XPost: rec.arts.tv, alt.tv.scifi.channel   
   From: Obveeus@aol.com   
      
   "Jim Gysin"  wrote:   
      
   > Obveeus sent the following on 11/15/2010 6:36 PM:   
   >> "Jim Gysin"  wrote:   
   >>   
   >>> And without at least one competitor, the company with the monopoly will   
   >>> *never* have an incentive to sell his widgets at a minimum price of any   
   >>> kind.   
   >>   
   >> In the case of TV, competition might improve the quality of the shows   
   >> (since   
   >> that is the only way to drasw more viewers), but...   
   >   
   > Might?  It absolutely will,   
      
   No, the word 'might' is much more likely acurate.  After all, if a network   
   only has half as much audience, they will likely only have half as much   
   income to spend on the programming...and half as much money is not something   
   that 'absolutely will' lead to better programming.   
      
   >> If there are X sci-fi fans then two channels producing comparable stuff   
   >> will   
   >> mean that each gets X/2 audience.   
   >   
   > *If* they produce comparable stuff.  And since the stuff that the audience   
   > is gonna tend to be drawn to is quality stuff, then the competition will   
   > lead to more quality stuff, because having X/2 audience is better than   
   > only having X/4 or X/6 of the audience.   
      
   1 sci-fi channel has X number of viewers.  2 Sci-fi channels will have X/2   
   viewers.   
      
   > In the short term, one channel could get 95% of the audience while a   
   > certain show from its lineup is playing, while the other channel could get   
   > 95% an hour later for one of *its* shows.  And over time, out of a desire   
   > to get 100% of the audience 100% of the time, both channels would be   
   > producing the sort of programming that the audience wants to see, based on   
   > the ratings for various shows.   
      
   You have watched TV before, right?  If each Sci-fi channel only has one good   
   program, there is about a 75% chance that the two channels will air their   
   programs in the same timeslot.  Meanwhile, even as they strive to make   
   better programs and capture more audience, they have less money to work with   
   because they have half the viewership they had before a second sci-fi   
   channel joined the mix.   
      
   >> That isn't a good thing in a current TV   
   >> environment that indicates that even the whole X isn't enough people to   
   >> keep   
   >> the channel going.  X/2 audience will just mean a quicker transition to   
   >> additional shows about ghosts and wrestling.   
   >   
   > Based on the success of SF movies, I believe that a large part of the   
   > reason why there isn't a larger demand for SF on television is a lack of   
   > quality options.   
      
   People are willing to go see a big piece of crap at the theater, but they   
   aren't going to sit through it every single week.  That is why something   
   like Transformers or Terminator can be a big hit in the theater, but not on   
   TV.   
      
   >  And again, with competition comes more quality options.  Either that, or   
   > competitors quit trying altogether.   
      
   Yes, the latter will happen and the 'sci-fi' channels will start programming   
   wrestling, ghost stories, cheap reruns of crappy 'sci-fi' shows from the   
   50s, etc... and infomercials or whatever else will draw an audience they   
   need to survive.   
      
   >  And if a channel isn't committed to competing, I'd just as soon see it go   
   > away now, rather than later.   
      
   No one makes you watch Syfy.  If you would rather have no 'sci-fi' than what   
   they offer, use the remote.   
      
   >> You economics of getting a cheaper widget for the end user equates in   
   >> this   
   >> case with what might simply be a cheaper TV show (as in lower production   
   >> costs) for the viewer.  Lower production costs likely means the opposite   
   >> of   
   >> 'higher quality' in most cases.   
   >   
   > When I have problems with a SF show, it's almost always over the writing,   
   > rather than production (especially effects) issues.  Similarly, when I   
   > *like* a SF show, it's almost always because of the writing, rather than   
   > production issues.  What draws me to SF is the issues that it addresses   
   > and the geek possibilities that get explored; it has little or nothing to   
   > do with who has the latest FX bells and whistles.   
      
   Me too, but that runs to the polar opposite of what draws people to 'sci-fi'   
   in thre movie theater.   
      
   >  It's the characters and the plotlines that end up getting the ongoing   
   > discussion treatment, because (IMO) that's what matters most to most SF   
   > fans.   
      
   Then the people watching 'sci-fi' at the theater are not sci-fi fans...which   
   goes back to the idea that sci-fi has a limited fanbase and no matter how   
   good the shows are there isn't enough sci-fi viewership to support multiple   
   channels.   
      
   > A second and current example is the many WALKING DEAD threads here in the   
   > past few weeks.  In them, I think that there have been a handful of   
   > references to the makeup effects and the like. Everything else has been   
   > about the story lines, the characters, their motivations, their choices,   
   > etc.   
      
   ...or mostly the discussion has been about how stupid the characters are,   
   how illogical the plotline is, and how campy the entire comic book result is   
   on screen.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)