Home Theater Forum › Home Theater Forum › Entertainment › TV Programming › Leno moves nightly to primetime
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Leno moves nightly to primetime - Page 4

post #91 of 163
9/20/09 at 3:50pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Diallo B View Post

this is quite true and i believe it is more accurate than nielsen to gauge the popularity of a show.


What about old people that by and large don't steal shows online? The only accurate gauge torrent sites can give is to see what nerds (a group that I count myself as part of) and somewhat tech savvy people are watching.
Reply
post #92 of 163
9/20/09 at 4:09pm
Popularity is pretty meaningless from a business standpoint, anyway.
Reply
post #93 of 163
9/20/09 at 4:37pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Francois Caron View Post

Interesting enough, one of the best way to measure a show's true popularity is by their presence on BitTorrent tracking sites. Fallon's show only managed two weeks before it disappeared entirely. Conan has been on BitTorrent sites consistently for years although there sometimes was the occasional delay in posting the latest shows. Jimmy Kimmel only shows up occasionally, with Letterman being more frequent in his appearances but never complete.

The Daily Show and The Colbert Report show up consistently through thick and thin.
There are several logical problems with this argument. For one thing, the demographics that use Bittorrent are dramatically different than the demographics that watch network television. For another, the demographics are dramatically skewed toward international audiences that turn to Bittorrent to access programming that may not be available in their own country for months, if ever.

Also, comparing an hour long late night program to a half-hour comedy series is apples to oranges. The Daily Show and The Colbert Report are packaged as a cohesive whole. The late night shows aren't so much.

And finally, a show's "true" popularity doesn't really matter. NBC only makes money on the eyeballs that watch the show on TV, where the commercials haven't been edited out. Unlike scripted progamming, there aren't any secondary markets to capitalize on the viewers that skipped the original broadcast run.

Reply
post #94 of 163
9/20/09 at 5:51pm
It's very shortsighted to say a show's popularity doesn't matter. It's true we're in a unique place right now where total viewership isn't reflecting revenue and so popular shows are getting canceled (Sarah Connor!!!), but this is because the entertainment industry is run by monkeys with down's syndrome, and they can't figure out how to make a buck. Sooner or later they'll either evolve or the industry will die, so it's really just a blip on the TV timeline. (Or the blip at the end of the TV timeline)

Jay Leno, the chin@10. (to stay on topic)
Reply
post #95 of 163
9/20/09 at 7:32pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zack Gibbs View Post

It's very shortsighted to say a show's popularity doesn't matter.

What I said was that, a) I'm skeptical that file sharing statistics are representative of broader popularity -- especially in shows that skew older like the late night shows and the b) popularity among viewers that don't contribute to revenue doesn't matter.

It's easy to say the execs can't make a buck because they're idiots, but it's much harder to explain what they should be doing to make a buck, especially given advertisers' general unwillingness to pay market rates for online streams.
Reply
post #96 of 163
9/20/09 at 9:48pm
^^ What you said was;
Quote:
Originally Posted by Adam Lenhardt View Post
...a show's "true" popularity doesn't really matter.

But no biggie, as I was responding more to Brian^K's post above yours, while realizing you had expressed a similar idea. But I have to ask, why should I use my extensive skill-set, imagination, and intelligence to do the entertainment industries job for them. Also I'm a hippie and I think everything should be free.

Also, I'm skeptical of file sharing statistics as well, I said it a page ago. Everyone's just cut & pasting my post for some reason. If I were the entertainment industry I'd have sued all of you by now.

Reply
post #97 of 163
9/21/09 at 4:08am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zack Gibbs View Post

....this is because the entertainment industry is run by monkeys with down's syndrome, and they can't figure out how to make a buck.

This is an inanely myopic perspective, not to mention ridiculously rude and puerile.  

One of the biggest problem facing our nation in recent years is the inability for many of our people to recognize that reasonable people can disagree with them and still be reasonable -- that life isn't a matter of getting one's own way at all costs, but rather is work at trying to find ways to live in harmony with people who feel as strongly about their own beliefs and values as you might feel about yours.  The fact that businesses seek to fulfill their overriding obligations to make profit for their owners, rather than placate our own personal desires to be entertained, doesn't mean their wrong and we're right.  

Reply
post #98 of 163
9/21/09 at 4:17am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zack Gibbs View Post

^^ What you said was;


But no biggie, as I was responding more to Brian^K's post above yours, while realizing you had expressed a similar idea.

It is true that Adam and I agree about this, but your interpretation was out of context.  Put it back into context, i.e. a comparison to the effect of popularity.  That's what matters.  Popularity for popularity's sake is vacuous.  And there is nothing about popularity of something on a bittorrent that indicates clearly how much money a broadcaster can make off of that item.  What Adam perhaps was too polite to point out was that often popularity of something on a bittorrent indicates a heavy interest in getting something for free, the exact opposite of what fosters the objectives of business.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Zack Gibbs View Post

But I have to ask, why should I use my extensive skill-set, imagination, and intelligence to do the entertainment industries job for them.

You're not: You're using your skills, imagination and intelligence to better understand the world you live in; to better understand what is reasonable to expect; to better understand your own responsibilities in the give-and-take that is the life of a human living in community with others.  And this statement by you very clearly outlines the need for that:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Zack Gibbs View Post

Also I'm a hippie and I think everything should be free.


Reply
post #99 of 163
9/21/09 at 10:00am


Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian^K View Post

Quote:


It is true that Adam and I agree about this, but your interpretation was out of context. Put it back into context, i.e. a comparison to the effect of popularity.  That's what matters.  Popularity for popularity's sake is vacuous.  And there is nothing about popularity of something on a bittorrent that indicates clearly how much money a broadcaster can make off of that item.
No, you're putting downloaders in the context that they don't matter, and I'm pointing out that it's the industries job to make them matter. They can either find someway to use that audience or they can enjoy their upcoming layoffs. A loyal viewership is a loyal viewership regardless the venue. Time marches on, the audience changes, the industry has to change with them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian^K View Post

Quote:

What Adam perhaps was too polite to point out was that often popularity of something on a bittorrent indicates a heavy interest in getting something for free, the exact opposite of what fosters the objectives of business.
 
What this sentence indicates is a heavy misunderstanding of bittorrent and its users. I'll just point out that it doesn't matter where you watch Leno, Conan, etc., it's always free.
Quote:
One of the biggest problem facing our nation in recent years is the inability for many of our people to recognize that reasonable people can disagree with them and still be reasonable -- that life isn't a matter of getting one's own way at all costs, but rather is work at trying to find ways to live in harmony with people who feel as strongly about their own beliefs and values as you might feel about yours.  The fact that businesses seek to fulfill their overriding obligations to make profit for their owners, rather than placate our own personal desires to be entertained, doesn't mean their wrong and we're right
OMG you're a hippie too!!!
Reply
post #100 of 163
9/21/09 at 11:41am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zack Gibbs View Post

No, you're putting downloaders in the context that they don't matter, and I'm pointing out that it's the industries job to make them matter.
 


I see what you mean but if they're not watching ads, they don't matter to the advertisers or networks and so they don't count.
Reply
post #101 of 163
9/21/09 at 11:50am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zack Gibbs View Post

No, you're putting downloaders in the context that they don't matter, and I'm pointing out that it's the industries job to make them matter.
Incorrect.  It is the industry's job to make profit for their owners.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Zack Gibbs View Post

They can either find someway to use that audience or they can enjoy their upcoming layoffs.
Do you actually employ them and control whether they have jobs?  

Rather, I think you're projecting your wishful thinking onto reality.  Just leave reality alone.  It's okay as it is, and distorting it into something it is not doesn't actually illuminate anything.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Zack Gibbs View Post

Time marches on, the audience changes, the industry has to change with them.
I agree, and this whole thread is about one of those changes that the industry is making in response to how the nature of the business, overall, has changed.  Not every reasonable and savvy change necessarily needs to fit within your own personal preferences for what you'd like to see changed.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Zack Gibbs View Post

What this sentence indicates is a heavy misunderstanding of bittorrent and its users.
This is a meaningless assertion.  I could just as easily say that your message indicates a heavy misunderstanding of the nature of business.

Reply
post #102 of 163
9/21/09 at 1:20pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zack Gibbs View Post

No, you're putting downloaders in the context that they don't matter, and I'm pointing out that it's the industries job to make them matter. They can either find someway to use that audience or they can enjoy their upcoming layoffs. A loyal viewership is a loyal viewership regardless the venue. Time marches on, the audience changes, the industry has to change with them.

I agree with you that broadcast television (and, to a lesser extent, cable and premium television) need to adapt their business model or go the way of the newspaper industry. I just don't agree that there's some magic wand the industry is failing to wave that would make that happen.

Once the price point has been lowered to no-strings-attached free, it's really difficult to build a business model around. Sites like Hulu have made inroads because the limited amount of forced advertising is offset by the greater ease of accessing the content versus file sharing. iTunes provides high-definition content that is too large for most file traders at a reasonable price. But neither seperately nor together do these new revenue streams bring in enough money to replace revenues from on-air advertising and syndication. Even if they achieve a critical mass where as many people are legally streaming and downloading the shows as are watching them on television, the online revenue won't come close to the traditional revenue.

Then there's the fact that the bootlegged content is, for the most part, top quality these days. If you're willing to wait 24 hours, you can get your favorite shows commercial-free in at least 480p resolution in a DRM-free file that you can do anything with. For no money.

I just can't think of a single thing the network can do that would both generate the reveune needed to keep the shows in production and convince people to move away from the illegal product. I don't think they're idiots because they haven't figured it out either.
Reply
post #103 of 163
9/21/09 at 3:18pm
And to be clear, generating just "the revenue needed to keep the shows in production" is inadequate.  Every dollar spent producing a television program and presenting it to the public competes with every other possible use for that dollar, including just investing in the stock market. (Note that the S&P 500 is up almost 40% since March.)  Producing television shows needs to beat these other uses for money.  That's why we see productions getting cheaper and cheaper -- so that that use of money remains competitive with other investments.
Reply
post #104 of 163
9/21/09 at 4:13pm
Brian, you're wearing me out man. You say it's the industry's job to make profit for their owners, ignoring the obvious correlation between that and a show's viewership.  Then you go on to ignore the fact that if the industries front runners can't sell their product, they're unable to perform their job and will only naturally be replaced. That is the reality.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian^K View Post

And to be clear, generating just "the revenue needed to keep the shows in production" is inadequate.  Every dollar spent producing a television program and presenting it to the public competes with every other possible use for that dollar, including just investing in the stock market. (Note that the S&P 500 is up almost 40% since March.)  Producing television shows needs to beat these other uses for money.  That's why we see productions getting cheaper and cheaper -- so that that use of money remains competitive with other investments.
Really? Thankfully, even today, that's just not how the world works--even within the entertainment industry itself. Investing in video games is FAR more profitable than filmmaking, for example. But, somehow, we still have movies.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Adam Lenhardt View Post
Then there's the fact that the bootlegged content is, for the most part, top quality these days. If you're willing to wait 24 hours, you can get your favorite shows commercial-free in at least 480p resolution in a DRM-free file that you can do anything with. For no money.

I just can't think of a single thing the network can do that would both generate the reveune needed to keep the shows in production and convince people to move away from the illegal product. I don't think they're idiots because they haven't figured it out either.

Here's an idea. The studio could release their own quality torrents. They'd be up a few hours after broadcast. They could give them some extra material, like extended episodes, bloopers, behind the scenes interviews. Whatever would be appropriate for the show. Nothing major, just enough to distinguish them from the broadcast torrents. Now put some limited commercials in there, like Hulu streams. I think there's ample evidence proving people don't mind commercials, they just mind commercials taking up 30-40% of a broadcast.

The problem there is it would possibly eat into their DVD sales. Oh well. As I said, it's not my job. Given that there are dozens if not hundreds of shows being produced for TV today I don't think it would hurt them to TRY something for a single show. Instead you get something like Leno. A perfect example of a network refusing to alter a dying business strategy, cutting costs to make up for shrinking profits. (you know, when I write these things I explore certain sides of the situation, I actually think that NBC's low ratings have steered it in a direction where they may very well stand to be the most successful at future media endeavors, but w/e)

Incidentally Leno was down 53% by his 4th show, beaten by a rerun of The Mentalist. He actually has competition this week. ( I think, there aren't really any 10pm network shows I can think of that I watch, but you know, it's premier week.)


Reply
post #105 of 163
9/21/09 at 4:29pm
I think you're really engaging in a lot of mental masturbation.  I am sure you find it great fun to put yourself forward as smarter than an entire industry of professional experts with experience and credentials.  It's also pretty-much devoid of merit.  

Reply
post #106 of 163
9/21/09 at 4:58pm
Brian:

Let's keep the personal insults away from this thread.

Parker
Reply
post #107 of 163
9/21/09 at 6:03pm


Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian^K View Post

I think you're really engaging in a lot of mental masturbation.  I am sure you find it great fun to put yourself forward as smarter than an entire industry of professional experts with experience and credentials.  It's also pretty-much devoid of merit.  
 

Well unless they all plug their brains in to some collective I only have to worry about outwitting their intellectual average. No fucking problem. Hell I just accidentally wrote the plot to next summers failed August blockbuster.
Reply
post #108 of 163
9/21/09 at 8:37pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zack Gibbs View Post

Here's an idea. The studio could release their own quality torrents. They'd be up a few hours after broadcast. They could give them some extra material, like extended episodes, bloopers, behind the scenes interviews. Whatever would be appropriate for the show. Nothing major, just enough to distinguish them from the broadcast torrents. Now put some limited commercials in there, like Hulu streams. I think there's ample evidence proving people don't mind commercials, they just mind commercials taking up 30-40% of a broadcast.

The problem is, even with commercials taking up 30-40 percent of a broadcast, the studios still don't break even until DVD and syndication sales. The margins are pretty thin to begin with. If fewer, higher priced commercials were enough to create a comparable revenue stream it would have already happened online. Fox tried running its Friday night lineup last year with dramatically fewer, but more expensive commercials. While they did get a premium for the remaining ads, the additional money didn't balance out the money lost from the ad time that was restored to the programming.
Reply
post #109 of 163
9/21/09 at 9:08pm


Quote:
Originally Posted by Zack Gibbs View Post




It's not true at all, it only covers a select "techie" sub-demographic, and then doesn't account for the rapidly growing popularity in other online media outlets like Hulu-- which carries every late night show listed save for Letterman.

neither of us can come up with any numbers to support our claims.  and for me to go any further would likely violate some form of htf rules. so we can agree to disagree. 

but i  will say this, those that are likely to get watchable SMOOTH hulu (flash) playback are the same ones that are likely to be in that 'techie' sub-demo.
Reply
post #110 of 163
9/21/09 at 9:16pm


Quote:
Originally Posted by Zack Gibbs View Post



No, you're putting downloaders in the context that they don't matter, and I'm pointing out that it's the industries job to make them matter. They can either find someway to use that audience or they can enjoy their upcoming layoffs. A loyal viewership is a loyal viewership regardless the venue. Time marches on, the audience changes, the industry has to change with them.
 

this is exactly what i was thinking.  not only nielsen is obsolete, it is not a true representation of a television show's ratings any longer.  it is time to move to a different system that takes into account all forms of viewership.
Reply
post #111 of 163
9/21/09 at 9:34pm


Quote:

Then there's the fact that the bootlegged content is, for the most part, top quality these days. If you're willing to wait 24 hours, you can get your favorite shows commercial-free in at least 480p resolution in a DRM-free file that you can do anything with. For no money.


 

i am a tech head as are most of us here.  i use a windows 7 htpc to capture hd resolution programming and watch it at my leisure.  i promise i watch no commercials.  i also promise that you can get an 720p resolution /ac-3 drm free version of any show that is broadcast within TWO HOURS of it being broadcast.  there are many private trackers online that have it available.  many folks that do not have a dvr or htpc but have the technical knowledge can easily get production quality shows with all the visual and audio candy within minutes of them airing.

a big thing that confuses me is  that somehow somewhere some studio execs think people actually watch commercials.  does anyone here know people outside of advertising that actually watch commercials?

most folks i know don't watch commercials.  if they are actually watching a show live instead of on a dvr-etc. they are likely using the commercial break to make a potty run, place a phone call or make a snack run.  broadcast networks use at least 18 minutes per hour for commercials.  i know of no one that sits around for those 18 minutes wating for the latest p&g,  gm or att ad.  UNLESS it is the superbowl.  and the advertising industry and nfl all got us duped on that one.  another thread, another time.......
Reply
post #112 of 163
9/21/09 at 10:52pm
I think I watch at least some commercials because even though I don't drink, I've seen those "too light" / "too heavy" commercials. I don't yet know which light beer they're for, but give it time -- it will slowly seep into my subconscious, even though I do use commercials for doing things. If I were a beer drinker, and if my choice of beer could be influenced by advertising, I'd suggest at least that one ad is working. I've also seen ads for Sprint (talk to anyone on any network), Verizon (oh, you can't use your blackberry here because you didn't get it via Verizon, did you), and a few cars. So yeah, as much as I consider myself one of the folks who "skips" commercials, I'd also have to admit some of them are seeping through when I watch live TV.

As for the whole alternate advertising models, it's strange to me to fault the people for not doing it because you're sure there's something better, but then say it's not your job to offer any suggestion as to what could be better. I often have many of the same feelings, but I find myself expressing a hope that something better will come along. As for putting ads into BT downloads and sending them out, I'm not sure how effective that would be as well at capture the current BT crowd. Maybe the cappers would then just grab the studio copy, edit out the commercials, and release that. Or if they release their copy before the studios, fans will want it because it's available sooner.

Again, the issues are not easy, which isn't to say they're impossible.
Reply
post #113 of 163
9/22/09 at 2:52am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Parker Clack View Post

Brian:

Let's keep the personal insults away from this thread.

Parker

It wasn't meant, in any way, as a personal insult.  This is really a critical point at this juncture of the discussion, and I'm sorry it wasn't clearer:  The assertion I was replying to was no longer about Leno, but rather essentially was that a viewer's perspective was right, and that the judgment and discretion of an entire industry's experts was wrong, categorically.  There is no logic in that.  While individuals in an industry could make mistakes now and then, and I suppose in the "anything is possible" universe it is possible for the entire industry to be wrong, but in such a case it is most likely that no one at all will be correct; indeed, that perhaps there will never be any knowledge of what was the correct approach. 

There are no business plans providing the assertion that was made.  There is no market research supporting the assertion.  All there was was wishful thinking, and perhaps a firm belief that whatever a viewer wanted must therefore be owed to the viewer, must therefore be the best possible approach to doing business.  It's simply an indefensible line of reasoning, and that's what I pointed out.  Absolutely nothing against the poster, specifically... my comments were specifically directed as the assertions being made.

I think the crux of the issue stems from something someone said in another thread recently: That they, as a viewer, felt that they had no obligation to think of things from the industry's standpoint.  Well, of course, they don't have an obligation, but a perspective devoid of understanding of, and respect for, the industry's objectives is a perspective that will not reflect reality, or in any way be useful except as a barometer for what a specific person wants.  Without understanding what drives the industry, and respecting the fact that the industry exists for its own purposes rather than one individual's own wishes, it would be impossible to formulate a rational strategy that one could reasonably expect the industry to consider. 
Reply
post #114 of 163
9/22/09 at 6:46am
Thread Starter 

[quote]

It wasn't meant, in any way, as a personal insult.  This is really a critical point at this juncture of the discussion, and I'm sorry it wasn't clearer:  The assertion I was replying to was no longer about Leno, but rather essentially was that a viewer's perspective was right, and that the judgment and discretion of an entire industry's experts was wrong, categorically.  There is no logic in that.  While individuals in an industry could make mistakes now and then, and I suppose in the "anything is possible" universe it is possible for the entire industry to be wrong, but in such a case it is most likely that no one at all will be correct; indeed, that perhaps there will never be any knowledge of what was the correct approach. [/quote]

 

Brian, I know I've asked this before, but do you work in the industry?  If yes, fine, feel free to declare it, even if you can't say for who.  If not, then, like us, you are a viewer.  An informed one, but a viewer just like us.

I'm not sure if you can say "an entire industry of experts" which is far from the correct perspective.  Right now, there are many within the industry who have a lot of different opinions about what happens next.  Even those not in the industry can read through the rating reports, and follow up on the business plans as posted by Hulu, Apple, and even Microsoft in means of next generation media and returns.  
 

Even corporate titans have tried to work this in as part of their game.. check Showtime which is allowing people right now to watch "Californication" season 4 episodes before air on their website.

In the end, there isn't really an "industry viewpoint" to respect.. Tina Fey made this quite clear if nothing else in her emmy acceptance speech that even those at NBC on scripted programming have a vastly different viewpoint then their network. And the network news divisions have long had a very different opinion of how news can be managed within the industry.

[quote]
I think the crux of the issue stems from something someone said in another thread recently: That they, as a viewer, felt that they had no obligation to think of things from the industry's standpoint.  Well, of course, they don't have an obligation, but a perspective devoid of understanding of, and respect for, the industry's objectives is a perspective that will not reflect reality, or in any way be useful except as a barometer for what a specific person wants.  Without understanding what drives the industry, and respecting the fact that the industry exists for its own purposes rather than one individual's own wishes, it would be impossible to formulate a rational strategy that one could reasonably expect the industry to consider. [/quote]

I'm not sure what rational strategy the industry has considered in the last 15 years.   And, if they have, it has obviously been a monumental failure.

http://www.parcbench.com/2009/07/18/nbc-plunges/

Forget viewers being critical, try shareholders who are unhappy with returns.  And, ask Carl Icahn exactly how that can work out.  The industry is being schooled by those who are effectively turning profits and providing better content access.  Complete outsiders are taking shots to see what sticks.. Microsoft has gambled with web-programming/XBOX Live programming like "The Guild", Google is now ready to track it's first set of online shows they will back.

As above, fast and quick access to content allows many people to universal time shift... DVR everything, or download what they miss.  Watch at their leisure.

And, I hate to say this also, but a trained monkey with a dartboard could go into NBC and also lose slightly over 80% of average rad evenue in 18 months.  

I have no ill will toward the Leno Show.  But the people here who blather aren't alone; Variety, DeadlineHollyWoodDaily, THR, and others have also wondered aloud about the financial viability of an NBC talk-block that now is 4 hours long.  Per show, Leno's cost is good.. and if his ratings are even "eh" it's not a loss for NBC.  But if the ratings from 10-midnight as a whole go down, it will not be the production value that hurts, it will be localized ad revenue, which the affiliates and independent broadcasters bear that take a pounding.

One last bit, because I think it's a short sighted analysis that a huge number of people don't share, especially affiliates:

[quote]

And to be clear, generating just "the revenue needed to keep the shows in production" is inadequate.  Every dollar spent producing a television program and presenting it to the public competes with every other possible use for that dollar, including just investing in the stock market. (Note that the S&P 500 is up almost 40% since March.)  Producing television shows needs to beat these other uses for money.  That's why we see productions getting cheaper and cheaper -- so that that use of money remains competitive with other investments.[/quote]

By this argument, of course, television studios, etc. would be best advised to close their doors and invest in something else which is far more short term profitable.  I don't think there is any denying that while NBC, etc. are just bleeding red all over the place with regards to cost vs. income, other industries are doing better.  And GE, their capital company, would make far more money if they put the same amount of funds into developing a better lightbulb and canceling all TV programming.  That's a bit snarky, but also true.. any major product development or launch by GE is far more profitable in the short and long term then television programming... with few exceptions.

Here's the other reality of media investment.  Many invest in media and television/studios/film not because of insane returns, but because it exists as a vanity to put themselves somewhere for eternity.  Look at Oscar contending films which bleed red but keep getting funding.  Because there will be those who want to invest in that, for just that sake.

I personally don't like Jay.  I haven't ever really enjoyed the Tonight Show, I have always followed Letterman and will continue to do so.  I think NBC's strategy is a poor one because I think it devalues their overall product.  But only time will tell.   In the end, what most of us are waiting for is the obvious: GE at some point will dump NBC.  That's not some outsider perspective of a mindless viewer, it's been the common thought in everything from the Financial Times to Wall Street Journal.  If GE =could= find a buyer, they would.  And they have, by all accounts, shopped.  
 

So, what happens then?

Reply
post #115 of 163
9/22/09 at 7:37am
I think it is really critical to understand that there is a business, and then there is an artistic discipline.  The artistic discipline often "rides on top of" the business, but it is really important to remember that the business doesn't service the artistic discipline, but rather the other way around.  This isn't a guess, but is just a reflection of reality.  And (and this is the important part), that's the way things are all across everything where a business "sells" something.  Just within the realm of services that sell the results of artistic endeavors, we can see this with restaurants, movies, theaters, books, etc. And you can find analogs to this in just about all consumer-facing businesses. The business is going to focus on the business, specifically, on the money, even more specifically, on long-term shareholder value.  The mission of the business exists to serve the business itself, not the other way around... no matter how much folks want there to be contextual purity for the object of the mission.  That's only possible to the extent that that purity, itself, delivers value to the business.
Reply
post #116 of 163
9/22/09 at 8:43am
I don't know how, or if, it changes the conversation, but in this very interesting conversation I see an implicit mis-statement of who the customers and the products of the networks are. It's implied that we, the viewers, are the customers and the TV shows are the products.

That doesn't seem to be so. The networks' customers are the advertisers and the "product" is we-the-viewers. The content is the delivery service to get us to advertisers.

Networks are "simply" providers of eyeballs to their bill-paying advertisers. If they can't bring enough eyeballs to the advertisers they will go out of business, so long as they're in the advertising business.

And that makes me wonder how much revenue DVD/Blu-Ray/iTunes sales bring? In that case, I'm actually the customer (buying the DVD) and the show is actually the product (which I buy for viewing). But does it make enough money to cover the production of shows like e.g. Smallville?

I think the past 15 years of TV have been incredible; a golden age. I don't relish the thought of scripted programming destroyed from outmoded business plans.

Reply
post #117 of 163
9/22/09 at 8:55am
A few notes.  You're mostly on target.  There is no question that advertisers are major customers of the networks.  As time goes on, though, more and more of the money going into networks should be coming from service providers, satellite and cable, through retransmission fees, and so they become customers of the networks as well.

With regard to DVDs, Blu-Ray and so on, note that that income goes to the production company, not the network.  (Sometimes, though, they're one and the same, but different divisions, different P&L; so generally, we can think of them as separate business entities.)  Smallville, for example, is produced by a set of production companies, most notably Marvel Entertainment (soon to be part of Disney), but it broadcast on CW (a joint venture between CBS and Warner Brothers).  Even though WB is part of the production team, they're just part of the production team, and part of the broadcast network, so effectively they only get a small portion of the disc revenues.  There are a number of shows where, effectively, the disc rental and sales business effectively competes with the broadcaster. 

I agree with you completely about the last 15 years being the Golden Age of broadcast television.  It started, IMHO, even before that, with the premiere of Hill Street Blues, actually, but I'm also quite confident that it is coming to an end because we viewers are simply not going to foster the same amount of expense in that direction going forward.  Between commercial avoidance and other diversions, the priority placed on scripted programming via over-the-air broadcast is simply not going to be there, as far as I can tell.
Reply
post #118 of 163
9/22/09 at 9:36am
Thread Starter 
[quote]Smallville, for example, is produced by a set of production companies, most notably Marvel Entertainment (soon to be part of Disney)[/quote]

 

Smallville is a DC property.  Warner.  :)  Just for the comic book side.  
 

Your assessment is dead on as I see it.  With one caveat.. re-airability is becoming of significant value.  You are either an event/spectacle (see: NFL, MLB, NBA, sports, etc.) and throw things like AI into that bunch.. or if you are not an event/spectacle, you have to be something that can be marketed to subsidiary networks, sold internationally or create continual eyeballs. 

Something like Law & Order, CSI etc. may take hits.. but L&O now has versions of that show in 6 different countries.  And NBC does own a piece of that program.  I'm not sure of the ownership rank on CSI.. but same basic idea.  

The problem with talk show, and news programming is that it's a one shot deal.  Repeats have significantly lower value and are almost impossible to sell.  Imagine them as the "bond" of the marketplace.  You rarely lose money, but you don't have a lot of upside for a hit or to make secondary money either on re-selling them elsewhere.

http://tvbythenumbers.com/2009/09/22/tv-ratings-dancing-house-premiere-big-heroes-the-jay-leno-show-fall/27997

Jay took in a 1.8 share last night, which is low, but not so low NBC loses money.  If this is where it sits for the season, it's now a no-risk gamble that ends up breaking even.   However, the 1.8 is lower then they were performing last year.. so it's a wash.  They save money on the production, the ratings drop, but the ratings don't have to hold up as much cost.

I will say this: Heroes looks to be dead meat if it's going to get bashed in by House this year.  NBC looks to need to rethink a lot more things then Jay, because the suffering over there will be brutal.

Reply
post #119 of 163
9/22/09 at 9:38am
Now we're beginning to see a better picture of what the Jay Leno Show experiment is going to do for NBC's primetime fortunes...

First off, NBC really took it on the chin last night. Heroes flat-out bombed, and since this was the season premiere, Heroes numbers are more likely to go down than up in the coming weeks. House came on like gangbusters for Fox. The CBS comedies performed well in the face of stiff competition, but IMO, Accidentally On Purpose looks vulnerable. But, since CBS has Rules Of Engagement waiting in the wings, worst case scenario, that is a "quick fix" situation for them.

Dancing did well, but it was the lowest rated DWTS premiere ever, so there may be some tarnishing going on there. IMO, glutting the summer months with so much reality fare is taking a toll on the ratings impact that all fall reality programs will have on viewers.

At 10 p.m. Jay came in third. CSI: Miami took its usual place in the top spot and Castle had a stronger than expected second place showing. Now, here's the dilemma for NBC, with a poor Heroes lead-in, Jay's performance suffered. What's interesting is that if you compare Jay's 10 p.m. numbers with his 2008 11:35 p.m. average, he is up slightly in adults 18-49, 25-54 and total viewers, but when you make the same comparison with NBC's 2008 10 p.m. primetime schedule, he is down in both demos and total viewers. Obviously, it's too early to see a trend, but it looks like ABC and Castle benefited from the lack of scripted drama on NBC at 10.

Edited by pitchman - 9/22/09 at 9:56am
Reply
post #120 of 163
9/22/09 at 10:07am
Hindsight is always 20/20 of course, but I'm surprised I didn't "know" this was going to happen in advance.  Maybe I'm simply so hopeful that Heroes will survive, do well, excel, etc., that I didn't really look at it objectively: Against House, Heroes is doomed, I think.  I hope they give us a good wrap-up at the end of this Volume, because I fear it might be the last.  
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: TV Programming
Home Theater Forum › Home Theater Forum › Entertainment › TV Programming › Leno moves nightly to primetime