Every year I write at least half a dozen features in which someone, somewhere will opine that broadcasters have become more risk averse. In fact, people have been saying it for so long that I’m amazed channel chiefs even bother leaving their homes – for fear that the sky might fall on their head.

But if ever there was a period in which claims of risk aversion rang true, it is now – in the midst of the worst slump since the decline of the Roman Empire.

So what does broadcaster risk aversion mean in the context of the current downturn? Well here are a few thoughts based on recent conversations with producers and distributors in various territories.

Firstly, networks are commissioning fewer shows and acquiring more content from back catalogs or foreign markets. This is bad for producers but theoretically good for distributors. I say theoretically because broadcasters are being picky about what they buy.

More than ever before, acquired shows need to be proven audience pullers and available in high numbers of episodes. Not only that, they need to be highly repeatable and flexible enough to work in various slots around the schedule. CSI is the kind of franchise most distributors would die for – which is why it plays a prominent part in the lineup of Nine Network Australia’s new digital TV channel, Go.

Secondly, network risk aversion is leading to homogenized production practices, because this delivers cost efficiencies. A few years back, you’d never have seen a show like Endemol’s game show Wipeout on BBC1 weekend primetime – nor would you have seen ITV green-light a local version of a U.S. drama like Law & Order. But the fact that the former can be made at extremely low cost in Argentina and the latter comes with an instruction manual makes the financial logic of airing such shows truly irresistible.

Thirdly, network brands are beginning to unravel. Sci-Fi’s reinvention as Syfy is, in effect, saying that niche channels are too risky – because they exclude the majority of the audience. These days you wouldn’t really blink if a show like Ice Road Truckers pitched up on History, Syfy, AXN or even Cartoon Network. As long as it did the kind of numbers and demo that advertisers were after, who would really care much?

Of course, when we talk about risk aversion, we’re not really giving the full picture. Broadcasters do still take risks – but when they do, they: a) spread their risks; and b) look for ways to maximize ROI on those risks.

Risk-spreading is evident in the way that broadcasters/studios are now diversifying their business base. Mediaset’s acquisition of Endemol and Warner Bros.’ recent decision to launch an international production arm are both moves to decrease reliance on one source of revenue. Belated, you can also see ITV in the U.K. doing something similar. While its advertising airtime revenue business continues to suffer, the bright spot in its latest financial results was a 36% rise in global revenues – money accrued mainly from international production.

As for return on risk, one big trend right now is for broadcasters to try and secure more runs of a show for the same fee. Another is for them to demand a bigger cut of a show’s back end. This is leading to more complicated negotiations with producers – particularly in the area of new media where future value is vague.

The other big shift in terms of return on risk is the tendency for multinational broadcasters like MTV and Discovery to offer more of their content to third parties, rather than hording it for in-house networks.

Of course, you could argue that this last point is less about revenue maximization than the fact that digital technology militates against walled gardens like channels. This is a reasonable argument, and a useful reminder that the media industry’s current challenges are not just about the economic downturn but the paradigm change which is affecting the entire sector.

Viewed holistically, what does all of the above mean? Well, you know how town centers all seem to look alike these days? Well that’s 21st century TV for you.

PS: One happier observation is this: broadcaster demand for shows slowed significantly in Q1 2009. So there’s a general belief that they now have holes in their schedules which need to be filled. With this in mind, MIPCOM 2009 could be a busy market for IP owners (though 2010 is expected to be pretty ugly).