In the interest of full disclosure : I need to correct something from my post yesterday. ABC DOES currently own the ABC Radio Network, but there is a pending sale to Citadel Broadcasting that awaits IRS review before it can close. This would divest ABC of its non-Disney radio properties.
I felt it pertinent to share that given the discussion at hand.
EUROPACL said:
MasterShake said:
I would argue that those numbers do mean something. The more households you reach, the more likely that some of them will be watching.
So what did Disney do to cause this?
Thanks for asking. What Disney (or more accurately ABC + Disney together did), was successfully entice more privately owned stations in markets without ABC representation to affiliate themselves with the ABC network. This increases their 'reach' in terms of households and audience size.
ABC has increased the number of privately-owned local affiliated stations by 33 (rough numbers) since 1995. Some of those were station swaps so the actual net additions is probably more like 20, roughly 1/3 of those since the year 2000. That's a better than 10-12 % increase in affiliates. Not bad for a dying industry.
In fact, all the more impressive given that the payments to affiliates from the network for carrying their programming have been SIGNIFICANTLY reduced and/or eliminated in that same time frame.
Knox,
Enjoyed the historical perspective; interesting read. While network broadcasting may not actually die out, it sounds like you agree it’s not an industry with very attractive fundamentals. But than wasn’t this the conventional wisdom even back when Disney bought ABC? It just got downplayed by a CEO who was drinking the “only mega media conglomerates” will make any money off entertainment in the next millennium koolaid.
Thanks, it's nice to know someone read and enjoyed what I wrote.
While the internet existed in 1995, TIVO and its ilk did not. Those are the two biggest threats to network television in my opinion. The internet in 1995 was a joke. Nobody took it seriously - inside or outside the entertainment industry at the time.
I worked at NBC at the time of the CapCities/ABC/Disney deal being announced. Nobody at the peacock network was terribly surprised by this. It had leaked pretty well by the time of the announcement. At that point, everyone at NBC was waiting for either NBC to be sold to a studio or for GE to acquire one. Why?
Well in 1995 the 'holy grail' from a TV standpoint was owning the shows you broadcast so you could profit from the syndication and a little bit from the home video market. The fastest way to do that was to buy a network if you were a studio or to buy a studio if you were a network.
Seems rather simplistic by today's standards. Remember back then, studios weren't selling DVD's (or tapes) of old series with the vigor they are today so that was seen as less lucrative overall for TV. The economics of putting 24 episodes of "24" on VHS didn't make much sense... from packaging to shipping and shelf space, it was very unwieldy... especially for the purchaser since VHS was a very fragile medium in the grand scheme of things. DVD's changed that and made a real on-going revenue stream from these huge libraries of "old TV shows nobody wants to see again." (in the words of one NBC exec who couldn't see the Wilderness Lodge for the trees IMHO)
The internet was something to keep an eye on but hardly a threat at that point. And TIVO was four years away. Network viewership was holding it's own. Seinfeld was done but the NBC domination with FRIENDS and other 'appointment viewing' series was yet to really build.
Personally, watching a 'show' on my PC is about the LAST way I'd choose to do it. Watching any type of long-form entertainment regularly on my PC is not even on my radar.
The "500 channel universe" is probably the largest elephant in the room with the lionshare of blame. More choice for the consumer has fractured the audience into niche pockets. But again - you can look historically at other media and see this same thing develop.
Historically with radio, niches develop, are extremely popular, die away.. then everyone merges up.. the audience returns to familiar 'big name' brands in a consolidation phase and then that breaks down into niches again. You can chart this. It's that regular.
One datapoint to support the well-known niche/consolidation theory for the current TV situation.. is that while network tuning is down slightly.. overall viewership of TV as a medium was at an all time high for the 2005/6 season.
The average American household consumes 8 hours and 14 minutes a day of live TV programming. The ratings for 2005/6 did not take into account DVR viewing so that's removed from that math here.
That tells me obviously that people still want to and will watch TV, just not as much network TV.. and not in the same ways, and not the same programming that they have in the past. (See my note below about the key to survival)
Television is OVERDUE for a massive shake up. Just like Northridge is overdue for a quake. But I don't think the quake will destroy it. Just shake things up in a healthy way.
I honestly do think that network television will figure out a way to remain successful and relevant. The fundamentals, while changing, are still there; however it will take some work (and yes money) to refocus the network in a profitable way.
Another Voice said:
Exactly - most "fans" don't care about Disney any more. They don't care about what Disney used to mean or represent. Disney is just a brand name - an easy mark to say "this stuff is okay to buy". It's a middle class comfort brand that can be slapped on any product, but it means nothing anymore. People are cheering on a corporation irregardless of what's really going on.
Nobody slapped the Disney name on Desparate Housewives. Except you that is.
If your argument is that the other products Disney slaps their name on (Disney Mobile is a good example maybe) .. I'll agree with that. But I thought we were discussing the network television which clearly does NOT have the Disney named directly associated or 'slapped on' to it.
The people who disappeared where the giant motion picture chains and the neighborhood theaters.
Today's equivilant is the broadcast network. A network doesn't provide product - a network is just a distribution system.
With regards to your comments about network television being the equivalent of the local and chain movie theatres. I respectfully dis-agree with your analogy.
The privately owned local affiliates are the small movie theatres and chains that would die under your assumption -- not the mother network itself. The network O&O's (Owned & Operated stations) are by far and away the minority of the 200+ affiliated stations.
The network could simply become the ABC channel on satellite and cable and skip the affiliates all together. Of course, that would mean it was no longer a network. I don't see this scenario as even remotely likely.
The network will remain. The key to survival will be once again discovering what makes for compelling programming that will force people to tune-in, in real-time, vs. TIVO'ing or just watching something else. American Idol is the worst possible example of this. I'm betting that a creative person will develop something that will be equally compelling in a more artistic way.
In television's case, the coming years will represent some very tough times. But if the historical information I've posted previously tells us anything, it is that rewards await those who take bold, but calculated risks in times of duress; risks like the movie studios did in the 70's when they were faced with an audience who didn't seem to want to return to the cinema. The movie studios re-tooled, changed the stars, the quantity and types of movies they greenlighted. Eventually, the audience rediscovered going to movies all over again.
YoHo said:
Iger seems particularly miscast as the CEO capable of transforming the Network Television model.
And we absolutely agree on Iger. I only met the man once and I thought he was 'a small picture guy' who doesn't get the big picture on any level. He's a Warren Littlefield who managed to cling-on, instead of being let go when he should have. Everything I've seen, heard and read since then has only affirmed that in my mind.
But Disney could sell shows on iTunes without owning ABC.
Disney COULD sell shows on iTunes without ABC. Heck, ABC could sell shows on iTunes without broadcasting them. But how is the average viewer going to want them enough to bother purchasing them without being familiar with the title? Not bloody likely to be very successful without some degree of promotion or advertising or even better, broadcast. Say.. on a television network?
Disney must rely on the parks to support this division. It has not cable revenues. It doesn't sell lightbulbs.
Question by cable revenues you mean ... what exactly ? I'm guessing you don't mean the per-sub revenues that all their cable networks generate.
And what division supported the parks when they were floudering in the tourism-crash post 9-11? Do you know? I don't. I'm just asking. Maybe it's in their 10k filings? (ha ha)
So.. does NBC relying on jet engines, MRI machines, fridges and stoves to fund their TV network (and probably their theme parks too) equally chap your bum??
Fortunately with 11 shows in the top 20 and virtually unprecented ratings success, CBS doesn't have to rely on outdoor billboards and their videogame division to run the tiffany network and keep Andy Rooney in paperclips.
Knox
, so we'll catch ya on the flip side.
