What exactly IS television?

Why ask the question? Very good point, but in our world it seems to be an issue dividing the major broadcasters & independent channels & producers like ourselves. Traditional style broadcasters like to think of channels like us as something supplementary, not ‘proper’ television.

In September, Michael Grade accused Google & You Tube of being “parasites”, because they weren’t spending money on creating content themselves but were feeding off of programmes made by, or for, broadcasters. His accusation seems to substantiate this view - that traditional broadcasters see (or at least are trying to brand) their new internet competition as something other than real television.

Mainstream broadcasters still rule the television world through monolithic power, although that power is shifting. The vast majority of people still watch programmes on a television set & most still rely on the main terrestrial channels available on, say, Freeview. However the runaway success of the BBC’s iPlayer confirms that internet delivery of programmes is not only viable but actually suits some viewers’ habits better than the traditional rolling schedule of mainstream TV.

Perhaps a little history is called for here: When we were sold the concept of digital TV, we were promised a golden era of viewer control & interactivity. Digital TV was supposed to place in the hands of viewers the power to decide what they wanted to watch & when.

In reality, this was just a hollow promise. We do get a glimpse of the potential of digital TV when there are major events such as the Olympics - the red button providing both choice & catch up services – but these occurrences are few & far between.

The fact is that traditional TV has changed little, simply providing a rolling schedule of programmes that you can either watch, record or miss. If you miss the programme, you have to either scour the listings to see if it will be repeated or catch it for a limited time on the internet, which perhaps reveals the problem for mainstream broadcasters in the new era of internet TV.

If viewers are so dependent upon video recorders (of various types) or the internet to get the full promise of the new TV age, why do they need a traditional TV set? Why not just watch what they want online, when they want to? This is exactly what some viewers are doing with BBC content. They aren’t bothering to watch programmes when the BBC schedules them, instead they look at what’s currently available in the iPlayer & watch when it suits them.

The problem this causes major broadcasters is that the internet places them on a level playing field with small independent producers - something the prohibitively costly terrestrial or satellite platforms have hitherto prevented. In this situation the audience not only has real programme choice but they also have alternatives to the blunt instrument that is the TV schedule.

Since the beginning of television, broadcasters have competed with each other on the basis of their schedule. There is even a science of TV scheduling – what you place next to what, in order to retain an audience at a particular time of the day or night. Programmes are still scheduled in this way but why does the audience even need a schedule in this modern age? The answer is they don’t but the traditional broadcasters are so tied in to their schedule dominated model that they are unable to radically adapt to the new landscape.

So, to return to the original point about the definition of television: Are programmes viewed online then NOT television? If you watch a programme in the iPlayer, are you not watching television? Is satellite television then not television because it differs from the original terrestrial broadcast method?

Of course not! Television is: the making available of programmes for an audience to watch in their homes, no matter how the programmes arrive there. In this respect the internet & channels available exclusively on it are just as much television as those available on analogue, digital or satellite. In the same way, internet channels that don’t provide a rolling schedule that replicates the mainstream experience are no less television channels than say the BBC or Sky. It is not about how the programmes are provided but the provision of programmes in the first place.

But that’s not how the broadcast industry would like you to see things. The internet generally is a big threat to traditional television & internet channels tend to appeal to those who already spend time online rather than watching television. So, the broadcast industry would like you to look upon internet only channels as Video on Demand or video websites, as that way they can differentiate themselves & claim that you will not get the same experience.

Of course this is all just about names & definitions, but the reality is that viewers are choosing You Tube over mainstream TV because they are finding what they want. They ARE watching television, they are just using a different delivery format. They are watching TV in the way THEY want, rather than the way traditional broadcasters want them to.

Power to the people!


Roger Burlinson
Director of Programming - Outdoors TV