Commentary

Prime-Time Shows That Don't Work: On- Or Off-Brand?

by Wayne Friedman , Staff Writer, January 12, 2016

Paul Lee, president of ABC Entertainment Group, said the quickly canceled drama “Wicked City” was “off-brand.”

Speaking at the Television Critics Association meeting, Lee didn’t go into details. But can anyone tell -- clearly -- what ABC’s brand is -- or even other broadcast networks’? It’s getting harder to figure out.

Years ago there may have been clearer distinctions of TV “brand.” Right now, CBS may be the “crime-procedural and traditional comedy” network, with Fox, still the edgier network, skewing to a younger audience (perhaps replaced in large part by the CW).

NBC? One thinks “The Voice,” “Blacklist,” “Chicago Fire,” the NFL, and Dolly Parton and musicals: singing, drama, ashes, controlled violence and more singing. Something for everyone.

ABC’s “Wicked City” was a dark and brooding, cocaine-laden crime procedural drama set on Sunset Strip in the 1980s. A review in The Hollywood Reporter said: “Offensive, predictable and awful. ABC... should be embarrassed at how much this degrades its target audience — and the network.”

I’d go further. Network prime-time programming caters to women viewers overall. So that means it was “off-brand” for all of TV.

So let me guess: Are lighter-touch dramas like ABC’s “Quantico,” the new FBI show, “on-brand” -- more of a mystery woman can get into, with a woman actor in the lead of the show? Other ABC shows like “Nashville” may be more in the prime-time soap model, while “Castle” is a dramedy. Both appeal to women viewers.

And while you are thinking about this, let’s think back to the late 1990s, when Alan Cohen, the senior marketing executive of ABC, was the instigator of the “TV is good” campaign. Blurbs about the network, and TV in general, would appear in front of a simple yellow-colored background -- on TV or in print. Stuff like: “Before TV, two World Wars. After TV, zero.” And, “If TV is so bad for you, why is there one in every hospital room?” And, “Without TV, how would you know where to put the sofa?”

And for ABC daytime soap programming: “Marry Rich. Kill Husband. Repeat.”

What did this mean for ABC’s “brand”? Who knows! But we talked about it, and perhaps smiled -- even though we may not have been watching many of the network’s shows! Maybe that’s what is meant -- in part -- about being TV “on-brand.”

2 comments about " Prime-Time Shows That Don't Work: On- Or Off-Brand?".

Check to receive email when comments are posted.

Ed Papazian from Media Dynamics Inc, January 12, 2016 at 4:32 p.m.
It seems likely that "Wicked City" represented an attempt by ABC to come up with an "edgier" kind of primetime fare such as the much acclaimed stuff we see on certain cable channels.Unfortunately this show failed to win high ratings and seemed out of place on a broadcast network's schedule. So, rather than continue in this vein, the network may be backing off on the grounds that such fare doesn't fit in or is "off brand" to its core constituency---which is conveniently defined as 'the mass audience". But is it really true that the broadcast networks must appeal to everybody when half of their average primetime telecast audience consists of men and women aged 55 or older?

I wonder what kind of reception ABC---or NBC and CBS, for that matter---would have gotten if they, not cable, introduced us to Mad Men", The Sporonos" or "Vampire Diaries". Would these "edgier" shows have flopped in the Nielsens and been speedily cancelled? Indeed, are high ratings the only determinant of quality?

As I point out in my new book, "TV Now and Then", it makes sense for a broadcast network to appeal to younger, more sophisticated, audiences---which they are steadily losing---by offering "edgier" content, probably via a SVOD platform first, then in repeat form on the linear network platform to garner ad revenues---as well as the older appeal fare they now present. That way, they can have their cake and eat it too. If the edgeir shows' production costs are largely or completely recouped in their initial SVOD runs, their cost efficiency as primetime network content will be so favorable that lower ratings will no longer be the kiss of death, nor will they always be equated with quality.
Reply

Michael Kaplan from Blue Sky Creative, January 12, 2016 at 8:11 p.m.

Back in the good old days — the late 1980s and 1990s — NBC actually had a brand: Must See TV. And their programming backed it up, based largely on the efforts of executives who actually cared what was put on screen: Grant Tinker, Brandon Tartikoff, Warren Littlefield and others. But eventually the GE suits took over the joint, and programming took their eye off the ball and focused on short-term ratings wins at the expense of everything else. And the minute folks realized crappy TV shows could be more profitable than high-quality dramas, it was all over.
By the way, I still have a collection of the ABC ads from the "yellow" period. Best print work for TV ever.