The Ratings: Inside and Out

Unlike an old advertising slogan, the television industry decided it’s better to switch than fight.

In agreeing to change the way they rate programs, industry executives appear to have reasoned that the concession amounts to a relatively small sacrifice--small, that is, from an economic standpoint.

Having once feared any ratings, the networks learned over the last six months that they can put parental guideline labels on programs without the sky caving in financially. And despite defiant talk about court challenges and the 1st Amendment (a torch still being carried by NBC), bottom-line considerations seemingly led to the industry’s capitulation.

Specifically, the networks knuckled under to pressure from Congress, seeking to mollify lawmakers and gain favor in other matters. Facing issues that have more direct fiscal impact, and having discounted the advertising consequences, the major corporations that run television--among them Westinghouse, Walt Disney Co., Time Warner, News Corp. and Viacom--determined they have bigger regulatory fish to fry and that the ratings fight wasn’t worth the grief it has been causing them.

Those vast communications companies also found themselves outflanked in a public-relations war--charged by critics with both polluting the culture and resisting change designed to benefit children. Network officials grumbled that even their own newscasts unquestioningly conveyed information that undermined their cause.

That bit of irony notwithstanding, the agreement unveiled Thursday, from the entertainment industry’s perspective, was reached with the hope that it will stifle the barrage of negative publicity generated by the ratings debate--based on the perceived lack of public and advertiser response to the existing system.

*

Despite a last-minute campaign by guilds representing actors, directors and writers, the networks were encouraged by the lack of fallout among advertisers and viewers since they adopted ratings in January. Even Hollywood’s creative types mostly lost interest in the issue, saying the existing system hadn’t affected them.

“My first reaction [to the ratings agreement] was, if this means we don’t have to hear about it for three years, that’s great,” said producer John Masius, who created “Touched by an Angel” and is working on the upcoming Fox series, “The Visitor.”

The muted response caused the industry to relax somewhat regarding the ratings and V-chip, a device that will let parents block out programs that carry a rating code they deem objectionable.

The networks have done the math. As a practical matter, homes with children in their formative years constitute a small percentage of the total U.S. population, and the number of people owning TV sets equipped with a blocking device won’t approach critical mass for years. The V-chip itself, then, isn’t a major issue for the industry; rather, the primary concern lies in the stigma associated with “sex” and “violence” labels incorporated into the revised system, and how that will influence advertisers.

Broadcasters have the most to lose under any system that alarms media buyers. Although sponsor boycotts have never been shown to yield appreciable results, the threat exists, and many companies are sensitive to even minor criticism.

By contrast, cable networks didn’t fear content-specific ratings as much because they are not as dependent on advertising. Pay services such as HBO draw their income from subscribers, and even basic-cable channels that sell ads, such as USA and Lifetime, receive a second stream of revenue thanks to fees paid by cable operators.

The lack of industry consensus extended to the networks, which remain fiercely competitive and torn by rivalries.

NBC and CBS, for example, ignored the different ratings they assigned to Jay Leno and David Letterman’s late-night talk shows, with CBS executives privately sniping that Leno’s harsher rating represented an effort to make the NBC host seem “more hip.” Such discrepancies merely provided fuel for critics of the existing system.

In addition to providing parents more specific information, labeling shows for “sex” or “violence”--as opposed to the more nebulous age-based categories--also offers a better tool to those most offended by current prime-time content. In theory, pressure groups can more easily target sponsors of such programs, potentially making them less attractive to advertisers and thus less viable.

Any cost to the networks would be minor, however, compared to congressional warnings about punitive measures regarding stations’ valuable licenses to broadcast or the transition to digital television.

The mere mention of such sanctions, which put in jeopardy billions of dollars, quickly moved some companies toward a path of least resistance. When Fox initially said it would adopt ratings unilaterally, rivals charged that News Corp. Chairman Rupert Murdoch was willing to play ball with legislators in order to curry favor on other matters.

In terms of corporate priorities, moreover, many within the industry continue to doubt the ratings’ significance beyond the political arena, citing a lack of public response to networks and local stations.

“There are no calls coming in at all, one way or another,” Chuck Sherman, a senior vice president at the National Assn. of Broadcasters, said in April, calling the ratings debate “very much a Beltway issue. If we take it 30 miles up the road [from Washington], the parents can’t care less.”

Polls have shown most people favor more information about program content, but TV executives question the level of grass-roots support. The impetus, they contend, comes from lawmakers, with “No one ever lost votes beating up Hollywood” as the frequent refrain.

People bad-mouth Washington as well, but TV lobbyists both misread the mood of Congress and didn’t sway the public with the argument that government should not determine what plays on television. What emerged instead was the image of Hollywood, like the tobacco industry, polluting the airwaves in pursuit of profit.

Measuring the ratings’ true impact will be difficult. The network audience has already shrunk to a historic low, and some fear any shift in content the ratings bring about might cause viewing to decline even faster.

“It is [a concern] if somebody in Washington decides what is appropriate or inappropriate to be seen in American homes,” Doug Adams, who runs KXAS-TV in Dallas/Fort Worth and heads NBC’s affiliates board, told reporters in May. “We may end up with programming that nobody is going to watch, frankly.”

Still, despite talk regarding a “chilling effect” on content, nothing as yet has indicated that the ratings have or will alter the kind of programs developed or produced.

While lawmakers such as Sen. Joseph Lieberman (D-Conn.) have expressed hope that the ratings will ultimately compel programmers to improve TV’s quality, some of TV’s harshest critics say the ratings do nothing for those who feel prime-time standards have gotten out of hand.

Tim Wildmon, vice president of the Tupelo, Miss.-based American Family Assn., objects to any ratings, claiming they merely give the networks “more license to do whatever they want to do, under the guise of, ‘Hey, we warned you.’ ”

Practically, no system seems likely to rid the airwaves of talk-show host Jerry Springer or the high-kicking “Power Rangers” as long as enough people watch and less squeamish advertisers stay aboard.

The ratings system’s main objective is to help concerned parents make more informed viewing choices--a daunting challenge in itself as new signals keep funneling into most homes. Beyond that, history leaves cause to doubt whether a few well-placed letters like S, V and L can legislate taste.