Stop Blaming Cable. It's the Networks Fault.

[Futant_1]

NickToons premiered in 1991, so forget CN. They weren't relevant till the late `90s and are currently the #3 kids channels.



You're SORT OF correct in the "cartoon" area, but Nick has had an ENTIRE line-up of original content since the start of the 1990s. They had original kidcoms, game shows, and sports shows. As well as the Nicktoons. And most of those shows were popular with kids. Yet it didn't affect network ratings. It didn't affect Power Rangers and Pokemon from becoming the #1 kids shows.

[G*Star]

Nick and Disney have been around since the 80s, but they didn't have any original animated programming until after the 1990s. You just answered your own question here.

And the statement that the original shows of today don't compare with the programs of 10 years ago is your opinion, not a fact. Who are we to judge what today's kids find entertaining? You may not like SpongeBob, Zack & Cody, Hanna Montana, and the like, but these shows continually put butts in seats, so Nick and Disney must be doing something right. The fact is that these newer programs are regularly drawing in viewers and are scoring big ratings numbers, whether you think they are inferior or not.

The other major reason why cable/satellite channels trump the networks is because they have the advantage of running 24/7. Why should kids need to wake up early to watch a block of animated shows for 3 to 4 hours in 1 day a week when they can literally turn to some cable station and watch cartoons any time of any day or night that they want to?

[Codjl1]

I believe cable did play a major role in the decline of popularity of Saturday mourning programming, in particular, stations such as Cartoon Network or Nickelodeon, which took over slowly as the main destination for kids throughout the 90's, as they introduced more original content.

And with VCRs, DVDs, DVRs, and the Internet, Kids no longer had to wait around for Saturday mournings, or even weekday mournings and afternoons, for programming aimed directly at them.

[UltraEd12]

Cartoons aren't everything. Kids like live-action as well. And Power Rangers, a live-action show, was #1 from 1993 to 1996. And, Hannah Montana, another live-action show is making BILLIONS for Disney. The fact is that both Nick AND Disney have had PLENTY of original content (both animation AND live-action) since the `90s and it didn't affect network ratings or prevent Power Rangers AND Pokemon from being #1.

[Bizo Johnson]

Granted, live action programs are cheaper to produce than animated shows are, but we're talking about general kid vid entertainment here. Whether a kids' show is animated or live action has no bearing on how many viewers will be attracted to it, therefore it's irrelevant.

[saskue100]

Oh, boy, did you ever miss the point there.

Anyways, to weigh in on the argument: honestly, I have to say that it's not a matter of quality, but of convenience. Back in my '90's childhood, I slept in on Saturday mornings. Animaniacs, Tiny Toons, Batman? All Nickelodeon and CN there. Honestly, past seven years old nowadays, nobody gets up on Saturday mornings, and certainly they don't to watch cartoons. Why should they? They can watch Spongebob at 6 o'clock at night! There's no point in waking up early on the ONLY day (for some) you have off and can sleep in for cartoons that you can see later on.

Sorry, it's cable's fault. Cable may have been around longer, but you can see a downward trend. Notice that the networks' SatAM blocks through the '90s were mostly on life support, supported only by big "fad" shows. Power Rangers, TMNT, Pokemon. Once these all left, the networks had nothing to convince the kids that waking up on Saturday Mornings is worth it. Eh, cable has Spongebob, a great show, on whenever we want. Why watch Saturday mornings? Kids eventually left because cartoon viewing exponentially got more convenient and the network blocks didn't have anything appetizing to convice them to make the sacrifice. So it's a little of both, really...

[IDK LOLZ]

Exactly, but in the meantime, prior to next season, the original Big Three networks need to consider any and all possibilities, especially after what we've been informed today about Fox and the possible impending demise of the CW.

[Shelby M]

I don't know if that's true. Kids, in general, tend to go to sleep earlier than the rest of us. Especially if they have responsible parents. Kids, on Friday night, are probably asleep by 11-11:30pm. So, by 8am they should be awake.



It's true that some blocks failed. However, some continued to deliver big ratings. FOX Kids, for example, from 1992-1997 was getting bigger ratings than anyone else on the kids show industry. They had Power Rangers (the #1 kids show from 1993-96), Animaniacs (the #2 kids show from 1993-1995), Batman: TAS, X-Men (one of the top-rated SatAM shows), Spider-Man, and Goosebumps to name a few.

Kids WB also had big ratings with Pokemon (the #1 kids show from 1998-2000), Animaniacs, Pinky & The Brain, Superman and Batman to name a few.



They simply didn't have the shows that connected with audiences. Which has been my point the whole time. Kids aren't anti-network. They'll return if the shows are good.

[Jz.princess]

It's not all cable's fault. Cable has a big role in the downfall of children's shows on network TV, but it isn't all cable. Most obviously, NBC's abandoning of children's shows in the middle of 1992. Cartoon Network did not yet exist. Disney Channel was still a premium channel. So the closest thing to real competition on cable that any of the networks had was Nickelodeon. And while they certainly had some nice programming back then--though I'll admit I don't remember what they aired on Saturday mornings, specifically--I can't imagine that Nickelodeon, back then, all by itself, took out NBC's cartoon lineup. If anything, I'd suspect Fox's relatively new kids' lineup hurt NBC more than Nickelodeon did.

So what exactly caused NBC's children show downfall in 1992? Can't say I know. Clearly there's more to it than "it's all cable's fault." I don't know how anyone can say, with a straight face, that cable is completely innocent in recent trends, though. Cable's hurt network children's programming a lot, but there are clearly other factors involved.

[STAR16]

The Big 3 won't do anything. They don't care anymore.

Nobody cares anymore. Certainly not the networks and their demographics.