Channels changing their mission.

[MarcB]

The young demographics being important, for years I used to think that was the case. Young people-Good...Older people-Bad. Alright maybe that is the case but there is one exception...WTTG FOX 5. Last year back when I was still checking out DCRTV.com, Dave Hughes did a story about FOX 5 WTTG's( Washington ) news anchor 30 something Brian Bolter. Bolter had a Facebook profile with many pics of him. Even though there were no "bad" pics of him were on Facebook but there were others that I had seen when the profile was active showing him drinking a Coors Light, smoking a cigar at the beach, sporting his tattoos and a goatee plus his profile had videos of him doing extreme sports like skateboarding and snowboarding. Also his profile mention that Bolter was a big fan of rock and hip hop music. OK most of these things are pretty much considered "COOL" among those in their 30's ( like Brian Bolter ) and younger. Yet FOX made him take down his Facebook profile. Of course neither FOX nor WTTG or even Bolter himself never did give the reason why for the deleting of the profile. However someone from WTTG did emailed DCRTV shortly afterward saying the reason why was that FOX didn't like those photos and sport videos and felt they were bad for their image and FOX/WTTG didn't want attract that crowd. Right there this tells me that FOX or at least WTTG, doesn't really care that much about those in the 20s & 30's as far as watching their news is concerned. If they did why not allow those pics and Facebook account to remain online to show the human side of their anchor Brian Bolter not too mention attacting that age group to watch their news.

This was brought up on the off-the-air board last summer and it fits in with what happened at FOX 5. This 23 year old high school teacher was fired because there were pictures of her on her Facebook Page of her drinking beer while taking a tour of The Guiness Beer Factory over in Europe on her summer vacation. The school said it was inappropriate and that's why she was fired. All because some busy-body parent with way too much time on their hands called the school board and complained (much like this whacko in the town where my parents live is continiously trying to sue the town over the new Big-Box Adult Store that opened. They've had numerous hearings and have found the store is in compliance. She's calls "the act" lewd and inapporiate. Speaking of lewd you ought to see what people say about her in the comments section of the Bristol Press and New Britain Herald online. Both papers are owned by the same independent company and this particular town is covered in both papers). But back to this teacher who was fired. She's a legal adult who has the right to do whatever she wants as long its legal in her free-time. And of course you're gonna be drinking beer as part of the Guiness Factory Tour.

 

[imhomerjay]

VH1 classic is a perfect example of this. It was wall to wall 60's 70's, & 80's music videos when it started, which was right after VH1 stopped being about music. old Vh1 fans, and people who grew up on MTV wanted this channel bad. Around 2005 it was basically on every system, and started to add movies, and reruns of VH1 reality programs more and more. Today it is basically VH1-2. Now why? The original format was cheap, so it wasn't cost cutting. No cable system would pick up a network that just reruns the stuff already aired on its sister network, nor would their be any demand for it. However reruns of flavor of love sell ad space for more then wall to wall old music videos.

Um, yeah, if they sell more ad space, that's entirely the point. If the videos weren't bringing in an audience that could be sold to advertisers, then you make adjustments so that you can actually make money off of it.

 

[justpassingthough]

It's amazing...no, wait, comical is the right word, how many people still can't get over the concept that video jukeboxes in 2010 aren't a smart business model for anyone seeking a decent audience.

I agree with you about music videos, but to me what is even more comical is how the networks and advertisers are so into that young demographic. OK, let me take a look...a retired couple in their 60's with 300K in the bank plus owns their own home, perhaps land too. Then there is that young 25 year old man who lives in a cheap apartment without a TV set or radio ( his choice, he thinks both suck ), spends all day on Facebook playing Farmville, has only $12.75 in the bank plus his idea of "fine dining" is Burger King or Carls Jr. Yet the networks & advertisers are far more interested in reaching that broke " I hate TV" 25 year old than they are that retired couple with lots money to spend who chances are actually watches TV. To me THAT is comical !!!!

Even if your example was 100% true, buying habits are locked in a relatively early age and change less and less as we age. The reason that advertisers don't chase after older demographics, is that on average, it costs 3 to 4 times more to "make a sale" to an older demographic, to the point that this 300 or 400% more spent on advertising isn't a good return on investment. It may even be a money loser if you are selling a relatively inexpensive product like a hamburger.

Research has consistently shown that after 50, buying habits are so ingrained that they almost never change, unless they are forced to because your product of choice is no longer produced.

 

[imhomerjay]

Thankfully, someone gets it.

Obviously there are products for which buying habits aren't set, as they're the ones that become important as one ages, but those are a small slice of the pie and tend not to have big marketing budgets behind them.

 

[Irishfl]

VH1 classic is a perfect example of this. It was wall to wall 60's 70's, & 80's music videos when it started, which was right after VH1 stopped being about music. old Vh1 fans, and people who grew up on MTV wanted this channel bad. Around 2005 it was basically on every system, and started to add movies, and reruns of VH1 reality programs more and more. Today it is basically VH1-2. Now why? The original format was cheap, so it wasn't cost cutting. No cable system would pick up a network that just reruns the stuff already aired on its sister network, nor would their be any demand for it. However reruns of flavor of love sell ad space for more then wall to wall old music videos.

Um, yeah, if they sell more ad space, that's entirely the point. If the videos weren't bringing in an audience that could be sold to advertisers, then you make adjustments so that you can actually make money off of it.

The videos are what brought an audience that demanded cable system to pick up the network. The cable systems inturn paid for a network that was such. Once carriage was high, mtv networks change the format towards a more general appeal to make more money. Of course the reason they change format is for more money. I never said it wasn't. My point was explaining why networks come on as such and such, only to change, and yes nobody would demand a network that just reruns the same programs its main channel does, nor would any cable system go out of its way to add it, but once its on, its hard to get rid of...thus VH1 classic of 2000 was created, instead of vh1-2.

Of course i'm making these companies to sound worse then they really are. I suppose the idea behind it is hey, lets make a few bucks off cable systems by creating a automated video jukebox, which works when your in only 10% of all households, but when you get around 70% that same network that was created to make a few bucks is now losing out on major potential bucks. So I get why they do it.

 

[imhomerjay]

The videos are what brought an audience that demanded cable system to pick up the network.

And over time the world changed, tastes changed, and they realized that approach needed to change as well. It's hardly as though they began with a business plan that said "Once we trick the cable companies into carrying us, we'll complete our evil scheme by beginning to introduce some non-music-video programming. Bwahhhhh-haa-haaa!"

 

[justpassingthough]

VH1 classic is a perfect example of this. It was wall to wall 60's 70's, & 80's music videos when it started, which was right after VH1 stopped being about music. old Vh1 fans, and people who grew up on MTV wanted this channel bad. Around 2005 it was basically on every system, and started to add movies, and reruns of VH1 reality programs more and more. Today it is basically VH1-2. Now why? The original format was cheap, so it wasn't cost cutting. No cable system would pick up a network that just reruns the stuff already aired on its sister network, nor would their be any demand for it. However reruns of flavor of love sell ad space for more then wall to wall old music videos.

Um, yeah, if they sell more ad space, that's entirely the point. If the videos weren't bringing in an audience that could be sold to advertisers, then you make adjustments so that you can actually make money off of it.

The videos are what brought an audience that demanded cable system to pick up the network. The cable systems inturn paid for a network that was such. Once carriage was high, mtv networks change the format towards a more general appeal to make more money. Of course the reason they change format is for more money. I never said it wasn't. My point was explaining why networks come on as such and such, only to change, and yes nobody would demand a network that just reruns the same programs its main channel does, nor would any cable system go out of its way to add it, but once its on, its hard to get rid of...thus VH1 classic of 2000 was created, instead of vh1-2.

Of course i'm making these companies to sound worse then they really are. I suppose the idea behind it is hey, lets make a few bucks off cable systems by creating a automated video jukebox, which works when your in only 10% of all households, but when you get around 70% that same network that was created to make a few bucks is now losing out on major potential bucks. So I get why they do it.

I think you've hit the nail on the head. An automated video jukebox was an outstanding idea when it was the "early adopters" who had cable in the '80s. Once a substantial percentage, then a majority of Americans had cable, it made much more financial sense to offer more general programming. Sure, people were calling and requesting that MTV get added to their cable system, but it was literally thousands of people, not the millions of people who now watch original MTV programming like "the Hills" or "16 and Pregnant". Its a whole new ballgame, and comparing cable now to cable in its infancy is apples and oranges.

 

[imhomerjay]

And little things like on-demand technologies and broadband made the jukebox concept utterly irrelevant as time went on.

Just because something was "new" and innovative once upon a time doesn't mean people will keep on watching.

 

[mjlarochelle]

I think part of the reason at least some cable channels are able to get away with the drifting away from their original "mission" is because of the amount of bundling of channels in cable packages. I'm not exactly sure how it works in the U.S. but my best guess is that in order to get ESPN you have to subscribe to a package that includes a bunch of cable channels such as A&E, Spike, or TLC. Of course all you really want is ESPN but the other channels make money just from the subscription fees. If those channels were not bundled with ones like ESPN that at least have somewhat of a programming focus, they would be forced to improve their programming or close down.

If the FCC forced the practice of bundling to end and cable/satellite consumers could simply pick and choose cable channels to subscribe to (in addition to mandatory local channels on basic cable), the number of cable channels out there would shrink. Some would re-tool their programming to fit more of a niche like Discovery or ESPN do, or they would just decide they can't compete and just shut down.

 

[jsu5381m]

I think you've hit the nail on the head. An automated video jukebox was an outstanding idea when it was the "early adopters" who had cable in the '80s. Once a substantial percentage, then a majority of Americans had cable, it made much more financial sense to offer more general programming. Sure, people were calling and requesting that MTV get added to their cable system, but it was literally thousands of people, not the millions of people who now watch original MTV programming like "the Hills" or "16 and Pregnant". Its a whole new ballgame, and comparing cable now to cable in its infancy is apples and oranges.

I don't want my MTV.

 

[EricStein]

What about Hallmark? I associate that brand with well produced family dramas (Hallmark Hall of Fame), but their network is just another off-network rerun machine now.

There was once The Family Channel. Once it was sold to FOX, PAX was created to fill the void left when The Family Channel started to aim toward a younger audience, but Bud Paxson was an infomercial salesman and couldn't get that out of him and PAX eventually failed. Hallmark stepped in and made a legitimate attempt at bringing back something that resembled the Pat Robertson-era Family Channel, but thanks to all the Golden Girls and Little House on the Prairie reruns, the audience was that of an older, less-advertiser friendly demographic. Now Hallmark has reinvented itself, as the Martha Stewart channel since the beginning of this month.

 

[MarcB]

Now Hallmark has reinvented itself, as the Martha Stewart channel since the beginning of this month.

The ratings on Hallmark Channel sank big time with that move so effective today Wednesday 4/14/2010 the new line-up is:

9AM Martha x 4
11AM Touched by An Angel
12PM Little House x 3
3PM 7th Heaven x 3
6PM Golden Girls x 4
8PM Touched by An Angel
9PM Movie
11PM Golden Girls x 4
1AM Cheers x 6
4AM Infomercials x 10

Weekends Remain the same with Martha 6AM-9AM, Movies 9AM-3AM, and Cheers 3AM-4AM.

 

[Scotpfv]

Travel Channel is another offender. There is still some good stuff during daytime like Passport To Europe and Great Hotels, but prime time seems to be nothing but 'some dude eating bugs'.

E! used to have some interesting stuff like "True Hollywood Story" but now seems like a cheap copy of other reality show networks.

I'm somewhat suprised that Food Network isn't showing MMA yet.

 

[DToTheJ]

VH1 classic is a perfect example of this. It was wall to wall 60's 70's, & 80's music videos when it started, which was right after VH1 stopped being about music. old Vh1 fans, and people who grew up on MTV wanted this channel bad. Around 2005 it was basically on every system, and started to add movies, and reruns of VH1 reality programs more and more. Today it is basically VH1-2...

As I've stated in other threads on this forum, Fox Business Network should basically call themselves "Fox News 2." Outside of Dave Ramsey's show, you can find pretty much the same Obama-bashing you can find on Fox News, just on a so-called "business" network.

 

[in3media_be1]

Some posts from this thread have been moved to Take It Outsdide


http://boards.radio-info.com/smf/index.php?topic=166428.msg1428198#msg1428198

 

[anotherguyTN]

Most of the food related shows on the Travel Channel do have a travel element to them, and I've started watching them more often. I like Man V Food, Chowdown Countdown, and Food Paradise, but I'll admit I don't watch Bizarre Foods or Anthony Bourdain. I'd rather see Adam Richman take on a giant sandwich rather than see Andrew Zimmern eat bugs.

 

[kc0ltv]

Some channels that have changed their format over the years:

MTV2 (formerly M2) - was all music videos 24/7 when they started; now resembles MTV in '97 or '98.
Fuse (formerly MuchMusic USA) - was essentially the same as the Canadian network before, just with "USA" branding (I think); became FUSE and then devoted itself to crappy rap and metal, and now sort of in the same vein as MTV.

CMT: Used to be pure country music videos and programming, now the HQ for redneck reality shows

Discovery Health: Currently airs health-related shows; however, it will become the OWN (Oprah Winfrey Network) in 2011

Investigation Discovery (formerly Discovery Times, Discovery Civilization, Discovery People, and CBS Eye on the People): Started around 1997 as "CBS Eye on the People". Fascinating network. Became even more interesting when we got Dish Network in 2000 and it was Discovery Civilization. Almost all programs appealed to me, though they were repeated in eight-hour blocks. Nice "social science" counterpart to their "Discovery Science" (later "The Science Channel") "natural science" network. Started going downhill when NYT purchased a share in it, with "War Story" or whatever that show was called airing almost all the time. Downgraded to a "crime and investigation" - type channel in 2007 or 2008.

Travel Channel: Used to air travel programming, some of it very interesting; then suddenly became a mix of millionaire travel shows (e.g. "World's Most Expensive Getaways") and poker, seemingly every night, peaking around 2004.  Now somewhat more sensible.

All of this, along with Dish Network's decision to replace the VOOM all-HD channels with mainstream cable crap and several other examples of format changes, shows that the normal American TV consumer advertisers target has progressively worsening taste in TV.  I have for one cancelled my subscription to satellite TV.

 

[DToTheJ]

Incidentally, I have started to see a new print ad campaign for Animal Planet, telling viewers who may not be familiar with their network that its programming is more than just animal fare. For example, in an ad for the new show "Whale Ware," a huge tagline reads, "It's not about a whale." Underneath, in smaller font: "It's about 42 die-hards on a mission" or something to that extent. In other words, emphasizing the human aspect of their programming, hence its slogan, "Surprisingly Human." Because, you know it's hard to sell advertising to the 8-12 whale viewer demographic. :

 

[JeeperOne]

Outdoor Life Network picked up the Tour De France and since it was an outdoor sporing event it still made some sense. Later it added Hockey. When it did and it became more of a sports network, they changed the name of the channel to Versus.

Yet Versus refuses to let go of its outdoor roots -- many of its daytime shows are still outdoor sports programs (usually hunting or fishing).

This is because all ESPN during the weekdays is to sports what CNN is to news (Only CNN does it 24/7/365).

And FSN & the other RSOs aren't much better. In fact, Altitude can be seen broadcasting CONCERTS & doing what amounts to locally produced infomercials during the day.

Just my $.02 worth.....

Cheers

 

[firepoint525]

When a cable channel "changes" their name from their name to their initials, they are getting away from their original mission. Good example, Headline News becoming HLN. They are now the Nancy (dis)Grace channel! :