Hey all, I am new here today and wanted to first say that is great to find a site where there is mature discussion about the food network and not childish putdowns of the shows, the network itself, and other people posting. My favorite chef? Bobby Flay.
Secondly, I will preface my remarks by stating that I am a web designer working on my own from home, so have to watch something during the day -- flipping between sports, food tv, and law and order on TNT.
Over the years, I have become quite a fan of the Food Network as even as a male who doesn't cook much, I find the shows entertaining and educational.
Thirdly, because I don't cook, I think I come from the perspective of the type of person the Food Network is trying to attract -- not an expert, but maybe wants to learn how to cook, but also needs to be entertained too.
With that, here are some of my thoughts and ideas for the Food Network:
1. They made a mistake in dumping Emeril Live, in my view. He made their network and I think it was a bad decision. I know his ratings were down but it was a staple of their programming, and nice to know it was on every night. It was still entertaining and the food was actually edible and makeable. To me, the ratings decline may have also been FN's fault -- overexposure, an error they continue to make. To me, it would have made sense, much like with popular broadcast sitcoms and dramas, to scale it back from the nightly deal and simply make it a weekly deal or a twice a week deal. The best way to improve ratings is to make viewers crave it -- the worst way is to simply cancel a show, thus making many viewers mad.
2. They are really bad on overexposing people. Rachael Ray, Paula Dean, etc. Nothing wrong with any of them (I like both Rach and paula) but overexposure risks making their shows not as popular due to people being sick of them. Granted, they are popular, but you want to manage their popularity -- the best way to do this is through scheduling.
3. Consistent scheduling is also important. It seems to me the Food network schedule jumps around a lot and you really never know what's going to be on and it doesn't really fit into a good pattern, which I think is important for establishing loyalty. It also changes quarter to quarter. Think about it -- you're dealing with shows, each of which is going to have a following, and the way to continue that following is through consistent scheduling -- and by giving it enough time to succeed.
4. Don't overdo the fluff. I think the key to a successful network is to create a balance between fluff and real chef shows. It could be argued they're moving too much to the former.
5. They need to stop doing the paid programming between 3/4 a.m. and 8/9 a.m. I think they make enough money now that they can afford to put shows on there. This would be a GREAT TIME for re-runs and marathons of popular "entertainment" shows like Throwdown, DDD, and Iron Chef -- not like anyone is cooking actively at that point. Also, it seems to me that at some point, a series of breakfast-themed shows could have been created for the morning hour. Heck, why not a Fox and Friends style interview show in the morning? You could have Marc Summers host it (good interviewer) and they could do features on network stars and cooks throughout the country. Seems to me to be a missed opportunity.
This brings me to my final point --
Has the Food network every considered a second network? They have enough stars now and it seems that they may being forced to cancel shows that are still relatively popular and threatning loyal followings of people like Emeril, Mario, etc. You could divide it any number of ways -- one network for "cooks" like Ray, Sandra lee, etc, and the other for "chefs" -- though that's a fine line. But it seems to me there are a ton of great show concepts -- and ex shows -- that could be brought back by a second network.
Anyway, just wanted to spur some discussion, as these had been in my mind a while.
Suzie 
Rainlover 
Linear Mode
