The digital revolution has caused chaos in the newspaper world. Now, it threatens to do the same to the television industry. Experts chime in on what the future of television is, the obstacles they are currently facing, and what the industry can do to adapt.
Salli Frattini, Executive Producer/Founder of Sunset Lane Entertainment and first female Executive Producer of a Super Bowl Half-Time Show (2001 CBS/NFL's Super Bowl XXXV), talks about the future of television. Frattini explains how the Internet has changed TV and offers multimedia tips and advice for aspiring digital storytellers.
George Ou, former technical director for ZDNet.com, senior analyst for ITIF.org and current policy director for DigitalSociety.org, discusses the future of TV. Ou comments on the digital tsunami hitting the television industry and explains why services like "TV Everywhere" are gaining popularity.
OurBlook interview with Alec Marshall, vice president of marketing for Peel
When you launched the iTunes store, did anyone on your team forsee the changes that are currently taking place? Do you think that some of the recent developments have taken even the best experts by surprise?
AM: When we were working on the store, speaking personally and for those who surrounded me, we were completely focused on music. We were, as Steve (Jobs) said, music fans at heart, and we truly believed we had a better way to get more legitimate music into the ears of fans like us. As the store grew and the landscape of music sales changed, it became really clear that we were doing something completely disruptive–suddenly the pathways between producers and consumers were getting really short, and the barriers to enter a real-live content marketplace or distribution channels were really small. I think the proliferation of independent content (both in the music and podcast spaces), the smashing of paradigms around content bundling (albums, channels, series, etc.), and the advent of micro-payments as an e-commerce system paved the way for the ways that TV is changing. Suddenly, we as consumers are comfortable with buying content rather than media, with paying-to-play as a mode of accessing that content, and doing it all from our computers.
The experts were clearly caught by surprise–just look around. Where's your closest record store? How about the corner video store? Those industries are completely and irrevocably changed, from small retailers to major chains. Now that compression–again the changing pathway from producer to consumer–is affecting other members of the chain. Content distributors are feeling it, content producers are exploring it, and the end of the chain, the consumer, has a new proliferation of sources that is at once liberating and intimidating. No longer is it about what's on–suddenly, it's 'What do I want to watch?'. That's huge, and when it really hits, it's going to hit the whole spectrum smack on the head. Fortunately, I think they're finally watching.
More and more people are watching television online through sites like Hulu, and tools like ITunes?. What impact, if any, does this have on TV programming generally?
AM: Actually, I think watching online (on a computer or mobile device) is a remnant of the conversion process. Originally, there was a sacrifice to watching online: bandwidth limits resolution, so as viewers, we traded choice and flexibility in programming for the quality of the viewing experience. Some, mostly young people, are still watching alternative sources on alternative devices, like iTunes and Hulu on computers and mobile devices. The majority of people, though, are still watching TV–different kinds of TV, like time-shifted, place-shifted, on-demand, alternative networks, and I could go on–but it's still TV. They're on the couch, looking at larger screens than ever, watching what's at hand. Hulu and iTunes in that spectrum become partners in a new model of set-top delivery, streaming from devices that look remarkably like cable boxes delivering shows from distributors that look remarkably like networks or TV stations. We're tuning in at the rate of 5% increased audience per month, but we're not letting go of our other sources with anywhere near that celerity.
A slight adjustment to programming that I see coming is similar to what we saw in music. With the shortening of distribution pathways and the economies of digital production being so small, there's greater access to independent and short form shows. I believe that as passive viewing formats for these shows proliferate, mainstream shows will face additional ratings competition. However, it doesn't mean that the networks are in trouble at all–it just means that there are more opportunities for broader crowds of creators to become part of a global mindshare.
Take Mad Men, for instance. There's no way that would have been picked up, or even gone anywhere, had it been on NBC Sunday nights. However, AMC had broader programming opportunities and lower baseline costs, so distributing through there was pure opportunity. As it grew, alternative delivery systems, like DVD, iTunes and others, allowed more mainstream audiences to catch up and tie in with the story line, and live viewing audiences grew in double or triple digit percentages season over season. The creators of this independent show had a winner, audiences were treated to great new independent programming, but did the networks lose? No: AMC became a part of mainstream discussion, and let's not forget that they're owned by NBC and Cablevision.
With the shortened distribution pathways, there will be many more of these successes–watch out for Funny or Die, Sony Independent programming flying off Crackle, and talk shows from Current and Revision 3 becoming a part of the water cooler conversation before long. Live TV isn't going anywhere–sports, news, events, and un-scripted programming are simply too popular to disappear. They might move, proliferate, and diversify just like scripted programming has, but they have more opportunity to maintain their economies of scale.
The big difference, though, is the way programming is chosen and experienced, rather than the way it's delivered. When viewers have unlimited choice, they need help, and the interfaces that are out there aren't very suggestive based on viewer preferences; rather, the content distributors, like iTunes, Netflix, and Hulu have replaced networks, tending to predict and highlight what they believe will be popular (or, worse, hiding content to manage their fulfillment capabilities). It's our position at Peel that consumers win when they're exposed to the viewing choices that they'll love, and the creators of that content win with greater viewing opportunities. Delivering that new passive viewing experience takes an interface more like linear TV and less like computers. Fortunately, that's not only possible but imminent.
A lot of news shows and channels now are enlisting viewer participation through submission of video feeds. Your thoughts on citizen journalism for TV?
AM: Citizen journalism definitely has a place. Eyes and cameras are everywhere, and anyone who's ever slowed to pass an accident knows that action intrigues us. I think it's the changing role of journalists to be able to step back and analyze information, presenting an informed view to users who want to know more about what's happening. It'll be great when it completes, but right now, unfortunately, it's just shaky views of fires that normally wouldn't even make TV bumping out news that might be more important to the daily lives of our citizenry. If we can move to places where more videos and on-the-scene laypeople become the attraction that bring us to more thoughtful analysis of how events affect us, the best journalists and the viewing audiences both win. Then, we'll experience news because it's interesting, and we'll walk away with a more informed perspective.
What do you see as the future for the once-dominant Big Three network news operations ... NBC, CBS, ABC? Will they be going through the same painful transition newspapers are? Is it good or bad for America that while still influential, they have been losing viewers?
AM: Ultimately, it's good for viewing audiences that the networks are being forced to transition. Like I said, they're not going to go anywhere–all the major networks and most of the smaller ones are parts of huge global companies, and their revenues dwarf small countries. However, programming directors no longer weigh in only against each other, and viewing times for any kind of scripted media are almost irrelevant. What that does is good for all of us: viewing options are greater, advertising opportunities are broader and inefficiencies in the industry are in trouble, creative opportunities are greater for larger numbers of producers, diversity is greater, and old giants are forced to re-orient. The networks had 40 years to innovate, and they barely changed at all. In the past 5 years, though, because of changes to distribution and delivery, they've moved like startups into all sorts of new creative arenas. It's exciting, and the opportunities are exponentially greater in the space than they've ever been.
What do you see as the future for local TV news programs?
AM: I see it going to the Internet, but like I mentioned about citizen journalism, there will always be a place for informed analysis as pitted against raw viewing interest. Local isn't removed from that, but I do question the ability of a lot of the long-time producers in the arena to be able to jump into digital distribution models very easily. They've sat still for too long, and the only place I'm seeing innovation in the space is in sports, which has huge opportunities here once the models are figured out. They need to realize that the less structured formats, the broader distribution, and lower production costs are opportunities rather than challenges from new competition. Creating news that entertains while informing should be their core goals rather than catching eyes with gimmicks and selling out cheap. Look at the success of the Daily Show: millions tuned in because it was entertaining, but now significant numbers cite it as a major informational influence. The Daily Show started with low production costs, limited distribution, and a non-traditional format that recognized multiple media platforms as pure opportunity. Local news has that same exact opportunity, and they're almost completely missing the boat.
With the rise of iPhones and iPads, what do you predict is the future of entertainment consumption?
AM: I see main screen entertainment on alternative devices (i.e., watching a movie on an iPad) as a marginal activity. Not that it doesn't happen, but I don't see mass market audiences watching American Idol every night on their phone, and movie watching on them definitely hasn't taken off. Using those devices as a main video screen is really best suited for mixed media or short form news and entertainment. I think TVs will get smarter, and these second screens will augment content rather than supplant it. Currently 90% of iPad owners use them daily in front of or near a TV. Only 5% of them take their iPads with them everywhere they go each day. That means that the device, while mobile, isn't breaking the living room anchor. Instead, using the knowledge that there's a divided attention in the media space opens creative, advertising, and programming opportunities that have never existed before.
Anything else you would like to add?
AM: How about a shameless plug? We at Peel took a long hard look at TV, and saw things we love and things where there's room for change. The first place it needs to change is that in the great expansion that has happened over the past few years, simplicity went out the window. User interfaces in the TV space that are a pleasure to use can be counted on a single hand, and even those don't play well with others. We've taken our expertise in user interface models, in TV programming, in alternative devices, and in cloud software services, and we've aimed them at a place where people spend hours of leisure time each day. Our goal was to make TV more friendly - simpler, easier to control, more fun to share. We've begun with discovery, and our first release is now available on the iTunes App Store (Peel). We're not stopping there, and in fact, we're not stopping until this vision is complete: programming you want without a bunch of superfluous confusion, appearing where you want them, when you want them, shared among friends, regardless of the source choices you've made or viewing platform you're using, all done with the same sense of magic that was felt when moving pictures first began streaming into living rooms. Lofty, yes, but not more than a couple years away.
(Alec Marshall led interactive and social marketing for the education division at Apple. He led the social and content teams for Adobe consumer software then moved to Avid where he directed consumer marketing for their audio and video brands. Finally, Marshall went to Roku, where he became the director of marketing for brands including Netflix, Hulu, Amazon Video On Demand, as well as a number of independent content developers. Currently, Alec Marshall is the vice president of marketing for Peel, which is creating new applications for show discover.)
OurBlook interview with Lisa Weaver, former CNN International correspondent
What do you see as the future for the once-dominant Big Three network news operations ... NBC, CBS, ABC? Will they be going through the same painful transition newspapers are? Is it good or bad for America that while still influential, they have been losing viewers?
LW: I think the Big Three will move more into magazine style or long form television journalism ... or infotainment. News coverage may be outsourced to entities so that the nets are relieved of that cost and investment. For instance, there have been talks for years of CBS News striking a deal with CNN to provide some sort of news coverage package for CBS air. I don't know how conclusive these talks are at this point. My evidence for this is based on conversations with CBS employees during the 2008 Olympic Games coverage in Beijing, during which time I was freelancing for CBS News. But as a trend, it would make a lot of sense for the networks to leave daily and international news coverage up to companies that are properly staffed to do that, instead focusing the on air talent and production resources to long form television. Network TV still delivers a production quality that few others ... including CNN ... can rival. The nets will lose viewers, and in that sense become relevant to more of a niche audience. This is happening to news media across the board. Commanding a majority audience is no longer a realistic goal for any one company, so in that sense the influence of the Big Three will inevitably shift. Hopefully they will continue to pursue an older demographic that has a taste for the conventional news form and investigative journalism.
What do you see as the future for CNN?
LW: Well, this is a big question, and I think it differs slightly depending on whether you're talking about CNN domestic or CNN International. CNN domestic will likely continue to creep toward "edge" and television personalities, in order to keep up with the brash polarization common to most cable news services. Underneath the loudness and self promotion, there is still a great news organization in terms of people and resources. Unlike the Big Three, which know they've lost the audience game, CNN is still trying hard to keep up and surpass Fox (I don't know the latest audience figures), MSNBC, etc. Then for the young demographic CNN is after, I think you will see continued push to get content out on cell phones, RSS feeds, even social media like Facebook and Twitter. A social media expert who recently spoke to class at the University of Iowa mentioned he had been given a tour of CNN, and saw producers in the control booth following Twitter and prompting the show hosts to talk about the tweets. I think the end result of all of this is a faster, more relentless news cycle with less introspection and analysis.
I have to admit a bias for CNN International. I worked for CNNI for 4 years, in that most of my television pieces were geared for that audience. I just think it's more intelligent than CNN domestic, by which I mean the tone and scope of the coverage. There are plenty of very bright, committed people working for both services. I'm going to guess that in a sense, CNNI's future is more secure in that it doesn't have to constantly keep up with anything other than BBC World which is the only other service that really competes at that level. A lot of the developing world still watches television as opposed to iphones. Over the years I've noticed a significant increase in the demand on CNNI for business related news; both London and Hong Kong, CNNI's main production hubs, host business shows. As globalization and inter dependence increases, so will demand for this type of news.
What do you see as the future for Fox News?
LW: Again, to state my personal bias, I worked for Fox for a year and left on my own initiative ... I wasn't fired. I worked for the short-lived Hong Kong bureau in 1997 and 1998, which was essentially established as a way for NewsCorp to cozy up to the Chinese leadership. It wasn't about news, which was a problem for me.
Fox has developed since then into a much more competent news gathering organization, and I've encountered Fox reporters in the field who did not seem to reflect the staunch, smug conservative tone that the network exudes. However, it is what it is, which in my analysis appeals to the sort of anti-intellectual populism that is at a particular high right now in the United States. Looking at Fox and conservative talk radio and certain blogs together as a piece, it makes sense to me that there will be a future for Fox. And in fact even more so, in that Fox doesn't really have to shoulder the costs of serious international news coverage because they don't do very much of it. Most of the news coverage is domestic, and in the form of live shots ... as opposed to produced taped reports, or packages. It's not news production so much as talking heads, and there's a place for that.
What do you see as the future for specialty news programs such as "60 Minutes" or "48 Hours?"
LW: I think these will continue. One sign of this is the fact that Dan Rather and Ted Koppel have both branched off into news magazine formats. Even Christiane Amanpour of CNN is seen pretty rarely on breaking news these days ... she has her own show. The big names in on-camera reporting seem to recognize that long form is where it's at, and of course they have the clout to command the resources necessary to do it well. Talking specifically about "60 Minutes," I've noticed over the years that fewer of the segments are serious. Infotainment has creeped in. And my rough recollection is that "48 Hours" was never all that serious in the first place. So even in long form, what sells to a domestic audience in particular are stories ... human stories with some sort of news value ... but not news in the hard investigative sense so much.
What do you see as the future for local TV news programs?
LW: I think local TV is actually quite relevant for a lot of people, and it isn't going anywhere. It does struggle with cutbacks in the newsroom and fewer people doing more things. Without doing research on the question, my guess is the demographic for regularly viewing local TV on a television set is older. To get younger people, it has to get content onto websites and mobile devices and I'm not sure to what extent that is really happening. I would add that local TV is often a part of local media groups ... pooling video, text, etc. from local TV stations and newspapers (or online news websites) into one local "mega" news company. This type of convergence is one way to deal with newsgathering with fewer people, as well as attract advertisers.
Have there been any major changes in recent years at your university in how TV journalism is taught?
LW: Well, I'm very new to the University of Iowa, having been there for one year, so I don't have much of a comparison to the past. But I think for years it's been a very hands-on approach to teaching, so that students learn to produce television in all its forms ... taped packages or reports to in-studio anchors. We're all certainly aware of the need to teach TV for the web, and to make sure students learn both editorial and production skills.
More and more people are watching television online through Hulu. What impact, if any, does this have on TV news or TV programming generally?
LW: Basically it means conventional TV news has to pay attention and think of ways to get itself on outlets like Hulu and Youtube. I found it interesting when Viacom was trying to sue Google (owner of Youtube) some years back for copyright infringement when Viacom content ended up on Youtube. Other media conglomerates, by contrast, chose to see this as an opportunity and made deals to get their content onto Youtube (the BBC comes to mind). What that means is that TV news services are trying to follow the audience to where it views content ... shifting the concept of dedicated "channels" and copyright or intellectual property along the way. So that's the effect .... producing content that can appear on the original "channel" as well as anywhere else.
What do you think of the fact that some Americans say they get their TV "news" from watching Jon Stewart?
LW: I think it reflects a certain disdain and distrust for the presumed objectivity of conventional news and the institutions that produce it. PEW and other polls have been tracking public opinion about news media for the last couple of decades, and have found that since the late 1980s the public trusts the news media less and less. Talk radio, Fox News, MSNBC put the opinion right out there rather loudly because they think the audience will trust a source that admits its bias. Apparently it's OK to be biased, so long as the politics jive with that of the viewer. The audience isn't challenged so much as validated. My point here that Jon Stewart has recognized what all the news organizations have .... he just takes it several steps further.
On a more personal level in terms of what I think, I think it's sad and I don't get it. I don't understand why people perceive journalists' and news organizations efforts to be objective as a cover for an agenda. I think most Americans have little appreciation for what the First Amendment really affords us a society, and they have no idea how hard doing good journalism is.
I like Jon Stewart's show, it definitely has a place, and he is often quite serious and gets beyond his own persona to get to the issues. My point is it should not be a question of "either, or" and hopefully the audience will also appreciate mainstream news.
A lot of news shows and channels now are enlisting viewer participation through submission of video feeds. Your thoughts on citizen journalism for TV?
LW: Frankly, there's a difference between uploading video of a tornado on CNN's "I report" or whatever it's called, and the sort of well-shot, well-edited television report that defines good television journalism. Citizen content should be used as raw material that is edited into something longer, or otherwise contextualized. It is not a substitute for a news organization.
We have a sports news channel in ESPN, an entertainment news channel in E, a couple business news channels, a weather news channel in the Weather Channel, and so on. Do you think there will be more proliferation in the future on cable?
LW: Yes, niche programming is a trend that I think will continue because the costs of delivering content on cable and Internet are low enough that the audience can be small.
(Lisa Weaver is a lecturer in the School of Journalism and Mass Communication at the University of Iowa. Her background includes years living and working as a journalist in China, Hong Kong and Indonesia. While working for CNN International’s Beijing Bureau, she was assigned twice to Afghanistan to cover the war there and once to Iraq as an embedded journalist during the 2003 invasion. She has bachelor's degrees in East Asian languages and literature (Chinese) and journalism from the University of Wisconsin and a master's degree in journalism from University of California-Berkeley.)
Ourblook interview with Judy Muller, journalism professor and former correspondent for ABC News and CBS News.
What do you see as the future for the once-dominant Big Three network news operations ... NBC, CBS, ABC? Will they be going through the same painful transition newspapers are? Is it good or bad for America that while still influential, they have been losing viewers?
JM: Your phrase “once-dominant” says it all. The commercial networks have been scrambling to hold onto audience for many years now, and since their business model has basically been one of selling advertising based on ratings (which are declining every year), they are in radical period of adjustment. The entertainment side has given more and more time to cheap productions (reality shows) in an attempt to cut costs. But the most radical change has affected the news divisions of all three ... ABC just laid off 400 news employees, CBS laid off a couple hundred, and NBC is likely to follow suit, but not to such a radical extent because they were very smart and got into the cable business many years ago (MSNBC). These cutbacks have been a blow in terms of news coverage, especially when it comes to foreign news. Most networks have closed all but one or two foreign bureaus ... and Americans will be the poorer for not knowing more about what’s happening around the world. That said, the three major network new programs still command an audience in the millions ... and that’s nothing to sneeze at. I think they will survive, but they will never regain their dominant position in the media world.
What do you see as the future for CNN?
JM: CNN has been struggling lately against its competitors on cable ... MSNBC and Fox ... and that’s primarily because the audiences have been prone to tune into shows that support their biases (Fox for conservatives, MSNBC for liberals). CNN always shines during major breaking news stories because they cover the story (i.e. Haiti) like a blanket, 24-7. So I believe CNN will hold its loyal audience, as well as those who turn to it at times of national disaster, etc.
What do you see as the future for Fox News?
JM: As I said in the previous answer, Fox has carved out a niche as the cable network to turn to if you want your conservative values bolstered (I am talking here about the “talk shows,” not the straight-ahead news reporting, which is often quite balanced and professional). In financial terms, I would think Fox is in a very good situation. I only hope that alternatives thrive as well, so that the audience will always have a choice. One of my greatest passions is to help establish news literacy education in schools so that the audiences of the future will be able to apply critical thinking skills when evaluating the information they are getting from all these diverse sources.
What do you see as the future for specialty news programs such as "60 Minutes" or "48 Hours?"
JM: Both of those shows have demonstrated an ability to keep a healthy audience through compelling narrative technique and expert investigative reporting, despite the fact that so many of the reporters are older than 55. Some are in their 80s! This is a huge testament to the public’s hunger for substantive journalism and should encourage broadcasters to continue this tradition. But this kind of journalism is expensive, so we may see more collaboration in the future. Even "60 Minutes" has joined forces on a few stories with the investigative website ProPublica.com ... which is funded by philanthropy.
What do you see as the future for local TV news programs?
JM: A great many Americans get their news from local television, even though the quality of the journalism on many local news programs is poor. At the same time, a few continue to set an excellent example, even freeing up an investigative reporter or two for in-depth coverage of their local communities. What IS changing is the practice of paying enormous salaries to anchors at major stations around the country. With the audience more fragmented than ever, with people getting more and more news from the Internet, local stations are beginning to see that their websites are ultimately more important than their evening newscasts ... and you don’t need expensive anchors for that.
Have there been any major changes in recent years at your university in how TV journalism is taught?
JM: Journalism schools at EVERY university have been affected by the digital revolution that has turned old practices upside down. Annenberg has tried to remain in the forefront of that revolution and ... to the extent that’s possible during a radical transformation of a profession ... I believe we are succeeding in that effort. Speaking just for broadcast journalism, I can say that our graduates are considered as very desirable hires by radio and TV stations all over the country. That’s because we train them as multi-platform journalists ... they can shoot their own video, they can edit their own audio and video, they can write print and web copy, and they can move back and forth between the various platforms with relative ease. Our television and radio students often break stories on our websites before they ever get on the air the old-fashioned way. We are also adding instruction on entrepreneurial journalism ... something the independent journalists of the future will need to know. In the old days, a young reporter tried to land a job at a small newspaper or station and work his or her way up the ladder to a major daily or a network.With that landscape in disarray, younger journalists are becoming much more independent, sometimes creating news websites of their own. The best of those, the most credible, will survive.
What do you think of the fact that some Americans say they get their TV "news" from watching Jon Stewart?
JM: First, I don’t believe that many of those people ONLY get their “news” from Jon Stewart. When my students tell me how much they like "The Daily Show," I cheer them on ... you can’t understand satire unless you are fairly well-informed on the content that is being satirized! And here’s an uncomfortable truth: Stewart often “commits” real journalism by holding public figures accountable for their hypocrisy ... something professional journalists should be doing more often!
A lot of news shows and channels now are enlisting viewer participation through submission of video feeds. Your thoughts on citizen journalism for TV?
JM: I celebrate the move towards more citizen interaction with news media. Often people on the ground, in local communities, know more than the so-called “gatekeepers” of the mainstream media. That said, it is incumbent on the professional journalists to double-source everything they air or relate ... and that is especially true when receiving video or reports of any kind from people who are not “vetted” by the newsroom. But these sources can also be invaluable!
We have a sports news channel in ESPN, an entertainment news channel in E, a couple business news channels, a weather news channel in the Weather Channel, and so on. Do you think there will be more proliferation in the future on cable?
JM: If there’s an audience, there will be someone offering it up. Personally, I’m looking forward to a Zen Channel. Guided meditation 24 hours a day!
Is there anything else you'd like to say about the future of television news?
JM: Ever since people emerged from the caves, figured out how to light a fire and gather around it, storytellers have held our attention. That’s not going to change, whether the “fire” we gather around is a TV, a website, a radio, an iTablet, or some other gadget that has yet to be invented. It’s an exciting time.
(Judy Muller is an associate professor of communication and journalism at the University of Southern California. A regular contributor to NPR's "Morning Edition," she also wrote a book about her experiences as a journalist titled "Now This -- Radio, Television and the Real World." With ABC News, as part of a "Nightline" team, she received an Emmy for her coverage of the O.J. Simpson case. With CBS News, she contributed to "CBS News Sunday Morning" and the "CBS Weekend News." In April 2010, she won a Peabody Award for her work on a KCET SoCal Connected story called "Up in Smoke" examining the proliferation of medical marijuana dispensaries in Los Angeles, and finding there are more of them in L.A. than Starbucks.)
When you launched the iTunes store, did anyone on your team forsee the changes that are currently taking place? Do you think that some of the recent developments have taken even the best experts by surprise?
OurBlook interview with Lisa Weaver, former CNN International correspondent