GSN's new sked starting June 14th......

[CaseyAbell]

"No need for ratings because there would be no ads." Um, how would this network be run, as a public service by GSN? Why would they spend a dime on it for rights fees and other operating costs? There are a lot more cost-effective ways to advertise the parent network. How would you force cable operators to carry GSN2? Threaten to pull GSN? That would really put the fear of God into the operators. Most of them think GSN is a dinky niche offering for the retirement home audience. You're gonna sell them on a network built around Whew reruns?

Sorry, I just don't see the feasibility of this operation in the current marketplace. When channels are as cheap and unlimited as web pages, then I can see the possibility. But we're not close to that.

GSN has been muttering about a new interactive gameplay channel. Frankly, I think that's a long shot for success. But I don't see how a 24/7 schedule of really obscure and really old game shows (or 12/7 allowing for the infomercials that would be necessary to keep the thing afloat) could possibly succeed. And if you tried less obscure game shows...well, you've got a duplicate of GSN.

[tyshaun1]

[quote name=\'Jimmy Owen\' date=\'May 14 2004, 09:52 AM\'] Some of you here may not be able to remember the old USA game show block, but they used to take virtually any available game show that originally ran 20 weeks or longer and run it for several cycles and they had a 10 year game show block.  Sometimes, if you put a show on, people will watch. [/quote]
 Actually I disagree with that rationale a bit. Most of the shows that kept USA's block going were pretty successful in the original runs (PYL, 3 years on CBS, 8 years on USA, Pyramid, 5 1/2 on CBS, 7 on USA, Scrabble, 6 years on NBC, 4 years on USA). Most of the shorter run series also had short runs on USA in comparison as well (Wipeout, 2 years on USA, 1 in synd., High Rollers '87 2 years on USA, 1 in synd.) So to say the short run series held up USA's block is pretty much inaccurate. Although if it wasn't for USA's game block, there probably wouldn't be a GSN at all.........

Tyshaun

[tvwxman]

[quote name=\'tyshaun1\' date=\'May 14 2004, 10:03 AM\'] Although if it wasn't for USA's game block, there probably wouldn't be a GSN at all.........

Tyshaun [/quote]
Congratulations on the dumbest post of the week!

USA's block of games were a low cost way to fill a large chunk of programming. Period. It's ratings , it's cost, it's viewers, it's color scheme had NOTHING to do with GSN.

[tyshaun1]

[quote name=\'tvwxman\' date=\'May 14 2004, 10:22 AM\'] [quote name=\'tyshaun1\' date=\'May 14 2004, 10:03 AM\'] Although if it wasn't for USA's game block, there probably wouldn't be a GSN at all.........

Tyshaun [/quote]
Congratulations on the dumbest post of the week!

USA's block of games were a low cost way to fill a large chunk of programming. Period. It's ratings , it's cost, it's viewers, it's color scheme had NOTHING to do with GSN. [/quote]
 You're missing the point. USA's game block proved that you could run repeats of game shows and still draw a sizable audience. If you were to go back and look at some articles from Broadcasting magazine from early '94, Pat Robinson's company and Sony both mention this when they were both trying to start their game show networks. So before you call someone's post "dumb", why don't you go check your facts first?  

Tyshaun

[Big Brain]

[quote name=\'tvwxman\' date=\'May 14 2004, 10:22 AM\']
Congratulations on the dumbest post of the week!

USA's block of games were a low cost way to fill a large chunk of programming. Period. It's ratings , it's cost, it's viewers, it's color scheme had NOTHING to do with GSN.[/quote]
Matt,

So long as tmq800 and GSWitch (among others) continue to amaze us with their nuggets of wisdom, there is no one else deserving of the dumbest post of the week moniker.  Personally, I think both USA and Pat Robertson proved that there was a market for "re-purposing" game shows and I think that certainly helped GSN get off the ground.  I wonder how many other first-graders in the early-80's rushed home after school to watch Blockbusters on CBN....

[Matt Ottinger]

[quote name=\'CaseyAbell\' date=\'May 14 2004, 11:02 AM\'] "No need for ratings because there would be no ads." Um, how would this network be run, as a public service by GSN? [/quote]
 The model that Jimmy's probably thinking of are the current video-only channels operated by Viacom, things like MTV2 and VH1 Classic.  Nick's GAS probably works similarly.  They're typically carried on digital platforms where channel space is easier to come by.  I'm a little confused at the business models of these channels myself.  My only guess is that they actually do squeeze a few pennies out of the carriers and those few pennies cover the minimal production costs.

But there are huge differences.  The biggest is that for these video channels, the programming itself is either free, preposterously cheap or owned outright by the parent company.  Game shows can't be acquired for free, and one company doesn't own all the game shows you guys want to see.  So right away, that model isn't practical.

There are other issues, including the demographic appeal of a second channel when the "parent" channel is only marginal to begin with.  Another issue is that you probably need a super-colossal company backing you.  Sony is big, but Viacom is super-colossal.  So while the dream of a spin-off channel showing us obscure product (hey, Spin-Off!) is a lovely dream, it is only a dream.

[CaseyAbell]

There are other issues, including the demographic appeal of a second channel when the "parent" channel is only marginal to begin with.

No doubt that's the real problem. ESPN can sell its spinoffs to the system operators because it pulls decent numbers all the time and huge numbers (by cable standards) some of the time. So the parent network has some real leverage, as shown in the recent dispute over the fees ESPN was demanding. The operators really didn't want ESPN vanishing from their systems.

GSN has zero leverage. Cable operators aren't spending sleepless nights worrying that Match Game reruns will disappear from their schedules.

Having said that, some spinoff channels seem almost like vanity projects for the parents, and I'm pretty confused about their business models, too. But a shoestring operator like GSN can't afford vanity, or persuade its corporate parents to afford vanity. And I still don't understand how GSN2 could offer programming that would be remotely attractive in the current marketplace - unless they just dished out retreads of GSN's most popular offerings.

[mmb5]

[quote name=\'Matt Ottinger\' date=\'May 14 2004, 01:04 PM\'] The model that Jimmy's probably thinking of are the current video-only channels operated by Viacom, things like MTV2 and VH1 Classic.  Nick's GAS probably works similarly.  They're typically carried on digital platforms where channel space is easier to come by.  I'm a little confused at the business models of these channels myself.  My only guess is that they actually do squeeze a few pennies out of the carriers and those few pennies cover the minimal production costs.
 [/quote]
 Also from what I understand is that these are used somewhat as loss leaders.  Someone like Viacom gives them VH-1 Classic as something that's a throw-in when they go for a rate hike, and then can string them along even more during the next one when they really can't get rid of the channel, since it would be perceived by the consumer as a loss of something.  I believe the Encore channels worked the same way.

Matt's also right about the cost of the programming.  VH-1 Classic has two on-air personalties, runs only 8 hours of packaged programming a day (the block is repeated twice during the day) and pretty much only has to pay the residuals on the music, since the videos for the most part were either given to MTV Networks for free or have long been paid for.

There could someday be a valid business model for a GSN2, but that day is far, far in the future.  Now if just ESPN Classic would go back to showing old sports, rather than just shows about old sports.  But that's a discussion for another place.


--Mike

[gameshowguy2000]

And I guess this "Vegas Weddings" is a new reality show.

Boy, if this is GSN's way of turning away viewers, so be it.

[Brandon Brooks]

To Casey:

Have to admit I don't understand the GSN2 idea. What exactly would go on this channel, assuming a launch was economically feasible? Even after June 14 GSN is full of classics: LMAD, Feud, CS, Jeopardy, H2, Blockbusters, MG, PYL, WoF, LC, WL, Millionaire, NG, Greed, WML, Password, BtC.

I have to admit I am a classic game show fan.  So... yes, these should/could be featured on the fictional GSN2.  However, you forget that many of the shows you listed have multiple incarnations.  (And how do you determine Greed or Weakest Link to be classics, by the way?  In the history of television, these wouldn't even be considered blips.)

The new channel would either have to duplicate many of these shows, or haul out extreme rarities that might thrill the hardcores but get thoroughly negligible numbers with the great unwashed teevee audience. Seems to me that the new channel would either fold fast or become a clone of much of the current GSN sched.

No, it doesn't for the reason I stated above.  As for the potential ratings, I wholeheartedly agree; they'll be dismally low.  But how great you think Nick GAS' ratings are?

By the way, if you can't understand my "fascination" with a game show like Blackjack, you can't understand anybody's fascination with any game show. Terrific suspense, interesting gameplay, entertaining contestants, intelligent and funny hosts...do I really have to explain this?

Some current GSN programming in no way equals all.  You danced around the point he was trying to make.

Brandon Brooks

[tyshaun1]

Casey's definition of a "classic" seems to imply that he thinks ANY in-studio "traditional" game show should be called a classic, whether it'd be Friend or Foe, Greed, Weakest Link, Cram, what have you. Even though none of these shows made more than 100 episodes or would be remembered at all by the general public.

[melman1]

[quote name=\'tyshaun1\' date=\'May 15 2004, 10:16 AM\'] Casey's definition of a "classic" seems to imply that he thinks ANY in-studio "traditional" game show should be called a classic [/quote]
His definition changes over time, to include anything and everything in the past.  That way, anyone who finds fault with a new addition to the schedule can be labeled a "traditionalist" and their comments can be dismissed.

[CaseyAbell]

In fact, my cynical definition of a classic is any old game show not currently on GSN. But the shows I mentioned would probably be considered game show classics by anybody who wasn't trying to take a shot at somebody.

Sorry, folks, but I still don't understand what a GSN2 would program or how it could possibly get onto any significant number of systems. Everybody seems agreed that the channel would get ridiculous, unmeasurably low ratings if it programmed obscure old game shows.

So how does the channel ever get launched in the first place? "Mr. System Operator, we've got this channel that almost nobody will watch because it only has old game shows that almost nobody remembers. Will you give it carriage? No? Well then we're gonna pull GSN and all those Match Game reruns from your system!"

"Mr. System Operator, why are you laughing at me?"

So to get the channel going at all, you'd have to program better-known shows like Millionaire, Wheel, Jeopardy, etc.

Which means you'd have a clone of the current GSN. What's the point?

On a related topic (as they say in encyclopedias) I'm by no means fascinated by all of GSN's new programming. Fake-a-Date (mercifully gone), Spy TV and KvS all look real lame to me. I do think Blackjack is one of the very best originals GSN has produced, and I like Mole. So GSN has gone 2-for-5 on the new shows as far as I'm concerned. Not bad for baseball...but far from perfect.

What I don't understand is the tendency to lump all the new shows together and barf on them all. People should pick their barf targets more carefully.

[Pyramid80]

[quote name=\'CaseyAbell\' date=\'May 15 2004, 04:01 PM\'] Sorry, folks, but I still don't understand what a GSN2 would program or how it could possibly get onto any significant number of systems. Everybody seems agreed that the channel would get ridiculous, unmeasurably low ratings if it programmed obscure old game shows.

So how does the channel ever get launched in the first place? "Mr. System Operator, we've got this channel that almost nobody will watch because it only has old game shows that almost nobody remembers. Will you give it carriage? No? Well then we're gonna pull GSN and all those Match Game reruns from your system!" [/quote]
 We'll it worked in 1994, so I don't see why it wouldn't work today.

[Brandon Brooks]

In fact, my cynical definition of a classic is any old game show not currently on GSN. But the shows I mentioned would probably be considered game show classics by anybody who wasn't trying to take a shot at somebody.

That makes very little sense to me, so I can only assume you just threw some shows together and called them classics.  Fine.  

Sorry, folks, but I still don't understand what a GSN2 would program or how it could possibly get onto any significant number of systems. Everybody seems agreed that the channel would get ridiculous, unmeasurably low ratings if it programmed obscure old game shows.

Alright, you're becoming circular, and it's not that you don't understand, you don't want to.  I already answered this question with what I think is a viable answer. Whether you agree with the reasoning or not is your choice.  Again, networks such as Nick GAS, MTV2, VH-1 Hits, VH-1 Soul, Toon Disney, etc. are around and I can almost assure you that their ratings are not that good when compared to their parent channels.  While GSN2 is likely not to happen in the near future, the point is that it could, even if you don't understand how anyone could watch such a channel.

Brandon Brooks