Is TiVo Killing Sci-Fi TV?
SFSignal has posted an article on the topic "Does Tivo Kill Science Fiction TV?" It's a topic near and dear to my heart and I have a very short answer:
No!
However, the long answer is a lot more complicated. The article makes a good case for the "No!" argument, bringing out the fact that the reported TiVo numbers are not large enough to turn a bottom ranked show into a top 10 stalwart. In the 'Firefly" example, the poster states "...I don't feel that Tivo had much, if anything to do, with the untimely demise of Firefly. No, the fault lies squarely on the heads of the Fox execs who didn't 'get' the show." It's hard to disagree with that statement!
There is on point on which I do take issue, though. He says, "What I don't see is time shifting hitting science fiction TV any harder than any other genre. Given the nature of people to record the popular shows, I'd think the bigger shows would be hit harder by Tivo-ing than any others." This implies that non-genre shows would seem to have the same problem, implying that the TiVo effect washes out in the final numbers (i.e. everyone is a bit lower, but ranked fairly accurately).
I don't agree. Although the logic may work for "CSI" and the like, reality shows and sporting events defy this convention. "American Idol" would be the poster child for this - you can't really TiVo the show, since if you want to vote, you have to watch it within 2 hours of its air time. Furthermore, you can't watch it the next day, since all of your friends will already be talking about it and the results show already on tap. It's a clever ploy...but, it can't work with normal programming. This is the FOX model - and probably why we all hate FOX.
I think things are slowly changing. NBC seems to understand (at least a little), with efforts toward product placements and less reruns. Fewer reruns are really a tip of the hat to the TiVo crowd. They know that we will see the show, if we have any interest at all.
The author of the article finishes with this thought - 'Your TV audience has changed its viewing habits, you need to adapt, or die'. Let's hope the networks embrace this change sooner, rather than later.
Taking issue with one point of this article. I think reruns are becoming less common because of on-air competition, not time-shifting devices.
When there were only three channels, and all three did original broadcasts and reruns on the same schedule, reruns were safe and profitable.
Where there were only thirteen channels of stuff (cleaning up Pink Floyd) on the TV to choose from, reruns could still pull a bigger audience than the weather channel and ESPN's coverage of Australian Rules Football.
When cable packages expanded to a rough standard of about 30 channels, most of those were still not showing original programming with mass appeal. Still safe to clog the original broadcast network schedules with reruns.
But nowadays, a basic cable package has 60-100 channels, and a couple dozen of them have original programming year round that is worth watching. Reruns don't pull nearly the audience they used to because they've got quality original broadcast competition--not because of time shifters.
-- Posted by: Deep Cover at July 28, 2007 1:31 PM