Emmys: Broadcast TV Airs Its Own Funeral As Netflix, HBO, Amazon and FX Dominate (hollywoodreporter.com)

At the 70th Emmy Awards, broadcast TV was almost shut out as Netflix and HBO battled each other. The Hollywood Reporter: This year, longtime Emmy nominations leader HBO was out-nominated by Netflix. Netflix then won the most Emmys on the main telecast, with seven noms to HBO's six. But earlier, HBO won one more award than Netflix at the Creative Arts Awards ceremonies, 17 to 16. So by the time the curtain came down on the 70th Emmy Awards, technically -- and sort of poetically -- Netflix and HBO had fought to a draw. Almost all of the major content providers left with several wins to celebrate.

[...] All in all, it was a terrible night for broadcast networks -- even as NBC aired the show and two stars of the network, Saturday Night Live's Michael Che and Colin Jost, hosted. SNL won the variety sketch award for the second year in a row, and ABC's The Oscars won for best direction of a variety show (that award's winner, Glenn Weiss, stole the night with his on-stage marriage proposal), but other than that, CBS, NBC, ABC, Fox and PBS had nothing -- nothing -- to show for their work of the past year. The times have certainly changed.

Comments

Silly Awards Shows

[DatbeDank]

It's just LA trying to pretend that what goes on there is important.

Almost as silly as network TV thinking it has a future.

Who actually watches this?

[pgmrdlm]

I never did. Even when there was nothing else on t.v., and I am old enough to remember just 6 channels. Choice between the Emmy's and watching a spider crawl along the wall. I have always chosen the spider over the Emmy's, or what ever awards show.
Seriously, other then people hooked on T.V..(I am not), who watches this shit.

Re:Who actually watches this?

[Anonymous Coward]

To torture you for forgetting your anniversary.

Online cost of risk is much lower.

[jellomizer]

With higher risk, there is a chance for higher reward.
Broadcast companies have a high cost for a show failure.
1. The cost to make the show.
2. The opportunity cost of having people watch something else on that channel instead.
3. While the show is failing they will still normally need to broadcast for a few more weeks.

These cost prevents them from straying from the normal formula of what to show.
While sacrificing a new hit by reducing a huge flop.

Online companies, has the cost to make the show, but after it is made and posted to the servers it is easy money.
The people who like the show can watch it anytime. So even if it gritty they can watch it prime time, and not off hours where such people may be already asleep because they have to be at work in the morning. If people don't like it they won't watch it, and Streaming companies have real time reviews and can use such to fix the show, or cancel it, with the rest of the season available (and perhaps just wrap it up)

Re:Online cost of risk is much lower.

[MightyMartian]

The funny thing is that the subscription model long predates Netflix's and Amazon's forays into original programming. HBO has been around for nearly fifty years as a premium service, and has done fairly well with it, enough that is able to produce a good deal of original programming, which it in turn is either now directly streaming online or has sold in certain national markets to other streaming services. What we're seeing here is simply a repeat of what happened to the music industry 15 years ago, where a total lack of foresight, despite the notion of directly delivering the media product via a subscription service being floated for a long time leading to the industry suddenly going 'WTF!" And as the unholy alliance between the cable companies and the major networks continues to fray (after all, what the hell does a cable company care whether the TV show being sent across its network is via TV signal or IP packets), watch the traditional studio model collapse completely.

Re:Online cost of risk is much lower.

[drinkypoo]

The funny thing is that the subscription model long predates Netflix's and Amazon's forays into original programming. HBO has been around for nearly fifty years as a premium service, and has done fairly well with it,

You left out the interesting part of this history, though. HBO started out by showing other people's content, then parlayed that into enough money to make their own content. This led to them becoming a massive player. Netflix dominated on the same basis, only on the internet instead of cable...

Death, taxes and the Emmy's

[fahrbot-bot]

From The Best and Worst Moments of the 2018 Emmys:

“Our network NBC has the most nominations of any broadcast network,” Mr. Che said. “Which is kind of like being the sexiest person on life support.”

I still watch OTA TV

[Anonymous Coward]

exclusively. Why pay for drivel when I can get it for free?

When Jesus addicts get their way

[hyades1]

There's a way to ease this problem, though perhaps not eradicate it completely. The viewing public has proved definitively it wants programming which includes some NSFW content. I don't mean flat-out pornography (that's an argument for another time and place). I mean characters that curse and have sex occasionally without paying some price for their "sins", perhaps some nudity, realistic depictions of adult relationships...all that and more. The broadcast networks have been shut out of that incredibly huge market thanks to the squawking of religious nutbars who believe a character saying "fuck" at 11 pm on a talk show somehow endangers the moral well-being of the nation.

If the networks were allowed to air shows like "Breaking Bad", "Jessica Jones" or "Game of Thrones", I doubt very much whether they'd be getting out-competed by Netflix, HBO and Amazon. After all, a lot of broadcast channels are available for no more than the cost of an antenna (analog or digital). Instead, their licenses depend on adhering to so-called "community standards" that haven't really existed for decades. So you can't get shows like this at all, and even occasional expletives on shows like the Tonight Show are bleeped. So people look elsewhere for entertainment.

And guess who's created that situation. It's the same pack of self-righteous assholes who can't resist sticking their long, pointy noses into my life and telling me what a worthless sinner I am while they simultaneously excuse ugly, evil behaviour by any politician, police force or religious organization that promises to advance their political and cultural objectives.

Captive Audience

[mentil]

The only people who watch broadcast nowadays are those who don't have cable or satellite. Or want to watch the local news. Viewership is really high on broadcast channels, relatively, but their content is low-effort crap. I haven't watched a broadcast show since Lost ended. They seem to be targeting people who can't afford cable or satellite, and thus know they can produce the cheapest content possible and don't need to compete with those services. Once the switch to ATSC 3.0 happens, and a new round of converter boxes are required (there's no planned subsidy for them, unlike the last time), lots of people are just going to drop broadcast entirely.

Another way of looking at it is that broadcast networks are like the Hallmark Channel: they're stuck in a morass of vapid family-friendly content, and can't do anything controversial, which is where all the awards are going.