Originally posted by mushu_jj: A show imo is in many ways only as valuable as the networks want them to be.
That is absolutely true. Take FNL. If NBC didn't REALLY REALLY want this show, it would be gone.
However, even though I still don't think this was financially viable for NBC, I am relatively certain they have some interesting information that influenced them to renew this show. I am quite sure there have been moves by networks (3rd season of 30 Rock) that will always be pointed to as a "mistake" by those who simply don't have access to inside company info (although for me the 3rd season of 30R was a no-brainer, and NOT because I'm a fan).
30 Rock got renewed because NBC has nothing in the tank in comedy land. They were mad at the Scubs folks who wanted more money out of them and they only had one comedy ready (which ironically won't even air on Thursdays) so they pretty much needed to renew it. Its also Silverman's baby for some stupid reason so it will stick around for that. When he gets fired later this year for even lower ratings this fall, the next exec probably won't love it as much and kick it in a death slot (ala Arrested Development's move to Monday) and it will die. Its not making that much money and never will. FNL, meanwhile, reportedly will make money if it holds like 85% of its audience in the repeats we'll see next February thanks to DirectTV.
Originally posted by the128boy: I think you are overlooking the huge apsect of non-monetary profit (that often shows up again, monetarily). What I mean is, let's say somebody hears about 30 Rock and FNL. Let's say they know those shows are on NBC. Let's say that they are vulnerable to marketers (everybody is, even myself, and i'm a marketing major, so nobody should try to deny it, or think that it's a sign of weakness). Let's say that they know those shows are acclaimed by critics.
One outcome is that subliminally they percieve NBC to be a quality network. So even if they don't currently watch anything on the show... even if they arn't REMOTELY interested in those critically acclaimed shows... in the fall, they might be tempted to switch on one of NBC's new dramas, or comedys, etc.
This is just one out of a million examples of intangible benefits that all shows have. Some of the intangibles are good, some, seemingly, are bad. I remember when NBC cancelled "Fear Factor" based on the claim that it lowered audiences perception of NBC "quality" of programming. (well, that and crappy ratings :-)
It's these intangibles that are the big X factor. These things can and do loop back around to final dollars, but the tricky thing about it is that you can put a dollar amount on it.
However, that doesn't stop the networks from trying. Believe me, NBC has hired people to try and guess how much benefit they are getting out of FNL and 30 Rock in intangible benefits. It's a very real thing.
Yes, NBC likes it when critics say they have quality shows. What network doesn't? Sure some advertisers buy into the baloney, but people clearly don't give a crap what sort of programming NBC puts out, whether quality or not and their RATINGS show that. In the end, the rating is everything and the "good" shows get canceled for not bringing in people. 30 Rock may have critical acclaim, but it is not a hit in any way, shape, or form and the fact that it never will be will eventually get in NBC's head.
Originally posted by the128boy: i'm a marketing major,
I can tell by the way you spun that FNL and 30 Rock entice people into watching NBC.
quote:
Believe me, NBC has hired people to try and guess how much benefit they are getting out of FNL and 30 Rock in intangible benefits. It's a very real thing.
Guessing is real or guessing more than zero is their real assignment? It wouldn't surprise me if NBC hired people to tell them that those shows were providing some sort of intangible benefit. It seems exactly like something NBC would do.
Originally posted by robert: Disappointing results for everyone, including for CBS. I guess that's the end for CL
Oh no not just yet
Unless it pulls around 8.5 to 9 million next week, I'd say its dead. Fox has a huge slate of new dramas and very few timeslots to fill. New Amsterdam still has a shot at renewal, but its overall unlikely. And last night's results were poor overall.
But i think fox would be smart and pair NA with CL on fridays.
Friday 8:00pm New Amsterdam 9:00pm Canterburys Law
Because fox has a sucky friday
So Fridays can be even lower rated? Bones is going to Fridays next fall and likely will get paired with either a) a new drama, b)possibly New Amsterdam, or c) a reality/game show. The two Monday night players from January (PB and SCC) will return there and House will be used to launch a new drama in all likelihood on Tuesdays. Don't even think of dramas on Wed. as both ABC, NBC, CW, and CBS all use dramas on this night. Fox will prolly stick to Til Death, B2Y, and Kitchen Nightmares. I don't see a shortened comedy block on Sundays either and Thursdays are better than ever with 5th Grader and Lyrics.
I'm sad for CL. Last night's installment was fantastic! Julianna Margulies deserves some kind of a recognition over her portrayal of the lead character, who is NOT your run of the mill TV female attorney. I don't know what to make of GW's numbers though, because they are slightly lower than they were before the strike (by about a mil). What does that mean for Moonlight, not just for next week, but for the fresh eps in two? Will those numbers affect Moonlight's in any way, because as it is right now - they're almost on par (GW of this week, with pre-hiatus Moonlight).
Giving it another chance in the midseason would be nice.
I like both series and think their shortened seasons haven't really been enough to allow either one to find a solid audience... but I think the biggest problem, overall, was pairing them up to start with... They both should have had an established show as the lead-in from day one (as we see NA's figured growing over the last two weeks after House).
You can't compare "cost to make" & "ad rates" between reality and scripted because the network doesn't pay for the "cost to make" a scripted, while they usually do produce reality themselves. Networks pay a license fee to the studio that produces the scripted shows. Example Warner Brothers produces a sit-com and licenses it to the network, for a fee that is usually less than it costs to make. Thus running a deficit on every episode that they hope to make up in syndication and DVD sales, as well as international sales. So to make the comparison you want to make, you have to compare the money a Network spends to produce a reality show with the license fee they pay for a scripted show. Then you can compare the ad rates to see which one makes the networks more money.
quote:
Originally posted by the128boy:
quote:
Originally posted by Obveeus:
quote:
Originally posted by the128boy: And believe me, when I consider what is a hit, I consider the number of bankable dollars, not simply the number of tv's tuned into a certain channel.
So, how much does DwtS cost per half hour to make vs. The Office? If you are really going to look at bankable dollars, then you can't just talk about ad rates.
Well, OF COURSE not. I'm not saying this chart is a tell-all either. If it was, we could still all be marketing geniuses if we could read that $100,000 is more than $80,000.
*sigh*
Do you really want me to delve into tiny details?
Another factor we have to look at is how any show impacts the feel of the networks nightly or weekly lineup. Is a show getting buzz or not? Even if a show (FNL) doesn't make the big bucks, does it draw attention to the net's press prescense (thus increasing possible rates across the board?) If so, how much is that increased attention worth? Does scheduling a reality show bring down the night's image, thus hurting ad values across not one, but three hours? If no, does it increase it? If yes, how damaging is it? ETC, ETC, ETC.
We could all go on for hours (that's why this forum is here :-)
But the point still remains that this chart is a fairly good guage (at least when comparing scripted vs scripted or unscripted vs unscripted, if you insist) when comparing how valuable (and in MY book at least, how big of a hit) a show really is.
Posts: 185 | Location: Los Angeles | Registered: 03 January 2008
Originally posted by robert: Disappointing results for everyone, including for CBS. I guess that's the end for CL
Oh no not just yet
Unless it pulls around 8.5 to 9 million next week, I'd say its dead. Fox has a huge slate of new dramas and very few timeslots to fill. New Amsterdam still has a shot at renewal, but its overall unlikely. And last night's results were poor overall.
But i think fox would be smart and pair NA with CL on fridays.
Friday 8:00pm New Amsterdam 9:00pm Canterburys Law
Because fox has a sucky friday
So Fridays can be even lower rated? Bones is going to Fridays next fall and likely will get paired with either a) a new drama, b)possibly New Amsterdam, or c) a reality/game show. The two Monday night players from January (PB and SCC) will return there and House will be used to launch a new drama in all likelihood on Tuesdays. Don't even think of dramas on Wed. as both ABC, NBC, CW, and CBS all use dramas on this night. Fox will prolly stick to Til Death, B2Y, and Kitchen Nightmares. I don't see a shortened comedy block on Sundays either and Thursdays are better than ever with 5th Grader and Lyrics.
No,
Canterburys Law is doing good on fridays.
Last I checked, 5 million isn't good. Even on a Friday.
Giving it another chance in the midseason would be nice.
I like both series and think their shortened seasons haven't really been enough to allow either one to find a solid audience... but I think the biggest problem, overall, was pairing them up to start with... They both should have had an established show as the lead-in from day one (as we see NA's figured growing over the last two weeks after House).
I agree but Fox clearly didn't care all that much about either from the get go, thus the initial pairing and the tearing down of sets already never is a good sign.
Giving it another chance in the midseason would be nice.
I like both series and think their shortened seasons haven't really been enough to allow either one to find a solid audience... but I think the biggest problem, overall, was pairing them up to start with... They both should have had an established show as the lead-in from day one (as we see NA's figured growing over the last two weeks after House).
I agree but Fox clearly didn't care all that much about either from the get go, thus the initial pairing and the tearing down of sets already never is a good sign.
Originally posted by total eclipse: I'm sad for CL. Last night's installment was fantastic! Julianna Margulies deserves some kind of a recognition over her portrayal of the lead character, who is NOT your run of the mill TV female attorney.
Yup, I like her character quite a bit. It seems like CL just got lost this season... It keeps hitting so low in the demo, though, that I have trouble seeing FOX bring it back. The 1.x demo concerns me more than the overall viewing figures.
quote:
I don't know what to make of GW's numbers though, because they are slightly lower than they were before the strike (by about a mil). What does that mean for Moonlight, not just for next week, but for the fresh eps in two? Will those numbers affect Moonlight's in any way, because as it is right now - they're almost on par (GW of this week, with pre-hiatus Moonlight).
I'm guessing if GW's figures are soft then ML's figures will be softer, too... but Friday was pretty weak for everybody.
Originally posted by total eclipse: I'm sad for CL. Last night's installment was fantastic! Julianna Margulies deserves some kind of a recognition over her portrayal of the lead character, who is NOT your run of the mill TV female attorney.
Yup, I like her character quite a bit. It seems like CL just got lost this season... It keeps hitting so low in the demo, though, that I have trouble seeing FOX bring it back. The 1.x demo concerns me more than the overall viewing figures.
quote:
I don't know what to make of GW's numbers though, because they are slightly lower than they were before the strike (by about a mil). What does that mean for Moonlight, not just for next week, but for the fresh eps in two? Will those numbers affect Moonlight's in any way, because as it is right now - they're almost on par (GW of this week, with pre-hiatus Moonlight).
I'm guessing if GW's figures are soft then ML's figures will be softer, too... but Friday was pretty weak for everybody.
That's what I'm afraid of. Moonlight really needs to NOT drop below the 8 mil right now, because it's still on the bubble, and as vocal the fandom has been, that might not be enough (though I still believe CBS are likely to renew). Lower numbers for GW and lower numbers for Moonlight (god forbid!) but high / normal numbers for Numb3rs (pun intended) = VERY bad for Moonlight.
