The (not so) Great TV Debate

As promised, here is the stu take on the ninetyandnine.com question of TV in our organization. I'll morph into each group, one at a time so as not to confuse anyone, and answer the way I would answer were I addressing that particular group. So first is...

Reluctant Progressives

1. When television and the internet become more fully integrated, how will the UPCI deal with this technological reality if something like TV advertising is not adopted now?

Moi: So here I sit as a reluctant progressive, or should I say, the lukewarm group, and according to scripture, the vomitus. To answer question #1, my focus is on the concept of advertising. When TV and internet fuse in the future as one, the consumer will be able to pick-and-choose which programs to watch and will pay a small fee for the service. There will be advertising scattered about during the show, evident by the mini-mercials I must endure now when watching a brief web video or music video.

Vous: As a reminder to you, the proper name for TV is commercial television, the full meaning of which implies that the show is sponsored by the shine. We immediately get ourselves into hot water if we intend to sponsor TV shows, and to remain neutral, and could perhaps offer to sponsor the Emergency Broadcast Signal, BEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEP with rainbow screen. Else, we could broadcast on the Shopping Channel(s) and provide a tool-free number for patrons to receive a free book or something.

Home spun? Advertising was replaced by the concept of marketing a decade or so back, and to blindly launch into TV advertising without a marketing plan and study is to invite failure. Which leads me back to the concept that TV is commercial, it is big business, it is researched, evaluated, and launched only after professionals with degrees have tested it on select study markets. Otherwise, what you get is a haphazard local 30 second piece on Maybell's Diner, featuring grinning, masticating folks stating, on camera, "Mmm-mmm gotta get me some Maybell's!"

For the Short-Attention-Span: The beauty of the internet, as evidenced by the explosive popularity of youtube, is that anyone can broadcast whatever. This is what both frightens and relieves network executives at the same time about fusing networks with the internet: programming will become cheaper to the consumer, while becoming at the same time more ridiculous. They're seeing that what was once a mystery for finding and keeping audiences to watch their new fall prime time selections is no longer that, the answer being that the American fun threshold has been lowered to a new low, that is, the bottom, when considering that folks are watching as many hours (or more) of grainy youtube movies of a guy grinding his skateboard down a handrail until (whoops!) he lands on his personal region, as they are CSI.

I conclude: So, this same understanding by network executives can be translated to our organization, when trying to find our place in the future of TV joining hands with television: If you film it, they will watch. Armed with immediate-gratification mouse, the American public happily clicks on and off in an instant whatever entertains them for whatever brief (president's speech) or long (lonelygirl15) viewing they desire. The trick is to discover what holds the attention of the average American mouse clicker. He who learns that secret rules the TV/internet-fused world.