After MayPac, the Real Threat Periscope Poses to the TV Industry - Article Example

In the essay, "After #MayPac, the Real Threat Periscope Poses to the TV Industry," technology reporter Jon Healey discusses the new live-streaming app Periscope, and argues that it and other similar technologies pose a much larger threat than simply pirating content illegally. The article was written in direct response to the use of Periscope to stream illegal video footage of the boxing match between Floyd Mayweather Jr. and Manny Pacquaio. Throughout the essay, Healey makes a compelling evidence-based argument that the real danger new streaming technologies pose to traditional media companies is not piracy, but that they can create entirely new content which will steal away fans and leave them bored with traditional media. Healey backs this up by referencing changes in the past fifteen years to the way people consume media, such as how YouTube has led to the creation of new content outright with "original productions that took advantage of the platforms tools," and how TV networks have started to have a presence there. Healey also brings up the example of a golf journalist who used Periscope to stage impromptu live interviews with a golf star, which earned "extremely positive feedback" from the apps userbase. Healeys central point is that what apps like Periscope do is "remove the barrier to entry" for watching TV, and that they are also more interactive. They allow for new types of content, and they allow for users to find what they want and ignore traditional media. This suggests that the things people want to watch, and how they want to watch them, are only going to change more as this technology becomes more and more developed. While media companies like HBO would surely think that piracy of their existing content is the big threat to their existence as successful companies, Healey is right to point out that the real danger is a complete change in the way fans access and consume content, which will require TV networks to change their business model to stay competitive. Healeys first argument is that over the past decade and a half, "tech companies have repeatedly offered new ways to distribute content online." Healey points to Napster and YouTube in particular, and also notes that the very different amount of continued success they had related to their ability to do more than just pirate existing content. This can be seen from many other new technologies, as well. There are also a number of streaming music services like Pandora Internet Radio and Spotify, and Amazon has moved into the market of providing streaming media recently as well. Even the prominence of Amazon as a global online marketplace points to the way that the capability of the Internet has changed how people think about entertainment and distribution. It is clear that, compared to 2000 and before, cable television and other entertainment providers face a much different environment, with competitors that would not even have been possible in that time period. TV channels themselves seem to recognize this, as "major entertainment companies are competing for viewers on YouTube" as well as "snapping up the talent that the platform is incubating." It seems likely that this trend of new technologies changing how entertainment media is distributed and produced will continue, including for apps like Periscope. If a change in distribution was all new technologies meant, traditional media would not be in trouble. However, Healey points out that more is at stake by saying that, even though new technologies usually start out with an attempt to "imitate the things produced with old technology," this stage does not last long. This stage of mimicry is important for new technologies, as it proves to users that they can provide things those users will enjoy. It also serves as a way to get customers of those existing technologies to switch to the new ones. But the very act of using a new form of technology for entertainment changes how people think of entertainment, because different technologies have different capabilities. The example of Stephanie Wei and the PGA tour illustrates this very well. Wei used Periscope to "give fans an insiders view" of a practice tournament, as well as hosting an impromptu interview with a golf player. This content was not just pirated from a TV broadcast. Quite the opposite: it gave fans some entirely new content that was not accessible in any other place. Although Wei got in trouble for doing this, the PGA is now doing the same thing and "using Periscope for its own behind-the-scenes streams." Clearly, the new streaming technologies do create opportunities for creation of brand new content; more importantly, they allow for the creation of brand new types of content, which are much more interactive and interesting to todays viewers than traditional television. The final example Healey mentions to argue his point is that, these days, the people consuming media have been raised to do so "on devices much smaller and more portable than TV sets." These devices are numerous, with iPads and smart phones coming immediately to mind. Healey is entirely correct to state that the use of these devices to create and watch media completely changes how people even think of entertainment. The two examples he explicitly provides are that people in these generations tend to prefer watching "videos of people playing video games" and are more likely to be "searching Twitter" for live stream hash tags instead of looking at a TV guide. These are both very good points, and the argument from the TV companies that it is only about piracy seems to ignore the fact that a lot of the people who are accessing content this way probably would not be watching or even finding the content if it were not visible through the App and on Twitter—places they are already spending time. It is not a huge leap of the imagination to figure out that soon the people running live streams will be creating all new types of content based on what the people who spend a lot of time on Twitter want to see. It is this process that poses the biggest threat to TV companies. Healey quotes from an entertainment lawyer who says that this threat is that, these days, people are "not doing what is supported by traditional television," and are seeking out new places to get the type of entertainment that they want. Healeys argument that streaming media technologies like Periscope will serve as game changers is strong. By pointing out historical parallels with companies like YouTube, and historical differences with other companies like Napster—which did exist solely to allow piracy—he makes a compelling case that traditional TV channels and entertainment companies will need to change how they operate to properly compete with these newcomers. Although suing Periscope for allowing piracy might seem like a win for these companies, it is only likely to be a short term win. The reason for this, as the example of Stephanie Wei shows, is that customers really want very different things these days compared to what is possible on a traditional TV program. Ultimately, if companies do not change to meet this changed customer bases desires, they will lose those customers and possibly even their businesses to the new, internet-savvy streaming companies. It seems likely that, as Healey suggests, TV companies will become aware of this at some point, and will move to adapt their business models to account for new technologies. Read More