Network TV: Analysis

[Werd2406]

I've read many reports about tv this season and have decided to offer my own view :

It seems that the new thing "critics" are saying is that people arent getting involved with the new serials because they take too much time and viewers dont want to give that....How about the shows are just bad?!?

Heroes is a serial show and is doing well. As is Jericho. You know why? Because their a good show. The others? Not so much. SMITH didnt do well because it was about a bunch of robbers no one cared about and couldnt support. STUDIO 60 isnt doing too great because, although good acting and writting, it's nothing but talking. Kidnapped i feel didnt do well because another crappy serial show,VANISHED, came out before it (althought i hope *SPOILER ALERT* with Eddie Cribian taking over for the bad actor guy, itll make a rebound).

Another reason why alot of new shows arent catching on is because could be possibly be at a nice balance of shows?? Lost,Desperate Housewives, 24, etc. all take over for serials/mystery while shows like CSI,L&O,Cold Case, etc. take over for the procedurial shows. Really if you think about it, the only thing missing is comedy and a good reality show.

So thats what I feel could help the situation. GOOD comedies to take over for crappy shows and maybe a new good vote em out reality show (Survivor cant be the only good "main" competition/vote reality show out there *AI doesnt count*)

So there you have it....its not because of serials, its because their crappy serials. We're getting to that point where there's a very nice balance of shows out there and the only thing missing is good comedies and a good new reality show.

Thoughts?? Comments??

[johnperkins21]

So there you have it....its not because of serials, its because their crappy serials. We're getting to that point where there's a very nice balance of shows out there and the only thing missing is good comedies and a good new reality show.

/* broad generalization follows, exceptions apply

"Good" and "reality show" do not belong in the same sentence. I somewhat agree that there are crappy serials, but I really think the bigger issue is with the viewing public. The general public has zero taste, and lack the ability to think for themselves. Do you really want people who are willing to wear windshields on their face as sunglasses deciding what is good television?

There are a lot of good new serials out there (Heroes and Jericho being a couple as you noted), but the general public is told what they like, they do not decide this by themselves. Look at how many people care about Paris Hilton. She's the daughter of a hotel mogul for goodness sake. Why should anyone care? Yet they do, and they eat it up. We are a nation of sheep with absolutely no concept of original thought.

*/ end broad generalization

[Amnesia]

Thoughts?? Comments??I don't think it's a matter of good shows vs. not good shows.

Take Kidnapped and Friday Night Lights for example. Many critics praised both shows, yet the ratings for their premiere were terrible. If it were a matter of simply not being a good show, then perhaps the premiere episode would get a good rating and then few people would tune in the following week. A general "not good show" argument doesn't explain why people didn't tune in to begin with.

A better argument is that the issue is scheduling. Networks take their new shows and put them against established shows with loyal followings and then are surprised when their new shows fail to find an audience.

NBC put Kidnapped against CSI: NY and Studio 60 against CSI: Miami. You can argue all you want about the merits of the CSI procedurals, but the plain fact is that many people tune in each week to watch them. Similarly, Friday Night Lights competed with the popular ABC show Dancing with the Stars and CBS's NCIS. Most people would agree that FNL is superior in quality to Dancing, but ratings are king and people tuned in to ABC and basically ignored one of the critics' favorite fall shows.

[Werd2406]

But is FNL suffering the same thing as S60? A Good show but maybe the subject isnt that interesting? I dunno, but a highschool football team really doesnt seem to make me want to tune in each week....especailly if its in Texas ;)

[Amnesia]

But is FNL suffering the same thing as S60? A Good show but maybe the subject isnt that interesting?You mean "interesting to you".

Personally, I'm much more interested in FNL than I ever would be by Dancing with the Stars, but the average viewer would rather watch Dancing.

[Werd2406]

Well then we can get into whats interesting to others and blah blah blah. Im not blasting you for watching the show, Im just saying if its not an idea that may appeal to alot of viewers, then its probably not going to catch on (S60 and FNL). Now, I WOULD be willing to give FNL a try if they added alot more sex into it...bad i know, likely not to happen since its "a family show", but would get me to watch ;)

Do you agree with the "balance" that could be on the air right now with DH,Lost,24 and CSI,CC,WAT, etc.?

[Amnesia]

Do you agree with the "balance" that could be on the air right now with DH,Lost,24 and CSI,CC,WAT, etc.?Nope.

I still think it's scheduling. On Monday, Heroes pulled in a 8.1 rating and S60 pulled in a 5.8. I don't think it's because Heroes addresses a segment of the market that's not being met by the other popular shows---I think it's because the competing shows in the timeslot just aren't incredibly popular.

I think if Heroes and S60 switched time slots, then S60's ratings would improve and the ratings for Heroes would fall...

[bicker]

You mean "interesting to you".This is a good point. That's why folks can use "good" and "reality show" in the same sentence, because not one of us gets to determine what quality means for someone else. Reasonable people disagree. Personally, I don't like DWTS, but I think Survivor is pretty good, and used to be pretty great. And while everyone has been all excited about Heroes, go back to the 1990s and realize that Babylon 5 was far better, but was a genre serial that was before its time -- so "quality" isn't even a static concept but rather changes with time.

[Sadara]

Nope.

I still think it's scheduling. On Monday, Heroes pulled in a 8.1 rating and S60 pulled in a 5.8. I don't think it's because Heroes addresses a segment of the market that's not being met by the other popular shows---I think it's because the competing shows in the timeslot just aren't incredibly popular.

I think if Heroes and S60 switched time slots, then S60's ratings would improve and the ratings for Heroes would fall...

I believe you make a good point. The fact is, I have a Dual Tuner Tivo, had a Dual Tuner Cox DVR before this because there are too many shows I like that are on at the same time. I can't even begin to say how annoying it is if there are three shows on at the same time I want to watch, one show has to loose.

The fact is, if people can only watch one show at a time, if they have Tivo, they can record one show watch another, but I realize that effects ratings.

I am honestly surprised that Smith was cancelled so soon. I wonder if it's topic line caused an uproar with a certain group and between the ratings and possible backlash of the topic line, the show was yanked. Because it really was yanked. I do wish they would have found some less appealing time slot and at least finish running the rest of the shows they had recorded.

This really leads me in to another point. Networks cancel shows WAY too quickly. There are a lot of shows from the past that started out with poor ratings, but turned in to some of the most popular shows on TV. I really do wish the Networks would give shows a chance to get a following and let those followers influence their friends in to watching too, build up the ratings. If the ratings don't get better after 1 full season, then cancel it if you want. But, at least give the show a chance, 3 episodes of a show isn't a fair shake.

Just my opinion.

[Royster]

Let's add a few data points. I have a few serials in my SPs, but I'm finding that I don;t have time to watch them all. I have two unwatched episodes of Jericho, Six Degrees, Brothers and Sisters and Men in Trees, but I watched Heroes, S60 and Veronica Mars almost live this week.

People just have a limited capacity for keeping track of story arcs. As long as the Networks keep buying into this idea that all their new shows have to start up at the same time in the fall, there are going to be a number of probably decent television shows who just can't find their audience or who luck out and do find it.

[johnperkins21]

Let's add a few data points. I have a few serials in my SPs, but I'm finding that I don;t have time to watch them all. I have two unwatched episodes of Jericho, Six Degrees, Brothers and Sisters and Men in Trees, but I watched Heroes, S60 and Veronica Mars almost live this week.

People just have a limited capacity for keeping track of story arcs. As long as the Networks keep buying into this idea that all their new shows have to start up at the same time in the fall, there are going to be a number of probably decent television shows who just can't find their audience or who luck out and do find it.

I have the same issue. I went out of town on business for a week, and came back to an almost full Tivo. I was able to catch up on a couple of shows last night, but I noticed that I had 9 recordings yesterday. Almost impossible to keep up with that. So I find myself eventually giving up on shows that I like to make sure I have time for the shows I love.

That's one good thing about the amount of crap networks put on, if everything they showed was good, I'd never have time.

[vikingguy]

I believe you make a good point. The fact is, I have a Dual Tuner Tivo, had a Dual Tuner Cox DVR before this because there are too many shows I like that are on at the same time. I can't even begin to say how annoying it is if there are three shows on at the same time I want to watch, one show has to loose.

The fact is, if people can only watch one show at a time, if they have Tivo, they can record one show watch another, but I realize that effects ratings.

I am honestly surprised that Smith was cancelled so soon. I wonder if it's topic line caused an uproar with a certain group and between the ratings and possible backlash of the topic line, the show was yanked. Because it really was yanked. I do wish they would have found some less appealing time slot and at least finish running the rest of the shows they had recorded.

This really leads me in to another point. Networks cancel shows WAY too quickly. There are a lot of shows from the past that started out with poor ratings, but turned in to some of the most popular shows on TV. I really do wish the Networks would give shows a chance to get a following and let those followers influence their friends in to watching too, build up the ratings. If the ratings don't get better after 1 full season, then cancel it if you want. But, at least give the show a chance, 3 episodes of a show isn't a fair shake.

Just my opinion.

It works both ways people give up on shows to fast. Many here will give up on a show after 5-20 minutes and never give it a second shot. People can't have it both ways you can't complain about shows lasting 3 episodes and in the next breath cancell a season pass after 20 minutes. A show like smith had to have really good ratings to stay because it had an expensive cast and also cbs in general has much higher rated shows. If smith had a cheaper cast or was on NBC it might still be around.

Of the serials this year I have really like friday night lights and heros. I think studio 60 is solid and getting better. Jerico I love the premis and will stick with it in hopes it gets better.

[DevdogAZ]

Everyone here is analyzing the problem like a TiVo owner. We're talking about how many shows you record and how you don't have time to watch them all, etc.

The reality is that the vast majority of the American public doesn't have DVRs yet. They still watch TV live at the scheduling whim of the networks. The problems have already been discussed and they are 1) scheduling new shows against established shows, and 2) starting all the new fall shows at roughly the same time.

The problem isn't with the quality of the shows or the interest factor in the subject matter. The viewing public has shown time and again that quality doesn't matter. As far as interest in the subject matter, it only takes 3% of the population of the US to watch a show and make it a hit. Almost any subject will be interesting to a small percentage of the population.

It all boils down to the fact that people only have a limited amount of time to watch TV, and when they do watch, they're largely sheep. They have habits that are hard to break. And they're not willing to jump through hoops (like we are) to see shows that look interesting to us. The vast majority of Americans would see a promo for a new show, think "Hmm, that looks interesting" and then wouldn't think about it again until a month later, at which point the show has already aired and tanked. Very few viewers are like us, in that we set Season Passes for upcoming shows and make the time to watch them and give them a chance.

If the networks would stagger all of the shows out of the gate, like Fox tried to do this season, they'd have a better chance of finding an audience. However, the timeslot issue is not going away. As long as there are five major networks all trying to program the same primetime schedule, there will always be one or two shows that do well in the slot and others that tank. Once a show has a following in a timeslot, it's very difficult to supplant it, regardless of quality.

[AJRitz]

I agree with the folks who are focusing on the timeslotting issue. Right now, all of the major networks are focusing on the same high-value timeslots (especially Thursday night, long the most lucrative television night because its the last night of primetime before the weekend). As a result, the best quality shows get pitted directly against one another in a very small subset of all the available timeslots. The result is good TV getting cancelled, because it's getting beaten in the most hotly contested timeslot, while cheap dreck is used to fill the non-premium timeslots, so that the networks can maximize their ROI.

[Sadara]

It works both ways people give up on shows to fast. Many here will give up on a show after 5-20 minutes and never give it a second shot. People can't have it both ways you can't complain about shows lasting 3 episodes and in the next breath cancell a season pass after 20 minutes. A show like smith had to have really good ratings to stay because it had an expensive cast and also cbs in general has much higher rated shows. If smith had a cheaper cast or was on NBC it might still be around.

Of the serials this year I have really like friday night lights and heros. I think studio 60 is solid and getting better. Jerico I love the premis and will stick with it in hopes it gets better.

You have a point, I'm often surprised at how quickly people drop a show from their season pass list. I can't imagine giving a show at least 5 or 6 episodes to win me over. If that much time has passed and I'm not in to it, I'll just stop watching. Some times I don't even delete the season pass until I've deleted several recordings without watching it.

But, with that in mind. I realize most of the country hasn't bought in to Tivo/DVRs yet and are forced to record a show via VCR or just watch what they want live.

The time slot problem will always exist. For example, a new problem came up with my scheduling. 7th Heaven was moved from Monday to Sunday in the 8pm EST time slot. I already have two shows I record in that time slot, Amazing Race and Extreme Home Makeover. Guess what? I won't be watching 7th Heaven anymore, it was suppose to be cancelled anyway. So, times slots are always going to be a problem.

Although I will say the networks and advertisers are already starting to make certain changes based on Tivo/DVD users. It will be interesting to see if the evolution continues as more and more people go to Tivo/DVRs.