Can MTV Actually Be Relevant Again?
What made MTV culturally powerful, and what risks the network should take instead.
Chris Benson | Unsplash Editor's Note: This is a part of YourTango's Opinion section where individual authors can provide varying perspectives for wide-ranging political, social, and personal commentary on issues.
Viacom programming was some of my favorite childhood television. From Rugrats to Aeon Flux to staying up late to catch 120 Minutes and Amp. These shows defined me and many in my generation, creating cultural moments that still resonate today.
And I’m lucky enough to have edited a lot of the current programming on Viacom over the last two decades on hit shows like Love and Hip Hop and Black Ink Crew. So, news about these brands I take a special interest in.
Now that chairman and CEO David Ellison and Skydance are fully in charge of Paramount, they’re doing what new owners do: talking a big game and pulling at the heartstrings of Gen-Xers and older millennials.
Ellison says he wants to “revitalize MTV, Comedy Central, and Nickelodeon”, tapping into deep nostalgia for when the networks were. A cultural force rather than a reality TV wasteland.
But is this revival even possible? To answer that question, we need to understand how these networks became what they were and how they managed to stay relevant even after MTV lost the “Music” in its name. Only then can we determine if nostalgia is actually the solution or if it’s just another errand.
Can MTV actually be relevant again?
Andres Serna Pulido / Shutterstock
What made MTV special: From cable reject to Cultural Kingmaker
MTV didn’t come out of the box cool. To be cool, you have to work really hard and make it look like it comes naturally. (Even saying this makes me feel super uncool.)
To make Viacom and MTV what it was took a lot of hard work and grit from underdogs that no one believed in. Those original “I Want My MTV” ads were done by surprising musicians while they were on vacation or at home, and just getting them to do promo reads.
They literally crashed into David Bowie on vacation in Switzerland. (This is one of the great stories in Tom Freston’s upcoming book Unplugged, for which I edited the audiobook.)
This classic campaign was made to get people to call their cable companies and demand that MTV be added to their cable packages. That’s how unpopular MTV was at the time. They had to be scrappy to even get on TV and define cool.
The rise of the MTV generation
The ad worked, and MTV became the ultimate cultural architect, inventing a new visual language that reshaped television, advertising, and youth culture itself.
They also served as music gatekeepers — for better or worse — and shaped how teens saw the world, dictating fashion and even affecting elections. Under Viacom’s stewardship, MTV became the global epicenter of “cool,” and established what would become known as the “MTV Generation.”
The network had unprecedented power to “make” artists and propel entire genres — from hip-hop with Yo! MTV Raps to grunge with 120 Minutes — into mainstream consciousness.
When DefLeppard or A-ha appeared on MTV, U.S. sales exploded. The channel’s decisions shaped what music sounded like, looked like, and how artists performed.
The brilliant business model behind the music
All of this was successful because MTV operated on a brilliant business model. The record labels supplied high-production music videos for free, essentially turning promotional clips into programming content.
The network curated these sophisticated commercials, transforming them into cultural touchstones that defined generations. But soon this would all change, and they would have to make some choices that only the people leading this company were smart and brave enough to pursue.
Why MTV abandoned music videos: the economics of attention
MTV’s retreat from music was more foresight and economic survival than creative betrayal. Not only did labels start demanding money to play their artists, but music videos presented a fundamental challenge for television programming.
Each video lasted only minutes, and if you didn’t like the next song, you would just click away. This created viewer turnover that made it nearly impossible to maintain audience engagement through commercial breaks.
I, for one, would channel surf to MTV during Saved By The Bell commercial breaks to catch a video, then flip right back.
This reality made it difficult to attract premium advertising dollars. In an increasingly competitive cable landscape with rising operational costs, MTV faced a potential problem.
The pivot that saved MTV
But true to their scrappy origins, they didn’t panic — they pivoted. Shows like The Real World and Beavis and Butt-Head revolutionized MTV’s business model by keeping viewers engaged for extended periods, dramatically increasing channel profitability.
Reality television especially offered superior revenue generation for a lot of reasons. First off, it’s cheap to make. Also, you can build a narrative that keeps viewers hooked across multiple episodes and through those precious commercial breaks.
As one of my favorite fellow reality TV editors once put it: "We are creating content to put between the hamburger ads.”
Second, they owned their IP and could just run marathons of a show, being able to fill airtime with their own properties. This shift toward episodic television was a smart, forward-thinking move that bought MTV more time in the cultural spotlight.
How streaming killed MTV’s gatekeeping power
The biggest challenge facing MTV — and other Viacom brands like Comedy Central and Nickelodeon — isn’t about programming strategy. It’s about how the entire media distribution industry was transformed since Napster broke the dam in 1999.
MTV’s original power came from being a gatekeeper in a world of scarcity. Record labels controlled distribution, radio controlled airplay, and MTV controlled which videos got seen. Artists needed these institutions to reach audiences. But digital distribution obliterated that entire ecosystem.
From Napster to TikTok: the democratization of music
First came file sharing, which taught an entire generation that music should be instantly accessible. Then streaming services like Spotify and Apple Music made vast catalogs easily available for pennies per play. (RIP Radio streaming service — you were the best.)
YouTube would eventually become the world’s largest music video platform, where any artist could upload content without needing label approval or MTV’s blessing.
The gatekeeping model that made MTV essential simply doesn’t exist anymore. A teenager with a laptop can create a song, shoot a video on their phone, upload it to TikTok, and potentially reach millions of people — all without ever interacting with traditional media infrastructure.
The attention economy problem
Music and content discovery have become more democratized (sort of) and algorithmic. Playlists curated by streaming services, social media virality, and recommendation engines have replaced the curatorial power that once made MTV, Comedy Central, and Nickelodeon essential cultural gatekeepers.
Today’s biggest kids’ show stars — like Blippi and Miss Rachel — got their starts on YouTube, not traditional networks.
The idea of appointment television feels as antiquated as waiting for your favorite song to come on the radio. How do you stand out when the internet is flooded with both human and AI slop competing with highly produced content that is out there for free?
This complete transformation of content distribution sets up the central issue to Ellison’s revival plan: he wants to restore Viacom to a world that no longer exists.
Why Ellison’s “tech hybrid” strategy misses the point
Ellison now envisions Paramount as some kind of “tech hybrid” company. By combining Silicon Valley innovation with traditional entertainment assets, brands like MTV, Comedy Central, and Nickelodeon could theoretically be a jumping-off point since these brands have global recognition and were once associated with youth and cool.
The algorithm problem: when data kills creativity
But tech companies have made programming algorithmically boring as they chase numbers instead of interesting building shows, stand out, connect with fans, and start conversations.
Netflix spends billions on forgettable “brograms” that disappear from cultural memory the moment they drop. The algorithm optimizes for completion rates and engagement metrics, not for creating the next cultural lightning bolt.
I mean, does anyone even remember Netflix’s $200 million movie ‘The Electric State’ that dropped this year? This is exactly the opposite of what made the Viacom networks special. They didn’t A/B test their way to coolness — they took wild swings and trusted their instincts. I don’t know if Beavis and Butt-Head or SpongeBob would get greenlit under this current regime.
Prove me wrong, David. These shows are weird and not traditional. Something that an algorithm or a focus group might hate. But they pushed the culture in directions that no one would expect.
The creator economy has left MTV behind
The other problem is that the next big TV crew is already making millions of dollars on YouTube with their own sponsor deals. Why do they need Viacom? Today’s breakout creators have direct relationships with their audiences and can monetize without traditional gatekeepers. The power dynamic has completely flipped.
MTV’s original strength was being the only game in town for music video distribution and youth culture curation with shows like Jersey Shore, The Hills, and dare I say it, Love and Hip Hop.
But in a world where anyone can build an audience from their bedroom and TikTok creators become overnight sensations, what value does MTV actually provide to the next generation of talent?
I feel like a reality show now is seen as where you go when you know your 15 minutes of fame are up on TikTok. Most of my cast members use it to parlay their social media, not the other way around.
The “tech hybrid” approach sounds innovative, but it might be solving yesterday’s problems with tomorrow’s buzzwords. Instead of asking how to make MTV more like a tech company, maybe the question should be: what can MTV offer that tech platforms fundamentally can’t?
Why nostalgia won’t save MTV
Look, do I long for the days of watching weird music videos on my TV? Sure, but I also long for the days when I could sleep till 10 AM, eat junk food every day, and not stress about a mortgage.
But time moves on, and nothing stays the same. What made MTV an interesting product for so long was that it wasn’t chasing what once was — it was taking risks that established networks wouldn’t dare attempt.
YouTube and TikTok already won
Social media platforms like YouTube and TikTok already do what MTV was. You can sit on YouTube for hours and be fed whatever music video you want, and be suggested options for what to watch next. You can follow your favorite pseudo-celebrity every day on TikTok, and it will feel even less produced than reality TV.
Is that what they want to build? A new music video app? Or are they chasing a vibe?
What MTV needs to do instead
Look, as someone just wrapping up a show for MTV (and might I add, MTV’s second most popular show right now), I’m super happy to hear Ellison wants to invest in more programming.
But to me, chasing old vibes isn’t what’s going to save old media. To me — and I’ve said this before — Paramount and, for that matter, Viacom would benefit from going back to their scrappy roots and taking risks on up-and-coming creators, not overpaying for questionable established brands.
And risks don’t include paying $200 million for a Substack that’s like an updated version of NPR.
Real risks are going out to find the next South Park creators. Find the next Jersey Shore cast. Find the next cultural moment that nobody sees coming, but everyone will be talking about once it hits.
Can Ellison recreate what Viacom was? In theory, yes. He has all the money in the world and can program it to feel nostalgic, with that 1980s and 90s vibe. But do people really want that anymore?
(Also, they already fired Stephen Colbert — Comedy Central’s biggest success story and the top-rated late-night host — just before taking over… so whose vibes are they chasing?)
But capturing the spirit of what made these networks great is another thing entirely. The spirit of what made MTV great wasn’t the music videos. It was about being fearlessly, unapologetically ahead of the curve.
Wesley Swinnen is a producer and editor with over 20 years of experience in television and audio production. His work has earned Emmy, Grammy, and Audie Award nominations, and he writes about the intersection of technology and media for various publications.
