The Declining State Of Television

What is up with these television executives nowadays? It's all money, money, money. Do they not care about the viewers' opinions. I used to look forward to weekend television, it was just as exciting as weekday television. However, I have noticed, in the last decade there has been a sharp and steep decline in the quality and effectiveness of programmes and in presentation.

I remember Sky Television "debuting" and the regular advertisements for it for Christmas 1988/New Year 1989. A new venture, I liked it very much. Until 1998. When this digital TV malarkey started. Not only did it provide more ineffective, dull and meaningless channels, Sky increased their price. What cheek. And it has been going up vastly in price. I mean, who watches Wine TV, Horse & Country and The Baby Channel? I bet, even at peak time, there is less than 200 people watching. Before the turn of the Millennium, ITV was receiving high viewing figures and so was Channels 4 and 5 and the BBC.

And the Government is advocating a digital switchover! Why? Currently, all the terrestrial channels are bemoaning that they are losing out on viewership and revenue. I bet it is digital TV that is doing a great deal towards this. If anything, it should be a cull of digital TV channels. Cut them down from 200 to 20. That way, the digital channels will get more viewers, and revenue, in return. I guarantee it. I say, get rid of the channels, who get, at peak time, a regular audience of less than 1,000 and that is how you solve it.
Plus, it is greed for the digital TV providers.

Is anyone else not watching this digital switchover and disgraced by the lack of quality programming or am I in the minority?

There are a few problems to your argument:

1) No-one can force a cull of digital TV channels - it is the decision of the broadcasters to how many channels there are.

2) There are much more than 200 digital channels in the UK.

3) I'm sure that if you did cut all of these channels, many people will have a channel, maybe two, three of more, that they miss.

4) It would be anti-competitive to cull 90% of the digital channels - why should the Big Five be given priority? Plus, companies like Sky, Virgin Media, etc. can broadcast whatever they like (as long as it is legal). As far as the broadcasters are concerned, as long as they get paid for the EPG slot, they don't really care that much about quality (especially if it is the 700+ range - for Sky). Lower down in the EPG, quality my be a concern.

5) The "loss of quality" may be just down to a change in culture - more viewers, for example, would tune into X-Factor than, say, a drama. If a channel had to pick between a program with 10 million viewers at peak or one at a million, I'm pretty sure the 10 million viewer option would be the most attractive.

Sky debuted in 1982 actually, not 1989. Broadcasting to Europe in 1982 initially, it only became what we know now as Sky because it merged with British Satellite Broadcasting as both Sky and BSB were losing money hand-over-fist in the late 1980s and a merger/takeover by Sky was realistically the only way to save both businesses, hence why the company trades as BSkyB.

Sky is a commercial outlet, not a charity.
Anyway there's no obligation to have Sky like there's no obligation to pay £120 a year to the BBC.



Terrestrial channel viewing shares have been on the decline for years due to increasing competition, increasing other means of passing time and what not.
The radio has been around far longer than the TV yet you find radio share down the years has remained relatively constant due to the simple fact you can listen to it anywhere. You can't watch TV and drive a car for example, nobody in their right mind would watch This Morning while driving up the M6, surely?

In any case healthy competition is a good thing, in any decent sector there will be a major player or two and lots of small counterparts that pick up trade on the failures (or not as the case may be) of the big players. Like the local computer shops. Most areas have easy access to PC World for example and a whole host of smaller computer shops. Again in car repair, you've got your Ford garages, your Vauxhall garages and what not, and the independent garages. In TV land you've got the BBC, ITV as the main players and the digital channels as the smaller outlets albeit backed by big companies who'd give their right arm to get a Freeview slot never mind a terrestrial slot.

As to nobody watches Wine TV, the Baby Channel or Horse & Country, the simple fact of the matter is if nobody watches, the channels don't get advertisement bookings, show no adverts, therefore go bankrupt. Realistically you don't go into TV broadcasting to lose money so these channels are obviously attracting revenue to make it worth their while. Anyway when was the last time you saw any proper Wine, Baby or Horse & Country related programming on any mainstream channel? Lifestyle shows don't count, neither does programming like Supernanny or the show-jumping.



Then that's their problem and its up to them to attract viewers back with better programming, schedules and advertising. Writing whining letters to every Ofcom review going claiming you have no money and want a slice of the licence fee won't win many favours with the viewing public. The low viewing figures are part of the reason why channels launched BBC Three and E4 - to shore up the overall share that they get in the market so they can say we were watched on average by 33% of the viewing population - including 0.3% from the CBeebies channel. Higher viewing share should mean more reach should mean more advert slots being sold which should mean more money.

By the time we have digital switchover, the main five channels will be nothing more than faces in the crowd. Whether they'll even have exclusive access to the top of the EPGs or PSB requirements remains to be seen.



Ofcom has no right to revoke a TV licence for the simple reason there's too many channels. As previously explained the market will sort itself out, those attracting no viewers and no advertising revenue will close on their own. Anyway not all channels broadcast at peak-time and there are more than 200 channels. You cannot guarantee chopping 90% of the channels will increase the remainder's viewer ship, bearing in mind you can watch TV programmes legally and illegally on-line these days anyway.

I long for the days when television had a wonderful balance of authority, bedazzlement and cosiness about it.

I think part of the problem on the terrestriel channels is the lack of any defined originality and " new seasons ". At least in days of yore when it got to the first week of September BBC One and ITV(1) were crammed full of new series. Now there doesn't seem to be any real overall " plan ". I think the stripping of programmes ( soaps / The One Show etc ) and drama series that are basically soaps with a four week break ( Casualty / Holby ) are clogging up the schedules on these channels.

There is a complete lack of family-orientated sitcoms and primetime quizzes that don't involve some form of elimination or twist.

BBC Four now shows programmes that BBC Two would once have shown.

Although Channel 4 has changed, I think there is at least some varied and interesting programmes.

If you like Big Brother.

Yeh. That's the change although there can't be long to go on that one ( hopefully! ) But at least it's balanced out with documentary strands / current affairs of different sorts. There's nothing wrong with a soap in the schedule such as Hollyoaks, it's when there's endless soaps.

Fair enough. I'm glad to see the back of BB and BBLB.

On the soap thing, one soap is fair enough, but two (three if you include The Bill, which I don't) soaps, pretty much every day is just plain annoying.

Yes, I'm looking at you , ITV

To a degree that is true - though The One Show is pretty similar to the old Nationwide - but instead of 20/20/20 we now have nearer 30/30/30. (National/Regional/Topical)

As for long running drama series replacing shorter-run serials - that is a matter of economics. It is cheaper to make fewer longer running series than more shorter running strands - the BBC have said as much in public...



Yep - though the Beeb still tries a few early-evening sit coms (My Family etc.) - ITV seem to have given up on sit com entirely.

I agree about quizzes - there are very few (other than Countdown, University Challenge and Mastermind - all ancient formats) that aren't based around elimination, gambling or money...



Yep - and I enjoy a lot of the shows on BBC Four. Would they have a home on BBC Two if BBC Four didn't exist? I often wonder.

BBC Four seems to be the only place for decent Science documentaries these days - Horizon is now essentially a joke, and other programmes like QED, Tomorrow's World, Antenna, Equinoxe etc. have all bitten the dust...

Big Brother is back in January (for the celebrity version) so its not that long that its off air But having said that without Big Brother, Channel 4 would have even more imports and repeats so for most its a bad thing that leads to good things.

The irony about television is that its the viewers that complain about the state of television, yet its the viewers that choose to watch X Factor over a documentary. As long as trashy and cheap TV is still profitable (and lets face it, its the strongest type of programming on atm) then the longer it will be here to stay. Advertisers would rather buy slots during X Factor which has that all important 16-34 demographic over a drama that has less than 3m viewers. People often forget that TV companies are businesses and set out to make maximum profit, not please individuals who long for the TV golden days. People just aren't as interested in TV anymore. Times change. Time to let go of the past.

Long running series may be cheaper to make, but the BBC could maybe make one not in a hospital...

Yep - how about one based in a Police Station?