MTV have confirmed their intention to launch a 'gay-orientated' channel in the US. The network originally announced its intention to launch such a channel - then in association with fellow Viacom division Showtime - back in 2002, but those plans were scrapped. The new venture, to be called Logo, should go live next Feb.
Of course, as one would expect the happy-clappy contigent is in a tizzy over this plan. As we all know they are keen viewers of MTV as it stands and will be sorry to be unable to continue viewing their output.
But MTV Networks boss Tom Freston says he doesn't expect any major backlash to the channel - confident advertisers will risk annoying the religious right given the estimated $400 billion spending power of America's gay population. I think he might be right.
This via CMU.
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - boomcrashbaby
I think this is absolutely great. Although since it's being done by MTV, I can only imagine that it will consist of people as shallow as their video personalities. Hopefully, they will accurately survey their intended market. Gay consumers spend about 200 billion a year. The HRC estimates that there are 6 to 10 million children being raised by gay families. And then of course, nobody has essentially sustained a lot of cruise ship lines like single gay people.
I've heard complaints from some blogcritics (on their own blogs mostly), about gay people already being all over television. It will be nice though to finally see gay people as they really are. This is what I'm hoping the network will do.
Will and Jack (from Will and Grace) are two well-known gay characters on tv. Yet so unrealistic. Presented like the Amos and Andy charactures of yesteryear. I mean come on, a single, reasonably attractive, successful lawyer, with a choice New York Apartment, and has only been able to date maybe 3 times in the last decade. Yeah, right. Never can have a boyfriend, might freak out America if gay people have a love life.
How about Queer Eye? Like Fairy Godmothers, 5 gay men bound into the room, twirl around and make your whole life better, oftentimes with the intent of enriching YOUR love life. Then they bound away to their 'ivory tower' with champagne glass in hand, where they watch from a distance, you revel in your mystical night, where you get all the credit and they are safely out of sight.
Maybe the daytime will be filled with gay oriented soaps, and talk shows, (so I won't be tempted to have the channel on all the time), gay-related evening news, with info on legislation, referendums, constitutional attacks, and such. Followed by an excellently made CSI-Fire Island series, and then a reality series where a bunch of gay men try and survive a semester at Falwell's university. hehe.
2 - jack e. jett
this is very exciting news for us. our show has been airing on a gay and lesbian network in canada.
we are hoping that our show is one that is selected for the new line up.
i would love to be a gay leno. i can take the right wing hate mail having recieved my fair share of it in the past.
jack e. jett
3 - RJ Elliott
I have no problem with this. I mean, it's on cable, so no one will be force-fed this programming.
And it was a given that MTV would have a hand in this...
4 - Natalie Davis
Indeed, unlike the heterosupremacist programming we are force-fed on the broadcast channels.
5 - RJ Elliott
Uh, most people are straight. Therefore, most television viewers are straight. Therefore, most programming on television shows mostly straight characters.
This is pretty much a wise, no-brainer marketing decision by TV execs, and does not in any way involve the bizarre "heterosupremacist" attitudes you allude to...
6 - Natalie Davis
You see it as you will. The view is different from my vantage point.
7 - RJ Elliott
Should TV be mostly homosexual, ND?
8 - Natalie Davis
TV should be mostly good, period, Mr. Elliott.
But I take bigtime offense at the notion that TV with a GLBT focus should be consigned to cable -- which, for many people, is prohibitively expensive and therefore unattainable -- so as not to be "force-fed" down your throat. I also hate the notion that it's OK to force-feed het shit down my throat, so long as you and your fellow hets are spared. Boo hoo for you.
9 - RJ Elliott
"I take bigtime offense at the notion that TV with a GLBT focus should be consigned to cable"
Tough. That's what the market allows.
ABC or CBS or NBC or FOX or UPN or THE WB being taken over by militant gays won't garner enough viewers to be marketable and profitable.
Your argument is with capitalism, not TV...
10 - RJ Elliott
"cable -- which, for many people, is prohibitively expensive and therefore unattainable"
SNORT! Cable is relatively inexpensive. If you can afford an apartment with electricity, and a television, you can probably afford cable. Many apartment complexes give cable as a freebee. Like water and sewer and garbage pickup.
Sorry, ND, but your pandering to the impoverished doesn't work with me...
11 - RJ Elliott
"I also hate the notion that it's OK to force-feed het shit down my throat, so long as you and your fellow hets are spared."
Uh, most people are "het." They don;t view their fav programs as propaganda. To them, it is merely entertainment.
If you wanna watch your queer shows, get cable. If you can't afford it, get a job.
Just stop bitching.
Homosexuals have never had things so good. Why gripe now?
12 - boomcrashbaby
RJ, just to clarify, supremacy doesn't mean quantity. We know that with probably 90% of the people being straight, that it will reflect that in programming, and since sex sells, it's going to be rare to sit through a shaving commercial without a woman rubbing the man's face, or a car commercial without it being sold to mom and dad. While it is obvious to those of us who don't fit the mold, we don't expect that to change. That's catering to the largest market, and we can know that for what it is. That is not what supremacy means though.
It's odd though, when a car commercial has more sex in it, even if it's just a married couple hugging and kissing, than the gay-themed show it runs on. While I think Dame Edna has her moments, I don't think that she, Richard Simmons, Siegfried and Roy, Jack from Will and Grace, or Nathan Lane and Robin Williams in the Birdcage, are accurate representations of what the majority of gay people are like. I don't want to take away from them, they're all great people, I'm sure. There's a definite stereotyping going on though, in the mainstream media, that gay people are primarily sexless, mostly alone, individuals who are harmless because they are really there for your enjoyment, nothing more. They certainly aren't as personality-rich and varied as anybody else. Ultimately it always comes down to the same formula again and again.
13 - boomcrashbaby
I'm alright with queer tv being on cable. It's just not realistic otherwise, although I agree with Natalie, it would be optimal and fair.
Most gay households still have no children. The average gay household income is quite a bit above that of the heterosexual household of comparable statistics. Upwards of 80 or 90% of America now has cable, right? Cable has much less restrictions than free tv. Therefore, the backlash against it will fall on deaf ears and competitors for a new free marketplace. How can somebody rail against HBO? The answer will always be, if you don't like it, don't pay for it. HBO is far freer to show what it wants it's market to have, than that which is constrained under the free network banner.
I think it's going to need to be pay-per-view, just to start. Just to get a foothold. If it's free, cable consumers in rural America will call their cable company to have it removed. Therefore, it will only be really available in LA, SF and NY. Maybe Miami and Chicago, but nowhere else. If it's pay-per-view, then it can be available anywhere, just to get it's name out, just to be seen. Then maybe in a few years, switch to free. I don't think it can succeed any other way.
14 - Ms. Tek
Jesus Christ... There goes RJ the economics guru again. Greenspan better watch out!
15 - boomcrashbaby
Sorry, don't mean pay-per-view, I mean a premium channel like HBO or Showtime.
16 - Eric Olsen
I agree with Boom about the stereotyping of gay characters and personalities n mainstream TV, so it will be refreshing I am sure if the channel shows a much wider range of gay life. But remember that mainstream America doesn't want to see all that much about gay life, especially from the sexual perspective, hence the stereotyping. Good luck to Logo.
I wonder if the "sudden success" of the gay marriage issue - that it is happening anywhere in America and the foundations of the republic aren't crumbling, that there isn't rioting in the streets, and that a surprising percentage of the population may not "approve" but doesn't care enough to do anything about it - was a final impetus behind this.
17 - bhw
Omigod, Richard Simmons and Siegfried and Roy are GAY?
There goes RJ the economics guru again.
Yep. Cable must cost $10, right RJ?
18 - Natalie Davis
Pandering to the impoverished, Mr. Elliott? No, speaking for myself, one of those who can not afford cable.
And my beef is with capitalism? You're right about that.
19 - Natalie Davis
Oh, and I do have a job. Additionally, free speech allows me to bitch, so kindly, Mr. Elliot, save your commands for someone stupid enough to obey the likes of you.
20 - bhw
Natalie, we've been down this path before with young RJ. You're talking to a guy who thinks that "apartment complexes" give things like cable, water, and sewer services for free. He apparently has no understanding that those fees are merely wrapped into the RENT and that calling them "free" is a little trick property owners use to get some idiots to think they're getting something for free.
Shhhhhhh. Don't tell him.
21 - Natalie Davis
Stays between you and me, babe. Mum's the word.
22 - Sandra Smallson
Oh Dear! This thread has done nothing to ease my migrane from last night. I don't have the strength for this topic at the mo. Maybe later. Still, had to express immediate reaction of "oh dear". Carry on.
23 - kudd45
I will gladly take your place Sandra, atthough what im going to say probably won't please you much, for once... im siding with RJ.
While tek refers to RJ's economic argument with a certain snicker, he is absolutely right in his thinking. Rationality, even in the form of economics, is not to be shunned, it still holds true.
I live in Ann Arbor MI. the liberal capital of the mid-west, i have never been one to hold down the minority or use a racial/gay/religious slur in my life, yet every day I am force fed this notion that to be okay with someone i must have it involved with my life. I don't have a particular interest in GLBT t.v., i just don't. Is is because im against gay people or their rights or their ability to live as equal people in America? NO! But it would suit many peope fine to believe these were the causes.
To your comment on t.v. being mostly good ND, are you suggesting GLBT tv would be better? Will and Grace sucks, not because of the gay characters, but because it sucks. Friends sucked too, (and thank god that's over), but it has nothing to do with their sexual preferences.
If ABC,FOX,NBC, or CBS were to run a bunch of will and grace spin-offs you think they would last in the tv biz long? i think not. Simple economics, as RJ eluded to, if you want a person's dollar, give em what they want.
BTW, i wish logo the best of luck, if not for GLBT entertainment, than at least to shut them the fuck up for awhile.
24 - bhw
Oh yes, those pesky, annoying gay folks. How dare they speak up and demand equality? It's all so anNOYing, isn't it?
Why can't they just shut the fuck up and be thankful we straight folks don't beat the shit out of them just for being there?
Oh, wait ....
25 - Andrew Ian Dodge
Do any of you realise how many gay people are in the entertainment industry? Do any of you have any experience with it?
If there is a market for one gay channel or more (or shows) someone will fill it. If one thing the entertainment industry is good at, it is maximising its market share. Long may it do so.