Are networks a dying breed?

[SoulManX]

Has tv shows become so ho hum that most americans rather be on video games or online?

 

[amazingfantasy15]

Has tv shows become so ho hum that most americans rather be on video games or online?

No, I'd be willing to bet there's still the same number of people watching television as always, it's just that there are so many more channels and choices these days that the audience is spread out more. Plus with DVRs people don't have to watch a show when it actually airs. Appointment viewing may be dying out, but not TV. Although I think DVRs may be hurting television because it's cutting into ad revenue, making networks less advernturous in their programming and looking for cheaper projects, which is why there's so much crappy reality programming on.

 

[SoulManX]

No, I'd be willing to bet there's still the same number of people watching television as always, it's just that there are so many more channels and choices these days that the audience is spread out more. Plus with DVRs people don't have to watch a show when it actually airs. Appointment viewing may be dying out, but not TV. Although I think DVRs may be hurting television because it's cutting into ad revenue, making networks less advernturous in their programming and looking for cheaper projects, which is why there's so much crappy reality programming on.

Hmmm I wonder if we had the tech we have now in the 70's thur the 90's would networks tighten their belts like now.

 

[TheComicbookKid]

I just think networks haven't figured a way to maximize profits. Their entire foundation is built around the network,but they have to figure out a new business model that gets auxillary money from other channels.

 

[BlackLantern]

I just think networks haven't figured a way to maximize profits. Their entire foundation is built around the network,but they have to figure out a new business model that gets auxillary money from other channels.

Exactly....network TV is just treading water at this point....

 

[SoulManX]

Exactly....network TV is just treading water at this point....

How long can one tread

 

[Prison Mike]

I know a lot of people who watch tv shows through the dvds. I guess watching all the episodes straight through rather than waiting during the commercials and hiatuses is better for them.

 

[BlackLantern]

the only network TV I watch live is my local news.....all the shows I watch regularly I DVR (for the exception of Supernatural, I need to watch that every week)

 

[wiegeabo]

I see the future of television as being like iTunes. We may not pay for shows, but we'll pay for networks. A la carte television.

Think of the number of channels you pay for now, compared to the number of channels you regularly watch. It's probably a lot compared of money to the amount of tv you watch. Which means you're wasting a good bit of cash.

So, the way I see it, you pay a certain amount for each network. Say $1 or $2 a month. That means if your bill is $50 a month now, you'll get 25 or 50 channels for the same price. Some money, if any, may still come from advertising, but it would only be a small percentage.

This would force networks to consider their programming carefully because, if they put on too much crap, viewers will start dropping their channel.


There's up and down sides to this method (just as there is with the old television model, and the model of paying for shows rather than networks). But the industry has been moving this way the last few years, and I see some version of this being the new industry model.

 

[Primal Slayer]

They arent a dying breed, television viewing has just evolved now and they have to make adjustments. As stated, we have dvr and online viewing. People know that they dont have to be there for the original airdate since they can either just record it on their tv or watch it online on the site or download it from itunes.

They shouldnt expect as big of numbers that they got in the past and they need to find a way to gather in online views and dvrs into the ratings equation.

 

[BlackLantern]

but there are shows that get HUGE numbers (CSI, American Idol, Survivor) .....networks see that and know that some shows can get people in front of the TV

 

[Primal Slayer]

Right now majority of the shows that get the huge numbers (and there arent that many) are reality tv. Actual scripted tv is getting like 20 million viewers at most right now. Desperate Housewives is the 2nd/3rd highest rated scripted show in the US at the moment and its getting around 15 million viewers right now as opposed to the 20-25 it used to get? Even though American Idol is techincally still doing well (I believe more than 25mill per episode) its ratings have also fallen thus them changing up things this season trying to get back those numbers.

 

[Phatman]

I don't think network TV is dead, I just think that people who work on networks have no idea of what appeals to their audiences. Like Comics, the viewers are on the sidelines waiting for the content on the medium to improve before they get involved with it again.

The problem with most scripted TV shows today is they don't relate to the average person or their experiences. they don't see anyone they can relate to or identify with. In the 90's there was an explosion of Joe average types on shows varying from Roseanne, Home Improvement, Simpsons, (Seasons 2-9) Fresh Prince of Bel-Air, Daria, Drew Carey and Seinfeld. On the Dramas side there was NYPD Blue, ER with Clooney, Chicago Hope, JAG. All These were characters were people had experiences people could relate to; our friends. They were kind, friendly, and did things normal people did in their everyday lives. People didn't mind spending time with them for a few hours in front of the box.

Nowadays most dramas and sitcoms don't feature experiences the viewer can relate to as their own. Either the characters are in absurd situations (Family Guy, Knight Rider,) or things are surreal (Desperate Housewives, Dirty Sexy Money) The audience can't relate to them. Most times the characters are aloof, mean-spirited and downright cruel towards each other. Because they're often so underdeveloped in the creative process, The characters in today's shows lack positive character traits to offset their negative character traits. (Even the most dangerous bad guy used to do things people wanted to do unconciously back in the day.) Now they're not our friends in most cases, just people on the fringe downright reprehensible and despicable. Most TV viewers don't want to invite people like this into their homes night after night. Most TV characters today are good to talk to in the street as a casual acquaintence, but you wouldn't want to be friends with them.

Outside of a few shows (NCIS, CSI, 24, The Big Bang Theory, ) Most people don't see themselves or their experiences being featured on television. On the reality side the most succesful shows featured people doing things the viewer wanted to do in real life (Survivor, Hell's Kitchen, Kitchen Nightmares) but can't or won't do.

Most executives in the entertainment industry have become so disconnected from the viewer that they have no idea what kind of content to produce for them. They're so obsessed in producing shows featuring gimmicks that they forget about the content.

The internet isn't killing TV. DVD isn't killing TV. The audience is there. Shows Like NCIS, The and Mentalist perform well, as does the Big Bang Theory. Why? We all know a Sheldon from BBT, a girl like Abby on NCIS, a guy like Gibbs. People want to learn from Simon Cowell or Gordon Ramsay. People who can't afford expensive vacations want to go to exotic locales like in Survivor.

In addition to not understanding content development, Most of today's executives don't understand that TV shows have shelf lives (3-5 years and run shows into the ground (why we have 10 year runs of Freinds, 15 year runs of ER and 21 year runs of the Simpsons. Because networks don't plan long term towards developing new hits for the next audience (Jeff Zucker) or they focus on a single demographic to the detriment of long term growth (Dawn Ostroff) or they rely on gimmick shows (Bob Iger) instead of developing substantive hits that target underutilized audiences (FOX). Because these executives don't plan effectively, most networks have had declining viewership over the past ten years.

The audience has come out for Network TV. The Giants-Patriots Superbowl was huge; The Red Sox recent WS had big ratings, as did Obama's 60 minutes interviews. It's a case of making what's in the box fresh and exciting; a formula today's executives just can't cook up like their predecessors.

 

[wiegeabo]

The audience has come out for Network TV. The Giants-Patriots Superbowl was huge; The Red Sox recent WS had big ratings, as did Obama's 60 minutes interviews. It's a case of making what's in the box fresh and exciting; a formula today's executives just can't cook up like their predecessors.

I think the executives from the big 4 (ABC, CBS, FOX, CW) are very guilty of this. And when they do get a standout, high quality show, it either gets canceled before it's time, or it last, not because of planning, but because of dumb luck.

On the other hand, the smaller cable networks seem to be able to create and maintain high quality shows. They don't have the high viewership of the big networks, but I believe their numbers are growing.

I point to two examples, USA and TNT.

USA, with the exception of keeping Monk around too long, is pretty consistent at putting out good quality character-driven shows, even if they can be gimmicky. (That's why they say 'Characters Welcome')

And TNT has gotten critical acclaim and high viewership shows like The Closer and Saving Grace.


I think the big networks might finally be starting to pay attention to the smaller networks.

 

[Shifty]

Another factor is syndication. Friends, Seinfeld, The Simpsons, basically any hit comedy from the last 15 years are where people are going for their comedy (in addition to the original programming on cable). Which is ironic since networks push shows past their prime to boost syndication money.

It's crazy to see NBC's schedule ten years ago when they had at least 2 sitcoms 6 days a week. They've been reduced to 3 sitcoms with rumours of Earl being canceled (and being picked up by Fox) and will add a 4th with Parks & Recreation next week. Jeff Zucker had great success with The Today Show but he's done nothing but hurt NBC and keeps on getting promotioned and lets people below him, people he hired, get fired.

 

[Phatman]

Another factor is syndication. Friends, Seinfeld, The Simpsons, basically any hit comedy from the last 15 years are where people are going for their comedy (in addition to the original programming on cable). Which is ironic since networks push shows past their prime to boost syndication money.

It's crazy to see NBC's schedule ten years ago when they had at least 2 sitcoms 6 days a week. They've been reduced to 3 sitcoms with rumours of Earl being canceled (and being picked up by Fox) and will add a 4th with Parks & Recreation next week. Jeff Zucker had great success with The Today Show but he's done nothing but hurt NBC and keeps on getting promotioned and lets people below him, people he hired, get fired.

Got to agree with you on Zucker. Before he took over NBC was the #1 network. Now they're dead last. I'm hoping NBC sends Zucker Packing. He's made a total mess of that network. I think Fred Silverman could have done a better job than he has recently.

Zucker talks about how scripted shows cost too much to produce; the irony is that these cheap reality shows
like America's Got Talent and The Biggest Loser are pulling in LESS revenue than their sitcom predecessors.
Back in the day NBC had a schedule full of sitcoms, back and could charge multimillion dollar ad rates. Seinfeld, Fraisier, Friends, were shows that did well because they were entertaining and compelling, something 90% of the current lineup isn't.

I can't believe I'm saying this, but Man I miss sitcoms like Martin Jamie Foxx and The Wayans Bros. Because the syndication is so crappy here in New York, Either I get my sitcom fix from Youtube or DVDs now. Outside of BBT and Gary Unmarried (Both OK, but no Seinfeld or Martin) there hasn't been a decent sitcom made by the networks in years.

Earl will do great on FOX, if they keep it in one time slot and promote it right. Fox is the strongest of the big four nowadays. Sadly it's because of their approach to business . Right now they're proactively looking for sitcoms. They realize they need to deepen their roster of shows and replace aging programs like House, The Simpsons, Family Guy, and American Idol, before audience erosion that started last year gets worse.

 

[Phatman]

I think the executives from the big 4 (ABC, CBS, FOX, CW) are very guilty of this. And when they do get a standout, high quality show, it either gets canceled before it's time, or it last, not because of planning, but because of dumb luck.

On the other hand, the smaller cable networks seem to be able to create and maintain high quality shows. They don't have the high viewership of the big networks, but I believe their numbers are growing.

I point to two examples, USA and TNT.

USA, with the exception of keeping Monk around too long, is pretty consistent at putting out good quality character-driven shows, even if they can be gimmicky. (That's why they say 'Characters Welcome')

And TNT has gotten critical acclaim and high viewership shows like The Closer and Saving Grace.


I think the big networks might finally be starting to pay attention to the smaller networks.

That has been a problem. Shows like Freaks and Geeks, Brimstone, (heck most of the recent FOX lineup) could have been hits had the network followed the Tartikoff approach to Network building a schedule and slowly adding on programs to develop an audience instead of throwing crap on a wall like they do now.

The late Brandon Tartikoff toook NBC from Last to first in the 80's and he took his time doing it.

First he nurtured shows that were critically acclaimed but had weak ratings (Cheers, Hill Street Blues, Night Court,) renewing them so he could have a foundation to build a schedule on.

Second, He went after demographics ignored by the other networks (Children, The elderly, fAfrican-Americans) on nights considered weak by ABC and CBS then. Tartikoff was able to have have a top ten hit on Saturday night ( (The Golden Girls) in a death slot because he knew seniors were the only ones at home up at that hour, He established the African-American Audience with The Cosby show, and had modest hits with kid shows and action shows like Silver Spoons, Knight Rider and The A-team.

Third He built his schedule with synergy. Each show on the winning nights flowed into the other compelling the viewer to continue watching the channel. family sitcoms followed adult sitcoms, then a drama at 10 which led into the news. Fans of The Cosby Show watched Family Ties and then A Different World to get to Cheers; then Night Court to L.A. Law and the news. Today's TV schedules lack that synergy; often repeating shows or programming shows that don't work well together. Earl and The Office contrast each other don't have the chemistry of a Freinds/Fraiser Seinfeld which had a theme going.

Fourth, Tartikoff counterprogrammed hit shows on other networks. Sure Dallas was a hit show on Friday Nights, but kids loved Knight Rider. 60 Minutes held the crown on Sunday nights, but Punky Brewster siphoned off enough kid viewers to keep NBC competitive at 7. Fresh Prince did the same thing on Monday Nights a few years later.

The smaller networks do well nowadays because they follow the Tartikoff model of programming. If you look at their schedules, they don't cancel critically acclaimed stuff as often, thre's a lot more synergy, they go after smaller audiences and counterprogram moreso than their big network brothers.

 

[SoulManX]

That has been a problem. Shows like Freaks and Geeks, Brimstone, (heck most of the recent FOX lineup) could have been hits had the network followed the Tartikoff approach to Network building a schedule and slowly adding on programs to develop an audience instead of throwing crap on a wall like they do now.

The late Brandon Tartikoff toook NBC from Last to first in the 80's and he took his time doing it.

First he nurtured shows that were critically acclaimed but had weak ratings (Cheers, Hill Street Blues, Night Court,) renewing them so he could have a foundation to build a schedule on.

Second, He went after demographics ignored by the other networks (Children, The elderly, fAfrican-Americans) on nights considered weak by ABC and CBS then. Tartikoff was able to have have a top ten hit on Saturday night ( (The Golden Girls) in a death slot because he knew seniors were the only ones at home up at that hour, He established the African-American Audience with The Cosby show, and had modest hits with kid shows and action shows like Silver Spoons, Knight Rider and The A-team.

Third He built his schedule with synergy. Each show on the winning nights flowed into the other compelling the viewer to continue watching the channel. family sitcoms followed adult sitcoms, then a drama at 10 which led into the news. Fans of The Cosby Show watched Family Ties and then A Different World to get to Cheers; then Night Court to L.A. Law and the news. Today's TV schedules lack that synergy; often repeating shows or programming shows that don't work well together. Earl and The Office contrast each other don't have the chemistry of a Freinds/Fraiser Seinfeld which had a theme going.

Fourth, Tartikoff counterprogrammed hit shows on other networks. Sure Dallas was a hit show on Friday Nights, but kids loved Knight Rider. 60 Minutes held the crown on Sunday nights, but Punky Brewster siphoned off enough kid viewers to keep NBC competitive at 7. Fresh Prince did the same thing on Monday Nights a few years later.

The smaller networks do well nowadays because they follow the Tartikoff model of programming. If you look at their schedules, they don't cancel critically acclaimed stuff as often, thre's a lot more synergy, they go after smaller audiences and counterprogram moreso than their big network brothers.

That was beautiful man...I do miss BT he was one of the last great programming men.

 

[Phatman]

That was beautiful man...I do miss BT he was one of the last great programming men.

I remember reading as kid (9 or 10) when Tartikoff took over NBC and I practically grew up on that network thanks to his scheduling strategies. As I got in my teens, I studied his programming model and really appreciated his approach to TV the network. His NBC featured content everyone could watch at any hour. The fact that he won viewers on suicide nights like Friday and Saturday (something no one has done since) shows how well versed he was in marketing and promoting shows.

If I ever got to be a TV executive I'd definitely follow his model. He truly was a master if not the master of building a network schedule. Most of the hit shows he greenlit from Cheers, Family Ties to Seinfeld are now classics.

 

[Dr. Evil]

Another factor is syndication. Friends, Seinfeld, The Simpsons, basically any hit comedy from the last 15 years are where people are going for their comedy (in addition to the original programming on cable). Which is ironic since networks push shows past their prime to boost syndication money.

It's crazy to see NBC's schedule ten years ago when they had at least 2 sitcoms 6 days a week. They've been reduced to 3 sitcoms with rumours of Earl being canceled (and being picked up by Fox) and will add a 4th with Parks & Recreation next week. Jeff Zucker had great success with The Today Show but he's done nothing but hurt NBC and keeps on getting promotioned and lets people below him, people he hired, get fired.

I don't think Cath and Kim has a bright future.

 

[Shifty]

Got to agree with you on Zucker. Before he took over NBC was the #1 network. Now they're dead last. I'm hoping NBC sends Zucker Packing. He's made a total mess of that network. I think Fred Silverman could have done a better job than he has recently.

Zucker talks about how scripted shows cost too much to produce; the irony is that these cheap reality shows
like America's Got Talent and The Biggest Loser are pulling in LESS revenue than their sitcom predecessors.
Back in the day NBC had a schedule full of sitcoms, back and could charge multimillion dollar ad rates. Seinfeld, Fraisier, Friends, were shows that did well because they were entertaining and compelling, something 90% of the current lineup isn't.

I can't believe I'm saying this, but Man I miss sitcoms like Martin Jamie Foxx and The Wayans Bros. Because the syndication is so crappy here in New York, Either I get my sitcom fix from Youtube or DVDs now. Outside of BBT and Gary Unmarried (Both OK, but no Seinfeld or Martin) there hasn't been a decent sitcom made by the networks in years.

Earl will do great on FOX, if they keep it in one time slot and promote it right. Fox is the strongest of the big four nowadays. Sadly it's because of their approach to business . Right now they're proactively looking for sitcoms. They realize they need to deepen their roster of shows and replace aging programs like House, The Simpsons, Family Guy, and American Idol, before audience erosion that started last year gets worse.

They'll end up like NBC which extended Friends, Frasier, West Wing and ER since they didn't have pilots they thought would be good enough to replace them. And eventually they had no hits to replace them. Southland may be a decent drama but with ER getting below 10 million for the past couple of seasons its going to be hard for this show to be a hit. If ER had ended 4 years ago when it was still getting great numbers their replacement probably would've done well. Now Southland gets 6 weeks in their slot and who knows where it will go with Jay Leno coming at 10/9c.

Heroes, Studio 60 and Earl looked like shows that would help NBC but the writers turned viewers away so NBC unfortunately got screwed with those shows.

I don't think Cath and Kim has a bright future.

Yeah that show is done. One of the stars is already on a pilot for a Fox comedy. The three comedies I referred to were The Office, Earl and 30 Rock. With Jay coming in on Thursdays, they could have The Office/30 Rock/Southland/Leno and then transport Parks & Recreation to a night and pair it with Community the comedy that sounds like their best bet this fall.

 

[BlackLantern]

what are everyones opinions on why Studio 60 didn't work?? seemed like a solid show to me

 

[Dr. Evil]

what are everyones opinions on why Studio 60 didn't work?? seemed like a solid show to me

Was it because of poor ratings? A lot of good shows have ended due to poor ratings and very rarely do they end with a series finale.

 

[Addendum]

For me, the networks really don't have much to offer me regarding shows. A lot of the newer shows haven't grabbed my interest. The only one that did was Arrested Development, and that happened after it was off the air.

I'm at the point where I honestly don't care what the networks do. I'm content with the shows on adult swim that I like and the Discovery and History Channels.

 

[BlackLantern]

History Channel has been really impressing me lately....love Gangland, Battles BC, and they have some great conspiracy stuff