And never having watched a soap opera, apart from Home and Away while I was in school, I didn’t realise that product placement was so common place. Ignorance is bliss! Hopefully you’re right, but I do see changes ahead for the national stations as more and more private companies lobby against the license fees. For their point of view, that kind of state subsidy makes it very difficult, if not impossible, to compete on a level playing field. And with the BBC taking such an active role in the new market of digital TV, and with such a strong online presence for both RTE and the BBC, I can see those battles over the license fee continuing and changes having to be made.

you are right to argue that channels relying on secondary rights programming face the toughest task in the digital age, and many of them *will* go to the wall, there won’t be enough digital refusniks to keep them going.

iTV is apple’s answer to the media center rather than simply offering movies on the iPod, something compeltely seperate altogether. It’d the trend itself of companies like Apple, Vodafone or broadband providers effectively becoming media companies and snapping at the heels of Channel 6 et al.

How a station like that is going to survive off American imports is beyond me when you can get the episodes on DVD via Amazon before their shown here, VOD becoming available and lots more channels thanks to Sky or IPTV.

The only way that big broadcasters will be able to move back to covering major events is if the continued rise of subsription only channels buying rights to events is slowed or reversed. RTE will only be able to show extended, delayed, highlights of the Ryder Cup, the Heineken Cup has now been taken from RTE, the premiership is unavailable except in highlight form and a few games during the year.

There is also the point that closer work between advertisers and the TV channels will further degrade the reputation of channels like the BBC and RTE, and is currently not allowed under their public service broadcasting remit. In that sense, the FT article isn’t talking about the revival of traditional broadcasting, it is talking about changing it’s remit, it’s methods and the value that society place on it.

“the future of commercial broadcasting is much brighter than many of its own practitioners dare hope. [...] Currently disdained as a blunt instrument, in time commercial television will be seen as having premium value, especially for major exercises such as product launches and brand campaigns. And recall of television spots remains more powerful than most other media. [...] We may be seeing the erosion of the fixed television schedule. But broadcasters are finding other ways to distribute their programmes and bind advertisements to them. Some might actually grow their businesses.”

the real clue to bazalgette’s agenda (if you’re not already familiar with it) is contained in this sentence: “But allowing advertisers to get closer to programmes – sponsoring direct downloads and legalising product placement – will eventually take up the slack [of the current decreases in advertising revenue].”

in terms of niche versus the big broadcasters. i firmly believe in the value of niche, but don’t write off the big broadcasters. they will still steal the middle ground on mass events. the best argument i’ve heard for the future of the big broadcasters is that they will revert more and more to what they were initially like: live broadcasting (eg major events like news, culture and sports). rumours of their impending death are greatly exaggerated.

Also, I’m not sure about watching a movie on an ipod. Frankly, the thought of staring at that small screen for about two hours makes my eyes hurt and gives me a headache. I’d much rather use for my ipod to listen to some music while I read a book. It’s the same with my phone. I use the three network so I can get premiership goals, and I do occasionally look at a comedy clip or two, but I’m not going to watch anything too long because the screen is too small.