yourlibrarian (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
yourlibrarian) wrote in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png)
tv_talk2025-11-06 03:39 pm
yourlibrarian) wrote in tv_talk2025-11-06 03:39 pm
Entry tags:
Will U.S. cable TV still exist?
Paramount has just cut 1000 jobs and 1000 more job cuts are expected. They want to reach "$2 billion in expense cuts across the company." That's more than most companies and some countries are worth.
Job cuts after an acquisition aren't surprising. It usually happens in a frenzy, and some positions come back once the losses start leading to problems. But a line in this news story, as well as another article coming out the same day, made me start thinking about where big cuts are likely to come from.
"More than 800 people — or about 3.5% of the company’s workforce — were laid off in June, prior to the Ellison family takeover. At the time, Paramount’s management attributed the cuts to the decline of cable television subscriptions and an increased emphasis on bulking up its streaming TV business. In 2024, the company eliminated 2,000 positions, or 15% of its staff." (emphasis mine)
Supposedly Paramount doesn't plan to cut its own cable networks, but apparently other owners do. However broadcast networks are still doing ok, and their owners plan to utilize them for live events. "MTV’s “Video Music Awards” had been a cable-only staple for four decades until this year, when it also appeared on CBS for the first time. .. Fox will program its Friday nights with regular-season college basketball games, which used to be the domain of cable television." And NBC's "entire prime-time lineup on Sundays and Tuesdays will now be reserved for sporting events through the spring."
The downside of all these sports and awards show is that there is less space for ongoing TV shows. Unlike streamers, which can offer an unlimited number of shows because they're not tied to hours of the day, all broadcast networks have a limited number of slots.
Also, while news that most of the World Cup games would run on Fox instead of cable was hailed as a sign of how important "live" programming was for broadcast, it was yet another example of cable programming going away.
Streaming, however, is doing fine. "The industry, Mr. Strauss said, had reached a different conclusion only five years ago. Then, the thinking went that broadcast networks were dead, viewers were drifting to on-demand viewing and streaming companies would satisfy that craving alone. “We are tapping into a very inherent behavior that I think streaming companies forgot about, which is community, which is around social experience, which is around this notion of ‘I want to be able to talk about what I’m watching with somebody.’”
The article ends with a telling anecdote: "In 1997, a top NBC executive, Don Ohlmeyer, said he hoped the World Series that was airing on his network would end in a four-game sweep. That way the network could return to its hugely popular “Must See TV” scripted series.“The faster it’s over with, the better it is,” Mr. Ohlmeyer said at the time.
That is no longer the prevailing thinking. “I wish the World Series was 15 games long,” said Mr. Mulvihill, the Fox executive. “People sometimes talk about shortening the baseball season. I wish we had more of it.” "
It's not surprising there's so much investment in sports in particular. The FOX network got on the map by capturing football viewers, and lots of money has been spent on other events such as the Olympics to get live viewers seeing ads. But now sports has another incentive for capturing viewers –- gambling.
In reporting on the recent NBA gambling scandal, several concerning issues were pointed out, including how the sports news media is now entirely beholden to gambling companies, making in-depth reporting unlikely. And a crisis is definitely happening:
"Inherent to claims that problem gambling can be managed away merely by reducing prop bets or changing how injuries are reported is a framing of sports gambling as an immutable law of nature, rather than something millions of people are doing every day now, who previously were not doing it at all, because it is on their phones. There's not even a hint, in any mainstream sports-media conversation about this scandal, that legalized sports gambling may have been a bad idea.
That's an essential prior to have before you move onto the broader and more uncomfortable topic of widespread sports gambling having warped the relationship between game and fan."
In short, selling sports as a way for fans to make money has reduced everyone involved to pieces on a board. "Games exist, in this mindset, primarily as market opportunities." And the suggestion is that all media companies are increasingly compromised by the tail wagging the dog.
So while "live TV" is a holy grail for a network's traditional purpose of delivering viewers to advertisers, the idea that those viewers are now active customers coming, not to enjoy entertainment but to make money, really changes the structure of TV. How compelling will it be to then to have traditional scripted shows running alongside these draws? And if broadcast networks shrink their scripted programming time, and cable networks fold due to declining viewership and a loss of their content to sister broadcast networks, this makes streamers the main source of new programming.
There are certainly enough of them around for plenty of content, yet we've seen how easy it is for them to cut back on developing new content during economic downturns or financial problems. Broadcast networks in particular, have to keep filling those hours no matter what else is going on. There's talk about YouTube content creators filling the gap with cheaper production costs (usually non-union), but YouTube is already the single most watched app/distributor for TV programming. How is moving some of their creators to networks or streamers going to make up for the loss?
The other issue is how much revenue people are no longer getting due to new systems of payment. "Under the traditional TV syndication system, the potential existed for a hit series like Seinfeld or CSI to become its own cottage industry. Once a studio paid to produce the show, it would essentially rent it out to distributors—first a broadcast network, then cable channels, overseas markets and eventually streaming services—an infinite number of times. While most shows struggle to break even, a hit series would eventually reach profitability the longer it ran, and make astronomical profits in syndication.
In that system, each party was incentivized to produce as many episodes as possible, and as contracts came up for renewal on long-running shows, showrunners and actors had considerable leverage to negotiate for higher fees and profit participation."
Not so now. "In the new landscape, a single company acts as the studio that pays to produce the show, the network where it first airs and the syndication network where its catalog can be replayed, meaning there are fewer ways to capitalize on a breakout hit. Revenue through subscriptions remains relatively flat while a show’s costs rise over time, disincentivizing more episodes and more seasons.
The Bear, for all its buzz, will have produced 28 total episodes by the end of its third season, far short of the traditional 100-episode threshold for syndication. And because subscription revenue cannot be directly attributed to any one program, true profit participation for talent on either side of the camera is impossible to ask for."
"The Bear...is a remarkably modern TV creation, and it’s difficult to imagine a show this intense sustaining its energy through multiple 22-episode seasons.
Even if that path were possible, it would likely be a far less attractive proposition for Storer and the cast, all of whom have become very in-demand since the show debuted in 2022...“Unfortunately in the arms race of streaming, people forgot that historically television has been a B to B+ content model for stickiness to sell ads,” says the same dealmaker. “As compared to making A+ 10-part movies that would then become something that everybody has to see and spend $10 million per episode on, the model just doesn't really work for that."
Most cable channels are already a wasteland of single or dual title show marathons filling all the hours, and the days when well scripted and produced content were more likely to be found there than on broadcast seem to be long gone. But having companies whose main job was producing TV shows (with unscripted being easy filler) seems to be reaching an end.
Add to that the fact that show producers no longer have financial incentives to draw out even popular shows for a long run, and it seems another reason why TV shows are likely to keep shrinking or disappearing entirely.
Job cuts after an acquisition aren't surprising. It usually happens in a frenzy, and some positions come back once the losses start leading to problems. But a line in this news story, as well as another article coming out the same day, made me start thinking about where big cuts are likely to come from.
"More than 800 people — or about 3.5% of the company’s workforce — were laid off in June, prior to the Ellison family takeover. At the time, Paramount’s management attributed the cuts to the decline of cable television subscriptions and an increased emphasis on bulking up its streaming TV business. In 2024, the company eliminated 2,000 positions, or 15% of its staff." (emphasis mine)
Supposedly Paramount doesn't plan to cut its own cable networks, but apparently other owners do. However broadcast networks are still doing ok, and their owners plan to utilize them for live events. "MTV’s “Video Music Awards” had been a cable-only staple for four decades until this year, when it also appeared on CBS for the first time. .. Fox will program its Friday nights with regular-season college basketball games, which used to be the domain of cable television." And NBC's "entire prime-time lineup on Sundays and Tuesdays will now be reserved for sporting events through the spring."
The downside of all these sports and awards show is that there is less space for ongoing TV shows. Unlike streamers, which can offer an unlimited number of shows because they're not tied to hours of the day, all broadcast networks have a limited number of slots.
Also, while news that most of the World Cup games would run on Fox instead of cable was hailed as a sign of how important "live" programming was for broadcast, it was yet another example of cable programming going away.
Streaming, however, is doing fine. "The industry, Mr. Strauss said, had reached a different conclusion only five years ago. Then, the thinking went that broadcast networks were dead, viewers were drifting to on-demand viewing and streaming companies would satisfy that craving alone. “We are tapping into a very inherent behavior that I think streaming companies forgot about, which is community, which is around social experience, which is around this notion of ‘I want to be able to talk about what I’m watching with somebody.’”
The article ends with a telling anecdote: "In 1997, a top NBC executive, Don Ohlmeyer, said he hoped the World Series that was airing on his network would end in a four-game sweep. That way the network could return to its hugely popular “Must See TV” scripted series.“The faster it’s over with, the better it is,” Mr. Ohlmeyer said at the time.
That is no longer the prevailing thinking. “I wish the World Series was 15 games long,” said Mr. Mulvihill, the Fox executive. “People sometimes talk about shortening the baseball season. I wish we had more of it.” "
It's not surprising there's so much investment in sports in particular. The FOX network got on the map by capturing football viewers, and lots of money has been spent on other events such as the Olympics to get live viewers seeing ads. But now sports has another incentive for capturing viewers –- gambling.
In reporting on the recent NBA gambling scandal, several concerning issues were pointed out, including how the sports news media is now entirely beholden to gambling companies, making in-depth reporting unlikely. And a crisis is definitely happening:
"Inherent to claims that problem gambling can be managed away merely by reducing prop bets or changing how injuries are reported is a framing of sports gambling as an immutable law of nature, rather than something millions of people are doing every day now, who previously were not doing it at all, because it is on their phones. There's not even a hint, in any mainstream sports-media conversation about this scandal, that legalized sports gambling may have been a bad idea.
That's an essential prior to have before you move onto the broader and more uncomfortable topic of widespread sports gambling having warped the relationship between game and fan."
In short, selling sports as a way for fans to make money has reduced everyone involved to pieces on a board. "Games exist, in this mindset, primarily as market opportunities." And the suggestion is that all media companies are increasingly compromised by the tail wagging the dog.
So while "live TV" is a holy grail for a network's traditional purpose of delivering viewers to advertisers, the idea that those viewers are now active customers coming, not to enjoy entertainment but to make money, really changes the structure of TV. How compelling will it be to then to have traditional scripted shows running alongside these draws? And if broadcast networks shrink their scripted programming time, and cable networks fold due to declining viewership and a loss of their content to sister broadcast networks, this makes streamers the main source of new programming.
There are certainly enough of them around for plenty of content, yet we've seen how easy it is for them to cut back on developing new content during economic downturns or financial problems. Broadcast networks in particular, have to keep filling those hours no matter what else is going on. There's talk about YouTube content creators filling the gap with cheaper production costs (usually non-union), but YouTube is already the single most watched app/distributor for TV programming. How is moving some of their creators to networks or streamers going to make up for the loss?
The other issue is how much revenue people are no longer getting due to new systems of payment. "Under the traditional TV syndication system, the potential existed for a hit series like Seinfeld or CSI to become its own cottage industry. Once a studio paid to produce the show, it would essentially rent it out to distributors—first a broadcast network, then cable channels, overseas markets and eventually streaming services—an infinite number of times. While most shows struggle to break even, a hit series would eventually reach profitability the longer it ran, and make astronomical profits in syndication.
In that system, each party was incentivized to produce as many episodes as possible, and as contracts came up for renewal on long-running shows, showrunners and actors had considerable leverage to negotiate for higher fees and profit participation."
Not so now. "In the new landscape, a single company acts as the studio that pays to produce the show, the network where it first airs and the syndication network where its catalog can be replayed, meaning there are fewer ways to capitalize on a breakout hit. Revenue through subscriptions remains relatively flat while a show’s costs rise over time, disincentivizing more episodes and more seasons.
The Bear, for all its buzz, will have produced 28 total episodes by the end of its third season, far short of the traditional 100-episode threshold for syndication. And because subscription revenue cannot be directly attributed to any one program, true profit participation for talent on either side of the camera is impossible to ask for."
"The Bear...is a remarkably modern TV creation, and it’s difficult to imagine a show this intense sustaining its energy through multiple 22-episode seasons.
Even if that path were possible, it would likely be a far less attractive proposition for Storer and the cast, all of whom have become very in-demand since the show debuted in 2022...“Unfortunately in the arms race of streaming, people forgot that historically television has been a B to B+ content model for stickiness to sell ads,” says the same dealmaker. “As compared to making A+ 10-part movies that would then become something that everybody has to see and spend $10 million per episode on, the model just doesn't really work for that."
Most cable channels are already a wasteland of single or dual title show marathons filling all the hours, and the days when well scripted and produced content were more likely to be found there than on broadcast seem to be long gone. But having companies whose main job was producing TV shows (with unscripted being easy filler) seems to be reaching an end.
Add to that the fact that show producers no longer have financial incentives to draw out even popular shows for a long run, and it seems another reason why TV shows are likely to keep shrinking or disappearing entirely.
no subject
I don't like watching sports, and admittedly am watching next to nothing on cable at the moment - besides ABC, and am this close to cancelling it and just going with streaming. That said? I occasionally flirt with going back to premium cable to get NY1 again, BBC America, and AMC.
They are right - the television model was based on the radio model - which is content supported by ads or promotions. That said - it wasn't initially bad content, nor mostly B or B+ content. Examples? Twilight Zone, Alfred Hitchcock Presents, Playhouse 90, Kraft Theater...and later, ground breaking programs such as Hill Street Blues, St. Elsewhere, MASH, Cheers, All in the Family, Mary Tyler Moore Show, Buffy the Vampire Slayer, ER, The West Wing...Star Trek, Star Trek the Next Generation, Laugh In, Fraiser, Friends, Seinfield...In Living Color, Saturday Night Live, The Cosby Show, Babylon 5,
Farscape, Battle Star Galatica V 2, etc...
I think a lot of television studio execs get caught up in the profit margins and not in the art or forget about it? But the art is there. And it is subjective. And I think both streaming and broadcast can co-exist, it is co-existing. Not everyone can afford nor wants to afford streaming, some people - my boss included just have an antenna.
This view that one-size fits all is ...limiting. There's room for more than one model.
no subject
From the sound of it, down the line the leagues are going to own the media, at which point the broadcasters will find they have nothing to fall back on. There's only so many awards shows and specials anyone wants to watch.
no subject
no subject
Absolutely. I know people who don't stream.
I also wonder how many people who stream, aren't even your typical TV audience. I don't really sit down and watch TV. I obviously watch TV shows, I wouldn't be on this comm if I didn't, but I often watch in parts or in bed. On my phone. Before that, I got the DVD. I don't think it's that unusual or new, either - I know of a few people who used to always wait for shows to come out on tape or DVD before streaming was a thing. My point being, at least some of us are probably bad examples for the television industry, because if streaming didn't exist, we'd be buying or renting the DVDs. Meanwhile, a lot of people who never did that, never transferred to streaming, either.
(Of course, one of the reasons TV tends to lose me is commercials. I'm the type of person who loses interest if I have to wait too long, and if I get into something else, I might forget I was watcing something. Now that there are so many ads, I don't watch streaming that much either. That, and I canceled Hulu and Paramount, but even before that.)
no subject
Not everyone watches the same? Some people watch on their phones. Some just watch DVDs. Some tape everything on the DVR and watch later. Some watch live. Some just binge watch.
Some pay extra for no ads. It's not a one-size fits all.
The problem is - they want it to be one-size-fits all, but it never was. And until they embrace the various models and platforms - they'll be left in the dust, I think.
no subject