Online Content, Conventional TV, and the Golden Age of Television

Online Content, Conventional TV, and the Golden Age of Television image via http://likealady.bg/ Television advertising  became prevalent  in the 1950s, when companies like Kraft and General Electric  sponsored entire television shows. NBC revolutionized the concept in the 1960s with “TV Spots,” which we all know today as commercials. Advertising went from taking up 9 minutes of an hour-long program in the 1970s all the way up to 19 minutes in the ‘90s. Once advertisers were able to gain information regarding the demographics of different shows’ viewers thanks to Nielsen Ratings (the data collection system on the ages and amounts of people watching a given network show), they utilized product placement. Different series became vehicles for certain products, intertwining the characters’ choices and the plotlines with commercial goods. In my opinion, this poses a risk to the creative control of the show.   The advertisers are funding these shows, and since the series are operating on the given company’s dollar, which parts of the show are generated without profit-oriented bias, and which are forced upon the writers from the promotional demands and financial motivations of the corporation? image via http://protoepicnews.blogspot.com/ A show that does a great job of making fun of this is 30 Rock. The series focuses on a fictional NBC television show run by Liz Lemon (Tina Fey).   In the first few seasons, General Electric owns NBC, and Jack Donaghey (Alec Baldwin) plays the overbearing president of NBC who wants to assume control over Lemon’s creative choices. Each episode is speckled with jokes about vertical integration and product placement, with clear wisecracks at GE, who owned NBC in real life at the time. In one scene, Lemon is in Donaghey’s office. She gives a spiel about how great Verizon Wireless is, then looks directly at the camera and says, “can we have our money now?” A show like 30 Rock that actively draws attention to the commerciality aspect of network TV is the exception to the rule. Since network TV depends so much on corporate funding, the shows try to cater to the masses, which makes sense: the more viewers, the more ad spots are worth (since more people are seeing them and are likely to buy the product), so, the more money the show makes. This is where it gets problematic for me again, from a creative standpoint. For example, a comedy that tries to make everyone laugh will probably be less substantial of a series than one with a unique tone, catered to a certain taste. This could be why shows like Arrested Development didn’t do well initially. Fox cancelled the show after just three seasons, even though it won an Emmy. Arrested has dry, quick humor and expects the viewer to be smart enough to catch onto jokes, rather than dumb itself down for the sake of getting more viewers. This juxtaposes against series like Two and A Half Men,  which has  been called “mindless” comedy, yet has been on the air for 12 seasons and peaked at over 24 million viewers. In fact, the success of Arrested Development after its original run, and its subsequent Netflix season four revival, is a good example of the payoff of an online television medium compared to the traditional network model.  After working under the Netflix umbrella for the fourth season, the cast members criticized the show’s former network, Fox, regarding the conflict between airing a quality, creative show, even if it wasn’t a moneymaker for the network. David Cross, the actor who plays Tobias Funke, denounced the network: The networks were still behind in figuring out how people were watching TVâ€"they were still in that antiquated way that started in the 50s with a Nielsen Box. You cant look at the Nielsen ratings just because theres a family in Rhode Island that wasnt watching it at the timeâ€"thats not how people are watching TV anymore . . . The worst thing that happened to Fox was Arrested  winning the Emmy, cos they had to keep it on. Fox didnt have any real guts, but its a business [and] theyre not in the business of putting out great TV; theyre in the business of making as much money as they possibly can for Rupert Murdoch. Cross goes on to discuss how Netflix allowed Mitch Hurwitz, the show’s creator, to take creative control of the show and supported his decisions, whereas Fox would normally fight with Hurwitz and give him notes to change certain things. Where Fox was like “a girl you were dating who didn’t quite get you,” Netflix was “overly gracious and supportive.” When you think about harboring a creative environment necessary for a great television show, which one seems like it would produce higher quality content? image via doseoffunny.com Online mediums like Netflix and Hulu can’t use Nielsen Ratings for their shows; there are no time slots for these series, so theres no way to calculate how many viewers are tuned in since people watch on their own time. Ted Sarandos, the Chief Content Officer at Netflix, discussed the company’s own method of “ratings” when it comes to original content creation.  He specifically referenced House of Cards: “We read lots of data to figure out how popular Kevin Spacey was over his entire output of movies. How many people actually highly rate four or five of them? If you liked The Social Network, The Curious Case of Benjamin Button  and Fight Club, you’re probably a Fincher fanâ€"you probably don’t know it, but you are.” Sarandos continues that once the company has a sense of how many fans are out there, it can “more accurately predict the absolute market size for a show.” When you can predict a market size, you don’t have to cater to the masses. So where Nielsen measures an arbitrary rat race for the highest volume of viewers, Netflix utilizes a calculated forecast based on viewer preference and artistic style and genre. Again, which method seems like it would keep a show afloat based on real merit? The growing artistic diversification of online television is becoming more and more apparent. Choosing a TV show to watch is becoming more like browsing a library with endless material of all types and genres, rather than a passive activity mottled with infrequent, arbitrary channel surfing. The Internet is an interactive tool, one where the users actively seek out content they want to watch. Predetermined time slots don’t hold the clout they once did. Mass-market appeal is no longer the winning strategy. Don’t get me wrong: broadcast television is the best medium when it comes to time-sensitive, cultural content, like the news. It can be a unifying medium in times that call for national involvement, like when the first plane hit the World Trade Center on 9/11, or when the news broke that Osama Bin Laden was captured and killed.   However, scripted series seem to be a different story altogether. Television is in its Golden Age, and it is thanks to these online mediums who are providing the creative freedom and creating premium content funded by subscription dollars, rather than bowing down to advertisers. Television is reaching its peak quality. You might be wondering why this is all of any importance. It’s just TV, after all. However, television is an integral part of our culture, whether we realize it or not. Throughout the second half of the 20th century, TV unified our nation through shows like I Love Lucy, The Brady Bunch, and Friends.  People identified with it, and it became a representation of our culture. The thing about appealing to the masses (read: most network television) is that many aspects of our culture get overlooked, and minorities are often underrepresented or not represented at all. Online mediums like Netflix have been able to break this barrier in recent years. Series like Orange is the New Black, with an almost all-female cast in a women’s prison, probably wouldn’t last on traditional television. The show stars white, black, Latina and Asian women, depicting many minorities all at once. The diversification of TV on these online mediums will only increase a more diverse representation of America. Tim Wu of The New Republic magazine said it perfectly: “A culture where niche supplants mass hews closer to the original vision of the Americas, of a new continent truly open to whatever diverse and eccentric groups showed up. The United States was once, almost by definition, a place without a dominant national identity. As it revolutionizes television, Netflix is merely helping to return us to that past.”