The Strike

I am a huge fan of NBC when it comes to TV shows, but the strike ruined it for me. Is there anyone else out there that stopped watching shows after the strike? I stopped watching 90% of the shows that I was hooked on, and now, the only show I MUST watch is The Office and 30 Rock, but the interruption really didnt do anything but turn me off.
Does anyone else agree? If so, do you still have some shows that you must watch? What are they?

The strike was an annoyingly selfish action, but it didn't change the nature of entertainment AFAIC. And for sure, it didn't affect any network more than any other. I don't recall and shows that we watched regularly prior to the strike that are still on and we do not watch now.

The strike just made me miss TV even more...I was SO ready for it to come back, I think I became more of a junkie when it came back on. It was like I had withdrawls and I was a real addict. Needless to say, I watch more shows now than even before, maybe there are just better, more well-written, entertaining shows nowadays?

I think that was true this past year, but I think, Softie, you do need to be prepared for a decline. I think the period 2003-2009 will be remembered as the Golden Age of television, given how many great programs were broadcast, OTA and via cable/satellite, and given how much greater production values and video quality are now than ever before. However, I do fear it will be all downhill from here. NBC's gambit, taking five hours of prime-time out of the schedule going forward, to devote to what used to be "late night" programming, is the harbinger of the decline. It will almost surely be (financially) successful, and will be followed by other networks following-suit in some way, shape or form. Perhaps one network will bring back a nightly 10PM newsmagazine. Perhaps another network will block out a similar number of hours per week for a serialized game show or Big Brother type show.

I think commercial avoidance is at least partially to blame for this. These other types of shows, first, are less subject to commercial avoidance, are far less expensive to present, and even afford better opportunities for product placement to replace depressed advertising revenue. The big a-ha moment in this regard, recently, was when the numbers came out regarding Fox's "remote-free" television experiment. They took two shows and reduced their commercial time by half. The objective was to at least make as much revenue as a regular show, by demonstrating that people would watch the commercials more consistently if there were fewer commercials during the hour. Well, that was the case, but no where near enough to make up for the lost minutes of advertising: Fox cut advertising time by half, but was only able to get 30% more revenue per minute as a result. They experienced substantially lower revenues, as a result, as compared to if they had the full measure of commercials.

So we viewers have driven broadcasters away from providing us great programming, and now, especially in light of the economic downturn, we're about to see that reflected in what offerings are available. There will still be great television available, of course, but more and more we're going to have to pay real cash money to access it.

Originally Posted by bicker

I think that was true this past year, but I think, Softie, you do need to be prepared for a decline. I think the period 2003-2009 will be remembered as the Golden Age of television, given how many great programs were broadcast, OTA and via cable/satellite, and given how much greater production values and video quality are now than ever before. However, I do fear it will be all downhill from here. NBC's gambit, taking five hours of prime-time out of the schedule going forward, to devote to what used to be "late night" programming, is the harbinger of the decline. It will almost surely be (financially) successful, and will be followed by other networks following-suit in some way, shape or form. Perhaps one network will bring back a nightly 10PM newsmagazine. Perhaps another network will block out a similar number of hours per week for a serialized game show or Big Brother type show.

I think commercial avoidance is at least partially to blame for this. These other types of shows, first, are less subject to commercial avoidance, are far less expensive to present, and even afford better opportunities for product placement to replace depressed advertising revenue. The big a-ha moment in this regard, recently, was when the numbers came out regarding Fox's "remote-free" television experiment. They took two shows and reduced their commercial time by half. The objective was to at least make as much revenue as a regular show, by demonstrating that people would watch the commercials more consistently if there were fewer commercials during the hour. Well, that was the case, but no where near enough to make up for the lost minutes of advertising: Fox cut advertising time by half, but was only able to get 30% more revenue per minute as a result. They experienced substantially lower revenues, as a result, as compared to if they had the full measure of commercials.

So we viewers have driven broadcasters away from providing us great programming, and now, especially in light of the economic downturn, we're about to see that reflected in what offerings are available. There will still be great television available, of course, but more and more we're going to have to pay real cash money to access it.

The strike did suck, I watched pay channels much more often during that time for sure.

Originally Posted by bicker

I think that was true this past year, but I think, Softie, you do need to be prepared for a decline. I think the period 2003-2009 will be remembered as the Golden Age of television, given how many great programs were broadcast, OTA and via cable/satellite, and given how much greater production values and video quality are now than ever before. However, I do fear it will be all downhill from here. NBC's gambit, taking five hours of prime-time out of the schedule going forward, to devote to what used to be "late night" programming, is the harbinger of the decline. It will almost surely be (financially) successful, and will be followed by other networks following-suit in some way, shape or form. Perhaps one network will bring back a nightly 10PM newsmagazine. Perhaps another network will block out a similar number of hours per week for a serialized game show or Big Brother type show.

I think commercial avoidance is at least partially to blame for this. These other types of shows, first, are less subject to commercial avoidance, are far less expensive to present, and even afford better opportunities for product placement to replace depressed advertising revenue. The big a-ha moment in this regard, recently, was when the numbers came out regarding Fox's "remote-free" television experiment. They took two shows and reduced their commercial time by half. The objective was to at least make as much revenue as a regular show, by demonstrating that people would watch the commercials more consistently if there were fewer commercials during the hour. Well, that was the case, but no where near enough to make up for the lost minutes of advertising: Fox cut advertising time by half, but was only able to get 30% more revenue per minute as a result. They experienced substantially lower revenues, as a result, as compared to if they had the full measure of commercials.

So we viewers have driven broadcasters away from providing us great programming, and now, especially in light of the economic downturn, we're about to see that reflected in what offerings are available. There will still be great television available, of course, but more and more we're going to have to pay real cash money to access it.

That reminds me, back in the 80's and early 90's, I remember when a made for TV movie or series had horrible production or low budget for "most" OTA or cable networks....but a lot has changed. Now days, it's nothing to see movie producers making guest "director or producer" appearances on TV shows or series, and shows like The Soprano's ranked supreme not only for great plot and story lines, but having a great budget to draw from.

I hope you're not right, but you may be on to something.

Personally, I was never a really big NBC watcher. Many of the shows related to this channel never brought attention to my liking. I do admit, though, there are some shows I have watched and enjoyed.

Originally Posted by casey

Personally, I was never a really big NBC watcher. Many of the shows related to this channel never brought attention to my liking. I do admit, though, there are some shows I have watched and enjoyed.

I feel the same exact way about ABC.