[ad_1]
Last night's Emmy Awards were not new. HBO, Amazon and Netflix have won numerous awards at the most prestigious event on television. However, the most interesting part of the evening was not necessarily the one that had won, but the commercials of the main streaming services that were played out between acceptance speeches, a sign of the extension of television .
The ads were stronger this year. The Emmys, broadcast this year on Fox, were filled with commercials for Apple TV Plus, Disney +, Amazon Prime Video, Hulu and Netflix. There were some scattered promotions for standard broadcast networks, including commercials for new series like Prodigal Son and network favorites like The masked singer, but it was the world of a streaming service. Apple used the Emmys night for play short teasers for a number of his shows; Disney kicked off the night with the first commercial break, airing a new Disney + commercial and announcing preorders are now available.
Even Emmys people made fun of the war for people's money. Comedian Thomas Lennon began his evening by announcing the awards ceremony by making a joke about the real battle of the night between the $ 14.99 subscription fee for HBO Now and the $ 12.99 Netflix. HBO won when it was to assign numbers (nine), but it was closely followed by Amazon (five) and Netflix (four). As the New York Times'Kyle Buchanan tweetedthis year, "Emmy telecast is really advocating the case against television".
Or maybe a case against a particular era of television. Television is getting bigger and it's getting harder and harder to catch everything. The plethora of ads for streaming services released last night was a stark reminder that to be able to participate in the cultural conversation of upcoming Emmy ceremonies, after the arrival of newcomers like Disney, Apple and maybe even Quibi, people will have to sign up, subscribe, subscribe. This is what you need to do to use the services of Amazon, Netflix and Hulu. And that does not count for potential contenders on NBCUniversal's HBO Max or Peacock. As VarietyMichael Schneider said, "In many ways, this year's Emmys are like the end of a televised era, like the farewells of The iron Throne and Veep remove two dominant HBO players from the competition. "
Speaking of "continuous wars", a catch-all term to describe the host of new services that will come out over the next eight months, is largely focused on price. How much will two subscriptions cost? Three? All? Other conversations focused on exclusives to the highest offers. Netflix would have paid more than $ 500 million for global rights on Seinfeld, WarnerMedia would have paid $ 425 million for friendsand NBCUniversal would have apparently paid about $ 500 million for Office. Last night, the Emmys opened a new conversation about the ongoing wars: the cultural cost of not following every hot show on every service.
This is already happening. A little anecdote: once the Emmys ended, I texted my mother, a passionate TV enthusiast, and asked her if any of her favorite shows had won. With the exception of NBC This is us and Netflix When they see usshe had not watched any show. She does not watch HBO shows and, with the exception of Netflix, she does not subscribe to any service. No Hulu or Amazon Prime videos; and there is no point in buying a package for Apple TV Plus, Disney +, Peacock or any other service. It's getting harder and harder for her to take part in the conversation as the future of television moves away from television.
Broadcasting always strives to remain relevant and always produces series worthy of attention. Just this week, NBC, ABC, Fox and CBS will make 64 debut. This is a reminder of event television, going back to a time when companies like Amazon and Apple were not included in televised trophy discounts. This is a facet of the competition to attract the attention that the presidents of shows of the big networks also think.
Television has changed from decade to decade. There were only a few broadcast networks, and then cable became a thing. This was followed by premium cable and, now, streaming services. The evolution of how people watch television is not surprising. The difference between different broadcast networks, the quality of the predominant cable television and the streaming is our way of looking. Streaming removes the aspect of channel failover, where different programs on different networks can be found simply by clicking on it. Now, networks and businesses are asking subscribers to visit a specific service and stay there. If a person only subscribes to one or two services, the chances of them attending a show are decreasing.
The Emmys will always be the same in the years to come – plays and comedies will be nominated; actors, writers and directors will present themselves to make their speeches. But how many of these shows will people recognize? Or how many will they have watched? Everything moves; The iron Throne" Last night's email reminded us that television can be a pretty common affair, but that it changes as television becomes more extended and exclusive through different streaming services. There are more and more shows than ever thanks to newcomers like Apple, Quibi and Disney +. The number of viewers we will watch will largely depend on the number of streaming services they are willing to pay for – or what they decide to hack into. Not everyone will subscribe to all services and no one has the time to look at everything.
If the Emmys do not reflect what the majority of people are watching, because people are sticking to two or three streaming services, what is the point of the show? The Emmy Awards already look like a show hosted by industry professionals – explain how to make the Emmys more attractive because a show is a totally different piece – but if the audience is even more divided by silos In streaming, the more important question is why does anyone care not to recognize much of the nominated series?
[ad_2]
Source link