BARBELITH underground
 

Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.


The Gay Channel

 
 
Matthew Fluxington
01:58 / 11.01.02
From the 1/10/02 NY Times Business section (cut and pasted because the website requires registration for viewing archived articles)

quote: MTV and Showtime Plan Cable Channel for Gay Viewers

By BILL CARTER

Looking to take advantage of what they say is a large and lucrative niche audience untapped by television programmers, two cable divisions of Viacom (news/quote), MTV Networks and Showtime, are developing a plan to create the first cable channel aimed directly at gay viewers.

The still unnamed channel would be offered to cable system operators as a pay channel like HBO or Showtime — only much less costly at $5 or $6 a month — but it would also include advertising. MTV Networks and Showtime have conducted extensive audience testing and concluded that there is, as one Showtime executive put it, "near unanimous enthusiasm from gay viewers" for the concept.

Betsy Frank, executive vice president for research for MTV Networks, said the gay channel had the potential to make the same "groundbreaking impact" that the Fox network, the WB network and the Black Entertainment Network had. "We see this as the next step in what a television network is supposed to be."

The idea, however, has yet to be presented to operators of cable and satellite distribution systems. "Will the cable operators go for it?" said Matt Farber, a former MTV executive who has worked as a consultant on this project. "I guess we'll find out."

No timetable has been set for the channel's possible start, but Gene Falk, the senior vice president for the MTV digital media group, said, "If things go right, we could be on within a year."

TV Guide magazine reported earlier this week that a gay channel was under consideration at MTV Networks and Showtime.

The presence of gay characters on television, both on cable channels and the broadcast networks, has increased in recent years in shows like NBC's `'Will and Grace" and Showtime's "Queer As Folk." But the proposed gay channel would take that trend to a new level.

The programming, as described by several of the executives involved in the planning, would include acquired films, original series, imported series, news and information programs, talk shows, comedy shows and travel shows. Ms. Frank said that surveys of potential viewers had shown that gay viewers would be willing to pay a fee for "programming they're not getting but would like to have."

Joan Garry, the executive director for the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation, welcomed the plans for a gay channel, saying, "The flag I'm carrying is for visibility, and the more the better."

But she said the gay audience was diverse in makeup and taste and would not watch gay programming just to see gay programming. "It will be all about the content. At the end of the day, if the content is smart, the channel will have a real shot."

The channel is aimed at exploiting the increasing channel capacity now possible because of the expansion of digital television service on both cable systems and direct satellite systems. According to the executives of MTV Networks and Showtime, about 20 million cable homes can receive digital programs, and another 20 million homes reached by satellite service have digital capability.

Executives from the two Viacom divisions said they had research that said gay viewers occupied about 6.5 percent of television households. Those numbers are a rather rough estimate, however, because all measurements of the gay population involve some guesswork about numbers of people who have not openly declared themselves to be gay. Ms. Frank said, "The numbers are a bit all over the place."

The estimates are similarly uncertain for the amount of disposable income controlled by gay Americans. Mark Greenberg, the executive vice president for business development at Showtime, cited research showing that gay Americans have as much as $350 billion a year in spending power. But that figure, which has been cited in other research surveys, is generally regarded as an extremely broad calculation.

What is not in dispute is that gay adults are an increasingly attractive audience for many advertisers, both because of their relatively high spending and because they are often in the vanguard of certain cultural trends. "Over the past 10 years," Mr. Farber said, "gays have been a driving force in pop culture."

Mr. Greenberg compared the potential gay channel to others that Viacom has started, like Nickelodeon and MTV itself, where "they reached out to underserved audiences."

He said: "Like MTV created a new audience that advertisers went out of their way to reach, we think we can do the same thing here. Advertisers began making commercials specifically for MTV. That might happen here, too."

He called the gay audience "highly loyal" and pointed to Showtime's "Queer As Folk," a realistic and often highly graphic depiction of contemporary gay life among young men in Pittsburgh. "The show has twice as high a rating as anything else in prime time on Showtime," he said. He declined to give a specific number of viewers for the program on Showtime, whose ratings are not reported by Nielsen Media Research (news/quote) because the channel runs without commercials.

Mr. Falk of MTV Networks said the idea of doing a gay channel had "kicked around the company for years, going as far back as the early 1990's." More recently, both MTV Networks and Showtime started developing the idea along separate tracks. They were brought together when it was decided that the best way to market the channel was as a combination of a pay channel, the Showtime model, and a channel with a niche audience supported by advertising, the specialty of MTV Networks.

Executives from both organizations said that while certain specific commercials might run on the channel, a more likely model would be to have program sponsorships, with the company and its products mentioned only at the beginning and end of programs.

Mainly, however, the show will be sold both to cable and satellite operators and consumers as a lower-cost pay channel. That will guarantee a certain amount of revenue, the executives said, covering programming costs.

It also may make the channel more attractive to cable and satellite operators, who will receive a percentage of each subscription fee. But Mr. Falk said another reason to make the gay channel a pay channel was that it would eliminate any potential protest from those who might oppose the content. "No one who doesn't want this will ever see this channel," Mr. Falk said.



Soooo.... what do you think? Would you pay extra for the gay channel if it was offered to you? Would you watch it? Do you think this is a good thing? An exploitative thing?

What do you think of 'gay' shows like Queer As Folk?

[ 11-01-2002: Message edited by: Flux = The Man Who Loves You ]
 
 
Shortfatdyke
05:00 / 11.01.02
i haven't liked 'gay' shows such as queer as folk, particularly. i'd be interested to know if the channel will show stuff like films by clive barker, who's gay but doesn't do frankly boring stuff about 'gay life', and who's also been involved in filmmaking for lesbians and gay men. so i'd rather see good stuff made by gay people, if that makes sense.

QAF didn't exactly represent my life on any level. and all the gay men i've known are dirt poor, too.... so there wasn't much common ground.
 
 
Tom Coates
06:53 / 11.01.02
If I had access to a channel like that I'd pay for it even if it was crap. Politically I think it's tremendously useful.
 
 
alas
06:53 / 11.01.02
MTV & Showtime are owned by VIACOM. In case some of you have never heard of this corporation, it would be an understatement to say that it is monstrously huge. VIACOM also owns Paramount Pictures, Blockbuster Videos, the CBS TV network, Simon & Schuster books, the Famous Players/United Cinema International chain of theatres (which own 1700 screens), infinity (an Outdoor/Radio advertising adgency), and a whole slew of cable stations:
VH1, Nickolodean, Comedy Central, the sundance channel ("for the independent [sic] film lover"), and more...

Scary? I guess I won't be attending the baby shower for the newest addition to the Viacom family.

So, I guess this is on headshop because it gets at issues of identity politics, cultural "invisibility"?

I know most 'lithers know that
the 7 corporations which control basically everything most people read or watch, at least in the US, and increasingly around the world, are opening channels like this strictly to improve their profit margins and to "brand," in naomi klein's sense of the word, bigger and bigger segments of the world population, and to attempt to shape the parts of the market they don't at the moment control. ('[gay adults] are often in the vanguard of certain cultural trends. "Over the past 10 years," Mr. Farber said, "gays have been a driving force in pop culture.")

But, whatever.
 
 
Matthew Fluxington
10:05 / 11.01.02
quote:Originally posted by Tom Coates:
If I had access to a channel like that I'd pay for it even if it was crap. Politically I think it's tremendously useful.


Could you elaborate on that? Because I've seen the shows that MTV and Showtime have done for the gay audience, and they are pretty obnoxious programs full of stereotypes and are very, very shallow: it's all glamor, swishiness, and fucking, that's about all there is to this brand of 'gay tv'. I'm not sure if I see the political value of having trash tv made and marketed to an affluent gay demographic by a huge multinational media company...
 
 
Matthew Fluxington
10:08 / 11.01.02
sorry. double post. please delete this one.

[ 11-01-2002: Message edited by: Flux = The Man Who Loves You ]
 
 
Mourne Kransky
10:25 / 11.01.02
sounds dire. couldn't they just write some gay characters into Star Trek and give leading roles to more people who just happen to be gay but that's relatively incidental to the show.

I say this after catching an edition of "That Gay Show" on cable last night. it had bugger all in it which made me feel connected to this mythical great gay sisterhood. we have enough himbos in expensive clothes and crap drag acts on tv already.

just clone Channel 4.
 
 
pointless and uncalled for
10:38 / 11.01.02
Personally I'm not that interested being straight, but it's an encouraging sight to see someone making efforts to address an imbalance in media representation.

If I were gay, it's still debateable as to whether I would pay for a gay specific channel for two main reasons. Firstly, although I understand the reasons behind it, I'm not really keen on the idea of pay for cultural content TV. To be honest I think that this could easily be run as a standard channel.
Secondly I'm cheap and sooner or later much of the content would be sold for reshow on other standard channels as part of their gay broadcast segment.

I wonder if this channel will have the same problems as BET, where outside of America broadcasting comes under fire for lack of national content and not addressing national issues.
I guess it's less likely but there is still potential for that to happen.

If you don't like my two cents, give it to some homeless guy.
 
 
Matthew Fluxington
10:40 / 11.01.02
quote:Originally posted by shortfatdyke:
if the channel will show stuff like films by clive barker, who's gay but doesn't do frankly boring stuff about 'gay life'..so i'd rather see good stuff made by gay people, if that makes sense.


Well, I don't think that's the aim of this channel based on the things MTV and Showtime (not to mention NBC) have done with their 'gay' programming in the past, which is what is being capitalized on. It seems like what they are interested in putting out is a caricature of a gay lifestyle which is glamorous and based almost exclusively upon body image and consumerism...

To me, it looks like this channel will be the equivalent of the UPN network's black programming in the US...
 
 
alas
12:28 / 11.01.02
UPN is owned by VIACOM
BET is owned by VIACOM . . .
 
 
Ierne
13:16 / 11.01.02
{please note: Ierne does not watch television. Her tv is about 25 years old and ready to die at any moment. It does not even pick up local channels. This tv is connected to a 20 year old VCR which is also dying.}

Have to agree with alas here. This "Gay Channel" will serve two purposes:

1) to minimize the amount and diversity of gay characters on regular TV

2) to standardize a concept of "gayness" that bears little to no resemblance to the multifarious realities of non-heterosexual people.

Dreadful. And we get to PAY for this? (Those of us who can afford it, that is...)

[ 11-01-2002: Message edited by: Ierne ]
 
 
passer
17:56 / 11.01.02
I wish I could endorse this, but this quote alone reminded me of all the reasons I can't.

quote:But she said the gay audience was diverse in makeup and taste and would not watch gay programming just to see gay programming.

Yes and in direct reply: UPN, WB, and BET. Because as we all know, gay people are all so talented, hip, and funny. Just like black people right?

But on the amusing front, the gay channel is even worse because you could have straight people playing gays. Great eh?
 
 
Ria
19:07 / 11.01.02
make of this what you will... the local (not-really) alternative paper printed an ad recently asking for G and L people to show up for a focus group on television shows for $100. which may or may not relate. I did not lie well enough to take part in the study. (for one thing I don't even have tv.)
 
 
Tryphena Absent
23:44 / 11.01.02
I just think it's totally sad that people have to distinguish between people who are gay and straight. It should be accepted that people are one, the other or both at the same time and lived with and all human beings should be exposed to this in every TV show ever because it is reality.
Being bi the world seems like a very unrealistic place because so many people refuse the simple truth - what do we need a gay channel for anyway, doesn't that promote difference anyway?

I hope no one's written this before, Ive got to that moment where I can't read and can only type.
 
 
Tamayyurt
01:28 / 12.01.02
The question I'm interested in is, Why isn't this channel free? Because they don't think it'll make money on advertising alone...or because they don't want small mindless children watching gay shows and having gay heroes and turning gay?
 
 
Ganesh
06:06 / 12.01.02
quote:Originally posted by Janina:
I just think it's totally sad that people have to distinguish between people who are gay and straight. It should be accepted that people are one, the other or both at the same time and lived with and all human beings should be exposed to this in every TV show ever because it is reality.


Well, yes it should, but this world's far from being an ideal one - and the situation you describe patently ain't the case. Not yet, anyway. As is often pointed out, even the likes of 'Star Trek' - a long-running, tried-and-tested television franchise with a an obsessively devoted fanbase and a vaguely utopian theme, which really could afford to take some risks with gay representation - shies away from portraying "people who just happen to be gay".

Whatever you think of 'Queer as Folk' (and I, for one, didn't find it boring at all), it succeeded in breaking away from the tokenistic, issue-led gay cliches (tragic HIV plotlines, suicide, The Twilight World of the Homosexual, etc., etc.) and brought aspects of the gay subculture (and yeah, I'm aware of all the limitations and stereotypes within the gay scene) into the mainstream. How many other well-written television dramas can you name where the gay characters outnumbered the straight ones?

It used to be said that invisibility equalled death - and I think it's still important that as wide a range of "alternative lifestyles" as possible reaches as wide an audience demographic as possible. Like Tom, I believe the existence of a gay channel is, in itself, politically important. Naturally, I'd prefer it to be freely available and more widely disseminated but hey, you can't have everything. Not right away.
 
 
Matthew Fluxington
17:00 / 12.01.02
quote:
The question I'm interested in is, Why isn't this channel free? Because they don't think it'll make money on advertising alone...or because they don't want small mindless children watching gay shows and having gay heroes and turning gay?



I don't know, I think a big part of this media plan is to push all of the stereotypes of gay lifestyles that play into the hands of consumerism and advertisers, and push that image to the point when that becomes the *only* accepted norm for homosexuality, so that future generations of homosexuals have the script for what their lives should be given to them early on, just the same as heterosexuals have been for years through heteronormative tv and movies.
 
 
alas
19:05 / 12.01.02
I realize I'm very Naomi-Klein influenced at the moment--she's articulating so much that I've been hazily thinking and with so much detail and hard evidence to back up her ideas--so my apologies for harping on the materialist approach to this discussion . . .
I would not erase the good that has been accomplished through identity-based cultural critiques and political efforts. But I'm stuck thinking about what happens to political energy once a certain level of "visibility" has been gained via forums controled by multinational corporations, whose bottom line is not art, but money. (I heard Robert Redford talking about the Sundance festival--not exactly a pure forum either, but anyway--how the studio system in film means that if something happens to retain artistic integrity AND makes money, great, but the big, pulsing bottom line is money, not art, which ultimately distrusts the individual vision, because creates cultural products designed to sell a certain marketable view of the world to a preconceived demographic). There's such a pull in these kinds of cultural productions-- a quiet, seductive licking of our egos, especially on those members of the group who have money--whether we are black folks, gay folks, women folks--to focus our energies away from the political, quietly away from even the artistic, the startling, the discomforting, and squarely to the market, as a source--the only source--of total fulfillment, gratification.

We can say "oh, I'm not really affected by that." But I'm not convinced its so simple. For one thing, ego tripping is a subtle thing and difficult to detect by oneself, and for another, watching these things just takes up a lot of time.
 
 
Gho5tD4nc3r
15:32 / 13.01.02
Personally I'm offended by the whole idea.

Don't get me wrong, I don't give two tugs of a dead dog's cock what an individual's sexuality is. But creating a channel for a specific sexuality offends my because it divides and creates a distinction where there is no real distinction.

Does anyone out there actually believe that the gay community have such different viewing habits that they are not catered for by current channels in the MAJORITY of things they watch? Personally I would like to see sexuality portrayed more realistically in all media, rather then segregate what isn't main stream and annex it to its own channel.

Cum together, don't cum apart.
 
 
Our Lady of The Two Towers
19:39 / 13.01.02
I'm sure the gay 'Goodness Gracious Me' is going to be laugh-a-minute.
 
 
Disco is My Class War
00:20 / 14.01.02
I wouldn't pay for it and I think it's a ridiculous idea, for reasons that alas cited: media ownership and the branding of queer consumerism. There is a weird kick when someone queer is represented in telvision shows -- not that I've seen Queer As Folk -- but so often the representations are stereotypical and problematic for a whole lot of other reasons. Which is why I have no faith in a politics that only tackles representation.

Tom, why do you think it's incredibly important, politically? To get the ball rolling...
 
 
Rage
10:47 / 14.01.02
"If we had a SET we would be called homophobes!"
 
 
pointless and uncalled for
10:58 / 14.01.02
Hmm, I was thinking about posting such channels as ESPN or TNN, but there's no real exclusionary content there, just because it's testosterone fueled programming.

I think you'll find SET is covered by the under-representation of gay demographics and culture in regular programming. After all, when was the last time Friends had a gay character that was more than a token?
 
 
Matthew Fluxington
20:45 / 14.01.02
quote:Originally posted by Rosa d'Ruckus:

Tom, why do you think it's incredibly important, politically? To get the ball rolling...


Yes, indeed...I really would like to hear the other side of this argument...Ganesh touched on it a bit, but I'm still not quite getting a good understanding of this viewpoint.
 
  
Add Your Reply