What REALLY caused the decline of Nickelodeon and SpongeBob

Post Reply New Topic

I am creating a new blog post where I explore the true cause of the network's decline and I believe I might have hit upon the REAL reason why Nick won't cancel SpongeBob SquarePants...

It all has to do with a concept known as the sunk-cost fallacy

This is where you invest so much resources and time into something that it makes it harder to walk away from

ALL of the issues with Nickelodeon AND SpongeBob can be traced back to the sunk-cost fallacy! !!

In other words, there is a direct correlation with Nick's stubborn refusal to end SpongeBob SquarePants and the initial amount they invested into the show at the beginning & how that led to their current situation

Sure the viewers and merchandise revenue are partially to blame too but it was THIS more than anything else that caused the show's (and by extension the network's) true decline!

Is my assumption correct?

What do you guys think?

Thanks in advance!! !

I don't believe the sunk-cost fallacy is relevant to the problem, given that Sponge Bob has already paid off whatever costs were sunk into it many times over.

I believe it's much more based on that creating a new show would involve a gamble, because there's a period where a new show has to rely on being interesting instead of just being familiar.

This problem isn't limited to Sponge Bob or the Simpsons or long-running TV shows more broadly, it's also why Hollywood churns out slop sequels, prequels and reboots to franchises we're all familiar with instead of daring to try creating new media properties.

They know familiarity and nostalgia will draw in a certain audience no matter what, so they'd rather bank on that guaranteed audience than take the risk of delivering a show or movie that fails. They're driven by the need to deliver a return on investment for the people putting up the money to make their new project, so they sacrifice creativity for security and rehash something they know will make a certain amount of money rather than taking a bigger risk that might succeed, but also might fail and cost their investors.

Cartoon comedies have the benefit of the actors being animated and thus never aging, which makes it easier to drag them out, whereas eventually with live action shows the actors age out of the roles, or the characters are forced to age with the actors, which will eventually lead to the premise no longer working (you can't have a middle aged man playing a child, or have a middle aged character still behaving like a child).

Sponge Bob (moreso than the Simpsons) also benefits from the fact that much of it's audience eventually ages out, meaning nostalgia doesn't hurt them as much as it might hurt the Simpsons, while it also probably helps them more than it helps the Simpsons. When a parent plunks their toddler down in front of Sponge Bob, the parent isn't as likely to watch the show, or at least to watch it as closely as they would with a show that's aimed towards grown-ups; this means the parent is less likely to poison the well by complaining about how back in their day the show was better.

If sunk cost was the primary factor, you'd think this would be a much more common problem as well as one that emerged much earlier. If it's related to investors wanting to maximize secure returns on investment, it makes sense that it would occur during the same era they're also seeking to make everything a subscription and all those other symptoms of late-stage capitalism we're all seeing emerge alongside the never-ending media franchises as of recent.

Once they realized just how much a never-ending franchise with dozens of merchandising lines could be milked, they started trying to make every media property into one, as well as trying to keep them alive for as long as possible to avoid having to invent a new one from scratch.

You seem to looking at the problem from the stand point of how much has been invested, but I believe it's maximizing the return on investment that actually drives the problem, especially when the initial investment has clearly been paid off many times over.

A lot of Nickelodeon's decline is because of Dan Schneider and his associates.

Also, the whole problem is driven by the Nostalgia Cycle

This refers to parents who introduce their kids to the show then their kids grow up and introduce their kids to the show and on and on...

So the question is, how do we break the "nostalgia cycle"?

THAT is the key to the entire thing!! !

Without the nostalgia cycle Nick would no longer benefit from endlessly renewing SpongeBob SquarePants!

To break the cycle parents MUST stop introducing their children to SpongeBob which would halt the cycle in its tracks

This would lead to Nickelodeon cancelling the show, which is the desired result!

Nickelodeon won't cancel SpongeBob because it is their cash machine and has been for 25 years; it is the #3 overall all-time Nick show, #1 that is still running. That is why they won't cancel the show. Yes the shows ratings have dropped but not as much as you would think. There are a few reason why it has dropped, just as there are reasons why it didn't drop as much as the original fans think it has.

When Stephen Hillenburg first created SpongeBob he created it as an adult oriented show, it was Nickelodeon that wanted it to be a children's show. As a compromise Mrs Puff and her boating school was added to hint at SpongeBob being an adult while still being portrayed as child in a children's show. I myself fell in love with the show because of that, the dialog was complex enough to satisfy the adult part of my brain while the animation and rest of the show satisfied the child part of my mind.

The first 3 seasons and first movie were awesome, but then Hillenburg left and gave up his role in the show to Paul Tibbitt. Tibbitt kept the show somewhat close to what Hillenburg started as they were close and Stephen helped him as much as he could, but Nickelodeon eventually pushed Tibbitt out of that lead role in 2015. After that it started to rapidly spiral into a much more one dimensional child only show that relies on overexaggerated facial expressions and animation. In the end it had become a show that only children could enjoy, which was what Nickelodeon seemed to always want. They are still tolerable, but I don't get enjoyment from them like I do for the for seasons 1-8 or 9.

I don't know how they are doing now, I know they have tried a few different spin offs to varying success. They are still making, an/or licensing others to make movies. Netflix has released the last two franchise movies, one for Sandy and one for Plankton. Both were mediocre at best to me but young children would enjoy them. I don't know if they are planning on making a 16th season of SpongeBob, I hope not but they probably will.

As for Nickelodeon declining, I don't know for sure. Cable itself is dying and it is forcing the networks to adapt or perish along with it. Today everything is moving to their own or licensing to someone else's streaming platform. Consumers today are more likely today to not have an overly expensive live tv subscription and instead utilize the streaming services they prefer. I know more and more people who no longer go out watch movies in the theater anymore, instead waiting until they drop on a streaming platform and watch it there for much less money. If a movie drops that I really want to watch I sign up to the platform for a month to watch it and everything I want, then cancel it. That is way cheaper and a lot less stress than a theater, especially with family.

Isn't there just more programs/options available now? Nick at night and Spongie had their heyday.

The ONLY reason I still watch the show is to laugh at the trainwreck of new episodes lol