Scifi article

[MartinRoth]

We'd have to compare what was airing in May 2002 to what is airing in May 2003, and see the detailed numbers to know what caused the increase,

Maybe I should have been more selective, and just posted the bit about the "13 straight months of ratings growth". That pretty clearly shows that it's a trend, not just a one-shot surge based on a couple of specials.

 

[MartinRoth]

We'd have to compare what was airing in May 2002 to what is airing in May 2003, and see the detailed numbers to know what caused the increase,

Maybe I should have been more selective, and just posted the bit about the "13 straight months of ratings growth". That pretty clearly shows that it's a trend, not just a one-shot surge based on a couple of specials.

 

[MartinRoth]

Niche Companies that go up against the big boys are eaten alive. If the company does not get say 10% of the market it will go bankrupt.

For a discussion of Niche Companies see "Innovation and Entrepreneurship" by Peter F. Drucker. Another appropriate book is "Managing for Results".

None of which are really directly relevant to the issue of a broadcaster attracting viewers, since the viewers are not the broadcaster's customers.

But if your general point is that Sci-Fi needs to target specific groups and not just the generic "mainstream", it's a good point, and it means that I probably wasn't saying quite what I meant to be saying. But it does fit in with what Bonnie Hammer says they're doing.

 

[MartinRoth]

Niche Companies that go up against the big boys are eaten alive. If the company does not get say 10% of the market it will go bankrupt.

For a discussion of Niche Companies see "Innovation and Entrepreneurship" by Peter F. Drucker. Another appropriate book is "Managing for Results".

None of which are really directly relevant to the issue of a broadcaster attracting viewers, since the viewers are not the broadcaster's customers.

But if your general point is that Sci-Fi needs to target specific groups and not just the generic "mainstream", it's a good point, and it means that I probably wasn't saying quite what I meant to be saying. But it does fit in with what Bonnie Hammer says they're doing.

 

[MartinRoth]

Check this out.

Audience Goes Off Script in 2002-03

and

Cagers Dominate Cable Ratings

Hurk! There went my cookies.

What was that you were saying about the audiences not liking trash?

 

[MartinRoth]

Check this out.

Audience Goes Off Script in 2002-03

and

Cagers Dominate Cable Ratings

Hurk! There went my cookies.

What was that you were saying about the audiences not liking trash?

 

[MartinRoth]

Geez, this discussion is depressing. I know that Martin Roth is just trying to tell it like it really is, but it doesn't mean I like it.

Yep. And I don't like it either.

I'm still trying to figure out whether I can't watch anything because the programs are really that much worse, or because my standards have gone up...

 

[MartinRoth]

Geez, this discussion is depressing. I know that Martin Roth is just trying to tell it like it really is, but it doesn't mean I like it.

Yep. And I don't like it either.

I'm still trying to figure out whether I can't watch anything because the programs are really that much worse, or because my standards have gone up...

 

[KoshN]

And here I was tempted to ask ElScorcho not to be snippy towards you.

Sorry about my tone. Got a little carried away. Banging my head against a brick wall tends to do that...

But, again, in your arguments you keep talking about the quality of the programs. And I keep insisting that you're absolutely right about the poor quality, but that it doesn't matter. The only things that matter are generating the audience to generate revenues, and keeping the costs down. And I can't think of any more ways to say this...

There's something about quality not mattering that just goes against my grain. ARGH! I know the situation exists, but I just HATE IT.

Maybe they have people gather the data, but it sure looks like they can't interpret it. Either that or they're zeroing in on the demographic that appears in Jay Leno's "Jay Walking" and "Point" segments.

Don't watch Leno, but I can guess what you're talking about.

Idiotic People. Leno goes out in public and quizzes people, and gets the most idiotic answers. I know he shows only the idiots because they're the funny ones, but still, those people are out there (unless they're putting on an act), and it's kind of frightening.

When "demographics" are discussed, the characteristics under consideration are sex, age, and ethnic group. And that's about it. A small amount of other information is sometimes available but is generally ignored except by advertisers with specific targets.

Intelligence level isn't available in the data. (In some data, Education Level is included, but that's not the same thing.) But even if Intelligence was there, it'd be a pretty good bet that the advertisers would pay more for lower intelligence, since those would normally be the people more likely to be influenced by the advertising.

I know. I was more or less making a joke about the idiot demographic. Still, as a rule of thumb, people of lesser intelligence probably make less money. So, they'll have less to spend. I know, there are lots of factors. People of higher intelligence are more likely to be skeptical, and not fall for the ads.

Note the use of the word "expect" in my sentence above. What brain-damaged people would expect Farscape fans to stay tuned in for Dream Team, Scare Tactics and Tremors: The Series?

I think you missed the point that it can also be stated the opposite way: What brain-damaged people would expect Dream Team, Scare Tactics, and Tremors viewers to stay tuned in for Farscape?

The stark contrast between shows is the problem. It's like jumping from a warm bath into ice water, and then back again. Maybe they should have intelligent show nights and stupid show nights. That way, at least on a given night, the transitions would be smooth.

And since they have a lot more of the crap available, and it's cheaper and close enough in audience that the profit margin is better, it's a whole lot easier to keep the boatloads of crap and jettison the one quality show that doesn't fit in. Especially since when one particular piece of the crap doesn't work out, it's a lot quicker and easier to develop a replacement.

This is so sad.

So, if you have a good, respectable show that hasn't wrapped up, one that even the critics like, you throw it out and keep the garbage that was around it? Doesn't it make more sense to throw out the garbage?

From their perspective, it isn't garbage. Because, again, quality doesn't matter.

It must be very hard for anybody who cares about quality to work at a network, cultivating and delivering crap, because there is an audience for crap.

They're damaging the sci-fi genre. They're reinforcing the stereotypes. They're causing long term harm to the genre. This is happening at a time when the genre is at a low ebb, on life support as it is. They're kicking it while it's down.

At a low ebb? On life support? I don't know if I agree with that. I'm not sure you can make an argument that the genre is in worse shape now than it was in the mid-70's, before Star Wars. Or even the mid-80's, before ST:TNG. And if you include Fantasy, looking at the success of the Lord of the Rings and Harry Potter films makes things look better than ever.

In TV, it's certainly receding. There ought to be a network on which JMS could put a Babylon 5 universe show for $1 million/episode, and get enough ratings to support it, if things like the Lord of the Rings, Harry Potter and Matrix movies are any indication of the popularity of the Sci-Fi/Fantasy genre.

If they show quality programming, they can make money. They just need to know how to air the quality programming.

Perhaps. But if they show crap, they can also make money, and without having to worry about all those rules and conditions you supply. So why should they make things more difficult on themselves?

Out of conscience. At work, I often had the choice of taking cheap shortcuts or doing things the right way, and would invariably do things the right way, because my conscience wouldn't let me do things the other way. You have to be able to look yourself in the mirror in the morning. I've found that people without conscience or those who sell out, are usually those who rise up the ranks the fastest.

Shouldn't this communicate something to Sci-Fi? Hint: Maybe people really don't like cheap schlock.

On the other hand, they can look at the success of Joe Millionaire (#3 network show for the season), and American Idol (#5 and #6 shows), and The Bachlorette (#14), and The Bachelor (#18), not to mention Pro Wrestling (routinely among the top-rated cable shows), and come to a quite solid conclusion that people really do like cheap schlock, and they just need to keep trying different cheap schlock until they get it right.

All this makes me want to cut my cable, cut my internet connection and just watch my DVDs. Maybe I could enjoy popular TV if I had a lobotomy.

 

[KoshN]

And here I was tempted to ask ElScorcho not to be snippy towards you.

Sorry about my tone. Got a little carried away. Banging my head against a brick wall tends to do that...

But, again, in your arguments you keep talking about the quality of the programs. And I keep insisting that you're absolutely right about the poor quality, but that it doesn't matter. The only things that matter are generating the audience to generate revenues, and keeping the costs down. And I can't think of any more ways to say this...

There's something about quality not mattering that just goes against my grain. ARGH! I know the situation exists, but I just HATE IT.

Maybe they have people gather the data, but it sure looks like they can't interpret it. Either that or they're zeroing in on the demographic that appears in Jay Leno's "Jay Walking" and "Point" segments.

Don't watch Leno, but I can guess what you're talking about.

Idiotic People. Leno goes out in public and quizzes people, and gets the most idiotic answers. I know he shows only the idiots because they're the funny ones, but still, those people are out there (unless they're putting on an act), and it's kind of frightening.

When "demographics" are discussed, the characteristics under consideration are sex, age, and ethnic group. And that's about it. A small amount of other information is sometimes available but is generally ignored except by advertisers with specific targets.

Intelligence level isn't available in the data. (In some data, Education Level is included, but that's not the same thing.) But even if Intelligence was there, it'd be a pretty good bet that the advertisers would pay more for lower intelligence, since those would normally be the people more likely to be influenced by the advertising.

I know. I was more or less making a joke about the idiot demographic. Still, as a rule of thumb, people of lesser intelligence probably make less money. So, they'll have less to spend. I know, there are lots of factors. People of higher intelligence are more likely to be skeptical, and not fall for the ads.

Note the use of the word "expect" in my sentence above. What brain-damaged people would expect Farscape fans to stay tuned in for Dream Team, Scare Tactics and Tremors: The Series?

I think you missed the point that it can also be stated the opposite way: What brain-damaged people would expect Dream Team, Scare Tactics, and Tremors viewers to stay tuned in for Farscape?

The stark contrast between shows is the problem. It's like jumping from a warm bath into ice water, and then back again. Maybe they should have intelligent show nights and stupid show nights. That way, at least on a given night, the transitions would be smooth.

And since they have a lot more of the crap available, and it's cheaper and close enough in audience that the profit margin is better, it's a whole lot easier to keep the boatloads of crap and jettison the one quality show that doesn't fit in. Especially since when one particular piece of the crap doesn't work out, it's a lot quicker and easier to develop a replacement.

This is so sad.

So, if you have a good, respectable show that hasn't wrapped up, one that even the critics like, you throw it out and keep the garbage that was around it? Doesn't it make more sense to throw out the garbage?

From their perspective, it isn't garbage. Because, again, quality doesn't matter.

It must be very hard for anybody who cares about quality to work at a network, cultivating and delivering crap, because there is an audience for crap.

They're damaging the sci-fi genre. They're reinforcing the stereotypes. They're causing long term harm to the genre. This is happening at a time when the genre is at a low ebb, on life support as it is. They're kicking it while it's down.

At a low ebb? On life support? I don't know if I agree with that. I'm not sure you can make an argument that the genre is in worse shape now than it was in the mid-70's, before Star Wars. Or even the mid-80's, before ST:TNG. And if you include Fantasy, looking at the success of the Lord of the Rings and Harry Potter films makes things look better than ever.

In TV, it's certainly receding. There ought to be a network on which JMS could put a Babylon 5 universe show for $1 million/episode, and get enough ratings to support it, if things like the Lord of the Rings, Harry Potter and Matrix movies are any indication of the popularity of the Sci-Fi/Fantasy genre.

If they show quality programming, they can make money. They just need to know how to air the quality programming.

Perhaps. But if they show crap, they can also make money, and without having to worry about all those rules and conditions you supply. So why should they make things more difficult on themselves?

Out of conscience. At work, I often had the choice of taking cheap shortcuts or doing things the right way, and would invariably do things the right way, because my conscience wouldn't let me do things the other way. You have to be able to look yourself in the mirror in the morning. I've found that people without conscience or those who sell out, are usually those who rise up the ranks the fastest.

Shouldn't this communicate something to Sci-Fi? Hint: Maybe people really don't like cheap schlock.

On the other hand, they can look at the success of Joe Millionaire (#3 network show for the season), and American Idol (#5 and #6 shows), and The Bachlorette (#14), and The Bachelor (#18), not to mention Pro Wrestling (routinely among the top-rated cable shows), and come to a quite solid conclusion that people really do like cheap schlock, and they just need to keep trying different cheap schlock until they get it right.

All this makes me want to cut my cable, cut my internet connection and just watch my DVDs. Maybe I could enjoy popular TV if I had a lobotomy.

 

[KoshN]

We'd have to compare what was airing in May 2002 to what is airing in May 2003, and see the detailed numbers to know what caused the increase,

Maybe I should have been more selective, and just posted the bit about the "13 straight months of ratings growth". That pretty clearly shows that it's a trend, not just a one-shot surge based on a couple of specials.

It all depends on how those numbers are calculated. Remember, you can make numbers say almost anything you want, if you exclude certain numbers, and don't mention those exclusions. How much growth? Is is significant growth? It doesn't matter though, because the average audience member is a pig at the trough. There are far more of them than there are people who are turned off by the current slop.

Last night, I could find nothing worthwhile on TV. The night before, I watched the PBS 90 minute story about Robert Capa (the famous photojournalist). I was glued to the TV for those 90 minutes.

 

[KoshN]

We'd have to compare what was airing in May 2002 to what is airing in May 2003, and see the detailed numbers to know what caused the increase,

Maybe I should have been more selective, and just posted the bit about the "13 straight months of ratings growth". That pretty clearly shows that it's a trend, not just a one-shot surge based on a couple of specials.

It all depends on how those numbers are calculated. Remember, you can make numbers say almost anything you want, if you exclude certain numbers, and don't mention those exclusions. How much growth? Is is significant growth? It doesn't matter though, because the average audience member is a pig at the trough. There are far more of them than there are people who are turned off by the current slop.

Last night, I could find nothing worthwhile on TV. The night before, I watched the PBS 90 minute story about Robert Capa (the famous photojournalist). I was glued to the TV for those 90 minutes.

 

[MartinRoth]

In TV, it's certainly receding. There ought to be a network on which JMS could put a Babylon 5 universe show for $1 million/episode, and get enough ratings to support it, if things like the Lord of the Rings, Harry Potter and Matrix movies are any indication of the popularity of the Sci-Fi/Fantasy genre.

I won't argue with "receding", as far as TV goes. But these things always go in cycles, and it's receding from one of its all-time highs. Give it a few years and the TV marketplace will have changed dramatically. Whether it'll be any friendlier to intelligent SF shows, I don't know, but if not we'll just have to wait a few more years after that and try again.

All this makes me want to cut my cable, cut my internet connection and just watch my DVDs. Maybe I could enjoy popular TV if I had a lobotomy.

I know exactly what you mean.

But at least you have the DVDs, and the occasional PBS documentaries...

 

[MartinRoth]

In TV, it's certainly receding. There ought to be a network on which JMS could put a Babylon 5 universe show for $1 million/episode, and get enough ratings to support it, if things like the Lord of the Rings, Harry Potter and Matrix movies are any indication of the popularity of the Sci-Fi/Fantasy genre.

I won't argue with "receding", as far as TV goes. But these things always go in cycles, and it's receding from one of its all-time highs. Give it a few years and the TV marketplace will have changed dramatically. Whether it'll be any friendlier to intelligent SF shows, I don't know, but if not we'll just have to wait a few more years after that and try again.

All this makes me want to cut my cable, cut my internet connection and just watch my DVDs. Maybe I could enjoy popular TV if I had a lobotomy.

I know exactly what you mean.

But at least you have the DVDs, and the occasional PBS documentaries...

 

[KoshN]

Spoiler for the third book of the Psi Corps Trilogy:
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
All this makes me want to do a "Garibaldi at Bester's Grave" and drive a stake into the heart of "Reality" TV. :devil:

 

[KoshN]

Spoiler for the third book of the Psi Corps Trilogy:
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
All this makes me want to do a "Garibaldi at Bester's Grave" and drive a stake into the heart of "Reality" TV. :devil:

 

[A_M_Swallow]

None of which are really directly relevant to the issue of a broadcaster attracting viewers, since the viewers are not the broadcaster's customers.

But if your general point is that Sci-Fi needs to target specific groups and not just the generic "mainstream", it's a good point, and it means that I probably wasn't saying quite what I meant to be saying. But it does fit in with what Bonnie Hammer says they're doing.

True. Sci-Fi is not selling TV programs, it is renting out viewers.

The big viewing groups are the big population groups - women, working class men and lower middle class men etc. Consequently these are the groups that the big audience stations target - CBS (26 million, from the above link), Fox (22 million), NBC (22) and ABC (17). If a niche station tries competing directly with one of those it will lose. What a niche station can do is aim for the people who do not watch CBS. Fortunately there are millions of such people.

If a manufacture wishes to sell his products to customers who do not watch CBS then advertising on CBS is a waste of money. He needs to advertise on a channel that his potential customers do watch. This is where program quality comes in; the reason that they are not CBS viewers is that the non-CBS viewers have tastes that are different from CBS viewers.

Sci-Fi's niche is the science fiction audience. CBS cannot compete in this market, the viewing figures are too low for the mass market manufactures. Sci-Fi needs to know who watch it instead of CBS and inform its potential advertisers.

If a manufacture hopes to sell 100,000 widgets a year, that is a million over 10 years, a channel with 26 million viewers has 25 million people it does not need to advertise to. Paying extra for those 25 million non-customers is pure waste. It is an even bigger waste if the million off widget customers do not like CBS's programs. There is a similar argument if only a quarter of the potential widget purchasers watch CBS.

A year or two a go it was posted that a very high percentage of Sci-Fi's viewers had DVD players. This suggests that Sci-Fi's viewers may be gadget mad, useful information about the sort of advertisers Sci-Fi's time bookers should cold call.

 

[MartinRoth]

The big viewing groups are the big population groups - women, working class men and lower middle class men etc.

Actually, in the US, "class" breakdowns aren't used -- the whole issue is a non-starter in the cultural environment. The main demographic breakdowns are sex and age (in certain predefined groupings), with special black and hispanic ethnic breakdowns available for certain data.

And the size of the viewing group isn't the same thing as its desirability to advertisers. Older viewers are "worth less", since they're assumed to have already developed their shopping habits for most products and are less likely to be influenced by the ads. (Whether that's true or not is questionable, but it's the working assumption of the advertising industry for the moment.)

At this point, Men aged 18 to 34 are considered the prime target, and advertisers will pay a premium for viewers in that demographic. So that's the group that everyone targets.

Unfortunately, that's also the group among which the bulk of the "traditional" SF audience falls, and the SF audience is only a very small piece of that group. Which means that if the Sci-Fi Channel doesn't expand beyond the "traditional" SF audience, it's going to be drawing only a small piece of the group that everyone else is also targeting, and even though that's the best group for revenues, by the time it's all sliced up, Sci-Fi wouldn't have enough of it to get by.

Sci-Fi's niche is the science fiction audience.

But advertisers don't give a shit about the science fiction audience. They only see that the bulk of the science fiction audience fits into a particular overall demo cell -- the most desirable demo cell, yes, but one that lots of other broadcasters can produce in far better numbers since they're targeting the entire demo cell rather than just a small subset of it.

Much of your post seems to be suggestions about how Sci-Fi could remain a minor "niche" channel and eke out a bit of revenue. But you're missing the point that these suggestions are no longer appropriate, because that's not their current status.

If Sci-Fi wanted to remain, as you say, just a minor "niche" channel, they could have done so. But instead, they have taken the opportunity to expand their audience, and by doing so they have become one of the top 10 basic cable networks, which is a good way to make a lot more money, which is of course the entire reason they exist in the first place. If they hadn't done that, there would be justification for calling them idiots.

 

[KevinDavis]

At least they had sense of keeping Stargate on for one more season. That is the only show that I would watch on Sci Fi nowadays.

 

[A_M_Swallow]

Much of your post seems to be suggestions about how Sci-Fi could remain a minor "niche" channel and eke out a bit of revenue. But you're missing the point that these suggestions are no longer appropriate, because that's not their current status.

If Sci-Fi wanted to remain, as you say, just a minor "niche" channel, they could have done so. But instead, they have taken the opportunity to expand their audience, and by doing so they have become one of the top 10 basic cable networks, which is a good way to make a lot more money, which is of course the entire reason they exist in the first place. If they hadn't done that, there would be justification for calling them idiots.

WARNING: TOP TEN = LOSER.

There are very few markets that can support 10 big companies. Most markets consist of 2 big companies and a specialist. You may get 4 or 5 but not 10. Sci-Fi is now in a fight to the death with companies like CBS, ABC, Fox, NBC, UPN, WB and CNN. They have more money.

We know from elsewhere that the big audiences are for sport, soap operas, game shows, blockbuster films and news. All areas in which the Sci-Fi is poor. Its attempt at a reality show is already losing viewers, possibly because anything that is too realistic (other than a documentary) will not fit its other programming.

If you cannot be one of the top 3, to survive you have to be a niche company. As the recession gets deeper the advertisers will just desert the other members of the top ten. They will end up having the costs of a top 10 company without the income.

Sci-Fi's membership of the top 10 means that advertisers will consider it. Whilst staying in the top 10 it may be possible for them to become a big niche company, such as 18-34 men with above average income. Over the age of about 25 brain jobs normally pay more then manual jobs (that is where quality comes in). Sci-Fi will just have to accept that soap powder and food manufactures will not be big spenders.

Luckily for us the big successes are programs like Dune, which is SF/Fantasy. Hopefully over the next 2 or 3 years Sci-Fi will change its programming to appeal to the Dune audience. These are likely to be the sort of programs that the readers of this message board like.