• 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

I'M FED UP WITH TV LAND...JUST END IT!

Nielsen doesn't measure ratings of the WHOLE population, it measures the ratings of specific groups of people. A true sampling is random. Nielsen isn't random in the least.

Their clients tell them WHO to poll and Nielsen goes out and polls THOSE clients. Marketers do their research to see who is likely to buy things. Older people and those in rural areas are less likely to buy things. For either they are too poor or already have them

This is why you constantly have had skewed programs throughout TV.

TV is not the local operations it was. Businesses now operate on the model you can't make money but you have to make the MOST. If a show seldom seen say "My Three Sons," makes $1,000/profit and "Roseanne," makes $1,001 profit the TV station has to go with Roseanne simply because they are responsible to their stockholders. Futhermore many stations are now owned by capital investment firms which are very bottom line to the penny.

When I worked for a hotel that was owned by a capital venture, you could see the owners look at you when you were drinking a coke. (We got free coffee, coke and meals). He'd look at you like "Well there's 5¢ that could've went into my pocket. A salaried General Manager probably wouldn't do that.

Watching TV when you aren't buying nothing is a waste to the TV station, in the old days there were rules about commercials and localism whereas owners saw TV stations as a way to gain clout in their community.

You can see this going back to "I Love Lucy," whereas Phillip Morris yelled at Desi Arnaz because Lucy wasn't selling his cigarettes, whereas Desi yelled back "It's your product, we're giving you the numbers." This is the classic example of
numbers not meaning anything.
 
tothedj said:
Maybe cable systems should consider a "On Demand" service where you can watch
selected classic television programs, the internet is working on this.

The latter exists on Comcast. They have a Tube Time feature on OnDemand. I remember seeing Diff'rent Strokes on VOD.
 
BRNout said:
Yeah, and you have every single cable channel catering to the same age group. Such a brilliant theory to give up being the one marketer of programming for an underserved group so that you can be one of 100 channels going after supposedly younger audiences. Audiences that are also the least likely to spend a lot of time watching old-fashioned TV. A group who has more distractions than any before it.

There's no debate over who TV Land's target audience is, but I don't get the repeat programming. I do believe every time I had the TV on this week and scanned the channel line-up, TV Land was showing Beetlejuice. It's almost as though they know their target audience devotes little time watching television these days, so they want to be absolutely sure their narrow weekly (or monthly) line-up gets seen no matter when that audience happens to tune in.
 
pbf1 said:
And the demographics you'd attract would be WAY too old to be saleable. Hence the changes they've made!

But there's one BIG distinction, this is cable, we PAY for it, and what say you about AMC or TCM?
Those old TV shows are classics and transcend demographics as shows the whole family can watch and enjoy. Most of those shows still look fresh to me. Children can't even make the distinction that these are old show, they are new to them. And Besides it worked for TVLand, WGN and TBS for years, why not now?

The stuff they are playing now, (high school reunion, The Big 4-0) doesn't try for a younger demo, it just reminds me that I'm old, and who wants to watch that? Not me!

Don't miss the point, if TVLand is going to play reality shows and box office movies, then by definition, they aren't TVLand, they are just another USA Network. The original poster is correct, they should just change the name and get it over with and let someone else tackle classic TV. I'm sure one of those other networks is comping at the bit.
 
If you look at TV Land's message boards in the Boardroom Operations area there is a lot of viewer protest over the movies, HSR, and the other upcoming reality shows. However the person who posts for TV Land's management keeps towing the line trying to defend the changes. They also have a separate message board for HSR, and no negative comments are allowed there. (What should that tell you?) They trey to claim that the positive comments on the HSR board outnumber the negative comments on the regular board, but they don't say that the HSR board is being promoted, while the other boards aren't. They also try to claim that HSR is only a small part of the day's schedule, but they don't say that it now takes up a big part, and on most Wednesday nights all, of prime time and late night.

I'm convinced that TV Land's management has it set in their minds that they are going to keep up the overkill on HSR and future reality shows, despite how many viewer protests there might be. The only thing that's going to convince them to change what they're doing is if their ratings and/or ad revenues take a dive, which I hope happens.
 
High School Reunion is a cool show and I'm in my middle 50's. You want old shows check out Comcast's Fancast Site on the web lots of old shows there but there is room for improvement there too.
 
anotherguy said:
If you look at TV Land's message boards in the Boardroom Operations area there is a lot of viewer protest over the movies, HSR, and the other upcoming reality shows. However the person who posts for TV Land's management keeps towing the line trying to defend the changes. They also have a separate message board for HSR, and no negative comments are allowed there. (What should that tell you?) They trey to claim that the positive comments on the HSR board outnumber the negative comments on the regular board, but they don't say that the HSR board is being promoted, while the other boards aren't. They also try to claim that HSR is only a small part of the day's schedule, but they don't say that it now takes up a big part, and on most Wednesday nights all, of prime time and late night.

I'm convinced that TV Land's management has it set in their minds that they are going to keep up the overkill on HSR and future reality shows, despite how many viewer protests there might be. The only thing that's going to convince them to change what they're doing is if their ratings and/or ad revenues take a dive, which I hope happens.

Maybe we should start sending them peanuts......
 
Garrett said:
pbf1 said:
And the demographics you'd attract would be WAY too old to be saleable. Hence the changes they've made!

But there's one BIG distinction, this is cable, we PAY for it, and what say you about AMC or TCM?
Those old TV shows are classics and transcend demographics as shows the whole family can watch and enjoy. Most of those shows still look fresh to me. Children can't even make the distinction that these are old show, they are new to them. And Besides it worked for TVLand, WGN and TBS for years, why not now?

The stuff they are playing now, (high school reunion, The Big 4-0) doesn't try for a younger demo, it just reminds me that I'm old, and who wants to watch that? Not me!

Don't miss the point, if TVLand is going to play reality shows and box office movies, then by definition, they aren't TVLand, they are just another USA Network. The original poster is correct, they should just change the name and get it over with and let someone else tackle classic TV. I'm sure one of those other networks is comping at the bit.

If another network is chomping at the bit, they're free to enter the fray. The name "TV Land" can be made into whatever the owners want it to mean, just as A&E, Bravo, MTV and others have evolved over time. If there is such a pent-up demand for the shows among sellable demographics, then whoever jumps in will reap the rewards, no matter what they call themselves.

Regarding episodes seeming new to young viewers, I'm reminded of an ex-boss, whose toddler loved the Brady Bunch on whichever cable network had it at the time, asking if a new episode was on that night. However, the toddler soon grew into a tween who would have nothing to do with older shows. Disney Channel and Nick's shows all the way. The toddler demo is hard to sell, but you sometimes have their parents as a captive (if not always enthusiastic, depending on how many times they've seen those "new" shows) audience. The majority of young viewers learn early those shows aren't fresh, and like every generation, they seek out their own voices in shows made today.

Networks founded a generation ago to reach a certain audience are seeking new ways to attract the same age group, not age with the original audience. It's not all that surprising, and is a logical, natural business decision in many cases. I was once part of the earliest of the Nickelodeon and then MTV generations. Those networks changed to stay current with the target audience; it shouldn't be surprising to see the same thing happening among networks targeting adults. Nickelodeon wouldn't have succeeded just rerunning You Can't Do That on Television and The Tomorrow people to death; and MTV couldn't just keep playing 24 hours a day of videos, save for the occassional Remote Control episode. So series that were 20 or 30 years old when networks started are now 40 or 50 years old--that does make a difference to many (not all) viewers. Full House is a generation old now--just like the Brady Bunch was when I grew up. Parents my age will be showing their kids the Olsen twins as family-friendly programming, just like my parents showed my sister and me Brady Bunch reruns.

Changes are hard to accept, but they're normal.
 
Advertisers and their agencies truly, honestly, in their heart of hearts, believe that NO ONE over 45 buys ANY PRODUCT OF ANY TYPE. Hence no tv channel wants any TV show or movie made before 20-25 years ago. I do not watch TV Land any more except for Lucy, Sanford and Andy Griffith. They do not miss me and I don't miss them. The reality is that I must go to AOL's IN2TV, You Tube, DVD releases etc. and other sources to find classic TV that I would like. I have accepted this reality. I hate it, but I accept it. By the way, Father Knows Best comes out on DVD April 1st and that is no joke. I would love to have it on TV Land or another Cable/Satellite Channel , but that ain't gonna happen.
 
ercjncpr said:
Advertisers and their agencies truly, honestly, in their heart of hearts, believe that NO ONE over 45 buys ANY PRODUCT OF ANY TYPE. Hence no tv channel wants any TV show or movie made before 20-25 years ago. I do not watch TV Land any more except for Lucy, Sanford and Andy Griffith. They do not miss me and I don't miss them. The reality is that I must go to AOL's IN2TV, You Tube, DVD releases etc. and other sources to find classic TV that I would like. I have accepted this reality. I hate it, but I accept it. By the way, Father Knows Best comes out on DVD April 1st and that is no joke. I would love to have it on TV Land or another Cable/Satellite Channel , but that ain't gonna happen.

What grates on my nerves is how I'm reminded of this situation each time I pay the Dish Network bill. My wife is the one who watches 95% of the television in our household (the other 4.99999% is my 16-year-old son, when he's staying with us over holidays). Not that I wish it, however were I single, I'd have gone OTA when we dropped cable over a year ago.

I hate to make such a blanket statement like this, but I've come to see television as appealing as the contents of a garbage bag left out on the porch in the Summer for days on end. And what little I DO find appealing (usually on PBS, or the rare classic game on GSN) is always marred by bugs, crawls, and on-screen promos that have grown like mold and maggots in aforementioned garbage bag. There's nothing like 10 minutes in front of the TV nowadays to make me feel like a 70-year-old curmudgeon.

I believe I might've said this in a post months ago, so forgive me: someday the ad agencies and television networks will rue the day they decided to send everyone over 40 to the demographic equivalent of the Lawrence Welk Theater in Branson. The younger folks are far less loyal to TV than people in my age group and older (I'm 43).

Netflix is starting to look better and better, with what I understand is a remarkably good selection of TV shows on DVD. Money certainly better spent than cable or satellite.

Now if only I can peel my sweet, wonderful spousal person away from that @#$%ing "High School Reunion." ::)

--Russell
 
ercjncpr said:
Advertisers and their agencies truly, honestly, in their heart of hearts, believe that NO ONE over 45 buys ANY PRODUCT OF ANY TYPE. Hence no tv channel wants any TV show or movie made before 20-25 years ago. I do not watch TV Land any more except for Lucy, Sanford and Andy Griffith. They do not miss me and I don't miss them. The reality is that I must go to AOL's IN2TV, You Tube, DVD releases etc. and other sources to find classic TV that I would like. I have accepted this reality. I hate it, but I accept it. By the way, Father Knows Best comes out on DVD April 1st and that is no joke. I would love to have it on TV Land or another Cable/Satellite Channel , but that ain't gonna happen.
Gee. And some of us thought this business was called Broadcasting, not 'casting to just those 18-45.
 
pbf1 said:
And the demographics you'd attract would be WAY too old to be saleable. Hence the changes they've made!

Im young and I think TBS and the other channels run enough stupid movies!TVLAND is supposed to remind you of the early days of television when tv was good(although in the 70s-80s you didnt have advertisement and logo boxes like now)They DO need to stick to shows.Why not put :
The Monkees
The Munsters
Bj and the bear
Cagney and LAcey
Different Strokes
Dukes of Hazzard to add to what others have posted.
just to name a few,theres others but Id rather see Andy Griffith than a movie.If they wanna show movies ,they should make a TVLAND movies channel.
 
If "TV Land" was smart they would program their regular network. and create
three other services, one featuring shows from the 1950's and 1960's, one from
the 1970's and 1980's, and another featuring the 1990's, and first few years of
this decade, with those other "reality" reruns and shows, plus movies.
 
Status
This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.


Back
Top Bottom