Conquer Club

At least according to me. I recently viewed a TV show on Netflix called "The Unusuals." It was a show about a bunch of cops with various psychological and social issues. It was a well-acted, well-written show. After my wife and I watched the entire first season, I said, "We need to see when this show comes back for the fall TV season." Turns out the show was cancelled. I was shocked, although I shouldn't have been. This is not the first show that seemed to be very good, but that was cancelled. Now I understand that poor ratings have something to do with this, but I wanted to think about this for a little bit. So I've come up with some conclusions/thoughts.

(1) Television appears to be a copycat business. I believe there are a number of reality TV shows that just deal with dancing competitions (reality TV comes next). There is also some new show that's trying to copycat Lost (The Event or something).

(2) Reality television appears to be the mainstream. It appears to generate large audiences (Jersey Shore, American Idol, Dancing with the Stars) and costs little to produce. In the interest of full disclosure, I do not voluntarily watch reality TV (occasionally I am forced, through marriage, to watch Top Chef). I think reality TV is the height of un-creativity.

(3) The rating system is screwed up. In the interest of further disclosure, I rarely, if ever, watch a TV show when it originally airs. I generally watch TV shows through Netflix, Comcast's On Demand service, or by purchasing the DVDs. Therefore, presumably, my viewing of that particular TV show is not reflected in the ratings. Further, I suspect that there are many people who do not watch TV shows when they originally air, preferring one of the services I indicated above. One doesn't lose anything from a viewing perspective by watching the show after it airs (in fact, one gains access to no commercials as an added benefit). However, with reality TV it appears to be a little different. I'm constantly bombarded with "who got voted off Who Wants to Marry a Millionaire/Survivor/Dancing with The Situation" despite not caring about reality TV.

(4) Good shows are still pitched to the major networks as opposed to cable. Some of the best shows are on USA, TBS, TNT, HBO, Showtime. Yet it appears that shows still pitch exclusively to the major networks, which appear to almost exclusively show reality television. So, when a good show gets picked up by an NBC, it gets cancelled quickly (or moved to Friday night to die) because it's not pulling in American Idol numbers (or whatever). And I'm sure there are provisions in the contract with NBC that prevent that show from going to a TNT.

So, I'm an angry TV watcher now. I wondered if anyone had any thoughts on this.

TV is like any other market entity. Mass appeal is more important for profit than true quality. Sure, they might get more viewers/money in the long run by putting out better products, but it takes too much initial investment and materials. Far easier to go for the cheaper product that might earn slightly lower ratings/commercial returns, but that, because costs are low, will give a far, far better product.

PLAYER57832 wrote:TV is like any other market entity. Mass appeal is more important for profit than true quality. Sure, they might get more viewers/money in the long run by putting out better products, but it takes too much initial investment and materials. Far easier to go for the cheaper product that might earn slightly lower ratings/commercial returns, but that, because costs are low, will give a far, far better product.

I don't disagree with any of this. My concern is the "well, we didn't get good ratings in the first four weeks, so let's cancel this" decision. Or one season. So you have a show like the Unusuals, which probably was put in a poor time slot and was not given a chance to succeed, though it went through like 12 episodes (i.e. one season).

It's like I said. The producers, investors, etc. would rather leap to some new, sure bet than take the time to develop something more worthwhile.

Its why Walmart is thriving, but the car manufacturers not doing so well.

Take a show like "Extreme House makeover". They have maybe 10 "stars" (4-5 per show), plus various camera folk. Most of the labor and a good deal of the material is free or given in exchange for advertising. Plus its a "feel good" show. Even as a flop, it makes money. If it happens to succeed, then BAM!

To contrast, a show like we used to see all the time -- be it ER or even the old sitcoms take far more in salaries, plus other assorted costs. They can get some advertising through product placement, but have to put down far more and there is far less chance of success.

Add in the fact that there are now over 100 channels versus just 3-4 and its harder to find something that large numbers will watch. Without the large numbers, few want to invest large bucks.

Television plays for people that watch it the most. When you make the mistake of getting interested in a decent show expect it to vanish and be replaced with "Ow my balls."

PLAYER57832 wrote:It's like I said. The producers, investors, etc. would rather leap to some new, sure bet than take the time to develop something more worthwhile.

Its why Walmart is thriving, but the car manufacturers not doing so well.

Because people don't need cars to get to wal-mart?

Honestly I think T.V.'s getting a bit better than it has over the last few years. It's hard for me to analyze US T.V. as it's own thing because when I've been in foreign countries I really wasn't watching that much TV. My friends that have been to Japan pretty much confirmed that Japanese T.V. Sucks. They said most of it was just people eating gross stuff, typical Japanese game shows, and lame comedy. They also said that it really strangely scheduled. Canadian T.V. Was just US T.V. And the only T.V. I remember watching in London was some E-news show where they talked about a girl fucking a dog.

That's another thing I was thinking about. Given the proliferation of "cheap" reality television, shouldn't production companies just start putting out "direct to Netflix" or "direct to On Demand" or "direct to DVD" television shows? Or is there too much of a stigma attached to it? Frankly, I can't be the only one who watches TV on DVD, netflix, or On Demand nearly exclusively. The only stuff I watch live are sporting events.

2dimes wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote:It's like I said. The producers, investors, etc. would rather leap to some new, sure bet than take the time to develop something more worthwhile.

Its why Walmart is thriving, but the car manufacturers not doing so well.

Because people don't need cars to get to wal-mart?

Well, it was an "off the cuff" answer. In retrospect, not the best example, so I don't want to delve too deeply.
What I meant was that the car manufacturers in the US have paid more attention to quality than mass marketing... building tougher, stronger trucks, for example. Toyota put out cheapies that sold and sold. Now they have tinkered with higher quality, but even so, A lexus is nice, but it won't last like an old Mercedes.

Of course, there are a lot more complexities and like I said, I don't want to push this. But, that was my thinking.

PLAYER57832 wrote:Add in the fact that there are now over 100 channels versus just 3-4 and its harder to find something that large numbers will watch. Without the large numbers, few want to invest large bucks.

That could be the ultimate factor in there being lower-quality shows. That being said, there are still some great shows on the main channels: NCIS, Criminal Minds, and Bones. However, because of my schedule, I don't get to watch them when they originally air (although my wife usually does). I got attracted to those shows through cable. I do take the time to watch Stargate Universe every week now.

thegreekdog wrote:That's another thing I was thinking about. Given the proliferation of "cheap" reality television, shouldn't production companies just start putting out "direct to Netflix" or "direct to On Demand" or "direct to DVD" television shows? Or is there too much of a stigma attached to it? Frankly, I can't be the only one who watches TV on DVD, netflix, or On Demand nearly exclusively. The only stuff I watch live are sporting events.

If you think about it, the technology to transmit those shows is still lagging a bit. Even so, many are doing essentially that already.

Night Strike wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote:Add in the fact that there are now over 100 channels versus just 3-4 and its harder to find something that large numbers will watch. Without the large numbers, few want to invest large bucks.

That could be the ultimate factor in there being lower-quality shows. That being said, there are still some great shows on the main channels: NCIS, Criminal Minds, and Bones. However, because of my schedule, I don't get to watch them when they originally air (although my wife usually does). I got attracted to those shows through cable. I do take the time to watch Stargate Universe every week now.

I like Criminal minds, but they are also "copycats". In many ways, they mimic even the old "Ironside" shows, and such... just updated, with more tech and violance.

PLAYER57832 wrote:

Night Strike wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote:Add in the fact that there are now over 100 channels versus just 3-4 and its harder to find something that large numbers will watch. Without the large numbers, few want to invest large bucks.

That could be the ultimate factor in there being lower-quality shows. That being said, there are still some great shows on the main channels: NCIS, Criminal Minds, and Bones. However, because of my schedule, I don't get to watch them when they originally air (although my wife usually does). I got attracted to those shows through cable. I do take the time to watch Stargate Universe every week now.

I like Criminal minds, but they are also "copycats". In many ways, they mimic even the old "Ironside" shows, and such... just updated, with more tech and violance.

Oh, I never said shows weren't copycats, but I'm not old enough to know the old shows that they're based on.

Night Strike wrote:Oh, I never said shows weren't copycats, but I'm not old enough to know the old shows that they're based on.

I don't want to carry that too far. The plots are quite different, as are many, many details. Just saying, per greekdog's original post...

Television is, was, and always will be … strange. Consider Star Trek as an example. If anyone has ever seen the original pilot one would generally be at a loss to understand why the NBC executives thought it was “too cerebral.” The only great shows are when a director gets so well known for great ratings that he can basically call the shots. (The famous laugh track less episode of MASH is a good example of this … had the series not been so popular they would never have gotten away with it.)

Television needs something to happen on day one. In the past, this was done through the method of shotgun pilots. When I was young I used to remember pilot season, just before the start of the regular season. I can fondly count the number of Gene Rodenberry (“I’ve got to make another hit after Star Trek”) pilots that never made it into a series. (“The world had a war but we survived underground … let’s explore.” “The world had a war but we survived in space … let’s return and explore.” Notice a pattern here?) Since this doesn’t happen, the best thing is to try something that is already proven. Copycat plot lines are the easiest solution to this problem.

When something is already proven and known to be cheap (reality shows) then they are a sure thing to do. Remember the whole thing about television is to get advertising revenue. Thus quality television is always DOOMED.

There's a ton of direct to DVD now in the movie industry coupled with,the fact that often a movie I am vaguely interested in seeing lasts 4 days in the theatre before going to DVD.

That's another thing I don't do anymore. I hardly ever go to movies. I used to go in high school / college usually for the obvious reasons (i.e. dates and the like). My wife and I don't go to movies because we can't make snide comments to each other anymore. One thing I do miss are drive-in movie theaters. We had one near where I grew up and it was freaking awesome. You could watch two full length movies for like $5 each and if one (or both) of the movies sucked, you could just make out with your girlfriend/date in the car (without the prying eyes this would get in a movie theater). Plus, you know, the being outside thing was cool too.

Anyway, now I just wait for movies to come out on DVD. I just watched Iron Man 2 the other day.

Theator's can be way too damn expensive now. Especially if it's in 3D or at an Imax. and if it's 3d at an Imax forget about it

I think you answered your own question in some ways in the original post. You said a benefit to straight to netflix and the like was no commercials, well how do you expect the network to make money? On the movie side, in my hometown there is a theater which thankfully has only raised its price $1 in almost 30 years. It now costs $3 to watch a movie there, and for an extra dollar, you can get a small pop and popcorn. Of course there's a much newer theater a few miles away that charges 3 times more for ticket and snacks, but it's also much newer and has multiple screens.

the problem with American television shows is they are watched by Americans

And created for them.

I'd rather watch a movie at home especially now that I have a good TV. I can pause to get a drink or releive myself of it later in the film. My wife's all messed up and thinks going to a movie is a fun activity where someone else makes popcorn. blah.

Here's all you need to know: The network tried to cancel the original Star Trek after two years because it was not popular enough. A massive write-in campaign got it another year (its third), but it was then cancelled for good after that year.

Star Trek: Not popular enough.

thegreekdog wrote: One thing I do miss are drive-in movie theaters. We had one near where I grew up and it was freaking awesome. You could watch two full length movies for like $5 each and if one (or both) of the movies sucked, you could just make out with your girlfriend/date in the car (without the prying eyes this would get in a movie theater). Plus, you know, the being outside thing was cool too.

You are dating yourself.
Nowadays, at least around here, the drive-ins are fully "kid zones".. where parents with toddlers and others not quite ready to sit still can go. They cost as much as a regular indoor ticket (more counting the drive there), too.

Yeah it's a shame that good shows get dumped for terrible shows because of ratings. I was pissed when Arrested Development and Futurama both got canceled because they couldn't compete with the dancing or cop shows that were in their time slots. Luckily Comedy Central picked up Futurama. It's still a shame about AD though, that was by far the best thing on basic cable. Instead it's all dating shows with some celebrity from the '80s. I don't even watch television much, about the only thing I watch regularly now is Its Always Sunny in Philadelphia and Futurama (excited for whenever new season comes out). At least Sunny stuck around.

-TG

thegreekdog wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote:TV is like any other market entity. Mass appeal is more important for profit than true quality. Sure, they might get more viewers/money in the long run by putting out better products, but it takes too much initial investment and materials. Far easier to go for the cheaper product that might earn slightly lower ratings/commercial returns, but that, because costs are low, will give a far, far better product.

I don't disagree with any of this. My concern is the "well, we didn't get good ratings in the first four weeks, so let's cancel this" decision. Or one season. So you have a show like the Unusuals, which probably was put in a poor time slot and was not given a chance to succeed, though it went through like 12 episodes (i.e. one season).

The marginal opportunity cost accumulates too much for them to maintain the show, so it makes sense that they cancel these good shows. However, if they were smart, they could lower or nearly eliminate those marginal opportunity costs by setting up an internet-based website that streams shows, since those shows won't take up any airtime on the TV. Netflix has started this already, but it's not too late for the big players to get in the market.

As we see, TV and the internet are slowly combining, but the only stumbling block are TV cable providers like COX who don't want internet-based services like Google airing shows through their services. The TV cable providers are the main stumbling block for further wealth creation for both suppliers and consumers.

maasman wrote:I think you answered your own question in some ways in the original post. You said a benefit to straight to netflix and the like was no commercials, well how do you expect the network to make money? On the movie side, in my hometown there is a theater which thankfully has only raised its price $1 in almost 30 years. It now costs $3 to watch a movie there, and for an extra dollar, you can get a small pop and popcorn. Of course there's a much newer theater a few miles away that charges 3 times more for ticket and snacks, but it's also much newer and has multiple screens.

I don't know this for a fact (although I suppose I know some of it for fact), but I pay Netflix a monthly fee. Presumably Netflix pays a fee to the network for the use of that particular show. I'm not sure how that works exactly, but I'm fairly certainly the network gets some cut for those shows on Netflix or Comcast On Demand.