This is from an online student who took Soc 205 a few years ago, and who gave permission to share it:

There are a variety of types of shows in reality, from documentary style to games.  These are well worn formats.

When a network orders a show, they choose a format and topic, which is pitched to them from a company that has made other shows for them.  This predictability guarantees they’ll get a product similar to the ones they’ve had before and, on the down side, means they are averse to anything “new”.

Next, the production company hires people who have worked for them or other similar companies.  Each position is tightly defined such as the “casting” department that chooses the “real” people.  They look for specific types – the hot girl, the nerd, the crazy person – in order to get the proper, familiar chemistry for the show.  It’s efficient to make shows through the same process each time.  By utilizing the same system, they produce an expected result.  Because the system has been used many times, it has been optimized for efficiency and the waste eliminated.  This means the production company owners can pocket more money out of the fee they receive to make the show.

The network airs the show and measures its audience.  This quantifiable measurement is used to determine if the show should continue.  This provides calculability to the process and insures that more of the same will appear on television.  There is no motive to be creative because creativity is unpredictable.  It is more profitable to produce the same product over and over with different casts of similar characters.  It gives the viewers the same predictable product that they get when they buy a hamburger at a fast food chain.

The process is controlled throughout.  It is managed by large media companies who seek to make profit.  It does not reward creativity because creativity is unpredictable and possibly expensive and the results of a new idea are unknown.  From my perspective the perpetual remaking of the same product which is, in theory, supposed to provide entertainment is unsuccessful.  It is not entertaining to see the same thing over and over.

The above description is from a student who has worked on these shows in the past. Her point about control being something that pervades the whole process is a good one–control over the cast, over the script and plots, over the production company, and ultimately over consumers–who are baited with these shows in a fairly predictable way with ‘teasers’ and trailers and the like.

1. Production companies that specialize in reality TV shows make a pitch, from a limited menu of pitchable formats — there are the survivor-like shows, the talent shows (music, design, dancing, all sprinkled with celebrities), makeover shows, ‘real world’-style shows (like Jersey Shore), etc. Efficiency? Definitely predictability.
2. Once a contract is signed, the production company hires for specific specialized positions. The casting person’s job is to hire the proper stereotypes (hot girl, hot dude, country bumpkin, the devious Machiavellian schemer [comes in male and female models], the older wise person, the one with a conscience, etc.); Calculability, anyone? Using the same production template decreases production costs as well. Then comes the screening, audience market-testing.
3. Scripting of the plot (control) ensures more predictability, less unforseen costs, and a product that may not be the critics’ choice, but will produce predictable sales (given that the market testing of audience went well). If you think about using actors that have little professional training, somewhat like workers who have little training in the restaurant, the producer and director’s job is to ensure that what they’re asked to do is within their limited skill sets. This obviously puts pressure on those producing the show to keep costs and production in line, and anything that requires creative execution is going to drive up costs–keep it simple, predictable, and focus on producing a certain number of shows, rather than the quality of those shows. And unless you’re in the Jersey Shore cast (and even there not everyone has equal status), you’re not making the money actors command (but then, you’re not spending years taking acting lessons or doing theater, either)–casts on the Swamp Loggers, Cake Boss, Wife swap, Real Housewives, Shark Tank, or Dance Moms–with a few exceptions–likely aren’t counting on this to finance their retirements.

Another really insightful point she makes: “There is no motive to be creative because creativity is unpredictable.  It is more profitable to produce the same product over and over with different casts of similar characters.” That logic applies to most shows–the forensic crime dramas (you know–the no-nonsense white-haired boss, the goofy lab tech, a little sexual tension between detectives), the typical drama (various social issues and who’s-sleeping-with-who all carried out in some setting, maybe a hospital, an advertising agency ….), etc. Shows that try to be creative imply risk, and if they don’t attract an audience–no matter how much the critics like them–they won’t be repeated (but no doubt will be farmed out for web-based subscription services).

Hope this doesn’t ruin TV for ya (sort of ..)!