Back before cable TV, when there were only 3 television networks, no streaming, no YouTube, etc, shows would easily get 10-20x the audience sizes they do today. But, compared to the stuff produced today, those shows mostly had cheap sets and few locations.
With lower costs and way more viewers, were those old networks literally swimming in money? Or was something majorly different?
Did advertisers pay substantially less? Did actors get paid more? How did the economics work?
In: 5
Today’s television shows have significantly fewer episodes per season than was previously typical. For example, the first season of House of the Dragon consisted of 10 episodes. By comparison, a show that aired in the 50’s or 60’s could easily have had 30 to 35 episodes. Longer seasons means less money and lower production values on a per episode basis even if you spent the same amount of money on the season overall.
In addition to advertising, networks and cable channels also get carriage fees from cable
providers.
Today’s television shows have significantly fewer episodes per season than was previously typical. For example, the first season of House of the Dragon consisted of 10 episodes. By comparison, a show that aired in the 50’s or 60’s could easily have had 30 to 35 episodes. Longer seasons means less money and lower production values on a per episode basis even if you spent the same amount of money on the season overall.
In addition to advertising, networks and cable channels also get carriage fees from cable
providers.
Your premise is wrong.
Where on Earth did you get 1/20 as many viewers from?
Cheers was always either the #1 or #2 watched TV show in the world at its time.
It averaged about 30 million viewers per episode.
In contrast, Stranger Things season 4 averaged 200 million viewers per episode.
Even the least popular episode of Virgin River (a rather middling-popularity show by today’s standards) got more viewers than the average episode of Cheers.
You can generally expect shows today to get 10 times *more* viewers than they would have in the days of network TV.
*And* advertising dollars are a lot higher now (targeted ads pay more than broadcast ads).
Your premise is wrong.
Where on Earth did you get 1/20 as many viewers from?
Cheers was always either the #1 or #2 watched TV show in the world at its time.
It averaged about 30 million viewers per episode.
In contrast, Stranger Things season 4 averaged 200 million viewers per episode.
Even the least popular episode of Virgin River (a rather middling-popularity show by today’s standards) got more viewers than the average episode of Cheers.
You can generally expect shows today to get 10 times *more* viewers than they would have in the days of network TV.
*And* advertising dollars are a lot higher now (targeted ads pay more than broadcast ads).
Two things, cost of production and cost of distribution.
1 – Modern equipment and software to produce a show are a fraction of the cost of running a TV studio 30 years ago. High quality cameras, editing equipment, and special effects cost very, very little in proportion.
Of course, some shows today have better production quality than movies did in times past and cost a fortune (Game of Thrones, The Crown, etc), but there are still many great shows made for not-much-money, certainly less money than if filmed as regular TV in the 80’s.
2 – TV shows of old had to be broadcast on a TV channel. Air-time was a scarce and a terribly expensive thing to have. Powerful transmitters across the country and only a very few channels available to broadcast on and **only one show could be on a single channel at the same time**. Supply and demand.
Much of TV today is carried on cable or even streaming. The cost to distribute is very, very low. There is no scarcity equivalent to the idea that through the 80’s most people had well under a dozen channels available.
I can go to HULU or Netflix and watch any of hundreds of streaming shows today, This means giant shows can make big money, but even small, niche shows with smaller audiences can still make money if they can moderate their production costs.
Two things, cost of production and cost of distribution.
1 – Modern equipment and software to produce a show are a fraction of the cost of running a TV studio 30 years ago. High quality cameras, editing equipment, and special effects cost very, very little in proportion.
Of course, some shows today have better production quality than movies did in times past and cost a fortune (Game of Thrones, The Crown, etc), but there are still many great shows made for not-much-money, certainly less money than if filmed as regular TV in the 80’s.
2 – TV shows of old had to be broadcast on a TV channel. Air-time was a scarce and a terribly expensive thing to have. Powerful transmitters across the country and only a very few channels available to broadcast on and **only one show could be on a single channel at the same time**. Supply and demand.
Much of TV today is carried on cable or even streaming. The cost to distribute is very, very low. There is no scarcity equivalent to the idea that through the 80’s most people had well under a dozen channels available.
I can go to HULU or Netflix and watch any of hundreds of streaming shows today, This means giant shows can make big money, but even small, niche shows with smaller audiences can still make money if they can moderate their production costs.
Latest Answers