TV viewership declines, network execs shocked

[RZetlin]

Few Viewers and Network Executives Scratch Their Heads (http://www.nytimes.com/2003/10/22/business/media/22ADCO.html?ex=1067486400&en=82f335c3c62caef9&ei=5062&partner=GOOGLE)

Network executives are baffled by a season unlike any seen before. Returning hit shows like "Friends" and "E.R." are losing significant numbers of viewers from previous years. New shows have performed far worse than almost anyone expected, a result capped off Monday night when the Fox network started two shows that had received huge promotional pushes during the baseball playoffs, "The Next Joe Millionaire" and "Skin," and they posted crushingly disappointing numbers. And men between 18 and 24 are apparently deserting television in droves. So far this year nearly 20 percent fewer men in that advertiser-friendly demographic are watching television during prime time than during the same period last year.

The drop-off in these viewing figures tabulated by Nielsen Media Research is inexplicable to industry executives. "Frankly what we're seeing strains credulity," said Alan Wurtzel, the president of research for NBC.


Could it be the fact that poor quailty shows are being pumped out?

Nah. It's Nielsen's fault for providing poor data. The tooth fairy is also to blame as well. :rolleyes:

[Ed Liu]

Howdy,

When a movie studio can seriously say that a movie as crap-tacular as Tomb Raider 2 died at the box office because of the poor sales of the video game, I think you have a fundamental disconnect between the worldview of the average Hollywood executive and the real world.

Note to TV: Your Product Sucks. Make a better product and I'll be happy to use it. Please pass this note along to Hollywood and the music industry while you're at it.

I can barely maintain enough interest to watch The West Wing these days. The execs have made sure to cancel every show I liked enough to make time to see (Lucky and Farscape, RIP). There is literally nothing else out there that even generates vague curiosity.

-- Ed/Ace

[Mango Fett]

Network Execs are idiots.
I mean who cares about reality shows. the best one on now is "joe Schmoe" and thats basicly an outright spoof.
As for "skin"...wellfrom the previews i've seen it's jsut "Romeo & juliete" again.

Recycled concepts shoveled down our gullets and they arn't happy that we don't want it?

Bring back good stuff, like "Firefly"
Or hell just desband Fox network. Sure that isn't really a solution or anythign but it would make me happy.

[Kenny E. McCall]

It's so simple. Get rid of the current crop of network executives on the six broadcast networks, and let the viewers run the networks!

[MJC]

That's what happens when you're scared to do anything original (and GOOD).

I'm 18 and the only two networks I watch on a regular basis are CN and Comedy Central. (I catch Evo on WB, too, but that's about it).

[Jaguar]

It's because people are tired of seeing the same old tripe over and over again, really. I mean Joe Millionaire: An International Affair was the worst idea ever IMO, and it literally flopped on its belly Monday.

[ClockStomper]

The only network shows I watch anymore is Alias and 24 (whenever it's out.) anything else that's good is usually cancelled.

All the rest of the time I spend viewing is varous cable shows (Adult Swim is the most consistant. Funny how while everything goes down, their 18-24 viewership goes up.)

[Calhoun07]

I think most of you are forgetting the fundamental reason TV exists in the first place. Sorry to burst your bubble, but it's NOT to entertain you or give you quality programming. It's to sell advertising and increase revenue for corporations. That's it in a nutshell. Network execs hardly care if you're watching Firefly or Survivor: Uzbekestan. It's all in the numbers, baby! They see big numbers last year and they feel that's what you want. You, of course, in generic generalized terms. They knew what sold last year and moved advertising revenue and generated revenue for their advertisers and what made them happy, and will give you more of the same this year. The bottom line is nobody knows what quality TV is, not the network execs, and not the advertisers, and certainly not the viewers, or the crap would have never gotten great ratings in the first place. (And I firmly believe that viewers don't really know what they want in terms of good TV. They know what made them happy in the past, and if networks gave them more of the same, they would get bored and move on. They have no idea what they want in a new show, and neither do the execs).

I think there is just too much else to distract people, such as video games and DVDs. I know personally I have watched more DVDs during prime time this year than in any year since I owned a DVD player. Tuesdays and Thursdays and Fridays and Saturdays and Sundays are in particular just wasted space on TV, with nothing really interesting to make me stop the movie I am watching and turn the TV on. There are maybe one or two shows on those nights I would watch, if anything else was worth while to see. Maybe we have too many networks (what do we have now? Six networks?? That's too freaking much!) and the need to fill in time slots is getting lame shows green lighted more often, where as the quality control on TV in the past may have been greater. Who knows. All I know is execs don't care what you really think you want to see, they only care about finding what will sell advertising and get you to buy from their advertisers. They will run a test pattern if they think it would sell you something.

[Supernovametalstar]

I think most of you are forgetting the fundamental reason TV exists in the first place. Sorry to burst your bubble, but it's NOT to entertain you or give you quality programming. It's to sell advertising and increase revenue for corporations. That's it in a nutshell. Network execs hardly care if you're watching Firefly or Survivor: Uzbekestan. It's all in the numbers, baby! They see big numbers last year and they feel that's what you want. You, of course, in generic generalized terms. They knew what sold last year and moved advertising revenue and generated revenue for their advertisers and what made them happy, and will give you more of the same this year. The bottom line is nobody knows what quality TV is, not the network execs, and not the advertisers, and certainly not the viewers, or the crap would have never gotten great ratings in the first place. (And I firmly believe that viewers don't really know what they want in terms of good TV. They know what made them happy in the past, and if networks gave them more of the same, they would get bored and move on. They have no idea what they want in a new show, and neither do the execs).



If we are entertained, then we'll watch, which means ratings go up, and they can sell more ad time. Sometimes networks have to be told what shows people are watching, despite what ratings say. Look at Alias. Wasn't that show on the brink of cancellation? But fans immediately said "don't do it" when they found out. Such methods didn't help Firefly, but that's probably because the number of rabid fans was not high enough for the Fox brainstems to listen.

I blame reality tv. Too much of it for anyone to even care about watching the "unscripted" stuff. Plus, people do have more things to distract them or worry about, like DVD....or finding a job (I'm in the later category at the moment).

[candy17]

That's what happens when you're scared to do anything original (and GOOD).
And I don't think network TV is gonna learn.


I'm 18 and the only two networks I watch on a regular basis are CN and Comedy Central. (I catch Evo on WB, too, but that's about it).
Hey, me too. I also watch some tapes and DVDs (I have a DVD drive on a computer that my family shares, but this Christmas, I'm getting a VCR/DVD player, so I can watch DVDs anytime) and if I'm not doing that, I'm either reading, doing college work (which is light now, but it'll pile up soon. I say, "Bring it on!"), eating or asleep. The only network TV shows I watch are reruns of The Simpsons and King of the Hill on FOX.

[moreysurf8]

You wanna know what the only things I watch on network TV are? The occasional Scrubs episode and re-runs of Seinfeld (I can even catch those on TBS now) Besides that it's all cable or DVD, it just has so much more to offer.

[czyznyck99]

Network TV may fail, but there is always a market in cable. This is actually no surprise, the viewership has been declining for years.

That said, thank goodness there is the internet. I can't stand network TV, but when a show like Alias comes along, at least I don't have to watch Disney trying to sell me crap.

Later.

[Beat]

Cable rules. Because let's face it, if these trends continue, execs will have to do something *gasp!* original.

[Squall]

The day will come (not too long from now) when all the networks die off, and cable TV assumes the throne of TV entertainment. Then we'll have some great TV, custom-tailored to the audience of the particular cable TV channel's audience! :)

I look forward to that day. Most people get their local news from the Internet and local newspapers anyway nowadays.

Note: What I said above is already happening! Channels like Cartoon Network, Comedy Central, Sci-Fi Channel, History Channel, Discovery Channel, Learning Channel, Nickelodeon, ESPN 1 & 2, etc. etc. are already making TV shows that tailor to their audiences. And -- big surprise! -- people like those TV shows more than the generic stuff the networks come up with to try to get EVERYBODY to watch. People these days like entertainment that fits into their own niche; cable TV is perfectly suited to this. The networks, while trying to appeal to all, are dying because they appeal to none.

EDIT: I think that, in the future, the networks won't die off altogether. In an irony of history, they'll become full-time movie & TV studios, selling their shows to cable TV channels! :) (Kind of like how, in the video game industry, Atari, Sega, and 3D0 now make video games for other consoles; they once had their OWN consoles, back in the day...)

[Nightflower]

But some of us don't have cable.. :(

[RayChuang]

Folks,

I think the major TV networks have ignored the warning of one Alvin Toffler.

In Toffler's famous book The Third Wave (1979), Toffler predicted that as communications technology improves the hammerlock the major TV networks have on TV viewing habits will effectively disappear.

Look at what has happened since The Third Wave was published:

1. Cable TV with 60-plus channels of programming is available to the majority of American homes, and direct-broadcast satellite TV with 200-plus channels of programming have rapidly increased in popularity. This has made it possible to seriously fragment the TV viewership, since all these new channels cater to much more narrower tastes than normal network TV programming.

2. Home video systems have exploded in popularity. The rapid rise of videocassette recorder/player sales from the early 1980's on effectively destroyed network programming schedules (why stay up to watch The Tonight Show when you can record it and watch it at breakfast?), and the advent of DVD's in 1997 has allowed home TV owners to watch recent theatrical movie hits and now complete TV seasons on disc!

3. The rapid rise in modern videogame consoles have given a new use for TV's. The Sony PlayStation series, Microsoft's XBox, and Nintendo's GameCube now offer quality games with video quality that is far ahead of cartridge-based systems of the early 1990's. And even videogame consoles can now communicate with each other using the public Internet, too. In short, another reason why people aren't watching network TV, either.

4. The rise of the commercial Internet has taken away a lot of TV viewers. Unlike network TV, the Internet can be a truly interactive format with discussion forums (like Toon Zone here! :D), and with the increasing availability of broadband Internet for home use even decent-quality videoconferencing is possible (the AT&T PicturePhone concept has finally become reality).

Given these four developments it's small wonder why network TV viewership share will drop under 50% very soon, if it has not happened already.

[czyznyck99]

Unfortunately, corporations still win, people who want to be entertained still lose. When cable becomes mainstream, people will still have to PAY for it.

Later.

[Classic Speedy]

I think it's hilarious that the network execs are "shocked'. "Oh my goodness! How can this be? I- I must be seeing things! Why, I'm NOT seeing things- our network TV ratings are ACTUALLY down! This can't be! We're network TV! People DEPEND on us!" (whispered to by peon) "They don't?! AWWWW!!!!" Good riddance. Yeah, the only things I watch on basic channels are Seinfeld, Simpsons, and King of the Hill syndication reruns. I don't bother with the new Simpsons or King of the Hills. Other than that, ALL of my TV viewing is cable/satellite. Network TV did this to themselves. They took an idea (reality TV) and ran it into the ground; what did they expect to happen?!

[Robin2099]

I can barely maintain enough interest to watch The West Wing these days. The execs have made sure to cancel every show I liked enough to make time to see (Lucky and Farscape, RIP). There is literally nothing else out there that even generates vague curiosity.

-- Ed/Ace I can't believe Lucky is cancelled. That was one of my favorite shows on FX. As for the ratings dropping, could it be the fact that every show on tv seems to be nothing but a rehash of another show with diffrent characters. I really think FOX is in a funny situatio too, since there schedule is based almost entirely around reality programming and it's bombing for them big time. And to think, they cancelled John Doe.

[ClockStomper]

I still think they won't get it. This information will prompt them to throw more Reality TV out there. There's not much left out there on Networks:

A lot of Reality Shows on all of them
A few Cop/Lawyer/Military shows on each
4 or 5 really original shows (Alias, 24, etc.)

Nothing really to pull people away from other forms of entertainment. I have TV on my computer (digital VCR) and yet I seem to just use it as background noise while I'm on the net. Kind of a testament to what we've been saying.

[Dark Spider]

I knew this would happen if they kept playing reality TV. But nobody listened. They kept giving us the Bachelor/ette, Are you not or not, Joe Millionaire, Chains of Love, Temptation Island, and other stuff....and now they're paying for it big time. I hope they go back to the old days, and give us original programming. I hate how when one original show comes out and everyone else copies it (Survivor -> Any other "elimination based" reality show) instead of bringing out another original show to counter it. Then it will be a true battle for ratings instead of who has the better show out of a genre...

Needless to say, I can't wait until the internet absorbs television and we get its bastard child "Informational Viewing". Its like watching television, but with "DVD like" internet extras... :D

[ButteredToast]

You know, when I really think about it, I can definitely say I haven't tuned into a "network channel" for months now. I usually find my dial on Cartoon Network, Comedy Central, Discover Channel, Science Channel, The Learning Channel, Showtime Beyond, or some other movie channel if there's a good movie on.

I find the network channels VERY lacking in good material... and I haven't watched Sci-Fi since they cut Farscape off at the knees. (BAD Sci-Fi! No biscuit!) :mad: