Comments on: Would a Network Accept a Loss? http://tvbythenumbers.com/2008/08/06/would-a-network-accept-a-loss/4611 Nielsen TV Show Ratings, Data and More Sat, 21 Nov 2009 21:00:06 -0800 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.6 hourly 1 By: Mikey http://tvbythenumbers.com/2008/08/06/would-a-network-accept-a-loss/4611#comment-14602 Mikey Thu, 07 Aug 2008 21:29:49 +0000 http://tvbythenumbers.com/?p=4611#comment-14602 We also don't know if AMC has been able to raise its subscriber fee by having such a critically acclaimed show, or if they are now being carried on cable systems that weren't previously carrying them.<br><br>AMC can monetize that show in ways that a broadcast network can't.<br><br>Even if they aren't making up their costs in commercial sales and DVD sales (and they probably aren't) a show like Mad Men can still be a big moneymaker in more roundabout ways. We also don't know if AMC has been able to raise its subscriber fee by having such a critically acclaimed show, or if they are now being carried on cable systems that weren't previously carrying them.

AMC can monetize that show in ways that a broadcast network can't.

Even if they aren't making up their costs in commercial sales and DVD sales (and they probably aren't) a show like Mad Men can still be a big moneymaker in more roundabout ways.

]]> By: guest5001 http://tvbythenumbers.com/2008/08/06/would-a-network-accept-a-loss/4611#comment-14601 guest5001 Thu, 07 Aug 2008 10:46:11 +0000 http://tvbythenumbers.com/?p=4611#comment-14601 To answer your question. SURE!<br><br>Obviously, as well you all know NBC is set to an air the upcoming bomb this month...otherwise known as the "Summer Olympics."<br><br>To refresh your memory, NBC forked nearly $6 billion for the rights to broadcast the so-called 'event' that stretches from early 2000 until 2012.<br><br>They should have spent that money cloning Brandon Tartikoff instead, and i'm not even kidding! To answer your question. SURE!

Obviously, as well you all know NBC is set to an air the upcoming bomb this month…otherwise known as the “Summer Olympics.”

To refresh your memory, NBC forked nearly $6 billion for the rights to broadcast the so-called 'event' that stretches from early 2000 until 2012.

They should have spent that money cloning Brandon Tartikoff instead, and i'm not even kidding!

]]> By: Doug http://tvbythenumbers.com/2008/08/06/would-a-network-accept-a-loss/4611#comment-14600 Doug Wed, 06 Aug 2008 19:01:58 +0000 http://tvbythenumbers.com/?p=4611#comment-14600 I think we all have to keep in mind that most series are never going to be hits for whatever reason. AD had cult classic written all over it, and Fox did give it three seasons. I really don't blame Fox in AD's cancellation. I mean, it was on Sundays for two seasons and won the best comedy emmy in its first. That's pretty stable. But it also lost a consistent portion of its lead-in in every timeslot it aired. It was just a show that was never going to catch on, even if it's now more popular than it was when it aired. And I say this as a huge AD fan, one who owns all the DVDs, can recite entire scenes and has seen every episode at least 5 times. 30 Rock is the same deal. I don't like 30 rock, however. <br><br>Mad Men may very well be in the same league. What MM gives AMC is definitely branding, and awards. For that alone, I can see MM getting a third season, if not more. I think we all have to keep in mind that most series are never going to be hits for whatever reason. AD had cult classic written all over it, and Fox did give it three seasons. I really don't blame Fox in AD's cancellation. I mean, it was on Sundays for two seasons and won the best comedy emmy in its first. That's pretty stable. But it also lost a consistent portion of its lead-in in every timeslot it aired. It was just a show that was never going to catch on, even if it's now more popular than it was when it aired. And I say this as a huge AD fan, one who owns all the DVDs, can recite entire scenes and has seen every episode at least 5 times. 30 Rock is the same deal. I don't like 30 rock, however.

Mad Men may very well be in the same league. What MM gives AMC is definitely branding, and awards. For that alone, I can see MM getting a third season, if not more.

]]> By: Adrian http://tvbythenumbers.com/2008/08/06/would-a-network-accept-a-loss/4611#comment-14599 Adrian Wed, 06 Aug 2008 16:58:17 +0000 http://tvbythenumbers.com/?p=4611#comment-14599 I agree about the value to a network not necesarily coming from the number of same day viewers. There are many critically acclaimed cancelled shows that made loads of money for the network after it was cancelled (Firefly and the first season of Family Guy leap to mind). In fact, I would bet they made more money off of reruns on other cable channels, rentals, and DVD sales then they ever made while on the air. Not to mention all the merchandising and licensing. I'm pretty sure they also make money when they distribute for online viewing through their own website, Netflix, Hulu, and the like. Again, it may not be the same kind of single day killing that a season premiere might make, but those episodes are up on the web for a long time and potentially collect a lot more viewers cumulatively over time and more money for the network. I also think that the metrics are a bit out of date and can't be completely counted on to estimate the value of a show and its success among different demographics. Almost everyone in my family watches TV online, even though most of them can watch it live or with DVR on their TV. This includes my 50-ish parents and step-parents all the way down to my 17year old sister. The problem is time. It takes time to set these up to record. It also requires you to know about the show as it is happening; often you hear about the show after it has started or the season is over. Sometimes you jump into it in the second or third season (as my sister did with Lost) and have to play catch up. Its also plain easier to just look something up online and watch it exactly when and where you want to watch it. I agree about the value to a network not necesarily coming from the number of same day viewers. There are many critically acclaimed cancelled shows that made loads of money for the network after it was cancelled (Firefly and the first season of Family Guy leap to mind). In fact, I would bet they made more money off of reruns on other cable channels, rentals, and DVD sales then they ever made while on the air. Not to mention all the merchandising and licensing. I'm pretty sure they also make money when they distribute for online viewing through their own website, Netflix, Hulu, and the like. Again, it may not be the same kind of single day killing that a season premiere might make, but those episodes are up on the web for a long time and potentially collect a lot more viewers cumulatively over time and more money for the network. I also think that the metrics are a bit out of date and can't be completely counted on to estimate the value of a show and its success among different demographics. Almost everyone in my family watches TV online, even though most of them can watch it live or with DVR on their TV. This includes my 50-ish parents and step-parents all the way down to my 17year old sister. The problem is time. It takes time to set these up to record. It also requires you to know about the show as it is happening; often you hear about the show after it has started or the season is over. Sometimes you jump into it in the second or third season (as my sister did with Lost) and have to play catch up. Its also plain easier to just look something up online and watch it exactly when and where you want to watch it.

]]> By: Chris Merrill http://tvbythenumbers.com/2008/08/06/would-a-network-accept-a-loss/4611#comment-14598 Chris Merrill Wed, 06 Aug 2008 16:32:50 +0000 http://tvbythenumbers.com/?p=4611#comment-14598 Thinking about it and reading this post, I have to concede the point. When you look at it that way, a network would be willing to accept a loss to improve their value. <br>The sad part is I work in retail, where firesale items are sold at a loss to get people into the store (aka - loss leaders). Ideally, the people buy more stuff than the loss leaders and the store still makes money. Basically the same thing, but it didn't occur to me that TV networks would do it too. <br>My problem here was viewing TV in general through a narrow of news broadcasts. If they remain unprofitable (or sometimes even if viewship stagnates) they fire the producer and get another. The Sunday shows are a likely exception to that and to tie it to this post's point, the hope there is to make news and get your show and network mentioned non-stop for a news cycle, which is publicity you can't buy Thinking about it and reading this post, I have to concede the point. When you look at it that way, a network would be willing to accept a loss to improve their value.
The sad part is I work in retail, where firesale items are sold at a loss to get people into the store (aka – loss leaders). Ideally, the people buy more stuff than the loss leaders and the store still makes money. Basically the same thing, but it didn't occur to me that TV networks would do it too.
My problem here was viewing TV in general through a narrow of news broadcasts. If they remain unprofitable (or sometimes even if viewship stagnates) they fire the producer and get another. The Sunday shows are a likely exception to that and to tie it to this post's point, the hope there is to make news and get your show and network mentioned non-stop for a news cycle, which is publicity you can't buy

]]> By: JAy http://tvbythenumbers.com/2008/08/06/would-a-network-accept-a-loss/4611#comment-14597 JAy Wed, 06 Aug 2008 16:32:31 +0000 http://tvbythenumbers.com/?p=4611#comment-14597 ox really screwed the pooch with Arrested Development, with their shoddy advertising and time-slot changes. Granted it was going to be a niche show, but they stuck the knife in and lost a lot of goodwill from me (they can get it back if they greenlight a MOVIE!!!).<br><br>I wish they had taken the NCE Office approach - a stable timeslot, good lead-ins, and good advertising. I think if they'd kept it til season 4 they would have seen the fans tuning in.<br><br>More generally, I think if something is of fantastic quality (The Wire, AD), they should stay supportive as the product is likely to be remembered (and purchased) for years to come.<br>I underst ox really screwed the pooch with Arrested Development, with their shoddy advertising and time-slot changes. Granted it was going to be a niche show, but they stuck the knife in and lost a lot of goodwill from me (they can get it back if they greenlight a MOVIE!!!).

I wish they had taken the NCE Office approach – a stable timeslot, good lead-ins, and good advertising. I think if they'd kept it til season 4 they would have seen the fans tuning in.

More generally, I think if something is of fantastic quality (The Wire, AD), they should stay supportive as the product is likely to be remembered (and purchased) for years to come.
I underst

]]> By: Robert Seidman http://tvbythenumbers.com/2008/08/06/would-a-network-accept-a-loss/4611#comment-14596 Robert Seidman Wed, 06 Aug 2008 16:16:07 +0000 http://tvbythenumbers.com/?p=4611#comment-14596 CT, I did not make assumptions. I wrote about one specific case, with one specific franchise (where the owner is certainly not one to "poor mouth"). As for Mad Men's profitability, I have no idea. You can speculate that it's profitable, and it may well be. I do not have an opinion on this one way or the other and wasn't focusing on Mad Men specifically, but rather addressing instances when a network might accept a loss. CT, I did not make assumptions. I wrote about one specific case, with one specific franchise (where the owner is certainly not one to “poor mouth”). As for Mad Men's profitability, I have no idea. You can speculate that it's profitable, and it may well be. I do not have an opinion on this one way or the other and wasn't focusing on Mad Men specifically, but rather addressing instances when a network might accept a loss.

]]> By: Robert Seidman http://tvbythenumbers.com/2008/08/06/would-a-network-accept-a-loss/4611#comment-14595 Robert Seidman Wed, 06 Aug 2008 16:13:09 +0000 http://tvbythenumbers.com/?p=4611#comment-14595 Holly, they definitely spent more on advertising this year, but I'm very skeptical that it's anywhere near the 25 million that has been reported, but I agree with you completely about accepting losses in the name of trying to build original (scripted) series. Holly, they definitely spent more on advertising this year, but I'm very skeptical that it's anywhere near the 25 million that has been reported, but I agree with you completely about accepting losses in the name of trying to build original (scripted) series.

]]> By: CT http://tvbythenumbers.com/2008/08/06/would-a-network-accept-a-loss/4611#comment-14594 CT Wed, 06 Aug 2008 16:03:15 +0000 http://tvbythenumbers.com/?p=4611#comment-14594 By using the sports franchise analogy, you're assuming that the teams that cry poverty are actually losing money year after year -- and they're not. Major-league owners are notorious for cooking their books to make it look like their teams are losing money: Paying rent to an arena management company which they own separately, etc. Some franchises have claimed annual losses for decades; doesn't add up.<br><br>Similarly, for shows like Mad Men, the sponsorship and product placement deals pay off a lot more than you'd think, and costs can be amortized. I seriously doubt AMC is losing money on it -- I'd bet the opposite. By using the sports franchise analogy, you're assuming that the teams that cry poverty are actually losing money year after year — and they're not. Major-league owners are notorious for cooking their books to make it look like their teams are losing money: Paying rent to an arena management company which they own separately, etc. Some franchises have claimed annual losses for decades; doesn't add up.

Similarly, for shows like Mad Men, the sponsorship and product placement deals pay off a lot more than you'd think, and costs can be amortized. I seriously doubt AMC is losing money on it — I'd bet the opposite.

]]> By: Holly http://tvbythenumbers.com/2008/08/06/would-a-network-accept-a-loss/4611#comment-13429 Holly Wed, 06 Aug 2008 15:47:47 +0000 http://tvbythenumbers.com/?p=4611#comment-13429 You went from every other post being about Mad Men to every post being about Mad Men...Not really the change I was expecting ;)<br><br>On the topic: I do think AMC plans to loose money on Mad Men. They spent an incredible amount of money on advertising this second season, money that simply cannot be recouped with what BMW and other advertisers are going to pay for spots during the show. Why would they spend all that money for a show that will never get stellar ratings? They are trying to build something new. If AMC really wants to get into the business of airing original scripted programs, they have to accept a loss for a while to get established. And like you said, it also brings attention (and hopefully viewers) to the network overall. You went from every other post being about Mad Men to every post being about Mad Men…Not really the change I was expecting ;)

On the topic: I do think AMC plans to loose money on Mad Men. They spent an incredible amount of money on advertising this second season, money that simply cannot be recouped with what BMW and other advertisers are going to pay for spots during the show. Why would they spend all that money for a show that will never get stellar ratings? They are trying to build something new. If AMC really wants to get into the business of airing original scripted programs, they have to accept a loss for a while to get established. And like you said, it also brings attention (and hopefully viewers) to the network overall.

]]>