4 ms·

Basically the studios realized that catering to older audiences was not a good long-term strategy.

by cdot2 5y ago

_hyn3 5y ago
> Basically the studios realized that catering to older audiences was not a good long-term strategy. Or perhaps believed instead of realized, but that conclusion was not necessarily borne out in the data. Fox News' later success (absolutely dominating cable news both in the demo and out, more or less since its inception) seems to demonstrate that the demise of all of these shows at the same time left a vacuum for a certain type of programming that probably still persists to this day.
- akiselev 5y ago
  Which would make sense if there's an X:1 ratio of younger to older audiences - probably relative to future potential disposable income rather than size - and the two groups prefer vastly different content from each other. The former group is large enough to support several large competitors but competing over the latter might have been a losing proposition for the major networks since none of them could get enough critical mass to turn a profit off that market. For example, take major brands like Pepsi, Coca Cola, GM, and Ford that have tons of money to throw at everyone and a niche company like Lear Capital that sells gold and silver. Some content draws enough big advertisers to fill up 100% of the ad slots while running up the price but if Pepsi/Coca-Cola/GM do not think running ads during "Little House on the Prairie" is worth the marginal benefit, that leaves Ford and Lear Capital to make the show profitable. Before Fox cornered their market, Lear Capital might not reach enough eyeballs in their target demographic to be able to buy enough ads on "Little House on the Praire" to make the show profitable because its in the same time slot as "Antiques Roadshow". Obviously Ford won't pick up the rest of the tab for one show so the major networks end up dropping the older audiences' shows one by one when there isn't enough advertiser demand. All the while, bidding up the cost of ads on popular shows depletes the big brands' ad budgets even further. Then, Fox comes along, and since most of the big brands need to push brand awareness their TV ad budgets grow (it's a new major network!). They buy their usual ads and all of those niche players who wanted to advertise to that demographic on TV but couldn't because it was spread too thin can come together on a major network that caters just to their needs.
drewcoo 5y ago
The advertisers that paid for TV shows saw teenagers as a largely untapped market with a lot of disposable income.
- mywittyname 5y ago
  They weren't wrong. The Baby Boomers were the first modern generation to enjoy economic determination at such a young age.

Basically the studios realized that catering to older audiences was not a good long-term strategy.

by cdot2 5y ago

Basically the studios realized that catering to older audiences was not a good long-term strategy.

> Basically the studios realized that catering to older audiences was not a good long-term strategy. Or perhaps believed instead of realized, but that conclusion was not necessarily borne out in the data. Fox News' later success (absolutely dominating cable news both in the demo and out, more or less since its inception) seems to demonstrate that the demise of all of these shows at the same time left a vacuum for a certain type of programming that probably still persists to this day.

akiselev 5y ago
Which would make sense if there's an X:1 ratio of younger to older audiences - probably relative to future potential disposable income rather than size - and the two groups prefer vastly different content from each other. The former group is large enough to support several large competitors but competing over the latter might have been a losing proposition for the major networks since none of them could get enough critical mass to turn a profit off that market. For example, take major brands like Pepsi, Coca Cola, GM, and Ford that have tons of money to throw at everyone and a niche company like Lear Capital that sells gold and silver. Some content draws enough big advertisers to fill up 100% of the ad slots while running up the price but if Pepsi/Coca-Cola/GM do not think running ads during "Little House on the Prairie" is worth the marginal benefit, that leaves Ford and Lear Capital to make the show profitable. Before Fox cornered their market, Lear Capital might not reach enough eyeballs in their target demographic to be able to buy enough ads on "Little House on the Praire" to make the show profitable because its in the same time slot as "Antiques Roadshow". Obviously Ford won't pick up the rest of the tab for one show so the major networks end up dropping the older audiences' shows one by one when there isn't enough advertiser demand. All the while, bidding up the cost of ads on popular shows depletes the big brands' ad budgets even further. Then, Fox comes along, and since most of the big brands need to push brand awareness their TV ad budgets grow (it's a new major network!). They buy their usual ads and all of those niche players who wanted to advertise to that demographic on TV but couldn't because it was spread too thin can come together on a major network that caters just to their needs.

drewcoo 5y ago

The advertisers that paid for TV shows saw teenagers as a largely untapped market with a lot of disposable income.

mywittyname 5y ago
They weren't wrong. The Baby Boomers were the first modern generation to enjoy economic determination at such a young age.