• by Ed Papazian , Yesterday

The following is an excerpt from from Ed Papazian's recently published new book, "TV: Yesterday, Today & Tomorrow"

The broadcast TV networks and cable channels are frequently criticized for the supposedly poor quality of their programming efforts during the period between 2000 and 2015, which preceded the great switch to streaming that ensued.

Too many of their shows were clones of previous series, there weren’t enough pioneering new concepts, there were too many “me too” shows, and endless reruns. And some of these criticisms seem fair.

Yet many observers regard this same period as TV’s second Golden Age where innovation in programming was concerned, especially as budgetary restraints limited the amount of money that could be spent on new show ideas.

CBS’s "Survivor" series was certainly an innovative combination of big money prizes coupled with tribal conflicts and exotic locales, plus the angst when a contestant was sent packing. And ABC’s "Lost" —  which mimicked "Survivor" in some respects but without the quiz aspect — was another noteworthy innovation.

Fox’s "American Idol," which burst onto America’s TV screens in 2002, was another example of creativity applied to an often used TV theme — the talent contest.

Based on a British entry, "Pop Idol," the show featured a panel of judges led by the series’ creator, Simon Cowell, and music industry figures, Paula Abdul and Randy Jackson. This trio observed and critiqued the performances of amateurs — mostly singers — who hoped to launch their show business careers by appearing on the show.

While Abdul and Jackson seemed quite fair and sometimes generous in their comments, Simon often stole the show by being very harsh in his evaluations. But this didn’t matter, as the final verdict was given by the votes of the viewing audience by phone or online means, which took place each week.

As the contestants were whittled down to a few finalists over the weeks, it was the viewers — not Simon or the other judges — who picked winners like Kelly Clarkson, Carrie Underwood and Jordan Sparks. This was the show’s unique feature.

But there was more to "American Idol," and much of the show’s success could be attributed to Simon Cowell’s persona and how he was perceived by TV audiences.

In many cases, viewers were as interested in Simon’s reactions and whether they were justified or overly critical as in the performances, and this added an element of suspense to the proceedings that other talent contests lacked.

Simon was obviously conscious of his role in shaping the character of the series and sometimes went out of his way to lavish praises on a worthy contestant. But he soon had to accept the fact that his “mister nasty” role — a title earned on the British version of the show — was critical to its success and longevity.

ABC’s "Shark Tank" offered yet another example of creativity within the reality show framework. First seen in 2009, this series invited potential business founders who needed funding to start their ventures to pitch their ideas to a panel of well-heeled potential investors, including well-known figures like Mark Cuban, owner of the NBA’s Dallas Mavericks.

Many of the presentations as well as the underlying ideas were naive and drew severe criticisms, but some earned the investment dollars they solicited. While these results were entertaining for some viewers, they also provided an education for many who harbored similar dreams but were afraid to make the attempt.

"Shark Tank" gave such hopefuls valuable lessons on how to plan their own business launches and the difficulties that might be encountered.

NBC’s basic cable channel, Bravo, excelled at innovations in the reality genre. Some of its shows featured companies that specialized in setting up romantic match-ups, that hosted parties where singles met and paired off. Then the cameras followed their first dates, which were later critiqued by the experts.

Other shows featured young realtors who flipped houses — buying them cheaply, then selling them for a profit — or others who were hired by wealthy clients to sell their properties to rich buyers.

These involved the stars in many plots and machinations with a backdrop of glamorous neighborhoods like Manhattan’s Soho District or the plush Beverly Hills mansions. The private lives of these realtors as well as their methods and business savvy were displayed for viewers to note and the whole brew took on educational overtones while audiences got a glimpse of lifestyles and vistas that they could only dream about.

TV’s reality shows explored many themes during this heady period. Some featured cooking contests with famous culinary judges giving their verdicts; others went the soap opera route.

Typical of these was Bravo’s "Real Housewives" series, which began with "The Real Housewives of Orange County" and then morphed into similar shows set in Manhattan, New Jersey, Atlanta and Beverly Hills. The stars were mostly well-off women in their 30s and 40s who, as the reigning socialites of their areas, vied with each other, formed alliances and sometimes wrecked marriages as they attended an endless array of parties, social gatherings, fashion shows, glittering dinners, etc.

Women viewers found the glamorous wardrobes and the settings as well as the intrigues, romantic dust-ups and displays of social graces most interesting and usually favored one side over the other in the wars that frequently erupted.

But there was a lot more that traditional TV had to offer its audiences. Led by HBO, the pay cable channels became hot beds of creativity. HBO hit paydirt with "The Sopranos" starting in 1999 and followed with shows like "Curb Your Enthusiasm" in 2000 and later, with "The Wire," "Game of Thrones" and "Boardwalk Empire," to name only a few. Of these, "The Sopranos" and "Curb Your Enthusiasm" were, perhaps, the most noteworthy.

Many observers consider "The Sopranos" to be TV’s answer to classic Hollywood mafia movies like "The Godfather," "Goodfellas" and "Casino." And it is regarded by many as the best crime drama ever to appear on America’s TV screens.

Created by David Chase, "The Sopranos" chronicled the life and criminal career of a brutal New Jersey mob boss, Tony Soprano, and his gang as they engaged in various illegal enterprises, fended off rival mobsters, uncovered and executed traitors in their ranks, etc. —  all the while showing us the human side of Tony and his associates as they encountered family or romantic problems, child-raising issues etc.

Tony’s visits to his shrink were particularly revealing, and his insecurities became more and more evident as the series progressed, while at the same time Tony committed many murders and had numerous less fatal but violent altercations with those who wronged him or his family and gang members.

After murdering his nephew because the latter’s growing drug problem had made him an easy mark for federal agents who might flip him into informing on Tony and the mob, the show headed into its final episode, which aired in 2007 as the series concluded its long run. The ending was characteristically ambiguous.

Tony and his family went to a diner to enjoy a quiet family meal, when a stranger entered and sat at the bar, glancing briefly at Tony. Then the stranger went to the men’s room and the show just ended, leaving viewers to ask whether the guy was a hit man who came out of the men’s room a minute later, gun blazing and killed Tony. It was a fitting conclusion for a show that posed so many unanswered questions.

HBO’s "Curb Your Enthusiasm" was a perfect counterpoint to the intense and intimidating "Sopranos." The comedy series began when "Seinfeld" co-creator, Larry David, sold the idea as a special to HBO. The show was so well received that it was extended into a series in January 2000.

Here, we saw a semi-retired guy aged about 60, who blundered into all sorts of everyday mishaps in a most casual and spontaneous manner. There wasn’t much to like about Larry David. He was egotistical, insensitive and offensive, though not necessarily aware of it.

As a result, simple happenings often escalated into one confrontation after another and, in many cases, much to Larry’s disadvantage. Larry’s long-suffering “wife,” Cheryl Hines, and agent, Jeff Garlin, tried to keep him on an even keel while many guest stars appeared on the show, mostly playing hapless foils or confused onlookers as Larry orchestrated one disaster after the other, making mountains out of molehills.

Despite its improvisational execution and often distasteful scenarios, "Curb Your Enthusiasm" was nominated for numerous awards and demonstrated that comedies need not be overly structured affairs. The secret of its success was keep it simple.

HBO was not the only creative force among the cable services. AMC contributed shows like "Breaking Bad" and "The Walking Dead," as well as "Mad Men."

The latter was particularly interesting as it depicted the lives and tribulations of Madison Avenue advertising execs and their dealings with clients in a way that many viewers may have found informative as well as entertaining.

"Mad Men" premiered on July 19, 2007 and took us to the early-1960s where a group of ad execs who worked for an agency, Sterling Cooper, contended with real life agencies like BBDO, Young & Rubicam and McCann-Erickson for advertising clients.

While some of the scenarios were surprisingly realistic — one of the producer’s advisors had worked at BBDO in the 1960s — others were plainly ridiculous, often featuring the agency’s media guy as a numbers-churning dullard while the creative genius — who always came up with the right ideas — stepped in to offer media buying counsel to the agency’s clients.

Jon Hamm starred as Don Draper, an ad exec who seemed able to conjure up winning creative ideas at the drop of a hat. With shades of the old "Dick Van Dyke Show" of the 1960s, he had a lovely wife, resided in a comfortable suburban setting and had a great life to look forward to. But in reality, Draper was torn by undisclosed events in his past, and this subplot was a key element in the series’ design.

As the series progressed, it focused increasingly on intense personal relationships, which resulted in romantic escapades, divorces, hostile takeovers, and in one case, suicide. Thus, "Mad Men" became a soap opera as its producers sought ways to exploit the appeal of its key figures and especially, that of Don Draper.

For viewers who were fascinated by the Madison Avenue aspects and the ways that ad execs functioned as revealed by the series at its outset, this gradual change in direction eroded the show’s appeal.

They had enjoyed those early scenes where Draper and his nervous boss faced skeptical clients and suddenly came up with the idea that they deemed acceptable, and the ways that the various account execs at Sterling Cooper handled unreasonable or stupid clients also gave a fascinating glimpse of a business that many had heard about but never really understood.

However, Draper’s sexual affairs with his female clients, as well as the show’s increasing preoccupation with other forms of misbehavior, began to wear thin after a while and "Mad Men" eventually paid the price for its wavering direction. 

It was a great idea and, for a number of seasons, it gave us something new and original in the dramatic genre, but at the end the series seemed to have lost its way.

How were all of these shows and many others we have not described received by viewers? Were they so poor in quality that they set the stage for the defections to streaming that have characterized the years between 2015 and 2025?

The answer seems to be that most viewers were perfectly content with the overall state of traditional TV programming, and as we have noted, their consumption of such content peaked during this period.

So what really happened?

Many factors seem to have impelled the massive surge in streaming activity that commenced around 2015 and carries forward today. It must be conceded that for some consumers the quality of TV programming was an issue and they were restless, seeking alternatives. But for many others, economics was the primary driver.

Becoming greedy, the cable magnates had greatly expanded the number of channels — with many catering to niche audiences — that an average cable or satellite distribution subscriber had to pay for in the bundled packages that were offered.

Many subscribers began to question the wisdom of paying monthly bills of $100 or more for 200 channels when most of them were never watched.

Why couldn’t they pay only for those channels they wanted? Still others objected to the rising amount of ad clutter on traditional TV, especially on cable, plus the excessive reliance on reruns — both vital elements in the business plans of the networks and cable channels. 

Streaming offered a mostly ad-free viewing for many of these consumers that seemed very attractive at the time. Another factor was the yearning by some for the freedom to choose what to watch and when to watch it, instead of the “appointment TV” menus they got from traditional program sources.

Streaming’s on-demand options seemed to offer a welcome solution to this problem. “Binge viewing” also came into vogue as Netflix began to release all of the episodes of its new series at the same time, allowing hardcore series fans the ability to watch three, four or more episodes in a single drawn-out viewing session if they so desired. Finally, there was the lure of new technologies and the status conferred with using them.

As with TV at the outset and later with pay cable and VCRs in the 1980s, streaming was the new way to watch TV for younger, better-educated early adopters. Having a service like Netflix signified that a consumer was “with it” to peer groups and family friends who were often invited to watch Netflix at the subscriber’s abode or were given his password so they could access the content at their homes.

It’s likely that all of the factors described above played a role in the rush to embrace streaming as an alternative to traditional TV.

And in many cases more than one factor was involved, which is why pinning the blame for traditional TV’s losses in viewing time exclusively on its programming effort—and failures—seems both unfair and unrealistic.

Were Netflix programs, like "Squid Game" and "Orange Is The New Black," so superior to those offered by traditional TV, including the shows we have just reviewed? Probably not.