The Television Will Be Revolutionized, Second Edition. Amanda D. Lotz

Such basic characteristics of technological use and accessibility contributed to the programming strategies of the era in important ways. Network programmers knew that the whole family commonly viewed television together, and they consequently selected programs and designed a schedule likely to be acceptable to, although perhaps not most favored by, the widest range of viewers—a strategy the CBS vice president of programming Paul Klein described as “least objectionable programming.”⁶ This was the era of broadcasting, in which networks selected programs that would reach a heterogeneous mass culture, but still directed their address to the white middle class. This mandate was integral to the business design of the networks and led to a competitive strategy in which they did not attempt to significantly differentiate their programming or clearly brand themselves with distinctive identities, as is common today.

      The network era featured very specific terms of engagement for the audience regardless of the broader distinctions in how the industry created that programming or how the business of television operated. Viewers grew accustomed to arbitrary norms of practice—many of which were established in radio—such as a limited range of genres, certain types of programming scheduled at particular times of day, the television “season,” and reruns. These unexceptional network-era conventions appeared “natural” and “just how television is” to such a degree that altering these norms seemed unimaginable. However, adjustments in the television industry during the multi-channel transition revealed the arbitrary quality of these practices and enabled critics, industry workers, and entrepreneurs to envision radically different possibilities for television.

      As the arrival of technologies that provided television viewers with unprecedented choice and control initiated an end to the network era, the multi-channel transition profoundly altered the television experience. To be sure, many network-era practices remained dominant throughout the multi-channel transition, but during the twenty-year period that began in the mid-1980s and extended through the early years of the twenty-first century, these practices were challenged to such a degree that their preeminent status eroded.

      The Multi-Channel Transition

      Beginning in the 1980s, the television industry experienced two decades of gradual change. New technologies, including the remote control, videocassette recorder, and analog cable systems, expanded viewers’ choice and control; producers adjusted to government regulations that forced the networks to relinquish some of their control over the terms of program creation;⁷ nascent cable channels and new broadcast networks added to viewers’ content choices and eroded the dominance of ABC, CBS, and NBC; subscription channels launched and introduced an advertising-free form of television programming; and methods for measuring audiences grew increasingly sophisticated with the deployment of Nielsen’s People Meter. As in the network era, this constellation of industrial norms led to a particular viewer experience of television and enabled a certain range of programming. Many of these industrial practices are explored in greater depth in chapters 2 through 6, which focus on new norms emerging in production processes, including technology, program creation, distribution, financing, and audience measurement, and how these norms adjusted the type of programming the industry creates. In introducing this distinction between the multi-channel transition and the post-network era here, we must first establish the difference in viewers’ experience of television. The subsequent chapters then detail the modifications in industrial practices that introduced these changes for viewers.

      The common television experience was altered primarily as a result of expanded choice and control introduced during the multi-channel transition. As competition arising from the creation of new broadcast networks, such as FOX (1986), the WB (1995), and UPN (1995), expanded broadcast viewing options, a rapidly growing array of cable channels also drew viewers away from broadcast networks. The combined broadcast share—the percentage of those watching television who watched broadcast networks—declined from 90 to 64 during the 1980s, and that percentage was shared by six broadcast competitors instead of three.⁸ Broadcast networks (ABC, CBS, FOX, NBC, the WB, and UPN) collected an average of only 58 percent of those watching television at the conclusion of the 1999–2000 season, and only 46 percent by the end of the 2004–2005 season.⁹ Alternative distribution systems such as cable and satellite enabled a new abundance of viewing options, and 56 percent of television households subscribed to them by 1990—a figure that grew to 85 percent of households by 2004.¹⁰

      The development of new technology that increased consumer control also facilitated viewers’ break from the network-era television experience. Audiences first found this control in the form of the remote control devices (RCDs) that became standard in the 1980s. The dissemination of VCR technology further enabled them to select when to view content and to build personal libraries. For many, the availability of cable, remote control devices, and VCRs resulted in significant change all at once. The diffusion of these technologies was complexly interrelated. Viewers did not need to purchase a new remote-equipped set to gain use of an RCD. Many who acquired cable boxes and VCRs first accessed RCDs with these devices, while the new range of channels offered by cable and the control capabilities of VCRs expanded viewers’ need for remotes.¹¹

      Substantial changes within the walls of the home also altered how audiences used television during the multi-channel transition. Because of the limited options of the network era, programs were widely viewed throughout the culture, but the explosion of content providers throughout the multi-channel transition enabled viewers to increasingly isolate themselves in enclaves of specific interests. As Webster explains, “new media” provide programming that is diverse and is correlated with channels, and they make content differentially available.¹² For example, although many cable channels can be acquired nationwide, the varying carriage agreements and packaging of the channels by locally organized cable systems create different availability based on geography and subscription tier.

      Webster argues that this programming multiplicity results in audience fragmentation and polarization.¹³ While much of the concern within the industry about audience fragmentation focuses on the consequences of smaller audiences for the commercial financing system that supports U.S. television, cultural critics are now considering how the polarization of media audiences contributes to cultural fissures such as those that emerged around social issues in the 2000 and 2004 elections as well as the continued sense that different sites of television news perpetuated divergent realities of national issues. Here, polarization refers to the ability of different groups of viewers to consume substantially different programming and ideas, rather than simply to the dispersal of audiences. New technologies contribute to this polarization in various ways; for example, control technologies, which enable audiences to view the same programs at different times, decrease the likelihood of viewers sharing content during a given period, while the new surplus of channels spreads the audience across an expansive range of programming.¹⁴ Moreover, viewers’ ability to use recording technologies to develop self-determined programming schedules also diminished the already languishing notion of television as an initiator of watercooler conversation—a notion once enforced through the mandate of simultaneous viewing.

      The emergence of so many new networks and channels changed the competitive dynamics of the industry and the type of programming likely to be produced. Instead of needing to design programming likely to be least objectionable to the entire family, broadcast networks—and particularly cable channels—increasingly developed programming that might be most satisfying to specific audience members. At first, this niche targeting remained fairly general, with channels such as CNN seeking out those interested in news, ESPN attending to the sports audience, and MTV aiming at youth culture. As the number of cable channels grew, however, this targeting became more and more narrow. For example, by the early 2000s, three different cable channels specifically pursued women (Lifetime, Oxygen, and WE), yet developed clearly differentiated programming that might be “most satisfying” to women with divergent interests. These more narrowly targeted cable channels increased the range of stories that could be supported by an advertising-based medium. By the mid- to late 1990s, some cable channels built enough revenue to support the production of “broadcast-quality” original series such as La Femme Nikita (USA) and Any Day Now (Lifetime),