There’s a simple economic law, that of the Law of Diminishing Marginal Utility.
Simply put, if I give you one jelly bean, you will enjoy it. You will enjoy the second jelly bean to a lesser extent. If I now shower you with jelly beans, you will probably want a cream caramel instead.
We know that this law works (after all, it is a law), but the question arises, does it also apply to entertainment?
Let’s start off with movie subject matter. Research has shown that there is little evidence that violence has declined as people have got bored with it. In fact we find that technology makes violence easier to make, and that audiences seem to like it even more.
The same seems to apply to sex, which however seems to be more static and not rising as steeply as violence. What of this on TV? The violence trend exists only insofar as the TV channels broadcast movies, but the greater trend on TV is towards “reality” genres, which are of course encouraged and marketed by the broadcasters as they are generally cheaper to make. Furthermore, the odd bit of violence in a reality shows seems only to enhance the viewership.
So much so for people getting bored with violence. But will the same apply to TV as such? Currently upmarket viewers have access to about 60 channels, and everyone else access to four. When another four pay-TV operators are licences later this year, will the availability of maybe 200 channels bring in the Law of Diminishing Marginal Utility?
Let’s consider the following factors.
TV viewership has grown steadily over the past 30 years in direct proportion to the economic ability to own a TV set.
Subscriptions to DStv have grown steadily despite the mythical gripe, “Sixty channels and nothing to watch”.
Do people like TV because it is simply easy to watch (after all watching TV requires no skills at all, not even literacy)? Does the Law of Diminishing Marginal Utility have no effect on TV? Doesn’t seem like it, considering that viewership has not declined in line with the rate of an increase in available content.
Maybe, the test of this law will come when the number of channels explodes. There is an interesting other factor, and that lies in the increasing popularity of and growing audiences for live entertainment.
Questions – are cell phones popular because the “content” is live, real and interactive with another human being? Is the increasing popularity of live entrainment due to the fact that there are REAL people on the stage and not just a flickering electronic image? Will the increase in TV channels later this year be greeted with a yawn as people are more likely to be drawn to something flesh and blood, real and live?
The people with license applications at ICASA don’t seem to think so. They believe that the lure of the flying electronic spot will always be there. After all they say, we can fill channel after channel with cheap reality.
Maybe they’re right. But somehow or other I still have this nagging feeling that you cannot predict the irrationality of human emotions and feelings. Will they want TV or will they prefer to drift into the arms of a real person and cry on a real shoulder? I don’t know. It would be nice if they did stand up for their humanity.
Howard Thomas has been working in entertainment and media for 36 years. His experience with TV started from the beginning in South Africa, and he is now a media business consultant, trainer and specialist in audience psychology.