Futurists and cord-cutters believe the time will come, sooner or later, that cable companies and their tight grip on TV content will finally loosen and we’ll live in an always-on, on-demand world of streaming TV for all. Major tech players such as Sony and Intel are prepping TV services to launch in the fall, and whispers are growing louder that Apple and Google will join them with competing services. Already Netflix, Hulu, Roku, Amazon, Aereo and others have staked a claim as disruptors, but who will really rule the roost as the TV networks of the future? Vote in our poll for who you think will eventually become our TV overloads (vote for as many as you think will be major players) and explain your thinking in-depth in the comments below. To hear more about this topic, check out last Friday’s Mediatwits podcast with guests Brian Stelter of the New York Times and Tracy Swedlow of TV of Tomorrow.
Let us hope that it isn’t controlled by DirectTV. I suspect they know it since they are constantly trying to scam their customers into two year contracts. Rotten business tactic. . . . .
I think that the TV networks of the future will include niche networks focused on specific topics. Look at the TWiT network at http://www.twit.tv. They manage to produce 30-40 hours of live television a week and manage to have an ad-supported model which allows for free viewing in either a podcast or a streaming format.
Other possibilities include Revision3. Started by some former TechTV staffers, they built an alternate tech-oriented “station” which includes downloadable video podcasts of their shows. My only concern with them is that since Discovery Networks purchased the company, the tech focus is being watered down to include all sorts of content which Discovery can’t or won’t put on their traditional TV properties. Many of these shows are not quite in that “tech” niche and remind me a little of what TechTV became after G4 purchased them.
Overall, I think individuals will be able to create unique shows or a small network of shows which consumers can choose a al carte, rather than having such broad choices as a cable or satellite package.
This begs the question then (which piggybacks off the most recent PBS Mediashift article about whether or not journalism degrees are necessary), where will the real jobs be (I.e. in the companies listed above? And would their salaries be better than a journalist?) and what should a student major in to work in the media field on th need that seems to be polar opposite and driving journalists and networks our of business? Would there be more of a need for broadcast journalists vs print? I spoke with a NY Times sports writer at an Pre-London Olympics event who said that he would never advise kids today to major in journalism, but rather study the field you want to report about so you can be an expert in it and then write about it. I think the previous article did mention getting a journalism certificate so that you can learn the skills (they mentioned ethics and standards but I would also hope they would include basic fundamentals as editing and other technical areas like camera work, et al).
I would agree that kids today so not get their news for print or TV… They like to get it online and streaming at all hours of the night…. If there is not a shift, the younger generation will create it for sure.
I selected Sony, Time Warner and Comcast, since they are established media outlets, and added Netflix and Hulu because they already have a large movie base and it would be an easy segway for them to add news… However, I am curious to see what direction Jeff Bezos (Amazon) will take with his acquisition of the Washington Post! Can he revive print journalism?