The realities of “reality” television

It’s a very interesting turn of events in the world of entertainment.  “Reality” programming has taken the lead on presenting a compelling business argument for advertisers.  First, the cost of production is much, much less than for scripted storylines. You need a willing cast of amateurs, who fight each other to participate.  You need a soundstage.  You need cheap locations that require little if any modification.  You don’t need special effects, expensive stunts or big name stars who demand huge paychecks. You just need people who are willing to sell their dreams and fears to the public, in public.

One of the most successful of these reality shows is essentially a replay of the old “Ted Mack’s Original Amateur Hour” which debuted in 1948 on television, a continuation of a radio program that started in 1934, hosted by Major Bowes.  That program was the first experiment in creating a path to fame for hopeful performers and literally set the stage for other programs to follow.  Another old show, “Queen for a Day”, was a 1950s program that had people down on their luck competing for the honor of being the saddest sack on the show.  The winner would receive solutions to all their problems, largely financial in nature:  a better home, the bills paid off, a new toaster, the kid’s teeth fixed, etc.

The ratings attest to the fact that we all like to see the common person succeed, because we live vicariously in this media-intensive culture.

Finding the right medium through which to advertise has been an increasingly difficult challenge as the proliferation of choices has exploded.  From three major networks and radio in the mid-twentieth century, to hundreds of sources via cable, broadcast, satellite and now internet, there is seemingly no limit today to the places one can advertise one’s products or services.  And thus, there is less value to each one.  Anyone who can find a way to concentrate the public’s attention will command the highest prices for displaying commercial information.

Vicarious living is the underlying principle of these shows.  Sports have always played to this appetite, but with the fragmentation of the media, sporting events have dramatically increased their profitability in total, because they are one of the few types of spectacles that attract large portions of the population.  The phenomenal increase in player compensation would not be possible without dramatic rises in advertising, licensing and ticket prices.  Those prices would not be rising if there were many choices for delivering commercial messages to equally large numbers of people.  Sports events are not the cheapest type of reality show, but they are probably the oldest example.

So if a programmer can create a show that commands a large audience, at a low cost of production, then the advertising revenue will be very high, and the profit margin great.  That’s why Ryan Seacrest, host of American Idol, is reported to earn about $12 million a year.  This show is probably the most lucrative solution to the question of fragmented media among the current crop of like programs.  “Dancing with the Stars” is a close second, because it combines celebrity appeal with vicarious chances for fame in a performance structure that is sexy and, quite literally, revealing. So what makes these vicarious experiences so popular?  Why do audiences, in higher numbers than who vote for general elections, spring to their phones to dial in their choices?  The viewer is “spending” time and attention, in order to receive value in return.  One can conclude that the market for the value offered is great, else the ratings and advertising fees would be much, much less.  What is that value?

First and foremost, humans can live through others.  We can adopt the persona of people around us, characters in books, actors in movies, etc., engaging ourselves in those stories so completely that we feel the same emotions and have the same memories as if we are those people.  Our imagination, through language and information transmittal, is no less real to us than the experiences we have outside of our own heads.  Psychology experimentation has frequently noted the correlation between perception and what we call reality. When the personae that we adopt are “normal” people, the suspension of disbelief (as thespians describe it) is even easier.  If we can experience the thrill of purpose, the emotional highs and lows of struggle, and ultimately the pinnacle of achievement…without having to put forth any effort whatsoever…it is a powerful magnet for our attention.  Humans are efficient, if nothing else.  We don’t do something unless we really have to, as a general rule.  So if we don’t have to work hard and long for many years, risking failure even if we give it our absolute best, and yet still experience “success”, that’s very attractive to the economically minded human being.

Media programmers know this better than anyone.  The value they offer is effortless success, the illusion of participating in a meaningful struggle for elevation from the masses.  It takes a powerful mind to recognize that the experience offered is of a lower quality than other avenues which take no more time than the hours spent watching television, talking to friends about the contestants and reading the “insider” stories about the characters.  How much could we personally accomplish if we took the time we spent immersed in American Idol and devoted it to real activities?

I don’t begrudge the business of illusory success, mind you.  It’s a business like any other.  As long as customers know consciously that they are buying a distracting illusion that erodes real life, I’m fine with it.

This entry was posted in The People and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink.