No Comment

Network TV is doomed

Better than getting beat by Univision I guess

MyKingdomForYourHorse: Network TV is doomed

Something's going to have to change.  Ratings are down across the board this spring, again.  It's been pretty consistent over the last several years that most shows drop in ratings from fall to spring. 
For example, on Monday every single show except The Voice struggled to crack a 2.0 in the demo, whereas most of those shows were near or above 3.0 when the debuted.  I was thinking we'd start seeing more shorter seasons and midseason replacements but we actually seem to be getting less of that than we used to.

I don't think network television is "doomed" but there's definitely a problem there that needs a solution.

I've been watching Revolution it's fairly ok. I still get a chuckle every time I see Bella's dad act all badass.

the only show i watch on nbc anymore is go on. my wife and i spent some time in a support group after our son died. i can relate some. i used to watch law and order and law and order criminal intent but now just hit the reruns on my computer or tnt (have to do the computer thing for the first couple of seasons). wife dvr's svu but only out of habit. i dvr go on but might not get to it for a week or two.

i can't see it lasting more than two or three seasons. it makes me chuckle some.

oh wait...is this where i was supposed to say i don't even own a tv...i can't remember sometimes...

rugman11: I don't think network television is "doomed" but there's definitely a problem there that needs a solution.

Bold programming instead of attempts at cookie cutter low ball money makers. Essentially tell the FCC to go fark and fly a kite and go with the 'unsafe' edgy shiat again. Push the envelope again, people want sex they want crass and they want violence. A few people might complain sure, but you'll capture back people who left network TV years ago.

Basically, take some of that reserve cash and pony it up and take a farking risk for once already.

Gilligan who came up with the concept for Breaking Bad had initially shopped the idea around network execs vs only to be told, it would never fly. AMC ended up with it because premium cable didn't want another 'Weeds' despite it being vastly different. AMC took a shot in the dark and look how that ended for them?

Hell if someone had told you ten years ago that there would be a TV show about zombies and it will have a massive following and go likely well into 5 or 6 seasons would you have believed them?

texdent: I've been watching The Voice, but I can't seem to get back into watching Revolution.

How is skinny Celo and Latin Christina fitting in?

The wife hasnt had a chance to make me watch the new season.

MyKingdomForYourHorse: rugman11: I don't think network television is "doomed" but there's definitely a problem there that needs a solution.

Bold programming instead of attempts at cookie cutter low ball money makers. Essentially tell the FCC to go fark and fly a kite and go with the 'unsafe' edgy shiat again. Push the envelope again, people want sex they want crass and they want violence. A few people might complain sure, but you'll capture back people who left network TV years ago.

Basically, take some of that reserve cash and pony it up and take a farking risk for once already.

Gilligan who came up with the concept for Breaking Bad had initially shopped the idea around network execs vs only to be told, it would never fly. AMC ended up with it because premium cable didn't want another 'Weeds' despite it being vastly different. AMC took a shot in the dark and look how that ended for them?

Hell if someone had told you ten years ago that there would be a TV show about zombies and it will have a massive following and go likely well into 5 or 6 seasons would you have believed them?

That's the thing, though.  The Walking Dead is such an anomaly that I don't know that we can really draw any conclusions from it.  Breaking Bad's ratings aren't that spectacular and it took several years to get where it is.  If it had debuted on a broadcast network, it probably wouldn't have lasted more than a year or two.  Same with Mad Men.  The financial model is just so different from broadcast to cable that you can't just say "put cable shows on broadcast and it will work."  Certainly, a self-starter like The Walking Dead would be fine on broadcast, but the shows like Mad Men and Breaking Bad, that start soft and build their audiences based on quality just don't last.

Realistically, the cable shows that could most easily make the jump to broadcast are the pseudo-reality shows like Duck Dynasty and Pawn Stars.  They're cheap to produce, so even if they fail it's not a complete disaster and they're capable of rating at or above the quality cable stuff at 1/10 of the cost.

And it does look like the networks have been trying to replicate The Walking Dead's magic with horror shows but they've been mostly terrible thus far.  Hannibal is supposed to be really good, so maybe that will change things around, especially since it's an already established brand.

rugman11: The financial model is just so different from broadcast to cable that you can't just say "put cable shows on broadcast and it will work." Certainly, a self-starter like The Walking Dead would be fine on broadcast, but the shows like Mad Men and Breaking Bad, that start soft and build their audiences based on quality just don't last.

That's the issue however, most great shows are always built over time. Go back and watch a few episodes of Family Guy or even say Simpsons from the first few seasons. Many of them are cringe inducing, but more often than not there are great gems in there. By third fourth season those gems have been polished and are really starting to shine.

My rant really wasn't a point to just take cable shows and put em on network, but to look at their model and emulate it. Take more risks.

Case in point, Revolution has some GREAT potential. It ain't quite the best show it can be, but there are some gems in there. With some encouragement, the right time slot placement, and marketing it could be one of a few flagship shows of for the network and honestly go head to head with some of cables big ratings winners.

That's what network TV has lost, that idea of show cultivation.

Thursdays with the Cosby Show, Family Ties, Cheers, (9:30 filler), and LA Law.  How could they possibly be losing?

MyKingdomForYourHorse:
Hell if someone had told you ten years ago that there would be a TV show about zombies and it will have a massive following and go likely well into 5 or 6 seasons would you have believed them?

I still don't.

texdent: I've been watching The Voice, but I can't seem to get back into watching Revolution.

It's still about a 6.5/10 show, but they just did something fairly MAJOR that was surprising, especially considering the focus of the first half of the season.

MyKingdomForYourHorse: rugman11: The financial model is just so different from broadcast to cable that you can't just say "put cable shows on broadcast and it will work." Certainly, a self-starter like The Walking Dead would be fine on broadcast, but the shows like Mad Men and Breaking Bad, that start soft and build their audiences based on quality just don't last.

That's the issue however, most great shows are always built over time. Go back and watch a few episodes of Family Guy or even say Simpsons from the first few seasons. Many of them are cringe inducing, but more often than not there are great gems in there. By third fourth season those gems have been polished and are really starting to shine.

My rant really wasn't a point to just take cable shows and put em on network, but to look at their model and emulate it. Take more risks.

Case in point, Revolution has some GREAT potential. It ain't quite the best show it can be, but there are some gems in there. With some encouragement, the right time slot placement, and marketing it could be one of a few flagship shows of for the network and honestly go head to head with some of cables big ratings winners.

That's what network TV has lost, that idea of show cultivation.

The problem is that the networks don't have carriage fees to fall back on in order to keep a low-rated critical darling on the air.  AMC brings in almost $1 billion per year in carriage fees, way more than what they make in ad revenue.  Compare that to the network model where ad revenues are pretty much the only revenue.  Cable networks can afford to take "risks" because they have a boatload of cash to fall back on if that risk doesn't pay off.  The broadcast networks just can't afford to nurse along a sub-1.0 show in the hopes that people find it on DVD or Netflix in the summer and that maybe, hopefully, it can possibly bump up to a 1.5 or 2.0 after a couple of years.  With a show like Revolution, that gets good ratings, they can let it grow and hope it becomes a critical success as well.  But if we've seen anything over the last several years it's that viewers aren't drawn to quality shows just because they're "good," so networks are always going to gravitate toward shows they think will sell over shows they think are good, but niche.

rugman11: The problem is that the networks don't have carriage fees to fall back on in order to keep a low-rated critical darling on the air. AMC brings in almost $1 billion per year in carriage fees, way more than what they make in ad revenue. Compare that to the network model where ad revenues are pretty much the only revenue. Cable networks can afford to take "risks" because they have a boatload of cash to fall back on if that risk doesn't pay off. The broadcast networks just can't afford to nurse along a sub-1.0 show in the hopes that people find it on DVD or Netflix in the summer and that maybe, hopefully, it can possibly bump up to a 1.5 or 2.0 after a couple of years. With a show like Revolution, that gets good ratings, they can let it grow and hope it becomes a critical success as well. But if we've seen anything over the last several years it's that viewers aren't drawn to quality shows just because they're "good," so networks are always going to gravitate toward shows they think will sell over shows they think are good, but niche.

They are doomed to irrelevance then really, because show cultivation is how shows are made now. They cannot be blind to the trend in how people watch TV now, that episodic content is often consumed all at once instead of week to week, and then when that zeitgeist hits the ratings explode to live watching in addition to the already substantial stream, recorded, etc.. viewers.

Look at what Netflix is doing with House of Cards and their revival of Arrested Development for instance. Arrested being a prime example of a show that Nielson'd in the low 1's when in reality it had a cult like following online with many thousands more viewers.

MyKingdomForYourHorse: rugman11:

They are doomed to irrelevance then really, because show cultivation is how shows are made now. They cannot be blind to the trend in how people watch TV now, that episodic content is often consumed all at once instead of week to week, and then when that zeitgeist hits the ratings explode to live watching in addition to the already substantial stream, recorded, etc.. viewers.

Look at what Netflix is doing with House of Cards and their revival of Arrested Development for instance. Arrested being a prime example of a show that Nielson'd in the low 1's when in reality it had a cult like following online with many thousands more viewers.

I don't know how sustainable that Netflix model is, though.  One of the big things about cultivating a show is that people need to be talking about it for an extended period of time.  We're now barely two months out from the House of Cards premiere and nobody is talking about it any more and hasn't been for several weeks.  It was a thing, some people watched it, and now it's done.  Nobody's going to talk about it until the next season comes out or maybe in September if it gets some Emmy nominations.  Compare that with Game of Thrones, which everybody's been talking about for the last month or so and which is going to dominate television discussion for the next three months, maybe more.  Cultivating a show is about more than just dumping it all on the audience and letting them consume.  You need to get people talking and keep people talking for an extended period of time.

And it's not like broadcast isn't capable of that.  There are a lot of shows that hit their peaks in later years.  Off the top of my head, How I Met Your Mother, NCIS, The Big Bang Theory, Bones, The Office, and Grey's Anatomy are all examples of shows that peaked (ratings-wise) in their fourth or fifth seasons.  The key is that these weren't low-rated shows when they began.  They drew acceptable or even good ratings to stay on the air while they built their audiences.  You can even look at more recent shows like Person of Interest or Scandal as examples of shows that started decent and then built their audiences in their second season to turn into legitimate hits.  The difference with most of these cable shows (with the one BIG exception) is that even their highs aren't really good enough for the networks.

I don't know about the rest of you but if my personal experience is indicative of a larger trend I think I know what the problem is.  I like most people work for a living.  And I have a house and family to care for.  Most of my friends and family are in the same boat.  Very few of them have the free time to sit down and watch TV at a specific time.

Hulu, Amazon Prime, and Netflix have figured out a way to cater to people like us.  The genie is out of the bottle.  I'll never go back to the old business model for watching TV.  I canceled TV 3 years ago.  I don't miss it at all what so ever.  I watched pretty much the entire summer Olympics streaming.  If that wasn't available I wouldn't have watched it at all.

Streaming on demand is the future.  Adapt or die.

rugman11:  We're now barely two months out from the House of Cards premiere and nobody is talking about it any more and hasn't been for several weeks.  ...

Most of my friends and family have either finished it, in process of watching it, or intending to start watching it.  And everyone is talking about it.  Perhaps your experiences are different but I know at least 4 people who signed up for Netflix just to watch it.  And everyone I am social with is still talking about it.

Actually subby, that's great news for NBC, but somebody at Fox is gonna lose their job over it.

rugman11: The difference with most of these cable shows (with the one BIG exception) is that even their highs aren't really good enough for the networks.

Or so they thought. There was a Slate article recently where the networks admitted they did not have good data on ratings for viewers who DVR, stream, or rental medium their shows.

They may have genuine hits on their hands and not even realize it.

Biggest surprise hit from cable this year has been the History Channel's Vikings. OMG we watched it one night waiting for the Watching Dead. We set up the series to record and have not been let down yet. I can not honestly remember the last time a network station show grabbed me that quickly.

When the networks went stupid with so many reality shows that is when I walked away. They canceled good syndicated shows for another reality clone. I could give a rats ass about the Voice, or dancing with a C list has been star.

Sons of Anarchy
Breaking Bad
Walking Dead
Vikings
Hell even Lost Girl on Syfy

Find me something that good on a network station that isn't a clone of NCIS, Law and Order, or a reality show?

s1ugg0: rugman11:  We're now barely two months out from the House of Cards premiere and nobody is talking about it any more and hasn't been for several weeks.  ...

Most of my friends and family have either finished it, in process of watching it, or intending to start watching it.  And everyone is talking about it.  Perhaps your experiences are different but I know at least 4 people who signed up for Netflix just to watch it.  And everyone I am social with is still talking about it.

I guess I was referring more to the zeitgeist.  I mean, look at the following Google searches:

Walking Dead finale: 172,000,000
Game of Thrones premiere: 210,000,000
House of Cards finale: 2,360,000

And of the first page results, only one page on House of Cards is more recent than March 8th.  If you look at the Google News results it's even worse.  The fifth article is about the Justified finale and the seventh is about soccer.

I mean, I fully intend to watch House of Cards at some point when there aren't a million other things on, but I don't know if you can really build a sustainable business model on, "well I'll watch it some time."  Maybe you can.  But I'd be more inclined to trust the current model for now anyway.

rugman11: We're now barely two months out from the House of Cards premiere and nobody is talking about it any more and hasn't been for several weeks.

I haven't gotten around to watching it yet, but I've heard three or four of my coworkers talking about it in the past week or so.

Some 'Splainin' To Do: Univision's success is largely a reflection of the fact that there is a large hispanic market and they've dominated it. Good for them, but it's apples and enchiladas.

I always assumed their success was the cleavage to air time ratio was much higher

Justified.

That is all.

rugman11: s1ugg0: rugman11:  We're now barely two months out from the House of Cards premiere and nobody is talking about it any more and hasn't been for several weeks.  ...

Most of my friends and family have either finished it, in process of watching it, or intending to start watching it.  And everyone is talking about it.  Perhaps your experiences are different but I know at least 4 people who signed up for Netflix just to watch it.  And everyone I am social with is still talking about it.

I guess I was referring more to the zeitgeist.  I mean, look at the following Google searches:

Walking Dead finale: 172,000,000
Game of Thrones premiere: 210,000,000
House of Cards finale: 2,360,000

And of the first page results, only one page on House of Cards is more recent than March 8th.  If you look at the Google News results it's even worse.  The fifth article is about the Justified finale and the seventh is about soccer.

I mean, I fully intend to watch House of Cards at some point when there aren't a million other things on, but I don't know if you can really build a sustainable business model on, "well I'll watch it some time."  Maybe you can.  But I'd be more inclined to trust the current model for now anyway.

Not to mention Netflix still hasn't really sorted out a profit model. It's great that they can get someone to sign up for $8 to watch a show, no guarantee those people will hang around, and that they can make big money doing things that way.

s1ugg0: rugman11:  We're now barely two months out from the House of Cards premiere and nobody is talking about it any more and hasn't been for several weeks.  ...

Most of my friends and family have either finished it, in process of watching it, or intending to start watching it.  And everyone is talking about it.  Perhaps your experiences are different but I know at least 4 people who signed up for Netflix just to watch it.  And everyone I am social with is still talking about it.

I watched it, heard people talk about it, when it was released. Haven't heard a word about in on any of my feeds/facebook/twitter since. They should have released it episodically.

MyKingdomForYourHorse: That's the issue however, most great shows are always built over time. Go back and watch a few episodes of Family Guy or even say Simpsons from the first few seasons. Many of them are cringe inducing, but more often than not there are great gems in there.

though I agree with the point you are making, I would like to add that I think the first season of The Simpsons was pretty damn good for its time and only really hasn't held up well due to how much greater the next 7 subsequent seasons were. It saddens me that a lot of people lump seasons 2 and 3 as being on par with season 1 though; at worst, those seasons were only slightly worse than season 4 - 8.

I certainly hope the Whitney Cummings blowjob was worth losing the network, NBC programming director.

FeedTheCollapse: though I agree with the point you are making, I would like to add that I think the first season of The Simpsons was pretty damn good for its time and only really hasn't held up well due to how much greater the next 7 subsequent seasons were. It saddens me that a lot of people lump seasons 2 and 3 as being on par with season 1 though; at worst, those seasons were only slightly worse than season 4 - 8.

The first season, IMHO was either really on or really off. While subsequent seasons just seemed to get better until they finally jumped the shark around season 9 I think.

EyeballKid: I certainly hope the Whitney Cummings blowjob was worth losing the network, NBC programming director.

How Whitney ever got beyond the Pilot stage I will never know.

Baelz:

When the networks went stupid with so many reality shows that is when I walked away. They canceled good syndicated shows for another reality clone. I could give a rats ass about the Voice, or dancing with a C list has been star.

The TV Networks made almost the exact same mistake in the 2000s that the music industry made in the late '90s.  In music, teenie pop was hugely profitable in the short term, so the major labels ditched almost all their established artists and up-and-coming rock groups and jumped on the pop bandwagon.  They failed to nurture bands and artists who could have made them a fortune, because of short-term thinking.

In TV, reality TV shows were hugely profitable in the short term, so the networks went all-in with them.  They failed to nurture sitcoms and dramas which could have made them a fortune in the long run.  If Seinfeld had debuted last year, it would have been cancelled after its first season.  How much money did Seinfeld eventually make for NBC?  If the Simpsons had debuted last year, it would have been cancelled after its first season.  How much money did it eventually make for Fox?

Network TV is cutting its own throat, and it's because of short-term thinking.

texdent: I've been watching The Voice, but I can't seem to get back into watching Revolution.

Me either, it went flat after they killed Maggie.

Brokenseas: If Seinfeld had debuted last year, it would have been cancelled after its first season. How much money did Seinfeld eventually make for NBC? If the Simpsons had debuted last year, it would have been cancelled after its first season. How much money did it eventually make for Fox?

When The Simpsons premiered, it was the second highest rated show on FOX and the season two premiere of The Simpsons was watched by 33.6 million people (#1 for that week) and remains the most-watched episode of the series to this day, so I'm going to call BS on your second point.

As for Seinfeld, it started its life in development hell.  It took a while to get a "full" season ordered, but once the show premiered, it had good ratings and kept decent enough ratings to keep it around until it finally took off.

Networks nurture shows all the time, it's just not always in ways we realize.  NBC is nurturing Revolution by keeping it on after The Voice and then people complain because it's off the air for three months.  ABC is nurturing Scandal by putting it after it's highest-rated drama and it's paying big dividends.  What networks don't generally do is nurture low-rated shows they don't think can grow. Certainly, there are some examples, but for the most part low-rated shows have always been canceled because that's what you do with shows that don't make money.

s1ugg0: I don't know about the rest of you but if my personal experience is indicative of a larger trend I think I know what the problem is.  I like most people work for a living.  And I have a house and family to care for.  Most of my friends and family are in the same boat.  Very few of them have the free time to sit down and watch TV at a specific time.

Hulu, Amazon Prime, and Netflix have figured out a way to cater to people like us.  The genie is out of the bottle.  I'll never go back to the old business model for watching TV.  I canceled TV 3 years ago.  I don't miss it at all what so ever.  I watched pretty much the entire summer Olympics streaming.  If that wasn't available I wouldn't have watched it at all.

Streaming on demand is the future.  Adapt or die.

Sounds to me more like an indictment of 21st century America as opposed to  a bold statment of independence. What you said in essence is you have less leisure time than your parents and are trying to tell me thats a good thing.

Saiga410: texdent: I've been watching The Voice, but I can't seem to get back into watching Revolution.

How is skinny Celo and Latin Christina fitting in?

The wife hasnt had a chance to make me watch the new season.

Shakira is ridiculously adorable and hot at the same time.  And she's funny as all hell.

So, working out, I think.

Leno to take credit for this and demand to keep the Tonight Show gig in 3, 2, 1....

rugman11: Certainly, there are some examples, but for the most part low-rated shows have always been canceled because that's what you do with shows that don't make money.

Thats the argument here though, is that yes they may not be making money from low ratings but that those ratings are measured against the wrong metrics.

MyKingdomForYourHorse: rugman11: Certainly, there are some examples, but for the most part low-rated shows have always been canceled because that's what you do with shows that don't make money.

Thats the argument here though, is that yes they may not be making money from low ratings but that those ratings are measured against the wrong metrics.

I'm not sure what you mean by "wrong metrics." Care to clarify?

MyKingdomForYourHorse: rugman11: Certainly, there are some examples, but for the most part low-rated shows have always been canceled because that's what you do with shows that don't make money.

Thats the argument here though, is that yes they may not be making money from low ratings but that those ratings are measured against the wrong metrics.

Chicken and egg.  It's usually true, especially in the age of timeshifting and online streaming, but it doesn't change the fact that the shows _aren't making money._  When you're a suit, you make decisions based off that, not off the likely good reasons that have led to it not making money.  Most of these are publicly traded companies, which means long term vision and planning isn't usually a strong skill, as the _quarter_ is what is important.

bulsd: Justified.

That is all.

Yea verily, I say unto thee, and Boyd Crowder spake and we went forth unto the bowels of the earth and dug coal together.

Baelz: I've been watching Revolution it's fairly ok. I still get a chuckle every time I see Bella's dad act all badass.

Please tell me you've seen "Drive Angry."  He plays a brilliant sleazy devil-worshipping Elvis wannabe.

And yes, that movie is pure brain-melting garbage.