Not sure whether I did, but maybe I spent less than if I had gotten the store brand. Both were on sale.
There's some interesting stuff in these inserts.
-
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
There's some interesting stuff in these inserts.
There’s always one in every crowd
Well...radio suffered thru the fairly quick shutdown of Network radio when TV came along and many Network radio shows moved to TV.
At that time, there was no guide about what to do when a radio station found itself all alone, without much programming from a national radio Network, yet radio survived and prospered by transitioning to music/news/talk/sports.
Rather then having to filter new TV show ideas thru the current "major" TV Network "confabs", the TV show creators could just deal with TV station group owners directly.
(perhaps I should trademark "TotalEverything247+")
Kirk Bayne
At that time, there was no guide about what to do when a radio station found itself all alone, without much programming from a national radio Network, yet radio survived and prospered by transitioning to music/news/talk/sports.
Rather then having to filter new TV show ideas thru the current "major" TV Network "confabs", the TV show creators could just deal with TV station group owners directly.
(perhaps I should trademark "TotalEverything247+")
Kirk Bayne
Everybody needs a distributor, no matter who we're talking about. Creators aren't in the distribution business. So the show creators pitch their ideas everywhere. Sometimes that means a TV network, sometimes that means a syndicator, sometimes that means a channel, or a streaming service. It's not as simple as you make it sound. It starts with the show concept, then you have producing companies, then you have distribution. The networks are part of that, and they all own cable channels, syndication companies, and streaming services in addition to their networks. Right now these companies are making decisions about how much money will be spent in the various areas. It's ultimately about where the money is for producing scripted drama or other expensive shows.
If a show producer goes directly to a TV group, you end up with syndication. No TV group owns enough stations to cover the entire country. That's the advantage of dealing with the networks. So a show producer goes to Sinclair or Gray, that means more meetings to get full national coverage than just dealing with a network.
Last edited:
A PD of WOWO in Fort Wayne in the 1950s talked about that era, when the announcers who said things like "Main Auto Time is 1:30, time to pick up new spark plugs. Now, it's Mary Noble, Backstage Wife", had to become DJs.Well...radio suffered thru the fairly quick shutdown of Network radio when TV came along and many Network radio shows moved to TV.
At that time, there was no guide about what to do when a radio station found itself all alone, without much programming from a national radio Network, yet radio survived and prospered by transitioning to music/news/talk/sports.
Rather then having to filter new TV show ideas thru the current "major" TV Network "confabs", the TV show creators could just deal with TV station group owners directly.
(perhaps I should trademark "TotalEverything247+")
Kirk Bayne
Could they run "The Tonight Show" 10 to 11 (eastern) instead. I am sure there more folks awake at 10 rather than 11:30.
Ask Jay Leno about the Tonight show at 10PM. It was a flop.
Just because people are awake doesn't mean they'll watch.
do they even watch it at night any more? maybe they watch it in the morning now
And those O&O station enjoy considerable income from cable carriage fees... which can be as much as half of a station's income.
No, TV began right after WW II, and network radio continued into the 70's. The drama shows were gone mostly in the first 10 years of TV, but there was a good deal of content such as breakfast shows and things like Monitor that continued on even longer.
Stations converting to music was not caused specifically by the decline of the 4 networks. After WW II in the 40's the number of stations nearly tripled in 10 years and nearly none were network. The thing that made them viable was the decline of the influence of the musicians union and its dictatorial leader, allowing stations to program recorded music all day.
None of whom will want to put up the capital to create a show and get it to run for 4 to 5 seasons... the profit for scripted shows comes from the syndication after-life.
One other option is to broadcast TV shows originally produced for pay TV, suitably censored for broadcast TV.
The Comet TV digital TV subchannel has done this with both the New Outer Limits TV show (IIRC, originally produced for the Showtime cable channel) and the new Battlestar Galactica TV show (originally produced for the cable only, ad supported Sci Fi channel).
The New Outer Limits show was censored (a few parts of some scenes blurred out and certain words silenced), but the gist of the show was easy to discern and the censored version met broadcast TV content standards.
In the case of the new Battlestar Galactica, certain words were beeped out (which was more distracting than silencing them).
Kirk Bayne
The Comet TV digital TV subchannel has done this with both the New Outer Limits TV show (IIRC, originally produced for the Showtime cable channel) and the new Battlestar Galactica TV show (originally produced for the cable only, ad supported Sci Fi channel).
The New Outer Limits show was censored (a few parts of some scenes blurred out and certain words silenced), but the gist of the show was easy to discern and the censored version met broadcast TV content standards.
In the case of the new Battlestar Galactica, certain words were beeped out (which was more distracting than silencing them).
Kirk Bayne
Sooner or later that content runs out. And the appeal of watered down shows is debatable. It was done too much hype when the Sopranos was edited for broadcast, and effectively no one gave a damn. Just because an idea is technically possible doesn’t mean it’s financially viable at scale.
That happens all the time and for years. Movies edited for TV is a good example. There are all sorts of classic movies being carried on 'dot' or diginet stations across the country.
There's also MeTV, Grit, Movies!, Cozi, Drama, Oxygen, and other's doing this on your local station, all watched for free and ad supported.
The shows that do good in syndication and have been running for years, would they still do well on network. Would people rather watch a classic show in reruns or a new show. If CBS could have run TBBT for another 10 years with no new episodes and just rerun the series would they have done it.
No and no. The novelty wears off real quick. There’s enough interest to fill some of those mostly daytime/evening and late night schedules but it’s financial malpractice at this time to devote that kind of airtime on a major broadcaster to pure reruns.
By that, I meant a financial albatross.
It's my understanding NBC is paying about $1 billion in rights fees for each of the five remaining Olympics in their current long-term deal. The network will also spend tens of millions more in production costs.
All that for an event that runs sixteen, seventeen, or maybe eighteen days at most.
With much lower ratings, can NBC get enough revenue from sponsors to at least break even? Running commercials during events exclusively streaming on Peacock (or shown live on Peacock but later on tape over NBC or one of it's sister cable networks) may help the bottom line but I suspect NBC is thinking about whether they can make money from future Olympics.
How about "Talk TV" as a replacement for Network TV shows, many of the talk radio shows I listen to have a video feed (Internet/app viewing only, currently), maybe create a digital TV subchannel with these video feeds - could be very exciting viewing watching someone sitting (nearly always, except Tom Leykis) and talking into a microphone, sometimes motioning to someone behind the glass.
Kirk Bayne
Kirk Bayne
I guess what some might consider "exciting viewing" must be subjective, as I'm guessing most would find it quite boring. There are a number of radio talk shows, from local small-market stations to larger nationally syndicated programs which one can watch live via various streaming and other sources. Some nationally syndicated radio shows like Howard Stern or Tom Joyner (now off the air) where they had multiple people conversing in the studio and a fair amount of high profile or celebrity guests made for decent TV, but those weren't just simple single camera video feeds - it was a "production" with graphics, multi-camera shoots and probably some editing. On the flip side, I've seen others which were quite boring and didn't really make for good TV at all. Just a single camera pointed at the host, watching them talk or read items either printed or displayed on their computer screens and talking to people, either callers or show producers or whomever, who were entirely off camera. In the later '90s and early '00s MSNBC used to televise Imus' radio show and even that, to me, was relatively boring and I could only watch so much of it. Networks like C-SPAN also used to do live video feeds of various radio talk programs. I think I found them interesting because I was working in the business, but in general it really didn't make for great or exciting TV that would hold many listeners, get decent ratings or excite advertisers to pay the bills.
You seem to be discounting streaming viewership on Peacock. All the major media companies are going all-in on streaming, and not as much on linear TV because they're banking on streaming and subscriptions backstopping the loss of cable viewers. This was the first Olympics NBC was able to test the waters on streaming, and from what I understand it did quite well, including offering up a UHD version to Comcast cable customers.
Like anything media, popularity is driven by content. NBC has an advantage of having the Olympics available on their streaming platform and linear TV stations that Paramont or Disney don't have. Ultimately it's a safe bet that the billion dollars is a better investment if you have multiple ways to catch eyeballs.
Radio on TV has been proven to be ultra boring, and a complete loser. Watching some ugly guy wearing headphones in a closeup shot in front of a giant microphone, expressionless, listening to a caller, is like trying to watch paint dry. Not exactly compelling TV.
Even TV talks shows with attractive celebrities have completely tanked. Most networks and syndicators have been looking for the exit door on offering anymore talk shows.
- Status