BRNout said:
I haven't seen one reason from HJ or his new partner in crime, Nate Wesley as to how showing 3rd rate movies and retread shows like "Police Videos" is going to make the Weather Channel a raving success - while actually doing weather is a failure.
You have; you just choose once more to willingly ignore all that doesn’t fit your quaint, old-school model of how TV worked a decade…or two….or three…ago. It’s about the Benjamins in the pocket at the end of the day (in case “bottom line” should be too difficult a concept). Lower cost outlays in periods where people ain’t tuning in to watch weather maps and endlessly recycled discussions of rain in Ann Arbor and heat in Yuma. The audience for that dwindled. You don’t have to deal with that reality, but it makes it not a lick less true.
BRNout said:
No explanation as to why NBC-U is doing such a bang-up job that they feel compelled to constantly fiddle with the content of TWC. Only ad hominem attacks on the messenger when he suggests that they're going about this in the wrong way. Easy to nit pick and criticize individual posts (ofter incorrectly), yet I see no fresh ideas for improving this or other channels discussed here.
Speaks the person who often offers such political-campaign-worthy pseudo-insights as “we need to do it in an evolutionary way,” without offering…what was the word again…oh yeah,
specifics.
What, precisely, would someone who’s not knocking the acceptance that 2010 isn’t 2000 or 1990 or 1980 need to offer in the way of “improving” things? It’s you that has an issue with being in a dwindling pool of people who have some aversion to new technologies rendering old-school business models obsolete. I’m not whining about the Weather Channel showing anything. Once upon a time I watched it on a semi-regular basis, but having joined the modern world, I have zero need for a TV channel to wait to get to the pieces of information I want when myriad sources offered me the data (virtually) instantly. On the rare occasions I want to see a large radar image to gauge a potential storm’s proximity, they offer the full-time WeatherScan channel. Problem solved. (Kind of like when I want to see a specific music video, I use that new-fangled interweb thingamabob.)
In theory, if I’m channel surfing and happen across a show that catches my interest, I’ll stay with it. I couldn’t care one lick about what channel it is or whether back in the day that channel used to do something different. Conversely, if it’s a weathercaster babbling about weather conditions in Timbuktu, I’m on to the next channel before they can say “cumulus.”
What’s so amusing, really, is the steadfast, almost toddler-like refusal to accept reality from a dollars & cents standpoint. If they can pocket a little more money by having a small sliver of the world tune in for a cheaper documentary or movie than with weather discussion, then that’s the right business decision for them. If they want to pour money down a hole by offering what fewer and fewer have interest in watching, hey, good for them, too. It’s not like it’s my performance evaluation at the end of the year when I need to explain why the business is bleeding money. And if they believe that they can make more profit by doing live weathercasting 24x7…well, good luck with that, but I doubt you’d find rational observers who think that’s very likely.
BRNout said:
By the way, I also rarely wait for 'local on the 8s' - and agree that this concept needs to change. But in an evolutionary way - not by blowing out prime time to show a blockbuster film like "Tremors" starring Kevin Bacon. Next, they will probably feature a reality show about guessing which form of VD Kim Kardashian has this week. Which is probably just the sort of thing that NBC is trying to come up with and would be exactly the sort of thing that IHJ would applaud.
Oh dear, are we jumping into the ad hominem biz as well? So sad to see. Yet more demonstrably false utterances to throw out when the facts don’t support the desperate clinging to the past.
