英文原文

BEC商务考试中多设计商务背景，有专家建议可以精读 The Ecomomists这样的英语杂志，这样对完形填空和改错都很有帮助。

American broadcasting

The not-so-big four

Broadcast television is declining at an accelerating rate

“IT’S amazing how little has changed around here,” says a character in the final episode of “E.R.”, which aired in America on April 2nd. Indeed, it seemed like old times for the hospital drama: 16m people tuned in, not many fewer than it drew a decade ago. But the impression of good times is no more real than a stage set. For programmes like “E.R.”, and for broadcast television itself, much is changing.

The recession has been cruel to a business that depends almost entirely on advertising. Local television stations, many of them owned by or affiliated with national broadcasters, have seen advertising revenue fall by as much as 40% as car dealers and other retailers cut back. Later this month the national networks will test the market for advance advertising.

It should prove better than the local market, but still difficult. And this painful cyclical problem coincides with a bigger, structural one: the audience for the “big four” broadcast networks is eroding (see chart).

It is not that people are watching less television. In the last quarter of 2008 the average American took in 151 hours per month, an all-time record, according to Nielsen, a market-research firm. The trouble is the growth of choice. More than 80% of American households now get their television via satellite or cable. To them, the broadcast channels are just items on a menu containing hundreds of dishes.

The networks can still produce hits. “American Idol” and “CSI”, respectively an amateur singing competition and a forensic-science drama, routinely attract more than 20m viewers—three times as many as the most successful cable shows. But occasional triumphs do not add up to a sustainable business model.

Chris Silbermann, president of International Creative Management, a talent agency, says the big change is that mediocre television now struggles to attract a healthy audience. The ratings seem to back him up. Between the first 12 weeks of 2005 and the first 12 weeks of this year, the audience for the top-rated broadcast show (often “American Idol”) fell by 9%. But the number watching the tenth most popular show was down by 17%, and the audience for the 20th in the list was 18% smaller.

So far, the big broadcast networks have been able to persuade advertisers to spend more for each eyeball they reach. Although they can no longer round up huge audiences, they are still the best way of reaching very large ones. And advertisers tend to see broadcast television, with its consistently wholesome quality, as a safe place to promote their products. Cable is still viewed as a rather wild frontier populated by wrestlers and televangelists.

Yet this, too, is changing. Last year’s Emmy awards were dominated by cable shows. “Mad Men”, which is set in an advertising agency, was voted best drama. It was the first time the award had gone to a show on basic cable (it is shown on the AMC channel) as opposed to a premium network, such as HBO. Such acclaim changes attitudes to cable generally. Bruce Rosenblum, the head of the television group at Warner Bros, reckons the growing profile of original cable shows may gradually erode the huge premium that advertisers will pay for broadcast.

Cutbacks are already under way. The networks have commissioned fewer pilot shows than usual this year, many of them relatively cheap half-hour comedies. With its broadcast network faring poorly, NBC plans to run Jay Leno, a talk-show host, five nights a week at 10pm—the slot where dramas such as “E.R.” once reigned. Some broadcast networks look enviously at cable channels, with their steady streams of income from distributors, and ponder getting out of broadcast altogether.

Such a radical change would involve difficult negotiations with local stations. In the meantime, the broadcast networks should be able to drive harder bargains with both local stations and cable companies. Television producers will find new markets abroad. But the good times appear to be over. Sometimes an industry can withstand pressure for many years, and then collapse abruptly. Just ask a newspaper proprietor.

参考翻译

美国广播电视

美国四大电视公司风光不再

2009-04-8 |洛杉矶
经济学人印刷版

广播电视行业正急速衰退

在美国时间四月二号播出的E.R（急诊室的春天）全剧最后一幕中，一位演员说：“这里几乎什么都还是老样子，太让人不可思议了”。事实上，这更像是对这部医院情境剧曾经美好时光的追忆：一千六百万人的收视率，相比十年前有过之而无不及。但对这一美好时光的感受就像舞台布景一样变得不再真实。对于像E.R这样的节目和广播电视自身来说，一切都已经同往日大不一样。

对于一个几乎完全依靠广告收入维持发展的行业来说，衰退显得如此残酷。随着汽车销售商和其它零售商削减广告投入，很多属于或与国家电视台有紧密联系的地方电视台的广告收入已经锐减了百分之四十之多。这个月晚些时候，国家广播网将为预告性广告进行市场测试。这应当比地方市场反响要好一些，但同样也存在不少困难。这个痛苦的循环问题同另一个更加严重的结构性问题不谋而合：“四大广播电视公司”的观众正在慢慢被侵蚀。（原因并非人们观看电视的时间减少了。市场调研公司尼尔森的调查表明，在2008年最后一季度，美国居民每月平均花在看电视上的时间是151小时，创下历史最高纪录。问题在于观众在电视节目选择空间上的扩大。超过百分之八十的美国家庭安装了卫星电视或者有线电视。对他们而言，上面提到的这几家电视台只是他们数百个可选择频道中的一小部分。

这几家广播公司仍然可以制作出一些热门节目。像“美国偶象”和“CSI犯罪现场调查”等节目通常可以吸引超过两千万的观众同时收看，这差不多是最成功的有线电视节目收视率的三倍。但一时的成功并不足以保证这种商业模式的稳固。

国际创新管理公司的总裁克里斯.塞尔伯曼说，一个很大的变化是一些普通的电视台现在正努力去吸引正常的观众。电视收视率排名很好的支持了他的观点。从2005年的前十二周到今年的前十二周，观看排名榜首的电视秀（通常来说是美国偶象）的观众数下降了百分之九。但观看排名第十位节目的观众下降了百分之十七，而观看排名第二十位节目的减少了百分之十八。（这部分数据缺少具体信息，觉得有点迷惑，翻译可能有误）

到目前为止，大的广播公司仍然有能力说服广告客户花更多的钱获得更多的市场关注。虽然他们已经不能一下吸引大量的观众，但他们仍然是吸引观众的最佳渠道。广告客户仍然因广播电视一贯的健康品质而视其为推销自己产品的安全平台。而有线电视仍被视作一块充满诸如摔跤手和电视布道者的蛮荒之地。

就算这样，情况也仍在变化。去年的艾美奖被授予了有线频道的电视节目。《广告狂人》，一个以广告代理公司为背景的节目，被选为最佳剧集。这也是该奖项被第一次授予基本频道（广告狂人是在AMC频道播放，区别于HBO等金牌频道）的电视节目。这样的赞誉改变了人们一直以来对有线频道的看法。华纳兄弟电视集团的领导人布鲁斯.罗斯布拉姆说，原创有线频道节目的大量增长可能会慢慢侵蚀大量广告客户原本准备投向广播公司的钱。

调整已经开始。相比以往广播公司今年已经减少了试播节目的数量，它们大多是一些半小时左右的成本较低的喜剧节目。由于广播节目资金状况不佳，NBC计划启用杰.里诺，一个脱口秀主持人，做一个在晚上十点播出一周五次的节目，以替代E.R留下的空缺。一些广播公司对有线频道羡慕不已，看到他们从广告商那里得到稳定的收入，已经开始慎重考虑是否应该彻底退出广播节目行业。

这样根本性的变革将可能涉及同地方电视台一系列困难的谈判。与此同时，广播公司还必需有能力应对来自地方电视台和有线电视公司的日趋严峻的市场侵蚀。电视制作人将会寻找新的国外市场。但广播公司的黄金时代显然已经结束了。有时候一家企业可以在竞争压力中坚持数年，却可能最终在一夜间轰然倒塌。而这只需要去问问一位报纸经营者就明白了（注：近期受金融危机广告收入下滑等影响，美国的很多报纸宣布将停止纸质印刷发行）。