The Game Show Forum > Game Show Channels & Networks
GSN's new sked starting June 14th......
Dbacksfan12:
[quote name=\'Matt Ottinger\' date=\'May 14 2004, 01:04 PM\'] My only guess is that they actually do squeeze a few pennies out of the carriers and those few pennies cover the minimal production costs.
[/quote]
As far as Nick GAS is concerned; I'm convinced the MLS, PBA, etc. are paying for those segments during commercials.
Jimmy Owen:
Well, maybe I can try a different approach. Instead of calling it GSN2, perhaps call it "The 70's Channel: For people who remember the '70's and who are now in their '70's." It would not be ad supported but a closed circuit channel where the cash would come from retirement communities and convelescent homes who would pay GSN for the service for their residents. Sony would at least get some use out of their library. It doesn't have to be all game shows, either. After each 2 hour block of games, there would be an hour of "My Little Margie" and "I Married Joan."
Matt Ottinger:
[quote name=\'Brandon Brooks\' date=\'May 15 2004, 06:44 PM\'] Alright, you're becoming circular, and it's not that you don't understand, you don't want to. I already answered this question with what I think is a viable answer. Whether you agree with the reasoning or not is your choice. Again, networks such as Nick GAS, MTV2, VH-1 Hits, VH-1 Soul, Toon Disney, etc. are around and I can almost assure you that their ratings are not that good when compared to their parent channels. While GSN2 is likely not to happen in the near future, the point is that it could, even if you don't understand how anyone could watch such a channel. [/quote]
This valid argument is getting dangerously close to being personal, so I urge everybody to be a little more careful with their choice of words.
Meanwhile, I thought I already made the counter response to Brandon's point myself. Nick GAS, MTV2, VH-1 Hits, VH-1 Soul and Toon Disney (to use every single one of your examples) either own their programs or pay very little for them, so the cost of operating such channels is relatively small. Sony owns a handful of properties, but not nearly enough to program a round-the-clock GSN2.
Also, Toon Disney is owned by...well...Disney, and all the others are owned by Viacom. Both are MAJOR players in cable television and have the clout to make cable operators carry their fringe stuff in a way that Sony does not.
Finally, these secondary channels are backups to some of the most fundamental basics of cable television. MTV, Nickelodeon, Disney and (to a lesser extent) VH-1 are cable television brand-name standards. GSN is not.
These are three real, valid, impersonal reasons why a GSN2 isn't realistic, and there are other reasons as well. I've yet to see anyone address any of those points, I've just seen people say that no matter what the evidence, Sony could do a GSN2 if they wanted to. Sony is big enough to try to do anything if it wanted to. But I'd sure like to see some real, valid arguments about why it would make any economic sense at all for them to try this, and I really don't think I've seen them on this thread.
CaseyAbell:
I agree with everything Matt says, which could be a sign that the world has gone crazy...or sane...or at least different.
Anyway, what people overlook is that the vanity channels always seem to have a highly rated parent channel pushing them on the system operators. Nick GAS has (now split) Nicklelodeon, EPSNwhatever has ESPN, the video channels have MTV, etc.
GSN2 would have GSN as its parent. And most system operators regard GSN as a two-bit, low-rated, bad-demo channel for old folks. So what leverage does GSN possess to force GSN2 onto the systems?
Short answer: none. So the odds are enormously against launching a new channel of mostly forgotten game shows. I can't even see GSN getting much carriage for the interactive gaming channel they're talking about, though that may be a slightly easier sell. Other programmers are talking about gameplay on teevee as a possibility, at least.
Down the road it may be so cheap and easy to launch a teevee channel - as cheap and easy, say, as launching a web board - that this argument won't apply. But for now it's a show-stopper.
tyshaun1:
[quote name=\'CaseyAbell\' date=\'May 16 2004, 09:42 AM\'] I agree with everything Matt says, which could be a sign that the world has gone crazy...or sane...or at least different.
Anyway, what people overlook is that the vanity channels always seem to have a highly rated parent channel pushing them on the system operators. Nick GAS has (now split) Nicklelodeon, EPSNwhatever has ESPN, the video channels have MTV, etc.
GSN2 would have GSN as its parent. And most system operators regard GSN as a two-bit, low-rated, bad-demo channel for old folks. So what leverage does GSN possess to force GSN2 onto the systems?
Short answer: none. So the odds are enormously against launching a new channel of mostly forgotten game shows.
Down the road it may be so cheap and easy to launch a teevee channel - as cheap and easy, say, as launching a web board - that this argument won't apply. But for now it's a show-stopper. [/quote]
Just one question, Casey: How do you know what cable operators think of GSN? Did you ask them?
Tyshaun
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version