-
Get involved.
We want your input!
Apply for Membership and join the conversations about everything related to broadcasting.
After we receive your registration, a moderator will review it. After your registration is approved, you will be permitted to post.
If you use a disposable or false email address, your registration will be rejected.
After your membership is approved, please take a minute to tell us a little bit about yourself.
https://www.radiodiscussions.com/forums/introduce-yourself.1088/
Thanks in advance and have fun!
RadioDiscussions Administrators
Channel Drift
- Thread starter TVCOOL
- Start date
Initial concepts for both were too niche. MTV's additional problem was time spent watching; people would tune in for a song or two then leave. The demos weren't great either; too many kids and teens, and largely only white kids and teens at that -- diversity was unknown there until Michael Jackson became the network's Jackie Robinson, so to speak.
As for SyFy (formerly SciFi), science fiction is a divisive genre to begin with and it would be nearly impossible to program a channel that would please SF fans (Oh, and "serious" science fiction fans NEVER call the genre "sci-fi.") who want content with deep social messaging and those who just want a terrifying zombie story.
The answer for both networks (as it was for History Channel, CMT, A&E, etc.) was to dumb down and go for middle-brow to low-brow chewing gum for the eyeballs of the masses.
As for SyFy (formerly SciFi), science fiction is a divisive genre to begin with and it would be nearly impossible to program a channel that would please SF fans (Oh, and "serious" science fiction fans NEVER call the genre "sci-fi.") who want content with deep social messaging and those who just want a terrifying zombie story.
The answer for both networks (as it was for History Channel, CMT, A&E, etc.) was to dumb down and go for middle-brow to low-brow chewing gum for the eyeballs of the masses.
Last edited:
SciFi was renamed SyFy after it was acquired by NBC Universal, so the reason there was a management change.
MTV likely began to drift because the novelty of music videos wore off. It was also related to the problems the CHR format had in the 1990s.
MTV likely began to drift because the novelty of music videos wore off. It was also related to the problems the CHR format had in the 1990s.
Not to mention to rising cost of music royalties.
profit
These Channels MTV and Syfy are basically labels within their respective streaming apps at this point. Sure MTV and VH1 lost their contracts with the labels due to them moving their broadcasts rights to YouTube and the other music only streamers since late 2000's. MTV has been a a label within the Paramount+ app for original programming.
Syfy it's more of their original programming or movies they are airing are more within the peacock app.
Syfy it's more of their original programming or movies they are airing are more within the peacock app.
Shows like Pawn Stars and American Pickers on History do have a historical element even though they have more of a pop culture slant to them as well. And History still does historical specials and miniseries at times as well. So they haven't drifted as bad as some other channels, and I actually like them better now.
You hit the nail on the head here. Funny because it's true!
As it should be
Precisely. "But why doesn't MTV play (80s) videos today?" Time spent viewing. A viewer clicks off a song they don't like and may not be back for hour. Add half hour shows like The RealWorld and you might at least have them for the half hour. Cable was more of a smaller market and suburban phenomenon in the early days. MTV's VJs couldn't even see their own shows in NYC at first.
parts of NYC won't even wired for cable until the early 90s
Just saw the topic name and had to chime in...
Channel drifting is one of the worst things ever invented by this television industry. I miss so many channels from back in the day because of channel shifting and how today's format and direction make me turn OFF the channel, not turn around on to it.
Like, CNN Headline News, MTV, VH1, TechTV (though I was okay with G4 too), Newsworld International (though that channel space no longer exists), all these news channels before they got too opinionated, ESPNews, The Weather Channel (at least at night), etc.
I miss most of them because the cable industry has decided to screw around with viewers, change the format, and put it into a way that actually turns viewers off. I wish I had these channels back to the way they are, but its a sad state of reality, and it makes me sad as a still young viewer (I'm 26), that they will never ever go back to the original formats ever again.
Its all for profit, but once we stop watching, and if the channel shuts down, then what was it for? NOTHING. Then the channels will cease to exist because of the changing viewer habits. Yeah, I get that but its also changing because the companies decided to mess with channels that weren't broken, fixed them, and made them broken, thus making them wholly unwatchable in my eyes.
Sorry for ranting, but I needed to get that off my chest.
P.S., I wonder if anybody here remembers Newsworld International before it became Current in 2005. I can't be the only one! I still miss that network some 17 years later (I remember a good bit of that network, despite it going off the air when I was only ten. That's right... Ten).
Channel drifting is one of the worst things ever invented by this television industry. I miss so many channels from back in the day because of channel shifting and how today's format and direction make me turn OFF the channel, not turn around on to it.
Like, CNN Headline News, MTV, VH1, TechTV (though I was okay with G4 too), Newsworld International (though that channel space no longer exists), all these news channels before they got too opinionated, ESPNews, The Weather Channel (at least at night), etc.
I miss most of them because the cable industry has decided to screw around with viewers, change the format, and put it into a way that actually turns viewers off. I wish I had these channels back to the way they are, but its a sad state of reality, and it makes me sad as a still young viewer (I'm 26), that they will never ever go back to the original formats ever again.
Its all for profit, but once we stop watching, and if the channel shuts down, then what was it for? NOTHING. Then the channels will cease to exist because of the changing viewer habits. Yeah, I get that but its also changing because the companies decided to mess with channels that weren't broken, fixed them, and made them broken, thus making them wholly unwatchable in my eyes.
Sorry for ranting, but I needed to get that off my chest.
P.S., I wonder if anybody here remembers Newsworld International before it became Current in 2005. I can't be the only one! I still miss that network some 17 years later (I remember a good bit of that network, despite it going off the air when I was only ten. That's right... Ten).
The thing that ranting misses is that the change was due to people not watching in sufficient numbers in the first place--whether out of the gate of over time. They were broken in that sense.
There's an old saying in the TV news biz: Weather Wins.
The record companies were paying to get those videos aired, weren't they?
I'm not sure if they were paying, but likely the videos were furnished free just like radio. There would still at least be songwriter royalties.
Yet, 24/7 Weather loses.
Because of the reason previously stated. Tornadoes, hurricanes, blizzards and ice storms aren't a 24/7/365 occurrence, at least not storms severe enough to provide video that would lure viewers in great numbers. The average viewer wants to see roofs torn off houses in Oklahoma, not a chilly drizzle falling in Pennsylvania. Viewers can get their local weather instantly from other sources, anyway.
They are owned by a company with other outlets and they share Programming and that's why we see shows on multiple networks like Seinfeld, Mike and Molly, Two and a half men, mom, etc.
- Status