# You are President of NBC - How would you fix the network?



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

You are given 2 years to turn NBC around, and a budget equivalent to what the other networks heads of programming have. How would you fix NBC?


----------



## zalusky (Apr 5, 2002)

I could say give it back to KRON but only a few would get it!


----------



## JYoung (Jan 16, 2002)

Invest it in a time machine to go back in time and prevent the whole Jay Leno Show debacle.


----------



## Church AV Guy (Jan 19, 2005)

I'd be sorely tempted to let the programmers at the NBC Universal property, the USA network (characters welcomeD)) have a crack at it. They seem to have come up with a lot of quite popular original programming. I watch a lot more of USAs original programming than NBCs programming.

Yeah, the Leno "experiment" was a real failure for them. I wonder how long it will take before they recover from that, using your word, debacle?


----------



## daveak (Mar 23, 2009)

Acquire the rights to Firefly and air it 5 nights a week instead of Jay Leno.


----------



## mm2margaret (Dec 7, 2010)

I have to agree with one of the previous posters about USA; they seem to do a better job of programming than NBC does. Let the USA programmers run things. How could they do a worse?


----------



## Snappa77 (Feb 14, 2004)

The quality of the USA shows have gone waaaay downhill.


----------



## billypritchard (May 7, 2001)

ABC was practically dead when Desperate Housewives and Grey's Anatomoy premiered in what, 2004? So I think you just have to hit the show lottery.


----------



## Maui (Apr 22, 2000)

billypritchard said:


> ABC was practically dead when Desperate Housewives and Grey's Anatomoy premiered in what, 2004? So I think you just have to hit the show lottery.


They also had this little show called Lost that premiered that year too.


----------



## ADG (Aug 20, 2003)

First thing I'd do is fire Ann Curry


----------



## ElJay (Apr 6, 2005)

Pay myself a $50mm bonus, liquidate it, and then retire.


----------



## WhiskeyTango (Sep 20, 2006)

I've thought about posting this exact question and here's my solution.

1.) Get rid of the crap. They have way too many underperforming shows that they keep bringing back. New fare really couldn't do much worse. I know there are risks and limitations to the number of new shows that can be picked up each year but, at this point, they just have to rip off the bandaid and go for it. Pretty much anything below a 2.0 in the ratings needs to go.

2.) Get rid of the incestuous relationships at the network. They have shows that are failing and are using the same writers/producers/actors to come up with new shows for next season. They also don't seem to have any talent pool other than ex-SNL members.

3.) They need better people in the department that chooses what shows to pick up. They actually passed on The Walking Dead. If the ratings on NBC were anything close to what they are on AMC, it would easily be the highest rated show on the network.

4.) Get rid of the single camera "smart" comedies. Their Thursday night lineup thinks too much of itself and it isn't working for the general public. They have to go a little more main stream with the comedies. They tried with Whitney and Chelsea and this goes back to point 3, better talent scouts. 

5.) Less news and reality shows filling big blocks of the schedule and more/better dramas. The only dramas they have are Grimm, Parenthood, L&O: SVU, Harry's Law, and The Firm (Saturday). OTOH there is Celeb Apprentice (2 hours), Biggest Loser (2 hours), Dateline, Fear Factor, The Voice (2 hours), Who Do You Think You Are?, Who's Still Standing?, and Rock Center.


----------



## Aniketos (Mar 6, 2006)

WhiskeyTango said:


> I've thought about posting this exact question and here's my solution.
> 
> 1.) Get rid of the crap. They have way too many underperforming shows that they keep bringing back. New fare really couldn't do much worse. I know there are risks and limitations to the number of new shows that can be picked up each year but, at this point, they just have to rip off the bandaid and go for it. Pretty much anything below a 2.0 in the ratings needs to go.
> 
> ...


So get rid of everything then.


----------



## getreal (Sep 29, 2003)

ElJay said:


> Pay myself a $50mm bonus, liquidate it, and then retire.


:up:


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

ADG said:


> First thing I'd do is fire Ann Curry


This!!! 100x This. She is the worst interviewer in the history of televised journalism. Doesn't listen to a thing her interview subject says. Just moves on to the next scripted question regardless.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

WhiskeyTango said:


> I've thought about posting this exact question and here's my solution.
> 
> 1.) Get rid of the crap. They have way too many underperforming shows that they keep bringing back. New fare really couldn't do much worse. I know there are risks and limitations to the number of new shows that can be picked up each year but, at this point, they just have to rip off the bandaid and go for it. Pretty much anything below a 2.0 in the ratings needs to go.
> 
> ...


I don't necessarily disagree with anything you said, but for argument's sake:

1) If they get rid of everything with a sub 2.0, they'll be starting the fall with almost everything new. Without established shows to bring viewers in and to promote their new stuff, those new shows aren't likely to do any better than the current stuff.

2) Can't argue with this.

3) Can't argue with this.

4) Thursday comedies are actually one of the few bright spots for NBC. The ratings aren't stellar, but The Office, Parks & Rec, Community, and 30 Rock are all critical darlings and bring lots of good publicity each week. Sure, they're not all turning in CBS-style ratings, but it's unlikely that anything new will either. I would hope they'd keep all four of the shows I named above.

5) You forgot to mention Smash as an existing NBC drama. And Harry's Law and The Firm are both goners at the end of this year. I don't think there's anything wrong with a good mix of reality and news programming, but I agree that they have too much. First thing I would do is cut Biggest Loser and Celeb Apprentice to one hour each and get rid of Rock Center. The rest of the stuff is OK as fillers and short season stuff.


----------



## mrdazzo7 (Jan 8, 2006)

DevdogAZ said:


> 5) You forgot to mention Smash as an existing NBC drama. And Harry's Law and The Firm are both goners at the end of this year. I don't think there's anything wrong with a good mix of reality and news programming, but I agree that they have too much. First thing I would do is cut Biggest Loser and Celeb Apprentice to one hour each and get rid of Rock Center. The rest of the stuff is OK as fillers and short season stuff.


I don't think they keep the reality shows around just out of some undying love for them though--there's a reason they continue to go there, and that's the cost. No one thinks the Biggest Loser "needs" to be two hours--probably not even the people who produce it. but the cost of airing that extra hour, which is an established program, vs., the cost of trying to put a new scripted show on the night, is a massive difference.

That's the reason they even tried the Jay Leno thing to begin with--they're in such bad shape that they physically can't afford to have 15 hours of scripted TV every week. It was obviously bad enough for them to take five hours right out of that with Leno--I can't imagine anyone on earth thinking that was GOOD idea...I think it was just practical (and I don't think they anticipated just _how _bad it would be...but I think they knew it would be bad on some level).

It sucks--with the exception of TBL, I hate reality TV so I definitely never want to see more of it. Even with the singing shows--The Voice pretty much saved them from extinction but how long before they get carried away and it turns out like what Fox did with Idol? They're already adding a Fall season, so it'll be on twice this year, and both cycles will probably be bloated... plus they have this "Smash" show which they put A LOT of hope into, but doesn't seem to be doing well (putting it on at 10PM makes no sense--I get that it has the best lead-in possible but there aren't many brand new shows that and can become a network-saving ratings blockbuster at 10PM on a Monday). But there's Voice, Smash, Idol, Glee, X Factor... it's gonna crash eventually.

I don't know what the answer is for NBC though, because they've taken some chances but for one reason or another, they always tank. They put a huge push into "The Event" last year, and I think it wanted to be a good show, but it was just horrible. They took a risk with Grimm that got phased out by the other one on ABC... they're taking another chance with "Awake" but who knows. I think what's gonna save thing is gonna be that "thing" that no one sees coming, like how 90210 saved Fox or the Lost/DH combo of 04 (followed by the Grey's Anatomy buffer in 05) turned ABC into a powerhouse.


----------



## marksman (Mar 4, 2002)

My primary objective would be to go as broad as possible. They need to expand their audience that got a huge chunk removed due to the Leno stuff.

I would add new shows with broad appeal and forgo niche shows with smart audiences. Then I would sacrifice significant ad revenue on my biggest shows, like the voice, to promote other shows. Since NBC universal also owns many cable channels i would target them and run significant campaigns promoting shows. I would expand this beyond owned channels as well.

The entire strategy would be to grow the entire audience of people watching NBC so when you have new shows you can promote them to s larger audience.

The audience for the network has been in a death spiral since the canceled 5 shows to replace with 1 show.

This promotion to grow the audience and introduce broader shows will take a couple years. This is why I might keep a Whitney over a community. I think community is a much better show but Whitney can potentially grow a broader audience.

I remember the days of must see tv and NBC promoted Thursday nights like crazy. I see very little self promotion. On NBC which seems weird.

Also I would forgo online and magazine marketing and just focus on tv ads. I want tv watchers


----------



## marksman (Mar 4, 2002)

billypritchard said:


> ABC was practically dead when Desperate Housewives and Grey's Anatomoy premiered in what, 2004? So I think you just have to hit the show lottery.


What is funny is I think the regime who launched those shows got fired before the benefits were seen. Network programming is sometimes a dumb game.


----------



## daveak (Mar 23, 2009)

One more thing I would do as the president of NBC - I would personally send AnaConda packing from the Biggest Loser.


----------



## mrdazzo7 (Jan 8, 2006)

daveak said:


> One more thing I would do as the president of NBC - I would personally send AnaConda packing from the Biggest Loser.


Seeing as how you would need a time machine to do that, since they probably filmed most of it by now, you may as well use it to go back and just stop her from being born. Just saying, if you're gonna do it, do it right...

(HAHAHA poor chick. I'm sure she's had some messed up stuff happen to her and I don't "officially" judge people based on how they come across on a reality show, but _damn _is she awful to watch.)


----------



## That Don Guy (Mar 13, 2003)

zalusky said:


> I could say give it back to KRON but only a few would get it!


You mean the KRON that came up with the brilliant idea of moving all of its prime time shows back an hour, and moving the late night shows back 35 minutes? Or perhaps you mean the KRON whose contract at the time with the Oakland A's resulted in a number of prime time programs (plus a broadcast of an Olympic Track & Field Trials) being aired at midnight?

This is not the first time NBC has had ratings problems. It should just do what everybody else does in a similar situation - a combination of "make copies of what works on other networks" (i.e. _The Voice_, _Smash_) and "throw shows at the wall and see what sticks." NBC also has to see what time slots are vulnerable; for example, Wednesdays are out of the question at the moment with Fox and ABC both having solid locks on the night.


----------



## jsmeeker (Apr 2, 2001)

JYoung said:


> Invest it in a time machine to go back in time and prevent the whole Jay Leno Show debacle.


Set the way back machine to bring way back Bill Cosby to the present day.


----------



## mattack (Apr 9, 2001)

That Don Guy said:


> You mean the KRON that came up with the brilliant idea of moving all of its prime time shows back an hour, and moving the late night shows back 35 minutes?


That was awesome. Even though I think I had Tivos already by then (when was that done?), and I am a late night person, I'd STILL rather get the shows earlier.

My fixes:
1) Make sure every show absolutely starts and ends on time. None of this stupid time slot slippage, which they seemed to have started ('er' was the first one I noticed). If they OFFICIALLY start at 9:59 or go to 8:31, fine.. but actually start/end there. In my dream world where I pitch a show that gets picked up, one of my contract requirements would be that it properly starts/ends in its timeslot (with at $100K/week fine if they screw up).

2) USE THEIR OTHER NETWORKS for their prime time shows. They are sort of doing this now (e.g. The Voice reruns on E!), and do it sporadically for other shows, but usually only for the FIRST episode. #1 would be greatly reduced in importance if I could just record a later showing that week on a "sister network". That also gets "new" programming on networks that are otherwise reruns, and thus basically useless to me.


----------



## aadam101 (Jul 15, 2002)

You guys and all your crazy ideas. The only way to save NBC is to let Jack Donaghy run it.


----------



## aadam101 (Jul 15, 2002)

mrdazzo7 said:


> No one thinks the Biggest Loser "needs" to be two hours--


My guess is that two hour Biggest Losers won't be around much longer anyway. Since Jillian left the ratings have been in the toilet. They need to bring her back.

There was a gag on 30 Rock where Jack has a pie chart of NBC's priorities. Biggest Loser took up about 90% of the chart and everything else was in the 10% field. It was pretty accurate......


----------



## rhuntington3 (May 1, 2001)

Bring back Supertrain and Manimal.


----------



## zalusky (Apr 5, 2002)

That Don Guy said:


> You mean the KRON that came up with the brilliant idea of moving all of its prime time shows back an hour, and moving the late night shows back 35 minutes? Or perhaps you mean the KRON whose contract at the time with the Oakland A's resulted in a number of prime time programs (plus a broadcast of an Olympic Track & Field Trials) being aired at midnight?
> 
> This is not the first time NBC has had ratings problems. It should just do what everybody else does in a similar situation - a combination of "make copies of what works on other networks" (i.e. _The Voice_, _Smash_) and "throw shows at the wall and see what sticks." NBC also has to see what time slots are vulnerable; for example, Wednesdays are out of the question at the moment with Fox and ABC both having solid locks on the night.


I was also thinking of them dumping NBC because they thought they were so self important they would do better on their own. Ironically both NBC and KRON went down hill at the same time.


----------



## marksman (Mar 4, 2002)

mattack said:


> That was awesome. Even though I think I had Tivos already by then (when was that done?), and I am a late night person, I'd STILL rather get the shows earlier.
> 
> My fixes:
> 1) Make sure every show absolutely starts and ends on time. None of this stupid time slot slippage, which they seemed to have started ('er' was the first one I noticed). If they OFFICIALLY start at 9:59 or go to 8:31, fine.. but actually start/end there. In my dream world where I pitch a show that gets picked up, one of my contract requirements would be that it properly starts/ends in its timeslot (with at $100K/week fine if they screw up).
> ...


I agree 100% on the reruns. They also do it with the apprentice now but they need to do it more often. NBC has access to a large number of cable channels and should be leveraging that huge advantage. Any serialized drama, ala smash, should have regular runs on cable to bring new members in. This is one place where all networks fail. Walking dead has grown its audience over time, but that is because they reran episodes so new viewers can catch up. The major networks suck at this. In some cases if you miss an episode you can be screwed as it can take way too much time and energy to find it.

NBC needs to have consistency in their on demand / Hulu / NBC.com offerings. They can't be pinching pennies they need to grow audience. If someone watches the first 11 episodes of a show on NBC. Com chances are they can become a regular viewer. If they try to do it and only the last three episodes are there then they lose potential viewers

Every decision they make should be based on growing their prime time audience. If that means sabotaging back end sales then they need to work it out with producers. NBC really has a huge advantage with all the cable channels, they could really capitalize

The problem is they want to play the game like CBS when they don't have the audience or products that CBS has.

I realize the issues are complicated due to the traditional production company / network agreements but that is where NBC has to be different. Even if they end up paying more for shows if they can get more control in order to build an audience it will be worth it.


----------



## getbak (Oct 8, 2004)

Community 24/7


----------



## cheesesteak (Jul 24, 2003)

Vampires. Put vampires on every show. It doesn't matter what type of show - dramas, comedies, sports, news... Vampires.


----------



## Crow159 (Jul 28, 2004)

cheesesteak said:


> Vampires. Put vampires on every show. It doesn't matter what type of show - dramas, comedies, sports, news... Vampires.


Wasn't this a skit on SNL? It seems really familiar.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

mrdazzo7 said:


> I don't think they keep the reality shows around just out of some undying love for them though--there's a reason they continue to go there, and that's the cost. No one thinks the Biggest Loser "needs" to be two hours--probably not even the people who produce it. but the cost of airing that extra hour, which is an established program, vs., the cost of trying to put a new scripted show on the night, is a massive difference.
> 
> That's the reason they even tried the Jay Leno thing to begin with--they're in such bad shape that they physically can't afford to have 15 hours of scripted TV every week. It was obviously bad enough for them to take five hours right out of that with Leno--I can't imagine anyone on earth thinking that was GOOD idea...I think it was just practical (and I don't think they anticipated just _how _bad it would be...but I think they knew it would be bad on some level).
> 
> ...


I pretty much agree with what you said here. It's interesting that the Super Bowl gave them a huge bump for Smash, but they couldn't maintain it. It got them a lot of eyeballs to at least watch the pilot. On that vein, I wonder if the Olympics could help their fall lineup. They just have to find the right show to really push. The thing is, it will probably help get people to watch initially, as what happened with Smash, but what show will they find that could actually MAINTAIN the ratings. They've had some shows which got decent initial viewings and then just fell apart. They had an actual HIT in Heroes and it was just done in by a poor season finale which continued into the remainder of the series. The Event and a couple of others got some good pilot ratings and then fell off a cliff. So like has been said, they NEED that one show to save them.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

marksman said:


> My primary objective would be to go as broad as possible. They need to expand their audience that got a huge chunk removed due to the Leno stuff.
> 
> I would add new shows with broad appeal and forgo niche shows with smart audiences. Then I would sacrifice significant ad revenue on my biggest shows, like the voice, to promote other shows. Since NBC universal also owns many cable channels i would target them and run significant campaigns promoting shows. I would expand this beyond owned channels as well.
> 
> ...


Also totally agree with this. Once they get healthy with mainstream audiences, they can bring in a few "smart shows" One mistake that NBC made was to try to appeal to younger, smarter audiences. What they didn't realize is those are the audiences with the biggest ADD. Their attention spans are short and they are more willing to forego TV altogether, or watch cable (old schoolers are still married to the big 4 networks) when they do. Go for the meat and potato viewers and then sprinkle in a few smarter shows. This has been Fox's strategy, especially with shows like AI and X-Factor which brings in a wide audience. The success of those shows allow them to dabble in shows like Fringe.

BTW, wasn't NBC in trouble WAY before the Leno debacle? Isn't that why they tried it in the first place?


----------



## lambertman (Dec 21, 2002)

jsmeeker said:


> Set the way back machine to bring way back Bill Cosby to the present day.


Woo Lawd!!

(too wayback?)


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

mattack said:


> That was awesome. Even though I think I had Tivos already by then (when was that done?), and I am a late night person, I'd STILL rather get the shows earlier.
> 
> My fixes:
> 1) Make sure every show absolutely starts and ends on time. None of this stupid time slot slippage, which they seemed to have started ('er' was the first one I noticed). If they OFFICIALLY start at 9:59 or go to 8:31, fine.. but actually start/end there. In my dream world where I pitch a show that gets picked up, one of my contract requirements would be that it properly starts/ends in its timeslot (with at $100K/week fine if they screw up).
> ...


I totally agree with #1. I hate that. As for #2, if network TV is still advertiser based, then NBC WANTS you to watch their shows during their prime time slot. People like us who record stuff are not where they make their money. And pushing it out to cable, where ad revenues are lower, is going to move more and more eyeballs away from the initial viewing. If I like their 9PM Thursday show but I can record it 12 midnight a day or two later on USA, why would I make sure I watch it on Thursday? I'll watch other shows where I don't have the option and watch the USA reviewing at my convenience, and if I watch the commercials, they are the lower revenue generating variety. Now, it makes total sense to put the pilot, or maybe the next one or two more on cable, to get as many eyeballs interested. I can see that. From a personal standpoint, I love when they repeat these shows on cable, but I'm not sure if it makes long term business sense.


----------



## dtle (Dec 12, 2001)

1) No more cops, doctors, or lawyers

2) More sci-fi (Grimm), quirkiness (Chuck), and serial (Playboy)

3) Most of all, just be a Monkeys throwing darts at a wall. Try everything, but only for 8 - 12 episodes commitment, and see which ones work.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

dtle said:


> 1) No more cops, doctors, or lawyers
> 
> 2) More sci-fi (Grimm), quirkiness (Chuck), and serial (Playboy)
> 
> 3) Most of all, just be a Monkeys throwing darts at a wall. Try everything, but only for 8 - 12 episodes commitment, and see which ones work.


I said FIX the network, not continue to push it into the abyss!!!

Point 1) - While I am not a huge fan of those types of shows. Look at what CBS does and you'll see, cops, doctors and lawyers are what's successful. Find the right ones, and you got hit shows.

Point 2) - I'm more into those types of shows than the ones in point 1, but, the audience for them is, unfortunately limited. This has been proven time and time again. There's the occasional hit like Lost, but generally, those shows are ratings killers.

Point 3) - I like the idea of short series, like they do on cable. With an ADD society, I think you can hold interest for the short term. Maybe if you get a "mega" hit, then shoot for longer seasons. It's funny, but I find myself involved in some long time stories on some shows that are just too dragged out over a season (The Good Wife, I'm talking to you). I think if you get short, succinct story lines, that move along....you can hold someone's interest longer.

I would also add that these series should run CONTINUOUSLY for 8-12 weeks. Not 3 weeks and then not on for 2. To me, if you are only slightly vested in a series, and then you don't see it for 2 weeks, you might end up finding something you like better.


----------



## Maui (Apr 22, 2000)

dtle said:


> 1) No more cops, doctors, or lawyers
> 
> 2) More sci-fi (Grimm), quirkiness (Chuck), and serial (Playboy)
> 
> 3) Most of all, just be a Monkeys throwing darts at a wall. Try everything, but only for 8 - 12 episodes commitment, and see which ones work.


Yeah, I am sure that would fix things 

Lets look at the reality of it. Here are the top 25 shows from last week that prove number 1 wrong.

7. NCIS
11. NCIS - Los Angeles
12. Grey's Anatomy
15. Criminal Minds
18. Person of Interest
23. The Mentalist
24. Hawaii 5-0 
25. CSI

Lets looks at your point 2

Playboy Club - Cancelled
Chuck - Perennial bubble show - now cancelled
Grimm - Lowest ratings on Thursday. (Thursday ratings)


----------



## WhiskeyTango (Sep 20, 2006)

Maui said:


> Grimm - Lowest ratings on Thursday.


That's actually misleading. Grimm's airing on Thursday are repeats. New episodes air Friday night where it is second in the time slot behind CSI:NY.


----------



## aadam101 (Jul 15, 2002)

They should probably think about SeinfeldVision.


----------



## busyba (Feb 5, 2003)

WhiskeyTango said:


> 4.) Get rid of the single camera "smart" comedies. Their Thursday night lineup thinks too much of itself and it isn't working for the general public. They have to go a little more main stream with the comedies. They tried with Whitney and Chelsea and this goes back to point 3, better talent scouts.


Yeah, let's just pack the primetime schedule with wall-to-wall _According to Jim_ and _King of Queens_.


----------



## WhiskeyTango (Sep 20, 2006)

busyba said:


> Yeah, let's just pack the primetime schedule with wall-to-wall _According to Jim_ and _King of Queens_.


This isn't a discussion about percieved quality or tastes. It's about what gets viewers.


----------



## JYoung (Jan 16, 2002)

Steveknj said:


> BTW, wasn't NBC in trouble WAY before the Leno debacle? Isn't that why they tried it in the first place?


Not as much as they are in now.
And that's thanks to the Leno debacle.

You really had two factors at play.

One: NBC was trying to boost their financials via a short term revenue boost with the Jay Leno Show in order to look better for FTC review of their merger with Kabletown, I mean Comcast.
The Jay Leno Show was quite profitable even at the low for primetime ratings it got because it was dirt cheap to make.

Two: NBC foolishly assumed that Leno would be ready to retire at 59, so when he started saying that he wanted to look at other show opportunities on other networks, they totally freaked out and back up the Brinks truck to him with the five nights a week show.

So with all their boneheaded moves, not only did they damage their very profitable late night franchise, they damaged most of their primetime lineup as well.

And now, they're scrambling.


----------



## mmilton80 (Jul 28, 2005)

I'd bring back The West Wing. Let's see what President Santos is up to. That would be my Sunday night anchor. 

I'd have a reality show night. Maybe Tuesdays. I don't like Tuesdays and I hate reality shows. Maybe we'd do a reality show where people create reality shows for rival networks. 

I'd do touchy feel good made for TV movies on Saturday nights that are inspired by true events (that we snag from the morning show) or chick lit novels. 

I'd bring back the 3 hour comedy block but toss in some episodes of Mad About You. That Paul Reiser makes me laugh. Imagine if the baby became a teenaged zombie?!? Whenever we'd end a show, we'd let the baby feed on that cast! Paul Reiser would say something amusing.


----------



## mattack (Apr 9, 2001)

aadam101 said:


> My guess is that two hour Biggest Losers won't be around much longer anyway. Since Jillian left the ratings have been in the toilet.


Why was she so stupid to quit the show TWICE? Why did she quit the first time?


----------



## mattack (Apr 9, 2001)

Steveknj said:


> If I like their 9PM Thursday show but I can record it 12 midnight a day or two later on USA, why would I make sure I watch it on Thursday? I'll watch other shows where I don't have the option and watch the USA reviewing at my convenience, and if I watch the commercials, they are the lower revenue generating variety.


But, like you said, most people (EVEN WITH DVRS!!!!) don't record everything.

So my argument is that the extra runs on cable shows are more ADDED viewers, rather than losing viewers from the original timeslot. Plus, as I originally said, it's "new" programming (comparatively) to cable channels, which is a good thing for the cable channel too.


----------



## rpph (Mar 20, 2002)

> I could say give it back to KRON but only a few would get it!


I get it and agree 100%


----------



## aadam101 (Jul 15, 2002)

mattack said:


> Why was she so stupid to quit the show TWICE? Why did she quit the first time?


Jillian wants to be more of a self help guru. She quit the show the first time because she was unhappy. She quickly realized she needed more exposure before she could make it on her own. She was lucky that Biggest Loser hired Kim who was just an AWFUL trainer so they welcomed her back. My guess is that she would be welcomed back again, given the ratings.

I am guessing she is rather difficult to work with. Her priorities (helping people) don't exactly match what the priorities of the entertainment industry. She refused to do most of the product placement ads because she didn't want her name attached to most of the products. Her "quick tips" segments were mostly about drinking milk and exercising.

She joined the daytime show The Doctors and only lasted half a season. I saw an article where she said the show wanted to do segment about cankles and she wanted to do segments about the sorry state of America's school lunch program.

She does a great job on her podcast where she can pretty much say and do whatever she wants. Her show even won a iTunes award for "Best New Podcast".

She used to have a radio show in LA that was also available on iTunes. She trashed The Biggest Loser pretty bad in one episode and it ended up being her final episode. I am guessing they only allowed her to do the podcast because they could ensure she couldn't trash them since it isn't live.


----------



## murgatroyd (Jan 6, 2002)

Steveknj said:


> Point 1) - While I am not a huge fan of those types of shows. Look at what CBS does and you'll see, cops, doctors and lawyers are what's successful. Find the right ones, and you got hit shows.


So what defines "the right ones"?

I don't watch any of these shows because they are a "cop show", a "doctor show" or a "lawyer show".

I watch them because I like the casts, and/or I follow the show-runners. But mostly because I like the casts, and I like the writing. If I don't like the cast or the characters they're playing, I won't watch -- I don't care how good the show is otherwise.

I know most people don't know or give a crap who the show-runners are, beyond the meager information given in the promos for the shows that say "from the people who brought you [name of show]".

Maybe the TV executives think that cop shows, doctor shows, and lawyer shows are successful -- that it's the type of show that people want. But for me, it can work against a show. I've already got X many cop shows and X many doctor shows in my SP manager.

Any new show in those categories would need some compelling interest to make it onto the list, and to stay there it would have to be enough unlike the other shows of its kind to stay there.

For instance: I used to watch CSI (the original) -- tried to watch CSI Miami but couldn't stand it -- tried to watch CSI NY because I liked Gary Sinise, but gave up because I couldn't stand the writing, and eventually gave up on CSI (the original) because of the cast changes, and the changes in the writing. Despite the fact that I still like a lot of the supporting characters on the original CSI, I'm done. The show is a pale shadow of itself -- the qualities that attracted me to the show in the first place are no longer there, nor are they present in any of the endless copycats.

Not that it matters, because the networks don't want my eyeballs anyway. I'm not in the demographic they are chasing.


----------



## marksman (Mar 4, 2002)

Steveknj said:


> Also totally agree with this. Once they get healthy with mainstream audiences, they can bring in a few "smart shows" One mistake that NBC made was to try to appeal to younger, smarter audiences. What they didn't realize is those are the audiences with the biggest ADD. Their attention spans are short and they are more willing to forego TV altogether, or watch cable (old schoolers are still married to the big 4 networks) when they do. Go for the meat and potato viewers and then sprinkle in a few smarter shows. This has been Fox's strategy, especially with shows like AI and X-Factor which brings in a wide audience. The success of those shows allow them to dabble in shows like Fringe.
> 
> BTW, wasn't NBC in trouble WAY before the Leno debacle? Isn't that why they tried it in the first place?


They were but I think the Leno thing made it worse because even if Leno got the sand ratings it is one audience. If Leno had 5 million viewers a night that might mean 10 million people watch Leno in a week. With 5 separate shows each with 5 million viewers they might have 30 million viewers. They instantly have a much smaller audience to promote other shows to as well. I also think you have to mix audiences and not just target one part of the market. Look at cw, they are worse off than NBC even if you factor in clearance and access issues. They are way too narrowly targeted as a network.

Back to the point, yeah NBC was struggling before the Leno move but I always felt it was horribly short sighted. That is the problem with the exercise though it is entirely too short term bottom line oriented. A real turn around at NBC will likely take ~5 years. Instead they will fire those in charge in three years in year four you will see results from their changes and then the next year you will backslide as the new regime changes things.

Maybe with cable town buying NBC  they will give greenblatt and co more time as the cable business has always been a long term business.

Of course then I hear weird things. Fear factor came back to really good ratings. The show is super cheap but because of the senen and urine controversy the show is dead. Joe Rogan says it is dead with no hope of coming back. The show was getting 3+ in the demo which is amazing for NBC. I get the controversy thing but getting rid of the show was not smart.

I don't watch fear factor but because it's cost you could make money on it even while selling yourself a lot of the ad time for promos. It was a perfect show to help broaden their viewerbase.


----------



## marksman (Mar 4, 2002)

I would add to that the networks need to look at shorter scripted seasons. 10-13 episode seasons would really help the quality of some shows. While part of me wants to go back to 39 episode seasons I think there is room for a mix. Some shows should be six episodes, some 13, some 22, some 39.


----------



## marksman (Mar 4, 2002)

busyba said:


> Yeah, let's just pack the primetime schedule with wall-to-wall According to Jim and King of Queens.


I think there is room for multicam and singlecam shows. The trend the last few years was towards single cams bring edgy and hip.

In terms of NBC building back it's audience yeah it actually needs king of queens more than 30 Rock or community. Personal thoughts on shows of our opinion of quality should not be the driving force

By the way the two most popular, and arguably funniest sitcoms are Modern Family and The Big Bang Theory. One is single cam and one is multi cam. Both have become fairly broad comedies that still remain somewhat smart. Sure NBC should get one of those bug those are rare. If NBC could get an According to Jim or even better Kjng of Queens they would be very fortunate.

Office was a niche smart guy show that actually became broader and more popular. Parks and Rec is an NBC show that could grow a much broader audience. 30 Rock and Community not so much.

So that is another idea... Move parks and rec to another night to use it to anchor a comedy block. I think it could grow from its poor ratings into a hit show but in this case the NBC Thursday night quirkiness works against it. I think parks and Rec is a show that could get a 3 in the 18-49 demo. 30 Rock and community will probably never see 2 again.


----------



## aadam101 (Jul 15, 2002)

marksman said:


> So that is another idea... Move parks and rec to another night to use it to anchor a comedy block. I think it could grow from its poor ratings into a hit show but in this case the NBC Thursday night quirkiness works against it. I think parks and Rec is a show that could get a 3 in the 18-49 demo. 30 Rock and community will probably never see 2 again.


30 Rock sold for a lot of money in syndication. I think we will see a couple more seasons because of this. It doesn't necessarily need the ratings on NBC since it is selling for top dollar in syndication.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

mrdazzo7 said:


> I don't think they keep the reality shows around just out of some undying love for them though--there's a reason they continue to go there, and that's the cost. No one thinks the Biggest Loser "needs" to be two hours--probably not even the people who produce it. but the cost of airing that extra hour, which is an established program, vs., the cost of trying to put a new scripted show on the night, is a massive difference.


This is kind of a chicken/egg thing. Reality shows are cheaper, so if you could air them 19 hours a week to moderate ratings, you'd make more profit. But if you aired 19 hours of reality per week, you'd automatically turn off a huge segment of the population that wouldn't even think to look on NBC for entertainment. Overall, you'd end up damaging the network.

My point is that there is a place for a mix of all types of shows. As much as I dislike The Biggest Loser, The Voice, The Apprentice, etc., there is no reason NBC shouldn't show them. They just shouldn't rely so much on them, by airing two-hour episodes. This ensures that those who do watch get tired of it more quickly, and that a certain percentage of people won't even try to watch, because they know they don't have that kind of time to devote to the show. If it's initially going to be more expensive to cut these shows back to one hour and try to kickstart some new dramas, that will eventually be a better long-term solution than just continuing to air these dying reality shows for two-hour episodes every week.



marksman said:


> I agree 100% on the reruns. They also do it with the apprentice now but they need to do it more often. NBC has access to a large number of cable channels and should be leveraging that huge advantage. Any serialized drama, ala smash, should have regular runs on cable to bring new members in. This is one place where all networks fail. Walking dead has grown its audience over time, but that is because they reran episodes so new viewers can catch up. The major networks suck at this. In some cases if you miss an episode you can be screwed as it can take way too much time and energy to find it.





mattack said:


> But, like you said, most people (EVEN WITH DVRS!!!!) don't record everything.
> 
> So my argument is that the extra runs on cable shows are more ADDED viewers, rather than losing viewers from the original timeslot. Plus, as I originally said, it's "new" programming (comparatively) to cable channels, which is a good thing for the cable channel too.


That's easy to say, but don't you think that if this strategy worked, you'd see the other networks doing it as well? Each of the broadcast networks is affiliated with several cable networks. If CBS thought they could gain more primetime viewers by re-airing something like Unforgettable on cable, they'd definitely be doing it. However, it doesn't work because it cannibalizes the broadcast viewership, and those are much more valuable than cable viewers.



marksman said:


> I would add to that the networks need to look at shorter scripted seasons. 10-13 episode seasons would really help the quality of some shows. While part of me wants to go back to 39 episode seasons I think there is room for a mix. Some shows should be six episodes, some 13, some 22, some 39.


I agree that a mix of season lengths would be good, but there's an economic reason why most shows are 22 episodes. It's very expensive to make a show and they need to amortize the costs over that many episodes to make the financials work. Cable budgets are much lower, so they don't need to make as many episodes to recoup their costs. If the various unions and production companies would allow their shows to run on broadcast networks for cable license fees, that would help the problem, but until that happens, it will be virtually impossible to justify the cost of a broadcast network drama for only 13 episodes per season.


----------



## aadam101 (Jul 15, 2002)

DevdogAZ said:


> it will be virtually impossible to justify the cost of a broadcast network drama for only 13 episodes per season.


Why is the UK able to do it? Many British broadcast shows are only 6 episodes per season and they often have very long gaps in between seasons. Why are the economics different?


----------



## jamesbobo (Jun 18, 2000)

Howard Stern is a new judge on America's Got Talent, the ratings will be through the roof. Put Stern in every show as a cameo appearance, problem solved.


----------



## TonyD79 (Jan 4, 2002)

jamesbobo said:


> Howard Stern is a new judge on America's Got Talent, the ratings will be through the roof. Put Stern in every show as a cameo appearance, problem solved.


Stern is old news.


----------



## philw1776 (Jan 19, 2002)

Seppuku


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

aadam101 said:


> Why is the UK able to do it? Many British broadcast shows are only 6 episodes per season and they often have very long gaps in between seasons. Why are the economics different?


Interesting question from a guy who claims to be the future president of ABC. 

There's nothing even remotely similar between the economics of a UK show and a US broadcast network drama.

With US broadcast dramas, the license fee (the amount paid by the network to the production studio) for the right to air the show is generally $3+ million per episode. Much of that money goes to pay actors, writers, and crew. The various unions involved stipulate the minimum amounts that can be paid to these people. Most of these people are not able to take a half-year job (on a 6-13 episode season) and then starve the other half of the year waiting for production of the next season to begin. So the production studio has to pay everyone involved a respectable amount to keep them under contract for the full season and hopefully for subsequent seasons. In order to recoup all those fixed annual costs, the production studio needs to sell a lot more than 13 episodes per season.

On the network side, the marketing and promotion costs are also much higher if they have to promote two different shows in the same timeslot during a season. If they can have a single show air the entire season, that reduces costs for the network promotions.

With basic cable dramas, the license fees are much lower, and the union contracts allow the production studio to pay lower amounts to everyone involved. Therefore, the per episode costs to produce a show like Justified or The Walking Dead are probably less than half what it costs to produce NCIS or The Mentalist.

Then there are premium cable dramas, that are yet another completely different animal. Since they're not advertiser supported and ratings don't matter, the license fees and production costs are based solely on what the network is willing to pay and how much the network thinks the show will increase their number of subscribers. HBO spent over $200 million to produce the ten episode miniseries, "The Pacific." That would never be possible under any other network model.


----------



## marksman (Mar 4, 2002)

aadam101 said:


> 30 Rock sold for a lot of money in syndication. I think we will see a couple more seasons because of this. It doesn't necessarily need the ratings on NBC since it is selling for top dollar in syndication.


From what I remember seeing though 30 rock has been underperforming in syndication.

As it relates to this topic NBC can't be blinded by the back end. If the own shows close to syndication or are given them at a discount by the producers they need to pass

Every decision they make should grow their audience and not trade that for money. CBS can afford to do that, NBC can not.


----------



## TonyD79 (Jan 4, 2002)

DevdogAZ said:


> Interesting question from a guy who claims to be the future president of ABC.
> 
> There's nothing even remotely similar between the economics of a UK show and a US broadcast network drama.
> 
> ...


I'm a bit confused. Time slots almost never stay the same except for hits and still thy do not, so I don't get the promo costs. Plus, how do they do mini series or even cancel a show. I thought they did not o full season orders for most shows. And how do they move shows from cable to network (like they did with Monk) if the fees are different? And why do the nets need to play along. If the union deals are with the production companies, get new companies or produce yourself.


----------



## busyba (Feb 5, 2003)

WhiskeyTango said:


> This isn't a discussion about percieved quality or tastes. It's about what gets viewers.


If losing the smart comedies is what it takes to get viewers, maybe it's not that NBC needs better programming so much as the country needs better viewers.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

marksman said:


> From what I remember seeing though 30 rock has been underperforming in syndication.
> 
> As it relates to this topic NBC can't be blinded by the back end. If the own shows close to syndication or are given them at a discount by the producers they need to pass
> 
> Every decision they make should grow their audience and not trade that for money. CBS can afford to do that, NBC can not.


Although CBS has shown that selling a current show into syndication can boost the ratings for the first-run episodes. The Big Bang Theory has had its biggest ratings ever over the past few episodes, largely because the show was recently sold into syndication and has found a new crop of fans. The reruns of NCIS on USA are widely credited for helping it maintain its huge ratings on CBS. So I disagree. If NBC has anything close to syndication, and they believe they could continue airing first-run episodes after syndication starts, they should definitely try to make that happen.


----------



## aadam101 (Jul 15, 2002)

DevdogAZ said:


> Interesting question from a guy who claims to be the future president of ABC.


Haha. I actually wanted it to say Future President of ABC Daytime. I put that up years ago when ABC was the fourth place network. I was pissed at Brian Frons, the President at the time for what he was doing with Soaps. He eventually canceled most of them and then he was let go. Apparently, cancelling all of the shows that you oversee is not a good career move.


----------



## aadam101 (Jul 15, 2002)

marksman said:


> From what I remember seeing though 30 rock has been underperforming in syndication.
> 
> As it relates to this topic NBC can't be blinded by the back end. If the own shows close to syndication or are given them at a discount by the producers they need to pass
> 
> Every decision they make should grow their audience and not trade that for money. CBS can afford to do that, NBC can not.


That's not a surprise. Given the fact that it's available on Netflix (and the new Comcast streaming service). It's pretty easy to watch it anytime you want. I have to wonder what affect streaming services have on other syndicated shows. I wonder what Netflix pays in comparison to the syndication companies. I would think that a show that is so easily available via streaming wouldn't command the same price that a show not available via streaming would.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

TonyD79 said:


> I'm a bit confused. Time slots almost never stay the same except for hits and still thy do not, so I don't get the promo costs. Plus, how do they do mini series or even cancel a show. I thought they did not o full season orders for most shows. And how do they move shows from cable to network (like they did with Monk) if the fees are different? And why do the nets need to play along. If the union deals are with the production companies, get new companies or produce yourself.


You raised several issues:

1. Shows changing timeslots. Yes, it happens, but networks would prefer not to do it if they don't have to. Consistency in the schedule is better for ratings. Also, it's easier to get an established audience to follow a show to a different timeslot than it is to promote a totally new show. So the promotion costs for a timeslot shift are not nearly as significant as those for a new show.

2. Miniseries (and movies) have almost entirely disappeared from the broadcast networks, because the ratings went away, and therefore the advertiser money for that type of programming isn't there.

3. Networks would obviously prefer not to cancel a show. It costs them a lot of money. But when they do cancel a show prematurely, they're dealing with the reality that the money they'll lose by canceling a show is less than they would lose by continuing to air it.

4. New shows rarely get full season orders for good reason. The vast majority of new shows don't make it past the first season, and the networks don't want to commit to making too many episodes of something unproven. Every contract for a new show gives the network an option of ordering more episodes during the first year to create a full season order. However, once a show has been renewed for a second (and subsequent) season, they almost always get full-season orders.

5. Shows moving from network to cable is extremely rare, and is a testament to the difficulty of working out all the contractual and financial issues. It has happened a few times, but it's rare for a reason.

6. A network can't just choose to produce a show in house to avoid paying the union rates. The union deals have nothing to do with what studio is producing a show and whether that studio is affiliated with the network that's airing the show. All the performers, writers, and crew members are members of the unions, and the unions have global deals with other organizations that represent the industry as a whole, not just individual studios. Remember the writer's strike a few years ago? The writers union was negotiating with the Alliance of Motion Picture and Television Producers (AMPTP), which is a trade organization that represents pretty much all the studios and production companies.


----------



## Flop (Dec 2, 2005)

busyba said:


> If losing the smart comedies is what it takes to get viewers, maybe it's not that NBC needs better programming so much as the country needs better viewers.


Maybe these so-called smart comedies just aren't as funny as you think, and that is why people aren't watching. Perhaps fans of these shows should stop assuming condescendingly that people who don't enjoy them are somehow too stupid to get "smart comedies". They aren't as smart nor as funny as you think they are, and the dwindling base of fans has taken to calling them "smart" in order to feel superior to those of us who choose not to watch them. I've watched a few episodes of 30 Rock, The Office, Community and the pilot for Parks and Rec. While I got the jokes and found them somewhat amusing, except for Parks and Rec which was just terrible, I did not find them funny enough to continue watching. Everyone has different tastes, but to call them "smart comedies" and assume the country isn't watching because we're too stupid to get the jokes is arrogant, rude and elitist.

Maybe NBC just needs better programming.


----------



## murgatroyd (Jan 6, 2002)

I've been watching _The Dick Van **** Show_
and _The Mary Tyler Moore Show_ on MeTV. (They're running _The Bob Newhart Show_, too.)

Now I remember why I don't like modern comedies. The writing on the classic shows was so much better.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

murgatroyd said:


> So what defines "the right ones"?
> 
> I don't watch any of these shows because they are a "cop show", a "doctor show" or a "lawyer show".
> 
> ...


While you might not watch them because they are cops shows, etc. many people DO. Yeah, they may not stick with them (hence the "right ones") but many people like crime dramas, or medical dramas as a genre and are willing to give those types of shows a try. And given that the majority of the top rated dramas are of those genres, I would say that producing a show from that genre is a better bet for success than say a Sci-Fi show. Now of course CBS has a track record for those types of shows and since they already have a lot of eyeballs watching their shows, they can push the next big one. NBC doesn't have that advantage. So they need to find SOMETHING that will bring people over to watch. Maybe it's in conjunction with a major star, maybe it's even a spinoff from one of those shows on CBS (not sure how that would work, do networks have first dibs on spinoffs from existing series?)

Again, we look at this from the perspective that we are NOT average viewers here on the forum. Someone posted that maybe these "smart" shows just aren't funny? Everyone's tastes are different, but the ratings bear out that those "smart" shows generally don't do well. Even a show like TBBT, which everyone says is a "smart" show, really isn't. First of all, it's probably closer in execution to a traditional sitcom than something like 30 Rock or Community. Second, lots of folks around here have complained that it was "dumbed down" after the first year for ratings. Well guess what folks, it's worked!! Ratings are through the roof this year. So while all of us here want those smart comedies to succeed, they just don't appeal to the masses.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

marksman said:


> They were but I think the Leno thing made it worse because even if Leno got the sand ratings it is one audience. If Leno had 5 million viewers a night that might mean 10 million people watch Leno in a week. With 5 separate shows each with 5 million viewers they might have 30 million viewers. They instantly have a much smaller audience to promote other shows to as well. I also think you have to mix audiences and not just target one part of the market. Look at cw, they are worse off than NBC even if you factor in clearance and access issues. They are way too narrowly targeted as a network.
> 
> Back to the point, yeah NBC was struggling before the Leno move but I always felt it was horribly short sighted. That is the problem with the exercise though it is entirely too short term bottom line oriented. A real turn around at NBC will likely take ~5 years. Instead they will fire those in charge in three years in year four you will see results from their changes and then the next year you will backslide as the new regime changes things.
> 
> ...


I agree, Leno made it worse. But it was more like blasting a hole in a slowly leaking ship. It just made it sink faster. What I think happened is NBC's insistence of bringing in shows that the critics loved, but the average viewer didn't, hoping that critical success would bring in viewers. Well, it just didn't happen. The older viewers were set in their ways and continued to watch what they always watched. The younger viewers, used to have SO many choices, both on TV and other mediums, simply gave some of these shows a short leash, and left in droves when they found something better, or, are more likely to do timeshifting, which is ALSO not good for ratings. That left them with a rather small audience of fans of those types of quirky shows who might not timeshift.

Leno was cheap, and also appealed to the older audience (they thought) that they had lost over the years. Well that audience is less likely to watch a 10PM show, or, are already watching the traditional prime time shows they always have.

So what to do? Maybe they need to appeal to the same audience that watches MTV or other cable channels? Or maybe they just need one hit in the traditional genres and then build from there. It's anyone's guess.


----------



## mattack (Apr 9, 2001)

aadam101 said:


> She refused to do most of the product placement ads because she didn't want her name attached to most of the products. Her "quick tips" segments were mostly about drinking milk and exercising....
> She used to have a radio show in LA that was also available on iTunes. She trashed The Biggest Loser pretty bad in one episode and it ended up being her final episode. I am guessing they only allowed her to do the podcast because they could ensure she couldn't trash them since it isn't live.


I didn't realize they had a choice to do the product placement things. (Choice as in -- if you do the show at all, you do product placement -- including the contestants.)

Hmm, I think I still have at least one episode of her podcast around somewhere. I remember being interested in it, but since it wasn't available as an individual podcast, only mixed in with a ton of others, I never managed to get it regularly. I'd be somewhat interested in hearing the one where she bashes Biggest Loser..


----------



## mattack (Apr 9, 2001)

DevdogAZ said:


> That's easy to say, but don't you think that if this strategy worked, you'd see the other networks doing it as well? Each of the broadcast networks is affiliated with several cable networks. If CBS thought they could gain more primetime viewers by re-airing something like Unforgettable on cable, they'd definitely be doing it.


What networks are CBS and ABC and Fox affiliated with, that could reasonably show entertainment programming? Yes, I think even ESPN has shown a few scripted shows, but that's very rare.

I know, MTV doesn't show music anymore.. but I still really think NBC is the only one that has other networks that could frequently "repurpose" (cough) shows as a rerun-within-a-week-or-two scheme to add viewers.


----------



## mattack (Apr 9, 2001)

murgatroyd said:


> I've been watching _The Dick Van **** Show_
> and _The Mary Tyler Moore Show_ on MeTV. (They're running _The Bob Newhart Show_, too.)
> 
> Now I remember why I don't like modern comedies. The writing on the classic shows was so much better.


I actually like all of those shows.

Are you actually saying you laugh out loud literally at those shows more than current shows? I definitely laugh more at Big Bang Theory per episode than I ever did in any of those shows. Even though it's sort of a guilty pleasure, even 2.5 Men has more laughs than any of those. (Since, as I've said a million times, 2.5 men basically repeats the same ~3 major and ~3 minor jokes over and over in slightly different ways.)


----------



## murgatroyd (Jan 6, 2002)

mattack said:


> I actually like all of those shows.
> 
> Are you actually saying you laugh out loud literally at those shows more than current shows? I definitely laugh more at Big Bang Theory per episode than I ever did in any of those shows. Even though it's sort of a guilty pleasure, even 2.5 Men has more laughs than any of those. (Since, as I've said a million times, 2.5 men basically repeats the same ~3 major and ~3 minor jokes over and over in slightly different ways.)


The only two modern comedies I watch are TBBT and Suburgatory.

I've watched bits and pieces of others (when in restaurants, etc.) and I just don't get the appeal.


----------



## aadam101 (Jul 15, 2002)

mattack said:


> I didn't realize they had a choice to do the product placement things. (Choice as in -- if you do the show at all, you do product placement -- including the contestants.)
> 
> Hmm, I think I still have at least one episode of her podcast around somewhere. I remember being interested in it, but since it wasn't available as an individual podcast, only mixed in with a ton of others, I never managed to get it regularly. I'd be somewhat interested in hearing the one where she bashes Biggest Loser..


I think I have it. I'll double check tomorrow and let you know. Those old ones are not available on iTunes anymore.

She stated in her podcast that she refused to do most of the product placements. Bob does most of the actual products. She did some for Brita and Ziploc bags but she stays away from any of the "healthy" food ones.

Her podcast is fantastic. She exposes herself a lot more than we ever see on TV. She has been doing new ones for about a year now. All of those are available on iTunes.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

mattack said:


> What networks are CBS and ABC and Fox affiliated with, that could reasonably show entertainment programming? Yes, I think even ESPN has shown a few scripted shows, but that's very rare.
> 
> I know, MTV doesn't show music anymore.. but I still really think NBC is the only one that has other networks that could frequently "repurpose" (cough) shows as a rerun-within-a-week-or-two scheme to add viewers.


CBS is affiliated with the Viacom family of networks which include the MTV/VH1 brand and the Nick/TVLand brand. TVLand could definitely be an outlet for repurposing.

Fox has FX (not sure about any others that would work...obviously they have Fox News,etc.) FX has been used for repurposing before if I recall. they also have FMC (Fox Movie Channel) which also could be used for repurposing, a la AMC

ABC has ABCFamily and the Disney family of channels, all of which could be used for repurposing if need be. In fact, if they chose to, they could probably rename one of those channels for that purpose. They of course have ESPN, but I'm not sure how that would work for repurpsosing.

NBC of course is best positioned for this with USA, AMC, SyFy, and others.


----------



## lew (Mar 12, 2002)

The Leno primetime experiment isn't the cause of NBCs problems. It was a failed attempt to solve the problems.

Hit shows give a network a chance to air a new show after the hit show. NBC doesn't really have hit shows. That compounds the problem. ABC got lucky with Lost, Greys and Desperate Housewives. NBC didn't get lucky with Smash. NBC needs a couple of hits to jump start the network. The number of cable networks and DVR use is making it harder. Being the "best" show in your time period isn't enough. Viewers have the option of using their DVR to view a "better" show which was aired earlier that night or earlier in the week. Countless cable alternatives.

USA does well with their shows but the cost to produce a show for a basic cable network is less then the cost to produce a network show. Ratings expectations for a show on cable is a fraction of what is acceptable for a network show. 

What can NBC do? Maybe they're already doing it. Airing shows which don't cost as much to produce as the hits on other networks.


----------



## LoadStar (Jul 24, 2001)

Steveknj said:


> CBS is affiliated with the Viacom family of networks which include the MTV/VH1 brand and the Nick/TVLand brand. TVLand could definitely be an outlet for repurposing.


CBS and Viacom are separate companies. Their main connection to each other is historical. (If you follow the money, both CBS and Viacom have ownership stakes held by National Amusements, so one could say they're distant cousins at this point.)

ETA: CBS's only cable properties at this time are Showtime, The Movie Channel, Flix, and CBS Sports Network.


----------



## classicsat (Feb 18, 2004)

Not long ago CBS and Viacom were a lot closer, even co-owned, or one owned the other. 

Showtime, at least, was owned by Viacom. 

CBS also had involvement in the Discovery Networks.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

LoadStar said:


> CBS and Viacom are separate companies. Their main connection to each other is historical. (If you follow the money, both CBS and Viacom have ownership stakes held by National Amusements, so one could say they're distant cousins at this point.)
> 
> ETA: CBS's only cable properties at this time are Showtime, The Movie Channel, Flix, and CBS Sports Network.


The only reason I thought they still had the connection is that I believe the Saturday morning kids shows on CBS are repurposed Nick shows, so I thought the relationship was still there. Could be that they have reciprocal agreements that might let them repurpose their network shows....not sure.

EDIT: According to wikepedia:



> Both CBS Corporation and the new Viacom are still owned by Sumner Redstone's company, National Amusements. As such, Paramount Home Entertainment continues to handle DVD distribution for the CBS library.


So they are seperate entities essentially owned by the same company, if this is correct. The relationship might be strong enough to allow for repurposing.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

classicsat said:


> Not long ago CBS and Viacom were a lot closer, even co-owned, or one owned the other.
> 
> Showtime, at least, was owned by Viacom.
> 
> CBS also had involvement in the Discovery Networks.


Exactly. And when CBS had all those cable partners under the Viacom umbrella, and CBS wasn't the dominant ratings leader at the time, they still didn't use their cable networks to re-air their broadcast shows.

Basically, by using the cable channels to re-air broadcast shows, you're decreasing the value (to viewers) of watching the show live on the broadcast network. If there's a scheduling conflict between a CBS/FOX/ABC show that's only going to air once, and an NBC show that's going to air multiple times during the week on other cable nets, which broadcast show is going to get watched? And as viewers become used to watching the NBC shows later in the week on cable nets, they further lose their connection to NBC and its other shows.


----------



## LoadStar (Jul 24, 2001)

Steveknj said:


> So they are seperate entities essentially owned by the same company, if this is correct. The relationship might be strong enough to allow for repurposing.


I think due to them both being publicly traded companies, trade regulations would require them to operate as if they were separate companies and negotiate the deal "at arms length," same as they would if they were trying to obtain a series from Disney, A&E Networks, Comcast, Time Warner, or whomever.


----------



## TonyD79 (Jan 4, 2002)

mattack said:


> I actually like all of those shows.
> 
> Are you actually saying you laugh out loud literally at those shows more than current shows? I definitely laugh more at Big Bang Theory per episode than I ever did in any of those shows. Even though it's sort of a guilty pleasure, even 2.5 Men has more laughs than any of those. (Since, as I've said a million times, 2.5 men basically repeats the same ~3 major and ~3 minor jokes over and over in slightly different ways.)


I am rewatching the Dick Van **** show in order. I still laugh out loud at the comedy from that show. It was better written, better acted and better staged than most comedies today.

BBT and a few others are exceptions to today's comedies, but then again, DVD was an exception to the early 1960s, too.


----------



## inaka (Nov 26, 2001)

zalusky said:


> I could say give it back to KRON but only a few would get it!


LOL

I got it.
KRON now seems to be the Gary Radnich & Fraiser "network"


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

inaka said:


> LOL
> 
> I got it.
> KRON now seems to be the Gary Radnich & Fraiser "network"


Forgive my ignorance, but what is KRON?


----------



## inaka (Nov 26, 2001)

Steveknj said:


> Forgive my ignorance, but what is KRON?


SF based channel in the bay area which used to be a successful NBC affiliate.
They lost their affiliate status and for a while those with only an over-the-air antenna couldn't even get NBC at all if they tried. It was a total mess. Maybe still is?

They're now independent and KNTV Channel 11 based in San Jose, CA in the NBC affiliate covering the SF Bay Area.


----------



## mattack (Apr 9, 2001)

Steveknj said:


> ABC has ABCFamily and the Disney family of channels, all of which could be used for repurposing if need be. In fact, if they chose to, they could probably rename one of those channels for that purpose.


I did think of ABC/Disney after posting, but it seems to me that even something like "Once Upon a Time" is way too adult for the actual Disney channel.


----------



## mattack (Apr 9, 2001)

lew said:


> Being the "best" show in your time period isn't enough. Viewers have the option of using their DVR to view a "better" show which was aired earlier that night or earlier in the week. Countless cable alternatives.


I realize I'm probably the only one who does this, but many times, I have actually stopped watching a MORE popular show -- even a show I *liked* better -- due to conflicts, knowing that the more popular show would eventually go to DVD or netflix. (I admit, I haven't really caught up on the CSIs like I thought I might, but I *have* watched some years old Grey's Anatomy, etc., DVDs sporadically.) Things like reality shows are rerun far less often, so I'll 'keep up' on those more often.


----------



## mattack (Apr 9, 2001)

inaka said:


> KRON now seems to be the Gary Radnich & Fraiser "network"


Very soon after they lost NBC affiliation (due to playing chicken with NBC and losing), they were a MyNetworkTV affiliate.. I think that's the right name.. Maybe they still are. But they used to run a pretty good concert series (the kind of thing PBS only shows during pledge breaks). Now, I think KRON is still in my favorite channels, but I have no idea why!


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

mattack said:


> I did think of ABC/Disney after posting, but it seems to me that even something like "Once Upon a Time" is way too adult for the actual Disney channel.


ABC Family would be a great place for them to re-air Once Upon A Time.


----------



## aadam101 (Jul 15, 2002)

DevdogAZ said:


> ABC Family would be a great place for them to re-air Once Upon A Time.


They did this with Alias. It didn't work.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

aadam101 said:


> They did this with Alias. It didn't work.


I was simply pointing out that ABC has a cable channel that would be perfect for repurposing that show. But if you're following this discussion, you know I'm the one saying that it won't work to have broadcast nets repot pose their shows in cable.


----------



## marksman (Mar 4, 2002)

DevdogAZ said:


> Although CBS has shown that selling a current show into syndication can boost the ratings for the first-run episodes. The Big Bang Theory has had its biggest ratings ever over the past few episodes, largely because the show was recently sold into syndication and has found a new crop of fans. The reruns of NCIS on USA are widely credited for helping it maintain its huge ratings on CBS. So I disagree. If NBC has anything close to syndication, and they believe they could continue airing first-run episodes after syndication starts, they should definitely try to make that happen.


I agree with all that but those examples are of shows that were moderately okay that grew into hits. As much as I love community, for example, pushing it far enough to hit syndication is not really going to help, especially any time soon. I am a big believer in cable runs for shows and am not sure why they feel the need to get to striped syndication levels of ~88 episodes. I think NBC needs to be using their properties to repeat their shows prior to syndication. Problem is that this will hurt those shows when going up for cable and regular syndication.

Thinking over nbcs current schedule I don't know how much any of that would help their current shows. Svu is old, parenthood and Harry's law are quirky. Potentially smash. Unfortunately nbcs comic and drama lineups are mostly narrowly focused shows.


----------



## marksman (Mar 4, 2002)

mattack said:


> What networks are CBS and ABC and Fox affiliated with, that could reasonably show entertainment programming? Yes, I think even ESPN has shown a few scripted shows, but that's very rare.
> 
> I know, MTV doesn't show music anymore.. but I still really think NBC is the only one that has other networks that could frequently "repurpose" (cough) shows as a rerun-within-a-week-or-two scheme to add viewers.


Well fox has fx and there maybe another one but they got rid of the reality show channel but they do have a lot of others between news, movies and sports
NBC does have a lot of channels that is why they should leverage it. CBS only has show time that I can think of. And show time runs 150 hours of big brother after dark every summer. So even with the least usable cable properties CBS does the most

I know before the fall season started abc family had a happy endings marathon. I want to see more stuff like this. It may not always be a home run. With all of the NBC channels though they should be doing the most in these areas.

Shouldn't they run a Grimm marathon on syfy before the second season starts on NBC? Seems like a no brainer. What about a half season marathon of Smash on Bravo?


----------



## marksman (Mar 4, 2002)

Steveknj said:


> CBS is affiliated with the Viacom family of networks which include the MTV/VH1 brand and the Nick/TVLand brand. TVLand could definitely be an outlet for repurposing.
> 
> Fox has FX (not sure about any others that would work...obviously they have Fox News,etc.) FX has been used for repurposing before if I recall. they also have FMC (Fox Movie Channel) which also could be used for repurposing, a la AMC
> 
> ...


I thought CBS and Viacom split apart at some point? Perhaps I was mistaken in that belief?

I know, for example, show time is listed as a CBS company now. I


----------



## marksman (Mar 4, 2002)

DevdogAZ said:


> Exactly. And when CBS had all those cable partners under the Viacom umbrella, and CBS wasn't the dominant ratings leader at the time, they still didn't use their cable networks to re-air their broadcast shows.
> 
> Basically, by using the cable channels to re-air broadcast shows, you're decreasing the value (to viewers) of watching the show live on the broadcast network. If there's a scheduling conflict between a CBS/FOX/ABC show that's only going to air once, and an NBC show that's going to air multiple times during the week on other cable nets, which broadcast show is going to get watched? And as viewers become used to watching the NBC shows later in the week on cable nets, they further lose their connection to NBC and its other shows.


The problem is there are many cable shows that kick the crap out of NBC shows that not only air multiple times a week but multiple times on their scheduled night. No networks have done this so I think saying they don't do it because it wouldn't work is misguided. I could find a significant list of cable shows that do it and outdraw or equal NBC ratings. Some of these shows outdraw NBC shows in their second and third airings.

The point is getting people into the show so they become first air viewers. I don't care if a show airs ten times a week if it is one of my favorites I am wanting to watch it as soon as possible.

I will retract never do it as NBC airs the celebrity apprentice on cnbc every Friday night.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

mattack said:


> I did think of ABC/Disney after posting, but it seems to me that even something like "Once Upon a Time" is way too adult for the actual Disney channel.


My thought would be ABC Family for repurposing. It could be renamed so that non-family type shows could be shown (not sure exactly how successful ABC Family is anyway, I haven't watched it since they cancelled The Middleman). Alternatively, they could rename one of the many Disney channels to something else (or just do a Nick at Nite type thing).

But as has been posted here, I don't think repurposing is a good thing for a network to do anyway from THEIR vantage point.


----------



## LoadStar (Jul 24, 2001)

marksman said:


> I thought CBS and Viacom split apart at some point? Perhaps I was mistaken in that belief?
> 
> I know, for example, show time is listed as a CBS company now. I


Smeek.


----------



## LoadStar (Jul 24, 2001)

Steveknj said:


> My thought would be ABC Family for repurposing. It could be renamed so that non-family type shows could be shown (not sure exactly how successful ABC Family is anyway, I haven't watched it since they cancelled The Middleman). Alternatively, they could rename one of the many Disney channels to something else (or just do a Nick at Nite type thing).


The "family" in the name is purely legacy, simply there for contractual reasons. (When Pat Robertson sold "The Family Channel" to FOX, they included a contractual provision that said that "family" must remain in the channel name, forever, no matter how many companies the channel passes through. That contract apparently remains in effect under Disney.)

ABC Family definitely show more than family television at this point, and ABC spins the name with the tagline "A new kind of family."

ABC Family is reasonably successful at targeting a young (teenage-ish) female demographic audience.


----------



## busyba (Feb 5, 2003)

LoadStar said:


> The "family" in the name is purely legacy, simply there for contractual reasons. (When Pat Robertson sold "The Family Channel" to FOX, they included a contractual provision that said that "family" must remain in the channel name, forever, no matter how many companies the channel passes through. That contract apparently remains in effect under Disney.)


If I become a billionaire, I'll buy the channel and rename it "The Manson Family Channel" or something like that, just to spite that jerk.


----------



## aadam101 (Jul 15, 2002)

They landed Dane Cook. I certainly can't hurt.

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/live-feed/dane-cook-nbc-comedy-pilot-next-caller-please-296076


----------



## mattack (Apr 9, 2001)

marksman said:


> Shouldn't they run a Grimm marathon on syfy before the second season starts on NBC?


That seems AWFULLY presumptuous. Isn't Grimm getting horrific ratings?


----------



## aadam101 (Jul 15, 2002)

mattack said:


> That seems AWFULLY presumptuous. Isn't Grimm getting horrific ratings?


I thought it was doing OK for a Friday night show. I watched the first couple episodes but wasn't convinced it wouldn't get canceled so I figured I would wait until they had a full season.


----------



## marksman (Mar 4, 2002)

mattack said:


> That seems AWFULLY presumptuous. Isn't Grimm getting horrific ratings?


No. Grimm is almost certain to be renewed.


----------



## Jesda (Feb 12, 2005)

getbak said:


> Community 24/7


:up:

I dont know how ABC and CBS are making laugh track comedies so successful. I despise them, but I suppose it would be to NBC's advantage to adopt some.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

Jesda said:


> :up:
> 
> I dont know how ABC and CBS are making laugh track comedies so successful. I despise them, but I suppose it would be to NBC's advantage to adopt some.


NBC added a couple laugh track comedies (Whitney, Chelsea) this season and they've done horribly in the ratings. Neither is likely to be renewed.


----------



## Jesda (Feb 12, 2005)

DevdogAZ said:


> NBC added a couple laugh track comedies (Whitney, Chelsea) this season and they've done horribly in the ratings. Neither is likely to be renewed.


I can honestly say that I havent seen either one, not even once. I guess no one else did either!


----------



## BrettStah (Nov 12, 2000)

Jesda said:


> I can honestly say that I havent seen either one, not even once. I guess no one else did either!


I watched the first 4 minutes of Whitney... it was horrible.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

I like Whitney, but if it's gone, I won't really miss it. Chelsea was absolutely horrible.

Really, I don't think laugh track vs. non-laugh track matters one way or the other. Modern Family it doing well without one. TBBT is doing well with one.

To me NBC's biggest problem is just getting people to even tune in to their shows at this point. I will curious to see how Awake does tonight. The NYT review for it was good, but I bet they just won't get the eyeballs.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

Steveknj said:


> I like Whitney, but if it's gone, I won't really miss it. Chelsea was absolutely horrible.
> 
> Really, I don't think laugh track vs. non-laugh track matters one way or the other. Modern Family it doing well without one. TBBT is doing well with one.
> 
> To me NBC's biggest problem is just getting people to even tune in to their shows at this point. I will curious to see how Awake does tonight. The NYT review for it was good, but I bet they just won't get the eyeballs.


Everything I've heard about Awake is very positive, but 10 pm is a tough timeslot for any of the broadcast networks these days, and it's even tougher for NBC because they can't provide eyeballs to the promos, and can't provide good lead-ins for their 10 pm shows. Even their established 10 pm shows like SVU and Parenthood are getting horrible ratings.

I'd really like to see Awake do well because I think the concept sounds very intriguing and would be something fresh for network TV. But I don't have high hopes.


----------



## aadam101 (Jul 15, 2002)

DevdogAZ said:


> Everything I've heard about Awake is very positive, but 10 pm is a tough timeslot for any of the broadcast networks these days, and it's even tougher for NBC because they can't provide eyeballs to the promos, and can't provide good lead-ins for their 10 pm shows. Even their established 10 pm shows like SVU and Parenthood are getting horrible ratings.
> 
> I'd really like to see Awake do well because I think the concept sounds very intriguing and would be something fresh for network TV. But I don't have high hopes.


I enjoyed Awake but I am disappointed that it's a cop show.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

It reminds me of the Christian Slater show on NBC a few years back, My Own Worst Enemy, which I liked, but there, he was a spy.

Yeah, I know it's a Cop show, and I'm usually not a fan, but the concept is different, so I'll try it.


----------



## marksman (Mar 4, 2002)

DevdogAZ said:


> NBC added a couple laugh track comedies (Whitney, Chelsea) this season and they've done horribly in the ratings. Neither is likely to be renewed.


I think given the horrible ratings on NBC Whitney has a shot of being renewed. Chelsea is dead. NBC pulled it from on demand, Hulu and NBC.com


----------



## Church AV Guy (Jan 19, 2005)

mattack said:


> That seems AWFULLY presumptuous. Isn't Grimm getting horrific ratings?


Ratings being what they are, TV by the Numbers rates GRIMM as certain to be renewed in their Feb 28 renewal/cancel index here.


----------



## aadam101 (Jul 15, 2002)

Church AV Guy said:


> Ratings being what they are, TV by the Numbers rates GRIMM as certain to be renewed in their Feb 28 renewal/cancel index here.


Your link doesn't work.

One site called Grimm the NCIS of NBC. NBC has so little going for it right now, that they don't have much choice but to keep it. It's unlikely they have anything in the works that can do that well on a Friday night.


----------



## JYoung (Jan 16, 2002)

aadam101 said:


> Your link doesn't work.
> 
> One site called Grimm the NCIS of NBC. NBC has so little going for it right now, that they don't have much choice but to keep it. It's unlikely they have anything in the works that can do that well on a Friday night.


This is the correct link.
http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/20...to-be-canceled-but-so-far-not-whitney/122066/

I suspect that Whitney is next in line to be cancelled after Chelsea though.
If the ratings drop a little more, I don't think NBC will have any choice but to cancel it.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

JYoung said:


> I suspect that Whitney is next in line to be cancelled after Chelsea though.
> If the ratings drop a little more, I don't think NBC will have any choice but to cancel it.


I have no doubt that those two will be canceled. The real question will be what's next on the list. Will Community (3 seasons, potential for syndication) get saved over Up All Night (launched by the current execs, produced by Lorne Michaels) or will both of them get the axe?


----------



## Church AV Guy (Jan 19, 2005)

aadam101 said:


> Your link doesn't work.
> 
> One site called Grimm the NCIS of NBC. NBC has so little going for it right now, that they don't have much choice but to keep it. It's unlikely they have anything in the works that can do that well on a Friday night.





JYoung said:


> This is the correct link.
> http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/20...to-be-canceled-but-so-far-not-whitney/122066/
> 
> I suspect that Whitney is next in line to be cancelled after Chelsea though.
> If the ratings drop a little more, I don't think NBC will have any choice but to cancel it.


I'm not exactly sure what I did, but you are correct, I entered the link incorrectly. I have fixed it, but JYoung had it right anyway.

NBC needs to do some serious rebuilding of their schedule. Overall, they have been doing poorly all year. The only thing that keeps most of their shows on the schedule is the cost of developing acceptable replacements.


----------



## aadam101 (Jul 15, 2002)

Church AV Guy said:


> I'm not exactly sure what I did, but you are correct, I entered the link incorrectly. I have fixed it, but JYoung had it right anyway.
> 
> NBC needs to do some serious rebuilding of their schedule. Overall, they have been doing poorly all year. The only thing that keeps most of their shows on the schedule is the cost of developing acceptable replacements.


I agree. They have been doing poorly for several years. They thought Heroes was going to save them but that really only had one good season. They haven't really had a critical or ratings hit since then.

I still enjoy the Thursday night lineup and it is still Must See TV for me. (except Community)


----------



## marksman (Mar 4, 2002)

DevdogAZ said:


> I have no doubt that those two will be canceled. The real question will be what's next on the list. Will Community (3 seasons, potential for syndication) get saved over Up All Night (launched by the current execs, produced by Lorne Michaels) or will both of them get the axe?


My thing is they can't cancel them all and Whitney gets better ratings than 30 Rock and the same as up all night. With community in the mix I don't know if NBC will cancel 5 or more of their current comedies. That is why I think it has a chance. Also it is possible Whitney gets a little edge because of the success of her other show on CBS.

If you count in free agents I think NBC had 7 comedies on this year. Office seems sure renewal and free agents is gone. Community and 30 Rock have syndication reasons to stay but I still think the remaining 5 are up in the air. I think NBC will renew 3 or 4 of their sitcoms. 5 seems unlikely. If Chelsea is for sure gone then you have 4 shows competing for 2 or 3 renewals

I look at the weekly index and they have up all night solidly up there. My vague recollection though has me thinking Whitney and uan did pretty much the same as each other on Tuesday and Thursday when they switched.

Under the point of this thread I think NBC should pick up the office , parks and rec and up all night. Although I would debate Whitney for the last spot too. My personal preference would be to keep community and 30 Rock and parks and rec. I could handle the office ending

One of the things with canceling too many shows is you risk greater fall off next year. Nbcs risk is lower but still there. I think if outsourced had come back this year it would have outperformed Whitney and uan following the office.


----------



## marksman (Mar 4, 2002)

What is interesting to me is smash and awake could find their way onto the fall schedule. Too early to tell on awake and the 2.0 debut is not great but if they can stay at a 1.7+ it will be back.

As for smash back to back 2.3 show signs of settling in and would make it one of nbcs highest rated dramas. I think the drama side for NBC is weaker than comedy even. The concern with a serialized show like smash is the networks is losing audience.

If managed right NBC could potentially have a 2.6-2.7 premiere for launch in the fall or even a 3+. Instead it will probably be a 1.9.

On the drama side NBC already canceled three shows while a fourth, Chuck ended. Add to that Harry's Law for sure being canceled and the drama side is a mess. Parenthood will be back due to slightly better ratings and horrible NBC ratings and Grimm is coming back because of it doing good relative to Friday. Svu has taken a hit this year and is expensive at this point.

Looking at it now without the very marginal ok performance of awake and smash NBC dramas are a huge mess. It is possible awake falls off and if it does I see parenthood, Grimm and smash being the only guaranteed comebacks and only one of them is pulling above a two and not by much.

It will be really interesting to see because NBC could bring back anywhere from scorched earth 5 shows to a wishful thinking 10 shows.

Just for an apples to oranges comparison, pawn stars on history channel gets a 1.9-2.1 rating usually. NBC has only two shows that beat that regularly and one of them has only been on the air for a month.

If it were my call for NBC I would probably risk it by only renewing as few shows as possible. Of course I don't have first hand knowledge of their development slate and how it is progressing.

I would renew The Office, Parks and Rec, Parenthood, Grimm and Smash and pray a lot. That would me be canceling a lot of shows I watch, six to be precise, but desperate times.

Looking at it I think I watch every current scripted show on NBC except for Grimm.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

marksman said:


> My thing is they can't cancel them all and Whitney gets better ratings than 30 Rock and the same as up all night. With community in the mix I don't know if NBC will cancel 5 or more of their current comedies. That is why I think it has a chance. Also it is possible Whitney gets a little edge because of the success of her other show on CBS.
> 
> If you count in free agents I think NBC had 7 comedies on this year. Office seems sure renewal and free agents is gone. Community and 30 Rock have syndication reasons to stay but I still think the remaining 5 are up in the air. I think NBC will renew 3 or 4 of their sitcoms. 5 seems unlikely. If Chelsea is for sure gone then you have 4 shows competing for 2 or 3 renewals
> 
> ...


I don't think you can compare Whitney and 30 Rock. One is brand new and struggling, and one is already in syndication and struggling. If it's a choice between those two, you keep the one that's already in syndication. The chances of Whitney making it to syndication, or even past S2 are very slim.

Up All Night is a interesting case. It has the best timeslot for a comedy on NBC, yet still doesn't do very well. But it's produced by Lorne Michaels and NBC likes to keep him happy.

If I'm ranking the NBC comedies in order of most likely to be saved to most likely to be canceled, I'd put them like this:

1. The Office
2. Parks & Recreation
3. 30 Rock
4. Up All Night
5. Community
6. Whitney
7. Are You There, Chelsea?

I wouldn't be at all surprised if NBC canceled up to 4 of their current comedies.


----------



## aadam101 (Jul 15, 2002)

They have a LOT of big names attached their upcoming pilots:

Matthew Perry
Phylicia Rashad
Julia Stiles
Giancarlo Esposito (From Breaking Bad....not really a big name but I will certainly check it)
Sarah Silverman
Marcia Gay Harden
Anne Heche
Roseanne Barr
John Goodman
Mena Suvari
Ryan Murphy
Allison Janney
Tony Shaloub
Dane Cook
Brenda Strong
Bill Pullman
Francis Conroy
Amy Smart
Jamie Lynn Sigler
Minnie Driver

I am sure I am missing some but that is a pretty impressive list of celebrities. I have to wonder if all of these people are hoping to be on the show(s) that turns NBC around.


----------



## mattack (Apr 9, 2001)

I think 30 Rock is hilarious.. Doesn't it get a great demo? (Rich not-incredibly-old people?)


----------



## aadam101 (Jul 15, 2002)

mattack said:


> I think 30 Rock is hilarious.. Doesn't it get a great demo? (Rich not-incredibly-old people?)


I am re-watching it now on Netflix. I forgot how funny it is. Lot's of dated jokes though (Michael Vick, Conan/Leno fiasco, etc.), I can understand why it isn't doing as well in syndication.


----------



## WhiskeyTango (Sep 20, 2006)

mattack said:


> I think 30 Rock is hilarious.. Doesn't it get a great demo? (Rich not-incredibly-old people?)


I don't know about the 'rich' part but the 'not-incredibly-old' would be the 18-49 demo with a 1.4 rating. The new episode of 30 Rock got crushed by a repeat of BBT (3.2) and barely beat out a repeat of Wipeout (1.3).


----------



## aadam101 (Jul 15, 2002)

How do syndication deals work? The show was sold for $800,000 an episode.

Do the buyers also agree to purchase any future episodes that are made or are they only on the hook for the specific episodes they purchased (presumably X number of seasons)?


----------



## highwire (Jan 14, 2001)

How I would fix NBC...

Consistent schedules, with no arbitrary breaks for reruns. Now that we are living in the future with DVRs and such, nobody will ever miss a show if it's aired on Thanksgiving Thursday and are 1000 miles from home. No more wondering: "I wonder if my favorite show is on this week or another rerun from 2010?" Just like Fox did with '24' in the last two seasons.

Absolutely no shows with singing or about the Kardashians, Donald Trump, etc.

No annoying "lower third" ads that take up 1/4 of the screen during the shows. Those preview ads can be done during commercial breaks like they did back in the olden days of pre-2007.

No more "New <blah blah> Thursday at 10ET/9CT" plastered all over the corner logos. We now all have an EPG, and are smart enough to know when stuff that interests us is on. Corner logos would be much dimmer and transparent.

Programming would be stuff I like, because I have good taste.


----------



## WhiskeyTango (Sep 20, 2006)

highwire said:


> How I would fix NBC...
> 
> Consistent schedules, with no arbitrary breaks for reruns. Now that we are living in the future with DVRs and such, nobody will ever miss a show if it's aired on Thanksgiving Thursday and are 1000 miles from home. No more wondering: "I wonder if my favorite show is on this week or another rerun from 2010?" Just like Fox did with '24' in the last two seasons.


You need to understand how the industry works. They have to fill 39 weeks of programming with 22-24 original episodes. Running like '24' did means they have to either order additional episodes or a new series to fill that time. Both of which cost a lot of money. Airing reruns allows them to sell ad time for shows that have already been paid for...profit.

DVR viewing, etc. does nothing for ratings and the corresponding ad rates. They need to measure live viewership. If people aren't going to be around to watch THAT night, it makes no sense to air a new episode.



highwire said:


> Absolutely no shows with singing or about the Kardashians, Donald Trump, etc.


The Voice is their highest rated show (outside football) and one of the highest rated shows on TV



highwire said:


> No annoying "lower third" ads that take up 1/4 of the screen during the shows. Those preview ads can be done during commercial breaks like they did back in the olden days of pre-2007.


I agree but I don't think that has much of a negative impact on viewership.



highwire said:


> No more "New <blah blah> Thursday at 10ET/9CT" plastered all over the corner logos. We now all have an EPG, and are smart enough to know when stuff that interests us is on. Corner logos would be much dimmer and transparent.


I think you overestimate the intelligence of the general public. The majority of people don't spend much, if any, time scanning through the guide on a weekly basis to see what new programming is coming up. I get most of my TV info by visiting websites that follow TV programming like EW.com, TVGuide.com, TCF, etc. If not for that, it would be very tedious finding all new programs that might interest me, especially when large numbers of new shows are premiering in September/October and January/February.



highwire said:


> Programming would be stuff I like, because I have good taste.


I'm sure the NBC execs said the same thing and look how that worked out for them.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

aadam101 said:


> They have a LOT of big names attached their upcoming pilots:
> 
> Matthew Perry
> Phylicia Rashad
> ...


It's a nice list of celebrities, but out of that list, how many of them are actually going to bring in significant viewers just to see them? I see MAYBE 4 Barr, Cook, Silverman and MAYBE Shaloub. The rest are nice names, but certainly not big enough to have people watch JUST for them. I'd add Perry to the list, but, he's already had a couple of failed shows since Friends ended, so I think his star has probably faded enough by now for his name not to make a difference.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

WhiskeyTango said:


> You need to understand how the industry works. They have to fill 39 weeks of programming with 22-24 original episodes. Running like '24' did means they have to either order additional episodes or a new series to fill that time. Both of which cost a lot of money. Airing reruns allows them to sell ad time for shows that have already been paid for...profit.


I totally get this, but, if nobody is watching the original viewings, nobody is watching the reruns either, and thus ad rates plummet. I think until you can establish a hit show, the run them consecutively. I agree. And maybe, they just have to develop an extra cheap short series to supplement...some cheap reality show, then so be it.



> DVR viewing, etc. does nothing for ratings and the corresponding ad rates. They need to measure live viewership. If people aren't going to be around to watch THAT night, it makes no sense to air a new episode.


I know I've said this in numerous threads but the "live TV is the be all and end all" is a dying model, and maybe NBC, with nothing much left to lose is the network to figure out how to best cash in on modern TV viewing habits. What that is, is anyone's clue at this point. But with the DVR and online streaming going to become more and more common, they have to figure out a way to get advertising to work. Unfortunately for us, the only way I see this working is to disable FF.



> The Voice is their highest rated show (outside football) and one of the highest rated shows on TV


Yep, and why is that? Because most people want to watch it live. That's one reason why ALL of these reality shows do so well. Take one listen to the radio driving into work the next morning and that's what a lot of them are talking about. So if you want to keep up, you have to watch live (or close to it).



> I agree but I don't think that has much of a negative impact on viewership.


True, but annoying. They've gotten out of hand....I saw one the other day that blocked half the screen from the bottom up.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

Steveknj said:


> It's a nice list of celebrities, but out of that list, how many of them are actually going to bring in significant viewers just to see them? I see MAYBE 4 Barr, Cook, Silverman and MAYBE Shaloub. The rest are nice names, but certainly not big enough to have people watch JUST for them. I'd add Perry to the list, but, he's already had a couple of failed shows since Friends ended, so I think his star has probably faded enough by now for his name not to make a difference.


I find the four you chose as locks to bring in viewers very interesting. I think more people would actually be repelled by Roseanne Barr than would be interested to watch her. Sarah Silverman has a cult following, but I doubt she'd bring mainstream viewers. And while Tony Shaloub was good on Monk, it was a niche cable show. I doubt he'd be a big draw for many people, either. Frankly, I don't see any names on that list that would guarantee large ratings.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

Steveknj said:


> I know I've said this in numerous threads but the "live TV is the be all and end all" is a dying model, and maybe NBC, with nothing much left to lose is the network to figure out how to best cash in on modern TV viewing habits. What that is, is anyone's clue at this point. But with the DVR and online streaming going to become more and more common, they have to figure out a way to get advertising to work. Unfortunately for us, the only way I see this working is to disable FF.


Interesting article in the NY Times over the weekend about the impact of DVR viewership on ratings:

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/05/b...prompt-a-shift-in-the-top-rated-tv-shows.html


----------



## DreadPirateRob (Nov 12, 2002)

I think I probably watch (and love) more shows on NBC than on any other network (although with Chuck ending, maybe not). Hmmm... let me see. Yep, still true. I watch more shows and more hours per week on NBC than any other network, and it's not really close.

NBC (9 shows/6.5 hours per week) - Community, Parks & Rec, The Office, 30 Rock, Up All Night (may drop this one - I'm about 10 eps behind), Parenthood, Awake, Smash (haven't watched any yet, but my wife and I are saving them), Grimm (may also drop this, I'm about 6 eps behind). Even if I remove the ones I'm considering dropping, that leaves me at 7 shows, 5 hrs/week.

CBS (3 shows, 2 hrs/week) - Big Bang Theory, Survivor, HIMYM

ABC (6 shows, 3.5 hrs/week) - Modern Family, Suburgatory, Happy Endings, Once Upon a Time, Grey's Anatomy, The River 

Fox (4 shows, 3 hrs/week) - New Girl, Glee, Fringe, Raising Hope

CW (2 shows, 2 hr/week) - Supernatural, Ringer (but may drop, I'm about 8 shows behind)

Based on my viewing habits and likes/dislikes, NBC puts out more quality programming than anyone.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

DevdogAZ said:


> I find the four you chose as locks to bring in viewers very interesting. I think more people would actually be repelled by Roseanne Barr than would be interested to watch her. Sarah Silverman has a cult following, but I doubt she'd bring mainstream viewers. And while Tony Shaloub was good on Monk, it was a niche cable show. I doubt he'd be a big draw for many people, either. Frankly, I don't see any names on that list that would guarantee large ratings.


I didn't say locks, I said MAYBE those four. And I'm not really a fan of any of them so it wouldn't hook me into watching their shows. To me, there are very few BIG stars that would bring in TV viewers who would be willing to do TV on a regular basis. There are a few I suppose. Charlie Sheen before he got the boot, Alec Baldwin, Tom Selleck (if you call him a movie star). Anyone I'm missing?


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

DreadPirateRob said:


> I think I probably watch (and love) more shows on NBC than on any other network (although with Chuck ending, maybe not). Hmmm... let me see. Yep, still true. I watch more shows and more hours per week on NBC than any other network, and it's not really close.
> 
> NBC (9 shows/6.5 hours per week) - Community, Parks & Rec, The Office, 30 Rock, Up All Night (may drop this one - I'm about 10 eps behind), Parenthood, Awake, Smash (haven't watched any yet, but my wife and I are saving them), Grimm (may also drop this, I'm about 6 eps behind). Even if I remove the ones I'm considering dropping, that leaves me at 7 shows, 5 hrs/week.
> 
> ...


I'm about the same I guess. To me, NBC has put out a lot of interesting shows and I watch them...Which explains why they are failing, since I mostly don't watch the most popular stuff.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

DevdogAZ said:


> Interesting article in the NY Times over the weekend about the impact of DVR viewership on ratings:
> 
> http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/05/b...prompt-a-shift-in-the-top-rated-tv-shows.html


Very interesting indeed. It really shows how much I don't "believe" the ratings all that much anymore. I noticed that some shows which we don't consider hits based on ratings are getting a big bump on DVRs, like Up All Night and Alcatraz. So if they can come up with the right model, these "failures" can become highly popular.

And on a positive note, glad to see that reality is starting to decline


----------



## lew (Mar 12, 2002)

I was going to say product placements but some of the "product placements" are really mini-commercials embedded within the show itself. An example would be the Subway "placement" in Hawaii 5-0 and Chuck. Another example would be the Hilton also in 5-0.

Disabling FF is always a possibility.



Steveknj said:


> I know I've said this in numerous threads but the "live TV is the be all and end all" is a dying model, and maybe NBC, with nothing much left to lose is the network to figure out how to best cash in on modern TV viewing habits. What that is, is anyone's clue at this point. But with the DVR and online streaming going to become more and more common, they have to figure out a way to get advertising to work. Unfortunately for us, the only way I see this working is to disable FF.
> 
> .


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

lew said:


> I was going to say product placements but some of the "product placements" are really mini-commercials embedded within the show itself. An example would be the Subway "placement" in Hawaii 5-0 and Chuck. Another example would be the Hilton also in 5-0.
> 
> Disabling FF is always a possibility.


Product placement is becoming bigger than ever, but, and I am sure someone here knows the answer to this, who makes that money from product placement? The studio? The network? Are the ad rates for product placement on par with a 30 second spot?


----------



## unitron (Apr 28, 2006)

highwire said:


> How I would fix NBC...
> 
> Absolutely no shows...about the Kardashians, Donald Trump, etc.
> 
> ...


You're being redundant.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

Steveknj said:


> Product placement is becoming bigger than ever, but, and I am sure someone here knows the answer to this, who makes that money from product placement? The studio? The network? Are the ad rates for product placement on par with a 30 second spot?


I don't know how this works or who gets the money, but this is how I suspect it would work:

The production studio negotiates the deals with the advertisers and the deals say that the advertisers will pay a certain amount to the production studio based on the ratings of the episode with the product placement. This way, the advertiser only pays if/when the placement airs.

The network, knowing the production studio is getting advertising dollars for embedded ads in the content, negotiate a reduction in the episode's licensing fee depending on the nature of the product placement.

This way, it can be structured as a win/win for everyone. The production studio gets a little more than they would otherwise get per episode, because they're getting a slightly reduced licensing fee but they're making up for it with the advertiser money. The network pays a little less for the episode.


----------



## aadam101 (Jul 15, 2002)

One of the better product placement scenes of 30 Rock. I think they also did a Snapple one that was pretty funny.






I can't figure out how to embed a Youtube video. Sorry


----------



## mattack (Apr 9, 2001)

aadam101 said:


> How do syndication deals work? The show was sold for $800,000 an episode.
> 
> Do the buyers also agree to purchase any future episodes that are made or are they only on the hook for the specific episodes they purchased (presumably X number of seasons)?


I don't know exactly how they work, but they do buy rights to specific episodes.

I don't remember the exact scenario, but there was a while there (may still be happening) when one cable channel (I think A&E) was showing only the early seasons of Law & Order, and some other cable channel was showing later seasons. Yeah that's vague, and I only remember it because I read about it (I essentially don't watch reruns, except catching ONE specific episode of a show once in a while if it's unlikely to ever go to DVD).


----------



## marksman (Mar 4, 2002)

Steveknj said:


> I totally get this, but, if nobody is watching the original viewings, nobody is watching the reruns either, and thus ad rates plummet. I think until you can establish a hit show, the run them consecutively. I agree. And maybe, they just have to develop an extra cheap short series to supplement...some cheap reality show, then so be it.
> 
> I know I've said this in numerous threads but the "live TV is the be all and end all" is a dying model, and maybe NBC, with nothing much left to lose is the network to figure out how to best cash in on modern TV viewing habits. What that is, is anyone's clue at this point. But with the DVR and online streaming going to become more and more common, they have to figure out a way to get advertising to work. Unfortunately for us, the only way I see this working is to disable FF.
> 
> ...


Yeah the way shows are rerunning on NBC right now they are of very little value. Penny pinching is what killed NBC and to fix it we must do away with. Almost all network shows rerun horribly. Shows like big bang and NCIS do well but most show reruns do horribly now. The networks need to acknowledge this and adjust, every time they run a rerun that pulls in .6 they open the door for cable to grab more market share.


----------



## Gunnyman (Jul 10, 2003)

1) Spin off the Microwave oven division.
2) Hire Aaron Sorkin and Joss Whedon to be heads of programming and development.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

Gunnyman said:


> 2) Hire Aaron Sorkin and Joss Whedon to be heads of programming and development.


With those two, you'll be guaranteed critically acclaimed shows that nobody will watch....oh wait, that's no different than now


----------



## aadam101 (Jul 15, 2002)

Interesting article about how networks are choosing to air shorter seasons.

http://www.seattlepi.com/ae/tv/tvgu...lore-More-Cable-Sized-Short-Order-3394185.php


----------



## WhiskeyTango (Sep 20, 2006)

NBC's woes continue. Awake dropped 20% in the ratings to a 1.6.


----------



## Church AV Guy (Jan 19, 2005)

WhiskeyTango said:


> NBC's woes continue. Awake dropped 20% in the ratings to a 1.6.


Ouch! I just don't get it.


----------



## aadam101 (Jul 15, 2002)

WhiskeyTango said:


> NBC's woes continue. Awake dropped 20% in the ratings to a 1.6.


That's disappointing. It's actually a decent show.


----------



## LoadStar (Jul 24, 2001)

I guess the question is: how do you get people to watch programs on your network when even when you show good programming, people stay away in droves?


----------



## busyba (Feb 5, 2003)

LoadStar said:


> I guess the question is: how do you get people to watch programs on your network when even when you show good programming, people stay away in droves?


Show really really bad programming. That seems to get tons of viewers.


----------



## Jesda (Feb 12, 2005)

I would run fake promos promising to bring back Seinfeld at a specific date and time, then air reruns of Whitney in its place.

/TrollfaceZuckerberg


----------



## LoadStar (Jul 24, 2001)

Jesda said:


> I would run fake promos promising to bring back Seinfeld at a specific date and time, then air reruns of Whitney in its place.
> 
> /TrollfaceZuckerberg


Heh - I was actually thinking something serious along these lines... load up the early fall schedule with all sorts of nostalgia specials, like "West Wing" or "ER" TV movies, or just reunion specials with "Friends" or "Seinfeld" or such. Show them with no other commercials but extended trailers for your other programs.


----------



## WhiskeyTango (Sep 20, 2006)

LoadStar said:


> I guess the question is: how do you get people to watch programs on your network when even when you show good programming, people stay away in droves?


I've always dismissed those that have said the Thursday at 10pm slot is a "death slot" for NBC. I'm beginning to wonder if those people are right. Three shows have failed to gain viewers at that time this season alone for NBC, Prime Suspect, The Firm, and now Awake. Is it the programming? The time slot? Trying to air a serious drama after 2 hours of comedy? At this point, I don't know and it seems that neither do the execs at NBC.


----------



## aadam101 (Jul 15, 2002)

WhiskeyTango said:


> I've always dismissed those that have said the Thursday at 10pm slot is a "death slot" for NBC. I'm beginning to wonder if those people are right. Three shows have failed to gain viewers at that time this season alone for NBC, Prime Suspect, The Firm, and now Awake. Is it the programming? The time slot? Trying to air a serious drama after 2 hours of comedy? At this point, I don't know and it seems that neither do the execs at NBC.


I think there is no such thing as a "good" time slot. (There is such thing as "bad" time slots) NBC expected that time slot to do well because they had a quality program do well in that slot for 14 years. Now that show is gone and they have yet to create a new show that comes close to the quality of ER. They can have all the free "good" time slots they want. If they don't have a decent show with a decent amount of promotion in that slot they are screwed.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

The problem is that the nature of the 10 pm slot across the board has changed since "ER" dominated that timeslot. It's the reason NBC tried the Jay Leno experiment, because ratings for all 10 pm shows have fallen off so much. Even the highest rated 10 pm dramas on any of the networks don't do much better than a 2.5-3.0 rating in the 18-49 demo. 

10 pm is no longer the time for viewing appointment TV programs. It's the time when people watch the stuff they've recorded earlier in the night, or it's the time they start looking for something edgier on cable, or they watch the news on their FOX affiliate, or they go to bed. 10 pm just isn't the timeslot for powerhouse dramas like it used to be.

I really hope NBC gives Awake a long leash because of that. The show is really good so far.


----------



## marksman (Mar 4, 2002)

The thing with awake also is they reran the first episode on syfy which is the kind of thing some of us have been saying they need to do. I just don't know how much publicity that got though. If nobody knew about it can not help much.

This is the difference between cable and networks. A cable channel could still turn a show like awake into a hit, a network it is just not likely to happen.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

marksman said:


> The thing with awake also is they reran the first episode on syfy which is the kind of thing some of us have been saying they need to do. I just don't know how much publicity that got though. If nobody knew about it can not help much.
> 
> This is the difference between cable and networks. A cable channel could still turn a show like awake into a hit, a network it is just not likely to happen.


They reran the pilot of Smash on their cable networks too. And I think that's fine for pilot. You want as many eyeballs as you can watching the pilot. Going forward, it's just not a good idea, ratings wise. Every eybeball lost their cable affiliates is an eyeball that could be generating higher ad rates on their broadcast network.

But here's the thing. if NBC continues to bring out good programming with a MASS appeal, then eventually, they will generate enough of a buzz that people will watch. They seem to have two decent ones Smash and Awake and it's possible that if they move them around and find the right spot, they might make it.


----------



## JYoung (Jan 16, 2002)

Steveknj said:


> They reran the pilot of Smash on their cable networks too. And I think that's fine for pilot. You want as many eyeballs as you can watching the pilot. Going forward, it's just not a good idea, ratings wise. Every eybeball lost their cable affiliates is an eyeball that could be generating higher ad rates on their broadcast network.
> 
> But here's the thing. if NBC continues to bring out good programming with a MASS appeal, then eventually, they will generate enough of a buzz that people will watch. They seem to have two decent ones Smash and Awake and it's possible that if they move them around and find the right spot, they might make it.


What NBC needs is a good "watercooler" show.
With shows like Seinfeld and Lost, not only did they have critical buzz and good ratings, but people would hang around the watercooler talking about these shows.

I'm postulating that since the Jay Leno debacle, people have fallen out of the habit of looking to NBC for a good show and as a result, don't see the advertising for other shows on the network.
If they get one good Watercooler show, maybe people will actually learn of the existence of these other shows.

I can't remember the last time NBC had one though. Was Seinfeld the last one for them?


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

JYoung said:


> What NBC needs is a good "watercooler" show.
> With shows like Seinfeld and Lost, not only did they have critical buzz and good ratings, but people would hang around the watercooler talking about these shows.
> 
> I'm postulating that since the Jay Leno debacle, people have fallen out of the habit of looking to NBC for a good show and as a result, don't see the advertising for other shows on the network.
> ...


I don't think that explains it. Sunday Night Football is on NBC and is the highest-rated regular program on any of the broadcast networks this season. With that platform, it didn't translate into success for any of NBC's new fall programs. The Voice is on NBC, and it is getting excellent ratings (#1 for the week ending March 4). That hasn't resulted in success for any of NBC's new spring programming. In fact, the show that has The Voice as its lead in (Smash) isn't even doing very well with what is a very strong, and what should be a very compatible lead in.

NBC has plenty of potential viewers for their promos, but for some reason, those promo viewers aren't translating into viewers. Perhaps the network model of promoting a new show during another successful show just doesn't work anymore. Maybe people choose to watch new shows less on the basis of promos and more on the basis of recommendations and reviews.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

JYoung said:


> What NBC needs is a good "watercooler" show.
> With shows like Seinfeld and Lost, not only did they have critical buzz and good ratings, but people would hang around the watercooler talking about these shows.
> 
> I'm postulating that since the Jay Leno debacle, people have fallen out of the habit of looking to NBC for a good show and as a result, don't see the advertising for other shows on the network.
> ...


They have tried. Shows like The Event and even Awake are the top of show that could be one. Heroes was one for one season.

The Voice could be that...or do people not discuss shows like Idol at the WC anymore?


----------



## aadam101 (Jul 15, 2002)

Steveknj said:


> or do people not discuss shows like Idol at the WC anymore?


I think it doesn't happen very often anymore. People don't watch on the same schedule. Many people catch up on the weekends. Just look at how scattered the threads have become here. Many episodes don't even get a thread until the next day (if it all) anymore.

On Facebook, it seems most of my friends are obsessed with The Walking Dead. Some idiot posted a spoiler for last weeks episode so now I need to avoid it until after I watch the episode.


----------



## WhiskeyTango (Sep 20, 2006)

aadam101 said:


> I think it doesn't happen very often anymore. People don't watch on the same schedule. Many people catch up on the weekends. Just look at how scattered the threads have become here. Many episodes don't even get a thread until the next day (if it all) anymore.


TCF is not really indicative of the general public. If it were, The Voice and Idol wouldn't be two of the highest rated shows on TV right now. Those ratings are, after all, based on live viewing.


----------



## marksman (Mar 4, 2002)

DevdogAZ said:


> I don't think that explains it. Sunday Night Football is on NBC and is the highest-rated regular program on any of the broadcast networks this season. With that platform, it didn't translate into success for any of NBC's new fall programs. The Voice is on NBC, and it is getting excellent ratings (#1 for the week ending March 4). That hasn't resulted in success for any of NBC's new spring programming. In fact, the show that has The Voice as its lead in (Smash) isn't even doing very well with what is a very strong, and what should be a very compatible lead in.
> 
> NBC has plenty of potential viewers for their promos, but for some reason, those promo viewers aren't translating into viewers. Perhaps the network model of promoting a new show during another successful show just doesn't work anymore. Maybe people choose to watch new shows less on the basis of promos and more on the basis of recommendations and reviews.


To be fair smash was the highest rated scripted show on NBC last week.


----------



## JYoung (Jan 16, 2002)

DevdogAZ said:


> I don't think that explains it. Sunday Night Football is on NBC and is the highest-rated regular program on any of the broadcast networks this season. With that platform, it didn't translate into success for any of NBC's new fall programs. The Voice is on NBC, and it is getting excellent ratings (#1 for the week ending March 4). That hasn't resulted in success for any of NBC's new spring programming. In fact, the show that has The Voice as its lead in (Smash) isn't even doing very well with what is a very strong, and what should be a very compatible lead in.
> 
> NBC has plenty of potential viewers for their promos, but for some reason, those promo viewers aren't translating into viewers. Perhaps the network model of promoting a new show during another successful show just doesn't work anymore. Maybe people choose to watch new shows less on the basis of promos and more on the basis of recommendations and reviews.


I probably should have specified "Scripted show".
I don't think that reality and sports really build network loyalty as well the perception is that they don't take much effort to do.

I don't hear much "watercooler" chatter about The Voice so I don't know that it is a watercooler show, at least not like Lost or Seinfeld.

BTW, wouldn't watercooler chatter count as a recommendation?
NBC has had several shows that reviewed well but get poor ratings so I don't think it's that either.



marksman said:


> To be fair smash was the highest rated scripted show on NBC last week.


That's not saying much though.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

JYoung said:


> I probably should have specified "Scripted show".
> I don't think that reality and sports really build network loyalty as well the perception is that they don't take much effort to do.
> 
> I don't hear much "watercooler" chatter about The Voice so I don't know that it is a watercooler show, at least not like Lost or Seinfeld.
> ...


Your post was talking about how they don't have the "watercooler" shows which does not allow them to promote their other shows during the "watercooler" shows. My point was that they get plenty of viewers during SNF and The Voice that exposure to their scripted shows should not be an issue. They just haven't been able to translate those sports/reality viewers into scripted viewers.

Maybe the Olympics this summer will help NBC promote their fall schedule enough to bring in the necessary viewers. However, given that NBC has had every Olympics for at least 20 years and they've still fallen off a cliff during that time, I don't have a lot of hope that they'll be able to use the Olympics as a springboard.


----------



## JYoung (Jan 16, 2002)

DevdogAZ said:


> Your post was talking about how they don't have the "watercooler" shows which does not allow them to promote their other shows during the "watercooler" shows. My point was that they get plenty of viewers during SNF and The Voice that exposure to their scripted shows should not be an issue. They just haven't been able to translate those sports/reality viewers into scripted viewers.
> 
> Maybe the Olympics this summer will help NBC promote their fall schedule enough to bring in the necessary viewers. However, given that NBC has had every Olympics for at least 20 years and they've still fallen off a cliff during that time, I don't have a lot of hope that they'll be able to use the Olympics as a springboard.


But to be honest, most of those promos this year made it look like the shows sucked.

Whitney, Chelsea, Up All Night, Free Agents, and the Firm, I thought all those promos looked awful.

The promos for Prime Suspect didn't look that good either. I gave the show a chance simply based on it's pedigree.
The same was true with Grimm (although I still find Russell Hornsby boring).

The only show promo that looked halfway interesting to me this year for NBC was Awake and I can see why it wouldn't appeal to some people.


----------



## Flop (Dec 2, 2005)

Some of the problem NBC has is their news, especially the MSNBC news division, are perceived to be very much liberally biased more than other major networks' news programs. I know some people who will not watch NBC TV shows because of this. I have no idea how many people there are who feel so strongly and how much impact that has on the ratings, but it can't help.

To bad about Awake though, I am enjoying it.


----------



## unitron (Apr 28, 2006)

Flop said:


> Some of the problem NBC has is their news, especially the MSNBC news division, are perceived to be very much liberally biased more than other major networks' news programs. I know some people who will not watch NBC TV shows because of this. I have no idea how many people there are who feel so strongly and how much impact that has on the ratings, but it can't help.
> 
> To bad about Awake though, I am enjoying it.


Most of the people who watch the shows on the broadcast affliates of NBC, CBS, ABC, Fox, CW, etc., probably don't even know there is an MSNBC.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

Flop said:


> Some of the problem NBC has is their news, especially the MSNBC news division, are perceived to be very much liberally biased more than other major networks' news programs. I know some people who will not watch NBC TV shows because of this. I have no idea how many people there are who feel so strongly and how much impact that has on the ratings, but it can't help.
> 
> To bad about Awake though, I am enjoying it.


I don't think there's enough people like that to where it would make a serious dent in their ratings. Do liberals not watch Fox because of the conservative bent of their news? Doubt it. Do those same people who won't watch NBC because of liberal bias of their news division, not watch SNF, one of the highest rated shows on TV? Or the Super Bowl? Or do they compromise their beliefs for a football game?

I'm sure there are a few extreme right wingers maybe who do this, just as I'm sure there are some left wingers won't watch anything on Fox for the same reason, but if it's .1 of the ratings, I'd be surprised.


----------



## marksman (Mar 4, 2002)

JYoung said:


> I probably should have specified "Scripted show".
> I don't think that reality and sports really build network loyalty as well the perception is that they don't take much effort to do.
> 
> I don't hear much "watercooler" chatter about The Voice so I don't know that it is a watercooler show, at least not like Lost or Seinfeld.
> ...


True but relative ratings on each network plays such a massive role in renewals I just wanted to note it.

Smash dropped from a 2.7 to 2.4 this week and I don't know if the office is new this week or not. If it is not new it will be highest scripted again.

Problem though is having a serialized show as your top rated show is not good. Networks show no ability to grow these shows.

Dev raised a good point in that while it makes sense to us to run these shows on the cable channels they would be competing against NBC. I still think they could air them at a time to not mess with prime time but who knows how the affiliates would act. I think bravo running smash at 11pm (for coastal losers!) over the summer might do them good. That being said most of the cable channels universal owns run new programming in the summer.

I just think the networks are going to have to give up on serial shows unless they can come up with a way to grow the audience. Look what walking dead did from s1 to s2.

They may have to stick with procedurals, sitcoms and light serials aka parenthood. I have not watched awake yet but that seems to have the same problem as smash but with bad ratings.

As for wc shows I agree that Dvrs have blown that up. Sopranos and lost, maybe 24 were some of the big ones. I think reality shows can still get the talk but I think most people don't have a circle of friends that watch all the same reality shows as them and people tend to not discuss them in front of people who don't watch.


----------



## lew (Mar 12, 2002)

Maybe the president of NBC needs to go on undercover boss and see the problems in his organization.


----------



## dianebrat (Jul 6, 2002)

LoadStar said:


> I guess the question is: how do you get people to watch programs on your network when even when you show good programming, people stay away in droves?


 I keep coming back to this also, when shows like Prime Suspect that started with a misfire but then really came back as very good get no love, how do you get by that? In the old days you would stick with them and let them grow a following, now they just pull it and give up.


----------



## Johnny Dancing (Sep 3, 2000)

I don't know what network the shows I watch are on. I read about upcoming shows, see what is getting buzz then I search for them on the DVR and set up a series pass or download if I am late to the party. I mostly watch sports and BD movies but mix in a few TV shows when I don't want to dedicate 2 hours to a movie and no sporting events are on. 

Current Stuff on that I watch each episode:

AI
Survivor
The Walking Dead
Revenge
Persons of Interest
Modern Family
Alcatraz
Fringe
Touch (saw pilot, queued)
American Horror Story (done for year)

The secret getting early quality buzz and followup with quality programming. My guess is most don't know or care what "Network" is being watched. It not like the days where I grew up with 3 networks that had the new shows and a 4 or 5 Muster/Stooges/Eight is Enough rerun channels.

Tap into what people want and ride the train.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

Johnny Dancing said:


> I don't know what network the shows I watch are on. I read about upcoming shows, see what is getting buzz then I search for them on the DVR and set up a series pass or download if I am late to the party. I mostly watch sports and BD movies but mix in a few TV shows when I don't want to dedicate 2 hours to a movie and no sporting events are on.
> 
> Current Stuff on that I watch each episode:
> 
> ...


Now you know.


----------



## unitron (Apr 28, 2006)

DevdogAZ said:


> Now you know.


I think the point wasn't so much don't know as don't care and it doesn't matter 'cause my DVR can find them.

Which is quite a change from only having 3 channels and having to know what was on which when because watching live was the only option.


----------



## unitron (Apr 28, 2006)

lew said:


> Maybe the president of NBC needs to go on undercover boss and see the problems in his organization.


Better yet, undercover with average viewers.

Although considering a lot of the shows on these days, better him than me.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

I've never cared what network a show is on and in fact watch stuff from all four of the major networks and even 2 on the CW. Plus shows on various cable networks as well. If the show interests me, what difference does it make what network they are on. And I watch quite a few NBC shows. To me, NBC and ABC shows are similar in nature. They tend to be smarter and more hip....yet...those two networks rank 3rd and 4th.

CBS is the top network because the shows they have on appeal more to the masses. They are more traditional to what TV viewers have been watching for 60 years. Fox is interesting though....outside of AI, they really don't have any HUGE successes. Simpsons, Family Guy, House, all have decent numbers, but they aren't ratings juggernauts, at least now. To me, if Fox didn't have AI, they'd be fighting with ABC and NBC in that tier.


----------



## allan (Oct 14, 2002)

LoadStar said:


> I guess the question is: how do you get people to watch programs on your network when even when you show good programming, people stay away in droves?


That's a good question. My problem is, knowing if a given show is worth watching.

I don't watch reality shows or sitcoms. Period! If I'm looking at a lineup, and it looks like everything is a reality sitcom, I'm not interested. If they later show something good, I probably won't know it because I'm no longer watching that network. And even if I later hear about it on TCF, I probably won't watch it because I've already missed half the season, and it's probably serialized and hard to drop into in the middle.

It's quite possible that NBC (or ABC or even CBS) has had good shows that I missed. But how does one advertize to someone that doesn't watch the network?


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

allan said:


> That's a good question. My problem is, knowing if a given show is worth watching.
> 
> I don't watch reality shows or sitcoms. Period! If I'm looking at a lineup, and it looks like everything is a reality sitcom, I'm not interested. If they later show something good, I probably won't know it because I'm no longer watching that network. And even if I later hear about it on TCF, I probably won't watch it because I've already missed half the season, and it's probably serialized and hard to drop into in the middle.
> 
> It's quite possible that NBC (or ABC or even CBS) has had good shows that I missed. But how does one advertize to someone that doesn't watch the network?


Being here, I assume you have some interest in TV. So how do you find the shows you like? Just off the top of my head, I've seen billboards, webpage, signs on buses and trains, word of mouth, internet and newspaper reviews. There are PLENTY of ways to get the word out WITHOUT watching the network.

Perfect example. The reason I started watching Desperate Housewives many years ago, was there was this billboard in Manhattan right outside the Holland Tunnel on my bus route to work. On the poster were the "housewives" looking sexy. That got me intrigued. Similarly, a NY Times review of the upcoming show Missing has me intrigued so I will be taking a look at that. The same could be true of Awake and some other shows I watched based on reviews.

Sure, advertising while watching other shows on the same network is probably most effective, but there are certainly other means that work too.


----------



## Johnny Dancing (Sep 3, 2000)

DevdogAZ said:


> Now you know.


AI FOX
Survivor CBS
The Walking Dead AMC
Revenge ABC
Persons of Interest CBS
Modern Family ABC
Alcatraz FOX
Fringe FOX
Touch (saw pilot, queued) FOX
American Horror Story (done for year) FX

Looks like NBC is the one with work to do.


----------



## Johnny Dancing (Sep 3, 2000)

Steveknj said:


> Sure, advertising while watching other shows on the same network is probably most effective, but there are certainly other means that work too.


I find a lot of shows to watch in this forum as there are a lot of tv experts here, not just fanboys and fangirls blindly touting and loving thier shows warts and all. If someone's favorite show has a bad episode or is going down hill they say it.
*
TV Show Talk* turned me on to:

Firefly
Breaking Bad
The Walking Dead
The Killing
Dexter
American Horror Story
Veronica Mars

and many more.

I had to move on from Tivo years ago to Directv DVRs but still check in here to see what my TV peeps are liking.

Maybe ABC should do some paid posting saying how good x show is in TV forums like this across the web? Perhaps the OP is on the take?


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

Johnny Dancing said:


> AI FOX
> Survivor CBS
> The Walking Dead AMC
> Revenge ABC
> ...


And now you understand the reason for this thread.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

Johnny Dancing said:


> I find a lot of shows to watch in this forum as there are a lot of tv experts here, not just fanboys and fangirls blindly touting and loving thier shows warts and all. If someone's favorite show has a bad episode or is going down hill they say it.
> *
> TV Show Talk* turned me on to:
> 
> ...


If only


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

Johnny Dancing said:


> AI FOX
> Survivor CBS
> The Walking Dead AMC
> Revenge ABC
> ...


What's interesting about your post is that most of these shows are not very highly rated either, just lower rated shows on other networks, with the exceptions being Modern Family, Survivor and PoI.


----------



## unitron (Apr 28, 2006)

So in other words if the people running NBC had any smarts they'd advertise their shows on TCF?


----------



## murgatroyd (Jan 6, 2002)

Johnny Dancing said:


> Maybe ABC should do some paid posting saying how good x show is in TV forums like this across the web? Perhaps the OP is on the take?





unitron said:


> So in other words if the people running NBC had any smarts they'd advertise their shows on TCF?


I think you guys have that backwards.

Which network was paying to thread-crap in all the Studio 60 threads?

Oh, wait a minute -- so many of the people who were thread-crapping on Studio 60 were saying how 30 Rock was so much better. And 30 Rock was on ... NBC.

So -- was NBC paying to thread-crap on its own show?


----------



## unitron (Apr 28, 2006)

murgatroyd said:


> I think you guys have that backwards.
> 
> Which network was paying to thread-crap in all the Studio 60 threads?
> 
> ...


I watched all the Studio 60 I could.

I watched about the first 15 or 20 minutes of the first 30 Rock and bailed.

I was suggesting NBC should take out paid advertising here, not post astroturf.


----------



## marksman (Mar 4, 2002)

I hear about shows in various places and sometimes look forward to certain shows.

Off the top of my head I had never heard of subagatory or missing before they aired but still watched them and enjoy them

I am a bit OCD though as every day I look at the network prime time on my dvr and see what is on and record stuff. If something is new and I have not heard about it but might be of interest I record it.

After doing that I go through the middle of the 8-9 pm time block for the primary cable channels ( I live in the central time zone). This allows me to catch 95% of the shows on cable including anything new and record it. I don't really know in advance when a show will start airing or comeback. I just know my OCD method will catch it. ( I actually do this same process on two different shows with slightly different priorities for both and to use for more than 2 shows at once)

I own a marketing company and instinctively I am not sure how well these alternative media programs do for television shows. Even knowing the reality of Dvrs I think I would focus my media buys for shows almost exclusively to tv.

I was watching a rerun of tosh.o today and saw a commercial for Fairly Legal and that it is coming back the next day on USA. 

Now my OCD system would have likely caught it but I tend to be less vigilant on Fridays and Saturdays because of the limited show choices. (by the way I find it weird that fairly legal is going to be on Fridays. I know they revamped the show but this seems like a test that could kill the show.)

It is interesting to look at Fridays now. Networks are actually back to semi trying there. Grimm actually does comparatively well. That might have been an opportunity for NBC trying to build an audience on a weaker night. However CBS is starting to stake a claim if they keep undercover boss there and blue bloods and maybe even move the mentalist there then CBS could have.close to a 2.0 Friday.

I have never bought the none sense about Fridays and Saturdays. Saturdays used to get really good ratings and i don't believe everyone is out partying while 40 years ago everyone was at home because there were no street lights. So I think NBC could potentially create a profitable night on Saturday while everyone else screws around. It will take time and money though. It might take several seasons and a lot of shows to find what works. Unfortunately network tv has never been about creating a long term strategy. Especially while doing poorly.

I think all the major networks are doomed. Tuesday night only two shows on the big 5 got over a 2.0 in 18-49. As cable has decimated their audiences they have done almost nothing to combat them. They just see their audience shrink substantially each year and then readjust.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

marksman said:


> I have never bought the none sense about Fridays and Saturdays. Saturdays used to get really good ratings and i don't believe everyone is out partying while 40 years ago everyone was at home because there were no street lights. So I think NBC could potentially create a profitable night on Saturday while everyone else screws around. It will take time and money though. It might take several seasons and a lot of shows to find what works. Unfortunately network tv has never been about creating a long term strategy. Especially while doing poorly.
> 
> I think all the major networks are doomed. Tuesday night only two shows on the big 5 got over a 2.0 in 18-49. As cable has decimated their audiences they have done almost nothing to combat them. They just see their audience shrink substantially each year and then readjust.


I think you might be right about Fridays, but Saturdays I don't see. In the 70s Saturday nights were highly successful with the CBS lineup especially strong, but these days? There's just TOO much else going on. Even before we got our first Tivo, Saturday night used to be movie night on nights we didn't go out. HBO always debuts their marquee movie on Saturday night. Younger people DO go out. These days, on nights when we are home, Saturday night is "catch up night" or hockey night if there's a Rangers game on. I for one am glad there's one night where there's nothing on so I can use it to get caught up.

Friday nights, I think can do well, especially targeting a groups such as tweens and young teens.


----------



## smark (Nov 20, 2002)

Steveknj said:


> I think you might be right about Fridays, but Saturdays I don't see. In the 70s Saturday nights were highly successful with the CBS lineup especially strong, but these days? There's just TOO much else going on. Even before we got our first Tivo, Saturday night used to be movie night on nights we didn't go out. HBO always debuts their marquee movie on Saturday night. Younger people DO go out. These days, on nights when we are home, Saturday night is "catch up night" or hockey night if there's a Rangers game on. I for one am glad there's one night where there's nothing on so I can use it to get caught up.
> 
> Friday nights, I think can do well, especially targeting a groups such as tweens and young teens.


TGIF was fairly successful on ABC.


----------



## mattack (Apr 9, 2001)

murgatroyd said:


> I think you guys have that backwards.
> 
> Which network was paying to thread-crap in all the Studio 60 threads?
> 
> ...


Studio 60 and 30 Rock were both great shows. I wish both were still on the air. Alas, only 30 Rock is.


----------



## aadam101 (Jul 15, 2002)

The return of Community did very well and even boosted 30 Rock by 43% over last week's episode.

http://www.examiner.com/tv-in-chicago/community-returns-to-strong-ratings-for-nbc


----------



## WhiskeyTango (Sep 20, 2006)

Don't expect it to last. Things will return to normal when Big Bang Theory returns.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

aadam101 said:


> The return of Community did very well and even boosted 30 Rock by 43% over last week's episode.
> 
> http://www.examiner.com/tv-in-chicago/community-returns-to-strong-ratings-for-nbc


I'm glad to hear this. Even if rating slump when BBT comes back, at least a few more eyeballs are watching Community and might like it.


----------



## marksman (Mar 4, 2002)

WhiskeyTango said:


> Don't expect it to last. Things will return to normal when Big Bang Theory returns.


Community maintained its ratings from last week facing a return of tbbt this week.

Seeing how many NBC shows are racking up low 1s i think community is going to be renewed. I also think Whitney will be renewed. I don't think NBC can cancel all their freshman sitcoms especially after not keeping any last year. Whitney has done well the last couple weeks while uan has faded.

I know many here don't like Whitney but the show has improved. Also as I threw out earlier NBC needs to get more mainstream with their comedies. The have an aging slate of clever shows they need to broaden things.

Could Smash and Whitney be the only new scripted shows NBC keeps? Am I missing something else? I think NBC has had three shows die horrible deaths on Thursdays at 10pm/9pm.

I would like to see NBC not to play this cute scheduling game next year and come out with their strongest stuff in the fall and ride with it. They already have a ton of holes. Have their renewals will be of shows viewed borderline but now are being renewed simply because other shows failed. If they just go in and play it business as usual they will be airing shows next spring getting less than a .8. The networks are in a death spiral where year to date fall ratings drop and then spring drops more. They have to change what they are doing. NBC only has a couple years at this rate before scripted programming is completely non viable.

This could mean having shows with 13 episodes running for 13 weeks, it could mean split seasons, it could mean more shows mixed in to avoid rerun erosion. Just taking 22 episodes and spreading them out over 39 weeks and just bouncing around panicking is just not going to get the job done.

Cw is trying some different things like putting episodes online the same night and such and they are at the bottom. That being said CW is a test bed for CBS right now and CBS is the only network with time to work with here. Fox and Abc are quickly following NBC down the drain.

Family guy reruns on cable compete with NBC shows most nights for ratings.


----------



## aadam101 (Jul 15, 2002)

marksman said:


> Could Smash and Whitney be the only new scripted shows NBC keeps? Am I missing something else? I think NBC has had three shows die horrible deaths on Thursdays at 10pm/9pm.


They also renewed Grimm and might keep Awake.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

aadam101 said:


> They also renewed Grimm and might keep Awake.


I seriously doubt they'll keep Awake. It's ratings continue to drop every week. It should have stabilized by now.


----------



## marksman (Mar 4, 2002)

aadam101 said:


> They also renewed Grimm and might keep Awake.


I forgot about Grimm although Grimm was down Friday. If it collapsed now it could become unrenewed. As for Awake, I wish. It had a 1.0 this last week which means unless NBC totally revamps how they do business ( which they should) it has no chance. If NBC had anything else to replace it with it would likely be pulled in the next week or two.


----------



## aadam101 (Jul 15, 2002)

I just started watching Community. Talk about underrated. It's REALLY funny!!!


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

marksman said:


> I know many here don't like Whitney but the show has improved. Also as I threw out earlier NBC needs to get more mainstream with their comedies. The have an aging slate of clever shows they need to broaden things.


I agree with this. Whitney is a pretty decent show with a good cast that plays well together. To me the only problem with this show is it's on NBC so nobody watches. If this show was on CBS, it would do well.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

aadam101 said:


> I just started watching Community. Talk about underrated. It's REALLY funny!!!


In some respects, I think the best thing to happen to Community was the "hiatus" that NBC gave it. It created some buzz for the show, with the crazy protests and the "parties". I hear a lot of comments like yours. "I just started watching this and it is funny", or "I watched the first couple of episodes season 1 and didn't like it and now I'm revisiting this and I really like it." I wonder if Community ever made it to syndication if it would get a similar bump in the way that TBBT has this year?


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

Steveknj said:


> In some respects, I think the best thing to happen to Community was the "hiatus" that NBC gave it. It created some buzz for the show, with the crazy protests and the "parties". I hear a lot of comments like yours. "I just started watching this and it is funny", or "I watched the first couple of episodes season 1 and didn't like it and now I'm revisiting this and I really like it." I wonder if Community ever made it to syndication if it would get a similar bump in the way that TBBT has this year?


I think Community already has a syndication deal with Comedy Central. I don't know when they're going to start running the episodes, but it stands to reason that if new episodes of Community are still airing on NBC when the syndicated episodes begin airing on Comedy Central, then it's very possible that the new audience could help improve the ratings for the first-run episodes.


----------



## JYoung (Jan 16, 2002)

marksman said:


> Community maintained its ratings from last week facing a return of tbbt this week.
> 
> Seeing how many NBC shows are racking up low 1s i think community is going to be renewed. I also think Whitney will be renewed. I don't think NBC can cancel all their freshman sitcoms especially after not keeping any last year. Whitney has done well the last couple weeks while uan has faded.
> 
> ...


Whitney has been getting clobbered by American Idol, scoring 1.5s and 1.6's in 18-49 since the move to Wednesday.

On any other network, this would be a death sentence but this is NBC.......

On the other hand, I'd still put Up All Night to be renewed before Whitney just because it's a Lorne Michaels production.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

JYoung said:


> Whitney has been getting clobbered by American Idol, scoring 1.5s and 1.6's in 18-49 since the move to Wednesday.
> 
> On any other network, this would be a death sentence but this is NBC.......
> 
> On the other hand, I'd still put Up All Night to be renewed before Whitney just because it's a Lorne Michaels production.


While I'd probably agree with you about UAN due to the Lorne Michaels thing, it's pretty surprising that UAN's ratings in the Thursday time slot with The Office as a lead in are only slightly better than Whitney's ratings on Wednesdays with no lead in and against American Idol.


----------



## aadam101 (Jul 15, 2002)

DevdogAZ said:


> While I'd probably agree with you about UAN due to the Lorne Michaels thing, it's pretty surprising that UAN's ratings in the Thursday time slot with The Office as a lead in are only slightly better than Whitney's ratings on Wednesdays with no lead in and against American Idol.


I agree. I think NBC thought Up All Night was going to be a hit. It hasn't done that great and I don't think it's that good. It's certainly not the same quality as the other Thursday night NBC shows. Whitney looked like it was dead from the beginning and somehow it has managed to pull ok ratings (ok for NBC).


----------



## mattack (Apr 9, 2001)

I can't find it, but I sure thought one of the articles about the producer & Chevy Chase's big feud mentioned it was renewed..

again, treat that as a rumor, as I can't find any proof now..


----------



## LoadStar (Jul 24, 2001)

mattack said:


> I can't find it, but I sure thought one of the articles about the producer & Chevy Chase's big feud mentioned it was renewed..
> 
> again, treat that as a rumor, as I can't find any proof now..


Right now, it's just a "likely to be renewed." It hasn't been renewed yet.


----------



## JYoung (Jan 16, 2002)

DevdogAZ said:


> While I'd probably agree with you about UAN due to the Lorne Michaels thing, it's pretty surprising that UAN's ratings in the Thursday time slot with The Office as a lead in are only slightly better than Whitney's ratings on Wednesdays with no lead in and against American Idol.


Yeah, but Whitney had slid down to a 1.9 before it was moved to Wednesdays.
Hard to say if it would have done better if it had stayed.


----------



## aadam101 (Jul 15, 2002)

Here is a rundown of NBC fall pilots with descriptions.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/garrett-greer/fall-tv-2012-nbc-has-a-li_b_1398726.html


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

JYoung said:


> Yeah, but Whitney had slid down to a 1.9 before it was moved to Wednesdays.
> Hard to say if it would have done better if it had stayed.


But my point is that UAN hasn't been doing any better than that in the cushy Thursday slot, while Whitney hasn't fallen much further than that in the much more difficult Wednesday slot.

Last week, Whitney had a 1.6 against Idol and with no lead in on Wednesday, while Up All Night had a 1.3 with The Office as a lead in on Thursday (although last week's episode of The Office was a repeat). In a week where neither show got help from its lead in, Whitney did better against stiffer competition. That should definitely be concerning for Lorne Michaels and the UAN staff.


----------



## JYoung (Jan 16, 2002)

DevdogAZ said:


> Last week, Whitney had a 1.6 against Idol and with no lead in on Wednesday, while Up All Night had a 1.3 with The Office as a lead in on Thursday (although last week's episode of The Office was a repeat). In a week where neither show got help from its lead in, Whitney did better against stiffer competition. That should definitely be concerning for Lorne Michaels and the UAN staff.


Oh, I agree that all things being equal, the production company should be concerned.
But since it's Lorne Michaels, they very well may not be.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

Wow, last night was brutal for NBC. Community led off the night with a 1.3, and that ended up being the highest-rated show of the whole night.

Community 1.3
30 Rock 1.2
The Office (rerun) 1.0
Up All Night 1.1
Awake 0.9


----------



## aadam101 (Jul 15, 2002)

DevdogAZ said:


> Wow, last night was brutal for NBC. Community led off the night with a 1.3, and that ended up being the highest-rated show of the whole night.
> 
> Community 1.3
> 30 Rock 1.2
> ...


Awake with a 0.9.....guess it's dead.

Great for Community though!!!


----------



## Church AV Guy (Jan 19, 2005)

aadam101 said:


> Awake with a 0.9.....guess it's dead.


With ratings like those, it's a wonder the whole network isn't dead. I think USA and Syfy frequently get better numbers.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

aadam101 said:


> Awake with a 0.9.....guess it's dead.
> 
> Great for Community though!!!


I'm not sure I'd say it's great for Community. From a relative standpoint, it was the highest of the night, but a 1.3 is still absolutely dismal.


----------



## WhiskeyTango (Sep 20, 2006)

DevdogAZ said:


> I'm not sure I'd say it's great for Community. From a relative standpoint, it was the highest of the night, but a 1.3 is still absolutely dismal.


Especially since it returned to the air just a few weeks ago at a 2.2 and has lost 1.8 million viewers since then.


----------



## JYoung (Jan 16, 2002)

DevdogAZ said:


> I'm not sure I'd say it's great for Community. From a relative standpoint, it was the highest of the night, but a 1.3 is still absolutely dismal.


To be fair, it looks like all the networks were down last night.
Even The Big Bang Theory and American Idol dropped a fair amount.


----------



## aadam101 (Jul 15, 2002)

DevdogAZ said:


> I'm not sure I'd say it's great for Community. From a relative standpoint, it was the highest of the night, but a 1.3 is still absolutely dismal.


I agree that it's bad but it's still better than everything else that NBC aired for the night. I would think it's an easier decision to keep a show in it's 3rd season with ratings like that than it is to keep a show in it's 6th or 8th seasons like 30 Rock and The Office (I realize The Office was a rerun but the ratings haven't been great for new episodes either.)


----------



## marksman (Mar 4, 2002)

Problem is NBC is near the bottom of the pile and while fall premieres will be up from this spring they will likely be down from this past fall. Next spring down from this spring.

This means NBC could have nights of sub 1 numbers with new content. That puts them encroaching on being non viable. There are many cable shows that get ratings close to or above a 1. The problem is all the networks are falling rapidly and consistently. NBC is near the bottom so they will feel the effects sooner than abc, fox and then CBS. 

I am interested to see how things work out because this model of doing the same as always is circling the drain. At some point they should just fire everyone and run infomercials.


----------



## LoadStar (Jul 24, 2001)

The networks should be sort of like pro sports, in that the loser networks should get to pick their shows first in a draft.


----------



## aadam101 (Jul 15, 2002)

Here is an article that discusses failed TV networks. NBC could very well end up on this list very soon.

http://gawker.com/5506656/dead-air-a-timeline-of-failed-broadcast-tv-networks

What would happen if they did fail? Would they just simply cease to exist or would they rebrand themselves as something else?


----------



## Peter000 (Apr 15, 2002)

aadam101 said:


> Here is an article that discusses failed TV networks. NBC could very well end up on this list very soon.
> 
> http://gawker.com/5506656/dead-air-a-timeline-of-failed-broadcast-tv-networks
> 
> What would happen if they did fail? Would they just simply cease to exist or would they rebrand themselves as something else?


It's hard to compare NBC to any of those networks, because none of them were ever really successful. NBC has been around a long time, and despite the ratings of the moment, and IMO won't fail. Network dominance waxes and wanes, and once NBC finds some programming that catches on they'll be back in the pack.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

aadam101 said:


> Here is an article that discusses failed TV networks. NBC could very well end up on this list very soon.
> 
> http://gawker.com/5506656/dead-air-a-timeline-of-failed-broadcast-tv-networks
> 
> What would happen if they did fail? Would they just simply cease to exist or would they rebrand themselves as something else?


They would never just cease to exist. The "real estate" they own as one of the four broadcast networks with a vast group of affiliates is far too valuable. They'd have to restructure or rebrand or something, but Comcast would never let that asset just cease to exist.


----------



## aadam101 (Jul 15, 2002)

Peter000 said:


> and once NBC finds some programming that catches on they'll be back in the pack.


What if they never do? It is a possibility.


----------



## marksman (Mar 4, 2002)

Peter000 said:


> It's hard to compare NBC to any of those networks, because none of them were ever really successful. NBC has been around a long time, and despite the ratings of the moment, and IMO won't fail. Network dominance waxes and wanes, and once NBC finds some programming that catches on they'll be back in the pack.


The problem with that is all of the networks have a continued overall decline. The lowest rated network six years ago was probably doing much better than CBS today. There will be a floor but the question is how sustainable is it as a business. Frankly for NBC to go from worst to first would take several years to accomplish. They may not have several years.

The problem is not just cable channels either. There are so many content options and it is only growing. Ultimately we will be able to enjoy independently produced content on demand in a very high quality. The traditional distribution methods will cease to be competitive at some point.

The fact that the networks make any money is a testament to the money printing machine they had for decades.

So while it might be good to hope NBC cycles back to the top the reality is the networks are losing audiences at an astonishing rate. If someone had predicted today's ratings 10 years ago they would be locked up for being a lunatic.

The worst part is the networks have done very little to advance or progress their business model as it sleeps into the icy ocean. Many days in the last couple of weeks the majority of new episodes are recording record lows. At a blistering pace they break the record from the week before.

Cw is a weird experiment between CBS and cw so they might be able to hang in with their nearly non existent ratings as a test bed. NBC however is leading the pack of the big 4 to demise. I would not be surprised if they did something drastic in the next three years. The whole Leno thing was a desperate attempt to change their model but it backfired horribly. Not only did it not work it crippled the network going forward and they still have not recovered from it.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

I'm not sure I agree that the Leno debacle really did any lasting damage. NBC didn't have any successful 10 pm shows at the time. They haven't been able to develop any since. I see no reason to believe that had they aired normal 10 pm dramas for that season, the results would be any different than they are now. 

The average TV viewer doesn't pay attention to the business of the industry, and doesn't avoid NBC because of the Leno thing. Average viewers are creatures of habit. The viewers simply don't tune to NBC because it's not part of their routine, because NBC doesn't have any successful shows to develop those viewing habits.


----------



## marksman (Mar 4, 2002)

It shrunk their overall audience massively though and did leave a huge hole to fill when they abandoned it. So they were forced to launch an extraordinary number of new shows on the back of a significantly shrunken audience for the network meaning a significantly lessor ability to promote all these new shows. Without the Leno thing they might be able to at least compete with Fox and Abc. Instead they sealed their fate into a distant fourth place.

Not only did Leno pull in a smaller audience, which they thought was okay because it was cheaper, it brought in the same audience x5. Any five random 10pm shows are going to have significantly less overlap. So NBC gave up a big chunk of overall audience at 10pm. That audience in many cases settled elsewhere thus again impacting nbcs ability to comeback.

In my opinion NBC would be in significantly better shape if they never made the Leno move.


----------



## WhiskeyTango (Sep 20, 2006)

marksman said:


> That audience in many cases settled elsewhere thus again impacting nbcs ability to comeback.


I think this is a really good point re: the 10pm time slot. When Leno became the only NBC option at the time slot, all of the viewers who may have been viewers of Leno's predecessors moved on to become steady viewers of shows on the other networks. Those folks are not likely to abandon a show they have been with for some time to try out the new fare NBC has been offering to try to entice them back. Those viewers may be lost until the time the shows they are now watching leave the airwaves.


----------



## JYoung (Jan 16, 2002)

DevdogAZ said:


> I'm not sure I agree that the Leno debacle really did any lasting damage. NBC didn't have any successful 10 pm shows at the time. They haven't been able to develop any since. I see no reason to believe that had they aired normal 10 pm dramas for that season, the results would be any different than they are now.


Law & Order:SVU was successful at 10 PM as was Medium.
Southland was borderline but it still pulled better ratings than most of Leno's broadcasts.

I agree that due to Leno, people got out of the habit of watching NBC a lot of the time and NBC hasn't been able to lure them back.

Also, I think marksman also has good points.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

SVU was moderately successful, which is why NBC kept it and moved it an hour earlier. Southland's ratings trended downward pretty dramatically in those first six episodes and it's really no surprise it was canceled. 

I agree that marksman makes some good points, but I still think people make too big of a deal about the Leno thing. NBC was in horrible shape before that (which is why they felt the need to take the risk with Leno), and while it certainly did some damage, it's not fair to blame all their current troubles on that one move. They've been making bad decisions for several years, and their current predicament is the result of all those poor decisions, not just that one.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

DevdogAZ said:


> SVU was moderately successful, which is why NBC kept it and moved it an hour earlier. Southland's ratings trended downward pretty dramatically in those first six episodes and it's really no surprise it was canceled.
> 
> I agree that marksman makes some good points, but I still think people make too big of a deal about the Leno thing. NBC was in horrible shape before that (which is why they felt the need to take the risk with Leno), and while it certainly did some damage, it's not fair to blame all their current troubles on that one move. They've been making bad decisions for several years, and their current predicament is the result of all those poor decisions, not just that one.


I agree with you. If NBC was in such great shape, they never would have tried the Leno experiment to begin with. They were grasping at straws and it made a bad situation worse.

I often wonder if NBC is a victim of their own success. In the 90s, they were top dog because they had smart sitcoms with mass appeal and stuck with some series that people were starting to lose interest with WAY too long. They got too comfortable and they just didn't change with the times. When "reality TV" first got big, they were a bit slower on the draw than the others putting out BIG hit reality shows. By the time the Biggest Loser and The Apprentice hit, Survivor and The Amazing Race had already been big hits. By the time they came out with The Voice which has had some success, AI and DWTS have already been mega hits. NBC seems to follow trends not lead them, like they did in the 80s and 90s, and have too often gone after niche rather than mass appeal. A lot of their shows have cultish following not mass appeal. Think about Chuck, Community, 30 Rock, P&R all have loyal fans, but not mass appeal.

The one show they could have had great success with and blew it was Heroes. They had GREAT buzz for most of the first season, but, the finale was so bad that it turned off the casual fan. By the time the second season rolled around, it was DIA.


----------



## marksman (Mar 4, 2002)

The Leno abortion happened in fall of 2009 I think.

Network final ratings 18-49 for 2008-2009 season:

Fox 3.6
CBS 3.1
ABC 2.9
NBC 2.8

So before Leno went on NBC was last but it was pretty close and CBS, ABC and Fox were close together.

In the 2009-2010 season which is when Leno showed up:

Fox 3.6
CBS 3.1
ABC 2.6
NBC 2.6

ABC and NBC were virtually tied as both slipped while Fox and CBS held steady.

Last years 2010-2011 season (ALA or after Leno abortion):

Fox 3.5
CBS 2.9
ABC 2.5 
NBC 2.3

CBS dropped, ABC and Fox dropped slightly. NBC firmly owned fourth place.

Year to date so far in 2011-2012:

Fox 3.2
CBS 3.1
NBC 2.6
ABC 2.4

So maybe I was wrong. I will note NBC had the super bowl for the 2008-2009 season and this current 2011-2012 season. CBS had it in 2009-2010 and Fox in 2010-2011. It seems the super bowl could be impacting .2-.3 points or so, so it is hard to tell.

Looking at it the only reason NBC was close to ABC in 2008-2009 was probably the Super Bowl. ABC free fell the next year and NBC seemed to hold steady.

If you adjusted out .3 for super bowls then from 2008-2012

Fox -.4
CBS Even
NBC -.2
ABC - .5

So looking at that NBC has done better than some in less erosion if you factor out super bowls. Since NBC had the super bowls on both ends their number is -.2 either way.

I have looked at the ratings almost every day and it surprises me that NBC is not worse off this season. I think the Voice has helped them a lot but having shows in the low 1s regularly, I am a little surprised that Abc is behind them.

Going through this I can't support my claim that Leno destroyed NBC. NBC had horrible 10pm/9pm shows then (horribly performing) and even worse shows now. Parenthood is probably going to end up NBC's second highest drama this year and coming into this season it was questionable if it would survive past this year. It basically got crappy ratings then saw a tiny bump and held steady for a couple weeks. This is the best NBC has after Smash. ( I watch both parenthood and smash and am not taking issue with the quality of the shows).

NBC has to be terrified about launching new 10:00pm/9:00pm dramas in the fall. I just feel like if they fall down there again next year they are going to surrender and provide 4 nights a week of rock center and dateline.

I think key is NBC keeps missing the mark on broader shows. I enjoy Awake but it is a little inside and quirky. You have Poi, revenge, gcb who have done okay on other networks. Then you have a couple others with possibility. Smash ended up doing good in relative terms but will NBC move it hoping to launch another hour after the voice? 

I know they half heartedly tried 3 hour sitcom blocks last season but I think they should try it again. Louie, The League and always sunny do decent for that time slot. I just think NBC needs to concede Thursday's and focus on other nights. Thursday was theirs for so long I think it is psychologically hard to give it up. Not to mention the top ad rates. 

However NBC is weak and they need to pick their spots and try to weave their strengths in the weaker spots for the competition. I think parks and rec could actually grow outside of Thursdays.

I guess we can check back in three years when NBC has the super bowl again.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

This might come out of left filed (and perhaps there is no way they can do this based on FCC rules), but perhaps what NBC needs to do at 10PM is break the rules. Perhaps allow some language or...gasp...nudity. Something edgy that has never been done on network TV before. I noticed in the show Up All Night, the cast regularly says curse words (bleeped of course). Perhaps something of that nature, would get people watching (and probably get those "Family" groups to protest, giving them tons of publicity).


----------



## aindik (Jan 23, 2002)

Steveknj said:


> This might come out of left filed (and perhaps there is no way they can do this based on FCC rules), but perhaps what NBC needs to do at 10PM is break the rules. Perhaps allow some language or...gasp...nudity. Something edgy that has never been done on network TV before. I noticed in the show Up All Night, the cast regularly says curse words (bleeped of course). Perhaps something of that nature, would get people watching (and probably get those "Family" groups to protest, giving them tons of publicity).


Their problem is that 10 p.m. isn't 10 p.m. everywhere. In the central and mountain time zones, it's 9 p.m.


----------



## WhiskeyTango (Sep 20, 2006)

I don't know how much of an impact the Super Bowl plays in the ratings because it it only one showing. However, NBC has Sunday Night Football throughout the fall which is the highest rated show of the year and I'm sure that makes their YTD ratings significantly higher than they would be otherwise.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

aindik said:


> Their problem is that 10 p.m. isn't 10 p.m. everywhere. In the central and mountain time zones, it's 9 p.m.


That's true, but doesn't the FCC take that into account? When I lived in AZ, which uses a 7PM-10PM primetime, it just seemed like people went to bed earlier. Are ratings for the late night talkies greater in the Central/Mountain than in the Eastern/Pacific?


----------



## aindik (Jan 23, 2002)

Steveknj said:


> That's true, but doesn't the FCC take that into account? When I lived in AZ, which uses a 7PM-10PM primetime, it just seemed like people went to bed earlier. Are ratings for the late night talkies greater in the Central/Mountain than in the Eastern/Pacific?


Supreme Court precedent (Pacifica v. FCC, the George Carlin case) allows the FCC to enforce indecency regulations between 6a and 10p local time ("while children may be watching"). So, that's what they do. It has nothing to do with ratings.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

WhiskeyTango said:


> I don't know how much of an impact the Super Bowl plays in the ratings because it it only one showing. However, NBC has Sunday Night Football throughout the fall which is the highest rated show of the year and I'm sure that makes their YTD ratings significantly higher than they would be otherwise.


That's what I was going to point out. Take away 17 3-hour "episodes" of the top-rated regularly-scheduled show on all of TV, and then what would NBC's average be?

Especially since those ratings have nothing to do with the decisions made by NBC's entertainment division.


----------



## aindik (Jan 23, 2002)

Advertisers don't buy network-wide averages anyway. They buy shows.


----------



## allan (Oct 14, 2002)

Steveknj said:


> The one show they could have had great success with and blew it was Heroes. They had GREAT buzz for most of the first season, but, the finale was so bad that it turned off the casual fan. By the time the second season rolled around, it was DIA.


I think Heroes could have survived the weak S1 finale. But IIRC, S2 was when the writer's strike happened. I think that was the death knell of Heroes, even though it limped on awhile after.


----------



## JYoung (Jan 16, 2002)

DevdogAZ said:


> SVU was moderately successful, which is why NBC kept it and moved it an hour earlier. Southland's ratings trended downward pretty dramatically in those first six episodes and it's really no surprise it was canceled.


Don't forget that Southland had been something of a surprise renewal.
I think they were going to slot it for Friday at 10 PM.
They had started production on Season 2 or were just about to when NBC pulled the Leno move and suddenly had to shop the show around.



DevdogAZ said:


> I agree that marksman makes some good points, but I still think people make too big of a deal about the Leno thing. NBC was in horrible shape before that (which is why they felt the need to take the risk with Leno), and while it certainly did some damage, it's not fair to blame all their current troubles on that one move. They've been making bad decisions for several years, and their current predicament is the result of all those poor decisions, not just that one.


I don't think anyone here is claiming that the Leno debacle singlehandly destroyed NBC's ratings.

But while the ratings drop was a slower leak pre Leno, as someone else put it, that whole debacle was a shotgun blast to the leaking hole.

And I believe the move was always intended as a short term financial boost in order to make their numbers look better for the Comcast merger review.

NBC probably would have had an easier time recovering had they not done the Leno Show.


----------



## marksman (Mar 4, 2002)

Well the super bowl had a 40.5 rating for three hours and the voice 16.5 for one hour. Take out the base 2.3 rating and you get 38.2 x 3 ish for 115 ish points. That would be 1150 .1 increments. The super then can raise 383 hours of prime time television by .3.

.3 is the number that looked likely from the year to year analysis. Suffice it to say a single Super Bowl and post super bowl show raise the ratings for the entire season by a noticeable amount.

I agree Sunday Night Football props up NBC a lot but other networks get some benefit from sports, to a lesser extent.

I tried y wade through the NBC nfl Wikipedia to see what year Sunday night football on NBC started but the page is horrible


----------



## aadam101 (Jul 15, 2002)

Here is an article that really puts things into perspective regarding last Thursday's ratings.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/busin...ow-audiences/2012/04/10/gIQAlTCr8S_story.html



> On the same first Thursday in April 10 years ago, NBC reached 28.5 million viewers for "ER" and 22.6 million for "Friends."


That's a lot of viewers to slip away.....


----------



## unitron (Apr 28, 2006)

Steveknj said:


> ... perhaps what NBC needs to do at 10PM is break the rules. Perhaps allow some language or...gasp...nudity...


So pretty much what ABC did years ago with NYPD Blue and before that Mariel Hemingway's short-lived show?


----------



## aadam101 (Jul 15, 2002)

unitron said:


> So pretty much what ABC did years ago with NYPD Blue and before that Mariel Hemingway's short-lived show?


I'm not sure that would work either. People are used to those types of programs now because they are all over cable. Showing butts on NYPD Blue was a big deal back then. People are pretty used to seeing butts now.


----------



## TheMerk (Feb 26, 2001)

aadam101 said:


> I'm not sure that would work either. People are used to those types of programs now because they are all over cable. Showing butts on NYPD Blue was a big deal back then. People are pretty used to seeing butts now.


Do not underestimate the power of Dennis Franz's butt!


----------



## aadam101 (Jul 15, 2002)

TheMerk said:


> Do not underestimate the power of Dennis Franz's butt!


He is 67 years old now. I bet if NBC did decide to show his butt people would talk about it!


----------



## unitron (Apr 28, 2006)

TheMerk said:


> Do not underestimate the power of Dennis Franz's butt!


I was thinking about Sharon Lawrence, actually.

And not just because she's from North Carolina.


----------



## unitron (Apr 28, 2006)

aadam101 said:


> I'm not sure that would work either. People are used to those types of programs now because they are all over cable. Showing butts on NYPD Blue was a big deal back then. People are pretty used to seeing butts now.


So they'd have to show full nudal frontity?


----------



## aadam101 (Jul 15, 2002)

unitron said:


> So they'd have to show full nudal frontity?


No. Although that would be a ratings gold mine. I'm just saying that a few naked butts and some profanity doesn't have the impact that it had in the 90's when NYPD Blue did it. NYPD Blue was pretty much the only show doing it. Now with cable shows and Premium cable shows, it's all over the place. People aren't going to be as impressed.


----------



## unitron (Apr 28, 2006)

aadam101 said:


> No. Although that would be a ratings gold mine. I'm just saying that a few naked butts and some profanity doesn't have the impact that it had in the 90's when NYPD Blue did it. NYPD Blue was pretty much the only show doing it. Now with cable shows and Premium cable shows, it's all over the place. People aren't going to be as impressed.


Don't tell me, tell Steveknj, it was his idea.

Maybe he's not old enough to remember when ABC did it about 20 years ago.

Much less Archie Bunker.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

aadam101 said:


> No. Although that would be a ratings gold mine. I'm just saying that a few naked butts and some profanity doesn't have the impact that it had in the 90's when NYPD Blue did it. NYPD Blue was pretty much the only show doing it. Now with cable shows and Premium cable shows, it's all over the place. People aren't going to be as impressed.


But, if people are turning to cable and they get this and the shock value of it has diminished, then it shouldn't be a big deal on regular TV. But, it would be, and there would be shock value because a broadcast network did it. More than anything NBC needs a buzzworthy show. It takes just one. Ask CBS what Survivor did for them in the early 2000s or what Idol has done for Fox.

But my fear is that it's going to be some new reality concept that is going to pull NBC out of this. If you look at last week's ratings, almost all the top shows were AI or DWTS. People are still into this crap, because they feel they have to watch it right away or the lose out on the water cooler talk the next day.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

unitron said:


> Don't tell me, tell Steveknj, it was his idea.
> 
> Maybe he's not old enough to remember when ABC did it about 20 years ago.
> 
> Much less Archie Bunker.


I remember Archie Bunker and NYPD and Laugh-In for that matter. NYPD took it one step, but not quite over the line. I'm saying NBC should cross the line completely.


----------



## allan (Oct 14, 2002)

unitron said:


> Don't tell me, tell Steveknj, it was his idea.
> 
> Maybe he's not old enough to remember when ABC did it about 20 years ago.
> 
> Much less Archie Bunker.


I don't remember them ever showing Archie's butt!


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

Steveknj said:


> I remember Archie Bunker and NYPD and Laugh-In for that matter. NYPD took it one step, but not quite over the line. I'm saying NBC should cross the line completely.


I think NYPD Blue went as close to the line as the FCC would allow. If NBC went any further, they'd be looking at fines.


----------



## aindik (Jan 23, 2002)

DevdogAZ said:


> I think NYPD Blue went as close to the line as the FCC would allow. If NBC went any further, they'd be looking at fines.


Well, the original idea was to do it after 10:00, in which case there are no fines for indecency, only obscenity (which is essentially porn). However, as I pointed out, the "10:00 shows" air at 9:00 locally in the middle of the country, which makes it impossible to have a prime time show that's indecent without being fined somewhere.

Now, they could have a late night show that's indecent without being fined, but we're not really talking about late night.


----------



## donnoh (Mar 7, 2008)

If I were the NBC chief of programming I'd find a way to duplicate the Downton Abby show on PBS.


----------



## unitron (Apr 28, 2006)

Allow me to recommend the Arthur C. Clarke short story "I Remember Babylon" in conjunction with the subject of television programming.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

Thought I would post this in the Fix NBC thread. Seems things aren't all bad:



> Comcast Corp.'s NBCUniversal division shone in the quarter. It accounts for a third of Comcast's revenue, but grew much faster, at 18 percent from last year. Revenue at the NBC broadcast network grew 37 percent thanks to the Super Bowl, which was broadcast on Fox last year. Excluding the Super Bowl, NBC's revenue grew 17 percent, helped by improving prime-time ratings and shows like "The Voice" and "Smash."


From this article:

http://news.yahoo.com/financial-reports-reveal-entertainment-164430908.html


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

I don't think there was ever any question that they were making money. They're just not making as much as FOX and CBS right now. And NBCUniversal's cable channels are killing it.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

DevdogAZ said:


> I don't think there was ever any question that they were making money. They're just not making as much as FOX and CBS right now. And NBCUniversal's cable channels are killing it.


It was general, but they mentioned "improving prime time ratings". Did that actually happen on their network broadcasts?


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

Steveknj said:


> It was general, but they mentioned "improving prime time ratings". Did that actually happen on their network broadcasts?


NBC's ratings in both total viewers and 18-49 were up this season vs. last, plus the age of their average viewer went down. It's unclear how much of that change was due to the Super Bowl, but either way, all of those things are positive for NBC.

http://www.deadline.com/2012/05/201...-still-on-top-but-down-nbc-in-third-cw-falls/


----------



## ConstableClyde (May 1, 2012)

I'd cancel The Office. It's done.


----------



## ADG (Aug 20, 2003)

If at all possible, I'd fire Ann Curry again.


----------



## mattack (Apr 9, 2001)

ADG said:


> If at all possible, I'd fire Ann Curry again.


What was she fired for? I liked her.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

ADG said:


> If at all possible, I'd fire Ann Curry again.


I don't recall her being fired for the first time yet, but I'd love to be the one that does it. She's awful.


----------



## ADG (Aug 20, 2003)

Sorry for the confusion. She wasn't fired - it's just that at the beginning of this thread I said I'd fire her - now I'm saying........... never mind, a poor attempt at humor. Anyway, I WOULD fire her - she is the absolute worst.


----------



## steverm2 (May 10, 2005)

ADG said:


> First thing I'd do is fire Ann Curry


This!


----------

