Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Are we starting to see entire networks fall?
2 views
Skip to first unread message
TMC
Mar 20, 2012, 11:19:22 PM3/20/12
to
http://officialfan.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=offtopic&action=display&thread=420104
Seemed like a rarity in the past. I can only think of two or three
networks that morphed into something else, but it seems Oprah's
network is in trouble. Now Oprah is powerful, but her channel is
unique and will not last I don't think.
Soapnet bows out this week, because well there aren't hardly any soap
operas left(thought there's a ton of material in the archive) and is
being replaced by Disney Jr.
So are we going to see more channels fade out amid the s***ty economy.
I've been saying for years they need to get rid of a lot, and now
people are going to the internet, so is this in the future?
« Reply #6 Today at 11:10am »
Today at 9:58am, SNESmaster wrote:
Internet TV stations don't even have close to the programming that
regular TV stations have. It will be a while for them to catch up imo.
Many Internet TV stations (depending on how they distribute content)
have an advantage of a built-in audience at launch, though, without
the worry of a cable or satellite provider having to carry the network
and skim fees.
As tablets become more ubiquitous, you're only going to see stations
like that rise more and more. Not to mention tighter integration of
touchscreen functions leading to more interactive programming on some
fronts, depending on the type of show.
« Reply #9 Today at 12:18pm »
Today at 11:15am, Biggtone23 wrote:
I think the thing in the past was that failing networks were bought
out by other companies ie The Family Channel became Fox Family became
ABC Family. Now all the big corporations and companies all already
have their fill of cable channels and theres not enough profit in
adding another one.
I remember those.
Cable networks also used to have the advantage of catering to one
demographic, which was the source of me complaining about the Dawn
Ornstoff era of the CW, where she wanted the network to cater
exclusively to young women on a network channel. With the possible
exception of Nickelodeon, which had its night programming focused on
classic sitcoms from the 50s-80s, most stations got by because they
catered to a certain demographic or approach. However, as time has
gone on, multiple factors have led many stations to try diversifying
their programming. That is why you have live-action shows on Cartoon
Network, people going to pawn shops on History, and networks like
Court TV having to alter their approach.
Seemed like a rarity in the past. I can only think of two or three
networks that morphed into something else, but it seems Oprah's
network is in trouble. Now Oprah is powerful, but her channel is
unique and will not last I don't think.
Soapnet bows out this week, because well there aren't hardly any soap
operas left(thought there's a ton of material in the archive) and is
being replaced by Disney Jr.
So are we going to see more channels fade out amid the s***ty economy.
I've been saying for years they need to get rid of a lot, and now
people are going to the internet, so is this in the future?
« Reply #6 Today at 11:10am »
Today at 9:58am, SNESmaster wrote:
Internet TV stations don't even have close to the programming that
regular TV stations have. It will be a while for them to catch up imo.
Many Internet TV stations (depending on how they distribute content)
have an advantage of a built-in audience at launch, though, without
the worry of a cable or satellite provider having to carry the network
and skim fees.
As tablets become more ubiquitous, you're only going to see stations
like that rise more and more. Not to mention tighter integration of
touchscreen functions leading to more interactive programming on some
fronts, depending on the type of show.
« Reply #9 Today at 12:18pm »
Today at 11:15am, Biggtone23 wrote:
I think the thing in the past was that failing networks were bought
out by other companies ie The Family Channel became Fox Family became
ABC Family. Now all the big corporations and companies all already
have their fill of cable channels and theres not enough profit in
adding another one.
I remember those.
Cable networks also used to have the advantage of catering to one
demographic, which was the source of me complaining about the Dawn
Ornstoff era of the CW, where she wanted the network to cater
exclusively to young women on a network channel. With the possible
exception of Nickelodeon, which had its night programming focused on
classic sitcoms from the 50s-80s, most stations got by because they
catered to a certain demographic or approach. However, as time has
gone on, multiple factors have led many stations to try diversifying
their programming. That is why you have live-action shows on Cartoon
Network, people going to pawn shops on History, and networks like
Court TV having to alter their approach.
0 new messages