It's not just about Caprica. While I love the show and I would love to see it continue, the Save Caprica Campaign is about so much more. For most avid science-fiction fans, saving Caprica is about saving the science-fiction genre itself. Over the years, we have seen science-fiction shows come and go. And being a niche genre, we understand that it is par for the course. But lately it seems that most of our niche genre shows are dropping like flies. Since Syfy announced that they were cancelling Caprica we have seen Medium and Ghost Whisperer dropped by CBS, The Event pulled from NBC's line-up, and after the close of the summer TV season ABC announced the cancellation of The Gates. Now fans are concerned for the future of shows like FOX's Fringe and Syfy's Stargate: Universe.
I am by no means advocating that all of these were amazing, intelligent, or ground-breaking sci-fi series. Some of them were awful. And a few of them barely qualified as "sci-fi". However, we need to look past the shows individually and see the trend. All of the major networks, and a subsidiary network dedicated to the genre itself, have all dropped sci-fi programming at some point in this past year.
So where is the disconnect? Why are "reality" TV shows (and I use the phrase lightly) so much more popular that intelligent, thought-provoking dramas? I refuse to believe that the majority of the population are just mindless drones, content to watch drivel in place of entertainment that leads to thought, contemplation, and conversation.
I realize that not everyone is a science-fiction fan and for those truly not interested in the genre, I accept that. However I also know that there is a large enough science-fiction fan-base out there to support more than a handful of shows on 1-2 networks.
I would contend that it comes back to advertising. Advertisers want people to watch TV live. The types of programs that receive the highest number of live viewers are sports, news, and reality TV. People watch sporting events live, for obvious reasons. While some people DVR some news programs, most people watch news live, also for obvious reasons. Most people also watch reality TV live, especially if it is contest-based reality TV, in order to vote or be a part of the "live reality experience". Consequently, dramatic and comedy programming has a harder time retaining live viewers.
As discussed in my previous post, networks are not counting non-live viewers in their total viewer-ship numbers because they don't get the big advertising dollars for them.
Bottom line, the sci-fi genre struggles with a 2-fold problem of not only being a niche genre but also being lumped into a category of programming that many viewers record or stream to watch.
We need to make it clear to advertisers and networks alike that this is not acceptable. We want quality, intelligent, though-provoking entertainment. We want it supported, promoted, and properly aired. We don't care if ad companies don't like that we don't view it live. Their greed will not change our viewing habits.
Support the shows you love but don't feel like you have to view them live or lose them. Be vocal with the networks you watch and let them know that you are watching. The Nielsen box does not know all.
Showing posts with label battlestar galactica. Show all posts
Showing posts with label battlestar galactica. Show all posts
Wednesday, November 24, 2010
Monday, November 22, 2010
How Do You Watch TV?
There are a lot of different ways to watch TV these days. A short list would include cable companies, satellite providers, online providers, and streaming media. And even within those categories there are options such as DVR and VOD (video on demand). All of these options offer viewers the ability to watch what they want, when they want. But what happens when viewers' favorite shows are cancelled because their chosen method for viewing TV doesn't count in the Network's total viewership count (unless, of course, they happen to choose live viewing)? Seems insane, doesn't it?
The fact is that DVR ratings, VOD ratings, and online ratings (such as Hulu) are not taken into consideration by most networks when they evaluate the successfulness of a program. While those ratings are counted and kept track of, they do not count those viewers when they determine the figures for total viewership of their programs.
This is one of the major issues affecting the recent cancellation of Caprica from NBC-owned Syfy's line-up. This issue is also putting other smart, dramatic science-fiction shows at risk as well. Both Stargate Universe (Syfy) and Fringe (FOX) are concerned that they may not get renewed for another season if live viewership doesn't increase for the remainder of their current season.
It seems ludicrous that viewers are being expected to change their viewing habits and the way(s) that they prefer to watch TV just to make their viewership count in the grand total. That would be like only accepting votes in an election if the ballot was completed in a red pen. Stupid, right?
So why, you may ask, would networks purposefully ignore large numbers of viewers when determining what of their programming is successful and what is not? The answer, as is the case for most things in life, is money. Advertisers pay bigger bucks to advertise during live TV airings than online, streaming, or VOD airings. The reason? These options only air a very few, very short ads during the program you view. Live TV is riddled with longer, more frequent ads.
And as for DVR, most people skip the ads that get recorded with their program while viewing it. So live TV gets the most money for ads. Consequently, networks are only interested in viewers who are going to tune in to watch while the show is being aired live. The rest of us don't count.
I think this system is deeply flawed, for obvious reasons. The idea that we, as viewers, should alter the way that we prefer to enjoy our entertainment just to prevent the loss of the shows we enjoy is crazy. The bottom line is that WE are the ones with the money to spend... on cable, satellite, online subscriptions, streaming subscriptions, and all those products that greedy advertisers are trying to shove at us. So doesn't it make sense that we should be able to dictate what we want to see and HOW we want to see it? I think so.
We need to be more vocal. We need to make sure that both TV networks and advertisers know that this is not going to stand. They need to understand that we will not alter our viewing habits just to ensure that they line their pockets. They need to understand that if they continue to ignore what is an inevitably growing number of "not-live" viewers, they are not going to have any viewers left at all. We will not watch dumbed-down, mind numbing TV just because they take all of our other choices away.
Technology has changed the way we enjoy entertainment and media. The media industry, along with it's advertisers, need to adapt or go the way of the dinosaur.
The End.
The fact is that DVR ratings, VOD ratings, and online ratings (such as Hulu) are not taken into consideration by most networks when they evaluate the successfulness of a program. While those ratings are counted and kept track of, they do not count those viewers when they determine the figures for total viewership of their programs.
This is one of the major issues affecting the recent cancellation of Caprica from NBC-owned Syfy's line-up. This issue is also putting other smart, dramatic science-fiction shows at risk as well. Both Stargate Universe (Syfy) and Fringe (FOX) are concerned that they may not get renewed for another season if live viewership doesn't increase for the remainder of their current season.
It seems ludicrous that viewers are being expected to change their viewing habits and the way(s) that they prefer to watch TV just to make their viewership count in the grand total. That would be like only accepting votes in an election if the ballot was completed in a red pen. Stupid, right?
So why, you may ask, would networks purposefully ignore large numbers of viewers when determining what of their programming is successful and what is not? The answer, as is the case for most things in life, is money. Advertisers pay bigger bucks to advertise during live TV airings than online, streaming, or VOD airings. The reason? These options only air a very few, very short ads during the program you view. Live TV is riddled with longer, more frequent ads.
And as for DVR, most people skip the ads that get recorded with their program while viewing it. So live TV gets the most money for ads. Consequently, networks are only interested in viewers who are going to tune in to watch while the show is being aired live. The rest of us don't count.
I think this system is deeply flawed, for obvious reasons. The idea that we, as viewers, should alter the way that we prefer to enjoy our entertainment just to prevent the loss of the shows we enjoy is crazy. The bottom line is that WE are the ones with the money to spend... on cable, satellite, online subscriptions, streaming subscriptions, and all those products that greedy advertisers are trying to shove at us. So doesn't it make sense that we should be able to dictate what we want to see and HOW we want to see it? I think so.
We need to be more vocal. We need to make sure that both TV networks and advertisers know that this is not going to stand. They need to understand that we will not alter our viewing habits just to ensure that they line their pockets. They need to understand that if they continue to ignore what is an inevitably growing number of "not-live" viewers, they are not going to have any viewers left at all. We will not watch dumbed-down, mind numbing TV just because they take all of our other choices away.
Technology has changed the way we enjoy entertainment and media. The media industry, along with it's advertisers, need to adapt or go the way of the dinosaur.
The End.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)