-
Any thoughts on the Ian Valentine era on GSN? From just about a year ago untill now I thought the network had the right combination of alternate programming for new viewers while keeping game show fans happy.
-
[quote name=\'PaulD\' date=\'Mar 7 2006, 08:29 AM\']Any thoughts on the Ian Valentine era on GSN? From just about a year ago untill now I thought the network had the right combination of alternate programming for new viewers while keeping game show fans happy.
[snapback]112120[/snapback]
[/quote]
Valentine is a man who learned from his mistakes, and those of he who preceded him. He brought the focus back around to traditional game shows (particularly "Millionaire" and "Match Game") while including enough non-trad programming (the casino shows, the sometimes-interesting "Anything To Win") to keep people from totally tuning out.
The next programming manager has to realize the value of the library that GSN has access to and better exploit it. Extreme example: they've got a thousand episodes of "Street Smarts" and it only airs, what, three times a week? Meantime, "Greed" is on its umpteenth run.
-
I'm going to sound like a curmudgeon, but the casino shows, "Anything to Win," etc. were and are a total turn-off to me personally and I've found my game show ha8er friends didn't like them either. They are chasing an audience that cannot be caught.
My suggestion is library product in the daytime, new mid-budget proscenium style shows at night. I'm talking about remakes of concepts they already own, such as "Eye Guess," "Chain Reaction," "Go," etc. To the average viewer they will be new concepts. Maybe contract with Ron Greenberg and revive "The Big Showdown" or "Who What or Where?"
I don't mind that "Street Smarts" is relegated to overnight. It is such an infuriating show to me that I'd rather watch the 17 millionth run of "Greed."
-
[quote name=\'Jimmy Owen\' date=\'Mar 7 2006, 05:51 PM\']I'm going to sound like a curmudgeon, but the casino shows, "Anything to Win," etc. were and are a total turn-off to me personally and I've found my game show ha8er friends didn't like them either. They are chasing an audience that cannot be caught.[/quote]
I see Anything to Win as a noble failure. I actually thought the idea looked good on paper, I thought the shows I saw were well done, and it might have gained more attention on a different network.
I totally agree wth that last statement, though. GSN, under whatever name they want to call it (or not call it) is always going to be perceived as a network with game shows on it, and anything else is going to run counter to that concept. They're never going to capture a hip, young audience, and they're wasting tons of money trying. Game shows can be done cheaply; there should be more original programming on GSN than on any other entertainment cable network out there.
-
I suppose it's a matter of "be happy with the audience you have" rather than "let's try to increase it at the risk of offending those who were here before." Unfortunately, as the number of channels owned by large media companies increases, all are judged by the bottom line more than programming. So networks with a niche that is probably mature and can't be grown - I'm thinking the old Nashville Network and VH1, as well as GSN - are transformed into "anything goes" channels that try to catch the eye of anybody with a clicker in his/her hand. That's one way to build a short-term audience, but I think we're starting to see the damage it can cause. We might turn to, say, VH! for something that catches our eye, but do we stay?
And that's what GSN faces. I don't think the viewer of a documentary on Tonya Harding or the Soap Box Derby is going to come back for Greed reruns, or vice versa.
(And by the way - it seems like about the only thing I ever see in the public prints about GSN is somebody who says they love watching the old What's My Lines at 3 a.m. Which tells you something.)
-
[quote name=\'Matt Ottinger\' date=\'Mar 7 2006, 04:59 PM\']Game shows can be done cheaply; there should be more original programming on GSN than on any other entertainment cable network out there.
[snapback]112138[/snapback]
[/quote]
I think the problem was the quality & amount of original programming that was aired. The majority of their original programming was pretty bad. And programming that was good (even bad), didn't have enough shows to sustain a schedule that didn't lead to immediate rerun abuse. Then again, maybe the general public doesn't notice stuff like that. Going forward it would be nice to see a balance between quality & quantity.
Wasn't the structure at GSN over the years was that production companies had to pitch & pay GSN to air their shows rather than vice versa?
-
[quote name=\'Matt Ottinger\' date=\'Mar 7 2006, 05:59 PM\']I see Anything to Win as a noble failure.
[snapback]112138[/snapback]
[/quote]
It didn't help that several of the documentaries had nothing to do with games at all. As much as I liked the DeLorean, GSN was the wrong place to put a documentary about its creator.
GSN, under whatever name they want to call it (or not call it) is always going to be perceived as a network with game shows on it, and anything else is going to run counter to that concept.
[snapback]112138[/snapback]
Nail. On. Head. Any of my friends and associates still refer to it as "Game Show Network," and these are people who never watch GSN.
-
The next programming manager has to realize the value of the library that GSN has access to and better exploit it. Extreme example: they've got a thousand episodes of "Street Smarts" and it only airs, what, three times a week? Meantime, "Greed" is on its umpteenth run.
While I like the idea of more library product :) , it seems that in GSN's eyes, so much of it is unusable. It probably means there won't be that much more variety than we're getting now anytime in the near future. I do agree that they should run shows like "Street Smarts" more - not because I'm a huge fan of the show (which I'm not) but since they've spent the money to acquire all those episodes, they might as well run them.
-
Has anyone thought to make new product, maybe even to the point of making it all original, even if it's all remakes of previous shows?
(yes I know it's a long winded question.)
-
[quote name=\'PYLclark86\' date=\'Mar 7 2006, 06:09 PM\']Nail. On. Head. Any of my friends and associates still refer to it as "Game Show Network," and these are people who never watch GSN.
[/quote]
Exactly. When I asked my cable company (in a letter) to drop RFD-TV, and add GSN, the response was:
"Thank you for your request for Game Show Network..."
-
[quote name=\'Modor\' date=\'Mar 8 2006, 11:18 PM\']Exactly. When I asked my cable company (in a letter) to drop RFD-TV, [/quote]
You got a problem with Porter Wagoner reruns?
-
[quote name=\'Matt Ottinger\' date=\'Mar 8 2006, 07:45 PM\'][quote name=\'Modor\' date=\'Mar 8 2006, 11:18 PM\']Exactly. When I asked my cable company (in a letter) to drop RFD-TV, [/quote]
You got a problem with Porter Wagoner reruns?
[snapback]112273[/snapback]
[/quote]
Or shows about trains?
-
[quote name=\'trainman\' date=\'Mar 9 2006, 12:34 AM\'][quote name=\'Matt Ottinger\' date=\'Mar 8 2006, 07:45 PM\'][quote name=\'Modor\' date=\'Mar 8 2006, 11:18 PM\']Exactly. When I asked my cable company (in a letter) to drop RFD-TV, [/quote]
You got a problem with Porter Wagoner reruns?[/quote]
Or shows about trains?[/quote]
Who gives a flying fig about trains? It's the Australian rodeos that really draw the viewers.
-
[quote name=\'Matt Ottinger\' date=\'Mar 8 2006, 11:42 PM\']It's the Australian rodeos that really draw the viewers.
[snapback]112279[/snapback]
[/quote]
Pat O'Brien could host while topless. I'm thinkin' of the demo, people.
NOW! Could Now You See It be revived on the cheap? Certainly.
I still don't understand why Hollywood Showdown was discontinued. Plus, since they produced a third season of shows (which was news to me when Todd Newton came right out and said so last summer), why don't they run 'em?
-
I was honestly thinking either Hit Man or Top Secret, two shows that I think didnt't get a fair shot. Both could fit into GSN's budget. Both Jay Wolpert and Wink Martindale have done cable shows before.
-
Why not just slap the title "Network Show Rejects" on them?
From reading descriptions of both games; playing Hit Man online, and having the home game for Top Secret, I can't say either of these series would be very compelling.
I know some find the show a bit tacky, but I think that Supermarket Sweep would be the best pickup they could make--the show has a following, and the name is more recognizable than a 13-week flop or a pilot that never was.
-
I was honestly thinking either Hit Man or Top Secret, two shows that I think didnt't get a fair shot.
Hit Man would likely be a more expensive show than GSN would ever be willing to do. If they did it the exact same way the original was done, it would cost a fair bit of money to license all the stuff that they'd have to use in the film clips. Besides, I'd imagine this was a fairly complicated show to mount. GSN's probably looking for something much simpler.
-
[quote name=\'Ian Wallis\' date=\'Mar 10 2006, 09:05 AM\']Hit Man would likely be a more expensive show than GSN would ever be willing to do. If they did it the exact same way the original was done, it would cost a fair bit of money to license all the stuff that they'd have to use in the film clips. Besides, I'd imagine this was a fairly complicated show to mount. GSN's probably looking for something much simpler.
[snapback]112380[/snapback]
[/quote]
I think GSN's problems just prove that you can't trust guys named Ian. ;-)
Seriously, I can only imagine some of the mini-documentaries they might try to do on the cheap. "The History of Extreme Gong," anyone?
-
They could repurpose old "Anything to Win" shows for a new "Hit Man." Peter: "Today we're gonna learn everything about (Johnnie Cochran, Tonya Harding, John DeLorean, etc.)"
-
Here's why Hit Man could not be made to work in today's gameshow climate. I'm afraid today's pool of potential contestants (i.e. the good-looking one's that get through the casting sessions) couldn't possibly remember or draw from their own limited intelligence the facts needed to make the Q&A rounds in Hit Man click. The producers would have to really dumb-down an already low-level memory game just to avoid the embarrassment of several contestants not answering a simple recollection of something they saw two minutes before. Heck, even if you forced the contestants to watch all the Anything to Win documentaries during pre-production sessions before they see another videotaped piece about them on-air I seriously think few of them would make it.
Of course this problem could be solved if the contestant coordinators were allowed to choose the sharpest and/or most likable contestants beyond[/u] the 18-35 age limitation that GSN imposed on the last production cycle of Lingo. This resulted in some pretty dumb contestants getting on the show just because they looked right, not because they knew how to play the game well. Hit Man requires contestants that can quickly recollect just-seen info, and that's something not every 18-35 contestant can do.
-
[quote name=\'Modor\' date=\'Mar 10 2006, 02:38 AM\']From reading descriptions of both games; playing Hit Man online,
[/quote]
Okay, so your basing your assessment of Hit Man based solely on reading a synopsis and playing a netgame, and not on actually, oh, I don't know, ever having seen it?
That's up there with Adam Kleist citing a "moment" that in fact never ended up even happening as one of the top moments for the year.
Yes, I'm comparing you to Adam Kleist.
-
[quote name=\'Modor\' date=\'Mar 10 2006, 04:38 AM\']Why not just slap the title "Network Show Rejects" on them?
From reading descriptions of both games; playing Hit Man online, and having the home game for Top Secret, I can't say either of these series would be very compelling.
I know some find the show a bit tacky, but I think that Supermarket Sweep would be the best pickup they could make--the show has a following, and the name is more recognizable than a 13-week flop or a pilot that never was.
[snapback]112369[/snapback]
[/quote]
And even though I'm no fan of the show, I agree with you--why someone at GSN hasn't made the phone call to Al Howard after Pax crashed and burned is beyond me. It seems to be one of those no-brainers.
-
[quote name=\'clemon79\' date=\'Mar 10 2006, 12:27 PM\'][quote name=\'Modor\' date=\'Mar 10 2006, 02:38 AM\']From reading descriptions of both games; playing Hit Man online,
[/quote]
Okay, so your basing your assessment of Hit Man based solely on reading a synopsis and playing a netgame, and not on actually, oh, I don't know, ever having seen it?
That's up there with Adam Kleist citing a "moment" that in fact never ended up even happening as one of the top moments for the year.
Yes, I'm comparing you to Adam Kleist.
[snapback]112393[/snapback]
[/quote]
Talk about sour grapes......man.
[quote name=\'uncamark\' date=\'Mar 10 2006, 04:32 PM\']And even though I'm no fan of the show, I agree with you--why someone at GSN hasn't made the phone call to Al Howard after Pax crashed and burned is beyond me. It seems to be one of those no-brainers.
[snapback]112420[/snapback]
[/quote]
All GSN cares about anymore, is ratings. I don't see why they don't go snag reruns for Supermarket Sweep anyway. It's not like they would ever go snag STYD or something.
(EDIT: I was half-asleep when I posted this last night. Wow.)
-
[quote name=\'dad1153\' date=\'Mar 10 2006, 12:09 PM\']...Heck, even if you forced the contestants to watch all the Anything to Win documentaries during pre-production sessions ....
[snapback]112390[/snapback]
[/quote]
It's the All-New Cram!
-
[quote name=\'cacLA8383\' date=\'Mar 11 2006, 12:57 AM\']Those no-brains at GSN all care about ratings, anymore.[/quote]
You have either made a typo, or you have a curious insight into what people who run a struggling, niche cable channel should care about.
-
[quote name=\'Robert Hutchinson\' date=\'Mar 11 2006, 01:12 PM\'][quote name=\'cacLA8383\' date=\'Mar 11 2006, 12:57 AM\']Those no-brains at GSN all care about ratings, anymore.[/quote]
You have either made a typo, or you have a curious insight into what people who run a struggling, niche cable channel should care about.
[snapback]112491[/snapback]
[/quote]
Definitely a typo. Edited the post to sort of make more sense. That's what happens when you work all day and night, people. Your brain just doesn't work right anymore at the end of your day. :-P
-
On Thursday, I housesat for my parents, and spent some quality time with GSN. In all, I saw Super Password, Card Sharks, Lingo, Match Game, Weakest Link and Family Feud, since I don't normally get a chance to watch GSN during the daytime.
I don't see why GSN can't keep doing what they're doing. Run the older library stuff during the daytime, and do new or marquee stuff in the evening. I'm not convinced that it's the end of the world for the network.
-
Here's a few million put to good use. GSN's only having TAR on Saturdays now, with Tuesday/Wednesday being taken by the 10,000,000th rerun of Greed, Thursday/Friday having syndie Weakest Link, and Sunday the 10,000,001st rerun of Dog Eat Dog. $6,000,000 for once a week. There goes the budget for some shows that deserved it, like BallBreakers or RR or basically anything else. I really think GSN needs to think about reviving one or more of TAR's replacements. If they are still getting good ratings even though how much they are abused, I think that one of those should have been done instead of I've Got A Secret which will be a tossup in terms of success.
-
[quote name=\'cacLA8383\' date=\'Mar 11 2006, 11:53 PM\']Definitely a typo.[/quote]
Well, all right. But what I was actually wondering was what, besides ratings, should the folks at GSN be worried about?
-
[quote name=\'Robert Hutchinson\' date=\'Mar 12 2006, 02:18 PM\'][quote name=\'cacLA8383\' date=\'Mar 11 2006, 11:53 PM\']Definitely a typo.[/quote]
Well, all right. But what I was actually wondering was what, besides ratings, should the folks at GSN be worried about?
[snapback]112547[/snapback]
[/quote]
Perhaps losing the GT library? When is that next up for renewal?
-
[quote name=\'zachhoran\' date=\'Mar 12 2006, 07:14 PM\'][quote name=\'Robert Hutchinson\' date=\'Mar 12 2006, 02:18 PM\'][quote name=\'cacLA8383\' date=\'Mar 11 2006, 11:53 PM\']Definitely a typo.[/quote]
Well, all right. But what I was actually wondering was what, besides ratings, should the folks at GSN be worried about?
[snapback]112547[/snapback]
[/quote]
Perhaps losing the GT library? When is that next up for renewal?
[snapback]112585[/snapback]
[/quote]
I wish they wouldn't renew it. Maybe then we could see some variety in programming. But with Match Game & Feud doing well, I don't see that happening.
-
What seems crazy to me is that we hear "Lingo" is one of their better performers, renewed many more times than their other originals, yet they still haven't put anything else on that resembles it--a genteel, play-along word game.
That said, I don't think they're that far off the mark. Blackjack hasn't killed off Match Game. They've admitted the appeal of traditional shows. They'll quit running Greed sometime. They just need a hit.
-
[quote name=\'Neumms\' date=\'Mar 14 2006, 10:44 AM\']yet they still haven't put anything else on that resembles it--a genteel, play-along word game.[/quote]
*coughDefinitioncough*
Man, I've gotta do something about this cold....
-
[quote name=\'Neumms\' date=\'Mar 14 2006, 02:44 PM\']What seems crazy to me is that we hear "Lingo" is one of their better performers, renewed many more times than their other originals, yet they still haven't put anything else on that resembles it--a genteel, play-along word game. [/quote]
Yep, and the sad thing is that the powers-that-be probably think that the appeal of the show is either their young, attractive contestants or their retro-cool host, and not the addictive game itself.
-
[quote name=\'Matt Ottinger\' date=\'Mar 14 2006, 02:47 PM\']Yep, and the sad thing is that the powers-that-be probably think that the appeal of the show is either their young, attractive contestants or their retro-cool host, and not the addictive game itself.
[snapback]112898[/snapback]
[/quote]
That must be it. Given the chance I have to see GSN, I'll stop on "Lingo." It's certainly not for the game mechanics (scoring points for words and lingos? Bingo balls? Blech), but there MUST be some reason I keep going back. I doubt Chuck is doing more than reading the cards and scoreboard, which is sad because I've seen him do so much more.
When we have Lingo-Definition-Countdown as an early evening block, I will put up the money for cable and TiVo (or equivalent). Up until then, Lingo is a 'I'll stop on it if I catch it, but not appointment TV'.