Post by margarine on Jan 17, 2012 14:16:55 GMT -5
I'm putting this in its own thread because it doesn't have to do directly with H50, but it's still part of the Great Ratings Debacle. Today's Ask Matt column on the TV Guide site had a series of Q & A's on show ratings, network support, and things we've talked about, and I think his take on the subject makes for an interesting read.
Question: On the Chuck episode that aired Jan. 6 ("Chuck vs. the Kept Man"), one of the subplots was Casey and his daughter Alex watching Downton Abbey. This subplot was far more enjoyable than the tedious Jeff and Lester subplot. Do you know if there was any special reason why the writers chose to plug Downton Abbey?
On a different note, I am looking forward to the second half of Fringe's Season 4. Fox has recently said the show was losing the network money and they weren't in the business of losing money. Reading between the lines, what does this mean for the future of the show? And how exactly do they determine whether a network show makes a profit — is it based on advertising revenue from commercials? — Brian
Matt Roush: I didn't see that episode of Chuck — just hearing about a Jeff and Lester subplot reinforces that decision — but seems to me the very image of a tough guy like Casey watching something as refined and twee as Downton Abbey would have been the joke, plus it's a very culturally "now" reference. Regarding Fringe, I don't think it's a secret that this show is perpetually "on the bubble," but this is certainly another make-or-break season. And to simplify matters greatly, the calculus involved in determining a show's financial health and value involves many factors, including the license fee the network pays the studio (in this case Warner Bros.), the production deficit the studio shoulders, the ad rates a show can command and whatever back-end revenue is projected from ancillary, overseas and possible syndication sales. This subject clearly riled up the fan base this week, as the next few questions make abundantly clear.
Question: I was wondering if I could get your take on Fox executive Kevin Reilly's comments regarding Fringe, in which he praises the quality of the show to high heaven, before coming out with this little gem: "We're not in the business of losing money." Now I am inclined to understand that TV is a business, but can we stop pretending that business isn't booming? When individual stars are paid $1 million dollars for 22-45 minutes of television, we can acknowledge that business in television is good. Kevin Reilly isn't going home at night, trying to figure out how to pay the mortgage this month. One show that does not make them money does not mean that they lose money — it just means they don't take in the obscene amount that they're used to.
I know that networks could not routinely keep shows on the air that lose them money, and the shows they produce must predominantly make money to allow for the continuation of the programs. But network execs take this stance that any show, regardless of quality, critical acclaim and DVD sales must make them money in the immediate moment, or else get it off the air and start running that new reality tripe that costs nothing (but dignity) to make (keep in mind, I don't put all reality in this category — So You Think You Can Dance, Top Chef and Project Runway are all faves of mine). Fifty years ago, publishing companies routinely published quality books that they knew would lose them money initially, because they believed in the long-term benefits that publishing quality material would accrue. NCIS is the highest rated program on TV (I think), but in terms of DVD/Blu-ray sales, it is still (as of this week) outsold by Firefly, a canceled sci-fi show from 2002. The kind of fans Fringe attracts are the rabid, die-hard, purchasing fans that network executives give no respect. It's short-sighted. I'm certain this issue is muddied by the fact that the DVD rights are often owned by a company independent from the network, so when on earth are these people going to jump into the 21st century and straighten these issues out?
I'm not advocating that all critically acclaimed shows with no ratings be given a free pass. But when there is a series that a network has already invested a great amount of time and resources into, and the network claims to love the story it's telling, what is the harm in looking at it long-term instead of only seeing the immediate losses? (Cough, Community, cough.) Speaking of Community, please please please tell me there's some good news that people at NBC aren't thinking the same way as the people at Fox! (Hold onto that dream, right?) I'd be heartbroken to lose this daring, creative gem from the line-up. What other show on TV would have the seeds to animate its cast for an episode? Oh right, Fringe. Sigh. — Katelyn
Matt Roush: I'm not inclined to condemn a network executive for speaking an unpleasant truth, so while I share your frustration that Fringe has to keep fighting for its life and ultimately may not win the battle to survive to a fifth season, it's not my place as a critic to suggest a network be in the business of programming loss-leaders, much as I'd selfishly enjoy the benefit. Look, it's no fun when this column has to confront the hard realities of the TV business, but the bottom line is the bottom line, and if Fox finds itself able to develop a show for Fridays they feel would cost less and generate more revenue, that's what they'll do. It's that simple and that complicated. Fox's support for Fringe has given the show a fourth season I wouldn't have predicted would be feasible, and pragmatically, it probably wasn't. Regarding the NCIS comparison: That show is such a monster hit, airing constantly on cable and around the world, it hardly matters how it performs in the DVD marketplace. (It's not like you can't watch it umpteen times a week if you so desire.)
Shows like Fringe and Community are in a very similar and rickety boat — we who love them can't imagine why more people don't choose to watch — and if the overall network-TV picture were more robust, there's little chance they would have survived as long as they have with their ratings, which would be tough to sustain on most cable networks.
Question: Fringe will probably be canceled if Fox can't work something out with Warner Bros. to bring down the cost, right? It never ceases to frustrate me that ratings don't take online viewings into account, given the fact that the networks/studios make these shows available online and viewers don't need to rely on live broadcasts anymore. Rather than go on a long rant about that, I was wondering if the online appeal of shows like Fringe might work to its advantage somehow. Couldn't Fox work with Netflix (or someone like that) the way that NBC and DirecTV worked together to produce Friday Night Lights? — Drew
Matt Roush: It still boils down to economics. Online viewing doesn't generate the revenue that on-air viewing does, and white knights like DirecTV (which has already said it's no longer in the business of saving shows, preferring to develop its own) apparently aren't as easy to find as we'd hope. Although, with Netflix also getting into the original-production business, that's not a bad idea. It would be great if a cable or satellite partner could jump on this particular cult bandwagon, and Fringe's producers have said they're willing to continue the franchise in webisode or some other form of distribution. So even if Fox does end up pulling the plug for any of the reasons elaborated above, that may not be the end of the story.
Question: On the Chuck episode that aired Jan. 6 ("Chuck vs. the Kept Man"), one of the subplots was Casey and his daughter Alex watching Downton Abbey. This subplot was far more enjoyable than the tedious Jeff and Lester subplot. Do you know if there was any special reason why the writers chose to plug Downton Abbey?
On a different note, I am looking forward to the second half of Fringe's Season 4. Fox has recently said the show was losing the network money and they weren't in the business of losing money. Reading between the lines, what does this mean for the future of the show? And how exactly do they determine whether a network show makes a profit — is it based on advertising revenue from commercials? — Brian
Matt Roush: I didn't see that episode of Chuck — just hearing about a Jeff and Lester subplot reinforces that decision — but seems to me the very image of a tough guy like Casey watching something as refined and twee as Downton Abbey would have been the joke, plus it's a very culturally "now" reference. Regarding Fringe, I don't think it's a secret that this show is perpetually "on the bubble," but this is certainly another make-or-break season. And to simplify matters greatly, the calculus involved in determining a show's financial health and value involves many factors, including the license fee the network pays the studio (in this case Warner Bros.), the production deficit the studio shoulders, the ad rates a show can command and whatever back-end revenue is projected from ancillary, overseas and possible syndication sales. This subject clearly riled up the fan base this week, as the next few questions make abundantly clear.
Question: I was wondering if I could get your take on Fox executive Kevin Reilly's comments regarding Fringe, in which he praises the quality of the show to high heaven, before coming out with this little gem: "We're not in the business of losing money." Now I am inclined to understand that TV is a business, but can we stop pretending that business isn't booming? When individual stars are paid $1 million dollars for 22-45 minutes of television, we can acknowledge that business in television is good. Kevin Reilly isn't going home at night, trying to figure out how to pay the mortgage this month. One show that does not make them money does not mean that they lose money — it just means they don't take in the obscene amount that they're used to.
I know that networks could not routinely keep shows on the air that lose them money, and the shows they produce must predominantly make money to allow for the continuation of the programs. But network execs take this stance that any show, regardless of quality, critical acclaim and DVD sales must make them money in the immediate moment, or else get it off the air and start running that new reality tripe that costs nothing (but dignity) to make (keep in mind, I don't put all reality in this category — So You Think You Can Dance, Top Chef and Project Runway are all faves of mine). Fifty years ago, publishing companies routinely published quality books that they knew would lose them money initially, because they believed in the long-term benefits that publishing quality material would accrue. NCIS is the highest rated program on TV (I think), but in terms of DVD/Blu-ray sales, it is still (as of this week) outsold by Firefly, a canceled sci-fi show from 2002. The kind of fans Fringe attracts are the rabid, die-hard, purchasing fans that network executives give no respect. It's short-sighted. I'm certain this issue is muddied by the fact that the DVD rights are often owned by a company independent from the network, so when on earth are these people going to jump into the 21st century and straighten these issues out?
I'm not advocating that all critically acclaimed shows with no ratings be given a free pass. But when there is a series that a network has already invested a great amount of time and resources into, and the network claims to love the story it's telling, what is the harm in looking at it long-term instead of only seeing the immediate losses? (Cough, Community, cough.) Speaking of Community, please please please tell me there's some good news that people at NBC aren't thinking the same way as the people at Fox! (Hold onto that dream, right?) I'd be heartbroken to lose this daring, creative gem from the line-up. What other show on TV would have the seeds to animate its cast for an episode? Oh right, Fringe. Sigh. — Katelyn
Matt Roush: I'm not inclined to condemn a network executive for speaking an unpleasant truth, so while I share your frustration that Fringe has to keep fighting for its life and ultimately may not win the battle to survive to a fifth season, it's not my place as a critic to suggest a network be in the business of programming loss-leaders, much as I'd selfishly enjoy the benefit. Look, it's no fun when this column has to confront the hard realities of the TV business, but the bottom line is the bottom line, and if Fox finds itself able to develop a show for Fridays they feel would cost less and generate more revenue, that's what they'll do. It's that simple and that complicated. Fox's support for Fringe has given the show a fourth season I wouldn't have predicted would be feasible, and pragmatically, it probably wasn't. Regarding the NCIS comparison: That show is such a monster hit, airing constantly on cable and around the world, it hardly matters how it performs in the DVD marketplace. (It's not like you can't watch it umpteen times a week if you so desire.)
Shows like Fringe and Community are in a very similar and rickety boat — we who love them can't imagine why more people don't choose to watch — and if the overall network-TV picture were more robust, there's little chance they would have survived as long as they have with their ratings, which would be tough to sustain on most cable networks.
Question: Fringe will probably be canceled if Fox can't work something out with Warner Bros. to bring down the cost, right? It never ceases to frustrate me that ratings don't take online viewings into account, given the fact that the networks/studios make these shows available online and viewers don't need to rely on live broadcasts anymore. Rather than go on a long rant about that, I was wondering if the online appeal of shows like Fringe might work to its advantage somehow. Couldn't Fox work with Netflix (or someone like that) the way that NBC and DirecTV worked together to produce Friday Night Lights? — Drew
Matt Roush: It still boils down to economics. Online viewing doesn't generate the revenue that on-air viewing does, and white knights like DirecTV (which has already said it's no longer in the business of saving shows, preferring to develop its own) apparently aren't as easy to find as we'd hope. Although, with Netflix also getting into the original-production business, that's not a bad idea. It would be great if a cable or satellite partner could jump on this particular cult bandwagon, and Fringe's producers have said they're willing to continue the franchise in webisode or some other form of distribution. So even if Fox does end up pulling the plug for any of the reasons elaborated above, that may not be the end of the story.
