A glowing examination in tomorrow’s LA Times on the late-blooming success of NCIS. Now in its sixth season, it achieved a record audience for the series last Tuesday. It’s an interesting article that touches on a topic of frequent discussion here — serial shows vs. procedural shows and even procedurals that have serial story lines vs. those, like NCIS that do not:
But looked at more closely, “NCIS’ ” rise becomes easier to understand. For one thing, the series has bucked TV’s trend toward serialized storytelling, which, though popular with hard-core fans and many critics, requires more dedication from viewers and has almost certainly tamped down ratings for many shows.
“NCIS” “probably has not lost many of its core viewers over time,” Steve Sternberg, an executive vice president at New York-based ad firm Magna, wrote in an e-mail. “There is a small central cast and close-ended story lines. This makes it easier for new viewers to tune in and figure out what’s going on.” – from the LA Times article “How Does CBS Spell Success? ‘NCIS’“
Update: it must be a national NCIS holiday. The New York Time is on it too:
But that statistic told only part of the “NCIS” success story. Two weeks ago CBS decided to fill a weak hour, Friday at 9 p.m., with repeats of “NCIS.” In both weeks since the repeat has been the most-watched show on Friday, with more than 11 million viewers each time.
And the cable network USA, which added “NCIS” repeats to its schedule in September, has seen its ratings soar anywhere it places “NCIS.” The show has dominated in its regular spot at 7 p.m., and on most nights it is the No. 1 or 2 entertainment show on cable, drawing audiences of more than four million.
Update 2: USA Today is also in on it (thanks to Jenn in the comments for the link) it’s all hail NCIS day:
The familiarity of procedural dramas, much like gangster movies and musicals in the ’30s, can offer comfort in troubled times, says Jonathan Taplin, a professor at the University of Southern California’s Annenberg School for Communication.
Some of NCIS‘ audience growth also may be the indirect result of last season’s writers’ strike, executive producer Shane Brennan says. The writers squeezed numerous story lines into the few episodes available at the end of the season.
“We built a lot of momentum coming out of the strike. We cranked up the pressure in the last eight or so episodes,” he says. “It was unrelenting for the audience.”
Viewers have much shorter attention spans these days – serialized shows will continue to have trouble just getting on the air on major networks.
I dunno i think it is just simple that more complex shows are harder to get the feel of than say a simple minded comedy that is easy to understand and doesn’t rely on past storylines. Its not that people have shorter attention spans its just harder to understand shows (say the Wire) where so much complexity along with alot of it being built up from old episodes. I don’t think its hard for these shows to get on air; many serialized shows may fail over time but they can be 2-3 year hits for networks.
NCIS is a sophisticated show. However, it’s readily accessible to people who are “new” viewers. That’s the real story of NCIS: every season has seen an increase in viewers, which almost never happens.
Contrast NCIS with my #1 favorite cult-like show, TSCC. It takes a lot of ramping-up in order to understand what’s going on with TSCC. A new viewer could watch 3/4 of an episode and not understand Cameron isn’t a person, and not be able to understand why characters react the way they do. So it gets confusing and nuanced — and inaccessible to new or casual viewers.
With NCIS, everyone’s role is more-or-less defined. The characters ARE well written and well developed. They express their quirks in ways that reward long-time viewers of the show but in ways that do not distract or confuse the core audience (e.g. giving the goth girl soda, or smacking Denozzo upside the head, or Ducky’s ramblings).
Since you have the NY and LA Times articles from yesterday I guess I should tell you there was also one in USA Today yesterday as well… Here is the link for it…
http://www.usatoday.com/life/television/news/2008-11-16-ncis_N.htm
Nothing about this show makes me remotely interested in it. An aging Mark Harmon, a very white cast, Goth girl who seems found herself lost in the wrong series, forensics, forensics, forensics. Nothing quirky about it.
I guess just the “values” type of show that pleases middle America! It’s the Dancing with the Stars of scripted TV.
I mentioned NCIS in some other post and won’t rehash it, but besides Outlander’s excellent point about the balance between quirkiness and broad characterization, it seems to have a little of the foriegn intrigue razzledazzle of Alias and 24 without the heavyhanded possibly right wing overtones of the latter and the confusing twists of the former. Sort of like Jag with a Viagra shot. I think its popular with over 45 military types, and their spouses and relatives, of which I know more than a few.
Jay,
I was going to mention that military/law enforcement make up maybe the largest TV base in America. NCSI, JAG, The Unit, Army Wives and for 50 years, Cops and AMW, have been hits as a direct result.
Gimme a serial over a procedural anytime!
“procedurals that have serial story lines vs. those, like NCIS that do not”
NCIS has serial storylines. Ari, La Grenouille and now the traitor have all taken up episodes here and there in between the procedural episodes.
Perhaps it’s not a procedural vs serial question as much as it’s a number of episodes per season question. I though the most interesting quote above was:
“We built a lot of momentum coming out of the strike. We cranked up the pressure in the last eight or so episodes,” he says. “It was unrelenting for the audience.”
The season was inherently shorter, so the series itself was more densely packed, according to the producer, who also seems to be saying they’ve maintained that approach this season.
Perhaps the cable model of 12 or 13 episodes per season would increase the popularity of most shows, procedural or otherwise.