# NBC has record sweeps...and not in a good way.



## Azlen (Nov 25, 2002)

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/25/business/media/nbcs-ratings-plummet-from-first-to-worst.html

A couple of things of note. The top NBC shows in prime time were Biggest Loser and the Office at a 2.1. They both failed to match AMC's The Talking Dead (the show on after the Walking Dead) which got a 2.2.
The top show on NBC overall was Saturday Night Live with a 2.3. No show on NBC came within a million viewers of Downton Abbey on PBS. They finished the sweeps in fifth place behind Univision.


----------



## Hoffer (Jun 1, 2001)

ouch

Seems so weird. NBC dominated like 10-15 years ago.


----------



## inaka (Nov 26, 2001)

It's the new normal.


----------



## justen_m (Jan 15, 2004)

I just want Revolution back.


----------



## GoPackGo (Dec 29, 2012)

inaka said:


> It's the new normal.


I see what you did there.


----------



## WhiskeyTango (Sep 20, 2006)

justen_m said:


> I just want Revolution back.


One month to go.


----------



## billypritchard (May 7, 2001)

WhiskeyTango said:


> One month to go.


Once the Voice, Grimm, Revolution come back, at least they'll have a few shows around the 2.0 mark!


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

justen_m said:


> I just want Revolution back.


I hope they didn't ruin the show by having such a long hiatus. I really think that's a bad practice for a new show. By the time it comes back, a lot of people will have forgotten about it.


----------



## allan (Oct 14, 2002)

Steveknj said:


> I hope they didn't ruin the show by having such a long hiatus. I really think that's a bad practice for a new show. By the time it comes back, a lot of people will have forgotten about it.


Forgotten about what? What was that show about anyway?


----------



## YCantAngieRead (Nov 5, 2003)

Parks and Rec is all that's left that I care about. And I'm really scared it'll be gone this year.


----------



## GoPackGo (Dec 29, 2012)

YCantAngieRead said:


> Parks and Rec is all that's left that I care about. And I'm really scared it'll be gone this year.


I'm in the same boat. I had high hopes for Community's return, but I turned off the 2nd ep halfway through.


----------



## KungFuCow (May 6, 2004)

YCantAngieRead said:


> Parks and Rec is all that's left that I care about. And I'm really scared it'll be gone this year.


As consistently good as that show is, its amazing it doesnt get higher ratings.


----------



## billypritchard (May 7, 2001)

YCantAngieRead said:


> Parks and Rec is all that's left that I care about. And I'm really scared it'll be gone this year.


I'm hoping that Park and Rec and Parenthood survive, simply because everything else has tanked and they have to show SOMETHING that was on the previous year. Can't have 100% new stuff.


----------



## dianebrat (Jul 6, 2002)

They canceled Journeyman, they deserve this 


p.s. and then Prime Suspect right as it got decent!


----------



## DreadPirateRob (Nov 12, 2002)

Parenthood is almost definitely coming back, and I think P&R will as well. It's kind of in the same boat that Chuck was with NBC a few years back. It draws a small, but consistent number, and the critics love it. So when they have so many holes to fill, it makes sense to bring Parks back.


----------



## fmowry (Apr 30, 2002)

It's just a matter of time before they cancel NBC.


----------



## Hoffer (Jun 1, 2001)

DreadPirateRob said:


> Parenthood is almost definitely coming back, and I think P&R will as well. It's kind of in the same boat that Chuck was with NBC a few years back. It draws a small, but consistent number, and the critics love it. So when they have so many holes to fill, it makes sense to bring Parks back.


I listen to a TV podcast. They always say that NBC is in a different boat when it comes to cancelling shows. That none of their shows do good. A show like P&R or Community would get cancelled in a second on any other network.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

It's interesting that in the first half of the season with The Voice and Revolution and some decent early ratings for Go On, it looked like NBC might be coming back a bit. But once those shows and SNF were gone, the network sunk like a stone. Maybe because so many of my favorite shows in the past were on NBC, and they always seemed to be a more hip network than stodgy CBS and a kind of weird ABC, I am really rooting for them to make a comeback. I probably watch as many NBC shows as I do the other networks, certainly more than CBS which is SUPPOSED to program to my demo (50+). It's a shame it's gotten this horrible.


----------



## scooterboy (Mar 27, 2001)

allan said:


> Forgotten about what? What was that show about anyway?


Train tracks, I think.


----------



## pmyers (Jan 4, 2001)

scooterboy said:


> Train tracks, I think.


Well played!


----------



## Jesda (Feb 12, 2005)

They might be better off running a bunch of infomercials.


----------



## Jesda (Feb 12, 2005)




----------



## danterner (Mar 4, 2005)

justen_m said:


> I just want Revolution back.


So you say you want a Revolution...

I still think of NBC as being the #1 network, with ABC #2, and CBS #3 and PBS #4, with no other real choices. Times certainly have changed.


----------



## dianebrat (Jul 6, 2002)

Nice to know Comcast has made such a wise decision in their purchase of a broadcasting company, couldn't happen to a nicer bunch of weasels errrr business partners.

yeah, I have no idea if it even matters, but it felt so good typing that out.


----------



## jsmeeker (Apr 2, 2001)

when you get beat by PBS, you know you got your ass kicked.


----------



## wmcbrine (Aug 2, 2003)

Ah well, at least they still have the best logo.


----------



## DeDondeEs (Feb 20, 2004)

Does NBC have any power over the other networks of NBC Universal where they could harvest shows like Burn Notice, Mad Men, etc to play on NBC? I guess there is some business/financial reason why they don't do this, otherwise they would have done it already.


----------



## GoPackGo (Dec 29, 2012)

DeDondeEs said:


> Does NBC have any power over the other networks of NBC Universal where they could harvest shows like Burn Notice, *Mad Men*, etc to play on NBC? I guess there is some business/financial reason why they don't do this, otherwise they would have done it already.


AMC is not part of the Universal behemoth.


----------



## appleye1 (Jan 26, 2002)

dianebrat said:


> They canceled Journeyman, they deserve this


Damn right!:up:


----------



## WhiskeyTango (Sep 20, 2006)

DeDondeEs said:


> Does NBC have any power over the other networks of NBC Universal where they could harvest shows like Burn Notice, Mad Men, etc to play on NBC? I guess there is some business/financial reason why they don't do this, otherwise they would have done it already.


I don't know if they could but it really wouldn't make sense to do so. Ratings for shows like Burn Notice are even lower than what NBC has right now. If a show did move from cable to network tv the costs associated with it would go up significantly (network work commands a higher rate of pay for all involved).


----------



## dianebrat (Jul 6, 2002)

wmcbrine said:


> Ah well, at least they still have the best logo.


I dunno.. never really impressed me...


----------



## Lee 2.0 (Jul 10, 2012)

I thought I was the only person in the entire world who watched Journeyman. Can't wait for Gray's Anatomy to end so Kevin McKidd can find a decent part.


----------



## mattack (Apr 9, 2001)

They've cancelled so many shows, that they seem like they won't have anything else to air!


----------



## aadam101 (Jul 15, 2002)

fmowry said:


> It's just a matter of time before they cancel NBC.


Nah. They will just become a T-shirt company.


----------



## aadam101 (Jul 15, 2002)

Hoffer said:


> I listen to a TV podcast.


Which podcast? I'm looking for a new one.


----------



## cmontyburns (Nov 14, 2001)

aadam101 said:


> Which podcast? I'm looking for a new one.


Hoffer may be referring to Firewall & Iceberg (iTunes link), by Dan Fienberg and Alan Sepinwall of Hitfix.com. Thought I would mention it even if that's not the one Hoffer means, because I'd recommend it to anyone who likes insightful TV criticism and talk. You do need to have a high tolerance for lame patter and poor sound quality, but the core of the podcast is really good.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

dianebrat said:


> I dunno.. never really impressed me...


When I see that, it always reminds of the SNL Weekend Update bit where Chevy Chase makes fun of that logo when it was brand new. I'm sure that clip exists somewhere on the web.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

I'm probably totally wrong, but I'll throw this out there. I know everyone is saying shows like Parenthood or Go On will likely be back even though the rating suck, just because they need SOMETHING to show. But why? If I'm NBC, I'm sacking ALL of them. If I had to I'd start with The Voice, maybe Revolution if the ratings hold up after the hiatus and everything else new. Why keep retreading the same old shows that haven't worked ratings wise? To me, it really epitomizes what losers they are. You're showing the audience that you have no clue, and you continue to have no clue. At least if you put a bunch of new stuff out there, MAYBE something will work out. Right now, what you have isn't.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

Steveknj said:


> I'm probably totally wrong, but I'll throw this out there. I know everyone is saying shows like Parenthood or Go On will likely be back even though the rating suck, just because they need SOMETHING to show. But why? If I'm NBC, I'm sacking ALL of them. If I had to I'd start with The Voice, maybe Revolution if the ratings hold up after the hiatus and everything else new. Why keep retreading the same old shows that haven't worked ratings wise? To me, it really epitomizes what losers they are. You're showing the audience that you have no clue, and you continue to have no clue. At least if you put a bunch of new stuff out there, MAYBE something will work out. Right now, what you have isn't.


Because you run promos for new shows during the returning shows. It's hard enough to draw viewers to new shows when you have a solid base of viewers watching your existing shows. But if you don't have any built-in viewers because you're not bringing back any shows, you are basically guaranteeing that nobody will watch your new shows because they won't know about them.


----------



## cmontyburns (Nov 14, 2001)

Steveknj said:


> I'm probably totally wrong, but I'll throw this out there. I know everyone is saying shows like Parenthood or Go On will likely be back even though the rating suck, just because they need SOMETHING to show. But why? If I'm NBC, I'm sacking ALL of them. If I had to I'd start with The Voice, maybe Revolution if the ratings hold up after the hiatus and everything else new. Why keep retreading the same old shows that haven't worked ratings wise? To me, it really epitomizes what losers they are. You're showing the audience that you have no clue, and you continue to have no clue. At least if you put a bunch of new stuff out there, MAYBE something will work out. Right now, what you have isn't.


I think the idea is that this is what a network that was having more success would do. NBC has so much trouble all over its lineup that they'd have no programming if they sacked everything that didn't work all at once. It would be way too expensive to re-launch every single evening they program. And really, not every show needs to be a hit. Just one solid performer every evening (Revolution was in that category last fall), and a hit here or there (The Voice is one, as long as NBC doesn't wear it out) can buoy the whole lineup. Go On drew decent ratings behind The Voice, for example.


----------



## WhiskeyTango (Sep 20, 2006)

Steveknj said:


> I'm probably totally wrong, but I'll throw this out there. I know everyone is saying shows like Parenthood or Go On will likely be back even though the rating suck, just because they need SOMETHING to show. But why? If I'm NBC, I'm sacking ALL of them. If I had to I'd start with The Voice, maybe Revolution if the ratings hold up after the hiatus and everything else new. Why keep retreading the same old shows that haven't worked ratings wise? To me, it really epitomizes what losers they are. You're showing the audience that you have no clue, and you continue to have no clue. At least if you put a bunch of new stuff out there, MAYBE something will work out. Right now, what you have isn't.


So what happens if you cancel everything and none of the new shows stick? At least with a couple of holdovers, you know what you'll get week after week even if it isn't very good. You don't put all your eggs in one basket.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

DevdogAZ said:


> Because you run promos for new shows during the returning shows. It's hard enough to draw viewers to new shows when you have a solid base of viewers watching your existing shows. But if you don't have any built-in viewers because you're not bringing back any shows, you are basically guaranteeing that nobody will watch your new shows because they won't know about them.


So if you are showing promos on shows that nobody is watching, how is that helping things? They have only two shows where advertising during the shows is going to matter, and that's The Voice and SNF. The rest of the shows, it's like advertising in a dark tunnel. This is a network that has to REALLY look outside the box. They REALLY need to advertise heavily on social media and other places. They should also buy as much time during the hit cable shows, even on ones not owned by Comcast.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

cmontyburns said:


> I think the idea is that this is what a network that was having more success would do. NBC has so much trouble all over its lineup that they'd have no programming if they sacked everything that didn't work all at once. It would be way too expensive to re-launch every single evening they program. And really, not every show needs to be a hit. Just one solid performer every evening (Revolution was in that category last fall), and a hit here or there (The Voice is one, as long as NBC doesn't wear it out) can buoy the whole lineup. Go On drew decent ratings behind The Voice, for example.


This is true, but, the shows they bring back, it just makes them look like horrible losers. People think, two things....is this the best they got, and, is that show still on? And they move on. And it's not like shows like Parenthood hasn't been given a chance. I'm a fan of Parenthood, it's one of my favorites, as was Chuck, another show I'm glad they stuck with, but not sure it deserved to be saved. This network REALLY needs a reboot. And they have to show people that they've rebooted. Big advertising campaign that they are the NEW NBC. They can use some old classic hits as a bumper in their ads, and then say....in the spirit of the NBC we all loved, here's the NEW NBC. And, to me, the target should be Fox. They need desperately to go after a younger crowd.

I know it's about making money, but you have to have some long term vision for the future of the company and not look at short term profits by throwing crap on TV because it's cheap. It's a gamble, what do they have to lose at this point?


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

WhiskeyTango said:


> So what happens if you cancel everything and none of the new shows stick? At least with a couple of holdovers, you know what you'll get week after week even if it isn't very good. You don't put all your eggs in one basket.


You know that you have no success week after week. It's like the baseball team that plays the mediocre 2B who is never going to be very good, instead of making the bold mood and signing the young free agent with potential. Yeah, the free agent might be a bust, but you already know the guy you have now IS a bust.


----------



## jsmeeker (Apr 2, 2001)

or, like being stuck with Tony Romo


----------



## WhiskeyTango (Sep 20, 2006)

Steveknj said:


> You know that you have no success week after week. It's like the baseball team that plays the mediocre 2B who is never going to be very good, instead of making the bold mood and signing the young free agent with potential. Yeah, the free agent might be a bust, but you already know the guy you have now IS a bust.


False analogy. It's one thing if you are replacing one or two "players". Getting rid of your entire team and hoping you can find an entire new one is a different story. It doesn't make sense to take such a risk. It would be like replacing an entire MLB roster with the AAA team.


----------



## sharkster (Jul 3, 2004)

Seems like forever since the NBC heyday.

I just hope 'The New Normal', 'Go On', and 'Whitney' (in that order from fav down) don't get the ax. Well, ok - I would be fine with Whitney going, and I could survive with Go On getting axed. But I love The New Normal. I like 1600 Penn also, but I have a feeling it's not long for this world.

These days network shows are the minority, by a long shot, of what I watch. Just a handful of sitcoms and a few things like Rock Center, occasionally Dateline, and a very few dramas - otherwise it's cable or 'movie type channel' cable shows for me.


----------



## WhiskeyTango (Sep 20, 2006)

Steveknj said:


> So if you are showing promos on shows that nobody is watching, how is that helping things? They have only two shows where advertising during the shows is going to matter, and that's The Voice and SNF. The rest of the shows, it's like advertising in a dark tunnel.


Oh please. That's just not true.


----------



## scooterboy (Mar 27, 2001)

Lee 2.0 said:


> I thought I was the only person in the entire world who watched Journeyman.


I know you're relatively new here, but there are lots and lots of TCFers who loved that show. You're not alone anymore!


----------



## Jeeters (Feb 25, 2003)

dianebrat said:


> I dunno.. never really impressed me...


That logo always used to reminde me of AMC's logo...


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

WhiskeyTango said:


> False analogy. It's one thing if you are replacing one or two "players". Getting rid of your entire team and hoping you can find an entire new one is a different story. It doesn't make sense to take such a risk. It would be like replacing an entire MLB roster with the AAA team.


no, I think it would be more like replacing a last place teams worth of players, except their best two players with some AAA up and comers. With the old players you KNOW you were gonna suck, but with the new players you might still suck but at least you know that there's potential to be better.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

WhiskeyTango said:


> Oh please. That's just not true.


How is that not true? If you are advertising during the lowest rated shows, how is that getting the word out?


----------



## WhiskeyTango (Sep 20, 2006)

Steveknj said:


> no, I think it would be more like replacing a last place teams worth of players, except their best two players with some AAA up and comers.


You're arguing semantics now. Their 'place' is irrelevant.



Steveknj said:


> With the old players you KNOW you were gonna suck, but with the new players you might still suck but at least you know that there's potential to be better.


And therein lies the rub. There is also the potential to be worse - and actually a complete failure. By keeping some of the older shows, they know to what degree they will suck if nothing else improves. Remove that constant and there is no telling how low they could go. You simply don't take that kind of risk. You get rid of the worst, keep what's salvageable and try again next year to develop a few more keepers. At which point you again get rid of the worst and continue to build the brand rather than throwing **** at the wall and hoping it all works out for the best. Given their track record of new shows failing, your 'start from scratch' method would end in utter failure.



Steveknj said:


> How is that not true? If you are advertising during the lowest rated shows, how is that getting the word out?


You said "nobody" is watching. That is not true. NBC isn't always the lowest rated shows. Even if they are, they still have an audience of at least a few millions viewers. The word will still get out to them.


----------



## JYoung (Jan 16, 2002)

Obviously NBC needs to do something radical.
Like moving Jay Leno to 10 PM every weekday.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

Steveknj said:


> no, I think it would be more like replacing a last place teams worth of players, except their best two players with some AAA up and comers. With the old players you KNOW you were gonna suck, but with the new players you might still suck but at least you know that there's potential to be better.


To continue the baseball analogy, haven't you ever seen a situation where a team brings in one or two new players at the trading deadline and suddenly the rest of the players start performing better? It happens all the time. There's no reason shows like Parks & Rec or Parenthood couldn't improve in the ratings if a couple new shows brought a fresh crop of viewers to NBC.

Completely replacing the entire roster would be insane. Unlike baseball, TV networks don't have long-suffering fans that come back year after year, win or lose. TV viewers watch the networks that have the shows they like. If a network doesn't have any shows you like, you rarely ever tune to that network. When was the last time you just casually tuned into Lifetime or CMT just to see what was on? You don't do that, because those networks (or insert your own forgotten networks here) don't give you any reason to tune in. If NBC didn't carry over any existing shows, the likelihood of any of their new shows becoming hits would go WAY down, and they can't afford to reduce their already miniscule chances of creating a hit.



Steveknj said:


> How is that not true? If you are advertising during the lowest rated shows, how is that getting the word out?


Even the low rated shows on NBC get 4-5 million viewers. That's a huge number of people who see promos and have the potential to tune into new shows.


----------



## Azlen (Nov 25, 2002)

Steveknj said:


> no, I think it would be more like replacing a last place teams worth of players, except their best two players with some AAA up and comers. With the old players you KNOW you were gonna suck, but with the new players you might still suck but at least you know that there's potential to be better.


Another problem with that is they don't have a whole team of AAA players to move up. In order to replace their entire lineup, they would probably have to sink to the AA and A level.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

Azlen said:


> Another problem with that is they don't have a whole team of AAA players to move up. In order to replace their entire lineup, they would probably have to sink to the AA and A level.


We need to kill the baseball analogy, because TV networks don't have minor league shows in development just waiting to get called up to the bigs. If NBC scraps their lineup, they'd be starting from scratch with completely unproven shows. It would be like a baseball team firing all their players and then going out on the street and filling their roster with 25 random guys who have never played at all.

And to further complicate the problem, the agents that represent the best shows and the best talent don't want anything to do with NBC. If you're a show creator and you think your show has a lot of promise, or you're a talent agent an you think your client's project has promise, NBC is going to be your last choice among the four broadcast networks. This means that NBC is getting the stuff the other networks have already turned down. Same is true for casting. When given the choice, actors will opt for the pilot that's being produced for the more stable networks, because the chances of long-term success are much better. This ultimately means that NBC either has to way overpay for their pilots and actors, or they're left with the bottom of the creative barrel.


----------



## ThePhoenix (Feb 13, 2008)

Steveknj said:


> I hope they didn't ruin the show by having such a long hiatus. I really think that's a bad practice for a new show. By the time it comes back, a lot of people will have forgotten about it.


It was off so long I thought it had been cancelled anb ended up deleting the 3 or 4 episodes I hadn't watched yet. If I knew it was still alive, I would have kept them and caught up.

Maybe they'll rerun some of the old episodes before starting the new ones?


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

ThePhoenix said:


> It was off so long I thought it had been cancelled anb ended up deleting the 3 or 4 episodes I hadn't watched yet. If I knew it was still alive, I would have kept them and caught up.
> 
> Maybe they'll rerun some of the old episodes before starting the new ones?


They might as well. Reruns of Revolution couldn't do any worse in the ratings than some of the new stuff they've been putting on.


----------



## Lee 2.0 (Jul 10, 2012)

scooterboy said:


> I know you're relatively new here, but there are lots and lots of TCFers who loved that show. You're not alone anymore!


MY PEEPS!!


----------



## TAsunder (Aug 6, 2003)

I think the article is overstating things. NBC didn't do anything meaningful to compete in February sweeps, did they? If they really cared that much about February sweeps they would have made sure to get The Voice and Revolution back by then I think they will do quite well in May sweeps. I assume that this was a strategic decision somehow, but I guess they might have "actually been trying" in February.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

TAsunder said:


> I think the article is overstating things. NBC didn't do anything meaningful to compete in February sweeps, did they? If they really cared that much about February sweeps they would have made sure to get The Voice and Revolution back by then I think they will do quite well in May sweeps. I assume that this was a strategic decision somehow, but I guess they might have "actually been trying" in February.


I don't think they purposefully "tanked" February sweeps. No network would do that, when the sweeps periods are so important and there are only a couple of them per year. However, I do think the NBC execs were a little overconfident after their success in the fall and thought they could use February to launch some new stuff, rather than continuing their fall hits. Hopefully they've now seen the error of their ways and realize that schedule continuity is something they have to maintain as much as possible. That lesson will be pounded into them when Revolution comes back to a sub 2.0 after the long hiatus.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

WhiskeyTango said:


> You're arguing semantics now. Their 'place' is irrelevant.
> 
> And therein lies the rub. There is also the potential to be worse - and actually a complete failure. By keeping some of the older shows, they know to what degree they will suck if nothing else improves. Remove that constant and there is no telling how low they could go. You simply don't take that kind of risk. You get rid of the worst, keep what's salvageable and try again next year to develop a few more keepers. At which point you again get rid of the worst and continue to build the brand rather than throwing **** at the wall and hoping it all works out for the best. Given their track record of new shows failing, your 'start from scratch' method would end in utter failure.


That's what being an entrepreneur is all about isn't it? Look at just about every successful business man and they took a risk like that. Right now, you KNOW you have a failure, and you have little potential for it to improve. So you take the risk and reinvent yourself. Sure it might be a colossal failure, but it could be a HUGE success. They are heading down the tubes now, it's time to take that risk. Obviously we have a difference of opinion here. It's not my money. But this is what business has become in the 21st century. Everyone hedges their bets. That's why we celebrate companies like Apple who take risks. Apple got that way because they were in NBC's shoes and reinvented themselves because they had inspired leadership. No risk, no reward.



> ou said "nobody" is watching. That is not true. NBC isn't always the lowest rated shows. Even if they are, they still have an audience of at least a few millions viewers. The word will still get out to them.


Relatively. Isn't this thread about them setting record lows in ratings? You're selling your new stuff to a smaller audience than even Univision. Obviously the trick is how do you get them to watch. A bold move is going to pique interest. Ultimately, if there's quality there that people want to watch, they will stay, but by blowing things up, it increases the options.


----------



## WhiskeyTango (Sep 20, 2006)

TAsunder said:


> I think the article is overstating things. NBC didn't do anything meaningful to compete in February sweeps, did they? If they really cared that much about February sweeps they would have made sure to get The Voice and Revolution back by then I think they will do quite well in May sweeps. I assume that this was a strategic decision somehow, but I guess they might have "actually been trying" in February.


What meaningful things did the other networks do to compete?


----------



## daveak (Mar 23, 2009)

Chuck.


----------



## Gunnyman (Jul 10, 2003)

dianebrat said:


> They canceled Journeyman, they deserve this
> 
> 
> p.s. and then Prime Suspect right as it got decent!


And Life. I'm still bitter.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

The difference between NBC and Apple is that Steve Jobs (since his return) was never in fear of losing his job. He could make a couple mistakes and knew that he'd still be able to continue running the company. This allowed him to create a more long-term focus throughout the company, and allowed the company to spend several years developing a new product.

Conversely, the entertainment industry chews up and spits out executives on a regular basis. Even successful networks make changes all the time. So the suits at NBC aren't interested in building for the long term, because the chances that they'll still be in their jobs 5 or 10 years from now are slim to none.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

WhiskeyTango said:


> What meaningful things did the other networks do to compete?


They certainly didn't take their two highest-rated entertainment shows from the fall and put them on hiatus for 3+ months.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

DevdogAZ said:


> I don't think they purposefully "tanked" February sweeps. No network would do that, when the sweeps periods are so important and there are only a couple of them per year. However, I do think the NBC execs were a little overconfident after their success in the fall and thought they could use February to launch some new stuff, rather than continuing their fall hits. Hopefully they've now seen the error of their ways and realize that schedule continuity is something they have to maintain as much as possible. That lesson will be pounded into them when Revolution comes back to a sub 2.0 after the long hiatus.


I think a long hiatus is fine for a show like NCIS or a sitcom, but for a serialized show, it's a recipe for disaster. You'd think they'd have learned their lesson when they tried this with Lost and then with Heroes. People forget what's going on, and they either have moved on to something else or get bored after a few episodes because they have lost interest.


----------



## WhiskeyTango (Sep 20, 2006)

Steveknj said:


> Right now, you KNOW you have a failure, and you have little potential for it to improve.


That is the point your whole argument is based on and it's flawed, if not just wrong. The network is not a failure and it does have plenty of potential to improve. They won the ratings sweeps in the fall for Pete's sake. NBC has several viable shows right now. The Voice and Revolution (their highest rated shows outside of football and which weren't on during this sweeps period distorting the overall health of the company), Grimm, Biggest Loser, Parenthood (won it's timeslot), and Chicago Fire are all capable shows. Then they have some real turds that rated so low that they disproportionately distort the overall ratings (Do No Harm, Animal Practice, Smash, New Normal, Guys with Kids, 1600 Penn). There is no need to reinvent the network.

I'm not sure why you are so intent on believing this is a viable strategy when several people have shown why it is not. I mean, you started off the whole conversation saying you were probably wrong. You were proven correct in that aspect yet you still keep going. I don't get it.


----------



## TAsunder (Aug 6, 2003)

WhiskeyTango said:


> What meaningful things did the other networks do to compete?


They aired episodes of their hit shows. That's basically how CBS won February Sweeps - by just showing things that were already ratings winners.


----------



## WhiskeyTango (Sep 20, 2006)

TAsunder said:


> They aired episodes of their hit shows. That's basically how CBS won February Sweeps - by just showing things that were already ratings winners.


Well they didn't do anything special, they aired their regular programming. You were right before, it was strategic. I guess they'd rather have the higher May sweeps numbers.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

WhiskeyTango said:


> Well they didn't do anything special, they aired their regular programming. You were right before, it was strategic. I guess they'd rather have the higher May sweeps numbers.


But the difference is that every other network figures out how to take 22 episodes and ensure that 10-12 of them are aired in November, February, and May. For some reason, NBC took its two biggest shows from the fall (not counting SNF) off the air for 3+ months, meaning they didn't air them during Feb. sweeps. Every other network would have figured out a way to air them during both Feb. and May, even if that meant taking a couple weeks off in March and April. In fact, if Revolution is going to have 22 episodes this season, and it starts on March 25 and airs one episode per week, there will be three episodes left to air after May sweeps and the regular TV season ends. That's simply poor strategic planning.


----------



## aadam101 (Jul 15, 2002)

They really need to just air ***** Hunter already.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

WhiskeyTango said:


> That is the point your whole argument is based on and it's flawed, if not just wrong. The network is not a failure and it does have plenty of potential to improve. They won the ratings sweeps in the fall for Pete's sake. NBC has several viable shows right now. The Voice and Revolution (their highest rated shows outside of football and which weren't on during this sweeps period distorting the overall health of the company), Grimm, Biggest Loser, Parenthood (won it's timeslot), and Chicago Fire are all capable shows. Then they have some real turds that rated so low that they disproportionately distort the overall ratings (Do No Harm, Animal Practice, Smash, New Normal, Guys with Kids, 1600 Penn). There is no need to reinvent the network.
> 
> I'm not sure why you are so intent on believing this is a viable strategy when several people have shown why it is not. I mean, you started off the whole conversation saying you were probably wrong. You were proven correct in that aspect yet you still keep going. I don't get it.


They won fall sweeps on the strength of their two hit shows, which I said to keep, SNF was a HUGE ratings winner, but the problem is, it can only be ON during the fall. The Voice was a huge hit as well, and they deserve kudos for that. We'll see how well Revolution does with the long hiatus. The rest? borderline at best, but ok, you want to keep those shows, fine. But again, this thread is about them having the lowest sweeps ratings IN THE HISTORY OF NETWORK TV. How can you say it's anything but an abject failure? Look I hope you are right. Parenthood is one of my favorite shows, and they deserve some success. Grimm? Can't say I watched it, but you have to wonder how it would do if it were on another night. The Biggest Loser? It's done ok, but it's ratings haven't been that strong recently.

So maybe blowing up everything isn't the way to go, but their marketing is a disaster. To me, the only way to change their image is to do something drastic. I'm not talking Jay Leno drastic but they need to reinvent themselves.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

DevdogAZ said:


> But the difference is that every other network figures out how to take 22 episodes and ensure that 10-12 of them are aired in November, February, and May. For some reason, NBC took its two biggest shows from the fall (not counting SNF) off the air for 3+ months, meaning they didn't air them during Feb. sweeps. Every other network would have figured out a way to air them during both Feb. and May, even if that meant taking a couple weeks off in March and April. In fact, if Revolution is going to have 22 episodes this season, and it starts on March 25 and airs one episode per week, there will be three episodes left to air after May sweeps and the regular TV season ends. That's simply poor strategic planning.


Or they don't believe that Revolution could compete against strong sweeps competition, so they are holding it back when it might be up against a few extra reruns or whatever. Maybe that's not a bad strategy if they discussed it with the advertisers, who might wind up with a bigger audience as a result of not being up against stronger competition. I don't think the hiatus was a good idea in the first place for that show.


----------



## Azlen (Nov 25, 2002)

The reason that NBC held back on Revolution is they wanted to keep it paired with the Voice. I guess that they thought that Revolution would tank in the ratings if it didn't have the Voice as a lead in. They do run the risk of singing show fatigue and the results of a long hiatus for Revolution. We'll know soon enough just how bad of a decision it was when they finally do come back in March.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

Steveknj said:


> Or they don't believe that Revolution could compete against strong sweeps competition, so they are holding it back when it might be up against a few extra reruns or whatever. Maybe that's not a bad strategy if they discussed it with the advertisers, who might wind up with a bigger audience as a result of not being up against stronger competition. I don't think the hiatus was a good idea in the first place for that show.


Except that it held its own just fins against sweeps competition in November. Nothing new has been added by the other networks in that time slot. It would still be competing with Castle and Hawaii Five-0, which it beat in the fall.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

Azlen said:


> The reason that NBC held back on Revolution is they wanted to keep it paired with the Voice. I guess that they thought that Revolution would tank in the ratings if it didn't have the Voice as a lead in. They do run the risk of singing show fatigue and the results of a long hiatus for Revolution. We'll know soon enough just how bad of a decision it was when they finally do come back in March.


We know they held it so it could remain paired with The Voice. The question is, why did they choose to keep The Voice off the air during February sweeps? Fox seems to have to problem making Idol last through both Feb. and May sweeps.


----------



## VegasVic (Nov 22, 2002)

Besides Sunday Night Football (and that depends on the teams) I haven't watched an NBC show since I stopped watching the office a few seasons back.


----------



## Test (Dec 8, 2004)

DevdogAZ said:


> If NBC scraps their lineup, they'd be starting from scratch with completely unproven shows. It would be like a baseball team firing all their players and then going out on the street and filling their roster with 25 random guys who have never played at all.


30 minute sitcom? Add one of the "Friends"? I'd watch that.



Steveknj said:


> I think a long hiatus is fine for a show like NCIS or a sitcom, but for a serialized show, it's a recipe for disaster. You'd think they'd have learned their lesson when they tried this with Lost and then with Heroes. People forget what's going on, and they either have moved on to something else or get bored after a few episodes because they have lost interest.


Definitely agree with this. These long breaks are killers; half the time for the shows the other half for fans.


----------



## LoadStar (Jul 24, 2001)

DevdogAZ said:


> We need to kill the baseball analogy, because TV networks don't have minor league shows in development just waiting to get called up to the bigs. If NBC scraps their lineup, they'd be starting from scratch with completely unproven shows. It would be like a baseball team firing all their players and then going out on the street and filling their roster with 25 random guys who have never played at all.


I disagree with that last part. To switch the analogy a bit to football, it'd be more like firing the entire team and replacing them with drafts. You might end up with some hall-of-fame all-stars.... or you might end up with some draft duds. In other words, if they were to do it, it would be gambling, pure and simple. They'd have to hope whatever they can buy or develop is better than what they've got now.

The problem with NBC right now is (and now I'm switching back to a baseball metaphor) their "minor leagues," the shows they have in development, aren't much better than what they have now.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

LoadStar said:


> I disagree with that last part. To switch the analogy a bit to football, it'd be more like firing the entire team and replacing them with drafts. You might end up with some hall-of-fame all-stars.... or you might end up with some draft duds. In other words, if they were to do it, it would be gambling, pure and simple. They'd have to hope whatever they can buy or develop is better than what they've got now.
> 
> The problem with NBC right now is (and now I'm switching back to a baseball metaphor) their "minor leagues," the shows they have in development, aren't much better than what they have now.


OK, to continue the draft analogy, NBC would have the last pick in every round, since talent would definitely prefer to be on CBS, FOX, or ABC rather than NBC. There simply aren't enough viewers on NBC right now.

As for NBC's "minor leagues," the success to failure ratio of network TV development is crazy. Every year, the networks read hundreds of scripts, make dozens of pilots, order 8-12 pilots to series, and are lucky if 1-2 of those gets renewed for a second season. Based on those stats, there is no reason to believe that anything NBC has in development is even as good as what they're currently airing.


----------



## Azlen (Nov 25, 2002)

DevdogAZ said:


> We know they held it so it could remain paired with The Voice. The question is, why did they choose to keep The Voice off the air during February sweeps? Fox seems to have to problem making Idol last through both Feb. and May sweeps.


I'm guessing it was more of a timing issue than anything else. I believe The Voice is the first singing show since the first season of American Idol to try to do two cycles in a single season. They probably had to wait until March to accommodate the schedules of the four mentors.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

LoadStar said:


> I disagree with that last part. To switch the analogy a bit to football, it'd be more like firing the entire team and replacing them with drafts. You might end up with some hall-of-fame all-stars.... or you might end up with some draft duds. In other words, if they were to do it, it would be gambling, pure and simple. They'd have to hope whatever they can buy or develop is better than what they've got now.
> 
> The problem with NBC right now is (and now I'm switching back to a baseball metaphor) their "minor leagues," the shows they have in development, aren't much better than what they have now.


Well we don't know if they are better or worse. What we do know is that based on their history the last few years, there have been some critically acclaimed shows that have never gotten off the ground simply because people aren't watching NBC. CBS throws out basically the same police procedural over and over again, and they get ratings. NBC could throw out the same exact show and it would tank. It's a tough spot. How do you get people to watch?

I'm a hockey fan....6 or 7 years ago, the Rangers would put out the same crappy retreads year after year, and it just got boring and nobody wanted to watch. Finally they got smart, and got rid of most of these old retreads who they KNEW they were going to continue to stink with and brought up a bunch of kids. Now, they were interesting to watch to see how the new blood would do. You knew some would be washouts, but some would be stars. But you knew that what they had before was the same old crap and wasn't going to improve. There was an excitement around the team that wasn't there for years. That's my reasoning about NBC killing their schedule. Create a buzz, make some noise, do something risky. Because what they are doing now isn't working all that well.

BTW, NBC won the fall sweeps, but would they have if you took away SNF? The Voice? I doubt it. In fact, I doubt they would have been that much better than they are now.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

DevdogAZ said:


> OK, to continue the draft analogy, NBC would have the last pick in every round, since talent would definitely prefer to be on CBS, FOX, or ABC rather than NBC. There simply aren't enough viewers on NBC right now.
> 
> As for NBC's "minor leagues," the success to failure ratio of network TV development is crazy. Every year, the networks read hundreds of scripts, make dozens of pilots, order 8-12 pilots to series, and are lucky if 1-2 of those gets renewed for a second season. Based on those stats, there is no reason to believe that anything NBC has in development is even as good as what they're currently airing.


Or they could have a run like ABC had a couple of years ago where lots clicked. Could it be worse than what they have now?


----------



## dianebrat (Jul 6, 2002)

Azlen said:


> I'm guessing it was more of a timing issue than anything else. I believe The Voice is the first singing show since the first season of American Idol to try to do two cycles in a single season. They probably had to wait until March to accommodate the schedules of the four mentors.


There's a lot of concern out there that the 2 cycles of The Voice will burn it out with the viewers. NBC betting so hard on it being the torch bearer could really blow up in its face, and that seems to be what just happened.


----------



## Hoffer (Jun 1, 2001)

aadam101 said:


> Which podcast? I'm looking for a new one.





cmontyburns said:


> Hoffer may be referring to Firewall & Iceberg (iTunes link), by Dan Fienberg and Alan Sepinwall of Hitfix.com. Thought I would mention it even if that's not the one Hoffer means, because I'd recommend it to anyone who likes insightful TV criticism and talk. You do need to have a high tolerance for lame patter and poor sound quality, but the core of the podcast is really good.


Actually, I was talking about the IGN podcast Channel Surfing. They just seem to talk about the kinds of shows I watch. Stuff on HBO, Showtime, sitcoms, etc... There isn't any talk of procedurals or reality or whatever else I'm not into. 

I also like their movie podcast Keepin it Reel. There again they talk about movies I watch, like super heroes and action and etc...

IGN is probably aimed at a younger audience and I have a child-like mind when it comes to TV and movies. 

I'll give that Firewall podcast a try. I listen to way too many video game and tech podcasts. I could use more TV and movie podcasts.


----------



## Polcamilla (Nov 7, 2001)

DevdogAZ said:


> In fact, if Revolution is going to have 22 episodes this season, and it starts on March 25 and airs one episode per week, there will be three episodes left to air after May sweeps and the regular TV season ends. That's simply poor strategic planning.


That's WAY beyond poor strategic planning. That's, like, USA Network strategy (where they deliberately try to put on new content when everyone else is in reruns). This works well for USA because it's a cable channel, but you CANNOT run a network that way. The network schedules and sweeps times are based on a knowledge of when people watch televison and when they're too busy doing other stuff. In the summer, people get busy with graduations, weddings, vacations, and general summer-type stuff that is likely to disrupt the faithful weekly routine of sitting down to watch a show. Similarly, people are usually too busy over the holidays with family events, travel, and such.

USA managed to carve a niche for itself by having fun, fairly fluffly programing that people could watch during these "dead" zones. Occasionally, the networks have experimented with putting a show on in these slots to get attention and then moving it to the "regular" schedule once it's established (Fox did this with The O.C. and Glee both. I think WB does it pretty regularly, but I don't follow any shows on the WB well enough to say for certain that this is the case. ) But realistically, even if NBC tried to compete with USA at this point, quite frankly, USA has better programming.

So this leaves us with the question: What the heck is NBC doing blowing off February sweeps and not showing signs of ANY coherent strategy to attract viewers? Why the random hiatuses when they have nothing in the pipeline to fill up that empty time and attract viewers??

Either the network heads are less competent than your average McDonald's employee or they're deliberately trying to sink the network for some reason.


----------



## billypritchard (May 7, 2001)

I think most folks see that 'sweeps' periods are a thing of the past, at least on the national level.


----------



## WhiskeyTango (Sep 20, 2006)

Revolution has only 10 episodes left of a 20 episode order this year. If they would have run it for the 4 weeks in February, that would have left them with only 6 more new episodes to span the next 12 weeks to make it through May sweeps.


----------



## billypritchard (May 7, 2001)

TV is going away from the 22 episode season spread over 4 sweeps periods. People just don't watch reruns anymore.


----------



## jsmeeker (Apr 2, 2001)

billypritchard said:


> TV is going away from the 22 episode season spread over 4 sweeps periods. People just don't watch reruns anymore.


Do networks even run them much any more? Like the entire season ? They only seem to do a few episodes here or there.


----------



## robojerk (Jun 13, 2006)

Why did they cancel Law & Order (the original).

L&O:LA was managed so badly IMO. I eventually gave up with that one...


----------



## wkearney99 (Dec 5, 2003)

Polcamilla said:


> The network schedules and sweeps times are based on a knowledge of when people watch televison and when they're too busy doing other stuff.


You're seriously trying to play the live TV card... in a Tivo forum?


----------



## danterner (Mar 4, 2005)

Hoffer said:


> Actually, I was talking about the IGN podcast Channel Surfing. They just seem to talk about the kinds of shows I watch. Stuff on HBO, Showtime, sitcoms, etc... There isn't any talk of procedurals or reality or whatever else I'm not into.
> 
> I also like their movie podcast Keepin it Reel. There again they talk about movies I watch, like super heroes and action and etc...
> 
> ...


Sounds like you might like the Television Zombies podcast.


----------



## zalusky (Apr 5, 2002)

billypritchard said:


> TV is going away from the 22 episode season spread over 4 sweeps periods. People just don't watch reruns anymore.


I really hate the gaps between shows. PBS is just nuts now. This Old House is essentially a DVR show now because they spread the 22 episodes over a complete year. I never really know when its on.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

Polcamilla said:


> USA managed to carve a niche for itself by having fun, fairly fluffly programing that people could watch during these "dead" zones. Occasionally, the networks have experimented with putting a show on in these slots to get attention and then moving it to the "regular" schedule once it's established (Fox did this with The O.C. and Glee both. I think WB does it pretty regularly, but I don't follow any shows on the WB well enough to say for certain that this is the case. ) But realistically, even if NBC tried to compete with USA at this point, quite frankly, USA has better programming.


Two comments:

1. The WB hasn't existed for several years.

2. NBC and USA are both part of the NBCUniversal family, owned by Comcast.



WhiskeyTango said:


> Revolution has only 10 episodes left of a 20 episode order this year. If they would have run it for the 4 weeks in February, that would have left them with only 6 more new episodes to span the next 12 weeks to make it through May sweeps.


Two comments:

1. Where did you hear it's only a 20-episode order? Even if that were the original plan, it would surprise me if NBC didn't order more episodes after the show did so well at the beginning of the fall.

2. All the other networks are able to take 22 episodes and manage to show them during all three in-season sweeps periods. Even if Revolution only has 20 episodes, NBC still should have been able to find a way to air some episodes during both February and May sweeps.


billypritchard said:


> TV is going away from the 22 episode season spread over 4 sweeps periods. People just don't watch reruns anymore.


What does this have to do with the discussion we're having? Nobody is advocating that NBC should be airing reruns of their programs. And you're welcome to think that sweeps periods don't matter anymore, but you'd be dead wrong. They're still very important to the networks, the affiliates, and the advertisers. And it's a huge black eye on NBC that they just had the worst network sweeps period in history.


----------



## Polcamilla (Nov 7, 2001)

wkearney99 said:


> You're seriously trying to play the live TV card... in a Tivo forum?


No, but the networks have NOT adjusted to the business model of DVRs and on-demand. All of them are struggling with the economics of it and most of them are desperately trying to avoid making any changes to the broadcast model that has served them so well for decades.

I can't say that NBC's woes are reflective of this as their model seems to show the business acumen of a crackhead, but NBC is failing miserably at the traditional model and not, for example, failing in innovative efforts to move away from that model.


----------



## Polcamilla (Nov 7, 2001)

DevdogAZ said:


> Two comments:
> 
> 1. The WB hasn't existed for several years.


Fair point. I pay it so little attention, but it's the CW now. I forget where the C came from but recall it making sense at the time.



> 2. NBC and USA are both part of the NBCUniversal family, owned by Comcast.


Then Comcast seriously needs to swap executives between the two networks as NBC should be the higher dollar value property and USA seems to have the lion's share of management talent.

I know Disney experimented with swapping executive between divisions. It didn't work so well, but I think the idea has merit.


----------



## JYoung (Jan 16, 2002)

robojerk said:


> Why did they cancel Law & Order (the original).
> 
> L&O:LA was managed so badly IMO. I eventually gave up with that one...


It had run for 20 seasons (years) and was costing too much to produce for the ratings it was generating.


----------



## WhiskeyTango (Sep 20, 2006)

DevdogAZ said:


> Two comments:
> 
> 1. Where did you hear it's only a 20-episode order? Even if that were the original plan, it would surprise me if NBC didn't order more episodes after the show did so well at the beginning of the fall.



It was cut from 22 to 20.



DevdogAZ said:


> 2. All the other networks are able to take 22 episodes and manage to show them during all three in-season sweeps periods. Even if Revolution only has 20 episodes, NBC still should have been able to find a way to air some episodes during both February and May sweeps.


This goes back to the point of NBC making sure Revolution was tied to the hip of The Voice. They kind of had to hold back The Voice for a little while to avoid burning out the audience which meant Revolution had to be held back too. I'm not saying it was a good idea, but it is what it is. NBC obviously believes that Revolution is not strong enough to stand on its own and having it fall during sweeps was a worse option then not having it at all.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

WhiskeyTango said:


> It was cut from 22 to 20.


Interesting. Thanks for the link.



> This goes back to the point of NBC making sure Revolution was tied to the hip of The Voice. They kind of had to hold back The Voice for a little while to avoid burning out the audience which meant Revolution had to be held back too. I'm not saying it was a good idea, but it is what it is. NBC obviously believes that Revolution is not strong enough to stand on its own and having it fall during sweeps was a worse option then not having it at all.


I'm not saying there wasn't some potential logic to the decision. But it only makes sense if NBC has something else to air during Feb. sweeps to get ratings. As it turns out, they didn't, and now they look stupid.

However, given how poorly the rest of their schedule has done, they were probably smart to hold Revolution until The Voice comes back, as I'm sure Revolution on its own would have been getting similar ratings to the rest of the stuff on NBC during February. Viewers are simply out of the habit of going to NBC, and so it perpetuates the problem.

The only real question is whether it was wise to hold The Voice back until late March. Presumably they didn't want to compete with the early episodes of Idol, and didn't want people to get burned out on a second season of The Voice starting so soon after the previous one finished. Perhaps viewers will get burned out anyway and the extra six weeks wouldn't have made a difference. But I don't think it could have done any worse in February than the other stuff they decided to air.


----------



## LoadStar (Jul 24, 2001)

Polcamilla said:


> Fair point. I pay it so little attention, but it's the CW now. I forget where the C came from but recall it making sense at the time.


CBS. The CW originated as a conjoined entity of the former WB (owned by Warner Brothers) and the former UPN (owned by Paramount Television, which became part of CBS). It remains co-owned by the two entities.


----------



## mattack (Apr 9, 2001)

billypritchard said:


> I think most folks see that 'sweeps' periods are a thing of the past, at least on the national level.


You may think that, but since commercials pay for TV shows, and the commercial rates (how much they pay the networks to air their commercials) are set by the ratings during sweeps they're still important for the people who pay the bills.


----------



## billypritchard (May 7, 2001)

mattack said:


> You may think that, but since commercials pay for TV shows, and the commercial rates (how much they pay the networks to air their commercials) are set by the ratings during sweeps they're still important for the people who pay the bills.


Sweeps ratings only affect local ad rates, not national rates.


----------



## aadam101 (Jul 15, 2002)

robojerk said:


> Why did they cancel Law & Order (the original).


This was a bonehead move on their part. The show had solid ratings and does well in syndication. There's a bunch of dummies running this network. Myself, I have literally never seen an episode of the show but it is always seemed like a CBS-type show and we all know how well those do.

I never understood how a show like NCIS is the number one show on television. I realize I am not in this shows demographic but I have never heard anyone talk about a single episode of this show in real life. Something just seems very off.


----------



## That Don Guy (Mar 13, 2003)

jsmeeker said:


> Do networks even run them much any more? Like the entire season ? They only seem to do a few episodes here or there.


The only network shows I can think of that show reruns "on a regular basis" (not counting filler on Saturday nights) are _Cops_ and Fox's animated shows. Also remember that, with things like On Demand, plus the fact that most TV series release seasons on DVD pretty much right after the season ends (the main exception I can think of: _The Simpsons_, which is about eight years behind), there isn't really a need for networks to show repeats.



billypritchard said:


> Sweeps ratings only affect local ad rates, not national rates.


Wasn't there a time when one of the months (February, I want to say) was used in part for national ad rates? Then again, I also remember discussions about how national rates are set in part by season-long network ratings; one year, in the late 1970s, ABC had a number of season premieres the week before CBS and NBC did, and used that as the starting date of its season to claim that its average rating was tied with CBS for #1, so it could justify charging as much for ads as CBS did.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

Polcamilla said:


> That's WAY beyond poor strategic planning. That's, like, USA Network strategy (where they deliberately try to put on new content when everyone else is in reruns). This works well for USA because it's a cable channel, but you CANNOT run a network that way. The network schedules and sweeps times are based on a knowledge of when people watch televison and when they're too busy doing other stuff. In the summer, people get busy with graduations, weddings, vacations, and general summer-type stuff that is likely to disrupt the faithful weekly routine of sitting down to watch a show. Similarly, people are usually too busy over the holidays with family events, travel, and such.
> 
> USA managed to carve a niche for itself by having fun, fairly fluffly programing that people could watch during these "dead" zones. Occasionally, the networks have experimented with putting a show on in these slots to get attention and then moving it to the "regular" schedule once it's established (Fox did this with The O.C. and Glee both. I think WB does it pretty regularly, but I don't follow any shows on the WB well enough to say for certain that this is the case. ) But realistically, even if NBC tried to compete with USA at this point, quite frankly, USA has better programming.
> 
> ...


I find it interesting that USA ran a lot of first run episodes of some of their hit shows (Necessary Roughness and White Collar for example) during February sweeps.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

Polcamilla said:


> No, but the networks have NOT adjusted to the business model of DVRs and on-demand. All of them are struggling with the economics of it and most of them are desperately trying to avoid making any changes to the broadcast model that has served them so well for decades.
> 
> I can't say that NBC's woes are reflective of this as their model seems to show the business acumen of a crackhead, but NBC is failing miserably at the traditional model and not, for example, failing in innovative efforts to move away from that model.


On this note, do we have any evidence that NBC shows do well, or better than other networks, on the +2s (or whatever it's called)? Perhaps NBC's problem is people aren't watching their stuff live, but they are watching it at some point down the line. That kind of changes the way we look at this.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

DevdogAZ said:


> Interesting. Thanks for the link.
> 
> I'm not saying there wasn't some potential logic to the decision. But it only makes sense if NBC has something else to air during Feb. sweeps to get ratings. As it turns out, they didn't, and now they look stupid.
> 
> However, given how poorly the rest of their schedule has done, they were probably smart to hold Revolution until The Voice comes back, as I'm sure Revolution on its own would have been getting similar ratings to the rest of the stuff on NBC during February. *Viewers are simply out of the habit of going to NBC, and so it perpetuates the problem.*


To me that's the crux of the problem. How do you get people to tune in to NBC again?


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

LoadStar said:


> CBS. The CW originated as a conjoined entity of the former WB (owned by Warner Brothers) and the former UPN (owned by Paramount Television, which became part of CBS). It remains co-owned by the two entities.


Is the CW making money? Based on the ratings they might be better off killing the experiment.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

mattack said:


> You may think that, but since commercials pay for TV shows, and the commercial rates (how much they pay the networks to air their commercials) are set by the ratings during sweeps they're still important for the people who pay the bills.


Perhaps what he's getting at is, that the functional role that "sweeps" played is outdated as people viewing habits have changed. That the networks / affiliates / advertisers still use it as the "bible" that sets ad rates might be a flawed concept.

Or maybe not. I don't have the raw data that shows that those are STILL peak viewing times.


----------



## allan (Oct 14, 2002)

Steveknj said:


> To me that's the crux of the problem. How do you get people to tune in to NBC again?


Good question. The hiatus is one thing that gets me OUT of the habit of turning to a station. When Revolution was on, I was watching NBC. Now, I'm either watching something else, watching a recorded non-PrimeTime show, or futzing around online. Will I return to NBC when they bring Revolution back? Don't know, but the odds are much lower than they would be if I'd been watching it these last months.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

allan said:


> Good question. The hiatus is one thing that gets me OUT of the habit of turning to a station. When Revolution was on, I was watching NBC. Now, I'm either watching something else, watching a recorded non-PrimeTime show, or futzing around online. Will I return to NBC when they bring Revolution back? Don't know, but the odds are much lower than they would be if I'd been watching it these last months.


I watch NBC, because many of their shows appeal to me, and I'm not a network centric kind of guy. I don't watch too much on CBS simply because their shows don't appeal to me. But I will give just about any show on any network, cable or broadcast if the show appeals to me. But, I guess that's not the case for most people.


----------



## allan (Oct 14, 2002)

Steveknj said:


> I watch NBC, because many of their shows appeal to me, and I'm not a network centric kind of guy. I don't watch too much on CBS simply because their shows don't appeal to me. But I will give just about any show on any network, cable or broadcast *if the show appeals to me*. But, I guess that's not the case for most people.


The part I bolded is the killer. Right now, there's not much on NBC that appeals to me. And nothing that's currently airing. I don't really care what network a show is on. I do look for shows on the Big 4 (NBC, ABC, CBS, FOX), but that's mainly because it's easier to look at 4 channels than 400 (or is it up to 4,000 by now?  )


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

allan said:


> The part I bolded is the killer. Right now, there's not much on NBC that appeals to me. And nothing that's currently airing. I don't really care what network a show is on. I do look for shows on the Big 4 (NBC, ABC, CBS, FOX), but that's mainly because it's easier to look at 4 channels than 400 (or is it up to 4,000 by now?  )


I'm kind of the same way with CBS. I think it's only 5 shows on CBS now and two are reality, Survivor and The Amazing Race. The other three, BBT and HIMYM are sitcoms and only one drama, The Good Wife.

The thing about NBC is that they aren't strictly sticking to formula (and maybe that's the problem). I tend to give their shows a shot, mostly for that reason.


----------



## Polcamilla (Nov 7, 2001)

That Don Guy said:


> The only network shows I can think of that show reruns "on a regular basis" (not counting filler on Saturday nights) are _Cops_ and Fox's animated shows. Also remember that, with things like On Demand, plus the fact that most TV series release seasons on DVD pretty much right after the season ends (the main exception I can think of: _The Simpsons_, which is about eight years behind), there isn't really a need for networks to show repeats.


Castle and Modern Family very definitely show reruns during their regular timeslot during the year.


----------



## aadam101 (Jul 15, 2002)

Steveknj said:


> I watch NBC, because many of their shows appeal to me, and I'm not a network centric kind of guy. I don't watch too much on CBS simply because their shows don't appeal to me. But I will give just about any show on any network, cable or broadcast if the show appeals to me. But, I guess that's not the case for most people.


I agree. I still watch most of the Thursday night lineup. Now that 30 Rock is gone and The Office is almost over, I have no idea what will happen next year. Parks and Rec isn't strong enough to carry the night with three new shows.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

One thing I was thinking of, since we see consolidations happening in the Airlines for instance, would be the feasibility of one network buying another....say CBS buying NBC, and doing to it something similar to what has happened in cable, begin to niche the network. I'm thinking something similar to how Time-Warner made TBS their comedy network and TNT their drama one. Imagine of CBS became drama only and NBC their sitcom network. Obviously I doubt this will happen in the near future.

And I'm not even sure if it's allowed by FCC rules. Back MANY years ago, in the days of radio, NBC once owned ABC (it was called the NBC Blue network and NBC Red Network if I got my history right). They were forced to spin them off for anti-trust reasons. But I know that a lot of FCC rules have been loosened.


----------



## That Don Guy (Mar 13, 2003)

aadam101 said:


> I agree. I still watch most of the Thursday night lineup. Now that 30 Rock is gone and The Office is almost over, I have no idea what will happen next year. Parks and Rec isn't strong enough to carry the night with three new shows.


Three new shows? Doesn't that make the assumption that:
(a) _Community_ won't be back;
(b) neither will _Whitney_;
(c) neither will _Guys With Kids_?
*EDIT:* (d) neither will _Go On_ or _The New Normal_?

I wouldn't be surprised to see _Go On_ moved to Thursday, so it could have two established and two new comedies, and free up the first hour on Wednesday (which is pretty much a dead slot, as it is against _The X Factor_ performances in the fall and _American Idol_ performances in the spring) and the second hour on Tuesday for something else.


----------



## jsmeeker (Apr 2, 2001)

looking at my current SP list, here are the shows I have that are on NBC

The Office
The New Normal
Revolution
Parenthood
Smash
1600 Penn
NBC Nightly News

A pretty decent amount, I think. In the past, I had SPs for notable shows like Friday Night Lights and The West Wing


----------



## DreadPirateRob (Nov 12, 2002)

Shows that either I or my wife(*) watch:

NBC - Community, Parks & Rec, The Office, Go On, Parenthood, Revolution
CBS - Survivor, BBT, HIMYM
ABC - Nashville, Modern Family, Suburgatory, Happy Endings, Once Upon a Time (but I'm like 13 eps behind on that, so I might drop it), Grey's Anatomy*, Bachelor*
FOX - New Girl, Mindy Project, Glee, Raising Hope (also way behind on that one)
CW - Supernatural, Hart of Dixie*, 90210* (is that still on?)

So CBS may be America's most watched network, but it's just about my least-watched one.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

That Don Guy said:


> Three new shows? Doesn't that make the assumption that:
> (a) Community won't be back;
> (b) neither will Whitney;
> (c) neither will Guys With Kids?
> ...


Four of the five shows you named aren't currently on Thursday night, so I don't think that saying they'll have three new shows on Thursday next week automatically means all those shows won't be back.


----------



## WhiskeyTango (Sep 20, 2006)

The only show I watch on NBC is Revolution. Last pilot season, I had high hopes for a bunch of their shows but Revolution was the only one that got picked up. Without actually looking it up, I'd guess most of the shows I watch are on cable but ABC or CBS would be the biggest networks.


----------



## mattack (Apr 9, 2001)

aadam101 said:


> This was a bonehead move on their part. The show had solid ratings and does well in syndication. There's a bunch of dummies running this network. Myself, I have literally never seen an episode of the show but it is always seemed like a CBS-type show and we all know how well those do.


Law & Order is an NBC show (I think you know that).

Even though the production company for NBC is under the same corporate parent as NBC the broadcast network, I don't think that always matters as much as you think it does. For example, NBC would care about the ratings of the show *as it airs* and the production company is the one that cares about the syndication income. Yes, it's better for the entire entity to have shows made by the same corporate parent rather than another company getting the money.


----------



## That Don Guy (Mar 13, 2003)

DevdogAZ said:


> Four of the five shows you named aren't currently on Thursday night, so I don't think that saying they'll have three new shows on Thursday next week automatically means all those shows won't be back.


I realize that. I figure that at least one of the shows will be moved to Thursday (possibly unless NBC decides to renew _1600 Penn_). This would free up the Wednesday 8-9 (Eastern) and/or Tuesday 9-10 slots for hour-long shows.

My current list of NBC shows:
Smash
Revolution
Whitney
Chicago Fire
Parks & Recreation
1600 Penn
America's Got Talent
(I was also watching 30 Rock up until it ended)


----------



## aadam101 (Jul 15, 2002)

DevdogAZ said:


> Four of the five shows you named aren't currently on Thursday night, so I don't think that saying they'll have three new shows on Thursday next week automatically means all those shows won't be back.


That was my thought. These are not Thursday shows. None of them have done all that well anyway. I don't expect Community to return.

You are probably right that some of those shows will be moved to Thursday.


----------



## aadam101 (Jul 15, 2002)

mattack said:


> Law & Order is an NBC show (I think you know that).
> 
> Even though the production company for NBC is under the same corporate parent as NBC the broadcast network, I don't think that always matters as much as you think it does. For example, NBC would care about the ratings of the show *as it airs* and the production company is the one that cares about the syndication income. Yes, it's better for the entire entity to have shows made by the same corporate parent rather than another company getting the money.


I realize it is an NBC show. It's a procedural like so many of those CBS shows. Most of those shows all do very well and L&O did very well for a VERY long time. Cancelling it did not make a lot of sense. It continued to pull in decent numbers.


----------



## WhiskeyTango (Sep 20, 2006)

aadam101 said:


> Cancelling it did not make a lot of sense. It continued to pull in decent numbers.


Not really. It was getting around a 1.7 in it's last season at a time when ratings were higher across the board. 24 ended that same year with ratings around 2.9.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

WhiskeyTango said:


> Not really. It was getting around a 1.7 in it's last season at a time when ratings were higher across the board. 24 ended that same year with ratings around 2.9.


Exactly. 1.7s (and below) are now commonplace for NBC, but 2-3 years ago, that was still considered a horrible rating.


----------



## That Don Guy (Mar 13, 2003)

aadam101 said:


> These are not Thursday shows.


It took me a minute to understand what you meant by that...
Then again, wasn't _Whitney_'s first season on Thursdays?



> I don't expect Community to return.


I think it has one chance - if enough of its fans drink the "100 episodes or no syndication" Kool-aid and make enough of a stink that NBC orders 13 more episodes. Never mind that Comedy Central already has a syndication deal for the show. (Then again, if somebody _really_ feels that it needs 100 episodes, I wouldn't be a bit surprised if CC itself has them produced, the way it does with Futurama.)


----------



## aadam101 (Jul 15, 2002)

DevdogAZ said:


> Exactly. 1.7s (and below) are now commonplace for NBC, but 2-3 years ago, that was still considered a horrible rating.


My thought exactly. 1.7 is a VERY welcome number for NBC these days.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

That Don Guy said:


> I think it has one chance - if enough of its fans drink the "100 episodes or no syndication" Kool-aid and make enough of a stink that NBC orders 13 more episodes. Never mind that Comedy Central already has a syndication deal for the show. (Then again, if somebody _really_ feels that it needs 100 episodes, I wouldn't be a bit surprised if CC itself has them produced, the way it does with Futurama.)


With a syndication deal already in place, that means the production studio is going to be much more eager to negotiate a good deal to keep the show on the air. If the studio offers to let NBC air the show for next to nothing, because they know they're going to make their money on the back end from the syndication deal, NBC can't really afford to turn that down. Rumors are that they're losing hundreds of millions of dollars each year. If they can fill a timeslot with average ratings (for them) at virtually no cost, that seems like a no brainer.


----------



## jsmeeker (Apr 2, 2001)

That Don Guy said:


> I realize that. I figure that at least one of the shows will be moved to Thursday (possibly unless NBC decides to renew _1600 Penn_). This would free up the Wednesday 8-9 (Eastern) and/or Tuesday 9-10 slots for hour-long shows.
> 
> My current list of NBC shows:
> Smash
> ...


I forgot about Chicago Fire. I have an SP for that too.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

The broadcast network shows I watch are:

NBC (7): Community, Parks & Rec, The Office, Revolution, Go On, Whitney, Up All Night*
CBS (6): Survivor, The Amazing Race, BBT, HIMYM, 2.5 Men, Rules of Engagement
FOX (6): The Simpsons, Bob's Burgers, Family Guy, American Dad, New Girl, The Following
ABC (2): Modern Family, Happy Endings

*Not sure if I'll continue watching Up All Night if/when it comes back, but I'll have to at least check out the changes.

I also watched 30 Rock and Fringe which recently ended their runs, and I still watch Cougar Town which moved from broadcast to cable.

Looking at that list, it seems I really like sitcoms. It also seems that I don't like drama, but that's not true. It's just that most of the drama I enjoy is on cable, rather than the cookie-cutter procedurals or soaps that are on broadcast.


----------



## aadam101 (Jul 15, 2002)

Yikes. An NBC affiliate chose to air a Matlock movie made in 1992 instead of the Thursday night lineup. Matlock did better than 1600 Penn and about the same as an Office Rerun. The state of "Must See TV" has REALLY changed!

http://insidetv.ew.com/2013/03/01/nbc-affiliate-matlock/


----------



## JYoung (Jan 16, 2002)

aadam101 said:


> My thought exactly. 1.7 is a VERY welcome number for NBC these days.


But it wasn't when Law & Order was cancelled.
Plus, you're assuming it would get a 1.7 now.


----------



## Inundated (Sep 10, 2003)

aadam101 said:


> Yikes. An NBC affiliate chose to air a Matlock movie made in 1992 instead of the Thursday night lineup. Matlock did better than 1600 Penn and about the same as an Office Rerun. The state of "Must See TV" has REALLY changed!
> 
> http://insidetv.ew.com/2013/03/01/nbc-affiliate-matlock/


That was our NBC affiliate in Cleveland, WKYC, and the stations in this market have a long history of pre-empting low-rated network shows every so often with Matlock reruns.

Still, pretty amazing when you look at it.



dianebrat said:


> I dunno.. never really impressed me...


That logo was appropriated, er, stolen from Nebraska Public Television, no? As I recall, NBC had to pay them a settlement...


----------



## Jesda (Feb 12, 2005)

I'm still pissed that L&O is gone. NBC deserves to suffer!


----------



## ewolfr (Feb 12, 2001)

Steveknj said:


> One thing I was thinking of, since we see consolidations happening in the Airlines for instance, would be the feasibility of one network buying another....say CBS buying NBC, and doing to it something similar to what has happened in cable, begin to niche the network. I'm thinking something similar to how Time-Warner made TBS their comedy network and TNT their drama one. Imagine of CBS became drama only and NBC their sitcom network. Obviously I doubt this will happen in the near future.


NBCUniversal is now wholly owned by Comcast. They originally started with buying a 51% stake from GE. But a couple weeks ago they bought out the rest: http://money.cnn.com/2013/02/12/news/companies/ge-comcast-nbc-universal/index.html


----------



## aadam101 (Jul 15, 2002)

ewolfr said:


> NBCUniversal is now wholly owned by Comcast. They originally started with buying a 51% stake from GE. But a couple weeks ago they bought out the rest: http://money.cnn.com/2013/02/12/news/companies/ge-comcast-nbc-universal/index.html


What was the reason they bought out the rest? Do they feel they need total control to turn things around? Was GE in the way?


----------



## ewolfr (Feb 12, 2001)

Comcast originally had 5 years to slowly buyout the rest of GE's stake, Comcast was going to eventually own all of NBCUniveral anyway. They simply decided to accelerate the process and take it over now instead. Maybe the interest rates being so low allowed them to get the money they needed from the banks, I honestly have no idea.


----------



## Johncv (Jun 11, 2002)

danterner said:


> So you say you want a Revolution...
> 
> I still think of NBC as being the #1 network, with ABC #2, and CBS #3 and PBS #4, with no other real choices. Times certainly have changed.


YES, I want a Revolution against the Rebloodican House

The problem with the networks ABC, CBS, NBC and to some extent PBS is that they need to conform to the community decency act and are at a disadvantage when trying to compete with TNT, AMC, USA, HBO, Showtime and other cable networks. NBC just cannot air a show like Dexter or The Walking Dead without being hit by a lawsuit from some group that find the show offensive and think that nobody should be allow to view it.


----------



## wmcbrine (Aug 2, 2003)

Johncv said:


> NBC just cannot air a show like Dexter


CBS did air "Dexter" a while back. Censored, but still.


----------



## That Don Guy (Mar 13, 2003)

Inundated said:


> That was our NBC affiliate in Cleveland, WKYC, and the stations in this market have a long history of pre-empting low-rated network shows every so often with Matlock reruns.
> 
> Still, pretty amazing when you look at it.


Strange - the primary reason KRON in San Francisco lost its NBC affiliation (and, as a result, a significant part of northern California that uses antennas for local channels can't get NBC) was because it had a habit of pre-empting NBC shows and showing local programs in its place. (Okay, the primary offender was baseball - I think it was Oakland A's games at the time - but it was also little things, like showing old movies on Saturday afternoons in place of the third rounds of non-major golf tournaments. There was also the time that a baseball game caused NBC's coverage of an Olympic Track & Field Trials to be moved to midnight-to-4 AM.)


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

That Don Guy said:


> Strange - the primary reason KRON in San Francisco lost its NBC affiliation (and, as a result, a significant part of northern California that uses antennas for local channels can't get NBC) was because it had a habit of pre-empting NBC shows and showing local programs in its place. (Okay, the primary offender was baseball - I think it was Oakland A's games at the time - but it was also little things, like showing old movies on Saturday afternoons in place of the third rounds of non-major golf tournaments. There was also the time that a baseball game caused NBC's coverage of an Olympic Track & Field Trials to be moved to midnight-to-4 AM.)


If you read the article about the Cleveland preemption, it says they do this a couple times a year, not on a regular basis. And notice that they didn't preempt any new programming (except 1600 Penn, which nobody cares about). They waited until sweeps was over and until after Community had aired its new episode.


----------



## Azlen (Nov 25, 2002)

NBC had hopes that Celebrity Apprentice would help them out a bit. Nope. It had a 1.6 demo rating with a total audience of 5 million. A Family Guy rerun won the hour in the demo with a 1.9. People are obviously watching more cable TV than broadcast TV on Sunday nights because the highest rated show on the broadcast nets was Amazing Race with a 2.4.


----------



## Inundated (Sep 10, 2003)

DevdogAZ said:


> If you read the article about the Cleveland preemption, it says they do this a couple times a year, not on a regular basis. And notice that they didn't preempt any new programming (except 1600 Penn, which nobody cares about). They waited until sweeps was over and until after Community had aired its new episode.


There's a certain amount of preemption allowed in a standard network contract with its affiliate. WKYC doesn't dump NBC very often. A couple or three times a year for stuff like this - as noted, outside of sweeps.

WKYC is also the OTA affiliate for Cleveland Indians baseball, but that was 20 games a year at most. It's less than a half dozen games this year.


----------



## aadam101 (Jul 15, 2002)

DevdogAZ said:


> If you read the article about the Cleveland preemption, it says they do this a couple times a year, not on a regular basis. And notice that they didn't preempt any new programming (except 1600 Penn, which nobody cares about). They waited until sweeps was over and until after Community had aired its new episode.


Actually it said that they didn't realize 1600 Penn was a new episode. It says a lot about the state of the programming on NBC when even the affiliates don't care enough about the programming to know what is airing.


----------



## Johncv (Jun 11, 2002)

wmcbrine said:


> CBS did air "Dexter" a while back. Censored, but still.


CBS also, received complaints for airing a censored version of Dexter. My point is that CBS should be able to air an uncensored version of Dexter. CBS and NBC are at a disadvantage when they have product shows with one set of rules while TNT, USA, FX, and HBO can use another set of rules.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

Johncv said:


> CBS also, received complaints for airing a censored version of Dexter. My point is that CBS should be able to air an uncensored version of Dexter. CBS and NBC are at a disadvantage when they have product shows with one set of rules while TNT, USA, FX, and HBO can use another set of rules.


Talk to the FCC. CBS, NBC, and other broadcast networks are subject to different rules because their content is available for free over the air, while stuff on cable is subject to less-stringent rules because one has to actively pay for a subscription to receive those channels, and thus, one should be aware that actively subscribing to the content makes it pretty much impossible to "accidentally" stumble across something objectionable that shouldn't have been there.


----------



## Azlen (Nov 25, 2002)

The History Channel hit big last night with "The Bible". That's something the broadcast nets could have shown without complaints from the usual groups.


----------



## aadam101 (Jul 15, 2002)

Azlen said:


> The History Channel hit big last night with "The Bible". That's something the broadcast nets could have shown without complaints from the usual groups.


HA! That would have spawned a whole bunch of different groups complaining.


----------



## robojerk (Jun 13, 2006)

Azlen said:


> The History Channel hit big last night with "The Bible". That's something the broadcast nets could have shown without complaints from the usual groups.


The Bible


> An ancient novel full of murder, corruption, homosexuality, bestiality, incest and cruelty. It is often read to children on Sunday.


HBO should do a series on that!!!


----------



## jsmeeker (Apr 2, 2001)

Azlen said:


> The History Channel hit big last night with "The Bible". That's something the broadcast nets could have shown without complaints from the usual groups.





aadam101 said:


> HA! That would have spawned a whole bunch of different groups complaining.


indeed.


----------



## mattack (Apr 9, 2001)

That Don Guy said:


> Strange - the primary reason KRON in San Francisco lost its NBC affiliation (and, as a result, a significant part of northern California that uses antennas for local channels can't get NBC) was because it had a habit of pre-empting NBC shows and showing local programs in its place.


[Citation needed]

I honestly don't know either, so will pass this off as "I thought".. I thought the reason was because KRON was playing hardball with NBC for the renewal, thinking NBC would give in on whatever demands they wanted (and/or buy KRON).. But instead, they bought KNTV & made it an O&O.


----------



## mattack (Apr 9, 2001)

Johncv said:


> CBS also, received complaints for airing a censored version of Dexter. My point is that CBS should be able to air an uncensored version of Dexter. CBS and NBC are at a disadvantage when they have product shows with one set of rules while TNT, USA, FX, and HBO can use another set of rules.


"The Following" is pretty gruesome.



DevdogAZ said:


> Talk to the FCC. CBS, NBC, and other broadcast networks are subject to different rules because their content is available for free over the air, while stuff on cable is subject to less-stringent rules because one has to actively pay for a subscription to receive those channels, and thus, one should be aware that actively subscribing to the content makes it pretty much impossible to "accidentally" stumble across something objectionable that shouldn't have been there.


Cable is not subject to ANY rules. They willingly follow OTA-like rules, at least for basic/extended basic cable channels. The various FCC rules ("7 words you can't say on TV") do not apply to cable. Though the loosening of cable I think is why OTA rules are being loosened (d*bag is common OTA now, and the 'd word' showed up on something last night, I think The Apprentice).


----------



## wmcbrine (Aug 2, 2003)

aadam101 said:


> HA! That would have spawned a whole bunch of different groups complaining.


I'd have minded it less on NBC than on History. Because, you know... not history.



mattack said:


> (d*bag is common OTA now, and the 'd word' showed up on something last night, I think The Apprentice).


A ******bag shows up on every episode of The Apprentice.


----------



## Inundated (Sep 10, 2003)

mattack said:


> I honestly don't know either, so will pass this off as "I thought".. I thought the reason was because KRON was playing hardball with NBC for the renewal, thinking NBC would give in on whatever demands they wanted (and/or buy KRON).. But instead, they bought KNTV & made it an O&O.


I believe your version is basically how it happened.


----------



## mattack (Apr 9, 2001)

Did you move from the Bay Area to Ohio?

(If so, WHY? I didn't think anybody left CA!! or at least, you're in the rounding error down to 0!)


----------



## Inundated (Sep 10, 2003)

I am from Ohio. I did live and work in Sacramento and I'm in media...


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

mattack said:


> "The Following" is pretty gruesome.
> 
> Cable is not subject to ANY rules. They willingly follow OTA-like rules, at least for basic/extended basic cable channels. The various FCC rules ("7 words you can't say on TV") do not apply to cable. Though the loosening of cable I think is why OTA rules are being loosened (d*bag is common OTA now, and the 'd word' showed up on something last night, I think The Apprentice).


On this note, I find it interesting that on The Daily Show, they used to bleep out just about all curse words. Then for a stretch last year (and maybe early this year as well) they let a certain curse word that starts with SH go without bleeping. In fact they had Pink perform One Last Kiss complete and uncensored. But I've noticed over the last few weeks they've gone back to bleeping that word. Complaints? Different management?


----------



## Scott Stevens (Apr 12, 2000)

Lee 2.0 said:


> I thought I was the only person in the entire world who watched Journeyman. Can't wait for Gray's Anatomy to end so Kevin McKidd can find a decent part.


There are a lot of reasons I can't wait for Gray's Anatomy to end...


----------

