Looks like the time may have finally come.
The article is very click baity.
And I donât know if I agree about the suggestion where 10 commissioned a slate of programming for 2019. I feel their commissions were very underwhelming.
Good to see McGarvey and Anderson under pressure and possibly facing the axe.
I know I might get criticized for saying this but knowing how McGarvey had experience overseas in programming, sheâs utterly garbage at her job and IMO she was one of the reasons 10 fell into administration in the first place. A good chief programmer would still be able to churn out good programs even if the network has a shoestring budget, yet McGarvey still persists with low-rating shows, repeats even under the leadership of CBS. Worst of all, sheâs getting bonuses from it. Itâs pathetic IMO.
Paul Anderson is too nice and doesnât play risks like David Mott back in the day, instead itâs the same derivative claptrap we see all the time (with the exception of a few programs).
Theyâve both earned it IMO.
I donât think you understand how operations work if you think that.
Because you have no idea and deserve to be criticised. Thatâs not how it works.
Not trying to start a war here so donât worry.
I was just trying to express my own opinion about this. If it means I learn something new every time then thatâs good.
Iâm sure you would agree though that there were some utterly stupid decisions made by the network back in the day that has done them no favours right?
But you have no idea. Just the usual misinformed comments from the peanut gallery.
So does that mean no one can comment on anything because no one knows anything?
No one should dare question JBar because heâs right about everything apparentlyâŚ
The gay community have Ariana as their Queen. We at Media Spy have Jbar
Thanks for the trolling, guys.
How McGarvey and Anderson survived the CBS takeover still bewilders me. Reviving Dancing with the Stars should be been the last straw.
thatâs not why TEN was placed into administration - at all.
Not when you are completely wrong.
Agree, how do you see this actually playing out though?
Who gets the coveted time slots? How would that work? If there are $xx advertising dollars on Sunday, but $x advertising dollars on Monday - How do the networks play nice?
Seven: Oh hey Nine i see you want to put MAFS on Sunday - we are good friends so we wont put our best show up against you, or a realty show, so you can pull in the most FTA viewers.
Nine: Thanks Seven, we will vacate Monday for you to run MKR.
I canât see something like that happening, ever!
Sorry I meant by purposely commissioning shows to sabotage another. For example Spartan. Or launching a new comedy with a similar audience to that on another network. For example Orange is the New Brown against How to Stay Married. Or looking back a few years when 9 commission Reno Rumble (with ex House Rules contestants) to air opposite House Rules. All these things are just idiotic and completely unnecessary.
The other thing that annoys me is when Australian drama is against Australian drama. There seems to be plenty of available slots to not have them air against one another. Doctor Doctor was put against Offspring. It wasnât really needed when 9 were known to air drama at 8:30 Mondays. They did it to take the audience away from Offspring and it worked, but the cost was at the expense of Australian jobs.
Reality is going to go up against reality. That is fine. But it doesnât need to be the same genre to harm or dilute the audience. If a viewer doesnât like cooking they can watch reno. Not if a viewer doesnât like reno they can choose another reno show. That makes a viewer go to netflix.
Gotcha.
Fair call.
10 Sport sales video
So nobody over 50 watches Channel 10? i see.
I would have thought theyâd be more concerned about nobody under 50 watching any linear TV at all⌠over 50s are the last great hope⌠and theyâre shrinking too.
âWeâre the under 50s networkâ
Hardly a snappy sales slogan.