I suspect we will never see network TV cross over into the "under 40 minute" barrier for an hour long show. There is still a supply/demand element to selling advertising space and there are market forces in play that would radically shift the profitability of a show.
There are several issues that haven't been discussed yet that I think impact the quality of network television we do see (i.e. "free" tv)
1) The Nielson system is still antiquated and imperfect. Lots of good shows AND bad shows go off the air based on incomplete and inaccurate and inconclusive data. The DVD and streaming television era has alleviated some of that issue, but ratings are still just a measure of a small sample of the total number of viewers out there. Maybe lots of people did watch Freaks And Geeks and Firefly and My So Called Life, but if they aren't Nielson families, it doesn't matter. Until the Nielson system is improved ( and there are ancillary privacy issues in play here) , I think you will continue to see puzzling choices regarding what stays on and what goes off the air.
2) Ad based sponsorship really lends itself to lobbying, which changes the dynamic of a show. If you piss off the wrong group, they will piss down the throats of sponsors, who will piss down the throats of the network heads, who will piss down the throats of show runners. There's a reason several seasons ago that Kiefer Sutherland basically had to do a PSA before a season of 24 to basically apologize that his show made brown people look to be terrorists. This was a product of intense lobbying by groups saying they would stop buying potato chips and laundry soap to sponsors if 24 didn't change.
It is impossible to make a three dimensional compelling character if you can't actually evenly write an African American, a homosexual, a female, a child, an elderly, a handicapped, a single mother or a Jewish TV character. This is why subscription based channels are so popular, you can write a story and produce a story and not have to worry about Tide or Clorox crawling down your throat. You just have to please your viewers, i.e. the subscribers. This will naturally lend itself to the top talent seeking to work for an HBO show versus a network TV show. Same for writers and producers.
3) There is a competing interest to reach a syndication mark versus maintaining the high quality production of a hit show over 22 episodes in a season.
Many network TV shows aren't making money off of the show, many are breaking even. Where many shows make money is in syndication and merchandising. Hasbro sold the rights to the Transformer movie for relatively little ( against market at the time) but they knew if the movie was popular ( which it was) then they could recoup on the back end from toys, sleeping bags, lunch boxes, DVDs, etc, etc ( which they did) The standard full season of a network TV show is 22 episodes. The general litmus of being syndication viable is about 75-88 episodes ( roughly 4 seasons) It is probably very difficult to script and produce a TV show that is close to movie quality ( most of the very good shows are) for 22 episodes and maintain high quality throughout. Cable shows generally run 10-13 episode seasons. The production values and degree of care is stronger because there is less overall material to focus on, filler can be cut out, essential functions are not farmed out to third and fourth units.
HBO is generally successful because
- They answer to their subscribers, not to corporations buying ad time who are trying to sell potato chips to a jilted 65 year old black lesbian Jew single mother in a wheelchair. Having to pander to lobbyists and sponsors is probably present, but not to the same degree as "free tv" All characters can be fleshed out as true three dimensional characters. If a character is crappy, he was written poorly on HBO, it's not because some panty hose company thinks women are portrayed poorly by the show.
- They run shorter seasons, i.e. 13 episodes, and can focus on one night of original programming ( i.e. Sunday nights) versus trying to fill in a whole week like major networks.
- The narrative structure does not have to account for commercial breaks. The added 15-20 minutes per episode allows for character development and rounding out B and C storylines/story arcs.
- They can attract and retain in house talent. HBO uses many of the same directors, actors and writers across all of their shows.
- If you pay for access, you are generally allow certain demographic data to be compiled that could not be done so with network TV
- If you can afford to pay for cable and/or premium channels, you are more likely to be part of the "sweet spot" demographic networks are looking for ( 20s-40s, above the median US income)
If the general public wants better overall network television, then we have to actually pay for it. Once we pay for it, networks are beholden to viewers first and not sponsors/corporations.
It's not just the commercials. It's also the influence exerted on a show based on who buys the commercial time and the demographic of likely customers to that specific product. '
Thoughts,
Gekko
PS Reality shows get a bad rap. Some suck, some don't. Shows like Amazing Race or Survivor or American Idol or Extreme Makeover Home Edition are very family oriented shows. The reality is lots of SSF members probably fit into a small range of demographics. That's just being fair. There are more demographics out there to cater to than ours. I enjoy watching Jack Bauer shoot brown people and Tony Soprano nail strippers in his truck, but not all the time. And those aren't shows that translate easily to family type of programming. Wiping out reality shows, given the struggles and issues with scripted shows, isn't going to make TV better, it's going to mean more scripted shows, most of which seem to piss some people off here and many of which lots of people here hate. It's not like wiping out Amazing Race means the next X Files gets a chance. Odds are the next three versions of Joey or Manimal will show up.
)
