Idea #20: Media networks are headed for extinction

Media networks are becoming less relevant.  Or rather, OTHER networks are becoming MORE important.  We’re seeing the last days of media networks and service providers deciding what we see and hear.

The large networks that have dominated our media consumption for the past 100 years are on the verge of extinction.  The Internet has caused what used to be a relatively tiny funnel into people’s conciousness to blow open.  The first step in the network power dilution process came with the advent of Vintage_tv cable and satellite systems, which allowed people to choose from a much wider range of networks.  That caused traditional network viewership to shrink, but only in proportion to the number of new choices.  And you could only start a new network with a pretty massive amount of funding and effort.

The Internet is changing everything.  When IPTV becomes common sometime in the next 10 years, cable and satellite providers will no longer be the gatekeepers who determine which choices are available.  The number of choices is exploding, and this is diluting the major networks’ market share even further.  The only thing standing in the way of mass adoption is hardware integration.  I can already hook my HDTV to my laptop to view high-def movies over the Internet, but that’s too complex for the general public.  Once TV’s have built-in Internet integration and the software for delivering media is perfected, it’ll be just as easy as watching TV is today, probably easier.

As the media networks disintegrate, computing costs continue to drop, and Internet hardware integration happens media creators will be in control of their own destiny.  When it’s a straight shot to the source of the media (as it is to a Web site), and there are no gatekeepers such as networks and service providers in between, the success of any given content will depend on how many people it can attract.

Large content producers are already noticing that they don’t have to play the old game any longer.  They don’t have to split the pie.  Once they have a loyal following, the medium over which the content is delivered becomes irrelevant.  Take the NFL, for example.  They’re ruffling some feathers with their decision to start airing games on their own network.  Although it’s locked into broadcast contracts with TV networks for the next 5 or 6 years, I can imagine that they’re already starting to think about streaming games live from NFL.com.  It’ll be yet another nail in the coffin of traditional networks.  As there are fewer and fewer marquee content choices on the major networks, they’ll eventually fade from the public mind.

Companies that used to be huge information gatekeepers are falling into extinction.  Content aggregators and filters are becoming much more important than delivery platforms.  I can’t imagine a much better thing that could happen to our society.

Part of the 60 Ideas in 60 Days series.  Click here for the rest of the ideas.

Share and Enjoy:
  • Print
  • Digg
  • Facebook
  • Google Bookmarks
  • HackerNews
  • Reddit
  • http://www.jdavidmacor.com J David

    I don't know if I buy this.

    First, the idea that the satellite companies and cable companies will no longer be the "gatekeepers" is not true. What is happening is that cable and satellite companies are gobbling up other service companies, such as telephone service, cell service, and internet (or, they are being gobbled up by someone else providing a different service). As an example, take Boston: If you want TV, you have 2 choices, either Comcast Cable or Verizon Satellite (Verizon bought some satellite company). Now, if you want internet, guess what? Your choices are Comcast or Verizon again. Telephone? You guessed it; Comcast or Verizon. If anything, I would say a few number of companies are gaining more control. In fact, if you buy all of your services from one company, you save a ton of money, but it kinda locks you in and then you have to ask yourself, who is in control?

    Next, you say that everyone will be switching from networks to online viewing. But to view online, you need internet; and it has to be high speed. There is still a massive amount of people who do not have this. Hell, a significant number of people don't have cable; they have the rabbit ears, which only pick up networks, but they do it at the cost of $0 per month, which isn't bad… and that includes HD….

    Another thing is that the networks are already on the net. The iTunes store offers plenty of network shows, but channels like ABC (i think thats who it is…) offer their primetime shows in streaming format for free right after they broadcast for like a whole week.

    As for the NFL network, their ratings were pretty poor. One of the best games this year was on that channel and barely anybody watched it, because they didn't want to pay for the channel (which, incidentally, costs a fortune due to bundle pricing, which means you have to pay for a whole package of channels… you can't just pick one and pay for that one from your cable/satellite provider; sounds kinda controlling, no?). On Sportscenter the next day, the host was saying, "Well last night was an amazing game that no one saw… Now to the highlights!"

    So, as for your sunny outlook on things, I am much more skeptical. These companies have much greater resources than you or I, and I am sure that they have just about thought of and prepared for everything. Or at least, it is looking that way.

  • http://www.jdavidmacor.com J David

    Damn, that was a long comment… Sorry about that…