# What is that show doing on this channel?



## mreposter (Jul 29, 2006)

Recent examples of odd programming choices by certain channels... yeah, yeah, yeah it's all about getting better ratings, but it really waters down the brand identity of a channel when it does things like:

Jon and Kate Plus 8 on DISCOVERY HEALTH
Duke of Hazard - The Movie on SLEUTH 
House marathon on SLEUTH
Law & Order Criminal Intent marathon on OXYGEN
Star Trek TNG on BBC-America
The A-Team on CENTRIC (formerly BET-Jazz)
Teen Wolf on VH1 Classics (Purple Rain, yeah, okay, but Teen Wolf???)


What next? Hanna Montana reruns on SPIKE?


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

mreposter said:


> Recent examples of odd programming choices by certain channels... yeah, yeah, yeah it's all about getting better ratings, but it really waters down the brand identity of a channel when it does things like:
> 
> Jon and Kate Plus 8 on DISCOVERY HEALTH
> Duke of Hazard - The Movie on SLEUTH
> ...


Some of those make sense in a way...

House is a "detective" show in a sense, because it involves solving the "crime" of what disease is killing the patient. Also, Gregory House is very much Sherlock Holmes in the way his character is written.

If they pick the right episodes, they could make the Law & Order marathon work on Oxygen, as there are quite a bit of violence-against-women episodes of Law & Order that unfortunately fit in with some of those movie-of-the-week that Oxygen has.

I'm with you in spirit though!


----------



## fluffybear (Jun 19, 2004)

mreposter said:


> What next? Hanna Montana reruns on SPIKE?


Don't give them any ideas!


----------



## Church AV Guy (Jul 9, 2007)

mreposter said:


> What next? Hanna Montana reruns on SPIKE?


How about Man Caves on Lifetime?


----------



## mreposter (Jul 29, 2006)

It's frustrating when channels "drift" like this when so much good programming that would fit better is just sitting on a shelf somewhere. I guess their not interested in serving a loyal and dedicated audience.


----------



## BattleZone (Nov 13, 2007)

mreposter said:


> It's frustrating when channels "drift" like this when so much good programming that would fit better is just sitting on a shelf somewhere. I guess their not interested in serving a loyal and dedicated audience.


What happens is a channel gets created to "fill a niche", but after a while, the company that owns the channel decides that they want more money, but can only get more money by having broader appeal. Thus, niche channels slowly transform into more "general interest" channels hoping to grow their ratings.

And sadly, shows that are a complete WASTE of brain cells (Jon & Kate, etc.) get big ratings. Most folks don't want to have to think or learn anything when they watch TV, they just want to watch other people's drama, to help them forget about their own boring lives.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

For the most part I have two reasons to watch TV:

1. Learn something
2. Escape from the day

So depending upon my needs at any given moment, I might want to watch a drama, a comedy, a cartoon, a documentary, or a science program just to name a few examples.

But, for the most part, "reality" TV doesn't fill either bill. They aren't educational, and don't afford me any escapism or entertainment.


----------



## jcc (Mar 29, 2010)

BattleZone said:


> What happens is a channel gets created to "fill a niche", but after a while, the company that owns the channel decides that they want more money, but can only get more money by having broader appeal. Thus, niche channels slowly transform into more "general interest" channels hoping to grow their ratings.


Here's a perfect description for this

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/NetworkDecay

And there are a few channels that fill in that niche to replace the niche that's been abdandoned. A few examples. History International and Military Channel are what History Channel used to be and Ovation are what A&E and Bravo used to be (arts) and RFD TV is what Spike TV when it was the Nashville Network.

Now I wish someone would truly create a create a niche that MTV and VH1 abdanoned. Music Videos. VH1 Classic doesn't cut it as they don't play music all the time. They used to when they were commercial free so they should have stayed that way. I didn't have DirecTV at the time. They play movies like one of the posters said Teen Wolf. What the heck does that have to do with music?! Other times they talk about music. Fuse doesn't cut it either as sometimes they have movies. The only show I sometimes like is Loaded. I would say 
Palladia but it's mostly concerts with music videos late at night. I'm talking 
about music videos all the time. I know there are MTV/VH1 channels like MTV Hits and VH1 Soul but those are on digital cable and as somebody said he'll would have to freeze over before those channels are carried on DirecTV. Sorry for my long post but I'm just frustrated as y'all about channels doing stuff but at least I found other channels to watch that aren't like this


----------



## SamC (Jan 20, 2003)

GREAT link JCC.

Lets look at some of these. (Old guy mode firmly on.)

HLN, formerly CNN2, used to be a quick 30 minute national newscast, while CNN was doing more long form or opinion material. Now its just this "major crisis" thing where they get all worked up over a story that really is on no national significance, often a missing person. Repeating endlessly appeals for information and haranging the cops.

ESPN2 used to be a "hip" version of ESPN, showing "minor" sports. Now that is the ESPN3 computer feed's niche, and ESPN2 is just ESPN's second channel.

Spike, formerly TNN, formerly The Nashville Network, was TV for rural America. Now RFD plies that market and Spike is just another general rerun channel.

SyFi. What do you say? Does it even carry science fiction any more.

Tru. Formerly CourTV. Marketing plan was to spin out of the success CNN had had saving money by showing live trial footage in place of normal programming. Now just a general rerun channel.

AMC/TCM/FMC. Used to be commercial free old movie channels. Now I really could not describe what any of them are supposed to be. 

BBCA. I suppose the idea was a to take shows from the BBC, and other English language networks outside the USA. Now it is reruning Star Trek.

A&E. Arts and Entertainment. Home makeover shows are "art"? 

Bravo - Another "art" channel. Now a general old movie channel.

Travel - Once was about travel to places you might actually go. Now its about some fat guy eating too much and shows about the Mayans.

Discovery Health. Isn't Oprah (so over) going to take this over? Nothing about health on it at all.

TLC. The LEARNING channel. Originally longform shows at a de facto college level. Survivor of several such channels that were on BUD and early cable. You actually could learn something. Now J&K+8 and midget doctors.

ABC Family. Take this back to its roots and it was clearly the best of the religious broadcasters. Less "preachy" and did some general, yet religious, entertainment such as the soap "Another Life". Now just a general rerun channel.

All of the music channels. Original idea was to show music videos, which they got for no royality. Ultra cheap programming. Now D-list celbs commenting on politics and other things they cannot understand.

Centric. Originally "BET2". What is wrong with a "black" channel. Lots of people are black. Now just a general rerun channel, albeit it ususally a show with a black character.

GMC. Originally just a gospel music video outlet, it has recently switched to a general rerun channel, plying the well work "family" sea. 

MSNBC - Original plan was a "fusion" of TV news and the internet. Now its just political invictive from people unqualified to have an opinion.

All of the premium movie channels. Remember when? You got movies, commercial free, within a few months of the theater. Now its Penn & Teller and Bryant Gumball and such. Not to mention weird series that seem to have been rejected by everybody else first.

Versus. Special dishornable mention. Originally OLN, an H&F channel. Unwilling to serve that market (where actual animals are harmed in the production) it morphs into hockey, open wheel, and filler network.


----------



## AntAltMike (Nov 21, 2004)

And unfortunately for those who take the time and trouble to post on this subject, the people programming those channels are best situated to know what makes them more money. I was dumbfounded to learn that not only did MTV and VH1 no longer carry videos, they pretty much stopped doing so about a decade and a half ago. But then, I had stopped watching them when my local cable system expanded from 35 channels to about 60.

BTW, does anyone know what, if anything, FX ever "was"?

I have to question the viability of RTV. I might be reassured by the notion that The Rockford Files is still running somewhere, but is anyone watching it? I think that eventually, it and a lot of other channels could make more money if they became the "Kevin Trudeau" channel.


----------



## mreposter (Jul 29, 2006)

I don't have a problem with general channels like SPIKE. Yes, they started out as the Nashville Network focused on country music, but when they decided to change formats they rebranded as Spike. They advertise themselves as having programming focused on male viewers, much like Oxygen and Lifetime focus on women. There's nothing deceptive about that.

What does bug me is channels like HISTORY... what the heck are shows like Ice Road Truckers and Pawn Stars doing on a channel that promotes itself as a source of historical information???


----------



## 1980ws (Mar 18, 2008)

Sometimes you get weather on TWC. I used to be able to tune to this channel and just watch weather, strange yes, but almost like a travel show. Now, I don't know what the hell I'm going to find. Maybe the "Wizard of Oz" because of the tornado.


----------



## photostudent (Nov 8, 2007)

"Spike, formerly TNN, formerly The Nashville Network, was TV for rural America. Now RFD plies that market and Spike is just another _general rerun channel_". 
I think you have come up with a great new catagory of television. We can just call them "GRCs". It is painful as one watches a channel drift into that group, i.e. G4.


----------



## Stuart Sweet (Jun 19, 2006)

Yeah, channel identities get diluted. I guess I'd get angry about it, but really... I watch shows not networks. If I like a show, I guess the only thing I care about is whether or not I get the channel in HD.


----------



## bicker1 (Oct 21, 2007)

Stuart Sweet said:


> I watch shows not networks.


Precisely. Channels that restrict their content to specific niches are being stupid, these days, given how (rightfully) disloyal viewers are. The objective must be to present the most popular programming, with little regard to serving niche interests. Only within a family of channels, owned by the same company and presented on the same tier of service, it makes sense to bias content, directing a certain show to one of their channels versus another. Beyond that, just get the best programming you can, and then present it on whatever channel _that you own_ that fits it best.


----------



## SamC (Jan 20, 2003)

You just summed up why all of the constrination about hockey and Indy Car racing on Versus, or various college conferences on CBSC or FSN, is just so much talk about nothing at all.


----------



## mreposter (Jul 29, 2006)

bicker1 said:


> Precisely. Channels that restrict their content to specific niches are being stupid, these days, given how (rightfully) disloyal viewers are. The objective must be to present the most popular programming, with little regard to serving niche interests. Only within a family of channels, owned by the same company and presented on the same tier of service, it makes sense to bias content, directing a certain show to one of their channels versus another. Beyond that, just get the best programming you can, and then present it on whatever channel _that you own_ that fits it best.


Perhaps DBSTalk is being stupid by restricting itself to being "the internet's satellite resource." They should be running feature stories on Justin Bieber and the latest diet trends. That's sure to increase hits and increase ad revenue....


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

mreposter said:


> Perhaps DBSTalk is being stupid by restricting itself to being "the internet's satellite resource." They should be running feature stories on Justin Bieber and the latest diet trends. That's sure to increase hits and increase ad revenue....


Well played... well played


----------



## SPACEMAKER (Dec 11, 2007)

Stuart Sweet said:


> Yeah, channel identities get diluted. I guess I'd get angry about it, but really... I watch shows not networks. If I like a show, I guess the only thing I care about is whether or not I get the channel in HD.


Exactly.


----------



## bicker1 (Oct 21, 2007)

mreposter said:


> Perhaps DBSTalk is being stupid by restricting itself to being "the internet's satellite resource." They should be running feature stories on Justin Bieber and the latest diet trends. That's sure to increase hits and increase ad revenue....


The two industries are vastly different. That should be readily obvious.

Beyond that, some of the most successful discussion forums on the Internet are actually part of a family of discussion websites. For example, one of the A/V related forums I participated in quite a lot is actually owned by AOL now. This goes back to what I said about it making sense to bias content only within a family of channels, owned by the same company.

Other successful A/V related forums I participated in contain sections for off-topic discussions, thereby building a community rather than building just an otherwise-esoteric discussion board.

People need to run businesses based on their business environment, not based on some other industry, nor based on some mythology they'd rather live in. You may not care about how financially successful the owners of a specific discussion forum you participate in are - heck, given that some folks run forums as a hobby, they may not even care how successful they are. However, networks do care how successful they are. They do understand that they are responsible to their owners for providing financial success as good as if not better than all other possible ways those owners could invest their money.


----------



## paulman182 (Aug 4, 2006)

mreposter said:


> What does bug me is channels like HISTORY... what the heck are shows like Ice Road Truckers and Pawn Stars doing on a channel that promotes itself as a source of historical information???


They are going to rerun episodes of these shows until they are so old that they ARE history.


----------



## lee635 (Apr 17, 2002)

Another problem is the trend toward more and more reruns. Many channels drift from their original focus, but the drift is also away from original/unique programming. Star Trek on BBCA is a typical example. If it were new episodes of a Star Trek series, that would be one thing, but reruns of 10+ year old shows? 

Here's another, teen oriented shows with "real people" on the Cartoon Network? What's up with that? Well, at least these are new shows and not reruns from 10 years ago...

In fairness to SyFy, they are showing a lot of low budget scifi movies, but at least these are movies that haven't been run three dozen times already on other networks.....

There really needs to be a shakeout in all these duplicated, rerun channels.


----------



## bicker1 (Oct 21, 2007)

I'm not so sure. In another forum I participate in, some members _regularly_ extol the virtues of services such as This TV and Retro. These people relish reruns. And this is not a new phenomenon.


----------



## AntAltMike (Nov 21, 2004)

SamC said:


> A&E. Arts and Entertainment. Home makeover shows are "art"? ...


I hadn't viewed A&E in years, but since my cable company revamped its lineup, I now surf throiugh it and see that it should be renamed, "The Dash-Cam Channel". Are there really enough people with nothing better to do to watch that stuff?

I guess I stopped watching A&E when they got rid of the Mystery Movie, which I now see on RTV on Sunday afternoon. The problem with block-programming the Mystery Movie is that there were too few of them, as they only shot typically seven episodes of each series per year.


----------



## Alan Gordon (Jun 7, 2004)

SamC said:


> GREAT link JCC.
> 
> Lets look at some of these. (Old guy mode firmly on.)


A few comments...



SamC said:


> ESPN2 used to be a "hip" version of ESPN, showing "minor" sports. Now that is the ESPN3 computer feed's niche, and ESPN2 is *just ESPN's second channel*.


So... in other words, ESPN2 started "living up to it's name"?!



SamC said:


> SyFi. What do you say? Does it even carry science fiction any more.


I can't speak for SyFi, but SyFy does! 

"Warehouse 13", "Eureka", "Haven", "Sanctuary", "Stargate Universe", "Caprica", etc... And that's just their currently ongoing original series... not their syndicated programming, reruns, movies, or upcoming series like the American-ized version of "Being Human".

Sure, they air some "reality crap" and wrestling as well, but at least they're MOSTLY on-topic...



SamC said:


> AMC/TCM/FMC. Used to be commercial free old movie channels. Now I really could not describe what any of them are supposed to be.


TCM still airs uncut movies... which I THOUGHT were commercial free?!

Ditto with FMC?!



SamC said:


> BBCA. I suppose the idea was a to take shows from the BBC, and other English language networks outside the USA. Now it is reruning Star Trek.


One mistake BBC America has made is selling the rights to their original programming to other networks. SyFy did well with "Merlin" this Summer... and Starz will be getting the new season of "Torchwood".



SamC said:


> ABC Family. Take this back to its roots and it was clearly the best of the religious broadcasters. Less "preachy" and did some general, yet religious, entertainment such as the soap "Another Life". Now just a general rerun channel.


ABC Family also airs original series and (occassionally) semi-original movies.



SamC said:


> All of the music channels. Original idea was to show music videos, which they got for no royality. Ultra cheap programming. Now D-list celbs commenting on politics and other things they cannot understand.


D-list (or better) celebs have just as much of a right to speak their mind about politics as the rest of us do. Personally, I believe in keeping my political beliefs to myself, but I've often found that those who criticize "celebs" for speaking about their beliefs, often have no problem speaking about theirs. I'm not criticizing you, but you've hit upon a "pet peeve" of mine...

I can't disagree with the rest of your comments about those channels though.



SamC said:


> Centric. Originally "BET2". What is wrong with a "black" channel. Lots of people are black. Now just a general rerun channel, albeit it ususally a show with a black character.


I think the problem with the BET name is that there would probably be a fuss if someone were to create a WET (no jokes, please) channel. There's nothing wrong with aiming your channel toward a demographic, but I personally find a more "generic" name to be more appropriate in this day and age. Centric and TVOne are far better names than BET...



SamC said:


> GMC. Originally just a gospel music video outlet, it has recently switched to a general rerun channel, plying the well work "family" sea.


Good programming... but yes, a very good example. However, I've noticed that they refer to themselves simply as GMC instead of mentioning what it stands for... sort of like how TNN dropped The Nashville Network prior to changing their name to Spike.

~Alan


----------



## Alan Gordon (Jun 7, 2004)

AntAltMike said:


> BTW, does anyone know what, if anything, FX ever "was"?


FOX2.

To be fair, it still kind of is... 

~Alan


----------



## bicker1 (Oct 21, 2007)

I read an article this morning that reminded me of this thread. Generification (for lack of a better term) of services to better serve a more worthwhile objective has been happening for ever, and across myriad types of services. The article this morning highlighted the changes taking place in the 'Y'. The goal of the YMCA when it was founded was to put Christian principles into practice, achieved by developing "a healthy spirit, mind, and body." Over its history, it has genericized its focus, from just Christian principles, to "Judeo-Christian principles, to being more non-sectarian; and from focusing on boys and young men, to serving the needs of both genders. 

An interesting parallel, as far as I'm concerned, especially since the most commented-about genericization on television is Syfy, and about half of that is due to its change in focus from serving the interests of boys and young men, to serving the interests of both genders and all ages. And, indeed, we could draw a similar parallel between the Y's change in religious focus to Syfy's change in "religious" focus between the "religion" of hardcore SF to serving more different "religious" perspectives on genre programming, including fantasy, horror, sci-fi romance, etc. 

And you can also often find AA meetings held at the 'Y', something that has practically nothing to do with their mission other than fostering revenues, parallel to Syfy's handling of WWE.


----------



## trainman (Jan 9, 2008)

Alan Gordon said:


> One mistake *BBC America* has made is selling the rights to their original programming to other networks. SyFy did well with "Merlin" this Summer... and Starz will be getting the new season of "Torchwood".


That's the BBC in the U.K. that's making the "mistake." Although it's a different division within the same organization, the BBC is under no obligation to sell programming only to BBC America; they don't even have to offer BBCA the right of first refusal. (It's the same basic idea as, for example, the fact that 20th Century Fox Television programming doesn't _only_ sell its programming to the Fox network.)

I'm sure the British people, who pay a tax on television and radio receivers to fund the BBC, appreciate them trying to get as much money as they can when selling their programming abroad; it helps to keep that tax lower.


----------



## Alan Gordon (Jun 7, 2004)

trainman said:


> That's the BBC in the U.K. that's making the "mistake." Although it's a different division within the same organization, the BBC is under no obligation to sell programming only to BBC America; they don't even have to offer BBCA the right of first refusal. (It's the same basic idea as, for example, the fact that 20th Century Fox Television programming doesn't _only_ sell its programming to the Fox network.)
> 
> I'm sure the British people, who pay a tax on television and radio receivers to fund the BBC, appreciate them trying to get as much money as they can when selling their programming abroad; it helps to keep that tax lower.


Yeah, I meant to say BBC... and NOT BBC America... and yes, you are correct regarding the selling rights, but my point was that by selling the rights to some of their series to other networks, it may earn them more money, but it also weakens the BBC America network.

~Alan


----------



## mreposter (Jul 29, 2006)

To continue to pick on BBC and BBC-A... 

The BBC has at least four major networks in the UK (BBC-1, 2, 3, 4...) plus there's ITN, Channel 4 and a others. Surely BBC America can find enough good programming from these UK-based networks to fill up most of their schedule. Why do they need to instead turn to US shows like Star Trek TNG and Hollywood movies? 

Bicker1 will probably chime in and say Star Trek and James Bond movies get better ratings and generate more ad revenue for BBC-A. But ultimately, it waters down the brand image of the network and if every network ends up with basically the same pool of programming do we really need 200 of them?


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

mreposter said:


> To continue to pick on BBC and BBC-A...
> 
> The BBC has at least four major networks in the UK (BBC-1, 2, 3, 4...) plus there's ITN, Channel 4 and a others. Surely BBC America can find enough good programming from these UK-based networks to fill up most of their schedule. Why do they need to instead turn to US shows like Star Trek TNG and Hollywood movies?
> 
> Bicker1 will probably chime in and say Star Trek and James Bond movies get better ratings and generate more ad revenue for BBC-A. But ultimately, it waters down the brand image of the network and if every network ends up with basically the same pool of programming do we really need 200 of them?


Agree with everything you just said...

For as much as I've piled on at Syfy and their changes... the choices at BBC-America are arguably more egregious, because they are airing shows that we could otherwise see on other channels... instead of showing unique British programming that they might very well have the exclusive rights to air in the US.

I like Star Trek, but even if I didn't own all the DVDs already, Syfy and a couple of other channels air those shows regularly. I much prefer to see BBC-America actually be BBC-America and show us quality British programming that we wouldn't otherwise see.

I know from watching Doctor Who that I already was a fan of... I've gained exposure to Graham Norton, Jonathan Ross, and Top Gear as they either come on the same night OR run commercials. They have other shows too, but the point is I get exposed to try new things I can't see on any other channel here in the US.


----------



## Alan Gordon (Jun 7, 2004)

mreposter said:


> The BBC has at least four major networks in the UK (BBC-1, 2, 3, 4...) plus there's ITN, Channel 4 and a others. Surely BBC America can find enough good programming from these UK-based networks to fill up most of their schedule. Why do they need to instead turn to US shows like Star Trek TNG and Hollywood movies?


Agreed! 



mreposter said:


> Bicker1 will probably chime in and say Star Trek and James Bond movies get better ratings and generate more ad revenue for BBC-A. But ultimately, it waters down the brand image of the network and if every network ends up with basically the same pool of programming do we really need 200 of them?


I don't have a problem with duplication of programming... not everybody gets the same channel, some programs might be aired in HD on one channel, not on the other, some might come on at different time... there are MULTIPLE reasons why I don't have a problem with duplication of programming.

*James Bond* is a series of movies about a British secret agent... I'm fine with the occasional airing. The books and movies even have a British connection.
*Star Trek* is a series that happens to star a British actor... playing a Frenchman. 

I'd rather they focus on bringing British programming to America... regardless if it's British films or British TV shows. What I do have an issue with is the addition of programming that is neither a British series, or a series that has anything to do with the UK.

~Alan


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

Alan Gordon said:


> *James Bond* is a series of movies about a British secret agent... I'm fine with the occasional airing. The books and movies even have a British connection.


I would also put the original Pink Panther movies that starred Peter Sellers in this category.

The same could go for the Monty Python theatrical movies.


----------



## Alan Gordon (Jun 7, 2004)

Stewart Vernon said:


> I would also put the original Pink Panther movies that starred Peter Sellers in this category.
> 
> The same could go for the Monty Python theatrical movies.


Yep! I'd have no problem with these either... 

~Alan<~~~~~~~Who has two on Blu-ray...


----------



## bicker1 (Oct 21, 2007)

mreposter said:


> Bicker1 will probably chime in and say Star Trek and James Bond movies get better ratings and generate more ad revenue for BBC-A. But ultimately, it waters down the brand image of the network and if every network ends up with basically the same pool of programming do we really need 200 of them?


First of all, it doesn't water anything down, since ST:TNG features a British actor, as lead, and James Bond movies are British productions entirely. They are both absolutely consistent with the mission of BBC America, to present British entertainment to American audiences.

Beyond that, I don't need to make the point that the overriding obligation of BBC America is to its owners' best long-term financial interests, since you've already done so. The reality is that niche programming as myopically defined as you seem to want it would be poor management, since it wouldn't earn enough revenue to justify its use of resources.


----------



## Attitude2000 (Jun 23, 2005)

"SamC" said:


> GREAT link JCC.
> 
> Lets look at some of these. (Old guy mode firmly on.)
> 
> ...


To be fair, there are so many ways to get movies now (legal or otherwise) HBO, etc. need something to get you to subscribe.

Versus wants the sports ESPN has, but they can't get them...yet.

And don't forget discovery. They created 5 other channels just to make room for American Chopper.


----------



## Attitude2000 (Jun 23, 2005)

"bicker1" said:


> I'm not so sure. In another forum I participate in, some members regularly extol the virtues of services such as This TV and Retro. These people relish reruns. And this is not a new phenomenon.


I gotta side on this one. A lot of tv shows aren't on DVD (and probably never will be) for all kinds of reasons, securing rights the most popular. And a lot of channels show series still on network TV; great catch-up opportunity *cough*Supernatural*cough*. And movies...odds are great you're gonna find a new favorite on TV one Saturday afternoon or at least something to laugh or cry about.


----------

