info
Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Re: Channel Drift
5 views
Skip to first unread message
shawn
Jul 18, 2022, 4:57:53 PM7/18/22
to
On Mon, 18 Jul 2022 03:16:41 -0700 (PDT), tmc...@gmail.com wrote:
>https://www.radiodiscussions.com/threads/channel-drift.751516/
>
>What was the reason(s) for a channel such as MTV or SyFy to drift
>away from its original channel model and direction?
>
Simple answer = $$$$
They had hit a ceiling on their income with their current content and
so decided to try something new to see if they could bring in more
money. With MTV it was a reality TV show that hit big with the
audiences that really pushed them in that direction.
With SyFy they didn't seem to have a clue what to do to get over that
ceiling so they tried everything from wrestling to reality TV. Also
there was what seemed to be a regular stream of new people heading up
the channel (not sure about MTV but I wouldn't be surprised to find
the same churn in leadership happened with that channel too.) That led
to a desire to do something to put their own mark on the channel which
often led them away from the current direction.
>https://www.radiodiscussions.com/threads/channel-drift.751516/
>
>What was the reason(s) for a channel such as MTV or SyFy to drift
>away from its original channel model and direction?
>
Simple answer = $$$$
They had hit a ceiling on their income with their current content and
so decided to try something new to see if they could bring in more
money. With MTV it was a reality TV show that hit big with the
audiences that really pushed them in that direction.
With SyFy they didn't seem to have a clue what to do to get over that
ceiling so they tried everything from wrestling to reality TV. Also
there was what seemed to be a regular stream of new people heading up
the channel (not sure about MTV but I wouldn't be surprised to find
the same churn in leadership happened with that channel too.) That led
to a desire to do something to put their own mark on the channel which
often led them away from the current direction.
A Friend
Jul 18, 2022, 5:17:39 PM7/18/22
to
In article <n457617d0-989a-4348...@googlegroups.com>,
expensive and didn't affect music sales.
SyFy has always been a mess, even back when it was the Buck Rogers
Channel.
<tmc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> https://www.radiodiscussions.com/threads/channel-drift.751516/
>
> What was the reason(s) for a channel such as MTV or SyFy to drift
> away from its original channel model and direction?
In MTV's case, nobody was making videos anymore. They were too
> https://www.radiodiscussions.com/threads/channel-drift.751516/
>
> What was the reason(s) for a channel such as MTV or SyFy to drift
> away from its original channel model and direction?
expensive and didn't affect music sales.
SyFy has always been a mess, even back when it was the Buck Rogers
Channel.
anim8rfsk
Jul 18, 2022, 6:48:31 PM7/18/22
to
said at one point in a speech that their programming was too
science-fictiony.
--
The last thing I want to do is hurt you, but it is still on my list.
Ubiquitous
Jul 19, 2022, 7:30:17 AM7/19/22
to
tmc...@gmail.com wrote:
>What was the reason(s) for a channel such as MTV or SyFy to drift
>away from its original channel model and direction?
In MTV's case, they realized that people would only tune in for a song they
>What was the reason(s) for a channel such as MTV or SyFy to drift
>away from its original channel model and direction?
liked and then switch channels, plus music vids became less popular.
As for SFC, their original umbrella purpose(?) covered a large number of
genres (Sci Fi, Fantasy, Horror) and they had trouble unifying them. Oh yeah,
Bonnie Hammer hated science fiction, if memory serves.
--
Let's go Brandon!
anim8rfsk
Jul 19, 2022, 11:26:10 AM7/19/22
to
>
> --
> Let's go Brandon!
>
>
Ubiquitous
Jul 19, 2022, 2:48:07 PM7/19/22
to
anim...@cox.net wrote:
> Ubiquitous <web...@polaris.net> wrote:
>> tmc...@gmail.com wrote:
>>> What was the reason(s) for a channel such as MTV or SyFy to drift
>>> away from its original channel model and direction?
>>
>> In MTV's case, they realized that people would only tune in for a song
>> they liked and then switch channels, plus music vids became less popular.
>>
>> As for SFC, their original umbrella purpose(?) covered a large number of
>> genres (Sci Fi, Fantasy, Horror) and they had trouble unifying them. Oh
>> yeah, Bonnie Hammer hated science fiction, if memory serves.
>
>But I love ice cream!
Even Nick's "Rocky Fjord"?
> Ubiquitous <web...@polaris.net> wrote:
>> tmc...@gmail.com wrote:
>>> What was the reason(s) for a channel such as MTV or SyFy to drift
>>> away from its original channel model and direction?
>>
>> In MTV's case, they realized that people would only tune in for a song
>> they liked and then switch channels, plus music vids became less popular.
>>
>> As for SFC, their original umbrella purpose(?) covered a large number of
>> genres (Sci Fi, Fantasy, Horror) and they had trouble unifying them. Oh
>> yeah, Bonnie Hammer hated science fiction, if memory serves.
>
>But I love ice cream!
shawn
Jul 20, 2022, 7:23:10 AM7/20/22
to
On Mon, 18 Jul 2022 22:41:12 -0500, super70s
<supe...@super70s.invalid> wrote:
>In article <72ibdhdopd2nl8kh0...@4ax.com>,
>have started out with a unique concept but have devolved into showing
>nothing but the same reality show or drama almost 24 hrs. a day. And
>subscribers are indirectly paying for that shit.
>bad they don't show those 24 hrs. a day.
They do put out the occasional new show like the ghost show based on
Real Estate that they canceled after the first season and then
reconsidered and brought back for a second season. Which I am happy
about as I really enjoyed that show, but then I tend to be a sucker
for shows that are bound to be cancelled after the first season. Then
there's always the Twilight Zone marathon at the end of the year.
<supe...@super70s.invalid> wrote:
>In article <72ibdhdopd2nl8kh0...@4ax.com>,
> shawn <nanof...@notforg.m.a.i.l.com> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 18 Jul 2022 03:16:41 -0700 (PDT), tmc...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>> >https://www.radiodiscussions.com/threads/channel-drift.751516/
>> >
>> >What was the reason(s) for a channel such as MTV or SyFy to drift
>> >away from its original channel model and direction?
>> >
>>
>> Simple answer = $$$$
>>
>> They had hit a ceiling on their income with their current content and
>> so decided to try something new to see if they could bring in more
>> money. With MTV it was a reality TV show that hit big with the
>> audiences that really pushed them in that direction.
>
>Now it's gotten completely ridiculous, dozens of channels that might
>
>> On Mon, 18 Jul 2022 03:16:41 -0700 (PDT), tmc...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>> >https://www.radiodiscussions.com/threads/channel-drift.751516/
>> >
>> >What was the reason(s) for a channel such as MTV or SyFy to drift
>> >away from its original channel model and direction?
>> >
>>
>> Simple answer = $$$$
>>
>> They had hit a ceiling on their income with their current content and
>> so decided to try something new to see if they could bring in more
>> money. With MTV it was a reality TV show that hit big with the
>> audiences that really pushed them in that direction.
>
>have started out with a unique concept but have devolved into showing
>nothing but the same reality show or drama almost 24 hrs. a day. And
>subscribers are indirectly paying for that shit.
>
>> With SyFy they didn't seem to have a clue what to do to get over that
>> ceiling so they tried everything from wrestling to reality TV. Also
>> there was what seemed to be a regular stream of new people heading up
>> the channel (not sure about MTV but I wouldn't be surprised to find
>> the same churn in leadership happened with that channel too.) That led
>> to a desire to do something to put their own mark on the channel which
>> often led them away from the current direction.
>
>I just keep SyFy in the custom lineup for the Twilight Zone reruns, too
>> With SyFy they didn't seem to have a clue what to do to get over that
>> ceiling so they tried everything from wrestling to reality TV. Also
>> there was what seemed to be a regular stream of new people heading up
>> the channel (not sure about MTV but I wouldn't be surprised to find
>> the same churn in leadership happened with that channel too.) That led
>> to a desire to do something to put their own mark on the channel which
>> often led them away from the current direction.
>
>bad they don't show those 24 hrs. a day.
They do put out the occasional new show like the ghost show based on
Real Estate that they canceled after the first season and then
reconsidered and brought back for a second season. Which I am happy
about as I really enjoyed that show, but then I tend to be a sucker
for shows that are bound to be cancelled after the first season. Then
there's always the Twilight Zone marathon at the end of the year.
Ubiquitous
Jul 21, 2022, 7:00:59 AM7/21/22
to
In article <nb4m1f$jv6t$1...@dont-email.me>, a...@chinet.com wrote:
>was usually foreign programming.
Lexx will always be a fav of mine.
> A Friend <A Friend> wrote:
>> tmc...@gmail.com wrote:
>>> https://www.radiodiscussions.com/threads/channel-drift.751516/
>>>
>>> What was the reason(s) for a channel such as MTV or SyFy to drift
>>> away from its original channel model and direction?
>>
>>In MTV's case, nobody was making videos anymore. They were too
>>expensive and didn't affect music sales.
>>
>>SyFy has always been a mess, even back when it was the Buck Rogers
>>Channel.
>
>Some of my favorite SF programs were on USA. The better stuff on Syfy
>> tmc...@gmail.com wrote:
>>> https://www.radiodiscussions.com/threads/channel-drift.751516/
>>>
>>> What was the reason(s) for a channel such as MTV or SyFy to drift
>>> away from its original channel model and direction?
>>
>>In MTV's case, nobody was making videos anymore. They were too
>>expensive and didn't affect music sales.
>>
>>SyFy has always been a mess, even back when it was the Buck Rogers
>>Channel.
>
>was usually foreign programming.
Lexx will always be a fav of mine.
Jerry Brown
Jul 21, 2022, 12:07:29 PM7/21/22
to
On Thu, 21 Jul 2022 04:30:42 -0400, Ubiquitous <web...@polaris.net>
wrote:
May His Shadow fall upon you.
--
Jerry Brown
A cat may look at a king
(but probably won't bother)
wrote:
--
Jerry Brown
A cat may look at a king
(but probably won't bother)
Adam H. Kerman
Jul 21, 2022, 3:26:39 PM7/21/22
to
Ubiquitous <web...@polaris.net> wrote:
articles to post followups to. I will point out further antics from
Ubi the Shithead. You can decide for yourself if continuing to post
followups to Ubi is troll feeding and if he's truly your friend.
In this thread,
Subject: Channel Drift
I had posted an article.
Message-ID: <tb4m1f$jv6t$1...@dont-email.me>
I didn't crosspost. I didn't set Followup-To. Anyone on Usenet who knows
me is well aware that I almost never do either, especially not in a
thread in which the crossposting and setting of Followup-To is due to
Ubi-the-shithead's antics and not the author of the root article in the
thread.
Ubi forged an article from me once again.
Message-ID: <nb4m1f$jv6t$1...@dont-email.me>
Note that the two Message IDs are off by one character.
One may create one's own Message IDs in the newsreader. I don't do that.
I allow eternal september to create them for me. If the user creates his
own Message ID, it must be in valid syntax and unique and MUST NOT forge
an association with another domain. Ray Banana, the News administrator
of eternal-september, registered that domain. Ubi MUST NOT use it.
In Ubi's forgery, the article is crossposted but Ubi the shithead is
quite stupid and included a newsgroup that doesn't exist. He then set
Followup-To crossposted to four newsgroups.
He also preloaded the Injection headers to pretend the article was still
the one posted through eternal-september instead of Giganews.
Giganews has allowed Ubi to forge other Usenet users for years and to
inject articles that violate standards such as these with the pre-loaded
Injection headers. I don't know why they didn't stop Ubi years ago. They
ignore all abuse reports.
You may wonder why all these articles these threads exist in rec.arts.tv
at all. They were started by a common author, the Usenet shill.
From: Terrence Clay <tmc...@gmail.com>
fwiw, Terrence doesn't post his own content and nearly never
participates in discussion except to deny shilling, but Terrence does
not crosspost. From the root article:
Message-ID: <457617d0-989a-4348...@googlegroups.com>
Newsgroups: alt.tv.mtv
Ubi forged Terrence Clay and crossposted. We can read Ubi's forgery in
rec.arts.tv but not the precursor article without reading it in
alt.tv.mtv.
Message-ID: <n457617d0-989a-4348...@googlegroups.com>
Newsgroups: alt.tv.mtv,alt.tv.scifi.channel,rec.arts.tv
Ubi is no one's friend. He's a troll. He forges. His forgeries tend to
violate Usenet syntax in a serious manner desiged to prevent forgeries,
so it's all Abuse of Usenet that really should get Ubi TOSsed from every
Usenet server he uses, but it doesn't.
Just because Giganews allows Ubi to get away with this behavior doesn't
mean you should. Don't post followups to Ubi's forgeries ever. Don't
post followups to articles Ubi posts that aren't forgeries. Just deny
him the attention he craves so desperately.
>a...@chinet.com wrote:
>>A Friend wrote:
>>>tmc...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>https://www.radiodiscussions.com/threads/channel-drift.751516/
>>>>What was the reason(s) for a channel such as MTV or SyFy to drift
>>>>away from its original channel model and direction?
>>>In MTV's case, nobody was making videos anymore. They were too
>>>expensive and didn't affect music sales.
>>>SyFy has always been a mess, even back when it was the Buck Rogers
>>>Channel.
>>Some of my favorite SF programs were on USA. The better stuff on Syfy
>>was usually foreign programming.
>Lexx will always be a fav of mine.
It's not my place to tell Usenet users whom to associate with and whose
>>A Friend wrote:
>>>tmc...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>https://www.radiodiscussions.com/threads/channel-drift.751516/
>>>>What was the reason(s) for a channel such as MTV or SyFy to drift
>>>>away from its original channel model and direction?
>>>In MTV's case, nobody was making videos anymore. They were too
>>>expensive and didn't affect music sales.
>>>SyFy has always been a mess, even back when it was the Buck Rogers
>>>Channel.
>>Some of my favorite SF programs were on USA. The better stuff on Syfy
>>was usually foreign programming.
>Lexx will always be a fav of mine.
articles to post followups to. I will point out further antics from
Ubi the Shithead. You can decide for yourself if continuing to post
followups to Ubi is troll feeding and if he's truly your friend.
In this thread,
Subject: Channel Drift
I had posted an article.
Message-ID: <tb4m1f$jv6t$1...@dont-email.me>
I didn't crosspost. I didn't set Followup-To. Anyone on Usenet who knows
me is well aware that I almost never do either, especially not in a
thread in which the crossposting and setting of Followup-To is due to
Ubi-the-shithead's antics and not the author of the root article in the
thread.
Ubi forged an article from me once again.
Message-ID: <nb4m1f$jv6t$1...@dont-email.me>
Note that the two Message IDs are off by one character.
One may create one's own Message IDs in the newsreader. I don't do that.
I allow eternal september to create them for me. If the user creates his
own Message ID, it must be in valid syntax and unique and MUST NOT forge
an association with another domain. Ray Banana, the News administrator
of eternal-september, registered that domain. Ubi MUST NOT use it.
In Ubi's forgery, the article is crossposted but Ubi the shithead is
quite stupid and included a newsgroup that doesn't exist. He then set
Followup-To crossposted to four newsgroups.
He also preloaded the Injection headers to pretend the article was still
the one posted through eternal-september instead of Giganews.
Giganews has allowed Ubi to forge other Usenet users for years and to
inject articles that violate standards such as these with the pre-loaded
Injection headers. I don't know why they didn't stop Ubi years ago. They
ignore all abuse reports.
You may wonder why all these articles these threads exist in rec.arts.tv
at all. They were started by a common author, the Usenet shill.
From: Terrence Clay <tmc...@gmail.com>
fwiw, Terrence doesn't post his own content and nearly never
participates in discussion except to deny shilling, but Terrence does
not crosspost. From the root article:
Message-ID: <457617d0-989a-4348...@googlegroups.com>
Newsgroups: alt.tv.mtv
Ubi forged Terrence Clay and crossposted. We can read Ubi's forgery in
rec.arts.tv but not the precursor article without reading it in
alt.tv.mtv.
Message-ID: <n457617d0-989a-4348...@googlegroups.com>
Newsgroups: alt.tv.mtv,alt.tv.scifi.channel,rec.arts.tv
Ubi is no one's friend. He's a troll. He forges. His forgeries tend to
violate Usenet syntax in a serious manner desiged to prevent forgeries,
so it's all Abuse of Usenet that really should get Ubi TOSsed from every
Usenet server he uses, but it doesn't.
Just because Giganews allows Ubi to get away with this behavior doesn't
mean you should. Don't post followups to Ubi's forgeries ever. Don't
post followups to articles Ubi posts that aren't forgeries. Just deny
him the attention he craves so desperately.
Joe Bernstein
Jul 21, 2022, 8:01:52 PM7/21/22
to
>Some of my favorite SF programs were on USA. The better stuff on Syfy
>was usually foreign programming.
good times...
>was usually foreign programming.
Ubiquitous
Jul 22, 2022, 7:24:22 AM7/22/22
to
In article <tbc99d$2ic2f$1...@dont-email.me>, a...@chinet.com wrote:
> Ubiquitous <web...@polaris.net> wrote:
>> a...@chinet.com wrote:
>>> A Friend wrote:
>>>> tmc...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>> https://www.radiodiscussions.com/threads/channel-drift.751516/
>>>>>
>>>>> What was the reason(s) for a channel such as MTV or SyFy to drift
>>>>> away from its original channel model and direction?
>>>>
>>>> In MTV's case, nobody was making videos anymore. They were too
>>>> expensive and didn't affect music sales.
>>>>
>>>> SyFy has always been a mess, even back when it was the Buck Rogers
>>>> Channel.
>>>
>>>Some of my favorite SF programs were on USA. The better stuff on Syfy
>>>was usually foreign programming.
>>
>>Lexx will always be a fav of mine.
>
>It's not my place to tell Usenet users whom to associate with and whose
>articles to post followups to. I will point out further antics from
>Ubi the Shithead. You can decide for yourself if continuing to post
>followups to Ubi is troll feeding and if he's truly your friend.
[Paranoid hysterical conspiratorial rantings deleted]
> Ubiquitous <web...@polaris.net> wrote:
>> a...@chinet.com wrote:
>>> A Friend wrote:
>>>> tmc...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>> https://www.radiodiscussions.com/threads/channel-drift.751516/
>>>>>
>>>>> What was the reason(s) for a channel such as MTV or SyFy to drift
>>>>> away from its original channel model and direction?
>>>>
>>>> In MTV's case, nobody was making videos anymore. They were too
>>>> expensive and didn't affect music sales.
>>>>
>>>> SyFy has always been a mess, even back when it was the Buck Rogers
>>>> Channel.
>>>
>>>Some of my favorite SF programs were on USA. The better stuff on Syfy
>>>was usually foreign programming.
>>
>>Lexx will always be a fav of mine.
>
>It's not my place to tell Usenet users whom to associate with and whose
>articles to post followups to. I will point out further antics from
>Ubi the Shithead. You can decide for yourself if continuing to post
>followups to Ubi is troll feeding and if he's truly your friend.
Trolling? That's pretty funny, coming from you!
(I am pretty sure you have claimed to have killfiled me on multiple
occassions, including the time I offered condolences for your dog.)
[Kerman's incorrect formatting fixed.]
Ubiquitous
Jul 22, 2022, 7:33:09 AM7/22/22
to
je...@jwbrown.co.uk.invalid wrote:
> Ubiquitous <web...@polaris.net> wrote:
>> In article <nb4m1f$jv6t$1...@dont-email.me>, a...@chinet.com wrote:
>>> A Friend <A Friend> wrote:
>>>> tmc...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>> https://www.radiodiscussions.com/threads/channel-drift.751516/
>>>>>
>>>>> What was the reason(s) for a channel such as MTV or SyFy to drift
>>>>> away from its original channel model and direction?
>>>>
>>>>In MTV's case, nobody was making videos anymore. They were too
>>>>expensive and didn't affect music sales.
>>>>
>>>>SyFy has always been a mess, even back when it was the Buck Rogers
>>>>Channel.
>>>
>>>Some of my favorite SF programs were on USA. The better stuff on Syfy
>>>was usually foreign programming.
>>
>>Lexx will always be a fav of mine.
>
>May His Shadow fall upon you.
“May His merciful Shadow fall upon you.”
> Ubiquitous <web...@polaris.net> wrote:
>> In article <nb4m1f$jv6t$1...@dont-email.me>, a...@chinet.com wrote:
>>> A Friend <A Friend> wrote:
>>>> tmc...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>> https://www.radiodiscussions.com/threads/channel-drift.751516/
>>>>>
>>>>> What was the reason(s) for a channel such as MTV or SyFy to drift
>>>>> away from its original channel model and direction?
>>>>
>>>>In MTV's case, nobody was making videos anymore. They were too
>>>>expensive and didn't affect music sales.
>>>>
>>>>SyFy has always been a mess, even back when it was the Buck Rogers
>>>>Channel.
>>>
>>>Some of my favorite SF programs were on USA. The better stuff on Syfy
>>>was usually foreign programming.
>>
>>Lexx will always be a fav of mine.
>
>May His Shadow fall upon you.
--
Let's go Brandon!
Adam H. Kerman
Jul 22, 2022, 10:29:10 AM7/22/22
to
Ubiquitous <web...@polaris.net> wrote:
>a...@chinet.com wrote:
>>Ubiquitous <web...@polaris.net> wrote:
>>>a...@chinet.com wrote:
>>>>A Friend wrote:
>>>>>tmc...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>https://www.radiodiscussions.com/threads/channel-drift.751516/
>>>>>>What was the reason(s) for a channel such as MTV or SyFy to drift
>>>>>>away from its original channel model and direction?
>>>>>In MTV's case, nobody was making videos anymore. They were too
>>>>>expensive and didn't affect music sales.
>>>>>SyFy has always been a mess, even back when it was the Buck Rogers
>>>>>Channel.
>>>>Some of my favorite SF programs were on USA. The better stuff on Syfy
>>>>was usually foreign programming.
>>>Lexx will always be a fav of mine.
>>It's not my place to tell Usenet users whom to associate with and whose
>>articles to post followups to. I will point out further antics from
>>Ubi the Shithead. You can decide for yourself if continuing to post
>>followups to Ubi is troll feeding and if he's truly your friend.
>[Paranoid hysterical conspiratorial rantings deleted]
Ubi, I presented evidence demonstrated that you have been forging
>a...@chinet.com wrote:
>>Ubiquitous <web...@polaris.net> wrote:
>>>a...@chinet.com wrote:
>>>>A Friend wrote:
>>>>>tmc...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>https://www.radiodiscussions.com/threads/channel-drift.751516/
>>>>>>What was the reason(s) for a channel such as MTV or SyFy to drift
>>>>>>away from its original channel model and direction?
>>>>>In MTV's case, nobody was making videos anymore. They were too
>>>>>expensive and didn't affect music sales.
>>>>>SyFy has always been a mess, even back when it was the Buck Rogers
>>>>>Channel.
>>>>Some of my favorite SF programs were on USA. The better stuff on Syfy
>>>>was usually foreign programming.
>>>Lexx will always be a fav of mine.
>>It's not my place to tell Usenet users whom to associate with and whose
>>articles to post followups to. I will point out further antics from
>>Ubi the Shithead. You can decide for yourself if continuing to post
>>followups to Ubi is troll feeding and if he's truly your friend.
>[Paranoid hysterical conspiratorial rantings deleted]
Terrence Clay repeatedly, and you forged me in this thread. You have
been posting the forgeries through Giganews. They've been allowing you to
post forgeries of other people for years. I made an abuse complaint but
I'm sure it will continue to be ignored.
It's curious that you didn't deny posting the forgeries through
Giganews. You didn't address the issue in any way, just snipped the
quote like the coward that you are.
>Trolling? That's pretty funny, coming from you!
>(I am pretty sure you have claimed to have killfiled me on multiple
>occassions, including the time I offered condolences for your dog.)
your articles' headers. Alas, there is no choice because you are such a
shithead.
Crystal
Aug 10, 2022, 5:20:48 AM8/10/22
to
tmc...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
>https://www.radiodiscussions.com/threads/channel-drift.751516/
>
>What was the reason(s) for a channel such as MTV or SyFy to drift
>away from its original channel model and direction?
Initial concepts for both were too niche. MTV's additional problem was
>
>
>https://www.radiodiscussions.com/threads/channel-drift.751516/
>
>What was the reason(s) for a channel such as MTV or SyFy to drift
>away from its original channel model and direction?
time spent watching; people would tune in for a song or two then leave.
The demos weren't great either; too many kids and teens, and largely
only white kids and teens at that -- diversity was unknown there until
Michael Jackson became the network's Jackie Robinson, so to speak.
As for SyFy (formerly SciFi), science fiction is a divisive genre to
begin with and it would be nearly impossible to program a channel that
would please SF fans (Oh, and "serious" science fiction fans NEVER call
the genre "sci-fi.") who want content with deep social messaging and
those who just want a terrifying zombie story.
The answer for both networks (as it was for History Channel, CMT, A&E,
etc.) was to dumb down and go for middle-brow to low-brow chewing gum
for the eyeballs of the masses.
T987654321
Aug 12, 2022, 2:14:35 PM8/12/22
to
I suspect SyFy ran into licensing issues. More and more Streams were starting up and and rights holders know that SF has a very devout fanbase (which is full of early adopters) so there was a lot of money being offered for exclusive use.
David Samuel Barr
Aug 15, 2022, 9:11:35 PM8/15/22
to
On 8/9/2022 9:05 PM, Crystal wrote:
> tmc...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>> https://www.radiodiscussions.com/threads/channel-drift.751516/
>>
>> What was the reason(s) for a channel such as MTV or SyFy to drift
>> away from its original channel model and direction?
>
> Initial concepts for both were too niche. MTV's additional problem was
> time spent watching; people would tune in for a song or two then leave.
> The demos weren't great either; too many kids and teens, and largely
> only white kids and teens at that -- diversity was unknown there until
> Michael Jackson became the network's Jackie Robinson, so to speak.
Parroting the standard libel. MTV was playing black and multiracial
> tmc...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>> https://www.radiodiscussions.com/threads/channel-drift.751516/
>>
>> What was the reason(s) for a channel such as MTV or SyFy to drift
>> away from its original channel model and direction?
>
> Initial concepts for both were too niche. MTV's additional problem was
> time spent watching; people would tune in for a song or two then leave.
> The demos weren't great either; too many kids and teens, and largely
> only white kids and teens at that -- diversity was unknown there until
> Michael Jackson became the network's Jackie Robinson, so to speak.
artists long before Michael Jackson was an issue (it even played Prince
before it did Jackson). The network was designed to be essentially a
new wave/alternative rock station, not to play every style of music--it
wasn't playing country artists either and no one was demanding Kenny
Rogers (or Charley Pride) videos. The Jackson issue came up only after
MTV had started to prove itself as a hitmaker in the genres it was
playing and some black artists that it wasn't (and who didn't even have
videos to play) complained; then as now, scream "racist" and people
fold rather than stand by their positions. A key part of what drove the
format decision had nothing to do with race or even music styles, but
simply the lack of material available to show. Even BET (Black
Entertainment Television), which was on air nearly two years before MTV,
had problems finding videos to play. Jackson had to finance his music
videos himself since his record company wouldn't. Meantime MTV
initially had to rely largely on European videos, and that did include
two-tone and ska bands like The Specials, along with a raft of synthpop
bands, and those set the musical tone for the network, into which disco,
funk and slow jams didn't fit, and even with the huge success that
Jackson had once his videos entered rotation, that didn't mean MTV was
going to completely ignore its core format and start playing every black
artist for whom they got a tape. (For that matter, there were plenty of
white artists who couldn't get played; there was one major progressive
rock group whom I got MTV to air interviews with when they toured but
couldn't get their music videos on air since they didn't sound like the
rest of what the network was playing.) However, even before Jackson
they had plenty of non-white viewers, and not only were they not tuning
away after a couple of songs, they would leave the channel on for hours.
The network was specifically aimed at teens, so having them as viewers
wasn't a problem; it wasn't until four years later that they introduced
VH-1 as a music network for an older demographic.) The serious program
drift didn't start until the 1990s when early efforts to come up with
non-music programming that would still hold the existing audience as a
short break rom the videos, such as "Remote Control" and "The Real
World" began to expand and overtake the music programming, short- and
long-form alike, and over the next three decades essentially push it out
completely.
> As for SyFy (formerly SciFi), science fiction is a divisive genre to
> begin with and it would be nearly impossible to program a channel that
> would please SF fans (Oh, and "serious" science fiction fans NEVER call
> the genre "sci-fi.") who want content with deep social messaging and
> those who just want a terrifying zombie story.
know or even like SF/sci-fi/whatever. Also, SciFi was initially relying
on libraries of existing programming, not (until much later) producing
its own material, and using a broad definition of what constituted
Sci-Fi (which didn't include "hard" SF, of which little exists). No one
expects a network to make everyone happy all the time, and some people
you can't please at all. Nonetheless it's one thing to say that SyFy
has drifted off-message if you don't think "Resident Alien" meets your
definition of the genre, it's another when the channel is being used
just to repurpose shows made for its USA Network parent that are clearly
not SF (e.g. Monk) or falls totally off the beam with Monday Night
Wrestling (although some might say that qualifies as science fiction).
> The answer for both networks (as it was for History Channel, CMT, A&E,
> etc.) was to dumb down and go for middle-brow to low-brow chewing gum
> for the eyeballs of the masses.
of eyeballs. When the basic cable networks were originally being
developed (and I was heavily involved in this 40 years ago), one key
guiding element was the concept of niche programming, or narrowcasting
(as opposed to broadcasting), with the idea that you'd have smaller
audiences but more focused ones who would be more receptive to ads
targeted to them, and it was an uphill sell to many of the advertisers
and agencies for whom it had always been a pure numbers game in TV and
radio. It worked for some, but over time, many networks couldn't
sustain their original concepts with the audiences and advertisers they
drew and ended up either merging with other ones in similar straits or
simply altering their content to reach a larger, less selective mass, if
they didn't fold altogether. Ironically there are many more networks
now than there were then, but even if they have a supposed focus it's a
lot broader and you still end up with many of them just endlessly
running the same raft of off-network shows (Law & Order and its
spinoffs, NCIS, Criminal Minds, etc), often the same shows opposite each
other.
Major James Walton
Aug 25, 2022, 12:01:48 PM8/25/22
to
Initial concepts for both were too niche. MTV's additional problem was time
spent watching; people would tune in for a song or two then leave. The demos
weren't great either; too many kids and teens, and largely only white kids
and teens at that -- diversity was unknown there until Michael Jackson became
the network's Jackie Robinson, so to speak.
spent watching; people would tune in for a song or two then leave. The demos
weren't great either; too many kids and teens, and largely only white kids
and teens at that -- diversity was unknown there until Michael Jackson became
the network's Jackie Robinson, so to speak.
As for SyFy (formerly SciFi), science fiction is a divisive genre to begin
with and it would be nearly impossible to program a channel that would please
SF fans (Oh, and "serious" science fiction fans NEVER call the genre "sci-
fi.") who want content with deep social messaging and those who just want a
terrifying zombie story.
with and it would be nearly impossible to program a channel that would please
SF fans (Oh, and "serious" science fiction fans NEVER call the genre "sci-
fi.") who want content with deep social messaging and those who just want a
terrifying zombie story.
Major James Walton
Aug 25, 2022, 2:51:01 PM8/25/22
to
tmc...@gmail.com wrote:
>https://www.radiodiscussions.com/threads/channel-drift.751516/
>
>What was the reason(s) for a channel such as MTV or SyFy to drift
>away from its original channel model and direction?
Channel drifting is one of the worst things ever invented by this television
>https://www.radiodiscussions.com/threads/channel-drift.751516/
>
>What was the reason(s) for a channel such as MTV or SyFy to drift
>away from its original channel model and direction?
industry. I miss so many channels from back in the day because of channel
shifting and how today's format and direction make me turn OFF the channel,
not turn around on to it.
Like, CNN Headline News, MTV, VH1, TechTV (though I was okay with G4 too),
Newsworld International (though that channel space no longer exists), all
these news channels before they got too opinionated, ESPNews, The Weather
Channel (at least at night), etc.
I miss most of them because the cable industry has decided to screw around
with viewers, change the format, and put it into a way that actually turns
viewers off. I wish I had these channels back to the way they are, but its a
sad state of reality, and it makes me sad as a still young viewer (I'm 26),
that they will never ever go back to the original formats ever again.
Its all for profit, but once we stop watching, and if the channel shuts
down, then what was it for? NOTHING. Then the channels will cease to exist
because of the changing viewer habits. Yeah, I get that but its also changing
because the companies decided to mess with channels that weren't broken,
fixed them, and made them broken, thus making them wholly unwatchable in my
eyes.
Sorry for ranting, but I needed to get that off my chest.
P.S., I wonder if anybody here remembers Newsworld International before it
became Current in 2005. I can't be the only one! I still miss that network
some 17 years later (I remember a good bit of that network, despite it going
off the air when I was only ten. That's right... Ten).
0 new messages