I don’t understand this 3D television thing. Granted, I understand the significance of its development, how it will give previously unknown depth to sporting events yada yada yada; I just can’t comprehend why Channel Nine continues to insist on telling us that next week’s State of Origin rugby league match will be shown in 3D. The campaign that they have been running is rivaled by only Avatar in its omnipotence- for example, today’s Sun-Herald had a promotional cover detailing the positives gained from watching the match in 3D. Doing so would have cost Channel Nine an incredible amount of money; it’s not like it was the Daily Telegraph.
But here’s the weird part. Supposedly there has only been something like 750 3D televisions sold so far. 750! Assuming the average purchaser will watch the State of Origin (a generous assumption) and that they will have three friends viewing with them (also a bit of a stretch), this means there are only 3000 people with the potential to view this game as Nine have intended. Obviously it would be stupid of Channel Nine to splurge so much on advertising if they were only considering the viewing figures, so what other reasons could they use to rationalise this, economically speaking?
(Five minutes later)
I’ve thought about it, and there seems to be only one real answer: that it’s funded more so by electronic retailers such as Harvey Norman than Channel Nine. This makes sense only because a full funding by Channel Nine does not. Nine would only be concerned with viewing figures, as this equates to advertising revenue, and not with something trivial like generating awareness of 3D televisions.