Reality TV show.. Are you sick of it yet. (1 Viewer)

[AnthonyC]

Like I've said earlier, I know that these people are put into situations. Their reactions are what makes it "reality."

You do have to use some logic in that, with most of the earlier Survivor contestants out of their contracts, wouldn't somebody have come forward and said something? There are a lot of them who hate Mark Burnett and would gladly say things to damage his reputation. Not one has come out and said the show was scripted.

 

[MarkHastings]

The documentary had one of the blondes from Survivor, and while she said the show didn't seem 'scripted', she did seem upset that they 'edited' the show to make her look a particular way.

Her example was of her boat ride to the island. She said it was over 4 hours long, yet the only part they showed, was her flipping her hair (to make her look like the 'sexy' blonde character).

It's this 'editing' manipulation that alters the reality.Unless they're redone or forced.

The woman (from Survivor) also said that they would ask her questions like "What do you not like about (another contestant)" and while she said she didn't dislike the person, she HAD to answer the question. It was this 'forcing' of her to come up with something negative, was what they showed as if she really disliked this person.

So the reactions may seem real, but it's more of a manipulated reaction that tricks the audience into believing it's real.

 

[John McM]

well, reality shows IMO are not as bad this season as they were last year.

Last season, it seemed like all you saw was reality television, and it didn't help that a lot of scripted veterens like Friends, Frasier and Sex And The City were calling it a day... making those of us wonder if the era of the scripted series was dead. I was pissed off because it seemed like there wasn't going to be another show out there that I could latch onto, because why do a show like Buffy when they could do a reality show in it's place?

However, thanks to shows like Lost and Desperate Housewives this season, it seems as if the scripted shows have fought back and that the networks are beginning to realize that they SHOULD give shows time to find their audiences instead of cancelling a show after a month just to replace it with reality tripe.

 

[Jason Seaver]

Except, of course, that those two shows were immediate hits, not shows that "got time to find their audience". In fact, I think you're confusing cause and effect - most of the time, the networks aren't planning to make unscripted shows the centerpiece of their schedule - they often bring them in when scripted shows crash and burn early.

 

[John McM]

yes, but they seem to kill scripted shows that score reasonably (30's and 40's) ratings. Did ABC have any REAL reason (I never watched the show, so I'm not a jilted biased fan) to cancel I'm With Her and It's All Relative? Or did NBC really need to kill Happy Family and Whoopi? no... both networks axed those shows because why pay $750,000-1 million per episode and be #40 in the ratings when you can do a reality show for $100,000 and be the same place.

Reality TV had too much a stranglehold last season, but it seems like the declining ratings of many of the reality shows (time will tell if American Idol is finally gonna start dipping), that viewers are beginning to realize that TV that has a replay value is actually better.

One thing networks forget about is that reality tv shows have no repeat value. You know it got bad when Yes Dear was the biggest syndication acquisition this season, but the other reality shows that premiered the 2000-2001 season frankly didn't have any replay value.

 

[Malcolm R]

A rather telling nostalgia chart in this week's Entertainment Weekly shows how the major networks have struggled to hold an audience.

In 1990, the Top 5 and the audience for each:

1. "Roseanne" - 38 Million
2. "America's Funniest Home Videos" - 37 Million
3. "The Cosby Show" - 35.5 Million
4. "Cheers" - 33.4 Million
5. "The Golden Girls" - 32.4 Million

In 2005, the networks are ecstatic when top rated shows like "Desperate Housewives," "CSI" and "Lost" can deliver an audience of 19-25 Million.

The most popular sitcom last week was "Everybody Loves Raymond" with an audience of 19 Million. Only HALF the audience of "Roseanne" from just 15 years ago.

So, yes, when networks are spending higher and higher amounts for programming that only delivers half the number of eyeballs, cheap reality shows do become attractive.

 

[Lew Crippen]

Jason and Shane have pretty much covered this, but I’ll expand just a bit.

A.C. Nielson is a company that specializes in providing consumer buying and preference information to their clients in a number of areas—one of which happens to be TV and radio viewing and listening habits. They also do things like track and analyze consumer-buying habits at the supermarket.

They use a sampling method in order to arrive at their results, so that the 5,000 or so households who are measured represent a valid cross-section of the US population. This is not a random sample, but carefully designed to represent various age, income levels, ethnic background and geographic location.

I won’t go into the math, but 5,000 households are more than enough to produce valid results (from a statistical perspective). As Jason indicates there have been some charges that the sample population is skewed away from minorities. There are also charges that that the ‘box’ hooked up to TVs does not properly take into account ‘time-shifting’. Also, it is felt that the expanded sample population during the ‘sweeps’ period is unreliable (you fill out logs, rather than being hooked up to a box) and is an overall poor methodology.

But what is important to remember, is that Neilson is not in the business of providing ‘rating’ or ranking information for the public. They provide the information for their customers—who are primarily TV stations, networks and studios. The information is used not only to decide which programs to keep on the air, but to set the advertising rates for individual shows and series. It is also used by ad agencies to help determine what kind of products should sponsor what kind of shows.

Basically, as long as the advertisers and TV networks feel that the information is accurate enough to set rates and so on, the current system will continue. And Neilson won’t expand their sampling base unless they can charge their customers (the TV producers) more money. Coming back to the point that as long as the ratings are good enough for the TV producers and advertisers, they won’t pay more money for better ratings.

 

[MarkHastings]

Good point. It's not like "Who Wants to Marry a Millionaire" and "Joe Millionaire" will ever make it to DVD.

The only one that really made it was "The Joe Schmo Show", but is there really a market for this kind of show? I guess they had to go the "Uncensored" route to entice people to buy it, but without that, would people (who already saw the show) watch it again?

 

[LanieParker]

Do you think the reality trend will fade? It seems that since it first started (I'm guessing with the Real World series on mtv) it has just gotten more and more common for network tv to have reality tv over any other kind of programming. I mean even cable is getting in on the whole trend (A&E, HGTV, TLC, Discovery, History).

I mean for as many people I know who hate reality tv and as many people online say they hate reality tv, there has to be someone watching these shows. So who is the target audience for this type of programming?

The first so called reality tv series I watched was Fear Factor. Then I slowly gave up on it last year. Then I got into the PBS series Frontier House, Colonial House and World's Apart. I use to watch Trading spaces and while you were out, but they just got boring to me after a while. Same thing happend with the Apprentice. Now I just watch Survivor.

I'm hoping that tv will turn around and bring back more sitcoms and action/dramas for us to enjoy and slowly get rid of reality tv.

 

[David Williams]

I think in time it won't be as pervasive as it is now, but I don't think it will ever go completely away. Sort of the way game shows were super popular at the dawn of the television age. Here we are 50+ years later and game shows are still going.

 

[John McM]

it looks like it's going in that direction. I think reality has peaked. It might not ever truly go away, but I think the stranglehold it had in the 2003-2004 season is most likely never going to happen again.

 

[MarkHastings]

Why not create a Reality show where studio execs compete in trying to get their best "Reality Show" idea on air?

and remember, when you SEE it on tv, it was MY idea!

 

[Vince Maskeeper]

I just wanted to mention i saw this too- and thought the same thing. It was a very interesting bit of information.

-Vince

 

[Bryan Toth]

For the most part, I've got to admit that I'm completely sick of "reality" TV .... my one exception was "My Big Fat Obnoxious Fiancee" ... I don't know if it's even technically "reality" but it was the funniest thing I've seen on TV in easily the past 5 years ..... I kind of liked "My Big Fat Obnoxious Boss" too (just for the complete ridiculousness (sp?) of it ...making the losers sleep in a garbage dump ... classic! ... and I still want to know who the "mystery boss" really was ...)

 

[Jason Seaver]

I think you have to stop looking at unscripted TV as a single genre; it's like trying to say "who is the target audience for comedy?"

I think that the ones that have been most successful - American Idol, Survivor - are hits because they appeal to a very large segment of the public. Idol, in particular, has a tremendously appealing premise - that ordinary people have enough talent to become stars, if they could just be discovered. Who doesn't like the idea of achievement and talent being rewarded?

Something like Extreme Makeover: Home Edition probably appeals more to process junkies, while things like The Swan, Extreme Makeover, and The Bachelor hit people with an attachment to the Cinderella archtype. I find them creepy, but if that type of story appeals to you, the unscripted version may be more fulfilling than the Hollywood version where you know that the actress in the Cinderella role is already a gorgeous movie star.

 

[John McM]

yes, but which has more long-term appeal? Plus, a lot of shows grow to find their audiences. For instance, Cheers was last-place it's first season, yet Cheers reruns from the same season net much bigger ratings than a Dallas rerun from the same season (which was #1 or #2 that year).

Seinfeld and Cheers are just two examples. Neither show started out huge in the ratings, but the networks gave them time to find their audiences and they wound up classics. Yet instant hit shows of the same period are all but forgotten, when was the last time you saw a Blossom rerun? Exactly...

It seems like networks are so impatient, if a show doesn't command over 20 million viewers within the first month, they will automatically axe it and replace it with some lame-ass reality show. At least the scripted shows could have some sort of payoff future if they catch on and then go onto syndication/DVD/etc... So in many ways, the scripted series pay off more than the reality shows, even if the pay-off is more long-term than up front.

 

[MarkHastings]

That's probably the way it is John. The studios are more concerned with immediate profit than with future profit (because they can just crank out another 'crap' show).

They aren't going to allow 'scripted' shows to "find their audiences", they're just gonna crank through as many 'cheap' reality shows as they can, 'till they find one that works, then run it into the ground. American Idol and Survivor are perfect examples of shows that started out as neat ideas, but turned into trash.

Going back to the documentary on "Reality TV" - the woman from Survivor was saying how, as each season went by, the show lost more and more of its' "reality" because people were trying to either out-do the previous seasons cast or act just like them.

The big problem is, these reality shows thrive on being unique, but once the uniqueness has run out of a show (which is rather quickly), it's hard to recapture it's essence again.

In order to "out-do" each other, the reality shows keep getting more and more ridiculous. I feel that it'll get to a point where they can no longer out-do the past shows and everything will eventually implode on itself.

 

[Jason Seaver]

Well, who's receiving that pay-off? Although there's a lot of vertical integration, what's the motivation for NBC to stick with a show produced by Warner Brothers - they'll get stuck with low ratings and lowed ad rates, and if it takes off a couple years down the road, then Warner raises what they charge NBC and Warner sees the syndication and DVD revenue, not NBC.

And even the shows that are owned by corporate siblings - there's always a few more in the pipeline. It's a question of determining probabilities; which is a better risk - a show that's run for six weeks and gotten mediocre ratings, or a new show which has the potential to do better from the get-go. Remember, this isn't 1986 anymore - you've got a lot more competition, not just for eyeballs, but Fox, UPN or WB might be willing to offer your affiliate stations a sweet deal in order to break into the VHF band.

I'm not saying that this is good for the audience or for the industry in the long term - but I can't think of good business reasons to nudge the situation toward something more aesthetically pleasing.

 

[John McM]

I guess it is true, but what about when the show is still on?

I mean, we all know American Idol is Fox's baby, and 24 and The OC do good, but not THAT well. But unlike AI, there is an audience who will buy 24 and The OC out on DVD, and there doesn't seem to be too many (plus music rights could be a nightmare) who'd be interested in buying a complete season of American Idol. If anything, that should show Fox that while AI gets the most ratings, it's shows like 24, OC, Simpsons, Arrested Development and the sort that they really have a chance to have a long-term profit off of. As we all know, Fox brought Family Guy back simply due to DVD sales, do you think a season of AI on DVD would move off shelves like that? doubtful... they don't even bother airing reruns because they don't have enough faith people would want to watch a 3 month old episode of AI... even tho reruns for a show like Desperate Housewives does fantastic.

 

[Jason Seaver]

And when the ratings for American Idol aren't commesurate with what Fox pays for it, they'll stop ordering it; Fox is pretty mercenary that way.

I'm not sure what this is refering to. I'll just re-iterate, though, that it appears television programmers have decided/learned that a bird in the hand is not, in fact, worth two in the bush - that the bush is friggin' full of birds, and if you don't like the way this bird sings, let it go, because the odds are good that the next bird is either going to be low-maintenance (unscripted shows) or has more potential going forward than the one you let go.