What Will Happen to Network TV?
- Thread starter TedShatner10
- Start date
How is cable TV more convenient for consumers? If anything, it is less convenient because it has an additional cost involved. Network TV is free. The business models are different in the sense that network TV is largely dependant upon advertising for revenue, whereas cable TV earns money from ads as well as subscription fees. As a result, cable networks are willing to take gambles on different types of programs that may have only small niche audiences. Programs that air on cable can have dramatically reduced viewership compared to broadcast TV. I don't think there's anything "wrong" with network TV other than the stupid creative decisions that they are making. Their quest to produce cheap programming and gather high ratings has a resulted in a plethora of awful reality programs and generic cop procedurals.
Network shows generally have higher budgets than that - more like $2-3 million an episode. And cable shows - apart from a few exceptions like Rome - are generally produced on lower budgets than network shows.
I would have thought the opposite, given that they have to producer higher quality shows with fewer episodes available to generate returns - hence the premium on HBO DVDs.
Although, I suppose they could cost less and still need to charge more based on the fact that a fraction of the potential audience watches these shows and they make money based solely on subscribers.
Although, I suppose they could cost less and still need to charge more based on the fact that a fraction of the potential audience watches these shows and they make money based solely on subscribers.
Cable shows generally have budgets that are about a third lower than network shows. There was an article in one of the trades a while ago where producers where talking about the upsides and downsides of producing for cable compared to network, the biggest upside of course being more creative freedom and the biggest downside being budgets about a third lower than network shows.
Premium cable shows may have bigger budgets, but basic cable, Sci-Fi, USA, FX, etc. have smaller audiences, smaller budgets, smaller orders, etc.
Ah right, cable Jr. I always think HBO when I think cable. 
I should have emphasized the if in my original post more prominently. It was merely a hypothetical statement, and cable television could be substituted with many other forms of television program distribution (i.e. the internet).
The poster I was responding to indicated that photography did not take the place of painting, but I think that is a false comparison. They're two different mediums. The difference between chemical and digital photography, however, is a difference within a medium. And it's a difference that digial is clearly winning. Various formats of film (both motion and still) are being discontinued at a tremendous rate. Not only have Polaroid Cameras gone extinct, but plenty of fantastic color and black and white stocks that Kodak used to produce for filmmakers are simply no longer manufactured.
I think different modes of television distribution (i.e network television, DVD, the internet, cable programming, premium cable programming) are essentially differences within the medium of television. There isn't one mode that has emerged as superior here yet, but network television has been consistently losing ground, as a result of FCC regulations, new recording technologies, and unfaithful network executives.
And, when you talk about the stupid creative decisions of network television executives, they see it in an entirely different light. To them, dramatic television is a stupid business decision. It's much easier to churn out cheap reality programs than it is to churn out more expensive dramatic programs. I think this mentality, which you are frustrated with (as am I), could ultimately push dramatic television off of the networks entirely, as long as our society continues to tune into reality programs in droves.
I hope that makes my point more clear, though I suspect I have done the opposite.
That won't happen. Scripted programming has a long life after initial airing, and a hit show can generate hundreds of millions of dollars in syndication and DVD sales (and sometimes merchandising). Reality TV is transitory. It can get big ratings when it airs, but it generally doesn't generate much revenue thereafter. It doesn't have the shelf life that scripted programming does.
I don't know what's going to happen to Network TV but I wish NBC, ABC, CBS and Fox would make shows the way AMC and USA do. That is, "cleaner" versions of shows the way HBO and Showtime make them.
Fuck this reality garbage. I don't watch your networks and I don't see your commercials. I watch episodes of shit like Mad Men.
Fuck this reality garbage. I don't watch your networks and I don't see your commercials. I watch episodes of shit like Mad Men.
Reality is more popular for mass appeal and far cheaper to produce... thus the profit margin is substantially higher and the market gets flooded with them.
What the big networks need to learn is that sometimes less is more with scripted shows. Reduce the number of eps and increase the quality of the production...
I wouldn't bet on them being all that much cheaper. Couple of years ago, here in the UK Big Brother cost upwards of £120m, then there was costs of police investigations, and regulator reports and inquiries.
Well... by that point in time the Big Brother brand had been established, so even with the cost going up, the profit margin was still within accepted levels.
If it flipped though, and the show spent more than it made, look for it to die a quick death or shift to a "celebrity" edition to up the profit.
The latest series has just debuted to the lowest ratings in its history. I think we may be getting to the end of its life.
firehawk12, the reason that American telecommunications has fallen behind Japan is not really about technological limitations but something as pathetic as legal limitations and inertia. Not unlike copyright throttling the life of the record labels. Not surprising, for a country that has held off UHC for decades entirely because of irrationally ideological and selfish financial reasons. The Internet superceding TV as a universally watched medium that can legally access anything in high quality is certainly going to happen no matter how many stupid and prehistoric people like Leslie Moonves get in the way.
TV network is failing because like any other failing American business, they took their consumers far too much for granted and set up an unsustainable form of profit making - they've cranked up the advertising content to ridiculous levels, less people watch, loads of good shows get cancelled partially because of that, the idiot suits don't take the hint and make more reality TV crap to mix into the commercials, and so the whole thing gradually spirals downwards.
TV network is failing because like any other failing American business, they took their consumers far too much for granted and set up an unsustainable form of profit making - they've cranked up the advertising content to ridiculous levels, less people watch, loads of good shows get cancelled partially because of that, the idiot suits don't take the hint and make more reality TV crap to mix into the commercials, and so the whole thing gradually spirals downwards.
That presumes that there's a correlation between quality and ratings success, which I don't think is always the case.
I look at it this way. In Toronto, I can get 5 mb DSL but in Guelph, only one hour away, I can only get 1.5 mb. Until someone in a small town has equal access to the internet as someone in a big city, full distribution of content via the internet just isn't going to happen.
The cable and phone companies were willing to put up the money to provide an infrastructure for cable and phone services but they're not willing to do the same for internet.
I mean, in Sweden people apparently get 20 mb connections as a matter of course. Yeah, it's a smaller country so it's easier to lay more fiber and solve the so-called "last mile" problem. But that's just an excuse for the ISPs here to say the service they provide is "good enough".
Not to mention bandwidth caps. 1080p content is probably what? A few gigs per film/episode? If you watch a lot of content, you'll hit your cap fairly quickly.
Whereas if you left your TV on 24/7 365 days a year, the Cable/Satellite company charges you the same flat rate.
Yeah. It's the ISPs killing true internet TV because they want to save their other content distribution models. And until that changes, this is what we're going to have for the foreseeable future.
The first step forward will have to be understanding what is currently going on in tv watching households. Any plan that doesn't have accurate information to go on will fail.
So, to that end, with the digital switch over happening, the current Neilson system needs to be done away with and a full accounting of what shows each household is watching needs to be done.
The technology exists for near 100% accurate accounting of what shows are being watched, recorded, etc... if the public and FCC will allow cable providers to collect this information from all of their subscribers.
Then we will have the data to use to make future plans.
Right now, no one knows actually how many people are skipping commercials. Because of things like TVO Ad companies assume the worst, but that doesn't make it is so. I record shows and watch them later and sometimes I watch the commercials. I don't always fast forward through them. I know lots of people who watch commercials on TV. To assume that no one is watching them anymore is false with no accurate data to back it up.
Also the Neilson system has numerous flaws. I'm 41, I've lived away from home for 22 years now. I've lived all over Canada and the USA (work moved me around a lot) and I have lots of friends in lots of cities in lots of demographic "areas" (but almost always bigger Urban centers) and I have never met anyone or even known anyone who knew someone, that was on the Neilson System. That can't be right. The system can't be very accurately gageing data if no one I've ever known or anyone they have ever know has been selected to be a Neilson Household.
I wouldn't be surprised if it was discovered that the Neilson system was high inaccurate at gageing the viewership of smaller to medium shows. Sure the big shows (American Idol, CSI, etc...) would still be at the top, but I'd bet some of the "weaker" performing shows (especially genre shows) would have a huge bump in ratings if accurate, house by house, tracking was implemented.
Once we have accurate data on what people are watching, what they are fast forwarding through, watch they are recording, etc... then the companies can make plans and advertising schemes that might work. Right now they are just running around blind.
So, to that end, with the digital switch over happening, the current Neilson system needs to be done away with and a full accounting of what shows each household is watching needs to be done.
The technology exists for near 100% accurate accounting of what shows are being watched, recorded, etc... if the public and FCC will allow cable providers to collect this information from all of their subscribers.
Then we will have the data to use to make future plans.
Right now, no one knows actually how many people are skipping commercials. Because of things like TVO Ad companies assume the worst, but that doesn't make it is so. I record shows and watch them later and sometimes I watch the commercials. I don't always fast forward through them. I know lots of people who watch commercials on TV. To assume that no one is watching them anymore is false with no accurate data to back it up.
Also the Neilson system has numerous flaws. I'm 41, I've lived away from home for 22 years now. I've lived all over Canada and the USA (work moved me around a lot) and I have lots of friends in lots of cities in lots of demographic "areas" (but almost always bigger Urban centers) and I have never met anyone or even known anyone who knew someone, that was on the Neilson System. That can't be right. The system can't be very accurately gageing data if no one I've ever known or anyone they have ever know has been selected to be a Neilson Household.
I wouldn't be surprised if it was discovered that the Neilson system was high inaccurate at gageing the viewership of smaller to medium shows. Sure the big shows (American Idol, CSI, etc...) would still be at the top, but I'd bet some of the "weaker" performing shows (especially genre shows) would have a huge bump in ratings if accurate, house by house, tracking was implemented.
Once we have accurate data on what people are watching, what they are fast forwarding through, watch they are recording, etc... then the companies can make plans and advertising schemes that might work. Right now they are just running around blind.