Christopher Yoo appeared in the San Francisco Examiner on May 12 and in the Washington Examiner on May 15.
When NBC announced plans to cancel the original “Star Trek” series
in 1968, fans responded with a massive letter-writing campaign that won
the program an additional season. But this time, Trekkies responded
with something networks understand better ó cash.
Specifically, a group of loyal fans working in the aerospace
industry pledged $3 million to bring back the venerable show‘s latest
version for a fifth season. And yet, the series still seems doomed. Why?
The answer lies in the fact that UPN, the series‘ current network,
is a broadcaster. That means it survives solely on advertising revenue,
so it is forced to base its programming decisions on what appeals to
advertisers, not to fans.
But that is not the case for all portions
of the television dial. Fee-based programming is exploding, led by the
expansion of pay-per-view offerings, evolution into major networks of
“premium” cable programmers like HBO and Showtime, and broad public
access to cable and satellite TV.
With the emergence of the XM and Sirius satellite networks, even radio is getting into the act.
When fans have the opportunity to pay for the shows that they like
most, fee-based programmers do not need to rely as heavily on
advertising for revenue. Subscription channels are more inclined to
offer diverse niche programming that appeals to a variety of small but
passionate audiences.
HBO is a prime example. Charging premium
prices for premium programming allows it to earn eight times more
revenue per viewer than “free” broadcaster CBS. This in turn makes it
easier for HBO to show programs that appeal to small audiences.
HBO also has incentive to spend money on programs of high quality
and production value, because those programs attract viewers willing to
pay subscription fees. For proof of the power of those incentives, see
HBO‘s consistent domination of recent Emmy awards.
But UPN is a broadcaster, not a subscription programmer. And the
Federal Communications Commission, which regulates the television
industry, wants broadcasters to remain “free.” This means UPN must air
programming that appeals to advertisers, not passionate fans who are
willing to spend money to see certain shows.
The FCC has actually
waged a 40-year war against fee-based programming. At the behest of
now-threatened VHF and UHF broadcast stations, government regulators
have imposed “must-carry” regulations on cable operators. And many
local governments make “franchise” requirements that force cable
systems to use some of their channels for specified purposes.
For a time, regulators even placed rate caps on cable that narrowed
the variety and quality of programming that cable systems could include
in their “basic cable” packages.
But the FCC‘s vision for mass communications is fading. Americans
are leaving the broadcast networks in droves, in favor of “narrowcast”
programming found on less-regulated cable and satellite systems ó
including the subscriber channels. Simply put, viewers are realizing
that “free” television isn‘t really free. One way or another, they
still end up paying for it.
Broadcast networks and government
regulators now face a simple choice: They can continue their efforts to
regulate cable and satellite programming so subscription-based media
become as bland as broadcast fare, or they can let broadcasters
experiment with subscriber services.
Hopefully, if the “Star Trek” series gets yet another revival, it
will be in a mass communications environment where niche shows have a
better chance to live long and prosper.
Christopher S. Yoo is an associate professor at Vanderbilt
University Law School, where he specializes in telecommunications and
media. Thomas A. Firey is managing editor of Regulation magazine, a
publication of the Cato Institute.