What Will Happen to Network TV?

[Temis the Vorta]

if cable television has a better financial model than network television, and is more convenient for the consumer, I don't see why network TV won't end up extinct, or at least heavily endangered.

Network TV won't be endangered because there's an audience for what network TV provides - and there still will be, for the forseeable future. But that audience will be different, and want different things, compared with the cable audience. There will be overlap of course, but the two audiences will grow ever more distinct and the content will follow suit (altho it's a chicken and egg problem whether the content is dividing the audience instead.)

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.

That's exactly what networks are doing "right" - those types of shows don't compete with cable (which is already serving the audience who wants the niche shows) and they do have a sizable audience. Just check the ratings sometime.

Where networks often stumble is when they attempt shows that are more the cable type - Pushing Daisies or Terminator: Sarah Connor Chronicles. They fail because they don't have the dual revenue stream of cable shows, yet still have all the expenses, and being on a network rather than cable means that their natural audience may not even know they exist. And when shows like that fail while dull, derivative fodder like The Mentalist succeeds, networks get the message loud and clear.

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.

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.

Reality TV also can't be sold overseas because foreign markets are all glutted with their own local reality shows and many American reality shows actually came from foreign markets to begin with. International revenues are still a big business for American networks, and for that they'll need scripted formats.

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.

There has been a great deal of discussion in this thread why networks don't make Mad Men and Breaking Bad type shows. Cable can afford to cater to niche audiences; networks can't.

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...

That wouldn't have the slightest impact on anything, because "quality" is not the issue. And that's assuming fewer episodes would automatically result in better quality, which I have my doubts about. I think it would just result in fewer crappy episodes, but they'd be as crappy as ever. The problem is if you have bad writers, you have bad writers. Don't give them less work, give them NO work - fire them and get good writers.

Let's find a bad series to use as a test example, how about Heroes? Would fewer episodes make that show better? I seriously doubt it. What's wrong with it is that the writers have no direction and don't seem to know what they are doing. That's not a problem that's caused by overwork, it's caused by incompetence, probably starting with Tim Kring since he is supposed to be the guy with the eye on the ball. If your problem is overworked writers, why not hire a few fresh writers and let the old crew take a breather? Every day new writers hit Hollywood hoping to break into the biz. There can't be some kind of writer shortage in LA.

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.

I dunno, I think people might be too paranoid for that. Also, you'd still have to use Nielsens to collect data from non-cable, non-TiVO using households, because those demographics are bound to be very different from cable/TiVO households.

 

[Out Of My Vulcan Mind]

Reality TV also can't be sold overseas because foreign markets are all glutted with their own local reality shows and many American reality shows actually came from foreign markets to begin with. International revenues are still a big business for American networks, and for that they'll need scripted formats.

I don't know what the situation is in other international markets, but a lot of American reality shows are bought and aired in the UK and Ireland, including American Idol, Survivor, The Amazing Race, America's Got Talent, the US version of I'm a Celebrity, Get Me Out of Here, Project Runway, America's Next Top Model, Dancing with the Stars, and Beauty and the Geek. These are aired in addition to all the UK reality shows.

 

[chrisspringob]

Australia has some American reality shows as well. I've definitely seen The Amazing Race here.

 

[bigdaddy]

There are still tens of millions of people who don't have any cable at all and use "rabbit ears", so until they get cable (if ever) network TV will be showing something.

 

[TedShatner10]

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.

Cities and towns having proper Internet access comparable to Japan is possible, but logistical problems out in the sticks is problematic but not insumountable in the long term and it not because of the lack technology but lack of incentive.

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.

Maybe because a ground up improvement of the Internet in the United States needs to be done through being partially subsidized and controlled by the (DUM, DUM, DAAAAH!) Federal Government?

I wouldn't say network TV will become extinct completely extinct (radios, music CDs, and newspapers are still around) but it has no where else to go but downward and one or more of the "Big Four" will go out of business (most likely FOX and NBC). And the music copyright bullfuckery needs to be dropped unconditionally and forthwith if networks need to get more money out of their programmes and reduce the high number of TV shows getting circulated through illicit torrenting.

 

[firehawk12]

The only reason why the telcos exist today was because they were government owned and taxpayers subsidized the construction of telephone wires. The basic structure of the Internet - the very series of tubes that people like to mock - was also built using taxpayer money.

Hell, I'm sure the fiber that links the US to the rest of the world was probably paid for by some government somewhere.

There's just no incentive to have the same thing happen to solve the last mile problem and get individual homes connected to the major fiber optic network. In Japan, it's intense competition with government incentive and in Korea it's simply the government wishing to make its population more technically advanced.

There's no such incentive here and I can't imagine that there will be. We've entered Oligopoly status and there's no real public incentive to push high speed internet to the general public.

 

[TedShatner10]

But this Oligopoly is unsustainable, and one of the main reasons why the American economy has gone down the crapper with so many vital things remaining undone due to lack of incentive or innovation by fragmented, bloated corporations.

TV networks have declined due to lack incentive and investment, because it is run by gibbering morons who have already made their money, so it is a decadent and fossilised system that feels no incentive to save itself.

 

[Temis the Vorta]

Reality TV also can't be sold overseas because foreign markets are all glutted with their own local reality shows and many American reality shows actually came from foreign markets to begin with. International revenues are still a big business for American networks, and for that they'll need scripted formats.

I don't know what the situation is in other international markets, but a lot of American reality shows are bought and aired in the UK and Ireland, including American Idol, Survivor, The Amazing Race, America's Got Talent, the US version of I'm a Celebrity, Get Me Out of Here, Project Runway, America's Next Top Model, Dancing with the Stars, and Beauty and the Geek. These are aired in addition to all the UK reality shows.

You're kidding! That's pretty horrifying. They really aren't satisfied to just stick to their own reality crap and they actually import it?

That's it. I'm going to stop bitching about American TV forever.

 

[bigdaddy]

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.

Maybe because a ground up improvement of the Internet in the United States needs to be done through being partially subsidized and controlled by the (DUM, DUM, DAAAAH!) Federal Government? .

YOU SOCIALIST COMMIE!!!! WE WILL BRING THIS COUNTRY STRAIGHT TO HELL! YOU ARE THE ANTI-CHRIST!!!!

I agree with you.

 

[wamdue]

Reality TV also can't be sold overseas because foreign markets are all glutted with their own local reality shows and many American reality shows actually came from foreign markets to begin with. International revenues are still a big business for American networks, and for that they'll need scripted formats.

I don't know what the situation is in other international markets, but a lot of American reality shows are bought and aired in the UK and Ireland, including American Idol, Survivor, The Amazing Race, America's Got Talent, the US version of I'm a Celebrity, Get Me Out of Here, Project Runway, America's Next Top Model, Dancing with the Stars, and Beauty and the Geek. These are aired in addition to all the UK reality shows.

You're kidding! That's pretty horrifying. They really aren't satisfied to just stick to their own reality crap and they actually import it?

That's it. I'm going to stop bitching about American TV forever.

like you Temis ive said before that I dont think reality TV sells that well, and the US can only make international money from reality TV if they own the format, but the sad thing is plenty of smaller channels in the UK will air US reality, its a funny thing.

I know Aussie TV does air US reality, and ITV 2 (UK) loves to show the US version of whatever reality TV formats it has (Got Talent & Idol, being the big two with Im a Celeb airing on ITV 2 as well) Really I can not blame ITV 2 for airing the US version of its own formats, its not like the BBC didnt do that with the Weakest Link years ago.

meanwhile shows like Dacing with the Stars despite a run on the BBC, are on smaller channels.

the BBC recently announced it was making a UK version of "The Amazing Race"I think its going to be called "Drop Zone" here.

TBH I am surprised NBC has not aired a Britain's Got Talent: The Susan Boyle Story, special.

the BBC did the US Apprentice as well at one stage.

 

[Temis the Vorta]

Americans make reality TV because it is dirt cheap. But imagine if you could buy it and didn't even have to pay for it being made - the production was already paid for. That's cheaper than dirt!

 

[Bob The Skutter]

Americans make reality TV because it is dirt cheap. But imagine if you could buy it and didn't even have to pay for it being made - the production was already paid for. That's cheaper than dirt!

Well nearly all of them do air on satellite and cable channels. Living, a channel aimed mostly at women pick a lot of them up, same goes for ITV2. So yeah, it's probably because they're cheaper than cheap.

 

[wamdue]

Americans make reality TV because it is dirt cheap. But imagine if you could buy it and didn't even have to pay for it being made - the production was already paid for. That's cheaper than dirt!

well ITV 1 used to have a reality show called "Ladette to Lady" where Ladettes were made over into ladies, anyways the UK version was axed.

Then Australia made its own version, I think with the UK host, and now ITV air that on primetime ITV 1, normal imports are not on primeitme ITV 1, but this is one is, it really is like ITV have left the actual production of the show to whichever Aussie network airs it. I confess I am unsure which.

 

[Bob The Skutter]

Americans make reality TV because it is dirt cheap. But imagine if you could buy it and didn't even have to pay for it being made - the production was already paid for. That's cheaper than dirt!

well ITV 1 used to have a reality show called "Ladette to Lady" where Ladettes were made over into ladies, anyways the UK version was axed.

Then Australia made its own version, I think with the UK host, and now ITV air that on primetime ITV 1, normal imports are not on primeitme ITV 1, but this is one is, it really is like ITV have left the actual production of the show to whichever Aussie network airs it. I confess I am unsure which.

Well that's likely down to ITV's dire budgetary state.

 

[TedShatner10]

I've been burned by the cancellation of TSCC and Shark two great shows treated like crap by inept, arrogant management, with Shark's shameful handling being especially egregious.

IF THEY WERE SO CONCERNED ABOUT SHARK'S RATINGS AND DEMOGRAPHS, WHY THE FUCK DID THEY MOVE IT TO A CRAPPY SUNDAY EVENING SLOT WHERE MOST KEY DEMOGRAPHS WOULD BE PREPARING FOR WORK AND RECORDING IT ON DVR WHEN EVER IT WAS BUMPED AROUND BY SPORTS. THIIIIIIIIIINK, FUCK UPS, THINK!!!

The broadcast networks are going to fail/failing because they treat their consumers like crap, it is in dribs and drabs, but it is still irreparably accumilating and 2008 will be viewed on hindsight the year the broadcast networks began their death throes.

 

[wamdue]

Americans make reality TV because it is dirt cheap. But imagine if you could buy it and didn't even have to pay for it being made - the production was already paid for. That's cheaper than dirt!

well ITV 1 used to have a reality show called "Ladette to Lady" where Ladettes were made over into ladies, anyways the UK version was axed.

Then Australia made its own version, I think with the UK host, and now ITV air that on primetime ITV 1, normal imports are not on primeitme ITV 1, but this is one is, it really is like ITV have left the actual production of the show to whichever Aussie network airs it. I confess I am unsure which.

Well that's likely down to ITV's dire budgetary state.

is Ladette to Lady really so expensive that its worth just showing the Aussie version? seriously I wonder how long till American Idol airs on primetime ITV 1.

and lets not forget ITV has been selling im a celebrity to quite a few other TV channels recently.

 

[Harvey]

I've been burned by the cancellation of TSCC and Shark two great shows treated like crap by inept, arrogant management, with Shark's shameful handling being especially egregious.

The rumor about Shark is that the network president hated James Woods and wanted to be rid of him (and his show) at any cost.

As far as Terminator: The Sarah Connor Chronicles goes, I thought it got a fair shake from the network. It just shed viewers with every episode, attracted far from universal praise from critics and drew far less critical attention in its second season, and was ultimately too expensive to continue being made.

 

[TedShatner10]

I've been burned by the cancellation of TSCC and Shark two great shows treated like crap by inept, arrogant management, with Shark's shameful handling being especially egregious.

The rumor about Shark is that the network president hated James Woods and wanted to be rid of him (and his show) at any cost.

It is highly uncalled for to let spiteful personal feelings get in the way of business and the Chairman (Les Moonves, ZOMG surprise) should be removed from his post to salvage investor and consumer confidence, and this is not an isolated incident. CBS may be doing relatively well now, but ever since Moonves has gained his independence since 2005 CBS has been struggling from one self-inflicted disappointment to next with the vast majority of its new show: only its older shows since before 2005 are propping most of its ratings up.

The CSI franchise is likely running its final lap as a hot seller, they've screwed the pooch with The Unit and Jericho as well, and sooner rather than later The Mentalist too, so the shit will be coming down on CBS as it is with FOX and NBC right now. In my opinion.

I'm willing to defend most of TSCC, as imperfect as it is, but I don't like the looks of Salvation. However I agree it creatively suffered in its second season, with its scripting and story threads spread thinner, but with post-S1 Heroes as a comparison it was not so bad and in the last three or four episodes, ended on a high note, but of course it was too little too late. The intended demographs it was made for are also more DVR and torrent/Hula savy, so that didn't help the fossilized Nielsen collation system.

 

[wamdue]

The CSI franchise is likely running its final lap as a hot seller.

I will not live in a world without the CSI Franchise, the CSI franchise is here to stay, it is as far as im concerned the new Law&Order, only unlike Law&Order its actually watchable.

 

[TedShatner10]

The CSI franchise is likely running its final lap as a hot seller.

I will not live in a world without the CSI Franchise, the CSI franchise is here to stay, it is as far as im concerned the new Law&Order, only unlike Law&Order its actually watchable.

I won't completely disagree there: more accurately the CSI franchise will go from a white hot seller (like mid to late TNG and early DS9) to an average seller since CSI has gone on for many years already and many viewers are going to move on, no matter what since many jumped on the amazing DS9 as well.

I agree that the flashy and slick CSI franchise is much more accessable than the dreary and dull L&O, a dog tired generic cop show that misuses most of its guest stars.

CSI: NY has gotten creatively better now that the characters are more fleshed out, Haratio Caine Saves the Universe has gotten much worse, and CSI proper has freshened up a bit after Lawrence Fishburne has shaken up the place in a good way.