How should networks promote shows?

[allan]

In the modern era, with people FFing past commercials, how should networks promote their shows? And a related question; how would a network reach someone who has given up on them (I'm very unlikely to see any ad on ABC because I don't currently watch any ABC shows)?

[JimSpence]

The problem isn't promoting the show, it's letting it stay on long enough to find its audience. Word of mouth still works.

[LoadStar]

The problem isn't promoting the show, it's letting it stay on long enough to find its audience. Word of mouth still works.

And part of "letting it stay on long enough" also means not taking the show off of the schedule completely for 9 months. I don't know of a single show that disappeared from the schedule for that long that DIDN'T have a precipitous ratings drop when it finally returned.

(Well, OK, I can think of one exception, a show like Doctor Who. That's a little different, though... and it has had just a couple of years to attract an audience. :))

[steve614]

The networks have already found a solution to the FF problem.
Ever notice those banners that take up the bottom third of the screen when a show comes back from commercials?

As to the related question, I guess it would have to be word of mouth.

[DevdogAZ]

The problem is that the networks have created a self-fulfilling prophecy. People are sick of shows they start watching getting canceled prematurely. Because there are so many ways to catch up on a show when you miss the pilot, people are now waiting to see what the ratings/buzz is like before diving in. However, because people are waiting on the sidelines, nobody is trying out these new shows, so the ratings suck. Then, when those that were waiting on the sidelines see how poor the ratings were for the pilot, they realize the show isn't going to survive, as it's extremely rare for a show to grow in ratings from the pilot to the second episode. So they don't bother to catch up on the show and it dies a quick death.

Once someone has watched and enjoyed an episode or two of a show, they'll make time in their schedule to keep watching. But to expect people to make time for a show they've never seen is unrealistic. Therefore, I think the way shows should be promoted and launched are that the networks need to make the first episode or two available EVERYWHERE. It should be shown in its normal timeslot. It should be shown again on the weekend. It should be shown on any cable channels owned by the network. It should be made available for free download. It should be on the network's website. It should be released for purchase on DVD for $1 or $2. Basically, the availability of the show should be so pervasive that everyone has a chance to see it. Once they've had that chance for a couple of weeks, then the network can start airing the next episodes in the regular timeslot.

If networks are going to continue to rely on the old fashioned method of airing a new show once and hoping enough people watch the pilot so that the inevitable dropoff for the second episode still yields a satisfactory number of viewers, they're going to fail more and more because that method of launching a show is dying.

[getreal]

In the modern era, with people FFing past commercials, how should networks promote their shows? And a related question; how would a network reach someone who has given up on them (I'm very unlikely to see any ad on ABC because I don't currently watch any ABC shows)?

You might think they could advertise their shows on other networks ...

[mrpantstm]

Step 1 - Come up with interesting, unique and riveting concepts
Step 2 - Give it a time slot (whether it's a "good" time slot or not)
Step 3 - Keep it on that time slot, every week, for the entire run of the season.
Step 4 - ???
Step 5 - Profit!!!

Seriously, as has been mentioned, if it's a good show, the worst thing you can do is shuffle it around and not show it on a regular basis.

Also, you should keep in mind, that as new VPs come in, they shelve/move programs in favor of their pet projects.

[LoadStar]

Step 1 - Come up with interesting, unique and riveting concepts
Step 2 - Give it a time slot (whether it's a "good" time slot or not)
Step 3 - Keep it on that time slot, every week, for the entire run of the season.
Step 4 - ???
Step 5 - Profit!!!

Seriously, as has been mentioned, if it's a good show, the worst thing you can do is shuffle it around and not show it on a regular basis.

Also, you should keep in mind, that as new VPs come in, they shelve/move programs in favor of their pet projects.

Edit to step 3: And after the season, occasionally bring the show back between the seasons, just to remind viewers that the show still exists. (Viewers have short attention spans, and shorter memories.)

[mrpantstm]

Edit to step 3: And after the season, occasionally bring the show back between the seasons, just to remind viewers that the show still exists. (Viewers have short attention spans, and shorter memories.)

Yeah. But not web miniseries. I can't stand those. Or those recap "specials".

[bicker]

In the modern era, with people FFing past commercials, how should networks promote their shows?Given that the objective of presenting entertainment programming is to deliver eyes to advertisers, why would networks do anything to promote shows to viewers who FF past commercials? (For now, there might be some value, in that Nielsen ratings cannot tell the difference between commercial-watchers and non-commercial-watchers, but with TiVo's announcement this week, clearly we're getting closer to the point where advertisers can expect to pay for programming based on how many viewers actually watch their advertisements.)

And a related question; how would a network reach someone who has given up on them...?Generally, a viewer who gives up on one specific network is acting irrational, taking isolated actions, that any network might have taken, personally, instead of recognizing such actions for what they are. And there is generally no reliable means of doing anything with irrational people -- that's what it means for them to be irrational.

If you're talking about viewers who give up on television altogether (a rational perspective), I think that is beyond what any one network can, or perhaps even should, endeavor to remedy.

[bicker]

The problem isn't promoting the show, it's letting it stay on long enough to find its audience. I doubt that there is anything worthwhile that a network can do to foster the kind of viewership necessary to sustain a program "long enough to find its audience". That would be like trying to figure out how to stand on a specific street corner without being in the same town as the street corner.

The issue is that this isn't something that a network can overcome by itself; it requires cooperation from millions of viewers. What would be needed is for networks to team up with large groups of viewers, the viewers pledging to deliver four million pairs of eyes to advertisers every episode, for, say 13 episodes. As long as the viewer group delivers on its promise, then the network can be reasonably expected to deliver on its promise. However, viewers are notoriously fickle. The chances of a cohesive group of viewers actually coming together to make such a pledge, with a reasonable level of probability that the viewers will live up to their side of the pledge, is practically zero.

[bicker]

The problem is that the networks have created a self-fulfilling prophecy.Re-read what you wrote: Viewers have created the self-fulfilling prophecy, as much if not more than the networks. Beyond that, the problem is that there is programming that is much less expensive to present, for which viewers are willing to watch in sufficient numbers to make that programming superior, overall, in serving the expectations of the owners of the network. Networks don't just present dead-air when they cancel a series; they present something else and so the root of the problem is that viewers are willing to watch that something else more than the program canceled, proportional to the costs, both tangible and intangible, of presenting the two respective offerings.

TOnce someone has watched and enjoyed an episode or two of a show, they'll make time in their schedule to keep watching. But to expect people to make time for a show they've never seen is unrealistic. Therefore, I think the way shows should be promoted and launched are that the networks need to make the first episode or two available EVERYWHERE. It should be shown in its normal timeslot. It should be shown again on the weekend. It should be shown on any cable channels owned by the network. It should be made available for free download. It should be on the network's website. It should be released for purchase on DVD for $1 or $2. Basically, the availability of the show should be so pervasive that everyone has a chance to see it. Once they've had that chance for a couple of weeks, then the network can start airing the next episodes in the regular timeslot.A few things:

1) Just as I did earlier in this message, and in the messages above, with regard to assertions other people have made about what networks "should" do, I would appreciate it if someone can explain, in the same manner as I have, why this idea of yours is wrong, off-target, missing the boat, etc. I cannot, no matter how much I think about it, figure out why networks do not do exactly as you say.

2) Perhaps without realizing it, you've essentially stated that a show only needs at most two episodes to establish its audience. That reflects a reasonable expectation regarding how much a network should be willing to put out for viewers, before expecting viewers to demonstrate their willingness to hold up their side of the deal (as I outlined in an earlier message). I suspect that others will take issue with that threshold (two episodes), and perhaps even you will do so as well, now, but it is very telling that your instinct was indeed two episodes.

3) I mentioned this on another forum this morning: I think that the big four networks should request their affiliates, and order their O&Os, to establish a sub-channel specifically devoted to rerunning their prime time programming -- perhaps also allowing each affiliate and O&O to mix in reruns of their local feature programming as well as news. I know that sub-channels steal bandwidth from the main channel, but I think that 1HD + 2SD is a fine compromise between quality of the HD signal, the convenience of providing continual reruns of original programming, and one extra sub-channel for alternative programming (i.e., This TV).

If networks are going to continue to rely on the old fashioned method of airing a new show once and hoping enough people watch the pilot so that the inevitable dropoff for the second episode still yields a satisfactory number of viewers, they're going to fail more and more because that method of launching a show is dying.Saying that something is dying doesn't mean that something else is better. There may not be any viable business model, and what they're doing is simply the best of a lot of very bad options. In evaluating their options, though, you must be very careful to look at things only from their perspective (i.e., from the standpoint of an owner of the network) rather than from your own (i.e., as a viewer) or you cannot hope to understand why they do what they do and/or what they should do.

[allan]

Given that the objective of presenting entertainment programming is to deliver eyes to advertisers, why would networks do anything to promote shows to viewers who FF past commercials? (For now, there might be some value, in that Nielsen ratings cannot tell the difference between commercial-watchers and non-commercial-watchers, but with TiVo's announcement this week, clearly we're getting closer to the point where advertisers can expect to pay for programming based on how many viewers actually watch their advertisements.)

The reason networks should promote to me, a Tivo user who FFs, is that if I don't know a show exists, they are sure to get ZERO of my eyeball time. At least when I FF, I'll see bits and pieces of ads.

What ad makers fail to realize is, often it's not a choice between me watching live vs recorded. It's a choice between recorded and not at all. And if it's not at all, they are guaranteed to get nothing.

Generally, a viewer who gives up on one specific network is acting irrational, taking isolated actions, that any network might have taken, personally, instead of recognizing such actions for what they are. And there is generally no reliable means of doing anything with irrational people -- that's what it means for them to be irrational.

If you're talking about viewers who give up on television altogether (a rational perspective), I think that is beyond what any one network can, or perhaps even should, endeavor to remedy.

To clarify, I didn't give up on ABC for a specific reason. I gave up on ABC because they didn't have anything worth watching. FOX always had a few shows that kept me interested, CBS had very few, but at least it had something. ABC & NBC had squat, and the only reason I'm now watching NBC is that the SCI-FI channel had a Heroes marathon (Season 1) advertised while I was watching SG1 (and I actually saw the ad :p). It's theoretically possible that ABC has a great show that I don't know about, but unless it pokes its nose above the 99% junk, I'll never know.

[Craigbob]

What ad makers fail to realize is, often it's not a choice between me watching live vs recorded. It's a choice between recorded and not at all. And if it's not at all, they are guaranteed to get nothing.

+1

These days I like many others have a fairly busy schedule which means that I'm not home every night to watch shows live. I'm sure the ad and network execs have DVRs/Tivos and use them themselves. Why can't they make the obvious connection that those of us up here have made?

[Steveknj]

The problem is that the networks have created a self-fulfilling prophecy. People are sick of shows they start watching getting canceled prematurely. Because there are so many ways to catch up on a show when you miss the pilot, people are now waiting to see what the ratings/buzz is like before diving in. However, because people are waiting on the sidelines, nobody is trying out these new shows, so the ratings suck. Then, when those that were waiting on the sidelines see how poor the ratings were for the pilot, they realize the show isn't going to survive, as it's extremely rare for a show to grow in ratings from the pilot to the second episode. So they don't bother to catch up on the show and it dies a quick death.

Once someone has watched and enjoyed an episode or two of a show, they'll make time in their schedule to keep watching. But to expect people to make time for a show they've never seen is unrealistic. Therefore, I think the way shows should be promoted and launched are that the networks need to make the first episode or two available EVERYWHERE. It should be shown in its normal timeslot. It should be shown again on the weekend. It should be shown on any cable channels owned by the network. It should be made available for free download. It should be on the network's website. It should be released for purchase on DVD for $1 or $2. Basically, the availability of the show should be so pervasive that everyone has a chance to see it. Once they've had that chance for a couple of weeks, then the network can start airing the next episodes in the regular timeslot.

If networks are going to continue to rely on the old fashioned method of airing a new show once and hoping enough people watch the pilot so that the inevitable dropoff for the second episode still yields a satisfactory number of viewers, they're going to fail more and more because that method of launching a show is dying.

The problem is, that the networks move these shows around so much, that nobody ever gets USED to a time slot. They give a show 2-3 weeks to grow in a timeslot and if the ratings drop, they either move it or cancel. A show like Kings was heavily promoted, repeated, available online, most of the things you said, and STILL NBC only gave it a short run in it's timeslot.

I think until they work out some way to really measure (and be able to bill advertisors) for all of the above methods as well as recording on DVRs, there really isn't a good way to promote your show.

[DevdogAZ]

Given that the objective of presenting entertainment programming is to deliver eyes to advertisers, why would networks do anything to promote shows to viewers who FF past commercials? (For now, there might be some value, in that Nielsen ratings cannot tell the difference between commercial-watchers and non-commercial-watchers, but with TiVo's announcement this week, clearly we're getting closer to the point where advertisers can expect to pay for programming based on how many viewers actually watch their advertisements.)
What announcement are you speaking of?
The problem is, that the networks move these shows around so much, that nobody ever gets USED to a time slot. They give a show 2-3 weeks to grow in a timeslot and if the ratings drop, they either move it or cancel. A show like Kings was heavily promoted, repeated, available online, most of the things you said, and STILL NBC only gave it a short run in it's timeslot.
Kings ran into the problem of simply not having enough viewers. Despite network efforts, there will always be shows that simply don't draw the necessary eyeballs. But Kings was also a victim of the current state of TV. The ratings for the pilot were horrible. Because networks don't do enough to draw additional viewers between the first and second episodes, it was a foregone conclusion that the show was dead the morning after the pilot aired.

What I suggested in my earlier post was changing the whole method of how a show initially finds its way to viewers. If there's only one way (the pilot airs in a pre-defined timeslot), then the network can never expect more viewers for the second episode than it had for the first, and viewers currently know this. But if things could change such that if 5 million people watch the pilot of a show in its normal timeslot, and another 5 million see it through one of the many other methods of distribution I mentioned before, then it's possible that when the second episode airs, there might actually be 7 million viewers instead of 3.5, and that could make all the difference.

Until viewers have a reasonable expectation that poor ratings for a pilot episode are not the death knell for a series, because there's a realistic chance of there being more viewers for the second (or third) episode, networks will continue to launch shows that are DOA before they even take their second breath.

[marksman]

They should cross promote within shows.

Like ABC could have an episode of According to Jim where they watch Lost all episode.

And Fox could have an episode of 24 where Jack takes 30 minutes off to watch Family Guy.

One thing the networks need to do is scrap the whole local affiliate model (i know they can't yet but ultimately) and take a lesson from how some of their cable networks build audiences, and that is with re-running of first run episodes so people can see them. Also strong re-runs on cable nets for first run shows is a big help often times.

I think NCIS and House both have seen a new audience find them because of the way USA grinds them into the ground.

[bicker]

The reason networks should promote to me, a Tivo user who FFs, is that if I don't know a show exists, they are sure to get ZERO of my eyeball time.That's specious logic. Your "bits and pieces" of awareness is probably not even worth a small fraction of what the often-full awareness of someone who watches a commercial straight through, so it is probably of practically no concern to advertisers, and therefore to networks also.

You want to be considered more important by advertisers and networks. I get that. Your wanting, though, doesn't make it true.

What ad makers fail to realize is, often it's not a choice between me watching live vs recorded. It's a choice between recorded and not at all. And if it's not at all, they are guaranteed to get nothing.More specious logic, again likely attributing far more value to your own casual attention than it is actually worth to the people paying for it.

[bicker]

What announcement are you speaking of?TiVo now more generally becoming a provider of viewer data, including data on who is actually watching commercials.

Kings ran into the problem of simply not having enough viewers. Despite network efforts, there will always be shows that simply don't draw the necessary eyeballs. But Kings was also a victim of the current state of TV. The ratings for the pilot were horrible. Because networks don't do enough to draw additional viewers between the first and second episodes, it was a foregone conclusion that the show was dead the morning after the pilot aired.Your premise is indefensible. They did everything that could reasonably be expected to hype Kings. People even complained about how much it was promoted, not how little, and how difficult it was to ignore the promotions.

This proves the point I've been making: Even if you promote things and support them for the requisite bunch of episodes, viewers are so fickle that it could all be wasted effort.

Until viewers have a reasonable expectation that poor ratings for a pilot episode are not the death knell for a series, because there's a realistic chance of there being more viewers for the second (or third) episode, networks will continue to launch shows that are DOA before they even take their second breath.That's myopic, viewer-serving rationalization, AFAIC, refusing to acknowledge the actuality of viewer responsibility and just blaming networks because they're "the other guys" and it is always better to blame "the other guys" for things than to acknowledge that either blame is on "us", or at least shared, or that there is no blame.

[allan]

That's specious logic. Your "bits and pieces" of awareness is probably not even worth a small fraction of what the often-full awareness of someone who watches a commercial straight through, so it is probably of practically no concern to advertisers, and therefore to networks also.

You want to be considered more important by advertisers and networks. I get that. Your wanting, though, doesn't make it true.

More specious logic, again likely attributing far more value to your own casual attention than it is actually worth to the people paying for it.

The very fact that I sometimes see ads shows that my "value" is greater than zero. I understand that the ad people would prefer everyone to watch shows in real time and not FF past ads. But the DVR is here, and more people are using them all the time. They can ignore DVR users, but they shouldn't be surprised when their revenue drops because they can't adjust to them.

[bicker]

likely attributing far more value to your own casual attention than it is actually worthThe very fact that I sometimes see ads shows that my "value" is greater than zero.You misread the message you replied to. See bolded text in the message you replied to and in your reply, and you'll see that your reply did not demonstrate an understanding of what you were replying to: No one suggested that the value of your attention is zero or less.

They can ignore DVR users, but they shouldn't be surprised when their revenue drops because they can't adjust to them.And you can ignore the fact that being a DVR user makes you that much less valuable to advertisers, and therefore networks, than other people are, and you can also ignore the fact that the ascendancy of DVRs, itself, will drive a reduction in the money spent to produce and present television programming, but you shouldn't be surprised when the programming offered doesn't appeal to you.

[aindik]

If the networks had video podcasts where they consistently fed promos for their upcoming shows (maybe just new series, but maybe new episodes of existing series, too), I would subscribe and watch the promos.

Just like I'd subscribe to movie trailer podcasts if there were decent ones.

If they put the promos on VOD, people might watch those too.

[Alpinemaps]

Like ABC could have an episode of According to Jim where they watch Lost all episode.

Funny you mention that. ABC's show from a couple of season's ago - Notes from the Underbelly - had at least two episodes that mentioned Lost. (One episode, after the husband and wife had some time together in the bedroom, he goes out to watch Lost because she won't let them have a TV in their bedroom. Another, they were having a Lost viewing party).

An episode of In the Motherhood that was on a couple of weeks ago (another ABC show), had one of the mother's watching Lost season 1 on DVD.

[jsmeeker]

How do you promote the show?

1) Send the actors on the talk show circuit
2) get your sports announcers to talk about and pimp it out
3) get your local affiliates to run "news" stories about

[DevdogAZ]

Your premise is indefensible. They did everything that could reasonably be expected to hype Kings. People even complained about how much it was promoted, not how little, and how difficult it was to ignore the promotions.

This proves the point I've been making: Even if you promote things and support them for the requisite bunch of episodes, viewers are so fickle that it could all be wasted effort.
Perhaps you missed the part where I said some shows will still fail despite network efforts. But the fact remains that regardless of how much NBC promoted the show in the traditional manner, they didn't do any of the "outside the box" stuff I mentioned above. Therefore, when the pilot had poor ratings, it was doomed. There was no established method for other viewers to find the show after the pilot aired in order to boost the second episode.
That's myopic, viewer-serving rationalization, AFAIC, refusing to acknowledge the actuality of viewer responsibility and just blaming networks because they're "the other guys" and it is always better to blame "the other guys" for things than to acknowledge that either blame is on "us", or at least shared, or that there is no blame.
Of course viewers have some of the blame. It's the lack of viewers that cause a show to fail. But as you pointed out earlier, it's virtually impossible to garner the cooperation of millions of viewers. They're fickle and not a cohesive group. I can rant and rail all day long about what viewers should do, but it's unrealistic to expect that "viewers" are going to do any of those things.

On the other hand, the network is a single entity that could take steps to improve the promotion of their shows. I could make a suggestion and if it's deemed viable by the network, they might actually try it. Sure, it's not likely, but it's a lot more likely than millions of viewers tuning in to watch a show because I want them to.

But whether changes come from viewers or networks or both, nothing is going to change overnight. It's now ingrained in the culture that if a pilot has crappy ratings, the show is dead. Networks are just throwing stuff against the wall and if it doesn't stick, they move on. Until the viewers see some effort by the networks to pick up the stuff that fell off the wall and try to put it back on, the viewers aren't going to change their perception that a poorly rated pilot is not worth wasting time on.

What kind of effort am I talking about? First of all, the show has to be of sufficient quality to be worth the effort. Kings is a bad example, because clearly the network wasn't that excited about it or it wouldn't have premiered in March. But if the network is really behind the show, I think the network should use every possible means of communicating to the public that "WE LOVE THIS SHOW!! WE WANT YOU TO SEE THIS SHOW. WE KNOW YOU'RE BUSY, SO WE'RE GOING TO MAKE IT EASY FOR YOU TO CATCH THIS SHOW. IF YOU CAN'T WATCH IT ON SUNDAY AT 8, IT WILL ALSO BE ON BRAVO SEVERAL TIMES OVER THE NEXT FEW DAYS. IT WILL ALSO AIR AGAIN ON NBC ON SATURDAY AT 8. IT CAN ALSO BE DOWNLOADED FROM AMAZON OR NETFLIX FOR FREE. IT CAN ALSO BE VIEWED COMMERCIAL FREE ON OUR WEBSITE. WE HAVE SO MUCH FAITH IN THIS SHOW THAT WE BELIEVE ONCE YOU WATCH, YOU'LL BE A FAN AND THAT'S WHY WE'RE MAKING IT SO EASY TO WATCH ON YOUR SCHEDULE!!" And when the pilot flops, don't abandon the show. Keep promoting it. Schedule another airing of the pilot and publicize it. Let people know that the network isn't giving up on the show just because the viewers weren't there the first time out.

If I saw promotion like that from a network, I'd definitely check out the show. And I think millions of other people would too. It would definitely be worth a try.

[Steveknj]

The very fact that I sometimes see ads shows that my "value" is greater than zero. I understand that the ad people would prefer everyone to watch shows in real time and not FF past ads. But the DVR is here, and more people are using them all the time. They can ignore DVR users, but they shouldn't be surprised when their revenue drops because they can't adjust to them.

Exactly. That's why basing whether to keep a show based on RATINGS doesn't work anymore. But I won't rehash that again. To me, one of the things that gets ME watching sometimes is a great ad campaign OFF of TV, such as billboards, buses, etc. I watched Desperate Housewives because there was this HUGE billboard outside the Holland Tunnel in NYC. It got me curious. Now how to KEEP people watching after the pilot is another story!!

[aindik]

The very fact that I sometimes see ads shows that my "value" is greater than zero. I understand that the ad people would prefer everyone to watch shows in real time and not FF past ads. But the DVR is here, and more people are using them all the time. They can ignore DVR users, but they shouldn't be surprised when their revenue drops because they can't adjust to them.

Your value being "greater than zero" doesn't mean that it's high enough for them to care about you as a viewer.

[Steveknj]

And you can ignore the fact that being a DVR user makes you that much less valuable to advertisers, and therefore networks, than other people are, and you can also ignore the fact that the ascendancy of DVRs, itself, will drive a reduction in the money spent to produce and present television programming, but you shouldn't be surprised when the programming offered doesn't appeal to you.

That's actually a very good point. As I've said in previous threads, one of the reasons that shows like AI or DWTS, is that these are shows GEARED to watching live. They create a buzz that people want to talk about the next day. Another show, lets say Chuck, because it gets a lot of play here on the forum, may not be watched live by DVR users because there's no compelling reason to have to. So, you will see LOTS more shows like AI because the advertisers like us watching live shows. But as DVRs become more prevelent, there will have to be a real accounting on how to cater to DVR users. So shows like Chuck have lots of product placement. But how do you quantify that? It will have to be some sort of DVR ratings. Only problem now is, DVR ratings don't cause the buzz that live ratings cause, which are covered all over the media, creating a buzz in and of itself, leading to more viewers. If DVR ratings are posted weekly in your local paper, I bet that will lead to some viewership increases in those shows.

BTW, anyone know a place that DVR ratings are posted, online or otherwise? I'd love to see the most recorded shows.

[Steveknj]

How do you promote the show?

1) Send the actors on the talk show circuit
2) get your sports announcers to talk about and pimp it out
3) get your local affiliates to run "news" stories about


This is already probably the most common ways of doing it other than blatant ads during network shows. I would also ad, web banners.

[jsmeeker]

This is already probably the most common ways of doing it other than blatant ads during network shows. I would also ad, web banners.

I know.

My point really was that netowrks know how. Some of these methods have been going on for a long long time. (especially #1)

[DevdogAZ]

How do you promote the show?

1) Send the actors on the talk show circuit
2) get your sports announcers to talk about and pimp it out
3) get your local affiliates to run "news" stories about

This is already probably the most common ways of doing it other than blatant ads during network shows. I would also ad, web banners.

I know.

My point really was that netowrks know how. Some of these methods have been going on for a long long time. (especially #1)
And I would say that those things are becoming increasingly ineffective. There are simply too many possible options for viewers to spend their free time to expect that you'll get a big enough slice of the pie by only using the traditional methods. Fewer people are watching talk shows. Fewer people are watching sports. Fewer people are watching local news. The networks need to find additional methods of pimping their shows.

Part of the problem for the networks is that their primetime is so valuable that they can't use it to promote shows. And for the most part, they don't have access to their stations in the daytime. For example, I found out about "Mad Men" because I was flipping channels one day in the student lounge at school and saw couple of minutes of a "Making of Mad Men" special on AMC. This was a couple of months before the show premiered. I noted the name and went home and found another airing of the "Making of" special on AMC and set my TiVo to record it. I'd guess that AMC probably aired that special at least 20 times before the show ever premiered.

But the broadcast networks don't have that luxury. A couple of times I've seen a 30 minute special in the fall where a network will highlight 3-4 of their new shows coming on, but those usually show too many clips from the shows themselves so you feel like you've already watched them. In addition, they only show that special once, so if you don't catch it that one time, it's lost. The networks need to spend less time/effort on the traditional things that people have simply learned to tune out, and more effort on the non-traditional things that will really catch people's attention.

[bicker]

But the fact remains that regardless of how much NBC promoted the show in the traditional manner, they didn't do any of the "outside the box" stuff I mentioned above.No. Your opinion remains that. You're mistaken. Kings failed solely because viewers didn't watch it.

Of course viewers have some of the blame. It's the lack of viewers that cause a show to fail. But as you pointed out earlier, it's virtually impossible to garner the cooperation of millions of viewers. They're fickle and not a cohesive group. I can rant and rail all day long about what viewers should do, but it's unrealistic to expect that "viewers" are going to do any of those things.So instead of lashing out trying to find blame, when it is "unrealistic" to expect predictability and reliability, then just don't. Accept that some things will work out, and some things will not.

Until the viewers see some effort by the networks to pick up the stuff that fell off the wall and try to put it back on, the viewers aren't going to change their perception that a poorly rated pilot is not worth wasting time on.And until viewers change their perception, networks aren't going to waste money on your pipe dreams of them operating to your personal specifications.

[bicker]

Exactly. That's why basing whether to keep a show based on RATINGS doesn't work anymore.The alternative would be to base keeping a show on how much cash viewers send in before it is broadcast. :shrug:

That's actually a very good point. As I've said in previous threads, one of the reasons that shows like AI or DWTS, is that these are shows GEARED to watching live. They create a buzz that people want to talk about the next day. Another show, lets say Chuck, because it gets a lot of play here on the forum, may not be watched live by DVR users because there's no compelling reason to have to. So, you will see LOTS more shows like AI because the advertisers like us watching live shows. But as DVRs become more prevelent, there will have to be a real accounting on how to cater to DVR users.And so we get Jay Leno, five hours a week in prime time (because the show will allegedly be DVR-proof :rolleyes: ) and we lose great shows like Life and perhaps Chuck.

[Steveknj]

The alternative would be to base keeping a show on how much cash viewers send in before it is broadcast. :shrug:

And so we get Jay Leno, five hours a week in prime time (because the show will allegedly be DVR-proof :rolleyes: ) and we lose great shows like Life and perhaps Chuck.

Exactly!!! Not to mention shows like AI, and Leno and so forth are cheaper to produce. The creativity factor is slowly disappearing from broadcast TV because nobody watches those kinds of shows live. All we end up getting are rehashed reality shows. Anything "different" is destined to fail with a few exceptions.

[lew]

Old ways include:actors on talk shows, actors in audience of shows like AI, actors being interviewed during sporting events, ads in newspapers, billboards on signs, billboards on buses etc.

New Ways:Release the pilot on Netflix, free tivo (Amazon), free blockbuster DVD rental, web...to expose more potential viewers to the show. Re-run the pilot at least once before the second episode airs. Give as many viewers as possible an opportunity to get interested. "Viral" marketing might create interest via the web. A show with potential can get a lift if a network is able to air an episode after Sunday night football and even better if they can air an episode after the Superbowl. ABC re-launched Alias after a superbowl episode. Unfortunately ABC didn't time it right and lost the ratings.

Networks have to know when to cut their loses. Cancel or bury a show that doesn't have enough of an audience. It's rare for a show to start out with horrible ratings but then improve.

[Steveknj]

Old ways include:actors on talk shows, actors in audience of shows like AI, actors being interviewed during sporting events, ads in newspapers, billboards on signs, billboards on buses etc.

New Ways:Release the pilot on Netflix, free tivo (Amazon), free blockbuster DVD rental, web...to expose more potential viewers to the show. Re-run the pilot at least once before the second episode airs. Give as many viewers as possible an opportunity to get interested. "Viral" marketing might create interest via the web. A show with potential can get a lift if a network is able to air an episode after Sunday night football and even better if they can air an episode after the Superbowl. ABC re-launched Alias after a superbowl episode. Unfortunately ABC didn't time it right and lost the ratings.

Networks have to know when to cut their loses. Cancel or bury a show that doesn't have enough of an audience. It's rare for a show to start out with horrible ratings but then improve.

I think even more of a problem is to get viewers to KEEP watching shows after the pilot. Something like Studio 60 a few years back got big pilot numbers and then people just lost interest. I agree, I think today, showing the shows more than once is helpful, especially early in the season when people might want to see something but there's something else on in it's place. Also, with something like AI or DWTS on 3x a week, if you are involved in those shows, how are you supposed to be able to watch something else during those timeslots. Obviously, DVR is the answer, but again, that's not what the nets or advertisers want. So you have to show it more than once so someone will have a second chance. But of course that's difficult if your prime time lineup has the same show taking up 3 timeslots.

[Crow159]

I think the networks should start with mini-series instead of a pilot. A miniseries is long enough to get the viewer invested in the characters, but short enough that if the viewers aren't there they have not spent the money for a 12 or 24 episode block.

Miniseries could be aired in the spring and whatever sticks with viewers could be brought in as a series in the fall with a few replays of the mini-series during the summer to keep up interest.

I also think that the future of advertising is going to be in sponsored shows that have little to no commercial interruptions. "Lost" sponsored by Ford. Maybe 4 small 30 second spots during the show at random times from the sponsor of the show for that night and maybe a crawl once or twice during the show saying "Sponsored by Ford". Next weeks episode could be "Lost" sponsored by Kellogg. That eliminates the commercial skipping since the whole show is sponsored by one entity and even if you skip the 30 second spots you'll still know who the sponsor is.

[Steveknj]

I think the networks should start with mini-series instead of a pilot. A miniseries is long enough to get the viewer invested in the characters, but short enough that if the viewers aren't there they have not spent the money for a 12 or 24 episode block.

Miniseries could be aired in the spring and whatever sticks with viewers could be brought in as a series in the fall with a few replays of the mini-series during the summer to keep up interest.

I also think that the future of advertising is going to be in sponsored shows that have little to no commercial interruptions. "Lost" sponsored by Ford. Maybe 4 small 30 second spots during the show at random times from the sponsor of the show for that night and maybe a crawl once or twice during the show saying "Sponsored by Ford". Next weeks episode could be "Lost" sponsored by Kellogg. That eliminates the commercial skipping since the whole show is sponsored by one entity and even if you skip the 30 second spots you'll still know who the sponsor is.

About mini-series. The problem is, people don't want to invest 3-4 hours into a show they think they might hate. It's why shows like CSI are successful, it's because each episode is self contained. But, I could see a mini-series working if hyped right and done on successive nights where people don't have to watch 2 episodes and then wait a week to watch the next 2.

As for one sponsored shows, that's how it was done during the early days of TV and radio. Not sure why they went away from that model, but it probably had something to do with increasing the number of ads per show and not being able to sell that number of ads to one buyer. I think your idea couple with product placement within the show would work. Imagine "sponsored by Ford" and all the cars used in the show are Fords. And it would be great to have a sponser that would have something to do with the show. Maybe AI would be sponsored by some entertainment company, Chuck by some big box store, Lost by...ummmm....an airline? Hawaii? Dharma?

[bicker]

I think even more of a problem is to get viewers to KEEP watching shows after the pilot. Something like Studio 60 a few years back got big pilot numbers and then people just lost interest.Part of it is that this is a game -- I don't mean a game as in "toys and games", but rather as a game as in game theory. There are certain time slots that, plain and simple, are worth more than others, such as Thursday 9PM, because that's the prime slot for advertising movies folks might decide to see that weekend. So networks compete with each other for supremacy of that time slot, putting their "biggest" shows there, to try to draw viewers to their offering. Often, the shows put in valuable time slots cost more than any rational exec would pay for a program for a less valuable time slot. So that show, effectively, either has to win the "game", or be subject to cancellation simply because it is too expensive to survive as #2 in the time slot or as #1 in a lesser time slot. In the end, it is all about the money, and must necessarily be.

[Bob_Newhart]

They should telephone everyone at their homes each evening and discuss their new shows with them.

[steve614]

And Fox could have an episode of 24 where Jack takes 30 minutes off to watch Family Guy.

I don't know why, but I found this amusing. I'd watch that episode. :p

[DevdogAZ]

No. Your opinion remains that. You're mistaken. Kings failed solely because viewers didn't watch it.

So instead of lashing out trying to find blame, when it is "unrealistic" to expect predictability and reliability, then just don't. Accept that some things will work out, and some things will not.

And until viewers change their perception, networks aren't going to waste money on your pipe dreams of them operating to your personal specifications.
I don't get your angle here. It's like you're pissed at the American public for not watching TV the way you want them to. This thread is about how networks can do a better job promoting their shows. To simply reply to every suggestion with "the viewers should do their part too" is ridiculous.

[bicker]

No; I'm annoyed the public for blaming others about things that are their own (collective) fault. I'm disgusted with the failure to take personal and collective accountability, and disgusted with the penchant for whining and complaining when arguably inappropriate.

Stop looking "out there" for fault.

[DevdogAZ]

No; I'm annoyed the public for blaming others about things that are their own (collective) fault. I'm disgusted with the failure to take personal and collective accountability, and disgusted with the penchant for whining and complaining when arguably inappropriate.

Stop looking "out there" for fault.
I'm all for people taking personal responsibility. But I don't think individual viewers should have to shoulder the blame for the collective "misdeeds" of the viewing public. That's simply an asinine position. And while it's true that show's fail because the public doesn't watch them, the point of this thread is to discuss what the networks can do to get the public to watch them.

You seem to be offended that we're discussing things the network could do better because you don't think it's the network's fault that shows fail. While there may be some shows that the blame can be placed on the viewer, there are far more that have failed because poor promotion caused poor viewership. Ultimately, it's not the public's responsibility to educate itself about a network's new shows.

[bicker]

I'm all for people taking personal responsibility. But I don't think individual viewers should have to shoulder the blame for the collective "misdeeds" of the viewing public.I agree (and I am glad to see you recognize and acknowledge "the collective 'misdeeds' of the viewing public"). Rather, I believe that individual viewers should shoulder the blame for their blaming of the networks, the affiliates, the production companies, the producers, etc., instead of placing the blame for "the collective 'misdeeds'" where such blame actually belongs.

And while it's true that show's fail because the public doesn't watch them, the point of this thread is to discuss what the networks can do to get the public to watch them.The networks can pay people $100 per minute that they watch their network -- that'll work, but it is, to use your word, an "asinine" suggestion. This shows that this discussion includes consideration of whether such suggestions are or are not rational.

You seem to be offended that we're discussing things the network could do better because you don't think it's the network's fault that shows fail.Then you're not reading what I'm writing -- or more properly, you're not reading the words I'm replying to (even though you actually wrote some of them). There is a whole bunch of blaming rhetoric in this thread, and a whole bunch of rhetoric asserting that suggestions being made are things that the networks actually should do, without clear consideration of what the networks' actual objective are.

While there may be some shows that the blame can be placed on the viewer, there are far more that have failed because poor promotion caused poor viewership.So you claim. It was claimed that Kings was one of the latter, and that was a false assertion, AFAIC. No perspective deserves an unrebutted soap-box. If you want a page restricted to criticisms of the networks, check into a blog. That's much closer to that. Discussion, as in "discussion forum", means discussing both sides of issues.

[MikeMar]

inter-network promos from same company

I see fox ads on FX
ABC ads on ESPN

stuff like that

[Fool Me Twice]

They should use those urinal ads. Also, skywriting. Maybe telepathy.

[DevdogAZ]

So you claim. It was claimed that Kings was one of the latter, and that was a false assertion, AFAIC. No perspective deserves an unrebutted soap-box. If you want a page restricted to criticisms of the networks, check into a blog. That's much closer to that. Discussion, as in "discussion forum", means discussing both sides of issues.
I'm not saying you're not entitled to your opinion. Feel free to share it. I'm simply saying that this thread was created to discuss what the networks could do in order to more effectively promote their new programs. If you'd like to distort that discussion into one of what the public can do to be more supportive of the networks, feel free. I just don't think it's a very interesting discussion, nor is it the purpose of this thread.

[bicker]

Given that you disagree with the perspective that rebuts some of the criticisms you're floating, your wish to eliminate it from the thread is uninteresting, and also, incidentally, discussing the discussion was not the original stated purpose of this thread.

[heyitscory]

I think the networks should start with mini-series instead of a pilot. A miniseries is long enough to get the viewer invested in the characters, but short enough that if the viewers aren't there they have not spent the money for a 12 or 24 episode block.

Miniseries could be aired in the spring and whatever sticks with viewers could be brought in as a series in the fall with a few replays of the mini-series during the summer to keep up interest.

I also think that the future of advertising is going to be in sponsored shows that have little to no commercial interruptions. "Lost" sponsored by Ford. Maybe 4 small 30 second spots during the show at random times from the sponsor of the show for that night and maybe a crawl once or twice during the show saying "Sponsored by Ford". Next weeks episode could be "Lost" sponsored by Kellogg. That eliminates the commercial skipping since the whole show is sponsored by one entity and even if you skip the 30 second spots you'll still know who the sponsor is.
This would absolutely positively work with sci-fi shows, dramas, crime procedurals, hospital shows et al.

I think it would kind of fail for sitcoms.

[Steveknj]

Part of it is that this is a game -- I don't mean a game as in "toys and games", but rather as a game as in game theory. There are certain time slots that, plain and simple, are worth more than others, such as Thursday 9PM, because that's the prime slot for advertising movies folks might decide to see that weekend. So networks compete with each other for supremacy of that time slot, putting their "biggest" shows there, to try to draw viewers to their offering. Often, the shows put in valuable time slots cost more than any rational exec would pay for a program for a less valuable time slot. So that show, effectively, either has to win the "game", or be subject to cancellation simply because it is too expensive to survive as #2 in the time slot or as #1 in a lesser time slot. In the end, it is all about the money, and must necessarily be.


I'm not getting your point here. How does this relate to trying to get people to KEEP watching?

[Steveknj]

I agree (and I am glad to see you recognize and acknowledge "the collective 'misdeeds' of the viewing public"). Rather, I believe that individual viewers should shoulder the blame for their blaming of the networks, the affiliates, the production companies, the producers, etc., instead of placing the blame for "the collective 'misdeeds'" where such blame actually belongs.

The networks can pay people $100 per minute that they watch their network -- that'll work, but it is, to use your word, an "asinine" suggestion. This shows that this discussion includes consideration of whether such suggestions are or are not rational.

Then you're not reading what I'm writing -- or more properly, you're not reading the words I'm replying to (even though you actually wrote some of them). There is a whole bunch of blaming rhetoric in this thread, and a whole bunch of rhetoric asserting that suggestions being made are things that the networks actually should do, without clear consideration of what the networks' actual objective are.

So you claim. It was claimed that Kings was one of the latter, and that was a false assertion, AFAIC. No perspective deserves an unrebutted soap-box. If you want a page restricted to criticisms of the networks, check into a blog. That's much closer to that. Discussion, as in "discussion forum", means discussing both sides of issues.

But the point of the thread is how to get people TO watch, not that it's our fault we don't. We are not blaming anyone, obviously the networks WANT us to watch these shows or they wouldn't put them on the air. Part of this fault is that they MAY not be promoting these shows as much as they should. Part of it is that they put stuff on we DON'T want to watch in the first place. But there are SOME shows that many of us feel that are good shows that for some reason people aren't getting the opportunity to see, or they are poorly touted by the networks. Perhaps Kings is NOT the best example of this because I think NBC did a fairly good job pushing this show. The subject matter in this case might not appeal to the "great unwashed". But some shows that might, are just not being pushed the way they should. And then there's the flawed ratings processes that are outdated compared to current viewing habits. But that's been discussed ad naseum.

[bicker]

I'm not getting your point here. How does this relate to trying to get people to KEEP watching?By outlining the challenges that exist with regard to doing so, and especially to highlight how little foundation there is for the assertions that the networks, as a group, aren't doing just about the best they can.

But the point of the thread is how to get people TO watch, not that it's our fault we don't.The first step to recovery is realizing that you have a problem, and more precisely, what the problem actually is.

We are not blaming anyoneI disagree; I think there is a lot of blaming of the networks going on in this thread;

Part of it is that they put stuff on we DON'T want to watch in the first place.YOU don't want to watch it, in the first place.

Beyond that, the implication is that there is stuff that is more profitable to present, that you do want to watch "in the first place". I'm calling for a smell-test on that implication. If anyone was really that much more talented a programmer than all the folks who are actually doing the job, then they should be doing that job, instead of whining about it online. :)

But there are SOME shows that many of us feel that are good shows that for some reason people aren't getting the opportunity to see, or they are poorly touted by the networks.More blame.

[Steveknj]

By outlining the challenges that exist with regard to doing so, and especially to highlight how little foundation there is for the assertions that the networks, as a group, aren't doing just about the best they can.

The first step to recovery is realizing that you have a problem, and more precisely, what the problem actually is.

I disagree; I think there is a lot of blaming of the networks going on in this thread;

YOU don't want to watch it, in the first place.

Beyond that, the implication is that there is stuff that is more profitable to present, that you do want to watch "in the first place". I'm calling for a smell-test on that implication. If anyone was really that much more talented a programmer than all the folks who are actually doing the job, then they should be doing that job, instead of whining about it online. :)

More blame.

Well this thread wasn't supposed to be ABOUT blame, just our ideas on what we THINK the networks might do to increase viewership.

But since, in your opinion, every show the networks put on is quality and it's OUR fault shows don't make it (and btw, how is it MY fault that my NEIGHBOR doesn't like the same show I like), then here's a question....Don't network executives decide to air a show with the ASSUMPTION people are going to watch it? Isn't that the point to air a show? So if people don't watch it, it's our own fault because us as a public DON'T LIKE it? That makes NO sense. Otherwise a network exec would NEVER lose his job? I'm not saying that these people are BAD at what they do, and they ARE probably more talented at picking shows than I am, but that doesn't mean they are always right. Obviously, if they pick a show that gets a lot of viewers they did a good job, but if they put on a show that nobody watches, then how is that MY fault. THEY put that show on? Not me.

Anyway, times change and there might be new ways to get people to watch. And sometimes they do everything they could to give us that chance, we just don't like it, and other times they don't and we miss out on a good show.

[bicker]

Well this thread wasn't supposed to be ABOUT blame, just our ideas on what we THINK the networks might do to increase viewership.Even in that context, you must include the possibility that the answer is "nothing". There does not necessarily "have to be" a way to resolve every problem. My father started out setting type manually; there was nothing he or anyone else could have done to protect that discipline from its eventual demise.

But since, in your opinion, every show the networks put on is quality Stop it now, Steve. You don't have to like what I write, but distorting it, because you want something easier to argue against, is inexcusable. I didn't say anything about "every" show. All I've really said is that your criticisms don't hold water. I haven't said anything about any specific shows or networks.

Please fix your message. Thanks.

and it's OUR fault shows don't make itGenerally speaking (as I have been speaking), yes, it is our collective fault.

(and btw, how is it MY fault that my NEIGHBOR doesn't like the same show I like)I never said it was all your fault. However, if you want to think of it in that manner, think of it as your own failure to align your preferences with enough other people, or getting enough other people to align their preferences with you. It's a bit like losing a political election: Your political party bears responsibility for failing to effectively-enough present compelling-enough arguments to convince enough voters, and, since political parties are really just collections of people, each proponent of that political party bears some responsibility for failing to do their part in helping fostering the party's ability to do so, and/or failing to do their part in participating and contributing to the effort to effectively-enough present compelling-enough arguments to convince.

I'm not saying that these people are BAD at what they do, and they ARE probably more talented at picking shows than I am, but that doesn't mean they are always right.I agree completely. So basically what you've been saying is that you only condemn them when their bets don't pay off. That's ridiculous. As you yourself point out, they are more talented at picking shows, but picking shows is not a hard science like physics. It is much more like psychology. Do you pull the license of a psychologist if one of their patients harms him or herself?

Obviously, if they pick a show that gets a lot of viewers they did a good jobThey did a good job and they got lucky. That is often the difference between high ratings and low ratings: luck. Doing a good job doesn't imply success.

For practically anything, in the mass-market, incidentally.

[Steveknj]

Even in that context, you must include the possibility that the answer is "nothing". There does not necessarily "have to be" a way to resolve every problem. My father started out setting type manually; there was nothing he or anyone else could have done to protect that discipline from its eventual demise. .

Your father's job and this is like comparing apples to Godzilla, they are two different beasts. Can't you admit that sometimes a network doesn't do enough to promote a show, thus making it desitned to fail? Watch the summer bumpers for new shows. Some shows are heavily promoted, others aren't? There is always some show I see preveiwed in TV Guide fall preview issue that I never heard of. You can't tell me that the show is not destined to fail most of the time.

Stop it now, Steve. You don't have to like what I write, but distorting it, because you want something easier to argue against, is inexcusable. I didn't say anything about "every" show. All I've really said is that your criticisms don't hold water. I haven't said anything about any specific shows or networks.

Please fix your message. Thanks..

I'm not fixing my message, because that is how I see what YOU are saying.

Generally speaking (as I have been speaking), yes, it is our collective fault.

No sometimes it's not our fault, but corporate politics, bad publicity, and any number of other things. Sometimes it IS our faults, but sometimes, it's not.

I never said it was all your fault. However, if you want to think of it in that manner, think of it as your own failure to align your preferences with enough other people. It's a bit like losing a political election: Your political party bears responsibility for failing to effectively-enough present compelling-enough arguments to convince enough voters, and, since political parties are really just collections of people, each proponent of that political party bears some responsibility for failing to do their part in helping fostering the party's ability to do so, and/or failing to do their part in participating and contributing to the effort to effectively-enough present compelling-enough arguments to convince.

Your political example proves my point. In the case of the political candidate, it may be that the candidate is just not finding the right ways to "reach" people, just as the networks might not have felt the appropriate method of reaching people either. Many people say that Obama was able to reach so many people because he "thought outside the box" in his methods to get to voters who traditionally don't vote, by appealing to them. At the end of the day, if he's message didn't resonate, he wouldn't have gotten elected, but he WAS able to reach those folks in some non-traditional ways. Same goes with TV networks, perhaps in some cases the "message, i.e. the Show" was good, but they have not found a way to get that out to the people. Therefore, by the time someone might have realized that this show was quality, it was gone. THAT could be the nets fault. And, if the Nets put out crap and expect us to watch, and we don't, then how is that our FAULT?

I agree completely. So basically what you've been saying is that you only condemn them when their bets don't pay off. That's ridiculous. As you yourself point out, they are more talented at picking shows, but picking shows is not a hard science like physics. It is much more like psychology. Do you pull the license of a psychologist if one of their patients harms him or herself?

No, now you are twisting MY words. I never said they WERE more talented than us picking shows, but PROBABLY were. You can't tell me that these people don't pick clunkers and not every show they pick is good. Sometimes people have hunches, like in anything else, and sometimes they are right, sometimes they aren't.

They did a good job and they got lucky. That is often the difference between high ratings and low ratings: luck. Doing a good job doesn't imply success.

For practically anything, in the mass-market, incidentally.

If that's the case, it's mostly luck, then a monkey could pick between these shows and do just as well (wasn't there a movie like that?)

But again, that's not what this thread is about, but you chose to make this about how the networks are doing Everything they possibly COULD be doing RIGHT NOW. We are saying, sure there is. Anyone worth his salt would be seeking out opinions on how to best promote a show so they would get more viewers. If these so called perfect network execs didn't do this, then they'd STILL be promoting shows like they did in the 1950s.

[bicker]

Your father's job and this is like comparing apples to Godzilla, they are two different beasts.No, they're not. Things that are the same are tautologies. Other things are analogies.

Can't you admit that sometimes a network doesn't do enough to promote a show, thus making it desitned to fail?I think you continue to miss the point I've been making, that the generalizations made earlier, by yourself and others, are without merit. In the message you are replying to, I wrote, "Even in that context, you must include the possibility that the answer is 'nothing'." Did you read that? Did you understand what it meant? If so, how can you ask the question you asked?

I'm not fixing my message, because that is how I see what YOU are saying.I find your distortion of what I wrote offensive, and your unwillingness to accept correction of your distortion of what I wrote doubly so.

And, if the Nets put out crap and expect us to watch, and we don't, then how is that our FAULT?You've forgotten what we were talking about, i.e., the shows that people like and yet still get canceled.

No, now you are twisting MY words.How does it feel?

Unlike you, I'll grant you the respect of letting you determine what you wrote. It is a shame that you are unable to do the same.

If that's the case, it's mostly luck, then a monkey could pick between these shows and do just as well (wasn't there a movie like that?)More baseless condemnation. :down: