Slashdot Mirror
Gaming Communities Cause Of TV Ratings Decline?
Bendebecker writes "We all know about the falling popularity of television this season, but Mike Malone of ABC News has a very interesting viewpoint on why this is happening. He seems to think that the growing popularity of online gaming communities (the example he gives is Counter-Strike) are causing the decline, which is particularly noticeable among the young male demographic."
So young males are playing video games, and that is the source of your falling ratings? Could there perhaps be a correlation between crap, and lower ratings, which in turn leads to higher video game consumption?
Granted advertisers need to advertise their product, what happens when they infiltrate the computer gaming market more. I can see it now, blowing someone away with a headshot and a message in my headphones "now how about a refreshing cola?". Oh dear...
:-)
Though I shouldn't fear someone will have a crack shortly when that happens
...in bed
If TV is worth watching it will attract the viewers. Viewers are being selective because so much TV is poor quality; stimulation can be found elsewhere - particuraly for proactive young people who will make the effort rather than being mushrooms.
-- Alchohol is a hard drug. Cannabis is a soft drug.
When a new form of entertainment emerges, it can take away from the time spent with current forms.
People only have so much free time in a day. If they begin spending 2-3 hours a day playing video games, that's 2-3 less hours they have for tv, music, reading, etc.
There was a time when you read books for entertainment, and that's about all you COULD do. Then radio came along, and families sat around in the evening listening to radio shows. Then TV, now video games. It makes perfect sense.
I do want to say that I think this is a good thing. For the most part TV is the most mindless, unstimulating, unsocial form of entertainment we have today. If more people play games (still maybe not the best entertainment, but challenging and oftentimes social none the less) than watch TV, well, I'm all for it!
It's just that the new shows are increasingly like the music comming out today. It's all the same: Reality this, real life that, American Wannabe, they're all modeled after a small group of once successful shows. I presently only watch maybe 3 to 4 hours of TV per week, and it's usually educational stuff (TLC, Discovery, Travel, etc). If the people in Hollywood were to do some real research and come up with something original again, maybe people would start watching again. But it will have to happen soon, or their only audience will be folks who dont have a net connection.
More frequent and longer commercial breaks, split-screens during credits, product placement and other techniques are thought to IMPROVE the viewing experience.
How does the Slashdot Effect happen given that no slashdotters ever RTFA?
TV shows that are not worth watching.
Nothing to see here, move along now.
and the increase in reality TV shows. Coincidence? I leave it to you, the gentle reader, to determine.
Mod me down with all of your hatred and your journey towards the dark side will be complete!
I think it's quite possible that we have transitioned between a generation that finds it inconceivable to NOT watch TV, to another one that does not find TV important at all.
When I first stopped watching TV, right after the OJ Simpson car chase, whatever year that was, people treated me to everything from incredulity to ridicule about it. Almost no-one was able to simply accept the idea that I literally didn't watch TV, didn't own one, didn't feel like it was missing.
See, a whole lot of popular culture comes from last night's tube. People see it as a personal problem of theirs that you aren't hip to everything that's been popular recently. So it took a while for concepts like "survivor" to sink in as "a tv thing" sometimes. There are a TON of celebrities that seem to be household names, and I don't know who they are (nor do I care.)
These days, I do own a TV, but that's largely because the DVD, VHS, and sometimes CATV are necessary for university work. Otherwise, CATV is largely a side effect of my internet connection.
Let's see, in the past year, I think I've watched a few news programs (it's been a busier year than most, what with a war and all), Maybe one or two Simpsons episodes, and something called "Queer Eye." That's it. My cats watch more TV than I do.
-fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
It never ocurred to them that HBO is kicking all the 'Free' TV stations in the behind because HBO has the cohones to produce shows that people want to see.
Then again the ABC's of this world are P-Whipped by the Advertizers and Local affiliates in the sense that the ABC's cave to their wishes. They will never be bold enough to ignore them and go in new directions.
Look at what happened to Futurama. Perfect example.
The only new shows worth watching this season are the Sopranos and Kid Notorious (Comedy Central). Both Cable shows who's formulas for sucess are ones that the 'Free' TV stations will NEVER touch.
Dolemite
____________________
Save the World! Use a Quote!
It's not just that the programs are crap, it's that they're crap filled with ads.
I buy my Andromeda on DVD. I don't pay for it by watching ads. If there are any SciFi producers out there: Screw the stations, produce for Region 0 DVD. Put up a BitTorrent link for your pilot and a "buy it now" link on your website.
I sold my TV 3 years ago and haven't looked back since. I get my entertainment from books, the Internet, and games. Living without a TV was tough for about the first 6 months and then I stopped missing it. I don't smoke, but I wonder if it's something akin to giving up a cigarette habit..
When I am exposed to TV these days (at bars or at a friends house) I can't get over just how much garbage is on it. Not only are the shows bad, the news seems to be aimed at 9 year olds. The final insult is the advertising which seem more and more to appeal to the emotional side (buy this SUV and you'll feel like you're roaring through the mountains!) as opposed to practical advantage (sucks less, costs less, works better).
While TV, video games, and the Internet are all time sinks (and I believe there's data that backs this next claim up) - people tend to use their brains more while playing video games or using the net. And, to me, that can only be a good thing!
To see a world in a grain of sand, and then to step back and see the beach where the sand lies
No annoying commercials! At least in game you can put people on /ignore !! If I could stop the constant bombardment of advertisements, I'd probably go back to watching TV, but you can't seem to sit for more than six minutes before you're interrupted by the network news propagating FUD teasers, being told you're too fat or too poor, or that the new H2 will give your life meaning. The invasion of television commercials has made the signal-to-noise ratio of television unbearable (not that most programming isn't mindless in the first place, but you can't even watch the Discovery channel anymore without having your train of thought mowed down by that dumbass from Video Professor hawking "FREE CDs!!")
It's ridiculous. It's like someone set up a drum set in my living room and goes into a solo every six minutes, for six minutes.
Does anyone have any data on the proliferation of commercial air time compared to actual content on television? It seems to me that commercial breaks are even more numerous and longer. This is the one defining element of gaming that has not been so brutally co-opted, though I know we're seeing that change as well.
seriously ... between:
o more channels than ever before
o more video consoles than ever before
o more online/interactive games
o that intraweb thing
o more movies on dvd
o whole series being released on dvd
o recycled television line-ups
where are those viewers going? so many things to choose from, it will take something with a very strong appeal to draw viewers back in.
given the large amount of crap on tv these days, i don't think they'll ever enjoy the same numbers they've had in the past.
perhaps the heyday is over, and they should stop trying to find something to blame it on.
An average line up for a night's programming (UK tv):
show about a couple going house hunting
show about two people buying a house and doing it up
show about a pair of people building a house from scratch
Show about two people who bought a house last year on a tv show and have redecorated it since.
Hmmm, interesting. As a 24 year old bloke, just what I want to watch. I think I'll go play BF1942.
I think, however, that it might point to a new trend
I think one may draw an analogy with animated films or comic books. It used to be that people watched animated films as children and then they grew up and didn't watch them anymore. That is no longer true: look at the popularity of anime films for instance. Or even Disney films which seem half-aimed at an adult audience today. Same with comic books: where once was Donald Duck and Superman, today you may find American Splendor.
Naturally, if people play games for a longer period of their lives, then the larger the group of people playing and the more hours spent playing. This increased time spent on gaming means less time spent watching television (given the same amount of hours leisure time). If they also spend more hours per day playing games (as opposed to merely hours per life-time) then they have even less time to watch television (given 24h per day). The only way television could compete with that natural phenomenon would be to broadcast better and more attractive programmes, i.e., not just as good as before but actually better. Given the plethora of 'reality' shows (does anyone actually watch Survivor?) at the moment, I don't think that has happened just yet.
The liver is evil and must be punished.
Other than sports, I haven't watched a TV show live in years. I either record it for viewing later (skipping the commercials) or do without. Plus now, you figure if a show is any good, it will be released on DVD in a year or two.
When I was a boy, there was a sense of urgency about watching TV, because if you missed an episode, it was gone forever. That's just not true anymore.
He decided to just watch the government, and kind of scale it down to size, and run his life that way. --Laurie Anderson
Don't blame reality TV for falling ratings. First, the offerings are back down to a reasonable number. Fear Factor, Survivor, and Joe Millionaire are the only ones I can think of running on the networks. After the glut two years ago, we are seeing a return of comedies and dramas, big time. I can't remember when I've seen as many new dramas as have come out this year.
As others have pointed out, blame the quality of the programming. Many of those new shows have already been tossed in the dumpster. Older shows are coasting (South Park's RIAA episode was okay, crab people was lame) or haven't started yet (I'm looking at you, Fox). There are also few shows with a hook to get you watching week to week. Paramount won't force Star Trek to be anything other than episodic in nature. CSI and the bunch have followed the Law and Order thing. There's absolutely no reason for me to make sure I watch it next week.
Maybe something can be learned from 24 and Sopranos. Each tells a compelling story with week to week continuity. I think Sopranos succeeds better at bringing in new viewers, but can't be 100% sure without seeing the ratings trends.
Unfortunately, much of this is nothing new. The networks have spent the past 50+ years churning out variations on the same 'hot theme'. (Even back in the radio days, there were several variations on Gunsmoke, Paladin, Matt Dillon, etc, etc.) But when radio went to TV, the same people stayed in charge, so they didn't bitch (as much) about losing radioshare. What is different is that people have an alternative that isn't owned by NBC or CBS (old Westinghouse, FWIW). You better believe that if NBC owned Rockstar Studios or if CBS owned Sony Online Ent. they wouldn't be complaining. As much.
There is also the issue where the networks attempt to appeal to all people. This insures that they appeal to almost none. The cable stations can afford to be niche marketed. ABC et al. find themselves trying to sell Ford Tauruses while Discovery, Comedy Central, etc. can sell PT Cruisers and New Beetles. Sure, you may hate 'em, but somebody loves 'em enough to keep them in business and doing well.
So, all you upmodded reality TV haters, try and expand your vision a little bit. The situation is hardly as simple as that.
Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
Read my sig. BTW.
Good shows get canned and utter crap (reality TV) takes over all the airwaves, and they are wondering why we're not watching anymore?
IMPORTANT MESSAGE TO ALL TV EXECS FOLLOWS:
If you move a show around week after week until even its most dedicated fans have no idea when is on, its ratings will drop.
Not because nobody wants to watch the show, because no one can.
Firefly , Futurama, Family Guy, etc. They are good shows, fun shows, shows people want to watch over and over again, but CAN'T because they get put in the Random Shifting Mystery Time Slot of Death and then cancelled for "low ratings" and replaced with boring, run of the mill cookie-cutter snore fests.
Yeah, I'll play videogames instead, at least I can rely on my game to be the same game next time I load it and not be pre-empted by a tv preacher telling me I'm going to hell unless I give him money to finance the next preempting of my TV show.
THIS IS THE IMPORTANT PART:
Respect your viewers, and for god's sake never ever again justify your decisions with the phrase "nobody ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the america public"!
</rant>
You can't take the sky from me...
I think the major networks should have taken the warning writer Alvin Toffler mentioned some 34 years ago in his most famous book, The Third Wave.
In that book, Toffler mentioned that as communications technology improves, this drastically increases the choices for people wanting their entertainment and information, and as a result the high ratings of TV networks in the past will never happen again; he called this concept the demassification of the media.
Since 1979 (the year The Third Wave as published), we've had the following:
1. Videocasette recorders (and now increasingly personal video recorders) effectively destroying the concept of prime time. Why stay up to watch The Late Show with David Letterman when you can watch it the next morning from a recording?
2. Cable TV with its 60-plus channels and direct-broadcast satellite TV with its 200-plus channels has allow for much more niche programming aimed at specific smaller audiences.
3. The rise of pre-recorded home videos, first on videocassettes in the 1980's and now on DVD since 1997 has allowed home viewers to see recent movie hits and even complete TV seasons!
4. The rise of the public Internet since the early 1990's has taken away a LOT of TV viewers, especially since the Internet can be considered a true interactive medium.
Small wonder why the TV networks are suffering nowadays.
It's been five years now since Harry Potter first brought a bunch of new mostly 10-14 year olds into reading. Those kids now mostly fall in the 15 to 19 demographic, and hey, just maybe some of them are still reading regularly. Books have a lot of the features of games. They're interactive, have few if any commercials, and they allow time shifting for us busy moderns on the go. If reading has caught on enough to affect TV, I hate to say it, but just maybe J K Rowling has saved western civilization.
Who is John Cabal?
the past few interations of EA Sport's Fifa Soccer games have all had ads - but then again ads are almost as much a part of sports as the players are :P at least they're not quite as obtrusive as TV ads, which are forced upon you. ads in computer games rarely divert your attention from enjoying the game itself. which TV ads so expertly do.
It might look like I'm standing motionless, but I'm actively waiting for my problems to go away