TV is dead
YouTube, Digg, and MySpace took out TV a few months back, and now the corpse is sitting up and taking notice. Latest evidence is the incipient obliteration of Studio 60, the West Wing sequel which is terrific and therefore doomed, in favor of 30 Rock, which is not and therefore not. At least we don't have to go through Commander in Chief clones one after the other, but at the same time.
But that's not why TV is dead. TV is dead because of the Internet. TV is dead because we don't have time for it. TV is dead because the computer lives. TV is dead because of the stupid blogosphere, the so-called "new" medium of podcasting, TiVo, RSS, and HDTV. TV is dead because TV now sucks more than all of the previous.
I watched Scoble's video of Cisco's amazing videoconferencing teledesk, or whatever they called it. The best part was when Robert zoomed in on Mike Vizard and the quality never turned to shit, even though Mike was in NY. It reminded me of the Haunted House ride at Disneyland, where you could peer into the banquet room and watch the ghosts cavort with the 3D heads as you moved around them. The first Star Wars movie rendered a 3D projection of ObiWan or somebody in similar delight at crossing the time barrier.
That's what this is about, tricking time, teleporting yourself across the country. We all wish Doc could actually enjoy his new house instead of rocketing off to Berkman one week a month. I could imagine the Gillmor Gang using the TelePort room from time to time. Remember that the next OS/X enables recording of iSight cons. It's on the way.
Meanwhile TV is dead. The kids still argue over carving out enough time to watch Heroes, the only consensus family show left alive. At the movies over the weekend (imagine a comedian becomes President, not the bonehead we'd be laughing at if we weren't so damned angry) they ran a preview trailer for Children of Men, where humans have lost the ability to reproduce. TV has lost that ability.
I like Grey's Anatomy and Studio 60. Heroes is fun with the family. We're all semi-addicted to All My CHildren, but in recent months I opt for synopses from those who stay vigilant. I fast-forward through the news. Meet the Press and Stephanopoulus are time-shifted to podcast and then mostly discarded. Cable shows: Huff was cancelled, Sopranos is about to drop, The Wire is good but is stacking up, Entourage I finally deleted all to clear space for the new season, and now I've whittled the new season down to Grey's Anatomy and Studio 60 and Letterman and the Scottish guy.
Hollywood Video put the penultimate nail in the coffin with its Premium service, a knockoff of Netflix where you rotate 3 unlimited movies without late fees for 30 bucks a month. Goodbye cable. Goodbye broadcast. Goodbye blockbusters. Goodbye Studio 60. Aggregated to death.
The only good news: just what it was like in February '64.
October 23rd, 2006 at 11:59 pm
[…] Then I saw that Steve Gillmor wrote a post along the lines, but much better than, my post from last Wednesday. […]
October 24th, 2006 at 2:32 am
[…] Update: Great piece from Steve Gillmore on the death of TV […]
October 24th, 2006 at 4:46 am
A TV can’t be dead, because it was never alive.
The business remains viable — broadcast to millions remains attractive — even though that business may not receive as large a share of audience time as it did two decades ago.
October 24th, 2006 at 5:41 am
Quoted from the Long Tail …
David Foster Wallace:
TV is not vulgar and prurient and dumb because the people who compose the audience are vulgar and dumb. Television is the way it is simply because people tend to be extremely similar in their vulgar and prurient and dumb interests and wildly different in their refined and aesthetic and noble interests.
The Internet has finally allowed us to rise above the mass audience programming requirements of TV.
October 24th, 2006 at 5:43 am
[…] Dave and I were also talking about the television industry in general. It seems the industry complains that no one’s watching TV, and then they go right ahead and yank shows before knowing if we’ll stick around to watch them. I, for one, don’t want to start a show if it’s only been signed for half a season. There’s nothing quite like getting invested in a series and then having it disappear. (Kidnapped, Firefly, Sports Night…) Good shows need another avenue for distribution. […]
October 24th, 2006 at 5:56 am
No mention of Google… a first
October 24th, 2006 at 6:11 am
[…] Gillmor: TV Is Dead. RIP. […]
October 24th, 2006 at 7:42 am
Steve,
I’m glad to see Heroes has made “your cut” after all.
Funny thing is, while I basically agree with your picks, I don’t agree with the overall hypothesis. Fundamentally, there is just too much Money in TV (yup, money with a capital M) for it to just give up and die. Despite the occasional blogosphere rumor, TV advertising is a very healthy industry, and ultimately the juggernaut is marching on. Also, the TV companies are *very* mindful of the Internet, and if anything are showing their ability to adapt (albeit begrudgingly) to the new medium. Heroes, by way of example, has online recaps, comics, exclusives, and blogs - are they great? Meh. But it’s a step in the right direction.
On a personal note, I for one think there is a ton of good TV out there today: http://www.livedigitally.com/2006/10/22/thoughts-on-fall-tv-2006-when-did-tv-get-this-good/
-jt
October 24th, 2006 at 7:52 am
I’m watching the World Series on TV, watched NFL Football last night and the day before. The Superbowl continues to be a major American event on TV.
YouTube will never replace PBS.
October 24th, 2006 at 8:44 am
Thoughts on Fall TV 2006 - when did TV get this good?
For the past three years, my wife and I approach each Fall season with one thought in mind: let’s try not to pick up any new shows. We have a DVR (Comcast HD - Motorola DCT6412), and have a dozen or so subscriptions, and we just don’t wa…
October 24th, 2006 at 9:27 am
[…] sexy” lists as things that should be outlawed for bloggers. You can leave a response, or trackback from your ownsite. […]
October 24th, 2006 at 9:39 am
[…] The entire quality of the experience is so much better that standard definition TV is becoming harder and harder to watch. I actually started dropping shows from my DVR’s subscription list just because they weren’t broadcast in HD! I have about 20 channels today, of which 3 were added in the past few months, and I’ve been told more are coming soon. Also, HD is going to be one of those driving factors as to why TV still has a bit of a pulse, as opposed to those who think it’s dead. […]
October 24th, 2006 at 9:55 am
[…] Steve Gillmor writes that “TV is Dead.” Clearly the concept of broadcast television as an event-based, time-anchored schedule is dead. The VCR, DVD Player and the DVR took care of that. YouTube ends up being a TiVo that just records everything and you find your programs through search. But I’d contend that Television is a social activity, many people to one viewport. The computer tends to be one person to one view port. […]
October 24th, 2006 at 9:56 am
[…] Steve Gillmore is guilty. He’s guilty of debasing blogging into the same bait-switch mentality that plagues traditional media, and waters it down to polemic statements rather than anything resembling cogent analysis. “Is Dead” posts are the most simplistic form of link-baiting that exists, even more so than Top 10 lists. They simplify what should be complex arguments down into a binary juxtoposition of something that is supposedly alive vs. something that in the authors opinion is not. […]
October 24th, 2006 at 10:01 am
“just what it was like in February ‘64.”
Beautiful line and a great post.
Yeah, wtf is tv? Studio 60 is good and so is Heroes. Everything else is…well, everything else.
Aggregated to death, indeed.
October 24th, 2006 at 10:45 am
Oooh, I really disagree with this one, Steve.
First, Studio 60 has real problems as a show. It’s pretentious and condescending, there’s no major conflict, characters don’t feel believable, and what’s the motivation in tuning in next week?
“TV is dead because we don’t have time for it.” TV is growing online content as an appendage. In fact, TV lovers are spending more time on TV shows - on sites like Television Without Pity passionately discussing their likes and dislikes; reading, creating, and commenting on blogs about the shows, podcasts, and online alternate-reality games (See “The Lost Experience”).
TV is its own experience, like going to the movies. You may choose Netflix; many, many others (millions that can’t be ‘aggregated’ into a single online audience) will choose to experience it directly.
October 24th, 2006 at 11:06 am
I don’t buy it. A lot of people, I would even say most, don’t really spend that much time at home on their computer. They watch TV. And what do the people that spend all night writing in their blogs have going on in the background? TV. TV is not dead. People that spend a lot of time on the internet and get mad when Firefly gets cancelled might be mad at TV, but TV is not dead. The shows are stupid but people keep righton watching that big box in the corner.
October 24th, 2006 at 12:29 pm
This seems like a bit of a non sequitur. Your best evidence for the death of television as a medium are the ratings of two shows on the same network that revolve around the same concept?
“Studio 60″ simply isn’t Sorkin’s best work. That’s what happens when someone living in Hollywood thinks their life is interesting enough to serialize (it’s not). The writing is not on the same level as the “West Wing” and it’s not even close to “Sportsnight”. The characters fail to make a connection with real people. The show is packed full of self-aggrandizing little moments and a mishmash of issues that can repulse even the most of dedicated viewers. Don’t forget that the show opened up to a much larger audience than it retained - it just wasn’t good enough to keep people interested.
There are examples of great shows that can’t find their base (The Wire), but this isn’t one of them. Nor does this have anything to do with TV being dead or alive. TV viewership grows year after year and the 5 million people that watched three minute “Battlestar Galactica” episodes on Sci-fi.com don’t exactly mean the public is moving away from TV.
Nice title for the post, though. Very catchy.
October 24th, 2006 at 12:31 pm
Ah, yes, TV continues to be dead, and we seem to watch more and more of it every year:
http://tinyurl.com/ou8st
New York, September 21, 2006 – Nielsen Media Research reported today that average American television viewing continues to increase in spite of growing competition from new media platforms and devices, such as video iPods, cell phones and streaming video. During the 2005 - 2006 television year, which ended on September 17, 2006, traditional in-home television viewing continued to hold its own with audiences, and even gained among technology-savvy teenagers.
October 24th, 2006 at 12:52 pm
[…] Steve Gillmor grabs a great post title today. Great writing too. The landscape is changing fast, even for someone who embraces change as easily as I. I remember hearing the word “disruptive technology” for the first time about 7 years ago, when Nortel had a “Disruptive Technology Group” (before they got laid off, I’m sure). I think we are all experiencing this to a great degree, maybe now more than anytime since the www first broke into our lives. […]
October 24th, 2006 at 1:41 pm
I got rid of my cable five years ago. The first couple of months, it was hard, but it got easier after that. I spent more time on the computer. It would have been impossible to quit the TV without the internet. Surfing on a dial up was a bit of a chore, but at least it was a way to “keep connected”.
Now, five years down the line, it is much easier to get rid of cable, much more choices with Netflix and video on the web and now YouTube. Five years ago it was much harder. Both me and my wife are/were totally addicted to TV, and I am a storehouse of old TV trivia (Can YOU sing the theme song to Sheriff Lobo? I can. Not hum the melody, but actually know all the words, and have known them for over 20 years).
This week’s project is to hook up the TV to the computer with an s-video cable. Once that project is done, then there will be no way we will ever go back to “TV” (I mean cable).
All the good shows are on DVD now anyway. Big deal if you have to wait a couple of months to see them. Now when we watch “Lost”, we can watch the whole season in like a week. That rocks.
So all you people out there, get rid of cable! It is easy to write a blog post about it, but actions speak louder than words.
October 24th, 2006 at 1:48 pm
Heroes Is Good
With tonight’s episode “Hiro’s”, Heroes has become a must-watch show for me. A more interesting implementation of the “six degrees” theme than Six Degrees, that’s for sure. Update: Steve Gillmor likes Heroes, too….
October 24th, 2006 at 3:05 pm
TV ain’t dead — it’s just changing. Great shows like Galactica tell us that quality can live in niche environments. I can only wonder how much a show like Galactica pulls in from, say, iTunes, as that is the way I watch all my TV today.
What will happen to broadcast? The same thing that will happen to people who buy vinyl. It’ll become a special niche for a special end-use and user experience. But good content will be spread across all of them, if they’re smart.
October 24th, 2006 at 3:18 pm
[…] TV is dead (tags: TV web2.0 youtube) […]
October 24th, 2006 at 4:51 pm
Great writing, and an interesting take…but as a TV hater, I have to disagree. TV is making a comeback. Quality - interesting - thoughtful programming….shows like 24 and Lost and The Nine…
Having spent the last 20 years hating TV, I find myself reluctantly, hesitatingly, but invariably spending more time in the boob tube.
I guess there’s no accounting for taste…
October 24th, 2006 at 5:14 pm
Dead. Nuts. On. WTG Steve. Market segmentation and differentiation will continue - RSS to the max.
October 24th, 2006 at 5:19 pm
Your tates is really terrible, The sorkin show absolutely sucks.
tv is not dead. just the establishment guys who really don’t
know what is going on.
October 24th, 2006 at 5:37 pm
Steve, I think you are on to something and that is that IP connectivity is the new network in what has been known as media. It has the potential to replace print, television and radio in one fell swoop and that is why I believe google is going to offer free connectivity to the masses. bandwidth costs have fallen to a level that the advertising revenue more than subsidizes the cost of the network. i believe we are in the very early stages of a true ‘gloabl village’ as Marshall McCluhan called it. The cost structure for a traditional ISP like PacBell DSL..errr AT&T, comcast, etc to supply services to the residence is around $40 per month but trends downward as you grow because you get cost scale….at least in the network world, the more you buy the less it costs…wish power markets were the same
goog is placing a bet, and a very calculated one, that the revenue that can be produced from marketing to(advertisting) and selling or providing for free their own services to their future isp customers will more than offset the costs of a purchase. Kinda like how Urs, GOOG VP of Eng, has said that power companies would do themselves a favor by giving away computers because the money they can make selling the customer the power for that computer is far greater than the cost of the computers.
what this provides them is an end to end solution for delivering customized content and adverting to each and every one of the people using their service. this delivery platform is alway on and knows where you go, what you type, where you live, who your friends are, what files you have downloaded, what you look like, and whatever else they add on to their services. So when Johnson & Johnson or GE or Proctor & Gamble or Coca Cola or Pepsi is planning their media buys for the next year do you think they’ll purchase advertisements on radio, television, print of the 4th network(Google)? based on the ability to target a specific population that has certain attributes you desire, the choice is clear…you pick google. Why? because you know that your marketing msg is going to a qualified prospect as opposed to the traditional ’shotgun’ approach. plus, you can get results in realtime and tweak your msg if its not working in real time. with the other three media you are somewhat ratholed into trusting some third party for ratings that may or may not even reach the people that you want it to. by the time you figure this out a slew of things can happen…some good some bad but why chance it when you don’t need to.
At the end of the day, Google is building a traditional media killer and the funny thing is..actually not really funny but kinda, that the writing is on the wall but nobody seems to believe it. I do. @Home Network had this vision but couldn’t pull it off because the cable co’s couldn’t get their heads out of their rear to see the opportunity that was sitting right in front of them and there weren’t enough complimentary services like youtube, grouper, etc to make use of the connection.
time will tell but if i’m a content producer where would i want my content to be seen? ex. let’s say you are the producer of CSI Miami and goog offers you the ability to place your content on their network so that it can be viewed by anyone, anywhere, anytime and offers a revenue share or some other creative structure around it such that you know your worst case scenario beforehand. simple choice right? sure abc or cbs might offer an upfront fee in the form of $$ per show but the audience is limited, the timeslot is finite and in order for someone to view it, they have to purchase cable tv or satellite or whatever whereas on the google network you content would be globally accessible and the broadband access which replaces the cable or satellite tv service, is free to the masses. additionally you can develop complimentary services that engauge your viewership such that you are able to really develop a community around you content as opposed to content around a community.
October 24th, 2006 at 6:26 pm
I don’t have a TV and don’t really miss it. I have been catching the shows such as Heroes on-line. The full screen quality is actually not that bad (like an old color portable). Soon as the network gets faster (and therefore the picture better), I don’t see why anyone would want broadcast. Also has anyone seen the Casino Royal full screen trailer. Amazing picture quality! Double DSL speed to the home for the same price and broadcast is bye bye.
October 24th, 2006 at 7:34 pm
The problem isn’t with TV, it’s with you — with your profoundly terrible taste in TV, to be precise. Studio 60 is pretentious garbage, which is why half of the Heroes audience changes the channel when it comes on. 30 Rock isn’t very good, but it’s much better than Studio 60.
October 24th, 2006 at 7:41 pm
TV may be gravely ill as a business, as the NBC announcements from late last week suggest. It’s less viable as an advertising medium, when you’re paying for the time, than it is as a way of getting your message out through the news (which is “free.”) The audiences are still huge compared to the new media.
The Tea Partay video on YouTube has been viewed around 1.5 million times, which is enormous for on-line, but what really makes an on-line phenomenon “break through” is when it hits the mainstream media, such as the guy who recorded his conversation with AOL when he tried to cancel. He posted the audio to his web site, and when the story showed up in the New York Times, a few hundred thousand people tried to listen all at once and crashed his server. Later, he ended up telling his story on the Today show with several million watching…which of course was recorded and led to a round of additional viewing on YouTube.
The new media and old media work together.
October 24th, 2006 at 8:00 pm
Nah - at least half the people in the US don’t even have broadband, which makes online video useless to them.
I’m sure it does hurt, especially since people take the TV shows off TV and put them up on Youtube (and the like), which makes it almost like a world wide Tivo. But until market penetration gets close to 100% (which not even cable/sat TV has done), TV will still be around.
October 24th, 2006 at 8:24 pm
Quit TIVO and TV about two years ago. RSSed FNC , some CNN and MovieLink are enough video for me.
October 24th, 2006 at 8:29 pm
TV isn’t dead.
It’s just resting.
October 24th, 2006 at 8:34 pm
Steve, I’ve been at the Digital Hollywood conference in LA for the last couple of days and most of the presenters here seem to agree with you. The consensus seems to be that the TV industry is about to go through the same challenges that the music guys have been through over the last couple of years. Advertisers need to follow the audience and with YouTube getting 100 million downloads a day it’s obvious where the audience is going.
cheers
Cameron Reilly
CEO, The Podcast Network
GET PODCASTS: www.thepodcastnetwork.com
October 25th, 2006 at 4:26 am
Since I got a new microwave I have less time for fire. Because I wear a watch I’ve thrown out my clocks and sundials. Winter is coming on so I’ll throw away all my summer clothes. Junior has a blog so I stopped reading books. Flag poles? I’ve got Viagra.
October 25th, 2006 at 6:21 am
Heh, TV MUST be dead, because with only a couple of exceptions, I haven’t a clue what the programs you mentioned in your post are, or what they are about. I haven’t watched any of them! TV has been dead in this household for quite some time! Who wants to watch commercials every seven minutes or pay through the nose for some horrible movie from Hollywood. There are better things to do with my valuable time, and TV isn’t one of them. My it rest in peace!
October 25th, 2006 at 6:57 am
TV is dead because of the stupid blogosphere, the so-called “new” medium of podcasting, TiVo, RSS, and HDTV.
TV is dead because of TiVo and HDTV? Huh? That doesn’t even make enough sense to be properly mocked.
October 25th, 2006 at 11:20 am
Traditional broadcast/cable TV is dead, or at least dying. It’s all about timeshifting. Heroes (which is awesome) is about the only decent show on American TV (I mostly watch anime, translated and distributed days after the original airing in Japan) and I don’t even watch it on my TV. I download it on bittorrent and watch it when feel like it and where I feel like it, after i get back to my dorm after a night exam or in the student union between classes on my laptop. I could even record it with the TiVo-like setup I have have on my desktop but I don’t because the quality wouldn’t be as good and I’d have to spend a bunch of time compressing it properly before burning it to dvd for archival.
With the internet enabling people to access content without the restraints of time and space the idea that people will will all sit down and tune in at a specific time each week to watch a specif program is quickly become laughable. I may be on the bleeding edge but it won’t be long before the rest of the world catches up.
October 25th, 2006 at 1:16 pm
Perhaps there are things one should ask oneself in the “TV is dead” argument before coming to such stark conclusions.
Is TV dead because I dislike it and want it to be dead? What is TV? Is it the collection of programs that is seen on television? Is it the infrastructure that brings a signal to television sets? Is it a financial process of raising funds to create dramas, sit-coms, cartoons, news, events, etc. and then sell advertising? Is TV the creative and distribution rights that allow or limit the ways programs can reach intended audiences? Is it the production of the images and sound? Is it audience, ratings, promotions and marketing?
This…
“TV is dead because of the Internet. TV is dead because we don’t have time for it. TV is dead because the computer lives. TV is dead because of the stupid blogosphere, the so-called “new” medium of podcasting, TiVo, RSS, and HDTV. TV is dead because TV now sucks more than all of the previous.”
…does not answer any of the above questions — and of course there are more — regarding what exactly about TV is dead and what will continue on the Internet. Saying TV is dead because it sucks and because of the web is pretty simplistic. We’re only in the very opening minutes of a very complex game.
October 25th, 2006 at 2:51 pm
Your problem is that you are not watching Veronica Mars on CW, Tuesday at 9. If you were, you might change your mind about the quality of television today.
October 26th, 2006 at 12:11 am
Isn’t funny how the majority of people who say tv is dead, are the very people who never watch it? Maybe I should go ask anorexics about their opinions on food.
October 27th, 2006 at 3:18 pm
[…] Wow. That’s quite a prediction, Steve. But I’m not buying it - just yet. In his latest blog, Steve claims “YouTube, Digg, and MySpace took out TV a few months back”. I don’t exactly agree, because unless we all get Media Center PCs, cheap broadband access for all as well as huge LCD displays, quite frankly I’ll stick with the tube. […]
November 26th, 2006 at 8:05 pm
[…] And if you thought TV was dead, maybe it will live as the missing link to document life meeting art (or art meeting life). Mike Yamamoto notes that MySpace meets reality TV on ProjectMyWorld, as three young women embark on a journey to meet their virtual friends face-to-face. It’s on DirecTV and of course DirecTV’s majority owner is News Corp which also owns MySpace.com…which I think makes it art imitating life. […]
November 28th, 2006 at 1:30 am
[…] Michael Arrington at Techcrunch today, Steve Gillmor a month ago, declared TV dead. While I have not turned mine for quite a while, I can not agree. Give it three - five more years — maybe. Today TV is still alive. […]
February 1st, 2007 at 4:31 pm
[…] Update: Steve Gillmor likes Heroes, too. […]
February 23rd, 2007 at 6:17 am
[…] Yup, Peter, you are so right, in fact, I may have subconsciously or consciously chose media where there is little noticeable advertising (although I see non-stop marketing and storytelling). One other factoid Peter, in the workplace in North America, Internet is THE primary medium. At home, TV is one, closely followed by the Internet. I wouldn’t place too much money on TV however, Internet Uncle Steve Gillmor says TV is Dead. I predict they are both engaged and will bear a new child, that resembles both mom and dad. […]
August 28th, 2007 at 10:12 pm
[…] Without question, more will make more possible. But will it make better possible? Sure, it’ll destroy television as we know it, but that’s really already happened. Once the distribution system got beyond 3 major […]
January 6th, 2008 at 3:47 pm
[…] I found his fondness for Seinfeld curious but did not regard it as a media trend. Just something we could enjoy watching together. However, over the next 18 months I did begin to observe a trend….boxed sets of TV shows not only being purchased but being borrowed and loaned out to classmates. Last year, Steve Gillmor pronounced that TV was dead. […]
July 5th, 2009 at 1:22 pm
Like to watch Stargate Atlantis episodes and also Lost. I found your blog on google and read a few of your other posts. I just added you to my Google News Reader. Look forward to reading more from you in the future.