The Game Show Forum
The Game Show Forum => Game Show Channels & Networks => Topic started by: Jim on September 20, 2003, 10:37:02 AM
-
There are two sides to every argument. I can make either GSN's side or the game show fans' argument and rebut either. Do any of you agree with any of these points:
1.) ONE SIDE: Sony operates GSN to make money. They can do whatever they want to with it. If they think cutting BWO back to one hour works, that's OK
JIM SAYS: I agree GSN needs to make money. However, is there really a big ratings drop between the 3:30 a.m. running of Whammy and the 4:00 episode of TTTT? If so, then cut BWO back. If not, how about a 3 - 5 BWO? I can see running infomercials from 5 - 6 because some people are getting up and might bump into an infomercial product they like. But, hey, don't they run commercials on BWO? Us B&W fans buy locking pasta pots too.
2.) ONE SIDE: GSN owes you nothing. You should be greatful they air any B&W programming at all.
JIM SAYS: Of course I am greatful for any B&W programming. I would be more pleased, however, with more classic programming. I will be less greatful to them for less classic stuff. Gratefulness correlates directly with the amount of time I devote to watching their network. I do not believe GSN is bending over backwards putting special stuff on in the wee hours of the morning any more than I am bending over backwards giving them my viewing time as opposed to soliciting CNN, Trio, or FX. If GSN believes they can attract more eyeballs to their station by foregoing B&W stuff, fine. So far, however, the crowds are not flocking to Wintuition or Funny Money. I don't even think Friend or Foe is appointment TV for most. GSN does owe its classic fans something, I believe, because we are probably the only ones who ever discuss the game show channel in ordinary conversation with other people. References slip out or conversations are overheard referencing GSN. They should throw us a bone for this loyalty. I doubt the average Bergeron HS viewer really has any fondness for the network or promotes it with others. If they can't get Bergeron on GSN, they are just as happy to flip to Mr. Ed reruns.
3.) ONE SIDE: Speaking of Mr. Ed, doesn't GSN have a special obligation to air \"different / rare\" programming you can't get anywhere else?
JIM SAYS: Remember when TV Land started? They ranted about bringing the history of television and long forgotten programs to air. They flashed opening marquees for shows like \"December Bride\", \"Molly Goldberg\", and \"Medical Center\". Those rarer shows never came. A few oddities lasted a while. Pretty soon, it was back to reruns of crap your local independent channel wouldn't touch. (When I was little, WUAB channel 43 was considered a cesspool for showing junk like Gilligan, Andy Griffith, or Lost In Space. And, WKBF channel 61 was even worse airing stuff not even in color like Perry Mason, Dick Van Dyke and I Love Lucy - \"Who wants to see that old stuff\"? Now, one is expected to pay to watch these \"evergreens\".) We haven't come far.
Remember how The Arts Channel was going to make tv a better place? It ain't gonna happen because it pays for these folks to program to the masses rather than to the entertainment historian. It sucks, but we are stuck with it. That said, since GSN isn't exactly reaching top ten status, it wouldn't kill them to turn a little bit more over to the classic stuff and maybe build a little enthusiasm from somebody with a quirky mix of programming. Reruns of Russian Roulette and Chuck Woolery wandering around a grocery store haven't worked - try a different strategy.
-
Mostly good thoughts Jim..things to think about..I find it useless to complain much about GSN (Not that you were doing that) There is a network, Goodlife TV that still shows Warner Brothers Private Eye shows and westerns (77 Sunset Strip, Maverick, etc.)..but now are also showing Highway to Heaven, Molly Dodd, Homefront and Welcome Back Kotter..They are slowly moving into newer shows..I still hope that GSN has an ultimate plan even in the Hour B&W Overnight that we dont know about yet..
BTW you must be from the Cleveland Area..I remember the old WUAB 43 (Pre-UPN) and WKBF the original Channel 61 They had a lot of neat programming in the early-mid 70's..Dealer's Choice was on WKBF if recall.
Tim Lones
Canton, Ohio
-
Now you've gone and given me a longing for the good old days of the Prize Movie. Remember: \"Is that the tree?\".
-
Seems to me this message is only arguing one point of view. You're basically giving the briefest of acknowledgements to the reality of GSN's situation, then arguing vigorously that they should open up their valuts more anyway. And your points, like so many others in these threads, are not based on logic, they're based on emotion and personal preference.
In other words, you're basically *starting* with the assertion that GSN *should* run more classic programming, and then working backward from that to prove it. That's not arguing both sides.
Also, a first-year debate student would tear most of your arguments to pieces. You make unsupportable statements (\"I doubt the average Bergeron HS viewer really has any fondness for the network or promotes it with others\"), you use unanswerable, rhetorical questions (\"how about a 3 - 5 BWO?\") and best of all, you use examples that prove the opposite point! You described your old rerun-heavy independent stations as \"cesspools\" and asked \"Who wants to see that old stuff?\" But without any explanation, you turn around and say that in GSN's case, \"it wouldn't kill them to turn a little bit more over to the classic stuff.\"
I've yet to see any convincing argument from anybody why it would be GOOD for GSN to run more classic programming. The best I'm seeing is, \"As long as the ratings aren't very good anyway, why not?\" and variations on how they \"owe\" it to their hardcore fans. 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!
-
As much as I would like to say GSN owes classic Game Show fans anything..Truth is, they don't. I am glad they still give us an hour of B&W Overnight come November..I am a fan of the Classics . Some of the originals are better than others..Point is GSN will do what it takes to make a buck..and no whining or complaining is going to make things different. As Matt said, they know who watches what. I am concerned about the Video Game Block but like anything else. if it fails it will be gone in a heartbeat..Just wait and see what happens..
Tim Lones
-
Matt,
(I hate to respond in a negative tone to someone who has provided so much entertainment with great Bill Cullen web pages I have enjoyed viewing, but let me just say...)
1.) I guess those reams of data indicate, then, that the 4 o'clock airing of TTTT shows tremendous dropoff from the 3:30 airing of Whammy. I would be surprised, but it's possible.
2.) Those reams of data must also indicate that, at 3:00, there is strong demand from GSN viewers for a rerun of an original. I just don't hear that clamor anywhere.
3.) While they don't owe us anything necessarily, I would think something could be done by them to keep the most loyal viewers they have. They aren't that powerful yet that they can rely on non-game show fans to tune on a whim.
4.) The rerun cesspool programs, in GSN's case, would be stuff like $100,000 Pyramid, repeats of originals, and Family Feud episodes they have already run when there are other seasons they haven't shown. You can only watch the reruns of LMAD so many times before you just don't want to see it. The \"classics\" I was referring to in game show terms would be rarer stuff. My equivalant of \"Molly\" and \"December Bride\" would be the G-T vault and B&E stuff. The answer, if viewership is off 40%, isn't to ram the same reruns of the originals which brought the low ratings to start.
5.) Making arguments on emotion can be sometimes be effective. I doubt most people supporting Wesley Clark have read up on his background and position papers extensively. They simply FEEL he can beat Bush and that's all they need to mob him in appearances.
6.) As to the Bergeron HS argument, I believe that, if that is the only game show you watch or care about, you are probably not much of a game show fan. You like HS because it's \"da bomb\" (after all, it's got Whoopi on it! - er, it used to) and it has lots of celebrities you read about in People Magazine. You are probably not someone who would watch a whole lot of GSN programming. GSN has, to date, been relatively unsuccessful in going after people like this. It may be time to realize that game show programming is a small niche and you won't expand it by putting junk like DJ Games, Love Connection, or Funny Money on.
__________________________________________
As to the Cleveland programming:
1.) Dealer's Choice was part of the hour of \"Prizes and Surprizes\" paired with What's My Line.
2.) I even remember the Prize Movie prize clip everyone thouht was \"Wake of the Red Witch\". I still have to see that movie some time.
-
[quote name=\'Jim\' date=\'Sep 20 2003, 10:48 AM\'] They aren't that powerful yet that they can rely on non-game show fans to tune on a whim.
[/quote]
...and we have NEVER been powerful enough (in terms of significant numbers) to be able to dictate ANY programming decisions to GSN.
Making arguments on emotion can be sometimes be effective.
Not here.
-
Let's try a little experiment here. Here are two questions. Everyone answer them honestly.
1) Are you part of a Nielsen family?
2) If yes, show would you like to see on the Game Show Network schedule and in what time slot? Also, do you prefer stacks of $50's or are smaller bills more convenient for you?
-
1.) I guess those reams of data indicate, then, that the 4 o'clock airing of TTTT shows tremendous dropoff from the 3:30 airing of Whammy. I would be surprised, but it's possible.
2.) Those reams of data must also indicate that, at 3:00, there is strong demand from GSN viewers for a rerun of an original. I just don't hear that clamor anywhere.
\"Tremendous\" and \"strong demand\" are your choice of words, an over-exaggeration because you think it helps make your point. Obviously at that time of night, viewership is negligible regardless of what they air.
Still, what it sounds like you're saying is that a classic TTTT would get a better rating than a rerun of Whammy, and that something -- ANYTHING -- from the G-T or B&E vault would attract more viewers than a rerun of an original. That's an assumption you're making based on your personal preferences. (Mine too, by the way.) What I'm saying is you're probably wrong. They probably get more eyeballs with something that looks newer than they do with something that looks like it obviously came out of the seventies or eighties, even in the middle of the night.
At the very least, you seem to say that since viewership is small anyway, why not air a classic instead? And I'm saying that I have yet to see any logical reason put forward on this forum as to why they SHOULD air a classic. The \"throw us a bone\" argument is all well and good -- and in a different thread, I described my own idea of what that bone could be -- but I could also make the case that the Overnight shows ARE the bone they're throwing us. When they read this forum and see how many of us find ways to even trash THAT, it's pretty easy to imagine them not being all that keen on throwing us any more bones.
Thing is, GSN is in a much better position to actually know what the numbers are than you or I can possibly be, and if they thought they could succeed by airing more classics, that's what they would be doing. It would be a LOT cheaper, and trust me, these people are fans of the classics just like we are. I'm convinced that's the ONLY reason we get B&WO at all.
-
[quote name=\'Matt Ottinger\' date=\'Sep 20 2003, 12:11 PM\'] If that data told them more people were watching The Joker's Wild [/quote]
Feast of Favorites, number 2......The Joker's Wild. Beat everything except MG. I guess somebody was watching.
or Peter Marshall's Squares when they were on the FIRST time
Excuse me if I'm wrong, but didn't it get pretty good ratings the first time?
I've yet to see any convincing argument from anybody why it would be GOOD for GSN to run more classic programming.
Let me try.....
GSN gets better indvidual half-hour ratings with originals. This is fact. But, if the originals are overkilled to the point where people are sick of watching them and turn channels, that's not good, is it? There is no reason there can't be a schedule that appeals to those who'd rather watch Ward TTTT over Cram AND those who'd rather watch Cram over TTTT. If the schedule had something for everybody, and it's certainly possible, wouldn't that mean BETTER ratings? It would get the diehards AND the desired demos, which combined equals more people watching the channel than just the desired demos alone.
-
Feast of Favorites, number 2......The Joker's Wild. Beat everything except MG. I guess somebody was watching.
Nope. It means that some very big fans were *voting* in a spectacularly unscientific poll. The fact that you so easily confuse the two is one of my points.
There is no reason there can't be a schedule that appeals to those who'd rather watch Ward TTTT over Cram AND those who'd rather watch Cram over TTTT.
Yes there is. If there are hundreds of thousands of people who watch Cram, and only a few hundred who watch Robin Ward's TTTT, then there are gigantic reasons why the schedule should have one and not the other. That's how every network on the air works.
The analogy would be \"there's no reason there can't be an ESPN schedule that has NFL Football, Major League Baseball AND the National Tiddlywinks Championship.\" A tiddlywinks fan can make a passionate argument that it can't hurt ESPN to \"throw them a bone\", but if it's not economically viable to do, ESPN won't do it.
The fact that GSN doesn't make enough episodes of their originals is definitely a problem, but a separate issue. If more people would watch a rerun of Cram than a rerun of TTTT, it doesn't matter anyway. GSN has no pressing need to cater to the diehard fans, since chances are they're going to keep watching anyway!
I keep coming back to this main point: The people who run GSN are game show fans. Specifically, fans of the classic shows. They love 'em, they watch 'em, they have VHS collections of them that would make the rest of you drool. They have every reason in the world to run the classic shows if it was just a matter of personal preference. The fact that they don't tells me that it's just not viable for them anymore.
-
Nope. It means that some very big fans were *voting* in a spectacularly unscientific poll. The fact that you so easily confuse the two is one of my points.
Matt, Matt, Matt... It just wasn't only us game show super-fans that voted in the FOF. Don't you think that some people other than us may want to see TJW on the GSN lineup and maybe that's why they voted for it. Unless there were only about 1000 people voting in that poll, or it was heavilly populated with votes from the game show super-fan community, I say the demand is high enough to make some room for at the VERY least TJW (And maybe even TTD).
But that could just be me.
-
[quote name=\'whampyl03\' date=\'Sep 21 2003, 04:14 PM\'] But that could just be me. [/quote]
Rest assured, it's just you. The point Matt is trying to make is that Cronin and Boden are made out here like they are trying to screw us, when in fact there is absolutely no financial or other benefit from doing that.
If there was money to be made by running Joker or Tic Tac D'oh, they would be doing so.
Since they are not, you may safely assume there is not money to be made by doing so.
Running a TV cable network is a business. Businesses are about making money. No amount of whining is going to change that.
-
Matt, Matt, Matt...
Oh, yeah, this is what I need tonight. A fifteen-year-old being condescending to ME.
Unless there were only about 1000 people voting in that poll, or it was heavilly populated with votes from the game show super-fan community
Actually, that's more or less what I AM saying. OK, it was probably more than a thousand, but it was a tiny percentage of the total number of people who watch GSN, and naturally, serious fans are going to be a lot more likely to take part in such a poll. So the sample is more heavily weighted to what the serious fans want, even though there aren't enough of us to make a difference as far as the ratings are concerned.
This is obvious stuff. To grownups.
-
[quote name=\'Matt Ottinger\' date=\'Sep 21 2003, 08:18 PM\'] So the sample is more heavily weighted to what the serious fans want, even though there aren't enough of us to make a difference as far as the ratings are concerned.
[/quote]
I'm inclined to ask how FoF? and 1st season rehashes of Whammy got in there if it was weighted to what the serious fans wanted, but I won't......
The point Matt is trying to make is that Cronin and Boden are made out here like they are trying to screw us,
I got no problem with Boden. I don't like Cronin [or Belinkoff, for that matter] though. It's just me.
-
I'm inclined to ask how FoF? and 1st season rehashes of Whammy got in there if it was weighted to what the serious fans wanted, but I won't......
If you had, the bottom-line answer keeps going back to the fact that this poll is UNSCIENTIFIC. It doesn't MATTER that TJW was second, or that Whammy or Friend or Foe made the list.
It's common sense that game show fans with internet savvy would be more likely to vote in a GSN on-line poll. I also don't understand what makes you think it's so gosh-darned impossible that some serious fan may actually have LIKED FoF? and Whammy.
I got no problem with Boden. I don't like Cronin [or Belinkoff, for that matter] though. It's just me.
Well good. As long as we know now that it's not personal or anything.
-
[quote name=\'Matt Ottinger\' date=\'Sep 21 2003, 08:40 PM\'] I also don't understand what makes you think it's so gosh-darned impossible that some serious fan may actually have LIKED FoF? and Whammy.
[/quote]
It's not impossible at all, but enough serious fans to put them in the higher up spots? I like W! season 2, but season 1 was awful [as was all of FOF?] But I can't speak for anyone but myself. That said, I was probably the only one who voted for \"Fantasy\" and \"Hollywood Connection.\" Shoot me.
But you're right. FoF was just a ratings gimmick anyway. [going off on a very bad tangent, maybe it was rigged and the TJW/TTD hours were the proverbial \"bone\" to the diehards... :-P]
-
One poster in this thread (possibly sarcastically) asked if any of us have ever been a Nielsen family. Actually, I have been. A while back I did a paper journal for Arbitron. If I got paid (I can't remember) it was nominal. What I found great, however, was something they wrote in the instructions - something I wholeheartedly believed - that with every item I wrote down I was helping let the network brass know what the public's preferences were.
That said, if anybody can recreate what was done in the Danny DeVito movie \"The Ratings Game\" we might be able to get more BWO programming on. Wouldn't it be cool if we all got diaries and Monday's headlines read \"4 a.m. 'Truth' tops Emmys and NFL combined\". The GSN management, picking up The Hollywood Reporter, would fall out of their chairs.
Also, for what it's worth, I never carry anything bigger than a $20. I would be sick if I had a $100 bill in my pocket and it fell out.
-
[quote name=\'clemon79\' date=\'Sep 21 2003, 07:48 PM\'] Rest assured, it's just you. The point Matt is trying to make is that Cronin and Boden are made out here like they are trying to screw us, when in fact there is absolutely no financial or other benefit from doing that.
[/quote]
Hell, if *anyone* could dislike Boden and Belinkoff enough to consider attributing the paucity of classics on GSN to some malice on their part, it'd be me -- and I still get emails from people who think Belinkoff demanded removal of most of the classics as revenge for getting exposed on ATGS. My personal favorite is one (from an idiot who shall remain nameless) espousing the theory that if we'd just apologize to Belinkoff, the classics would reappear on the schedule in greater numbers.
Matt and Chris are right... this is a business decision, and nothing more. I have zero respect for Boden and Belinkoff as human beings, and even *I'm* willing to give them the benefit of the doubt on that point; they'd have been bounced a long time ago, just as Fleming and Tauber were, if they didn't know how to program the network to reach the widest possible audience.
- David
-
[quote name=\'PeterMarshallFan\' date=\'Sep 21 2003, 05:47 PM\'] But I can't speak for anyone but myself.
[/quote]
And here's your problem. For someone who can't speak for anyone but himself, you are certainly doing a lot of pointing to what other people have supposively said to defend your argument.
-
Well, for this firey debates sake, I'll toss out the FoF results, so I can still prove my point...
I'm going to bring some past history up here, you guys probably have it memorised, but I'll do it anyway...
Syndie TTD lasted for about 6 years...
Syndie TJW lasted for about 9 years...
Now, usually when a show lasts for that long, there must be SOMEBODY that was watching it. Now, you can argue that maybe only Nielson homes and ONLY Nielson homes were the ones who tuned in, and were the only fans of the series, but I see that as quite unlikely.
Now, If the conversation was on two VERY obscure shows, then I'd side with Mr. Lemon and Ottinger. But I don't think, that with as long as they have lasted, they are very obscure shows. So, I disagree with Mr. Lemon and Ottinger.
So what if they did God-Awful way back in the \"Golden Days\" of GSN, that was then. I'm just saying, that there just may be a minute possibility that there are fans of the show, outside of the GS super-fan community, and there may be another infinitesimal possibility that they may want to see the show for old times sake. So I say, pull them out of the vault, dust off the mold, and give them a shot. If it does horrible, and loses millions for GSN, I'll shut up about it, and say that Mr. Lemon and Ottinger and anybody else that sided with them that they were right all along. But untill then... well, you know.
-
[quote name=\'Jim\' date=\'Sep 21 2003, 05:50 PM\'] Wouldn't it be cool if we all got diaries and Monday's headlines read "4 a.m. 'Truth' tops Emmys and NFL combined". [/quote]
I kept a Nielsen diary for one week in the summer of 1999.
Unfortunately, I was living in an apartment complex with its own private cable system. There was GSN to the left of me, GSN to the right of me, and there I was, stuck in the middle with...well, if you think GSN is run by monkeys, then this cable system was clearly run by some sort of single-celled organisms. (For many reasons other than the fact that they didn't carry GSN.)
-
[quote name=\'trainman\' date=\'Sep 21 2003, 10:18 PM\'] [quote name=\'Jim\' date=\'Sep 21 2003, 05:50 PM\'] Wouldn't it be cool if we all got diaries and Monday's headlines read "4 a.m. 'Truth' tops Emmys and NFL combined". [/quote]
I kept a Nielsen diary for one week in the summer of 1999.
Unfortunately, I was living in an apartment complex with its own private cable system. There was GSN to the left of me, GSN to the right of me, and there I was, stuck in the middle with...well, if you think GSN is run by monkeys, then this cable system was clearly run by some sort of single-celled organisms. (For many reasons other than the fact that they didn't carry GSN.) [/quote]
In addition, to all the complainers, can you give me one compelling reason as to why GSN needs to be airing TTD and TJW?
-
[quote name=\'whampyl03\' date=\'Sep 21 2003, 08:05 PM\'] Syndie TTD lasted for about 6 years...
Syndie TJW lasted for about 9 years...
[/quote]
There is no doubt both shows were very successful in their time. And that has not a thing to do with this discussion.
Now, you can argue that maybe only Nielson homes and ONLY Nielson homes were the ones who tuned in, and were the only fans of the series, but I see that as quite unlikely.
So do I. Which is why I never made that argument.
But I don't think, that with as long as they have lasted, they are very obscure shows.
Neither do I.
So, I disagree with Mr. Lemon and Ottinger.
I don't see how, you haven't proven that you even understand what our points ARE yet, much less displayed an ability to refute them with anything approaching a relevant argument.
So what if they did God-Awful way back in the \"Golden Days\" of GSN, that was then.
Bingo! That was THEN! Back then, in those days, when they were lucky to have 5% coverage of the country, they needed every viewer they could get. Which means back THEN, they DID need to program to the die-hards. Back THEN, they needed to operate as cheaply as possible, and running repeats of TJW and TTD were cheap indeed.
This is NOW. They don't need us any more. Now, if you want to argue that point, and prove that there are enough of \"us\" to matter, you are welcome to try, but there isn't any evidence pointing to that.
I'm just saying, that there just may be a minute possibility that there are fans of the show, outside of the GS super-fan community, and there may be another infinitesimal possibility that they may want to see the show for old times sake.
And _I_ am saying that if Messr's Cronin and Boden are doing their jobs, they would be able to direct you to binders, folders, and probably entire file cabinets full-to-BURSTING with market research, studies, and demographics a damn sight more reliable than a single Web poll that indicate that such a programming decision is counter-productive to the current goals for the network.
No, I can't prove they exist. However, in the absence of any proof for or against, a reasonable person has to assume a certain baseline. And in this case, that baseline is that a television network has usually done the proper homework to defend their programming decisions.
Now, if you want to give me some concrete proof that this baseline is false, that you know something I don't, that Boden and Cronin are completely blind to a major cash cow by not running two programs that by your own argument were popular enough that they certainly would have to know something about their history, then by all means, let's hear it.
-
Literally arguing with children, but since it's what I do in real life too...
Syndie TTD lasted for about 6 years...
Syndie TJW lasted for about 9 years...
Now, usually when a show lasts for that long, there must be SOMEBODY that was watching it.
No one's saying the shows weren't successful in their original runs. Lots of shows that were hits a long time ago aren't on television anymore.
I'm just saying, that there just may be a minute possibility that there are fans of the show, outside of the GS super-fan community, and there may be another infinitesimal possibility that they may want to see the show for old times sake.
If GSN programmed based on \"infinitesimal possibilities\", this whole conversation would be moot because there wouldn't be a GSN anymore. They also don't program their schedules to test your pet theories.
If it does horrible, and loses millions for GSN, I'll shut up about it
Cronin: \"There's a kid in Alaska who won't stop complaining about our schedule until we put TJW and TTD back on and lose millions. Is this a good plan or what?\"
-
Syndie TTD lasted for about 6 years...
8 years -- but it ended in 1986.
Syndie TJW lasted for about 9 years...
And again, it ended in 1986.
Now, usually when a show lasts for that long, there must be SOMEBODY that was watching it.
Key word: \"was.\"
Now, you can argue that maybe only Nielson homes and ONLY Nielson homes were the ones who tuned in, and were the only fans of the series, but I see that as quite unlikely.
Unlikely, yes, but remember that the shows were also airing on broadcast stations across the country, not on a relatively obscure cable network.
But I don't think, that with as long as they have lasted, they are very obscure shows.
They \"haven't\" lasted that long -- they did last that long. New episodes haven't been made in 17 years -- 13 if you want to count the 90-91 runs. And even if we assume your claim to be correct, the fact that people know the shows doesn't mean they're going to sit down and watch.
So what if they did God-Awful way back in the \"Golden Days\" of GSN, that was then.
\"So what if the shows had long runs in the late 70s and early 80s, that was then.\"
Oh, wait... that's an okay explanation to back up your point, but not to disprove it?
I'm just saying, that there just may be a minute possibility that there are fans of the show, outside of the GS super-fan community, and there may be another infinitesimal possibility that they may want to see the show for old times sake.
So GSN should risk lots of $$$ for a \"minute\" or \"infinitesimal\" possibility? The risk isn't \"minute\" or \"infinitesimal\" to them.
So I say, pull them out of the vault, dust off the mold, and give them a shot. If it does horrible, and loses millions for GSN, I'll shut up about it, and say that Mr. Lemon and Ottinger and anybody else that sided with them that they were right all along.
You're still asking GSN to try something that they know didn't work. You still have yet to tell us what changed between now and the last time GSN regularly ran TTD and TJW to make you think people will now watch the shows in huge numbers.
But untill then... well, you know.
Yes, unfortunately, we do know.
- David
(edited for typos)
-
QUOTE
Syndie TTD lasted for about 6 years...
8 years -- but it ended in 1986.
QUOTE
Syndie TJW lasted for about 9 years...
And again, it ended in 1986.
Sorry, poor math and memory on my part...
Now, if you want to give me some concrete proof that this baseline is false, that you know something I don't, that Boden and Cronin are completely blind to a major cash cow by not running two programs that by your own argument were popular enough that they certainly would have to know something about their history, then by all means, let's hear it.
Well, again, I point to the FoF poll, Ottinger will say it's un-scientific and then it's a debate that is going around in circles...
So GSN should risk lots of $$$ for a \"minute\" or \"infinitesimal\" possibility? The risk isn't \"minute\" or \"infinitesimal\" to them.
But isn't GSN running some type of risk when they run any rare show today... Look at Blockbusters for example, Somebody must be watching it if it lasted for over 9 months on the schedule so far.
They \"haven't\" lasted that long -- they did last that long. New episodes haven't been made in 17 years -- 13 if you want to count the 90-91 runs. And even if we assume your claim to be correct, the fact that people know the shows doesn't mean they're going to sit down and watch.
And there hasn't been any new eps of WLoD on since '89, but GSN will still make room for it on the schedule. Well, unless you count Pictionary.
You're still asking GSN to try something that they know didn't work. You still have yet to tell us what changed between now and the last time GSN regularly ran TTD and TJW to make you think people will now watch the shows in huge numbers.
Again, I point to the FoF, But Ottinger, Lemon, dzinkin will say that's it's absolutely garbage, and it doesn't count for anything.
Unlikely, yes, but remember that the shows were also airing on broadcast stations across the country, not on a relatively obscure cable network.
So, some of the people who watched TTD and TJW on the brodcast stations back then could have GSN today.
-
Sorry, poor math and memory on my part...
I was not giving the years to correct your memory or math, but to tell you that no matter how long the shows ran, they ended years ago. What happened then and what happens now are two different things.
Well, again, I point to the FoF poll, Ottinger will say it's un-scientific and then it's a debate that is going around in circles...
You have yet to explain why he's wrong on either of those counts.
But isn't GSN running some type of risk when they run any rare show today... Look at Blockbusters for example, Somebody must be watching it if it lasted for over 9 months on the schedule so far.
And if that show didn't work, it would be gone too. But it's not. See the difference?
And there hasn't been any new eps of WLoD on since '89, but GSN will still make room for it on the schedule. Well, unless you count Pictionary.
Because people are watching it. If TJW and TTD had been watched in huge numbers when they were on GSN, those shows would still be on the schedule too. But they weren't, so they're not. What part of this don't you understand?
Again, I point to the FoF, But Ottinger, Lemon, dzinkin will say that's it's absolutely garbage, and it doesn't count for anything.
Because when compared to actual market research, the FoF poll was garbage.
So, some of the people who watched TTD and TJW on the brodcast stations back then could have GSN today.
No doubt some do. But enough to make keeping them on the schedule financially worthwhile? Again, if that had been the case, the shows would have done much better when GSN first ran them.
Once again... you have yet to explain what has changed since GSN regularly aired TJW and TTD to merit another try. Until you can answer that question, Matt's right -- you're just going in circles and saying what you want GSN to do, not giving concrete reasons why they should do it.
-
Once again... you have yet to explain what has changed since GSN regularly aired TJW and TTD to merit another try. Until you can answer that question, Matt's right -- you're just going in circles and saying what you want GSN to do, not giving concrete reasons why they should do it.
And why are you guys so sure that I'm the only one??? And again, I point to the FoF poll, and that both shows actually had a following. And didn't GSN take a risk when they put Blockbusters or Trivia Trap back on the schedule in January? I'm pretty sure that beyond '94, they were probably not mainstays on the schedule. I'm just asking for one measly shot on the schedule. If it fails and kicks up the negative $'s for GSN, then I'll GLADLY admit that I'm wrong.
Because when compared to actual market research, the FoF poll was garbage.
And it was probably due to that same market research that ratings dropped 40%.
-
First off, some people do watch the Whammy rerun at 3:30. IIRC, there is only one feed for GSN...so the 3:30 Whammy! on the East Coast is the 12:30 Whammy! on the West. Then B&WO at 1AM and Paid Programming at 3 until 6AM.
I would venture to say that GSN is not a channel that most people watch the way we do. Many people stop on GSN when nothing else is on. There's very little appointment television opportunities on the channel. It, more than TV Land, is a channel that people watch when there's nothing else on or when they're waiting for a movie on HBO to start. It's a channel that's easily given to people being able to jump in and jump out with no muss or fuss (much like Law and Order is today...you don't need prior knowledge to enjoy the show).
So, running WinTuition or Cram or any of their originals into the ground may be obvious to us...but to the public at large, since they tune in infrequently if at all, they never pick up on it.
I've no doubt that some people would watch TJW or TTD if they aired. Would it make as much money for GSN as a show they own lock stock and, well, you know the rest... Of course not.
GSN certainly tries to do what they can. But there's just no way to please everyone. They have limited classic game programming. They occasionally rotate the selections. (Nostalgia can be sated pretty quickly for a casual fan or interested observer)
Would I program it differently? Sure, there's things I like that haven't been aired for years or things I'm curious about. Hell, I love TTD. I'd love to see that. But is it the best business decision for GSN? I don't think it would be.
-
And there hasn't been any new eps of WLoD on since '89, but GSN will still make room for it on the schedule. Well, unless you count Pictionary.
Why do you bring up Pictionary? They were two completely different franchises...you might as well say Wendy's and Carl's Jr. are the same.
Again, I point to the FoF, But Ottinger, Lemon, dzinkin will say that's it's absolutely garbage, and it doesn't count for anything.
I also say it was garbage. The only reason those two shows made it is that moronic GSN board posters clicked these shows EVERY day. If it was done by phone, and each phone number was allowed 1 vote, your point may have some validity.
And didn't GSN take a risk when they put Blockbusters or Trivia Trap back on the schedule in January? I'm pretty sure that beyond '94, they were probably not mainstays on the schedule.
Although I don't know about Trivia trap, Blockbusters aired,AFAIK, all the way until October 1997 (including Rafferty's version).
just asking for one measly shot on the schedule.
Tell me again why GSN should grant your request? One, good reason.
-
And why are you guys so sure that I'm the only one???
Show me where any of us said you were the only one. We're saying that there aren't enough diehard TJW and TTD fans to merit placing them on the schedule regularly.
And again, I point to the FoF poll,
And again, a poll where the primary respondents are people likely to vote a certain way is not scientific evidence. Bringing the FoF poll up ad nauseam doesn't change that fact. The poll was a marketing gimmick, and nothing more.
and that both shows actually had a following.
And again, not enough of a following to merit putting TJW and TTD on the schedule regularly.
And didn't GSN take a risk when they put Blockbusters or Trivia Trap back on the schedule in January? I'm pretty sure that beyond '94, they were probably not mainstays on the schedule.
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.
I'm just asking for one measly shot on the schedule.
You're asking GSN to do something that has been proven not to work.
If it fails and kicks up the negative $'s for GSN, then I'll GLADLY admit that I'm wrong.
And then a few years will pass, and people will repeat as you did, \"things have changed.\" That notwithstanding, GSN is not going to risk $$$ to see if you're wrong.
And it was probably due to that same market research that ratings dropped 40%.
And yet the ratings are still better than when GSN was programming TJW and TTD regularly.
I repeat... you have yet to explain what has changed since GSN regularly aired TJW and TTD to merit another try. Hint: \"Let's see what happens\" is not an answer to that question.
-
[quote name=\'whampyl03\' date=\'Sep 21 2003, 08:56 PM\'] Well, again, I point to the FoF poll, Ottinger will say it's un-scientific and then it's a debate that is going around in circles...
[/quote]
Keep pointing. There IS no debate, because nothing about that poll proves that the sample they gathered accurately represents the actual demographics of EITHER GSN's current OR future audience.
Look at Blockbusters for example, Somebody must be watching it if it lasted for over 9 months on the schedule so far.
And my guess is they have market research and Nielsen numbers a damn sight more reliable than a Web poll to back up that programming decision.
-
I'll fold for now, mainly because I hate repeating myself (and I'm sure you guys hate repeating youselves as well)... but I still don't agree with you guys one bit on this subject. Call me the loser of the arguement, I guess.
EDIT: Now where the heck are my parting gifts?
-
[quote name=\'whampyl03\' date=\'Sep 21 2003, 10:38 PM\'] I'll fold for now [/quote]
The validity of the FoF poll isn't going to increase over time. :)
but I still don't agree with you guys one bit on this subject.
You don't have to, so long as you understand that it's because you're not willing to accept as fact a few very basic proven concepts. That's certainly unfortunate, but I don't plan to lose any sleep over it either.
-
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!
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.
-
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.
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.
-
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.
-
Scarcity creates value. The show you most want to watch will invariably be one not on the air.
-
[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.
-
It's interesting to still see ads directed to the elderly on the \"edgy\" GSN shows. Are those just per-inquiry ads that can be locally preempted? My cable system doesn't offer local avails for GSN, so I'm not sure if the ads for scooters, health insurance and the like are merely filler.
-
[quote name=\'Jimmy Owen\' date=\'Sep 22 2003, 03:09 PM\']It's interesting to still see ads directed to the elderly on the \"edgy\" GSN shows. Are those just per-inquiry ads that can be locally preempted? My cable system doesn't offer local avails for GSN, so I'm not sure if the ads for scooters, health insurance and the like are merely filler.[/quote]
For the most part, the direct-response ads only run in prime time and late-night in the local cutaway slots--which is the first minute of the second break in every half-hour. During the day, they pop up a little more. GSN could run promos or PSAs in those cutaway slots, but they choose to try to get a little more revenue in those times (noteworthy, considering that they may still be working off of some late 90s contracts where some systems were getting the channel without having to pay a subscriber fee--that's so-much per subscriber to the cable system--the other main revenue stream that has made cable networks more profitable sooner than if they went strictly on advertising alone). Considering that almost every system now runs local spots in the cutaways on every basic ad-supported channel--even if it's promos for other channels or attempts to get you to upgrade to digital and not get a dish--and that the two big satellite services run in-house promos in their cutaways--there may be a few systems out there that don't cut in so that GSN can potentially make some money--*if* someone calls that 800-number.
And as I've pointed out before, HITS, the digital provider to Comcast systems that were AT&T and other systems, does run their own direct-response spots in GSN's cutaways (and other channels' cutaways).
-
[quote name=\'Jimmy Owen\' date=\'Sep 22 2003, 03:09 PM\'] It's interesting to still see ads directed to the elderly on the "edgy" GSN shows. Are those just per-inquiry ads that can be locally preempted? My cable system doesn't offer local avails for GSN, so I'm not sure if the ads for scooters, health insurance and the like are merely filler. [/quote]
I have DirecTV and see the same ads. I always thought that was the same stuff that DirecTV sold as its equivalent of local avails -- I know I see some of the same stuff, along with Dell ads, during the local avail break on ESPNews.
-
[quote name=\'Dsmith\' date=\'Sep 21 2003, 11:53 PM\']
Why do you bring up Pictionary? They were two completely different franchises...you might as well say Wendy's and Carl's Jr. are the same.
[/quote]
I\"ll sort-of defend Pictionary and WLoD being the same franchise, particularly if referring to the 1997-98 version and not the 1989 kids show Pictionary(Barry and Enright produced it with Quantum Media/MCA, GSN doesn't have the rights to air it). The 1997-98 show was also a KLine and Friends production and played a bit like WLoD in a lot of respects.
-
[quote name=\'clemon79\' date=\'Sep 22 2003, 02:44 PM\'] [quote name=\'Jay Temple\' date=\'Sep 22 2003, 11:21 AM\']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.
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. [/quote]
I was going to say something to that effect, but I thought my post was running a little long.
-
Being around so many people as I am at college, I usually am given the chance to bring up game shows with people, and one of the first thing I always ask them about is \"Have you ever heard of the Game Show Network?\"
Most of the time, here's my response:
\"They made such a thing? Wow; who knew?\"
Only once have I ever gotten, \"Yeah; man, I LOVE that channel!\" Scary thing is (and, before anybody flames me for this, yes, I am quite aware that I am on a concentrated college campus and not many people have the time to watch TV; the ones who study, anyway) that, as much coverage in homes as GSN gets, there are many, MANY people that don't know they even exist.
Sometimes, I am also asked about the shows on GSN, and the same comment always comes up:
\"Why don't they show 'The Price is Right?'\"
The fact is that the general public has never even heard of our gems like Blockbusters, Bullseye, or even TTD and TJW (I should say, most of the 18-34 demo, anyway). More so, we are probably the only people who keep the dish on 309 (or digital cable on 161) for more than 10 minutes at a time anyway.
While I am just as upset that the classics are becoming a dying breed here, I also realize that money needs to be made here and, if this is the way to do it, then so be it. Let them try the video game block. Let them try the \"Debating Game\" special. Let them try the model on \"Lingo.\" Moreover (and I'm going to kick myself for saying this), let them take off PYL in favor of more exposure to originals.
One thing about networks nowadays: if something doesn't seem to stick, it's gone in a hurry. Some of these are big gambles for GSN, and, if they don't take off, we'll probably see a quick return to the current schedule.
Just two things more and then I'll shut up:
In response to a comment made earlier, there still ARE some people who think \"WinTuition\" is a new GSN original (!). Let's face it; nobody tracks episodes like we do (at least, the normal viewers, anyway), so it's understandable that this fallacy could exist. Don't consider this a bad thing, however, if it garners more ratings for the network. I don't think it's bloody likely, but we'll see! There's gotta be SOME reason why it's still on the schedule.
Finally, from what people have been telling me, I think GSN's BEST programming move in terms of the classics would be to put on \"The Price is Right.\" That's it. That's all my mom liked to watch on there, and it's the most familiar game show to everybody I know. While it may not be in GSN's best interests right now, it should be one of their top priorities if they are leaning toward improving their classics collection.
Well, I guess that's it from me. A month away from this board certainly does give you a lot to say!
Anthony