Television viewers have more ways to view content than ever. It seems to me that the volume of content available is increasing at a much higher rate than the viewers' expenditure on subscriptions or pay-per-view. Free-to-air content that relies on advertising is similarly seeing little growth in spending as agencies embrace new media.
Delivery channels are increasing, and many viewers have the choice to receive content from over-the-air, terrestrial, satellite, cable and IPTV sources. They can also watch video content on mobiles and over the Internet, as well as view offline content through game consoles or DVD players.
These multiple distribution channels all add costs. Setting up a 3G network or laying fiber can stress the finances of a large company. Plus, the payback period on the investment can be long.
It would seem that delivery costs are inflating at a much higher rate than what viewers spend on entertainment. How does this arithmetic work? Logic would dictate that savings must be found. Technology improvements can certainly lower the cost of the infrastructure, networks and VOD servers, but it is not the complete answer.
Long tail can reuse the archive as a source of low-cost content. Presuming that the production costs have been met with the first run, long-tail publishing creates a trickle of revenue that was previously not available.
How content is created can further lower cost. If programs can be produced at a lower cost or even for nothing (if user-generated), there is the potential to create more for less. Will the production values go out the window? There is a large pool of untapped talent — for example, students — that have the ideas but until recently could not afford the equipment or stock. New technology such as HDV camcorders and desktop editors means that anyone with talent can create content. You only have to look at YouTube to see that some of these self-made videos are very good (though many are very bad).
Twenty years ago, the production resources of a single country could fill the schedules of a handful of prime networks. That same resource now has to feed the multitude of distribution channels. The current expectation that viewers can choose what they want to watch, where they want to watch it and when they want to watch it comes at a high price, and that price is standards. Sure, there are many carefully crafted prime-time programs, but what of the rest? Many programs are about as entertaining as the fish tank that used to sit in my dentist's waiting room.
Many questions remain to be answered. How many cabled homes will also want IPTV over DSL? How will the new cable standard, DOCSIS 3.0, change the cable/DSL balance? Will satellite viewers find that the service meets all their needs? Will all video delivery move to IP?
The answers to these questions will vary from country to country, and between urban and rural viewers. TV addicts will want access to all sources, and I hope the current stack of receivers, modems and remote controls will morph into a single user interface that can deliver the promised “connected home” technology.
We have moved from the world of terrestrial and cable delivery to a very competitive marketplace where incumbent broadcasters and telcos are battling to deliver compelling content to viewers. Will production quality suffer, or will we really benefit from all this choice?
Send comments to:editor@broadcastengineeringworld.com
