TV by the Numbers - Latest Comments in As Cable Networks Abandon Their Roots To Grab Audience, Where Do The Niches Go?

Re: As Cable Networks Abandon Their Roots To Grab Audience, Where Do The Niches Go?

Jay — Mon, 13 Jul 2009 14:13:38 -0000

Once we can get cable channels a la carte, the niche network will return. Then I don't have to pay for 80 reality channels lumped into my current cable bill, I can support the few cable nets that I still watch.

Re: As Cable Networks Abandon Their Roots To Grab Audience, Where Do The Niches Go?

Carol — Tue, 07 Jul 2009 22:56:53 -0000

In my opinion, as soon as people can sign up for individual TV shows & series via the Internet for viewing, most people will drop Cable/Satellite TV. Commercial supported TV doesn't really work with very many networks/channels - the pie is sliced too thin. Plus once you aren't locked into watching a show at a certain time, which is already happening with DVRs, the whole channel line up falls apart.

Networks can't produce quality programming (non-reality) unless they've got a decent slice of the pie. Too many channels means that there are too many slices of the pie, thus lower viewers for everyone. And viewers are ticked off with the amount of commercials.

I know I'm showing my age but I remember when the broadcast networks didn't air anything in the middle of the night but just during certain hours. They only had so much original programming and they didn't have enough of an audience to do otherwise. If you tune into cable in the middle of the night, you don't get much real programming even now. It seems like half the stuff airing on cable and a large chunk off-hours on broadcast is nothing but infomercials. And that DISGUSTS me to be paying for cable service that is airing infomercials disguised as regular programming.

A channel line up used to mean something when you had to physically get out of the chair to manually turn the channel on the TV set. Now with remotes, it's not very likely that people are too lazy to flip to another channel from their seat when the program they're watching ends (or during commercial breaks).

If you go back and watch some old DVDs from the 50s/early 60s they had 8 minutes of commercials per hour for primetime compared to 18 minutes per hour for primetime today. 10 more minutes of commercials has been added per hour.

I don't think that I'm alone in that I'd rather pay or rent the TV series DVD and watch it commercial free than bother watching it when it originally airs with commercials. I rarely watch live TV anymore. I either watch DVDs or record the show and watch it later skipping through the commercials. If I do watch live, then when a commercial comes on I change the channel to another and flip back when the show is back on. I don't really care if I miss something because I refuse to watch all those commercials.

Since the commercials are what's paying for most TV, I don't see it being able to be sustained in its current format. I'm guessing that in the future people will either have to watch their shows online via a video stream where they can't cut out the commercials or pay a fee to watch their show commercial free.

In my opinion, networks as we know them will go away. People could pay a fee to access various video libraries and pick and choose what shows they want to watch and what episodes. That would definitely work for any show that would essentially be a rerun.

Re: As Cable Networks Abandon Their Roots To Grab Audience, Where Do The Niches Go?

InsulinJunkie — Mon, 06 Jul 2009 13:09:41 -0000

>>>Actually, AMC went to the top twenty-five cable networks in a hurry, as the Media Life Magazine 2009 2Q charts show for both prime time and total day.

I was talking about how AMC radically changed formats virtually overnight about ten years ago (late 90s? early 2000s?).

They've moved away from THAT format (the same 80s movies everyone, including your local independent station, was showing) in the years since. Now they've settled somewhere in-between; more original programming, and a film library that's a fair bit more balanced old/newer than that initial format swap.

Re: As Cable Networks Abandon Their Roots To Grab Audience, Where Do The Niches Go?

Brodie — Mon, 06 Jul 2009 10:15:27 -0000

I found it so refreshing when I got an expanded cable package featuring Chiller, Slueth, the Science Channel, etc. These are entirely niche networks that provide exactly what they say they do.

Re: As Cable Networks Abandon Their Roots To Grab Audience, Where Do The Niches Go?

Casey Abell — Mon, 06 Jul 2009 09:26:07 -0000

"Sort of like AMC used to be, until they changed format (adding commercials, losing the host, and switching over from “American Movie Classics” to the same movies that every other channel was airing) some years back – ten years maybe?. It went to hell in a hurry."

Actually, AMC went to the top twenty-five cable networks in a hurry, as the Media Life Magazine 2009 2Q charts show for both prime time and total day. Somehow those "same old" movies get a much bigger audience than the - what would you call them? - "not same old" movies.

I agree with a poster early in this thread who said that plenty of niche networks exist on digital tiers for slivers of the audience. But it's always fun to complain about cable outlets "abandoning" their audiences. Makes 'em sound like runaway parents dumping babies on doorsteps. Meanwhile, those networks pick up more viewers, who apparently don't feel so abandoned.

Re: As Cable Networks Abandon Their Roots To Grab Audience, Where Do The Niches Go?

NTNgod — Mon, 06 Jul 2009 00:08:05 -0000

The Nashville Network turning into Spike has to be the most dramatic cable channel programming shift of recent times. It's at least got to be on the short list.

Re: As Cable Networks Abandon Their Roots To Grab Audience, Where Do The Niches Go?

InsulinJunkie — Mon, 06 Jul 2009 00:02:41 -0000

>> In my eyes, TCM is the one cable network that has always remained true to its original intent – everything is related to classic film, and the people who run the channel really seem to “get it.”

Sort of like AMC used to be, until they changed format (adding commercials, losing the host, and switching over from "American Movie Classics" to the same movies that every other channel was airing) some years back - ten years maybe?. It went to hell in a hurry.

Re: As Cable Networks Abandon Their Roots To Grab Audience, Where Do The Niches Go?

Corey3rd — Sun, 05 Jul 2009 21:56:33 -0000

but at least their reality and competition shows are about food. it's not like they're running wrestling - although Jell-O wrestling would get me to watch

Re: As Cable Networks Abandon Their Roots To Grab Audience, Where Do The Niches Go?

squiggleslash — Sun, 05 Jul 2009 18:41:16 -0000

"One stated reason is so they could have a trademarkable name, but their intent to shift away from their science fiction, fantasy, paranormal programming roots towards more general interest fare is likely the biggest driver."

I suspect actually it's more "their intent to shift away from their science fiction roots towards more general interest fare, especially fantasy and paranormal programming."

The problem with Sci-fi is that there really isn't that much actual science fiction on it. The network is named after a small part of the genres that the network wants to cover.

I wouldn't assume that just because in the US, The X-Files and Fringe are considered "Science Fiction" and are on the same DVD shelves as "The Omen" and "Buffy the Vampire Slayer" that this somehow means that any of these fairly described by the science fiction moniker, or that these don't have a general audience. Part of the reason why there have been a thousand vampire TV shows since Buffy is because the genre is more "general interest" than speculation on the social affects of certain hypothetical but possible technologies, or images of the future.

I don't expect Syfy to change their programming mix at all. I think their content is already, for the most part, a mix aimed at general audiences. I think the name change reflects both the fact that they are having trademark issues, and that they feel that people who would be happy watching much of their content aren't going to even look for that content on a network named for science fiction.

Re: As Cable Networks Abandon Their Roots To Grab Audience, Where Do The Niches Go?

Brian Link — Sun, 05 Jul 2009 16:08:54 -0000

Folks are holding up Food Network as a channel that hasn't given in to the vanillifying of cable networks. But if you've watched the network over the last few years, they've kicked out their actual chefs, and it seems like half their fare is Reality Shows. Really a crappy channel to watch now if you want to see shows about cooking.

Re: As Cable Networks Abandon Their Roots To Grab Audience, Where Do The Niches Go?

Brandon G. — Sun, 05 Jul 2009 14:21:45 -0000

I miss Trio.

Re: As Cable Networks Abandon Their Roots To Grab Audience, Where Do The Niches Go?

Patrick O — Sun, 05 Jul 2009 11:41:08 -0000

In my eyes, TCM is the one cable network that has always remained true to its original intent - everything is related to classic film, and the people who run the channel really seem to "get it." Obviously it's a bit easier for them due to having easy access to studio vaults, but they keep airing great films (including many not available on DVD) and use their late-night hours to air niche programming.

As for the constant debate over 'a la carte' cable, I just don't think it would turn out as well as people think. Even if I whittled down my cable options to 5 channels (let's say FX, AMC, Food Network, Bravo and ESPN) I doubt I would come out (much) ahead costwise - the cable companies aren't going to be giving individual channels away for pennies, and you'll still have to pay some sort of cable service fees. And even there, I'm only interested in most of those networks when the shows I like (Mad Men, Breaking Bad, Top Chef, etc.) are on. I doubt the cable companies would let you turn channels off and on at will, and if they did they'd find a way to charge a premium for it.

Building on what others have said, a la carte programming is pointless when pretty much everything ends up available through other means (DVDs, streaming, downloads) if you're willing to wait a few months.

Re: As Cable Networks Abandon Their Roots To Grab Audience, Where Do The Niches Go?

David — Sat, 04 Jul 2009 19:26:44 -0000

It amazes me how many people call cable tv a wastland and that it is all the same. There are so many unique series like Dexter, Big Love, Breaking Bad, and so many others. Shows like these never aired in the 80's and 90's. It is like tv has finally been liberated from boring heavily censored broadcast network shows and yet people complain tv now is boring. I suppose people can have their own view but even if you do not like those shows I mention I think it is difficult to argue that at least some cable tv channels are offering programs that are different from what has typically aired on tv.

Re: As Cable Networks Abandon Their Roots To Grab Audience, Where Do The Niches Go?

Allen — Sat, 04 Jul 2009 19:17:38 -0000

When I was a kid, I thought cable was a necessity. Whenever I heard someone say they didn't have cable, I assumed they were poor or something. But as an adult, and I couldn't imagine paying for cable. It seems like such a waste of money. The only channel I find even half interesting is Comedy Central. Everything else worth watching can be found on a network.

Re: As Cable Networks Abandon Their Roots To Grab Audience, Where Do The Niches Go?

Andrea — Sat, 04 Jul 2009 15:33:39 -0000

Even Lifetime has changed: no more the mytical Meredith Bexter!

Re: As Cable Networks Abandon Their Roots To Grab Audience, Where Do The Niches Go?

Joseph-n — Sat, 04 Jul 2009 14:03:03 -0000

I was listening to an interview with Rick Kushman of the Television Critics Association, and he said the same thing. The niche channels can't grow their niche, so they only have two choices: spend a LOT on scripted shows like Mad Men, which the smaller channels cannot afford; or go reality, like Jon and Kate + 8.

Funny that all these channels are trying to go more mainstream at the same time that the 3 cable news channels (Fox, CNN and MSNBC) are throwing out the concept of reporting actual news, by instead trying to attract a rabid niche.

As for me, I will never subscribe to the wasteland called cable tv until they give me an a la carte option. The only stuff left I like to watch is either on Hulu or some shows that only get shown at odd hours, so I DVR them.

Re: As Cable Networks Abandon Their Roots To Grab Audience, Where Do The Niches Go?

Scott Jensen — Sat, 04 Jul 2009 13:59:31 -0000

Oops. In the above post, "any screaming" should be "anyone screams" and "should be" should be "shouldn't be". Sorry.

Re: As Cable Networks Abandon Their Roots To Grab Audience, Where Do The Niches Go?

Scott Jensen — Sat, 04 Jul 2009 13:57:52 -0000

Oh, and if any screaming about the cable TV carriers should be forced to go a la carte, do realize that they are a government-sanctioned monopoly. There is no free market of cable TV carriers. In fact, if it wasn't for satellite TV, they won't even have any real competition.

Re: As Cable Networks Abandon Their Roots To Grab Audience, Where Do The Niches Go?

Scott Jensen — Sat, 04 Jul 2009 13:56:09 -0000

There is a lot of talk about forcing the cable TV carriers to offer their channels a la carte to their subscribers. There is also talk of the satellite TV carriers doing likewise and some speculation that they might do it first and thus force the cable TV carriers to follow suit. I think if this development happens, niche channels will come back into high fashion. Some networks will die a long overdue death (Home Shopping Network and C-Span) and others will gain massive amount of new subscribers (Science Channel and DIY)

What I find odd is that the cable TV carriers pay the cable channels and it isn't the other way around. The channels need the carriers more than the carriers need the channels. In communities, there is only one cable TV carrier. As for programming, there are usually at least two channels going doing the same theme (for example, Lifetime, Oxygen, and WE). If I was a cable TV carrier, I wouldn't pay but put up for bid spots in the basic channel package after laying down some ground rules. "One channel devoted to women, one channel devoted to..." I don't really see any must-have channels aside (for me) the History Channel ... and even that less than I used to feel due to the crappy non-History reality shows they now run during prime time (Ice Road Truckers, Ax Men, etc.).

Re: As Cable Networks Abandon Their Roots To Grab Audience, Where Do The Niches Go?

Corey3rd — Sat, 04 Jul 2009 09:56:58 -0000

what gets me about Bravo is that their movie selection rarely meshes with the audience they attract to their original programming. They'll have a marathon of Top Chef followed by Steven Seagal films.

although there is a space where the niche rules - the sports channels like MLB Network, NFL network, NBA Network and NHL network.

Re: As Cable Networks Abandon Their Roots To Grab Audience, Where Do The Niches Go?

Theoacme — Sat, 04 Jul 2009 09:44:30 -0000

Wingsabre - MTV tr3's - sounds like a good format for the CW - just add more 90210 cleavage and the "vroom, vroom, party starter!" and they're good to go :)

As of now, there really isn't much on cable that I would pay anything for:

TNT

Lifetime (I don't like it since Dawn Ostroff cancelled the five shows that my wife and I loved to watch together, and it is "television for women (who enjoy being emotionally and sexually abused by cable television executives)" - but it would be cheaper to have this than a divorce...)

TCM (and even that's going a bit downhill...)

...

...I can't think of any other channel that I would pay even .02 cents per decade for...except for the new interactive network, "Just Shoot Me - I Work For The Cable Company!"

Re: As Cable Networks Abandon Their Roots To Grab Audience, Where Do The Niches Go?

wingsabre — Sat, 04 Jul 2009 04:54:07 -0000

MTV created MTV2 so they could focus on music more one MTV2, while regular MTV does the reality stuff Then MTV2 started to air reruns of old MTV shows. Then there's MTV tr3's which is the black, brown, and old version of MTV, where it's essentially a mix of MTV, MTV2,ABET, and some Carlos Mencia.

Re: As Cable Networks Abandon Their Roots To Grab Audience, Where Do The Niches Go?

wingsabre — Sat, 04 Jul 2009 04:40:21 -0000

Cartoon Networks used to show cartoons exclusively, now they'll have live action stuff. CNN used to focus on the news, but now they're all about non-news Twitter, and stuff that one would find in tabloids.

Re: As Cable Networks Abandon Their Roots To Grab Audience, Where Do The Niches Go?

wingsabre — Sat, 04 Jul 2009 04:36:37 -0000

MTV, VH1, Food Network, HGTV, CMT, etc... Only a few channels have stuck to their roots; Lifetime comes to mind. However celebrities that appear on those lifetime movies are one step away from being a reality show contestant. In other words they're D-listers.

Re: As Cable Networks Abandon Their Roots To Grab Audience, Where Do The Niches Go?

potato — Sat, 04 Jul 2009 03:35:17 -0000

its really true
theres a bunch that have changed in just the last 5 to 10 years
i used to look at nickelodeon and find rockos modern life, angry beavers and a billion other cartoons now all i see is icarly and spongebob
G4 used to be nothing but video games and it was great, now its basically spike tv(which used to be nothing but star trek)
Animal Planet used to be just basically animal documentaries now you find most extreme and dangerous and uncut
even a lot of the expanded cable channels are doing this to