TV: Broadcast vs. Narrowcast

In all the discussions I have so far read on the conflict between broadcasting and narrowcasting in terms of television, each method has been defined by its examples: free-to-air television in the case of broadcasting and pay-per-viewing television in the case of narrowcasting. The argument mounted in most of these articles was that narrowcasting is becoming highly popular, thanks primarily to websites such as YouTube, but also due to the ever-growing efficient internet culture, encapsulated so clearly by the phrase: ‘I want it and I want it now’. Video on demand, as provided over the internet in narrowcasting form, allows users to access the content at will. This is also seen in conventional non-internet television narrowcasting in the form of pay-per-viewing television on pay-tv networks. I began to wonder, however, as to whether this system should be exclusively for pay-tv networks. Are there any reasons why free-to-air TV could not use a selective system, whereby individual viewers choose their desired programs but do not necessarily pay for it?

I immediately come to the problem of costing when I ponder the possibility of free-to-air selective viewing. The foremost and obvious difference between pay-tv and free-to-air is that the former generate their income from subscriptions and from actual viewers, whereas the latter’s income is generated by selling advertising time. Narrowcasting presents an interesting and potentially problematic issue with regards to advertising. Because viewers are not necessarily viewing at a particular time of day, advertisers cannot – as they would have been able to in broadcasting – select a time slot that would be most effective for advertising their product. In broadcast TV advertisers choose particular time slots to target a particular group of people who would be viewing at this time, such as late-night advertisements for SMS match-making companies, who target lonely men who watch TV at this time. These viewers are not defined by what they watch, rather by when they watch. In narrowcast TV the audience cannot be targeted in this way, and so advertisers may seek other methods, outside the realm of television. However, most viewers can be classified by what they watch, which could in turn allow advertisers to target even more specific groups. For instance, different shows may attract different demographics of viewers. The average viewer of Bert’s Family Feud may come from a lower socio-economic standing than the average viewer of 60 Minutes. In such a case, advertisers of high-cost products would prefer to advertise during 60 Minutes rather than during Bert’s Family Feud. In broadcast TV, advertisers could also take advantage of particular emotions felt at specific times. For example, in the 10 minutes or so leading up to a season finale or some other type of climactic program, there will be many viewers feeling a lot of tension and anticipation. They will be more alert than at other times of viewing, and will therefore be an attractive audience for advertisers. However, if this program were narrowcast then it is impossible to advertise in the same way.

Overall, a shift from broadcast to narrowcast television would result in less interest from advertisers as the effectiveness of tv advertising would dwindle. The loss of revenue in this way would need to be made up somewhere else, and the obvious avenue for this would be to charge viewers per program that they view. In such a way, it seems unlikely that we will see any kind of selective viewing on free-to-air television anytime soon.