NBC's "Undercovers"

[Geekyfanboy]

One thing I don't get is with things like DVD's sales, Netflix, www.hulu.com, etc. shows should be able to hang on better make more money in the long run.  I still think the television ratings is a flawed system and doesn't take enough time-shifting, and others ways to watch into account.  For example, I watched "Undercovers" on www.hulu.com only.  Just because I had other things on at the same time that I watched "live."  It's great to have other ways to see things, and they really need to figure out a way to adjust that into Nielsen ratings.

Nielsons has always been a flawed rating system (1 Nielson family represented something like 126,000 households) and with all the new ways of watching stuff. DVR, Hulu and such they need to come up with a better way.

[Feathers]

I thought the ratings were really only any use for advertising slot pricing. The higher the numbers the more you can charge for ads. Given that the other channels for viewing are fairly ad free (are they?) then summing the numbers in won't give them what they need.

I haven't yet heard anyone come up with a new system to replace the old broken one and so they keep cancelling things on the basis of poor viewing/ad revenue on the primary channel. What else can they do?

The only viable alternative I can think of for the moment is th pay per view approach. Ads are then irrelevant but I assume that it would also kill viewing numbers.

[X]

One thing I don't get is with things like DVD's sales, Netflix, www.hulu.com, etc. shows should be able to hang on better make more money in the long run.  I still think the television ratings is a flawed system and doesn't take enough time-shifting, and others ways to watch into account.  For example, I watched "Undercovers" on www.hulu.com only.  Just because I had other things on at the same time that I watched "live."  It's great to have other ways to see things, and they really need to figure out a way to adjust that into Nielsen ratings.

The answer is actually pretty simple. Ratings are used to judge how much to charge for advertising. Advertising is the short term means of making the money to make the show.  While they do take those other factors into account, they are worth less than the live viewing. If you are viewing live, advertisers know that their message is reaching the intended audience. If you are timeshifting your programming, chances are that you are fast forwarding through the commercials. For the advertisers, that's pretty much a waste of money. They are paying for something that isn't reaching who they want it to reach. So, they start pulling their ads. Pull enough ads and the lower the amount an ad is worth in a certain time slot and it's easier to cancel the show and start fresh. New expectation mean that they can charge higher prices than the ones that were lowered due to low ratings.

This is why fewer pay television shows are being canceled. They are getting money from the watcher rather than the companies. On pay television channels, the watcher is the customer. On broadcast and to a limited extent commercial driven basic cable channels, the customer is still the advertisers. If they aren't satisfied with what they are getting for what they are paying, the networks have no choice but to pull the program. They are potentially hemorrhaging money.

Even the web model with limited commercial interruptions have a far decreased revenue stream. If they can't support the show on the front end (i.e. Broadcast), it becomes pointless to support it on the back end.

So basically, our own new viewing habits are partly responsible for the rapid cancellation of broadcast television programs. Unless those shows can pull in solid advertisers that feel comfortable with the numbers, (eg Subway and Chuck) the shows get canned before they can grow.

This leads to a snowball effect where people are hesitant to invest into a new program unless it has some episodes in the can. By the time that happens and word of mouth reaches Joe TV watcher, it's too late for the show.

The ratings system isn't flawed. It works exactly how they want it to. It's use to determine viewers that will be there to watch the commercials of the advertisers.

Now shows can mitigate some of that danger by providing a lower costing product. Some shows did that be using product placement. Which can work good in keeping some shows on the air even when the numbers are in the toilet ( see Knight Rider), but it also alienates other advertisers that the network could be making money off of and can alienate some of the viewers. This is also why shows can get preempted for sports. The station most often times makes more money on the advertising space during the sports program than it does for the program that would have shown despite them knowing that the number of the show will drop off if it doesn't have a consistent air time.

In the end, it's a very slippery slope and it doesn't take much to cause an avalanche that leads to cancellation.

This is also why it's rare for Euro shows to get canceled. They already pay upfront for the programming. However, this is also why they have shorter seasons. They paid for the show, but if it sucks, they don't want to keep putting out new series.

[KingIsaacLinksr]

As I said in another thread, we as a culture, our generation, is changing.  In my lifetime, I am almost positive that the entire notion of TV will be gone, done.  It has already started.  Things like Hulu are taking over.  Piracy is ensuring we can view TV WHEN we want to without ads.   The mere notion of TV has radically changed since it first came out.  Now TVs are equipped with internet, Blue-Ray is a social-outlet with internet capabilities, our TVs have Hard Drives, I mean, how much longer until TV is completely blurred out??  I mean, my two monitors before me are TV-capable.  That right there tells me that TV will no longer exist in the future.  Or at least, it will be a radically different form of media.  

Series like The Guild are leading the charge in what we as a culture want.  I have no idea what the fanbase is, I'm certain Kenny can take a guess, but it is substantial.  The TV networks and Cable companies need to find a way to change, because the times are changing and they are in an industry doomed to die.  Because if they refuse to change, refuse to figure out a different way of doing things, it is likely we'll dump them. I'm probably wrong, but there are signs that are indicating that.  


But ignoring all of what I just said, what are TV networks going to do?  As you yourself admitted we are changing how we watch TV, and shows are getting canceled quickly.  In the long run, this is pretty unacceptable for any business to constantly drop projects like this.  But you can't change the culture to go back to the way it was, we used to schedule time for TV, now TV has to schedule around our time.  So what now?  Continue down this road to constantly canceling shows because the culture doesn't watch it on just that night?  I'm honestly curious because I have no idea.  

King

[X]

But ignoring all of what I just said, what are TV networks going to do?  As you yourself admitted we are changing how we watch TV, and shows are getting canceled quickly.  In the long run, this is pretty unacceptable for any business to constantly drop projects like this.  But you can't change the culture to go back to the way it was, we used to schedule time for TV, now TV has to schedule around our time.  So what now?  Continue down this road to constantly canceling shows because the culture doesn't watch it on just that night?  I'm honestly curious because I have no idea. 

King

That's the rub. It doesn't matter how many different ways we have to view tv. Current network television is driven by advertisers. As long as advertisers are the primary force behind network television, live ratings will continue to dictate how a show will exist. Television isn't free. Someone has to pay for it. If you aren't going to go with the live tv and advertiser model, then you have to do something else. The only other working option is BBC and too many Americans are accustomed to getting their tv for free.

If you, as a viewer, aren't interested in watching free tv live and watching the commercials or paying for the same content and perhaps getting a more secure series, then there really isn't another option. Everyone that puts out these shows have to put out money to pay for the shows. When they are working on any show web or tv, it's time that they are working and should be paid for. If the viewer doesn't want to pay to see the show or watch the advertising that pays for the show ... how the hell can we expect a show to survive at all? I'm not going to spend hours each week working for free ... nor do I expect them to.

The bottom line is that the money needs to come from somewhere.

[KingIsaacLinksr]

But ignoring all of what I just said, what are TV networks going to do?  As you yourself admitted we are changing how we watch TV, and shows are getting canceled quickly.  In the long run, this is pretty unacceptable for any business to constantly drop projects like this.  But you can't change the culture to go back to the way it was, we used to schedule time for TV, now TV has to schedule around our time.  So what now?  Continue down this road to constantly canceling shows because the culture doesn't watch it on just that night?  I'm honestly curious because I have no idea. 

King

That's the rub. It doesn't matter how many different ways we have to view tv. Current network television is driven by advertisers. As long as advertisers are the primary force behind network television, live ratings will continue to dictate how a show will exist. Television isn't free. Someone has to pay for it. If you aren't going to go with the live tv and advertiser model, then you have to do something else. The only other working option is BBC and too many Americans are accustomed to getting their tv for free.

If you, as a viewer, aren't interested in watching free tv live and watching the commercials or paying for the same content and perhaps getting a more secure series, then there really isn't another option. Everyone that puts out these shows have to put out money to pay for the shows. When they are working on any show web or tv, it's time that they are working and should be paid for. If the viewer doesn't want to pay to see the show or watch the advertising that pays for the show ... how the hell can we expect a show to survive at all? I'm not going to spend hours each week working for free ... nor do I expect them to.

The bottom line is that the money needs to come from somewhere.

Indeed, $$ is the thing that makes the world go round, and I by no means am saying that TV companies should work for free, that's just stupid.  However, if they forced paid-for TV, it would also backfire in their face...no easy way to fix it...

King

[X]

Indeed, $$ is the thing that makes the world go round, and I by no means am saying that TV companies should work for free, that's just stupid.  However, if they forced paid-for TV, it would also backfire in their face...no easy way to fix it...

King

What exactly needs to be fixed? I mean if you don't want to watch commercials or pay for the programming, then that's on the person not wanting to do that. For shows that a majority of viewer watch in real time, there's is no problem. For genre shows, it becomes a problem, but it's not really the network's problem. If we viewers don't want to watch commercials or pay for the content, we shouldn't be surprised when something we like gets canceled.

There's really nothing for them to fix because they can keep canceling shows until they hit on one that the majority will stick with. The only people that lose are the viewers that aren't supporting the shows they like in ways that matter to the network. King, I know you brought up web shows, but I can tell you now that they will never be the future of entertainment. You brought up the Guild, but didn't bring up that they have not only sponsors (which I don't think gives them anywhere close to what they need to run the show) and donors (which help to defray the cost) ... then they have the dvds (which I think might get them back into the black, but I can't say if that's true or not).

They need all of that to make the series and that brings less than two hours of screen time for the entire season. I don't see that EVER being the primary source of entertainment.

People need to eat and people would prefer to get paid for their careers. If there is not one single web series out there were the cast can depend on it for a job, who is going to ignore a paying job for a passion?

In the end, the system isn't broken, but what is broken is the American mindset that television is some how free. Because we don't pay for network television, some people have it in their heads that the programming is free. It's not. Even web series need donations to operate. So, unless we decide to pay for network tv, then we only a few options.

1) Watch your show live and hope that others are doing the same while hoping it doesn't get canceled.
2) Ignore the commercials and hope it doesn't get canceled.
3) Continue business as usual and then hope it doesn't get canceled.

[KingIsaacLinksr]

So basically we're forced to watch it live or watch it die.  I don't particularly like that.  Its like saying I have to watch football all year long or it'll get canceled.  However, before you go and counter that point, yes, they gotta make $$ somehow.  But the culture is changing.  With the smartphones and Pads and other new technology, we are absorbing media in different ways.  Some of us have already cut out TV as part of the equation.  When we can watch Stargate SGU on an iPad at a place like the library at 3:30 in the afternoon, for instance, its certainly more appealing to be able to take the "TV" with you, rather than being forced to watch it at 8:00 or miss it because you had work or something else crop up.  Digital media is changing things and the TV format is what it directly competes with.  

I'm not sure what the future holds for this kind of media.  And I shouldn't have said that the Guild is the future, but The Guild has certainly shown we are open to absorbing media in a different and new way for the masses.  What will come of all this I'm unsure.  Maybe nothing.  

However, what happens when the masses leave TV behind?  I'm sure that's a scary thought for many CEOs.  I am ofc, not saying its going to happen soon or anytime at all.  But there is a possibility, as small as it currently is.

King

[X]

However, what happens when the masses leave TV behind?  I'm sure that's a scary thought for many CEOs.  I am ofc, not saying its going to happen soon or anytime at all.  But there is a possibility, as small as it currently is.

King

How are the masses going to leave behind tv? If there is no TV and no way to charge you, who do you think is going to make shows? I think you're missing the whole funding aspect of this. Masses aren't leaving behind TV. There are tons of shows getting great ratings. A few exceptions to the rule does not make the rule. If it did, the CFO's would probably quote Khan and say "let them eat static."

When you spend hours doing web searches to find a new show because there will be tons of the low budget ones and then filter out the good from the bad, would it have the same length, quality, and production value of the dozens of daily network tv hours?

It's the same thing for movies at the theater. So many are failing because people want to wait to see it elsewhere and then by the time they do see it and decide they love it, the franchise is pretty much dead.

[KingIsaacLinksr]

I meant when I said that TV was left behind, that the entire format of TV was dead, shows along with it.  I never made the pretension that they would somehow keep showing shows.  It begs one of those what if? questions.  

And yeah, we want to see movies elsewhere because it costs an arm and a leg to see a movie now.  Especially if your a family and you want to see multiple movies.  Of course there is more expensive entertainment, but when we can wait for a couple months and go to a Redbox or other movie rental place and see it for a $1 from our own home with our food, (probably home-made) of course we're not going to see it at the theaters.  (As much).  Actually, this is more of a failure on the distribution side of things to make it this easy for us to wait for new movies.  Not that I'm saying, however, that we should go back to year long waits.  yuck.

King

[Feathers]

I'm with X, he makes the point that I was trying to a lot better.

The ratings system is 'broken' only in as far as the entire viewing audience is concerned. As far as the TV audience goes, it works just fine and allows advertising space to be targeted and priced accordingly. The fact that 'we' are the vanguard of the exceptions with time-shifted viewing and all rest means that 'our' shows are the ones more likely to get cancelled. That's just a fact.

The networks won't change (just yet) to accommodate our numbers since we are a minority. What they will do is make our viewing more difficult so as to support their revenue stream. Places like Hulu will start to charge for access and shows will be delayed by 30 days to try and drive the viewers back to the TV. Fighting the DVR time-shifting is a different proposition that I'm not sure how it will play out.

Until the majority watch as we do, however, TV companies won't 'have' to do anything. Some will develop new revenue models and will try and lead the change. Some of those will fail and some will roll forward to become the 'new standard'.

Whatever happens, the viewer will pay either through enforced advertising (DVRs that won't skip ads) or through a direct financial contribution (PayTV). Those who don't fall in with whatever model rises to the surface will be the ones who don't watch TV (legally).

The networks have no obligation to provide universal viewing (mostly, lets ignore public service obligations for the moment) and they won't. As long as the new model makes enough money for them they will happily ignore the nay-sayers.

As for the 'masses' leaving TV behind, aren't they the ones who soak up the awful reality stuff??? I think there is a very big 'if' attached to that statement. Do you really know anyone (let alone masses of people) who's sold the TV because they don't want to watch any more under the current model? I don't. Admittedly, Hulu and the like don't exist over here so our options are more limited but looking at the restrictions starting to appear in the US, so will yours be soon.

[Feathers]

Indeed, $$ is the thing that makes the world go round, and I by no means am saying that TV companies should work for free, that's just stupid.  However, if they forced paid-for TV, it would also backfire in their face...no easy way to fix it...

King

Do you really believe that the majority of people would give up watching television if the law changed tomorrow and the had to pay for it?

SkyTV over here makes billions by charging for TV and there's no appreciable public outcry. Even I've given in and bought a Sky package (I swore I never would). The attraction is too great and people are too selfish to pack in doing what they enjoy on a matter of principal.

I'm not saying this is a model that will be adopted, I'm just suggesting that your expectations of the public at large seem a little unrealistic to me.