There are all kinds of nonproductive approaches to saving fan favorites that are Nielsen ratings challenged. People dream all the time. They dream that because they believe that Nielsen is an antiquated system, the ratings aren’t accurate and shouldn’t matter. One way or the other, for now, they’re dreaming. When it comes to that kind of dreaming I’d prefer to save it for some alternate universe where Gisele Bundchen can’t tell the difference between me and Tom Brady.
I wanted to at least take a crack at something that at least potentially was a more productive approach. It may wind up as unproductive as thinking about an alternate reality where Gisele can’t tell the difference between me and Tom Brady, but no harm in trying.
This is a rough draft/thinking out loud on the Internet type of deal. It’s definitely very high level, very pie-in-the-sky, with many flimsy arguments that are easily blown aside. Indeed, there are already many holes and unresolved issues, but feel free to shoot more. If enough of the holes can’t be plugged, it’s not viable anyway.
I’m not sure it’s possible to plug all the holes, but I’m not yet sure it isn’t. If they can be plugged, it could possibly be framework that accomplishes two things. It would actually save some fan favorites, and it would also be an economically viable alternative for the studios making the shows. If the studios can’t be sold on the idea, it’s DOA. Which means it’s probably DOA, because most or all of the studios would need to participate in order for it to work.
A journey of 10,000 miles begins with a single 10,000 words
Beyond the desire to save shows, I truly believe that when you have 7 million people who like something (or really even 6 million, 5 million and yes, even four million) you have something that has a huge value. It may not be of value to, or make sense for, the broadcast networks, but there is still value.
The underlying premise (which is possibly wrong) is that there is a lot of value in brands with that kind of scale. Not enough value for the broadcast nets though and not necessarily because those shows can’t be profitable, but because of the squandered opportunity costs. Keeping a show that draws 5 or 6 million takes a slot away from a show that could draw 12 million. I’m working from the premise that just because it doesn’t make sense for the broadcast networks, doesn’t necessarily mean it can’t make sense anywhere.
While there is no doubt in my mind that a show with 7 million viewers has value, it’s not lost on me that if you move that show off the broadcast networks to another network, it will lose a good chunk of the viewers, and the trick becomes how to get value once that happens.
Nobody Does Scale like TV
I’m going to spend a lot of lines on my fascination with scale. And if you already well appreciate the enormous scale television has, I’d skip this section and scroll to the next. I appreciate things with large scale, and it’s one of the reasons that the TV business interests me, particularly the broadcast networks that still can somewhat regularly (thanks to American Idol and Dancing With the Stars) reach more than 20 million average viewers. Some networks have adjusted expectations ( we’re looking at you, NBC), but a show like Life or even Chuck which is seemingly on the bubble for renewal, still generate relatively massive scale. And as long as we’re speaking relatively, that’s true even among 18-49 year olds.
With a 2.1 final adults 18-49 Nielsen ratings last Monday night (final ratings), NBC’s Chuck averaged around 2.77 million 18-49 year olds for the hour. Many more than that watched some of the show and there were more people who even saw all of the show actually. People who flip the channel after the credits start to roll and don’t wind up watching the last minute or two of the hour don’t count for the whole hour. When you (yes you, the one person who reads our blog that is in a Nielsen family!) change the channel for a few minutes during commercials and then change back, the time you were away isn’t counted either.
Averaging 2.77 million 18-49 year olds in an ONE SINGLE HOUR isn’t an easy feat anywhere other than television. Our web site has been up almost every minute of every day since the middle of September 2007 (minus what probably adds up to about a whole day of downtime). So we’ve been around roughly THIRTEEN THOUSAND hours. According to Google Analytics, we still haven’t reached 2.77 million unique visitors. We’re at 2.67 million and that includes the under 18 and over 50 crowd too. Our trend is good though (1.85M out of the 2.67M were in the last six months).
I’m not saying it’s reasonable to compare a niche web site with no marketing budget to a television show on broadcast television. Of course it isn’t. I am just trying to illustrate the scale. It took us almost 13,000 hours to reach less total viewers, often, for less than one minute, than Chuck was able to average in one hour with just the 18-49 year olds. On an engagement basis, Monday’s Chuck had ~166 million minutes of engagement with 18-49 year olds. In our 13,000 hours of existence we’ve had 8.4 million minutes of engagement. One hour of Chuck had 158 million more minutes of engagement with 18-49 year olds than our 13,000ish hours of existence had among all ages.
I’m not honestly sure that Google, the biggest site on the Internet, even with Youtube, Gmail, Google News etc, thrown in bests Chuck in terms of total engagement with 18-49 year olds at 8pm on Mondays. Even shows sitting on the bubble have epic scale compared to practically anything else. Unfortunately the practically anything else also includes shows on other networks (and especially shows on their own networks) that have even more scale.
When American Idol averages nearly 27 million as it did Tuesday night from 9pm-10pm, we’re talking 1.6 billion minutes and nearly half of that or 800 million minutes were in the coveted 18-49 demographic. I am feeling very comfortable that Google, the biggest deal on the Internet, didn’t have anywhere near that level of engagement for the hour. We’re talking truly epic relative scale.
The Castoff Network
As architected currently, the ”Castoff Network” is available on cable/satellite. I know it will need a much better name if it is ever to see the light of day. I like the BCAST Network for a lot of reasons, but it’s way too early to spin out into a naming discussion. I am using the term Castoff to be light, and not pejorative. The whole reason for this network again is because I believe there must be value in these shows, and the brands and followings they have created even if the shows don’t make sense for the broadcast networks
Sure, some will say it’s like The Land of the Misfit Toys from Rudolph the Red-nosed Reindeer, only for TV shows. But that’s ok, on the Christmas special version, the conclusion is there is value to the misfits.
The biggest obstacle may be that in my proposed model, ABC, CBS, FOX and NBC all need to participate. The Castoff Network is a joint venture between all of them. That’s tough right out of the gate. And it’s even tougher because really the necessary model probably is to have all the studios participate rather than the networks. For discussion purposes, I’m sticking with the network model simply because it’s easier to talk about in those terms.
What’s Our Business Model?
I don’t think it’s impossible, but it would be a tough challenge and could not likely be launched in the current environment because the network would need some runway. The business model is a mix of subscription revenue and advertising. Not unlike some cable channels, except it would be a for fee service on top of basic cable.
YES, FEE MEANS IT’S NOT FREE
I see it as a subscription cable channel like HBO. Only it costs less. I’d propose $6/mo., with the cable/satellite operators getting some of it (say $1). But this is potentially another big hole because Comcast, Time Warner and DirecTV may laugh hysterically at the notion of only getting ~17%. But in the example I’m using, in order to be viable it would probably need to attract at least 5 million subscribers. That’s harder than getting 5 million people to watch Chuck on NBC, for sure. But it is doable (see below in If Showtime can do it…). But I’m not sure how quickly in the best case scenario 5 million could be achieved.
I REPEAT. IT IS NOT A FREE CHANNEL. As modeled above, it’s less than $1.50 a week though. Less than a single cup of the smallest (Tall) coffee Starbucks has to offer. If you’re not willing to pay that’s fine but you shouldn’t ever get mad at the networks for pulling the plug on your shows.
Fans are not entitled to be provided with free entertainment on broadcast television just because they like a show, even though many are operating under the misguided notion that they are entitled. Almost every show attracts a following, and it is indeed unfortunate that every show that does that doesn’t wind up making sense for the broadcast nets. But it is inevitable that not all will make sense. That is a reality that many fans do not accept, and some fans don’t even consider. But that doesn’t change the reality of it.
It’s fine to be disappointed when a show is canceled and it’s fine to care about a show enough to be willing to be pay for it. You’re absolutely entitled to disappointment even if you’re not willing to pay. But if you’re not willing to pay, you are not entitled to indignation! When it comes to indignation, you have to pay up or shut up. Less than a cup of the smallest cup of Starbucks coffee per week! Come on, suck it up.
If you aren’t willing to pay a $1.50 per week you’re not entitled to any indignation. But even those who will whine but not pay up should also root for the network to succeed anyway! It will allow you to buy (or pirate) your favorite shows in other venues be it DVD, or iTunes.
I don’t see free web streaming access in the cards for years for the Castoff Network, so, sorry Hulu fans!
C’mon, how can the Castoff Network be worth $6/mo!?!
I can’t really tell you what I actually pay for the premium channels I have because I’m in weird bundles. But the list price on HBO and Showtime is $18.99 per month (technically in my bundle I think I am getting HBO for free currently, but am paying full freight for Showtime, $18.99!!).
On Showtime I watch Weeds, Californication, Dexter, and lately US of Tara. One of these days I’ll get around to checking out The Tudors. I almost never watch Showtime for movies and don’t think of it as a movie channel. Other than the shows I listed, I don’t watch anything else. Yes, I know, I need to cancel Showtime because it’s costing me much more to watch the shows I watch than it would to buy the DVDs. But that idiots like me exist make me more optimistic about the ability for the Castoff Network to attract subscribers at $6/mo.
I’d very likely watch just as many shows on the Castoff Network and as modeled, it would cost less than 1/4rd.
If Showtime can do it…
And before you say, “there’s NO no way could you get 5 million people to pay $6/mo. for the Castoff Network, Nielsen estimates there are over 19 million subscribers to Showtime. I’m sure they’re not all idiots like I am who are paying $18.99 a month, but I’d guess there are 19 million homes averaging more than $6. But then again, Showtime had a long, long time to grow to that many subscribers.
Showtime needs to be more expensive because it doesn’t have advertising. I’m not sure if this means we need to raise the subscription fee of the Castoff Network to $9 or $10 or whether Showtime is very overpriced for what it offers.
The Castoff Network launches!
Each of the networks would pick 3 one hour shows that are not being renewed by the network to send to the Castoff Network. There are no 30 minute comedies or unscripted shows in the Monday-Thursday prime-time lineup of the Castoff Network, just 1 hour scripted shows. The way that would work in the first year (using this year’s castoffs) is something like (pick 3):
NBC: Life, Lipstick Jungle, Knight Rider, My Own Worst Enemy, potentially FNL (I’m leaving Chuck out in hopes it wouldn’t be sent to the Castoff Network!)
ABC: Eli Stone, Pushing Daisies, Dirty Sexy Money, Life on Mars
Some immediate holes appear. Unless they brought back Prison Break for another season, FOX, which programs fewer hours, only has two potential shows to send to the Castoff Network (Terminator: The Sarah Connor Chronicles and Dollhouse). Or FOX could wheel and deal and send only two allowing NBC to send another show (and they’d have to figure out how to pay FOX for that).
CBS might have zero shows it would want to send. It has shows it will cancel, sure, but since for the Mon-Thursday primetime block there are only one hour scripted shows with no comedy or reality, and since some of the shows CBS will cancel may be long in tooth and hard to produce cheaply… Well, they might have to go back a year and resurrect Jericho, Moonlight and Cane (or Swingtown – hey, we’re on cable now!). Can you imagine!? I can’t, but still fun to think about.
What do we do in year two?
Launching the home for castoff shows was relatively easy compared to what happens the following year. The second season would be much trickier. Perhaps ultimately more complex than figuring out the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT) though I’m guessing way less people are affected by that these days. I haven’t come up with a perfect system or even a reasonable system yet for handling the scheduling in the second year.
In year two, you have NEW castoffs from the broadcast networks, but you also must (hopefully) have some relative Castoff Network hits. You can’t clean the slate every year because if it’s just the “One More Year of Slow and Painful Death for your show Network” I don’t think it can gain any traction. A Terminator: The Sarah Connor Chronicles fan who had at least the illusion of a multi-year run will be much more willing to pay than a fan who knows the show has only one more year.
Unfortunately my bias is probably to create scenarios that would cause the most focus on ratings and do things like automatically cancel the lowest rated show in each time slot. The 8pm Monday show fans will scream bloody hell at that approach, but it would make for some interesting analysis. Ultimately though I think a reasonable system for dealing with each year’s castoffs could be accommodated.
Overly Simplistic Look at the Economics
The model of $6/mo. subscriptions with $5 of it going to the Castoff Net produces $300 million annually. In order to produce 20 episodes of all twelve Castoff Network shows at a cost of $2 million/episode, we also need to somehow sell $180 million worth of advertising just to break even on the production of those shows.
The extra $180 million seems in the realm of very doable even within new airings of the Monday through Thursday primetime episodes. It would work out somewhere around $20,000. It could (and would) be argued that advertising to people who were willing to pay $6/mo. extra and still see advertising come at a premium rate.
But these back of the envelope numbers only get me to break even on what I’m paying for shows. I’d have to sell more advertising to pay for the Castoff Network staff and have a marketing budget. This also assumes an immediate ramp-up to 5 million subscribers, and in real life it wouldn’t happen like that.
240 down, 8,520 to go
The good news is there is a lot of opportunity for selling additional advertising space. The bad news? Well, I’ve taken care of programming the Monday through Thursday 8pm-11pm prime-time slot for 20 weeks out of the year or 240 hours out of the 8,760 hours a year I have to program. And like the CW, I didn’t really figure out Sunday, or Friday and I have no affiliates (and I’m thrilled about that) to give back Saturdays to, and that’s. Just prime-time.
There’s still 8,520 hours to sort out and probably 8,520 things to sort out on top of that. But sorting all of that out will seem like a day at the beach once we’ve sorted out how the heck can we get all the studios to agree to participate.
For the 12 of you who read down this far thanks! Now feel free to get out your guns and start shooting holes, or better still, feel free to start plugging the holes.
I think you have two major problems here –and you do note them, but they are major:
1) The fact that you used “castoff” in your writeup, has me worried. You could have come up with something a little less negative. How about, Niche Market shows? Or TGFBC (too good for basic cable)?
2) Getting people to pay for a TV channel is not only very difficult, but you also have to convince the cable companies to give you the channel. Not to mention the need for capital.
That is why I have a different solution: I would be crazy to post it here. But it involves a similar idea but with an entirely different solution.
As for #1, I agree, but there are shows that get canceled that are very large niches, they just aren’t necessarily large for broadcast. But, I still agree.
As for #2, the premise is that if all the studios participate, they would sink capital in, and that if all the studios participate they could come up with one channel that was already getting carriage to convert. And even if they couldn’t, they could get carriage by paying (which would require capital). In the best of scenarios, it’s a network that doesn’t break even for a while, but that seems true for most networks.
Ok, one big flaw. You use all $300mil in revenue for production of the shows. You won’t have any employees? You won’t get a nice big paycheck yourself? I’m sure there are other expenses to running a network as well.
Other than that (and you may have answered this, since I skimmed a bit at parts), are you just going to have dead air outside of Mon-Thurs primetime?
Julia, read the whole thing or don’t comment.
So that’s what the last four paragraphs were about!
Ok, you know what? I will mention ONE scenario/solution here, and trust that you are an honorable man who will cut me in for 10% when this thing works.
Instead of starting your own network, why not try to sell the high-end shows pulling in 5 to 6 million, to established basic cable channels trying to create content, like TNT/TBS (they still call it both or one of those)?
I know that FOX and NBC have established cable networks they could move shows to, but for whatever reason, they rarely do. So why would TNT/TBS not be an option? You would know better than I. If Turner was willing to pay production costs, on a lower budget, what would prevent the networks from leasing their rights?
Jack, basic cable nets don’t have the budget for broadcast shows. The point of the Castoff Network is that that’s the whole point of the entire network’s budget.
I didn’t say they would work on a broadcast network’s budget. I said a lower budget. If you try to make the shows on their current budget, you are going to have 6-hours of content per week.
Jack, this is the reason why the castoff network is necessary. Historically speaking, especially when it comes to recent history and one hour scripted shows that aren’t renewed by the networks after a season or two, cable networks pass on picking up shows the broadcast networks cancel.
I think a huge downside that derails it is that it requires cutting costs (and to be fair, in my model, cutting costs is required as well). Beyond costs I’d ascribe the rest of it to the cable nets unwillingness to roll the dice on broadcast network castoffs!
But if you create a network whose purpose is…
That would mean the actors, writers, producers, etc. would all have to agree to pay cuts. Why would they do that when they can just go get another pilot and hopefully a similar paying job?
The castoff network doesn’t require as much cost cutting as most cable networks would, and it’s also possible to model it in a way that at least for the 12 shows that are anchoring the network there aren’t any cuts.
Yes, Julia, under my scenario, they would have to deal with pay cuts, and other budget cuts. It would, at least at first, be a job with lower wages, but they could continue to tell their story. As for why they would do it: because some actors go years between TV or movie gigs. So, it is either less pay on cable, or theater and commercial work for two years.
Robert, but if you bring a solution to the networks, or a different option –even one that revolves around bringing the show to Turner– wouldn’t they at least listen to a proposition that nets them continued revenue on a product they will no longer produce? It is like free money.
Plus, they keep most of the home video rights.
I like your general idea, because I do think SOMEONE must give the networks a reason to begin to think outside of their box. There is no good reason to let 6 million dedicated viewers go, if you have a viable option. I am just trying to be more realistic about the premise. If you can get an established cable network to jump on board, they might even consider your pay-to-view network idea in the future. But first, I think you would need a quicker solution that gets the thought process of no longer just abandoning viable revenue streams because of a lack of slots on your assembly line.
So, in that regard, I am on board for this idea. Where do I sign up as a business analyst?
Yes, my comment was directed at Jack’s last.
As for how to fill the holes, in the second year that will become much easier. You don’t even have to cancel any shows from the first season, and then you can do a 20 week run from Sept to Feb and a 20 week run from March to July. You’ll be doubling your budget, though, so that only works if the net has really taken off. And I figure lots and lots of reruns the rest of the day. Air each episode three times in a day (reair primetime from 11pm-2am, 10am-1pm, 5pm-8pm), and get the rights to air previous seasons. That still won’t fill up all the time, but it’ll make a dent, without costing too much.
Robert, this could be done but you can’t start that ambitious. You’d have to start with say 5 shows. For 9-10pm EST Sunday through Thursday. Of course you’d have repeat viewings that same week. Repeats on Friday and Saturday of the “big,” shows. The rest of the time you could fill up with movies and old canceled TV series. Also you want to deal with the Studios, not the Networks. They’re much easier to deal with. You don’t want to share you income with them either. CBS Productions, FOX TV Studios, ABC TV Studios, and Universal are much easier to deal with. Plus you don’t want to answer to anyone.
Second, you need to shorten your 5 shows to say 12 episodes a season. Now you’re only looking at $120M in expenses for production. Throw in another $80M for employees, reruns of offed shows you won’t be airing new episodes of, and movies.
In fact I think you could really pull it off. You need to alter the “advertisement,” aspect. Think “Promotional Sponsors,” and you may have something.
Heck, if you want to do this, we could. I’m sure properly altered we could get Mark Cuban to foot it too.
You also want to pick the shows. Be creative. If CASTLE gets canned, you’d have to bring FIREFLY. Those fans are freaks. You’d get at least 500,000 paid subscribers right there, but possibly 2M just from those freaks. $6 a month? They’ll do it.
Be picky, don’t just settle for TSCC or DOLLHOUSE. Bring back old canceled stuff like JERICHO, FIREFLY, MOONLIGHT, and VERONICA MARS those fans are freakish and would likely get you your subscriber base.
Jack, in theory it sounds good, but in practice I am not much for bucking trends. And there is a very strong trend that shows broadcast networks don’t renew get shopped to other networks all the time, but never seem to get picked up.
I’m not talking about Law & Order:CI moving from NBC to USA (also owned by NBC Uni) after 5 years , I’m talking about Moonlight, Jericho, Swingtown, Liptstick Jungle, etc.
Nick, the problem is, why would people be willing to pay for a network year round when there are only new episodes 3 months a year? Which will be a problem anyhow with running only 20 episodes, but at least with 20 you can put a break in at 10 more easily to spread them out a bit.
Right, but I am talking specifically about the shows on the bubble. Starting with the ones that are not Dollhouse or Terminator. More like, Life or Chuck. Along those lines. Wouldn’t it be more difficult to start the network from scratch, without anything to show for it, than to “buck the trend” and then receive support?
After all, there is precedence for this, but usually with shows whose brands are in the general consciousness of the public. Though, if you COULD get the capital and navigate through all the hoops, I think it is an excellent idea, even if, as a business analyst, I would not suggest my venture capitalists invest.
Nick, I like how you’re thinking about it. I’m not sure you can sell it for $6/mo with only five shows and twelve episodes. You basically can only run one new episode a week that way and have something new most weeks. But given Showtime and HBO, I suppose that is just a sales job.
I’m not sure Mark C. would go for it. And I’m not enough of an entrepreneur to run the thing (I’m OK being down a notch or two and paid well!) But if most of the revenue was from subscriptions and sponsorships (rather than advertising) he’s at least a little more interested. He does believe in having products you can SELL, and this might be one.
And I agree with you in general about being creative with what you bring, however, it seems like it’s a lot easier to keep LIFE afloat right now than it is to bring back Firefly or even Jericho at this point. But I would agree those are good choices in terms of ramping up the subscriber base quickly.
Jack, I predict your method so far would save maybe a show or two every five years from the people who are willing to buck the trend. Would your approach be easier? Yes! My way is much harder, but I also think much more effective at saving fan favorites.
I do like Nick’s idea of shortening the seasons. Especially since you could still sell the season box set for full price. The niche fan who would subscribe, would pay for it anyway. They are all idi… very dedicated.
The network wouldn’t see any of the DVD money, Jack, so that doesn’t make up for the fact that you won’t be able to get 5 mil subscribers.
Julia, you can’t fund anything else, so you fill the network up with movies that would make Quinten Tarantino proud. In fact let QT have a movie night. Bring back Joe Bob Briggs. You fill the network up with pulp, and air the best of the knocked off programming.
Robert, LIFE would be an excellent choice. Try and mix and match. There are some older axed shows that could be done that would spark interest.
You’re talking a subscription service. So you understand that it would be astronomical to start this up. Just looking at the numbers it makes you understand how the CW for instance is in such a bad state.
Thinking of it more, you’d have to start with 2 shows. Air them on Sunday, it works for SHOWTIME and HBO. Keep it to 12 episodes, and again air repeats through the week. After your 3 months is up, you air 2 more shows, then it’s just rinse and repeat.
As the network grows in subscriber base you can get more ambitious and add another night of programming.
Just fill it with pulp. Take one night and make it work. By mixing the “Network Castoffs,” with shock films, etc. you’ll have a sure subscription base.
Julia, I think it does matter. It’s one of those deals like the CW. Where in the aggregate, even factoring in the red ink from the network itself, all of the studios are making a profit.
Julia, not true, you’re producing the shows. The best way to do it right, is to purchase the rights of the show and produce it yourself, with the original production company getting their kickback.
Your way is maybe even harder than you imagine, Robert. Like I said, I love the idea, but from a pure business-analytical/marketing perspective, I still can’t sell it to anyone. It screams guaranteed failure, and would need a very dedicated entrepreneur to sell it and stick with it. Cuban would not touch this even as a goof. He is extremely analytical. He would tell you the same thing: great idea, but no chance for success as is.
What you need is a hook. Something that says to the network decision makers “Hey, we never thought about it like that.” As it stands, you have an idea they may not have thought much about, but nothing that then sells it to enough people to make it profitable. HBO and Showtime spent a few decades building up their capital enough to make their own shows.
Nick, now I really like how you’re thinking about it. Not enough to e-mail Cubes for $$$ yet, but I like it!
Jack, we’re talking about the same Mark who did HDNet despite it losing money for years and years right?
So now you’re starting a studio and a network? Start up funding is going to have to be astronomical.
I don’t know enough about the whole Friday Night Lights deal. Did they purchase the rights to the show?
Jack, I agree that Mark wouldn’t touch it with a long pole, but, my thinking (which might be wrong) is that it winds up a good deal for all of the studios who are participating even if the network bleeds red ink (which it would at first, for sure).
Well, Nick… why not pitch it for HDNet then?
one big difference between HD Net and Castoff Net. Castoff will be available on Comcast!
I actually am fine with the model of using all of the existing studios. Am definitely NOT interested in creating a new studio.
Julia, you’re thinking too big. It’s just a production company. By owning the rights, you can “sell,” your distribution. Think MGM. MGM lets FOX distribute its movies on DVD and Blu Ray, and FOX bought the right to do so. So you can earn some up front money through that process.
Yes, Robert, it would bleed. But the idea is intriguing. I just think it is missing an easily definable and profitable distinction between already established models. Is it possible that you could sell it? NBCU might bite at this point. Though, they have themselves spread out pretty thin. Why not just buy the SciFi Channel? You could pick it up for $20 and a Hot Pocket.
Jack, why else bring up Cuban? Make it all in High Def, and it’s just another station in the HDNET package. It brings you instant income and subscriber base. It makes HDNET more appealing to new subscribers.
Also HDNet already has a production company in place in Magnolia Films.
OK, now I am on board, Nick. HDNet… Cuban… Castoff (still hate the name) shows… and a $300 million initial investment. Where do I sign?
Though, doesn’t Robert want his own channel?
Jack, a $300M investment? Hardly. More like $100M if you go with an established subscription network like HDNet. Of course, STARS would be another option.
Jack, the CW bleeds, and who knows if they’ll be able to stop it anytime soon? But, CBS/Paramount and Warner Bros studios are making enough for their studios that they are still coming out ahead. Why do I have to create a NEW model!
Yes, but that was my point all along. Robert did not like that idea.
@Jack, Starz would work better. I’d be against HD Net since I wouldn’t be able to actually WATCH it on Comcast!
Great. I like Starz better anyway.
Jack, I didn’t like the idea of convincing one cable network to buy one show. You wouldn’t be able to convince TBS or USA or any of its ilk to buy 5 shows. I wouldn’t have a problem with a channel that already doesn’t really air anything much in primetime that would go for the two shows on Sunday model for ~8 shows per year. I don’t think you could convince any basic cable net to take that on, but if you could, I wouldn’t be against it.
Jack, but the difference is I’m talking about established subscription networks that would be interested in a new channel that already have product that they can air on the new channel. You mentioned Turner which is Warner Brothers so they’d look at it as competition to HBO.
You’re not going to get anyone interested in starting up something completely new. The costs would be astronomical.
Robert, you still have to pitch it as a new channel. It will just be added to their package. Like Starz Comedy, or Black Starz.
Of course the problem is I can see Liberty thinking that it would fit the ENCORE Brand better.
You make a good point, Robert. But the reason I brought that up was as capital building effort (both in name and cash). And you still need a better name. The sale is in the name as much as the idea.
Instead of Castoff, why not Island (Islanded… I landed-on a new network), as in Lost Treasures, or Treasure Troves?
Jack, how about Encore TV? Pitch it to Liberty Media which owns ENCORE?
Jack, the name was a placeholder. And we’re way too early to be worrying about that AT ALL. Would it help if I replaced all references to the Castoff Network with Codename JERICHO NETWORK? It just doesn’t matter to me at this point.
Nick, if I’m reading the latest Nielsen coverage data correctly and assume it is correct data, Starz and Encore wouldn’t work — they have relatively very limited coverage.I wasn’t reading the coverage data correctly, but unfortunately we can’t see for premium cable channels what % of homes they are available to
Damn, Nick… without meaning to, you nailed it. LIBERATED. No more Castoffs. Liberated shows.
So, call the network LTV.
LTV – From the clutches of the oppressive networks they sprang, and came forth to live life anew! Firefly, Terminator, blah blah blah, can all be yours; new episodes! New stories! And programming tailored for you, the dedicated fans who mourned their demise. They live again, LIBERATED on LTV!
Ok, so I too need to work on it.
Robert, Encore has more subscribers than just about anyone don’t they at 30 million?
Robert, yeah found it: ENCORE: 30.6M, and STARZ 16.3M
So Liberty could easily handle the cost of the new station, and no, they don’t have to package it with either Encore or STARZ. Most importantly, they own 48% of DirecTV. So if you convince them, you basically get guaranteed to be on DirecTV, and John Malone is a very powerful person in the cable industry. He could likely make it available on the majors: Time Warner, Comcast, Dish, and DirecTV from the start.
Since they own first run movies from Sony & Disney you get content too. Throw in the stuff that would make QT proud and you got something to sell.
Nick, they have as many as any of the premium channels, what I can’t get a read on is how many homes they are available to (whether they subscribe or not). If it’s 85%, that’s fine. If it’s 50%, I dunno
Encore works. The name does fit the idea. The pitch could be something like:
The name Encore is a revelation for this new paradigm. The other premium cable networks are desperately trying to generate revenue from new IPs. Encore would create new content for established fan bases. Shows that did not meet the needs of the free networks, still have viable revenue potential and would increase the viewer base of Encore.
I am too tired to think of something more potent.
Robert, they’re all owned by John Malone at Liberty. So they’re likely to share similar availability as HBO and Showtime. He’s one of the most powerful people in the cable industry. So they’d definitely be an option along with HD Net, they’d be the preferred option.
You just have to package it, then budget it. Then sell it.
We could always take over one of the Encore channels. Name it: Encore Liberated… or, Encore Castoffs/Castaways.
My eyes are blurring.
That way, those who subscribe, also get all of Encore’s channels, and Robert does not need to worry about filling in programming slots all day.
Robert, I like your idea but it makes more sense if WB and CBS studios move their shows to HBO and Showtime.
Do you now how many people will watch Chuck week after week just for the slightest prospect of seeing Yvonne Strahovski and Sarah Lancaster naked.
A channel that advertises and charges is something I have feared for a long time. If you wish to run it that way I wish you fail. Commercials I can deal with. Product placement is getting out of control. The industry is going too far when I got to pay and still see commercials. I’m in the military and have seen TV in other countries. In one place I was at HBO was a cable channel. So, they added in commercial breaks. Didn’t bother me, cause I wasn’t paying extra. No matter how cheap, it is one or the other. If you succeed you open the flood gates for all cable channels to charge and ruin it for all.
If it was a dime a month, I wouldn’t pay it. I know it costs money, but for the little you want a month I can get a netflix account for about the same and then just rent them when the DVD’s come out and you lose ratings and money from the number of people who see it my way that grows every year.
I am a big TSCC fan, but to be honest with you. The past few episodes were pretty much 40 minutes of crap and a few good minutes to build a cliffhanger for next week. I’d like to see Fox move it to FX or hopefully Turner buys it and make them write some better episodes, but if it dies, I saw it coming and the show deserved it. I’ve started to get into Dollhouse a little now that it looks like the show is about to make its plot turn it’s been building. As for the rest of the shows on the bubble or already done for this season, I really don’t care for any of them enough that I’d actually miss them. So you want me to pay a reasonable price for 2 shows that will still have commercial breaks. Haven’t sold me yet and I don’t think you can sell 5 million. Plus, you want to let all the networks still be involved with the shows. No way you can keep it around 6 bucks. Each network will want a buck a month per customer themselves. Now you got to charge more a month for commercial pushed shows that should have never been on a network in the first place.
Buy the rights to the shows, run it like a Turner channel and it will succeed.
I didn’t see all the talk of making it a Starz/Encore channel. I think that would be a great idea. Again, if there were no commercial breaks, like every other show on HBO, Showtime, etc.
Pato, you probably pay on average [much] more than a dime for whichever basic cable channels you watch now, and they all have ads.
Yes I do and it is all part of a package deal. I pay for cable and the channels that come with it I consider free. If cable costs 50 bucks and you want me to pay around 10 bucks for just one more channel. That raises my bill by a 1/5. For that much I want uncensored and commercial free for that much, like I get with the movie channels I already pay so much for on top of my cable.
Forget cable or broadcast networks. Go the Hulu route – put the shows on the Net via subscription ($5 a month for the whole magilla). Load the site down with ads, not the shows themselves (although short commercials like Hulu does won’t be a problem for most people.)
Remember, this network you propose is basically for FANS of SPECIFIC shows. So you have to weed out shows that don’t have fanatical fans in sufficient numbers. Shouldn’t be that hard – just keep track of the DVR and Hulu and iTunes and Amazon and illegal downloads viewers before the show is canceled. If there’s enough of them, like TSCC, switch the show to the Net.
The key then is to build up a COMMUNITY around the site. Just running it like a Web site that shows TV shows won’t be enough to keep the site ad revenue coming in.
Just make sure the goddamn Web site doesn’t crash Firefox on Linux like Hulu does every fifteen minutes or so…
I’ve been dreaming of On Demand possibilities where you just directly BUY the shows you want to see (and support) for over 20 years. And it exists right now (at least on my Comcast system). When I think of the cult shows that have been canceled in the past that I know fans would eager pay a buck an episode to keep watching, they’d still be on the air. Maybe only sci-fi fans are this fanatical but I think it’s an economic model that would work, assuming you could attract people to watch your show in the first place (give the first five away free? who knows?).
It put a huge smile on my face that you left Chuck off the list in your proposed business model. Also that you used Chuck in your example about scale. All in all a very interesting breakfast reading as I get ready for work (ugh).
Interesting discussion, aggregating different niche audiences to pay for one “shows that died to soon” cable channel makes a lot of sense. Personally though I’ve always had a weakness for the idea of direct to dvd/internet continuation, enabling a specific group of fans to pay premium for the show of their choice. The disadvantage with me as a fan paying for a specialty channel is that it would work only as long as ‘my’ show is on, when it’s gone so am I.
Top three problems you are well aware of but I’d like to repeat anyway
- Writers and actors share the studio mindset, they don’t neccessarily want to stick around on a failed show, they’d rather move on to new opportunities, is a show without some significant actor and/or writers still worth rescuing ?
- The core fanbases of a lot of shows are smaller than they sound on the internet, a show with a 5 mill. audience on network might only have a core 100′ viewers willing to pay for additional episodes. And using a cable method of distribution automatically drops the international fans into the non payer column, you need alternatives like dvd/internet/iTunes distribution to capture this revenue.
- As already mentioned the cost base for a network show is just to big for a cable show, actors/writers/fx/other staff would have to take paycuts, would the remaining people be able to make a show of the same quality ? Or would the comments turn into ‘The show is just a shadow of it’s old self, no point in watching’.
In conclusion despite the fans energy sometimes shows should be allowed to die.
Very interesting idea here! There’s a tiny network, Pittsburgh has an affiliate, that could merge into this lot. That net is the Retro Television Network – RTN. RTN shows everything from “Leave it to Beaver” to “Buck Rogers” reruns to their own talk shows. They’d have plenty of filler for non-prime airtime. And apparently people do like it, because RTN is growing a bit
. RTN is somewhat ad-supported, though, so I don’t know how well it fits into the pay-per concept.
Let’s find a positive euphemism for “castoff.” Does NBCU/Bravo own the rights to the phrase “Brilliant But Canceled?” Hmmm…wait…that one spells out BBC in its acronym, which is clearly taken. What about the “Before Their Time” channel, BTT?
I’m very interested in this concept, though I might point out to some of the commenters that it’s not terribly wise to label groups of fans “idiots” and “freaks” when you want them to give you $6 a month.
That said, sign me up.
You have to remember that in general, 90% of television watchers are not savvy. If you take Chuck off of NBC and put it on this new channel, if it’s harder than flipping the remote, half of them won’t do it (and you’re talking about subscribing to a new channel potentially on DTV).
FNL moved to DTV and drew about 1/8 of the viewers it had beforehand.
Passions moved to DTV and drew a fraction as well – it was promptly canceled.
Hell, when Sabrina The Teenage Witch moved to the WB, despite airing in the same timeslot as on ABC, it lost half of it’s audience.
I think you also overestimate the number of fans who would do this. When TSCC aired on Mondays, everybody assumed that the 5 million people watching it were its core audience, but then it moved to Fridays and drew only 3 million. It’s quite possible that its core audience is 1 million people, and the rest just watch it because its on. Ditto for any of the other marginal shows out there.
We’re all big TV fans and we’re fairly savvy about the business. 90% of the population isn’t.
Doug, it doesn’t matter how many people actually watch, what matters is how many are willing to sign up for the network. There are more than enough people who just automatically sign up for everything they can that it won’t be that difficult, I think. Especially if using an already established network like Encore.
Doug, I may have overestimated how many fans will do this, but I don’t think I did in the approach I outlined. While there are problems with it, I was shooting for 5 million viewers. On average, that requires that about 400,000 subscribers per show saved. Sure, there’s duplication where some people watch more than one show, and some shows would draw many more than others, but in general I was going for well less than 10% of the average audiences of the shows. I think you might underestimate the population who is savvy, but even if you’re right, I was only going after less than 10% anyway.
Longtime lurker, first time poster. I have read the whole concept and all comments, so hopefully that makes me qualified.
Love love love the concept of LiberatedTV. I think the model as originally proposed has the holes everyone else has pointed out, but those can be filled. However, I don’t think it takes into account one of the key reasons the Nielsen ratings are (IMO) worthless: people don’t sit and allocate 8-11pm to watch TV anymore. They watch some then, some later via DVR, internet, DVD, and download, legal or otherwise. So programming liberated shows into a M-Th, 8-11pm block not only doesn’t address this…it also creates competition for new shows that the Big 4 will program into that same block in years to come.
Based on that, what about making LiberatedTV a completely on-demand network? That way you don’t have to worry about programming 24 hours a day, and you don’t have to worry about overfilling your programming block in years 2+. Selling it to Starz/Encore or some other existing service that already has carriage is fine. Most of them already have on-demand and they could make LiberatedTV choices part of that service, right? For Comcast, TW, etc., they don’t have to allocate another channel, yet they and the service hopefully get a boost in subscribers to the existing service.
My local TW even has its own on-demand… what about the possibility of the cable providers underwriting the idea? DirecTV did it with FNL and apparently it worked out for everyone involved. It would give cable a point of differentiation in the battle to keep subscribers away from the alternatives.
Others have rightly pointed out that a 5-mill audience will not necessarily follow the show because not all are devoted fans (sounds better than freaks, right?
So I think it’s important to keep LiberatedTV on TV. Moving completely to the Internet (a la Hulu) would cut the audience by more than half, I’d think. But promotion is also key.
LiberatedTV would have to be extensively promoted on the standard networks, especially during shows that will be “liberated” once that becomes obvious. There also needs to be lots of viral marketing and buzz around the LiberatedTV “network” and the liberated shows themselves. LiberatedTV would also need its own website, with fan communities and blogs for each show in its schedule. I’d apply to recap the shows I love in a heartbeat.
Of the shows initially discussed, I’d have been willing to pay for all of them on a subscription basis. I don’t currently subscribe to any premium services, but would sign up for LiberatedTV tomorrow (unless I could do it today). Surely someone at the networks will realize that, unlike Sam Tyler, we’re not in 1973 and TV shouldn’t be programmed as if we were.
Gina G, the only problem I have with a pure on-demand solution is that it would seem that more than 2/3rds of people are still watching TV for the most part as they always did. DVRs aren’t even in 30% of the homes yet, and I think the on-demand only might be a tough sell. Many people who watch a lot of cable channels have never ever even used on-demand, even though they have it. *I* personally would love the On-Demand approach, but we’re early adopters. I wanted an approach that would work with the mainstream.
I wouldn’t say TV is like it was in 1973, but it’s not much different than it was in 2003 yet, and probably not much different from 1993 either.
I also don’t like the Hulu only approach for similar reasons. I’m not convinced it’s easy to convince people to pay for anything on the Internet (things like World of Warcraft are a very rare exception rather than the rule) other than Internet access itself. Also, Hulu currently has the problem of only working with shows from NBC and FOX — though that would work at least for Chuck and Life, again, I think people’s expectations are that everything on the Internet should be free.
Why have this CastOff network at all though? Why can’t the studios just offer their shows online through subscription to their studio websites if the network dumps a show like Life or Chuck? That seems like it requires much less complexity (ie, cost overhead to support) than a network that has to be programmed 24×7.
I think that the people who are going to bother to find the show on these niche channels or DTV are likely to be the ones willing to watch/subscribe to shows online too. Perhaps folks could subscribe just like in iTunes, but the episodes maybe cost more than $1.99 each? At some point the studio releases the show on DVD packaged with extras, so there’s still other backend money from the show to come too. I guess this would require the Studio to have more control over the distribution of its show though than it does now?
But I bet there’s probably enough people who would not pay for Showtime just to watch Dexter, but would subscribe on itunes (or this new ’studio site’) to get Dexter Season 3 right now, rather than wait for the DVD set in the summer or whenever it will come out.
Oh, it needs to work for the majority. Right. I always forget that part. LOL.
Well, if LiberatedTV were part of an existing service like Starz/Encore, they could offer it on-demand AND use the programming to fill in their regular schedules. Encore currently has, what, like 47 variations (mysteries, westerns, etc.)? They fill that time with old stuff now, so why not better stuff?
If the cable providers were the underwriters, they would have a vested interest in providing carriage that would allow for a set schedule and providing on-demand as well, wouldn’t they? I agree 100% with your comments about the Internet.
This whole concept seems like it has win/win written all over it. How do we get the right people on board to make it happen?
Rosewood, chances of any network producing a $2+ million per episode show to be aired only on the Internet are 0% today. The studios have a lot of experience with online already and know they couldn’t make the money back that way. For a while the online only world will operate at a much lower budget. In 10 years that might be different but I didn’t want to wait that long
Gina, I think we just need a good salesperson. The reason I said I’m a lousy entrepreneur is because I’m a lousy salesman. I’m an OK idea guy, but the best entrepreneurs are big idea people who are also good salespeople!
The average TV series costs $60M to make today for a full season. There is just no “Internet,” solution that could cover the costs of any show. DVD sales can’t even cover the costs. The average show sells around 250,000 copies on DVD. The Studios make about $15 per set on average. So DVD sales wouldn’t even cover 3 episodes!
Sure there are exceptions. They’re extremely rare. FIREFLY and FAMILY GUY are two that immediately come to mind. They both sold millions of DVD sets. That can’t be considered normal, so you’re not going to convince any Studio to do a Direct to Video “Tv Series.”
You also can’t create a brand new network from nothing and expect to have production money for new content like a TV Series. At best you may be able to wrangle up the money for ONE series.
So basically the options are limited. They’re limited to a small number of “independent,” Networks. HDNet and STARZ/ENCORE are independent of the “studio system,” they aren’t owned by Sony, Fox, Warner, Universal, or Disney. They both are subscription services. Having either one of them add a new channel would take the right pitch. Having Encore alter one of its less popular channels is likely more probable.
Obviously if you convince Liberty Media you get their library which imho is the best library of film in the cable industry: Sony/Columbia and DISNEY. So the “filler,” would be there, you could put new quality stuff on the air. You can mix in your “liberated TV shows,” as well as provide some more “niche,” movie programming by going after some true “Grind House,” films for one night of the week. Make the Network extremely eclectic for different nights of the week. In this manner you increase demand. That way you’re not relying on the “fans,” of the shows you bring back.
Realistically you can likely only bring two back to start with. You’d have to limit a season to 12 episodes. Then you’d be smart to split the season up. Air 6 episodes of show A, then in the next 6 weeks the first 6 of show B. Then the last 6 episode of show A, then the last 6 of show B. In this manner you increase the length of subscription of those fans by 6 weeks. Hopefully you can hook them on something else.
You can rely on likely 500,000 subscribers for shows that had a limited viewing audience to begin with. So LIFE would likely pull that in. TSCC likely would not. The best bet is to capitalize on the shows that were canceled that have a rabid fan base. The fans that are so enormous and zealous they’ve been labeled. You had Trekies. Now you have “Brown Coats,” the fans of FIREFLY. They’re extreme fans much like Trekies. I think the movie SERENITY was too early, but maybe that film helped solidify that fan base. I personally think any “revival,” Network must go after Whedon to either bring it back if possible or bring some of it back in a new format in the same Universe like DEEP SPACE 9 was for STAR TREK. That would get you 1M subscribers or more. They’d definitely come in.
If the numbers are there for viewers you can likely justify doubling the number of shows. However I don’t believe that Liberty would ever allow more than 8 shows in a single year.
You also have to own video rights to the series or shared video rights. It’s those rights that will justify the idea to whomever you approach. That way they get some money back.
There are numerous ways to cut production costs without affecting writers or actors. However it’s common knowledge that “talent,” like the HBO and SHOWTIME format. They get to bypass those pesky FCC regulations about what they can say or show on TV. The right frugal Production Manager can help you trim costs as well as making sure the shows are all shot in areas like Vancouver, Louisiana, etc.
Nick, you need your own blog!
I like your approach though. Two shows saved is two more than likely will be saved and if it could ever work its way up to 8, that would be outstanding. I went with 12 originally because I was starting a new network and felt that diversity of programming was the only way to attract enough audience to have any hope of making the economics work. It also gave all the studios an opportunity to salvage shows they reallllly liked but couldn’t make work on broadcast networks.
If the economics would work on a Starz/Encore solution starting with 2 series and perhaps working up to four, or even ultimately 8 — all of those outcomes are better than today.
Again, I don’t like the HD Net scenario because HD Net is NOT available to Comcast which eliminates a huge chunk of potential subscribers (including me!). Unless HD Net could be convinced that this was somehow the path to get ON Comcast in a way that worked for both Comcast and HD Net, I don’t see it.
Robert, well I don’t know why Comcast doesn’t have HDNet but I bet there are stupid reasons behind it. Save the right shows and those fans will bug Comcast to pick it up (just as a brand new network would need this) so I wouldn’t be worried about it. If that is the only route…
However I think Liberty Media is the best route. You just have to turn your creative ideas into what to do with every other night of the week and all the hours in between! Pitch starting with 4 shows, with the understanding that you’ll accept 2. Think Sunday Nights with 2 shows, repeats of those shows on Wednesday and Saturday Nights (possibly repeating on another channel in the system too). Just figure out how to program the other nights in a manner that is enticing to different groups of people.
The idea behind SCI FI is a decent one, but honestly there isn’t enough quality for a network to thrive daily. There is however enough quality for a SCI FI “night,” on a network that can pull movies from different places like Sony/Columbia and Disney.
So think in those terms and you could have something. Wrap your ideas around that and email me. I’ll put a firm on prettying it up, and I know just the agent to shop it. It will either sell or it won’t. 9 years ago it would have been an easy sell.
Awesome stuff. But I can’t see people paying for a premium channel with commercials. I would up the subscription cost, package it with Encore(or HDNet) like it’s been suggested, and axe the commercials or here’s my buisness model and I want in if you try to use it.
1. Set up a production company.
2. Buy shows with devoted followings.
3. Produce a shortened season(10 episodes) strictly for DVD and other pay for content distribution.(iTunes etc…)
4. Collect the DVD revenue.
Lets say you use TSSC as an example and produce a ten episode season for 20 million dollars. I don’t how much revenue you would get from a DVD sale after retail and other parties take a cut, but if it’s twenty dollars a set you would only need to sell a million DVD’s to break even. I bet it’s doable.
Dave, read Nick’s comment three comments above yours. He explains why direct to DVD seasons are not viable.
Nick, no doubt these are butt lousy economic conditions to attempt this. I’m not sure how much work I want to do in being a driving force. Sometimes it’s nice to give freely. It’s not like I volunteer at soup kitchen’s so hopefully I can make up for it a little sometimes by giving away my thinking for $0.00, which is probably what it is usually worth!
I agree with Nick, Liberty Media has the foundation built AND the available space. It wouldn’t even be a massive retooling, just a financial commitment and a minor change in programming.
I also agree with dave’s point about buying these canceled shows. For this to have real profit potential for Liberty Media, you must have home video revenue to offer.
Dave, TSCC could be done for a direct to video MOVIE but not series. I believe TSCC Season 1 sold just over 350,000 copies. So it was slightly above average.
Robert, I’ve spoken to a couple people, the right package might sell. So it’s up to you. I know the people that can package it. It’s your idea. I’m no thief.
What is your thought, Nick, 12 episode seasons?
Wow…this has been truly interesting to read! I have nothing to add except to say I’m one of those “freaks” who would pay way more than $6 a month for new episodes of Firefly and Jericho!
Anyone having any thoughts on whether the studios that currently own the intellectual property for TSCC and/or other shows would be willing to sell or what price tag they will require ?
Consider the number of people involved in the Terminator franchise the IP is likely to be a bundle, Life might be a lot cheaper
Jack, 12 episode seasons like the current subscription cable TV series model.
Yeah, Terminator would probably be difficult to buy outright. But Life or Chuck should be easier. Though, I don’t think Chuck is an option right now as NBCU will probably keep it for another season.
NN, I don’t think anyone would touch TSCC. If this happens it won’t be with TSCC being saved. LIFE on the other hand… would be a great fit. I don’t see any of the studios selling the video rights outright. 60/40 split is likely the best case scenario. It wouldn’t cost as much, because honestly, the shows won’t go on without the new network. So they either want to make some money or they don’t. In some cases they’ll be closer to syndication. If say OLD CHRISTINE gets canceled, that would be an extremely smart pick up.
I can think of 4 shows that in the past 5 years that would be perfect for this type of “renewal,” and they would be FIRE FLY, JERICHO, MOONLIGHT, and VERONICA MARS. All 4 had steady viewership, a couple had over zealous fanbases and most importantly all 4 were good sellers on DVD.
LIFE doesn’t quite meet that standard, but it’s actually of high quality and has a strong library. So you get the old episodes and the new ones.
I know that actors sign for 5 years when coming in to a new show. I wonder how many of the leads, that seem to be able to find other shows to lead no matter how many shows they kill, would be willing to keep on working for a show that could also be seen as moved to the looser network.
Wouldn’t that be a problem? That they would be stuck in a looser show instead of being allowed to pursue finding a winner. Because being in a hit show does mean better wages, and a sleuth of other income venues, and they would be on the stuck on the holding path for the chance of a bigger revenue. Not that big chance would guaranteed to come, but keeping people back breeds unhappiness, that only a fat paycheck can cure, and that you can’t afford.
I realized typing “outright” was nutty right after I hit submit. I should have said that getting the necessary rights would be very difficult. Encore would need a good percentage of home video to make this viable.
I am also not sure about Firefly, since three of the main actors are currently on network shows (though, one of them won’t be for long). Your other options could work.
If you could make Firefly happen, Encore would end up with a fan base that has demonstrated that they would do just about anything for their fix. The projected DVD sales would be more than enough incentive.
Would this new network be open to FNL-type deals where a show gets first run on your net then are aired on the broadcast net?
Holly, I don’t think it should be, at least initially. If you’re charging for a premium channel, if a show winds up making its way on the air for free it hurts the chances of people paying for it. If you get to the point where you have five shows and you do that with one of them, maybe.
Nick, I trust you’re an honorable man. Feel free to run with it but you need to do two things: one, figure out how to ensure some six figure (low six figures perhaps) sponsorship dollars come to TVbytheNumbers. We’d be an ideal place to promote the network — plus, we’d have been the genesis! Two: I wrote that I’d mow Carol Barbee’s lawn and wash her car for a year if Jericho made it back on the air somehow. You’d need to get me out of that.
If you you want to throw an “idea fee” my way on top of that, I wouldn’t turn it down. But mostly I’m just like the other fans who want to keep on watching Life (and Chuck, should it come to that).
S., I think there are some valid concerns in what you bring up, but in the end, the number of acting opportunities on TV are limited, and theoretically it doesn’t necessarily preclude stardom (James Gandolfini became a star on an HBO show). And it wasn’t like Jimmy Smits was all, “Dexter!? That’s on Showtime, hardly anyone watches that — No way I’m doing that! I’m waiting for the next Cane!!”
I think I promised $1,000 to the charity of her choice to one of the Moonlight crazies, as well. This would hardly be fair game to force me to pay that.
Though the simple solution would be pick up VM rather than Moonlight. It would get me to subscribe. (Though the movie may mean they wouldn’t be interested?)
Robert, Since some actors and writers are on development deals with a particular network or production company, that could theoretically cause some trouble if the net wanted to keep an artist on their net.
It’s probably on a case by case basis, Holly, but I don’t think it would be impossible to make a 12 episode season and do a network show as well. If the studio the show is produced by and the network the actor/writer has a development deal with are the same, it most likely would not be problematic.
Julia, I didn’t figure it would be insurmountable, but it is something to take into consideration.
Robert, Considering the basis of the network, make sure you pay your mailroom people really well to make up for having to deal with all the junk different fandoms will send to prove their show is worth picking up.
Holly, the one thing I did lead off with was that it had to make economic sense for the studio. I’m not looking at an example where LIFE was all of the sudden made by a new studio, it would still be made by (theoretically) exactly the same people who are making it on the same sets, etc. It has to make sense for NBC Universal to want to do this. If it doesn’t, there is simply no network. I don’t think any scenario where a NEW studio picks up a show would work.
I confess, I hadn’t considered the cost of the mail room and all the “WHERE IS LIPSTICK JUNGLE!?!” letters. I said there were lots of holes!
Is there any way to give the fans a fake mailing address? That would be best.
Holly, no, but it would be up for syndication deals a year later, much like HBO does.
Robert, yeah well with the 6 figure deal for the site you should be able to afford a nice and fast riding lawn mower.
Julia, have Robert and Bill pay you from the income the site receives. Use that to pay the fan.
Holly, the “production company,” would remain the same but be co-produced by the new production company. That would mean shared rights, and thus make the whole thing more profitable. As for the mail, just make sure the fans are sending THINGS and not letters. Stuff you can resell on E-Bay or someplace. “Get Official Bring Back LIPSTICK JUNGLE lipstick here for $X!”
Robert, not sure you can do the “same sets,” because most will have been torn down or need to be moved to cut costs.
“NBC: Life, Lipstick Jungle, Knight Rider, My Own Worst Enemy, potentially FNL (I’m leaving Chuck out in hopes it wouldn’t be sent to the Castoff Network!)”
… Do I need to comment on that last part? I mean come on, Robert. Chuck certainly isn’t near the critical index that, say, TSCC is, but there’s a good chance it won’t be back next season, especially with Leno. Your superstitious actions here won’t save anything. And I actually took offense to the way you worded that. This site is supposed to be impartial and just focus on the ratings, right? At least that’s certainly how it’s going with some other shows here. Is it the fact that while you know TSCC is done on Fox but aren’t as clear on Chuck’s fate the reason why you don’t censor any bashing of one yet still try to be nice to the other?
You could say I just woke up on the wrong side of the bed or that I’m just one of those touchy TSCC fans, but I think there’s more to it. :/
Accumulatioooooonnnnn.
(Nothing against Chuck, btw.)
And yes, I’m aware that this particular post is entitled “Dreaming out loud: saving the Nielsen ratings challenged fan favorites” but still… gwaaaa, I don’t know anymore. >>
Rachel, I’m allowed to have my own personal favorites. Chuck is one of them. If NBC cancels it, given its relatively marginal ratings performance and Leno, I will not be surprised or upset at NBC’s decision. Indeed, my superstitions won’t play into the decision.
If it irks you that I like Chuck more than TSCC, get over it. I like LIFE and LIFE ON MARS better too, but that doesn’t change their goner status any.
To recap, I’m not emotional or biased about the ratings analysis. I wouldn’t renew LIFE if I was at NBC, LIFE ON MARS if I was at ABC or TSCC if I was at FOX. I’m not biased about any of that at all, it’s purely the numbers. However, when it comes to my personal preference about which shows I like, of course I am biased! That is entirely based on personal preference.
Rachel, CHUCK is a “bubble show,” while the others had their bubble burst. So it’s a big difference. Plus there is CHUCK bashing on Monday posts. I’ve seen a few people bash it. I think Julia even made some comments a few times about being scared away from the show do to the lead actress.
Just enjoy the last few episodes of TSCC.
Robert, much like Angela at NBC. LIFE is her baby, but she will likely have to cancel it herself.
Nick, you need to sell Angela on the new network fast!!
And you also need to be the one to break it to Rachel about why the Dream network won’t be making an offer for TSCC.
Robert, I don’t care if you prefer another show more than TSCC. Why would I? I figured there were others you liked more anyway. It’s obvious by looking around here (due to the fact that, as you said, you can have your personal favorites, and it is in fact your site).
Fine fine fine… Ugh.
I guess it just seems like lately you almost hate TSCC, as opposed to back a few months ago where I viewed you as a fellow fan. I guess I just liked the fact that, even though TSCC’s ratings were crappy, at least the people who ran the blog here had respect for it. It made me feel better. And no, don’t bother linking me to a comment you made 3 hours ago or something that states you still do like the show. If you claim you still do, okay then.
I take back the direct to DVD thing.
I can’t see fans paying 6$ a month for 12 episodes a year. That’s 6 dollars an episode, or 3 times the cost of iTunes, plus commercials. Maybe if it was part of an encore package, but not as a standalone premium channel.
Rachel, I consider myself to be a fan of the Terminator franchise. Some of the episodes of season two of TSCC were…very hard to watch. I watched them anyway, but I wouldn’t say I enjoyed it. I’ve had similar experiences with Heroes and I like the Heroes franchise too.
I’m confused as to what Rachel is complaining about? The fact that you assume Chuck still has a chance?
Just forget it…
I’ll try not to bother you guys with my comments much more.
i gotta go with dave on this one… 6 bucks a month for a year. to get 12 eps of chuck/life/(fill in the blank)
assuming there are three shows on the channel that you like:
Assuming 2 shows have 12 ep lineups and the third has 6:
that makes 30 episodes total.
6×12=$72
$72/30
Ok so that’s not so bad.. call it $2.50 an episode IF you have 30 episodes you want to watch
if you only have a 24 episode season:
$72/24=$3.00
12 eps
$72/12=$6
that means, as far as the viewer is concerned, its only a good deal if thay can get 24 episodes of the show they want to watch per year
BTW, firefly could be tricky… Baldwin has previously said “Hell no, I’m on chuck now.”
and guys.. rach is just experiencing the second stage of grief over TSCC!
1-Denial
2-Anger
3-Bargaining
4-Depression
5-Acceptance
Putting Heroes and Terminator in the same sentence is ridiculous at this point. Heroes should’ve changed its name to Idiots a long time ago because the characters acted like absolute morons and in some cases completely out of character. Terminator is nowhere near Heroes status.
dave, it’s not like they’d be airing one episode a month! It would take 3 months to 6 months to get all the episodes out. So it’s between $1.50 and $3.00 an episode. Also iTunes isn’t generally on a big screen high def tv. Also they’d be getting more than just one TV show. They’d be getting a network full of product.
Robert, well I’m guessing LIFE is cheaper than TSCC. I’m also sure TSCC didn’t sell that many more units of DVDs. However both could likely benefit from some swearing and some real violence. So it’s hard to say. I mean TERMINATOR was an R movie franchise taken to neutered network tv! I’d bring TSCC back if Friedman was kicked for someone that say James Cameron would approve of.
DJM, the point is you have to give the audience some other reason to pay for the network. A ton of people pay for Encore and Starz and Encore has no original programming that I know of Starz only just recently added some. (BTW, everyone watch Party Down Friday at 10:30pm EDT/PDT!)
Vader, you’re right, putting them in the same sentence is ridiculous as one will certainly be back next year and one won’t. My bad.
djm, taken in the context of the question Baldwin was asked I have no problem with his response. If you were asked about your past job that doesnt exist and isnt likely to exist soon, would you say anything against your present job with your bosses listening?
And if that isn’t intentionally taking a shot at Terminator fans I don’t know what is Robert. If it makes you feel better inside to act like a five year old child to say Terminator gets cancelled every two posts, more power to you.
I think I’ll quote you and say “If it hurts you that we like show X, get over it.” Quality has nothing to do with ratings. Then again, I didn’t think I’d have to tell you that. *rolls eyes*
Vader, and you asked for it.
For pointing out Terminator is a better quality show than Heroes, Nick? I don’t think so. I’d bet a majority of people who watch both would agree.
Don’t you have a JJ Abrams show to bash or Dollhouse to save. I don’t think Robert needs you to have his back.
Wow, away from the computer for a day with my kids and a new network is born!
The idea at a minimum has the benefit of addressing a consumer demand that already exists. As opposed to the blizzard of new businesses that often are just cool ideas that somehow have to manufacture a *new* consumer demand from nothing.
Vader, you’re a smart guy about many things. But you’re a dope about one thing in particular: you get ANGRY over shows having bad ratings. That’s dopey.
I was taking a shot at you for doing something I think is dopey.
I think your net will run into problems when it starts to cancel shows. I mean you’re not going to be able to keep a show on indefinetly. As soon as you yank one, the zanies are going to be out saying “I’m never watch XYZ network again”. The difference I see in this case is that they are more likely to follow through on the threat if it is something for which they’re paying extra. And, if 100,000 people quit watching CBS it doesn’t really matter since its only a small blip. If 100,000 people stop paying you $6.00 per month it will cause a little more pain I would think.
ljo, I hinted at that problem towards the end, and I agree it’s an issue.
[edit] one way to accommodate it is to take the slow ramp Nick suggests. In the first year, you pick up two shows that you hope would make sense for at least 3 years. You’d never have more than 8 shows anyway max but if shows your brought on in the first year were not on the schedule in the fourth year, I think it would be OK (not great, necessarily, but OK).
I think the solution to that is you don’t cancel shows without giving them an end date and allowing the show to have a real ending. And you use PR magic to make it seem like ending at that time was the creator’s plan all along.
I agree, Julia. That probably wouldn’t satisfy all wacko fans, but it probably would appease most of them.
Julia, completely agree. The difference though is someone won’t cancel their basic cable when BSG and LOST end. But someone might cancel this network they are paying extra for if Jericho or Firefly are canceled (to cite examples used). But HBO survived losing the Sopranos and Sex and the City, I think after a few years, this could survive that sort of thing too.
It’ll be a constant cycle of subscribers. When a show ends and those fans who don’t watch anything else on the network leave, the fans of new shows you bring in will replace them. What you have to avoid is pissing off the fans who would stick around under normal circumstances, but won’t because you canceled their very most favoritest show ever because you hate them personally.
@ Nick: I actually was sorta happy that baldwin was planning on sticking with chuck, and they wern’t talking about firefly coming back at that time either.. so it’s kinda an out of context statement.[wee I debunked my own argument! Kudos to me!]
But the point still remains that if you want to bring back the shows ten you SHOULD bring back the actors… some of which havent been waiting for their show to come back from the dead..
djm, it doesn’t stop the fact that Adam has a contract clause in his CHUCK contract about FIREFLY. If FIREFLY comes back, Jayne will be on board. The only thing I think would stall it is Fillion if CASTLE is renewed. Then again you never know.
It’s not the cast so much as the writers. Ben Edlund is far more important than any of the actors but Fillion.
How is it “dopey” to get angry over bad ratings? If a show you really care about has bad ratings, you’re gonna get angry about it. Are you not somewhat angry, Robert, that last week’s Chuck averaged TSCC’s Monday numbers? If you really care about the show, I’d assume you would be. Or am I missing something here?
he actually has a clause in his contract about firefly? sheesh i’ve herd of being through/optimistic but….
I think it’s completely dopey to get angry over ratings. I know you’re very young so I will cut you some slack, Rachel. youth is a good time for being dopey. And if Vader is very young, I’ll cut him some slack too.
I wasn’t angry or even disappointed about Chuck’s ratings. I can’t do anything about the ratings, it’s beyond my control. I watch the show and enjoy it. If it doesn’t get renewed, I’ll be a little disappointed but that’s about it. I know Life on Mars isn’t going to be renewed (because ABC announced it) and I am just as certain Life won’t be renewed by NBC even though it hasn’t announced it. I watch the episodes anyway and I enjoy them. I am not upset by the ratings and I am at peace with their fates.
The purpose behind this post was a potential alternative that could save shows like that, I agree with the broadcast networks that they shouldn’t keep shows with bad ratings.
ljo, you avoid that by picking up shows that “FIT,” your plan. TSCC doesn’t fit. DOLLHOUSE doesn’t fit. MOONLIGHT does fit. It had decent numbers and the fans are a little zealous. FIREFLY fits. LIPSTICK JUNGLE doesn’t fit. CHUCK fits. THE EX LIST doesn’t. Just make sure you pick a series carefully and give them a proper time frame. Go in with a plan. That way fans won’t be upset when the end comes because they’ll be expecting it.
You should have an idea if there is QUALITY there, and then you just go with it. That is why LIFE fits. It’s high quality and generally liked by critics. It’s likely cheap to produce too, and could easily improve based on non-FCC regulations.
If you say so, Robert. Obviously we have two very different ways of viewing this. You see, some shows I grow so attached to and to their characters where it’s more to me than just a show, as stupid as that probably sounds to you and many others. I can’t help but feel emotions regarding it then. That’s just how I am. You can call me a dope, naive, or whatever you want, but that isn’t gonna change the way I view these things.
djm, at the time of him picking up the show there had been talks of another movie or direct to video movie (which is again being kicked around by some Universal people). So he just covered his bases. It’s not really that unheard of.
Ok, here’s what I would do for the first season. Right now, I’m going to assume that Castle gets picked up for 13 episodes, because ABC needs to keep something that’s not going into its fourth season. So no Firefly the first season.
So you go with Life, with a plan to keep it around for a few season, and Jericho with a finite, possibly one season, wrap up plan. The Jericho fans will love the chance to see a real ending to the show, and will hopefully jump right on the plan.
Second season, Castle and Chuck will have been canceled, so perfect time to bring in Firefly to replace Jericho, which was given a very satisfying ending. More fans jump on. You may be ready to add a second night by the third season.
Julia, subscription based TV has a system. You air your originals on Sunday nights. So if the Network ever gets to 8 shows, it will all be 12 episode seasons, with a new show every 3 months, and a 2 hour block.
Of course if you do comedies… I’d think about LUCKY LOUIE extremely fast. That show had to be the funniest thing on TV maybe ever. Comedies are generally very cheap and provide more content, plus their syndication abilities. Although I don’t think LUCKY LOUIE could ever be syndicated.
JERICHO is dicey. It fits and it doesn’t fit. The 2nd season of JERICHO ended in a mess. I’d have to see a real layout of what they thought they could tell story wise. If they can make a legit plan for multiple seasons that looks good, let them at it without the interference that ruined the show.
If CASTLE ratings drop I’m sure a deal could be reached with Disney. Get FIREFLY going and promise Disney you’ll resurrect one of their shows like PUSHING DAISIES.
My cable bill is over $200 a month. What’s another $6. Sign me up. I lose an average of four to five shows every year.
While the current system works, I don’t think working outside the system to create something new would be a bad idea. Stick with the current system for now, of course. But if the network is successful, I see no reason why it can’t build up to more than one night a week. Maybe by the third season it will only be adding two more hours of original programming without moving it off of Sunday, but I think working up to a model similar (though not identical) to Robert’s original idea could be a goal.
Jericho could possibly last more than one season, but I think the writers need a finite time length which they have to have planned out ahead of time. But I think the Jericho fandom is still dedicated enough that they would be a good place to go to if Firefly is not available yet.
I can’t shoot holes or plug them. It sounds feasible to me, except it would have to be something cobbled together by the studios. BUT, I should point out that Universal already does something like this — it’s called SleuthTV. It’s a cable channel (channel 136 on my lineup) which carries a lot of their old, popular shows (Magnum PI, Simon and Simon, etc.) but ALSO airs a lot of their “canceled after one season” shows, such as The Guardian, or Keen Eddie. Oh, and they also air a lot of their made-for-TV movies, and some old pilots, too. This isn’t a special premium channel, but it is on my cable’s digital lineup, which costs me more than the basic lineup would cost. I think Universal can do this because they have a deep catalog, but I’m not sure how much money they’re making off of this. On the other hand, having spent the money to film a canceled series, such as The Guardian, I suppose it doesn’t add much more cost to air it on a special cable channel, and it nets them SOME income on what otherwise would be a dead loss.
I noticed recently that my HD channels now include an MGM one, which like SleuthTV, seems to air series and movies made by MGM.
By the way, I, too, subscribe to Showtime pretty much just for some of their series. I don’t always like all of them, but every year there’s at least one that I really like, and for which I don’t mind the price that I pay. But that’s because I can afford it, and because I really enjoy smart tv series. If this economy bites me in the butt, my cable will definitely go.
grapeshot, You’re missing primary difference between Robert’s new network and SleuthTV: he’s not talking about running reruns of canceled series, he’s talking about keeping shows on the air and producing NEW episodes.
Julia, I think the problem is expenses. Shows aren’t cheap. Keep costs down, make more money. I think the business model can keep 8 hour longs and four 30 minute long episodes in rotation. Anything is possible, but I wouldn’t pitch it. You want to make it look profitable and as Robert mentions it’s about scale. The amount of viewers these shows have is actually rather large even if you only bring a portion to the new network. It’s a profitable plan.
As for serials, any serial needs a “plan,” and it needs to be detailed. They need a planned end. If anyone is to green light a serial they should hear the beginning and the end of the plan. Too many serials get started with no plan. X-FILES was one, and FRINGE is another. It doesn’t mean they can’t do well, but it sure doesn’t help with closure.
Nick C,
Pushing Daisies is WB not ABC, bad example, and none of the other canceled ABC shows has a fan base worth considering. Besides Fuller is busy over at Heroes planing on killing half of the characters, so it becomes a show about his only subject, Death, and he cuts costs achieving it.
S., ah you’re right. So I’d replace that with REAPER.
TSCC sort of had a “planned” end – “Judgment Day” – and the date was given. The date was malleable, though, in case things changed by the actions of the characters.
So TSCC could have gone through to 2011, then, depending on how the story and ratings went, could have died then gracefully or could have kept on.
Friedman had plans for seasons 3, 4 and 5, supposedly.
Problem was season 2’s “plan” killed the show.
I could come up with plans for that show in my sleep that would easily let it go four or five seasons and still come to a graceful end based on the fundamental logic of the franchise – like T-3, that contrary to the message John sent Sarah, the future IS set and Judgment Day had to happen. You really don’t want to try to contradict the new rebooted franchise movies.
I’m sorry, but this is driving me to distraction.
“The average TV series costs $60M to make today for a full season. There is just no ‘Internet,’ solution … a small number of ‘independent,’ Networks…. the ‘filler,’ would be there … as well as provide some more ‘niche,’ movie programming by going after some true ‘Grind House,’ films … you’re not relying on the ‘fans,’ of the shows you bring back.”
It’s not, helpful after every, right, quote.
Did I say “after”? “Before.”
Some variation of this could definitely work, Robert. I think that one of the big pluses here would be that crazy fans of canceled network shows (of which I have been one several times) would definitely fork over money just to see their show go another year, especially if there were the possibilty of more years after that.
When you already have millions of people emotionally invested in something, getting into their wallets is a lot easier than if you are starting from scratch. And you only need a fraction of each show’s network audience to buy in for this to work. If only one percent bought in, that would be 50,000 or more people for each show 0n the network. For a 20 show lineup, that is 1,000,000 people right there. And I honestly believe that you would get a lot higher percentage than one percent. The cult shows that get canceled could easily net you five, ten, maybe even twenty percent of their audiences.
And all of that just comes from people who have already sampled your shows. It doesn’t count the other 300,000,000 people in the country that you can try and lure through the same means as any other new network.
Honestly, getting up to five million viewers could be a lot easier than even you think it is. People love them their television shows. They get seriously emotionally invested. Paying $1.50 a week to keep them would seem to be a price that they would deem worth paying.
Hell, I think you could make this happen with a lot fewer than all the nets working together. If two them joined in, it could be viable in just a couple of years. They all have enormous stockpiles of films that they could use to plug gaps until they get filled up with shows, much in the same way that channels such as TNT do.
And if it ever got up and running and profitable, then that would change the face of your broadcast network too, because now all of sudden you can look at show development with twice the chance that the show will be a money maker for you. It would take an enormous burden off the broadcast company. Your flops now become a feeder system for this entirely seperate revenue stream.
It’s a great idea, Robert. Someone should hire you away to make it happen.
Robert said, “I don’t think any scenario where a NEW studio picks up a show would work.”. This I suspect is a problem since the original studio would be stuck with the full legacy of cost and contracts. As been pointed out to me by a number of people one of the main reasons that shows are not transferred to cable is that the costs for a network show is so much higher than the normal cable show, I am not sure that the suggested Dream cable channel could survive paying standard studio contracts.
I also suspect that in some cases the existing owners of the IP will flatly refuse to deal, despite there being no revenue if a show is cancelled they might argue that they want to be able to resurrect the property themselves in 10 years or so and don’t want anyone else to pollute the waters until then. Reimagining things is a major part of Hollywood business after all
NN, no one is trying to take the shows away from the creators. The creators and writers have to come along and write it all.
The reason these shows can work on close to the same budget on the Castoff Net but not basic cable is because the budget for Castoff will be built around paying for these shows. There are ways to make it slightly cheaper without cutting everyone’s paychecks. Budgeting $2 mil per episode is close to or at what these shows cost on broadcast, but much more than a cable net would be willing it pay.
“no one is trying to take the shows away from the creators. The creators and writers have to come along and write it all.”, I understand and agree, but as it is a given that the current rights holders are the studios not creators or writers, I just doubt that it will be possible to find the money for network level financing.
Budgets at $2 mil/episode is still higher than I believe this model could sustain, maybe half if that.
In my book one of the changes required for the future of tv is that more people learn to make quality shows that are financially successful for a cable audience ( ie. 2 mill. viewers or less ), as long as the big tv studios aims to make the next X-Files or Lost with the accompanying $10+ mill. pilots there will be a lot of cancelled shows, with no hope of resurrection. The many tv shows that turn into one season wonders are part of the price of the current business model.
I agree that broadcast nets need to start budgeting shows closer to cable shows. But there’s no reason that Castoff Net can’t start off with 2 shows at 12 episodes each and budget them at $2 mil an episode. That’s $48 mil a year. If the network gets only a quarter of the subscribers Robert assumes, that’s still $75 mil in subscription revenue alone. If this ends up on an Encore net, they already own rights to a huge library of movies, so there’s not too much in the way of expenses for other content, so between subscription revenue, DVD revenue, and whatever they can scrape up on iTunes and the like, they shouldn’t even have to go to advertisers to produce those two shows.
I hate to be a buzzkill but the numbers doesn’t add up to me. Primarily because I think you would only be able to count on something like 10% of the Nielsen viewers following a show from free to a subscription channel.
Even if the numbers could be tweaked to add up I believe the real showstopper is the current owners of the shows you’d like to resurrect, they have no interest in increasing the clutter when moving on to new shows will make them more money, and even in the unlikely case that they could be persuaded to part with the rights it will only be at a high price.
Last but not least there are no two shows currently on broadcast networks I’d pay money to see resurrected if they are cancelled, plenty of shows I’d pay money to see cancelled though
10% of Jericho is 600,000. (And I think with a show like Jericho the numbers would be closer to 20%.) 10% of Life is 500,000. That’s 1.1 mil. To get $75 mil in subscriptions, you need 1.25 million subscribers. So assuming there’s no way that 150,000 extra subscribers will join (and like I said, I think it’ll get closer to 1 mil from Jericho alone), that’s still $66 mil in the first year. At that point there may possibly be a need for some sponsors, but I think it’s still doable without.
And, NN, that just means you aren’t the target audience!
For the model to work with 10% of the viewers of each show that would be put on suspended animation, it would be necessary that those viewers didn’t overlap. From the sample of the people on this board alone that might not be exactly true… Specially in the Sci-fi (or should I say SYFY?) camp.
S. I’m not sure how much of the audiences of Jericho and Life cross over. I’ve certainly never seen anyone comment here about how all their favorite shows, like Jericho and Life, are cheated by Nielsen. It’s certainly possible, but I still don’t think getting over 1 million subscribers from Life and Jericho would be at all difficult. My calculations don’t even take DVR viewers into consideration.
If they could draw 10% of network audiences, then this thing would easily fly. There will be overlap, yes, but not all genre fans watch the same shows. Plenty of people on this board alone think either BGS is great and SCC and DH suck, or any other combo of the three you want to put together. Some people like all three, but there is a lot of variation within just that small genre.
10% of network audience is a whole heck of a lot for a pay service network that would ALSO have ads on it.
I mean, Showtime is a great example. Based on the numbers that Robert is provide, showtime generates over 4 billion per year in subscriber fees. I understand that NN wouldn’t pay, and probably neither would I, but there I believe there are millions of people out there who would.
And I will tell you one think, I’d be a lot quicker to pay 6-10 bucks a month for 20 shows a week than I ever would be to pay 20 bucks a month for Showtime and it’s measley three or four. A subscriber AND ad based network could generate hundreds of millions on just a fraction of that Showtime audience.
Work beckons and by the time I can comment it will be irrelevant chronologically if no other way. But this whole discussion has to be printed off at work and digested. It’s like eavesdropping at an LA watering hole or something – you learn more from brainstorming sessiobns than out of date textbooks or tight-assed college professors.
there’s already a service out there, primarily to rural stations I think, called Retro Television Network that programs older shows. They have a lot of 70’s and early 80’s shows, but also go back as far as The Jack Benny Show.
That’s your paradigm for your non-new episodes. As was said earlier, you negotiate with the studios, not the Networks. Once the network has cancelled the show, they should have no more stake in its continuance (unless they are also the studio producing it). And all the studios have series sitting on the shelf that they would love to see get some more play (if only to sell DVD sets if nothing else). Give them slots according to the number of shows they provide (more shows or shows with better demographics get more additional slots during the day and overnight to fill.
Since it’s a premium channel, you shouldn’t run into much difficulty with coverage agreements and local channels already showing some of the repeats.
and Encore/Starz is a good match. Encore Western channel already shows a lot of 50’s/60’s western shows like this. That’s how I got to re-watch the entire two seasons of Alias Smith and Jones last year, prior to season one coming out on DVD. They are currently showing Maverick and Cheyenne and all sorts of Western TV shows. So as a company, they are ALREADY negotiating with some of the production companies to re-run older shows.
Oh, and you are in a better position to verify this than I am, but when the networks run cable originals on their networks, like NBC did with Monk and CBS with Dexter, don’t they get ratings similar to what is getting shows like Life cancelled? I would think there’s an argument there that it might work backwards if the network shows can carry over their audience to the cable network.
Sorry Grapeshot, I had somehow missed your earlier comment or I would have mentioned it.
My cable company doesn’t do Sleuth yet, but the fact that it’s out there and surviving (along with the Encore Western channel I mentioned) indicates that if you had multiple studios providing programming, it would be even easier to fill a schedule.
Hit the genres like Starz and Encore do with their multiple channels. Just as there’s now an expectation for “Sci-Fi Friday,” create Western Wednesday and Murder Monday. or create a time block – westerns from 9-noon every Mon-Fri. The people who love those genres will find the programming block and watch. With DVR technology only increasing, this becomes a much stronger strategy than ever before. There are a lot of people out there like my mother who love medical dramas like Marcus Welby and Medical Center and Ben Casey that simply are not being served what they’d gladly watch again.
Well the target would actually be 5% of the “average,” viewing audience. Getting shared video and syndication rights is much easier than NN believes. Getting shared IP rights isn’t. At some point once the Network is successful it can afford to purchase parts of the IP itself, but until then it’s not likely.
@Julia, Yep I’m not the target audience, though if someone offered to revive Deadwood I’d be in
@Nick maybe
Someone mentioned the FNL deal earlier, get the channel started by offering to co-finance additional episodes in return for first run on cable, I’m not sure the counterargument that people wouldn’t want to pay for something that eventually would show up for free actually applies for the sort of fans that we’re talking about here. If there is a 6 mths or longer wait a large enough portion might be willing to pay up to see new episodes of a favorite show.
Guess I’m a little late to the party now, but it took me a while to work up the resolve to read through all these damn comments.
Nick C’s point about shows closer to syndication is a good one that also occurred to me, obviously for the financial interest the studios couldn’t not have, and it’d also indicate definite dedicated fanbases, but then most of these shows with cult fanbases don’t seem to make it nearly that far.
Also, a possible idea to get around the problem of fans of particular shows not subscribing year round: telemovies. Or really just extended standalone episodes that air a couple of months apart throughout the year when the truncated main season of a given show isn’t airing.
Finally, the world will be a much poorer place if Moonlight ever returns to TV! (I’ve decided Life’s pretty average too
)
It’s a charming idea, but I’m confused about the basic concept because, except in a few very rare cases, the networks don’t own the shows they choose not to renew.
What they DO own varies from contract to contract, and can lead to a lot of confusion and misunderstandings–and a few lawsuits, as in the current Project Runway case.
They may own right of first refusal, they may own right to noncompete (so it can’t be shown anywhere else without their permission), they may own right to first refusal on spin-offs….there’s a lot of variation.
But the same thing that allowed SCRUBS to eventually change networks is that ownership doesn’t belong to the network that shows the first runs of the first season.
There’s just no way that ABC could “contribute” X number of shows and CBS could contribute X number and all that.
So say you also get the studios involved. Now you have many more players, and who they are varies every single season. Their interests vary as well. The ones who don’t have new shows on the broadcast networks in that particular season might be interested–but the ones who do don’t want their older offspring who’ve already maxed out their potential competing with the fledglings who may have greater promise.
Beyond that, you have all the talent issues–actors who want to be free to work in shows with larger potential or do movies aren’t going to be sign new contracts for a mini-network, however romantic the appeal of continuing a fun character.
It’s unlikely that Nathan Fillian would want to have to turn down Castle because he was contractually stuck doing new episodes of Drive on the Cast Off Network.
Yes, 2 or 3 million people who have an interest in something should have a potential business upside. And it does, in DVDs and conventions and novels. And in a few rare cases, a movie. All things that don’t prevent the talent from moving on to new shows with new potential.
If the cast-off concept were viable, it would already exist.
But it is a pleasant idea to consider.
Marty, as I said in the post, it was really participation by the producing studios that mattered, and not the networks, but it was easier to frame in reference to the networks. If the studios can basically make the same money doing it for the new network, in theory that’s not a block to their participation.
the issue you bring up with the actors, writers and producers is a legitimate concern., but I’m not sure it’s insurmountable in the cases of most of the shows that would wind up continuing on this network. I don’t think Michael C. Hall regrets spending the last 8 years on series that were in relative obscurity on HBO and Showtime. I doubt anyone working on those shows did either but I could be wrong.
In fact most “talent,” prefer to work with HBO, etc. It may not have the same money, but it does have a certain level of prestige to it.