Although I really love my new job in online advertising sales, as I previously worked for 12 years in TV, I am still irked when I hear media pundits declare the inevitability of television’s demise. It was thus with some sense of reassurance and satisfaction that I recently read the positive report by The Economist of the TV industry “Changing The Channel,” but perhaps it would be more aptly titled “TV Ain’t Dead Yet.” Among the report’s key points:

• Increased and better programming options: Clearly television is no longer the domain of the “big three” networks. A myriad of networks now proliferate resulting in greater programming options which satisfies more diverse interests, but also creates increased competition which improves overall quality.
• Increased viewing options: Besides having more things to watch consumers now have more options on how or when to view it. First of all there are more sets now in households. Secondly there are other platforms for viewing (iPods, Hulu, etc.). And finally there are also adjunct devices which allow consumers to record programming or view it on demand.
• Increased consumption: Programming and viewing improvemetns have yielded greater total consumption. On average a U.S. viewer watches over five hours of television per day, about a third more than what a person normally estimates.

The report also busts five myths surrounding the television industry:

• Myth #1, Death by DVR: Although DVRs have penetrated 34% of the market, time-shifted viewing is not threatening television’s advertising business model. Viewers will almost always watch live programming before considering recorded programs. This is backed up in a recent study by Duke University’s Fuqua School of Business which finds that 95% of people watch television live.
• Myth #2, Commercial Aversion: Even without DVRs it is believed that people ignore or evade commercial breaks, but a recent study by the Council on Research Excellence indicates that “TV advertising and programming promotions reach 85% of adults daily.”
• Myth #3, Online Viewing Cannibalization: It is also believed that online viewing is hurting television ratings but the average YouTube viewer watches only 15 minutes of video per day on the site, compared with five hours in front of an actual television set. Online video certainly is an interesting, high-growth market, but it’s not substituting television.
• Myth #4, Shift to Mobile TV: A great deal of hype has also been given to to mobile TV, although it has yet to take hold in any country other than Japan or South Korea. And even in those markets it has yet to find a viable business model since mobile TV is free and advertising CPMs run only 10% of the TV market rate.

As much as I enjoyed the report I was disappointed that it barely touched on the potential of targeted television advertising, perhaps since it’s a technology which has taken so long to be applied in the industry. Combing the mass audience of television with the audience targeting capabilities of the internet would immortalize television, not that it’s going away anytime soon.

It’s no secret that publishing is a tough place to be in right now. Amidst lower subscriptions, circulation and ad revenues, magazines have been looking for a way to stay afloat. Towards that end Condé Nast recently hired McKinsey & Company to take a look at their entire operation. The innovative Maghound subscription service launched last year but has found limited success.

I believe that a new path may lie with the magazine ordering option launched this week in the UK by The Economist called “Economist Direct.” The option will allow consumers to order the latest issue of the magazine via an SMS message; eventually orders will also be taken via Facebook and Twitter. The option is meant to attract non-subscribers who are in interested in the current week’s issue.

I found it interesting that this service offered a certain immediacy and convenience, while allowing for readers who are not interested in subscriptions. This approach is quite different to the Maghound service, which entails a subscription model, as well as a long waiting period between ordering and delivery. After choosing their magazines, Maghound subscribers then wait until the next publication cycle to receive an issue. Ordering the current issue is not an option, even though paradoxically the publications are advertised on the site with the current issue’s cover.

I believe that Maghound is missing an opportunity. A single issue’s value holds over weekly or monthly basis. A publisher has that entire period to conduct the marketing, sales and delivery process. If Amazon can deliver a book within a week, Maghound should be able to deliver an issue as well.

By fulfilling orders for current or specific issues, Maghound’s would effectively offer a magazine-on-demand service. Customers could peruse current issues online and order them for priority delivery. Maghound could also email their customers on a weekly basis, informing them of any upcoming issues they could potentially be interested in.

While this sort of on-demand service might not be viable with weeklies it could certainly work with monthly publications. I also concede it would be far quicker for a consumer to buy a current issue at their local newstand, but but Maghound offers 304 publications. Chances are that their local stand or 7-Eleven won’t stock all those titles. By offering this on-demand service only to existing customers, Maghound could also offer the issues at a discount, below the newstand price.

There are many ways this service could be implemented. Perhaps the priority delivery could be free for three issues per month. Perhaps even the three issues would be free, if the customer already had three existing subscriptions with Maghound. In any case, I believe that the Economist Direct service offers a certain value that Maghound lacks, an option well worth looking into for U.S. magazines.

Update: The Economist has now launched their Economist Direct service in New York City.