• 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

Yet another reason TV Land sucks

Where's Anna Nicole Smith and J. Howard Marshall when you need them?
 
If this is like any other show on TV Land, I am sure the spot load will be overly excessive. The channel is not watchable. Its like an info-mercial interupted by Bonanza every few minutes.
 
Towerclimber31 said:
If this is like any other show on TV Land, I am sure the spot load will be overly excessive. The channel is not watchable. Its like an info-mercial interupted by Bonanza every few minutes.
Click to expand...

Amen! If you record a TVLand show and FF thru the commercials, you can watch a sitcom in about 18 minutes. TVLand is the king of content-killers.
 
That's the only way I'll watch a TV Land show, on Tivo. I saw the promo for that show you speak of. My first thought was, "When is enough, enough?" When will the market be saturated with these stupid "reality" shows. ABC killed off Who Wants To Be A Millionare pretty quickly by over exposure. I keep hoping the reality shows will go the same way, but they keep coming and coming back for more.
 
Part of the reason is writers and actors have simply outpriced themselves.

The market is flooded and writers are demanding more profits. And it's not just Hollywood it's everything. Look at sports till the mid 80s, most athletes, in football, baseball or basketball etc, who had great careers could at best hope to own a resturant or bar that would be successful because of their name.

Now all but the most mediocre pro athletes can make millions and retire.

In the mid 80s writers on top ten series were pulling in half million dollars or more per year. But Hollywood disguises this fact by lumping all writers together, even the ones that don't ever sell anything. Thus the average is next to nothing.

Writers like on "I Love Lucy," were comfortable, quite comfortable, but they still HAD to work and they kept working well into their 70s.

Reality shows are cheap and talent is basically free. They are cash cows.

Add to this a glut of great past shows. I am a fan of old time radio and I am astonished just how well written those shows are. They have to be cause they can't rely on sight.

So why write something new when I can listen to the old stuff already out there?

Then we the TV viewer are sold things like HDTV. Sorry but outside of sports and a few nature shows, High Def is worthless, I mean Seinfeld is no funnier if it's clearer. And that is if anybody bothers to spend the money to convert the show.

Go to books on tape, as I am writing this I am listening to Donald E Westlake's books on tape. His Dortmunder series is hillarious and is far better than any TV show.

Times change, like Rock and Roll killed Tin Pan Alley and R&B killed of Rock and Roll.

Reality killed of most scripted shows, but in a way it's kind of a return to the Vaudeville days of the early 1900s when anyone with any talent no matter how marginal was given a chance to show what talent or what little talent he had
 
Mark said:
Part of the reason is writers and actors have simply outpriced themselves.

The market is flooded and writers are demanding more profits. And it's not just Hollywood it's everything. Look at sports till the mid 80s, most athletes, in football, baseball or basketball etc, who had great careers could at best hope to own a resturant or bar that would be successful because of their name.

Now all but the most mediocre pro athletes can make millions and retire.

In the mid 80s writers on top ten series were pulling in half million dollars or more per year. But Hollywood disguises this fact by lumping all writers together, even the ones that don't ever sell anything. Thus the average is next to nothing.

Writers like on "I Love Lucy," were comfortable, quite comfortable, but they still HAD to work and they kept working well into their 70s.

Reality shows are cheap and talent is basically free. They are cash cows.

Add to this a glut of great past shows. I am a fan of old time radio and I am astonished just how well written those shows are. They have to be cause they can't rely on sight.

So why write something new when I can listen to the old stuff already out there?

Then we the TV viewer are sold things like HDTV. Sorry but outside of sports and a few nature shows, High Def is worthless, I mean Seinfeld is no funnier if it's clearer. And that is if anybody bothers to spend the money to convert the show.

Go to books on tape, as I am writing this I am listening to Donald E Westlake's books on tape. His Dortmunder series is hillarious and is far better than any TV show.

Times change, like Rock and Roll killed Tin Pan Alley and R&B killed of Rock and Roll.

Reality killed of most scripted shows, but in a way it's kind of a return to the Vaudeville days of the early 1900s when anyone with any talent no matter how marginal was given a chance to show what talent or what little talent he had
Click to expand...

Perhaps that's all true, but I think you are missing what the point of our subject is. We are discussing how TVLand specifically is no longer focusing on classic TV shows and instead on Reality shows. I'm afraid I don't see where your comments have anything to do with TVLand otherwise. Not saying it is not true, but as far as TVLand is concerned, lack of new scripted shows has NOTHING to do with it. The bottom line is TVLand doesn't seem interested in being TVLand anymore, and this is a shame for those of us who like watching those older shows.

Its like someone going up to you and saying "good news, I know how much you liked going here for our great pies, so we got rid of pies and replaced them with cheesecake, becuse we know you'll like those too," when in fact, you neither asked for cheesecakes, nor do you like them, and now there's no place for you to get pies.
 
TV Land was faced with a challenging issue--how do you keep bringing in the viewers advertisers want (and whether the advertisers are right is another debate entirely, one that's not of TV Land's...or any other individual network's...making)? Many of the people who watched TV Land when it started had memories of some of the shows they aired. Not all, but more than would be the case with those same shows today. A network of nothing but reruns may well not be a hit with the desired audience, and certainly not one that is stocked almost entirely with shows your current audience didn't watch in their lifetime.

The reality, no pun intended, is that there is a sound business case for the road they've taken. It's worked for other networks, and though that may be frustrating to people who think they're seeing the same thing all over again, when your job on the line, tasked with maximizing viewership and revenue, you follow the path with the best chance of success. The alternative is to stagnate, and die a slow death on the vine as your core audience ages out of the demos where you can make any real ad revenue.
 
In other words, you program for the lowest common denominator. You do "safe" programming, just like radio is doing now. And we see the current state of radio.
 
TV and radio have differences in their business models and business realities that render those kinds of comparisons useless.

If your goal is to maximize return on investment, you try to do things that will bring in the most viewers that you can in turn sell to your advertisers. Some will work, some won't...and some of what will work may drive away portions of your existing audience. That's the nature of the game.

Of course, you can choose to make your business model something entirely different, but not everyone can afford to, nor should they be expected to, purposely leave money on the table for a major investment.
 
Turner Classic Movies is apparently spotlighting Frank Sinatra all month long on the 10th anniversary of his death, and in addition to his movies, they're mixing in some of his TV shows, including "Sinatra: A Man And His Music", which aired last night. How incredible it was to just watch a master perform his craft for almost an entire hour, at the same time when TV Land was probably airing one of those ridiculous reality shows. Or the same episode of "Sanford & Son" they ran 3 hours earlier.
 
TV Land is becoming increasingly unwatchable and the "reality" crap clearly seems forced and doesn't fit with the rest of the programming and the supposed reason for TVLs existence. Call it good business, I call it lowest common denominator programming and yet another reason why almost anyone over 40 years of age is finding it tougher and tougher to find something decent to watch on TV.

This business of selling on narrow demo slices has ruined the quality of TV and it's a sad thing to see evolve. And, yes, there are similarities between what is happening in radio and what's happening on cable/broadcast TV. Not exactly the same but close enough to draw parallels. Neither model is now interested in "broadcasting" - both are trying to "narrowcast." The trouble with TV is that the narrowcasting is aimed entirely at under 35's whom *they think* are fascinated with sex-laden "reality" (allegedly unscripted) programming. In other words (as said earlier) lowest common denominator programming - a.k.a. crap.

It's why there's usually nothing to watch, it's why the classics are harder and harder to find on TV and it's why the overall numbers continue to drop. You call it good business, I call it a cryin' shame.

And, TV Land does suck - as does Viacom. :mad:
 
BRNout said:
TV Land is becoming increasingly unwatchable and the "reality" crap clearly seems forced and doesn't fit with the rest of the programming and the supposed reason for TVLs existence. Call it good business, I call it lowest common denominator programming and yet another reason why almost anyone over 40 years of age is finding it tougher and tougher to find something decent to watch on TV.

This business of selling on narrow demo slices has ruined the quality of TV and it's a sad thing to see evolve. And, yes, there are similarities between what is happening in radio and what's happening on cable/broadcast TV. Not exactly the same but close enough to draw parallels. Neither model is now interested in "broadcasting" - both are trying to "narrowcast." The trouble with TV is that the narrowcasting is aimed entirely at under 35's whom *they think* are fascinated with sex-laden "reality" (allegedly unscripted) programming. In other words (as said earlier) lowest common denominator programming - a.k.a. crap.

It's why there's usually nothing to watch, it's why the classics are harder and harder to find on TV and it's why the overall numbers continue to drop. You call it good business, I call it a cryin' shame.

And, TV Land does suck - as does Viacom. :mad:
Click to expand...
Well-stated. I agree entirely.

What a waste. 100+ channels and little classic TV there.

Like a grocery store, which of course has to stock more of the bigger selling items (like Hunts and Del Monte), but still sells gourmet or specialty items, you'd think TV and radio could find room or an outlet to program to the older "demos."
 
It would be interesting to combine all these so-called reality shows and check their numbers out from before to now. I really don't think people are interested anymore in these shows, that's just me. I don't watch, not even American Idol and I don't think the rest of the country is either, because like I have said in the past, I don't even know who is competing or who is left in that show. ::)
 
DJ Tony said:
I don't watch, not even American Idol and I don't think the rest of the country is either, because like I have said in the past, I don't even know who is competing or who is left in that show. ::)
Click to expand...

I don't watch American Idol either, but that hardly means the rest of the country doesn't care about it. The ratings say otherwise--yes, it ebbs and flows as any five-year-old show may do, but millions of people are tuning in. Individual tastes aren't objective.

Like any other genre, some of the entries will crash and burn, and some will ignite initially before settling down into a steady/solid performer.
 
I've noticed that The Big 4-0 isn't getting the same overkill that HSR did. Could it be that the ratings aren't that great for it?
 
Status
This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.


Back
Top Bottom