Blind Bets vs Sure Things
October 23, 2013 12:29 PM Subscribe
Few industries would routinely pay millions per unit of an item, sight unseen, with minimal (and sometimes no) market research. So how can the TV business afford to operate this way? To understand the economics of scripted television, we need to examine the idiosyncratic journey of a show from concept, to pitch, to script, to screen. And we’ll see why, in a business where only a few hits stand out any given year, lavish spending is the cost of staying relevant. -- The Economics of a Hit TV Show
Netflix should be the Kickstarter of television shows. Make ten pilots, count the viewers, then develop the most popular ones. Lather, rinse, repeat.
posted by blue_beetle at 12:48 PM on October 23, 2013 [2 favorites]
posted by blue_beetle at 12:48 PM on October 23, 2013 [2 favorites]
Netflix should be the Kickstarter of television shows. Make ten pilots, count the viewers, then develop the most popular ones. Lather, rinse, repeat.
I think Amazon did something like that earlier this year.
posted by Area Man at 12:51 PM on October 23, 2013 [7 favorites]
I think Amazon did something like that earlier this year.
posted by Area Man at 12:51 PM on October 23, 2013 [7 favorites]
Netflix should be the Kickstarter of television shows. Make ten pilots, count the viewers, then develop the most popular ones. Lather, rinse, repeat.
Interest in a pilot does not translate into the same interest in an ongoing series. A not insignificant percentage of pilot viewers would be viewing out of curiosity. You haven't eliminated the bet on 12 to 14 episodes.
posted by spicynuts at 12:55 PM on October 23, 2013
Interest in a pilot does not translate into the same interest in an ongoing series. A not insignificant percentage of pilot viewers would be viewing out of curiosity. You haven't eliminated the bet on 12 to 14 episodes.
posted by spicynuts at 12:55 PM on October 23, 2013
Oh man, Amazon is doing exactly this, and let me tell you, this is not a thing you want. Really. I hope I can find some time later tonight to weigh in in more depth on this.
posted by incessant at 12:56 PM on October 23, 2013 [4 favorites]
posted by incessant at 12:56 PM on October 23, 2013 [4 favorites]
How about focusing on limited-run mini-series rather than the ongoing dreck we see on TV now?
posted by blue_beetle at 1:01 PM on October 23, 2013 [2 favorites]
posted by blue_beetle at 1:01 PM on October 23, 2013 [2 favorites]
Netflix should be the Kickstarter of television shows. Make ten pilots, count the viewers, then develop the most popular ones. Lather, rinse, repeat.
Pilots are the most expensive episodes to produce (of the first season of a show). If you're paying X for the pilot, you won't pay 22X for the whole season. It's more expensive to make 10 pilots than to order 10 episodes of one thing -- build the sets once, hire the cast and crew for less money per-episode, because money now is better than a chance at more money later -- and throw it away if it doesn't take with the audience.
How about focusing on limited-run mini-series rather than the ongoing dreck we see on TV now?
If your limited-run mini-series really clicks with audiences, why not make another one in the same vein (e.g., American Horror Story)?
posted by Etrigan at 1:04 PM on October 23, 2013 [3 favorites]
Pilots are the most expensive episodes to produce (of the first season of a show). If you're paying X for the pilot, you won't pay 22X for the whole season. It's more expensive to make 10 pilots than to order 10 episodes of one thing -- build the sets once, hire the cast and crew for less money per-episode, because money now is better than a chance at more money later -- and throw it away if it doesn't take with the audience.
How about focusing on limited-run mini-series rather than the ongoing dreck we see on TV now?
If your limited-run mini-series really clicks with audiences, why not make another one in the same vein (e.g., American Horror Story)?
posted by Etrigan at 1:04 PM on October 23, 2013 [3 favorites]
Unlike a traditional TV network, Netflix has the unique ability to put content in front of millions of targeted, interest-based viewers in incredibly short order. It has better taste profiles and matching algorithms than AMC, ABC, or big advertisers could ever dream of. Why, for instance, couldn’t Netflix buy scripts – or hell, get into the blind script business with established writers – and then test them out before fully committing to them? Why not let the market decide, without the pressure of advertisers or distribution partners?
My understanding is that they did at least some of this with House of Cards. They were adamant about getting Kevin Spacey for the lead role because fans of the original British series were also fans of his movies, for example.
posted by Rock Steady at 1:11 PM on October 23, 2013 [2 favorites]
My understanding is that they did at least some of this with House of Cards. They were adamant about getting Kevin Spacey for the lead role because fans of the original British series were also fans of his movies, for example.
posted by Rock Steady at 1:11 PM on October 23, 2013 [2 favorites]
How about focusing on limited-run mini-series rather than the ongoing dreck we see on TV now?
I'm seeing the veeeeery early stages of that happening, in the form of adaptations from British shows. There was the BBC/Starz collaboration on a Torchwood series a couple years back, and they're going to be making an American adaptation of Broadchurch in the future (although, even though they're keeping David Tennant, they most likely will be making him use an American accent and that's just plain wrong). It'll be interesting to see if that model translates.
As for the failure rate of ideas....I used to work in television, and part of my job was researching and helping write new show proposals. There easily were about 30 new shows I helped write up the pitches for - and some of them were actually pretty awesome ideas. A one-hour sports special about "guys who were the relief pitchers or whatever until they got their big break"? Yeah, I'd watch that. Kids' history shows where they base each episode on "some kid writes in about the weird thing they find in grandma's attic"? I'd watch that.
And in that three years, the only new show we managed to sell was a one-hour special about a shark dive our parent company ran, which we sold to Discovery to run during Shark Week. It ran that one year and I don't think they've ever run it again.
I learned early on, actually, that a bit part of what will sell a show is dependent on whether the advertiser thinks they can get good exposure for that show.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 1:13 PM on October 23, 2013 [6 favorites]
I'm seeing the veeeeery early stages of that happening, in the form of adaptations from British shows. There was the BBC/Starz collaboration on a Torchwood series a couple years back, and they're going to be making an American adaptation of Broadchurch in the future (although, even though they're keeping David Tennant, they most likely will be making him use an American accent and that's just plain wrong). It'll be interesting to see if that model translates.
As for the failure rate of ideas....I used to work in television, and part of my job was researching and helping write new show proposals. There easily were about 30 new shows I helped write up the pitches for - and some of them were actually pretty awesome ideas. A one-hour sports special about "guys who were the relief pitchers or whatever until they got their big break"? Yeah, I'd watch that. Kids' history shows where they base each episode on "some kid writes in about the weird thing they find in grandma's attic"? I'd watch that.
And in that three years, the only new show we managed to sell was a one-hour special about a shark dive our parent company ran, which we sold to Discovery to run during Shark Week. It ran that one year and I don't think they've ever run it again.
I learned early on, actually, that a bit part of what will sell a show is dependent on whether the advertiser thinks they can get good exposure for that show.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 1:13 PM on October 23, 2013 [6 favorites]
How about focusing on limited-run mini-series rather than the ongoing dreck we see on TV now?
Yes please! I'm kind of tired of shows getting jerked around with seasons being cancelled, renewed unnecessarily, or just slowly dying. Give me 1 'season' of tv, well written, and has a conclusion. That's all.
posted by furnace.heart at 1:24 PM on October 23, 2013 [1 favorite]
Yes please! I'm kind of tired of shows getting jerked around with seasons being cancelled, renewed unnecessarily, or just slowly dying. Give me 1 'season' of tv, well written, and has a conclusion. That's all.
posted by furnace.heart at 1:24 PM on October 23, 2013 [1 favorite]
(although, even though they're keeping David Tennant, they most likely will be making him use an American accent and that's just plain wrong)
Tennant is a Scot and has been using an accent that's not his for most of his career, so I have at least some measure of faith that he'll be able to pull it off.
posted by Etrigan at 1:29 PM on October 23, 2013 [4 favorites]
Tennant is a Scot and has been using an accent that's not his for most of his career, so I have at least some measure of faith that he'll be able to pull it off.
posted by Etrigan at 1:29 PM on October 23, 2013 [4 favorites]
I have at least some measure of faith that he'll be able to pull it off.
I guess you've never seen the Rex Is Not Your Lawyer pilot.
posted by 1970s Antihero at 1:36 PM on October 23, 2013 [1 favorite]
I guess you've never seen the Rex Is Not Your Lawyer pilot.
posted by 1970s Antihero at 1:36 PM on October 23, 2013 [1 favorite]
Give me 1 'season' of tv, well written, and has a conclusion.
The reason this is much more likely on HBO/Showtime or Netflix/Microsoft is that they don't have to deal with advertisers at the upfronts who pay more for shows they like for reasons nobody can exactly parse. No upfronts means you can make 7 shows or 9 or whatever makes sense.
But can the entire economy switch to that model? Almost every aspect of the TV business is still funded by advertising on TV indirectly:
HBO: Distributed by Cable providers whose business is based on a majority lot of channels that show advertisements.
Netflix: Rebroadcasts TV shows created for networks that rely on advertising.
Pretty much only Amazon has a route to making money off content exclusive from Ads. They make their money on selling things directly to people from producers. Perhaps content would work the same way... I expect to see TV writers and actors working in warehouses with all sets CGI'd in by the end of the century.
posted by Potomac Avenue at 1:42 PM on October 23, 2013 [1 favorite]
The reason this is much more likely on HBO/Showtime or Netflix/Microsoft is that they don't have to deal with advertisers at the upfronts who pay more for shows they like for reasons nobody can exactly parse. No upfronts means you can make 7 shows or 9 or whatever makes sense.
But can the entire economy switch to that model? Almost every aspect of the TV business is still funded by advertising on TV indirectly:
HBO: Distributed by Cable providers whose business is based on a majority lot of channels that show advertisements.
Netflix: Rebroadcasts TV shows created for networks that rely on advertising.
Pretty much only Amazon has a route to making money off content exclusive from Ads. They make their money on selling things directly to people from producers. Perhaps content would work the same way... I expect to see TV writers and actors working in warehouses with all sets CGI'd in by the end of the century.
posted by Potomac Avenue at 1:42 PM on October 23, 2013 [1 favorite]
How about focusing on limited-run mini-series rather than the ongoing dreck we see on TV now?
Yes please! I'm kind of tired of shows getting jerked around with seasons being cancelled, renewed unnecessarily, or just slowly dying. Give me 1 'season' of tv, well written, and has a conclusion. That's all.
There's space for both of these concepts on TV. I would really hate to see American serialized television become its UK equivalent, with six (or so) episodes per season. That format works well for shows written for that format, but two of the very major reasons American television is as good as it is -- X-Files and Buffy -- could never have thrived in that format.
posted by griphus at 1:50 PM on October 23, 2013
Yes please! I'm kind of tired of shows getting jerked around with seasons being cancelled, renewed unnecessarily, or just slowly dying. Give me 1 'season' of tv, well written, and has a conclusion. That's all.
There's space for both of these concepts on TV. I would really hate to see American serialized television become its UK equivalent, with six (or so) episodes per season. That format works well for shows written for that format, but two of the very major reasons American television is as good as it is -- X-Files and Buffy -- could never have thrived in that format.
posted by griphus at 1:50 PM on October 23, 2013
Whoops, forgot about the Sopranos. X-Files, Buffy and the Sopranos.
posted by griphus at 1:51 PM on October 23, 2013
posted by griphus at 1:51 PM on October 23, 2013
Oh man, Amazon is doing exactly this, and let me tell you, this is not a thing you want. Really. I hope I can find some time later tonight to weigh in in more depth on this.
I'd be interested for an insider's view on this.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 1:52 PM on October 23, 2013
I'd be interested for an insider's view on this.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 1:52 PM on October 23, 2013
With Breaking Bad’s entire back-catalog available online, the show was discovered by a secondary audience, all of whom could catch up in anticipation of the home stretch
I think this is a critical point as a lot of the dramas in this Golden Age of TV are not the old "steady state" model, where new viewers could tune in and basically understand the relationships and plots in progress; a lot of shows for the last few years (Sopranos, Breaking Bad, The Wire, etc) are more expansionary in scope or more directed to a specific end point, both of which require the viewer to be filled in on the backstory and able to follow complex plotlines that develop rapidly. Being able to allow new viewers to go back and catch up is important to keeping the viewership growing.
posted by nubs at 1:59 PM on October 23, 2013 [5 favorites]
I think this is a critical point as a lot of the dramas in this Golden Age of TV are not the old "steady state" model, where new viewers could tune in and basically understand the relationships and plots in progress; a lot of shows for the last few years (Sopranos, Breaking Bad, The Wire, etc) are more expansionary in scope or more directed to a specific end point, both of which require the viewer to be filled in on the backstory and able to follow complex plotlines that develop rapidly. Being able to allow new viewers to go back and catch up is important to keeping the viewership growing.
posted by nubs at 1:59 PM on October 23, 2013 [5 favorites]
spicynuts: "Netflix should be the Kickstarter of television shows. Make ten pilots, count the viewers, then develop the most popular ones. Lather, rinse, repeat.
Interest in a pilot does not translate into the same interest in an ongoing series. A not insignificant percentage of pilot viewers would be viewing out of curiosity. You haven't eliminated the bet on 12 to 14 episodes."
No one claimed it does. It does, however, probably correlate rather well with viewer interest - and probably much better than programming exec hunches, overall.
posted by IAmBroom at 2:12 PM on October 23, 2013
Interest in a pilot does not translate into the same interest in an ongoing series. A not insignificant percentage of pilot viewers would be viewing out of curiosity. You haven't eliminated the bet on 12 to 14 episodes."
No one claimed it does. It does, however, probably correlate rather well with viewer interest - and probably much better than programming exec hunches, overall.
posted by IAmBroom at 2:12 PM on October 23, 2013
I guess you've never seen the Rex Is Not Your Lawyer pilot.
Wow, that's Kevin Costner bad.
posted by octothorpe at 2:17 PM on October 23, 2013
Wow, that's Kevin Costner bad.
posted by octothorpe at 2:17 PM on October 23, 2013
a lot of shows for the last few years (Sopranos, Breaking Bad, The Wire, etc) are more expansionary in scope or more directed to a specific end point
Unfortunately most of them have an endpoint that's got about 2-6 episodes worth of plot, and they fill out the other 10-20 episodes with mediocre filler. The 6 episode format from British TV is so much better in that respect. And only 6 episodes means you can afford to take a little more risk.
Since Netflix and Amazon don't rely on ad driven revenue there's no need for long seasons of filler. I'm much more likely to try out a show if I know it's only a 6 episode commitment.
posted by aspo at 2:36 PM on October 23, 2013
Unfortunately most of them have an endpoint that's got about 2-6 episodes worth of plot, and they fill out the other 10-20 episodes with mediocre filler. The 6 episode format from British TV is so much better in that respect. And only 6 episodes means you can afford to take a little more risk.
Since Netflix and Amazon don't rely on ad driven revenue there's no need for long seasons of filler. I'm much more likely to try out a show if I know it's only a 6 episode commitment.
posted by aspo at 2:36 PM on October 23, 2013
Hulu has also been doing some interesting original content of late, for those who haven't been paying attention. All the online providers are doing this, with varying levels of success. It's going to take a while for this transition phase to sort itself out before we can tell who are the winners and losers in all of this.
(Although right now, the discerning viewer wiling to explore a bit across the surface and subsequently dive in-depth is coming out the winner.)
posted by hippybear at 2:38 PM on October 23, 2013
(Although right now, the discerning viewer wiling to explore a bit across the surface and subsequently dive in-depth is coming out the winner.)
posted by hippybear at 2:38 PM on October 23, 2013
I tend to agree that the British approach creates better overall content. Name almost any popular or well-regarded American series and there's only about half a dozen superb shows a year, with the rest being filler. It has its own peculiar economics, of course, and there's something to be said for cranking out a reliably entertaining show even without killer scripts for every episode, but I really think the British model fits the new streaming/binge distribution model better than the American "you will have a piece of comedy 22 minutes long every Thursday until March" approach.
Wow, that's Kevin Costner bad.
That's all I've ever seen of it and it's pretty predictable dramedy based on that. I think it's basically along the same lines as the Broadchurch deal in that Tennant has enough of a name over here that people think he's destined for the bigger American (plus worldwide, to an extent) audience. I'm sort of surprised myself that he'd choose to go on FOX at this point, though, considering the decline in broadcast numbers -- but maybe he made the decision based on a certain other number.
posted by dhartung at 2:43 PM on October 23, 2013 [1 favorite]
Wow, that's Kevin Costner bad.
That's all I've ever seen of it and it's pretty predictable dramedy based on that. I think it's basically along the same lines as the Broadchurch deal in that Tennant has enough of a name over here that people think he's destined for the bigger American (plus worldwide, to an extent) audience. I'm sort of surprised myself that he'd choose to go on FOX at this point, though, considering the decline in broadcast numbers -- but maybe he made the decision based on a certain other number.
posted by dhartung at 2:43 PM on October 23, 2013 [1 favorite]
Make ten pilots, count the viewers, then develop the most popular ones.
*shudders*
all honey boo boo, all the time.
posted by quonsar II: smock fishpants and the temple of foon at 2:46 PM on October 23, 2013 [6 favorites]
*shudders*
all honey boo boo, all the time.
posted by quonsar II: smock fishpants and the temple of foon at 2:46 PM on October 23, 2013 [6 favorites]
I wonder if the proposed "Order 10 pilots and then invest in the 3 that do the best" would make it harder to get quality shows, or at least known talent? I suspect Kevin Spacey and David Fincher would have been reluctant to spend a lot of time on and attach their names to something that might have been a public failure - and not just a "my movie flopped" failure, but a "people weren't even interested in one free episode of this show" failure.
I suspect it would also make it harder to lock down scheduling for in-demand producers and actors. Say you make a pilot in May, and Netflix debuts it in September, giving it a month to compete against other pilots. It wins, and so they order ten more episodes. Are the writers and producers still available during the next few months? And then are the actors available in the winter, when they'd be producing them?
And then you have the time lag issue on the audience end as well. Assuming it would take at least 4 or 5 months to produce a bunch more episodes (from what little I know about TV production, that seems short, but I may be wrong), then the follow-up episodes of the shows people enjoyed in September wouldn't be available till February - that's a lot of time for people to forget about it, lose interest, unsubscribe from the service, etc.
Of course, even with all those problems, it still may be preferable to the current system, but it's not without its own risks.
posted by lunasol at 2:55 PM on October 23, 2013 [1 favorite]
I suspect it would also make it harder to lock down scheduling for in-demand producers and actors. Say you make a pilot in May, and Netflix debuts it in September, giving it a month to compete against other pilots. It wins, and so they order ten more episodes. Are the writers and producers still available during the next few months? And then are the actors available in the winter, when they'd be producing them?
And then you have the time lag issue on the audience end as well. Assuming it would take at least 4 or 5 months to produce a bunch more episodes (from what little I know about TV production, that seems short, but I may be wrong), then the follow-up episodes of the shows people enjoyed in September wouldn't be available till February - that's a lot of time for people to forget about it, lose interest, unsubscribe from the service, etc.
Of course, even with all those problems, it still may be preferable to the current system, but it's not without its own risks.
posted by lunasol at 2:55 PM on October 23, 2013 [1 favorite]
quonsar II: smock fishpants and the temple of foon: "all honey boo boo, all the time."
Speaking of that, I'd watch a comedy series about a group of reality TV producers. Each season could start out with them working on a few different concepts, then they'd decide on one to make, and the season would follow them through making it and it getting cancelled. Next season, repeat, but with a different reality sub-genre.
posted by Joakim Ziegler at 3:29 PM on October 23, 2013 [1 favorite]
Speaking of that, I'd watch a comedy series about a group of reality TV producers. Each season could start out with them working on a few different concepts, then they'd decide on one to make, and the season would follow them through making it and it getting cancelled. Next season, repeat, but with a different reality sub-genre.
posted by Joakim Ziegler at 3:29 PM on October 23, 2013 [1 favorite]
Maybe I'm too close to this, but I don't really see how you could develop series on any other model than something not terribly far from how it's currently done.
I mean, OK -- you collaborate with a known quantity TV writer to develop a pilot script and reams of supporting materials that make the case for a full series (episode outlines, character bibles, tentative budgets and schedules, casting notes, etc). This goes back and forth a million times until everyone is happy with the show as it exists on paper.
You then spend a little bit of money to produce the pilot. A reasonably successful pilot should do a pretty damn good job of showing what the series is going to be like*.
After you see the pilot and assess all kinds of other background issues like what timeslots are open, your network's brand, other shows on your network, the competition, how much this is all going to cost**, etc. you decide you want to pick it up to series. Yay! At that point, unless you know you have a home run, you have the option of ordering basically as many episodes as you want. For a show that the network isn't absolutely in love with, often there will be a small initial order, and then more episodes will be ordered at a later date if there is interest.
I'm really not sure how it would be possible to produce an ongoing TV series on an episode by episode basis. The problem isn't so much how to determine whether it's accomplishing the network's goals (which often aren't as simple as eyeballs on screens), but how to sustain production.
You can't really hire a cast and crew and then say "well we're going to shoot a week, and then maybe in the future we'll shoot another week, and then if people like it we might bring you back for another week." Nobody would be willing to work that way. I work in TV and it's irritating enough not knowing what I'll be doing in February, let alone not knowing if there's going to be another paycheck. The unions absolutely wouldn't stand for it, and the above-the-line creatives wouldn't be willing to wait around.
Not to even get into the general production headaches. TV shows have to be prepared in advance. If we won't know whether we're making episode 2 until episode 1 airs and the numbers come back and some network suits ruminate, how are we supposed to get anything done? Production costs would skyrocket.
Not to mention, too, that continuity and tone and other creative things we take for granted on TV would be destroyed. You know how you can often tell whether an episode of a TV show is from season 1 or season 4, just by looking at the cast's hairstyles or what blanket is slung over the back of the couch? Imagine that stuff changing from episode to episode. Storylines, too, would have to become more simplistic, because what's the point of building a season-long narrative arc with no guarantee of future episodes?
*That said, I worked on a TV series where it was patently obvious to me after reading the pilot script that there was really no show, and that the whole thing was doomed to failure just because... what is episode 2? Let alone episode 22, or episode 202. And yet a Big 4 network ordered 13 episodes of it. So I think some of this isn't problems inherent in the development process but people just being morons.
**For example, I'm almost certain that the Super Clyde pilot that Rupert Grint and Stephen Fry did for CBS was ultimately not picked up because it was just too damn expensive to make, a little iffy for CBS' brand, and the pilot as produced was really borderline. All those decisions get factored in.
posted by Sara C. at 4:13 PM on October 23, 2013 [9 favorites]
I mean, OK -- you collaborate with a known quantity TV writer to develop a pilot script and reams of supporting materials that make the case for a full series (episode outlines, character bibles, tentative budgets and schedules, casting notes, etc). This goes back and forth a million times until everyone is happy with the show as it exists on paper.
You then spend a little bit of money to produce the pilot. A reasonably successful pilot should do a pretty damn good job of showing what the series is going to be like*.
After you see the pilot and assess all kinds of other background issues like what timeslots are open, your network's brand, other shows on your network, the competition, how much this is all going to cost**, etc. you decide you want to pick it up to series. Yay! At that point, unless you know you have a home run, you have the option of ordering basically as many episodes as you want. For a show that the network isn't absolutely in love with, often there will be a small initial order, and then more episodes will be ordered at a later date if there is interest.
I'm really not sure how it would be possible to produce an ongoing TV series on an episode by episode basis. The problem isn't so much how to determine whether it's accomplishing the network's goals (which often aren't as simple as eyeballs on screens), but how to sustain production.
You can't really hire a cast and crew and then say "well we're going to shoot a week, and then maybe in the future we'll shoot another week, and then if people like it we might bring you back for another week." Nobody would be willing to work that way. I work in TV and it's irritating enough not knowing what I'll be doing in February, let alone not knowing if there's going to be another paycheck. The unions absolutely wouldn't stand for it, and the above-the-line creatives wouldn't be willing to wait around.
Not to even get into the general production headaches. TV shows have to be prepared in advance. If we won't know whether we're making episode 2 until episode 1 airs and the numbers come back and some network suits ruminate, how are we supposed to get anything done? Production costs would skyrocket.
Not to mention, too, that continuity and tone and other creative things we take for granted on TV would be destroyed. You know how you can often tell whether an episode of a TV show is from season 1 or season 4, just by looking at the cast's hairstyles or what blanket is slung over the back of the couch? Imagine that stuff changing from episode to episode. Storylines, too, would have to become more simplistic, because what's the point of building a season-long narrative arc with no guarantee of future episodes?
*That said, I worked on a TV series where it was patently obvious to me after reading the pilot script that there was really no show, and that the whole thing was doomed to failure just because... what is episode 2? Let alone episode 22, or episode 202. And yet a Big 4 network ordered 13 episodes of it. So I think some of this isn't problems inherent in the development process but people just being morons.
**For example, I'm almost certain that the Super Clyde pilot that Rupert Grint and Stephen Fry did for CBS was ultimately not picked up because it was just too damn expensive to make, a little iffy for CBS' brand, and the pilot as produced was really borderline. All those decisions get factored in.
posted by Sara C. at 4:13 PM on October 23, 2013 [9 favorites]
Well, that's showbiz.
posted by freakazoid at 4:22 PM on October 23, 2013
posted by freakazoid at 4:22 PM on October 23, 2013
Re going to a more miniseries model, this is definitely already happening.
I'm working right now on a cable series that had a ten episode initial order. That went well, so we got picked up for "Season 1B", another ten episodes. As the rest of Season 1A aired, the ratings were so good that the network has already picked us up for another season.
It's my experience that cable pretty much always goes for a 10-13 episode season order. Network is traditionally 22, but in my seven years in TV it's been my experience that only the sure bets and proven hits ever get picked up for the full 22. Now they're more likely to do an initial order of 13, and then pick up "the back nine" after a few episodes have aired. Which is ultimately the same model as the cable series I'm on right now, and really the only sustainable model in terms of physical production.
I think it's unlikely that either the networks or the digital content providers would go to a six episode season down from 10-13, but what do I know?
posted by Sara C. at 4:22 PM on October 23, 2013 [1 favorite]
I'm working right now on a cable series that had a ten episode initial order. That went well, so we got picked up for "Season 1B", another ten episodes. As the rest of Season 1A aired, the ratings were so good that the network has already picked us up for another season.
It's my experience that cable pretty much always goes for a 10-13 episode season order. Network is traditionally 22, but in my seven years in TV it's been my experience that only the sure bets and proven hits ever get picked up for the full 22. Now they're more likely to do an initial order of 13, and then pick up "the back nine" after a few episodes have aired. Which is ultimately the same model as the cable series I'm on right now, and really the only sustainable model in terms of physical production.
I think it's unlikely that either the networks or the digital content providers would go to a six episode season down from 10-13, but what do I know?
posted by Sara C. at 4:22 PM on October 23, 2013 [1 favorite]
What might work is cleaning up the industry. Currently the "studios" and media corporations have a tradition of financial slight of hand, the most amazingly successful shows never see a profit. The result of this is the best talent know if they bet on "monkey points" they will see pennies. Thus with a track record of creating quality productions, they insist on high salaries for the duration of the initial production.
If a Kickstarter like funding organization could demonstrate that when a show became a hit their percentage would be real value, you'd begin seeing all kinds of (high production values) productions spun up for bare sustenance. This is theater, folks are craving, pleading, wishing, to do shows.
Demonstrate a viable return on sweat equity and all kinds of amazing (in all the right and wrong ways, still only a few will ultimately work) new shows.
posted by sammyo at 4:29 PM on October 23, 2013 [1 favorite]
If a Kickstarter like funding organization could demonstrate that when a show became a hit their percentage would be real value, you'd begin seeing all kinds of (high production values) productions spun up for bare sustenance. This is theater, folks are craving, pleading, wishing, to do shows.
Demonstrate a viable return on sweat equity and all kinds of amazing (in all the right and wrong ways, still only a few will ultimately work) new shows.
posted by sammyo at 4:29 PM on October 23, 2013 [1 favorite]
I have noticed that 13 is the new 22, and 13 episodes is easier to handle, but the 13 model with a possible 9 more still means you can't have a story that wraps up after 13 episodes.
(Another thing I love about brit shows is even the successful ones mostly only have 1-3 seasons. 12 hours is enough time to tell a hell of a lot of story. Leave on a high note, move on and tell a new story already.)
posted by aspo at 4:43 PM on October 23, 2013
(Another thing I love about brit shows is even the successful ones mostly only have 1-3 seasons. 12 hours is enough time to tell a hell of a lot of story. Leave on a high note, move on and tell a new story already.)
posted by aspo at 4:43 PM on October 23, 2013
Currently the "studios" and media corporations have a tradition of financial slight of hand, the most amazingly successful shows never see a profit. The result of this is the best talent know if they bet on "monkey points" they will see pennies. Thus with a track record of creating quality productions, they insist on high salaries for the duration of the initial production.
I'm not sure this is relevant for TV. It's the case for features, but the way all this works in TV is drastically different.
TV salaries for creatives are a lot lower than in features. You absolutely are hired on for the long haul, at a more sustainable pay rate.
Certain creative positions (more commonly writers and directors, but sometimes also cast, especially on a long running series or something like 30 Rock or Roseanne where one actor is carrying the project) will also take on a "producer" title, thus entitling them to more of a financial stake as well as more creative control and a voice in decision-making processes. In my understanding this is an attractive thing for everyone involved. I'm not sure about the back end and points and how profitable it actually is, but there's definitely money involved and it's definitely something people want.
In my understanding TV shows don't "show a profit" in the way that movies do. And, regardless of whether that's the case, producers often get financial bonuses for keeping production costs down. Which is the TV equivalent of having "points".
posted by Sara C. at 4:45 PM on October 23, 2013 [3 favorites]
I'm not sure this is relevant for TV. It's the case for features, but the way all this works in TV is drastically different.
TV salaries for creatives are a lot lower than in features. You absolutely are hired on for the long haul, at a more sustainable pay rate.
Certain creative positions (more commonly writers and directors, but sometimes also cast, especially on a long running series or something like 30 Rock or Roseanne where one actor is carrying the project) will also take on a "producer" title, thus entitling them to more of a financial stake as well as more creative control and a voice in decision-making processes. In my understanding this is an attractive thing for everyone involved. I'm not sure about the back end and points and how profitable it actually is, but there's definitely money involved and it's definitely something people want.
In my understanding TV shows don't "show a profit" in the way that movies do. And, regardless of whether that's the case, producers often get financial bonuses for keeping production costs down. Which is the TV equivalent of having "points".
posted by Sara C. at 4:45 PM on October 23, 2013 [3 favorites]
I worked at a television studio for several years and can confirm that none of it makes any sense.
posted by roger ackroyd at 4:45 PM on October 23, 2013 [2 favorites]
posted by roger ackroyd at 4:45 PM on October 23, 2013 [2 favorites]
Wow, that's Kevin Costner bad.
HENCE MY DO NOT WANT. (Also but he sounds so good just like he is why would you want to even do that it's like taking the color blue out of a Van Gogh painting)
I'm sort of surprised myself that he'd choose to go on FOX at this point, though, considering the decline in broadcast numbers -- but maybe he made the decision based on a certain other number.
Actors don't choose the network. The network chooses the show and the actors are part of that package deal.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 4:59 PM on October 23, 2013 [1 favorite]
HENCE MY DO NOT WANT. (Also but he sounds so good just like he is why would you want to even do that it's like taking the color blue out of a Van Gogh painting)
I'm sort of surprised myself that he'd choose to go on FOX at this point, though, considering the decline in broadcast numbers -- but maybe he made the decision based on a certain other number.
Actors don't choose the network. The network chooses the show and the actors are part of that package deal.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 4:59 PM on October 23, 2013 [1 favorite]
Netflix should just pay Harlan Ellison a lifetime remainder to write screenplays and film them. I would watch the fudge out of that.
posted by Renoroc at 5:05 PM on October 23, 2013 [1 favorite]
posted by Renoroc at 5:05 PM on October 23, 2013 [1 favorite]
One thing to remember about British TV is that their entire model is based around a non-commercial framework. Yes, there's more than just the BBC now, and I'm sure everything nowadays is built around ad revenue. But the idea of doing just a few episodes of each series, a limited number of series, and no reliable year-in-year-out schedule, is really not tenable under the American model as it stands now.
One big factor, in addition to ad revenue, is syndication. A TV show can go into syndication after 100 episodes, which casts a HUGE shadow over decisions the networks make.
posted by Sara C. at 5:08 PM on October 23, 2013 [1 favorite]
One big factor, in addition to ad revenue, is syndication. A TV show can go into syndication after 100 episodes, which casts a HUGE shadow over decisions the networks make.
posted by Sara C. at 5:08 PM on October 23, 2013 [1 favorite]
Great, great article and great comments here!
I watched the Amazon pilots, well, I watched most of them, some were so bad, I couldn't sit through the whole episodes. Of all of them, I remember one that I actually thought I'd like (it was about a bunch of Senators or Congressman sharing a house), but my roommate hated it.
Anyone know how that whole experiment ended? Which ones were picked up for more episodes?
posted by MoxieProxy at 5:40 PM on October 23, 2013
I watched the Amazon pilots, well, I watched most of them, some were so bad, I couldn't sit through the whole episodes. Of all of them, I remember one that I actually thought I'd like (it was about a bunch of Senators or Congressman sharing a house), but my roommate hated it.
Anyone know how that whole experiment ended? Which ones were picked up for more episodes?
posted by MoxieProxy at 5:40 PM on October 23, 2013
Sara: which is why people were talking about how the Netflix model could be a game changer. I understand why TV works the way it does, but I would love to see a model that works better with a model that works better artwise. The American system makes for mediocre TV, "golden age" proclamations aside.
posted by aspo at 5:57 PM on October 23, 2013
posted by aspo at 5:57 PM on October 23, 2013
Netflix seems to already be taking more of a miniseries approach. Ten episode seasons with self-contained story arcs. Orange Is The New Black is the only series so far where there's any word on a "second season", AFAIK, and they seem to be developing lots of short series rather than a few that are clearly designed to run for years.
Also, anyone who thinks there isn't piles of mediocre British TV is silly. I especially don't get the penchant for bringing back long-ago beloved series years later, and acting as if nothing is meant to have changed. Why didn't they just make more than six episodes at the time, when they were actually popular?
(To be perfectly clear, I think 22 episode seasons are outrageous and look forward to everyone transitioning away from them. That said, as long as syndication is the real source of profit for TV, I don't think hit network shows are going to realistically decrease season orders.)
posted by Sara C. at 6:07 PM on October 23, 2013
Also, anyone who thinks there isn't piles of mediocre British TV is silly. I especially don't get the penchant for bringing back long-ago beloved series years later, and acting as if nothing is meant to have changed. Why didn't they just make more than six episodes at the time, when they were actually popular?
(To be perfectly clear, I think 22 episode seasons are outrageous and look forward to everyone transitioning away from them. That said, as long as syndication is the real source of profit for TV, I don't think hit network shows are going to realistically decrease season orders.)
posted by Sara C. at 6:07 PM on October 23, 2013
I don't know if this is relevant but when is the Party Down Kickstartr coming out?
posted by Potomac Avenue at 6:46 PM on October 23, 2013
posted by Potomac Avenue at 6:46 PM on October 23, 2013
Sara C.: "To be perfectly clear, I think 22 episode seasons are outrageous and look forward to everyone transitioning away from them. That said, as long as syndication is the real source of profit for TV, I don't think hit network shows are going to realistically decrease season orders."
It's this, and I want to thank you for dropping some internal insight into this thread.
The major US networks are still stuck in the quantity over quality mode, while everybody else has found out that quality over quantity is absolutely the way you should go.
What is absolutely hilarious about this is that NBC had that strategy locked down in the 1990's. Have a small stable of fantastic shows whose ad revenue pays for the rest of the lineup.
posted by Sphinx at 6:47 PM on October 23, 2013
It's this, and I want to thank you for dropping some internal insight into this thread.
The major US networks are still stuck in the quantity over quality mode, while everybody else has found out that quality over quantity is absolutely the way you should go.
What is absolutely hilarious about this is that NBC had that strategy locked down in the 1990's. Have a small stable of fantastic shows whose ad revenue pays for the rest of the lineup.
posted by Sphinx at 6:47 PM on October 23, 2013
But there is no valid reason why Netflix should have placed a blind, $100 million bet on a new series.
Actually, there is. Netflix faced the problem that its DVD-by-mail service was suddenly totally passé. Netflix based its original business model on the first sale doctrine, which allowed it to rent out DVDs to the public without paying royalty fees, but nowadays its business has to focus more on streaming video content, which is subject to the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. In practical terms, this means that Hollywood studios and other content owners can charge exorbitant rates for the right to stream the most popular movies, because studios such as Universal (which owns Hulu) hope that this will force Netflix out of business. In order to fight back, Netflix needs to have addictive streaming content that it can control without interference from the movie studios. Hence, it's actually a very wise bet for Netflix to spend hundreds of millions on programs like House of Cards or Orange is the New Black, because their survival as a company not only depends on it.
posted by jonp72 at 7:25 PM on October 23, 2013 [4 favorites]
Actually, there is. Netflix faced the problem that its DVD-by-mail service was suddenly totally passé. Netflix based its original business model on the first sale doctrine, which allowed it to rent out DVDs to the public without paying royalty fees, but nowadays its business has to focus more on streaming video content, which is subject to the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. In practical terms, this means that Hollywood studios and other content owners can charge exorbitant rates for the right to stream the most popular movies, because studios such as Universal (which owns Hulu) hope that this will force Netflix out of business. In order to fight back, Netflix needs to have addictive streaming content that it can control without interference from the movie studios. Hence, it's actually a very wise bet for Netflix to spend hundreds of millions on programs like House of Cards or Orange is the New Black, because their survival as a company not only depends on it.
posted by jonp72 at 7:25 PM on October 23, 2013 [4 favorites]
One thing to remember about British TV is that their entire model is based around a non-commercial framework. Yes, there's more than just the BBC now...
This isn't accurate. Sure -- maybe... to a degree for the BBC. But British TV has had a commercial aspect for a long time: first ITV (from 1955) and then Channel 4 (from '82).
I notice that people outside the UK seem to use the terms "British TV" and "BBC" almost interchangeably. It's worth bearing in mind that there are many classic UK series that people often mistakenly credit to the BBC but are actually ITV: Jewel in the Crown (Granada), Brideshead Revisited (Granada), Sherlock Holmes [w/ Jeremy Brett] (Granada), Jeeves and Wooster (Granada), Foyle's War (ITV).
Oh. And Downton Abbey (ITV). (Apologies for the Granada bias... former employee here.)
posted by NailsTheCat at 7:39 PM on October 23, 2013 [3 favorites]
This isn't accurate. Sure -- maybe... to a degree for the BBC. But British TV has had a commercial aspect for a long time: first ITV (from 1955) and then Channel 4 (from '82).
I notice that people outside the UK seem to use the terms "British TV" and "BBC" almost interchangeably. It's worth bearing in mind that there are many classic UK series that people often mistakenly credit to the BBC but are actually ITV: Jewel in the Crown (Granada), Brideshead Revisited (Granada), Sherlock Holmes [w/ Jeremy Brett] (Granada), Jeeves and Wooster (Granada), Foyle's War (ITV).
Oh. And Downton Abbey (ITV). (Apologies for the Granada bias... former employee here.)
posted by NailsTheCat at 7:39 PM on October 23, 2013 [3 favorites]
The demise of the 22 episode model would be very welcome especially because I don't know how many good shows have had a decent first arc of 13 episode and then gone into hiatus before sweeps and basically gotten lost in the spring shuffle. I'd much rather see 2 halves of the TV season with a fall set of 13 episodes and spring set of thirteen episodes of a different scripted show.
Suddenly you'd go from having x number of tv slots per season to 2x because you have concrete divisions in the season. This in theory would allow you to run 2 sets of upfronts with advertisers so that your investment could be split over the course of a year. I suspect that the sheer cost of developing shows would also make it so networks would be more willing to let a show find it's legs before killing it.
posted by vuron at 8:32 PM on October 23, 2013
Suddenly you'd go from having x number of tv slots per season to 2x because you have concrete divisions in the season. This in theory would allow you to run 2 sets of upfronts with advertisers so that your investment could be split over the course of a year. I suspect that the sheer cost of developing shows would also make it so networks would be more willing to let a show find it's legs before killing it.
posted by vuron at 8:32 PM on October 23, 2013
I notice that people outside the UK seem to use the terms "British TV" and "BBC" almost interchangeably. It's worth bearing in mind that there are many classic UK series that people often mistakenly credit to the BBC but are actually ITV: Jewel in the Crown (Granada), Brideshead Revisited (Granada), Sherlock Holmes [w/ Jeremy Brett] (Granada), Jeeves and Wooster (Granada), Foyle's War (ITV).
Yes, I'm totally aware of all of this.
But the reality on the ground is that either:
A) The underlying conventions of British television were not built around ad revenue (regardless of when ad revenue started to appear on the scene)
or
B) The British profit structure is built so differently from its US counterpart that it amounts to the same thing.
American TV shows are developed the way they are for one reason: money. All the weird things that make for slightly less awesome television, but which never seem to disappear? All of them correlate directly to television's revenue structure.
Aside from PBS, the US does not have a not-for-profit television scene. (And PBS has drastically different programming than what you see on mainstream/commercial TV, developed in a thoroughly different way. PBS could never even remotely do what the BBC does, or compete in any way with the for-profit networks.) All the conventions of how TV works here are built around revenue streams. Specifically ad sales and syndication, though there are some other models (premium cable comes to mind).
Ad sales shape pretty much the entire seasonal cycle of television, as well as which specific shows get picked up, the specific branding of each network, how long an episode is, how the plots are structured, what genres can exist, and what constraints are on the content itself.
Syndication shapes the networks' goals for what makes a successful series, how many episodes to buy per season, whether a given show should be renewed, how many seasons to keep a show on the air, etc. Syndication is why SVU and The Simpsons are still on the air, and why CBS will pick up anything Chuck Lorre touches.
All of this stuff is totally different in the UK, I'm sure. Maybe that's because of a long history of non-commercial television, or for other accidents of the revenue structure. Either way, I can promise you that American networks don't go for the "6 episodes and sporadic seasons spread over decades" model because they are stupid, or hate quality, or want us to be sad. They do what they do because it makes them the most money under the traditional models of how TV shows make money in the United States.
Now, that is changing slowly with the rise of cable and Netflix. That's why Netflix can mostly do one-offs in ten-episode batches. That's why they can do another season of a former network show that was cancelled years ago, or adapt a British thing that can't be turned into another The Office or Elementary, or pick up a risque dramedy about lesbian prison inmates. But just because Netflix and HBO can get away with some unconventional stuff doesn't mean the networks can emulate them without a drastic change to their revenue structure.
At the end of the day, if you're CBS or AMC, the name of the game is ad sales and syndication. Everything you do is targeted toward forcing one or ideally both of those models to earn you the most money possible. What's happening in Britain is beside the point, unless you can adapt it to fit the US structure.
posted by Sara C. at 9:00 PM on October 23, 2013 [1 favorite]
Yes, I'm totally aware of all of this.
But the reality on the ground is that either:
A) The underlying conventions of British television were not built around ad revenue (regardless of when ad revenue started to appear on the scene)
or
B) The British profit structure is built so differently from its US counterpart that it amounts to the same thing.
American TV shows are developed the way they are for one reason: money. All the weird things that make for slightly less awesome television, but which never seem to disappear? All of them correlate directly to television's revenue structure.
Aside from PBS, the US does not have a not-for-profit television scene. (And PBS has drastically different programming than what you see on mainstream/commercial TV, developed in a thoroughly different way. PBS could never even remotely do what the BBC does, or compete in any way with the for-profit networks.) All the conventions of how TV works here are built around revenue streams. Specifically ad sales and syndication, though there are some other models (premium cable comes to mind).
Ad sales shape pretty much the entire seasonal cycle of television, as well as which specific shows get picked up, the specific branding of each network, how long an episode is, how the plots are structured, what genres can exist, and what constraints are on the content itself.
Syndication shapes the networks' goals for what makes a successful series, how many episodes to buy per season, whether a given show should be renewed, how many seasons to keep a show on the air, etc. Syndication is why SVU and The Simpsons are still on the air, and why CBS will pick up anything Chuck Lorre touches.
All of this stuff is totally different in the UK, I'm sure. Maybe that's because of a long history of non-commercial television, or for other accidents of the revenue structure. Either way, I can promise you that American networks don't go for the "6 episodes and sporadic seasons spread over decades" model because they are stupid, or hate quality, or want us to be sad. They do what they do because it makes them the most money under the traditional models of how TV shows make money in the United States.
Now, that is changing slowly with the rise of cable and Netflix. That's why Netflix can mostly do one-offs in ten-episode batches. That's why they can do another season of a former network show that was cancelled years ago, or adapt a British thing that can't be turned into another The Office or Elementary, or pick up a risque dramedy about lesbian prison inmates. But just because Netflix and HBO can get away with some unconventional stuff doesn't mean the networks can emulate them without a drastic change to their revenue structure.
At the end of the day, if you're CBS or AMC, the name of the game is ad sales and syndication. Everything you do is targeted toward forcing one or ideally both of those models to earn you the most money possible. What's happening in Britain is beside the point, unless you can adapt it to fit the US structure.
posted by Sara C. at 9:00 PM on October 23, 2013 [1 favorite]
Suddenly you'd go from having x number of tv slots per season to 2x because you have concrete divisions in the season. This in theory would allow you to run 2 sets of upfronts with advertisers so that your investment could be split over the course of a year. I suspect that the sheer cost of developing shows would also make it so networks would be more willing to let a show find it's legs before killing it.
This is exactly how cable works. In my experience some of the cable channels tend to emphasize "summer shows" rather than fall shows, to pick up network viewers who are dodging summer reruns. But aside from that, it's exactly this. Order short seasons, double the programming options, and make the stakes to success vs. failure much lower.
It doesn't seem coincidental to me that I've worked on three cable series where the network was like YAAAAY YOU GUYS ARE THE BEST PLEASE KEEP MAKING EPISODES NO REALLY HAVE MORE MONEY ALSO WE GOT YOU ALL TOTE BAGS WITH THE SHOW'S LOGO! and two network series where we always felt like the redheaded stepchild and the phone could ring to send us all home any minute.
posted by Sara C. at 9:05 PM on October 23, 2013
This is exactly how cable works. In my experience some of the cable channels tend to emphasize "summer shows" rather than fall shows, to pick up network viewers who are dodging summer reruns. But aside from that, it's exactly this. Order short seasons, double the programming options, and make the stakes to success vs. failure much lower.
It doesn't seem coincidental to me that I've worked on three cable series where the network was like YAAAAY YOU GUYS ARE THE BEST PLEASE KEEP MAKING EPISODES NO REALLY HAVE MORE MONEY ALSO WE GOT YOU ALL TOTE BAGS WITH THE SHOW'S LOGO! and two network series where we always felt like the redheaded stepchild and the phone could ring to send us all home any minute.
posted by Sara C. at 9:05 PM on October 23, 2013
I'm also pretty sure that cable networks have a more conservative development structure that translates to most pilots getting picked up to series and most series being renewed for multiple seasons, rather than the Hunger Games style hotbox that is the network fall lineup.
I don't know if that's because the budgets are lower in general (especially development budgets), or if it's because of the smaller orders, lower ratings expectations, etc. or some other metric. But even as a low-level lackey I can feel the difference. I can't even imagine what it must be like to be the showrunner or EP on a new network series.
posted by Sara C. at 9:09 PM on October 23, 2013
I don't know if that's because the budgets are lower in general (especially development budgets), or if it's because of the smaller orders, lower ratings expectations, etc. or some other metric. But even as a low-level lackey I can feel the difference. I can't even imagine what it must be like to be the showrunner or EP on a new network series.
posted by Sara C. at 9:09 PM on October 23, 2013
My understanding is also that Cable networks are kinda blessed with the ability to basically space out their shows in a way that makes sense creatively because they simply don't have to fill 21 or so hours of broadcast TV a week. Even with reality TV eating up a huge percentage of those available blocks the ability for AMC and FX and HBO to basically focus on 1-2 nights a week of original TV that runs in 13 episode blocks means that they are really only looking at phasing in a handful of shows in any given "season".
USA seems to be the only one with enough hours of scripted shows that it's beginning to run up against it's carrying capacity but even if they have to cancel a new drama because the ratings suck even for cable they can always fill that with even more NCIS and L&O reruns.
I'm always kinda surprised when a broadcast network basically nukes all their new shows in a couple of weeks rather than letting at least a small number of shows find their legs because they've already paid their development money. Basically the only one that seems willing to live with a kinda bad show simply to fill hours is NBC and that's because their line-up is a wasteland (which also doesn't make sense to me because in theory they could poach shows from USA).
posted by vuron at 9:17 PM on October 23, 2013
USA seems to be the only one with enough hours of scripted shows that it's beginning to run up against it's carrying capacity but even if they have to cancel a new drama because the ratings suck even for cable they can always fill that with even more NCIS and L&O reruns.
I'm always kinda surprised when a broadcast network basically nukes all their new shows in a couple of weeks rather than letting at least a small number of shows find their legs because they've already paid their development money. Basically the only one that seems willing to live with a kinda bad show simply to fill hours is NBC and that's because their line-up is a wasteland (which also doesn't make sense to me because in theory they could poach shows from USA).
posted by vuron at 9:17 PM on October 23, 2013
Meanwhile, back when I was working on Law & Order: Criminal Intent, USA was instead poaching original content from NBC.
Then again, I will never understand the current NBC decisionmaking process. These are the people who were in the news barely a week ago for putting what I think is their only popular sitcom on hiatus for the rest of the year. I mean, I'm sure they're just holding it back in favor of sports or something, but really? Really? (Read that in Amy Poehler's voice.)
posted by Sara C. at 9:21 PM on October 23, 2013 [1 favorite]
Then again, I will never understand the current NBC decisionmaking process. These are the people who were in the news barely a week ago for putting what I think is their only popular sitcom on hiatus for the rest of the year. I mean, I'm sure they're just holding it back in favor of sports or something, but really? Really? (Read that in Amy Poehler's voice.)
posted by Sara C. at 9:21 PM on October 23, 2013 [1 favorite]
Then again, I will never understand the current NBC decisionmaking process. These are the people who were in the news barely a week ago for putting what I think is their only popular sitcom on hiatus for the rest of the year.
Sing it sister. Maybe Parks & Rec has peaked, but what else does NBC have? More eps of The Voice? Or Revolution? Really?
posted by nushustu at 9:26 PM on October 23, 2013
Sing it sister. Maybe Parks & Rec has peaked, but what else does NBC have? More eps of The Voice? Or Revolution? Really?
posted by nushustu at 9:26 PM on October 23, 2013
Parks is circling the drain rating wise, if NBC wasn't completely devoid of shows to fill the line-up (can only have so many hours of biggest loser and the voice) it would already be cancelled.
Honestly NBC can't seem to develop a broad tentpole sitcom anymore which is odd considering that was a mainstay for decades dating back to at leas the Cosby Show but now it's endless reality and dateline except for a limited number of 10PM dramas.
Blacklist is the only genuine success in the entire bunch and as much as I'm having fun watching Spader ham it up I'm not sure it's got a sustainable gimmick for second season success (it feels like it's going to be another Alias with a very strong first season and a rapid decline into navel gazing).
Hannibal will come back in the spring but it's kinda a niche product which should've gone to one of NBC sister networks.
It's really depressing to see how low the house of NBC has fallen from the Tartikoff days especially because the type of product that they are competing with (Honeymooners style fat comedian hot wife shows and Chuck Lorre lowest common denominator fare) should be easy to compete with but year after year it seems like NBC trots out some of the stinkiest series possible.
posted by vuron at 9:42 PM on October 23, 2013
Honestly NBC can't seem to develop a broad tentpole sitcom anymore which is odd considering that was a mainstay for decades dating back to at leas the Cosby Show but now it's endless reality and dateline except for a limited number of 10PM dramas.
Blacklist is the only genuine success in the entire bunch and as much as I'm having fun watching Spader ham it up I'm not sure it's got a sustainable gimmick for second season success (it feels like it's going to be another Alias with a very strong first season and a rapid decline into navel gazing).
Hannibal will come back in the spring but it's kinda a niche product which should've gone to one of NBC sister networks.
It's really depressing to see how low the house of NBC has fallen from the Tartikoff days especially because the type of product that they are competing with (Honeymooners style fat comedian hot wife shows and Chuck Lorre lowest common denominator fare) should be easy to compete with but year after year it seems like NBC trots out some of the stinkiest series possible.
posted by vuron at 9:42 PM on October 23, 2013
AND PASSES ON OBVIOUS GOOD CHOICES like Brooklyn Nine Nine, which I'm developing a soft spot for.
It also seems like it would have been smart to pick up development deals with alums of other projects. If I ran NBC Comedy, I would have not only picked up Brooklyn Nine Nine, but also given deals to Mindy Kaling (instead of having her go to Fox), maybe some promising SNL folks, and Donald Glover. I would also try to pursue some kind of The Aubrey Plaza Show situation.
But, you know. I'm sure I am not as good as whoever is running the comedy division right now.
posted by Sara C. at 9:48 PM on October 23, 2013
It also seems like it would have been smart to pick up development deals with alums of other projects. If I ran NBC Comedy, I would have not only picked up Brooklyn Nine Nine, but also given deals to Mindy Kaling (instead of having her go to Fox), maybe some promising SNL folks, and Donald Glover. I would also try to pursue some kind of The Aubrey Plaza Show situation.
But, you know. I'm sure I am not as good as whoever is running the comedy division right now.
posted by Sara C. at 9:48 PM on October 23, 2013
Speaking of that, I'd watch a comedy series about a group of reality TV producers.
Really, at the moment we're looking for something with more of a human interest feel.
posted by sebastienbailard at 10:33 PM on October 23, 2013 [3 favorites]
Really, at the moment we're looking for something with more of a human interest feel.
posted by sebastienbailard at 10:33 PM on October 23, 2013 [3 favorites]
I'm a little surprised Christopher Guest hasn't made a Behind The Scenes On A Reality Show mockumentary yet. I think Family Tree had a little of that (being sort of a riff on Who Do You Think You Are), but, really.
posted by Sara C. at 10:54 PM on October 23, 2013
posted by Sara C. at 10:54 PM on October 23, 2013
Few industries would routinely pay millions per unit of an item, sight unseen, with minimal (and sometimes no) market research. So how can the TV business afford to operate this way?
It really has to be said that the "product" TV Networks are producing is the viewer, not the TV show. The show is the loss-leader designed to lure the real product (us) in to view advertisements.
If you look at it that way, the networks are getting a remarkable deal, and the advertisers are doing even better.
posted by Sara C. at 11:09 PM on October 23, 2013
It really has to be said that the "product" TV Networks are producing is the viewer, not the TV show. The show is the loss-leader designed to lure the real product (us) in to view advertisements.
If you look at it that way, the networks are getting a remarkable deal, and the advertisers are doing even better.
posted by Sara C. at 11:09 PM on October 23, 2013
Personally, I love that shows go for 22 episodes and if they wanted to go for 46 and just run all year long, I'd love that even better (well, until everyone making the show dropped dead from exhaustion). I don't actually find that fewer episodes make for better quality -- more naval gazing, maybe, but not really more innovation or more fun.
In terms of allowing shows to find their legs and cheerleading them, I wonder if there's a different kind of relationship (contractual difference?) between the network and the showrunner(s) in cable (and the CW?) versus in The Networks. Because of a tighter relationship between the production company and the network proper in cable, maybe?
For example, one woman I know (former showrunner for a CW show) is begrudgingly running out something like a ten year contract with WB and her husband is in a similar boat -- don't ask me what she's doing while that contract runs out or what WB is saying they have rights to, but from her perspective she's basically bound to WB (and thus the CW) for the foreseeable. And there's tons of recycling of writers and actors on the CW in general -- the people writing and acting on the WB's Smallville ten years ago, for example, are writing and acting on virtually all the CW shows now. Also, shows go on looooong past their sell-by-dates there, even in terms of ratings -- as long as it gets past its first season, it's 99% likely going to be there until the contracts run out and maybe even after. You don't see a "stable" of showrunners/writers/actors on The Networks like that, or the beyond-reason attachment to shows, so I'm wondering if their contract terms are different. "Contract terms" most particularly when it comes to pay and how it's spread out over time.
Anyway, speaking of smaller "networks" and Orange is the New Black, I think all those long relationships and the built-up infrastructure might actually get to be a pain in the ass for people who have been EP-ing for a long time and want to move up to having more control while not moving out of writing/showrunning and/or don't want to just slap their name on a bunch of shows while having other people handle the day to day on them. For example, for Orange is the New Black, Jenji Kohan mixed things up a bit by doing stuff like hiring an entirely female writing staff (including writers' assistant), and she left a lot of the people who would ordinarily shift from production to production together (ie, all the people then working on Weeds) out of the loop -- if she'd tried to do that for a new show getting produced by Showtime there might have been too many hands already in the pie, but Netflix had no reason to care because they had no people to place on that entirely-from-scratch production, so as far as I can tell she got virtually no blowback and plenty of control. Right now, Netflix seems to put together deals in a different way than any other network does, I guess because it isn't a network. But eventually, Netflix will build up a group of people who are going from job to job on the unique Netflix production schedule and who have relationships with all the other people doing that for Netflix and who have various things in the pipeline with each other and with Netflix, and eventually Netflix will probably end up being just like all the other smaller networks. Not that that's a bad thing, in my opinion, but I think the "Netflix is different!" stuff is just because it's so new and hasn't built up much institutional history or a backlog of relationships.
Of course, I'm a very interested observer but I've never gotten hired on a show -- so please correct any misconceptions. Honestly, please, I'm super interested.
posted by rue72 at 11:44 PM on October 23, 2013 [1 favorite]
In terms of allowing shows to find their legs and cheerleading them, I wonder if there's a different kind of relationship (contractual difference?) between the network and the showrunner(s) in cable (and the CW?) versus in The Networks. Because of a tighter relationship between the production company and the network proper in cable, maybe?
For example, one woman I know (former showrunner for a CW show) is begrudgingly running out something like a ten year contract with WB and her husband is in a similar boat -- don't ask me what she's doing while that contract runs out or what WB is saying they have rights to, but from her perspective she's basically bound to WB (and thus the CW) for the foreseeable. And there's tons of recycling of writers and actors on the CW in general -- the people writing and acting on the WB's Smallville ten years ago, for example, are writing and acting on virtually all the CW shows now. Also, shows go on looooong past their sell-by-dates there, even in terms of ratings -- as long as it gets past its first season, it's 99% likely going to be there until the contracts run out and maybe even after. You don't see a "stable" of showrunners/writers/actors on The Networks like that, or the beyond-reason attachment to shows, so I'm wondering if their contract terms are different. "Contract terms" most particularly when it comes to pay and how it's spread out over time.
Anyway, speaking of smaller "networks" and Orange is the New Black, I think all those long relationships and the built-up infrastructure might actually get to be a pain in the ass for people who have been EP-ing for a long time and want to move up to having more control while not moving out of writing/showrunning and/or don't want to just slap their name on a bunch of shows while having other people handle the day to day on them. For example, for Orange is the New Black, Jenji Kohan mixed things up a bit by doing stuff like hiring an entirely female writing staff (including writers' assistant), and she left a lot of the people who would ordinarily shift from production to production together (ie, all the people then working on Weeds) out of the loop -- if she'd tried to do that for a new show getting produced by Showtime there might have been too many hands already in the pie, but Netflix had no reason to care because they had no people to place on that entirely-from-scratch production, so as far as I can tell she got virtually no blowback and plenty of control. Right now, Netflix seems to put together deals in a different way than any other network does, I guess because it isn't a network. But eventually, Netflix will build up a group of people who are going from job to job on the unique Netflix production schedule and who have relationships with all the other people doing that for Netflix and who have various things in the pipeline with each other and with Netflix, and eventually Netflix will probably end up being just like all the other smaller networks. Not that that's a bad thing, in my opinion, but I think the "Netflix is different!" stuff is just because it's so new and hasn't built up much institutional history or a backlog of relationships.
Of course, I'm a very interested observer but I've never gotten hired on a show -- so please correct any misconceptions. Honestly, please, I'm super interested.
posted by rue72 at 11:44 PM on October 23, 2013 [1 favorite]
The CW is a pretty interesting case. They have much stronger branding and cater to a very specific audience, sort of like a cable network, but they have more Big 4 style content needs. Which probably makes having a stable of showrunners the most attractive option, because it streamlines the development process and makes every show they develop a known quantity right out of the gate.
That said, the "up and coming protege getting a deal at the same network" pattern is a thing at other networks. I just don't know if it's quite as simple as what you're describing at CW, where an entire stable of showrunners came out of the staff of one successful show.
posted by Sara C. at 11:24 AM on October 24, 2013 [1 favorite]
That said, the "up and coming protege getting a deal at the same network" pattern is a thing at other networks. I just don't know if it's quite as simple as what you're describing at CW, where an entire stable of showrunners came out of the staff of one successful show.
posted by Sara C. at 11:24 AM on October 24, 2013 [1 favorite]
« Older "Oh, this is a REAL earthquake." | Lost Soul Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
Exactly. Using the same old (very broken) model for developing content is something that Netflix or some other distributor should put their money into. Eventually, the network way is going to break, and those who have pioneered a new way to monetize content is going to be the new normal.
posted by xingcat at 12:36 PM on October 23, 2013 [2 favorites]