A post-network era implies an era in which the television networks reigned, a period from the late 1940’s to mid-80’s when all of American TV was broadcasted by the “big three”: ABC, NBC, and CBS. Americans consumed their TV programming at home, during their routinely scheduled times, through these national networks. TV’s role was established in the home as a shared experience, a communal activity; meaning the creators targeted their product towards the whole family. The members of the family were heterogeneous, but the content was fairly homogenous to encompass the viewer variation. So not only did parents and their children see the same programming; so did their relatives, neighbors, coworkers, and those to whom they had no relation. It was a shared cultural experience with a forum-like format, lending itself to “water-cooler conversation” and potential social critique. The networks had settled comfortably into these powerful roles with standardized product and production.
AMERICAN TELEVISION INDUSTRY CONTEXT:
​
Then enters cable. Although it had been a concept since the 60’s, because of network pushback and FCC regulation, it did not solidify until the mid to late 70’s and blow up until the 90’s. The VCR and DVR capabilities had already allowed viewers more power over consumption and disrupted the flow of routine broadcasting, but cable unearthed a plethora of channel options. Subscription channels and streaming services also emerged. These exclusive channels were all but free from the social constraints of the cultural forum. Broadcast TV self-regulated its content for fear of governmental intervention and because it was considered in the public interest. Families no longer could just turn on the television to see a show. This new content was privileged and it received much smaller audiences. With an abundance of shows on the air with more fragmented viewership, it became harder to blame TV for socialization. Programs no longer received the collective audience numbers to warrant complaints from social groups like PTA’s or religious sects. Cable was considered to be in the private sphere, and did not have to rely on advertisers as heavily, so they could show much more than their broadcast counterparts. It could be reasonably assumed the whole family was no longer glued to the set, so appeasing Grandma and the teenage son was no longer necessary. These new technologies, including video games, broke up the captive audience. The new audiences were choosing what they wanted to watch and when, so “adult” themes like violence and sex could be shown with much more candor. This relaxation of social sanction forced broadcast networks to compete, so they pushed their own boundaries of censorship.
​
The rise of cable, and premium and streaming, redefined TV’s role as a cultural forum into a model of publishing. Network television’s existence in the public sphere positioned it as educator and storyteller of the masses, reminiscent of prior forms of mass communication. Programming was limited to a few channels and their programming schedule. Consumers pay to own or rent content now; content that fits practically any number of individualized interests, and they can view whenever they want. Now conventional programming categories are broken down into many options with different meanings and allures, as explained by Horace Newcomb in his article titled “This Is Not Al Dente, The Sopranos and the New Meaning of ‘Television’”: “Within the “bookstore” model, variations in television offerings are not limited to broad definitions of ‘the channel’”. TV has become something consumed individually, shifting the ways in which it is created and distributed.
The post-network era was not a radical transformation from its heritage, but a series of changes and innovations emblematic of the ever-changing American television industry. Though already visible in prior television, this era marked a heavier shift away from character archetypes towards complex characterization; character motivation and intense psychological states; and settings rife with social decay. Two of the shows I examine here are written to be as dark as possible, leaning into the disturbing, shocking, and uncomfortable. These shows are often set in the “domestic sphere”, centering around the family and expanding this definition outwards. The set of characters and their shifting and intertwining relationships became the source of never-ending plot points as their personalities and relations evolved with the series. Building off of their ancestry, post-network era shows further complexified narratives, characters, and overlapping storylines. Shows became even more serialized, as well, since viewers could be assumed to be following along more closely with the advent of DVR, premium, cable, and streaming services that allowed more viewer control. Refinement is the word used to describe these shows, as more money per episode meant better quality. Quality became the brand for HBO, the premium network and poster child for post-network television. Their branding included parallels and linkages to cinema, moving away from the “low art” connotations of TV and effectively rebranding all of American television with them. Their slogan “It’s not TV, it’s HBO” makes obvious the reputation of TV, and with their huge influence over the culture, structure, production, and distribution in the industry, they could bring television into its modern day cultural significance. They set the precedent that was then followed by all other TV providers towards more culturally “high” content. This new content was initially supposed to be a break from what TV was, but it has become what quality TV is. Although not free from its prior associations, the line between cinema and television is increasingly blurry.
​
With a wide range of channels with their own content, suddenly viewers were given choices, something withheld from them by the three networks. The breakup of family viewing also meant audiences became more niche, and so did programming. Yes, they had to attract subscribers, but the channels were pocketing the monthly subscription fee regardless of viewership. So without the pressure of attracting huge audiences to each show, coupled with their greater economic freedom, cable and premium channels could cater to individual tastes. With so many more available channels, and the loss of the captive audience, their alleged key to success was differentiation. Branding became the name of the game once again. The networks positioned themselves in the marketplace strategically to make a name for themselves, defining themselves in terms of the competition. They figured out the best way to do this was through original programming. Here, innovation is again driven by profit, as they scramble to differentiate their product and themselves from competitors. A way to show just how unique they were was through televisuality: techniques and stylization used to create a “personal touch” to programming, often centering subject matter around social issues. They used excessive style and visual exhibitionism, building these televisual methods off of established generic norms and affiliating their image with selectivity, refinement, and uniqueness. This came to be associated with quality and the premium channels became known as the place for distinguished shows. Defining themselves as sources for quality content distanced them from cultural connotations of television with low-art and aligning themselves with more positive implications of cinema, by drawing off of classic genres. But programs did not necessarily have to be deemed to be “quality”, only distinct. This innovation was of course still somewhat negligible as it was regulated; mostly self-regulated. They needed to show their individuality, but only insofar as to stand out for their own marketability without being radical.
Another critical characteristic to understanding this era, and network branding, is the conglomeration of ownership in the industry. Deregulation allowed media corporations to amass more and more enterprise in the industry. These conglomerates have wide ranging ownership over the industry, but in such a highly saturated marketplace, they have to carefully position themselves and their products in relation to others’ and their own programming. These distinctions result in each conglomerate having a programming niche for every demographic or interest they can, while differentiating each from their other products and the products of the competition. The conglomerates compete with each other, but the companies they parent also “compete” with each other, like HBO and TNT, both parented by Time Warner, who holds interests in broadcast TV, basic cable, and pay cable. It seems to me that this concentration limits the competitive market and would decrease originality, but this alleged competition appears to garner similar results to a true competitive marketplace by staging rivalries and the appearance of a free market. I think content is being individually packaged and marketed as original, when it really reflects a homogenized whole. The conglomerates know what sells. Maybe the content appears to be new and sensational to us, but is part of a formula of smaller differentiations and shock-value used to cover up the converging ownership of the industry. But simultaneously, the segmentation of copious amounts of programming does lend itself to competition. Furthermore, huge conglomerates like Disney can give the funding their smaller companies lack to give their innovative ideas traction.
​
Without the standard need for weeklong programming schedules, pay cable channels could cut down their seasons from about 25 episodes to 12 or 13. Along with the inherent economic freedom they somewhat enjoyed from their subscription fees, they did not have to spend as much creating long seasons. They resisted the dominant season format and began releasing shows all year round. This broke up the September to June season structure and the broadcast networks again were forced to follow suit.