The Game Show Forum > Game Show Channels & Networks
GSN Scheduling: Pros and Cons
Ian Wallis:
--- Quote ---GSN has reams of data telling them exactly who and how many are watching their shows. If that data told them more people were watching The Joker's Wild or Peter Marshall's Squares when they were on the FIRST time -- or at least ENOUGH people were watching to make it worth their economic while -- they'd still be on NOW! That's how it works!
--- End quote ---
I've always wondered about shows they've hardly given a shot - especially ones that aired during what some people refer to as \"The Dark Period\".
There were some neat shows on that schedule - a few of which were highly respected when they were on, even if they didn't have long runs. Since many of them haven't been aired regularly since then, how can they go buy the reams of data from so many years ago? In other words, since a lot of things have changed since 1997 maybe some of those shows that they hardly gave a shot might actually get decent numbers now. I'm thinking of shows such as \"Break the Bank\", which was only on once a week at that time. Or, if \"Pyramid\" still gets enough viewers to warrant two-a-day airings, why not run the \"$20,000\" version just for something fresh?
When you look at obscure shows which became hits for GSN, \"Three's a Crowd\" comes to mind. Reportedly, that was the highest-rated show on GSN for a while and led to a new version. Maybe there's another rare show there which would get good ratings - but they shouldn't be relying on six year old data when so much is different now.
Ian Wallis:
--- Quote ---Every schedule change is a risk. But unless you're an idiot, you don't take a risk that's already been demonstrated to show significantly less than a sufficient reward.
--- End quote ---
Point taken. However, I think every schedule change should \"freshen\" things up a bit. Other than \"Millionaire\" joining the schedule, there's nothing at all new about this one - except for several shows changing time slots. GSN just keeps running the same *series* over and over again. It wouldn't hurt to add even one show at each schedule change. I'm not even necessarily talking about some rare, just an addition to freshen things up a bit.
Personally, I find things too much the same with GSN most of the time. Maybe that's one of the reasons ratings have dropped.
Jay Temple:
Let me sum up some basic points and add one.
It is self-evident that a cable channel is a business. (At least, it should be.)
They make money either by selling an entire time block for an infomercial or by selling shorter blocks within an actual program.
The revenue they generate for either one depends on how many viewers the advertisers think it will attract, which more or less is what the ratings tell them.
The profit for a given time spot is the revenue minus the cost of airing the program.
So, the real question for the folks at GSN is, for which programs is that differential most favorable?
If you wanted to persuade them to add some classic show not already on the schedule, you would have to convince them that the show would bring in enough viewers to justify the additional cost.
Mathematically, you would have to show: (Revenue resulting from your show's ratings) - (Cost of your show) > (Revenue generated from what's currently airing) - (Cost of that show). (In the case of an infomercial, that second difference is simply the amount they're paid for running it.)
Here's the rub: Never mind that you can't really prove what the ratings would be for your show. Most of the visitors to this website, myself included, have no way of knowing the costs in that statement.
I did not address the following side issue: Advertisers really want viewers who will not only see their ads but make a change in behavior based on it. That's why you won't see ads for Summer's Eve on The Man Show. This may or may not be significant enough to be relevant to our discussion.
SplitSecond:
Scarcity creates value. The show you most want to watch will invariably be one not on the air.
clemon79:
[quote name=\'Jay Temple\' date=\'Sep 22 2003, 11:21 AM\'] Here's the rub: Never mind that you can't really prove what the ratings would be for your show. Most of the visitors to this website, myself included, have no way of knowing the costs in that statement.
[/quote]
And this, I think, is the crux of Wham's argument. Since we don't know any better than he does if something will stick if thrown at the wall, then we're not in a position to suggest that it shouldn't be tried. Which in and of itself, it true.
What's being missed (and I'm not suggesting you're missing it, Jay) is that, in their positions at GSN, Cronin and Boden have access to good solid scientific and economic information that none of us do. And I am forced to assume, since both men have enjoyed long careers in the television business, that they do not ignore this privledged information.
Therefore, there's a reason TJW and TTD are not on the schedule. I don't know what it is. But they do, and I am forced to assume, until I am shown differently, that it is a good one.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version