, etc, all the modern products. i remember back in the days where they'd be drinking soda/beer/whatever on tv and it'd just have a really bland label, "SODA"/"BEER", but nowadays they usually just have it as an actual product, and the producers or whatever get some extra funding for it, and that's no big deal, i don't mind that so long as its not intrusive or obviously shoehorned in.

            my problem is when they write a whole fucking commercial into the show. this one show had the characters driving to another scene, as you'll have sometimes, but during the drive they had this super awkward, forced discussion about the car's features and how its a great car and whatnot. are you fucking kidding me? i will not tolerate commercials during the show itself. if it was a show i watched instead of just something on for background noise i'da dropped it right then and there.

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 30 2015, @04:42AM

            by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 30 2015, @04:42AM (#203185)

            I will ignore the fact that you completely ignored my point and indulge you by answering your question.

            While your definition of "relentless" may not be the same as mine, these all had subtle to no product placement:

            Utopia [imdb.com]
            Misfits [imdb.com]
            Humans [imdb.com]
            Sense8 [imdb.com]
            Being Human [imdb.com]

      • (Score: 2) by FatPhil on Tuesday June 30 2015, @09:22AM

        by FatPhil (863) <pc-soylentNO@SPAMasdf.fi> on Tuesday June 30 2015, @09:22AM (#203255) Homepage
        You could simply inject random brand names in the middle of the Valyrian parts. Imagine if "coke" had been the word for "fight", for example.
        --
        Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves