I'm not sure that having multiple known and visible practitioners of magic is a problem. It might be a problem if the material is itself repetitive and stale, but magicians have a ton of literature to work with. There are so many knowledgeable magicians who consult and can construct routines that are not trite and stale. The possibilities are myriad and your average layman still thinks of bunnies pulled out of a hat.
TV magic is also a pretty rarefied atmosphere. In the US Blaine and Angel are the two major name brand TV magicians most people have heard of. I haven't seen a Copperfield special in years and the other things like world's greatest magic are more like magic variety shows (and they are reruns from a few years back and not very current). Who else makes regular TV appearances in the US?
So, I don't think there is a glut of TV magic or magicians. Quite the opposite almost.
The recent trend of talk shows having close up magicians on regularly looks encouraging to me. We need to see if that leads to something bigger in future.
What I am suggesting is that the very concept of magic is something that does not encourage multiple performers. I mean, how many masters of supernatural powers can there be at one time?
We can of course rationalize that real people don't believe in magic, but I would contend that is why we get push back from many audiences. The very notion of a "magician" simply rubs them the wrong way. I think this is why it becomes so easy for them to mock people who take magic seriously - like Blaine, Angel or Copperfield.
Had a great chat with Geoffrey Durham while in England. If you don't have his book professional secrets, buy it now. Not only did/does he have a successful television career that spanned many decades, he is a well respected magician and entertainer.
He shared that Brits have serious issues with the over the top approach to magic. Simon Drake, ironically, confirmed this as well when he was over here doing a series of articles for Bizarre magazine.
he is not the first person to tell me this. First Brit magician I ever worked with this explained the differences between american and british audiences approach to magic.
Drake, I believe, was successful because his character was such a put on. Plus he placed said character amid segments devoted to the strange, the bizarre, and the unusual. It was not about "magic" as much as it was about "strange." It was never meant to be taken as even remotely possibly real.
But Blaine's starvation was too much of a reach for them. It rubbed up against their net of reality in a way they could not reconcile.
One of the most well love British magicians was David Nixon. From what I have seen he was a very nice man who did some charming tricks. No pretense. No "MAGIC" written in Muenster Style Spooky Font.
Derren was not a magician. He provided real, plausible explanations for what he did. And regardless of whether or not they were accurate, the fact they were tangible and non-supernatural, divorced from mysterious magic allowed him to be accepted as his claims did not have the auspices of "that's just silly."
Ricky made it about the history. It was what it was. He was the curator. He was the expert. Demonstrating what people did implies theatrical technique apart from "magic."
Maybe "magic" has runs it's course for now? Maybe the word and the expectations associated with it create a no win situation?
I don't know. But it's interesting to think about.
Perhaps, no matter how relevant or normal or interesting someone may be, the moment they claim to be "magic" they cross some current cultural line that invites ridicule - not from everyone, and not all the time, but for enough people on that large scale madness of crowds level that makes mockery the easier direction to take than acceptance.
(Note: the above are musings. This is based on observations and history. Is this the answer? Probably not. But there may be value in considering it as a possible contributer.)