Number of Homes With TVs Drops for First Time in 40 Years: Why?
SodaHead Living
2011/12/02 21:00:00
|
|
|||||
|
76 votes
|
|
14% | |||
|
157 votes
|
|
30% | |||
|
295 votes
|
|
56% | |||
Maybe people are getting sick of reality TV? For the first time in the 40 years that Nielsen Media Research has been keeping track, the number of U.S. households with TV sets has dropped, The New York Post reports.
This year, about 115.9 million homes have TVs. Next year, this number is expected to drop to an estimated 114.7 million homes -- even though the number of U.S. households in general has continued to grow, the Post reports. Plus, the number of households without ANY TVs whatsoever is now at its highest level since 1975 (3 percent of homes).
So what gives? Nielsen suggests that following 2009’s transition from analog to digital broadcasting, some people got rid of their TVs instead of buying a converter box or subscribing to cable. The economy has also been bad, making TVs unaffordable for many people (we know we dread getting our cable bill!). And more people are using the Internet and other devices to "watch TV."
So what gives? Nielsen suggests that following 2009’s transition from analog to digital broadcasting, some people got rid of their TVs instead of buying a converter box or subscribing to cable. The economy has also been bad, making TVs unaffordable for many people (we know we dread getting our cable bill!). And more people are using the Internet and other devices to "watch TV."
That said, there's always the 1 percent. Homes with three or more TV sets are soon expected to account for 56 percent of homes with TVs. But we're wondering if people are getting rid of their TVs simply because there's very little that's worth watching. What do you think?
Top Opinion
-
Beat Magnum True Hero 2011/12/03 00:31:05Other technology
+17Just for the record, I am absolutely unimpressed by smug people who go out of their way to let everyone know that they don't watch/own a TV.
Compounded with the fact that much of what is put on TV stinks.
This decline is most likely explained primarily due to the fact that you'll be dropping a chilly $2,000+ (due to inflation, currency devaluation and overall corporate greed in leu of "markups" versus "cost to produce") for a decent HDTV today and one that's actually big enough to be seen clearly from across the average living room. With the old tube-TV's you could get a 50" for less than a grand back in the day.
Oh, and yes, ALSO... trash on TV! I've cut my TV-watching down to about 4 hours a week. House and Grey's Anatomy, along with the Science, Medical and History channels are all that's left of decent TV these days - for me at least. Everything else... I could give a crap about. Either the writing/scripting sucks and is totally off-base with today's viewers (for ...
This decline is most likely explained primarily due to the fact that you'll be dropping a chilly $2,000+ (due to inflation, currency devaluation and overall corporate greed in leu of "markups" versus "cost to produce") for a decent HDTV today and one that's actually big enough to be seen clearly from across the average living room. With the old tube-TV's you could get a 50" for less than a grand back in the day.
Oh, and yes, ALSO... trash on TV! I've cut my TV-watching down to about 4 hours a week. House and Grey's Anatomy, along with the Science, Medical and History channels are all that's left of decent TV these days - for me at least. Everything else... I could give a crap about. Either the writing/scripting sucks and is totally off-base with today's viewers (for example, who wants to be CONSTANTLY reminded of how bad the economy is right now when they're trying to ESCAPE from the days' BS?), or else the acting (lack thereof I should say) just blows it.
This leaves the intenet for entertainment, and I think it's premature. There's nothing being written for the 50 - 65 year olds on the internet. Most internet programming is low attention span, and hectic. You can't pass commercial advertisements, and the quality is not yet HD.
Most of population will be between 50 - 65 soon, (baby boomers), and we're going to need our Harry's Law and Blue Bloods, Law and Order, Unforgettable. As long as the networks keep some of this stuff on during prime time, on old fashioned TV, then we're all good.
Most of us also enjoy Dexter, Breaking Bad, The Big C, Hell On Wheels, and such like that, (me included), and so I don't mind the emergence of AMC, Showtime, etc. If the...
This leaves the intenet for entertainment, and I think it's premature. There's nothing being written for the 50 - 65 year olds on the internet. Most internet programming is low attention span, and hectic. You can't pass commercial advertisements, and the quality is not yet HD.
Most of population will be between 50 - 65 soon, (baby boomers), and we're going to need our Harry's Law and Blue Bloods, Law and Order, Unforgettable. As long as the networks keep some of this stuff on during prime time, on old fashioned TV, then we're all good.
Most of us also enjoy Dexter, Breaking Bad, The Big C, Hell On Wheels, and such like that, (me included), and so I don't mind the emergence of AMC, Showtime, etc. If the same programming is just moved to a new media outlet, (the net/streaming), everybody will be okay eventually. But the television industry....both manufacturers and content producers, will need to make the net look really good on a flat screen TV, make controlling it VERY user friendly, and just like controlling a TV with a remote now, and pump some serious money in hour long net dramas which can be found easily, like a channel, and menu system or advertisers are going to lose the upcoming largest demographic in human history to """"gasp""""" books, and kindles.
The only time I sit down to wartch a show is with the family (or friends) ..like a hockey game or particular shows that we all like.