BRNout said:
Younger people have not been bothering with TV,
Citation please.
BRNout said:
while the rest of us have to suffer with their lame attempts at luring people who aren't interested.
My TV comes with an off button. I’ve learned to use it quite often. If advertisers want me and people like me, they’ll support the shows I do watch; if not, so be it. No harm, no foul.
BRNout said:
Homerjay, your various arguments about how it's a new time and we oldsters (of 40) need to "get with it" and how TV programming is right on and doing so well - are wrong. What cable nets like TVLand, VH1, A&E, etc. are doing is wrong. What NBC is doing in airing crap like that circus of has-been entertainers is wrong.
I have not said I like the reality shows on TV Land or VH1 or A&E. To be clear, I don’t. What you ignore though is that TV is a business, and the ratings have gone up, not down. People may have different tastes than you and may enjoy something you do not. You’re under no obligation to like anything in particular; or to change your tastes nor is anyone else. But neither is a network under an obligation to not change their business model to keep pace with the rest of the audience because some of us don’t change our tastes.
BRNout said:
Viewership is steadily aging and fragmenting.
That broadcast (which is the focus of the article, not cable) TV audiences are generally growing older in the country is hardly surprising; the baby boom and subsequent decline in birth rate growth coupled with longer life spans means the audience as a whole is for now going to go up.
Likewise, fragmentation is inevitable as new choices and technologies emerge. TV Land or VH1 doing what they did 15 years ago would not have a meaningful impact on fragmentation.
Younger audiences (under 50 in the case of the article) are more likely on average to be users of new technology and to explore programming choices more. The article points out that the median US household age is 38. Since, as has been cited elsewhere, the overall use of TV has inched upwards—and not declined—and the broadcasters’ median viewers’ age has climbed, it stands to follow that the younger viewers are migrating to cable (which, again as been cited elsewhere, has—factually—seen its ratings increase).
And lest anyone think the Internet is siphoning off droves of viewers, studies (not the compelling but statistically insignificant anecdotal examples many of us can cite about people we know who only watch online video) show that television ratings are not significantly impacted by online video. It’s something people are largely doing in addition to watching TV, not instead of it.
BRNout said:
As the networks put more and more reality pablum on their schedules, more and more of the remaining viewers are going elsewhere.
Do you mean the broadcast channels? If so, then yes, it is hardly newsworthy that their ratings are collectively smaller than before there were 200-something channels of TV to pick from.
BRNout said:
And, the younger audiences are not tuning in to take their place.
TV viewing among younger audiences as a whole has not declined significantly. Viewing on the broadcast networks? Yes. On
all TV? No. (Sorry, but not liking the fact does not change it.)
BRNout said:
So, yes, the audience is shrinking and aging. A bad trend.
The overall audience is simply not shrinking, no matter how many times you try to pretend it is. To the extent it is aging, you need to factor in demographics, not anything any TV programmer is doing or not doing.
BRNout said:
Don't believe me? Then check out today's Variety article on the subject:
http://www.variety.com/article/VR1117988273.html?categoryid=14&cs=1
A fascinating article indeed, but it fails to make the case that cable networks are pursuing an illogical business strategy.
BRNout said:
It is the TV execs who need to "get with it" and concentrate on GOOD programming. Not lowest common denominator, cheap, unintelligent crap. If trends continue, the major nets will have a relatively aged, undereducated, and lower than median income audience to pitch to advertisers. You'll be seeing "Credit Angel" ads in prime time, just as you do during Jerry Springer now.
Good by only
your definition?
Mine? Consensus of a certain age group? An ethnic group? A gender group?
The evaluation of a group of younger people than either of us may be (very) different than either of ours. I can’t fathom how they like that they do, and they might think I’m hopelessly out of touch in my tastes. That doesn’t make their tastes right or wrong, just different.
Loading up the schedules with what I consider good might bring in a good audience of my demographic, and there are likely advertisers that would value it—whether there are enough advertisers willing to pay enough to make it a viable business venture is a different question. Instead, though, I avail myself of other technologies and resources to find what I consider good entertainment (e.g. DVD collections of shows I consider good). I don’t pretend to have some entitlement just for having lived about half of my life expectancy that TV networks must still cater to my tastes.
Whether or not you are willing to acknowledge it, “good” and “bad” are subjective arguments that can vary widely when you look at factors like age, race, gender, geography, religion, upbringing, etc. What you consider good and what I consider good are likely to be radically different from what other people consider good. Moreover, another point unacknowledged in the circular and ultimately meaningless (albeit fun) “good or bad” debate is that what someone considers good is not necessarily something they’ll watch.
As to other articles about what cable channels are doing (which was the focus of the original point, not broadcasters):
MediaWeekhttp://www.mediaweek.com/mw/content_display/news/cable-tv/e3i3a6a726c3dd89a14366cf1106813f330#
“Indeed, cable isn’t having any trouble setting ratings records this season.
New York Times
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/09/b...gin&adxnnlx=1213013038-OAFqVoWo685RHyZX4Q0CMw
“Channels like TNT, AMC, FX and others came up with their own versions of “Trading Places” and carved out niches, sometimes huge ones, by letting viewers know that narrative, quality and drama have not gone off the grid. Those characteristics have just switched coordinates. Sure, “House” and “Grey’s Anatomy” still rule the water cooler, but shows like “Mad Men,” “The Closer” and “Saving Grace” are bubbling up as well.”
Detroit Free Presshttp://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080603/ENT01/806030358
“TV Land, which started out as a channel for classic TV reruns, has boosted its ratings recently with reality shows like "The Big 4-0" and "High School Reunion."
Food Network followed the template for evolution very well. Originally mostly "recipe" based shows, they in time branched out into more original programming after finding that the bulk of the audience liked other types of shows that touched on the common interest of food, from documentary type shows to reality shows to competition shows. None of us should be shocked that there are probably some people who were mad that at 10 p.m. at night they couldn't find an Italian cooking show, for instance, but Food did what worked for a larger segment of the audience and managed to grow their ratings in the process. Recipes cooking shows still have a place on the network, but the more popular shows occupy the most-viewed time periods. Individual shows that don't click go away, but the overall focus has worked.
I for one do not understand the appeal of High School Reunion on TV Land. I don't understand the appeal of most reality programming, but that ratings are what they are. So again, honestly, if your job--what pays your bills, keeps a roof over your head, puts food in your family's stomach, pays for your kids' education--was based on maximizing viewership, is it hard to grasp why people would choose to pursue a strategy that does
just that?
