Patience Is A Virtue: Is Conventional TV Worth Saving?
Published May 02, 2008
Here is a newsflash for TV execs: When a show does not do well in a certain timeslot, it will do equally badly at a different time. Moving the show around the schedule and trying it out on various days and times, hammocking it between so-called hit shows, will only make audiences dwindle even faster.
Patience is a virtue, so the saying goes, and in TV land, ignorance of this time-honored rule is the real cause of the incipient demise of traditional TV. If a show does not meet its target, either remove it immediately or give it time to grow – networks might be surprised to find out what a bit of TLC can do. But by all means, stop aggravating viewers by sending them on a wild goose chase in search of their shows. If viewers are sufficiently angered by such incomprehensible castling, they will take it out on other shows on the same network, and suddenly the network may find itself in last place in the ratings.
Some shows are instant hits, but they are as rare as top-winning scratch cards that claim that all and sundry can be an instant winner. Most of what we see on TV is an acquired taste. At first, a new show may look like a real dud, but then, often several weeks into a new season, something clicks and a connection has been established. Unfortunately, by then, the network usually has already sent in its "contract killers", and the hapless viewer is left with nothing more than the chalk outline where the show used to be. This may not drive the viewer to drink, but it will certainly make it easier for him or her to switch to cable, the Internet or DVDs.
- Patience Is A Virtue: Is Conventional TV Worth Saving?
- Published: May 02, 2008
- Type: Opinion
- Section: Video
- Filed Under: Video: Film and TV Business, Video: Television
- Writer: Werner Patels
- Werner Patels's BC Writer page
- Werner Patels's personal site
- Spread the Word
- Like this article?
- Email this
Save to del.icio.us
Comments
You wrote a good piece, Werner, but the boys in TV land don't want to know.
From the looks of things, they don't give a damn anymore. Considering the load of junk they have called "entertainment" over the last two decades, it's no surprise that viewers are voting with their fingers, being willing to pay a one time fee for the luxury of not having to sit through reruns and commercials.
Dig it. My kids get to watch Smallville once weekly - and we don't even own a TV!! And I never even buy the episodes!!






Good article. You're right that the networks' season is shorter, but also the individual shows are shorter. We viewers used to sit still, or go get a sandwich, during a 1-minute commercial break. Give us 4-minute breaks, and we'll pay money for devices that fast forward past them.
Network impatience is a problem, like you said. It has a secondary effect that networks don't think about. If the viewers hear that a show has no "buzz" or low ratings, they won't bother watching it, because they know it's going off the air soon. That kills shows with long story arcs. Network support for weak starters like Veronica Mars is rare. Instead you get shows like Kidnapped being cancelled quickly. It makes the viewer less likely to even bother with a first-season show.