TV Biz Now Like House Full Of Termites

What is the future of television? That simple question seems to roil the media market today.  Pundits weigh in — and, depending on whom you talk to and where they reside in the industry, you will get a range of answers.

So I was curious to hear what other folks had to say when I attended the NAB (National Association of Broadcasters) CCW (Content & Communications World) and InfoComm Connections event this past week -- a compendium of hardware, software, intellectual property owners and distributors offering many expert perspectives under one roof.

My opinion is that, like a house full of termites, there are a lot of challenges out there that seem to gnaw at the foundations of our business.  

For MSOs, the current challenge to their business is twofold: first, the technology that is increasingly taking viewers away from the set-top box to over-the-top. Second is viewers’ changing demographics: cord-sensitive consumers who may not see linear TV as a must-have.



For networks and digital video platforms, challenges are the combination of DVRs, VOD and ad blockers squeezing potential income.

For the data owners and providers it is the continued "siloization" of data streams that make data aggregation expensive and each individual dataset less valuable. It is also the challenge of content coding, where efforts to standardize externally through EIDR (the Entertainment Identifier Registry) and Ad-ID add to internal needs that will require internal re-transcoding every few years.  Whew!

Here are some takeaways from the conference:

TV Rocks!

But is the television business really in trouble? Not according to Michael Wolff, whose book “Television is the New Television” has been causing waves in the industry ocean. Wolff is a cheerleader for TV … at least as he defines it. "TV was once a distribution channel.  Now it is a vastly expanded business model. The TV business is now many businesses and it is monetized in different ways," explained Wolff.

He has a point.  There has been a lot of posturing by digital media businesses. According to Wolff, “The digital media business has been saying ‘we are the future and you are the past.’ That is a powerful and debilitating thing to say….

“Digital came and said ‘We will eat TV’s lunch. We will give out free content, deliver critical mass and more eyeballs and we will sell advertising. That is the TV model and we will take it.’

“But in the same period, TV was looking at certain trends such as DVR usage and said ‘Something is happening in TV marketing. We are still a good ad medium, but we might look at it in different ways.’”

Digital Is Old School

Wolff said that digital is actually following the TV model from the 1960s and 1970s, “catering in every way to advertisers who pay the bill. It is a ratings and traffic business in a world where the cost of advertising goes ever lower.”

Meanwhile, “TV is expanding viewing opportunities and is less dependent on advertising. Digital is more and more confronted with the existential predicament that it is wholly dependent on ads. Think ad blockers….”

He continued, “Facebook and Google are volume sellers of low-cost advertising, and that is one business that you don't want to be in. But they say they are the future and we are the past.

“TV, with its myriad of revenue streams, has become incredibly good. It is the new golden age, with an extraordinarily sophisticated product....TV has cultural currency, which is an extraordinarily valuable currency.”

Measurement is a Monster Problem

So, for Wolff, the marketing model for TV has its strengths as long as TV is flexible and agile and maximizes all possible revenue aspects of its content. But measurement has not caught up to the platforming of this content.  

This is where Wolff became circumspect. “Measurability has become a monster problem. There is no standard. We live in Nielsen World, which is not right or wrong, because everyone was measured by same standard. But now everyone has measures, and there are no standards. It is impossible to know who to believe — so we believe nobody.  Now it is not only incredibly complex but also deeply problematic.”

Content Identification is Mandatory, Requires Funding and is Continual

It’s no mean feat to roll out a standardizable coding system for both programs and ads. Joe Simon, Univision’s CTO,  noted, “All of us have issues with costs, and look to automating the work flow. We won't be able to do that without content ID.”

According to Glenn Goldstein, SVP, chief technology convergence officer, Viacom, content recognition “is a mess internally and out in the ecosystem. The efficiency needs to be improved. There are duplicative copies of content with the same ad pitched over and over to MVPDs to put in their pumps. Monetization comes from consistent reports that measure audience engagement. And it needs de-duping.”

Stacey Decker, CTO at WGBH, added, “Unfortunately there are silos. I am not sure how we get to a standard, but EIDR is progress.”

And coding will only go so far until the money people see its value, as Kurt Rao, vice president of corporate IT and CTO for Time Warner, concluded: “It is not a technology decision. It is a financial decision.”

Still, once-coded will not be enough. Goldstein added, “Be prepared to re-transcode your inventory every few years. It is never going to be transcoded and done.”

No one in the industry has all the answers. The future continues to be unscripted, but by fortifying our business structure with needed reinforcements –- standardized measurement solutions, industry standard program and ad identification codes –- we can prepare for any dialogue.

3 comments about "TV Biz Now Like House Full Of Termites".
Check to receive email when comments are posted.
  1. Ed Papazian from Media Dynamics Inc, November 18, 2015 at 5:31 p.m.

    Some interesting points by Wolff that I tend to agree with, Charlene. But what does he mean when he says that digital is operating in a world where the cost of advertising "goes ever lower"?

  2. Charlene Weisler from Writer, Media Consultant:, November 20, 2015 at 7:17 p.m.

    Hi Ed,
    I think he means that with the unlimited inventory there is a race to the bottom of the pricing chain because that unlimited inventory cannot be adequately monetized using the old TV model of spots and dots.

  3. Ed Papazian from Media Dynamics Inc, November 20, 2015 at 7:30 p.m.

    Thanks, Charlene. I'm not so sure about the low ball pricing for digital, at least not for video ads of the type I see branding advertisers buying. However, I guess that for digital ads in general, with programmatic buying, there may be a tendency towards cheaper CPMs.

Next story loading loading..