A few postings ago I wrote about an article I read in National Geographic. I was favorable on the content, but somewhat critical of the television channel created by the same brand. After I posted, it hit me I had not watched the channel much lately. Truth be told, I haven’t been much of a TV watcher for quite some time. I have nothing against the medium. I worked in that part of the business for nine years. Other sorts of media, mostly reading, just keep my attention these days. I thought perhaps I should remind myself how Nat-Geo and similar channels present themselves lately. In some sense of fairness I started watching the cable version of the product, and some of its direct competition as a sort of research sampling.
Unlike ‘real’ research there is nothing written down, no data to analyze, no hypotheses to either support or refute through statistical patterns. Instead I just made time to watch some hours of Nat-Geo, Discovery, and History. These three in the past were similar in content approach with a similar appeal. To be at least somewhat thorough in my shabby research, I note that each of these offers a traditionally programed cable channel as well as a number of online video options. I focused on the cable channel version of Nat-Geo. I also looked at some of the program descriptions available online. So what did I find in this very loosey-goosey amateur research?
I was still disappointed to some degree with History and Discovery. Both had some interesting (to me) programs, but their line up seems more and more filled with reality shows that don’t seem to match the brand name, and competition shows that also seem misaligned. Of the three, Nat-Geo seemed closer to my fuzzy idea of what they are supposed to be about. Nat-Geo also has some ‘reality’ shows, but these seem more like documentaries about some real-life setting, and less like unscripted (or scripted) soap-operatic peep shows. To be fair to History and Discovery, they had these better quality programs also, but fewer of the better version, and more of the not-so-good sort. I’m ok with reality shows that are more like documentaries that are showing real life, but not so much with shows called ‘reality’ but are clearly anything but real.
One thing that does bug me a bit about all three of these offerings. They each clearly have quality tiers. For Nat-Geo, the content offered on cable is generally ok, but their best quality (the sort I might have more interest in) is guarded behind the Disney+ pay wall. It almost feels like the cable version is the tease to get you to pay for ‘the good stuff in the back room’. This is not unique to Nat-Geo. The business model of online streaming channels you have to pay for to get better stuff sooner is quickly becoming the norm. Just about every network out there now has a paid streaming service. The model really does lend itself to an ala carte. That would great if we lived in an area where we could just get Internet without cable. Sadly that’s not the case for us. The only real option we have for Internet comes from Comcast. Since they have no competition where we live they will not allow you to purchase Internet without also bundling their cable service. Every year they mess with the channels (to more and more stuff we don’t care to watch), and jack up the prices. It’s pretty ridiculous. The amount they charge makes it difficult to justify paying them and separately paying a handful of online streaming providers that we might actually want to watch now and then.
Some of the better programming on Nat-Geo, Discovery, and History is offered outside the pay wall, but it tends to be older shows. The truth is that’s ok to me since if it’s the first time we watch something, it may not be new but it’s new to us. On the other hand, some of the show trailers can be enticing and make me wonder if we should give in and scratch up the fee. So far the answer to this last question has been a resounding NO!
I don’t know what these business model shifts in media mean exactly. All three of these educational content providers are for-profit entities. The fact that they feel pressured to shift away from their original name-sake focus to something that less represents it could be a statement about us as an audience. If we weren’t up to watching something that helped us learn something then perhaps they are simply succumbing to our own focus on escapism in order to stay profitable. Perhaps, and maybe the more likely, is I’m just getting older and stuffier.
Unlike ‘real’ research there is nothing written down, no data to analyze, no hypotheses to either support or refute through statistical patterns. Instead I just made time to watch some hours of Nat-Geo, Discovery, and History. These three in the past were similar in content approach with a similar appeal. To be at least somewhat thorough in my shabby research, I note that each of these offers a traditionally programed cable channel as well as a number of online video options. I focused on the cable channel version of Nat-Geo. I also looked at some of the program descriptions available online. So what did I find in this very loosey-goosey amateur research?
I was still disappointed to some degree with History and Discovery. Both had some interesting (to me) programs, but their line up seems more and more filled with reality shows that don’t seem to match the brand name, and competition shows that also seem misaligned. Of the three, Nat-Geo seemed closer to my fuzzy idea of what they are supposed to be about. Nat-Geo also has some ‘reality’ shows, but these seem more like documentaries about some real-life setting, and less like unscripted (or scripted) soap-operatic peep shows. To be fair to History and Discovery, they had these better quality programs also, but fewer of the better version, and more of the not-so-good sort. I’m ok with reality shows that are more like documentaries that are showing real life, but not so much with shows called ‘reality’ but are clearly anything but real.
One thing that does bug me a bit about all three of these offerings. They each clearly have quality tiers. For Nat-Geo, the content offered on cable is generally ok, but their best quality (the sort I might have more interest in) is guarded behind the Disney+ pay wall. It almost feels like the cable version is the tease to get you to pay for ‘the good stuff in the back room’. This is not unique to Nat-Geo. The business model of online streaming channels you have to pay for to get better stuff sooner is quickly becoming the norm. Just about every network out there now has a paid streaming service. The model really does lend itself to an ala carte. That would great if we lived in an area where we could just get Internet without cable. Sadly that’s not the case for us. The only real option we have for Internet comes from Comcast. Since they have no competition where we live they will not allow you to purchase Internet without also bundling their cable service. Every year they mess with the channels (to more and more stuff we don’t care to watch), and jack up the prices. It’s pretty ridiculous. The amount they charge makes it difficult to justify paying them and separately paying a handful of online streaming providers that we might actually want to watch now and then.
Some of the better programming on Nat-Geo, Discovery, and History is offered outside the pay wall, but it tends to be older shows. The truth is that’s ok to me since if it’s the first time we watch something, it may not be new but it’s new to us. On the other hand, some of the show trailers can be enticing and make me wonder if we should give in and scratch up the fee. So far the answer to this last question has been a resounding NO!
I don’t know what these business model shifts in media mean exactly. All three of these educational content providers are for-profit entities. The fact that they feel pressured to shift away from their original name-sake focus to something that less represents it could be a statement about us as an audience. If we weren’t up to watching something that helped us learn something then perhaps they are simply succumbing to our own focus on escapism in order to stay profitable. Perhaps, and maybe the more likely, is I’m just getting older and stuffier.
RSS Feed