ION Television: how much longer will it last?

[imhomerjay]

Why couldn't ION do it? Money as noted. If Rupert were backing ION, do you think things might be a bit different? In this world--today, not the '80s--it's all that much harder to break through with exponentially more viewing choices, which means an even fatter wallet would be needed to do it the way Fox did it.

You have to work with the way things are, not a fantasy of the past

 

[dhett]

Would Fox have become what it is today had infomercials been in the late 80s and early 90s what they are now?

 

[DToTheJ]

Come on. Comparing Ion's situation to Fox in its infancy is quite a stretch, wouldn't you think? First of all, when Fox first hit the air, with the exception of reruns of Showtime's "It's Garry Shandling's Show," everything that network had to offer was original. Most non-infomercial fare on Ion, as well as Pax before it, was recycled from other outlets. Though, I do give Pax credit for trying (remember that Billy Ray Cyrus vehicle called "Doc"?). So, the truth is, Ion is not a legitimate television network. (And I would argue that My Network, to a certain degree, is in the same boat, as well.)

 

[TexasTom]

Come on. Comparing Ion's situation to Fox in its infancy is quite a stretch, wouldn't you think? First of all, when Fox first hit the air, with the exception of reruns of Showtime's "It's Garry Shandling's Show," everything that network had to offer was original. Most non-infomercial fare on Ion, as well as Pax before it, was recycled from other outlets. Though, I do give Pax credit for trying (remember that Billy Ray Cyrus vehicle called "Doc"?). So, the truth is, Ion is not a legitimate television network. (And I would argue that My Network, to a certain degree, is in the same boat, as well.)

It's also fair to note that Fox affiliated with stations that usually had at least a few years of legacy in their local markets, whereas the Ion stations were typically converted from being home shopping outlets. So the Fox affiliated brought an existing audience to Fox, but PAX/Ion had to build an audience from scratch. Also, Fox launched at a time when there was less audience fragmentation.

 

[dhett]

Come on. Comparing Ion's situation to Fox in its infancy is quite a stretch, wouldn't you think? First of all, when Fox first hit the air, with the exception of reruns of Showtime's "It's Garry Shandling's Show," everything that network had to offer was original. Most non-infomercial fare on Ion, as well as Pax before it, was recycled from other outlets. Though, I do give Pax credit for trying (remember that Billy Ray Cyrus vehicle called "Doc"?). So, the truth is, Ion is not a legitimate television network. (And I would argue that My Network, to a certain degree, is in the same boat, as well.)

It's not a stretch at all.

People didn't consider Fox a legitimate television network until they landed the NFL in 1993. And they weren't technically a "network" by FCC standards (I'm not sure they still are today.)

Fox developed original material mostly out of necessity. That was the only means the network had of earning revenue. Today, infomercials are another revenue stream. Were the founders of Fox so virtuous (or egotistical) that they would have been able to avoid the lure of infomercial cash were it available to them back then? I doubt it.

Of course, my opinion and yours are speculative; there's no way to know for sure. But had Fox faced the same conditions that Pax faced at its inception, both good and bad, I don't think they would become the viable fourth network they are today.

Personally, I'm disappointed at how Pax/i/Ion has turned out. Very early on, they lost their vision of being a family-friendly network, and what few shows they did offer, such as Doc, got lost amid a perception of the stations as an infomercial wasteland. Developing something like that requires infinite patience and deep, deep pockets. Economics 101 just doesn't allow for that.

 

[Markieo]

As long as there are infomercials, there will be ION!