Author Topic: The Elders Strike Back (Read 12777 times)

trainman · « **Reply #30 on:** January 03, 2004, 12:37:49 AM »

[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.

GSWitch · « **Reply #31 on:** January 03, 2004, 07:31:01 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!

joshg · « **Reply #32 on:** January 03, 2004, 07:37:49 AM »

Quote

"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

Matt Ottinger · « **Reply #33 on:** January 03, 2004, 12:51:36 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.

clemon79 · « **Reply #34 on:** January 03, 2004, 02:26:52 PM »

[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?)

SRIV94 · « **Reply #35 on:** January 03, 2004, 03:42:03 PM »

[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

clemon79 · « **Reply #36 on:** January 03, 2004, 03:50:18 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.

SRIV94 · « **Reply #37 on:** January 03, 2004, 03:54:59 PM »

[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

jalman · « **Reply #38 on:** January 04, 2004, 12:00:10 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?

Winkfan · « **Reply #39 on:** January 04, 2004, 12:26:25 AM »

Quote from: johnnya2k3 on January 16, 2004, 12:06:03 AM

Quote from: GSWitch on January 03, 2004, 07:31:01 AM
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!)

TheInquisitiveOne · « **Reply #40 on:** January 04, 2004, 01:12:11 AM »

[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

Matt Ottinger · « **Reply #41 on:** January 04, 2004, 10:59:10 AM »

[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.

tvrandywest · « **Reply #42 on:** January 04, 2004, 11:36:49 AM »

[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

Jay Temple · « **Reply #43 on:** January 04, 2004, 05:18:37 PM »

[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.

trainman · « **Reply #44 on:** January 04, 2004, 09:45:41 PM »

[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.