# 'Logo Network bails on gay-centric TV programming'



## APB101 (Sep 1, 2010)

*Logo Network bails on gay-centric TV programming*

By Ruth Fine (03.02.2012)
http://lgbtweekly.com/2012/03/02/logo-network-bails-on-gay-centric-tv-programming/



> The LGBT community can say farewell to gay-focused programming at Logo following its announcement to expand their television lineup to what the network calls "mainstream culture."
> 
> Logo explains the change comes in wake of the gay and lesbian community leading "fully integrated lives" that don't depend on leading first with their sexual orientation - rather, shows like "Modern Family" showcase gay and lesbian people far more accurately than other TV programming that leads with gay-focused themes.


----------



## LCDSpazz (Dec 31, 2008)

All the basic cable channels should just change their names to USA1, USA2, USA3, etc.


----------



## wv_patsfan (Jul 30, 2009)

LCDSpazz said:


> All the basic cable channels should just change their names to USA1, USA2, USA3, etc.


No kidding. Niche channels are quickly going extinct.


----------



## Davenlr (Sep 16, 2006)

wv_patsfan said:


> No kidding. Niche channels are quickly going extinct.


Wonder if they are now going to show the same 4 or 5 movies over and over and over every weekend for a year?

DirecTv needs to start adding to their contracts that the contract is immediately invalidated should the channel 1: move popular shows to a secondary channel, or 2: change the theme of the channel in a way that makes it different than what was contracted for.

Then they could just drop these channels, and save us some money.

As for USA1, USA2 etc, its going to be HULU1 through HULU250.


----------



## Nick (Apr 23, 2002)

The few times I flipped thru the guide, it seemed that Rue Paul's drag queen show was always on. I could be wrong, but I don't see the typical gay or lesbian individual identifying so much with drag queens. The gays with whom I am personally acquainted seem to be succesfully integrated into our small town. An out gay friend is a tenured high school teacher, and an electrician I hired to do some work on an addition to my house just happens to be a lesbian. Whether either ever watched LOGO regularly I can't say, but it just seems to my mind that gays just want to be part of the community like everyone else.

OTOH, a large hotel in Atlanta for which I used to do a/v work hosted the annual 'Southern Comfort' convention, a gathering of men who liked to dress as women. I would imagine that these cross-dressing guys identified with Paul's show. Their 'grand ball' was a hoot. I remember seeing a rather unattractive, white-haired old man, 70ish perhaps, and over 6' tall, wearing heels and a black, sequinned floor-length evening gown. I always wondered if he won 'queen of the ball'. Quite a sight!


----------



## Chris Blount (Jun 22, 2001)

The thing about gay themed programming is that won't a wall eventually be hit on the amount of viewers watching the channel? I don't have exact statistics but isn't the gay population only about 10%? Sure, some straight people would probably watch some of the programming but I can't imagine logo ever getting the market share necessary to stay on the air unless something changes (which they have done).


----------



## Stuart Sweet (Jun 19, 2006)

Another channel abandoning its core mission. Call it "The TLC Effect." Remember when TLC stood for "The Learning Channel?"

That said, I hope what they mean is that they are expanding from specifically gay-themed programming to programming that is still intended for the core demographics that LGBT indvididuals comprise, but that might be less gay-themed. I don't want to give examples as I don't want to seem stereotypical.


----------



## Alan Gordon (Jun 7, 2004)

Stuart Sweet said:


> Another channel abandoning its core mission. Call it "The TLC Effect." Remember when TLC stood for "The Learning Channel?"


Yep... and when Spike stood for The Nashville Network... LOL!! 

As a straight man, I'm not in the demographic they were shooting for, but I liked several programs on the channel when it launched... shows like "Buffy: The Vampire Slayer" and "Wonderfalls", and they had several movies I enjoyed, but I had BTVS and "Wonderfalls" on DVD, and only watched one of the movies, but it was enough to keep it in some of my Favorites lists in case they added programming I'd be interested in seeing. I rarely see anything on the channel that interests me anymore.

It will be interesting to see where it goes...

~Alan


----------



## trainman (Jan 9, 2008)

Alan Gordon said:


> ...shows like "Buffy: The Vampire Slayer" and "Wonderfalls"...


And Logo has always carried shows such as these two, which aren't "gay-centric" but do have gay characters -- so I don't think the article does a good enough job of explaining what's changing in the Logo lineup (especially since it says "RuPaul's Drag Race" and other "gay-centric" shows _are_ continuing in the lineup).


----------



## armophob (Nov 13, 2006)

It will always be gay to me.


----------



## kevinturcotte (Dec 19, 2006)

I'm not even interested while they still broadcast in SD!


----------



## maartena (Nov 1, 2010)

Chris Blount said:


> The thing about gay themed programming is that won't a wall eventually be hit on the amount of viewers watching the channel? I don't have exact statistics but isn't the gay population only about 10%?


I'd say it a little less, but there are also plenty of straight people that might find programming interesting.

On the other hand, the African American population in the U.S. is about 12%, and the Asian population (all countries combined) is about 5%, yet there are specific networks for those groups. (Albeit the Asian networks are largely local, but we have about 3 or 4 of em in Los Angeles).

It's not a high-demand network, but therefore also not a pricy one.


----------



## APB101 (Sep 1, 2010)

Stuart Sweet said:


> Another channel abandoning its core mission. Call it "The TLC Effect." Remember when TLC stood for "The Learning Channel?"
> 
> That said, I hope what they mean is that they are expanding from specifically gay-themed programming to programming that is still intended for the core demographics that LGBT individuals comprise, but that might be less gay-themed. I don't want to give examples as I don't want to seem stereotypical.


I don't think the LGBT community would find this news encouraging.

Nearly five years ago I came across Logo Television showing the landmark 1972 ABC-TV flm _That Certain Summer_ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/That_Certain_Summer). It starred Hal Holbrook as a divorced father who has to reveal to his visiting son that he is gay. Scott Jacoby played the son. Hope Lange played the ex-wife and mother. Martin Sheen played Holbrook's lover. It was bold and powerful for its time, and garnered many Emmy nominations (including for the movie itself; for both Holbrook and Lange, winners for other projects; and a win for Jacoby, who is no longer acting but may be recognizable for recurring as Bea Arthur's musician son on _The Golden Girls_). I caught it, midway through air time, but didn't get it on my DVR. (I saw clips of the entire TV movie on YouTube.)

Logo Television is from Viacom. And one may figure it should have been a better channel for the LGBT community, because it could devote itself to showing strong and substantial programming. But I think, just like with another Viacom brand, TV Land (which should have shown Lange's 1968-1970 Emmy-winning work on _The Ghost & Mrs. Muir_), Logo Television was rather okay for maybe a couple years ... but eventually fell apart. It has me wondering whether Logo is on the way out.


----------



## Diana C (Mar 30, 2007)

As a member of the LGBT community, I found very little of interest on Logo most of the time. RuPaul's show actually showcases some of the worst stereotypical behavior of a small subset of the gay population. The channel as a whole seemed to think that all they had to do was broadcast a show about some aspect of the community and we would watch it, no matter how bad the program actually was. In reality, we don't need (or want) to watch shows about a bunch of gay men (Noah's Arc) or gay women (Gimme Sugar) or drag queens (RuPaul's Drag Race) or transgenders (TransAmerican Love Story) - we live those experiences everyday. What we want is QUALITY programming that shows gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people as normal, productive members of society. In that regard shows like Southland on TNT are far more interesting. Southland has Officer John Cooper, who is gay but doesn't make a point of it. He is a veteran police officer that does his job everyday. As he said in a recent episode to gay teenager struggling with his identity, "I have a lot of problems, but being gay isn't one of them."

The bottom line is that the LGBT community is no different from the population as a whole - quality entertainment will trump trash with a "focused" topic everytime. If this change leads to BETTER programming content Logo I'll watch it more. It is that simple.


----------



## Alan Gordon (Jun 7, 2004)

Titan25 said:


> What we want is QUALITY programming that shows gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people as normal, productive members of society.





Titan25 said:


> The bottom line is that the LGBT community is no different from the population as a whole - quality entertainment will trump trash with "focused" topic everytime.


One of my favorite sitcoms is "The Cosby Show." One thing that I have always admired about "The Cosby Show" is that it was not a comedy aimed at African Americans, but rather a show about families aimed at families, where the members just happened to be African American. To me, that should be the goal of any quality programming... a show with characters in which their differences are not the focus of the programming, but simply a part of their characters.

Well stated post, IMHO... 

~Alan


----------



## Diana C (Mar 30, 2007)

Nick said:


> ...OTOH, a large hotel in Atlanta for which I used to do a/v work hosted the annual 'Southern Comfort' convention, a gathering of men who liked to dress as women. I would imagine that these cross-dressing guys identified with Paul's show. Their 'grand ball' was a hoot. I remember seeing a rather unattractive, white-haired old man, 70ish perhaps, and over 6' tall, wearing heels and a black, sequinned floor-length evening gown. I always wondered if he won 'queen of the ball'. Quite a sight!


As an aside, Southern Comfort is the largest convention held in the US for the larger transgender community. This includes, at one end of the spectrum, crossdressers (individuals that identify as their anatomical sex, but like to express a cross-gender aspect of themselves on occasion) and at the other end post-operative transsexuals who feel that their anatomical sex is in conflict with who they really are and want surgery to correct their body. In between are "no-op" transsexuals, who feel they are the opposite sex from their birth gender but don't feel a need to have surgery to correct it, androgynes who blend aspects of male and female, and gender-queer who blend genders in sometimes jarring and incongruous ways. It is also important to note that it is both a male to female AND female to male phenomenon.

I have attended Southern Comfort and am slated to speak there this fall.


----------



## Nick (Apr 23, 2002)

Titan25 said:


> I have attended Southern Comfort and am slated to speak there this fall.


Congratulations, and thanks for the enlightenment.


----------



## lokar (Oct 8, 2006)

Davenlr said:


> DirecTv needs to start adding to their contracts that the contract is immediately invalidated should the channel 1: move popular shows to a secondary channel, or 2: change the theme of the channel in a way that makes it different than what was contracted for.


I couldn't agree more, this trend that one poster here called "the TLC effect," also known as the Bravo/Sci-Fi/MTV/VH1/fill in the blank effect, has me considering dropping DirecTV as much as the price increases. As all channels abandon their core missions in pursuit of the almighty dollar and garbage reality TV, there are less and less interesting shows to watch anymore.


----------



## RML81 (Jul 4, 2011)

There are very few channels that have stayed true to their names/purpose. Even the "news" channels have very little actual news on them. Nat Geo is the prison show channel, A&E is mostly about ghosts, hoarding, and bidding on abandoned storage lockers, TLC is a mishmash of, um, societal subgroups, History is the ice road trucker and picker channel and is mostly devoid of history. I remember as a child that channels always had something interesting and, shockingly, educational on. Now a child watching these channels wouldn't really learn anything except that if you are exceptionally extreme in any given path in life that you might get your own show someday, which isn't really a goal I would consider worthwhile. Logo was sort of doomed from the start because of logical paradoxes one gets into when trying to define what really constitutes lgbt programming. No matter what they show, there will be those who consider it demeaning and stereotyping, while others will consider it to be insufficiently lgbt.


----------



## kevinturcotte (Dec 19, 2006)

lokar said:


> I couldn't agree more, this trend that one poster here called "the TLC effect," also known as the Bravo/Sci-Fi/MTV/VH1/fill in the blank effect, has me considering dropping DirecTV as much as the price increases. As all channels abandon their core missions in pursuit of the almighty dollar and garbage reality TV, there are less and less interesting shows to watch anymore.


That's the fun one for me. They all claim higher programming costs, but they're all moving to more and more reality programing. Isn't reality programming cheaper to produce than scripted programs?


----------



## n3ntj (Dec 18, 2006)

Seems like none of the theme-titled networks no longer carry their original type of programming.. like MTV (no longer has much music), History Channel (alot of their programming has nothing to do with history), etc.


----------



## kevinturcotte (Dec 19, 2006)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Channel_drift


----------



## SamC (Jan 20, 2003)

Chris Blount said:


> The thing about gay themed programming is that won't a wall eventually be hit on the amount of viewers watching the channel?


Yes. But what is "gay themed programming"? Other than porn and particular news coverage/slants on certain issues, wouldn't one gay person like baseball, another like soap operas, another like how-to shows, and so on? Just like everybody else. That is rather the counter-point of all demograpically driven (as opposed to interest niche driven) channels. It presuposes, perhaps overly broadly, that every other channel is angled the opposite, and, sterotypically that all persons sharing a certain disposition like the same type of entertainment.



> I don't have exact statistics but isn't the gay population only about 10%?


No one does. Reasonable people have thoughtful opinions that range from 10% to one-half of one percent. Figuring it out to the level of a phenotypical (visble) minority is probably impossible.



> but I can't imagine logo ever getting the market share necessary to stay on the air unless something changes (which they have done).


I always thought the business plan for channels like these was based on getting cable/dbs providers to carry it and advertizers to buy time as a kind of "set aside".


----------



## Davenlr (Sep 16, 2006)

kevinturcotte said:


> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Channel_drift


Yep...Hulu channel 1 thru Hulu channel 250. Pretty soon, there wont be a need to DirecTv except movie channels and sports. Maybe that is why they are not adding any Basic HD. As soon as they add one, it changes into a reality channel.

Im watching more and more PBS for my Science and History programming since H2 is SD now. Luckily some of the science shows are moving to Planet Green.

Its really deteriorating fast (the decent core channels).

Ever try to find NEWS on any of the news channels in the evenings? I find myself watching or streaming AlJazeera more and more these days, since none of the US news stations have any news on (except for politics).

Comcast is coming out this week to drop a second line for TV, and Im going to sub to their $39 Preferred special for a year to get all the missing HD channels. Then after my contracts run out, I am seriously going to consider whether its worth it anymore.


----------



## Diana C (Mar 30, 2007)

Alan Gordon said:


> One of my favorite sitcoms is "The Cosby Show." One thing that I have always admired about "The Cosby Show" is that it was not a comedy aimed at African Americans, but rather a show about families aimed at families, where the members just happened to be African American. To me, that should be the goal of any quality programming... a show with characters in which their differences are not the focus of the programming, but simply a part of their characters.
> 
> Well stated post, IMHO...
> 
> ~Alan


Exactly!! A perfect example. (and thank you)


----------



## RML81 (Jul 4, 2011)

Davenlr said:


> Luckily some of the science shows are moving to Planet Green.


Fear not - they're changing Planet Green's format this summer. I'm sure it'll be another reality channel.


----------



## dpeters11 (May 30, 2007)

"RML81" said:


> Fear not - they're changing Planet Green's format this summer. I'm sure it'll be another reality channel.


At one point they said something like food or travel related.


----------



## kevinturcotte (Dec 19, 2006)

dpeters11 said:


> At one point they said something like food or travel related.


We already HAVE channels with those themes! Just pick a theme and STICK TO IT!!!!!


----------



## Alan Gordon (Jun 7, 2004)

Titan25 said:


> Exactly!! A perfect example. (and thank you)






RML81 said:


> Fear not - they're changing Planet Green's format this summer. I'm sure it'll be another reality channel.


I read Ed Begley, Jr. talking about that the other day (sigh!). :nono2: 

~Alan


----------



## Drew2k (Aug 16, 2006)

I'm one of the "G"s in the LGBT community and have honestly never had much I wanted to see on Logo TV. I did watch for the premiere of Eating Out 4 (a comedy movie series) but I'm not a fan of reality shows, which seems to be Logo's go-to- programming. I gave RuPaul's Drag U and Drag Race shows a try, as well as A-List NY and Dallas, but couldn't get into them.

I think the SD is one of the big reasons, as the experience is not good on a 60" TV...

It really is a shame that this channel drift is occurring, though.


----------



## zimm7778 (Nov 11, 2007)

"kevinturcotte" said:


> We already HAVE channels with those themes! Just pick a theme and STICK TO IT!!!!!


They can take over the soap opera theme since that's either going away or is gone by now.


----------



## Davenlr (Sep 16, 2006)

Drew2k said:


> I'm one of the "G"s in the LGBT community and have honestly never had much I wanted to see on Logo TV.
> 
> I think the SD is one of the big reasons, as the experience is not good on a 60" TV...
> 
> It really is a shame that this channel drift is occurring, though.


+1, +1, +1...Guess that would be +3?

Seriously, do all these channels think everyone is a lemming that will just watch this reality crap and no one wants to watch Science, History, Arts, Music anymore?

There is more good music on Audience Network (101) than there is on MTV, VH1 and all the rest of the "music" channels combined.


----------



## charlie460 (Sep 12, 2009)

HDNet (306) has good concerts on Sundays as well. Palladia also.


----------



## RML81 (Jul 4, 2011)

I love Planet Green - it's what Discovery used to be. It's only natural that, upon realizing that it is actually educational, they're going to destroy it.


----------



## jacksonm30354 (Mar 29, 2007)

I'm one of the 10%. I might watch Logo more if it were in HD. I've watched Ru Paul's Drag Race and find it entertaining as well as several movies you'd not see on any of the other channels.

It's crazy to me all the niche channels turning general entertainment. Certainly they can at least break even serving a small audience.


----------



## mkdtv21 (May 27, 2007)

Look what's happening to HDNet, Ryan Seacrest is taking over the channel and turning it into a celebrity lifestyle channel. There was a lot of quality programming on that channel.


----------



## monetnj (Sep 28, 2004)

I'm one of the Ts in LGBT (post-op as of four weeks ago, thank you very much) and I didn't watch logo much either. The SD quality was particularly poor. Still, I will say it does make me sad to see one of the few ports in the storm be eliminated like that.


----------



## lokar (Oct 8, 2006)

charlie460 said:


> HDNet (306) has good concerts on Sundays as well. Palladia also.


I think HDNet Movies, Palladia, the networks and the occasional USA show are all I watch anymore, reality TV has taken over every channel and it's crap! I'm sure it's only a matter of time until Palladia sells out, it's far too good a music channel to be allowed to exist.


----------



## Paul Secic (Dec 16, 2003)

APB101 said:


> *Logo Network bails on gay-centric TV programming*
> 
> By Ruth Fine (03.02.2012)
> http://lgbtweekly.com/2012/03/02/logo-network-bails-on-gay-centric-tv-programming/


LOGO stunk IMHO.


----------



## Paul Secic (Dec 16, 2003)

RML81 said:


> Fear not - they're changing Planet Green's format this summer. I'm sure it'll be another reality channel.


Planet Green has been going downhill for a year now.


----------



## ejbvt (Aug 14, 2011)

This is why Directv should have the "Sports Lovers" pack, which includes all of the sports channels (including Spanish ones) and a very few "basic" cable channels (CNN, Comedy, Nick, Disney, TBS, TNT, USA, etc). Add the HD Extra for Smithsonian, Palladia, and add Planet Green and H2 to the HD Extra (of course continuing whatever oversight causes us to have unlimited free access!) and you've got a package. With locals, AM21 for AntennaTV, MeTV, RTV, and This, and also with Audience, you've got a decent selection of sports, classic shows, and non-crap. This is fantasy land, I realize, but still... it would be nice.

Maybe what we need is the "Reality Free" Package. If a channel goes crap, it gets dropped. If a channel moves it's good shows to a new channel, the new channel gets added. As long as it's not a 90% reality-show channel, it's in the package. Now I'm really in Fantasy Land.


----------



## lokar (Oct 8, 2006)

ejbvt said:


> Maybe what we need is the "Reality Free" Package. If a channel goes crap, it gets dropped. If a channel moves it's good shows to a new channel, the new channel gets added. As long as it's not a 90% reality-show channel, it's in the package. Now I'm really in Fantasy Land.


I like your idea, I would really like to know why D* doesn't have clauses in their contracts that when a channel drops its focus or shifts to reality TV crap or otherwise makes a big change in programming that they can then drop the channel.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

kevinturcotte said:


> I'm not even interested while they still broadcast in SD!


Logo has been available in HD through providers other than DIRECTV for some time.

If SD availability is the issue, there's only a small number of channels (fewer than 20?) that aren't also in SD.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

lokar said:


> I like your idea, I would really like to know why D* doesn't have clauses in their contracts that when a channel drops its focus or shifts to reality TV crap or otherwise makes a big change in programming that they can then drop the channel.


Remember that DIRECTV (along with most other carriers) reserves the right to drop channels without adjusting your package pricing.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

mkdtv21 said:


> Look what's happening to HDNet, Ryan Seacrest is taking over the channel and turning it into a celebrity lifestyle channel.


I hadn't noticed. All I watch is the scenic beauty of Guy's Night In programming that is frequently interrupted by MMA commercials.


----------



## mreposter (Jul 29, 2006)

harsh said:


> Logo has been available in HD through providers other than DIRECTV for some time.
> 
> If SD availability is the issue, there's only a small number of channels (fewer than 20?) that aren't also in SD.


According to the AVS chart Dish is the only one that carries Logo-HD, and some comments on the Dish boards have indicated that it's not full HD, just the SD signal up-res'd.

If I remember correctly, Dish put Logo HD in the equivalent of their HD+ Pack.


----------



## mreposter (Jul 29, 2006)

lokar said:


> I like your idea, I would really like to know why D* doesn't have clauses in their contracts that when a channel drops its focus or shifts to reality TV crap or otherwise makes a big change in programming that they can then drop the channel.


Like it or not, that reality crap is popular. The History Channel can attract a far larger audience with something like Ice Road Truckers than they can a documentary about the Inupiaq, Yupik, and Aleut indigenous people of that far northern state.

Maybe they should try "Livin' Good in Livengood, Alaska with the Real Yupik Babes of the North Slope." (population, 29)


----------



## Drew2k (Aug 16, 2006)

harsh said:


> Logo has been available in HD through providers other than DIRECTV for some time.


If so, the HD is not coming from Logo...

http://www.logotv.com/about/faq.jhtml#hd


----------



## lokar (Oct 8, 2006)

mreposter said:


> Like it or not, that reality crap is popular. The History Channel can attract a far larger audience with something like Ice Road Truckers than they can a documentary about the Inupiaq, Yupik, and Aleut indigenous people of that far northern state.
> 
> Maybe they should try "Livin' Good in Livengood, Alaska with the Real Yupik Babes of the North Slope." (population, 29)


I don't like it but concede you are right. American Idol's popularity completely mystifies me as it doesn't seem a lot different from Star Search back in the '80s and '90s except that you hear from the judges, plus at least Star Search had variety. It was nice to be able to turn on History or Discovery to see something interesting and now even they have gone to crap. The tipping point to me happened when Discovery HD started showing car shows all the time.
To paraphrase Roger Waters, we are rapidly getting to the point where there is 120 "channels of %^&* on the TV to choose from." But I hope they don't make your reality show, I would be tempted to watch it and then get mad at myself


----------



## Church AV Guy (Jul 9, 2007)

> ...American Idol's popularity completely mystifies me...


Me too, but you know what, its popularity is really decreasing this year. I am guessing, but I think it is due to the change in judges. At any care, it regularly gets beaten by some CBS sitcoms.


----------



## zimm7778 (Nov 11, 2007)

"Church AV Guy" said:


> Me too, but you know what, its popularity is really decreasing this year. I am guessing, but I think it is due to the change in judges. At any care, it regularly gets beaten by some CBS sitcoms.


Yeah but the other shows like it are doing well aren't they? People may be getting tired of Idol, but not that type of show unfortunately.


----------



## Scott Kocourek (Jun 13, 2009)

We moved this from the DIRECTV Programming forum to the TV Shows forum because it's not a DIRECTV only channel. This forum fits the topic a bit better and allows all of our members to participate in it.


----------



## Drew2k (Aug 16, 2006)

Scott Kocourek said:


> We moved this from the DIRECTV Programming forum to the TV Shows forum because it's not a DIRECTV only channel. This forum fits the topic a bit better and allows all of our members to participate in it.


So we may see some more L or G or B or T members posting? Cool...

And let's not forget the Q, and those who are none of the above.


----------



## Nick (Apr 23, 2002)

For those seeing this thread about the LOGO channel for the first time, may I suggest that you read it from the beginning. Some very interesting posts.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

Late to the thread since it was just moved into this forum...

Logo always struck me as similar to BET in terms of an unsuccessful model.

I'm not comparing being gay to being black, mind you, but rather the notion many people have that different groups all like/want the same thing because of being in a particular group.

I haven't known a lot of black people who loved BET... similarly, can't say I know a lot of gay people who like Logo. It's like someone said "make a channel and call it the gay channel and gay people will watch" which seems to be what the folks at BET did for black people.

The Cosby show was brought up earlier in this thread... that show worked for mainstream audiences because it was a show about a family... all races could identify AND simultaneously Cosby wasn't shying away from being about a black family... rather it was pointing out that all families have similar issues in life.

I always hate the token black or token gay character... someone just there to attract an audience or check a box on the diversity form. Gay characters shouldn't have to be extras or in the background but just like in real life, being gay is rarely the defining characteristic of a person.

Bringing the point around even further... I don't think there are "straight" channels or shows. By which I mean... I don't think any show's "hook" is that it is about straight people. Sure the characters may be straight and the show explores their world... but the show isn't about being straight.

To take a major left turn... Anyone watch the Walking Dead? Some mistakenly think it is a show about zombies... it isn't. It is a show about how the world falls apart and it brings out the best and the worst of people when faced with a zombie apocalypse. Zombies are the tool to tell the story.

Buffy, similarly, wasn't about vampires and monsters... Buffy was about teenagers growing up and facing decisions and dangers in real life... and the vampires and monsters were just part of the world they lived in and a tool to tell the story of those characters growing up and finding themselves.

Buffy even explored an interesting side of being gay... that being, Willow was a gay character... but in the show, the character herself noted she hadn't always been gay... and specifically, had only really been attracted to one (eventually two) women... her being gay was less about being gay and more about not being pigeonholed into any kind of stereotype or limits when it came to being in love.

Anyway... long story short.. Logo probably gets some things right, but probably gets a lot of things wrong... just like many other channels out there. Maybe they can make some positive steps to grow their audience without losing the ones they have now.

What a show like the Cosby show does for race relations... I don't think there has been a show like that with gay characters... by which, I mean a show about characters who are gay that has an appeal to a wider audience, that draws in non-gay viewers who then learn gay people really aren't that much different than themselves.


----------



## sigma1914 (Sep 5, 2006)

Stewart Vernon said:


> ...
> Logo always struck me as similar to BET in terms of an unsuccessful model.
> 
> ...


I wouldn't say BET is an unsuccessful model like Logo. BET was the 24th rated primetime cable network last year, coming in ahead of ESPN2, Bravo, Travel and E! to name a few.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/76679201/Cable-Time-Period-Rank-2011


----------



## phrelin (Jan 18, 2007)

Darned! Thanks for moving this to the TV Show Talk area.

The problem with niche channels in our packages is that they survive because they are in our packages, not because they have been proven to attract subscribers or advertisers.

At some point the economic model of inclusive packages will have to change. When it does, I believe there will be niche channels that survive and niche-turned-general-programming (read "reruns" most of every day) channels that won't. They choose to become more general because they can't sell enough ads to satisfy investor's expectations and they can't get enough money from subscribers.

Regarding the subject of this thread, Nick's post is _right on_ in that the gay and lesbian members of our family really don't identify themselves in a stereotyped group except to the extent there is discrimination to object to:


Nick said:


> The few times I flipped thru the guide, it seemed that Rue Paul's drag queen show was always on. I could be wrong, but I don't see the typical gay or lesbian individual identifying so much with drag queens. The gays with whom I am personally acquainted seem to be succesfully integrated into our small town. An out gay friend is a tenured high school teacher, and an electrician I hired to do some work on an addition to my house just happens to be a lesbian. Whether either ever watched LOGO regularly I can't say, but it just seems to my mind that gays just want to be part of the community like everyone else.
> 
> OTOH, a large hotel in Atlanta for which I used to do a/v work hosted the annual 'Southern Comfort' convention, a gathering of men who liked to dress as women. I would imagine that these cross-dressing guys identified with Paul's show. Their 'grand ball' was a hoot. I remember seeing a rather unattractive, white-haired old man, 70ish perhaps, and over 6' tall, wearing heels and a black, sequinned floor-length evening gown. I always wondered if he won 'queen of the ball'. Quite a sight!


The fact is "Modern Family" on ABC, with its gay couple amidst the rest of the family similar to the experience of most gays and lesbians today, is one of the most popular shows on broadcast TV among the live viewers.

LOGO would have been an interesting experiment if Viacom had been willing to take a risk. Pull it out of the packages, offer it à la carte at $4 a month, offer more mainstream but LGBT-attracting original programming like "Modern Family", and sell limited advertising also. But the Viacom's and NBCU's of the world aren't willing to take the risk of having no minimum income stream.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

I have not looked at the ratings but I have always thought of BET and LOGO in the same light. Both channels have a strong focus on one section of society. And, in a way, that focus is exclusionary.

Being exclusionary is not a bad thing ... if people want to watch "regular" programming with gay characters they can watch Bravo or any of the major networks. I believe we are beyond the point where shows had a token gay character just like we are past the point of having token black characters - especially with the token character playing a stereotype. We have shows where the differences between black and not, gay and not, is simply not the show's theme and the PERSON is treated just like another character on the show, not as a joke.

Changing to a channel that features more programming with good LGBT characters instead of programming that focuses on LGBT issues widens the audience. Perhaps that isn't a bad thing.


----------



## russ9 (Jan 28, 2004)

Press Release:
LOGO announces the first show in its new line-up: "So, Let Me Get This Straight" - A comedy about a gay couple who decide to give the 'other team' a try.


----------

