Stop Blaming Cable. It's the Networks Fault.

S

Sgt.Green

New member
Ever since I joined this site in April all I see is people blame cable for the demise of cartoons on network TV. The fact is that 24/7 cartoon channels have been around since the 1980s. If they were gonna do damage they would done it a LONG time ago. Secondly, things didn't fall apart in the `90s. If that were true, Power Rangers (heyday 1993-1996) and Pokemon (heyday 1998-2000) wouldn't have been the BIGGEST shows in Kids TV.

Things fell apart THIS decade. You know why? Cause networks stopped making good shows. Its as simple as that. Seriously, what has network offered us since 2000? Coconut Fred, Loonatics Unleashed, too many seasons of Power Rangers, etc etc etc. You can't expect large viewership if you're airing crap.

It also doesn't help when you have two networks merging with cable. CBS stopped airing original cartoons in favor of Nick reruns. ABC did the same in favor of Disney reruns. And every once in a while you had Cartoon Network shows pop up on Kids WB (and vice versa).
 
If parents put the TV on Cartoon Network or Nickelodeon on Sunday through Friday, why are they going to have a sudden change of heart on Saturday and put it on The CW instead? You?re acting like the networks could create quality programming and suddenly receive great ratings, but ?Arrested Development? would like to have a word with you about that. The times have changed. That?s all that it is. The big networks are struggling everywhere, even in the news department which they once dominated. It?s not a simple solution.
 
I don't know anything about "The MTV Generation" but it sounds like thats something that would happen when cable had just begun and was still a new, exciting thing. Besides, don't put much stock in any phrase that tries to describe an entire generation.
 
Ahem:

The networks stopped producing shows because they couldn't compete with expanding juggernaut of cable/satellite. The network's were losing viewers to the 24 hour cartoon channels and DVDs. What's the point of producing expensive, quality entertainment if no one is watching it?

And no, the networks' programming didn't fall off all at once. There was Disney's One Saturday Morning, the syndicated Disney Afternoon, later One Too and Fox Kids, which lasted for a few years, but gradually, after Nicktoons and later Cartoon Network began producing their own original programming, the audiences for these network/syndicated programming blocks began to drop, which is why they all came to an end.

Perhaps the increasing market of cable and satellite wasn't the only reason why network cartoon blocks are going the way of the do-do, but you can't deny that they were/are a contributing factor.
 
I don't know about the Fox Kid thing I'm 15 and I remember watching tons of stuff on Fox Kids, 1996-2003 I watched it, I'd say it's possible for him to have watched some of it.
 
Honestly, I don't know a single parent who's a big enough Nazi to grab the remote and force their kids to watch something. The parents I know use a little feature called "child block" which block kids from watching channels like, say, HBO without a password. Then, they give the remote to the child and let he or she choose what to watch without worrying that they'll stumble onto something inappropriate.



Every show isn't gonna be a hit. And, FOX, the channel that aired Arrested Development has popular shows like 24, House, and American Idol. So...FOX isn't struggling.



Some channels, like NBC, are struggling. Others are doing fine. Like I said earlier...not every channel is gonna succeed, but networks in general haven't fallen apart. It's only the kids block cause they didn't air shows that connected with kids.



Well, seeing as how MTV did infact make a big influence on pop culture in the `80s then I'd say its spot on.
 
If I remember correctly, the first animation channel (CN) aired in 1992, after the Big 3's SatAM heyday.

And cartoon channels weren't a factor back then because they mostly consisted of tired reruns of classic cartoons. By the 00's however, CN's originals and Nicktoons were in full force, and cable networks were now major players, and networks got left behind. Not to mention, the number of cable owners had grown exponentially.

So yes, it is in fact entirely cable's fault.
 
What expansion? Disney and Nick have been around since the `80s with a line-up of popular shows like Kids, Inc and You Can't Do That on Television. Then, the `90s arrived with the VERY popular NickToons as well as a variety of shows that you can't find today in the world of 24/7 Spongebob and non-stop Hannah Montana/Wizards/Zack & Cody.



And when did that happen? THIS decade. You can't be losing viewers when you have Pokemon as the #1 kids shows. The fact is that networks during THIS decade failed to connect with audiences. They weren't producing the shows kids were enjoying. There isn't this anti-network crap you think kids are having cause if that were the case, PBS wouldn't continue to pull in big numbers.
 
Wow...There was a Decade when MTV was good....Who woulda thunk it. Its sad to see the Flamming sack of Crud MTV has become considering how Good it was back then...and it was Decent on the 90's..But now....Now i just wish it was dead. (OH & CBS is also Struggling! YAY!)
 
NickToons premiered in 1991, so forget CN. They weren't relevant till the late `90s and are currently the #3 kids channels.



You're SORT OF correct in the "cartoon" area, but Nick has had an ENTIRE line-up of original content since the start of the 1990s. They had original kidcoms, game shows, and sports shows. As well as the Nicktoons. And most of those shows were popular with kids. Yet it didn't affect network ratings. It didn't affect Power Rangers and Pokemon from becoming the #1 kids shows.
 
Nick and Disney have been around since the 80s, but they didn't have any original animated programming until after the 1990s. You just answered your own question here.

And the statement that the original shows of today don't compare with the programs of 10 years ago is your opinion, not a fact. Who are we to judge what today's kids find entertaining? You may not like SpongeBob, Zack & Cody, Hanna Montana, and the like, but these shows continually put butts in seats, so Nick and Disney must be doing something right. The fact is that these newer programs are regularly drawing in viewers and are scoring big ratings numbers, whether you think they are inferior or not.

The other major reason why cable/satellite channels trump the networks is because they have the advantage of running 24/7. Why should kids need to wake up early to watch a block of animated shows for 3 to 4 hours in 1 day a week when they can literally turn to some cable station and watch cartoons any time of any day or night that they want to?
 
I believe cable did play a major role in the decline of popularity of Saturday mourning programming, in particular, stations such as Cartoon Network or Nickelodeon, which took over slowly as the main destination for kids throughout the 90's, as they introduced more original content.

And with VCRs, DVDs, DVRs, and the Internet, Kids no longer had to wait around for Saturday mournings, or even weekday mournings and afternoons, for programming aimed directly at them.
 
Cartoons aren't everything. Kids like live-action as well. And Power Rangers, a live-action show, was #1 from 1993 to 1996. And, Hannah Montana, another live-action show is making BILLIONS for Disney. The fact is that both Nick AND Disney have had PLENTY of original content (both animation AND live-action) since the `90s and it didn't affect network ratings or prevent Power Rangers AND Pokemon from being #1.
 
Granted, live action programs are cheaper to produce than animated shows are, but we're talking about general kid vid entertainment here. Whether a kids' show is animated or live action has no bearing on how many viewers will be attracted to it, therefore it's irrelevant.
 
Oh, boy, did you ever miss the point there.

Anyways, to weigh in on the argument: honestly, I have to say that it's not a matter of quality, but of convenience. Back in my '90's childhood, I slept in on Saturday mornings. Animaniacs, Tiny Toons, Batman? All Nickelodeon and CN there. Honestly, past seven years old nowadays, nobody gets up on Saturday mornings, and certainly they don't to watch cartoons. Why should they? They can watch Spongebob at 6 o'clock at night! There's no point in waking up early on the ONLY day (for some) you have off and can sleep in for cartoons that you can see later on.

Sorry, it's cable's fault. Cable may have been around longer, but you can see a downward trend. Notice that the networks' SatAM blocks through the '90s were mostly on life support, supported only by big "fad" shows. Power Rangers, TMNT, Pokemon. Once these all left, the networks had nothing to convince the kids that waking up on Saturday Mornings is worth it. Eh, cable has Spongebob, a great show, on whenever we want. Why watch Saturday mornings? Kids eventually left because cartoon viewing exponentially got more convenient and the network blocks didn't have anything appetizing to convice them to make the sacrifice. So it's a little of both, really...
 
Exactly, but in the meantime, prior to next season, the original Big Three networks need to consider any and all possibilities, especially after what we've been informed today about Fox and the possible impending demise of the CW.
 
I don't know if that's true. Kids, in general, tend to go to sleep earlier than the rest of us. Especially if they have responsible parents. Kids, on Friday night, are probably asleep by 11-11:30pm. So, by 8am they should be awake.



It's true that some blocks failed. However, some continued to deliver big ratings. FOX Kids, for example, from 1992-1997 was getting bigger ratings than anyone else on the kids show industry. They had Power Rangers (the #1 kids show from 1993-96), Animaniacs (the #2 kids show from 1993-1995), Batman: TAS, X-Men (one of the top-rated SatAM shows), Spider-Man, and Goosebumps to name a few.

Kids WB also had big ratings with Pokemon (the #1 kids show from 1998-2000), Animaniacs, Pinky & The Brain, Superman and Batman to name a few.



They simply didn't have the shows that connected with audiences. Which has been my point the whole time. Kids aren't anti-network. They'll return if the shows are good.
 
It's not all cable's fault. Cable has a big role in the downfall of children's shows on network TV, but it isn't all cable. Most obviously, NBC's abandoning of children's shows in the middle of 1992. Cartoon Network did not yet exist. Disney Channel was still a premium channel. So the closest thing to real competition on cable that any of the networks had was Nickelodeon. And while they certainly had some nice programming back then--though I'll admit I don't remember what they aired on Saturday mornings, specifically--I can't imagine that Nickelodeon, back then, all by itself, took out NBC's cartoon lineup. If anything, I'd suspect Fox's relatively new kids' lineup hurt NBC more than Nickelodeon did.

So what exactly caused NBC's children show downfall in 1992? Can't say I know. Clearly there's more to it than "it's all cable's fault." I don't know how anyone can say, with a straight face, that cable is completely innocent in recent trends, though. Cable's hurt network children's programming a lot, but there are clearly other factors involved.
 
Back
Top