"The 'Broadening Spectrum' Fallacy"

Arguably my classiest title to date.

Focusing Question:  How – or is it “Why?”, so it’s not that focusing – how, or why, or wait!  What… is the relationship between the broadening television spectrum and plummeting network audience viewership?

Think about this.

Once, the most talked about shows – Mary Tyler Moore, All in the Family – were all network television offerings, the most popular of them, garnering audiences of thirty million, or more, as compared to today’s audiences of less than a third.

Note:  You see, that’s what I hate about this process.  I originally typed “poplar” when I meant “popular”, and my computer said, “Fine.”  What happened to “context”?

Anyway… having egregiously digressed myself…

“Duh!” is how you’d respond to what I said five paragraphs ago.  Of course, the audiences were bigger.  There were no alternatives back then, other than turning your TV off and living your life, and who wants to do that?

“There was no competition – a viable rationale for today’s networks’ decrease in ratings. 

“Viable” for now.

Let us follow this sad downward trajectory.

“Premium Cable” arrived, offering nudity, and, eventually, iconic series like The Sopranos.  Right away, the networks’ juggernaut ratings started to recede.  “More competition”, you say.  Yes, but there was an accompanying factor.

The Sopranos was better.

Because,

If The Sopranos was worse, or putting it another way, if the networks’ dramatic offerings were qualitatively equal, the networks’ popularity would have held strong, relegating cable TV to also good shows, flashes of nudity, and infomercials for “Squeegees.”

Then streaming services with their “Let’s throw a bunch of stuff at the wall and see what sticks” mentality entered to fray.

And the ratings erosion began to increase.

Because of the “broadening spectrum”?

Or ‘cause the “stuff that stuck to the wall” was better?

Do you see what I’m driving at?  Network television has a handy excuse for their dwindling ratings.

NETWORKS:  “The ‘broadening spectrum’ has siphoned off viewers.”

Avoiding the less comfortable explanation:

“Have you seen what we put on lately?”

Think about this now.  (Sorry for making you think so much.  I just hate thinking alone.)

Suppose Seinfeld premiered today.  The exact same show, with its hilarious “Bubble Boy”, “Marine Biologist” and “Puffy Shirt” episodes, and so so many more.  The “show about nothing” two-parter?  Are you kidding me?

“You are wallowing in nostalgia.”

You think so?  (SPOKEN COMBATIVELY)  Sitcom blockbusters like Seinfeld and Friends score spectacularly in reruns to this very day.  And now, Netflix is opening its vaults further broadcasts.  You think the windfalls would keep coming if those shows weren’t still popular?

I’m tellin’ ya, if Seinfeld premiered today, it would do, perhaps not as well as originally – due to the “broadening spectrum” – but it would do a lot better than the top-rated sitcoms today. 

I mean, why wouldn’t it?  You love your favorite restaurant.  Does it really matter how many new restaurants they open?

“You watch reruns of Seinfeld”?

“Not much.”

“You don’t like it?”

“I love it!  ‘The Chinese Restaurant.’  Are you kidding me?”

“Then why don’t you watch it?”

“Because of the ‘broadening spectrum.’”

“What are you saying?”

“There are more shows available today.”

“Shows you like better?”

“Not better than Seinfeld.”

“Let me understand this.  You love Seinfeld, but, because there are shows on TV you like less, you don’t watch it?”

WARNING:  “The ‘Logic Train’ has just run off the tracks.”

Interim Conclusion: 

Primarily, it is not the “broadening spectrum” that makes network television less popular. 

It is network television itself!

What happened to network television?  Since I am running out of time, I will venture one guess.

The creative talent went elsewhere.  (Meaning no disrespect to people working in network television, though I can see it might look that way.)

And the “Talent Drain” is bound to get worse.

Originally, network television paid more, but denied creative control.  People who valued their personal “Vision” over “The Big Payday” gravitated to cable, which allowed free, or at least freer, reign.  (Some having no choice, because their personal “Vision” precluded “network acceptability.”  The Sopranos was originally pitched to the networks.  Fat chance.)

With the moneybags “streamers” involved, the top practitioners get creative control and so much, what they coarsely call, “F-You” money, they can now tell the networks “F-You.”

Actual Conclusion:

It is not “the broadening spectrum”, per se.

It’s what that “broadening spectrum” is offering.

And what the traditional networks are not.