Networks dumb to be mystified by shrinking audiences

Human Events, Jul 10, 1998 by Bozell, L Brent III

Viewers Turned Off by Morally Repugnant and Intellectually Vapid Offerings

CBS entertainment boss Leslie Moonves recently told the New York Times that "three of four networks . . . probably aren't going to make any money next season, and [profits for] NBC . . . will probably be down to $100 million [from $500 million]. It's all ugly."

He added: "How do you build for the future audience? I don't know. If I was a young [programming] executive, I don't know if I would come into the [broadcast] network business.

How bleak is the outlook? According to a recent piece in Advertising Age, a decade ago better than 40% of prime-time series on ABC, CBS and NBC drew a rating of 10 or better among adults ages 25 to 54. That's to say that at least 10% of persons in that age group were watching each of those programs. Today, fewer than one in 10 shows on those webs, plus Fox, generates those numbers.

For years, the broadcast networks have been wailing and gnashing their teeth over their shrinking audience share, but as Moonves indicated, they still don't how to stop it. In the fall of 1997, the networks unveiled 38 new shows-38 chances to stem, or even turn, the Nielsen tide. Of those, only seven drew enough of a following to return this autumn.

Oh, there are ideas floating around, but coming as they do from such a hype-oriented business, if you suspect they're less impressive than they appear, you're right. An Entertainment Weekly article noted that the "biggest sensations on the tube this [past] season," such as Fox's "Ally McBeal" and WB's "Dawson's Creek," "push[ed] the envelope," and suggested that edginess may be at least a partial cure for what ails prime time.

But "sensation" is not synonymous with "hit." A program favored by critics can receive reams of press coverage without being tremendously popular. Of 157 rated shows this past season, "Ally McBeal" wound up tied for 59th-a respectable performance for a first-year entry, but no more than that. Meanwhile, "Dawson's Creek" finished 121 st, far behind such perceived Nielsen disasters as CBS's "The Closer" and NBC's "Jenny."

Why 'Ellen' Bit the Dust

Moreover, even if envelope-pushing works in the short term, it's a recipe for longterm failure. The coming-out episode of "Ellen," endlessly hyped by the press, drew a huge audience, but soon the lesbian novelty was gone and so were millions of viewers."

The Catholic-baiting "Nothing Sacred," also heavily promoted" did OK in its premiere but fell apart a week later and ended up at the bottom of the heap before its cancellation. So let's see how the sexually obsessed "Ally" and "Dawson's" fare two or three years down the road-if they're still around.

The networks' problem isn't too much blandness, it's too much garbage. Many prime-time series are morally repugnant, and most are also intellectually offensive. And the industry seems inclined to continue chasing dumb viewers at the expense of quality.

Case in point: The superb "Frasier" was a hit right out of the gate in 1993, yet no network tried to emulate this success the following year. But when the sophomoric "Friends" was the toast of '94-'95, the webs fell over each other to produce even-more-inane "Friends" copies-all of which flopped.

The bottom line is there is a hunger for high-quality programs, as the presence in the Nielsen top ten of "ER," "Touched by an Angel" and "Home Improvement" indicates. The public may settle for somewhat less, but if people are given a great deal less, they'll simply turn their sets off. And that's what has happened.

Mr. Bozell, a nationally syndicated columnist, is chairman of the Media Research Center, based in Alexandria, Va.