A few years ago TV shows started coming out on DVD, which made it possible to watch a full season in a condensed fashion. DVRs and the Internet have made this type of consumption even more common. I think we may be getting to the point where this new behavior should start changing the way TV shows are being written and the way stories are told.
For me, appointment viewing exists only in the case of sports. When it comes to scripted, pre-recorded content I have become spoiled. I don’t want to wait a week between each episode. I prefer to wait for a season to end and then watch the episodes one after the other. There are lots of great shows and I have a long list of stuff I want to watch (recently finished Rome, currently watching The Wire and in my pipeline are The Tudors, Flight of the Concords, Breaking Bad and Mad Men), so I see no reason to wait anxiously for new episodes of a currently airing show.
I realize this is far from being a mainstream behavior, but I believe this is going to be the way most people will consume episodic content in the future. The issue is that today writers create artificial suspense before commercial breaks and at the end of each episode (to ensure viewers will tune in next week), and they also feel the need to remind the viewer of key plot themes (since it’s been a week and the viewer may have forgotten). When you watch a few episodes over a short period of time these “tricks” are clearly apparent and they hurt real story telling.
The on-demand experience should also put into question other axioms. For example, why stick with the format of 22/44 min long episodes? some plot lines could be longer and some shorter. A show could also be non-linear, letting the viewer follow different paths from different angles, putting new story telling tools in the hands of the writers.
In many ways taking TV shows made for traditional TV and putting them online is like the early days of TV itself, when the shows were essentially radio programs in front of a camera. Like TV was in the 1950′s the Internet is a new medium. It represents great opportunities for new formats to emerge. Probably in 5-10 years the most interesting shows will be made for the Internet, and they will be very different from what we see today on TV.
* the title of the blog post was inspired plagiarized from the off-broadway show I, Love You, You’re Perfect, Now Change
subscribe to blog
join boxee
boxee on twitter
I consume episodic television in the same way but wonder if the industry producing the content is capable of fitting that use case into its ratings system.
I have no idea what they currently do to account for DVRs or any other method of watching television that isn't eyeballs on the TV as new content airs.
I'm guessing they can't put that square peg in their round hole. Evidence? The networks have an attention span of a gnat when it comes to giving new shows a chance to find their audience.
New shows get about 3 episodes to be mega breakout blockbusters and if they aren't the buzz starts circulating about cancellation.
This seems to be true regardless of the quality of the show. I cant help but wonder if our viewing habits are contributing in a negative way to this, and will in the long run hinder the new types of formats you are talking about in this post.
DVRs are counted by Nielsen as C3 (assuming it was watched within 3 days from the original air date) http://blog.nielsen.com/nielsenwire/media_enterta…
I think that with the cost of production getting lower and the Internet as a test lab, major media companies could test new TV Show concepts without spending millions of dollars, just to figure out audiences are not interested.
Do you think that this will be ad supported like Hulu or that we will eventually be willing to pay for individual episodes? We can't forget that the old guard does things the way they do because their business model requires it. Also, as web content comes to the TV, people will expect to do things that are different than what they do on their PC and are different that just watching TV like they do on the web. How do you think people will interact with brand websites on the TV? Specifically, brands other than YouTube, FlickR, and other sites that basically only are made for sharing video or photos.
I do believe people will be willing to pay for episodic content, either individual episodes, season pass, or some sort of subscription.
It will probably also make sense for content owners to offer their shows (or parts of them) in an ad-supported model, essentially applying a freemium model.
Bringing the Internet to the TV also means that there will be interactivity. It will be different from the PC, since users have a different control device and a different mindset. Having said that, passive viewing will likely remain the primary method of consuming entertainment.
"[P]assive viewing will likely remain the primary method of consuming entertainment."
I'm not sure that's true. For folks my age (Generation Y), passive is just not the mode in which we're used to consuming. Growing up on video games and the Internet, interaction and immediate satisfaction are what we're used to receiving in the entertainment we purchase. That's why our demographic is more likely to buy a record online rather than in a store, less likely to go to a movie in a theatre than rent a DVD and the primary demographic contributor to a now $60 billion video game industry. For us, entertainment has always been something you drop a quarter in the slot and press start to play. I suspect that expectation only becomes stronger with the generations behind us.
You can see it resonate in the success of the products that bring immediate satisfaction and interactivity to previously passive entertainment experiences. Labels are releasing records day-and-date on Guitar Hero and Rock Band. Film studios are releasing AAA-quality console games day-and-date with their releases. And, to a smaller degree, reality competitions like American Idol and Dancing with the Stars, which are blockbusters in terms of television success, can owe at least some of their popularity to the interactive voting mechanics they employ to determine who stays and who goes. The community that has sprung up around the puzzles found in the series LOST are another example of an active viewing experience. I think if we examined the most popular content on television right now, a significant portion of the big winners require active participation of the audience in some way.
In the overall market for American disposable income, the labels, studios and production houses that are most successful provide interactive products on demand. Television may be the last place this paradigm shift is realized, but I think it is inevitable.
i am sure you're right about the level of interactivity being different between generations. guess i am biased by the limitation current input devices. iPhone or iPod Touch as a remote opens a whole new world of possibilities for engagement.
the greatest factor may be the type of content you're watching. i assume live TV and Sports lands itself to interactivity, while most movies may not.
I totally agree. I'm watching FlashForward each week but I'm not so forgetful as to need reminding each week about the things that have happened. I feel like I've seen and heard the same few scenes 10-15 times now and it's getting old.
I think the writers would be freed to actually write if they didn't have to repeat themselves so often. If the story is engaging I won't tune out, even if I feel like I've forgotten or missed something important, I'm sure I'll remember or pick it up as the season goes on. Or I'll just watch the whole series again on DVD (if it really is good enough).
As for paying for episodic content, I bought the first few episodes of Sanctuary (sanctuaryforall.com) when it was just a low budget web show. However, I don't think the price they charged was really worth it. If you add up the number of shows I used to watch on Sky for instance (a UK satellite TV network). and multiply it by the cost of an episode of Santuary, it would be more than the monthly subscription of Sky itself.
I'm all for paying for what I watch. The networks just need to make a la carte tv as cheap as it ought to be.
agreed. the content owners will need to figure out pricing, packaging and bundling in a way that makes sense for the user.
there are a few shows i'll be willing to pay for and want more from, and others which i'll never pay for, but will be willing to watch them in an ad-supported model in lower quality.
The internet is so powerful that's now taking over TV and will continue to do so, until the internet is main source of media/entertainment. Satellite/Cable will not exist anymore and will be 100% internet based. Can't wait for the future!
Watch Gossip Girl Online
As far as plot devices and artificial suspense go, hasn't anyone noticed by now that anything interesting that happens in the 24 universe happens at 58 minutes past the hour, so that everyone has time to react in splitscreen to it?
Then next week you get 57 minutes of the hour taken up by people reacting to the previous episode's 58-minute-mark-event.
I still love it, though
http://www.coachoutletstoreonlineh.com