# Channels Abandoning Their Formats



## SayWhat? (Jun 7, 2009)

"Abandoning their formats" may not be quite the correct term, but it gets the point acrossed.

Some examples:

G4 -- Started out as Tech TV dealing with computer issues. Either bought out or merged to focus on gaming. Now running very little gaming related programming. Running several hours of "COPS" and general audience movies.

IFC -- initially focused on independant films. Not sure they run any of those any more.

AMC -- initially commercial free like TCM. I took them out of my channel scan when they started running commercials.

MTV and VH1 -- Do they even run music on the main channels? I know they do on the secondary channels.

A&E -- When was the last time they ran arts or entertainment? Now focused on crime related shows.

Weather Channel -- Movies? Huh? An NBC style morning show? Huh? Even the daily weather segments are politicized to their agenda and are about half commercials.

Other examples you can think of?


----------



## Fontano (Feb 7, 2008)

SyFy having wrestling.

MTV and VH1 haven't had many music videos on their main channels for a VERY long time.


----------



## BGummy (Mar 1, 2006)

Music Videos can be seen on either youtube or the band's website.


----------



## Movieman (May 9, 2009)

Fontano said:


> SyFy having wrestling.
> 
> MTV and VH1 haven't had many music videos on their main channels for a VERY long time.


Well there have been very early mornings where I have seen music videos. About 5:30 am or so EST that i have seen some music videos for like 30 minutes.


----------



## jeffshoaf (Jun 17, 2006)

BGummy said:


> Music Videos can be seen on either youtube or the band's website.


That's fine if you're already familiar with the band. How do you find out about other bands?


----------



## AntAltMike (Nov 21, 2004)

The History Channel ran Dirty Harry a few years ago. I figured they were developing an anthology series of TV cops blowing away "punk", but they didn't pursue it. In fairness to History, they are generally true to their mission.

And Headline News has become HLN. It is now an opinion channel, rather than a news channel.

TV Land is showing more "reailty" TV... and more infomercials.

CNBC sets its ratings records when it is used an the NBC Network's overflow channel. They kick butt when they carry the Dog shows.


----------



## krock918316 (Mar 5, 2007)

AntAltMike said:


> Of course, The Nashville Network became TNN, then The National Network, then The Outdoor Channel, and now Versus.


The Nashville Network (TNN) became The National Network, then SpikeTV. It is not related to Versus.


----------



## AntAltMike (Nov 21, 2004)

Oops. It was the Outdoor Life Network that became Versus, and then became the DirecTV billboard: "Comcast is screwing us" channel.


----------



## bicker1 (Oct 21, 2007)

I'd bet a few weeks salary that if a channel would unquestionably attract more prime demo viewers by sticking with a specific format, they would. Changes to and variances from specific formats are reflections of faultless inadequacy on the part of the audience.


----------



## AntAltMike (Nov 21, 2004)

I think I'd still watch Mannix if it were still on TV Land, but I'm sure their ratings numbers indicate otherwise. Similarly, it costs MTV and VH-1 about nothing to run videos produced by the record companies, so the fact that they stopped running them and replaced them with programming that has programming costs should tell us something.


----------



## dpeters11 (May 30, 2007)

G4 bought TechTV and ruined it. Oddly enough though, some of the old TechTV crew is doing better now than when on TechTV. Remember when Kevin Rose was basically the guy taking the phone calls on ScreenSavers? Leo has one of the biggest podcast networks on the net, we have Revision3 etc.

Another one is TLC. It's not learning, its big families in the spotlight and home flipping shows (not sure if those are still on, the flipping market kind of dried up.)

I am of the opinion that Food Network changed formats as well. Sure it's still about food, but it is no where near what it used to be.

History tend to go back and forth between being "The Hitler Channel" and the "pseudo-science channel" with things on various Doomsday scenarios, Nostradamus, UFOs and Bigfoot.


----------



## olguy (Jan 9, 2006)

Where's that almighty dollar? I know it's there somewhere.


----------



## radiomandc (Jul 22, 2009)

Don't forget about ESPN Classic. They stopped showing classic sports a long time ago. It was better when it was Classic Sports.


----------



## trainman (Jan 9, 2008)

Another example that hasn't been mentioned yet is Game Show Network, which attempted a few years ago to reinvent itself as "GSN: The Network for Games," with horse racing shows and more. That failed pretty miserably, so they've since gone back toward their original _raison d'etre_ as a game show channel (although some of the reruns on their schedule are getting a bit stale...).


----------



## radiomandc (Jul 22, 2009)

Boomerang used to be about classic cartoons. Now they are just showing old Cartoon Network shows.


----------



## AntAltMike (Nov 21, 2004)

radiomandc said:


> Don't forget about ESPN Classic. They stopped showing classic sports a long time ago. It was better when it was Classic Sports.


Actually, it is more useful as a source of "instant classics".

Considering that most of us surf in and out of live games, are any of us really wlling to watch a snail's pace 40 year old baseball game for two and a half hours just so we can see Bill Mazeroski win it with a homer in the ninth?


----------



## tftc22 (Mar 30, 2007)

TV Tropes calls this "network decay" and has a page full of examples.


----------



## bicker1 (Oct 21, 2007)

You can see early in the linked article where the author(s) have gone wrong. The article postulates that the niche interest channels they're addressing were "created to fulfill a specific programming niche" and in reality most of the time they were created to exploit a specific programming niche. Big difference. I think the only commercial television networks that really practice what could legitimately considered "service" to a certain niche are religious- and politically-oriented networks. Towards the end, the author(s) expresses sentiments of depression with regard to this, betraying another real problem with the perspective, i.e., expecting something not explicitly promised.

Thanks for the link.


----------



## paulman182 (Aug 4, 2006)

bicker1 said:


> Towards the end, the author(s) expresses sentiments of depression with regard to this, betraying another real problem with the perspective, i.e., expecting something not explicitly promised.


No, classic american movies are not explicitly promised from American Movie Classics, and game shows are not explicitly promised from Game Show Network, and we don't have a promise of classic sports from ESPN Classic, but you must admit it is a logical mistake for those of us who suffer from the "problem" of having the perspective of a viewer, as opposed to the perspective of a network executive...:lol:


----------



## trainman (Jan 9, 2008)

paulman182 said:


> No, classic american movies are not explicitly promised from American Movie Classics, and game shows are not explicitly promised from Game Show Network...


"American Movie Classics" and "Game Show Network" aren't promising _anything_ anymore; those channels are now officially "AMC" and "GSN," which could mean pretty much anything.


----------



## tvwatcher365 (May 24, 2005)

A few more networks that have "evolved":

Soapnet- Added "soapy" movies, as well as reruns of 90210, Melrose Place etc. over recent years. The only old soap that they show "Ryan's Hope" is relegated to 5 in the morning.

Style Network- Now showing "Supernanny", movies and the latest drivel from the Kardashians. 

BRAVO- No longer devoted to the arts, now is just like every other channel with reality programming dominating the lineup. When they do air some programs that have been on since before the format change (Inside the Actors Studio) it seems quite out of place.

trutv- Still has some good crime related programming (Forensic Files, Dominick Dunne), but has transitioned into showing police chases and "Most Shocking/Daring" programming. Plus it has cut back to only 6 hours for trial coverage. 

Just a few I could think of. There are many more examples out there.


----------



## bicker1 (Oct 21, 2007)

paulman182 said:


> No, classic american movies are not explicitly promised from American Movie Classics


Since 2003, AMC has made it clear that their mission is not "American Movie Classics" and since that time they haven't given you any reason to think that their programming will in any way shape or form conform to any conceptualization of what "American Movie Classics" could mean. Any preconceived notions along those lines, therefore, are completely the fabrication of the person forming that notion.



paulman182 said:


> and game shows are not explicitly promised from Game Show Network


I don't know precisely when GSN started making it clear that they were no longer the "Game Show Network" but we can say with assurance that today you have no reason to think that their programming will in any way shape or form conform to any conceptualization of what "Game Show Network" could mean. Again, any preconceived notions along those lines, therefore, are completely the fabrication of the person forming that notion.



paulman182 said:


> and we don't have a promise of classic sports from ESPN Classic


I don't follow sports channels at all, but I have a sneaking suspicion that the folks at ESPN mean by the term "ESPN Classic" something radically different from what you want them to mean -- and that really is the crux of the situation; the folks who own the channel get to decide what the channel's "format" is. If they don't promise you *explicitly*, without equivocation, fabrication, or imposition on *your* part of something unspecified by the channel, that which you're saying that they should offer but don't, then the fault rests with you, in terms of either inadvertently or deliberately misunderstanding what you've been promised, so as to make it sound like your concern is more important than it really is.


----------



## bicker1 (Oct 21, 2007)

tvwatcher365 said:


> Soapnet- Added "soapy" movies, as well as reruns of 90210, Melrose Place etc. over recent years. The only old soap that they show "Ryan's Hope" is relegated to 5 in the morning.


So, what you're saying is that they've changed from showing crappy soaps to showing higher quality soaps.


----------



## paulman182 (Aug 4, 2006)

Don't get me wrong, Mr. Bicker...I don't watch any of these channels and have not watched any of them for quite some time. I don't really care if AMC puts on a 24/7 Yule Log next month. Unless I read about it in the forum, I won't even know.

It seems to me, though, that one who comes to a thread dedicated to networks that have strayed from their original format should expect some disparaging comments from people who either once watched the channels for what they originally offered, or at least respected what they did as fulfilling a programming need. I personally don't understand why every post has to be followed by one informing the viewer that he is stupid to have any notion at all of what a channel is about. Why not just give them all numbers instead of channel names, then? 

Some viewers do actually watch these channels and care about quality programming, giving very little thought to how much money the channel might be making, as hard as that may be to believe.


----------



## AntAltMike (Nov 21, 2004)

Did FX ever have a format?


----------



## dpeters11 (May 30, 2007)

tvwatcher365 said:


> A few more networks that have "evolved":
> 
> BRAVO- No longer devoted to the arts, now is just like every other channel with reality programming dominating the lineup. When they do air some programs that have been on since before the format change (Inside the Actors Studio) it seems quite out of place.


But at least they have Top Chef. Especially Top Chef Masters.


----------



## bicker1 (Oct 21, 2007)

paulman182 said:


> Why not just give them all numbers instead of channel names, then?


Not names; letters. "GSN". "AMC". People resonate better with such things than with numbers, which would end up being excessively confusing given that different providers would actually put the channels on different channel numbers. It's interesting, though, to see how people think, though, because no matter what a channel does to help people realize their error in thinking of the channel in old ways, people rail against it, seemingly working extremely hard to make themselves disappointed and aggrieved. Remember when Syfy changed their name, to make it clearer that they're not just science fiction? People whined incessantly for months about that, without standing or legitimate cause. Essentially, some folks simply want to control their world far beyond any reasonable interpretation of how much a member of the mass-market should be able to directly and discretely control what is specifically offered to them. There is real damage in feeding such disconnection with the reality of what is reasonable to expect -- that fuels entitlement mentality which exerts many negative influences on society.


----------



## Galley (Apr 3, 2007)

Back in the day, I used to leave MTV on ALL DAY (later, I did the same with TechTV). What advertiser wouldn't love that?


----------



## Stuart Sweet (Jun 19, 2006)

I believe that was back in the day when the music was a lot better


----------



## bicker1 (Oct 21, 2007)

The question is "What changed?" Anyone who thinks that they themselves haven't changed is deluding themselves!


----------



## Drew2k (Aug 16, 2006)

That's right everyone - it's all YOUR fault! Everything is YOUR fault! Deal with it!


----------



## bicker1 (Oct 21, 2007)

Personal responsibility. :up:

Pointless whining. :down:


----------



## jkane (Oct 12, 2007)

SyFy is moving away from SciFi and fast!

History Channel used to tell historical stories. Now they have speculation and hearsay in most shows. That is if they even have historical stories and not predictions of the future!

TLC and Discovery are doing the same as History channel. Mostly reality TV style idiots who are not experts in any field. Just crackpots and wanna bees who are getting their own series with out there being any transfer of knowledge to the veiwers other than opinion and speculation.

Reality, aka cheap, TV is ruining most every station on the dial.


----------



## bicker1 (Oct 21, 2007)

Ruining *purity* to be sure.

However, what is the value of purity? Each of us assess such value ourselves and that will vary from person to person. You mentioned Syfy... there especially, I feel *purity* sucks. My wife and I far prefer genre programming that is as far from *pure science fiction* as it can be. So what we see channels providing is a reflection not of purity but of popularity -- in other words, they're "listening to the customer" and doing what the customer rewards them for doing, instead of clinging to some specific vision of purity.


----------



## tvwatcher365 (May 24, 2005)

dpeters11 said:


> But at least they have Top Chef. Especially Top Chef Masters.


That's the one hidden gem in their lineup that I enjoy. A lot of times it's hard to see what the vision is for BRAVO. Most of the time they show reality programming (Real Housewives, Top Chef, Millionaire Matchmaker), but occasionally they'll put on movies, documentaries and former NBC shows (The West Wing). It just seems like a channel that doesn't have a distinct direction and is just catering to a "general" audience. However, it has worked for them since 2003, so obviously things won't change, nor should they.

Regarding Syfy, this is one network that has had great success with non-science fiction programming. Heck, ECW on Tuesday nights is the highest rated show on the network. Warehouse 13 gave it great numbers as well. So while people on the Syfy websites and other forums, might not like the changes, it's clear that they are doing something right.


----------



## bicker1 (Oct 21, 2007)

I'd suggest that fans of genre television should look at ECW in a completely different light -- it is in some ways perhaps subsidizing the programming that they like! The better ECW does, the less cost-reduction pressure Syfy experiences.


----------



## dorfd1 (Jul 16, 2008)

according to time warner cable cincinnati gsn is a sports channel and the only way to get gsn on time warner cable cincinnati is to subscribe to there piece of crap sports tear which has only 7 sports channels + gsn.


----------



## tsmacro (Apr 28, 2005)

tvwatcher365 said:


> Regarding Syfy, this is one network that has had great success with non-science fiction programming. Heck, ECW on Tuesday nights is the highest rated show on the network. Warehouse 13 gave it great numbers as well. So while people on the Syfy websites and other forums, might not like the changes, it's clear that they are doing something right.


What makes you think ECW is one of SyFy's highest rated shows? Actually I always thought the only reason it remained on SyFy is that it was cheap to produce and possibly introduces a new audience to it's other programming. Anyway here's the numbers for SyFy from the past week, no ECW to be found on the list:

http://tvbythenumbers.com/2009/11/1...e-ghost-hunters-top-syfy-weekly-viewing/33981


----------



## bicker1 (Oct 21, 2007)

ECW pulled in a 1.0 Rating for November 4, watched by 1,324,000 viewers. Don't ask me why Nielsen didn't include it in their list.


----------



## tvwatcher365 (May 24, 2005)

tsmacro said:


> What makes you think ECW is one of SyFy's highest rated shows? Actually I always thought the only reason it remained on SyFy is that it was cheap to produce and possibly introduces a new audience to it's other programming. Anyway here's the numbers for SyFy from the past week, no ECW to be found on the list:
> 
> http://tvbythenumbers.com/2009/11/1...e-ghost-hunters-top-syfy-weekly-viewing/33981


Bicker posted the numbers for the 11/4 edition.  It remains around because it consistently brings in good numbers (for Syfy standards) weekly. Heck, back in 2006 it was easily pulling over a 2.0 (the premiere averaged a 2.79 rating).


----------



## tsmacro (Apr 28, 2005)

tvwatcher365 said:


> Bicker posted the numbers for the 11/4 edition.  It remains around because it consistently brings in good numbers (for Syfy standards) weekly. Heck, back in 2006 it was easily pulling over a 2.0 (the premiere averaged a 2.79 rating).


Ok but my point is still that ECW isn't their top rated show, there are several ahead of it these days, even if you did plug in Bicker's #'s from the 11/4 chart into the 11/15 chart it still would've been in about 8th or 9th and on the most recent chart it's like I said not even on it. Sure maybe three years ago it was the top rated show on the network but in the what have you done for me lately world of tv that's not likely to hold a lot of water among net execs. But yeah i'm sure ECW is safe enough for now it does serve it's purpose and fill a niche.


----------



## Stuart Sweet (Jun 19, 2006)

I think that there are just too many channels competing for the same audience... that's all.


----------



## SayWhat? (Jun 7, 2009)

ECW?


----------



## sigma1914 (Sep 5, 2006)

SayWhat? said:


> ECW?


Wrestling.


----------



## jeffshoaf (Jun 17, 2006)

sigma1914 said:


> Wrestling.


Wrasslin'.


----------



## tvwatcher365 (May 24, 2005)

tsmacro said:


> Ok but my point is still that ECW isn't their top rated show, there are several ahead of it these days, even if you did plug in Bicker's #'s from the 11/4 chart into the 11/15 chart it still would've been in about 8th or 9th and on the most recent chart it's like I said not even on it. Sure maybe three years ago it was the top rated show on the network but in the what have you done for me lately world of tv that's not likely to hold a lot of water among net execs. But yeah i'm sure ECW is safe enough for now it does serve it's purpose and fill a niche.


Perhaps I shouldn't have made the conclusion that it is the highest rated show on the network, because as you mentioned, it isn't. However, it seems like most weeks it is. The WWE does these "Did you Know" segments during their telecasts, which usually point out their ratings victories (especially on Monday and Tuesdays) and they consistently point out how "ECW" is the highest rated show on Syfy for the week. The ratings have died down because "ECW" now is primarily a "farm league" where new talent is able to get some exposure. Back in '06, it was treated as a reincarnation of the old "ECW" promotion with a lot of familiar faces (Sabu, Sandman, RVD etc.). However, by '07 the majority of "original" ECW talent was released and people began to tune out because their favorites from the old promotion were gone. I think people were hoping that Mcmahon would revive elements of the old promotion, but that wasn't a longterm goal. The market is also oversaturated with so much "wrestling" during the week (between WWE, TNA & a lesser extent ROH on HDNET) that people "pick and choose" what programs to watch.


----------



## trainman (Jan 9, 2008)

AntAltMike said:


> Did FX ever have a format?


No, they were always a "general entertainment" channel, like USA.


----------



## kc1ih (May 22, 2004)

AntAltMike said:


> And Headline News has become HLN. It is now an opinion channel, rather than a news channel.


ALL the news channels have become mostly opinion channels!


----------



## Glen_D (Oct 21, 2006)

AntAltMike said:


> Did FX ever have a format?





trainman said:


> No, they were always a "general entertainment" channel, like USA.


I don't think FX was ever anything other than a "general entertainment" channel, but they did a major revamp of their programming lineup shortly after becoming available on DISH. They used to screen several classic syndicated TV shows.


----------



## trainman (Jan 9, 2008)

Glen_D said:


> I don't think FX was ever anything other than a "general entertainment" channel, but they did a major revamp of their programming lineup shortly after becoming available on DISH. They used to screen several classic syndicated TV shows.


True -- of course, USA has done several major revamps of their programming lineup as well over the years (but then, they've been around for over 20 years). I remember when they used to air game show reruns all afternoon, long before Game Show Network existed.


----------



## dennispap (Feb 1, 2007)

CMT went from country music videos to Reality shows, ******* funniest videos, pro wrestling school for "celebrities", Are you smarter than a 5th grader, comedy shows, movies,etc
Hardly any country music videos anymore.


----------



## jeffshoaf (Jun 17, 2006)

Arguably, Speed moved away from its original premise when it was bought by Fox. Originally, it focused on all things racing and showed everything from lawnmower races to airplane and boat races. Now, it seems to focus on NASCAR and pads out the time between NASCAR pre-race shows, qualifying, races, and post-race shows with a plethora of reality shows that, while dealing with vehicles, just aren't that interesting to those of us who are primarily interested in road racing.

Yes, they do continue to show F1 races and a few other road racing series, but nowhere near the amount of road racing that they used to show. While the used to cover the full 24 hours of Le Mans (as well as full coverage of other 12 and 24 hour endurance races), they'll now break into those for hours to show qualifying for Sprint Cup support series races. And although they continue to sponsor the Speed World Challenge SCCA pro racing series, they delay the race broadcasts for weeks and months, and this year, instead of showing the entire races of both GT and touring car classes, they combine both into a one hour "highlights" show.

And I really miss the lawnmower races!


----------

