So inspiration struck quicker than I expected it to. I certainly wasn't expecting to post again this quickly, but then yesterday's introductory post was so completely content free that I suppose it's only natural that I would probably still want to express a real idea.
The question I've been pondering came to me after I wrote the section of yesterday's post where I discussed naming this blog. As I said there the name was inspired the British Television show QI: Quite Interesting. This led me to wonder, why is British television seems better than North American television. The answer that suggested itself to me on reflection is that it probably isn't. Never having lived in Britain, I can't exactly say that on average British television is better. A few examples do manage to hop the Atlantic and become fairly well known here in North America but obviously only really good shows actually manage this. I bet there's tons of absolute crap on British television, and there are quite a few excellent shows here in North America too. To be honest I'm not exactly the best person to be evaluating it, I don't watch much TV. This isn't some pretentious hipster thing, like I think television is beneath me. It's just that I simply can't afford to pay for cable. The only channels I get are those that can be picked up with the bunny ears antennae, namely the CBC and a few local French stations. Nevertheless there does seem to be something of a trend. There have been a number of BBC shows that seem frankly too cerebral to ever really get picked up by an American network. There probably is a lot of confirmation bias here. I'm exaggerating examples that prove my point, while ignoring the American shows that counter it, but I think there might be something else at play too. The key though, is that it's not British television that's better, the shows I'm thinking of are all BBC shows. I think the problem is, American television companies are unwilling to take risks on shows that don't fit a formula that is proven to work. Part of the reason for this is that television seasons on the BBC are much shorter, and so it's less of an investment sunk if the show flops. But it's also that the BBC, being publicly funded, isn't relying entirely on ad revenues, which require practically every show to be an instant hit. They can wait it out while a show finds its stride, and the network execs don't become super nervous at every slight dip and start interfering with the creative process of the show. Incidentally, I suspect this is also why reality television has become so huge. You don't have to hire writers (yeah right, snorts the cynical part of my brain), you don't have to pay for different sets, location shooting, special effects, artistic directors, acting coaches and so on, and you can pay reality stars way less than you need to spend on real, honest to goodness, actors. With the market so saturated with channels and shows to watch, and the number growing every day, any individual show is bound to get fewer and fewer regular viewers, and thus return less money to the network. A reality show with it's relatively small overhead, is a much better investment.
I suppose a counter argument is that the CBC, in Canada, is publicly funded and isn't always full of brilliant shows, but the thing is, the BBC is the dominant force in British television. It's the largest network and can afford good production values for it's shows. Also the CBC does still follow this trend, only instead of investing heavily in more cerebral shows, the CBC has a mandate to invest in Canadian programming in a market dominated by American shows. The UK television market isn't dominated by shows from other countries, all the television is British anyway, it's just a question of which network can do it best. Either way this is beside the point. My argument is not that public funding is necessarily better than private funding. I'm simply pointing out flaws in the "advertising revenue dependent on ratings" business model used by most major American networks. By general consensus, (though of course your mileage may vary) the best American television is on HBO, a channel which is commercial free and instead is based on a paid subscription business model. Like the publicly funded television the paid subscription business model appears to allow for more flexibility in show formats and more risk taking; subscribers won't cancel a service that normally does a very good job, just because of a dud here and there. The thing about HBO is that it's really expensive. Everyone with a television in the UK can watch BBC One and BBC Two. Which might be something of an advantage that public television has I suppose.
I don't think I'm saying anything new. This has all been said before, and is frequently said about movie studios, which sadly, experience this same problem everywhere. I suppose I'm just ranting about something that has been bugging me. But hey, if for whatever reason, you've read this, and then sometime later you're silly enough to get into a debate with a libertarian, you have an example a situation where the public sphere allows for innovation, and provides better service more effectively and to a greater number of customers, while the free market actually stifles innovation (eat your heart out Ayn Rand). So there's that.
Anyway, hope this was interesting.
- Michael
No comments:
Post a Comment