NationStates Jolt Archive

I wanted to raise awareness about poor TV shows, unfortunatly I am in Japan and am not exposed to most of the new, poor shows coming out back in the states. Can someone raise my awareness. What crap is on in the US or hell, even Europe for that matter.

There is a 94-1 ratio of bad to good shows on in the US. Many of them are reality shows...what is with Americans and reality TV?

There is a 94-1 ratio of bad to good shows on in the US. Many of them are reality shows...what is with Americans and reality TV?

I don't know, I just don't know. *weeping*

Let us reminisce and think of better times when TV could by watched by intellectuals without fear of brain damage...oh, those were the days.... :(

There is a 94-1 ratio of bad to good shows on in the US. Many of them are reality shows...what is with Americans and reality TV?Observation 1: people will watch TV when they have nothing else to do. Thus, it doesn't matter what you put on, the number of people who watch it will be virtually identical.

Observation II: People are possessive- they easily become attached to things and ideas.

Inference I: If you can get 'em to watch 3 shows in a row, they'll actively attempt to see said show, rather than just watch it "because it's on."

Observation III: Reality TV shows are cheaper to produce than anything (except, possibly, game shows).

Inference II: The profit margin is greatest (same gross profit, lowest expense).

Inference III: Executives will attempt to select Neilsen families based on how many fashion catalogues at house receives (a sure sign of attraction to "what is popular").

There is a 94-1 ratio of bad to good shows on in the US. Many of them are reality shows...what is with Americans and reality TV?
Its a few things-
Novelty, initially, is what propelled the reality show. Each one that comes out after Survivor has had to trump the last in novelty.

Monkeys watch monkeys. As a species we are wired to observe conflict, it lets us know when to run or if there is food available. There is no built in 'Yeah, but this is stupid' reflex. People have to do that on thier own.

The FCC loosened its rules on how much programing that a network can own, and this is really the big one. A reality show doesn't have to command the same share as a narrative show that is produced by someone else to be profitable for the station. For the producers it's even better, when you take into account that a show that is sold to the network is only bought for @90% of the cost to actually make the show. (The exception becomes when the network needs the show more than the show needs the network, as with Friends toward the end and ER) Producers of shows not owned by the network hope to keep thier shows on long enough to hit the syndication watermark where a show becomes profitable. A network owned show doesn't need to reach that, there is no concern to get Survivor syndicated. It's cheap and as long as it gets a reasonable share it will fare better in the eyes of the executives than a show that they have to purchase.

The latter is the real driving force behind the abundance of reality shows, not so much that they are popular, but the bar for profitability in terms of cost of production and revenue is, in addition, lowered for them so that their success is exagerated.

Observation 1: people will watch TV when they have nothing else to do. Thus, it doesn't matter what you put on, the number of people who watch it will be virtually identical.
Less true now, with the preponderance of cable and satelite TV.

Observation II: People are possessive- they easily become attached to things and ideas.
Absolutely true. It fuels Coke vs. Pepsi and Must See TV vs. on and on...

Inference I: If you can get 'em to watch 3 shows in a row, they'll actively attempt to see said show, rather than just watch it "because it's on."
The idea is called 'flow.' It's a theory put forth in the 70s and is debated in media theory. It's also why Enterprise had such a hard time-it had no flow, like programing that would keep or attract viewers. That and the 'faithful' are a whiny bunch, but thats a different argument. Do a google of flow and maybe media theory or television you are likely to get some writings on the theory.

Observation III: Reality TV shows are cheaper to produce than anything (except, possibly, game shows).


Inference II: The profit margin is greatest (same gross profit, lowest expense).
I have a whole other post on this.

Inference III: Executives will attempt to select Neilsen families based on how many fashion catalogues at house receives (a sure sign of attraction to "what is popular").
There is a debate raging about how valuble Neilsen and 'sweeps' are these days to setting advertising rates. Doesn't say anything to your post but is kinda relivant.

yae i dont watch tv anymore

I've given up on TV except for a few shows: Numb3rs, JAG, and Jon Stewart - that's it...