When Did TV Shows Shrink? (1 Viewer)

[MatthewA]

Here's what to expect for correct running times in network prime time without commercials:

1950s:
—Sitcoms: 26:00
—Dramas: 51:00 to 52:00

1960s:
—Sitcoms: 25:30
—Dramas: 50:00 to 51:00

1970s:
—Sitcoms: 24:45 to 25:30 (shows that aired at x:30 were 30 seconds shorter due to news breaks by now)
—Dramas: 49:00 to 50:00

late 1970s-early 1980s:
—Sitcoms: 24:00 to 25:00
—Dramas: 48:30 to 49:00

mid-1980s to about 1989:
—Sitcoms: 23:30 to 24:45
—Dramas: 47:30 to 48:30

c. 1989 to the mid-1990s:
—Sitcoms: 23:00
—Dramas: 46:00 to 47:00

mid-1990s to 2000:
—Sitcoms: 22:30
—Dramas: 44:00 to 45:00

today:
—Sitcoms: 21:30 to 22:00
—Dramas: 42:30 to 43:30

This is what I've looked at from any network broadcasts I have, DVDs, and looking at Hulu running times.

 

[Brian^K]

Drama should be 42:30 to 50:00, since two series, last season, had half as many commercials per hour than the norm.

 

[BobO'Link]

I'm surprised she waited this long... I've pretty much *always* hated commercial interruptions in radio and thought commercials and unnecessary chatter were intrusive so I've been collecting music since the late 60's (starting with LPs and switching to CDs in the mid 80's when ~50% of my LP collection was finally available on CD). I've always felt the same about TV and started collecting DVDs as soon as they became "affordable". I avoided pre-recorded video tape for the same reason I never purchased pre-recorded cassettes: lack of longevity/sturdiness. While I *did* record select programs on tape I've since replaced almost all of them with DVDs. My wife doesn't understand but my reasoning is the same as for my music collection: I can watch (listen to) *what* I want *when* I want *without* commercial interruption. If it were not for her desire to actually be a slave to the broadcasters/cablecasters I would have ditched cable years ago.

 

[mickeyTOR]

Say what you like about Paris Hilton - but that girl has some smart people working behind her. A few years ago she walked out of that jail with all those news channels broadcasting the event live. Coincidentally, she was wearing an outfit from her brand new clothing line that was due to be released that week. Sales were through the roof! Talk about marketing genius!!!

 

[WaveCrest]

Fringe seems to be one of the very few US network shows which have a longer running time for each episode. Over here each episode of the first season of Fringe was on Sky1 for 70 minutes (including ad breaks).

 

[Brian^K]

That won't continue though. Including half as many commercials during the first season was unsuccessful: They raised 35% less revenue. Big disaster.

 

[Sean.S]

Yeah, as someone born in the mid-80s who became interested in classic TV mostly over the last 10 years, I was shocked to learn about how much--say for example--50s and 60s shows--were edited for syndication. Getting the DVD sets of I Love Lucy, Hogan's Heroes, Star Trek and the like were like special extended editions (up to 5-8 minutes of footage I hadn't seen before including ENTIRE scenes).

Thank goodness I have a DVR now, so I can fast forward past commercials. Daytime TV is beyond ridiculous. Price is Right, for example, lasts 36 minutes who commercials are pruned from it! Insane! I fast forward past commercials 99% of the time! Mostly, aside from game shows, news, and sporting events with my DVD collection--both retail and recorded--I could likely do without cable or satellite and make my own network, lol

I think one of the few stations I know of the air very little commercials in a show would be my college TV station. Of course, they are all PSAs, but during our nightly news broadcast, only 4 total PSAs--totaling 2 minutes, making for a nice 28 minute show. ~_^

 

[Michael Rogers]

Up until the studios started to send out there shows on standardized broadcast videotape, it was not a given that shows would be cut. And it's still not a given today (although edited is the default).

In the 1980's I had Star Trek on my local channel 10 in Rochester, NY and on WPIX from cable.

Both were run from old and rickety 16 mm prints. WPIX's showing were chopped to pieces and channel 10's showing were virtually uncut.

Then about 84 or 85 Paramount sent out the the new broadcast video versions (sourced from the same transfers they were making for home video release). For syndication they were also pre-edited by Paramount. Both 10 and WPIX switched over those masters and they showed the same edited versions.

In the early 80's, The Honeymooners was shown really chopped up on WPIX too (WPIX had shown the show for a long time). But the Honeymooners fan club (based in NYC, home of The Honeymooners and WPIX) lobbied and the show started to be shown uncut.

As recently as 3 years ago, I saw episodes of Bewitched on the CW affiliate syndicated uncut (which surprised the heck out of me)

 

[Regulus]

That's how I feel about my DVD Collection Sean, which I refer to as LSN (Little (Stinker) Network) and it puts the others TO SHAME!

 

[Mike*SC]

The shrinkage was definitely gradual, and has increased every year. It seems hard to imagine any show will become closer to 50% commercials, but it could happen.

Yes, long running shows definitely are shorter at the end of their runs than they are at the beginnings.

It used to be that shows were always cut down for syndication, but network shows have become so short, I've actually worked on shows that had to have scenes ADDED for syndication!

Contrary to what many people seem to believe, it's actually much harder to write and produce a shorter episode. Presenting a coherent story with time for the characters to breathe actually becomes harder as the shows shrink. A few of the networks are also dividing their shows up into smaller chunks, with the idea that advertisers will prefer shorter (but more frequent) commercial breaks. This makes it nearly impossible to get any story momentum going.

 

[Brian^K]

It definitely could happen, if the value to advertisers of the commercials that we currently have continues to plummet.

 

[Regulus]

According to this article from USA TODAY, USATODAY.com - Ad glut turns off viewers written nearly four years ago, this is correct. A one-hour Drama used to be divided into four acts, with the Commercials between the acts, then they decided to carve them into six acts, stuffing in MORE Commercials. This article also shows how much more time is being allotted for Commercials, A Chart from 1996 to 2004 shows the average number of commercials increasing from just short of 10 minutes in 1996 to almost 16 minutes in 2004! Needless to say it hasn't gotten any better since!:frowning:

 

[David_B_K]

Posted by Bryan^K: people generally aren't entertained by even the most entertaining commercial the third time they sit through it.

With the exception of Jack-in-the-Box's MINI SIRLOIN BURGERS.

 

[Brian^K]

So viewers were not "turned off" -- they just "tuned out" -- or perhaps more likely, spaced out. Or got a DVR.

There is no question that the value of viewership is affected by more advertising, but the reality is that there is math involved. If you increase X to X + Y, N goes to N - M -- multiplied by P, N - M times X + Y is still bigger than N times X.... y'know?

(Seriously, there is a technique called parametric analysis that weighs the impact of things like adding more advertising, its effect on viewership, the consequent effect on ratings, and factors in the effect on rates and therefore revenues and profits -- and can help determine the optimal amount of commercials. The problem, I think, is two-fold: First, I don't think the models have factored in the spacing out effect. Second, once they do, I think that'll radically change the model, but it may not change it in our favor. I think it is as likely as not that fewer commercials will still mean less profit overall, no matter what.)

 

[Regulus]

In the same article a Producer says:

"It makes you long for the day when everything comes out in boxed sets of DVDs so you can enjoy it."

This is the route I have taken!

 

[Joe Lugoff]

What Brian^K says is truly the way it works, because maximizing profit is network television's only concern. So there is an "ideal number of commercials" which will maximize profit.

If they wanted to maximize the audience -- which wouldn't necessarily maximize the profit -- there'd probably be fewer commercials.

If they wanted to maximize goodwill -- which is probably very low on their priorities, if it's even there at all -- there might be two minutes of commercials per half hour.

It wasn't always this way. The president of Firestone for over thirty years paid for "The Voice of Firestone" to be on radio and television because he thought it was a good thing to bring classical music and opera to the masses. It was usually the lowest rated show of the week, and didn't bring anything to Firestone except prestige, if that.

 

[Mike*SC]

Yes, but it's a tricky equation: The sheer number of commercials drives some viewers away, and as ratings drop, the networks can demand less money for each commercial. In theory, if fewer commercials resulted in higher viewership, the networks could charge more for fewer commercials, make as much money with longer shows, and everybody would win.

The problem is, the few experiments in longer programming (such as the "Fringe" premiere) haven't proved this to be true. I would contend that any one episode of a series is not a valid test, but I also understand that the networks cannot afford a long term test of this theory if it proved to be very harmful to their bottom lines.

 

[Brian^K]

They tried it for 33 episodes, not just one.

 

[John Morgan]

Not only a cut in time, but a nice cut in the number of episodes in a season over the years. I think 39 episodes per season was the norm for a long time. Now it is something like 22 or 24.

Do you remember when Hawaii Five 0 played late night on CBS. I think it was retitled McGarrett. Anyway, it ran in a 70 minute time slot, as I guess they didn't want to cut the episodes.

 

[Brian^K]

39 episodes per season was the norm in the 1960s.

Here are some numbers for you:

All in the Family 1971-1972 = 24 episodes
All in the Family 1972-1973 = 24 episodes
All in the Family 1973-1974 = 23 episodes
Gunsmoke 1970-1971 = 24 episodes
Gunsmoke 1971-1972 = 24 episodes
Gunsmoke 1972-1973 = 24 episodes
Hawaii Five-O 1970-1971 = 24 episodes
Hawaii Five-O 1971-1972 = 24 episodes
Hawaii Five-O 1972-1973 = 24 episodes
The Waltons 1972-1973 = 25 episodes
The Waltons 1973-1974 = 25 episodes
The Waltons 1974-1975 = 25 episodes
Little House on the Prairie 1974-1975 = 24 episodes
Little House on the Prairie 1975-1976 = 22 episodes
Little House on the Prairie 1976-1977 = 22 episodes

So the number of episodes per season has been what it is now, for four decades. It's probably about time to stop mourning that one.