As absorbed as I am in the massive spectrum of media we're dealt a hand with in modern society, television has never been a big player in my life, and now that I think about it, I haven't turned mine on in close to a year, unless you count using it as a big screen to run movies from my laptop. Well, yeah I guess that counts, BUT point being television is a very dormant form of entertainment in my world. Back when I was like six, my parents got a satellite and the works. I had every cool channel at my disposal, and you'd bet I spent a good amount of my time glued to the tube. Well come the following years, my parents decided television wasn't something worth the investment, so they switched to a third party satellite provider, and eventually to $8 ultra basic cable. That's no understatement. We had about 19 channels. And any kid flipping through the first 19 channels you have on cable is sure to be disappointed. This became a bigger problem when I started homeschooling (and I did this for 5 years!) as between lessons I would spend my free time eating and trying to watch TV. Keyword "trying." I had to resort to sitcom reruns, and not even the good stuff like Seinfeld. Yes, I did this for nearly five years (during my elementary school years mind you), and was only brought to stop when I began to understand the internet. That's enough exposition for now though, what I'm getting to is that TV is pretty limiting, even if you have the 5000 channel package. Thus, the internet seems to have found success through that flaw.
-The audience is already there, and it's huge. TV took some time to catch on given the price of investing in a television set back in the 50s, and there were about 3 channels. As for the internet? The expansion was at a similar rate, though for different causes. However in the end, due to how widely it gained connection, when entertainment began to be submitted through, there was already an audience willing to watch. This applies for what's coming in the future. Home computers are being purchased at increasing rates, and the internet is being spread to nearly every home, just like TVs. It's a new wave, and with this audience, entertainment exclusively made for the internet has a dominating market to begin with.
-Production cost and elements are best value. Getting a spot on TV is very hard and expensive to do unless you go on public access or invited to a talk show like Ellen or the O'Reilly Factor. Stations want ratings, and it's a hard game to play. Conversely on the internet, you don't have a business commanding your every step for an astronomical cost. Production can still cost a bit of money, but your space is free. You don't have to beg to get a spot!
-Playing the name game. Famous actors and musicians seem to be opting out for online entertainment. They see this new outlet and are interested in taking hold of it. And with these faces comes a good number of fans, all rabid to see their favorite people perform without having to sit through ten minutes of commercials or buy tickets to a movie. Joseph Gordon-Levitt is a favorite example for me. Currently he's constructed his own web show that's built on the creations of ordinary people, like short music clips or animation. How would television networks even hope to compete with a media that promotes viewer interaction beyond texting to vote?
Do I believe this increasing media form will kill television? No. Networks always find a way to hook viewers, and as of now, it's still easier and more available to get a TV and provider than a computer with functioning internet. There will always be an audience.
I do believe though that this may usher in a new type of revolution. One where media is brought closer to the same level as the rest of us. Media where we can interact to some degree and have an influence. It's pretty amazing.
My only question is, will the internet ever become more widely available and more popular of an entertainment form than television? I have doubt, but not too much.
No comments:
Post a Comment