-
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 Show Cancellation Thread (including ending ones)
- Thread starter ChocoMingo
- Start date
Play that to its logica endpoint—it’s “easier” to give back that hour. And another. And another. And pretty soon...no network.
Certainly hours are sometimes ceded, but it’s long been known ABC wanted to expand the franchise. This makes it possible. It potentially serves their bottom line, and they have ample talent in house to make it relatively easy as these things go.
I can't stand Leah. At least as Vanessa. I recorded every episode but so far have only watched two or three. I needed to sacrifice some shows when the DVR got full and I believed this would have reruns. I may still watch eventually. I know there is a rerun next week.
And? ABC, CBS and NBC have followed a different model for quite a bit longer and it works out well. Over time, they’ve all ceded hours, but there’s no reason at this point for ABC to do so again.
If KMBC would get back hour could do a midday Newscast.
Dropping syndicated programs has the same effect.
I'm glad CBS canned it, Kevin James got her fired, So he could work with Leah
And what do they have? For the most part they fill the schedule trash talk, courtroom shows, and infomercials. There may be a few exceptions in the talk shows, but for the most part they're the reason daytime TV is in such a sorry state, which also applies to Fox stations in some cases. Even though I could care less about most of what is on network daytime TV, they don't need to give back any more time to local stations. Going to more local news would be better than this.
Last edited:
And why do those shows fill the airwaves? People watch them. They make money.
Some may think the daytime TV landscape was better when we had something like a dozen soaps and game shows dotting the major networks, with Merv, Phil and company filling the high profile syndicated slots. Some have lamented that those now Fox/CW/etc. stations once filled much of their local time with cartoons and such.
For multiple reasons, those days are gone, and they're not coming back. The "infinite" (figuratively) choices available with satellite and cable TV's growth initially, followed by the rise of the Netflix-es and Hulus of the world, changed the game. The stations have to play the hand they're dealt.
If people stop watching the court shows and Springer-esque talk shows, they go away, to be replaced by something else. I would go out of my way to avoid any court or "conflict" type talk show, but others find it appealing. They might avoid what I find appealing. Such is the world.
If you look at the ratings for these shows, not many people are watching most of them. But the trash talk ("conflict talkers" in industry euphemism) and court shows are cheap to produce, which means that they can turn a profit even with relatively small audiences. In contrast, the sort of daytime shows that many of us feel nostalgia for are either relatively expensive to produce or just difficult to sell advertising in -- even the trash talk is easier to sell to advertisers than are, say, cartoons.
I agree with you that what we remember is gone and not coming back -- but I also wonder about the ongoing viability of what is currently cluttering up daytime TV. Yeah, for the time being it is at least somewhat profitable, but too many of those shows are surviving because they're cheap and can be profitable with ever smaller ratings. They're also training people who don't want trash talk and low-budget court shows (I'm excluding "Judge Judy", who generally runs just before the evening news and gets excellent ratings) to ignore broadcast daytime TV, which means it gets ever harder to have any sort of breakthrough hits. Whenever the handful of "superstar" programs left in daytime eventually fade away, there will be nothing to take their places, and broadcast daytime ratings will be shrink even smaller.
Absolutely profitability matters. "The View" (etc.) is cheaper than a soap (network to network comparison). But Donahue, let's say, cost-adjusted for inflation, isn't going to cost a lot more production wise than Springer. Game shows of the past weren't always terribly expensive, all things considered, with lower payouts (after the quiz scandals) for the most part.
The cycle was in some ways inevitable with the rise of technology. Want news in the daytime? There's a channel (or more) for that. Ditto sports. Movies. And those that filled their schedules with off-net reruns. Once on-demand viewing became a reality, that rolling stone just kept gaining momentum.
The pie would inevitably be sliced more ways, necessitating lower-cost content. But "cheap" and "trashy" aren't intrinsically synonymous. The success of the early entrants in the game of outrageousness gave way to more copycats. And, in fairness, some of the top syndicated shows still harken back to the celebrity interview shows of old--Ellen or Live with Kelly & Ryan are not all that dissimilar from Merv and Mike back in the day, in terms of offering friendly non-confontrational chat with celebrities with something to hawk.
The "trash" shows sell advertising, sure, but you tend to see more (not exclusively, but more) upper-tier advertisers in those Ellen/Live type syndicated shows and more slip-and-fall and bogus career training spots in the Springer-eque shows. The thinning of the herd of soaps may have been what enabled the survivors to live on as long as they have (and their day of reckoning will come--it always does). Even Price is Right, under Drew Carey, has a better mix of advertisers now--fewer of the direct response for those at death's door (though they still show up), and more for people in the "under dead" demographic.
The cycle was in some ways inevitable with the rise of technology. Want news in the daytime? There's a channel (or more) for that. Ditto sports. Movies. And those that filled their schedules with off-net reruns. Once on-demand viewing became a reality, that rolling stone just kept gaining momentum.
The pie would inevitably be sliced more ways, necessitating lower-cost content. But "cheap" and "trashy" aren't intrinsically synonymous. The success of the early entrants in the game of outrageousness gave way to more copycats. And, in fairness, some of the top syndicated shows still harken back to the celebrity interview shows of old--Ellen or Live with Kelly & Ryan are not all that dissimilar from Merv and Mike back in the day, in terms of offering friendly non-confontrational chat with celebrities with something to hawk.
The "trash" shows sell advertising, sure, but you tend to see more (not exclusively, but more) upper-tier advertisers in those Ellen/Live type syndicated shows and more slip-and-fall and bogus career training spots in the Springer-eque shows. The thinning of the herd of soaps may have been what enabled the survivors to live on as long as they have (and their day of reckoning will come--it always does). Even Price is Right, under Drew Carey, has a better mix of advertisers now--fewer of the direct response for those at death's door (though they still show up), and more for people in the "under dead" demographic.
At what point did 'TPIR' start having to run so many of the 'Life Alert'-type ads, rather than the traditional 'home cleaning products'?
When the audience turned 95?
a show with young contestants yet older viewers
Drew Carey's arrival helped address that, bringing in some younger eyeballs.
college kids skipping class don't show in the ratings though, but that's hard group to measure
and they probably weren't measured by neilsen