TORONTO, ONTARIO - As long as twenty-five years ago, there was an interesting phenomenon amongst unlimited hydroplane racing fans. Enthusiasts of the sport that would attend every race that they could over the course of the year would not attend race day in Seattle, Washington. Why? It wasn't the weather or ticket prices. The Seattle race was always televised, and the coverage on the local station was often so good, and the views from the television camera so much better than what could be seen from the shore, that the fans thought the experience was more engaging at home on television than along Lake Washington.
In twenty-five years, a lot has improved in television technology. Large-screen televisions are far more commonplace for average consumers. Analog television has been replaced with digital television that makes the picture even more clear and real to the viewer. Watching television feels even more like actually being somewhere than it ever has before, and now the same phenomenon that was occurring long ago with unlimited hydroplane racing is happening to other sports.
The Toronto Blue Jays, the only major-league baseball team in Canada, is now receiving record television ratings. Despite being on a cable channel, the games are often viewed by more than 500,000 people (as cited in the Toronto Star). Meanwhile, the in-person attendance at the Rogers Centre is about as low as it has ever been. According to TSN, opening night aside, the team has averaged just 14,853 fans in its first 25 home games. Attendance has exceeded 20,000 only twice, in a stadium that holds nearly 50,000.
Clearly, the team doesn't have a popularity problem. Besides the record television ratings, their on-the-field record has exceeded expectations, competitive in the American League East and the wild card race. It just seems that the fans prefer their in-home television experience to the experience in the Rogers Centre.
Perhaps this isn't so surprising. Traffic and parking are huge problems in Toronto and around the Rogers Centre in particular. The amenities of the Rogers Centre pale in comparison with more modern stadiums from the new Camden Yards in Baltimore to Safeco Field in Seattle. Ticket prices effectively went up this year with the end of some package deals and most promotions.
Yet, the Blue Jays might really be canaries on this issue. As home entertainment technology improves (think live baseball in 3D), this phenomenon isn't going to be limited to Toronto. For that matter, it will not be limited to baseball. It is not inconceivable that within a decade, for most fans, the experience at home will be better than the experience in person. The whole business model for sports may need to be re-evaluated--and the teams and sports that anticipate this and create a new sustainable model will be the ones that will still be around in a generation.
Showing posts with label television. Show all posts
Showing posts with label television. Show all posts
Saturday, June 5, 2010
Friday, December 11, 2009
Culture: Game Shows
SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA - I view watching certain game shows as a possible sign of commitment to life-long learning. Some people in retirement watch soap operas, but my Great Aunt Pauline mostly watches a wide range of game shows. Her cable package includes the Game Show Network, which includes a variety of both classic shows, like the $100,000 Pyramid and Family Feud, and a variety of newer shows, including Deal or No Deal and Catch 21.
Deal or No Deal may be entertaining, but the contestants really don't need any skill to play the game. Catch 21 is somewhat better, as one needs to answer basic-knowledge questions, an alarming number of which seem to be from the entertainment industry, in order to be subjected to the luck of the draw--or at least to have any control over it. Still, luck plays a major role, which probably adds to the appeal for a general audience, but means that the best player doesn't always win.
By these standards, the all-time best game show is probably Jeopardy!, hosted by Canadian Alex Trebek, which continues to run to this day, distributed by King-World. Skill with the clicker may make a difference, but mostly what matters is deep knowledge of the world. Jeopardy! has had a major impact on North American culture, with people phrasing answers in the form of a question for no other reason than the influence of the show, and its theme music being the most common way to keep track of a thirty-second period.
There is a newer game that I think rivals Jeopardy! in some ways. It's not found on the Game Show Network or even in syndication, but on the Discovery Channel. Cash Cab has a great premise--a cab that pays you instead of you paying a fare. Of course, in order to earn cash, one has to answer questions. They may not be as hard as the ones on Jeopardy, but they're good enough for my taste. Host Ben Bailey, who not only came up with the concept but had to get his New York cabbie license, manages the game while driving passengers to their destination. If they miss three questions, they have to get out and hail another cab; if they need help, they can do a "mobile shout-out" (the "life line" we became so familiar with through Millionaire) or a "street shout-out" to a passer-by on the sidewalk. Plus, one gets to learn the geography of Manhattan by paying attention to the cab's route. This is the most clever game show to come along in some time, and it's probably no coincidence that it is on the generally more intellectual Discovery Channel.
Of course, I don't take cabs. Maybe Portland can have a cash streetcar?
Deal or No Deal may be entertaining, but the contestants really don't need any skill to play the game. Catch 21 is somewhat better, as one needs to answer basic-knowledge questions, an alarming number of which seem to be from the entertainment industry, in order to be subjected to the luck of the draw--or at least to have any control over it. Still, luck plays a major role, which probably adds to the appeal for a general audience, but means that the best player doesn't always win.
By these standards, the all-time best game show is probably Jeopardy!, hosted by Canadian Alex Trebek, which continues to run to this day, distributed by King-World. Skill with the clicker may make a difference, but mostly what matters is deep knowledge of the world. Jeopardy! has had a major impact on North American culture, with people phrasing answers in the form of a question for no other reason than the influence of the show, and its theme music being the most common way to keep track of a thirty-second period.
There is a newer game that I think rivals Jeopardy! in some ways. It's not found on the Game Show Network or even in syndication, but on the Discovery Channel. Cash Cab has a great premise--a cab that pays you instead of you paying a fare. Of course, in order to earn cash, one has to answer questions. They may not be as hard as the ones on Jeopardy, but they're good enough for my taste. Host Ben Bailey, who not only came up with the concept but had to get his New York cabbie license, manages the game while driving passengers to their destination. If they miss three questions, they have to get out and hail another cab; if they need help, they can do a "mobile shout-out" (the "life line" we became so familiar with through Millionaire) or a "street shout-out" to a passer-by on the sidewalk. Plus, one gets to learn the geography of Manhattan by paying attention to the cab's route. This is the most clever game show to come along in some time, and it's probably no coincidence that it is on the generally more intellectual Discovery Channel.
Of course, I don't take cabs. Maybe Portland can have a cash streetcar?
Monday, August 24, 2009
Media: Tell Me A Story
TORONTO, ONTARIO - The death last Wednesday of CBS superstar producer Don Hewitt, who has been influential since the early days of television and whose seminal project, 60 Minutes, continues in his format to this day, has set a lot of people thinking about his influence on the industry. Admittedly, I have mixed feelings, but in my final analysis I have to conclude that Hewitt and 60 Minutes have been a clear positive influence; the decline in the medium lies elsewhere.
It would be hard for me to criticize 60 Minutes too much as I have watched or listened to it essentially my entire life. Not only has it been a staple of my Sunday nights, but it is a touchstone with virtually everyone else in my life. I can ask anyone from my grandparents to old high school friends living across the United States about a story that just ran on 60 Minutes and the odds are that they have watched it and have opinions shaped in part by what they have seen. No other weekly hard news-based program has that kind of power with so many people that I know.
How can that be? As has been said many times in recent days, it all comes down to Hewitt's mantra: "Tell me a story." 60 Minutes tells good stories. Every week I look for a quality radio program to share, and the most likely candidates are shows like This American Life and As It Happens that tell good stories. I may not pick those shows every week, but they are only rarely not good radio. 60 Minutes is good television for the same reason, how it tells stories. It was Hewitt that worked unceasingly to make sure that it did.
Some, including Hewitt himself, have pondered whether 60 Minutes ruined news on television. First, by showing that a news program could make money, it may have started a death spiral for the standard nightly newscast. I think that argument is crazy--if 60 Minutes had never been tried, I suspect news departments just would have been cut faster. Secondly, by emphasizing stories rather than facts, it distorted journalism into entertainment. This is a more serious charge, and it has substance to it. Anyone who was in Washington state in the 1989 will not forgive 60 Minutes for single-handedly creating the ALAR scare, which the apple industry to this day claims cost it $100 million. A long list of people have similarly been made out as villains because it made a better story.
Yet, the genius of 60 Minutes is that it is fundamentally based on journalism. When they make large enough mistakes, they correct them explicitly themselves. Smaller ones are addressed by other journalists reporting on other programs or other media such as newspapers or these days on web sites that refute the stories told on 60 Minutes. Newspapers make mistakes as well for a variety of reasons, and these also get corrected in the media space by competitors. I don't think 60 Minutes can be faulted for being in error on occasion just because its format is more susceptible to bias than the front page of a newspaper, especially in an era of explicitly biased media like political bloggers, Fox News, and MSNBC.
The decay in the quality of television, particularly its journalism, didn't come from 60 Minutes or similar programs on other networks like 20/20 or Dateline. It came from entertainment programs masquerading as news like Inside Edition and Hard Copy. (I don't even fault Entertainment Tonight--I mean, the title says that it isn't a serious program, and it arguably doesn't pretend to be.) It came from cable networks with way too much time to fill who turned to contrived debate and opinions, sometimes borrowing from talk radio, and placed it on supposedly-news channels. The worst segments on 60 Minutes compare favorably from a journalistic perspective with any segment of the now-canceled programs Crossfire and A Current Affair.
The 60 Minutes special on Don Hewitt that aired last night solidified this opinion in my mind. Seeing Hewitt work on storytelling, even his arguments with Mike Wallace over what facts to include, showed me that he may represent style over substance, but he was dead in the water without the substance. There's nothing wrong with selling sizzle with the steak, as long as it is steak and not hamburger, and if that is Hewitt's legacy, I find that to be a positive one.
It would be hard for me to criticize 60 Minutes too much as I have watched or listened to it essentially my entire life. Not only has it been a staple of my Sunday nights, but it is a touchstone with virtually everyone else in my life. I can ask anyone from my grandparents to old high school friends living across the United States about a story that just ran on 60 Minutes and the odds are that they have watched it and have opinions shaped in part by what they have seen. No other weekly hard news-based program has that kind of power with so many people that I know.
How can that be? As has been said many times in recent days, it all comes down to Hewitt's mantra: "Tell me a story." 60 Minutes tells good stories. Every week I look for a quality radio program to share, and the most likely candidates are shows like This American Life and As It Happens that tell good stories. I may not pick those shows every week, but they are only rarely not good radio. 60 Minutes is good television for the same reason, how it tells stories. It was Hewitt that worked unceasingly to make sure that it did.
Some, including Hewitt himself, have pondered whether 60 Minutes ruined news on television. First, by showing that a news program could make money, it may have started a death spiral for the standard nightly newscast. I think that argument is crazy--if 60 Minutes had never been tried, I suspect news departments just would have been cut faster. Secondly, by emphasizing stories rather than facts, it distorted journalism into entertainment. This is a more serious charge, and it has substance to it. Anyone who was in Washington state in the 1989 will not forgive 60 Minutes for single-handedly creating the ALAR scare, which the apple industry to this day claims cost it $100 million. A long list of people have similarly been made out as villains because it made a better story.
Yet, the genius of 60 Minutes is that it is fundamentally based on journalism. When they make large enough mistakes, they correct them explicitly themselves. Smaller ones are addressed by other journalists reporting on other programs or other media such as newspapers or these days on web sites that refute the stories told on 60 Minutes. Newspapers make mistakes as well for a variety of reasons, and these also get corrected in the media space by competitors. I don't think 60 Minutes can be faulted for being in error on occasion just because its format is more susceptible to bias than the front page of a newspaper, especially in an era of explicitly biased media like political bloggers, Fox News, and MSNBC.
The decay in the quality of television, particularly its journalism, didn't come from 60 Minutes or similar programs on other networks like 20/20 or Dateline. It came from entertainment programs masquerading as news like Inside Edition and Hard Copy. (I don't even fault Entertainment Tonight--I mean, the title says that it isn't a serious program, and it arguably doesn't pretend to be.) It came from cable networks with way too much time to fill who turned to contrived debate and opinions, sometimes borrowing from talk radio, and placed it on supposedly-news channels. The worst segments on 60 Minutes compare favorably from a journalistic perspective with any segment of the now-canceled programs Crossfire and A Current Affair.
The 60 Minutes special on Don Hewitt that aired last night solidified this opinion in my mind. Seeing Hewitt work on storytelling, even his arguments with Mike Wallace over what facts to include, showed me that he may represent style over substance, but he was dead in the water without the substance. There's nothing wrong with selling sizzle with the steak, as long as it is steak and not hamburger, and if that is Hewitt's legacy, I find that to be a positive one.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)