The Game Show Forum
The Game Show Forum => The Big Board => Topic started by: TheInquisitiveOne on December 30, 2003, 09:09:40 PM
-
Good evening everyone!
According to Steve Beverly, the AARP has grown fed up with ad-hungry execs aiming for the 18-49 demographic and has hired a veteran programming executive to help create shows for those over 50.
I say it's about damn time. I am 22, but I definitely do not enjoy what these networks throw at me nowadays. Besides, I get more enjoyment from an 80-year old man than from two perfect vacuums like Paris and Nicole, so that should be proof that the ad execs' theories prove faulty. I am in full support of the AARP's efforts.
I hope I raised an interesting topic to the group, and all opinions are welcome, as always.
The Inquisitive One
-
I support the development of programming for all ages. There has to be some comedy or talk formula which has broader appeal than what demographers say those outside of a bracket would understand. IMHO, we forget that people of all ages enjoy something with a bit of pizazz to it, something off-color, or something topical. These elements are often lacking in entertainment geared to those, say, over 45. Writers throughout the 20th century pushed the envelope for their time; it is sad some people thing those over 29 want nothing new or provocative in nature.
-
So do I.
I'm only 20, and I watch the usual family-friendly game shows such as J!, Wheel, Pyramid, FF, and HS.
As long as it interests everyone, I'll take it.
-
I'll be interested in what kind of research they'll do to come up with these programs. And what kind of shows will they be? Just because it's said that 50+ viewers appreciate classic game shows, they can't give us any old game show and expect us to like it. If it's bad, we'll walk away from it. Same with variety shows, westerns, sitcoms and cop shows. They have to be entertaining - even to a younger crowd. I hope what will come up most in their research is just a preference for more class, less vulgarity, a willingness to accept the fact that people over 50 have value, and try not to constantly trash many of the core beliefs we were raised with. I agree with some of Jim's points - I love Law And Order and 24. I'm willing to enter some areas past the age of the black and white sitcom into things more provocative, providing you don't insult my intelligence and not push the envelope just to show off.
-
Here are five words that tell me that advertisers' mandate to draw young adult viewers has gone too far:
My Big Fat Obnoxious Fiancee!
Yes, I know it's my money they're after, but I watch by far the least TV at my house. My mother and uncle are both over 50, but they do have disposable income. They'd definitely take a stand.
-
[quote name=\'GS Warehouse\' date=\'Dec 31 2003, 12:14 AM\'] Here are five words that tell me that advertisers' mandate to draw young adult viewers has gone too far:
My Big Fat Obnoxious Fiancee!
Yes, I know it's my money they're after, but I watch by far the least TV at my house. My mother and uncle are both over 50, but they do have disposable income. They'd definitely take a stand. [/quote]
FOX=lowest common denominator television*
*exceptions include their primetime cartoons, Greed, Married With Children, Bernie Mac, and football
ObGameShow: FOX used to air Greed, remember?
-
[quote name=\'fostergray82\' date=\'Dec 31 2003, 12:17 AM\'] ObGameShow: FOX used to air Greed, remember? [/quote]
Did Chuck Woolery put a curse on Fox when they cancelled Greed? Not one Friday show since then got the ratings Greed had, and Wanda at Large (now cancelled) and Boston Public combined for fewer viewers!
-
[quote name=\'GS Warehouse\' date=\'Dec 30 2003, 09:23 PM\']Did Chuck Woolery put a curse on Fox when they cancelled Greed? Not one Friday show since then got the ratings Greed had, and Wanda at Large (now cancelled) and Boston Public combined for fewer viewers![/quote]
No wonder Boston Public has such few viewers; putting it on Fridays was probably the 2nd stupidest scheduling mistake FOX has ever made (canceling Greed being #1). Hell, FOX may as well surrender Friday nights back to the affiliates at this point...
-
[quote name=\'GS Warehouse\' date=\'Dec 30 2003, 11:14 PM\'] My mother and uncle are both over 50, but they do have disposable income. They'd definitely take a stand. [/quote]
The problem isn't a failure to recognize that the Elders have money. The problem is that, on average, advertising isn't very effective in getting them to change their purchasing habits. As comedian John Hansen noted, "I can't even get my parents to change their brand of toothpaste!" It does appear to be effective for age-specific products (MedicAlert) and services (life insurance), however.
-
Here are five words that tell me that advertisers' mandate to draw young adult viewers has gone too far:
My Big Fat Obnoxious Fiancee!
I honestly thought you were making that up, but I read the article at Yahoo just now.
This is exactly what I am talking about and why I am in support of AARP's efforts. Instead of asking us what they want, they're telling us what they want. These networks continue to crank out the same garbage beacuse they are too chicken to pony up money for producation costs and writers to conceive some DECENT television.
This is where I have to give CBS credit. Yes, I despise Survivor and Big Brother, but they use what they already have to make decent television. Couple that with homogenized, narrow-minded television, and The Price is Right is once again a primetime hit.
And network execs are sitting in their offices and scratching their heads, wondering why their ratings and ad dollars continue to go down among their coveted demographic. Idiots.
The Inquisitive One
(By the way, even though they have been falling off as of late, The Simpsons still makes for what is still good on FOX.)
-
[quote name=\'TheInquisitiveOne\' date=\'Dec 31 2003, 01:06 AM\'] This is exactly what I am talking about and why I am in support of AARP's efforts. Instead of asking us what they want, they're telling us what they want. [/quote]
But through their lobbying, isn't the AARP telling you what you want, too?
-
[quote name=\'clemon79\' date=\'Dec 31 2003, 12:30 AM\'][quote name=\'TheInquisitiveOne\' date=\'Dec 31 2003, 01:06 AM\'] This is exactly what I am talking about and why I am in support of AARP's efforts. Instead of asking us what they want, they're telling us what they want. [/quote]
But through their lobbying, isn't the AARP telling you what you want, too?[/quote]
The AARP doesn't make programming decisions.
-
[quote name=\'chris319\' date=\'Dec 31 2003, 04:09 AM\'] The AARP doesn't make programming decisions. [/quote]
Granted. But I'm not sure I want the AARP representing my interests to TV Land, either.
-
If I hadn't of edited my earlier post, it would have been a two-hour read. Chris and Jay both touch on thoughts I had earlier, too. Any bully group, be it Democrats or Republicans, People For The American Way or the AARP, will try to make things 100% their way as much as possible, and it will lead to more fractionizing and dissent. Having worked at a few adult standards radio stations, the biggest thing killing them off is advertisers' narrow thinking that people past a certain age group can not be persuaded to change their habits. I disagree. Everybody has ego buttons that can be pushed if done the right way. Seniors have computers, cell phones, can be led to certain fashion choices, and so on. The most important things are to reach them at their level, treat them with honesty, and show them the benefits. Seniors want security, ease, health, and respect. You could change some of their buying habits if the same toothpaste that promises a sexy smile for the young also makes teeth stronger or helps take away years of coffee stains and nicotine for the not-as-young. The percentages of senior buyers changing brands may be smaller, but why throw those sales away?
-
[quote name=\'fostergray82\' date=\'Dec 31 2003, 12:17 AM\'] [quote name=\'GS Warehouse\' date=\'Dec 31 2003, 12:14 AM\'] Here are five words that tell me that advertisers' mandate to draw young adult viewers has gone too far:
My Big Fat Obnoxious Fiancee!
Yes, I know it's my money they're after, but I watch by far the least TV at my house. My mother and uncle are both over 50, but they do have disposable income. They'd definitely take a stand. [/quote]
FOX=lowest common denominator television*
*exceptions include their primetime cartoons, Greed, Married With Children, Bernie Mac, and football
ObGameShow: FOX used to air Greed, remember? [/quote]
I'll reuse my line:
"Fox! Seventeen years, and we still haven't hit the bottom of the barrel!"
Honestly, I don't watch the network other than for football (for some reason I've never gotten into The Simpsons, even though it's a fine program), and the constant background clatter gets to me after awhile. (Heck, I miss Ray Scott, Curt Gowdy, and Pat Summerall doing play-by-play, so you know where I'm coming from.)
Dumping Greed was, if I remember correctly, a knee-jerk decision after It's Your Chance of a Lifetime tanked, and clearly one they should have thought through.
-
Dumping Greed was, if I remember correctly, a knee-jerk decision after It's Your Chance of a Lifetime tanked, and clearly one they should have thought through.
Do you think Greed would have worn out it's welcome by now if it were still on?
-
[quote name=\'cmjb13\' date=\'Dec 31 2003, 11:01 AM\'] Do you think Greed would have worn out it's welcome by now if it were still on? [/quote]
Quite possibly. But I'm guessing it had at least another year or two of good drawing power to go before being unceremoniously dumped.
-
What we have here is the decisions of the Boomers coming back to haunt them.
When Leonard Goldenson decided to pitch ABC to advertisers based on demographics, he still believed in a mass appeal, broad-audience television network model, since along with "The Dating Game" and "Batman" he still had Lawrence Welk. Demographics made what-was-then a weaker network with a weaker station lineup more of an attractive sale and also gave his network a programming distinction over CBS and NBC.
What I don't think Goldenson had in mind was younger demos becoming the *only* drawing card for advertisers. We also had the ad agencies restructured so that the media buying decisions that used to be made by the more senior employees in the agency were now made by the newer employees, who simply didn't understand the appeal of older-skewing shows. And let's face it--as the Boomers took over the power in media during the 70s and 80s, they thought that their generation was going to be the power generation in *everything* for the rest of their lives--and then got the biggest rebuff they could imagine when the advertisers dumped them like a wet blanket for the much smaller group of Gen-Xers. (Now, the Gen-Xers are getting the same treatment as the ad community starts salivating for Gen-Yers.)
And the one problem game shows still have with advertisers that *are* interested in older demos is that the game show audience is considered much lower income than, say, the A&E/HGTV/Food Network audience that does attract advertising despite their older demos. Remember that "Coca-Cola Refreshing Filmmaker" movie ad with the fat housewife in the robe and bunny slippers nibbling on bons-bons in a trailer home taping a game show and playing it back to her son to make it look like she knew all of the answers? That's what the ad community sees as game show fans--and they're not going to pitch Caddys, Infinitis, office computer systems or stock brokerage firms on GSN for that very reason.
And need I point out that the networks tried to go the relatively high road this past fall and do mostly-scripted programming--and that their key demos went way south as a result. That's why you're going to be seeing more unscripted shows in the relationship genre in mid-season--and they aren't going away or being replaced by studio game shows any time soon. We need another "WWTBAM"--and three "TPIR" specials every six months isn't that.
-
[quote name=\'cmjb13\' date=\'Dec 31 2003, 10:01 AM\']
Dumping Greed was, if I remember correctly, a knee-jerk decision after It's Your Chance of a Lifetime tanked, and clearly one they should have thought through.
Do you think Greed would have worn out it's welcome by now if it were still on? [/quote]
I think cancelling Greed just because of IYCOAL's poor performance was a horrible idea.
I mean, would Greed's cancellation have that same effect on the performance of another short-lived Fox game show called The Chamber?
-
I mean, would Greed's cancellation have that same effect on the performance of another short-lived Fox game show called The Chamber?
The Chamber just sucked of its own accord...nothing but a basic Q&A game w/the added dangers of extreme cold/heat.
Chuck Donegan (The Illustrious "Chuckie Baby")
-
[quote name=\'cmjb13\' date=\'Dec 31 2003, 08:01 AM\']
Dumping Greed was, if I remember correctly, a knee-jerk decision after It's Your Chance of a Lifetime tanked, and clearly one they should have thought through.
Do you think Greed would have worn out it's welcome by now if it were still on?[/quote]
Aw, now you've pushed my Greed button.
Greed should never have been bought. It was a textbook example of weak concept meeting bad execution and nothing more than an expedient way to jump on the prime time quiz bandwagon of 1999. It wasn't quite as bad as Match Game '98 but not by much -- after all, you can only get so much mileage from questions about varieties of Swanson frozen dinners and flavors of Jell-O.
Greed made Mindreaders look like Shakespeare.
-
[quote name=\'chris319\' date=\'Dec 31 2003, 11:37 PM\'] Greed should never have been bought. It was a textbook example of weak concept meeting bad execution and nothing more than an expedient way to jump on the prime time quiz bandwagon of 1999. It wasn't quite as bad as Match Game '98 but not by much -- after all, you can only get so much mileage from questions about varieties of Swanson frozen dinners and flavors of Jell-O.
Greed made Mindreaders look like Shakespeare. [/quote]
I'm with Chris here. Once you base the questions on your big-money quizzer around questions based mostly on popularity polls, you have taken the "knowledge" out of the "general knowledege" part of the equation, and you just have "general". As in, a generally mediocre game show, whose only point of interest is that it was played for a truly sick amount of money. Which for some folks around here, is unfortunately good enough.
-
Great dialogue, guys. Great insight from "Ol Guy" and "uncamark". Thanks for the stimulating reads.
Randy
tvrandywest.com
-
[quote name=\'clemon79\' date=\'Dec 31 2003, 03:30 AM\'] [quote name=\'TheInquisitiveOne\' date=\'Dec 31 2003, 01:06 AM\'] This is exactly what I am talking about and why I am in support of AARP's efforts. Instead of asking us what they want, they're telling us what they want. [/quote]
But through their lobbying, isn't the AARP telling you what you want, too? [/quote]
Not necessarily, but they are another big voice that can tell networks & advertisers that there are too many TV shows now with considerable sexual undertones and/or foul language. There are still some shows that avoid taking that low road and they still get decent ratings.
(i.e. Frasier, Everybody Loves Raymond, Malcom in the Middle, and even 60 Minutes can do episodes that don't stress sex or bad words and they are constantly in the rating's upper echelon.)
-
[quote name=\'clemon79\' date=\'Jan 1 2004, 06:53 AM\'] [quote name=\'chris319\' date=\'Dec 31 2003, 11:37 PM\'] Greed should never have been bought. It was a textbook example of weak concept meeting bad execution and nothing more than an expedient way to jump on the prime time quiz bandwagon of 1999. It wasn't quite as bad as Match Game '98 but not by much -- after all, you can only get so much mileage from questions about varieties of Swanson frozen dinners and flavors of Jell-O.
Greed made Mindreaders look like Shakespeare. [/quote]
I'm with Chris here. Once you base the questions on your big-money quizzer around questions based mostly on popularity polls, you have taken the "knowledge" out of the "general knowledege" part of the equation, and you just have "general". As in, a generally mediocre game show, whose only point of interest is that it was played for a truly sick amount of money. Which for some folks around here, is unfortunately good enough. [/quote]
I agree halfway with you. I think it was a well-constructed game except for the complaint I share, survey/study questions, like the only top-level question I know of. I think it would have been great as a high-concept show: "Which of these countries have produced a United Nations Secretary-General?"
-
If you can dig up a copy of the 10/13/2002 NY Times Sunday Magazine, they had an article entitled "The Myth Of '18-34'" which discusses these issues. I'll have to summarize from memory, since you have to pay to see it online at:
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html...DA90994DA404482 (http://\"http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=FB0C10F73B5F0C708DDDA90994DA404482\")
Here's the abstract:
"Jonathan Dee article questions logic behind higher price paid by advertisers to reach television viewers 18 to 34 years old; says that there are proportionally fewer viewers in this demographic than there used to be, that they have less money than they used to and that it is harder to separate them from that money than ever; notes that people over age of 50, who account for half of all discretionary spending in US and are voracious cultural consumers, are focus of less than 10 percent of advertising; photos (L)"
Some of the other points were:
1. Advertisers pitch to the 18-34 demographic because they believe that they can develop brand loyalty in these consumers. But there isn't a shred of evidence to indicate that's the case.
2. They don't pitch to the older demographic because they don't think they can sway them to change brands. And yet, there's no evidence to indicate that's the case, either.
3. Networks like Fox and the WB survive because they're able to tout their "superior" demographics in the face of lousy ratings. They're fighting hard to promote the '18-34' myth because if advertisers stop believing it, they'll go out of business.
-
"Fox! Seventeen years, and we still haven't hit the bottom of the barrel!"
I'm mighty proud of this one:
"FOX- the network that can always sink just a little bit lower!"
ITSBRY
itsbry@juno.com
-
I may believe there's still a little something to instilling positive reactions to brands in the young. It's probably a lot harder today because of multiple sponsorships of shows, but one thing that still influiences me today is that some of the shows I watched when I was younger, like Strike It Rich, were 100% sponsored by Colgate. Colgate was a game-friendly sponsor for many years (Dotto, Big Payoff, Top Dollar, Stump The Stars), and in appreciation, I buy with Colgate in mind. Maybe there are some other hooks and reasons only a shrink could dig up, but I remember they supported a lot of shows I liked when I was young, so I support them when I can. Now if I could only get my wife to buy Fab and Palmolive liquid. I wonder what she watched when she was younger..other than her pennies?
-
"FOX- the network that can always sink just a little bit lower!"
With a possible return of Family Guy on the horizon, they may pull themselves up yet. :-)
ObGameShow: You know about FG's countless GS references.
Chuck Donegan (The Illustrious "Chuckie Baby")
-
[quote name=\'fostergray82\' date=\'Dec 30 2003, 11:17 PM\'] FOX=lowest common denominator television [/quote]
The network that snubs Canada by NEVER televising a Toronto Blue Jays game on the Game of the Week. Plus they would ALWAYS go into commercial during the singing of The Canadian National Anthem @ the Baseball All-Star Game.
-
[quote name=\'GSWitch\' date=\'Jan 2 2004, 07:35 PM\'] The network that snubs Canada by NEVER televising a Toronto Blue Jays game on the Game of the Week. [/quote]
There is no Game of the Week per se...Fox's Saturday baseball coverage is all on a regional basis.
-
[quote name=\'trainman\' date=\'Jan 2 2004, 11:37 PM\'] There is no Game of the Week per se...Fox's Saturday baseball coverage is all on a regional basis. [/quote]
I apologize.
Still, just like male contestants on Match Game 7X, they snub Canada!
-
"Fox! Seventeen years, and we still haven't hit the bottom of the barrel!"
"FOX- the network that can always sink just a little bit lower!"
How about this one:
You can't say 'Fox' and 'journalism' in the same sentence without laughing...
JOSH
-
[quote name=\'leszekp\' date=\'Jan 2 2004, 12:38 AM\'] 3. Networks like Fox and the WB survive because they're able to tout their "superior" demographics in the face of lousy ratings. They're fighting hard to promote the '18-34' myth because if advertisers stop believing it, they'll go out of business. [/quote]
To me, this is the most salient point. Network television, at least in its current state, is a house of cards just waiting to tumble as soon as advertisers start realizing that they're not getting their money's worth. The top-rated shows today wouldn't even make the top-thirty fifteen years ago, and might have been cancelled for low ratings if they drew their current numbers back in the seventies. Yet networks continue to extract record amounts of money from advertisers every year. That can't possible last.
-
[quote name=\'GSWitch\' date=\'Jan 3 2004, 05:31 AM\'] [quote name=\'trainman\' date=\'Jan 2 2004, 11:37 PM\'] There is no Game of the Week per se...Fox's Saturday baseball coverage is all on a regional basis. [/quote]
I apologize.
Still, just like male contestants on Match Game 7X, they snub Canada! [/quote]
1) Dude, you have to get past your...never mind.
2) As long as Hockey Night In Canada is on the air, I won't feel too bad about Fox Saturday Baseball not running Jays home games.
(And have you explored the possibility that the reasoning behind this programming decision might be dictated by mandate as opposed to any perceived "snub", since CBC DOES run quite a few weekend Jays games during the season? Perhaps they own the exclusive TV rights, since Fox is carried in much of Canada?)
-
[quote name=\'clemon79\' date=\'Jan 3 2004, 01:26 PM\'] (And have you explored the possibility that the reasoning behind this programming decision might be dictated by mandate as opposed to any perceived "snub", since CBC DOES run quite a few weekend Jays games during the season? Perhaps they own the exclusive TV rights, since Fox is carried in much of Canada?) [/quote]
I don't believe Canadian networks have exclusive rights--consider that ESPN/ESPN2 has aired numerous Blue Jays or Expos games stateside (now whether they're blacked out on ESPN/ESPN2 in Canada I'm not sure--although I don't believe they are). If Fox wants to carry a Blue Jays or an Expos game because either team is contending, that is their prerogative (although if the game were in Toronto or Montreal the start time would likely have to be moved up, which I'm not sure they'd want to do). They've usually avoided televising Canadian teams because those teams haven't been in a pennant race in a long time (not to mention that you only get the one U.S. city's ratings), but if the Blue Jays and NY Yankees are in a crucial late summer series for both teams dollars to doughnuts Fox would find a way to get that game on. And there are a number of U.S. teams that Fox doesn't exactly roll out the welcome wagon for (did somebody say the Tampa Bay Devil Rays, the Detroit Tigers or the Milwaukee Brewers?). The only reason Fox did a Brewers game last year was because of its opposition--the Houston Astros (and Chicago Cubs fans will gladly remember Wes Helms' home run that day that essentially knocked out the Astros out of playoff contention).
Doug
-
[quote name=\'SRIV94\' date=\'Jan 3 2004, 01:42 PM\'] They've usually avoided televising Canadian teams because those teams haven't been in a pennant race in a long time (not to mention that you only get the one U.S. city's ratings), but if the Blue Jays and NY Yankees are in a crucial late summer series for both teams dollars to doughnuts Fox would find a way to get that game on. [/quote]
Point taken. But I think we both agree that the reasoning behind it doesn't have a thing to do with any "snub" against Canada or their people. If the Jays are being slighted on the Fox broadcasts, it's because they suck, not because of their country of origin. :)
-
[quote name=\'clemon79\' date=\'Jan 3 2004, 02:50 PM\'] [quote name=\'SRIV94\' date=\'Jan 3 2004, 01:42 PM\'] They've usually avoided televising Canadian teams because those teams haven't been in a pennant race in a long time (not to mention that you only get the one U.S. city's ratings), but if the Blue Jays and NY Yankees are in a crucial late summer series for both teams dollars to doughnuts Fox would find a way to get that game on. [/quote]
Point taken. But I think we both agree that the reasoning behind it doesn't have a thing to do with any "snub" against Canada or their people. If the Jays are being slighted on the Fox broadcasts, it's because they suck, not because of their country of origin. :) [/quote]
To paraphrase David Letterman: Once again, Chris, you have crystallized my thoughts eloquently. :)
Doug
-
[quote name=\'Matt Ottinger\' date=\'Jan 3 2004, 12:51 PM\'] [quote name=\'leszekp\' date=\'Jan 2 2004, 12:38 AM\'] 3. Networks like Fox and the WB survive because they're able to tout their "superior" demographics in the face of lousy ratings. They're fighting hard to promote the '18-34' myth because if advertisers stop believing it, they'll go out of business. [/quote]
To me, this is the most salient point. Network television, at least in its current state, is a house of cards just waiting to tumble as soon as advertisers start realizing that they're not getting their money's worth. The top-rated shows today wouldn't even make the top-thirty fifteen years ago, and might have been cancelled for low ratings if they drew their current numbers back in the seventies. Yet networks continue to extract record amounts of money from advertisers every year. That can't possible last. [/quote]
Interesting point, but I always presumed that top-rated shows don't get those "super-high" ratings as they would get in decades past is because the of the erosion the viewer-base to the "multichannel universe" of cable and satellite TV.
Could the networks complain about this considering that all of the networks' parent companies have a strong foothold in said universe?
-
Still, just like male contestants on Match Game 7X, they snub Canada!
1) Dude, you have to get past your...never mind.
I have to agree with you, Chris. I mean, since WHEN has MG '7X EVER 'snubbed' male contestants? Recently on MG '75, they had a male contestant named Ron who was on for FIVE DAYS! And won a pretty good amount of cash to boot! I guess this so-called 'mascot' the rest of us have to put up with must have missed out big time.
Cordially,
Tammy Warner--'the Gail Sheldon of the Big Board!' (And I'm forty-one years old, BTW!)
-
[quote name=\'jalman\' date=\'Jan 4 2004, 12:00 AM\'] [quote name=\'Matt Ottinger\' date=\'Jan 3 2004, 12:51 PM\'] [quote name=\'leszekp\' date=\'Jan 2 2004, 12:38 AM\'] 3. Networks like Fox and the WB survive because they're able to tout their "superior" demographics in the face of lousy ratings. They're fighting hard to promote the '18-34' myth because if advertisers stop believing it, they'll go out of business. [/quote]
To me, this is the most salient point. Network television, at least in its current state, is a house of cards just waiting to tumble as soon as advertisers start realizing that they're not getting their money's worth. The top-rated shows today wouldn't even make the top-thirty fifteen years ago, and might have been cancelled for low ratings if they drew their current numbers back in the seventies. Yet networks continue to extract record amounts of money from advertisers every year. That can't possible last. [/quote]
Interesting point, but I always presumed that top-rated shows don't get those "super-high" ratings as they would get in decades past is because the of the erosion the viewer-base to the "multichannel universe" of cable and satellite TV.
Could the networks complain about this considering that all of the networks' parent companies have a strong foothold in said universe? [/quote]
It is true that the ever-growing choices of cable channels play a part in the ratings slide.
Think about this, however (I really hope someone who has some stroke with the FCC is reading this): You can have 500 channels, but they mean squat when you only have 50 choices to choose from. What I mean is... look what's happening to the ABC Family Channel, for example. There were times where I could not tell the difference between the cable channel and the network itself. What was once an enjoyable family channel is now the trash that ABC has become. This is almost what jalman is hinting at.
The few outlets that have been untapped, however, makes television viewers flock away from the networks in droves. The Sopranos is coming back, Family Guy has found its long-sought following, The Artist Formerly Known as GSN will have its following, and TLC is hitting it off with the audience with Trading Spaces. Believe me, it is going to take more than showing a couple of ditzes choosing from a bunch of equally depraved losers in a cattle call to win back the audiences that the execs covet.
I smell a retro revolution coming...
The Inquisitive One
-
[quote name=\'jalman\' date=\'Jan 4 2004, 01:00 AM\'] [quote name=\'Matt Ottinger\' date=\'Jan 3 2004, 12:51 PM\'] The top-rated shows today wouldn't even make the top-thirty fifteen years ago, and might have been cancelled for low ratings if they drew their current numbers back in the seventies. Yet networks continue to extract record amounts of money from advertisers every year. That can't possible last. [/quote]
Interesting point, but I always presumed that top-rated shows don't get those "super-high" ratings as they would get in decades past is because the of the erosion the viewer-base to the "multichannel universe" of cable and satellite TV. [/quote]
There are any number of *reasons* that the ratings slide is happening, but that doesn't change the fact that it is happening. The simple truth is that network TV advertisers today are paying much more than they used to and getting much less in return. The execs can spin and make excuses all they want, but surely at some point the advertisers will have had enough.
-
[quote name=\'Matt Ottinger\' date=\'Jan 4 2004, 07:59 AM\']There are any number of *reasons* that the ratings slide is happening, but that doesn't change the fact that it is happening. The simple truth is that network TV advertisers today are paying much more than they used to and getting much less in return. The execs can spin and make excuses all they want, but surely at some point the advertisers will have had enough.[/quote]
Yes, a 2.0 in syndication just 10 years ago used to put you "on the bubble" of insecurity. Today, a 2.0 is a hit! Cable viewership is about to (if it hasn't already) surpass net viewership. It's a changed world.
Yes Matt, ad agencies are asking for and getting much more than simple spots. Most recently, fears over the DVR commercial-skipping capabilities have kicked all this up a notch. Product placement, sponsorship identification and integrated marketing are on the rise, and networks as well as cable outlets are all too happy to accommodate with perhaps too little attention to how it all impacts the program quality.
While the sponsored clock or tote board on DogEatDog and the logos on the WOF wheel are no more distressing than the Stopette antiperspirant logo on the panel's desk on the 1950s WML, sitcom and dramas now have characters using specific products from electronics gear to soft drinks. It could get messy down the road... Sipowitz on NYPD Blue drinking Hansen's Natural Soda? Or soy milk?? Please kill me first ;-)
I just wonder how the sponsorship identification rules are being interpreted - we have yet to see promo consid disclosures in the credits.
Randy
tvrandywest.com
-
[quote name=\'tvrandywest\' date=\'Jan 4 2004, 10:36 AM\'] I just wonder how the sponsorship identification rules are being interpreted - we have yet to see promo consid disclosures in the credits.
Randy
tvrandywest.com [/quote]
I saw a piece on one of the newsmagazines not too long ago on this subject. The person they interviewed was either trying to get the shows to do it or trying to get the FCC to require it.
At least Smallville, and I assume other shows, runs a plug at the end identifying the artists whose music was used in the episode, either stating or implying that they've paid for this placement. The plugs have the opposite effect, however. Instead of making me like the music more, it makes me like the show's producers less.
-
[quote name=\'tvrandywest\' date=\'Jan 4 2004, 08:36 AM\'] I just wonder how the sponsorship identification rules are being interpreted - we have yet to see promo consid disclosures in the credits. [/quote]
Actually, I'm familiar with at least one example: on "Alias," where everyone uses a Nokia cell phone and drives a Ford Focus, they do indeed have "promotional consideration provided by" credits for Nokia and Ford in the closing credits.
-
[quote name=\'Jay Temple\' date=\'Jan 4 2004, 05:18 PM\'] At least Smallville, and I assume other shows, runs a plug at the end identifying the artists whose music was used in the episode, either stating or implying that they've paid for this placement. The plugs have the opposite effect, however. Instead of making me like the music more, it makes me like the show's producers less. [/quote]
FOX has done that for sometime as well. I remember seeing it in the mid-90s for Melrose Place and 90210. Not that I watched either show. :-P And I'm with you about it being a turnoff, although it might be for different reasons.
ObGameShow: OK, so I *did* watch the Jeopardy episode of 90210.
-
[quote name=\'fostergray82\' date=\'Jan 4 2004, 10:55 PM\']
ObGameShow: OK, so I *did* watch the Jeopardy episode of 90210.[/quote]
Ditto. I think the only time I ever watched 90210 during its original run was when that very episode first aired.
-
[quote name=\'Thad Dixon\' date=\'Jan 4 2004, 09:15 PM\'] [quote name=\'fostergray82\' date=\'Jan 4 2004, 10:55 PM\']
ObGameShow: OK, so I *did* watch the Jeopardy episode of 90210.[/quote]
Ditto. I think the only time I ever watched 90210 during its original run was when that very episode first aired. [/quote]
Yeah, and nobody voted for Dick Nixon, either. ;)
-
sitcom and dramas now have characters using specific products from electronics gear to soft drinks. It could get messy down the road... Sipowitz on NYPD Blue drinking Hansen's Natural Soda? Or soy milk?? Please kill me first ;-)
This from a man who describes Libman mops on TV for a living :-)
Don't forget the incident that inspired the classic quote, "Hey Todman, you dropped your script!".
-
[quote name=\'chris319\' date=\'Jan 5 2004, 01:51 PM\']
sitcom and dramas now have characters using specific products from electronics gear to soft drinks. It could get messy down the road... Sipowitz on NYPD Blue drinking Hansen's Natural Soda? Or soy milk?? Please kill me first ;-)
This from a man who describes Libman mops on TV for a living :-) [/quote]
Proudly, I may add!
Don't forget the incident that inspired the classic quote, "Hey Todman, you dropped your script!".
Please remind me.
Randy
tvrandywest.com
-
[quote name=\'tvrandywest\' date=\'Jan 5 2004, 05:21 PM\']
Don't forget the incident that inspired the classic quote, "Hey Todman, you dropped your script!".
Please remind me.[/quote]
"Radio wit" Goodman Ace (indirect creator of "The Trouble with Tracy," for the Canadians in the group) is standing in the hall at CBS. Todman's walking down the hall, his arms filled with prizes for radio "Winner Take All." A toaster falls off the top of the pile and shatters on the floor. Ace looks over at Todman and says, "Hey, Todman, drop your script?"
-
[quote name=\'uncamark\' date=\'Jan 5 2004, 02:24 PM\'] "Radio wit" Goodman Ace (indirect creator of "The Trouble with Tracy," for the Canadians in the group) is standing in the hall at CBS. Todman's walking down the hall, his arms filled with prizes for radio "Winner Take All." A toaster falls off the top of the pile and shatters on the floor. Ace looks over at Todman and says, "Hey, Todman, drop your script?" [/quote]
Love it... Thanks!
And as the topic involves "elders", I'll return the favor with a quip from Gene Rayburn which has its roots going back over 70 years:
Soon after the RCA Building at 30 Rock was opened Gene and Dave Garroway were among the NBC pages. They shared a biting, sarcastic sense of humor, and as minimum wage employees were particularly resentful of General Sarnoff's son, not far from their own age, being named to lofty titles with lofty salaries and sporting a lofty attitude. Gene and Dave felt they had far more potential talent as broadcasters than that punk Robert Sarnoff.
They bastardized the title of the still very popular Hemingway novel in referring to young Sarnoff as the subject of the book "The SON also Rises". One day Robert heard them make the quip, spun around, and they all stared at each other for an uncomfortable long moment. Gene said he was sure he would be fired within hours!
Randy
tvrandywest.com