Entertainment in the 21st Century

[Theunicornhunter 2]

A few years ago we had a discussion on this site about television programming and schedules and the need for change. Part of that was fueled by the cancellation of Enterprise because of ratings - with no accounting for the fact that all locales didn't carry UPN or that many had to watch on the weekends.

 

Since that time many networks have begun offering their shows online, others are available for purchase at iTunes or Amazon etc. (and UPN has tanked much to the joy of some of us.) I wonder if ENT were on the air today rather than a few years ago how it would fare.

 

If it were on a network like CBS it would still suffer. In the interest of disclosure I am a disgruntled Jericho fan - a show that was in the top ten in legal downloads and rated high in online viewers but didn't score so well in the obscure timeslot. Which raises the question - who do the networks want watching their shows? It's the 21st Century - most younger people are both technologically savvy and busy leading active lives that don't lend well to sitting home and scheduling your life around network programming schedules. Most adverstisers covet the 18-49 group - the very group less likely to be sitting home. In self defense the Nielsens have started counting Tivo if watched within 24 hours but that still misses online viewers and downloaders.

 

Surprisingly more cable channels (paid access programming) seem to offer their shows online than networks programs. USA puts up most of its shows within 24 hours, TNT within a week but some network shows like Eleventh Hour or Law and Order are never online and in the case of the Mentalist or Eleventh Hour - not even available for download.

 

I just wonder how long the networks will continue to try to hold on the old model of people planning their lives around a tv schedule.

 

Personally, I would love to see cable and internet merge so you could simply pull up a show's episode for the week and watch it at any time that was convenient whether that was 3 am or 6 pm.

 

What would you like to see happen?

[youbroughtheryouRiker 2]

The problem in coveting 18-49 demographic is you've got at least one generation gap in that mix. You think a 49 yr-old is gonna watch the same thing as an 18-year old? Also, once you're past the 30 year mark, you're considered a lot more likely to be staying home to watch TV, or staying home period.

 

You've also got to break that demographic down by things like gender, race, disposable income, relationship/family status, sometimes even religion and political affiliation.

 

ENT would bomb on CBS because the demographic for CBS is elderly people, and CBS tends to run dramas that are usually steeped in mystery and/or based more in the supernatural than science. Now, CSI is more science, definitely, but it's still a murder mystery show. CBS is still having success with shows that have the same angle as "Murder She Wrote" and "Diagnosis Murder."

 

Admittedly, though, I don't watch traditional network TV anymore (except for The Price Is Right, Family Guy, and American Dad), so I couldn't tell you very well which network a show like ENT would fare best on.

[Theunicornhunter 2]

You've also got to break that demographic down by things like gender, race, disposable income, relationship/family status, sometimes even religion and political affiliation.

Why?

 

The only factor advertisers care about is how likely you are to spend money on their products and older people tend to be more careful with their money and younger are more reckless or are more prone to spend on intangibles (like cell phone service) rather than products with tangible value.

 

CBS does not target "older" viewers - it's been actively trying to change that image and has dumped shows that appeal to older viewers. With one exception (Ghost Whisperer) CBS isn't the supernatural channel I think that's Fox or the CW and supernatural shows - Angel, The Supernatural, Lost etc appeal to young viewers not older viewers.

 

CBS has a lot of crime dramas (but they're not mysteries) but those are popular with the right demographic (ie not older viewers) so they keep them. CSB has Eleventh Hour and Fox has Fringe - Fringe is far more into the pseudoscience, mysterious element, government conspiracy etc than Eleventh Hour.

 

But all of this is off topic - my point was - the very people that they want to watch are the people more likely to watch in alternate methods and the question was how do you think tv should be presented in the 21st century?

[youbroughtheryouRiker 2]

You've also got to break that demographic down by things like gender, race, disposable income, relationship/family status, sometimes even religion and political affiliation.

Why?

 

Because the way a message is received by a White, 25 year old, single man who makes about $22,000 a year is going to be significantly different than the way it is received by a Black, 45 year old, married mother of four who pulls $68,000 a year herself, plus about the same amount from her husband.

 

The only factor advertisers care about is how likely you are to spend money on their products and older people tend to be more careful with their money and younger are more reckless or are more prone to spend on intangibles (like cell phone service) rather than products with tangible value.

This is balanced out by the fact that older people tend to have more money to spend than the younger people, in general. Also product usage is MUCH different. Take caffeine for instance: younger people drink pop, older tend to drink coffee. So Mt. Dew isn't apt to adopt a marketing campaign designed to pull in the middle-aged consumer. That's oversimplified of course, as more younger people are getting into the Starbucks scene, but it's still a pretty solid rule of thumb.

 

CBS does not target "older" viewers - it's been actively trying to change that image and has dumped shows that appeal to older viewers. With one exception (Ghost Whisperer) CBS isn't the supernatural channel I think that's Fox or the CW and supernatural shows - Angel, The Supernatural, Lost etc appeal to young viewers not older viewers.

 

CBS has a lot of crime dramas (but they're not mysteries) but those are popular with the right demographic (ie not older viewers) so they keep them. CSB has Eleventh Hour and Fox has Fringe - Fringe is far more into the pseudoscience, mysterious element, government conspiracy etc than Eleventh Hour.

Mea culpa. I was using outdated information, although CBS has not been entirely successful in ditching their elderly demographic image.

 

But all of this is off topic - my point was - the very people that they want to watch are the people more likely to watch in alternate methods and the question was how do you think tv should be presented in the 21st century?

 

I can't say for certain how, honestly. I think some of the factors aren't completely internal. I think the chief thing that would have to happen, but that I don't see happening, is a complete overhaul of FCC regulations regarding content restrictions. One reason Internet viewership is up is because the Internet doesn't report to the FCC. The younger demographic wants more bang for their buck in entertainment. Too much is not enough. More sex, more violence, more swearing; because swearing and violence are just real life, and sex (along with power and money) is an end unto itself. That's just my personal opinion, and maybe I'm wrong, but the more I watch TV and movies and listen to the commentaries from the producers and directors of those things, the more I see that this is how the audience is viewed by these people. And until regular network TV has that kind of leeway, they're going to continue to fall behind. TV is already getting more and more risque, but they're still operating within bounds (which were themselves loosened with the arrivals of the rating system and the V-Chip). But the bounds are still there. Bounds that the movies, the Internet, and even cable don't have.

 

I think the structure of the industry itself may have to change too. I believe the Chain Broadcasting Rules that the FCC abolished back during the days of radio are still abolished for TV. However, the economics of the current network-affiliates relationship are just about as enslaving as the Chain Broadcasting Rules themselves. Offhand, I would suggest that the networks follow the example of PBS... YES PBS!!! There are MANY programs produced for PBS, and no single station can run them all... so they pick and choose from a menu and help finance those programs as they are able. IMO, networks should consider doing likewise. Produce a variety of network programs and let the affiliates pick and choose which ones they air, prohibiting the optioning of shows from other networks of course until such time as they are off-network syndication options; and then they can help with the financing of those series continuing in the tradition that they do right now, which while it sucks, is still preferable to NOT being a network affiliate. But offer a variety and let the affiliates decide. "Will it play in Peoria?" Well, let Peoria worry about that, not Hollywood or New York City.

 

The downside to this, is that it's a giant step backwards in the economics of television. Producers and actors won't be able to command the same salaries as before, because it will drive the cost of optioning a show upward (which if it's worth it, the affiliate will agree to), and with other cheaper options, might leave that show out in the cold. However, it is preferable to losing your audience altogether to other outlets. So maybe they should do this. It's just a thought. I don't know for certain.

 

What I can tell you is that TV will find a way. Radio had to find a way once the boom of television began following WWII. And they did. Radio still has to work to find a way to compete with satellite radio and iPods. TV has had to with Cable and Satellite and Movies on Demand, but they will find a way. Their survival will depend on it.

[Theunicornhunter 2]

YBHYR - I think you're overthinking this and getting off topic - people watch tv on the internet for several reasons - one of which is that like myself they can't fork out $60 a month for cable. I watch the same shows that people watch on tv, Fringe, Psych, Leverage etc. they're all available online on the network's website. A few shows aren't but they can be purchased - there's just a few network shows that aren't available at all.

 

The next reason people watch the internet is because they're not at home when the show is on; they're working, attending class or taking their kids to a soccer game etc. I usually catch CSI at about 3:00 am when I have insomnia.

 

All your other points may be valid but I'm not talking about alternatives to regular programming tv I'm talking about getting access to the same shows and how the "primetime schedule" just doesn't work.

 

And the question remains how can the networks best get their shows to the most people - my solution is still merging internet and cable so you can access the latest ep of a particular series when it is convenient to you - rather than them expecting you to plan your life around their schedule. If they don't change they will continue to lose viewers

[youbroughtheryouRiker 2]

YBHYR - I think you're overthinking this and getting off topic - people watch tv on the internet for several reasons - one of which is that like myself they can't fork out $60 a month for cable. I watch the same shows that people watch on tv, Fringe, Psych, Leverage etc. they're all available online on the network's website. A few shows aren't but they can be purchased - there's just a few network shows that aren't available at all.

 

The next reason people watch the internet is because they're not at home when the show is on; they're working, attending class or taking their kids to a soccer game etc. I usually catch CSI at about 3:00 am when I have insomnia.

Hey, I said "one reason" not "the reason." I also bring that one up becausethe others are not something TV can do much about. TV can't change how the Internet does its thing. It can only adjust to react to it. But you're also bringing in the fact that networks run their content via the web. In which case, this is not a case of competition necessarily.

 

All your other points may be valid but I'm not talking about alternatives to regular programming tv I'm talking about getting access to the same shows and how the "primetime schedule" just doesn't work.

Fair enough. I don't think you were necessarily that clear. It seemed like you were asking "How can regular TV survive in the wake of Internet viewership?" But even now... you ARE talking about alternatives. "Regular programming TV" involves the usage of the "Primetime schedule." If that's what you're trying to skirt, then you basically are discussing alternatives... whether it be an alternative paradigm to the scheduling method as we now know it, or alternative means of watching.

 

And the question remains how can the networks best get their shows to the most people - my solution is still merging internet and cable so you can access the latest ep of a particular series when it is convenient to you - rather than them expecting you to plan your life around their schedule. If they don't change they will continue to lose viewers

You seem to have answered your own question, really. What you're basically advocating is TV on Demand, which I believe is available. There's also DVR/TiVo. But since you watch CSI on the Internet when you have insomnia, you can't say CBS is necessarily losing viewers. The networks are still getting their shows to the most people--via their website. The networks aren't losing viewers, the viewers are just changing the way they get what they want from the networks. If you're asking "How can the networks best get their shows to the most people, VIA THE ACTUAL TELEVISION SET?" which is what you seem to be asking, then I think most of what I said still applies. But it seems like you're asking for things that are already there. If economic feasibility for the end user is your issue, then the answer is time. Over time technology is more and more adopted and diffused. And over time, the prices will drop, making it possible for more people to get in on it. Edited January 25, 2009 by youbroughtheryouRiker

[Theunicornhunter 2]

[ You seem to have answered your own question, really. What you're basically advocating is TV on Demand, which I believe is available.

No it's not - if you watch tv you have to watch it when it airs (or after if you tape or tivo)

 

But since you watch CSI on the Internet when you have insomnia, you can't say CBS is necessarily losing viewers. The networks are still getting their shows to the most people--via their website. The networks aren't losing viewers, the viewers are just changing the way they get what they want from the networks.

The Nielsen's don't count internet viewers and if Nielsen doesn't count it it doesn't exist - so from the Networks perspective they're losing viewers. And Nielsen's only count Tivo if it is watched within 24 hours and with the commercials. And the Nielsen's are what determine if a show survives - remember ENT? Seriously, were you posting here when we had all the discussions about Nielsens and how they didn't accurately reflect actual ENT viewers - if so, this discussion should make more sense.

 

So a show such as Jericho or Enterprise could be very popular with the very target audience (males 18-39) that networks want but they don't watch during original airing in primetime so they don't get counted and the show gets cancelled. It has nothing to do with where you watch it but when - my point was that the people who have nothing to do but sit home and wait for a show to come on are not the target audience networks are looking for (ie bored old people) but they are the very ones ruling the ratings.

 

Personally, I'd like to see an end to primetime line-up and Nielsens altogether. Every Sunday night at midnight all the networks should make the coming weeks episodes available for viewing and people could queue up what they wanted when they wanted during the week - and actual numbers would determine what stays in production or what gets cancelled.

 

Eventually things will change but it will probably be like the music industry - the networks will try to enforce that old way of doing things until they just can't anymore instead of getting ahead of the game and offering something to people who are ready for change.

[youbroughtheryouRiker 2]

But since you watch CSI on the Internet when you have insomnia, you can't say CBS is necessarily losing viewers. The networks are still getting their shows to the most people--via their website. The networks aren't losing viewers, the viewers are just changing the way they get what they want from the networks.

The Nielsen's don't count internet viewers and if Nielsen doesn't count it it doesn't exist - so from the Networks perspective they're losing viewers. And Nielsen's only count Tivo if it is watched within 24 hours and with the commercials. And the Nielsen's are what determine if a show survives - remember ENT? Seriously, were you posting here when we had all the discussions about Nielsens and how they didn't accurately reflect actual ENT viewers - if so, this discussion should make more sense.

 

So a show such as Jericho or Enterprise could be very popular with the very target audience (males 18-39) that networks want but they don't watch during original airing in primetime so they don't get counted and the show gets cancelled. It has nothing to do with where you watch it but when - my point was that the people who have nothing to do but sit home and wait for a show to come on are not the target audience networks are looking for (ie bored old people) but they are the very ones ruling the ratings.

 

Personally, I'd like to see an end to primetime line-up and Nielsens altogether. Every Sunday night at midnight all the networks should make the coming weeks episodes available for viewing and people could queue up what they wanted when they wanted during the week - and actual numbers would determine what stays in production or what gets cancelled.

 

Eventually things will change but it will probably be like the music industry - the networks will try to enforce that old way of doing things until they just can't anymore instead of getting ahead of the game and offering something to people who are ready for change.

 

No, I don't think I joined this place until after ENT was canceled, and I know I didn't watch it until after its cancellation. When I joined here, the only Trek I was into was TNG.

 

I think you're right though about the Nielsens thing. I wasn't getting that THAT was the point you were getting at. Yeah, the Nielsen's system will have to change. I wouldn't necessarily say go away, because you've still got to measure somehow, and I don't think we can really trust the networks to accurately report their hits, views, even downloads. Besides which, that's easy to fake. Like the record company that buys up many, many copies of an artists' new release, so that its debut on Billboard will look even more impressive... it happens, and it's BS. Right now, there just needs to be a simple retooling of how Nielsen Corp. measures.

 

But I could have sworn there's been progression in the field of TV on Demand... maybe it's just a catchy jingoism to go with that "Movies on Demand" bunk.

[He Who Shall Not Be Named 2]

In this day of TiVo and online viewing it doesn't really matter what time slot a show is in. You don't even need to know how to program a VCR.

[Bethlehem 7]

In this day of TiVo and online viewing it doesn't really matter what time slot a show is in. You don't even need to know how to program a VCR.

 

That is good news, because I can't program a VCR.