1% Television

Surprisingly, in recent months, several people have asked me to comment on what they are calling 1% Television. Most of them were academics although a few are happily ensconced in the private sector in advertising or broadcasting. The term is not used particularly widely in lieu of what I and others in the game for years referred to as “Aspirational Television.” It is programming where the protagonists tend to be in the top 1% of wealth or income and often live life on their terms sometimes operating on the edge of the law or societal norms.

The people often asked me why these shows are popular when most Americans (especially during the Covid 19 pandemic) are struggling. They speak of “Billions”, “Empire”, and “Succession” as examples of such programming. To me, this is all more than a bit of a surprise. They act as if it is something new. If you are 30 or under, I can give you a pass. Those of us longer in the tooth have to remember “Dallas”, “Falcon Crest”, and “Dynasty” where the wealthy cavorted illegally or in dodgy transactions via Primetime soap operas that delivered killer Nielsen ratings. Today’s shows, on HBO or Netflix or Amazon Prime Video are far racier given the times but are similar in many ways.

Want to go back farther and have a look? In the 1930’s at the bottom of the Great Depression, Hollywood studios, particularly MGM and Paramount ,were grinding out countless films that depicted life among the uber-wealthy—perhaps .1% of the population. And the films were very popular. I remember asking my father about why people enjoyed them so much. He said that times were really tough for so many Americans that watching a screwball comedy or elegant drama or Thin Man Mystery let one escape from their precarious existence if only for two hours. Smoothies such as Robert Montgomery, Brian Aherne, and, of course, Cary Grant, were on hand in many such films and, if you could not truly aspire to that lifestyle, you could at least dream about it.

So, not much has changed. People want to escape their hum-drum lives and 1% Television can do it and often the programs are very entertaining. There is one area that is lumped with 1% Television by some that I feel is very misplaced. That is programming often shown on PBS. The most famous was “Downton Abbey” which featured the aristocratic Crawley family in the 2nd and 3rd decades of the 20th century. Critics raved when the final episode drew 9.6 million viewers. That was indeed super for PBS but the audience was not not as blue chip as some wanted you to believe. The audience skewed older and certainly intellectually leaning as most PBS “Masterpiece” telecasts do. Yet it did not wildly overachieve against the real 1%, especially the younger upscales. To put it in perspective, “Empire’s” premiere back in 2016 averaged 12.2 viewers and “Billions” premiere scored 6.6 million before hitting its stride as word spread of the exploits of the central character Bobby Axelrod.  

Yes, there have been exceptions. “Roseanne” gave a look at blue collar life in the 1990’s and other sitcoms have followed suit but most, while claiming “everyman” or middle class status, are really upper middle class or top 10%. Do most people want a steady diet of “inequality entertainment”? I do not think so. Americans, especially now, get enough reality in their daily lives. Streaming video provides a much appreciated escape these days.

If you would like to contact Don Cole directly, you may reach him at doncolemedia@gmail.com