The New York Times is running a front page story on the death of broadcast television in its Saturday edition. While stories focusing on the struggles of broadcast television are common, it's usually not front page fodder outside of trade publications. When I saw it was an A1 story, my first thought was that it was a "see, newspapers aren't the only business getting crushed!" And dang if they didn't snag a Jeff Zucker quote exactly along those lines:
Jeff Zucker, the chief of NBC Universal, has been more pessimistic, saying, “broadcast television is in a time of tremendous transition, and if we don’t attempt to change the model now, we could be in danger of becoming the automobile industry or the newspaper industry.”
Despite a tinge of skepticism on my part that it seemed too we are not alone-ish the article covers a lot of the topics and themes that frequently wind up in our comments. The article glosses over many facets, including that perhaps most of all the local affiliate model is broken, but it does at least hint at broadcast networks' desire to have more of a cable channel model (subscription and advertising revenue):
The future for the networks, it seems, is more low-cost reality shows, more news and talk, and a greater effort to find new revenue streams, whether they be from receiving subscriber fees as cable channels do, or becoming cable networks themselves, an idea that has gained currency.
I wouldn’t be surprised if leno isn’t the only strip type show to come in the next 3-5 years. We already have 2 hr editions of multiple reality shows, Bachelor, Apprentice, Biggest Loser. And Dancing and Idol have 2hr shows twice a week at times! That’s only 1 hour short of what Leno will have this fall. Seriously, is Lthe Leno move really that drastically different than some of what we have already been seeing for several years?
One of the biggest differences between Idol, DWTS, etc. and Leno is that the reality shows were proven successes before they were given that much time. Idol and Dancing started in the summer. Loser and Bachelor started as 1 hour a week.
If those shows had failed during the summer or at 1 hour/week (as many reality shows have), it’s no big deal. Summer ratings aren’t all that important and it’s fairly easy to fill 1 or 2 hours a week with repeats and specials or bring in a mid-season show early. In either case, the fall season is left largely intact.
On the other hand, if/when Leno fails, NBC is left with a full 5 hours a week with no programming. This isn’t “look we have a hugely successful show, let’s order more,” like with the reality shows you mentioned. This is “we give up, just put Leno on, he’s cheap.”
A question that came up in class last week when we were discussing Leno is, if the ratings suck, what does NBC do? How long are they obligated to pay him? Will they keep him on no matter what just to keep him from going to ABC? Will this supposedly cheap venture end up costing them double if they put something else on and have to keep paying his salary for the year? Like Holly said, it’s a huge risk. I can understand why they felt they needed to do it (which was only to keep Leno off of ABC) but I don’t envy them the position they have put themselves into.
I think the “risk” is actually pretty limited. The Tonight Show does a 1.4 18-49 rating. Guaranteed that Leno does better than that at 10. Also, the financial risk is much less. Our back of the envelope was $100 mil v. $300 mil to script those 5 hours.
It’s not a question of if the ratings suck, it’s how bad.
“We don’t expect in any way for Jay’s ratings, when he’s competing against those original, first-run dramas, to be comparable to those programs in any way. Not even close,” Zucker said. “In the aggregate of the 52 weeks — which is how we sell it … Jay’s ratings will be comparable to the competition.”
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/television/2008737259_leno15.html
The question is, how bad do the ratings have to be for NBC to
admit defeatpresent the paradigm for the new future of broadcast TV.More on the topic of the article:
If big brother won’t let TV stations switch to digital for another 4 months because people can’t afford a $40 converter box to get free TV, what are they going to do to try to stop the networks from ending free TV altogether?
Holly, I think leno is a proven success. Nbc is not putting on 5 nights of jimmy fallon, or even conan. even if leno gets no bump from going on at an earlier hour, his ratings would still be an improvement over much of nbc’s slate this season. But I think bill hit it by saying that he will almost certainly get a bump in the earlier time slot. Above all I think its a good shot at counterprogramming in an hour dominated by dramas.
So, they go to the biggest failure in network television, Jeff Zucker, for a quote about the coming implosion of network television? Come on! People are watching network television, they’re just not watching NBC. I mean, what exactly does NBC have that a lot of people like to watch? Some Law & Orders and ER? The former is fading and the latter will be out the door next month. They keep saying the answer is more reality, or abandoning more nights to local affiliates. Outside of American Idol, DWTS, Bachelor and Survivor what other truly successful reality series has any network launched. Furthermore, Idol’s ratings continue decline, Survivor is nowhere near its former highs, and the other will probably fade, as well. Instead of NBC, maybe the Times should have been looking at CBS where scripted drams continue to draw in close to 20 million viewers on a weekly basis and they’ve actually seen increases in viewership. NBC is joke; a sad, pathetic version of its former self. Jeff Zucker is a big reason for that.
Jimmy, the long term trend is broadcast network viewers moving to cable networks. That NYTimes article addresses that fact better than the TV media usually does, but the fact remains that with overall TV viewing flat to slightly up, the decline is in *broadcast* TV viewing, not TV viewing overall.
The Networks are thinking poorly. The ideas I’ve heard everyone throw around of how to “not die,” are poorly thought out. The stupidest idea is the “lets become a cable network!,” with the thought process of “it works for them.”
The quality of entertainment on the cable networks is starting to surpass Network TV at lower costs. This is the true problem. People will watch entertaining TV, period. AMERICAN IDOL while not my cup of tea, is entertaining to over 20 million people every time it airs.
Friends in the industry have pointed out how BURN NOTICE and LEVERAGE are two shows that are top notch entertainment that in our opinions are better than the vast majority of what is available on Network TV.
We’ve given the entire problem a nickname we call “The Xena Phenom,” which we think is the true problem with Network TV. We could easily call it the “Next Generation Phenom,” or “Baywatch Phenom,” but the basic premise is that truly visionary producers are forced outside the system to make what they want. Their success outside the system lead to cable stations doing their own programming. Instead of syndication as their only alternative these producers were given another outlet and one they’re starting to be successful at.
Sure there are some programs like MONK which works only on USA and couldn’t possibly be a success on Network TV. However the problem is that cable is able to capture the niche audiences. So because those audiences prefer their niche, they’d prefer to watch that than Network TV. So you’re going to have a loss of viewers. It’s inevitable.
What isn’t inevitable is Network TV dying. Network TV needs to do a better job of providing top notch entertainment. They seem to green light a lot of crap. I mean ACCORDING TO JIM lasted how long? Bottom line is they will make up excuse after excuse but the real reason Network TV is dying is that shows like ACCORDING TO JIM even aired on Network TV.
Provide high quality entertainment and people will watch.
Holly, it’s a good question and one I don’t really have much idea about. Just thinking out loud, I don’t see how the government could regulate companies from exiting a business. I have no idea what sort of terms length-wise the networks enter into with affiliates they don’t own, but technically I see no reason they couldn’t let all of those arrangements expire and sell all the owned and operated stations.
That however doesn’t mean that the government could not or would not try to pressure and/or give them incentives to do otherwise.
Damn, this is good. My parents’ generation used to hoard ” Titanuc Sinks ” or ” Hindenberg Blows Up ” headlines. Front page of the Times? Do I have to bring scissors to the public library Monday? ( Photocopies are so not 19th century, which is what I am. Flaubert and Trollope are better than even the movies. ) Such good pertinent comments all the way around. Somebody seems to be studying opo media at just the right time — like a military observer with a balloon eye’s view of World War One. Yes, the decline of the TV INDUSTRY is comparable to that of GE, ATT, Bank of America and other behemoths. The question about the govt forcing us to give up free TV is brilliant. And watch out for the Internet taxes — Hillary brought that up in her Senate debate years ago with that Chesire grin of hers. Don’t bet against it.
Holly, you bring up an excellent point. Could the Feds use the national security angle to pressure free broadcast networks to maintain the status quo? “We have to make sure everyone, rich and poor alike, has access to communications in the event of a national emergency…” that sort of thing.
I wonder if the government would ever go the *ownership stake* route? Uncle Sam (and his Big Brother) could bail out the failing networks, sort of back-door means to create a government-run television communications system. The networks may still show entertainment programming, but only that which the government selects as appropriate. The FCC would run everything. We’d have one giant PBS network, maybe?
They were pretty adamant about delaying digital transitions, for no real reason other tha *fairness.* It really does make me wonder what government would do to be *fair* to people who cannot afford cable, in the event that broadcast nets really fail.
I also wonder the net financial impact of going the FOX route, and turning the 10 p.m. hour back over to affiliates. That could save big on programming costs, but how much ad revenue would be lost?
I gotta tell you networks arent’ putting very many good shows on like cable. NCIS, the CSI’s and CBS’s Monday Comedy lineup are good, but TNT has The Closer, Leverage while USA has Monk and Burn Notice (which is a great show)
Buzz Seegert: But that’s sort of the whole catch 22 about that. Okay, maybe catch 22 isn’t the right word, but whatever. Shows like The Closer, Burn Notice and Monk get good numbers for their networks, but that is all they would get on network TV (actually, they’d probably get less). People have said Burn Notice would benefit NBC, but I disagree.
Network TV has to have shows that appeal to the mainstream. NBC just hasn’t been making good choices lately.
If a show moves from network to cable, such as L&O:CI, does the network receive any of the subscriber fees from the cable outlet?
Lurker, in that instance both USA Network and NBC are owned by NBC Universal so it’s just shifting money around.
Correct me if I’m wrong (and I’m sure someone will), but…
I believe that technically, the network doesn’t own the show, the production company does (even if the network and the production company are owned by the same people). In the case of L&O, the production company and the two nets are all owned by the same people. On the other hand, if Moonlight would have gotten picked up by SciFi, CBS wouldn’t have gotten anything from the deal because the show was owned by Warner Brothers. Warner Brothers would get paid a fee by SciFi for the show, but not really a share of their subscription fees.
Holly, you are exactly right. Let’s say Chuck moves from NBC to TBS. Chuck is produced by Warner Brothers. In the event that it moved, that would be because NBC didn’t want to pay for it anymore. TBS would negotiate licensing rights with Warner Brothers and pay them. Unless there was some weird negotiating for future rights, NBC will never see a penny of that deal.
Recall above: The fat for nets is in owning local stations. Mark Twain said, rumors of my death are greatly exaggerated, but he did eventually croak. The deathwatch really can only be when deep-pocket Disney, Newscorp, GE etc start selling off their cash-cow local affiliates – because of rules set up in the 1920′s, really, when the FCC was created to control radio transmissions. Those same antiquated rules applied until … the Internet, another govt pet project so far, as far as we know, not controilled by the govt entirely. ( China does a good job, but theyre computer geeks aren’t as good as ours.) Anyway, the nets simply can’t compete in any way with what the Web delivers. It’s that simple … yet computer savvy people still are measured in the tens of thousands versus 300 million people who can push a few buttons on a remote. That’s democracy, like it or not. The real enemy of the nets is the web, not cable: they own all of that too. But the nets got arroganbt, and began buying up a lot of crap, merging, synergizing, yada yada yada. The fools f***ed themselves for reasons not related to your viewing habits or mine or anybody’s. They really are doing the best damage control they can – like Bush did, like Obama will do. My guts tell me this recession will be long and deep. We’re all just staying tuned – you young folks are living through the Depression. You can’t see it yet and its a scary word, but not inaccurate. All bets are off for the richest of the rich. But these are very clever people. Don’t count them out yet.