Losing Niches to Nielsens : The ratings mentality has cut choices on cable
Newsday 04-24-2000
THIS TYRANNY of the majority has got to stop. This is not the way it was supposed to be in the brave new universe of 500 channels. And still nothing on?
We were supposed to have choices. Niches would be served. No more would TV always aim at the lowest common denominator as the networks did in the '60s and '70s heyday of the "least objectionable program" theory: Viewers were thought to switch among the few available channels till they settled on the show they disliked the least. The home audience didn't have to be happy, just satisfied. So play it safe. Stay prosaic. Amuse the vast middle.
Cable was going to change that, right? Let the networks have their bland mainstream turf. If audience fragmentation was going to occur, at least diverse and minority interests would finally get some of their own. You like country music? Watch TNN. Foreign films with subtitles? Watch Bravo. Traditional homespun values? The Family Channel. Something for everyone!
Yeah, sure. Till there's more money to be made pandering to a broader viewership. Then you can just kiss your country/artsy/homespun viewing bye- bye. If you're some little splinter interest group, your bucks ain't big enough anymore. Twenty-five years later, cable has "matured." Which, like the term "adult movies," doesn't mean what it seems to.
I used to love Nick at Nite for its vintage-TV spotlight on rarely seen treats like "Mister Ed" and "Route 66." This was something you couldn't get anyplace else on TV. The programing did well, and Nick drew more viewers. And had more money. To spend on newer shows. Familiar hits. To appeal to a broader viewership. Because the stakes were so much higher. So they created the spinoff TV Land channel to showcase the rarities now not big enough for Nick at Nite. "Hill Street Blues" in prime time. "Sgt. Bilko"! Then TV Land drew more viewers. And the stakes were higher. And suddenly it's running "Andy Griffith" and "The Honeymooners" and other shows we've been seeing for eons. The home of "everything TV" now runs mostly the same old sitcoms. They're busy amusing the vast middle.
You can say the same for TNN, which used to offer country shows but has "matured" into wrestling and arena football. Geez, where else would we watch those? The Family Channel went Fox, now giving us third-run movies and "Who's the Boss?" reruns. Good thing I taped those commercial-free Akira Kurosawa classics off Bravo years ago, because the channel now stacks ads inside its 17th run of "Norma Rae" and "Moonlighting" repeats.
It's not that I don't like these shows, but they're airing in the wrong places for the wrong reasons. There is no place for too many of us to go anymore. We tried to understand when the broadcast networks said they needed a certain level of audience to survive, say 12 million viewers. If a "Freaks and Geeks" or a "Sports Night" can't lure that many, 8 million of us are basically told to go jump, we don't want you. Now cable doesn't want us either. It's wacky.
Thank God for cable's non-prime times where we just might see something wonderful that "nobody" wants otherwise. TV Land (which is available on Time Warner cable in Queens, but only via satellite in Nassau and Suffolk) has been running weekend marathons with niche faves like "China Beach" and "Maverick." Next Saturday and Sunday it's "Homefront," ABC's golden-hearted 1991-93 gem about the country's madly shifting post-World War II culture, with Kyle Chandler, Mimi Kennedy, Kelly Rutherford, Hattie Winston and other since-familiar faces. (All three series join TV Land's afternoon lineup Monday.)
"Homefront" is so delightful -with a tone and attitude all its own, yet timelessly universal -that I would pay to watch it again. And that notion got me thinking. Why can't somebody start a Quality TV Network and run not just existing pleasures like "Homefront," but even produce new episodes of "Freaks and Geeks" or "Sports Night," for people willing to pay for distinctive fare? TV's current commercial structure rewards mostly programs that are inoffensive enough to be tolerated by enough people who happen to be not inclined to change the channel that very second.
I'm willing to spend a buck or two for a super show. Aren't you? We could subscribe in advance. Or do pay-per-view. It's getting feasible. ESPN now offers an Extra channel to digital cable systems where you can order up "Bikes, Blades and Boards" or "Expedition Antarctica" yachting for $1.99 by pushing a remote button. I'd drop that, easy, on a "Sports Night" or the vintage films now too artsy for Bravo. This may be our only hope now that even the niches crave Nielsen numbers.