Why are there so many networks devoting half of their coverage to weddings? Don't get me wrong, I love weddings. But I like watching weddings because I know the people involved. I've got a team to root for.
Okay, I admit that when we were moving last fall, I briefly became addicted to Bridezillas. I needed the reminder that there is actually something worse than moving: planning a big wedding. But that cannot be the general explanation for the plethora of wedding based shows that now seems to dominate two or three television networks at least 50% of the time.
I presume that the demographic is mostly women still young enough to fantasize about dressing up like a meringue and blowing the cost of a luxury car on a six-hour party. The "pre-married", let's call them. But are enough of them interested in watching other peoples' wedding disasters to support simultaneous programming on three networks? And how many of them are home right now, when I am observing this phenomenon?
Copyright © 2009 by The Atlantic Monthly Group. All rights reserved.
I presume that the demographic is mostly women still young enough to fantasize about dressing up like a meringue and blowing the cost of a luxury car on a six-hour party.
And stay-at-home moms minding 3 brats wishing they hadn't been knocked up at the county courthouse, and older women dreaming of their daughter's weddings, and women of any age who like to fantasize about being the center of attention or being rich enough to blow money of frivoloties, etc.
I love going to a ball game, having a beer and a hot dog, and cheering. Also, I love going to weddings and having a fancy dinner, good wine, and a bit of dancing to our song ("In the mood"). But I don't watch either one on TV.
I hear young men now play video games instead of watching TV so TV is more female centric than it used to be, and it was pretty female centric before. If one is going for a female audience, and one isn't a niche cable channel, one wants to put on programming with the widest appeal, i.e. about a situation that most women are at least somewhat familiar about, it seems wedding shows are an idea whose time has come.
Also, I would have to believe the production cost of these shows is minimal.
it's all about the advertising. a lot of reality tv genres exist because they are directly tied to important niche consumer markets. coca cola might want to simply reach a big audience, but most advertisers are particularly interested in reaching audiences who are particularly interested in their products. so shows about a relatively infrequent but massive purchase (weddings, home refurbishment, etc) are going to be very valuable to advertisers. this is true in part for the spot market but even more so for the product placement (or as Madison Ave now calls it, "branded entertainment") that can finance most of a reality show's (already small) production budget before they even start shooting.
think of it as the cable tv equivalent of search advertising.
Simple reasons:
1) Low production costs - no high powered stars to pay, no studio costs, limited post production costs, cheaper camera and sound systems, no special effects, no real script costs.
2) Limited risk to investment. If it goes south, you have not lost much. If an episode does not work, you are only out whatever fees you paid the happy couple.
3) No legal problems about residuals or internet/DVD rights; which subjects have been tying production companies and unions in knots lately.
4) Very little brainpower and originality required from the production company, both qualities in very short supply in the entertainment industry. Originality also implies ..... risk.
5) Limited chance of accidentally crossing some PC line that can get you in trouble. Safety and groupthink being highly valued commodities in the entertainment industry.
Subotai Bahadur
We used to get a laugh out of Bridezillas because it showed such hilariously awful people. Sort of like the deliciously horrible characters in Kingsley Amis novels. But if the awfulness is scripted, it's no longer funny. And if it's genuine, it isn't funny, either.
And nearly 28 years later (32 of living together,) the big decision will be when -- not if -- to put the dog to sleep. She's 12, and has cancer, and is starting to feel a lot of pain.
We planned our wedding to be cheap and simple. It was in our yard; my family made the food, my husband's bought the flowers and booze, and my dress cost $50. Performers were our friends, many gifted musicians.
Many who attended still tell me it was one of the nicest weddings they've ever been to. But there was good food and good music and plenty of liquid to ease your social stress. Sadly, it's one of the minority they witnessed that hasn't dissolved.
"Many who attended still tell me it was one of the nicest weddings they've ever been to."
Generally, people say that to almost every couple. It's a polite thing to do and the "one of" buffer allows for a lot of flexibility.
You're kind of an a**hole, aren't you?
Seconded.
Yes, but I'm one of the nicest a**holes you'll ever meet!
Now why hadn't I thought of that? They're just being polite and insincere. They really wanted me to got $30,000 in debt to throw a party and start off my marriage with a financial crisis.
Tell me, since I'm so inept, what should we do about the dog? Kick it?
plenty of liquid to ease your social stress.
That's 90% of the battle right there.
Advertisers love them because when do people spend reams of money? Getting married and getting their love nests set up.
I'm guessing there's probably enough real demand for one of these shows, but with the lack of creativity and consequent herd mentality of so many of today's network execs, a "me too" stampede has ensued. It'll only last as long as the ratings let it which won't be long.
One often hears that the quality of television has gone down since the early golden age of the medium. I don't think that's so in an absolute sense. The total amount of quality programming has increased arithmetically over time, but the total available programming has increased geometrically with the increases in bandwith and technology. There's as much good programming out there as there ever was. You just have to sift through a lot of drek to find it.
And BTW, this is the way it should work. Several shows should start out, but they should be winnowed down to the best one or two to meet the real demand. It ends up with a better show than what you'd have if you only had the one to start. (That is if you like wedding shows. I guess I don't fit their target demographic.)
I have a slightly different take, the average TV quality is probably the same, but the variability has gone way, way up.
The best TV of today is far, far better than ever before.
But the worst TV of today is just as mindless and moronic as the most stupid 1950s sitcom or game show, but with added crudity and unsuitability for children.
I'm an unapologetic fan of reality television. A lot of it is really good.
Sure, some of it's really bad. But a really bad reality TV show is often better than really bad comedy or drama programing.
I actually have the same sort of question about the 'Flip this House' kind of shows. Seems like these shows should be waning, but I suspect they have a bunch that were already in the pipeline.
I'm pretty sure that was a fad sparked by the ludicrous inflation of house prices in the middle of the decade. When simple appreciation will just about carry your financing costs, a smart renovator can turn a huge profit. Take home improvement shows(popular for as long as I can remember), add in people dreaming about earning tens of thousands with a DIY business that they feel qualified for, and pump it through the excellent production economics of reality television, and you have a great little fad to ride. Of course, then the bottom falls out, house flippers lose their shirts, every episode has a downer ending, and people stop tuning in - but while it works, hey, it's great.
I think this is true. I watch TV maybe once every six months, so the trends are more noticeable. What used to be the kind of show that only aired during the day when the audience demographic shifted heavily female is now prime time programming. It's a bit of a spiral effect, too - as more men tune out it makes less sense to air shows they might like, which makes men more likely to tune out.
I try to do useful things with my time, but if it's a choice between television and video games the games will win every time.
"If it's a choice between television and video games the games will win every time."
This is pretty true for me as well. Games are interactive. I can solve puzzles, blow (virtual) stuff up, follow a story, play alone or with friends IRL or online, etc. I do watch movies or TV series by DVD but in general games are the champ. If I want more passive entertainment, books get me. Given a long commute, I read a lot.
Of course, the lure of video games as male wish fulfillment should not be understated, and I can't think of too many people *less* empowered than teenage and young adult males. I recall seeing a video preview for the Far Cry 2 map generator which captured this very well: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C8qa-naczjg
Yes, but it helps train those young men to be good soldiers. Ever read "Ender's Game," by Orson Scott Card? (Love his early sci-fi, hate his politics.)
I can't think of a worse thing to train soldiers than videogames written for entertainment. The simplifications necessary for balance and to ease the learning curve tend to obscure the things that'll keep you alive in real combat. The Services have their own internal "videogames" that match reality much more closely, but they're not exactly fun to play.
(N.B.: There is one videogame used for training squad-level tactics that was a commercial success--the name escapes me right now--but it wasn't exactly a blockbuster)
Many training simulations have "video game" qualities, or so I was told by execs in the companies producing them when I wrote about such things. And they all seemed to think the prevalence of video-game playing among young men was an advantage to this type of training.
What surprised me was the company putting repair specs into video game format, since the equipment to review the material was common equipment for down-time rec. Don't have the specs for the particular chopper in front of you? Break out the X-Box.
You're right that training simulators have video game qualities, but that's like saying that the sexual harassment video you have to watch at work has feature-film-like qualities. You'll shell out cash to watch the latter, but only suffer through the former because it's your job.
Upon reflection, I think you're right about videogaming among youth increasing the value of video simulations for training. People who play videogames are already accustomed to immersing themselves in the game world, and probably don't need much help on picking up a control scheme.
My objection to your comment is that commercial games that people actually enjoy playing have very little to do with simulating real combat. This is because to sell a game, it has to be fun. To be fun, it has to be either fair (for multiplayer games) or possible to beat (single-player). The fairness thing is especially not true, since both sides in combat plan engagements to be as unfair as possible. For example, when we're fighting insurgents in Afghanistan, they don't even bother to attack unless they think we can't see them or they can run somewhere we can't attack (a mosque, for example). I.e., it's unfair in their favor. Now from our side, they can't stand in the open for too long, since we'll call in goddamn airstrikes, which isn't really sporting either.
(Full Spectrum Warrior! That was the name of the game. Also, see this Penny Arcade comic--some cursing, but kinda puts my point in a humorous light)
CatCube - games are great at teaching tactics and techniques, an amped up version of a shoothouse with paper targets. You can cycle through far more situations, and far more realistic ones, than you can in any other training method.
The best part is that you can dial the difficulty through different maps and the resilience of the avatar. America's Army was very (annoyingly) realistic in this manner - 1 or 2 hits and you were dead. If you need to recreate conditions in Afstan, then simply have OpFor in exceptionally advantageous positions/numbers and only engaging in favorable circumstances. Multiplayer gives you many options, as do level editors.
With them you get every squad member experienced with the imperatives of combat and knowing what the officers/NCOs are going through. Sure there's some effort to reinforce the fragility of the human body, but you can do that after you get everyone well versed in tactics. Just like every other tool, they have their place. Shoothouses, live fire exercises, MILES all have their own drawbacks as well advantages.
Sure camping noobs and bunny-hopping aren't acceptable, but CS and other entertainment videogames have their place.
I actually really love one of these shows -- "Say Yes to the Dress" on TLC. It's not actually about weddings, it's about shopping for wedding dresses. It's set at Kleinfeld's (the big one) and is filled with the sassy ladies who sell wedding dresses. I like fashion and clothes (I used to watch makeover shows too, but got tired of them), and the show is just a very specialized version of the genre. For many women, a wedding dress is the only really formal dress they'll ever buy.
But I have to say, I used to be embarrassed about it. I'm single and I guess I used to worry people would think I watched this show because I was obsessed with getting married or caught up in some "Princess for a Day" fantasy (see many of the comments above for the source of my concern). When you're unmarried and of a "certain age", so much of what you do is interpreted through that lens, from getting a pet to what you read.
But then I figured out: screw everyone else. It's just a fun show about fancy dresses, ok? And its cathartic to watch the salespeople deal with the crazy customers, as someone who spent years suffering in retail.
You know, I agree that nobody ought to be going into debt to finance a wedding, or otherwise spending more than they can afford. That said, if somebody HAS the cash for a luxury car and is generous enough to spend it on an awesome six hour party for their loved ones instead, what's wrong with that? Sure, you could donate the money to charity or something, but the same thing could be said of any money anyone spends on any kind of entertainment. When people talk about women liking weddings, there is almost always a patronizing undercurrent of, "oh, look at those poor stupid little creatures and their infantile fantasies." Whatever. Just because it's a fantasy more women have than men doesn't make it especially stupid. When you get down to it, nearly all fantasies are infantile, and it is a rare person, man or woman, who doesn't harbor one or two of some kind. (See, e.g. adult fantasy baseball camp, middle aged garage bands, and star wars conventions). They're what disposable income is made for.
As far as I'm concerned, there is absolutely nothing wrong with anyone wanting to watch entertaining TV shows about weddings any more than there is something wrong with someone wanting to watch entertaining TV shows about sports, or travel, or the crocodile hunter. In short, if somebody wants to watch "Say Yes to the Dress," for WHATEVER reason, I say have a good time.
I'll third (or fourth or fifth) the video game thing. When I am entertaining myself with a video screen, I am either playing video games or watching movies (Netflix DVD or Netflix streaming to the XBOX). I canceled my old, crappy cable service and have been meaning to sign up for shiny, new ATT U-Verse but haven't feel the need to. If I do, it will primarily so my kids can watch shows (though Netflix streaming has lots of kid shows).
I don't even know what the current popular TV series are right now.
Got to disagree with that! I have put myself through Flavor Flav, countless seasons of ANTM, a couple of episodes of Jon & Kate +8... I would be hard pressed to think of any bad sitcom worse than these shows...
Maybe the bizarre popularity of reality shows has to do with this being the age of MySpace. People have to put themselves out there warts and zits and acne n all for us to be interested in them.
Personally though I think it takes a lot more imagination and creativity to come up with Star Treks or Pushing Daisies!!