Bill first wrote about cable networks abandoning their roots to grab larger audiences almost four months ago. An article yesterday by The Washington Post’s Lisa de Moraes explores the theme in more depth and suggests that it’s not always so much an attempt to draw a bigger audience, but rather a younger one:
“Five years ago we had a big median-age issue,” A&E President and General Manager Bob DeBitetto told us. “The median age of the network was about 62 years old. With the possible exception of the Hallmark Channel, it was the oldest-skewing cable network — period. That’s a problem, regrettably. It’s a challenge for those of us that are in the advertiser-supported industry because . . . ad agencies target demographic delivery.”
“Target demographic delivery” is a politically correct way of saying “discriminate on the basis of age” — advertisers pay networks far less if they attract older viewers.
“We decided at some risk to begin to transform our programming approach, to introduce A&E to an entirely new generation of viewers,” DeBitetto explained.
Good bye, “Horatio Hornblower”; hello “Growing up Gotti.”
The Washington Post reporting about something weeks after another source had the scoop… why am I not shocked?
Soo…. DeBitetto’s way to attract more younger viewers is by producing failed shows from half a decade ago, such as “Growing Up Gotti”?
Thank heaven I don’t have stock investments in A&E or the three companies which own it jointly.
Funny to note, A&E is partially owned by NBCU (Jeff Zucker’s baby) We can pretty much eliminate any chance of intelligent rational for the future of A&E (as we’ve done with NBCU).
The Washington Post is gushing red ink on declining circulation. As the newspaper itself just reported for the latest quarter:
“The company’s newspaper division, which includes The Post and several smaller papers, lost $23.6 million in the [third] quarter, bringing 2009 losses to $166.7 million, compared with losses of $178.3 million through the first nine months of 2008. Like most newspapers, The Post was hit hard by the recession, which further eroded advertising revenue, already in decline for years.”
And they’re telling other people how to run their businesses? That’s pretty funny.
When is the last time A&E showed things like “Horatio Hornblower”? With perhaps a few exceptions, I’d say that was more like 10 years ago, not 5. They switched to the super-sleazy-MSNBC weekends-style 24/7 rapists/child molesters/murderers/prison format (with the Gottis as their showpiece) years ago. I think they’ve only begun moving away from that within the last few years.
Les Moonves has it right — show us the proof that younger viewers spend more money than older viewers. The money I spend is not just on my own needs, but also on those of my children and grandchildren. Not to mention, the extended family for whom we remember birthdays and holidays.
The type of programming that networks/cable use to target younger viewers unregrettably contribute to the continuing decline in intelligent thinking (the “dumbing down” of America). The only way we can fight back is to boycott the advertisers who sponsor these types of programs and support those advertisers who sponsor intelligent programming.
Unfortunately, not a lot of people want to watch the “intelligent” stuff, spuffy. And as covered before, there are more older people who watch TV, so delivering ads to them is not much of an issue. It’s the younger viewers who are harder to reach, and the younger viewers who don’t want to watch “Horatio Hornblower.”
That said, the descent of A&E has been astounding to watch.
As an editor that works on shows for a variety of cable networks, I have seen this first hand. About two years ago, the network told the producer of a documentary-style show in its sixth season to stop featuring stories about people over a certain age. Oh, and make sure they are “good looking” too.
As someone who is now 51 and over their coveted demographics age range and who also has lots of disposable income, it makes me mad that I am considered of no value at all to advertisers and thus not of any importance as a viewer.
I hope it wasn’t a historical documentary show TonyN. Maybe they’ll give old folks from the Black Death a makeover in the re-enactment footage.
Carol, an article recently posted here cited an ad executive who said 50+ people watch 90 minutes more television per night. Therefore, advertisers don’t have to pay a premium to get your eyeballs. In general, you’re going to be there no matter what. The trick is getting younger eyeballs to watch since they don’t watch as much TV. Networks that can draw younger audiences earn more money because they’re doing something comparatively rare.
To say that people don’t want to watch intelligent programming is the same load of crap the networks use to justify their decisions.
“Blame the consumers — we just give them what they want.”
Perhaps it is the same people watching all of the same crap shows as opposed to a diversified audience doing so.
There are a trillion cable network out there — something for everybody. Someone is watching something. Just because a show generates a lot of press and watercooler chatter (ie – “the real housewives”) doesn’t mean everyone is watching it or that some of those same people aren’t watching other types of programming.
These cable networks are making a terrible mistake targeting younger viewers (ie – TV Land). It’s the same mistake the broadcast networks are doing. I don’t know which is worse — a BROADcast network shifting focus to one segment of the population or a cable network that is designed to target a specific demographic however young or old.
It’s infuriating. I maintain that paying a premium for an elusive viewer is a waste of advertiser dollars when you can pay less to reach them through a slightly older demographic with far more buying power and disposable income who is actually WATCHING TELEVISION.
Looking on the bright side, Carol, it could also mean that people beyond a certain age are less influenced by commercials, less taken by hidden persuaders. They are more likely to make a thought-out purchase than buy on impulse, and are often pretty much set on which products/brands to buy in general. I think that even ads like those of ’safety’ products for older people are often directed at younger people so they buy for their older relatives, who probably discount the scare tactics.
I’m 49. There was a time when A&E — which stood for ARTS and ENTERTAINMENT — was one of my favorite channels. Now, as a consequence of its emphasis on “true crime” and the like, I’ve programmed my TV remote to skip it. As far as I’m concerned, A&E no longer exists.
One of my favorite networks is the Animal Planet. But that network has also gone courting younger audience with more violent and gruesome shows depicting animals as monsters. I long for the days when I come home from a stressful day to watch adorable animals on the network.
I was a fan of the first season of “Survivor” and I’ve been kicking myself ever since. That show, a summer filler, really opened up the genre, and at the same time, the game show with the lowest IQ, “Who Want’s to be a Millionaire, totally unleashed the shit to pile high. Reality TV is a total sinkhole of brain activity, which, combined with the totally shitty hip-hop and American Idol-style music that’s been the rage for the last 8 years or so, to make the first decade of the 21st century a real cultural disaster. Man, do I miss the intelligent TV, movies and music from the 90s. Grunge and alternative, please come back. Smart comedies like “Seinfeld” and great dramas like “Homicide” and “ER”, please come back. Smart movies like “The Usual Suspects” and The Shawshank Redemption”, please someone make movies like that again.
If you’re going for ratings and ad revenue, which all of television is, it’s hard to argue that skewing to a younger audience was a bad move for Bravo, Syfy, and TLC. I think you could even argue that A&E hasn’t skewed young enough, and that’s why it lags.
ITT – Old people complaining about the “Good ol’ days”
So TV becomes dumber and dumber trying to appeal to the kids without money – I wonder what the adults do instead – now that they are not watching TV.
Kermonk, older adults watch more TV than younger adults, that’s why they’re not cherished by advertisers. Generally, 18 year olds watch less than 200 minutes a day while 65+ watch more than 400 minutes.
http://www.researchexcellence.com/news/032609_vcm.php
And if the kids don’t have money today, they will tomorrow.
I won’t argue that TV isn’t dumb, but I will say that “Three’s Company” and “Alice” really weren’t brain teasers.
I agree with Carol. I am 53 years old and it really ticks me off to see one of my favorite shows on the boderline of being canceled because the “18-49″ viewer ratings aren’t up. But if you look at the millions of viewers, compared to another show, that show more often than not has more viewers than one that has more 18-49 viewer ratings. Does that make sense? It’s the market share in which only the 18-49 yr old counts, not the millions of us that may like a show that is in jeopardy of being canceled b/c we are not 18-49. Anyway, I don’t like not being counted as an important viewer just because I’m not in the proper demographics.
They advertise to the kids without money while ignoring the older folks that do have disposable income. The kids finally get money but are now too old to be courted. This idea like Nielsen ratings are just some more of the false beliefs our lives are forced to live with. The audience for the broadcast networks is continuing to get smaller, before long all that is left is shows designed to attract viewers that no longer watch TV while millions of viewers turn off a TV they desire to watch because the only show on TV are not for them.
CBS is likely the most stable network and will likely continue to make money and probably as much as any other network because they seem to know the consistent audience available. Yes they may not get the absolute highest price for ads on any one show but their revenue is consistent across their schedule. While other networks cancel shows all the time, CBS holds steady with even their weak shows being competitive in their hours.
My question is which model works best overall CBS or the others?
It’s interesting that the original doesn’t go into the reasons that advertisers chase younger viewers (explained above and in almost every discussion on this site) and just labels it “discrimination” – I suppose I shouldn’t expect so much from what amounts to a fluff piece though.
It definitely is a shame that TV (broadcast in particular) is so focused on the young, white and pretty (although CBS has done well with generally older casts) but despite the comments on here to the contrary older viewers don’t seem to be abandoning network TV – and, lo and behold, they seem to like the things that people in that 18-49 age bracket like.
That brings me to a question that I’ve been wondering about for a while – there are shows out there that are huge successes in terms of total viewers but aren’t necessarily demo monsters, relatively speaking (the CBS and NCIS franchises, for instance). What recent “hits” wouldn’t be considered hits if the 18-49 demo wasn’t a factor? ‘The Office’ and maybe the Fox animated comedies are all I can think of.
Patrick, plenty of Fox & NBC shows that do well in the 18-49 demo, do relatively less well for average viewers. But I haven’t really run the numbers, and am unlikely to, because average viewership doesn’t really matter!