Zucker says NBC may scale down programming hours

ChaosTitan

Around
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Dec 8, 2005
Messages
15,463
Reaction score
2,886
Location
The not-so-distant future
Website
kellymeding.com
I wasn't terribly surprised back when networks stopped programming on Saturday nights and went to movies instead. I recall watching Dr. Quinn and Walker on CBS Saturdays for a while. Now I wouldn't be surprised if networks stopped programming Friday night, as well, for the same reason. Some shows find audiences there (it seems to work for Ghost Whisperer and some sitcoms), but many don't.

NBC....the only shows I regularly watch on NBC are Heroes....um....Heroes.....

E.R. is in its final season. I'd like to see Law & Order: Special Victims Unit stay, but other than that? Eh, throw in Chuck, 'cuz my dad likes it.
 

katiemac

Five by Five
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Feb 11, 2005
Messages
11,521
Reaction score
1,661
Location
Yesterday
On NBC I watch 30 Rock, The Office, Heroes and Chuck. I probably wouldn't be too bummed if the latter two got a cut, although I'd like them to stick around (at least until I decide I'm done with Heroes--but here's hoping it gets an upswing).

30 Rock might be in trouble in the ratings, but it (re: Tina Fey) is genius and I'd hate for NBC to let it go. Considering it and The Office are my two sources of guaranteed entertainment until Lost come back, I need them to stick around.
 

MattW

Company Man
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Dec 14, 2005
Messages
6,326
Reaction score
855
NBC has shows other than Heroes and Thursday nights?


Learn something every day...
 

ChaosTitan

Around
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Dec 8, 2005
Messages
15,463
Reaction score
2,886
Location
The not-so-distant future
Website
kellymeding.com
I just that article, nevada. It's definitely one way to get rid of 5 hours of programming a week. However, that also means that all of their 10 pm shows will have to move forward an hour. And considering the graphic nature of, for example L&O:SVU, the later hour meant fewer younger viewers tuning in.
 

katiemac

Five by Five
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Feb 11, 2005
Messages
11,521
Reaction score
1,661
Location
Yesterday
Yeah, I saw that yesterday. It's an interesting solution, although it's not something I'm particularly interested in watching myself. Does it say how long the contract is for? We may see NBC back with more scripted shows in a couple of years, but right now all the networks (just like everyone) are suffering the economy.
 

Diana W.

I'm evolving
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jan 17, 2008
Messages
11,981
Reaction score
4,152
Location
Freehold, New Jersey
If they showed less reality crap and put on more entertaining shows instead then maybe they'd do better. They cut their best show (Journeyman) after just one season. I don't really watch the channel any more.
 

maestrowork

Fear the Death Ray
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Feb 11, 2005
Messages
43,746
Reaction score
8,652
Location
Los Angeles
Website
www.amazon.com
Yup, cut all the reality crap, keep the quality shows on prime time, and show movies or news programs in other slots.
 

Satori1977

Listening to the Voices In My Head
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Sep 23, 2008
Messages
5,975
Reaction score
662
Location
I can see the Rocky Mountains
I don't watch too much on NBC. I would say ER, but I already know it is in it's last season. I watch Heroes, but haven't been to impressed by it lately, so meh. My Name is Earl is funny (this and How I Met Your Mother are the only comedies I watch). But I will be very upset if they axe SVU or Life. Two very good, very different, cop dramas (Life definitely has a humorous edge). Other than that....
 
Last edited:

Gary

Super Member
Registered
Joined
Apr 23, 2006
Messages
968
Reaction score
153
Location
East Texas
My wife has been out of town for the past 6 days, and the television has been turned on for a total of three hours in that time. I guess that sums up what I think of television today.
 

katiemac

Five by Five
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Feb 11, 2005
Messages
11,521
Reaction score
1,661
Location
Yesterday
Yup, cut all the reality crap, keep the quality shows on prime time, and show movies or news programs in other slots.

That would be ideal, of course, but reality programming is cheaper and usually generates enough ratings to keep them going.

Really, I wish the networks would stop putting so much stock in advertising dollars. Once the advertisers bail, the show's gone.
 

katiemac

Five by Five
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Feb 11, 2005
Messages
11,521
Reaction score
1,661
Location
Yesterday
Without advertisers, what pays for the show?

I sat in in a lecture by Ted Koppel last spring. This is a bit different from primetime shows, obviously, but he was discussing the nature of journalism in an advertisement-based world. He discussed what it was like, years ago, when he was anchoring. He said that, for example, one night they would air a segment on malfunctioning car engines. They realized they had a major advertising spot sold to one of the car companies. The producers would call up advertising, suggest they move the car company's spot to the next night.

Nowadays, however, if the same thing occurs, advertising calls the shots. They tell the producers they need to move the news segment to another night so the car advertisment stays where it is.

So, yeah, I understand the practicality of needed the advertising dollars to produce the show in the first place. But it all seems so backwards these days. Networks no longer give shows time to grow into an audience because advertisers won't block during something with low ratings. If something premieres to low ratings, it's dead.

I guess it makes more sense for me to say, not that they didn't put so much stock into advertising dollars, but that they didn't have to.
 
Last edited:

maestrowork

Fear the Death Ray
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Feb 11, 2005
Messages
43,746
Reaction score
8,652
Location
Los Angeles
Website
www.amazon.com
Without advertisers, what pays for the show?

Subscription, like cable channels. Like HBO, Showtime, etc.

I know, I know... network is free, etc. etc. but like Katiemac said, the advertisers are calling the shots, and quality shows suffer and the reality shows thrive because everyone is following the dollar. The advertisers are paying, not the viewers. Like Katiemac said, networks have less incentive to let a show grow (many shows are taken off even before the season is over) -- something like 30 Rock or the Office is rare (they are critically acclaimed but not rating champs) -- advertisers are impatient, and the networks follow their lead.

But when economy is rough, the quality shows go out the window because advertisers can't pay, and quality shows are expensive to produce. What's left are cheap-to-make reality shows or formulaic shows that cater to the lowest common denominator. Or they crank out 20 new shows that smell the same, hopeful that one would stick and become a bona fide hit to pay for the other crappy shows.

To me, the "free network" advertising-based model is archaic anyway. It's the same as the newspaper model, and we all know newspapers are dying. Especially in a down economy, the advertising-based model is one of the first to suffer. People want quality entertainment and they're willing to pay for it -- for a reasonable subscription fee, for example. Music subscription/download sites are thriving now. People want quality, and they want choices. I'm willing to pay $0.99 for a song I really like instead of paying for $15 for the entire album, or trying to catch it on the radio with lots of ads.
 
Last edited:

Vincent

Cheers
Poetry Book Collaborator
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Feb 12, 2005
Messages
1,933
Reaction score
463
I have seen the future, and it is wall to wall reality shows, infomercials and call in gameshows.
 

ChaosTitan

Around
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Dec 8, 2005
Messages
15,463
Reaction score
2,886
Location
The not-so-distant future
Website
kellymeding.com
Subscription, like cable channels. Like HBO, Showtime, etc.

The problem for regular households, though, is that digital cable packages still aren't all that cheap. I think we pay in the neighborhood of fifty dollars a month for Basic programming. No movie channels, no music channels. Premium packages are another twenty bucks, at least.

And then you tack on the extra money for subscription movie channels that often just aren't worth the money (they air the same ten movies all month long and call that programming?).

I know changes are around the corner, and I agree with katiemac that it's gotten to a ridiculous place with advertisers calling the shots.

Maybe they should go back to the format from the forties and fifties, when one company sponsored the entire show. ;)
 

Teleute

Skeptic
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Dec 13, 2008
Messages
142
Reaction score
23
The problem for regular households, though, is that digital cable packages still aren't all that cheap. I think we pay in the neighborhood of fifty dollars a month for Basic programming. No movie channels, no music channels. Premium packages are another twenty bucks, at least.

And then you tack on the extra money for subscription movie channels that often just aren't worth the money (they air the same ten movies all month long and call that programming?).

That's true, but part of the problem IMO is that cable companies are natural monopolies and people just don't have a choice.

If I could just get HBO and Showtime and nothing else, and pay $30 a month for it or whatever, I'd do it. But we don't have the choice to. Before we can get any of the movie channels, we have to get the basic cable package, AND the premium cable package, and it all adds up to $90 a month, which I'm not willing to pay.

If cable companies would provide a la carte selections in addition to their overall cable packages, but those a la carte selections provided an additional revenue stream to the networks, then it could work. If I could pay $5 per cable channel I wanted rather than $50 for the whole thing, I'd totally do it. I'd only buy CNN, MSNBC, Comedy Central, and NatGeo, and my cable bill would be $20 a month rather than $50 a month. With the present system, I'm not even willing to pay for basic cable. More people will make that choice with less quality programming available, too.
 

katiemac

Five by Five
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Feb 11, 2005
Messages
11,521
Reaction score
1,661
Location
Yesterday
I know changes are around the corner, and I agree with katiemac that it's gotten to a ridiculous place with advertisers calling the shots.

I have no idea how much advertisers are willing to pay in the first place, these days, because of DVRs. Are companies willing to pay as much as they did five years ago, knowing a good chunk of the viewers will be fast-forwarding through it?

But I do wonder how much money companies are making from streaming their shows online. Again, going back to the Ted Koppel lecture, one point he made was that, years ago, the producers and anchors would sit down and decide "What does the public need to know?" and share those news stories. It's the same way now, only with the advent of the Internet, we can pretty much pick and choose what we want to know. Instead of subscribing to a whole newspaper, we'll go online and read only the Business section, or do Google searches, etc.

Maybe we're heading that direction with television, like it's been mentioned. If you go online, you can pick and choose what you want to watch when you want to watch it. Same goes with your DVRs. Is it only a matter of time until the Internet is streamlined 24/7 through our TVs and we watch what we want, when we want it? There are already a couple of devices on the market that make this possible. What would that mean for premiering shows?
 

Diana W.

I'm evolving
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jan 17, 2008
Messages
11,981
Reaction score
4,152
Location
Freehold, New Jersey
Advertisers may be calling the shots for now but who even watches their commercials? That's what the remote is for :D And yeah DVR is good for getting through the ads too.
 

maestrowork

Fear the Death Ray
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Feb 11, 2005
Messages
43,746
Reaction score
8,652
Location
Los Angeles
Website
www.amazon.com
On-demand is coming. Maybe not the next 3-5 years, but soon. People can already stream free shows to their TV or DVR now, and it's only a matter of time when people can completely pick and choose what and when they watch, and completely skip commercials -- so the advertising model is going to be a way of the past. I see a more comprehensive (or selective) subscription service or pay-per-view (like what they do on iTune -- I can stream the entire 4 seasons of LOST or Heroes without having to wait for network broadcasts, for example). Plus DVDs, etc. I think viewers are slowly getting back in control by saying, "these are the shows we really want."