The Profit of Excellence

Eric-Jon talks about how, artistically, DVD has enabled what many are calling the Golden Age of (Serialized Drama) Television.

I'd take this a step further (or in parallel) and suggest that, from a business standpoint -- because it's all business, in the end -- the current iteration of long-form, character-motivated television was not competitively feasible prior to two and a half things:

a) DVD
b) the fragmenting of audiences by cable/satellite/Internet, and
c) the consolidation of TV networks and TV production studios (which may have stemmed more from the above two than been a factor on its own, I don't know.)

There's an obvious trade-off when it comes to continuity in television (or any other episodic medium, really): More continuity makes a program less accessible, shrinking the audience. But, given a sufficient level of general quality, more continuity also increases the dedication of the remaining audience members. In other words:

Total value = audience size * value per audience member.

Traditionally, there was no general way to actually make more money off of more dedicated fans. Only a small class of popular, child-marketed programs could earn any significant money from merchandising (read: toys and t-shirts). And even then, that money wasn't typically helping the TV network's bottom line, which is where all the decisions were made.

Naturally, the market rewarded programs that maximized instantaneous audience size over things people could really be dedicated to. TV networks put all their focus on the first term, because the second one, when measured in dollars, was fairly constant. (Advertising demographics notwithstanding.)

DVD provided a means to sell directly to the audience. And the more dedicated the audience member, or the more appreciable the program is as a long-form work, the better the DVD sales.

The addition of cable/satellite channels, and the explosion of popularity of other forms of prime-time entertainment (Internet, videogames) meant that TV networks simply could not go after big audiences in the way that they once did. People suddenly had better things to do than simply watch TV for its own sake. So, TV programs had to become more compelling (i.e., better quality, more continuity) just to keep the audiences that used to be taken for granted. Kids, in particular, seemed to have moved on more than most, with a surplus of children's TV channels and a greater predisposition to choose Internet or games over television. (Speaking of children's TV, a parallel phenomenon has occurred with the rise in popularity of imported big-story-arc anime and the subsequent evolution of American animation to include these elements has occurred almost in lock-step with the adult dramas.) With the kid demographic removed from the equation, networks have nothing to lose (and everything to gain) by switching their focus from sitcoms with broad, cross-generational appeal to dramas with specifically targeted adult audiences.

At some point in all this, the trend of the TV network actually owning the full rights to show and producing it at their sister-company studio really took off. Whereas before it used to happen sometimes, and be convenient ... now it's practically a prerequisite. This means that the TV network actually does make money off of merchandising and DVDs. (That is, I believe, more a cause for this consolidation than it is a convenient effect.) Since the TV network both needs a core, dedicated audience to keep ratings up, and can make money by selling DVDs to them, all those executives who used to be focused only on ratings numbers are now suddenly interested in quality and audience dedication. Make no mistake: they are making a lot of money off DVD. Enough to keep it as secret as possible so that the little guys don't start whining for a (bigger) cut.

Amidst all this you also have technical developments (HD, digital video, cheap effective CG) that simultaneously inspire the creative types, reduce the cost of doing more artistically ambitious things, and lend TV a degree of artistic legitimacy among the people who thing themselves too-good-for-TV.

Taken all together, one can (and does!) conclude that a big part of why we're having this Golden Age of Television is because it's finally more profitable to try to make smart, quality, long-form programs.

(The one aspect missing from here -- and still in its infancy -- is the addition of an end structure. A graceful exit strategy that lets a program finish with dignity. Eric-Jon's essay argues that DVD supports this artistically, but financially it's still an area of contention between the producers and the businessmen. We'll see how it works out with Lost.)