Saturday, December 08, 2007

Another Example Of The Principle Of Unintended Consequences On The Horizon.

It is probably a good bet that most people know little or nothing about the writers’ guild strike nor do they actually care, outside of California and possibly New York. Anyone who is an avid TV watcher (guilty as charged) and actually pays attention to the programming (which I do) should have noticed a subtle change in their choices. Now, here is the thing; with the advent of cable TV, reruns upon reruns have become as common as, well, turning on the television. The cable networks not only run a program several time in a given day but, will run the same thing for days at a time. The four major networks have gone to showing reruns of popular programs on the slow nights instead of trying to introduce new programming. I am still mourning the cancellation of some shows I liked but that were not great ratings successes only to have them replaced with reruns. Okay, television is not all that exciting, either. A pattern has developed over time. One network will discover a show that resonates with the audience and the rest will quickly follow suit with knockoffs of their own. Hardly imaginative. In fact, it is very difficult for any break-through program to break through. Research American Idol if you want a good example of how hard it can be.

Look at sports programming. All the sports shows follow the same tedious format. Though an NFL fan, I rarely watch the pre-game shows because they are all the same presenting all the same information with all the same commentary, blah, blah, blah. I want to yell at them, “Break the mold! Give me different and new and exciting! You are covering the best professional sport on the planet and killing it!”

Okay, enough digression.

Anyway, the strike has caused the networks to adjust their programming and the viewer will soon discover the true meaning of reruns as they run out of original products and are forced to show nothing but. Watch closely and you will see that sponsors have begun to notice the lack of viewership and, I believe, have begun to pull back their ads. Notice how many times you see the same commercial on any given show. I believe networks are giving huge discounts to advertisers just to fill their advertising slots. Also note the number of ads for the networks own programs or for sister cable network programs that are running.

Apparently, the “Moguls” of film and television walked away from the bargaining table, leaving the guild negotiators sitting there with nothing offered they can even consider. AND the Screen Actors Guild is threatening a similar strike in the spring if the Big Guys do not come to the table with something to offer.

Hundreds of thousands of people are out of work, working reduced hours or sitting around on the company’s dime doing very little and yet the Moguls have walked away, prolonging an already costly strike. How is it that the companies who make money providing entertainment cannot seem to figure out how to make money while still working with the creative people who give them the product they sell? Imagine GM telling its engineers they were not needed, that people would gladly buy last year’s car models. Or clothing companies informing designers that their new collections were unwanted as the consumer will happily purchase last year’s fashions.

There are really no winners in most strikes. Just those who lose less than others. And there is the principle of unintended consequences. Individuals and companies can control their own actions but no one has control of the consequences for those actions. The natural flow of events controls the results. The entertainment business will not be the same regardless of how the strike ends. The Moguls had better beware. They might well find themselves casualties of the unknown changes ahead they have set in motion.

What Does Iowa Mean To Me?

The MSM, in its usual wolf pack mode, is swamping us with polls from a caucus and a relatively minor liberal state, both of which are poor predictors of who will eventually represent the two major political parties. For the liberal main street liberal media, the election is on the line. Yippy!

Okay, if that did not sound all that enthusiastic, it was not. The Iowa caucus and the New Hampshire primary have only one real function; they display the weakness of the MSM to pick the actual front-runner for either party. Check your history on these two events. Hardly impressive. For the liberals, these contests represent their opportunity to push for their candidate(s). For conservatives, the MSM tries to politic for the candidates they want to lead over any legitimate conservative candidate to marginalize true conservative voices. Hence, the MSM shills for their picks to win it all in hopes of preventing a loser from emerging on the Democrat side and a true conservative from appearing on the Republican side.

However, given the track record of these two events, I am watching to see who is able to overcome the focus of the MSM when the real primary season starts. The real conservative candidates have already been written out of the picture by the MSM. The question is which one of them is working behind the scenes, that is, away from the focus the MSM is placing on the others. The candidate who understands that they are not out of it just because the MSM has declared who will have a chance, a very good chance to take it all. I am wondering, with interest, which one of them will actually win the GOP nomination. If history is a good indicator, he is not the one who wins in Iowa or New Hampshire and not the one picked by the MSM. Sorry about that, Mike.

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?