Cable networks should focus on viewer tastes, not ratings
It was a real bummer. I had been such a huge fan from the start. The sharp-witted pop culture references and fast-paced “joke a minute” style. I started to become invested in the characters and looked forward to my half-hour escape from reality. Then, in one fell swoop, it was gone.
At the peak of its popularity, the NBC comedy “Community” was temporarily taken off the air, igniting passionate online campaigns to keep television’s favorite community college students alive. Fortunately, the show has been given new life.
However, this was not the first time Greendale Community College was threatened. The program went on a midseason hiatus during the its third season, and “Community” just narrowly eluded the cable network guillotine that has taken the lives of so many great programs before. It always takes me by surprise that so many phenomenal programs that innovate and change the way we see cable television, such as Fox’s “Arrested Development” or NBC’s “Freaks and Geeks,” rarely run past a third season.
One could always take an elitist approach and say such shows are too highbrow or the masses don’t want to think when they watch television, that watching a formulaic cop show is less taxing than being an active viewer and paying attention to subtleties. But the general population should be given more credit than that. These shows are not needlessly complex, nor do they try to alienate audiences; the shows would not be nearly as praised with that approach.
The rationale for the networks cutting of these shows is ratings. There are simply not enough people watching the show to justify keeping it on the air. It seems unproductive for network executives to give up on a show with such a devoted fan base, which will guarantee viewers, and putting a new pilot in its time slot. That aside, the good press for a critically acclaimed show gives the network plenty of reasons to take a chance.
The main reason why well-written innovative shows are not received in the mainstream is the lack of advertisement. I never see commercials for below-the-surface shows, but it would be easy to give them some buzz.
A simple ad showing the awards it has won and its rave reviews would be more than enough to make most viewers tune in. Wouldn’t networks want to help out shows struggling for viewership rather than continue to bombard to the ones already in the public conscious?
The continual throwing out of excellent television shows is a punch in the gut to all of the dedicated viewers who have developed a connection with the shows. It severely hinders committed writers and directors who try to innovate and places a governor on creative original programming. These oblivious executives are punishing visionaries for trying to further modernize television.