This article, entitled “TV isn't broken, so why fix it?” (link) appeared on CNN this past week. I have to say, I fundamentally disagree with almost everything about it.
The primary idea that I have an issue with is that because TV (and are we talking about the device or the delivery format?) isn’t completely without utility or appeal, no one should be trying to improve it. What if Kennedy had looked at the moon and said, “Hey, no one has ever been up there, so why should we go?”
Seriously though, I find it hard to believe that a guy writing a ‘Business Insider’ piece for CNN’s Technology segment could be so opposed to progress and innovation. The companies he takes shots at for trying to improve the consumer experience with their televisions? Apple, Google, and Microsoft. Those are some pretty good track records when it comes to developing new and popular ways to interact with technology, and I would imagine that one of them could very well strike upon the key to the next stage in TV evolution.
In criticizing their past attempts to innovate in the space is his second majorly flawed position (after “maintain the status quo”), which is basically, “if these companies have failed to achieve this breakthrough in the past, they should just quit trying.” Really? Once again, this doesn’t feel like someone who should be writing about business or technology.
Then the piece meanders for a bit while the author goes back and forth between talking about TVs as a piece of technology and TV as a service provided by cable companies without recognizing the distinction, followed by some unsubstantiated assumptions about TV consumers and some weak anecdotal or hunch-based evidence.
“But I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that most TV viewers simply won't care enough about any of this stuff to shell out $1,500 for a new Apple TV, or spend a few hundred bucks and countless hours fiddling around adding a new box to their TV set and figuring out how it works.”
Oh yeah? Those being the same people who waited in long lines to pay $400 for a slightly newer version of a cell phone they already had? Why am I picturing the guy who wrote this as an 80-year old man whose grandkids have to constantly set his VCR clock?
“But normal people don't think about TV that way. TV is passive. The last thing we want to do is work at it.”
What defines “normal people?” How do you know what they think about TV? More importantly, what have you seen in the last few years that doesn’t suggest that people are looking for more control, more personalization, and more interactivity?
Perhaps the biggest fallacy at all is that TV hasn’t already been revolutionized several times in recent memory. To him the massive old box upon which he enjoyed black and white westerns as a child is somehow closely related to the HD plasma flat-screen which is currently streaming Netflix via an HDMI connection from my laptop. A year or two ago I was setting recordings weeks in advance so that I could watch my favorite shows after I returned from vacation, and skip the commercials while I was at it. I no longer adjust the rabbit ears when my picture is blurry, and the channel options went from 14 to 1,400 in my lifetime.
“That's why we love TV just the way it is. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.”
If people had said that 20 years ago, I would consider TV extremely broken. Speaking as a marketer, I do actually find a lot of problems with television, but even as a viewer I would be happy to see change. As it is, there is much room for improvement, and while lack of imagination may be something that the author suffers from, I’m glad that there are people in the industry who don’t share that narrow-mindedness.
As soon as I calm down enough to climb off this soapbox, I will submit my resume to CNN. It seems like they are in desperate need of some technology writers.
