WHICH TV NIGHT(S) ARE A WASTE ?

[Drucifer]

Older people watch more TV. The average age a Network TV viewer is over 45. A new generation of dinosaurs will replace them.

Exactly.....with Netflix, Ipods, Smart TV...etc
[/quote]

So, if the average age of a network television audience is over 45, why not program to them? You young up-starts can't see the forest for the trees (Google it, you are still Googling...right?). Network television began to decay a long time ago when the audience left, en masse, for MTV (you remember that, right?) CNN (Chicken Noodle News) and ESPN. Now, with a cable network existing for every conceivable demographic, even porn pay per view, the slice of the audience pie is smaller than at anytime in our history except back when WLWT was the ONLY NBC affiliate outside of New York City.

What we have here in the last several posts is a generational argument that is older than attempts to make radio viable when television signed on back in the 1940's. How do we build and maintain an audience? The answer is the same as it was 70 years ago, entertaining and compelling programming. Something that makes people come back time and time again. Aside from major sports events or breaking news coverage, everything that can be done has been done...or has it?

 

[landtuna]

It's called the golden era by a bunch of dinosaurs who seldom take off the rose colored glasses.

That "bunch of dinosaurs" were industry insiders and critics, not the general public.

If I were a betting person, I'd not bet a cent on the notion of subsequent generations fawning over the shows of the '50s or '60s. Show us any data that says the majority of 20 somethings yearn to see Gunsmoke and consider it vastly superior to what they enjoy today.

That really wasn't the topic, was it? We were discussing how much more originality existed in the early days of TV versus what is available today. We were not comparing the quality of individual shows then to now.

True, there were copycat programmers in the old days too. I remember when Westerns ruled prime time and game shows were wall-to-wall during daytime. But there were many now almost forgotten shows that broke new ground - "The Millionaire" comes to mind along with "I Led Three Lives", "20th Century" and a whole bunch of quality sitcoms and variety shows that seemed to die off when their vaudeville hosts did. There were genuine "kid" shows with hosts that still bring good memories to those of us who were fortunate to view them. Kids today will likely not remember the Japanese animation which passes for E/I today with those same fond memories. I could go on but you get the idea.

But does anyone believe the old coot brigade wouldn't be just as critical of low-cost non-scripted fare on the big three as they are of reruns? (Apparently they've never heard of getting a DVD player, let alone something more advanced in the rest home).

Your hostility and disparaging comments toward seniors is noted....and foolish. Those of us in our 60's are the first "TV generation". We are both TV savvy and have the financial resources which should be being pursued by advertisers. Instead they air emergency beepers, false teeth glue and stair climbers. Take a look around you....most of us don't buy those products. Virtually every one of my peers has more money than our kids' generation will ever have. We may not buy sports cars or wagons any longer but we do buy plenty of Lexus (Lexi?) and we spend lots of money on upscale golf, food and vacations. We are most probably the last generation of our kind and future advertisers will never have the chance to market to such a large and affluent group of seniors again.

You can not buy the fact that research goes on that proves out the strategy. But opinions don't trump reality except in one's own mind.

Oh I believe research goes on. But then decisions made by suits in the corner office don't seem to match up to that research very well. There seems to be a large "follow me" syndrome - just watch what the other guy is doing and if that is successful create a rip-off and hope for a piece of the pie.

There is a parallel here. Detroit used to sell every car it could build. Then they began managing to the bottom line. Quality dropped. Innovation dropped. They relied on their traditional customers, and for awhile it worked. Then someone came along building a better product and instead of trying to block mandated improvements simply got the job done. Two decades later Detroit is in big trouble and needing government bailouts to stay afloat.

If the only thing that is important to your business is the bottom line you lose track of who your customers are and why they are your customers.

Andy Grove, one of the founders of Intel, once said companies who don't innovate, die. The big networks are pretty much in that position today.

 

[Drucifer]

Virtually every one of my peers has more money than our kids' generation will ever have. We may not buy sports cars or wagons any longer but we do buy plenty of Lexus (Lexi?) and we spend lots of money on upscale golf, food and vacations. We are most probably the last generation of our kind and future advertisers will never have the chance to market to such a large and affluent group of seniors again.

Truer words never spoken. As of today, you can count, almost on one hand, programming to this demo. The CBS Evening News, The Masters, Hallmark Channel, History Channel and that's about it. Now granted, mass programming to this demo makes about as much sense as the ad-nauseum programming to tweens and the ITunes generation but not programming to them is stupid.

Detroit used to sell every car it could build. Then they began managing to the bottom line. Quality dropped. Innovation dropped. They relied on their traditional customers, and for awhile it worked. Then someone came along building a better product and instead of trying to block mandated improvements simply got the job done. Two decades later Detroit is in big trouble and needing government bailouts to stay afloat. If the only thing that is important to your business is the bottom line you lose track of who your customers are and why they are your customers. Andy Grove, one of the founders of Intel, once said companies who don't innovate, die. The big networks are pretty much in that position today.

I also agree with this. While watching the bottom line is, of course, important, it seems that if you program to your customers (audience) and do it well, they will come back, time and again.

 

[nomadcowatbk]

Older people watch more TV. The average age a Network TV viewer is over 45. A new generation of dinosaurs will replace them.

Exactly.....with Netflix, Ipods, Smart TV...etc

So, if the average age of a network television audience is over 45, why not program to them? You young up-starts can't see the forest for the trees (Google it, you are still Googling...right?). Network television began to decay a long time ago when the audience left, en masse, for MTV (you remember that, right?) CNN (Chicken Noodle News) and ESPN. Now, with a cable network existing for every conceivable demographic, even porn pay per view, the slice of the audience pie is smaller than at anytime in our history except back when WLWT was the ONLY NBC affiliate outside of New York City.
[/quote]

Because the advertisers want dumb young kids whose buying habits are developing and are more likely to switch products according to their research. At one point, Dawson's Creek had higher ad rates than 60 Minutes.

 

[imhomerjay]

It's not hard to understand why it could have had higher rates at the peak of its popularity.

I'm not far from being in the fossil museum myself, but understand the real, cold hard data--not meaningless "everyone I know...blah blah blah" and self-important "we're the greatest generation" drivel--drives business, as well it should. (It's just business, nothing personal.) I can listen to my dinosaur music and fins DVDs of may of the shows I once enjoyed--or online clips, etc., without sounding like a refugee from the rest home complaining about the young whippersnappers and how back in my day it was all so much better. Because I also remember my parents thinking the same thing. And someday my kids will be the dinosaurs. So it goes.

By the way, teens/early 20-somethings watch as much TV as the boomers. So it's not just the older crowd watching TV, despite the silly generalizations thrown around so often.

 

[landtuna]

By the way, teens/early 20-somethings watch as much TV as the boomers. So it's not just the older crowd watching TV, despite the silly generalizations thrown around so often.

Got facts?

The link below says you are wrong. Average age of network TV viewers is 51. In my house one (out of five) kid (who is actually 24) watches TV and probably less than 5 hours per week. The others? Infinitesimal.

http://www.bnet.com/blog/new-media/network-tv-where-the-money-is-but-the-young-viewers-aren-8217t/5398

 

[gregg75]

LET'S BRING THIS BACK.

Now that FOX has decided to shake up Saturday nights, let's see what the DON'T TOUCH THAT
and DON'T CHANGE ANYTHING folks were saying just 2 months ago............interesting reading.

 

[imhomerjay]

Yeah, quite interesting. Because now another network has proven just how little audience there is on Saturday nights when they can't even make money on AMW. Talk about validation. ;D

 

[gregg75]

COPS and AMW would be another option that works for Fox.

So, if it was working for FOX 2 months ago (like you said) what happened? Somebody with more
knowledge than you must have decided that it really WASN'T WORKING. Just as you say nobody
watches TV on Saturday night anymore....................many people will say PUT SOMETHING ON
WORTH WATCHING AND I'LL WATCH IT. Your ideas are warped.

 

[imhomerjay]

You'll watch it. Great. Do you think that means the networks will suddenly plow millions of dollars into the night so they can get you to watch?

Well, perhaps you do. Not getting the whole cart-before-the-horse thing, though, huh?

 

[mnradiofan]

COPS and AMW would be another option that works for Fox.

So, if it was working for FOX 2 months ago (like you said) what happened? Somebody with more
knowledge than you must have decided that it really WASN'T WORKING. Just as you say nobody
watches TV on Saturday night anymore....................many people will say PUT SOMETHING ON
WORTH WATCHING AND I'LL WATCH IT. Your ideas are warped.

I think the networks have really tried this in the past, with little or no success. The problem is, Saturday night really isn't a "TV" watching night for most people. Yes, some would watch, but some doesn't pay the bills. I think what people are really looking for on a Saturday night, at least with regards to video entertainment, are movies, and sports. One could also argue that family entertainment would be a good sell on these nights, but many times even the kids are off doing something else on a Saturday night. And for some even still, Saturday night is a great time to catch up on what was missed over the week, either via DVR, online, or reruns.

The bottom line is, until the research indicates that Saturday nights have at least half of the audience interested in watching scripted programming that would normally occur on, say, a Wednesday, the networks aren't going to spend the amount of money that it takes to "put on something worth watching", when they are clearly making some money showing repeats. Networks are not charities, ALL of them have shareholders, and ALL of them want a return on investment.

And the attack on the OP of this comment is unwarranted. OF COURSE we don't have all the information regarding these shows. By the information we DO have, and even by Fox's own admittance, Americas Most Wanted was "working" just fine. Many deemed it "worth" watching, but that wasn't a big enough number to keep the dollars coming in that would even sustain the show with zero profitability. Even if the percentage of viewers watching at the time was good enough, there aren't enough people watching overall to make that percentage matter enough.

 

[imhomerjay]

Family viewing is a good sell, but the networks can't do it successfully ($$$$) in today's world. With Netflix/On Demand (and all the various other similar options), each family that's around can pick what they want, be that the family gathering around one set, or mom & dad on one TV, the kids on another (depending on age, etc.).

Back that audience out, then back out the "not watching TV for whatever reason" crowd, and there's not a whole lot left to make a viable business out of.

 

[justpassingthough]

Older people watch more TV. The average age a Network TV viewer is over 45. A new generation of dinosaurs will replace them.

Exactly.....with Netflix, Ipods, Smart TV...etc

So, if the average age of a network television audience is over 45, why not program to them? You young up-starts can't see the forest for the trees (Google it, you are still Googling...right?). Network television began to decay a long time ago when the audience left, en masse, for MTV (you remember that, right?) CNN (Chicken Noodle News) and ESPN. Now, with a cable network existing for every conceivable demographic, even porn pay per view, the slice of the audience pie is smaller than at anytime in our history except back when WLWT was the ONLY NBC affiliate outside of New York City.

Because the advertisers want dumb young kids whose buying habits are developing and are more likely to switch products according to their research. At one point, Dawson's Creek had higher ad rates than 60 Minutes.
[/quote]

Bingo! Marketing study after marketing study has proven that buying habits are so entrenched once a person reaches 50, that most companies lose money trying to advertise to the over 50 demographic. It takes so much money to get a person over 50 to change their mind and shift buying habits or switch brands that it makes zero business sense. Younger viewers do not have these entrenched buying habits and can be easily swayed by any of the traditional advertising ploys, like appealing to what is cool, etc.

TV runs their business on appealing to the 18 to 49 crowd for a reason- because advertisers only want to reach this crowd. It isn't personal, it is business.

All of the 60 year olds in the world out buying Lexus' while their children and grandchildren buy Toyotas and Scions don't mean anything to advertisers. At that point, those viewers are largely set on whether they are going to buy a Lexus, Cadillac, Lincoln or Buick. This point hits home even more when you're talking about a $3 tube of toothpaste or a $2 box of rice. Should an advertiser spend $2.50 to sell you a $2 box of rice? Why chase after a hostile crowd?

 

[landtuna]

Bingo! Marketing study after marketing study has proven that buying habits are so entrenched once a person reaches 50, that most companies lose money trying to advertise to the over 50 demographic.

Your argument holds true only if you are speaking about mass merchandisers whose products don't distinguish themselves except by advertising.

People, as they age, generally try different brands of a product type and eventually settle on the one they like best. Unless there is some compelling reason for them to try another (lower price, better packaging, improved quality etc.) they will generally stick with their favorite. That is true. But the big ticket items are not bought the same way you'd buy lunch. And the 18-49 demo generally doesn't buy big ticket items in the same manner as older demos.

I am in that older 49+ demo you speak about yet I am always trying new things. Only food products are more or less "locked in". And advertising doesn't enter into it at all. Just last weekend I bought a new car - a brand I have never owned before - and I did it with extensive research into the several brands I was considering. If I had listened to advertising I would have bought a Subaru because Subaru ads have been the most compelling over the past year. But as much as I liked their product it wasn't as good of a value as the one I did buy (whose advertising is largely price and price only and price is of minor concern to me). Any advertising would have been of value only to let me know a product existed. Everything else I research and advertising does not enter into the decision except cause me to wonder why certain products (think Progressive Insurance) are advertised so heavily (yes, I know why).

This method may not be used by twenty-somethings whose main goal is buying a "cool" car with a fat stereo and good gas mileage. In that case I'm willing to bet that word of mouth convinces many more than the "hamster dance" ads now running for Kia.

That the older demo matters is why you see upscale programs on radio and TV sponsored by banks, insurance companies (especially investment banks) and luxury car companies. Because their demo is different than the mass marketing of cheaper, more generic, products.

There are more than one primary demo and the smart marketeers have recognized that. If you're just selling Happy Meals to kids it really makes little difference.

 

[justpassingthough]

We could probably go round and round on the finer points of marketing and advertising- your personal examples, notwitstanding- and still land on the fact that ad buyers for major national brands, that buy advertising on the national television networks, pay no creedence to anything other than the 18 to 49 demo.

Sure, there are products that are aimed at the 50 and over crowd (like pretty much anything advertised on the cable news networks), but ad buyers tasked with buying time for these products are looking specifically for this demo and tend to use cable more than broadcast programming because it is more targeted programming.

If we are talking about the majority of mass market products that are advertised on prime time on network television, which still reaches the bulk of Americans, moreso than any other medium- 50 and over isn't a consideration. Again, this isn't personal, and I'm sure you have both the means and the open mindedness to try new products. Ad buyers, whether it is correct or not, do not see it this way, though. Sure, it is probably an incorrect paradigm of simpler times, but that is the way they look at the over 50 market.

What will be interesting to note is if this thinking shifts as the baby boomer generation completely leaves the 18 to 49 demo or if the 18 to 49 demo gets stretched northward as the baby boomers disprove the buying habits of past generations.

 

[landtuna]

What will be interesting to note is if this thinking shifts as the baby boomer generation completely leaves the 18 to 49 demo or if the 18 to 49 demo gets stretched northward as the baby boomers disprove the buying habits of past generations.

The way the economy is going the Boomers are going to be the last generation with substantial financial resources (self-acquired or endowed) to make a huge marketing impact.

But getting back to the original subject....while the 18-49 demo may be out partying on Saturday evenings there are plenty of others of the same and older demo's who don't. It would seem that, instead of running previously aired programming, the networks could find something that would interest the stay-at-home-Saturday-nights crowd (and I mean specifically the older crowd who, if they go out at all, tend to be home at a reasonable hour but before bedtime. The retired crowd has plenty of time to go out at other than peak times and would probably appreciate some directed programming at least one night per week. I think it would be an interesting experiment in any case. I mean, SNL is hardly senior fare.

 

[justpassingthough]

What will be interesting to note is if this thinking shifts as the baby boomer generation completely leaves the 18 to 49 demo or if the 18 to 49 demo gets stretched northward as the baby boomers disprove the buying habits of past generations.

The way the economy is going the Boomers are going to be the last generation with substantial financial resources (self-acquired or endowed) to make a huge marketing impact.

But getting back to the original subject....while the 18-49 demo may be out partying on Saturday evenings there are plenty of others of the same and older demo's who don't. It would seem that, instead of running previously aired programming, the networks could find something that would interest the stay-at-home-Saturday-nights crowd (and I mean specifically the older crowd who, if they go out at all, tend to be home at a reasonable hour but before bedtime. The retired crowd has plenty of time to go out at other than peak times and would probably appreciate some directed programming at least one night per week. I think it would be an interesting experiment in any case. I mean, SNL is hardly senior fare.

You very well could be correct, but as another poster pointed out, the Saturday viewing audience is a fraction of what it is on Sundays and Mondays. If you're looking to target programming to a very specific demo, and also a group that is home when most others are busy not watching television, then you're not really "broadcasting". This is why cable has been more successful at drawing viewers on Fridays and Saturdays over the past decade.

If anyone should take a leap of faith on trying to create successful appointment television on Saturday night, it should be one of the larger cable networks like USA or TNT that could capitalize on reaching this demographic, and also be able to recoup their investment by continuing to air the reruns of this programming on other nights. The broadcast networks that aired an original program on Saturday wouldn't benefit from the additional revenue tied to rerunning this programming throughout the week.

I remember when "Murder, She Wrote" reruns were a staple on cable. Maybe something like an updated version of this would work on Saturday nights.

 

[landtuna]

If you're looking to target programming to a very specific demo, and also a group that is home when most others are busy not watching television, then you're not really "broadcasting". This is why cable has been more successful at drawing viewers on Fridays and Saturdays over the past decade.

The very limited number of broadcast TV stations carrying unique programming can hardly be compared, in a single market, to the plethora of cable outlets. And cable, by definition, tends to target specific types of viewers (males, females, old, young, military vets, gardeners, etc.). Also, as a percentage of total potential audience, less older people have cable than generally more affluent younger people. Therefore, it seems to me the networks would potentially have more of the available viewers on a Saturday evening than on any other night - but only if they can offer something of interest to the generally older crowd.

I don't know the intricacies of obtaining historical/older programs that might interest the older crowd but that seems like one genre that might be of interest is travel or activities geared to the over-50's. Gear the programming so that grandparents can watch with their grandchildren and both be entertained. I'm not talking saturation coverage here but tidbits that would attract someone to turn on the TV and perhaps stay for the evening. A show like the old "That Was The Week That Was" (TW3) was an intelligent news-commentary show that did well among older folks and probably wasn't all that expensive to program. Older comedy/variety shows not currently on DVD and sports of most types would also be of interest almost across the board. And it doesn't have to be live, just interesting. Even B&W might work with the older crowd. I know it doesn't matter to me.

There must be suits out there having an imagination of some sort. Or maybe not.

 

[justpassingthough]

I hate to be a naysayer, but I don't see the broadcasters trying anything like repeating old comedy/variety shows on Saturday night. This is really what cable is around for- this type of narrowcasting.

Personally, I like that nothing original airs on Saturdays. Even though I DVR everything I watch, and generally watch shows on the night I DVR them, I love having Fridays and Saturdays "off" from television if you will. I record "SNL" on Saturdays, but never watch it until Sunday. Friday and Saturday are my break away from television when I go and do things out in the real world.

 

[imhomerjay]

So the older audience has all this money to spend, but they're also not as affluent (seeing as they can't pay for satellite or cable). That contradiction aside, they're also not influenced by advertising in the major categories where there's advertising dollars available. Yup, sounds like a dream setup for making good money.

Who knows, maybe the 54+ group is home Saturday nights but too busy enjoying the perks of the magic blue pills they saw advertised on the evening news.