Why Do Intellectual (or Otherwise Good) Shows

[scaleman 0]

As was mentioned my Klingonmike about firefly: It just goes to show that good intelligent TV must fall by the wayside so they can show mindless crap like "The Bacholer". Now doesn't this seem to happen too often? A good show comes up and if it's lucky it gets a season (or really lucky, 2), and if it happens to be sci-fi it's chances are even less.

 

What's up with that? Don't these networks know that there are people who LIKE these shows? granted we may not respond to them like people did in the past, but there are the nelson ratings, shouldn't they say enough?

 

What shows can you recall that got treated similar to Firefly?

[xenexian 2]

It all comes down to demographics and numbers. This happens every year with intelligent programming. You may have seem numerous shows in the past that television critics and some of the public just love but invariably get cancelled. In reality, most television viewers don't want to think, they just want to be entertained. Rupert Murdoch of Fox broadcasting recognized this years ago and hence his programming, in case you haven't noticed, panders to the lowest common demoninator. Intelligent, thought provoking programming usually never makes it because the average viewer and the largest demographic, males 18 to 49, won't watch it. If the advertisers see that the audience block they want is not watching a particular show, it doesn't matter how good it is, they won't pour advertising dollars into it leaving the network to weigh the difference between production costs and the amount of revenue stream the show generates. If it can't at least break even, the show will get cancelled no matter what the critics and certain segments of the populace think. Here's an example. A show that does well with viewers 29 to 54 might create a viewership that starts small but doesn't grow beyond the demographic boundries. No increase in viewers, especially in that 18 to 49 range, and the advertisers won't advertise on that program because that's not who they want to sell products to. Since advertising dollars are what drives all broadcasting if the network can't recoup the production costs in a reasonable time, which today seems like two months at the best, the network will drop the program quickly in order to get something on the air that will give the advertisers what they want. There is no patience anymore. Neilson ratings play a part in it but again even if the neilsons say a show is doing okay, that doesn't mean the advertisers are going to buy into it if the demographics of the show are in the geriatric range. It's just the nature of the beast today which is sad. I watch a lot of PBS and I honestly think that even some of the shows on, say the history channel, would do well on the over the air networks but can anyone say that they watch more informative programs on PBS then what's available on the other networks? I'll have to look and do a search for well written shows that were cancelled but with todays programming choices and what the average viewer seems to want to watch, I wouldn't hold my breath for any changes anytime soon.

[Theunicornhunter 2]

The short answer is there are more dumb people than smart ones in the world.

 

Years ago I read a statistic that hours spent viewing television was inversely proportional to your socio-economic status - ie the lower you were on the scale the more tv you watched.

 

Producers go for quantity not quality; however does anyone know if advertising really works? I mean does increased viewership of sponsored shows actually result in increased sales?

 

One of my favorte shows ever was Due South, the premise, the acting and the scripts were terrific. I also found it quite humorous, part of the problem is you had to know a little bit to understand some of the humor. Just as Xenexian mentioned about demographis this show was quite popular with older viewers. I've seen other clever shows such as Harts of the West which also crashed and burned relatively quickly.

[Goose 0]

Stardate:214276.8

 

 

Intelligent shows will never make it anyone because reality shows are killing tv.Stupid meaningless crap like Survivor and Outback Jack should be taken off the air.Whoever invented realtiy tv should be castrated then shot! I hate reality tv!!!! It destroys good decent shows out there.

 

Like UH said it just shows there are too many stupid people out there.

[Ace 0]

It's not really fair to knock ALL reality tv, though. There are some that are actually worth watching (Last Comic Standing and Amazing Race come to mind ).

 

I won't go into a big discussion because xenexian covered most of it. If the show can't deliver good 18-49 demos, then the advertisers wont advertise in those slots, and that's where the networks get their money. Even though these shows have an audience, those audiences aren't nearly big enough.

 

Scaleman used Firefly as an example. Well, as I expected that show to fall off the schedule quickly, I watched its Nielson's closely. It consistently scored on the 2-3 range. That would be great on UPN or even the WB, but that's low for Fox. The fact is, not enough people were watching.

 

It gets more confusing, though, when you consider Firefly's schedule-mate John Doe. I enjoyed both shows, but Doe was smart tv, and scored in the 4-6 range - impressive for a new show with a unique premise in a Friday slot for Fox. It scored much better than the show that replaced it the very next year; I'd say Fox shot themselves in the foot on that one... :o