• by Steve Sternberg , Featured Columnist, August 11, 2011

On-air promos are still by far the most effective way for networks to make viewers aware of and interested in their programming. Unfortunately, the broadcast networks continue to purposely ignore the biggest chunk of available prospects. This is the main reason why most new broadcast shows will flop.

Cable has been siphoning off the broadcast audience for years. The idea that the broadcast networks still see only one another as competition is, to say the least, foolhardy. Cable networks long ago came to understand that the best way to improve their audience was to appeal to those who were watching similar shows on other networks.

They also understood that it didn't really hurt them much if other cable networks did the same. If everyone gained viewers, more advertising dollars would shift from broadcast to cable, and everyone would eventually benefit.

With average broadcast ratings declining, particularly in the summer, simply promoting yourself on your own air is no longer good enough. Unfortunately, the broadcast networks are totally disinclined to do the one thing that would have an immediate positive impact: promote one another's new series.

Let's say I'm producing a new, rather intense cop show that is also infused with humor, and is geared squarely to adults 35-64. What would be the best vehicle in which to promote it to the largest group of potential viewers? NCIS? Criminal Minds? Law & Order: SVU? Castle?

The answer, of course, is yes to all. But what if the show I'm producing is called "The Chicago Code," and it happens to air on FOX (which doesn't have any similar programs)? The show would simply be barred from advertising on virtually every other broadcast series that appeals to the same audience. But if the show aired on FOX's cable outlet, FX, instead of its broadcast outlet, it would be able to advertise on all those shows (and more likely than not, would have gotten enough viewers to be renewed for next season).

Wouldn't FOX's "Lone Star," which was not going after the typical FOX audience, have benefited by being promoted in, let's say, ABC's "Desperate Housewives"? And wouldn't NBC's "The Event" have been helped by being likewise promoted in "Fringe" or the "24" series finale? This kind of reciprocal approach would benefit everyone.

But here's the real problem. The broadcast networks don't see everyone gaining viewers as a good thing. The only thing that really matters to them is the network standings. If you were to ask a second-place network if they would rather lose 10% of their viewers and move into first place (because everyone else lost 20%), or gain 10% and remain in second place, they would almost certainly choose losing viewers and being number one. That's because the number one network more or less controls the marketplace and takes in the most advertising dollars.

Does anyone else see the problem here? The whole upfront buying system is designed for each network to try to lose fewer viewers than its competitors. In the 1970s and early 1980s, when the broadcast networks accounted for 90% of the viewing audience year-round, it worked quite well. In today's media world, however, an upfront marketplace that rewards being number one, yet does not punish declining ratings, is more than anachronistic, it's nuts.

I was watching "Auction Hunters" on Spike the other night, and saw a commercial for A&E's "Storage Wars." The two shows obviously appeal to a similar audience, and this type of cross-promotion makes perfect sense.

There's no law that says broadcast ratings have to go down every year. But there are 27 new scripted shows coming on this fall, with another 16 shows moving into new time slots. There could be nearly as many new series in mid-season. It often takes people a year to even become aware that a new show is on, much less start watching it.

If every broadcast network advertised on every other broadcast network, any advantage for a single show would likely wash out. But if everyone gained 20% more viewers for their new series in the process, everyone wins.

Every time I raise the issue of the broadcast networks' stubborn refusal to promote one another's series, it generates stories in the trade press. The last time, an anonymous network source was quoted as saying "it's an ego thing." He couldn't come up with a single valid reason for not doing it. Putting ego aside for a moment, the broadcast networks should realize that every time they do cross-promote their products, ratings soar.

Just look at NFL Football ratings over the past few years, or the NCAA Men's College Basketball Tournament this year (even though that was CBS and Turner).

Let's be clear (if I wasn't already). These aren't just random consumers the broadcast networks are choosing not to pursue. And they aren't people whose attention you can easily grab online or on outdoor billboards. These are the best possible prospects, who the networks know are already watching similar programming, and are at that moment at their most receptive to receiving a message about programming.

The press and the networks like to bemoan that viewers rejected quality shows like last season's "Lone Star" (FOX) and "Detroit 1-8-7" (ABC). But really, hardly anyone had even heard of them, and neither fit into the mold of their host network's other series. Shows of lesser note, such as "My Generation," "The Whole Truth," "Undercovers," and "Chase," were also virtually unknown to most viewers. What about mid-season entries, such as ABC's "Off the Map," CBS's "Chaos," NBC's "Perfect Couples," and FOX's "Traffic Light." Never heard of them? Wonder why.

There is absolutely no question that if the networks started cross-promoting one another's shows that new series success rates would rise dramatically, and overall broadcast ratings would stabilize (or decline less). I'd love to see two broadcast networks experiment with promoting one another's new series this fall -- perhaps FOX (often the most innovative and forward thinking network) and NBC (which certainly has nothing to lose).

Now is the perfect time to do this. While networks like to claim otherwise, they now appeal to largely the same audience (except CW). The average median ages for ABC, CBS, and NBC are within 5 years of one another. FOX is only about five years younger than ABC and NBC.

To just decide not to promote your new products to the largest pool of available and willing consumers makes no sense. The broadcast networks need to start realizing that a rising tide lifts all boats.