Comments on: Top Timeshifted Broadcast Shows, Nov 19-25

By: Rena Moretti

Rena Moretti — Fri, 14 Dec 2007 18:15:58 +0000

Once again Ike, you make an interesting point.

I happen to disagree with it (sorry )

Most people think the networks and studios are only motivated by profits, but that’s not the case at all.

We could all wish it were true. It would lead to better programming.

Hollywood executives are motivated first and foremost by the drive to keep their jobs and cover their behinds. That’s the reason for instance that they keep up the charade of testing new shows with test audiences even though experience shows that it’s a futile and needless exercise.

The reason they do it? Once the show fails, it gives them cover. They can say “but it tested through the roof”.

For the same reason, Flavors of the Month get hired for movies so when they fail executives can point to the cover of a magazine and say “who could have thought the public would have changed overnight?”

Renewing failing shows is part of that trend (so is greenlighting sequels to failed movies). The Shield is the perfect example, but many others can be found. Friday Night Lights is a ratings disaster, but NBC bought it a couple of awards so they could renew it and claim their season wasn’t so bad.

Les Moonves recently boasted that because he was going to renew two of his new shows, the season was a resounding success (apparently losing 10% of your audience in great part because your new shows all tanked is the new definition of “success”)

It’s also very potent PR, because most people haven’t caught on to that trick yet. They’ve caught on to most of the other tricks Hollywood uses to try and disguise its failings into successes.

Of course, one wishes all that energy was directed at making better films and TV shows, but that is a trick Hollywood still has to learn.

By: Rena Moretti

Rena Moretti — Fri, 14 Dec 2007 17:15:58 +0000

Once again Ike, you make an interesting point.

I happen to disagree with it (sorry )

Most people think the networks and studios are only motivated by profits, but that's not the case at all.

We could all wish it were true. It would lead to better programming.

Hollywood executives are motivated first and foremost by the drive to keep their jobs and cover their behinds. That's the reason for instance that they keep up the charade of testing new shows with test audiences even though experience shows that it's a futile and needless exercise.

The reason they do it? Once the show fails, it gives them cover. They can say “but it tested through the roof”.

It's also very potent PR, because most people haven't caught on to that trick yet. They've caught on to most of the other tricks Hollywood uses to try and disguise its failings into successes.

Of course, one wishes all that energy was directed at making better films and TV shows, but that is a trick Hollywood still has to learn.

By: Ike

Ike — Fri, 14 Dec 2007 11:07:24 +0000

I almost never watch “The Shield” but it wouldn’t have lasted this long if it weren’t profitable in some way. It probably draws huge numbers of men 18-34 and men 18-49 which is a very lucrative demo because that audience is otherwise so difficult to capture. So many men 18-49 and especially men 18-34 have abandoned TV for video games, the Internet, DVDs, etc. and rarely watch anything but sports, so advertisers will pay out the wazoo to reach them. I’m not saying it’s right, but it’s true.

By: Ike

Ike — Fri, 14 Dec 2007 10:07:24 +0000

I almost never watch “The Shield” but it wouldn't have lasted this long if it weren't profitable in some way. It probably draws huge numbers of men 18-34 and men 18-49 which is a very lucrative demo because that audience is otherwise so difficult to capture. So many men 18-49 and especially men 18-34 have abandoned TV for video games, the Internet, DVDs, etc. and rarely watch anything but sports, so advertisers will pay out the wazoo to reach them. I'm not saying it's right, but it's true.

By: Rena Moretti

Rena Moretti — Thu, 13 Dec 2007 17:25:48 +0000

I like when I can find complete lists because there’s always interesting surprises. Like when I found that “hit” The Shield in the 300s with a lilliputian audience.

But Top 20 is better than nothing.

Thanks for the info and the response.

By: Robert Seidman

Robert Seidman — Thu, 13 Dec 2007 17:13:26 +0000

Rena, we’re limited to a list of 20 (versus complete), but you’re not the only one who has asked for a “true” top 20 list taking all the DVR (LIVE+7) viewers into account.

Mostly the reason we didn’t publish it is because by the time it comes out it is so dated, but, next time I talk to Bill we’ll discuss it.

By: Rena Moretti

Rena Moretti — Thu, 13 Dec 2007 17:09:38 +0000

I think a complete (or at least Top 20) of ratings including the +7 Data would be more informative than who got the most DVR audience, which is pretty much academic.

By: Rena Moretti

Rena Moretti — Thu, 13 Dec 2007 16:25:48 +0000

I like when I can find complete lists because there's always interesting surprises. Like when I found that "hit" The Shield in the 300s with a lilliputian audience.

But Top 20 is better than nothing.

Thanks for the info and the response.

By: Robert Seidman

Robert Seidman — Thu, 13 Dec 2007 16:13:26 +0000

Rena, we're limited to a list of 20 (versus complete), but you're not the only one who has asked for a “true” top 20 list taking all the DVR (LIVE+7) viewers into account.

Mostly the reason we didn't publish it is because by the time it comes out it is so dated, but, next time I talk to Bill we'll discuss it.

By: Rena Moretti

Rena Moretti — Thu, 13 Dec 2007 16:09:38 +0000

I think a complete (or at least Top 20) of ratings including the +7 Data would be more informative than who got the most DVR audience, which is pretty much academic.