More on the May sweeps meltdown
Cory Bergman May 26th, 2008
Scott Collins writes in the LA Times that the May sweeps disaster “is beginning to look like a signal moment in the slow, painful meltdown of the broadcast TV industry.” He goes on:
“Broadcasting, simply put, isn’t casting broadly anymore. As the sweep suggests, the TV networks are losing not just their viewers but also their sense of specialness. They’re becoming just the lowest numbers on the multichannel dial, rather than the last outposts of mass culture. It’s true that this evolution has been happening for years, but this year a tipping point was reached, a Rubicon crossed. Broadcast exceptionalism — its supposed immunity from the market forces afflicting all other media — is finally dead.”
19 Comments Add your own
1. Andy | May 26th, 2008 at 11:15 am
Let’s just call a spade a spade. American television has been bad for close to a decade now. We have over 200 networks in this country, and programming is exceptionally bad on most of those channels. The broadcast networks lost their upper hand when they fell onto the reality bandwagon.
The sad thing is those, many of those shows get decent ratings, and the rest of us who actually have a brain, are left with absolutely nothing to watch.
2. Allen | May 26th, 2008 at 11:56 am
I don’t suspect the broadcast TV industry will ever see a positive article from newspapers anymore. We are their competition for ad dollars.
3. Tom Planchet | May 26th, 2008 at 11:56 am
Totally agree. I also think that while many major networks can put their fingers in the dike for a while, there really isn’t much they can do about the status quo. With the speciality due to the large spectrum of channels, no network will be able to be everything - news, sports, money, weather…any more.
Weather channel beats any major network on weather coverage, ESPN beats them on sports, CNBC on business, Food network on Food, E on celebs, etc…HBO is even doing a good job of beating them on original programming.
The chance, as I see it, for major networks is to partner with, get into or own as many of the subnetworks as they can (example NBC with CNBC, MSNBC or ABC with ESPN).
The only advantage the networks ever had was because of low cable/and or satellite penetration and that is going away. The ratings for cable shows and events like playoff basketball, High School Musical, The Closer, show that ‘cable’ is no longer a barrier to having a successful show.
4. Joe G. | May 26th, 2008 at 1:50 pm
In the 20 years I worked in local TV, not once did we ever stop to consider that maybe the approach we were taking to local news was wrong, that maybe viewers were telling us something, that the content was off-putting. There was never a suggestion that the next time we do research, we shouldn’t screen for two-day-a-week news viewers 25-54, but instead research the ones who don’t watch. And I’d be willing to wager that there is absolutely no self-reflection going on at any TV station in America right now. Just lots of recrimination and excuses.
5. John | May 26th, 2008 at 5:36 pm
Off-putting? Is that even a word? Sure, local TV is losing audience share, but I beleive it is far from dead.
6. wren | May 26th, 2008 at 5:56 pm
doornail.tv
7. Anonymous | May 26th, 2008 at 11:15 pm
I don’t really care, as long as I have the few shows I like, and can download them online. Unfortunately, all the shows I like have had their season finales, so I’m left with waiting for Wait Wait, Don’t Tell Me each weekend.
And people have been saying there’s nothing good on TV since its inception, Andy.
8. re: Andy | May 27th, 2008 at 9:05 am
Dear person with a brain, and all your other brain buddies-
There is plenty of good television out there. You just have to look for it. When you’re older, I’ll teach you how to use the TiVo guide. Also, there’s this thing called HBO … when you’re older.
What have you been doing for the last decade with all this bad TV? Were you able to catch up on your reading, or did you spend the last 10 years posting on the Internets about how you’re above television?
TV is, like, so 10 years ago.
9. Gorman | May 27th, 2008 at 9:15 am
Let’s see… for the past decade or so, we’ve been subjected to every version of crime procedural show or half-cocked reality show. What was heralded as “different” on network TV was actually “borrowed” from the BBC.
10. re: Gorman | May 27th, 2008 at 9:25 am
Do you own cable?
I’m with you anti-TVites when it comes to network TV.
HBO is the tits and cable has anything you could ever want.
11. re:Re | May 27th, 2008 at 12:48 pm
We get it. You like HBO and cable.
I’m not saying there’s nothing on my TiVo to watch. I’m just saying the majority of what the networks air is redundant, lowest-common-denominator crap. Not exactly the same thing.
12. discreet_chaos | May 27th, 2008 at 1:51 pm
They say that network viewing levels never really returned after the ‘88 strike and I assume that cable was the primary beneficiary. This time around, I suspect that “on-demand” was the victor because I know that during the strike, I sampled and sometimes viewed complete seasons of shows that I would’ve not ordinarily watched, or from places that I normally wouldn’t have looked.
Right now and offhand, the only measure that I can suggest to watch would be the online and “on-demand” viewing levels for current shows and past hits.
Otherwise, the strike knocked a big hole in a season that was already being roiled by TiVo and “on-demand”. Not only was there a big period with nothing new to watch on the networks, but several shows didn’t produce any post-strike episodes, so their viewers were left in a lurch until next fall.
The TVWeek article quotes a Fox executive as saying; “There will always be an asterisk next to this season” and yeah, I’d say that’s about right. Though, I wouldn’t hold my breath for over-the-air, time-dictated-by-the-networks viewing to get back to where they were, even as late as last fall.
13. PhotogOnFire | May 28th, 2008 at 12:09 pm
I don’t buy this, “There’s nothing good on TV” crap. I’d argue that the golden age of TV has been happening for the past 10 years or so. Sure you have to look through the hours and hours of mindless garbage to find the gems, but there are by far more quality hours of TV on each week now than there ever was in the 60’s, 70’s or 80’s. Better production, better writing, better acting, better journalism and better documentaries. The networks aren’t dead. Articles like this one are premature and seek only sway advertising dollars to their side of the media fence sooner rather than later. The playing field is leveling out but let’s not be naive, it’s not here yet.
14. re:Re | May 28th, 2008 at 2:02 pm
“Better production, better writing ”
I couldn’t disagree more for 3/4 of the things out there.
Up until perhaps the past 18 months, the majority of shows that had this–that weren’t already tried and tested on places like the BBC–were given the quick hook because of low ratings (often disregarding the fact that they just bounced a show from day to day and time to time).
Only in the past 18 months do you see networks taking “risks,” and that’s basically because cable networks like USA, TNT, HBO were gaining ground with viewers who were sick of crime shows, reality shows, or seeing any new shows they started watching getting unceremoniously yanked from the networks.
Better journalism? You must not watch network morning shows. But I’ll concede that usually the networks’ evening shows are better than cable news.
15. Gorman | May 28th, 2008 at 2:03 pm
I neglected to change my name back.
16. News Consumer | May 28th, 2008 at 5:39 pm
It sounds like some people are confusing the specific point of the article. They aren’t saying that there’s nothing on TV, they’re specifically saying the traditional networks are loosing both their audience and their importance. So they’re talking about ABC, CBS, NBC and Fox.
Sure, there are lots of interesting and well-written shows on FX, USA, HBO, etc, that have people talking. But what’s on the old over the air networks is increasingly bland and forgettable. Today, the big broadcast networks are no more important than the other 200 channels or dozens of other sources of entertainment.
17. Safran | May 29th, 2008 at 6:31 pm
(I noted this in our newsletter, so forgive the repeat.)
The point certainly isn’t quality, it’s quantity. Let’s go back 30 years:
Top Ten TV Shows 1978 - 1979
1. Three’s Company
2. Laverne & Shirley
3. Mork and Mindy
4. Happy Days
5. Angie
6. 60 Minutes
7. M*A*S*H
8. The Ropers
9. Charlie’s Angels
10. All in the Family
A few good ones in there - M*A*S*H, All in the Family., 60 Minutes… and a whole lot of crap. The Ropers? Angie? Mork? Remember them fondly from your childhood if you want - but these are terrible, terrible shows.
(BTW: Three’s Company had a 30 rating. #1 this year, American Idol, is pulling about a 16. And that’s the show “everyone” watches.)
It’s the quantity of choices, not the quality of programming.
18. pickletoon | May 29th, 2008 at 9:49 pm
Network TV is dead, you just can’t smell it yet.
And its not about programming, quality or quantity. Its about means of delivery and power of the consumer.
And its not about HBO. If you’re paying for programming you’re really missing the boat.
I’m off to hulu and a visit with Jim Rockford. That’s good TV.
19. Anonymous | May 30th, 2008 at 6:49 pm
Every time I look at cable TV I I sit there and flip, maybe watch one thing I’ve never seen that looked original.
Then I get tired of flipping and remember that I left it a dozen years earlier because I’ve seen the reruns 4 billion times and they aren’t half as good as the original Star Trek shows and it costs way too much.
Newspaper vs. TV combatants: Hush, Barbarians! You don’t have bragging rights either way.
DIY lovers: go find old tapes and Laserdiscs and then DIY.
@ pickletoon: The Rockford Files was one of the best shows EVER. Just not on a crummy BROWSER.
You’d think it was a bad day and the guy down the street sold 50 Datsuns to your Vega.
Leave a Comment
(Please keep URLs out of the comment body or the spam filter will block you.)Subscribe to the comments via RSS Feed