Is TV Dead? The Better Question Is Where It Has Gone

TV is not dead. It is rebooted, and redistributed

One useful line from the event came from Johnnie Leung at The Trade Desk, who described TV as being “rebooted.” I agree with that, but I would take it one step further: TV has also been redefined, and redistributed. What used to sit inside one channel now lives across streaming platforms, YouTube on the television screen, connected devices, social video, and premium on-demand services. That is one reason the “TV is dead” argument can feel so circular. People are often talking about linear broadcast schedules while the audience has already moved on. WPP Media’s latest This Year Next Year (TYNY)* forecast makes this clear. Total TV globally is essentially flat in 2026 at +0.1%, but that stability hides a much bigger internal shift. Streaming TV is forecast to grow 17.2% globally to US$53.8 billion while linear continues its managed decline. The conclusion is not that television has disappeared. It is that the mix inside television is changing fast.

The ad money is not leaving TV. It is leaving old TV

One reason agencies should take this seriously is simple: budgets tell the truth faster than industry opinion does. As an agency, we need to pay close attention to where clients are actually investing. That is why TYNY matters. It helps separate sentiment from direction of travel. Right now, direction of travel is clearly towards streaming TV, more addressable video environments, and more measurable forms of premium viewing. That also lines up with what I referenced on the panel. The line that stuck with me was that “TV is having babies.” It is a good way of describing what is happening. TV has not vanished. It has multiplied into BVOD, AVOD, CTV, YouTube on TV, shoppable formats, and newer hybrids that look digital but function like television. That is not decline in the pure sense. It is expansion through fragmentation.

Derek Thompson is right: everything is television now

During the panel I referenced Derek Thompson’s argument* directly because it sharpens the point better than most industry shorthand does. His idea that “everything became television” gets at something marketers are still struggling to digest: media categories no longer map neatly onto how people consume content. Social is the clearest example. Social media used to mean networking, conversation, and connection. Increasingly, it means endless streams of algorithmically served video made by people users do not know. In other words, social has become much more like television. That is why the usual argument that “social replaced TV” misses the bigger truth. In many cases, social has simply absorbed television’s role and mechanics. The WPP Media line I used in the room was that “media is everywhere and in everything.” I would now apply that more specifically to this debate: television is no longer confined to the television set. It has escaped into the wider system.

Hong Kong makes this shift especially visible

This all feels particularly real in Hong Kong because it is such a convergence market. People here move easily between MTR screens, mobile, creator content, premium streaming, YouTube, and the living room screen. It is one of the clearest places to see how outdated our old planning boxes have become. A lot of legacy assumptions still linger. One is that TV is what a traditional broadcaster defines it to be. Another is that digital and television should sit in separate planning conversations. Both feel less credible every year. In this market, TV is no longer best understood as a channel. It is better understood as a behavior. That matters because the role of the big screen has not disappeared. It still over-indexes on trust, scale, and emotional readiness. But the path from that first exposure to the eventual action is now much more fluid and multiscreen.

The real risk is not that TV dies. It is that our marketing language fails to catch up

The most interesting thing for me coming out of the session was not whether panelists agreed on every point. It was how often the conversation drifted back to old labels that consumers themselves no longer recognize. If our planning frameworks still force marketers to choose between TV and digital, brand and performance, or social and video, we are describing a market that no longer exists. The strongest strategies now are built around what each screen does best and how those screens work together. This is also why I think the debate matters beyond media specialists. It is really a strategy question. If your mental model of television is outdated, your investment model probably is too.

Audit your definition of TV

If your category still excludes streaming, YouTube on the television screen, or premium on-demand video, your planning language is already behind the market.

Review where your clients are moving spend

TYNY is useful here because it forces you to look at actual investment shifts, not just narratives.