From Variety:
Fox programmers met with Rice late last week and came away with a sense that their creative sensibilities will mesh well with those of an exec who championed features such as “Slumdog Millionaire” and “Little Miss Sunshine.”
Rice is no stranger to the Fox crew. Rice and Fox Entertainment prexy Kevin Reilly have been friendly and complimentary to each other in the past and have similar reputations for championing critically acclaimed fare.
Still, insiders say that more changes are likely to come and that the restructuring will resonate throughout the entire company.
Reilly’s job is safe — particularly since it will take time for Rice to bone up on the TV industry. Reilly’s lieutenant, exec VP Matt Cherniss, isn’t going anywhere either. — read the whole story on Variety.com
This backs up some of our commenter’s predictions that Kevin Reilly is safe.
Who would have ever stated that? According to John T Folden its all just a rumor.
Well it was always somewhat unlikely that they were going to get rid of him given that he’s been doing a very good job.
Alex, technically Peter whom Pete replaced wasn’t doing a bad job either.
Pete Rice has always seemed to be a guy who believed that quality was always a good self seller. The better your show, the better chance you are going to make money from it. I think you are going to see a big change at FOX because of this. I think that you will see a lot less micromanaging of the talent, and an end to the idea of trying to make shows fit a mold and look alike, because Peter Rice only hired people he believes in, and he believes in letting those people do their jobs. His job is to take their product and get people to watch it.
Or at least, that’s how he has impressed me over the years.
Don’t get me wrong, the guy isn’t going to lose money by keeping stuff on that no one ever watches, but I bet he believes he can take good shows that need to grow and grow them.
Not about Pete and Pete, but about FOX…
Remote Free TV not coming back
http://www.mediapost.com/publications/?fa=Articles.showArticle&art_aid=102141
I wonder what that means for Dollhouse.
Since Nick C’s strongest argument for keeping the show is based on the C3 ratings, which will invariably drop without RemoteFreeTV, I think this really hurts Dollhouse’s chances.
I think Rice will keep anything he personally likes, so long as the ratings do not force his hand. If Rice likes it, and if its ratings stay steady, Rice will want to try and market it himself. Like I said, I think he’s the kind of guy who is quicker to blame past suits for why a show isn’t getting sampled rather than the show itself.
Just look at the oddball movies he’s been able to make into hits over the years. Strange concepts and execution do not scare the guy.
Holly, the way I read that article, the name Remote Free TV is a goner, but the concept will live on. It sounds like FOX is going to continue to try and rejigger how much advertising they do per hour. And you can understand why, since it is popular with both advertisers and the audience, it is in their best interests to do so. I think you will still see them try and cut back and charge higher prices, but they will massage it until they reach a level that advertisers are willing to pay for.
They also talk about trying to cut into people’s fast forwarding via DVR. ESPN already does something like this. On their show PTI, ESPN cuts back to the studio for a few seconds in the middle of the commercial break, which often gets me to stop my DVR by mistake. The cut back isn’t a part of the scripted show—it’s just a shot of the two guys talking to each other or the crew, like what you would see if you were watching the satellite feed. It’s an annoying trick, but it does work sometimes.
since it is popular with both advertisers and the audience
Except, from this article, it isn’t popular with advertisers. They aren’t willing to pay for it. My read is that RemoteFreeTV is gone, but FOX plans to do something else that’s new and different but not RemoteFreeTV, to drive up C3.
Schmoker, Robert and I are both PTI addicts. I stopped my time skipping the very *first* time I saw the PTI ad spot cut in, but never afterwards. Does it continue to make you stop your skipping early?
Julia, popular with advertisers, yes. Popular enough for them to make up the cost difference, no.
Bill, most of the time there’s nothing to those PTI segs, but occasionally there’s a gem – like Mr. Tony yelling to an offstage staffer while previewing his script: “‘Safe word’? What’s that mean?!”
Chris, I don’t doubt they are occasionally funny, they’re written by the same people who write the rest of the show! But while I typically watch recorded PTI on my computer, in an environment with very easy/precise playhead skipping, I am not motivated to watch them. But I admit I have my PTI viewing quirks. I never miss the show, but almost never watch the “Five Good Minutes”.
Chris, I think Bill would be more accurate if he said, “Every day I make sure PTI is playing in the background while I do other things.” On the other hand, I give it 100% of my focus. Quite often I find “5 Good Minutes” to be the best part of the show.
Bill misses other good stuff like “Give the people something to watch on TV”. I always like to hear what Wilbon is watching because it seems like about 80% of it is ratings-challenged shows. He even berated ABC on the air for canceling Dirty Sexy Money.
Despite more focus, I’d say I wind up watching those in-between the break clips less than 20% of the time. If I happen to land there while pressing the 30 second skip button, I watch. If I were fast-forwarding like most people, I’d probably always watch them.
Bill, you sound just like me. I also skip Five Good Minutes nearly every time. I have no interest in what a coach or player has to say. I’ve heard every cliche a thousand thousand times in my life.
Yes, I do still get caught occasionally by the micro-ad spot when I am not paying close attention during the commercial break. Sometimes I go back to FF, sometimes not. And I think that is what they are counting upon, just getting the occasional non-skip from a fraction of the audience. I still think fractions of fractions can make a big deal in television.
Julia, advertisers don’t want to pay extra, but those remote free tv horus are popular with advertisers. Advertisers make no secret that they wish there were fewer commercials per hour. They just are not yet popular enough that most advertisers want to pay for them at current rates.
I just think FOX is going to continue to experiment until they reach a happy medium where they get somewhat higher rates for somewhat fewer commercials. Because there is no doubt that advertisers wish there were fewer commercials so that theirs will stand out more.
One last thing: eventually, not too far in the future, there will come a time when DVR technology reaches a level of sophistication and saturation that commercials as we know them now will become a completely useless form of advertising. If the networks and advertisers have not figured out a new model by that time, a lot of networks will be in huge trouble.
The face of television has changed dramatically every five years or so for the last twenty to thirty years, and that change is just increasing exponentially. Ratings today on broadcast nets are unrecognizable from ratings just five years ago. That’s not going to slow down. It’s going to accelerate.
TV will never die, but it will not support the current business model for a whole lot longer.
Schmoker – On the last episode of Bones 3/12 FOX inserted two Bones bloopers during the commercial break. It was posted on the Bones board and we all went back and viewed the commercials, at least for episode. Clever.