By 2000 it was CBS, ABC, Fox and the WB still airing Saturday morning cartoons.
-
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
NBC Considers Cutting Back Programming Hours in Prime Time
- Thread starter Joey1986
- Start date
His profile shows him as being in Iowa, so yes he is.
Oops, meant 2010. How many were left by then? And I mean entertaining cartoons, not no-fun E/I programming.
I was working at KCNC in Denver at the time. For NBC it was all about saving money. Towards the end of the 80’s some of their cartoons like the Smurfs and Chipmunks were very expensive to produce and their slipping ratings didn’t help things. About the only thing NBC had was Saved by the Bell the rest of their Saturday morning line up was very mediocre (that teenage Yogi Bear show was trash) compared to other networks at the time. Increased competition from Fox and cable networks was also factor.
Now was drivel like Saved by the Bell the New Class or California Dreams that was unleashed upon the world any better? Not really but again it was much cheaper fare to air along with Saturday Today.
By the early 2000’s of course most of Saturday morning cartoons on the networks were coming from their sister outlets. ABC relied on Disney channel reruns, CBS airing Nick and Nick Jr shows, NBC airing Discovery/TLC kids shows etc.
I know "The Chipmunks" was still on the week the Berlin Wall fell. They repeated an earlier episode where Alvin dreamed they tore the wall down. That didn't even seem possible when the episode first aired and Dave said something like that when they saw the wall for real.
I'd also wager that, back when Saturday morning cartoons were most popular, the world was also a smaller place with much less for children to do. Back when I watched cartoons religiously, we didn't have nearly the amount of channels and viewing options that we have now, but also, though I played sports as a kid back then and was involved in a few extra-curricular activities at school, I still spent most Saturdays mornings watching TV or "playing" with my friends at my house or theirs with the TV on in the background. When I look at modern-day families, many with children aren't even at home on Saturdays as they're on the go. There seem to be so many more extracurricular activities, sports leagues and other things for them to be involved in these days that many may simply not be home to watch cartoons if offered.
The OTA model is not what it was either. You can’t get much in the clear unless you are in a big city under the transmitter. If you have cable you have to pay more for local channels as the networks have increased the transmission fees to affiliates. I think the networks would be more than happy to cut out the affiliates and go direct to the consumer via streaming. They could make more money using the streamers to sell direct and then sell you commercials on top of the $5 a month fee.The model changed a while ago, thanks to DVR. People don't have to watch a TV show live in order for it to get credit.
How does 'live+3' work in television metrics?
You think binge-watching your favorite show weeks after its episodes air will help pump up its ratings? Think again. Live+3 television ratings metrics have changed things considerably.entertainment.howstuffworks.com
What they find is that even with streaming, the broadcast model still delivers a mass audience. So it's not a one-or-the-other thing, but both. That's why the networks won't totally give up on broadcast, but incorporate it into a multi-platform system.
But why not do both if both are making money? Why eliminate a revenue stream? Same with radio. Radio could eliminate broadcast and just stream. But there are additional costs involved in streaming. It's not all profit.
But once again, why not do both if they're making money?
Last edited:
At least for the O&O's they go to their respective owners TV apps like CBS and CW affiliates managed by Paramount go to the Paramount+ app or CBS News app. NBC and Telemundo affiliates managed by Comcast go to the Peacock app. Fox O&O's go to the Tubi App and ABC affiliates managed by Disney goes to the Hulu app.
For Hearst, Allen Media, Nexstar, Sinclair, Gray, Scripps, Tegna, Cox, News-Press Gazette and Graham Media Group that is going to their respective apps too but their contracts with the networks will vary. Note some of these TV station owners manage subchannels not so sure how that will play out though going forward.
Just because something is sensible today doesn't mean it will still be sensible in 3 or 5 or 10 years. Cable subscriber losses continue unabated: 10 million people have stopped paying for cable in the last 24 months.
Because cable subscriber retransmission fees represent the largest revenue source for all broadcast stations, including the O&Os, those "very profitable" assets are also assets in decline.
Executives would be stupid to ignore that.
The comment I responded to was present tense.
I'll admit that cable opened more options for kid's shows starting on the 90's and played a factor in ratings for Saturday morning cartoons to go down, but the networks used E/I rules as an excuse to bail put and not even to try to do something that would meet the rules and still be entertaining for kids.
I was a kid during that time and I always looked forward to Saturday morning cartoons.
And fox was relying on Japanese dubbed cartoons.
Does it really matter or not that NBC drops an hour of programming given the crap they already are shoveling out of the horse stall?
If NBC had given Jay Leno a once-a-week hour-long comedy/variety show in the traditional comedy/variety format in the fall of 2009, I think it would've been a big hit and would have run for at least a few seasons.
If anyone could have brought back the traditional comedy/variety format in the Bob Hope/Carol Burnett vein, it would have been Jay Leno.
I think CBS considered putting all of the "Lower 48" on such a schedule in 1971, but decided against it because (1) it was technically almost impossible with the landline system feeding programming then in place, and, (2) even if it could have been technically done, Central time zone affiliates didn't want to have to move their late-night local newscasts back an hour (from 10 P.M. Central to 11 P.M. Central, as I seem to recall that the plan would have had CBS prime time programming from 8 to 11 P.M. in each time zone).
The E/I rules aren't the culprit. Some early E/I programs, like Bill Nye the Science Guy were both educational and entertaining.
The problem was the E/I rules were coupled with rules about advertising to children in 1996, which left the networks with nowhere to turn. If you can't monetize the audience, there's no reason to go to great expense to attract an audience.
One of the major concerns within the industry is about the group that does not have any subscription service and depends on live OTA servicies entirely. With the current high inflation, there is a belief that we will see an increase in those that have no streaming servicie and no cable either. Some people in the industry have closely held figures on the growth of that group.
Since a significan portion of the unwired group is Black and Hispanic, that puts entertainment services and networks in a position of not wanting to be accused of denial of service to the lowest income Americans.
Personally, I think that such a trend will be met by government provision of basic cable as a necessary service to the community. That will, of course, be met with approval from local OTA TV channels, cable and satellite providers. and, government-wise, it fits with the provision of basic internet to lower income households.
We are looking at a government attitude that takes the concept of providing roads and trash pick-up and other basic services and adds connectivity to the array of things they do for every resident.
Since my least-favored type of business is cable companies, I would not mind seeing government at any level regulating those services much deeper. One of my usual observations when the subject comes up is that even in the lesser developed nations of Latin America, they have much higher speed connectivity at about 20% of the price... and the cable services are generally "a la carte" and if you don't want to pay over $10 a month for the equivalent of ESPN, you can opt out of such expensive cable channels.
- Status