BRNout said:
Are you really trying to analogize the concept of "normal" scripted TV shows with old time radio and so-called "reality" programming with hit music? Because it is an absurd stretch.
A better radio analogy for "reality" programming would be the "Jack" format versus more conventional formatting (which would be analogous to sitcoms, dramas, etc.)
These "reality" shows are part of a very tiresome fad that will pass. Yes, like other genres, it's finest examples have and will change television (programming like Discovery's "Deadliest Catch" come to mind) - but the crap will go the way of the panel show. It's not permanent, at least not in its current iteration. Personally, I can't wait for the day when horrors like "A Shot at Love" and "Farmer Needs a Wife" go away permanently. It's just dreadful stuff.
It’s not a stretch at all. The core analogy is that technology and tastes continue to change, rendering “the old way” of doing things less relevant and less attractive from a business standpoint. Radio had to change to survive when TV came along—it couldn’t rely on what it had done in previous years and as it’s doing again as iPods and the like redefine the music ‘experience.’
We generally tend to accept that a hit music station in 2008 won’t sound like it did in 1998 or 1988. That extends beyond the music fads of the day; we accept that differences in overall imaging and presentation will be adjusted to keep up with the ever-churning audience. Simply put, you can’t just recreate WABC (or fill in your top 40 powerhouse of choice) today, and expect the kids will all flock to it just like back in the ‘good old days.’
In stark and illogical contradiction, there seems to be an expectation that radio and TV channels for adults are somehow bound by blood oath to do exactly what they did 10, 20 or 30 years ago. Recognizing that today’s 40-year-old had a fundamentally difference experience and musical frame of reference than 1988’s 40-year-olds—and, thus, moving oldies or classic rock stations forward so that they’re centered during the youth of the target audience—draws howls of protest. There are still posters who insist AC stations that aren’t still playing Barry Manilow and Neil Diamond are too ‘hard’ for them (despite that whole “c” for contemporary thing). When Philadelphia’s B-101 ran their listener-voted top hundred countdown last weekend, it was dominated by the ‘80s—smack at the core of when the audience many advertisers want grew up—and contained some songs few if any ‘soft rock’ outlets would have played 10 or 20 years ago. That’s just a reflection of the changing audience.
Ditto the TV side. TV Land has publicly said its current focus is on boomers, so you adjust the core dates a bit, but the end result is that the people in their target now aren’t the same as when they debuted. I just read a piece by Marc Berman that said TV Land went up between 10 and 20% in its targeted audience groups compared to a year ago. That’s objective evidence that their most desired audience is responding favorably to what they’re doing, not any one person’s opinion.
When it comes to CMT, Viacom moved full-time country music videos to CMT Prime (the old VH1 Country). Overlap and duplication in the form of two full-time channels is not good business. Whatever the subjective quality of their lineup may be, the audience will decide if they like it—and if they don’t, bank on them making changes.
My personal taste is that most reality programming is God-awful, but I understand objectively that many of the shows have an audience to whom those shows ‘speak.’ For example, I cringe at “Jon and Kate +8,” but know a fair number of people who find the parenting experiences the family faces to be relatable to their own lives (albeit magnified on the show). That provides anecdotal insight into some of the reasons it’s popular; its decent ratings provide objective support that it is popular.
Reality is hardly new to broadcasting (“Candid Micropohone” and “Candid Camera,” anyone?). Just as sitcoms have evolved from the days of “I Love Lucy” to “The Office,” and dramas have changed from “Gunsmoke” to “24,” unscripted has moved from the more traditional documentaries and game shows of past decades to the likes of VH1’s ‘celebreality’ shows and “Survivor.” Reality may be having a bigger day in the sun right now and like many phases of TV (when seemingly everyone tired to copy “The Cosby Show,” to cite one example), it will likely experience its own ebbs and flows. The proliferation of TV networks magnified the impact of reality’s upswing, but don’t ignore that the satellite and cable growth has brought much more scripted entertainment, too (“The Closer,” “The Shield,” “Nip Tuck,” “Monk,” “Rescue Me” to pick a few off the top of my head).
Who knows where the next phase in TV is going. The Web will almost certainly play a part in it, but as for what kind of programming….none of us can say for sure. Reality would seem likely to be a part of it, but whether that means more Discovery-type shows or more “Farmer Wants a Wife,” only time will tell.
