Anybody else wish a miserable death on broadcast television?

[Patrick Gerard]

CutterMike, NickT, and C.B. have all had the most appropriate responses to the flawed premise of this thread. Changing the method of delivery is not going to alleviate the issues you are having with television - lots of people watching shows you don't like and the shows you do like getting cancelled because they aren't popular enough.

I think broadcast causes people to watch shows even THEY don't like and it's failing to properly account for the people who don't watch broadcast.

[Patrick Gerard]

No,sorry. I agree there's a lot of bad stuff on TV these days, but some really good stuff too.

I really love Person of Interest. Also like Mentalist a lot. There are some otehr good ones, too.

I do not with the death of broadcast TV, I actually enjoy a small amount of it.

I'm not saying to eliminate broadcast shows.

I think the quality will improve if linear content delivery is eliminated in favor of non-linear, user-driven content delivery and the internet could find a way to claim all the ad revenue that currently goes into broadcast.

[Kingsmythe]

I'm not saying to eliminate broadcast shows.

I think the quality will improve if linear content delivery is eliminated in favor of non-linear, user-driven content delivery and the internet could find a way to claim all the ad revenue that currently goes into broadcast.

May work. Might not. But what you're doing there is advocating the demise of a way people DO get to see these shows without any real system of replacement, just some "maybe" and "I think." I rather like some of these shows a great deal and would prefer not to gamble on that.

[Jim Schnobrich]

I think broadcast causes people to watch shows even THEY don't like and it's failing to properly account for the people who don't watch broadcast.

I don't know about that. People are going to watch what they want to watch and if they don't care enough about what they watch I'm not sure how having the content move online is going to result in more views for the type of shows you deem worthy.

In the early 00's, I got bent out of shape because I thought the success of Desperate Housewives was causing Arrested Development to get poor ratings. The fact of the matter was that more people wanted to watch Desperate Housewives than Arrested Development. That's just the way it was.

[CutterMike]

Certainly, there is the effect of the LOP -- people watching the Least Objectionable Program if there is not something that they actively WANT on -- but, again, these people aren't LOOKING for anything out of their comfort zone and likely wouldn't do so whatever the delivery system. A viewer who looks to television for unchallenging entertainment on NBC, CBS, Fox, Disney, et al is probably not going to seek out PBS, National Geographic, Discovery or whatever.

The market for unchallenging entertainment will STILL be there, whatever the delivery system, and it will, in all probability, STILL be the biggest market. That being the case, I don't see how changing the delivery system will change where the production money -- that is to say, the advertising money -- will go. Without changing the demographic of the audience, I see no way of changing the TASTES of the audience, which ultimately determines what gets financed and produced.

[The Funketeer]

I don't know about that. People are going to watch what they want to watch and if they don't care enough about what they watch I'm not sure how having the content move online is going to result in more views for the type of shows you deem worthy.

In the early 00's, I got bent out of shape because I thought the success of Desperate Housewives was causing Arrested Development to get poor ratings. The fact of the matter was that more people wanted to watch Desperate Housewives than Arrested Development. That's just the way it was.

To their credit, Fox gave AD plenty of chances to succeed. There just weren't enough people interested in it to justify the cost of producing more episodes.