R.I.P. Cable TV: Why Hollywood Is Slowly Killing Its Biggest Moneymaker

[Y2kTheNewOldies]

https://variety.com/2020/tv/news/cable-tv-decline-streaming-cord-cutting-1234710007/

Another view on how Streaming subscriptions is affecting Cable TV revenue and the "content production business" going forward.

Earlier this year, people started noticing something peculiar about MTV’s schedule: The network had quietly morphed into an almost 24/7 offering of just one show. At one point in late June, “Ridiculousness” — a half-hour viral video-clip show hosted by famed skateboarder Rob Dyrdek — aired for 113 hours out of the network’s entire 168-hour lineup. Many took it as a sign that MTV, a pioneering force in reality television that only a few years ago had also made major investments in original scripted programming, had just given up.

Pundits had long predicted the death of broadcast TV, while basic cable feasted on a dual revenue stream of subscriber fees and advertising revenue. But that gravy train started going off the rails when the streaming services arrived. At first, Netflix was a friend, supplying yet another source of revenue and even acting as a marketing tool — helping to turn AMC’s “Breaking Bad” into a much bigger hit during its final season of originals on AMC, for example.

 

[PTBoardOp94]

From the article:

Nick at Nite was down 24% among total viewers; AMC, down 22%; FX, down 21%; USA, down 19%; TBS, down 16%; and TNT, down 14%.

Now go look at the prime time lineup on those networks. You'll find very little original programming:

• Nick At Nite is 10 straight episodes of Friends tonight.
• TBS has 7 episodes of Big Bang Theory, then Full Frontal and Conan.
• TNT has wrestling and then a movie.
• AMC is two movies. "The Dark Knight Rises" has a theatrical runtime of 2:45. It is scheduled for a 4 hour window on AMC. The next movie, "Demolition Man" is padded by 35 minutes of commercials into a 2:30 window.
• USA is airing wrestling and then a movie.
• FX is airing the same movie twice, "Breaking In" with 32 minutes of commercials.

The article interview folks who worked in the industry and determined that producing original programming wasn't worth it -- but that's short-term thinking. The less unique programming there is on these basic cable networks, the less value the cable bundle has.

In a world where watching a movie commercial-free is a cheap subscription away, who are you programming to by running Friends reruns? It's not 1999, when simply being available on a viewer's remote control was providing meaningful value.

 

[TheBigA]

The article interview folks who worked in the industry and determined that producing original programming wasn't worth it -- but that's short-term thinking. The less unique programming there is on these basic cable networks, the less value the cable bundle has.

Why does Warner Media care about the value of the cable bundle? They don't own any cable companies. When AT&T bought Warner, the first question they asked was: Why are we spending so much money developing original programming for TBS? We should divert some of that money to HBO. Ultimately they came up with HBO Max. So yes, they bastardize the cable channel because those people are paying a cable company for a bundle, not for anything specific. Warner owns a studio, so it's not like they have to buy content from someone else. What they have to do is put the most valuable assets where it does the most good. For the most part, that's not cable.

 

[PTBoardOp94]

Why does Warner Media care about the value of the cable bundle?

Because they earn money, lots of money, from their contribution to the cable bundle. I don't think HBO Max will ever come close to matching that revenue.

If the executives believe the decline is inevitable, then I guess keep playing Friends reruns into oblivion.

 

[TheBigA]

Because they earn money, lots of money, from their contribution to the cable bundle. I don't think HBO Max will ever come close to matching that revenue

The difference though is they own HBO Max, and they also own the subscription information. It's quantifiable money. It's like radio's relationship with digital. Digital is a fraction of broadcast money. But if you can get people to subscribe, you get their data, and that may lead to more money. It's stable money vs. growth money. Investors like to see growth. Cable isn't growing.

 

[crainbebo]

Cable used to be worth paying for! Now it's 50% reality crap with the other 50% sports (albeit very little is live right now), news pundits, movies with a crapton of commercials, reruns with tons of commercials, and (on TCM/pay-TV channels) actual quality programming.
I have seen Paramount Network run movies in the past with 50 minutes or more of commercials, and of course like every network the credits run at 70 miles per hour...and as a tiny box at the bottom of the screen while they run another promo for a show.

Nick at Nite is worthless and should go. It's always Friends and Mom reruns with tons of commercials in them. Like TV Land.
The only way cable survives is if it becomes 'fun' again - networks that match the original purpose of their name. But it will never happen. TBS will never be the same. Blockbuster classic movies at 8:05 Eastern have gone the way of the Pony Express, VHS tape, and portable CD player. Same with TNT. A&E hasn't been arts & entertainment for 20 years. The demographics for late '80s/early '90s Nick at Nite have gone to MeTV...or to the skies. A 55-year-old today was born in 1965 and their parents were likely the ones that watched F Troop or The Donna Reed Show - both were later reran on Nick at Nite in those good ole' days. Doubtful they would care about those shows now, unless they saw them in reruns as a child.

 

[boombox4]

Look like TV in general may be going the way of the dodo? I mean, if it's this bad now, where will it be in 15 years?

If cable disappears, TV that is not already 100% online disappears, because I think the reach of OTA TV is about the same as AM radio. And without cable networks, cable becomes what it was in 1970: a local and regional channel delivery service for those whose OTA TV reception is poor or otherwise MIA.

 

[TheBigA]

Look like TV in general may be going the way of the dodo?

Not exactly. The battle is over who you pay and how much. Up til now, it's simple: Pay the cable company. It was a one-stop shop. But with everyone starting their own online service, and each service having its own exclusives, you have dozens of new companies who want you as a subscriber. That's in addition to the music companies and the radio companies.

 

[crainbebo]

ESPN, HBO, CNN and others will stay around for decades to come, but many cable networks (even some of the big ones) could go away even this decade. MTV is worthless spectrum (seriously, 75% of the weekly schedule is Ridiculousness reruns?) and is one example of a cable network that needs to go gently into that good night.

 

[TheBigA]

MTV is worthless spectrum

Maybe to you, but of all the Viacom channels, MTV still attracts a lot of viewers, and in very sellable demos. Here is the Top 10:

Rank Network P2+ AA (000)
1 FOX NEWS CHANNEL 2,481
2 ESPN 1,784
3 MSNBC 1,753
4 HOME AND GARDEN TV 1,199
5 HALLMARK CHANNEL 1,100
6 TBS NETWORK 1,055
7 TURNER NETWORK TELEVISION 1,050
8 USA NETWORK 1,042
9 CNN 972
10 HISTORY 969

 

[CTListener]

Maybe to you, but of all the Viacom channels, MTV still attracts a lot of viewers, and in very sellable demos. Here is the Top 10:

Rank Network P2+ AA (000)
1 FOX NEWS CHANNEL 2,481
2 ESPN 1,784
3 MSNBC 1,753
4 HOME AND GARDEN TV 1,199
5 HALLMARK CHANNEL 1,100
6 TBS NETWORK 1,055
7 TURNER NETWORK TELEVISION 1,050
8 USA NETWORK 1,042
9 CNN 972
10 HISTORY 969

You use a list that doesn't include MTV to make your point about MTV's current appeal to viewers and advertisers? Makes little sense to me. So, how is MTV doing compared to the 10 channels you list that are doing better?

 

[TheBigA]

You use a list that doesn't include MTV to make your point about MTV's current appeal to viewers and advertisers?

That says a lot about Viacom.

TV Land is #14. MTV is #27. Nick Jr is 29. Comedy Central is 34. VH-1 is 35. CMT is 49.

At the bottom: MTV Classic at 109. That's the waste of spectrum.

How many people who read this board watch HGTV?

 

[CTListener]

That says a lot about Viacom.

TV Land is #14. MTV is #27. Nick Jr is 29. Comedy Central is 34. VH-1 is 35. CMT is 49.

At the bottom: MTV Classic at 109. That's the waste of spectrum.

How many people who read this board watch HGTV?

Since this board skews white, male and 55+, probably very few. Same with Hallmark, which I'd imagine is strongest among 55+ women. "Ridiculousness" and reruns of "Jersey Shore," which are what MTV has been showing so far today, are shows that people in my demo, and I suspect crainbebo's, find mind-rottingly low-brow, but there are obviously far younger viewers -- with far different ideas of what entertaining television consists of -- who love that stuff. It's their world; they'll be around for years after curmudgeons like us have scrolled our final program guide, so TV needs to find ways to attract and retain them much more than it needs to reassure baby boomers that there hasn't been a decent comedy series since "Cheers."

 

[crainbebo]

I'm in the Ridiculousness demo (20s) but I can barely sit through half an episode. The rest of the time they are showing stuff like 16 and Pregnant or movies with a ton of commercials. Who needs that when there's a DVD player or Netflix?
I think the only cable channels I watch now are History (American Pickers), Trvl (Ghost Adventures) and occasionally National Geographic.
I see MTV-2 is 76th on that list! Average 62K viewers. BTW, that list does not include Disney Channel albeit it's a basic channel, is it because they still only air promos in between shows (no commercial advertising)? Nickelodeon is #4 in daytime hours - children on weekends watching SpongeBob marathons and when they come home from school (well, pre-COVID).

 

[TheBigA]

I'm in the Ridiculousness demo (20s) but I can barely sit through half an episode.

Maybe in age, but you're not female. I bet a lot of the audience for that show is women. I notice a lot of young women watch Bravo, and I can't remember the last time I watched that channel. Same with Lifetime, Hallmark, and a few others on that list.

 

[Y2kTheNewOldies]

From the article:



Now go look at the prime time lineup on those networks. You'll find very little original programming:

• Nick At Nite is 10 straight episodes of Friends tonight.
• TBS has 7 episodes of Big Bang Theory, then Full Frontal and Conan.
• TNT has wrestling and then a movie.
• AMC is two movies. "The Dark Knight Rises" has a theatrical runtime of 2:45. It is scheduled for a 4 hour window on AMC. The next movie, "Demolition Man" is padded by 35 minutes of commercials into a 2:30 window.
• USA is airing wrestling and then a movie.
• FX is airing the same movie twice, "Breaking In" with 32 minutes of commercials.

The article interview folks who worked in the industry and determined that producing original programming wasn't worth it -- but that's short-term thinking. The less unique programming there is on these basic cable networks, the less value the cable bundle has.

In a world where watching a movie commercial-free is a cheap subscription away, who are you programming to by running Friends reruns? It's not 1999, when simply being available on a viewer's remote control was providing meaningful value.

True it's not 1999 but we are entering the era of TV apps not TV channels though on the screen. FX is mainly promotional purposes for the big ones such as Disney owned Hulu though.

 

[Y2kTheNewOldies]

I'm in the Ridiculousness demo (20s) but I can barely sit through half an episode. The rest of the time they are showing stuff like 16 and Pregnant or movies with a ton of commercials. Who needs that when there's a DVD player or Netflix?
I think the only cable channels I watch now are History (American Pickers), Trvl (Ghost Adventures) and occasionally National Geographic.
I see MTV-2 is 76th on that list! Average 62K viewers. BTW, that list does not include Disney Channel albeit it's a basic channel, is it because they still only air promos in between shows (no commercial advertising)? Nickelodeon is #4 in daytime hours - children on weekends watching SpongeBob marathons and when they come home from school (well, pre-COVID).

From the article CBS has to be using the MTV shows to promote their content over on the Pluto app. Sure it's not exactly all access friendly though the one that CBS also owns.

. That leads us back to MTV and “Ridiculousness.” When asked about the program’s wall-to-wall scheduling, execs there say we’re missing the point: The linear network is just a single sliver of their business, as MTV fare might be found on Facebook Watch (like a “Real World” reboot), or Quibi (“Punk’d” and “Singled Out” reboots), or Pluto TV (which features multiple MTV-branded channels). Most recently, ViacomCBS announced a revival of MTV’s “Beavis and Butt-Head” that will run on Comedy Central.

 

[Marcos_C]

BTW, that list does not include Disney Channel albeit it's a basic channel, is it because they still only air promos in between shows (no commercial advertising)?

Disney Channel has been airing its prime-time programming commercial-free for the past several months. Consequently, it has an irregular schedule that makes recording its shows on my DVR a bit more challenging.

 

[KTN Corp]

Now when is Comcast, Charter, and Cox going to axe Video and go Internet, VOIP Phone, and Mobile? The spectrum currently wasted on Video can be used instead to increase capacity and speeds for internet customers.