What Will Happen to Network TV?
- Thread starter TedShatner10
- Start date
I wouldn't let them off the hook so easily! The FCC is not to blame for the lowest-common-denomenator mentality of network TV. The FCC is not forcing the networks at gunpoint to trot out yet another uninspired season made up of cop shows, doctor shows, lawyer shows, sitcoms and yet more garbage reality TV. There are ways to create a quality TV show without recourse to excessive sex, violence and swearing. Lost does it. Pushing Daisies did it.
The real thing that is to blame: the necessity of making TV for a mass market because your only revenues are from ads. Get another revenue stream, and suddenly you have more options.
Again, that's because network TV is free.
Ad revenue is all they have for first run shows. It's why they want to "own" their shows now, so they can make profits on everything from reruns to trading cards.
so would you not rather pay more for a DVD free or product placement and adverts? if it is to keep the show alive?
Advertising supported entertainment is only free at the point of "purchase". The cost of advertising shows up when you buy your the products being advertised.
Network TV will eventually die ... it will be replaced by equally shitty online distribution. Despite what some have said about Hulu and iTunes being saviors, even those businesses are starting to consider crapifying themselves. There's even talk of more commercials and charging for content on Hulu.
iTunes and Hulu are different things. iTunes is more akin to buying a show on DVD.
But the DRM restrictions on iTunes may get worse.
Says who ? NBC/Universal ?
That's the thing though, I have no use for cars, tampons or viagra, so I can just ignore most advertisements.
But I'm willing to sit through/ignore those commercials because the tradeoff is that I'm getting free content.
Unless you don't buy anything that's advertised anywhere, you are paying.
If I don't buy the products advertised during that program, then it is free isn't it?
That's not to say that I don't buy products that are being advertised elsewhere. It just means that the nature of network TV means that directed ads are not possible.
That's not to say that I don't buy products that are being advertised elsewhere. It just means that the nature of network TV means that directed ads are not possible.
Ah, that's where the Internet comes in. A few cookies later and the advertisers have a profile of what sites you visit and, thanks to Hulu, what television shows you watch.
Yeah, except you need broadband access... and then, you need to live in America.
I mean, I don't know. Given that each episode of a show costs anywhere from 1-2 million dollars an episode - more if it's a cable show - would they really make any money if they relied solely on the type of advertising found on the internet?
You'd probably need at least the same audience that you'd get on broadcast TV to make it even viable, targeted advertising or not.
I mean, I don't know. Given that each episode of a show costs anywhere from 1-2 million dollars an episode - more if it's a cable show - would they really make any money if they relied solely on the type of advertising found on the internet?
You'd probably need at least the same audience that you'd get on broadcast TV to make it even viable, targeted advertising or not.
Many people here are far to quick to equate "the content distribution mechanism that would be most convenient for me" with "the content distribution mechanism that would be most profitable for the networks, which they would already be using if they weren't stupid".
The fact that we might prefer that the networks instantaneously distribute everything online for free, with no ads, doesn't mean that that would be a profitable way for them to do business. Also, as a sidenote, the fact that the Nielsen data doesn't tell them to do this, and that it often tells them that they should cancel shows we like and renew shows we don't like, doesn't make the data flawed. Nor does it mean that the people making such decisions are corrupt or stupid.
The fact that we might prefer that the networks instantaneously distribute everything online for free, with no ads, doesn't mean that that would be a profitable way for them to do business. Also, as a sidenote, the fact that the Nielsen data doesn't tell them to do this, and that it often tells them that they should cancel shows we like and renew shows we don't like, doesn't make the data flawed. Nor does it mean that the people making such decisions are corrupt or stupid.
Success breeds greed. The fact Hulu is doing well enough to throw advertising on it shows how much potential is there.
The problem though is if a network tries to do something edgy it will always feel shallow compared to what is being done on cable. You do a mob show it will have to at least be as good as "Sopranos" and a cop show has to hold up to "The Shield" and so forth.
In a twisted way, when the network tries to do something edgy or more adult they almost look worst in comparision. That's why they like like those police procedures and melodrama soaps. You don't have to be edy to do mystery and soap antics. I think this is why they also like to try and do genre shows. Sci-Fi is actually way to try and do something unique, even though they know they won't be able to push the envelope quit as much as a HBO or Showtime show can. Network genre shows when done righ such as "Lost" and "X-Files" can create buzz on par with something like "The Sopranos" Only problem is the mainstream audience can only seem to acept one genre show in their life for some reason. First it was Quatum Leap then TNG then X-Files then Lost and then Heros for a season and so forth. I am waiting the day when network tv has two genre shows that are both getting good ratings.
Jason
No one is going to shoot on film anymore, because of digital. Oh, wait, that's actually happening. Television isn't going anywhere anytime soon, but 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.