Team Eulogy! recently welcomed Kieron Matthews from the IAB for one of our regular ‘Learn & Burn’ sessions. As well as talking about the IAB’s work and giving his view on the general media landscape, Kieron instigated something of a discussion when he casually asked who preferred Sky Digital to Virgin Media.
I found myself in the minority when proclaiming that Freeview was my preferred choice. Ignoring the gasps and cries of ‘Luddite’ which followed I went on to make the point that, to me, paid-for digital TV services simply deliver too much choice.
This got me wondering whether the changing, digitised media landscape is such a good thing.
The assumption is that consumers want more choice; but whether this is true or not, the provision of more choice brings its own consequences. In the television industry the traditional ad-funded model is failing, or at least stalling, because of dropping revenue, audience fragmentation, the need to expand output in the face of reduced budgets, and competition from the internet. As a result consumers do have greater choice but quality is undoubtedly beginning to suffer.
But aside from this there is an even greater issue. What will these changes mean to the thousands of people who are currently employed in television production?
The term Luddite comes from a period in British history when the Industrial Revolution threatened the livelihoods of everyday people. Even the most ardent supporter of the new digital age and the myriad choices it brings can’t deny the similarities between the plight of those eighteenth century textile workers and the uncertain future of many in the media today.
