I posted a couple of months ago about how the Internet was changing the way people source and consume media, and one of the arguments that I advanced then was that there was a process of (technological) natural selection at work; hence the name, Darwinism. And I concluded the argument with the following question, which at the time was rhetorical but has now been conveniently answered:
How long do you think it will be before everybody (or at least those people with access to broadband) just give up on the old model entirely?
The answer –or at least a pretty compelling indicator– has been provided by this recently published survey of people’s attitudes to TV and the Internet.
Don Tapscott, one of the people behind the Government 2.0 blog and wiki, surveyed 7,600 young people between the ages of 16 – 29 in 12 countries and found that:
77% of today’s online youth would sooner live without television than live without the Internet. China has the most devoted young Internet users, with 87% choosing the Internet compared to 13% favoring television. In the United States the figures were 77% for the Internet and 23% for TV.
Tapscott puts these findings down to the fact that television is unidirectional and passive, and doesn’t allow meaningful participation by the viewer
, and I would agree with him. I would suggest, however, that it is also a reflection of the fact that the Internet has already superseded television. Why would you expect youth to choose an obsolete technology? In most instances (Vista being one exception that readily springs to mind) almost everyone prefers 2.0 over 1.0.
The video shift
At the end of 2006, Peer-to-Peer traffic was 60% (and rising) of all Internet traffic, the majority of this being video.
A more recent study, in June this year, points to HTTP traffic having clawed it’s way back to the top spot, a move attributed to the phenomenal popularity of YouTube.
What, you are wondering, is the point? All this traffic, this content, is what people would otherwise be forced to watch on their TV, when it suited the networks.
Of course, they would prefer to give up Television over the Internet. Take an example close to home. You read about the Flight of the Conchords premiering on HBO in your local paper, follow the reviews as they begin to appear online. Now, do you wait the 6/12/18 months before it is shown locally? Or do you find a torrent and download it and watch it when it suits you?
The end
The Internet won’t kill television. Television (the channel) will just quietly atrophy while television (the industry) works harder and harder to develop content (and advertising) for people who will access it on their terms.
And if you are wondering who Flight of the Conchords are, check out this clip:
Photo: ark.









5 Comments
pushTV is dead. there is absolutely no reason to sit through days of mindless, endless dross just to get to the three or four decent shows on thetube.
“the thick of it” is remarkably easy to download for example. or so i hear.
Even on cable that is a stretch…
“push TV” generated $660m in advertising revenue in NZ last year (down 4%* from 2005). The web generated $60m (Up 48%** from 2005).
These figures are from the Advertising Standards Authority.
Broadcast television in New Zealand is not dead yet.
*Quiet atrophy
**Nearly 50% year on year growth!
okay, okay.. it’s not dead yet.
doesn’t mean we can’t poke it with a stick tho.
Sam: good points (and always helpful to bolster them with solid numbers). However, and I am guessing that advertisers would be acutely aware of this, if the channel isn’t dying, the audience is (demographically speaking). The boomers won’t be around forever to prop up network TV…
I don’t think that we can just look at NZ revenues – do you restrict your surfing and online activities to .nz? Just take a look at Google’s revenues and you can see where this is heading.