We live in an entertainment driven culture, where most people pay more attention to sports and reality TV than important news. Due to the evolution of cable TV, and channels like ESPN, MSG, and NESN to name a few, sports can now be seen at nearly every hour of every day. In a study done in 2004 tracking sports broadcasting in Asheville, NC, 532 sports programs were aired during one week, for a total of 645 hours of content (Bryant, 76). A week only has 168 hours, so this means that many sports programs air simultaneously very often.
The more I read about how many sports programs actually air, I started to think about the evolution of cable TV and how this has affected programming. I believe that sports programs and sporting events have surpassed sitcoms in our culture, and that viewing of sporting events will only increase over time.
When I think of TV in the past, I think of all of the sitcoms that were popular. Each decade had its popular shows that nearly everyone watched and everyone talked about. But as the first decade of this millenium winds down, I fail to see any sitcoms of worthy note that are on TV. In fact, I can't think of many that have been long running and successful.
Reality TV and sports have changed the way people view TV and what viewers expect to see. I believe that creativity has nearly disappeared from TV altogether. Writing on sitcomes is not what it used to be, and we see many shows being cancelled after just one or two seasons.
Plus, sporting events come with much less risk. The stations know that people will watch the games, that more often than not the games will be exciting. There are no actors that need to be paid. And with ticket prices in nearly every sport rising, ratings will probably continue to go higher and higher.
There are so many options for people to find what they're looking for in their niche of sports. Early in the morning, there's Sportscenter and First Take, to mention a few. In the afternoon, we see sports talk radio like the Mike Francesa show, and other programs with sports banter like the Jim Rome Show, Around the Horn, and PTI. And in the evenings, whether its on ESPN or a local cable station, there's almost always a professional sporting event. How can sitcoms possibly expect to compete?
It's just that much easier to air a sporting event or a reality TV show than for someone to put effort into writing a script. Creativity is dwindeling, and I don't see any reason for the trends to change. The days of sitcoms are fading quickly, and sports programming has solidified its spot in our culture.
-Jamie Palatini
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Jamie, this is a really great topic of discussion.
ReplyDeleteI do think sitcoms are fading, although I dont believe creativity is dwindeling, I just think people have higher expectations these days. It's tough to top shows such as Seinfeld and Friends. Shows like that are rare these days. The Office, a personal favorite, is an exception. Today, reality tv is taking over because it's what people want to see. People like to see people get beat up, or "called out," or compete in crazy challenges that no one in their right mind would ever think of participating in.
As for sports programming, it is most definately taking over, and I couldn't love it more. I would much rather watch a sporting event than a sitcom. There's more excitement and drama, and a sitcom you can always watch again online. Sports are all about living in the moment. "...154 of the sports shows (28.9%), amounting to 18,350 minutes of avaialable sports programming (47.4%), was coverage of sporting events" (Raney and Bryant, 78).
All of the Sports Networks in some capacity, ESPN, ABC, NBC, TNT, all show coverage of sporting events in their entirety, with pre-game, and post-game. You are seeing sports coverage extend to more and more networks, such as Versus with the NHL, the Golf Network. These networks are completely taking over due to sports coverage, drawing more ratings than other cable networks. "...as of the end of October 2003, ESPN led all basic cable programming with an average rating of 2.4 in prime time, the period from 8 pm to 11 pm Eastern Time" (Raney and Bryant, 80). This number is probably even higher today, as ESPN has completeley taken over and has expanded worldwide.
Sitcoms, especially the ones on today, just can't keep up. Sports are getting so much more publicity, due in part to all of the shows that are aired every day, such as Jim Rome, and First Take, and Outside the Lines. All of these help contribute to the popularity of sports programming. And your absolutely right, there is always a sporting event on. You make a great point that people will always watch a game, and the struggling economy right now and rising ticket prices will probably increase ratings.
As Jamie said, sports are taking over and sitcoms are taking a back seat. I think one of the reasons is because of the availability of sports. There are now all these stations dedicated to sports. There's ESPN, YES, SNY, and MSG just to name a few. On these stations as well as others, sports are played nonstop. In my house we are all Yankee fans and when the Yankees created YES my dad ran out as fast as he could and bought DirecTV. This not only shows the availability of sports but also the strong following it has. The combination of the two is responsible for the outburst of sports television. When new stations of sports are created fans will spend the money to watch not only the games, but any specials about the teams.
ReplyDeleteWhen I am home my dad and I love watching Center Stage with Michael Kay, especially when a Yankee, new or old, is on the program. Like Center Stage other sports shows have variety like different topics and different guests. With sitcoms it is more or less the same characters, dealing with sitcom issues like dating, growing up careers and more. In sitcoms these are the main issues that appear in virtually all of them.
Sports never get boring either. People do not lose interest because sports always have the drama factor : you never know whats going to happen. The Olympics are a prime example. A bunch of stations all carried the event and they all took turns. The Olympics were basically going 24/7 and people ate it up. They could not get enough of the coverage (Sandomir 2004h, para 3-7)
With the Olympics, no one knew for sure if Michael Phelps was going to win eight medals and the dramatic fashion in which he got there definitely helped the ratings. Nothing is better than real drama; that is something that is not seen in sitcoms. Sitcoms are just the brain child of some writer and unfortunately they just cannot compete with the number of sports stations and their events.
-Amanda Pugliese
I think this is akin to comparing apples and oranges.
ReplyDeleteThough sports seems to be taking over the television (38,675 minutes of sports television broadcast over a one week timespan seems pretty high (Brown, 79)), I don't think they'll ever bow down to sitcoms.
With shows like SportsCenter, Best Damn Sports Show Period and Baseball Tonight ruling the airwaves for the majority of the day, there's no denying that sports on television is taking over.
For me, when I think about "water cooler discussion" I think about what was on TV last night. For me, it's usually sports, but I also realized a lot of people don't follow sports. It seems I'm always able to find a television show, usually a sitcom, where I can form a connection and spark up a conversation.
Sure, a sitcom may not reach out to as many people as a bevy of shows, all covering the same topic, may. Think about when the Super Bowl is coming up. That seems to captivate conversation, if you follow sports or not.
According to the LA Times, this year's Super Bowl was the third most watched television show ever. Second place: Last years Super Bowl. We've seen the fanfare and glitz and glamor surrounding those events. (http://www.latimes.com/sports/la-sp-super-bowl-ratings3-2009feb03,0,3747223.story)
Why do sitcoms still reign supreme? The number one most watched television show in the history of television shows: The finale of M*A*S*H.
The Super Bowls both brought in roughly 90+ million viewers. The M*A*S*H finale, "Goodbye, Farewell and Amen," brought in 106 million.
No matter how far sports on television may come, I don't think it will ever rival a highly anticipated sitcom. It's ideas are deeper ingrained into culture, more so than sports ever will.
I agree with a little bit of what everyone said. As Jamie articulated, stations that air sporting-events know their approximate viewership, and are able to get advertisers fairly easily. Niche audiences allow for niche advertising, and the money flows. With sitcoms it is not that cut and dry.
ReplyDeleteNumbers don’t lie, and when you are breaking down the ratings for sports vs. sitcoms, sports likely make a killing. But isn’t that due to variety? There are only “so many” topics suitable for primetime that most sitcoms seem like recycled stories with new characters. To quote Forrest Gump, when it comes to sports, “you never know what you’re gonna get.”
However, I’m not going to let all sitcoms get bashed without a fight. I disagree that there haven’t been any sitcoms “of worthy note that are on TV,” Jamie. Has anyone ever seen The King of Queens? It ran for nine seasons (from 1998-2007) on CBS! While it didn’t get the accolades that a show like F.R.I.E.N.D.S. received, it aired for almost the same amount of time. And what about Two and a Half Men? Also on CBS, it premiered in 2003 and is still running… (and it’s hilarious by the way). So, like Kyle and The Office , I argue that there is still (some) quality writing on sitcoms, with casts that help it shine through. And as Andrew V. wrote, “a lot of people don’t follow sports.”
You are definitely right about one thing Jamie: viewer’s expectations are higher. And when audiences are not getting what they want out of today’s sitcoms, but they know the excitement of watching sports, they are going to choose sports. With such a greater variety in sports line-ups today, it is hard to compete. In addition to the individual shows mentioned by others above, new channels have sprung up. According to The Handbook of Sports and Media , “[a]mong a dozen new channels launched in 2003, at least eight offered sports content” which shows a growing audience for additional sports programming beyond what is already offered (Raney and Bryant 95).
I think it all goes back to advertising though. Sooner or later everyone is going to own some type of “TiVo” device, as people lead busier and busier lives and are generally impatient. This will continue to affect the advertising dollars for sitcoms (since many people tape them and watch later), but it doesn’t really affect sports. As Wood and Benigni put it,“[b]ecause most sporting events and studio shows are broadcast live, viewers are generally unlikely if not loath to tape a game and watch it at their convenience” (Raney and Bryant 167). They argue, as Amanda P. mentioned, that sports are dramatic (not boring) and that there is an “excitement that builds,” during sporting events. When you pair that with one’s desire to see the outcome of an event in real time, there is no need for advertisers to worry that their ads are getting fast-forwarded through.
-Alison Dolan
I have to disagree with your argument that sitcoms are surpassing sports programming. First of all, I do agree with your point that sports will always have an audience, so it is less risky to air a program. However sitcoms are still incredibly popular and are guaranteed to make bank off of syndication alone. How can you say that there are no notable sitcoms of the new millennium? How about Everybody Loves Raymond? Sex and the City? That 70’s Show? Just to name a few. Sitcoms are a staple in American television entertainment.
ReplyDeleteWhen you said sports programming has solidified its spot in our culture, I would certainly have to agree. It has been solidified, yes, but certainly hasn’t taken the place of sitcoms either. This is especially true when some sports are only trendy as opposed to popular. For example, years ago very few Americans cared about the Tour de France or any other cycling race for that matter. But when Lance Armstrong entered the scene, it was trendy to become a fan. “Cycler Lance Armstrong carried enough star power to entice the Outdoor Life Network to carry the Tour de France bicycle race” (Raney & Bryant 2006; 96).
The same idea was evident in swimming, a sport which had almost no fans. But in 2008 when Michael Phelps won 8 medals and became an Olympic hero, fans were suddenly coming out of the woodwork! It became trendy to watch Phelps race… and win. While sports like these have fair-weathered fans that jump on the band wagons of individual athletes, sitcoms have always had a very steady fan base.
So you see, sitcoms have not taken a back seat to sports programming. Ratings of sitcoms are consitently steady throughout the year, while sports ratings constantly peak and drop depending on the time of year. Sitcoms have steady fans, which are not necessarily sports fans. Sitcoms also target a specific demographic that doesn’t always overlap with that of sports programming. Sitcoms also air in the afternoon, before primetime sports programming begins at night. So I think that both sitcoms and sports programs have solidified a place in our culture. I don’t see one surpassing the other.
- LEIGH WEISSMAN
This is a debate that can be argued till the end of time. You're always going to find people who can argue for one side or the other till they are both blue in the fact. Both sides would have valid arguments which is why there really is no clear cut winner.
ReplyDeleteI agree with bits of pieces of what everyone said. Jamie brought up a good point about how Reality TV and sports are really shaping what people watch on TV. And i agree with people when he says that Reality TV is what people want to see. I mean think about it. Over the past 10 years alone, reality TV has made a huge impact with TV. From shows like The Bachelor, Big Brother, Survivor to ones such as I love New York and Rock of Love. And each year there seems to be a new one on the horizon. There will always be people who think they can get onto these shows and maybe catch their "big break."
As far as the question about whether or not sports has surpassed sitcoms? I must agree. Whether people want to believe it or not, sports plays a huge role in today's society. Think about the amount of people who do pools for the Super Bowl, March Madness, or simply gamble on a regular basis. They live their lives around sports. And with stations all over the place (ESPN, ABC, NBC, TNT, VERSUS, YES, MSG, NESN), its really hard to go through the channels just once and not find something sports related to put on the TV, it's on all day. And especially here in CT where all of the stations named above can be seen from here in Hamden.
But as it was stated earlier in the blog, sports will always have an audience. You are always going to have people who want to sit down in front of their TV and just live sports for 24 hours a day. "Cable's top 16 shows in 2003 among adults 18-49 included 8 sports shows, including the top 3. Among adults 25-54, 10 of the top 20 programs displayed sports content, including 3 of the top 4 shows (Raney and Bryant 80). From that it was concluded that 8 of the top 14 shows featured sports content, including the top 5. Sports is just a part of people's nature. It gives us a reason to hate other teams, the rivalry aspect of it it what really fuels the fire.
However, I also do understand those who think that sitcoms will always be number one. Shows that run for years and have a good story line always have popularity. For example, I can still remember watching the series finale of Seinfeld and how upset I was that it was over (same thing for The Sopranos but HBO is in a class of it's own). You become a part of them. Everyone, including me, gets sucked right in. Like sports programs, sitcoms will always have their fans. With re-runs on everyday, it becomes a part of their day to get home and catch whatever episodes they can, even if they have seen it 100 times already.
But the point i agreed with the most was the last paragraph of Leigh's blog. Kind of like i stated at the beginning, this can be argued till the end of time. Each group has their own dedicated fans. And they will always be there to watch it no matter when it is on or how many times its on. Both have definitely earned the right to take center stage, and they do, in their own right.
- MICHAEL CEA