I have seen "MTV" referred to on some message boards and online forums as "empTV" (empty televison). Couldn't have said it better myself!
-
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
TV LAND, Are you nuts?
- Thread starter radiorob2.0
- Start date
D
desertv
Guest
And then there is the Disney Channel AKA the All Hannah Montana/Jonas Bros Channel 
Will as said Viacom ruined cable tv ,Clear Channal ruined radio.what else.
WPPCProductions said:
All of these big conglomerates had a hand in the ruining of radio: Clear Channel, CBS, Entercom, Citadel, EMF (for buying up hundreds of formerly local stations and programming the same generic birdfed pablum over them), etc. All have had a hand in this. The staff has been cut to the bone; any sort of 'local' feel is all but gone; and homogenization is everywhere. Radio is a far cry from what it was in the 60s, 70s and even into the 80s. You can drive from coast to coast and basically listen to the same thing all the way across.
I
imhomerjay
Guest
And of course, new technologies had nothing to do with such changes. None of that would have splintered the audience, forcing any owner, big or small, to cut back to maintain a profit with smaller pools of listeners and cutbacks by advertisers. Nope, none of that factors in.
I
imhomerjay
Guest
What they are are reasons the model has to change. Doing business li ke it's 1960 is absurd and a recipe for bankruptcy court. Like any business facing strong competition, it means doing more with less and seeking more effecient ways of doing things to survive.
But then it's easy to spend someone else's money, now isn't it? And to pretend that in some magical, mythical world one can ignore all that has changed on the technology side, keep doing what worked in a very different landscape and expect to succeed.
But then it's easy to spend someone else's money, now isn't it? And to pretend that in some magical, mythical world one can ignore all that has changed on the technology side, keep doing what worked in a very different landscape and expect to succeed.
P
Paige Turner
Guest
BRNout said:
I sometimes wonder if it's a case of lazy programming. I like to watch old shows. The TV Guide for next week shows that my choices for the 3 hours of prime time over the 7 days are...
Andy Griffith 18 times, Married w/Children 12 times, MASH 4 times, Roseanne 4 times, and a showing of the movie Airplane II The Sequel. That's the full extent of programming for 21 hours in prime time.
Personally, I've concluded quite some time ago that TV Land is what it is. It is not a network for me to watch a variety of old shows. So I just stopped watching and moved on to buying DVD sets if I want to watch old shows.
imhomerjay said:
Then, homerjay, why spend money on promotions to position these channels in ways that make no sense given this new "paradigm" that you mentioned?
Paige Turner brought up an excellent point about TV Land: >>Andy Griffith 18 times, Married w/Children 12 times, MASH 4 times, Roseanne 4 times, and a showing of the movie Airplane II The Sequel. That's the full extent of programming for 21 hours in prime time.<<
That's lazy and, frankly, stupid programming. A limited number of shows, played to death, which really don't even appeal to the same audiences. Look at any Viacom channels programming and you'll see similarly stupid moves. The advent of "new" technology has nothing to do with this. And no cable channels were ever set up using a 1960-type model. However, viewers still have an expectation that TV Land is for classic TV shows, MTV is for music and teen stuff, VH1 is for adult music and entertainment features, CMT is for country music, etc. Every one of those channels has lost its way and Viacom lazily swaps the same movies around from one to the other regardless of what audience its meant to reach.
Lazy and stupid programming and the excuse of "times have changed" doesn't explain these decisions at all. Given what you've said, what Viacom has been doing is actually counterproductive.
They're not alone in doing dumb things. European Vacation (a movie I like) on the Travel Channel? What dumkopf thought THAT was a great idea?
azumanga said:
And that's exactly what Travel Channel people would tell you..
I am reading some people are blasting RTV and in some ways rightfully so for their presentation..But where else are you going to find some shows? TV Land is not "Movie Land"..These new technologies could be providing a niche to keep the older shows on somewhere..
Seeing as how TV Land has made as many changes as they have, especially with the intention to skew younger, it only makes me wonder when the other shoe is going to drop... i.e. dropping the "TV Land" name in favor of something more hip to the demo they're now shooting for. I mean, think about it: The concept of "TV Land" on paper sounds old-fashioned, and considering the programming on their schedule wehn they first signed on, the majority of the posters here would agree that many of the traits currently carried out by "TV Land" as it is today just do not look right.
So they'll change the name. Bank on it. And it'll probably be something that's completely forgettable... SyFy, anyone?
No, wait -- I got it -- TVL. Yeah, that's it! Go the way many cable networks have gone and just emphasize a letter brand, with total disregard of what the letter(s) originally stood for.
"Stay tuned, our George Lopez marathon continues on TVL. Then tomorrow, it's the TVL movie, Save The Last Dance..."
So they'll change the name. Bank on it. And it'll probably be something that's completely forgettable... SyFy, anyone?
No, wait -- I got it -- TVL. Yeah, that's it! Go the way many cable networks have gone and just emphasize a letter brand, with total disregard of what the letter(s) originally stood for.
"Stay tuned, our George Lopez marathon continues on TVL. Then tomorrow, it's the TVL movie, Save The Last Dance..."
I
imhomerjay
Guest
Then, homerjay, why spend money on promotions to position these channels in ways that make no sense given this new "paradigm" that you mentioned?
Paige Turner brought up an excellent point about TV Land: >>Andy Griffith 18 times, Married w/Children 12 times, MASH 4 times, Roseanne 4 times, and a showing of the movie Airplane II The Sequel. That's the full extent of programming for 21 hours in prime time.
That's lazy and, frankly, stupid programming. A limited number of shows, played to death, which really don't even appeal to the same audiences.
But isn’t that what TV Land is supposed to do? Play the same shows to death? Anything outside of that approach is deviating from their mission. And as we all know, every show they played originally—and to death long before they made any moves to expand their programming scope—all appealed to the same audiences.
Look at any Viacom channels programming and you'll see similarly stupid moves. The advent of "new" technology has nothing to do with this. And no cable channels were ever set up using a 1960-type model. However, viewers still have an expectation that TV Land is for classic TV shows, MTV is for music and teen stuff, VH1 is for adult music and entertainment features, CMT is for country music, etc.
SOME people may well hold on to what something was years ago, but many others are capable of wrapping their minds around the idea that entertainment entities, be they broadcast TV, satellite/cable TV, radio, etc., can and do change their focus, presentation and/or content. The “get off my lawn, you punk kids!” crowd may not always be happy about it, but given the truism that it’s impossible to please everyone, you have to accept that some of the loudest critics aren’t who you need to waste your time on.
Somehow people came to understand that Lifetime wasn’t a source for dry medical information anymore. Or that Bravo was no longer a fine arts channel. The names didn’t need to change, and if anyone honestly thinks large numbers of people are confused and/or refusing to watch because the names from their past lives linger on, they’re kidding themselves
Oh, and let’s not forget USA no longer running Cartoon Express and Radio 1990. Or was that OK because USA was a more generic name, and thus they were allowed to evolve into one of the top cable channels?
TNT must have been smoking something funny, too. I mean, why do something that draws in millions of viewers like The Closer when you could stick to older movies and TV shows? Isn’t that what viewers knew it for?
But on the Viacom front, specifically, boy, they sure did drop a lot of viewers on Nickelodeon when they dumped the classics like Livewire and the Tomorrow People in favor of…what’s that show with the talking sponge? Yeah, a big hit to the pocketbook there. Just because I can’t stand it doesn’t mean it wasn’t a big hit.
But hey, maybe VH1 can get higher ratings playing Gloria Estefan music videos, while MTV rocks it out with Journey, because, heck, that’s what they did 25 years ago, so that’s what they’re locked into forever. They really lost their way by not showing those any more.
Every one of those channels has lost its way and Viacom lazily swaps the same movies around from one to the other regardless of what audience its meant to reach.
Because we all know no programs can appeal to multiple audience groups. That NEVER happens. I mean, that would be as silly as suggesting there are younger viewers who would enjoy watching older series. Oh wait, I seem to remember someone making that argument in the past. Nevermind.
If you have a movie that appeals to multiple demographics, and you’ve already paid for it, running it across multiple properties maximizes your return on investment.
Lazy and stupid programming and the excuse of "times have changed" doesn't explain these decisions at all. Given what you've said, what Viacom has been doing is actually counterproductive.
Um, yeah, changing times have everything to do with it. Adapting to changing demographics, tastes and the ways people consume their entertainment actually does mean doing things differently is a necessity.
I know some people can’t grasp that comparisons to ratings of more than a few years back are utterly invalid when you look at the growth in the number of viewing options. Just because MTV was “it” (or mighty close to it) for teens in 1981, they try to apply that same standard to MTV today, and it’s a joke, especially from folks who profess to be well-versed in such things.
Paige Turner brought up an excellent point about TV Land: >>Andy Griffith 18 times, Married w/Children 12 times, MASH 4 times, Roseanne 4 times, and a showing of the movie Airplane II The Sequel. That's the full extent of programming for 21 hours in prime time.
That's lazy and, frankly, stupid programming. A limited number of shows, played to death, which really don't even appeal to the same audiences.
But isn’t that what TV Land is supposed to do? Play the same shows to death? Anything outside of that approach is deviating from their mission. And as we all know, every show they played originally—and to death long before they made any moves to expand their programming scope—all appealed to the same audiences.
Look at any Viacom channels programming and you'll see similarly stupid moves. The advent of "new" technology has nothing to do with this. And no cable channels were ever set up using a 1960-type model. However, viewers still have an expectation that TV Land is for classic TV shows, MTV is for music and teen stuff, VH1 is for adult music and entertainment features, CMT is for country music, etc.
SOME people may well hold on to what something was years ago, but many others are capable of wrapping their minds around the idea that entertainment entities, be they broadcast TV, satellite/cable TV, radio, etc., can and do change their focus, presentation and/or content. The “get off my lawn, you punk kids!” crowd may not always be happy about it, but given the truism that it’s impossible to please everyone, you have to accept that some of the loudest critics aren’t who you need to waste your time on.
Somehow people came to understand that Lifetime wasn’t a source for dry medical information anymore. Or that Bravo was no longer a fine arts channel. The names didn’t need to change, and if anyone honestly thinks large numbers of people are confused and/or refusing to watch because the names from their past lives linger on, they’re kidding themselves
Oh, and let’s not forget USA no longer running Cartoon Express and Radio 1990. Or was that OK because USA was a more generic name, and thus they were allowed to evolve into one of the top cable channels?
TNT must have been smoking something funny, too. I mean, why do something that draws in millions of viewers like The Closer when you could stick to older movies and TV shows? Isn’t that what viewers knew it for?
But on the Viacom front, specifically, boy, they sure did drop a lot of viewers on Nickelodeon when they dumped the classics like Livewire and the Tomorrow People in favor of…what’s that show with the talking sponge? Yeah, a big hit to the pocketbook there. Just because I can’t stand it doesn’t mean it wasn’t a big hit.
But hey, maybe VH1 can get higher ratings playing Gloria Estefan music videos, while MTV rocks it out with Journey, because, heck, that’s what they did 25 years ago, so that’s what they’re locked into forever. They really lost their way by not showing those any more.
Every one of those channels has lost its way and Viacom lazily swaps the same movies around from one to the other regardless of what audience its meant to reach.
Because we all know no programs can appeal to multiple audience groups. That NEVER happens. I mean, that would be as silly as suggesting there are younger viewers who would enjoy watching older series. Oh wait, I seem to remember someone making that argument in the past. Nevermind.
If you have a movie that appeals to multiple demographics, and you’ve already paid for it, running it across multiple properties maximizes your return on investment.
Lazy and stupid programming and the excuse of "times have changed" doesn't explain these decisions at all. Given what you've said, what Viacom has been doing is actually counterproductive.
Um, yeah, changing times have everything to do with it. Adapting to changing demographics, tastes and the ways people consume their entertainment actually does mean doing things differently is a necessity.
I know some people can’t grasp that comparisons to ratings of more than a few years back are utterly invalid when you look at the growth in the number of viewing options. Just because MTV was “it” (or mighty close to it) for teens in 1981, they try to apply that same standard to MTV today, and it’s a joke, especially from folks who profess to be well-versed in such things.
- Status