What Will Happen to Network TV?

[TedShatner10]

What will happen to this steadily dying genre? As with the music industry, it is not really the progress of technology that has hampered the so-called Big Four but poor management and commercial excess. Since the 1980s the restrictions of advertisement hed been deregulated and that has been eroding broadcast network television since.

Far too many ad breaks and diluted content, with many solid scripted shows like TSCC, Shark, Pushing Daisies, Jericho and Moonlight falling down the cracks because they were put into shitty, mercurial timeslots to begin with and never allowed to find their feet, always on the unfathomable whims of overpaid network executives and advertiser cronies. Thank God for the BBC in Britain, since ITV and Channel 4 are both also in trouble similar to their American counterparts.

And despite the development of Hulu and distribuition of Tivo/DVR, it seems like the broadcast networks have not properly taken them into account and adapted accordingly. Even a no brainer like legally publishing TV shows with music content has been seriously damaged by outdated and cryptic music copyright, so loads of well produced content is forever in limbo, with the only access to it ironically being theft. The way TV shows are made has improved greatly and there is still great potential, however this potential is being squandered by clumsy corporations and their insular, aging management.

 

[Bob The Skutter]

Don't be too thankful of the BBC just yet. As the commercially funded networks start losing ground it seems like the government want to increasingly hobble the Beeb by adding new regulations, "public value tests" and syphoning off funds for this scheme or that, so they're not an overwhelming force for the commercial networks.
Hence the BBC are having to make budget cuts and sell off assets despite having a £3bn a year budget.

 

[Data Holmes]

TV is going to be dead as the major entertainment medium in under ten years anyway.

The internet is going to take that title soon. Same as TV took it from Radio.

 

[C.E. Evans]

Since the 1980s the restrictions of advertisement hed been deregulated and that has been eroding broadcast network television since.

I record a lot of the television shows I look at either because I'm not at home, or passed out drunk, or passed out drunk not at home. Anyway, whenever I go back to review my shows at random points, more often than not I'll wind up in a commercial break and have to either keep fastforwarding or rewinding...

And channel surfing is pointless these days, IMO, because you'll mostly see commercials while doing so.

 

[firehawk12]

TV is going to be dead as the major entertainment medium in under ten years anyway.

The internet is going to take that title soon. Same as TV took it from Radio.

No one's going to paint anymore, because of photography.
No one's going to take photos anymore, because of motion pictures.
No one's going to watch films anymore, because of television.

Unless Japan takes over the world and suddenly everyone has a fiber connection to the Internet with unlimited bandwidth, this happy magic fun land of HD content appearing over the intertubes isn't going to happen in our lifetime.

Microsoft announced on-demand 1080p content with Dolby surround mixes. You need a 8meg connection for that to happen. Yeah, unless you live in a giant city, good luck with that.

TV's not going anywhere... any more than newspapers, magazines, books, radio, films, plays, paintings, sculptures or whatever.
Perhaps the advertising model will change - perhaps we'll have to go back to the 50s where the tie-in between the show and the advertisers has to be more explicit (like Subway and Chuck), but we'll still get content made for broadcast television and distributed through broadcast television.

I mean, anyone remember Sanctuary? The web thing with Amanda Tapping? Even they realized that the only way to make their show was to sign a deal with SciFi.

 

[Icemizer]

Until the internet can provide several million viewers of a commercial spot at one time the networks will continue to produce programming. TSCC, Shark, Pushing Daisies, Jericho and Moonlight are all niche shows with small demographics and viewers and are rightfully buried in less expensive ad time slots. CSI, American Idol, and other shows like them command huge audiences and thus big ad rates so they get the good slots. Follow the money always follow the money.

 

[Warp Coil]

TV is going to be dead as the major entertainment medium in under ten years anyway.

The internet is going to take that title soon. Same as TV took it from Radio.

No one's going to paint anymore, because of photography.
No one's going to take photos anymore, because of motion pictures.
No one's going to watch films anymore, because of television.

Unless Japan takes over the world and suddenly everyone has a fiber connection to the Internet with unlimited bandwidth, this happy magic fun land of HD content appearing over the intertubes isn't going to happen in our lifetime.

Microsoft announced on-demand 1080p content with Dolby surround mixes. You need a 8meg connection for that to happen. Yeah, unless you live in a giant city, good luck with that.

TV's not going anywhere... any more than newspapers, magazines, books, radio, films, plays, paintings, sculptures or whatever.
Perhaps the advertising model will change - perhaps we'll have to go back to the 50s where the tie-in between the show and the advertisers has to be more explicit (like Subway and Chuck), but we'll still get content made for broadcast television and distributed through broadcast television.

Agreed. Television isn't going anywhere, but the business model may change somewhat to reflect all of the new media that's flooding the market. The networks monitor their web streams. Sites like Hulu.com and stores likes iTunes all keep metrics on how much traffic shows are getting online. While some people are choosing to watch TV online, the vast majority are still watching shows on a traditional television. This isn't going to change anytime soon. You have to take into consideration the low-income viewers who can't afford a computer or internet, the older demographic who aren't technologically savvy, and everyone else who just doesn't like to view their TV shows sitting at their desk looking into a 17" monitor. The networks aren't going to risk losing so many viewers.

I think that putting content online will become the norm (it nearly already is), since it provides the networks with additional revenue streams from web advertising. The DVR is changing the way people watch TV, so I assume the role of advertising will change. There might be more product integration, in-program messages and such.

 

[RobertScorpio]

The Nielson ratings system is the problem. With so many other things to do (gaming--internet) its only natural that TV loses some of its share of the audience. It will never lost ALL of its audience, anyone who thinks so is nuts. Its just going to have to share the "PIE" with these other mediums.

I have aleady read elsewhere on the net that NBC is looking into a premium version of their network. People would subscribe for non-commercial versions of their shows. I think this is good, in the long run. Because if they could generate enough money doing so, they could axe out commercials all together and, get this, increase the length of a TV show back to 52 minutes like it use to be...imagine that; an hour of TV not really being 42 minutes which it is right now...

Rob

 

[Data Holmes]

The Nielson ratings system is the problem. With so many other things to do (gaming--internet) its only natural that TV loses some of its share of the audience. It will never lost ALL of its audience, anyone who thinks so is nuts. Its just going to have to share the "PIE" with these other mediums.

I have aleady read elsewhere on the net that NBC is looking into a premium version of their network. People would subscribe for non-commercial versions of their shows. I think this is good, in the long run. Because if they could generate enough money doing so, they could axe out commercials all together and, get this, increase the length of a TV show back to 52 minutes like it use to be...imagine that; an hour of TV not really being 42 minutes which it is right now...

Rob

We already have premium networks... It's called HBO, Showtime, and STARS.


I think the biggest thing hurting tv right now is that there is just too many channels. I think we will start seeing them recombine back in the future.

 

[Temis the Vorta]

50% of the TV audience is already watching cable, so that trend will continue, but I doubt the day will come when it's 0% network, 100% cable.

Networks will increasingly become the home of the predictable, canned genres with mass market appeal: reality TV, police procedurals, half-hour sitcoms. Almost all the interesting stuff is on cable already, and that trend will continue.

There's a chance that network TV can reinvent its business model via cultish genre TV shows that have a more committed audience and therefore allows revenue streams (paid downloads, DVDs, etc) other than advertising. The "bizarre" renewal of Dollhouse looks a lot less bizarre if you think of it as being at the forefront of this emerging trend.

The real difference is that cable already has a second revenue stream, from subscriptions. That's what allows cable to do more interesting stuff by not needing to appeal to a mass audience. If network TV can also develop secondary revenue streams, then I see no reason why it couldn't start to imitate what cable does, at least with some of the timeslots. But the mass market stuff is low-hanging fruit, and they'll never give that up.

The networks that will change first are the ones that are under the most pressure: NBC, then Fox, then ABC. CBS will be the last to change since their low-hanging fruit strategy is paying off for them, but even CBS will face the day when their geriatric audience simply starts to die off, and younger audiences' tastes will have been shaped by cable, and maybe even by other networks who were forced to change in order to survive. So even CBS will eventually have to face the music.

perhaps we'll have to go back to the 50s where the tie-in between the show and the advertisers has to be more explicit (like Subway and Chuck)

That's a point in favor of the cultish genre show - the Subway/Chuck connection is another leading indicator, just like the Dollhouse renewal. That sort of tie-in works better with cult shows that have a committed fan base. The key will be to match advertisers and shows smartly. Subway was a good fit but I think that was a lucky accident. That sort of thing will be more deliberate in the future. How about Heroes + Quiznos?

I'm also waiting for the day some smarty pants network actually fakes a show being close to cancellation, when it's not, to see if they can artificially create a save-our-show fan campaign and advertiser tie-in.

I have aleady read elsewhere on the net that NBC is looking into a premium version of their network. People would subscribe for non-commercial versions of their shows.

So Premium NBC will have the same shows as regular NBC, just w/o ads? Here's the problem: the market for Premum NBC is the same as the market for TiVO. So why wouldn't those folks just get TiVO and get their own de-facto ad-free NBC (and all the other networks too)?

Making different shows for Premium NBC would be smarter but that just puts you in competition with HBO and Showtime. Is there room for another competitor in the mix? Good for NBC if they can carve out a space for themselves but simply mimicking someone else's business model does nothing to solve the problem of network TV. And why should I believe NBC is capable of creating the kinds of kick-ass shows like Dexter and The Sopranos, that have allowed premium cable to make a name for itself, when NBC is struggling just to make Heroes watchable?

 

[Jayson]

50% of the TV audience is already watching cable, so that trend will continue, but I doubt the day will come when it's 0% network, 100% cable.

Networks will increasingly become the home of the predictable, canned genres with mass market appeal: reality TV, police procedurals, half-hour sitcoms. Almost all the interesting stuff is on cable already, and that trend will continue.

There's a chance that network TV can reinvent its business model via cultish genre TV shows that have a more committed audience and therefore allows revenue streams (paid downloads, DVDs, etc) other than advertising. The "bizarre" renewal of Dollhouse looks a lot less bizarre if you think of it as being at the forefront of this emerging trend.

The real difference is that cable already has a second revenue stream, from subscriptions. That's what allows cable to do more interesting stuff by not needing to appeal to a mass audience. If network TV can also develop secondary revenue streams, then I see no reason why it couldn't start to imitate what cable does, at least with some of the timeslots. But the mass market stuff is low-hanging fruit, and they'll never give that up.

The networks that will change first are the ones that are under the most pressure: NBC, then Fox, then ABC. CBS will be the last to change since their low-hanging fruit strategy is paying off for them, but even CBS will face the day when their geriatric audience simply starts to die off, and younger audiences' tastes will have been shaped by cable, and maybe even by other networks who were forced to change in order to survive. So even CBS will eventually have to face the music.

perhaps we'll have to go back to the 50s where the tie-in between the show and the advertisers has to be more explicit (like Subway and Chuck)

That's a point in favor of the cultish genre show - the Subway/Chuck connection is another leading indicator, just like the Dollhouse renewal. That sort of tie-in works better with cult shows that have a committed fan base. The key will be to match advertisers and shows smartly. Subway was a good fit but I think that was a lucky accident. That sort of thing will be more deliberate in the future. How about Heroes + Quiznos?

I'm also waiting for the day some smarty pants network actually fakes a show being close to cancellation, when it's not, to see if they can artificially create a save-our-show fan campaign and advertiser tie-in.

I have aleady read elsewhere on the net that NBC is looking into a premium version of their network. People would subscribe for non-commercial versions of their shows.

So Premium NBC will have the same shows as regular NBC, just w/o ads? Here's the problem: the market for Premum NBC is the same as the market for TiVO. So why wouldn't those folks just get TiVO and get their own de-facto ad-free NBC (and all the other networks too)?

Making different shows for Premium NBC would be smarter but that just puts you in competition with HBO and Showtime. Is there room for another competitor in the mix? Good for NBC if they can carve out a space for themselves but simply mimicking someone else's business model does nothing to solve the problem of network TV. And why should I believe NBC is capable of creating the kinds of kick-ass shows like Dexter and The Sopranos, that have allowed premium cable to make a name for itself, when NBC is struggling just to make Heroes watchable?

FCC is the big difference IMO as to why network tv can't do stuff like "Sopranos" and "Dexter." It's hard to do anything intresting when you got a bunch crusty government prudes watching everything you do. I don't think it has anything to do with the writers, except with the possibility that with so many channels the writing talent has been spread thin. I would figure though reality tv would sort of even that up though because nobody with talent works on those shows.

Jason

 

[Out Of My Vulcan Mind]

The trend of networks looking to air shows that they co-own with their sister studios will likely accelerate. That way they can more easily monetize shows through the totality of revenue that a show generates (including international license fees, DVD sales and pay per download) and not rely so heavily on advertising dollars. And I agree that we'll see even more product placement and openly declared sponsorship to partly compensate for time-shifted viewing. We may even see a sponsor preamble on DVD releases where each episode would start with, "This series is brought to you by Company X."

 

[wamdue]

We may even see a sponsor preamble on DVD releases where each episode would start with, "This series is brought to you by Company X."

I would NEVER buy such a DVD, I already dont buy DVDs of films that I feel the product placement has been to blatant in.

 

[Out Of My Vulcan Mind]

I could put up with a sponsor intro if it helped keep shows I like in production. The same goes for product placement. I just hope they don't start putting advertising pop-ups, text and logos on the screen while the show is actually playing. The extent to which they're already doing it with network logos and text advertising upcoming shows is bad enough.

 

[wamdue]

I could put up with a sponsor intro if it helped keep shows I like in production. The same goes for product placement. I just hope they don't start putting advertising pop-ups, text and logos on the screen while the show is actually playing. The extent to which they're already doing it with network logos and text advertising upcoming shows is bad enough.

all of that is fine on TV, where you more or less get the product for free, but if ive PAID for a DVD, then it had better be 100% commercial free.

 

[firehawk12]

The trend of networks looking to air shows that they co-own with their sister studios will likely accelerate. That way they can more easily monetize shows through the totality of revenue that a show generates (including international license fees, DVD sales and pay per download) and not rely so heavily on advertising dollars. And I agree that we'll see even more product placement and openly declared sponsorship to partly compensate for time-shifted viewing. We may even see a sponsor preamble on DVD releases where each episode would start with, "This series is brought to you by Company X."

Basically. The ABC pickup of Scrubs and subsequent renewal. The CBS pickup of Medium as well.
If people amortize the cost of a show over all levels of distribution, then even a low rated show like Dollhouse can be saved... it's probably the one and only advantage to having giant corporate conglomerates.

Another thing to keep in mind with nearly free all media is that revenue is based on advertising. People are willing to pay 50 dollars to watch a musical or concert and 15 dollars to watch a film, so they don't have to bombard you with ads during a performance.
As long as something is free - or as good as free in the case of newspapers, there will always be an audience willing to consume that content.

 

[miraclefan]

When and IF Network TV goes the way of the dino, I will HAPPILY sing DING-DONG THE BITCH IS DEAD! all joking aside you know network TV is dead when they ask for a bail-out and are then GOV'MENT controlled.

 

[Kelso]

We may even see a sponsor preamble on DVD releases where each episode would start with, "This series is brought to you by Company X."

I would NEVER buy such a DVD, I already dont buy DVDs of films that I feel the product placement has been to blatant in.

I would.

Hell, for another season of Pushing Daisies, I wouldn't mind it if all of the main characters tattooed PEPSI on their foreheads.

 

[wamdue]

We may even see a sponsor preamble on DVD releases where each episode would start with, "This series is brought to you by Company X."

I would NEVER buy such a DVD, I already dont buy DVDs of films that I feel the product placement has been to blatant in.

I would.

Hell, for another season of Pushing Daisies, I wouldn't mind it if all of the main characters tattooed PEPSI on their foreheads.

even on the DVD that you paid for?

 

[Teelie]

Another thing to keep in mind with nearly free all media is that revenue is based on advertising. People are willing to pay 50 dollars to watch a musical or concert and 15 dollars to watch a film, so they don't have to bombard you with ads during a performance.
As long as something is free - or as good as free in the case of newspapers, there will always be an audience willing to consume that content.

That is true to a point but even things you pay for like cable have advertisements. I always hear how cable was supposed to be advertisement free yet I don't know anyone who can recall when it was. Even people who were lucky enough to have it in the 70's.