For the past year I've had cable TV for the first time in my life. I don't watch that much TV, but I've always enjoyed PBS documentaries. I've been really disappointed to find that the documentaries on commercial channels (Discovery, History, etc.) are far lower quality than what I've seen for years on PBS.
This seems to be a general pattern. For example, the news one can find on public radio and public TV gives far more in depth analysis than what you find in commercial broadcasting.
All my life I've heard that competition is supposed to lead to better quality. Why isn't this happening in commercial broadcast media? It seems that the more competition there is between commercial stations, the lower the quality of programming.
Yet the same thing doesn't seem to be happening to Public Broadcasting. I can get 4 different public radio stations at my house and it seems that the more channels that join the market, the better the quality of the programming.
So, what's going on with Commercial Broadcasting? What is there about this business that tends to drive everything toward the lowest common denomonator?
We are at a critical junction in the media. Cable, Satelites, the Internet and who know what next are revolutionizing what is meant by broadcast media. It seem like if we can properly identify what's wrong with commercial media now, we have a chance to do it right.
Posted by Will B (Member # 7931) on :
Competition leads to better quality *as perceived by the customer*. This would address the why-TV-news-isn't-great. (Of course, competition leads to better quality if there is competition. Your newspaper doesn't have competition unless you're in a metropolis. Of conventional network TV news, there are only 4 networks -- ABC, NBC, CBS, PBS -- and that's not a lot of variety; it's very plausible that they do the same thing. And they do, except PBS.)
I don't know about the number of stations *decreasing* quality. Maybe it's just that you were already seeing the best, and now you get the real schlock too. I think that about the video store. I try for something different I've never heard of, and then find there's a reason.
Posted by vonk (Member # 9027) on :
I would say that a lot of commercial TV stations curb their news coverage to what they think the consumers want to hear. I defenitely think this is true of Ruport Murdock News, oops, I mean, FOX "News." So you do not always get the full story. On the other hand, Public Broadcast doesn't have to worry about their paid advertisors not liking a certain angle and taking away loads of cash, so they can give a fuller account of the news.
As for documentaries, I couldn't say. I do really like the animal docs. on PBS, but I think that The Animal Channel has some really good ones too. I don't watch Discovery very much, because it seems to me that these days its leaning more towards entertainment than education. The History channel is great though. I've seen some truly excellent programs there.
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
Just remember that that commercialTV&radio's real customers are advertisers; viewers are merely critters that commercial stations try to capture to sell as product to those advertisers. So naturally, the most important thing for commercialTV&radio managers is to not displease those advertisers; with the second most important thing being to pander to those advertisers' worldview. And hence spectacle rather than quality is the core policy guiding commercialTV&radio programming.
Whereas publicTV&radio's main customers are the viewers; with politicians being a very distant second since the government contributes so little to the total publicTV&radio budget.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
But most public TV stations get about equal amounts from viewers as they do from corporate sponsors. PBS programs are usually produced with money from a corporate, government or foundation sponsor not from viewers.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:So naturally, the most important thing for commercialTV&radio managers is to not displease those advertisers;
I'm not sure that's the way it works. What advertisers want most is a large audience of potential customers. I think most business couldn't care less whether the programming offends them, so long as it doesn't offend their potential customers.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
There are two kinds of Discovery/Animal Planet documentaries: the newer "When Volcanos Attack with Megatornados and Tsunami Firestorms" kind of thing, and the more specific and scientific "we're looking for baby archituthus and we're going to show you every step of the way."
Just the need to have a "hook" before each commercial modifies the flow of a documentary.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
More specifically, a free market is intended to operate most efficiently -- that is, most value to the consumer per unit cost.
Simply put, the demand for high quality documentaries is fairly low, and the benefit of marginal quality improvements probably decreases rapidly, while their cost probably increases rapidly.
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
PBS gets a substantial percentage of it's money from the government, foundations, and corporations. But PBS receives an even greater amount from program fees for use of their content by individual publicTV&radio stations. Those individual publicTV&radio stations raise the overwhelming majority of their revenues from their viewers/listeners. And if PBS doesn't provide the content that those viewers/listeners want, there are plenty of other sources which will provide content to those viewer/listeners local stations: NPR, BBC, MPR, CBC, NYPR, etc.
As for commercialTV&radio, you are assuming that what advertisers say they want is the same as what advertisers will pay for. What advertisers will pay for is the primary decider in what content will be funded by commercial networks, not what advertisers say. Which I'll return to later.
Posted by Chungwa (Member # 6421) on :
Wait, are you saying what advertisers say they want isn't actually what they want?
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
quote:Those individual publicTV&radio stations raise the overwhelming majority of their revenues from their viewers/listeners.
I don't know what the nation wide stats are but here in Utah stations get do not get the majority of their support from viewers. KCPW, a local independent NPR staion gets 40% from viewers. KUED, a University sponsored PBS station, got 22% of their funds from viewer in 2005.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
No one ever said advertisers were truthful. However, I think that the way they spend there money is a darn good indicator of what they really want. Last time I heard, the more viewers a show has the more advertisers are willing to pay.
I didn't see anyone refusing to advertise in the SuperBowl because of the Janet Jackson incident.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Actually, advertisers are probably quite accutely aware of the marginal demand for various sorts of programming; the data is abundantly available, after all.
However, the funding scheme succeeds because donations are not marginal prices. That is, in a market, everybody pays the same price (basically), but when it comes to donating, some people give very large gifts due to perceived value. That is, PBS is better able to capture the consumer surplus, so even though demand might be less for their programming, they receive sufficient funds to service it.
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
Mostly just bumping this up for now, but... All I know are the financial figures I'm hearing from my local public stations. Not surprised though to hear that a red state like Utah won't support their public stations. And what with their Republican congressional representatives, not surprised that they prefer receiving federal pork / welfare payments.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
From what I've seen, the numbers from Utah are not all that different from other states.
In the Seattle Area, there is only one NPR station (compared to three in the Salt Lake Area). That station receives 50% of it's support from individuals and foundations. KCPW (one of three NPR stations in the Salt Lake Area) received 52% of its funding from individuals and foundations in 2004 (latest data I could find).
The KUOW website does not breakdown the individual and foundations numbers. KCPW reports that 40% of their funds come from individual memberships which suggest that 12% comes from foundations.