[LINK] Freeview Launches In Australia

[Richard Chirgwin]

Ivan Trundle wrote:
> On 26/11/2008, at 10:38 AM, Michael Still wrote:
>
>   
>> As best as I can tell its a rebranding of existing HD channels.  
>> They're
>> just so very proud that they're broadcasting them, and wanted to tell
>> you about it.
>>     
>
> This could get rather amusing: they're advertising primarily in a  
> medium which has, by virtue of it being what it is, already has the  
> viewers attention (television).
>
> Having discovered that their audience share is not simply declining,  
> but rapidly moving to an alternative medium (the internet), 
Darn ... I can't find Monday's column by David Dale in the SMH online
(the organisation is a shocker), but David Dale debunked this. We're
watching marginally more TV now than in 2000 ... I don't have the exact
numbers because I can't find the online version...

And "rear-guard" is a little bit overstated. We watch about 400 million
hours of TV each week, and (a couple of weeks ago) I calculated out the
Internet's "eyeball hours" from an ACMA document, it's less than 1/10
that of TV. What's eating free TV's lunch is pay TV, which I can't
understand (pay? you want me to pay?).

RC
> the free- 
> to-air mob fight a rear-guard action to demonstrate that they want to  
> follow the audience into a Brave New World. And do so with a website  
> which clearly shows that they've got a long way to go.
>
> It's not just that Flash was used in the site (or javascript) -  
> neither of these are heinous crimes, as much as I loathe Flash used  
> this way - but rather that they are using tools inappropriately for  
> the content that they wish to deliver, and this is what reinforces the  
> 'don't bother to bookmark, don't bother to engage' mindset of most  
> visitors.
>
> iT
> _______________________________________________
> Link mailing list
> Link at mailman.anu.edu.au
> http://mailman.anu.edu.au/mailman/listinfo/link
>
>