CBS probably cancels less shows on average than the other networks. Of course, if they cancel one episodic procedural, they just replace it with another one.
I've read that networks in general are becoming slower to cancel shows, because the available shows are spread out across so many distributors -- networks, cable, streaming services -- that it's getting harder to find new shows to replace a cancelled show with. So networks are more likely to stick with a show and give it more chances to succeed than they would've been in the past. I'm not up to doing another actual census tonight, but my impression is that the broadcast network that does the least cancelling is The CW. They tend to keep shows on the air forever, it seems. Although they have had some quick cancellations in recent years, like Star-Crossed and Frequency.
Yeah, I'm just venting uselessly over a silly annoyance. I'll get over it. It wasn't as though DM was particularly original anyway. I should stick to literary fiction if I don't like cancellation.
Prose series aren't immune to market forces either. That's why I still haven't done a sequel to Only Superhuman.
The books I read are self contained, usually not heavily serialised and often several years beyond publication. I avoid pulp schlock.
I'm trying not to take that personally. And I have no idea where you get the non sequitur notion that all ongoing prose series are "pulp schlock." That's incredibly ignorant. There are many highly acclaimed series in science fiction -- Banks's Culture, McCaffrey's Pern, Niven's Known Space, Reynolds's Revelation Space, Robinson's Mars trilogy, Le Guin's Hainish Cycle, many others.
But but... there were only three books in the trilogy I just finished! It was canceled after only three books!! Damn you, Ace Science Fiction!! On the other hand, that damn Destroyermen series keeps droning on and on and on... I have 9 of the books, and I can't even bring myself to read the last two.
All complete series or as near as damnit as far as I'm concerned (several of the authors are dead) and definitely not schlock. I guess I reserve schlock for stuff that gets churned out seemingly without any plan for how it might conclude but which seems to be aimed to sucker fans of a franchise into parting them from their money. I haven't read any of your stuff so I can't lump it into a category that falls far short of what I consider the masters of the genre achieved.
As someone whose reading several ongoing series, including a couple urban fantasy series, an an action adventure series, and tie-ins like Star Trek and Star Wars, I find that post highly insulting. As for shows being cancelled, I learned a long time ago not to get mad at the network, if a show doesn't make them money they can't keep it on the air. Instead I just get frustrated that more people didn't watch it.
I think what irks people in this situation isn't that Syfy wasn't making but that it cancelled it because it wasn't making as much as it could because other companies were doing in the production and the distribution (so they were probably only getting the money from ad revenue as opposed to money from overseas distribution, merchandising etc etc). Its the same as when CBS decided not to go with S2 of Supergirl - wasn't as profitable as a home grown shown.
From Joseph Mallozzi's blog https://josephmallozzi.wordpress.co...2017-informing-and-updating-dark-matter-fans/
It's not really true that the viewers decided, since Dark Matter and Killjoys have nearly identical numbers (and Wynonna Earp less than either IIRC). It's a business decision - Dark Matter is bought in, in Killjoys Syfy has some kind of stake. Syfy likely wants to bring in more own productions and seems to have decided that Dark Matter doesn't fit into this plan (and it doesn't have the kind of viewing numbers that would dissuade them to hold the axe). Nevertheless, Syfy presents itself nowadays with the slogan "it's a fan thing". This attitude towards cancelling ungoing stories (and there is a 5-season plan for DM which would present a story with an ending) isn't very encouraging to pick up new shows on the network, as they don't care to finish stories. People who have been burned by this may wait until it a series is actually finished, to start watching. There are fan attempts going on in an attempt to get another broadcaster (or Netflix) to take over the show. Fingers crossed.
The producers of a show USUALLY make a deal with a Network TO get the funding to produce a show. If you produce something and shoulder all the production costs, it's a product and you're able to offer it for sale/broadcast, etc. in whatever way you prefer. TV is probably LESS monopolistic because of all the various channels and streaming services offering various shows. It's MUCH MORE cut-throat simply because there IS a lot of competition for advertising and viewers. I mean hell, TNG and DS9 were 100% owned and produced BY PARAMOUNT 30 years ago when 'First Run Syndication' hit the scene; and you had the three major networks (plus FOX) having to contend with new first run shows competing for ratings against their network lineups in a number of markets. Right now there's a glut of content providers looking for an audience, so it's no wonder some shows are getting more time to build an audience.
But syndication is the exact opposite of what I'm talking about. In that case, the studio sold the show to dozens of individual local stations. When the network that buys the show is owned by the same corporation as the studio that makes the show, then the corporation is essentially selling the product to itself. And if it favors selling to itself over selling to other networks, that's anti-competitive. That's why the law requires a studio to offer a show to multiple networks, to give them a fair chance to compete with each other to acquire the show. But if networks don't even want to buy shows their sister studios don't make, if we get to the point where Disney-made shows only air on Disney-owned networks and CBS-made shows only air on CBS-owned networks and so on, then it's not competitive anymore.
I don't really see the problem, as long as the shows are being made. I always thought of the competition as being more between the producers and writers trying to get their shows made, rather than between the networks trying to get the shows. Well, in that case, now I am a bit more pissed. If the show is doing as well as other shows on the network, and it's viewership is dropping drastically, then it shouldn't have been canceled.
It should be noted, that the various channels and new streaming services are all owned by....wait for it...the very same corporations that own the broadcast networks and studios. Six or seven companies own practically everything you may be interested in watching as well as the distribution platforms to view/access it through. Vertical integration is killing the business, but the head honchos can't see it. They tell themselves that they must own everything, that owning production and distribution is the key to massive profits. Money made by the initial broadcast network run, money from disc sales, money from selling to basic cable-if its sold to one of theirs, then ad revenue generated from it, then more from streaming services, and international sales. But they don't seem to be making as much as they did in the old days. The syndication market dried up due to independent tv stations getting bought by the same handful of station owners, which then cut the budgets of those stations, relying on cheap reruns owned by their sister studios instead of buying first run fare. Now, the success of Netflix has them drooling over the possibility that they can duplicate what NF has done, so they've actively started to withhold content from them, in order to launch their own.
Television is commerce, not art. Their job is to put as many eyeballs as possible in front of ads. If they can put a show on the air that brings in similar ratings to Dark Matter, but they get a greater percentage of the ad revenue because they own the show instead of licensing it from another production entity it would be fiscally irresponsible not to do so.
When the delivered audience falls below the expected audience, the channel loses money through givebacks.
With regard to the Major networks though - that's pretty much how it's always worked since the 1950ies and 1960ies. IE Tjhe Networks contract with production companies FIRST to produce the show for their network - and even back in the late 1960ies - early 1970ies, a network often also owned, or had a major financial stake in the studio producing the show in addition to thwe agreement. Back then - 3 networks pretty much owned/controlled everything first run on TV. I agree that the current media consolidation of outlets (especially when it comes to news outlets) is a VERY bad thing, but for first run/network TV, this situation is nothing new - except they're now trying to branch out to the internet media space.
You're missing the point. Networks had an ownership stake in the shows they bought, yes, but they didn't own the companies that made the shows. Those are two completely different things. Buying a car from Ford only gives you ownership of the car, not of the Ford Motor Company. For instance, in 1966, RCA owned NBC, but Desi Arnaz and Lucille Ball owned Desilu. Then Gulf & Western bought Desilu and merged it with Paramount, but G+W never owned a TV network. Paramount never had its own network until UPN. It tried to create one in the '70s, but that fell through. Having both production companies and networks owned by the same corporate masters is a relatively recent trend.