GSN Scheduling: Pros and Cons

[Jim]

There are two sides to every argument.  I can make either GSN's side or the game show fans' argument and rebut either.  Do any of you agree with any of these points:

1.) ONE SIDE: Sony operates GSN to make money.  They can do whatever they want to with it.  If they think cutting BWO back to one hour works, that's OK
     JIM SAYS: I agree GSN needs to make money.  However, is there really a big ratings drop between the 3:30 a.m. running of Whammy and the 4:00 episode of TTTT?  If so, then cut BWO back.  If not, how about a 3 - 5 BWO?  I can see running infomercials from 5 - 6 because some people are getting up and might bump into an infomercial product they like.  But, hey, don't they run commercials on BWO?  Us B&W fans buy locking pasta pots too.

2.) ONE SIDE: GSN owes you nothing.  You should be greatful they air any B&W programming at all.
     JIM SAYS: Of course I am greatful for any B&W programming.  I would be more pleased, however, with more classic programming.  I will be less greatful to them for less classic stuff.  Gratefulness correlates directly with the amount of time I devote to watching their network.  I do not believe GSN is bending over backwards putting special stuff on in the wee hours of the morning any more than I am bending over backwards giving them my viewing time as opposed to soliciting CNN, Trio, or FX.  If GSN believes they can attract more eyeballs to their station by foregoing B&W stuff, fine.  So far, however, the crowds are not flocking to Wintuition or Funny Money.  I don't even think Friend or Foe is appointment TV for most.  GSN does owe its classic fans something, I believe, because we are probably the only ones who ever discuss the game show channel in ordinary conversation with other people.  References slip out or conversations are overheard referencing GSN.  They should throw us a bone for this loyalty.  I doubt the average Bergeron HS viewer really has any fondness for the network or promotes it with others.  If they can't get Bergeron on GSN, they are just as happy to flip to Mr. Ed reruns.

3.) ONE SIDE: Speaking of Mr. Ed, doesn't GSN have a special obligation to air \"different / rare\" programming you can't get anywhere else?
    JIM SAYS: Remember when TV Land started?  They ranted about bringing the history of television and long forgotten programs to air.  They flashed opening marquees for shows like \"December Bride\", \"Molly Goldberg\", and \"Medical Center\".  Those rarer shows never came.  A few oddities lasted a while.  Pretty soon, it was back to reruns of crap your local independent channel wouldn't touch.  (When I was little, WUAB channel 43 was considered a cesspool for showing junk like Gilligan, Andy Griffith, or Lost In Space.  And, WKBF channel 61 was even worse airing stuff not even in color like Perry Mason, Dick Van Dyke and I Love Lucy - \"Who wants to see that old stuff\"?  Now, one is expected to pay to watch these \"evergreens\".)  We haven't come far.    
     Remember how The Arts Channel was going to make tv a better place?  It ain't gonna happen because it pays for these folks to program to the masses rather than to the entertainment historian.  It sucks, but we are stuck with it.  That said, since GSN isn't exactly reaching top ten status, it wouldn't kill them to turn a little bit more over to the classic stuff and maybe build a little enthusiasm from somebody with a quirky mix of programming.  Reruns of Russian Roulette and Chuck Woolery wandering around a grocery store haven't worked - try a different strategy.

[Tim L]

Mostly good thoughts Jim..things to think about..I find it useless to complain much about GSN (Not that you were doing that) There is a network, Goodlife TV that still shows Warner Brothers Private Eye shows and westerns (77 Sunset Strip, Maverick, etc.)..but now are also showing Highway to Heaven, Molly Dodd, Homefront and Welcome Back Kotter..They are slowly moving into newer shows..I still hope that GSN has an ultimate plan even in the Hour B&W Overnight that we dont know about yet..
BTW you must be from the Cleveland Area..I remember the old WUAB 43 (Pre-UPN) and WKBF the original Channel 61  They had a lot of neat programming in the early-mid 70's..Dealer's Choice was on WKBF if recall.

Tim Lones
Canton, Ohio

[Don Howard]

Now you've gone and given me a longing for the good old days of the Prize Movie. Remember: \"Is that the tree?\".

[Matt Ottinger]

Seems to me this message is only arguing one point of view.  You're basically giving the briefest of acknowledgements to the reality of GSN's situation, then arguing vigorously that they should open up their valuts more anyway.  And your points, like so many others in these threads, are not based on logic, they're based on emotion and personal preference.

In other words, you're basically *starting* with the assertion that GSN *should* run more classic programming, and then working backward from that to prove it.  That's not arguing both sides.

Also, a first-year debate student would tear most of your arguments to pieces.  You make unsupportable statements (\"I doubt the average Bergeron HS viewer really has any fondness for the network or promotes it with others\"), you use unanswerable, rhetorical questions (\"how about a 3 - 5 BWO?\") and best of all, you use examples that prove the opposite point!  You described your old rerun-heavy independent stations as \"cesspools\" and asked \"Who wants to see that old stuff?\"  But without any explanation, you turn around and say that in GSN's case, \"it wouldn't kill them to turn a little bit more over to the classic stuff.\"

I've yet to see any convincing argument from anybody why it would be GOOD for GSN to run more classic programming.  The best I'm seeing is, \"As long as the ratings aren't very good anyway, why not?\" and variations on how they \"owe\" it to their hardcore fans.  GSN has reams of data telling them exactly who and how many are watching their shows.  If that data told them more people were watching The Joker's Wild or Peter Marshall's Squares when they were on the FIRST time -- or at least ENOUGH people were watching to make it worth their economic while -- they'd still be on NOW!   That's how it works!

[Tim L]

As much as I would like to say GSN owes classic Game Show fans anything..Truth is, they don't. I am glad they still give us an hour of B&W Overnight come November..I am a fan of the Classics . Some of the originals are better than others..Point is GSN will do what it takes to make a buck..and no whining or complaining is going to make things different.  As Matt said, they know who watches what.  I am concerned about the Video Game Block but like anything else. if it fails it will be gone in a heartbeat..Just wait and see what happens..

Tim Lones

[Jim]

Matt,
(I hate to respond in a negative tone to someone who has provided so much entertainment with great Bill Cullen web pages I have enjoyed viewing, but let me just say...)

1.) I guess those reams of data indicate, then, that the 4 o'clock airing of TTTT shows tremendous dropoff from the 3:30 airing of Whammy.  I would be surprised, but it's possible.
2.) Those reams of data must also indicate that, at 3:00, there is strong demand from GSN viewers for a rerun of an original.  I just don't hear that clamor anywhere.
3.) While they don't owe us anything necessarily, I would think something could be done by them to keep the most loyal viewers they have.  They aren't that powerful yet that they can rely on non-game show fans to tune on a whim.  
4.) The rerun cesspool programs, in GSN's case, would be stuff like $100,000 Pyramid, repeats of originals, and Family Feud episodes they have already run when there are other seasons they haven't shown.  You can only watch the reruns of LMAD so many times before you just don't want to see it.  The \"classics\" I was referring to in game show terms would be rarer stuff.  My equivalant of \"Molly\" and \"December Bride\" would be the G-T vault and B&E stuff.  The answer, if viewership is off 40%, isn't to ram the same reruns of the originals which brought the low ratings to start.
5.) Making arguments on emotion can be sometimes be effective.  I doubt most people supporting Wesley Clark have read up on his background and position papers extensively.  They simply FEEL he can beat Bush and that's all they need to mob him in appearances.    
6.) As to the Bergeron HS argument, I believe that, if that is the only game show you watch or care about, you are probably not much of a game show fan.  You like HS because it's \"da bomb\" (after all, it's got Whoopi on it! - er, it used to) and it has lots of celebrities you read about in People Magazine.  You are probably not someone who would watch a whole lot of GSN programming.  GSN has, to date, been relatively unsuccessful in going after people like this.  It may be time to realize that game show programming is a small niche and you won't expand it by putting junk like DJ Games, Love Connection, or Funny Money on.
  __________________________________________
As to the Cleveland programming:
1.) Dealer's Choice was part of the hour of \"Prizes and Surprizes\" paired with What's My Line.
2.) I even remember the Prize Movie prize clip everyone thouht was \"Wake of the Red Witch\".  I still have to see that movie some time.

[clemon79]

[quote name=\'Jim\' date=\'Sep 20 2003, 10:48 AM\'] They aren't that powerful yet that they can rely on non-game show fans to tune on a whim.  
 [/quote]
 ...and we have NEVER been powerful enough (in terms of significant numbers) to be able to dictate ANY programming decisions to GSN.

Making arguments on emotion can be sometimes be effective.

Not here.

[SplitSecond]

Let's try a little experiment here.  Here are two questions.  Everyone answer them honestly.

1) Are you part of a Nielsen family?
2) If yes, show would you like to see on the Game Show Network schedule and in what time slot?  Also, do you prefer stacks of $50's or are smaller bills more convenient for you?

[Matt Ottinger]

1.) I guess those reams of data indicate, then, that the 4 o'clock airing of TTTT shows tremendous dropoff from the 3:30 airing of Whammy. I would be surprised, but it's possible.
2.) Those reams of data must also indicate that, at 3:00, there is strong demand from GSN viewers for a rerun of an original. I just don't hear that clamor anywhere.

\"Tremendous\" and \"strong demand\" are your choice of words, an over-exaggeration because you think it helps make your point.  Obviously at that time of night, viewership is negligible regardless of what they air.  

Still, what it sounds like you're saying is that a classic TTTT would get a better rating than a rerun of Whammy, and that something -- ANYTHING -- from the G-T or B&E vault would attract more viewers than a rerun of an original.  That's an assumption you're making based on your personal preferences.  (Mine too, by the way.)  What I'm saying is you're probably wrong.  They probably get more eyeballs with something that looks newer than they do with something that looks like it obviously came out of the seventies or eighties, even in the middle of the night.  

At the very least, you seem to say that since viewership is small anyway, why not air a classic instead?  And I'm saying that I have yet to see any logical reason put forward on this forum as to why they SHOULD air a classic.  The \"throw us a bone\" argument is all well and good -- and in a different thread, I described my own idea of what that bone could be -- but I could also make the case that the Overnight shows ARE the bone they're throwing us.  When they read this forum and see how many of us find ways to even trash THAT, it's pretty easy to imagine them not being all that keen on throwing us any more bones.

Thing is, GSN is in a much better position to actually know what the numbers are than you or I can possibly be, and if they thought they could succeed by airing more classics, that's what they would be doing.   It would be a LOT cheaper, and trust me, these people are fans of the classics just like we are.   I'm convinced that's the ONLY reason we get B&WO at all.

[PeterMarshallFan]

[quote name=\'Matt Ottinger\' date=\'Sep 20 2003, 12:11 PM\'] If that data told them more people were watching The Joker's Wild [/quote]
Feast of Favorites, number 2......The Joker's Wild. Beat everything except MG. I guess somebody was watching.

or Peter Marshall's Squares when they were on the FIRST time

Excuse me if I'm wrong, but didn't it get pretty good ratings the first time?

I've yet to see any convincing argument from anybody why it would be GOOD for GSN to run more classic programming.

Let me try.....

GSN gets better indvidual half-hour ratings with originals. This is fact. But, if the originals are overkilled to the point where people are sick of watching them and turn channels, that's not good, is it? There is no reason there can't be a schedule that appeals to those who'd rather watch Ward TTTT over Cram AND those who'd rather watch Cram over TTTT. If the schedule had something for everybody, and it's certainly possible, wouldn't that mean BETTER ratings? It would get the diehards AND the desired demos, which combined equals more people watching the channel than just the desired demos alone.

[Matt Ottinger]

Feast of Favorites, number 2......The Joker's Wild. Beat everything except MG. I guess somebody was watching.

Nope.  It means that some very big fans were *voting* in a spectacularly unscientific poll.  The fact that you so easily confuse the two is one of my points.

There is no reason there can't be a schedule that appeals to those who'd rather watch Ward TTTT over Cram AND those who'd rather watch Cram over TTTT.

Yes there is.  If there are hundreds of thousands of people who watch Cram, and only a few hundred who watch Robin Ward's TTTT, then there are gigantic reasons why the schedule should have one and not the other.   That's how every network on the air works.  

The analogy would be \"there's no reason there can't be an ESPN schedule that has NFL Football, Major League Baseball AND the National Tiddlywinks Championship.\"  A tiddlywinks fan can make a passionate argument that it can't hurt ESPN to \"throw them a bone\", but if it's not economically viable to do, ESPN won't do it.

The fact that GSN doesn't make enough episodes of their originals is definitely a problem, but a separate issue.  If more people would watch a rerun of Cram than a rerun of TTTT, it doesn't matter anyway.  GSN has no pressing need to cater to the diehard fans, since chances are they're going to keep watching anyway!

I keep coming back to this main point:  The people who run GSN are game show fans.  Specifically, fans of the classic shows.  They love 'em, they watch 'em, they have VHS collections of them that would make the rest of you drool.  They have every reason in the world to run the classic shows if it was just a matter of personal preference.  The fact that they don't tells me that it's just not viable for them anymore.

[whampyl03]

Nope. It means that some very big fans were *voting* in a spectacularly unscientific poll. The fact that you so easily confuse the two is one of my points.

Matt, Matt, Matt...  It just wasn't only us game show super-fans that voted in the FOF.  Don't you think that some people other than us may want to see TJW on the GSN lineup and maybe that's why they voted for it.  Unless there were only about 1000 people voting in that poll, or it was heavilly populated with votes from the game show super-fan community, I say the demand is high enough to make some room for at the VERY least TJW (And maybe even TTD).

But that could just be me.

[clemon79]

[quote name=\'whampyl03\' date=\'Sep 21 2003, 04:14 PM\'] But that could just be me. [/quote]
 Rest assured, it's just you. The point Matt is trying to make is that Cronin and Boden are made out here like they are trying to screw us, when in fact there is absolutely no financial or other benefit  from doing that.

If there was money to be made by running Joker or Tic Tac D'oh, they would be doing so.

Since they are not, you may safely assume there is not money to be made by doing so.

Running a TV cable network is a business. Businesses are about making money. No amount of whining is going to change that.

[Matt Ottinger]

Matt, Matt, Matt...

Oh, yeah, this is what I need tonight.  A fifteen-year-old being condescending to ME.

Unless there were only about 1000 people voting in that poll, or it was heavilly populated with votes from the game show super-fan community

Actually, that's more or less what I AM saying.  OK, it was probably more than a thousand, but it was a tiny percentage of the total number of people who watch GSN, and naturally, serious fans are going to be a lot more likely to take part in such a poll.   So the sample is more heavily weighted to what the serious fans want, even though there aren't enough of us to make a difference as far as the ratings are concerned.  

This is obvious stuff.  To grownups.

[PeterMarshallFan]

[quote name=\'Matt Ottinger\' date=\'Sep 21 2003, 08:18 PM\'] So the sample is more heavily weighted to what the serious fans want, even though there aren't enough of us to make a difference as far as the ratings are concerned.  

 [/quote]
 I'm inclined to ask how FoF? and 1st season rehashes of Whammy got in there if it was weighted to what the serious fans wanted, but I won't......

The point Matt is trying to make is that Cronin and Boden are made out here like they are trying to screw us,

I got no problem with Boden. I don't like Cronin [or Belinkoff, for that matter] though. It's just me.