Who hasn't seen well-written and well- produced, but short-lived, prime-time network shows? And who hasn't thought: "Too bad they weren't on cable"?
Two current network entertainment chiefs -- NBC's Robert Greenblatt and Fox's Kevin Reilly -- would agree.
Plenty of critics' favorite shows hang on for dear life, maybe in part because of the critics' pleading, fans' letters and network executives' hopeful backing. Take a look at "Fringe" on Fox and "Community" and "Chuck" on NBC, as three recent examples.
In the space of a couple of days at the Television Critics Association meeting in Pasadena, Greenblatt and Reilly said basically the same thing, respectively, about this season's cancelled "Prime Suspect" on NBC and last season's big misfire, Fox's "Lone Star."
Both used a similar formula: On a cable network, after three or four episodes -- (with I'm guessing a cable-solid 2-4 million viewers or so, depending on the network, basic or pay cable), these shows would have been given year-long orders and then gone on for four or five seasons. And they would have been declared not just critical but financial successes.
advertisement
advertisement
Not only that, but these shows running on say Showtime, FX, HBO or AMC, would have made some fans very happy -- just as they are with "The Walking Dead," "Shameless," "Rescue Me" or "True Blood."
But here's a business question: Would TV advertisers have been happy?
Absolutely. Media agency and marketing executives could smile about being in "quality" TV shows. Sure, these shows would have rough subject matter and tough language, but they would have given the cable industry a few more feathers in their cap for TV marketers.
But let's flip things around. What would have happened if "Mad Men" tried to make a go of it on say ABC or NBC? Maybe it would have been given the same treatment as "Pan Am" or "The Playboy Club" by broadcast network viewers. A show like "Breaking Bad" on Fox? We might have been talking of how the audience was too narrow or how the show had a bad time period -- like what Fox's "Dollhouse" went through.
Then we would have had many complaints by broadcast advertisers about poor prime-time execution and ever-weakening broadcast erosion.
Network programmers still need to explain failure -- to other executives, to critics, to business advertising partners, and to viewers. But the explanations are now less about wide-scale “rejection'” by a large number of viewers, and more about somewhat smaller, modest TV platforms that would have saved the day.
My problem with using the word "quality" is that the real meaning is "what I like" or "what the elite experts like" instead of some intrinsic characteristic. Everyone knows what someone is trying to say when they use "quality" as an adjective for a TV show, but more often than not, the usage has a tinge of snobbery, suggesting that the show is too good to be judged by the unwashed viewers in flyover country. My question is, if the show was so wonderful, why didn't anyone watch? Could it be the same people who are permitted to designate which shows get to be labeled "quality" are the same ones bragging they don't watch much TV?
It's not really about "quality," and it's certainly not about "snobbery," it's about narrow appeal vs. widespread appeal. Shows make it on network television by appealing to the least common denominator. But quirky shows (or violent shows, genre shows, horror shows, or so-called "quality" shows) often have a narrower, but deeper, appeal. Let's face it, the original Star Trek nearly got canceled after its second season, and only lasted for three. There are a long list of great shows that died before their time (Firefly, Modern Family, Bridget Loves Bernie, Lone Star, Friday Night Lights, Babylon 5) that would have performed wonderfully amid the more modest expectations of cable. Hopefully, five years from now, we'll be in the post-network, post-cable era, and television will have the same breadth of choice as magazine publishing today.
In other words, once EVERYTHING is pay-per-view, even small audiences will be big enough to support modestly budgeted productions.
How much influence and investment (and not necessarily direct or exposed or legal as in off shore, etc.) does Nielson have in this needs to be explained. Always believed sampling is too small and unbalanced.
My problem with this network "quality" issue is that they don't give a new show time to find its audience. So many shows have debuted with high expectations lotsa hype, and within a couple of weeks it's moved all over the map (see: "Harry's Law") or others I deem "quality" TV experiences, and then they're cancelled for "lack of interest." I think the lack of interest is from the network heads, too impatient for ratings to spread the word and wait for a show to catch fire.
So Paula you don't believe in sampling? Don't ever get a blood test then!
John, you usually have some great comments. But testing, unbalance tests and skewing the results are not the same things. You would hardly want a lab to review your bloodwork that puts more emphasis and partial attention to some aspects of them than others.
I love "Parks & Recreation" and am shocked/grateful that NBC hasn't cancelled it yet because of its tiny, tiny ratings.