2282 replies to this topic

[Aatrek]

I'm of two minds on the 'year-around' programming - on the one hand, the three-to-four-month-long summer hiatus for new shows will slowly disappear, allowing people to be entertained the whole year; on the other, the staggered season premiere / finale schedule will confuse people who aren't really paying attention.

'24' and 'Alias' won't be back until January 2005? What happens to the viewers who don't know about this before September? Will they think their favorite shows have been cancelled, so they stop looking for it? What happens to the show's ratings after they lose the precious September Season Premeire audience?

Also, by 2006, HDTV will become the USA television broadcasting standard. I may be a bit mistaken, but as far as I know, by 2006, every television channel you recieve will actually be two channels in one - HDTV ("widescreen") and NTSC ("full-screen," the current broadcasting format, which is what most televisions are set to recieve). The signal you see depends on the television set that you have - you'll see the HD feed if you've got an HDTV, or you'll see the NTSC feed if you've got a standard monitor.

Edited by Aatrek, May 20, 2004 @ 9:23 PM.

[joanne3482]

I really like the idea of year round programming. I am addicted to TV (shamefully so) and hate that I spend the entire summer with nothing to watch in the evenings. I also have always kind of hated the whole "sweeps" concept wherein shows, like Friends, will give you the Season Premiere in September. Then we spend most of October in rerunland. November is sweeps so all. new. shows. Dec & Jan rerunland. Feb all new and rerunland until April/May. The only thing I fear with the year round programming is how much more craptastic crap we are going to get. Since, to some extent, the networks are scraping the bottom of the barrel with shows like that Faux Idol show on the WB and the Swan on Fox... I fear how much worse it can/will get when they have even more time for programming.

[BookWoman56]

With the move to digital broadcasting, has anyone heard if traditional network tv will start to add more "on demand" options, like HBO and some other channels do now? Most of the articles I've seen on the whole digital concept focus on the technology rather than whether any content will change. For example, if I see a show that I like but missed the first several episodes, it would be nice to be able to see those episodes in an "on demand" environment, instead of having to wait for the DVD to come out and possibly losing interest in the show before then. With my digital cable and faux-Tivo, I can record upcoming shows, but that doesn't help with episodes I've missed. Ideally, I'd like to be able to turn on the tv, and select any episode of any show ever broadcast to watch, and just pay a monthly subscription fee that allows me x number of hours of on demand viewing. OK, you can stop laughing now.

[watcha]

I still don't understand the reasoning behind this year-long programming and the lack of reruns. Why?

Let's take the Desperate Housewives/Alias situation (even though I don't watch Alias). I get it that reruns of a serialized show like Alias tend to have a big drop-off in ratings. Yet, how is it financially smart to produce two shows for one time slot??? That's, like, twice the normal budget. Airing a rerun is free to the network, no? What's the point of this ratings glory?

They want to follow HBO's model? Well, HBO gets to repeat its original episodes tons of times during the week so that people will get a chance to catch it. Also, I don't know about HBO but the Movie Central channel that airs the HBO shows in Canada actually airs rerun marathons of the previous season to get the viewers caught up and excited right before a show's new season (like Six Feet Under, or the Sopranos).

(Side note: Now I'm just really concerned because Regina will have to be in full recapping mode for 20 weeks straight. Plus, more new shows = more for TWoP to potentially cover. Don't the networks know what this is going to do to Miss Alli? Think of Miss Alli!)

Edited by watcha, May 24, 2004 @ 2:31 AM.

[nerdyduck]

It's kinda weird saying this but I prefer the whole summer reruns thing over 'year-round' programming. For one thing, I'm in school so the summer is the time for me to catch up on shows I've missed during the season. I know I used to bitch about Christmas in July but I still love watching reruns to see what I miss out. And second, it's SUMMER! I do catch up on reruns but this is the time for family vacations and outside, warm-weather activities that you couldn't do during winter.

I gotta admit that I read about this stuff all the time, but it's gets really confusing. The whole split thing with Alias/Desparate Housewives and all is just mind-boggling.

They want to follow HBO's model? Well, HBO gets to repeat its original episodes tons of times during the week so that people will get a chance to catch it.

Also with the HBO thing, people are gonna watch their shows because they PAID for it. They're not gonna let it go to waste whereas network TV is doesn't matter because we get it for free. That's why they can do shorten seasons and cursing and sex. HBO doesn't depend on advertising money like network TV does.

Besides, with year-round programming, can you imagine all the crap FOX is gonna put out? If the regular season is any indication, God help us all.

[MisterMcGee]

I can see why they are moving to year-round programming. It's been gradually happening for the past several years. If there's one thing TV executives love to do is jump on a trend and beat it to death. To wit, look at last summer, everyone was talking about successful summer shows like Queer Eye, Nip/Tuck and The O.C,. so of course you're going to see more of them. (Even Fox's previews for North Shore touts "look at we did last year...").

Of course the networks are going to do what they can to keep people in during the summer since more and more viewers are out or watching cable at that time. I like having the options to see new programming during the summer, but I also would love to see reruns, or not-so-fresh epsiodes of shows I missed during the year.

Money is always going to be the motivating factor as well. If shows aren't repeating well, they will find a way to plug that hole usually with cheap reality programming. I just wish these periods could find time for shows that didn't get a chance during the regular season. I also wish - ideally - that year-round would give shows a longer time to catch on and given a chance, shows like Keen Eddie and Karen Sisco. But as nerdyduck alluded, this trend also means we'll likely get that much more crappy TV year round.

How this is affecting Alias and 24? Well I can see the benefit of it. I know how much I hated the 3-week and 5-week breaks just to make 24 fit into the season; it didn't premiere usually until late October at the earliest anyway. I'm just trying to convince myself to wait a few weeks, get through the holidays, and then my shows will be back. I'd rather have the wait than be interrupted like that.

[TudorQueen]

I'm of two minds about the end of the traditional fall to spring 'season'. While it gives the networks more opportunities to try shows that might thrive in a shorter time period [think really good miniseries] and it gives us more options to be entertained, as others have said, I fear we'll get a lot of dumped pilots and, above all, cheap and cheesy reality programming. In addition, this will inconvenience the viewer who sometimes misses an episode and forgets to set the VCR and says "Ok, I'll catch it on rerun." I mean, I missed a lot of Gilmore Girls this season...

As for HDTV becoming the standard, I fear a plot to make us all buy HDTVs, and my budget, for one, isn't really up to it...

[rcarr]

I'm wholeheartedly embracing the moves by Alias and 24 to a mid-winter start and no reruns. In the meantime, I'll have that much more free time, and I won't be pounding my head against a wall when, at the end of an episode, the voice over proclaims, "In three weeks, on an all-new 'Alias'..."

Kicker is, what we're being given in the interim is (for lack of a better name), "summer camp." With emphasis on the "camp." ABC's got themselves in ratings freefall, so how are they fixing the problem? By giving us "The Ultimate Love Test." It reminds me of the Simpsons ep spoofing "It's A Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World." When a gang of Springfield's citizenry find themselves at the bottom of a deep, deep hole, how do they propose to escape? "We'll dig our way out!"

Shameless plug on the topic: I've got a column now running at Intrepid Media, picking apart upcoming network offerings. Some are pilots, some have been picked up for at least an initial run. But it all sounds like more of the same, and as MisterMcGee said, they'll hoist unscripted stuff on us at every opportunity.

Wasn't there a cable network that, for a time, was running a "series" of sorts based on unaired pilots that the networks rejected? I'd almost prefer that, seeing something completely different each week, to seeing something awful being propped up for several weeks before being replaced by something equally awful. At least with the new-every-week format, it wouldn't get stale, and there'd be the added curiosity of never knowing what you were going to get.

And hey...what happened to NBC's brilliant (heh) "If you haven't seen it, it's NEW TO YOU" concept a couple of years back?

[Kev]

Wasn't there a cable network that, for a time, was running a "series" of sorts based on unaired pilots that the networks rejected?

That sounds like something Trio would have done.

[Shelwood]

They want to follow HBO's model? Well, HBO gets to repeat its original episodes tons of times during the week so that people will get a chance to catch it. Also, I don't know about HBO but the Movie Central channel that airs the HBO shows in Canada actually airs rerun marathons of the previous season to get the viewers caught up and excited right before a show's new season (like Six Feet Under, or the Sopranos).

The broadcast networks' version of this is called "basic cable". Fox has FX run 24 marathons of the previous season just prior to the new season. The piece they are missing is getting FX or another cable network to run multiple reruns of the current episode(s) during the season. However, many other shows already do this, like L&O:SVU/CI (but not original flavor) and Charmed. There's also the WB's "Easy View" reruns on Sundays, but that only gives them two hours.

And, honestly, I'd rather see the nets push reruns off to the cable networks (or even create new cable nets just for that) than to clutter up primetime with pre-scheduled reruns, a Fox and WB specialty. Yeah, not just the occasional non-Sweeps rerun episode, the utterly stupid "in this time slot we will always run reruns of Show X" scheduling. Come on, there aren't that many hours to schedule, especially for the nets that only do 2 hours of primetime a night. Try a little harder.

[clovisrex]

This year's schedule will be totally screwed up because of the olympics and the election. The networks may be covering themselves in case of another long election by postponing shows until January. I'm most curious about what will happen with the convention coverage. If Kerry isn't going to accept the nomination at the convention, will the networks cover it? It would be a good excuse to use for not broadcasting Bush's convention. The republican convention is so late, that special arrangements may have to be made for Bush's name to be on the ballot in Illinois.

I like the WB's easy-view concept. Pick a day of the week and show the whole primetime schedule again. You would be able to see anything you missed due to weather bulletins, news updates, or power outages.

unaired pilots that the networks rejected

"Brilliant but cancelled pilots" hosted by Paul Rudd on TRIO?

TRIO

I thought there was another series for shows that only lasted a few episodes.

Edited by clovisrex, May 24, 2004 @ 6:37 PM.

[BigBallofAnge]

I'm still not sure how I feel about the idea of year round programming as a whole, but I did realize one thing to look forward to. I've been watching Touching Evil on USA, which has some limited run like (13 episodes? something like that), and because they obviously wrote the entire season all together, before the show started airing, there's SO MUCH continuity (Is that true for all short run shows? I don't have HBO so I wouldn't know...). I imagine being able to write the whole season ahead of time will do wonderful things for the coherence of the plots on Alias and 24. I'm not sure whether the same will be in general for Fox's year round line-up, because it doesn't seem like they'll be writing and filming stuff too far ahead of time, but maybe they'll pull it off.

The other thing I'm hopeful about is maybe if Fox is successful and the other networks start using 3-block scheduling, maybe there will be some kind of vast overhaul in the way Sweeps works, and (please please please) not so many Very Special Episodes or Most Dramatic ______'s Ever.

[MisterMcGee]

You mean, no more ER's to cherish? Ah man...

But seriously, I agree that hopefully this move will make continuity and plotting problems decrease. I'm a die-hard 24 fan and I think the move will help the concept of the "day." Many of the dropped plots from earlier this season seem like they happened so long ago.

The network PTB have to realize that so many people are tuning into HBO, FX, USA and other channels for that very reason. You get uninterrupted doses of quality. Now, this all could backfire if many viewers start crying that they're "lost" and don't know when shows are coming back. We're all in the loop, but you just know that come fall many viewers will be confused. Toss in the Olympics, elections and World Series and it'll be bedlam.

Count me as another fan of "Easy View." I like that it's not really in prime time. And that programming is what sucked me in to Smallville and Everwood. I like the idea of a cable channel dedicated to rerunning a networks programming, but I can see ad rate issues coming up and the glut of cable channels already.

Edited by MisterMcGee, May 25, 2004 @ 1:44 PM.

[klio]

I like the idea of having shorter runs without repeats. Seems to me there's shows that outlive their goodness that could have been much better served with maybe an 8-week or 12-week schedule. You can have a more intricate story than a two-hour TV movie but still wrap things up in less than a regular season. Kind of like a really long mini-series. You could even have a series of mini-seasons, like detective shows that take a month or 6 weeks to solve a mystery. If it's good and new viewers want to jump on the bandwagon, they don't have to wait until the fall or try to wade in part way through and figure out what's going on.

The one thing I worry about is that this type of programming could lead to an increased amount of craptastic reality shows. That would suck.

[cal331]

I like the WB's easy-view concept. Pick a day of the week and show the whole primetime schedule again. You would be able to see anything you missed due to weather bulletins, news updates, or power outages.

I wish they would repeat all the (good) shows, but this year only One Tree Hill and Everwood got the Ez-View treatment during the regular season. The Smallville airings were shows from the first two seasons, not reruns of the previous week's shows. Although I only really like a few shows, there always seems to be two or three shows I want to see at the same time, and having another time to see one of those shows really helps. I wish more networks would do that. It's not like they have enough great shows to fill up their lineups, after all.

[dzdzsty]

The piece they are missing is getting FX or another cable network to run multiple reruns of the current episode(s) during the season.

They did this last year for 24. The rerun of Tuesday's show would run the next Monday at 11. It was great, since I worked late, and at the time it was up against Smallville, which I taped. This year, no FX reruns, and I didn't watch. I also loved the EZ-View. If you're not going to show reruns anymore, at least give viewers a chance to catch what they missed.

[Shelwood]

There's an article in the NY Times (reg required) about the changes in programming. It says that both the networks and the advertisers are amenable to changing the ratings/sweep system in the future. They really don't specify what those changes will be, though.

What I'd love to see is ratings divorced from time slots and married to content. An episode could be considered "first run" for the first 7 or 14 days after the first showing, and ratings for that episode become cumulative. Done that way, showing the episode again, on the network or a cable partner, potentially is a positive ratings move, rather than the current situation where it can siphon off viewers from the single showing that counts. A system like this also means that an "On Demand" episode delivery system is good instead of bad. Ad sales would attach to the show, not the time slot.

I'm not sure what the repercussions would be for content production, though.

[Eboogie]

Ooooh. I love this thread.

I for one, am a fan of the year round programming. It has given me an opportunity to watch shows I might not get a chance to. I watched The Amazing Race, Nip/Tuck, and Monk in the off season.

My only concern: too many television shows, not enough time. I feel like there are going to be a ton of new television shows over the coming year, and it's just not possible to watch all of them. (Good thing I don't like most if the reality shows expcept for TAR)

Personally, I have to limit myself on what I watch, I try to keep it to 3-4 shows a season.

I'm assuming this thread is the appropriate to discuss the trend away from sitcoms and toward reality shows as well.

The New York Times has had two interesting articles on the industry in the past few days.

The Laughter Is Fading in Sitcomland

Part of the reason that the networks are able to do this year-round programming, is because of the success of the reality shows. The costs are so much lower.

Scripted shows, which cost an average of $850,000 to $1.2 million to produce, almost always need to be repeated before they can recoup. With networks avoiding repeats, they must have lower-cost alternatives. The average reality show costs about $500,000.

"No network is going to do 52 weeks a year of scripted programming," Mr. Newman said. "They simply couldn't afford it."

Shelwood, you beat me to the punch. I was going to post that same article.

[Mr. Excitement]

Eboogie writes:

Part of the reason that the networks are able to do this year-round programming, is because of the success of the reality shows. The costs are so much lower.

It's probably just a pipe dream on my part, but I wonder if the evolution of reality shows as a stable profit center might cause networks to be more selective in the scripted shows they do air. After all, one reason HBO is able to take risks with its original series is because their bottom-line programming needs are already covered by sports, stand-up, reruns of movies, and Real Sex MCMXCI.

[Eboogie]

I doubt it, Mr. Excitement, I think the networks are always going to be trying to put on shows that attract the most viewers, which gets them the most advertising dollars. Unlike HBO, who doesn't need ad dollars, just large amounts of viewers to subscribe to HBO for niche programs.

It seems to me, nowadays, the major networks usually only keep on one low-rated show that has a lot of critical acclaim or a cult audience. (i.e. Arrested Development)

[clovisrex]

Half-hour sit-coms have a problem. They're usually up against hour-long programs on the other stations. The second half-hour would have to be very good for people to tune into the lead-in program. The only sit-coms I watched this year were 8 simple rules and I'm with her. Frasier was paired with Good Morning Miami at one point, and I missed most of them.

In the NY times article, they mentioned programs like Magnum P.I. replacing sit-coms in the 80s. Years ago there were 3 soap operas on in the noon hour. Two of these were 15 minute shows, and one was a half-hour: Love of Life, The Guiding Light, and Search for Tomorrow. That was a radio format that came to television. It was eliminated as the commercials kept expanding. Now a half-hour show is only 20 minutes. They need at least one strong, popular and expensive star for people to tune in.

When people got serious about VCR's, networks began the high-quality filmed shows like Moonlighting. People that weren't recording them also enjoyed watching them so much that the reruns got very good ratings.

reality shows as a stable profit center

I'm sure that reality shows will gradually become more expensive like everything else. A few law-suits could destroy the whole format.

[nerdyduck]

reality shows as a stable profit center

The thing with reality shows though is that they can't repeat well. You don't see them in reruns often or in syndication. This is why they are so cheap. Syndication is where the money's at for most shows which is why networks are so desperate to sell (and why Enterprise was probably given one more season). The only problem is trying to find a sitcom that would entice viewers to watch. It's just too bad that Arrested Development isn't getting any viewers.

It seems to me, nowadays, the major networks usually only keep on one low-rated show that has a lot of critical acclaim or a cult audience. (i.e. Arrested Development)

I noticed that, too. I just thought it was to give a network some credibility (although I don't see how Joe Millionaire 2 gives anyone prestige).

Edited by nerdyduck, May 26, 2004 @ 4:05 PM.

[Shelwood]

I think what will keep reality shows from completely pushing out scripted drama and comedy is a combination of syndication and DVD sets. In fact, DVD sales may also be pushing the new trend toward shorter episode run seasons. I've noticed that the price for the partial final season box set of Sex & the City, with only 8 episodes, was the same as the pricing for previous season sets with 13 episodes (in fact, I've seen the 8 episode set priced higher than full season sets). I don't doubt that when the season 10 set for Friends comes out, there will be no discount for the lack of a full 22/24 episode run.

It wouldn't surprise me if part of the motivation for the year round scheduling is that a "season set" can be redefined as a quarter's worth of episodes, say 8 or 12 (4 hours per DVD, right?). So a full 24 episode run becomes two or even three "seasons" that can be sold in box sets. Separately. At $50 a pop.

[thingything]

As for HDTV becoming the standard, I fear a plot to make us all buy HDTVs, and my budget, for one, isn't really up to it...

Never fear, for it IS a plot. In 2007 analog TV will be eliminated and you must buy something to receive digital.

I'm still stunned this scam is federal law. Under the guise of managing the airwaves, it creates a false 100% demand for new technology while doing nothing to regulate the cost and little to regulate quality. Do they expect us to believe companies won't take advantage of this (in the short term at least)?

A big question: What happens to the analog bandwidth? The current plan seems to be sell it all with little public oversight.

Also, any digital signal can be made into pay per view, which might lead to the end of free broadcast TV. Imagine a monthly fee just for craptacular reruns of Carter's beard.

Some folks claim interactivity will free viewers from network control, but the technology will still be made and owned by huge companies. The freedom of interactivity means little when a few producers control all the choices.

I can imagine the dialogue if this were a Simpson's episode:

"Ya know, converting all our TV to a signal owned by Mr. Burns may not have been the best idea."

"Saaayyyy, digital to analog converters are overpriced and underperform - I think they're doing this on purpose to sell new sets. In other news, I think this beer is getting me drunk."

"Price fixing among HDTV manufacturers? Gosh, didn't see that one coming. Oh well, too late now. Lisa, get me more quarters, I want to watch the football game."

I think a bigger revolution lies in TV series being released on DVD. IMO the DVD success of shows which never got a complete broadcast run will eventually lead to a DVD only TV series. Now, that is a change. I can see a network which exists only on DVD, new episodes being sold at magazine stands. It could result in a future similar to the one in Infinite Jest.

The problem is, even this future means the end of free broadcast. Could a divide between TV have and have nots be coming?

Edited by thingything, May 26, 2004 @ 5:14 PM.

[SuzyP]

The problem is, even this future means the end of free broadcast. Could a divide between TV have and have nots be coming?

If this comes to pass, that means the history of television will have come full circle. When TV started, not everyone had one and it was looked at as a status symbol. Then came the B/W vs. color broadcasts era. With any technology, for better or worse, there will always be the haves and the have nots.

[maraleia]

I know that in Britain shorter runs for series are the norm and they also don't run a show for more that 6 years max nowadays. The Brit actors like this model since they can go do movies and theater on their off time. I know that Judi Dench just finished up a run on a sitcom while also doing movies and theater. I personally like the fact that Lifetime starts some of their series in the summer so I can watch them without the glut of network programming. That is why I like HBO also. Maybe if the seasons were shorter the quality would go up on the scripted programming. As for HDTV I just gotta make some good money so I can buy the two sets I'll need as of 2007. I'm so glad my brother moved in with someone and gave me his other tv so I wouldn't have to buy another analog tv. I see tv evolving as we type and this may be for the better. TIVO is already changing the way viewers watch tv.

[Shelwood]

Also, any digital signal can be made into pay per view, which might lead to the end of free broadcast TV. Imagine a monthly fee just for craptacular reruns of Carter's beard

It already exists for those of us who can't pull in over-the-air signals. It's called a monthly cable bill. In fact, my cable system offers both signals through the same set-top box; getting the HDTV feed is an added fee. I imagine most people will use cable or satellite as a way to avoid upgrading to HDTV. Even if the analog signal is discontinued, the HDTV signal could be converted down by the cable/satellite provider (then they charge the fee for analog instead of HD).

[sixesses]

ITA about the British model. We could get more interesting actors if they just produced less than a dozen epsodes a year. Look at ABFAB. The characters are popular, and we don't see them every week. It makes the show more valuable to the viewer. I couldn't care less if I never saw Matthew Perry and the rest of his craptastic friends ever again. I always enjoy watching anything with Joanna Lumley or Jennifer Saunders.

I think people are more hesitant than ever about new technologies since they become obsolete so fast. I had a DVD player for a year. I sold it after I realized how much time I spent watching all the different features for the same movie. I often watched 3 screens at the same time with TV, DVD, and the internet.

[Eboogie]

I would be interested in seeing what the profit margins are on the DVDs and who gets the profit. I've never seen specifics, just when I've heard a dispute is going on, like with Seinfeld, when none of the actors get any compensation.

For example, I'd be interested in knowing what cult shows like Alias, Star Trek: TNG, and Buffy make in terms of profit.

And, then compare it with how much something like Survivor has sold.