Here's why - we're lazy.

Could I have found all of that content online? Probably. But the point is I couldn't be bothered.
In a similar manner, iTunes beats out online downloading of music for many people. I don't subscribe to the idea that we download via iTunes because of a profound respect for copyright law (see Larry Lessig at TED on that topic). I strongly believe that many of us use iTunes just because it is easier. It's just plain easier to find, download, and be assured of quality. For that, 99c is worth it.
Television fits this iTunes model.
Television, generally, does a great job of orchestrating, curating, and sequencing the content. This has a value that needs to be appreciated by anyone predicting the downfall of television. I suspect that we, as viewers, will demonstrate a willingness to "pay" for that value through advertising.
Newspapers, while also providing content, don't cater to the same level of passively experiencing the content. One needs to leaf through a newspaper, pick an article, and read it. Far more active of an experience - and not much different than finding the same article online.
Of course, the question of what happens to the classic "30 second spot" is up in the air. Exactly how we "pay" for television with our attention is a bit unclear, but economics will find a way. Whether it is through deeper integration of product placements, integrated story-telling, or better targeting or quality of 30 second ads that make us want to watch, the model can be found.
What do you think? Is there a future for Television?
No comments:
Post a Comment