When networks aren't what their title implies.

[heyitscory]

MTV is the most well-known and probably first example of this. MTV = MUSIC Television. They played music videos. Then they played shows about music, like news and gameshows and stuff. Beavis and Butthead even stuck to this theme, as they'd do short segments heckling music videos. Then came Daria and Celebrity Death Match, et al. Somehow this degraded into hours upon hours of Real World, Road Rules and Real World vs. Road Rules Challenge. The only music you can find on the station is on TRL, and that hardly counts because when the video plays, it's interrupted by a screaming teeny-bopper crying "Oh my god, I love Papa Roach because Jacoby is so sexy!"

So MTV is something other than it was when it started. No big deal. You're a business and you go where the money is. Oh well.

Then came MTV2. The network for people who missed the old MTV. Eventually, this station also deviated from a 24-hour music format, and became a dumping ground for shows not good enough for MTV. I watched a show about slang on MTV2 once. Timbaland kindly explained to me "Well, first we said "fo sho", but then everybody started saying that, so then we said "fo shizzle", but when people started saying that all the time we said "fo shiggity". Now I like to say "fo shaginov"." Well, the business model of video-video-video-commercials-video-video-video-commercials must've failed, because they really have became another MTV. MTV2... fo shaginov.

I just spent the day down for the count, sick on the couch. The History Channel was my drug of choice. I watched a show about pirate technology (historical), a show Caribbean pirates (also historical) then several hours of Mantracker, which I'll admit is a great show, but not very historical. (And it's annoying that the constants call the guy Mantracker. His name is Terry. Call him Terry. You don't have to call the guy the name of the show. Les Stroud doesn't call himself Survivorman.

Then it hit me. The History Channel has turned into MTV. Sure, it has Modern Marvels which is generally historical, but often covers present-day things. It used to have Futureweapons, but that ended up on The Military Channel. Futureweapons? History Channel? Well, that's not as bad as Life After Humans, another show about the future. That obnoxious Dr. Kaku is getting too much face time on the Discovery Networks, and I can't escape him. I've hated him ever since What The Bleep Do We Know. Questionable stuff that is arguably history involves doomsday prophesies, mythological creatures and religious history, but the way those shows are put together, they put people who appreciate the cultural significance of the topic at hand next to people who actually believe the crap, as if their opinions are both equally valid. Then there's the other stuff that is not history in any way, shape or form. UFOs, ghosts, cryptozoology.

What the hell happened here? I miss when it was the Hitler Channel.

[Rob Helmerichs]

Sc-Fi is a pretty good example...

Which is why their pending name change is so perfect. "SyFy--it's Sci-Fi, only not really."

[heyitscory]

Sc-Fi is a pretty good example...

Which is why their pending name change is so perfect. "SyFy--it's Sci-Fi, only not really."
Okay... I'll admit I haven't been watching what The Sci-Fi Channel has been doing. What non-sci-fi things have they been doing? I remember like 10 years ago that John Edward d**che had a show on Sci-Fi, but other than that, I thought they were 100% sci-fi/fantasy, right? Tell me I'm right! :(

:D

[bicker]

This is one of those "get over it" things, as far as I'm concerned. Here's a good example of why:

http://www.twinsupply.com/janitorial/images/100/DRK2979267.JPG

Does this box really include everything -- the totality of existence? Of course not. However, the label "all" works for them, as a brand for their detergent.

And that's the essential aspect of all this: Brands are labels. The only relevant criterion for a brand is the positive impact usage of the brand has on revenues. Appealing to the puritanical sensibilities of a small group of aficionados would only come into play if ever there was a case where the impact of doing so (i.e., the extra money the offering could make from the aficionados, themselves, either by not using the brand, or by adhering to a strictly literal and dogmatic interpretation of the words that make up the brand) overwhelms all other positive impacts of the usage of the brand for a product or service. That's simply not generally the case.

[dianebrat]

Okay... I'll admit I haven't been watching what The Sci-Fi Channel has been doing. What non-sci-fi things have they been doing? I remember like 10 years ago that John Edward d**che had a show on Sci-Fi, but other than that, I thought they were 100% sci-fi/fantasy, right? Tell me I'm right! :(

:D
one word that sums it up:
Wrestling..

yes.. that is really on SciFi

[moot]

one word that sums it up:
Wrestling..

yes.. that is really on SciFi

Didn't they also briefly air re-runs of Law & Order: SVU?

[LoadStar]

VH1 - another example of cable creep. Video Hits One. It was the Hot AC equivalent to MTV's Top 40. Now, they hide the videos in the morning, and the rest of the day plumb the depths out of faux-reality television.

TV Land - admittedly, this channel name doesn't tie it as strongly to any particular type of TV, but the way the channel started, it celebrated the golden age of television. Now, it's... well, I don't quite know what the point of the channel is. It's got shows you can easily find in syndication on local broadcast television, with some truly awful reality television mixed in.

G4 / TechTV - Ugh, let's not get started on this. Two decent concept channels. TechTV was of course the stronger of the two, anything about the world of technology, how can you go wrong? First they started cutting back on their hours of original programming, then they got swallowed up by G4 ("television for gamers") just because they wanted the channel space. Ok, that's fine - gaming is related to technology, should be on paper a decent match - but what do ST:TNG and Cops and stuff have to do with gamers?

[David Platt]

The only music you can find on the station is on TRL, and that hardly counts because when the video plays, it's interrupted by a screaming teeny-bopper crying "Oh my god, I love Papa Roach because Jacoby is so sexy!"

You really need to get with the times. TRL was canceled months ago. :D

[MickeS]

CMT is just like MTV and VH-1: a few videos in the morning, then a bunch of crap shows and reality shows.

[cheesesteak]

Some concept creep doesn't bother me. I'll never understand why people get so upset about two hours of wrestling out of seven days of SciFi programming. I gave up on the MTV family of networks years ago. The Learning Channel too. The History Channel has broken my heart though. Ax Men, Ice Road Truckers, Gangland, MonsterQuest. Not only are they on once a week, they seem to be in permanent rerun rotation too. History International seems to be where the real history is shown.

[JLucPicard]

From someone who is completely ignorant of the whole 'music video' business, what is the current outlet for music videos? Cell phones? Are there other networks that actually show them?

Are the examples cited a result of ...

Artist/studio makes music video to promote artist/song/album.
Studio sells video to 'music video station' for airing on a broad scale.
Music videos become much more elaborate (i.e. expensive) to stand out.
Music video station sees less profit from airing music videos.
Music video station turns to cheap to produce/higher profit margin reality crap.
Very few actually air music videos anymore.

Kind of like what's happening with TV shows on network TV?

Or is it that people just aren't really interested in music videos anymore and for the stations to continue to exist, they need to air some kind of programming?

I never cared for/watched music video stations anyway, so I don't really understand their reason for being - moreso now than in years past.

I suppose it's going to all boil down to 'blame the stupid American viewing audience for not getting with the program' and watching the niche/branded channels enough to keep them viable as they were intended to be so they have to evolve into something else.

[Philosofy]

The Oxygen and Lifetime networks aren't about chemistry or life. They are about celebrating women and bashing evil men.

[wmcbrine]

It really is disgusting that they couldn't even leave us with MTV2. The same thing happened with VH-1 Classic.

But now that I have Fios, I get MTV Hits, MTV Jams, and MTV-U, which are all/mostly videos... at least for now. Unfortunately MTV had kind of lost me as an audience member in the meantime.

Of course the biggest outlet for music videos now is probably YouTube. I think it's even revived them a bit.

[dianebrat]

Some concept creep doesn't bother me. I'll never understand why people get so upset about two hours of wrestling out of seven days of SciFi programming.
It's not that the 2 hours of non-scifi is the end of the world, but when the discussion turns to channel/scope creep, it's the best example out there by far.
:up:

Diane

[johnny99]

The worst offender is "Fox News", which is mostly fringe propoganda, not "news".

[aadam101]

The only music you can find on the station is on TRL, and that hardly counts because when the video plays, it's interrupted by a screaming teeny-bopper crying "Oh my god, I love Papa Roach because Jacoby is so sexy!"

Dude TRL was canceled months ago.

[pdhenry]

AMC:
Mad Men
Breaking Bad
Other than being misfit for the genre, can't complain about either series. At least AMC still shows movies. Classic movies, like "Hook."

[Rob Helmerichs]

It's not that the 2 hours of non-scifi is the end of the world, but when the discussion turns to channel/scope creep, it's the best example out there by far.
And that two hours is a fairly substantial portion of their original prime-time lineup. Although, interestingly, on their web site they don't count ECW on the list of shows they air. Here's their list, removing shows that have ended:

Caprica (yes)
Destination Truth (no)
Eureka (yes)
Ghost Hunters (no)
Ghost Hunters International (no)
Sanctuary (yes)
Stargate Universe (yes)
Scare Tactics (no)
Unexplained With George Noory (no)
WCG Ultimate Gamer (no-ish)
Warehouse 13 (yes)

So that's five sci-fi shows (three of which haven't debuted yet), five non-sci-fi shows, and one that doesn't look much like a sci-fi show to me. Throw in wrestling (and why wouldn't it count?), and the sci-fi ratio goes down.

[BriGuy20]

AMC:
Mad Men
Breaking Bad
Other than being misfit for the genre, can't complain about either series. At least AMC still shows movies. Classic movies, like "Hook."

And Jaws: The Revenge?

[alansh]

There's a great list at TvTropes.org (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/NetworkDecay). Warning: you can waste a lot of time at this site.

[FireMen2003]

From someone who is completely ignorant of the whole 'music video' business, what is the current outlet for music videos? Cell phones? Are there other networks that actually show them?



Most new artist don't even make videos anymore. The record labels have cut the video budget tremendously over the last few years so MTV, BET, VH1 and CMT just have videos to play from the popular artists of the time. Only the old timers can get a video budget these days so hence, the dropping of videos airing time.

The labels actually have a problem with youtube showing their videos. universal and Youtube startin a whole new network just for videos...

[Delta13]

The Oxygen and Lifetime networks aren't about chemistry or life. They are about celebrating women and bashing most men.FYP :)

[heyitscory]

This is one of those "get over it" things, as far as I'm concerned. Here's a good example of why:

http://www.twinsupply.com/janitorial/images/100/DRK2979267.JPG

Does this box really include everything -- the totality of existence? Of course not. However, the label "all" works for them, as a brand for their detergent.
I was not aware that when All detergent was first marketed that the box contained everything, then they slowly removed things. You're right. They should change the name to Some.

[UnionBuster]

Didn't TLC used to be a history type channel?

[mbhuff]

Great opportunity for TiVO to differentiate themselves here. Now that we have hundreds of channels and those channels either change from their original intent (MTV, SciFi, etc) or were always generic (TBS, TNT, etc) there is even a greater need for editorial input. Think of AFI's guri guides but bigger and with more controls.

You can record content know based on keyword wishlists, but imagine if TiVO created "Virtual Channels" that you could setup (And have a number of them pre-setup) and surf as if there were regular channels.

[MickeS]

Most new artist don't even make videos anymore.

Any hits in particular you can name that don't have accompanying videos? I have seen videos for all hits I can think of in recent years.

[Jesda]

I like MSNBC. Its all left-wing propaganda but no letter in its name suggests "news".

[LoadStar]

I like MSNBC. Its all left-wing propaganda but no letter in its name suggests "news".

Although it makes no sense now, considering that Microsoft long ago got rid of their share of the network (at least, as far as I know).

[YCantAngieRead]

MyCW is definitely not my CW. I don't think I've ever watched anything on it.

[trainman]

The Columbia Broadcasting System carries very little programming related to the Columbia River.

(Yes, I realize that it's not their official name anymore.)

[Steeler Mike]

Does CourtTv still exist?

[jsmeeker]

Does CourtTv still exist?

nope.

now they are truTV

[appleye1]

The worst offender is "Fox News", which is mostly fringe propoganda, not "news".He-he! That is soooo funny! What a witty observation!

[sooperkool]

Lifetime used to have a lot of medical programming in its early existence. I saw a few live surgeries on there back in the day.

[Jesda]

The Columbia Broadcasting System carries very little programming related to the Columbia River.

(Yes, I realize that it's not their official name anymore.)

The Columbia part was sold to Sony and renamed Sony Music Entertainment in the 1990s... I think? Someone please confirm.

[heyitscory]

Didn't TLC used to be a history type channel?
Yes. Not unlike Discovery. Now it's house hunters and people with too many children.

[Steveknj]

The Columbia part was sold to Sony and renamed Sony Music Entertainment in the 1990s... I think? Someone please confirm.


That was Columbia Pictures and Columbia Records. The CBS Networks were sold to Viacom (I think they still own them, not sure), but I was unaware that Columbia has been officially REMOVED from the CBS title.

[Steveknj]

I too have gotten discouraged over the years about this creep. I expect historical shows if I go to something called THE HISTORY Channel, or Educational stuff if I go to The LEARNING Channel, etc. I think that is why some networks have gone away from using the full names of their nets and go to more generic initials. Does A&E even MENTION Arts and Entertainment? MTV probably never says they are MUSIC Television anymore. Look, if you are going to change the scope of your network, then why not just change the name? If History isn't going to show historical shows exclusively any longer then just change the name of the channel to THC or something like that.

And lets just leave Fox News, MSNBC and that ilk ouf this discussion For those who are afficianados of the News channels, we get very passionate based on our politics, and that's not the scope of this discussion.

[BriGuy20]

History International still shows a lot of Historical stuff, plus there are always the wonderful Ken Burns/American Experience documentaries on PBS.

I too miss the old History Channel, though. It was a great thing to turn on during a boring Saturday or Sunday afternoon.

[That Don Guy]

Lifetime used to have a lot of medical programming in its early existence. I saw a few live surgeries on there back in the day.Lifetime was a merger of two channels, one of which was an all-medical channel. In fact, for years, Lifetime on Sundays was promoted as something like "Lifetime Medical Television - the network for doctors only" (and instead of infomercials late at night, they would run a vertical white-on-black scroll of Prescribing Information sheets (the detailed ones you see for prescription drugs in magazines occasionally) for drugs that are advertised on the network).

Here's another one for the list: Cartoon Network - not only are more and more Adult Swim shows becoming live-action, but they are somewhat seriously considering running live-action films on a regular basis.

-- Don

[aindik]

I don't get why these networks don't just change the name. MTV's audience completely turns over every five or 10 years. At this point, is there anyone still watching who even remembers when MTV had something to do with music? Just change the name. When a radio station flips formats, it usually changes the name.

MTV Hits is what MTV used to be. Top 40 videos nearly all day, plus artist playlists. Palladia also shows some videos in the late night hours - in HD, too.

I get my music videos there, on Fuse, and I record the VH-1 Top 20 Video Countdown on my TiVo.

[Steveknj]

I don't get why these networks don't just change the name. MTV's audience completely turns over every five or 10 years. At this point, is there anyone still watching who even remembers when MTV had something to do with music? Just change the name. When a radio station flips formats, it usually changes the name.

MTV Hits is what MTV used to be. Top 40 videos nearly all day, plus artist playlists. Palladia also shows some videos in the late night hours - in HD, too.

I get my music videos there, on Fuse, and I record the VH-1 Top 20 Video Countdown on my TiVo.

Agreed. Another thing with MTV. The have this station called Palladia which currently is music videos and concerts in HD. They used to be called MTV-HD, but they changed it a few months ago to Palladia. My FIRST thought is...there goes the music only format. I'm sure they will, at some point start showing other stuff. But at least they changed their name to something more generic.

[bicker]

Look, if you are going to change the scope of your network, then why not just change the name?How does that benefit the owners of the network?

I know folks would love their own personal preferences to trump the needs, expectations and preferences of everyone else, but that's not a reasonable perspective.

[bicker]

They used to be called MTV-HDMHD actually.

[Steveknj]

MHD actually.


You're right :)

[aindik]

How does that benefit the owners of the network?

By communicating accurately to the viewer what the product is.

[Steveknj]

How does that benefit the owners of the network?

I know folks would love their own personal preferences to trump the needs, expectations and preferences of everyone else, but that's not a reasonable perspective.


Well, it CAN benefit the network. Do you think someone not familiar with The History Channel and think it's just historical base programs might turn to that network to watch something non-historical? It opens up the appeal of your network to a broader audience by changing the network name to a a less narrow scoped name. That is what Sci-Fi is probably trying to do. It's what stations like A&E have done by DE-emphasizing the title of Arts & Entertainment. Or AMC by DE emphasizing the MOVIE in their title.

BTW - do you work in the broadcast industry? You seem to always side with them in any of our "debates"

[Rob Helmerichs]

BTW - do you work in the broadcast industry? You seem to always side with them in any of our "debates"
I think he just sides against whoever's talking... ;)

[bicker]

By communicating accurately to the viewer what the product is.With a less recognizable name? No. You're simply wrong about that.

[aindik]

With a less recognizable name? No. You're simply wrong about that.

Less recognizable in the short term, but also less misleading.

As I said before, radio stations change names when they change formats. A station called "K-Rock" isn't going to survive very long playing stuff that's not rock. Why not the same for cable channels?

[bicker]

Well, it CAN benefit the network.What makes you think that they don't change the name when they determine that it will benefit the network? We already have some examples where they have changed the name of a network.

Do you think someone not familiar with The History Channel and think it's just historical base programs might turn to that network to watch something non-historical?I think the vast majority of people don't care about what you're implying that you care about with regard to the naming of networks. Essentially, I believe you're not only making a mountain out of a molehill, but even worse: asserting that lexicographical purity is somehow more important than name recognition, continuity, etc. I think a lot of people who object to networks based on their title do so out of frustration that they personally aren't getting from the network what they personally want to get out of the network, and not out of any real honest concern for the network itself.

It opens up the appeal of your network to a broader audience by changing the network name to a a less narrow scoped name. That is what Sci-Fi is probably trying to do.And just look how much pedantic crap some posters in some online thread have piled on top of that name-change ... perhaps some of the same people posting in this thread.

It's what stations like A&E have done by DE-emphasizing the title of Arts & Entertainment. Or AMC by DE emphasizing the MOVIE in their title.And yet some folks have even seen fit to criticize those networks for continuing to use the initials that used to mean the title. :rolleyes:

BTW - do you work in the broadcast industry? You seem to always side with them in any of our "debates"I don't work in the industry at all. I simply object to entitlement mentality in all its forms, including piling criticisms on large institutions and companies just because it feels good and it is what the lynch mob encourages people to do. Failing to recognize that corporations exist to serve the interests of owners is shows a fundamental lack of understanding of how markets work in this country, and making assertions that question the competence of people who run corporations, solely because what they're doing to fulfill their fiduciary responsibility doesn't jive with one's own personal preferences, is without merit.

[bicker]

Less recognizable in the short term, but also less misleading.I'll refer you back to my earlier example, the laundry detergent titled, "all".

Why not the same for cable channels?Because.

[aindik]

I'll refer you back to my earlier example, the laundry detergent titled, "all".

Because.

"All" is not a misleading name. It's not descriptive of the item. Nobody expects that it literally has everything in the world in it. "All" could also mean "all you need" to get your clothes clean.

MTV, on the other hand, means "Music Television." That's a descriptive name that is not an accurate description of what's on the air.

[Steveknj]

I don't work in the industry at all. I simply object to entitlement mentality in all its forms, including piling criticisms on large institutions and companies just because it feels good and it is what the lynch mob encourages people to do. Failing to recognize that corporations exist to serve the interests of owners is shows a fundamental lack of understanding of how markets work in this country, and making assertions that question the competence of people who run corporations, solely because what they're doing to fulfill their fiduciary responsibility doesn't jive with one's own personal preferences, is without merit.

Or yours!! So if The History Channel decided tomorrow they would show NO MORE HISTORY, but instead 24 hours of sports programming, but decided to keep the name History, just for continuity, that would be ok? First of all, if a product on the open market, as you use this example, promised that it did one thing and actually did something completely different, wouldn't that be considered fraud? Or at least some type of scam? Maintaining a name for a channel that doesn't really fit it much anymore does two things:

1) Upsets their regular viewers
2) DECREASES their chances of picking up viewership from the niche market their shows are actually FROM. Why would someone interested in say wrestling, tune to Sci Fi to find it? Wouldn't they be more inclined to tune into a sports related network? I have no problem with a station like AMC using their initials rather than American Movie Classics, since they are really no longer just a movie channel anyway? The fact that AMC is generic, actually helps bring in viewers who are not only looking for movies. American Movie Classics would not give ME the idea that this channel has scripted series like Mad Men. I'd think it was just movies.

Anyway, you need to respect people's opinions here and saying things like people are FLAT OUT WRONG because that's YOUR opinion, is...ummmmm...FLAT OUT WRONG!!

[FilmCritic3000]

Although it makes no sense now, considering that Microsoft long ago got rid of their share of the network (at least, as far as I know).

MSNBC purchased a majority stake in the channel on December 23rd, 2005. Microsoft still owns 18% of MSNBC. There have been rumors ever since this that one day in the future if and/or when NBC Universal purchases the remainder of the channel from Microsoft, they'll then rebrand MSNBC as NBC News Channel.

[bicker]

"All" could also mean "all you need" to get your clothes clean.Which is not the case.

[aindik]

Which is not the case.

Because you need water?

[bicker]

Or yours!! I suspect my personal preferences are not satisfied more than yours. That's perhaps why I've come to understand all this stuff sooner than you have. :)

So if The History Channel decided tomorrow they would show NO MORE HISTORY, but instead 24 hours of sports programming, but decided to keep the name History, just for continuity, that would be ok?You ask that as if you there are rules that you can impose on them that they would be expected to follow. What right do you have to impose any such rules on them? Do you own The History Channel? Are you King of The History Channel? They have to answer to a higher authority -- their shareholders. And so, given than there is no safety or health considerations, what is "ok" is what their shareholders say is okay -- typically whatever is best for their shareholders.

First of all, if a product on the open market, as you use this example, promised that it did one thing and actually did something completely different, wouldn't that be considered fraud?No. And the vast majority of people understand that, i.e., that brands are not claims. Claims are claims. Brands are brands.

Maintaining a name for a channel that doesn't really fit it much anymore does two things:
1) Upsets their regular viewersProof?

I don't mean to have you assert that some niche fans get upset. Rather, I mean to have you prove, with hard data, that your generalization is true, that regular viewers of that channel, in general, not in specific, but in general, get upset by the discontinuity you've highlighted AND that changing the name of the channel would placate them (i.e., not that making the channel narrower in context).

OR accept that you can't prove it, and let's agree to disagree.

2) DECREASES their chances of picking up viewership from the niche market their shows are actually FROM.A risk they're explicitly welcoming because they've evidently determined that the niche is not as profitable as the mainstream that they attract instead. (Again: They're not idiots.)

Why would someone interested in say wrestling, tune to Sci Fi to find it?You're asking the wrong question: Why did so many wrestling fans tune into Sci Fi for wrestling? So many that the program was eventually lured away to another network (also not a network from which you'd expect wrestling).

Anyway, you need to respect people's opinions here and saying things like people are FLAT OUT WRONG because that's YOUR opinion, is...ummmmm...FLAT OUT WRONG!!Bah. I reply in the same tenor as the messages I reply to.

[Steveknj]

I suspect my personal preferences are not satisfied more than yours. That's perhaps why I've come to understand all this stuff sooner than you have. :)

You ask that as if you there are rules that you can impose on them that they would be expected to follow. What right do you have to impose any such rules on them? Do you own The History Channel? Are you King of The History Channel? They have to answer to a higher authority -- their shareholders. And so, given than there is no safety or health considerations, what is "ok" is what their shareholders say is okay -- typically whatever is best for their shareholders.

No. And the vast majority of people understand that, i.e., that brands are not claims. Claims are claims. Brands are brands.

Proof?

I don't mean to have you assert that some niche fans get upset. Rather, I mean to have you prove, with hard data, that your generalization is true, that regular viewers of that channel, in general, not in specific, but in general, get upset by the discontinuity you've highlighted AND that changing the name of the channel would placate them (i.e., not that making the channel narrower in context).

OR accept that you can't prove it, and let's agree to disagree.

A risk they're explicitly welcoming because they've evidently determined that the niche is not as profitable as the mainstream that they attract instead. (Again: They're not idiots.)

You're asking the wrong question: Why did so many wrestling fans tune into Sci Fi for wrestling? So many that the program was eventually lured away to another network (also not a network from which you'd expect wrestling).

Bah. I reply in the same tenor as the messages I reply to.

Then lets agree to disagree. But to me, calling yourself the History Channel and showing mostly sports is fraud. Same as if someone sold me a hot dog and called it a hamburger, that's fraud too. You are right in the sense that they don't HAVE to change things, but eventually, it would make sense for them to do so.

Dude, people are expressing their opinions here, this is NOT a condemnation on the all mighty television industry. Chill out.

[FilmCritic3000]

Then lets agree to disagree. But to me, calling yourself the History Channel and showing mostly sports is fraud. Same as if someone sold me a hot dog and called it a hamburger, that's fraud too. You are right in the sense that they don't HAVE to change things, but eventually, it would make sense for them to do so.

Dude, people are expressing their opinions here, this is NOT a condemnation on the all mighty television industry. Chill out.

That's bicker. Defending the television industry at all costs! :D

[Bob_Newhart]

Ordered Spice TV for my grandmother.

Found out it wasn't a cooking channel. :(

[Jesda]

Ordered Spice TV for my grandmother.

Found out it wasn't a cooking channel. :(

:D

[FilmCritic3000]

Behold the inanity!

http://www.syfy.com/Imagine/

I guess their inital ad budget was spent at Gawker.

http://gawker.com/

[DevdogAZ]

Great opportunity for TiVO to differentiate themselves here. Now that we have hundreds of channels and those channels either change from their original intent (MTV, SciFi, etc) or were always generic (TBS, TNT, etc) there is even a greater need for editorial input. Think of AFI's guri guides but bigger and with more controls.

You can record content know based on keyword wishlists, but imagine if TiVO created "Virtual Channels" that you could setup (And have a number of them pre-setup) and surf as if there were regular channels.
Huh? Why would TiVo want to do this? The whole point of TiVo is to get you out of the mindset of "channel surfing" so why would they create something to make it easier to channel surf? Besides, you can already sort your TiVo guide by genre if you want, so if you want to surf that way, go right ahead.
If History isn't going to show historical shows exclusively any longer then just change the name of the channel to THC or something like that.
Hee hee. I think they'd definitely get maligned for misrepresenting their content if they made that change. Although maybe the stoners wouldn't care enough to actually complain to anyone.
I don't get why these networks don't just change the name.
They don't change their name because they've spent millions on goodwill and name recognition. People know the name of MTV. While some might complain that they no longer focus on the "M" in their name, the fact is that MTV is one of the most recognized channels on the cable dial, and especially so with their target demographic. Changing their name would be corporate suicide.

I can think of two networks that changed their names - TNN became Spike, and CourTV became truTV. As far as I'm aware, neither of these changes led to increased success or ratings for those channels. I think the anecdotal evidence will show that those networks that keep their name (and perhaps just change to initials) maintain their audience much better than those that alienate their core audience by changing their name while not being able to draw new viewers because nobody has ever heard of the channel.

[netringer]

Behold the inanity!

http://www.syfy.com/Imagine/

I guess their inital ad budget was spent at Gawker.

http://gawker.com/

"in order to view this site you need to get the latest Flash plug in."

OK.

NoScript - temporarily allow.

Blank blue page.

-> In order to get my interest you must have a web site that works on my computer.

I wonder how many $100,000s they blew on that. Did they have any leftover after paying the consultants to come up with "syfy?"

[getreal]

The worst offender is "Fox News", which is mostly fringe propoganda, not "news".

But they do hire some foxes as talking heads.
And some dogs --- ;)

[busyba]

IIRC, Bravo used to have programming that lived up to it's name; it was high-end artsy stuff.

Now it's mostly reality crap.

[bicker]

Dude, people are expressing their opinions here, this is NOT a condemnation on the all mighty television industry. Chill out.
Back at you -- if you don't want me questioning your comments, don't question mine.

[FilmCritic3000]

IIRC, Bravo used to have programming that lived up to it's name; it was high-end artsy stuff.

Now it's mostly reality crap.

Yep, now that it's under the auspices of NBC Universal, it's all reality crap, all the time.

Ovation TV has filled the void, IMHO, that was left when Bravo relaunched and rebranded.

http://www.ovationtv.com

[speedcouch]

Yes. Not unlike Discovery. Now it's house hunters and people with too many children.

Besides "Plus 6 or 8" or whatever it is, all I ever see on the guide is "Little People." Talk about a crap network! What exactly are people "learning" there anymore. I'm ready to lock the channel out as I don't think I've watched anything on there in years!

Thank goodness for Great Amercian Country as I actually do still like to check out videos from time to time and CMT/VH1/MTV only show the worst of crap "reality" TV these days! Absurd!

A&E and Bio are mostly crap these days as well. And contrary to some here, I don't consider movies from the last 10 years "classic" to be shown on AMC...

Cheryl

[bicker]

"Classic" is a personal opinion; sub-groups tend to impose such emotionally-loaded language to make their personal preferences seem more important than they really are; it's really nothing more than a back-handed way of disparaging others, and therefore, consequently, indefensible.

[DougF]

...And contrary to some here, I don't consider movies from the last 10 years "classic" to be shown on AMC...

The time period doesn't have anything to do with "classic" as far as I'm concerned. However, when I saw Catwoman in the guide data for AMC recently, I figured the channel had drifted away from what it launched as. I haven't seen it, but the movie seemed to be panned by all critics and universally hated by people who've seen it.

[Steveknj]

The time period doesn't have anything to do with "classic" as far as I'm concerned. However, when I saw Catwoman in the guide data for AMC recently, I figured the channel had drifted away from what it launched as. I haven't seen it, but the movie seemed to be panned by all critics and universally hated by people who've seen it.

They went away from what they were years ago, first of all they used to be commercial free, then they started introducing non movies (which was ok at first becaue those shows were ABOUT movies) now a lot of their programming is scripted series. But you notice, they no longer call themselves American Movie Classics much anymore...it's ALWAYS AMC. And that's ok. It's all I'm trying to say about any of these networks that drift from what they were. People are used to calling these networks by initials anyway, just make that the legal name and be done with it. But to me, it's a bait and switch for me to turn on say, The Travel Channel and they are showing poker. But that's my opinion, doesn't mean it's wrong or right, it's my opinion. There are some who say I am WRONG. Is it WRONG to have an opinion?

[Steveknj]

Back at you -- if you don't want me questioning your comments, don't question mine.

You can question my comments all you want, just don't say I'm FLAT OUT WRONG, because I don't AGREE with your opinion. I never said you were wrong, I'm just saying that is my opinion, and I don't agree with yours, and I don't quite get where you are coming from, because you speak as IF you have some inside knowledge of the inner workings of network TV. Essentially you know as much as I do, we just have differenting opinions.

And folks, I know this is boring to be reading back and forth. So I am done. Bicker you can rebutt, but lets just agree to disagree.

[aindik]

This is as good a place to ask as any: Does AMC censor movies for content?

[Steveknj]

This is as good a place to ask as any: Does AMC censor movies for content?

Yes, I believe they do.

[aindik]

Yes, I believe they do.

Thanks. I was deciding whether to watch the movie Batman Begins (which I never saw) on AMC-HD or on DVD. (No BluRay player yet other than my laptop and horrible player software from Dell.).

[BriGuy20]

Thanks. I was deciding whether to watch the movie Batman Begins (which I never saw) on AMC-HD or on DVD. (No BluRay player yet other than my laptop and horrible player software from Dell.).

I NEVER EVER EVER EVER EVER watch censored movies on TV. I encourage other people to do the same so they stop showing them.

[ewilts]

And who declared poker a sport? WTF is up with that? If it's so popular in so many countries, is it going to be in the Olympic Games too? If so, summer or winter? Why do we get poker in HD, but not most REAL sporting events?

As a co-worker once said: "if you can't get hurt doing it, it's not a sport". Paper cuts don't count.

[bicker]

You can question my comments all you want, just don't say I'm FLAT OUT WRONG, because I don't AGREE with your opinion.I'll reply in the same tenor as the message I'm replying to.

And folks, I know this is boring to be reading back and forth. So I am done. Bicker you can rebutt, but lets just agree to disagree.You shouldn't have brought up the meta-discussion in the first place. Threads aren't for posting how you don't like how I post messages.

[heyitscory]

It seems my thread title is different than what I was trying to imply.

I didn't mean to say "I'm upset that they're aren't more vector graphics on LOGO, They're aren't enough attractive women on Fox, I haven't seen a single Colombian on CBS, There's never any meth on the Speed Channel, Oxygen doesn't focus on gases and I think the Spice Channel could use a little more nutmeg."

I'm talking about networks that had a name which kind of defined their format (MTV, VH1, History), then somehow deviated from it. Discovery had a format that shifted over time, but as long as something's vaguely educational, it still fits with the title. Ghost Hunters would fit better on Dicovery than History, so I don't understand why History became the pseudoscience reality show dumping ground it has become. Animal Planet somehow manages to stick to animal shows, starting with nature documentaries, eventually branching out to animal game shows, animal Super-nanny, Cops-style shows about animals and even a Project Runway knock-off about dog groomers. The Travel Channel also largely sticks with its them... except when they play UFO and Ghost shows.

[heyitscory]

And who declared poker a sport? WTF is up with that? If it's so popular in so many countries, is it going to be in the Olympic Games too? If so, summer or winter? Why do we get poker in HD, but not most REAL sporting events?

As a co-worker once said: "if you can't get hurt doing it, it's not a sport". Paper cuts don't count.
Hell, I'll take that one further and say "If you can do it while drinking a beer, it's not a sport." :D

[classicsat]

Didn't TLC used to be a history type channel?

I think it was a college-on-TV type of channel originally.
When I really began watching it, it was I think a young children educational channel in most of the morning, and at least at 4 turned to a DIY channel playing re-runs of some DIY shows, including the Susan Egli era Hometime, and the entire run, to date at the time, of Bob Vila's Home Again. In the evening it aired Discovery type programming, twice, and with it and the DIY, I watched it quite a bit when I had C-band, especially before ZDTV launched. When they abandoned that format I pretty well stopped watching it. It is not even on the CIR list on TiVo.

[ewilts]

Hell, I'll take that one further and say "If you can do it while drinking a beer, it's not a sport." :D
I'm a curler, in which beer drinking plays an important part, but after the curling. So I guess it's a sport :-)

[busyba]

Hell, I'll take that one further and say "If you can do it while drinking a beer, it's not a sport." :D

Softball isn't a sport?

[DianaMo]

G4 / TechTV - Ugh, let's not get started on this. Two decent concept channels. TechTV was of course the stronger of the two, anything about the world of technology, how can you go wrong? First they started cutting back on their hours of original programming, then they got swallowed up by G4 ("television for gamers") just because they wanted the channel space. Ok, that's fine - gaming is related to technology, should be on paper a decent match - but what do ST:TNG and Cops and stuff have to do with gamers?

Oddly enough, it is the Scifi Channel that is airing a reality tv video gaming competition.

BTW, I really, really miss ZDTV / Tech TV.

[BriGuy20]

But they do hire some foxes as talking heads.
And some dogs --- ;)

THIS JUST IN, LAURIE DHUE IS HOT! :)