Last week’s TV Board saw a fairly lively debate about the names we give to different video-based consumer experiences (notably TV versus online streaming video) and the extent to which we should differentiate, bearing in mind that to the consumer it’s all video in the end.
The article goes on to say that names are both irrelvant and crucial for different reasons.
“Irrelevant” because, as noted, “it’s all video in the end.” Crucial because “language is important because of the enormous amount of historical weight it carries with it.”
That’s true for the word “television” and for the word “advertising” (which the article notes is inherently intrusive, whereas “communication” is more involving) and for the word “radio.”
This is more support for my argument that “the radio business” is really much larger than you may think with many more competitors than you may be acknowledging.
And it’s also the reason why I think “podcasting” is a bad name that is hurting, not helping, the growth of podcasting. Small wonder that terms like “webcasting” and “netcasting” are catching on.