When ratings don’t define success

 the renewal of a series has been supplemented by other factors, including networks’ ability to
sell the shows to overseas and streaming platforms.
 only the most popular shows, which drive the most ad sales, are allowed to survive — is now
deeply influenced by other variables, leading some shows to stay on the air for years on end
with very few viewers.
 the longevity of these little-seen shows affords them more time to find viewers and a creative
footing.
 it leads to the blocking of fresher ideas and deepens consumer fatigue with broadcast networks,
already lacking cachet in the streaming age.
 factors. Broadcast shows overall draw lower numbers in this age, as the generational drift away
from broadcast TV to cable and services such as Netflix and Hulu has greatly reduced network
viewership.
 For many directors, that ratings ceiling has led executives to wonder why they’re spending
millions launching new shows whose numbers might only match ones already on the air.
Broadcasters also have to compete with more outlets to find quality new shows in the first
place.
 They remain on the air, however, because networks are looking beyond advertisers to make
their money. The market for licensing series after they air — particularly overseas but also on
streamers and other platforms — is booming, so many networks keep a show afloat even if
traditional ratings are weak.
 Such a long leash means an opportunity for new work to take chances without fear of a quick
cancellation,
 that the never-ending series means fewer slots for their more original shows.
 While it’s impossible to know why a given show doesn’t make the cut, the trend to longevity has
appeared to edge out some bolder ideas.
 “The cultural consequence here that with all these ‘NCIS’ and ‘Law & Orders’ hanging on, you’re
left to wonder about the innovation that could be happening instead,”
 “Broadcast is not where a lot of young viewers want to be, and I think some of these [older]
shows are the reason why,”
 “But I think that’s not the right way to look at it. I look at TV less as a place of discovery as a
continuation. It’s a place you can keep coming back to the characters you love.”
 In the current climate, networks can also have a harder time pulling the plug because it’s more
likely they’ll hear from fans when they do.
 But audiences mounted a social-media campaign, giving producer Sony Pictures Television
leverage to negotiate a deal with NBC for a stand-alone movie later this year.
 TV insiders say that even long-toothed series won’t go on forever. Network executives will be
replaced. There is pressure for more profit. A low-performing show, even one in the black, could
get unseated. “Older shows will finally get canceled,” Strong said. Until, he noted, they’re
rebooted.
It has been customary for a long time that ratings do define success when it comes to the broadcast
landscape. Ratings serves as a form of feedback from audiences for networks to know whether a certain
production can make them money. But as Steven Zeitchik discussed in his article When Ratings Don’t
Define Success (2018) in the Washington Post the ratings convention is changing together with the game
plan of big networks to make money out of their productions. With the advancement in technology, the
Television Landscape diminished in viewership especially with more and more streaming platforms are
emerging. Big networks are also releasing their own to cope with the public demand. As Zeitchik said the
longevity of shows is not only decided by ratings but is now influenced by different factors. Creating new
shows became a gamble especially with the ratings ceiling as Zeitchik said, spending money on new
shows if they are just going to match the ratings of currently on-air shows. In my opinion that would
affect the content we would consume for as shows continue to be on air there would be less space for
new and creative ideas to be put out. Though audience feedbacks could be voiced easier nowadays with
many platforms readily available to do so, I fear that big networks would still prioritize how they could
save and make money over innovative and creative outputs. But even do so I still believe that audiences
have the power to demand fresh and quality contents from network conglomerates for we can see that
the political economic pressures in this field shape and mold creativity, it’s just a matter of balancing it
all out.

the enjoyment of what is commonly regarded as entertainment is based on people’s utopian

sensibilities,

‘in relation to the complex of meanings in the socio-cultural situation in which they are produced’

popular media representations responded to a real need for happiness with fictitious happiness and that
radio and TV presentations give the illusion of simultaneity, truth and participation.

In Pleasure and Meaningful Discourse (2000) Klaus and O’Connor argued that media forms acquire their
purpose in the environment in which they are produced. What is enjoyed by people is based on their
own sense of what is ideal. For me that creates an indefinite uncertainty on how we can give the
audience we have what they need and want. We all have different perspectives on what our ideal
entertainment is for we are all unique. It challenges content creators to produce products that would
cater to large audiences. It is also another challenge identifying whether the content the audience want
is a content that they need and what they need is what they want. Content creators capitalize on
products that “sells” over the quality of the products being sold. Audiences suffer by reducing exposure
to materials that they need by only giving them materials that makes them happy for a while. I think it
all comes down to purpose when conceptualizing a certain production, what is the purpose of creating
this content, to inform? To educate? To entertain? To make money? For me it is not linear or isolating,
contents can be made for multiple purposes, it’s just a matter of balance.