Psionicist
Explorer
I have written about this before, but I think it deserves another post.
A TV-network is in the business of selling advertisement. Sure, we viewers pay a small fee to watch their shows, but the main income comes from selling ad space. It obviously follows that a small network with few viewers will make less money than a large network with popular shows and many viewers.
Now here's the trick. It is not in the interest of the networks to air great shows, but good enough shows.. A decent/good show is an investment for the network. If they find something people will like, they will earn more money seilling advertisement. On the other hand, if they only air bad shows, no one will watch, and the companies who pay for ads will pay less.
By the law of the least common denominator, it follows that the network will earn more money if they have 60 million viewers who find the show "good enough", instead of say 30 million who think the serie is "the best ever". TV-shows are not much different from Hollywood blockbusters. Think about it and why it makes sense.
If this is still unclear, lets take an example. As a geek, I think it would be cool to create a science and math show. Sort of like the shows on Discovery but geekier and more hard core. I start my TV network executive career by airing recorded lectures by Richard Feynman. The physics geeks will love me. I don't get as many viewers tho. I dumb-down the program. I lose my core audience, but at least got more viewers. My show is now "good enough", instead of "great". The geeks are disappointed.
This is why every single TV-show that becomes really popular will end in disappointment for those who find that "decent" is not good enough.
A TV-network is in the business of selling advertisement. Sure, we viewers pay a small fee to watch their shows, but the main income comes from selling ad space. It obviously follows that a small network with few viewers will make less money than a large network with popular shows and many viewers.
Now here's the trick. It is not in the interest of the networks to air great shows, but good enough shows.. A decent/good show is an investment for the network. If they find something people will like, they will earn more money seilling advertisement. On the other hand, if they only air bad shows, no one will watch, and the companies who pay for ads will pay less.
By the law of the least common denominator, it follows that the network will earn more money if they have 60 million viewers who find the show "good enough", instead of say 30 million who think the serie is "the best ever". TV-shows are not much different from Hollywood blockbusters. Think about it and why it makes sense.
If this is still unclear, lets take an example. As a geek, I think it would be cool to create a science and math show. Sort of like the shows on Discovery but geekier and more hard core. I start my TV network executive career by airing recorded lectures by Richard Feynman. The physics geeks will love me. I don't get as many viewers tho. I dumb-down the program. I lose my core audience, but at least got more viewers. My show is now "good enough", instead of "great". The geeks are disappointed.
This is why every single TV-show that becomes really popular will end in disappointment for those who find that "decent" is not good enough.