• 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

PBS is it needed for today's youth?

I imagined that PBS is lowest-rated network that kids watch today. How can PBS better compete with Nick. and Disney Channel for the young viewers in 2012?
 
You do have people in poorer urban neighborhoods and remote rural areas who have no access
to pay television systems. But point conceded, there is a lot less justification for it today
than there might have been 30 years ago.
 
On the other end of the spectrum, upper-middle class types also tend to have the kids watching PBS. And, IMO, not a bad idea - except for some things on Noggin, most of what I've seen on Nick or Disney is not what I would want my child watching during their developmental years.
 
FreddyE1977 said:
You do have people in poorer urban neighborhoods and remote rural areas who have no access
to pay television systems. But point conceded, there is a lot less justification for it today
than there might have been 30 years ago.

There are more "poor" kids today than ever before (Depression excepted).
 
landtuna said:
FreddyE1977 said:
You do have people in poorer urban neighborhoods and remote rural areas who have no access to pay television systems. But point conceded, there is a lot less justification for it today than there might have been 30 years ago.

There are more "poor" kids today than ever before (Depression excepted).

But one can sure see a lot of satellite dishes in the not-so-good neighborhoods, at least here in the Phoenix area. I'd be surprised if it's much different elsewhere.
 
Having satellite or cable doesn't necessarily mean those families aren't still watching PBS. Our kids have primarily watched PBS, with some Disney Jr and Sprout.
 
landtuna said:
FreddyE1977 said:
You do have people in poorer urban neighborhoods and remote rural areas who have no access
to pay television systems. But point conceded, there is a lot less justification for it today
than there might have been 30 years ago.

There are more "poor" kids today than ever before (Depression excepted).

But by the contemporary American definition of "poor", many of them have cable television.
And cars, and air conditioning.

If you want to see real poverty, go to a developing country. Children eating out of garbage
dumps in Nicaragua. We need to be doing something about that!
 
FreddyE1977 said:
landtuna said:
FreddyE1977 said:
You do have people in poorer urban neighborhoods and remote rural areas who have no access
to pay television systems. But point conceded, there is a lot less justification for it today
than there might have been 30 years ago.

There are more "poor" kids today than ever before (Depression excepted).

But by the contemporary American definition of "poor", many of them have cable television.
And cars, and air conditioning.

If you want to see real poverty, go to a developing country. Children eating out of garbage
dumps in Nicaragua. We need to be doing something about that!

Precisely why I put "poor" in quotes. Everything is relative.
 
Two things about PBS that you don't get from the cable channels:

1) PBS kids programming is far less intense, for parents looking for kindler, gentler kids programming.

2) No commercials, which is also important to parents who don't want their kids spammed with junk food and toys.

You may be right that the KIDS are looking for more excitement and energy in TV programming. But I believe parents should be involved in their pre-teen kid's TV choices, which is why I included parents in both of my points.
 
"One can sure see a lot of satellite dishes in the not-so-good neighborhoods, at least here in the Phoenix area. I'd be surprised if it's much different elsewhere."

Not much different here, either. Of course, one must remember that they're probably not *all* tied to pay packages like Direct-TV D$$ or Echo$tar. It's safe to assume that a good percentage of those dishes are probably second-hand (you can literally get half-a-dozen used mini-dishes for a song around this part of the country) with FTA receivers on the other end.
 
TVCOOL said:
I imagined that PBS is lowest-rated network that kids watch today. How can PBS better compete with Nick. and Disney Channel for the young viewers in 2012?

Barney makes a lot from merchandising, they probably just give it to PBS for nothing
 
KeithE4 said:
landtuna said:
FreddyE1977 said:
You do have people in poorer urban neighborhoods and remote rural areas who have no access to pay television systems. But point conceded, there is a lot less justification for it today than there might have been 30 years ago.

There are more "poor" kids today than ever before (Depression excepted).

But one can sure see a lot of satellite dishes in the not-so-good neighborhoods, at least here in the Phoenix area. I'd be surprised if it's much different elsewhere.

But what packages do they have?
 
FreddyE1977 said:
landtuna said:
FreddyE1977 said:
You do have people in poorer urban neighborhoods and remote rural areas who have no access
to pay television systems. But point conceded, there is a lot less justification for it today
than there might have been 30 years ago.

There are more "poor" kids today than ever before (Depression excepted).

But by the contemporary American definition of "poor", many of them have cable television.
And cars, and air conditioning.

And cheap microwaves and DVD players from Wal-Mart ;D
 
PTBoardOp94 said:
PBS competes by marketing to younger children, aged 2-6. It apparently does well in that segment, and apparently as well with the mothers of young children. Nick and Disney (and Disney XD) are going more for the 8-13 year-olds.

Reference is http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/20...episodes-featuring-favorite-characters/75721/

Kids will not watch educational TV (or what they think is educational) when they actually enter school). They don't want to be educated outside of school hours
 
nomadcowatbk said:
Kids will not watch educational TV (or what they think is educational) when they actually enter school). They don't want to be educated outside of school hours

And who can blame them? When I was in second grade, I went to school for 6 hours a day, and needed an escape from education when I got home from school. I wasn't into the Power Rangers, but I sometimes watched the Disney Afternoon, and cartoons like Animaniacs.
 
M.J. said:
nomadcowatbk said:
Kids will not watch educational TV (or what they think is educational) when they actually enter school). They don't want to be educated outside of school hours

And who can blame them? When I was in second grade, I went to school for 6 hours a day, and needed an escape from education when I got home from school. I wasn't into the Power Rangers, but I sometimes watched the Disney Afternoon, and cartoons like Animaniacs.

Does PBS have any programming that appeals to kids older than 6
 
nomadcowatbk said:
Does PBS have any programming that appeals to kids older than 6

PBS World has quite a few programs that would appeal to older kids. Most are of the wildlife and nature variety but also some history. And the main channel has programs like Nova (science).
 
nomadcowatbk said:
PTBoardOp94 said:
PBS competes by marketing to younger children, aged 2-6. It apparently does well in that segment, and apparently as well with the mothers of young children. Nick and Disney (and Disney XD) are going more for the 8-13 year-olds.

Reference is http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/20...episodes-featuring-favorite-characters/75721/

Kids will not watch educational TV (or what they think is educational) when they actually enter school). They don't want to be educated outside of school hours
When did kids start to get what they want?
Shouldn't they get what they need more often?
Most kids need more education than they are getting in 6 hours anyway.

Kids will watch anything you train them to watch. They can even be trained to play outside, read books, build things. Cleaning the house without being told seems to be one place they get tripped up on. Training is better for kids than "vegging out" every day after school...
 
Go to Lawrence, Mass where lots of so called poor people live or so we are always told, every tenement has no fewer than 25 satellite dishes on each and the Lawrence Comcast office is so full of poor people with many kids in tow you can hardly get in the door. Few are watching over the air TV in these parts.
 
Status
This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.


Back
Top Bottom