Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop


Forgot your password?
Australia Social Networks Television The Internet The Media Youtube Games News

YouTube, Gaming and Social Networking Busting TV's Chops 118

splitenz writes "A TV executive told a major Australian broadband conference that television audiences are slipping away into social media, gaming and other online subscription spaces. YouTube and online gaming is taking the traditional TV audience online and TV is struggling to fight back."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

YouTube, Gaming and Social Networking Busting TV's Chops

Comments Filter:
  • by Anonymous Coward

    I still watch lots of TV. Netflix and Youtube give me hours of entertainment for a grand total of $30/month. ($20 for internet, $10 for netflix). This particular gravy train probably won't continue forever, but it sure is nice.

  • Seriously - anyone else would have blamed piracy and people downloading episodes from countries that played the shows 6 months ago...

    • by halowolf ( 692775 ) on Saturday April 30, 2011 @12:40AM (#35982518)
      Yes it is nice to get someone that has an open mind as to what the problems with TV are. I like watching TV shows, however I don't watch many anymore. I don't like shows coming out 6 months to a year later, I don't like time slots being moved around so much that its hard to record them without a Tivo-esque device (or with the 5 - 10 minute schedule drift many of the major channels employ). I don't like ads that blast the room with sound when they employ their volume shifting bastardry.

      What I like is watching the shows when I want to watch them, scheduling them into my life rather than having to schedule my life around them. What all content providers have to get their head around is that these technologies are empowering users to live a social and interactive life their way and if you don't want to keep up with that or embrace it then there is going to be problems.
      • by theshowmecanuck ( 703852 ) on Saturday April 30, 2011 @12:31PM (#35984940) Journal

        And when they go into reruns part way through the season, or they stop broadcasting entirely for a couple of weeks or more and then come back on. And what is it with the short season lengths? TV seasons used to last 25 to 30 weeks. Now they're 12 weeks???? To say TV is getting more lame as time goes on is like saying Ci Lo is just chunky. Maybe if they provided something worth watching instead of 'reality tv' they wouldn't be so far behind. It's all for the shareholders.

        Create something cheap to produce to maximize revenue for the shareholders, instead of worrying about good product for the customers and long term stability for the employees. Instead of win, win, win, it is win for a short time, get fucked, get fucked. And then eventually the customers get tired of the crap product and it is lose lose lose. End of story.

        Over emphasize of the shareholders so the already overpaid CEO can get bigger bonuses for a short time then out the door with a gold parachute. Same bullshit that plagues the financial industry plagues every other industry in North America and Europe lately. Sure, the shareholders should get paid, but not to the exclusion of long term viability. Businesses like these have adopted the parasitic self-cannibalization strategy since around 1990.

  • Australian Effect? (Score:5, Informative)

    by cappp ( 1822388 ) on Friday April 29, 2011 @11:25PM (#35982198)
    I wonder if this is some kind of regional effect, or perhaps a little hyperbole designed to keep things interesting. The most recent numbers I could find note that in the UK []

    "Viewers watched an average of three hours and 45 minutes of television a day in 2009, 3% more than in 2004, according to research published today by the media regulator Ofcom"

    If there was some generational effect going on (the article does note that the elderly watch more than the average) it would be somewhat mitigated by the Economist's finding that

    "In December 2009, Nielsen estimated that 34% of internet users had the television on while surfing the net. But when tuning in for a programme, television-watchers used the internet only about 3% of the time"

    US numbers [] show a similar trend -

    "the average American watches approximately 153 hours of TV every month at home, a 1.2% increase from last year"

    Those who are interested should check out the American Time Use Survey [] - it has some rather interesting content (for instance: 15 to 19 read for an average of 5 minutes per weekend day while spending 1.0 hour playing games or using a computer for leisure. )
    Taking the two pieces together it would seem we're watching more TV in general, and when we're online we have the TV on anyway. Hardly seems worth pounding the drums of the apocalypse over.

    • by Anonymous Coward

      Yeah but if you're watching TV with your laptop you sure as hell aren't paying attention to the commercials, which is all they care about. TV programming is just an inconvenient chore they suffer to get you to watch TV ads.

      If more people watch whatever sitcom but all read Facebook while the ads run, the TV execs fail.

      • Fear not, I hear there's a network that has this new ad style coming out to combat people's short attention spans. It's called "blipverts".
    • "Viewers watched an average of three hours and 45 minutes of television a day in 2009"

      That is absolutely fucking insane.

      • "The average American watches approximately 153 hours of TV every month at home," That's 5 hours a day. Very, very sad.
  • ... part of the problem is that most people are stuck having to buy a "package" from either a cable or satellite provider. If HD TV stations increased their OTA (over-the-airwaves) presence (better antenna positioning, more repeaters), people would have more free (as in it doesn't cost more than a pair of bunny ears) HD TV.

    ... and that would help them compete, because many streaming Internet services will run up against their ISP's bandwidth caps if heavily used.

  • Well yeah (Score:4, Insightful)

    by pspahn ( 1175617 ) on Friday April 29, 2011 @11:26PM (#35982204)

    People aren't happy with passive entertainment like they once were. They want to be engaged.

    Some good TV shows can do that, but most of them do not.

    • You know the answer to this. Embed more Facebook "pages" in programming! That way, everything from standard TV serials to the news can be edgy, hip, and completely worth watching!
    • Re:Well yeah (Score:5, Insightful)

      by toejam13 ( 958243 ) on Saturday April 30, 2011 @12:36AM (#35982500)

      It goes beyond this.

      Television content today is increasingly targeting dumb viewers. Advertisers are aware that intelligent viewers are not swayed by their advertising. To keep impressionable viewers watching, you need the kind of dumb content that draws them in. As a result, intelligent content is being pushed to the few premium providers that forgo traditional advertising.

      It is something of a downward spiral. Content is stupid. Methods to access much of that content are still stupid. Savvy viewers quickly become frustrated with the fragmented paywalls, delayed releases and other obstacles, so they either pirate the content they want or simply go without. Why wait several months for the next season of Big Love to be released for streaming on Netflix when you can grab an HD MP4 of it from the Usenet or a Torrent site the day after it airs?

      And the mini-sat and cable companies don't help things with their fucked up channel packages. To watch the handful of shows I still like, I'd have to subscribe to over $70/mo worth of channels. 98% of the content shown is little more than visual tripe. Why bother?

      When the Boomers start dying off, traditional television as we know it will probably die with them. Maybe then we'll see a Renaissance in the television world. Until then, the people who came up with Retarded Guido TV, My Vagina is a Clown Car, Laugh at the Midgets Show and Lifestyles of Retarded Alaskan Politicians can all DIAF. So can the shitheads who watch it, too.

      • can grab an HD MP4 of it from a Torrent site the day after it airs?

        I fixed that for you. You have got to be more careful about following the rules.

      • When the Boomers start dying off, traditional television as we know it will probably die with them.

        I'm a boomer, and judging by your post I care a whole lot less about TV than you do. Same goes for my 77yo dad who spends most days in his garden and most evenings on his computer.

      • It goes beyond this.

        Television content today is increasingly targeting dumb viewers. Advertisers are aware that intelligent viewers are not swayed by their advertising. To keep impressionable viewers watching, you need the kind of dumb content that draws them in. As a result, intelligent content is being pushed to the few premium providers that forgo traditional advertising.

        Really? Sorry, but go watch some 80s tv, go watch some 90s tv (youtube might help here). There has ALWAYS been dumb shit on tv, picking out good stuff has ALWAYS been hard. I seriously doubt there is an increase here.

      • Re:Well yeah (Score:4, Interesting)

        by mlts ( 1038732 ) * on Saturday April 30, 2011 @09:19AM (#35983986)

        I see TVs used for these purposes:

        1: Placate older viewers who have not hopped onto the Internet as a mainstream source of information.

        2: Act as background noise so people waiting in some sort of waiting room have something to focus on.

        3: A distraction in a hospital room.

        4: People who want to be spoon fed the news. For example, in 5-10 minutes of reading Google News, I get all the stories that it would take a TV watcher 1-2 hours of sitting there getting spoon fed whatever biased info the station chooses to put on there. Of course, Websites can be biased, but it is easy to flip between several and at least figure out a nugget of truth out of the haystack of propaganda.

        With this in mind, it is understandable that the top tier economic base of people have moved from TV to other forms of entertainment.

        It shows in how much money is being spent on TV shows too. TV studios don't care to spend the top dollar on sci-fi shows and special effects. Why do that, when doing a "reality show" is far cheaper? Why pay for a sonic screwdriver wielder when a Snooki will score the advertising bucks?

        This race to the bottom is not just killing TV, but radio too. Radio once was the place to find new bands. Now, that has been replaced by word of mouth, YouTube, and services like and Pandora, and what you hear on the radio is likely what people's fathers or grandfathers heard when they were drag-racing their Trans-Ams.

        What needs to happen? A return to the roots. TV has a niche for education, especially kids too small to really put in front of a computer. This is what the inventor of the medium conceptualized TV as being for. TV also needs to start showing stuff that other mediums have trouble with, such as films from up and coming producers. Radio needs an enema too. They need to go back to having not just a 1-2 hour special on Friday nights with new stuff, but start showcasing new bands... just like they used to before the late 90s. Then they might be relevant in daily life again.

        • in 5-10 minutes of reading Google News, I get all the stories that it would take a TV watcher 1-2 hours of sitting there getting spoon fed whatever biased info the station chooses to put on there.

          This is your own fault for watching "local" news, or the morning semi-newsy entertainment shows. The real news is on CBS or ABC at 4:30am. It takes hours of reading the headlines to get the info they provide in 30 minutes (actually 20 without commercials).

          And that's just the top of the heap. The nightly "world"

      • Hmm.

        I don't watch any "TV". I haven't had a "TV" for seven years.
        However, I do watch a nice chunk of Hulu, because you can stack 3 episodes and watch them in a bloc on a random Thursday at 10PM. I wouldn't call House, Fairly Legal, or The Chicago Code "stupid". Every writer knows that scripts are "Hollywood-ized", so be it. But those are passably intelligent shows.

        You can vote down (or up) ads on Hulu, so presumably if you downvote the Washing Machine ads some five times, they eventually go away. I try to v

      • Re:Well yeah (Score:5, Insightful)

        by ColdWetDog ( 752185 ) on Saturday April 30, 2011 @01:16PM (#35985232) Homepage

        Television content today is increasingly targeting dumb viewers.

        Right. Hogan's Heros. Gilligan's Island. The A-Team. Fantasy Island.

        Monday Night Football. NASCAR Racing.

        The pinnacle of Western Civilization. Them's some strong rose colored glasses you got on there son.

        • Knight Rider!

          Don't forget The Hoff !

        • I agree. We always look back at the old and think it was great because we've forgotten the mediocre and only remember the truly great or truly bad. For instance, we know music was amazing in the 60s/70s because look what you had: The Beatles, Led Zepplin, The Who, etc. Contrast that with me not naming anyone great making music today and you can see how the times have changed.

          That said, the transition of prime time TV from sitcoms towards reality programming does seem worse to many of us than what came befor

        • You're 100 percent correct. Of course all those programs are better than most of the swill offered today.

          For a while, I was watching a lot of History or Discovery channel. But now Discovery is Tools with an attitude shooting crew goes Swamplogging, and the History channel has morphed into the "Oh my freaking Gawd, Nostradamus predicted the Mayan Calendar, fear and end of the earth channel." "And if they don't, the Rosicrucians or Masons are on a mission to send us all to hell anyhow."

      • Hehe, I thought this was a good place to segue into my favorite TV beef. Your show names were meant to be funny - which they are - but sad to say that they aren't as bad as some real shows out now.

        Extreme couponing . Yesiree folks, we're going to make a show about clipping coupons and saving money at the grocery store.

        Little people - Big world. Awww, how cute. We just did a remodel on the house paid for by the producers, so we're going on vacation in an incredible spot, also paid for by the producers.

    • You can also put it this way:

      Watching TV series is like living other people's lives.
      At least with social media we are living our own lives again...

  • No, they're not... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by PRMan ( 959735 ) on Friday April 29, 2011 @11:26PM (#35982206)

    TV is struggling to fight back.

    If they actually WERE serious about competing, they would make TV easy to watch on the viewer's terms. But they fight every attempt of that happening by continuously putting blocks between the customer and the shows.

    • by Anonymous Coward

      Pretty much. It's easy to see why TV is falling behind when broadcast companies flip shit when video providers like Time Warner Cable make a stinking iPad app to let people have another means of watching TV in their home.

    • by Nerdfest ( 867930 ) on Friday April 29, 2011 @11:43PM (#35982288)
      They change show's time slots, both time and day, break seasons up into at least 2 widely spaced parts, pop up insanely large and distracting station identifiers, alter show start times slightly so poorly designed DVRs miss the beginning or the end. In general, they seem to *want* people to download shows or watch them through another medium. I find it incomprehensible.
      • they seem to *want* people to download shows or watch them through another medium.

        They're just trying maximize ad revenue and please advertisers. The viewers are just CHUM to attract the big fish. Ok, so it's not a car metaphor.

      • by Anonymous Coward

        Not to mention the horribly antiquated technology they're using...

        Is it 1080? or 1088?
        59.94 FPS, 23.976 FPS, 3000/1001 FPS?
        Why are you letterboxing 16:9 content?
        Why the HELL are you letterboxing 16:9 into a pillarboxed 4:3 into a 16:9 stream?!
        Overscan?... still? What is this, the 1970's?
        Is it Interlaced? Is it Telecined? Is it interlaced and telecined? who knows/cares?

        They had a chance to change for the better with the switch to digital broadcasting and recording, but completely blew it - ATSC? what a pile

        • by svick ( 1158077 )
          Well, AFAIK, some EU countries do use H.264 for their digital terrestrial broadcasting. But many of them (most?) actually use MPEG-2.
          • by sznupi ( 719324 )
            Which is not such a bad thing, it means most of those places can have DTV for a relatively long time / no reason to force upgrades so soon (switch-overs to H264 are sort of planned, IIRC - but only after a few more years at least, when natural rotation of equipment will have time to make things easier); my place only will have DVB-T (H264/AAC one)... this year... maybe... wouldn't be the first delay. (and "weird" frame rates make displaying tons of existing material easier (unit of second is arbitrary anywa
      • Whenever there's a good show it's almost you can bet money it will be canceled by the end of season 1 (or the first half of season 1).

      • They change show's time slots, both time and day, break seasons up into at least 2 widely spaced parts, pop up insanely large and distracting station identifiers, alter show start times slightly so poorly designed DVRs miss the beginning or the end. In general, they seem to *want* people to download shows or watch them through another medium. I find it incomprehensible.

        Man. The hate. I know Fox canceled 'Firefly', but that was years ago.

        Let it rest, already.

    • by rdnetto ( 955205 )
      Speaking as an Australian, they have. All the major channels allow you to stream shows from their websites within 1 week of them airing. As for the regional effect mentioned in another post, that seems very likely to me. Australia is often forgotten when it comes to licensing - most of the shows airing in the US only here after a year or so. And even then they mess around with the time slots, break up seasons etc. There's very little difference to a consumer between streaming a show from a website and torre
  • by Nethemas the Great ( 909900 ) on Friday April 29, 2011 @11:26PM (#35982208)

    Star Trek:TNG - "The Neutral Zone"

    SONNY Yeah, boob-tube... you know. I'd like to find out how the Braves are doin' after all this time. Probably still finding ways to lose.

    DATA (to Riker) Oh -- I think he means television, sir.

    SONNY Or maybe catch up on the soaps.

    DATA (to Sonny) That particular form of entertainment did not last much beyond the year Two Thousand Forty.

  • by Anonymous Coward

    To put it in perspective, Australian TV has been racing to the bottom for as far back as I can remember. Basically we copy US (and often UK) shows with our own versions but with only half the budget and effort. If one station lands onto a 'hit', the other commercial stations will pour every spare cent into copying that concept themselves, so you end up with mulitple stations broadcasting the same show. Yet at the same time most of the acclaimed US/UK shows they get the rights to get buried on timeslots that

  • by Charliemopps ( 1157495 ) on Friday April 29, 2011 @11:46PM (#35982304)
    I'm sorry, but televisions content is just plain garbage. Each channel has, at most 2 good shows for the entire week. AMC seems to be the only channel putting out quality TV now... that should make the big name broadcasters ashamed of themselves. When I got to work people talk about Madmen, the walking dead, breaking bad... no one has any idea what's on CBS/NBC/ABC anymore because it's worthless trash. Usually if I accidentally switch to one of those networks for any period of time I'm so disgusted with whatever reality garbage they've throw on the screen I'm actually ashamed of the society I belong to.
    • Re:poor content (Score:4, Interesting)

      by Tsu-na-mi ( 88576 ) on Saturday April 30, 2011 @03:44AM (#35983046) Homepage

      With you in spirit, but your statements are tinged with hyperbole. The major networks air more than 2 good shows a week, and more and more "cable channels" like AMC, USA, TNT, etc have begun airing some quality original programming. However, for every show like 30 Rock or The Closer, we get ten Real Worlds, Survivors, or Dancing with the Stars.

      Premium channels have been booming with original content in recent years. Maybe it's just because I did not have access to them much before BT trackers and release groups got into them, but I think there are more original shows on HBO, Showtime, etc than there used to be. Sure, you had things like 1st and Ten, Dream On, and the Red Shoe Diaries on HBO and Showtime 15-25 years ago, but now you have so much more. A lot of great shows in recent times have come form these networks (Deadwood, Weeds, Dexter, The Sopranos), along with a great deal more entertaining ones (The Tudors, Rome, Secret Diary of a Call Girl (not original, I know)).

      As someone else has stated, the real problem is that TV providers have made it an increasingly hostile environment to watch their content.
        - More commercial time per hour. The average 1-hour show is under 44 minutes now.
        - Channel identifier logos on constantly. In the beginning these were semi-transparent line-art, now they are colorful and often animated.
        - Squashed and sped-up credit sequences. Sure, few people want to see them, but sometimes we do, and without commercial/news at 10 hype
        - Pop-up in-show ads "New Episode of Dancing With the Stars NEXT" at the bottom of the screen, blocking this show
        - Time-shifting to screw up DVR users
        - Loudness tricks to make commercials seem louder than the show. Gotta crank up the movie because it's so quiet, then WHAM! "BUY ZEST SOAP!"
        - Constant schedule changes

      I gave up cable TV about 8-9 years ago. I was heavy into anime at the time, had just moved, so I went with internet and substantial DVD purchases (back when DVDs were still $30 each, though you could get them for ~33-50% off online). I found out I just did not need to veg out in front of TV shows I didn;t care about every evening. I read more books, was online more, had other things to do.

      It was liberating. ^_^

  • cable co will fight back with lower caps

  • by hovelander ( 250785 ) on Saturday April 30, 2011 @12:01AM (#35982352)

    Personally, I am going to blame the messenger, i.e. Nielsen. Shows that trend towards tech savvy types will always struggle and die if the only emphasis is going to be on boxes that measure appointment viewing. I don’t have a box, so I don’t matter. If I don’t matter, why subject myself to appointment viewing commercials ALONG with the obvious product placement?

    If modern HD TVs are are just another computer screen, what is in store for appointment viewing as we undergo generational attrition?

    For me, modern television is going through the same death spiral that modern commercial music is going through. My music interests have gone entirely independent of the big music labels because of the crap they pull and produce. The more they dumb down, the less of my attention they get. Viewing numbers will distribute across the hundreds of channels of reality programming and the few die hards will congregate around the few bright spots of fictional storytelling while they last. (You should prepare for vastly smaller seasons of shows, like the British models.)

    I don’t matter, so why even try to make it through these endless show hiatuses that kill anything serialized? Why endlessly pine and dread if the uncounted just don’t matter?

    Screw off Nielsen. Take your appointment viewing system and burn in hell for killing too many of my loved ones. I for one am finding it too painful to play with your stacked deck.

    • by tepples ( 727027 )

      If modern HD TVs are are just another computer screen

      Modern HDTVs are potentially "just another computer screen", but the general public sees general-purpose computers and consumer electronics as two separate realms, as repeatedly pointed out by CronoCloud and other Slashdot commenters. In practice, modern HDTVs are consumer-electronics-appliance screens.

    • why even try to make it through these endless show hiatuses that kill anything serialized?

      Game shows broadcast live, such as Major League Baseball, National Football League, National Hockey League, and National Basketball Association, draw appointment viewers despite their annual hiatuses.

      fictional storytelling

      I switched away from FOX News Channel because I was tired of the fictional storytelling, but political news shows like MSNBC's Morning Joe Brewed by Starbucks still draw viewers.

      • "Game shows broadcast live, such as Major League Baseball, National Football League, National Hockey League, and National Basketball Association, draw appointment viewers despite their annual hiatuses."

        Very good point. Thanks for that perspective. Forgot about live events...

  • Holy cow does this mean that Spock's comment from ST-TOS will turn out to be true. "television-- That form of entertainment didn't last much past the mid 21'st century". :)

  • I bet they lobby government to ban network bandwidth and then argue that they are entitled to a profit. In fantasy land, all TV's going forward should be net-linked and ALL cableTV lines across the country converted to extra internet bandwidth. Also after they collapse anyways, I bet they demand a bailout.
  • shush shush
    go to sleep now
    you messed up the news and created predictable, pathetic, mind-numb, formulaic content bereft of artistic value
    but that's okay. you didn't have much choice on that silly broadcast-only medium
    now it's time to rest. stop squirming in your box
    shush, shush
    go to sleep
  • If I could buy the 5 channels we watched for a reasonable price I'd bite. But we don't watch enough TV to justify the $60 a month they want for them. And they only put those 5 channels in the upper packages, not the cheap ones. 2-3 years cable free, not missing it that much.
    • Record companies do the same thing.

      When they have a monopoly on the pieces that they put together, they usually use the good stuff as bait to force you to swallow the other stuff with it.

      Going ala-carte lets you be too picky for their pocketbook.

  • Aside from the repeated advertisements and the poor quality of basic cable shows, the main reason i don't watch TV is because i don't get to watch my shows and series i like whenever i want. By having Netflix, Hulu or some sort of DVR system to record shows, we can watch what we want when we want. Some TV station offers some shows online after its been aired, but again the choices of shows is very limited. Add to this the control over time consuming commercials, interactivity, live chats, and all that the i
  • by SmallFurryCreature ( 593017 ) on Saturday April 30, 2011 @03:29AM (#35982994) Journal

    The BBC, yesterday. One side showing "the wedding". The only way I watch that if they made it interactive and I could enact my republican fantasies. Once thing about the French, they know how to deal with royalty. Russians too. Nice job guys, want to helps the rest of the world out?

    The other side, snooker. The most boring thing ever to be televised apart from hurdling. That is it! On a friday! Prime time TV? Must watch TV? Not on the beeb.

    Have I Got News For You is still funny although this weeks episode seems to have been cancelled and the previous one was more about "The wedding" then the middle east being on fire. Gosh they have plenty to say if Israel defends itself by killing a single muslim in a week but if muslims kill hundreds of muslims that is apparently not fit to discuss in a satirical news program. Am I so wrong in finding it all funny?

    The rest of the time, cooking shows. Now don't get me wrong. I like food and I am actually quite good as a cook but how many master chefs can one stomach? According to the BBC dual and even triple episodes in a row.

    Okay, so to discovery, geographic channel and animal planet. If anyone in America is bored, then you please go and shoot that mexican dog licker? My god that show is on 24/7. If I want to train a bad dog I kill its owner, then eat the dog. Just because a single program does well does NOT make it a good idea to replace your entire schedule with it. Diversity, it is the spice of live. For instance I would like some cat sprinkled on my chow.

    Discovery? Come on, Cake Boss? Are you serious? And you thought American Chopper was gaying it up as much as possible. (come on and entire show with butch men in leather making shiny stuff). I get tired of the same formula. "Oh shit, we are running out of time, yet again, we do so every single time but never learn to start a bike, cake build a tiny bit earlier because thatwould deprive us of fake tension only the most gullible would believe". Even if some of the programs are interesting, the commercials kill it. Not just to long, to loud and to stupid, they repeat the same ones over and over in the same show AND then run ads for the very show I am trying to watch. That is like ordering a burger and then being told about that very burger instead of serving it.

    Comedy Central? Thank you, I seen the Simpsons a dozen times over and Family Guy and such are simply not funny to anyone who isn't 12.

    There is simply nothing to watch. Now I don't hate TV, I am as ready as the next guy to sit in front of the idiot tube after a day at work and let my mind rot. I like it, just there is absolutely nothing on or if it is it gets interrupted by a 5 minute commercial block. That causes me to look away and when I look back, the NEXT commercial block is on.

    Instead, I simply download the few things I want to see (since I am in europe often the entire season is available already by the time I hear about it) and watch them in HD with no commercials blocks and no re-scheduling because some jack-booting asshole wants to get married to a slut.

    TV has a problem. People like mindless entertainment but for millenia they had to create it themselves. Once every household had a musical instrument because that was the only thing to do at in the evening hours. Theathers were everywhere filled with crap actors for when people got fed up with the same song every day. Then movies came and made entertainment for the masses for the first time. TV made it even easier, just pump a production straight into everyones home. The perfect way to spend those hours between work and going to bed. Don't deny it and claim you read a book, statistics prove you didn't.

    But that was in the days when we had no choice. Either you watched it on the TV stations terms or you didn't. And because they controlled us (don't deny it, I seen the empty streets when something special happened in TV land) they thought they would always control us and added longer and longer commericial blocks, now even showing ads over the programs

  • Aussie FTA TV has far too much junk on it these days.
    We get old shows that have been aired so many times the tapes have worn out (Bewitched, I Dream Of Jeanie, The Flintstones, JAG, McGuiver, Everybody Loves Raymond, Cheers, The Brady Bunch, Seinfeld, MASH, The Nanny, 2&1/2 men and others) and worse still they play the same subset of the series over and over and over again instead of playing all the episodes that exist.

    We get crappy reality TV like Farmer Wants A Wife, Masterchef, Junior Masterchef, So

  • "A radio executive told a major conference that radio audiences are slipping away into TV. Soap operas and recent news footage are taking the traditional radio audience and radio is struggling to fight back."

    • Radio's been effectively dead ever since these guys [] took ownership of the whole damn market back in the mid to late 1990s. As a result, most stations in the country have become watered-down corporate crap that repeats the same top 40 playlist several times per day with little attempt to try and innovate. Satellite radio is trying to get some of these listeners back, but a lot of people just gave up and went to their iPods, where they have full control over their own music.
  • Network TV can die in a fire. Even the vanishingly small number of decent shows (I could count the number on one hand after a brutal industrial accident) consist of 30% commercial time. And the fire network TV dies in can be stoked by the former network executives.

    Speaking of ads, TFA has a large intrusive bold text ad right in the middle of the story, which means I'll soon be getting my FAs here like everyone else: secondhand hearsay.

  • Earlier we had an article here about the closing of the last typewritter factor. Some techs are just obsolete and need to be phased out. TV seems to be one of them. They are idiots of course in the entertain industry as we all know and will hang on by their teeth if they must as long as they can. Eventually we will close the door on the last TV manufacturing department in the world, and even then, they will still fight to survive. TV is dead because it failed to meet the needs of the people. Programming i

  • Search engine marketing is the process of ensuring your website ranks prominently within search engine listings when a topic relevant to the content on your website is looked up on a search engine Ignitees refer to SEM as direct marketing on steroids []

Each new user of a new system uncovers a new class of bugs. -- Kernighan