Switching Channels: Organization and Change in TV Broadcasting (review)

Economist Richard Caves has taken on the daunting task of explaining how and why the U.S. television "industry" produces what it does. He does this, notably, by treating public policy and content criticism—the themes prevalent in most scholarship on television issues—as two among numerous other explanatory factors. His approach is decidedly that of an economist, not a historian, so his aim is to produce a well-supported, cohesive economic model—which he does.

Caves argues that one should consider television as an industry, rather like any other industry manufacturing products. In a creative industry such as television, there are features that can be analyzed using economic theory and described in economic terms, so as to make their descriptions comparable to those of all other organizational entities. The essential features of the television industry include the fact that "nobody knows" if a product (for example, a show) will be a commercial success, even as it is being pitched, created, and distributed. Because of this, all the costs of producing a show are spent in advance, so that the cost of exhibiting it to one viewer or to a million are essentially the same. However, producers, advertisers, networks, and actors all attempt to predict how much they should spend or demand to create, acquire, or exhibit these shows. The resulting negotiations are so complex that they almost defy the categorization that would, one assumes, be required to construct an economic model, but Caves does an admirable job sorting it out for us.

The producers of many of these shows traditionally have been the "studios" that produce Hollywood films. But more recently, shifts in viewing patterns and public policy have allowed others to enter the business, and as Caves points out, this has altered the landscape of show production. Responding to the realities of competition, to the differing levels of access afforded by different technologies of distribution, and to long-range issues such as future syndication income, show producers invest money in their products at different levels, adjusting, in a sense, the "quality" of these shows through expenditure on more—or less—popular actors, sets, special effects, or locations. The author is very careful not to pass judgment on the cultural quality of shows but focuses on measurable economic data such as salaries. The underlying assumption is that, ultimately, show producers act as rational economic beings, spending up to the amount at which, in their own estimate, additional expenditure will not generate additional revenue. The economic principle behind this is the theory that as the quality of a show increases, so too does the consumer's willingness to pay. It is important to note that the consumers in this case are other organizations, such as networks, and not individual viewers, whose willingness to "pay" by watching is notoriously unpredictable.

Historians of media will find this book useful for its description of the workings of television show production, although at the same time they may find frustrating the author's preference for generalization rather than case study. An important contribution is the author's discussion of the outcomes of the introduction of new forms of program distribution, such as cable and satellite, which have since the 1970s undermined the argument that the "airwaves" are a scarce resource and have opened the door to a greater variety of networks, stations, and shows. However, it is significant that Caves chose not to treat other forms of program distribution at all, most importantly videotape and its recent successor, the DVD. Arguably, these have served as merely secondary, time-delayed media for products distributed fresh, on a schedule, through broadcasting and cable media. Furthermore, the rental and sale of video recordings has been largely confined to re-releases of Hollywood movies and other non-broadcast content, so, perhaps the author considers it outside the scope of his study. However, as a work in economics rather than history, one presumes that Caves' work...