American Network Television Tanking Fast (ZOMG surprise).

[TedShatner10]

The Economist

The not-so-big four - Broadcast television is declining at an accelerating rate

“IT’S amazing how little has changed around here,” says a character in the final episode of “E.R.”, which aired in America on April 2nd. Indeed, it seemed like old times for the hospital drama: 16m people tuned in, not many fewer than it drew a decade ago. But the impression of good times is no more real than a stage set. For programmes like “E.R.”, and for broadcast television itself, much is changing.

The recession has been cruel to a business that depends almost entirely on advertising. Local television stations, many of them owned by or affiliated with national broadcasters, have seen advertising revenue fall by as much as 40% as car dealers and other retailers cut back. Later this month the national networks will test the market for advance advertising. It should prove better than the local market, but still difficult. And this painful cyclical problem coincides with a bigger, structural one: the audience for the “big four” broadcast networks is eroding (see chart).
It is not that people are watching less television. In the last quarter of 2008 the average American took in 151 hours per month, an all-time record, according to Nielsen, a market-research firm. The trouble is the growth of choice. More than 80% of American households now get their television via satellite or cable. To them, the broadcast channels are just items on a menu containing hundreds of dishes.

The networks can still produce hits. “American Idol” and “CSI”, respectively an amateur singing competition and a forensic-science drama, routinely attract more than 20m viewers—three times as many as the most successful cable shows. But occasional triumphs do not add up to a sustainable business model. Chris Silbermann, president of International Creative Management, a talent agency, says the big change is that mediocre television now struggles to attract a healthy audience. The ratings seem to back him up. Between the first 12 weeks of 2005 and the first 12 weeks of this year, the audience for the top-rated broadcast show (often “American Idol”) fell by 9%. But the number watching the tenth most popular show was down by 17%, and the audience for the 20th in the list was 18% smaller.

So far, the big broadcast networks have been able to persuade advertisers to spend more for each eyeball they reach. Although they can no longer round up huge audiences, they are still the best way of reaching very large ones. And advertisers tend to see broadcast television, with its consistently wholesome quality, as a safe place to promote their products. Cable is still viewed as a rather wild frontier populated by wrestlers and televangelists.

Yet this, too, is changing. Last year’s Emmy awards were dominated by cable shows. “Mad Men”, which is set in an advertising agency, was voted best drama. It was the first time the award had gone to a show on basic cable (it is shown on the AMC channel) as opposed to a premium network, such as HBO. Such acclaim changes attitudes to cable generally. Bruce Rosenblum, the head of the television group at Warner Bros, reckons the growing profile of original cable shows may gradually erode the huge premium that advertisers will pay for broadcast.

Cutbacks are already under way. The networks have commissioned fewer pilot shows than usual this year, many of them relatively cheap half-hour comedies. With its broadcast network faring poorly, NBC plans to run Jay Leno, a talk-show host, five nights a week at 10pm—the slot where dramas such as “E.R.” once reigned. Some broadcast networks look enviously at cable channels, with their steady streams of income from distributors, and ponder getting out of broadcast altogether.

Such a radical change would involve difficult negotiations with local stations. In the meantime, the broadcast networks should be able to drive harder bargains with both local stations and cable companies. Television producers will find new markets abroad. But the good times appear to be over. Sometimes an industry can withstand pressure for many years, and then collapse abruptly. Just ask a newspaper proprietor.

With viewing habits changing (*cough*Internet*cough*) and the media getting more thinly spread since the last decade, both contributing to declining ad revenues, and couple it with arrogant, inept management (Moonves and Zucker, I'm looking at you) it looks like American network television is getting seriously corroded.

Alongside the increasing pressure of the more sturdy paid cable networks, it seems like the Nielsen system is woefully outdated - to start with it only monitors tens of thousands of households (if that) and it didn't take students into account until only the last couple of years, for fuck's sake.
Looking at the ratings graph that goes with the article, it is likely no coincidence that CBS' ratings started to dip suddenly around the time they impatiently axed Moonlight, Jericho, and Shark, coupled with the ridiculous writer's strike, alienating millions of viewers.

With the way shows seem to be more quickly turned over or/and abused with illogical scheduling, it is getting to the point where I'm convinced monkeys locked in cages and given targets (with the names of shows stuck on them) for them to throw their crap at would yield more coherent choices than those made by US network executives.

 

[Jax]

^ The internet does not take that many viewers away domestically 9maybe international wise $$$). TIVO/DVR hurts more and website viewing but at least they can put ads on website ones. New system of Nieslen would show more people are watching I bet and TIVO's should be programmed not to be able to skip ads so then networks would count them.

Less people are watching TV theres no doubt but then again change the target demo to older people who have more money anyway the ad money would be fine.

 

[Data Holmes]

^ The internet does not take that many viewers away domestically 9maybe international wise $$$). TIVO/DVR hurts more and website viewing but at least they can put ads on website ones. New system of Nieslen would show more people are watching I bet and TIVO's should be programmed not to be able to skip ads so then networks would count them.

Less people are watching TV theres no doubt but then again change the target demo to older people who have more money anyway the ad money would be fine.

It isn't so much that people a watching less tv, it's that people are watching less broadcast tv. FX, USA, A&E, HBO, Showtime... these networks are putting out quality shows that whip the pants off of pretty much anything which gets on the air on the major broadcast networks. That is where people are turning.

What's funny is that we have tons of people who come into the block buster where I work to rent these shows because they either don't have cable or didn't learn about said show/shows until after the show had a season or two in.

Mad Men, Weeds, Dexter, Rescue Me, Nip/Tuck, Monk, Burn Notice, BSG... All of these are hard to keep on the shelves. To me it seems more and more like the studios that put shows up like these are seeing the first run of the show on TV as almost a long running add for the DVD's and to creat word of mouth to give the DVD's legs.

 

[Mistral]

I've spent 40+ yrs being bombarded by ads. Now, I can watch what I want without having to watch any ads but the ones that actually seem amusing/entertaining. (God Bless you, DVR!) It's like a breath of fresh air in Tokyo, a rare thing to be cherished. The networks can burn in hell for all that I care-they been mismanaging great shows for years. They deserve to be punished. Or ruined, I don't care.

 

[Temis the Vorta]

Yeah, it's cable rather than the new media that's killing networks, and boo hoo for the networks, that's what you get when competitors provide superior product. Almost all the wortwhile stuff is on cable anymore. Lost and Chuck are still good; Heroes is still fun, if not good. 24 is out of ideas but at least it's a fun thrill ride. Reaper is worth watching on fast-forward to zap the silly crap. Prison Break has become so awful that I'm glad it's ending. What else is there?

Less people are watching TV theres no doubt

I saw a recent article that per-household TV viewing is at an all-time high but I can't figure out where I saw it...darn. If I can find it, I'll link to it. TV viewing isn't down at all, it's just split up between more and more channels.

then again change the target demo to older people who have more money anyway the ad money would be fine.

If they're over 49, advertisers figure it's not worth the effort to reach because it's too hard to change their brand preferences and therefore they aren't worth targetting. Younger consumers may have less money but the idea is that their brand preferences are still malleable, and after all an 18 year old has more years of purchasing ahead of them than a 58 year old. Whether or not advertisers are right about such things, they certainly believe them and those beliefs determine where ad dollars go and what shows live or die.

I've spent 40+ yrs being bombarded by ads. Now, I can watch what I want without having to watch any ads but the ones that actually seem amusing/entertaining. (God Bless you, DVR!) It's like a breath of fresh air in Tokyo, a rare thing to be cherished. The networks can burn in hell for all that I care-they been mismanaging great shows for years. They deserve to be punished. Or ruined, I don't care.

If you don't wach ads, the networks don't care about your opinions. Not trying to be rude here, just trying to keep reminding people of why TV shows exist in the first place - for the benefit of advertisers, not for the benefit of the audience. TV is all about the Golden Rule: whoever has the gold makes the rules.

To me it seems more and more like the studios that put shows up like these are seeing the first run of the show on TV as almost a long running add for the DVD's and to creat word of mouth to give the DVD's legs.

I'm not sure that DVD sales are that big of a factor for any TV show, but on cable, part of the expense of making shows is offset by cable subscription fees, which means that each viewer is more valuable. To make a show that might need 8 million viewers on a network, you might be able to survive with 4 million on cable (made up numbers just for illustrative purposes, no idea what the actual trade off is). The key is, if you only need an audience of 4 million, you can appeal to niche tastes and do something "boring and artsy" like Mad Men or "offputting and impenetrable" like BSG, and still survive.

 

[TedShatner10]

I heard they edit down or speed up the actual programmes, to cram in more inane adverts on broadcast television. No wonder thousands of people are routinely bailing out.

 

[TedShatner10]

Yeah, it's cable rather than the new media that's killing networks, and boo hoo for the networks, that's what you get when competitors provide superior product.

They're also a lot less likely to can their shows if the stars and planets are arranged in a certain manner, unlike on the flailing around broadcast networks.

Almost all the wortwhile stuff is on cable anymore. Lost and Chuck are still good; Heroes is still fun, if not good. 24 is out of ideas but at least it's a fun thrill ride. Reaper is worth watching on fast-forward to zap the silly crap. Prison Break has become so awful that I'm glad it's ending. What else is there?

I stilll find the CSI franchise watchable, even if it has gone on for too long and I've also got a soft spot for NCIS. Heroes is a well made and generally well acted show, but creatively and story wise it has gone downhill fast. Chuck's novelty wore off fast for me.

 

[miraclefan]

Ding-Dong the BITCH is DEAD! The Wicked, Wicked BITCH is DEAD! HA,HA,HA! Good redence to bad CRAP I say! The ''Networks'' are fossiles, let them die!

 

[Temis the Vorta]

Ding-Dong the BITCH is DEAD! The Wicked, Wicked BITCH is DEAD! HA,HA,HA! Good redence to bad CRAP I say! The ''Networks'' are fossiles, let them die!

They won't die, they'll just be the home of reality crap and ten billion iterations of CSI. I suspect that pretty much everything folks around here will want to watch will be on cable.

The dire network pilot lineups are previews of coming attractions - NBC's pilots are like some horrible parody of the most brainless and uncreative types of programs possible: Generic Cop Show, Generic Medical Show, Generic Sitcom, Generic Action Sci Fi. Why not cut to the chase and just name them as such? That at least would be entertaining.

CBS is the poster child for the future of network TV. AMC is the poster child for the future of cable TV. Sure, I'll be watching AMC and not CBS but that's not to say that CBS won't still be a perfectly viable business.

 

[miraclefan]

^The head of CBS KILLED ENTERPRISE. So I hope CBS fails BIG-TIME!

 

[Tulin]

For killing ENT, he should have got a medal!!!

 

[Garrovick]

^The head of CBS KILLED ENTERPRISE. So I hope CBS fails BIG-TIME!

The lack of viewers killed ENT. Even after Paramount was giving it to UPN at half price.

No viewers = no sponsors= no ENT.

But back to the topic, TV died years ago, the fact that I don't even own a TV proves that.

 

[Mr. Adventure]

The dire network pilot lineups are previews of coming attractions - NBC's pilots are like some horrible parody of the most brainless and uncreative types of programs possible: Generic Cop Show, Generic Medical Show, Generic Sitcom, Generic Action Sci Fi. Why not cut to the chase and just name them as such? That at least would be entertaining.

You might be on to something, look at some recent long-running shows: Crime Scene Investigation, E.R., Law and Order, Homicide. Hasn't hurt those...

 

[TedShatner10]

Network television is not only hamstrung by the bizarre demands of the advertizers, they've also been hamstrung by weird censorship: it's OK to cut off a young woman's head, but under no circumstances can you say "cunt".

 

[Mistral]

^The head of CBS KILLED ENTERPRISE. So I hope CBS fails BIG-TIME!

The lack of viewers killed ENT. Even after Paramount was giving it to UPN at half price.

No viewers = no sponsors= no ENT.

But back to the topic, TV died years ago, the fact that I don't even own a TV proves that.

Or it proves that you're a cheapskate.

Seriously, network tv may be abysmal most of the time but if you don't own a tv then you have missed some of the most fascinating shows...

Sopranos
Band of Brothers
From the Earth to the Moon
Generation Kill
Journeyman
The Sheild
The Wire
Oz
Dead Like Me
Freaks and Geeks
Paul Dini's Batman
and even the mind-f*ck, 8 Tylenols-per-episode rollercoaster that is LOST.

TV may be a wasteland, but even in a wasteland a few green things grow. Everyone of those shows I listed qualifies as very good to great. Based on the (mostly crappy) stuff I see at B&N and Borders in the scifi and mystery sections these days, these shows are some of the best non-movie entertainment available.

Or you can just keep isolating yourself from the most influential medium on the planet-that's what free will is all about, right?

 

[Jax]

Spring is a problem for networks as less people watch TV over that period of time than any other time between the September-May season (excluding the normal increases for season finale times in May)...

Networks may need to look at smaller seasons for there shows to save money in the future and make the summer shows begin early.

 

[Temis the Vorta]

^The head of CBS KILLED ENTERPRISE. So I hope CBS fails BIG-TIME!

The Beebs killed ENT. It only became watchable after Manny Coto took over. By then, the ratings were unsalvageable.

And I can hardly blame the CBS honchos for making decisions that result in financial success. They don't air anything I'm willing to watch, but from the perspective of the shareholders, they are doing just fine. NBC should be so lucky.

Networks may need to look at smaller seasons for there shows

Longer hiatuses increase the odds that the audience will dissapate. But that's really just another aspect of the bigger problem, that audiences don't care about the shows that networks air, because a big chunk of the audience is becoming accustomed to having their niche tastes catered to by cable.

But that "big" chunk is really a whole lot of little chunks, who are each too small to interest the networks because they still have a business model that runs on a big audience and each audience member being not worth very much and therefore, not worth catering to.

Cable runs on a model where the audience members individually are worth enough to be worth catering to, and that at the very heart of things explains why the network and cable shows differ in content, and that difference is only going to grow.

We won't see Lost type shows on networks in the future, but we can expect that type on cable. Networks will have CSI and The Batchelor.

 

[Jax]

^ I mean't that smaller seasons may be the norm because thats all they could afford. Though at the same time FOX has always confused me they have been getting high ratings for past several years and have not tried to expand into 10pm on some days for at least a trial run. ABC and NBC for me need to cut more 10pm's (Jay Leno won't work for mre than a year) and CBS is fine, while CW need to become a cable network with amount of reruns they air

 

[payndz201]

Or you can just keep isolating yourself from the most influential medium on the planet-that's what free will is all about, right?

Thing is, I keep reading and hearing about how these shows are the absolute best thing ever and how I should be watching them, but in truth... for the most part, I just don't want to. For example, The Wire might well be an incredible show, the near-unanimous opinion in the media, but every time I hear the premise - which seems to boil down to "morally-compromised cops versus scumbag criminals and corrupt politicians in an urban hellhole" - I just think, yeah, that's [44 minutes x # of episodes] of gloom and misery I can live without.

It's the same reason I don't want to watch media-acclaimed British shows like Shameless. They just don't sound like characters or environments I want to spend my time with. Maybe I'm missing out, but it's my choice.

So yes, it is what free will is about.

 

[Mr. Adventure]

^The head of CBS KILLED ENTERPRISE. So I hope CBS fails BIG-TIME!

The lack of viewers killed ENT. Even after Paramount was giving it to UPN at half price.

No viewers = no sponsors= no ENT.

But back to the topic, TV died years ago, the fact that I don't even own a TV proves that.

Or it proves that you're a cheapskate.

Seriously, network tv may be abysmal most of the time but if you don't own a tv then you have missed some of the most fascinating shows...

Sopranos
Band of Brothers
From the Earth to the Moon
Generation Kill
Journeyman
The Sheild
The Wire
Oz
Dead Like Me
Freaks and Geeks
Paul Dini's Batman
and even the mind-f*ck, 8 Tylenols-per-episode rollercoaster that is LOST.

TV may be a wasteland, but even in a wasteland a few green things grow. Everyone of those shows I listed qualifies as very good to great. Based on the (mostly crappy) stuff I see at B&N and Borders in the scifi and mystery sections these days, these shows are some of the best non-movie entertainment available.

Or you can just keep isolating yourself from the most influential medium on the planet-that's what free will is all about, right?

I find that most people who claim not to own a TV are still watching TV programs on their PC or DVD or iPod or whatever but somehow that doesn't count.