Why I Wish ABC was AMC, and Other Snaps to Basic Cable

Did you know you can get HD programming over your $20 antenna? It's true. Your local networks broadcast all of their network programming over the air in HD (if it is available in HD, that is). Therefore, you don't really need Time Warner, or Comcast, or any of the other evil monopolistic cable providers (technically the monopoly part is not true, but it gives an alarmist ring to the sentence, don't you think?). Also, the HD you get over your antenna is often better than what you get over cable or satellite, depending on your antenna. That means that you could be getting all of your favorite network shows, in HD, for a one-time $20 fee instead of the $65/month you're paying for cable. If the only shows you watch are on ABC, NBC, CBS, Fox, CW, and PBS - ditch the cable. You don't need it. Suck it, Time Warner!!

For my own sake, I have the most basic cable available: no HD, no DVR (I have my own Tivo), no premium channels, and no on-demand programming. Instead, I use the antenna to get HD programming. I figure it saves me about $600/year. For those of you who know me personally, you'll probably realize this has more to do with my propensity for waging useless, one-man crusades against companies that have terrible customer service than it does with the $600. Regardless ...

As usual, there are many wrinkles in my strategy. And the biggest wrinkle is that I've been steadily moving away from network programming in favor of the new crop of dramas on basic cable channels. AMC, for instance, has two fantastic programs that are must-watch: Mad Men and Breaking Bad. I'll reserve full-length reviews of these shows for later posts. Suffice to say for now that if you haven't been watching them, you need to start. Once again, here's my plug for Netflix ... go get a Netflix membership, and add the first two seasons of Breaking Bad and the first 3 seasons of Mad Men. You won't regret it.

FX also has some amazing shows. Nip Tuck is probably one of the best-produced avant-garde dramas of the last decade, and it was extremely popular for a basic cable program. It ran for 7 seasons before ending how all good programs should end: it ran its course. Other shows like Rescue Me, which I loved but had to give up due to limited TV time (hey, even I occasionally get outside), The Shield, which I have not watched but plan to, and some short-lived programs like Dirt and The Riches. Courtney Cox did her best work on Dirt, and I was sorry to see it canceled.

Even USA has gotten into the mix with some pretty entertaining shows like Burn Notice and Saving Grace. Now if I could just convince them to stop running WWE and Law & Order reruns, who knows how far they could go! And I would be dishonest if I didn't point out the shows I watch on SyFy as well (I'm thick-skinned, but all this criticism of my love for genre shows is making me twitchy), like Stargate: Universe and Eureka. If you are not into genre programming, you might actually enjoy Eureka. It's more of a comedrama than a genre program. SyFy has also scored big with its X-Files-like show, Warehouse 13. The show pulled in more viewers consistently than any other SyFy series during it's first mini-season. And after a long break it is scheduled to return soon, likely to good numbers.

You see the dilemma ... I love all of this basic cable programming, but I can't get it in HD (ok ... won't get it in HD) because I loathe Time Warner and all it stands for!! Whew! Deep breath. Time Warner may be evil, but they're not stupid. They know I'll eventually crack (because I know they plot ways to convert me, specifically ... ahem) and get digital cable, supplant my beloved Tivo and get the rented DVR (almost as bad as the old rented telephones that AT&T used to force on the public), and finally pay big bucks for HD basic cable. Bastards.

So why have basic cable networks like USA and AMC been so successful with their dramas? Well, you know I have a theory! As always, however, my theories are based on reasonable suppositions from the available facts. First, the shows produced on basic cable are much, much less expensive than network programming. A show like Breaking Bad, for instance, costs about 1/3 the total of a show like Lost. Most of this difference comes from the lower price that cable networks are willing to pay for an episode of shows like Breaking Bad after they have been made by the producer (in this case, Sony). That makes sense, considering basic cable has much lower viewership. The only reason AMC can pay for these episodes at all is because they don't rely strictly on an advertiser model (like ABC). Cable networks also receive subscription revenue from cable and satellite subscribers.

Second, the producers who develop shows for cable networks do a damned good job of working on the cheap. They shop for locations that have good tax breaks (unlike the big 3, which primarily use Hollywood locations), they hire high-quality unknowns for their actors at a discount, and avoid many of the union problems that Hollywood-produced television encounters.

Also, cable networks don't worry about syndication. Traditionally, a network program has to reach a magic number of episodes before it can be sold into syndication, usually about 4-5 seasons. Cable networks, however, don't use that antiquated model. They sell their shows directly to international and alternate providers episode-by-episode, generating immediate revenue, even for shows with struggling ratings. You would think the big 3 would have figured this out, but alas ... not so much.

Finally, and most importantly, the cable networks are willing to take much bigger risks with their programming. Edgy, sometimes even offensive programming comes out of this strategy, but the result is often much more entertaining television. The big 3 (and Fox) started to stick to a tried-and-true methodology that never changes. Most of the network series have episodes that are not really different from other episodes, or other shows for that matter, in the suspect belief that if America watches "XYZ", we should keep producing identical versions of "XYZ". Thus, network television is slowly dying. ABC has made some half-assed efforts to break new ground with their shows, but what they are really doing is just putting a new spin on successful past concepts like V and Flash Forward. That may stop the bleeding, but the beast is still dying from the wound, folks.

The numbers bear this out. Basic cable programming has steadily been gaining viewers for their late-night dramas, while network programming continues to lose viewers (some more rapidly than others, right NBC? Yeah, Leno was an awesome idea).

The decline of network programming can't last forever, though. I still believe some smart new managers at one of the networks will figure this out (probably someone young and vigorous who watches a lot of TV? Hint?), and start investing heavily in pay-per-view streaming content that is broadcast primarily in that format. The on-air broadcast should just be an afterthought at that point. Why wouldn't you take advantage of a worldwide audience, willing to pay directly for well-produced, edgy programming? It makes sense to me.

So to answer your question ... yes ... I actually do talk about shows that people watch. Sucko.

P.S. -

Erica Durance, I love you.