I think the main problem is that your article, and the stylistic choices you make to write it, are all setup and no payoff. The first half, which actually is setup and is where you frame the problem, isn't too bad. A neat historical anecdote, a build up that walks the reader though, and deeper, into the problem, topped off with a suspense-building capper - "expect something crazy!"

Really, pretty decent.

But delivering the payoff to all that setup? Not so much. Look, I didn't even realize I was in the solution section of the article until I hit the end -- then I had to go back and hunt for it. I'm still not really clear on what, exactly, it is that you propose we do. Frankly, I was expecting you to plug some software that strips commercials.

Weakness in presenting your solutions
Where you go wrong is from the very first sentence of your solution:

One possible solution is a move to more on-demand type programming.

Now, I'm sure you think your solution starts two paragraphs higher. It does not. Saying "Lets disrupt..." is not a solution, it's a vague, unspecified desire. The solution is how you want to disrupt the industry.

So that brings us to your "One possible solution..." sentence. The problem here is that it's worded in a way that reader (I.e, me), reads it like this:

"Now there are other people, not nearly as crazy
as me, and much easier to stick with, that say we should move to on-demand
programming. But my solution..."

I kept waiting through the rest of the article for that "but" to drop, but it never came. The reason it comes across this way is because it's so weakly written. If you have a solution, then say it. Put it out there with some confidence. Don't hem and haw around it, with phrases like "One possible" and "to more".

The weakness continues, in a different way, in the next paragraph:

For those of you who use Grooveshark, YouTube and Hulu, you’ve
probably noticed that...

Wait. Isn't that your solution? Aren't we all here, waiting breathlessly to hear whatever this marvelous idea is you've had? And yet, with "For those of you who use..." you state that you assume a significant portion, perhaps all, of your audience not only knows about your solution, but are already using it on a regular basis! So why should said audience waste it's time reading you? If you'd just stated it confidently, at least then your grooveshark-using audience could nod sagely along, pleased they're among the few already in the know.

The weaknesses in that paragraph continues with unnecessary words and meandering (though grammatically correct) sentences.

So, all that makes the solution seem like it's still part of the setup. That is, that after defining the problem, you're now setting up other people's poor solutions, so you can knock them down with the awesomeness of your own. Don't do that.

Compare your "Netflix, Grooveshark, and Youtube. Oh my!" section to this one, with my edits:

The solution is to move to on-demand programming. Some services like Netflix
have already jumped on this with subscriptions. But /mn isn’t enough to satisfy TV
networks. They need more money than that to operate.

Other services like Grooveshark, YouTube and Hulu pop up
advertisements every so often. You have to watch 10 seconds of the
advertisement, but then you’re given the option to close it. This
isn’t nearly as frustrating as being forced to watch the entire
advertisement. On the contrary, I’ve caught myself watching the entire length
of some of the more interesting ones!

This is another thing to consider when thinking about this problem.
Maybe it’s not that commercials are annoying by nature, but
that most commercials are boring. Maybe the annoyance we all feel
stems from being made to watch uninteresting material.

I haven't added much: mostly I just cut words and phrases, and split sentences and paragraphs. I, for one, think it reads much better. Or much clearer, at least.

Balance of power
My second point is very related to my first: in fact, it makes your weak writing stand out in sharper relief. Here, in essence, is what you're saying:

Those stikin' networks, they've been stealing our time! They want us
to sit there like ZOMBIES!! This is AN OUTRAGE!!! HOW DARE THEY!!!
We'll show them! I've got an idea that'll TAKE THEM OUT! IT'S
CRAAAAAZY, BUT AWESOME!!!! WHO'S WITH ME?!? Here's what we do:

We, um, well, you know, we use some of the other products out
there. Right, um. Sorta the stuff, uh, that you're already using,
you know, if you want. So, yea. Um. There's commercials too, but
they're better, see, 'cause they are. Maybe. So, um, yea. Go, uh, go team.

That's not a critique of your ideas, but rather, of the balance in tone, forcefulness and confidence between your setup and your payoff. And I exaggerate, of course, to make my point. But if your setup is: "I'm gonna hit you in the face with a bucket of fish!", then as a reader, I bloody well better be picking fish guts out of my teeth by the time we're done. It's what you promised. And a truly terrible thing to do, as a writer, is to not deliver on what you promise.

---

(0)

Login to post a comment!