Discussion in 'TV & Media' started by bigdaddy, Feb 2, 2013.
I don't know if that's true...
Well, I tend to use my ears as well, closed-captioning nothwithstanding.
Subtitles + fastforwardx32.
I put a couple lemons to bed using that combo.
Television, as a medium, is taking a hit. The internet, Netflix, Hulu, smart TVs--all of this makes getting a pair of rabbit ears seem ridiculous, as least to me. I know I cancelled cable and I don't miss it. I get to choose what I watch, when I want to watch it. And I don't have to worry about being inundated with commercials while I am watching it. Honestly, if my Pistons and HBO were on the internet, I would never own another television in my life.
As for the free airwaves, it's all crap. I don't like cop shows or talk shows or stupid comedies. I watch two non-informational shows on free television--The Big Bang Theory and Smash. That's it. PBS is okay, but I can get all their content with limited commercial interruptions on their website. Anything I want to see on HBO will be on DVD and Blu-ray soon anyway. It's really a waste of time to see all those commercials all the time. Clicking on the link is much easier. And I'm not doing anything illegal--who needs to anymore? The Pistons are the only thing I don't have access to.
The problems at NBC baffle me, except they have horrible acting and bland stories. How is that any different at CBS? It wasn't too long ago the roles were reversed.
CBS is home to the most successful new show of the season, Elementary. Its lead-in Person of Interest is also doing well and is critically respected.
ABC isn't doing that well. CBS is doing well for now, but their aging audience is going to get them eventually. They're all dinosaurs on the path to extinction, CBS is just the fattest dinosaur.
If you delete competition shows and sports from the equation, the situation is even more dire. Ad-supported TV can do well with "live" events - essentially, competitions (which is what the Oscars, American Idol and the SuperBowl all have in common) - because they are DVR proof so the ads get watched. Eventually, ad-supported TV will encompass competitions and news, while scripted fare moves over to the subscription model, either cable or streaming.
Broadcast is locked into their fate because they have too many vested interests they can't afford to offend. For networks, it's advertisers. Cable TV is in the same situation, their hands are tied. HBO would be foolish to offend cable/dish companies by offering HBOGo on the same basis as Netflix.
Netflix and Amazon have a clear playing field because they are the least locked into an archaic situation and they have the luxury of just doing what makes sense, such as spending a boatload on a premium series and then giving the audience the power to decide when they watch it, which judging from the comments all over the internet has made up for that Quiwkster debacle and then some. That's smart because right now, it's all about brand building and loyalty. That investment will pay off hugely in the long run.
The CBS viewer is the least likely to have already abandoned broadcast for cable or streaming. NBC's audience is a lot more hip to new trends, so they're already gone. But it's a general trend that's going to hit everyone eventually. CBS's viewers can't live forever and the younger viewers have already abandoned broadcast.
Zour Hour was the worst rated premiere in the network history. They are all fucked and outdated.
Temis, I don't understand your insistence on the stereotype that CBS caters only to really old people. Do you even watch their shows? If anything, the CSI franchise seems to be targeted at younger audiences, with an emphasis on music-video-style montages and editing and an abundance of sexually themed, often quite kinky storylines. Person of Interest is aimed at the same audience as Christopher Nolan's Batman movies, and Elementary is a "younger, hipper" version of Sherlock Holmes rather than a stodgy drawing-room mystery. This is not the network of Murder, She Wrote anymore.
Here's what I found online about CBS's audience demographics, although the figures are five years old:
So nearly 60% of their audience is under 45, or at least it was five years ago.
If it weren't for sports I'm pretty sure I wouldn't have TV at all except for my blu-rays and DVDs. And when it becomes possible to stream all sport events online, including NBA and college sports. And stream those perfectly instead of the crappy streams we have today, I'll probably give up cable. I haven't watched a network show in years.
Don't forget--live events have pay subscriptions online. For instance, NBA League Pass, MLB.com TV, etc. ESPN3 does plenty of games, especially college sports. The Superbowl was streamed on CBS.com this year. What do you need nielsen families for anymore?
Wonder if broadcast networks will end up becoming a wasteland of reality shows and live events as prime time television.
(ie. Stuff which doesn't view very well after it is over, and/or has very little to no rewatch value).
This is true. However, haven't almost all studies shown that the median audience for CBS is older than that of any other major network? IIRC; CBS is in the 40s; ABC & NBC are in the 30s; and the CW, FOX, & MTV are all in the 20s.
Rebellion is cyclical.
Maybe the next batch of asshole children will go back to television?
Older in a relative sense, yes, but it's not like it's all a bunch of senior citizens, which is the way Temis seems to talk about it.
I think 40s counts as senior citizens as far as advertisers are concerned.
Whatever the case, I think advertising is better on the internet anyway. As far as hitting a target audience. For instance, I log in using my Google account for Chrome. I see advertisements that appeal to me over what I have clicked. It does the same thing with Youtube videos. It's a little freaky, but I'm more apt to do that then see a commercial for face cream during a 60-minute television show. The advertisers have their day during the Super Bowl and have to deal with generalities the rest of the time. "Our audience is usually 20-35, female. So let's put up the face cream ad." It means that advertisements are not as widely seen, but the person is more likely to buy the product. If I have bought face cream in the past, then it gives me a deal on face cream. That's better advertising.
I don't think much of the "targeted" advertising online, though. A couple of days ago I got a new landline phone at Staples -- and when I was browsing that evening, a Staples ad appeared on io9 offering to sell me the exact phone I'd just bought. How useless is that?
I wouldn't be surprised.
I'm sure advertisers know that it is almost next to impossible to change the minds of people older than age 40.
Perhaps that's why advertisers are willing to pay more to reach a larger teenager -> young adult demographic, than for older people. (ie. Many young people's minds are not made up yet).
The problem with reality shows is that they get terrible ratings whenever they are rerun and people have no interest buying them on dvd.
Good dramas and comedy will always make money and will be always be around. Being rerun in syndication is a big reason for that.
Seems that way.
There is perhaps one big exception. The only reality show I can think of offhand which seems to have regular reruns, is COPS.
Separate names with a comma.