Does anyone Think CN will shut down one day, since Adult Swim ratings is getting more higher and CN losing its hours

[Elijah Abrams]

Cartoon Network can't survive on FAST (but if you drop the F, it can), animation is an expensive business (CN is channel built on original programming), however I can see a Cartoon Network streaming channel on Max (i.e. behind a paywall), and there's potential for additional ones too, such as themed channels, maybe a Cartoon Cartoons one, a classic Boomerang one, or even a 24 Hour Adult Swim and Toonami one.

It's low risk and has low overheads, as it's easier and more affordable to setup a stream over the internet rather than broadcasting a traditional channel, kids are streaming on-demand nowadays, so probably best to have the channel and the VOD in the same place, and have the show premieres on the stream. Also because of this, they can be experimental as much as they want.

Paramount+ and Disney+ should do the same thing as well with Nickelodeon and Disney Channel, respectively.

 

[Moe]

CN is channel built on original programming

When CN was new channel in early 1990s, they were entirely rerun of shows that aired on theaters (theatrical shorts) and shows aired on OTA broadcast channels with no original series, and they started to change in mid 1990s to invest in original series.

If animated shows are expensive to produce, so they should be limited to paid streaming services for few years and air on FAST after it has paid off.

Paramount+ and Disney+ should do the same thing as well with Nickelodeon and Disney Channel, respectively.

Paramount+ already have streaming live channels but they didn’t use Nick brand.

Disney and Paramount aren’t going to put cable feed on streaming services because of carriage agreement between networks and cable TV prevented this from happening.

 

[RegularCapital]

When CN was new channel in early 1990s, they were entirely rerun of shows that aired on theaters (theatrical shorts) and shows aired on OTA broadcast channels with no original series, and they started to change in mid 1990s to invest in original series.

If animated shows are expensive to produce, so they should be limited to paid streaming services for few years and air on FAST after it has paid off.


Paramount+ already have streaming live channels but they didn’t use Nick brand.

View attachment 307024

Disney and Paramount aren’t going to put cable feed on streaming services because of carriage agreement between networks and cable TV prevented this from happening.

I was referring to the Cartoon Network of the past 25 years in terms of original programming which is the "CN" people often refer to. When the channel started it depended on its back catalogue, the channel was free in Europe (combined with TNT as 2 in 1 channel), it was something that couldn't continue forever though.

I would imagine in the U.S., Turner didn't charge that much for the channel at launch, the channel had difficulty getting distribution, most people in the U.S. got CN when it started airing its own originals.

When the channel depended more and more on original programming, Cartoon Network was no longer free on satellite in Europe and became pay-TV.

 

[cartoonnetworkpoke]

I don't think CN is going to die but CN has very unfortunate future is decline of cable TV and many kids stopped watch it, leaving to adults who prefer linear TV to watch CN, especially cartoon lovers.

Cable TV subscription numbers are at late 1980s level now and it could drop to early 1980s to 1970s in next decade if decline continues. Have small numbers of viewers may not kill the cable at all but programming costs would need to be adjusted to make cheaper to watch than streaming services. I do think that decline would stop when cable TV subscription numbers are at late 1970s-early 1980s level.

Many decades ago, cartoon shows used to air for free on OTA channels (ABC, NBC and CBS), especially Saturday morning cartoon shows. Biggest challenge was ridiculously low budget that forced Hanna-Barbera and Filmation to make cheaper shows.


If studios willing to use profits from successful films to make cartoon shows, along with ads revenues, so it could work well.

Back in 1970s, you can watch free cartoon shows on ABC, CBS and NBC but... their budget was very minimal.


Yeah, it means studios would need heavy breakthrough with box office sales, so they can use some of money to make cartoon shows to be shown on FAST, also they need have decent ads revenues. Release new show to streaming, cable and FAST at same time can better to make money.

I do think that death of cable TV has been overestimate or exaggerated.

Yea I agree cable tv has declined but it's not dead. It'll just have to evolve in some way in order for it to be relevant. Besides isn't cable still successful outside the US ?

Anyways I'm interested to see where the media landscape is by the end of the decade. Could see some major changes coming to streaming very soon.

 

[Moe]

Besides isn't cable still successful outside the US ?

It is mixed - some countries have a lot of satellite subscribers but minimal to no cable TV. After judge based on shutdown of multiple Disney owned channels, cable/satellite in some oversea declines as streaming becomes more popular.

@AdrenalineRush1996 or @RegularCapital could answer since they know more with international channels.

I was referring to the Cartoon Network of the past 25 years in terms of original programming which is the "CN" people often refer to. When the channel started it depended on its back catalogue, the channel was free in Europe (combined with TNT as 2 in 1 channel), it was something that couldn't continue forever though.

Ok, I can see now.

I would imagine in the U.S., Turner didn't charge that much for the channel at launch, the channel had difficulty getting distribution, most people in the U.S. got CN when it started airing its own originals.

When CN was new, it was included for free to all pay TV operators that carry TBS and TNT for 2-3 years.

Nearly all of cable channels in 1980s was rerun that saw on broadcast channels years to decades ago. Subscription grew quickly at that time as more viewers want access to old shows and movies. Prior to deregulation, the cable was limited to residents who unable to get OTA channels due to terrain or interference, so it was very heavily regulated.

 

[Ace]

When CN was new channel in early 1990s, they were entirely rerun of shows that aired on theaters (theatrical shorts) and shows aired on OTA broadcast channels with no original series, and they started to change in mid 1990s to invest in original series.

If animated shows are expensive to produce, so they should be limited to paid streaming services for few years and air on FAST after it has paid off.


Paramount+ already have streaming live channels but they didn’t use Nick brand.

View attachment 307024

Disney and Paramount aren’t going to put cable feed on streaming services because of carriage agreement between networks and cable TV prevented this from happening.

Isn't there Pluto TV? It's mainly older seasons of Spongebob and FOP reruns but it is under the Nick brand.

It's wierd that television channels never "went online" until recently. There may have been an oddball online "cable service" over the years that allowed you to watch it on the go but they never really capitalized on it.

By the time they started doing it more it was kind of too late. I guess they were busier chasing the streaming model trying to chase the money Netflix was making and still even that happened much later than it should have.

I think cable is still way too expensive for a service that is still less convenient than streaming. $100 a month even. Even when you pick 2 or 3 of the most popular streaming services which are at most $20 a month each (even ad-free is still less expensive). There is no reason for cable to cost as much as it does.

but I think at this point offering live content both for free and bundled with subscriptions will just give you the benefits of cable without actually buying cable.

Sure streaming has proven to be more convenient but I don't think cable's decline had to have been so catastrophic. With the prices and networks asking more and more despite low ratings. Now that they want to replicate cable by other means that may be the thing that finally kills it if it succeeds.

 

[Moe]

Isn't there Pluto TV? It's mainly older seasons of Spongebob and FOP reruns but it is under the Nick brand.

I'm talking about cable feed and Paramount is forbidden by carriage agreement to make cable feed to be shown on Pluto TV, so they have to create Nick channel that is tailored for FAST and streaming. It is not known about why Paramount+ didn't use Nick brand for live channels, but they do use Nick brand for hub.

I think cable is still way too expensive for a service that is still less convenient than streaming. $100 a month even. Even when you pick 2 or 3 of the most popular streaming services which are at most $20 a month each (even ad-free is still less expensive). There is no reason for cable to cost as much as it does.

You can thanks to Disney's sweet deal - ESPN and they are making cable much more expensive, also sports that most other studios own, plus broadcast surcharge because local stations want too much money for retransmission, higher rental fee for cable box, hidden RSN fees and very bloated carriage agreements that cable and networks agreed with massive price hikes. Bunches of headache fees. Don't forget about franchising fees.

I have YouTube TV (of course, local channels are included in single price) that is cheaper when compared to cable and satellite. Price hikes aren't fast like cable and satellite. I do have unlimited DVR to build the "ads supported on-demand service" that I'm allowed to fast forward. They got no hidden fees, beside sale tax. Philo is cheaper - $25 per month with unlimited DVR and recorded shows are good for one year (9 months for YouTube TV).

Streaming services don't have all contents, despite studios own contents. I feel like reasonable to use Philo to record hundreds of old shows that I can enjoy to watch. The purge of contents on streaming make matter worse.

Sure streaming has proven to be more convenient but I don't think cable's decline had to have been so catastrophic. With the prices and networks asking more and more despite low ratings. Now that they want to replicate cable by other means that may be the thing that finally kills it if it succeeds.

Cable and satellite got many problems that haven't fixed and federal government deserve the blame too. It take corporate studios, many corporate broadcasting companies, corporate businesses that own RSN and cable companies themselves to destroy the cable TV. More and more people realized that quality of cable channels decline and they didn't see as worth to keep, so drove them into massive cancellation. The carriage disputes make situation worse, pushed more customers to cancel and not come back.

If it wasn't for 1984 Cable Act and 1996 Telecommunications Act, so cable TV would be heavily regulated and we may see less channels, compared to 2015 and cable price wouldn't be expensive. Of course, less new TV shows too. Studios may not have much influence like today. Not sure about whichever is preferred with and without old regulations. Local broadcasters would have little to no leverages since old FCC regulation required all local channels to be available on cable at small to no cost.

 

[cartoonnetworkpoke]

I'm talking about cable feed and Paramount is forbidden by carriage agreement to make cable feed to be shown on Pluto TV, so they have to create Nick channel that is tailored for FAST and streaming. It is not known about why Paramount+ didn't use Nick brand for live channels, but they do use Nick brand for hub.


You can thanks to Disney's sweet deal - ESPN and they are making cable much more expensive, also sports that most other studios own, plus broadcast surcharge because local stations want too much money for retransmission, higher rental fee for cable box, hidden RSN fees and very bloated carriage agreements that cable and networks agreed with massive price hikes. Bunches of headache fees. Don't forget about franchising fees.

I have YouTube TV (of course, local channels are included in single price) that is cheaper when compared to cable and satellite. Price hikes aren't fast like cable and satellite. I do have unlimited DVR to build the "ads supported on-demand service" that I'm allowed to fast forward. They got no hidden fees, beside sale tax. Philo is cheaper - $25 per month with unlimited DVR and recorded shows are good for one year (9 months for YouTube TV).

Streaming services don't have all contents, despite studios own contents. I feel like reasonable to use Philo to record hundreds of old shows that I can enjoy to watch. The purge of contents on streaming make matter worse.


Cable and satellite got many problems that haven't fixed and federal government deserve the blame too. It take corporate studios, many corporate broadcasting companies, corporate businesses that own RSN and cable companies themselves to destroy the cable TV. More and more people realized that quality of cable channels decline and they didn't see as worth to keep, so drove them into massive cancellation. The carriage disputes make situation worse, pushed more customers to cancel and not come back.

If it wasn't for 1984 and 1992 Cable Act, and 1996 Telecommunications Act, so cable TV would be heavily regulated and we may see less channels, compared to 2015 and cable price wouldn't be expensive. Of course, less new TV shows too. Studios may not have much influence like today. Not sure about whichever is preferred with and without old regulations. Local broadcasters would have little to no leverages since old FCC regulation required all local channels to be available on cable at small to no cost.

Yeah saw an article a few months ago talking about how governments worldwide do a good job regulating cable. That's why it's cheaper globally.

 

[RegularCapital]

It is mixed - some countries have a lot of satellite subscribers but minimal to no cable TV. After judge based on shutdown of multiple Disney owned channels, cable/satellite in some oversea declines as streaming becomes more popular.

@AdrenalineRush1996 or @RegularCapital could answer since they know more with international channels.

Here Ofcom (the UK equivalent to the FCC) regulates cable TV and has done since the mid 1980's (back when the Cable Authority was such a thing) and frequently do investigations and reports, and as far as I know, most countries (especially in Europe) regulate pay-TV providers, which have helped kept prices lower and competition fair. Satellite TV has been regulated properly since (the Luxembourg regulated) Sky merged with the UK government backed (and also ailing) BSB, but regulations have existed since 1986. By the mid-90's most of the major built-up areas in the country were cabled, I guess satellite TV is a more favourable option internationally, as it requires little infrastructure. Cable is favoured by more smaller and densely populated countries such as the Netherlands.

In the UK, the cable companies were in a lot of debt, many of them owned/partly by U.S. or Canadian companies such as SBC, Videotron, NYNEX, TCI, Comcast, Cox, etc. These eventually merged within a short space of time of 10-15 years, which led to one national cable provider - Virgin Media.

With FTTP being rolled out, Cable is becoming more irrelevant and increasingly becoming an outdated technology. In the UK, conventional pay-TV does quite well (especially when bundled with other services, especially broadband and mobile) although not as well it used to be, but there's also a very good multichannel free TV offering. Streaming is hurting cable/satellite though, and the pay-TV providers are now offering streaming based options to access their services.

 

[ToonsJazzLover]

I hope not, but constantly fear mongering about the future of CN is not gonna do us favors. I blame WBD for ruining what would’ve been a great 30th anniversary

 

[tykroma94]

With that said though, Cartoon Network really needs a major change in order to remain relevant. Being a Nick and Disney competitor is not working anymore. Since adults watches the network than children, turning Cartoon Network into a general audience channel, will do wonders for them, if they handled it correctly. In my opinion, moving all ages shows like Superman and Unicorn on Adult Swim is not a horrible idea, but it dilute the point of what "Adult" Swim supposed to be about, leaving Cartoon Network back as being a kids brand. Is it cartoons supposed to be for everyone? Not just segregated BS just to please the advertisers? I just don't understand this mentality.

I love this comment, so I’ll share my thoughts. CN should’ve transitioned into a general audience channel years ago because if they did, they would be in a much better place. I don’t know if they can do it now but I certainly hope they will.

 

[cartoonnetworkpoke]

I love this comment, so I’ll share my thoughts. CN should’ve transitioned into a general audience channel years ago because if they did, they would be in a much better place. I don’t know if they can do it now but I certainly hope they will.

They strayed away from their vision. Cartoon Network should be a Animation Network for all ages not a kids channel.

 

[Silverstar]

They strayed away from their vision. Cartoon Network should be a Animation Network for all ages not a kids channel.

Michael Ouweleen stated in Variety last year that transforming CN back into a channel for general animation fans (with their core target age being 29) was supposed to be WBD's plans for the channel going forward, though we haven't really seen any signs of that. I honestly don't know what WBD's plans or vision for CN are at this point.

 

[Elijah Abrams]

Michael Ouweleen stated in Variety last year that transforming CN back into a channel for general animation fans (with their core target age being 29) was supposed to be WBD's plans for the channel going forward, though we haven't really seen any signs of that. I honestly don't know what WBD's plans or vision for CN are at this point.

I predict a rebrand this summer. They rebranded with a new logo 20 years ago.

 

[Moe]

Yeah saw an article a few months ago talking about how governments worldwide do a good job regulating cable. That's why it's cheaper globally.

Yeah, I hate to mention - the deregulation on cable TV in the US helped to spurred the heavy investment and lead to multiple acquisitions by studios like Disney's acquisition of ABC and ESPN that wouldn't happened if 1970s rules on cable TV were in place, and numbers of animated shows exploded in 1990s at fast rate that we hadn't seen in many decades.

I learned that my grandparents started to have cable TV in 1970s - they got ABC, NBC, CBS, PBS, religious channels and few independent stations. Later in this decade, they added HBO, ESPN and TBS.

Our city established the cable TV in 1950s because reception was poor with antenna due to mountain and valley, so at that time, they carried all local channels and they didn't start to add cable channels until late 1970s or early 1980s.

Here Ofcom (the UK equivalent to the FCC) regulates cable TV and has done since the mid 1980's (back when the Cable Authority was such a thing) and frequently do investigations and reports, and as far as I know, most countries (especially in Europe) regulate pay-TV providers, which have helped kept prices lower and competition fair. Satellite TV has been regulated properly since (the Luxembourg regulated) Sky merged with the UK government backed (and also ailing) BSB, but regulations have existed since 1986. By the mid-90's most of the major built-up areas in the country were cabled, I guess satellite TV is a more favourable option internationally, as it requires little infrastructure. Cable is favoured by more smaller and densely populated countries such as the Netherlands.

In the UK, the cable companies were in a lot of debt, many of them owned/partly by U.S. or Canadian companies such as SBC, Videotron, NYNEX, TCI, Comcast, Cox, etc. These eventually merged within a short space of time of 10-15 years, which led to one national cable provider - Virgin Media.

With FTTP being rolled out, Cable is becoming more irrelevant and increasingly becoming an outdated technology. In the UK, conventional pay-TV does quite well (especially when bundled with other services, especially broadband and mobile) although not as well it used to be, but there's also a very good multichannel free TV offering. Streaming is hurting cable/satellite though, and the pay-TV providers are now offering streaming based options to access their services.

Interesting and see my response above.

I do feel that Comcast would end up as only one cable company in the future after all other cable companies, including Spectrum folded in. The deregulation in 1990s helped to reduce numbers of cable companies from thousands to hundreds to two digits, but price got more and more expensive. More and more municipal owned cable TV sold their infrastructures to biggest cable companies because they are unprofitable or/and outdated technology, even prices for municipal cable is same or higher than Comcast/Spectrum, also often without HD, no DVR and limited numbers of channels like they carry CN but no Boomerang, carry Disney Channel but no XD and Junior, and Nick but no Nicktoons, Nick Jr and TeenNick. In rare instance prior to digital, they offer TBS/TNT but no CN, TCM, TruTV, etc, especially with outdated 1980s and 1990s cable infrastructure.

They strayed away from their vision. Cartoon Network should be a Animation Network for all ages not a kids channel.

CN should go back to 1992 when they were all ages, basically 24/7 cartoon like 24/7 news on CNN.

 

[Silverstar]

I predict a rebrand this summer. They rebranded with a new logo 20 years ago.

I'd welcome that. A rebrand would imply that WBD gives a crap.

 

[Red Arrow]

TBF, Adult Swim had their own channels outside of the US, but yeah.

There is no denying that Adult Swim originally had less international appeal than Cartoon Network. It only had a couple of channels/blocks. American stoner humor doesn't work everywhere.

For the new Adult Swim cartoons like Unicorn: Warriors Eternal and My Adventures with Superman, it might be different.

 

[Moe]

@RegularCapital After 1984 Cable Act deregulated much of it, after series of price hikes and market power abuses in 1980s and early 1990s, US Congress legislated 1992 Cable Act to impose some regulations and empower FCC to regulate on cable price that was removed in 1984 Cable Act. I'm going to include a outline with new regulations included in 1992 Cable Act.

1) Customers must be allowed to subscribe premium channels like HBO, Showtime, Encore, The Movie Channel, The Disney Channel and others if you have basic cable subscription. You cannot be forced to subscribe digital tier or more expensive, everything tier.

2) Networks are allowed to elect "must carry" to require cable companies to carry their channels at no charges and Weigel, owner of MeTV is prime example that relied on "must carry". I do believe Scripps do same with Ion and other digital subchannels. Historically, many local stations heavily relied on "must carry" to have their local channels carried on cable but when local channels (NBC, ABC, CBS, FOX affiliates) get more popular, so they demand cable companies to pay hefty retransmission fees and ultimately, cable companies often impose the broadcast surcharge on customers. Cable companies are forbidden from charging the networks whichever elect "must carry" to be carried on cable. There is a catch - networks whichever elect to require cable companies to pay retransmission fees, so both must negotiate in good faith or FCC can impose the penalties for bad faith.

3) FCC has to regulate on cable prices to ensure that they don't go up quickly but there is problem, FCC didn't act to deny the price hikes often and FCC gave cable companies a lot of passes, however, it does help to have small price hikes, rather than big price hikes. This section is repealed in 1999 after passage of Telecommunications Act in 1996 that deregulated the cable further more than 1984 Cable Act. Price hikes start to pick up quickly after 1999 that lead to series of complaints by customers and numbers of cable subscriptions peaked in 2000 or 2001.

4) Cable companies aren't allowed to make their own channels exclusive to their cable but there is some exception that is determined by FCC. The loophole issue has been corrected by new rule imposed by FCC, especially RSN channels.

Satellite TV companies are regulated via Satellite Home Viewer Act, also they were amended in 1992 Cable Act and 1996 Telecommunications Act, so only big difference are satellite TV companies are required to carry numbers of public cable channels like NASA at no charges.

Do you remember Captain Midnight who hacked into HBO satellite in 1985? US Congress make felony to hack into TV satellite in 1986.

CN and SYFY launched before 1992 Cable Act passed. That remind me about CN and SYFY are brothers because they launched in same year. CN's grandparents would be TBS and TNT that they aired cartoon shows before CN was born.

If 1992 Cable Act was around in full force and if it wasn't for 1996 Telecommunications Act, the cable price wouldn't be extremely expensive like today and corporations would continue to have "AT&T Syndrome" that where they are scared that they could face the breakup like US government did to AT&T. Disney would be more conscious of regulations, rather than playing dirty games to make their corporation bigger and try to find an excuse that they won't adhere the regulation.

Of course, cable and satellite companies in oversea are regulated but not much in the US and the US is big enough for corporations to grow quickly.

 

[AdrenalineRush1996]

It is mixed - some countries have a lot of satellite subscribers but minimal to no cable TV. After judging this based on shutdown of multiple Disney owned channels, cable/satellite in other countries from overseas have declined as streaming becomes more popular.

@AdrenalineRush1996 or @RegularCapital could answer since they know more with international channels.

In Portugal, digital terrestrial television isn't very popular due to the fact that most households have either cable, satellite or Internet protocol television along with that it's one of the most notable European countries in which Disney Channel and Fox/Star continue to operate there instead of absorbing their operations into Disney+.

 

[Ace]

It wouldn't be so bad if CN actually had more stuff coming. They do (like Gumball) but any announcements on new original series??? Add on top losing the CN Studios building and losing both time and new series to Adult Swim.

I know CN isn't dead they assured us it wasn't but it sure feels like it. I don't think they've done enough quell a lot of the rumors and fear. Anything? A new series announcement? They had multiple series announced years ago we still haven't heard about.

If they're planning things it's been way too slow. It's been nothing but a slow trickle of bad news coming out Cartoon Network these past few years or so and with an overall lack of content. Just announcing a brand new original series or something would make things so much better.