A Funny thing happened on the way to the future

When television was a new medium, content was sparse, leading to a mix of newer and older content. Older content might be relatively recent, or from the 30s. Kids of the 70s knew a good deal of prior generations pop culture.

In addition, families might have just one television set. That meant sharing, which lead to programming blocks. There were times for kids, and times for families. Shared viewing helped bridge generational divides.

By the 1980s, that was changing. Families might have a 2nd television, getting cable brought in lots of new channels from HBO to MTV, VCRs freed us from the clock,, and some Network shows began focusing on specific audiences (Hill Street Blues)

Fast forward (an archaic term?) to today, and there are so many devices, so much content (from no budget to big budget) content on so many platforms.

When I come across a comment like "Someone born after 9/11 would have no idea what you are talking about" it makes me wonder.

Maybe it was just an artifact of how old television was, but for kids in the 60s and 70s, we watched a lot of older content from old movies to old shorts like the Three Stooges. I understood the connection of Don Ameche to the telephone, for instance, 40 years after 1939.

Today, a lot of old content is out there, and I mean a lot of old content. From old Gumby to Mister Rogers to old movies, you can find a lot of it. Yet it is competing with legions of new content.

So, it is there for the curious, but not really part of modernity.

The customization (or segmentation) of the entertainment audience may be very enjoyable, but something cultural, political and familial is lost in not having a mass audience. Things like sports can bridge this chasm still.

As @spyvinyl pointed out, the theaters are another way for content to bridge divides. Families still went to the movie theaters together to watch the big movies.

This might have an impact on the value of franchises. How much Star Wars merch is bought by adults for kids?

Today's market still has cable, plus Youtube, plus a host of streaming services, both major and minor. It is not only shows the cater to a demographic, but perhaps entire vectors, like a streaming service catering to a demographic.

Reboots or other kinds of revivals could bridge that divide, but might also just be leveraging a brand. Girl Meets World was a show possibly cancelled despite good cross generational viewership because it didn't have strong enough younger viewership.

This idea of demographic viewership vs overall viewership is something that may not be important to things like streaming services however. All they want are subscriptions.

So, are streaming services a good hope for wide audience shows? Maybe.

There is also still the power of buzz. A show that gets enough attention in one demographic may draw in eyeballs of other demographics. Yet even then, I don't think the most buzz-worthy shows get anywhere near the eyeballs of tv shows did decades ago.

A lot of old content may not pass muster for wider audiences of today. From older production techniques and technology to featuring cultural values and prejudices and casting of yesteryear.

They can still be windows in time and good storytelling.