Monday, August 8, 2011

Television is dead, Part. 6729987.
An article in yesterday's "New York Times" called "Ad Money Reliably Goes to Television," recounted the success, life and vibrancy of television advertising.

So tell that hipster from Williamsburg who skipped a whole season on "24" and then proudly proclaimed television dead, that he's a candy-assed fuckwit with a bad, ironic haircut.


candy-assed fuckwit with a bad, ironic haircut said...

no, no, no!
people don't watch TV. they just have it on while enjoying their social media!

Tim said...

I tried but it went in one ear and out the other.

Anonymous said...


It isn't content that's disappearing, it's the means of distribution

Pls don't become a Luddite

We await your new commercials which will receive a critical eye.. The same critical eye you hold on everyone else

Tim Malbon

Anonymous said...

Btw, you shouldn't be critiquing hairstyles

Tim Malbon

george tannenbaum said...

Good points, Tim. BTW, are you Ben's brother?

peggy said...

as long as people dont have the money to school their kids properly and buy them all the nice techy stuff there will be tv. to keep the costs low for them its tv programs with ads, instead of going totally pay per view and such.

more people unemployed, more time spent home watching tv, as i said months, or was it years, ago. im pretty sure that plays a part in keeping tv viewership high.

and theres simply no reason to cut down tv ad-spending, if your competitors dont do or you dont have something mega-effective and dead on target instead of tv.

lets see what happens with the economy though. doesnt look too rosy. but then, it hasnt for the past years either.

just rambling...

Anonymous said...


Not arguing against TV, but I don't get the rationale that increased unemployment makes TV a better option. If there is no money to be spent, then the net impact of any ad is going to be reduced.

Our job is to drive sales, not TV viewership.

Maybe I am just rambling, too.

peggy said...

just seen your comment, anonymous. i dont quite get how you are weaving together out of what i was saying.

what im saying is that if there is more unemployment, the number of people who spend more time at home will be higher. as will be the time spent watching tv (as background noise or actively passive) -- compared to the amount they were watching before, because they simply werent near a tv. they were at work. also, if they are unemployed, they dont have much money to spend (to go out, for example), etc. thats all pretty clear i think.

whether this makes the net impact of an ad less valuable is open to debate, surely will depend on category, pricing and so on, i.e. cannot be pinned down in a general statement. im guessing certain less expensive food might sell more, more expensive food less (the luxury end will also sell more, but rarely because of tv ads). so maybe the impact of lower priced food ads might be higher than that of higher priced in times of a downturn. but this is just guess work. although it seems logical. to me anyway.

dont underestimate the higher viewership. quite a large part of people might see ads now, they would never have seen before or never paid attention to, because they had better things to do and so on...

oh, and im wondering why you even consider the possibility that the ad and marketing world would be there to drive tv viewership. thats quite interesting and well weird. even if its just you rambling.