What is wrong with TV execs?

[Stout]

Okay, what the hell is the deal with this sporadic strategy of putting on a new episode, oh, well, whenever the hell they feel like it? Like, two weeks of episodes, skip a week, have another episode, skip a month, have an episode, skip another week...WTF?

I mean, seriously, I get the prolonged winter break idea, and the idea that some shows only air in the summer, or fall, or spring...I'd rather have them year-round, but I can understand the idea of a season and a break. What makes no sense, and what is going to make me drop shows en masse, is this sporadic CRAP that is going on. There is absolutely no rhyme or reason to it. What the HELL gives?

 

[Chaplin]

Okay, what the hell is the deal with this sporadic strategy of putting on a new episode, oh, well, whenever the hell they feel like it? Like, two weeks of episodes, skip a week, have another episode, skip a month, have an episode, skip another week...WTF?

I mean, seriously, I get the prolonged winter break idea, and the idea that some shows only air in the summer, or fall, or spring...I'd rather have them year-round, but I can understand the idea of a season and a break. What makes no sense, and what is going to make me drop shows en masse, is this sporadic CRAP that is going on. There is absolutely no rhyme or reason to it. What the HELL gives?

It's all dictated by the audience (or more specifically, the advertisers desire for a specific audience on a specific day), not the TV execs. The last 2 weeks have been the Olympics, and that has been a big deal for a lot of shows. Heck, Heroes ended their entire season before the Olympics even started, probably for that reason.

 

[Gaddabout]

To add on what Chap said, advertisers are getting more input into programming because they have all the leverage and then some. TV is a bad buy these days unless you're getting a Top 10 show. In exchange for buying lesser watched television, advertisers are getting more input into everything.

Cable and the internet is changing everything.

 

[Cheesebeef]

the answer to this question is too long and too varied to write in ten posts, much less one.

If you think they're crazy outside of the system, you ain't seen NOTHING till you work INSIDE of it.

 

[Stout]

Chap and Gad, that's still nonsensical. I understand the Olympics bump; Chuck isn't on until after, and that's something you simply have to live with. Shows on Fox, ABC and CBS don't have that excuse. Okay, if they don't want to compete with the Olympcs, that's fine and something understandable.

But why such irregular intermissions, at completely random intervals, on shows? If anything, advertisors should strive for regularity, because they will (and must be) losing viewers in droves because of stupidity, because of this idiotic irregularity. Yes, a show will keep its hard-core fans, but the casual viewer that kind of liked it and was willing to keep watching? GONE.

 

[Chaplin]

Chap and Gad, that's still nonsensical. I understand the Olympics bump; Chuck isn't on until after, and that's something you simply have to live with. Shows on Fox, ABC and CBS don't have that excuse. Okay, if they don't want to compete with the Olympcs, that's fine and something understandable.

But why such irregular intermissions, at completely random intervals, on shows? If anything, advertisors should strive for regularity, because they will (and must be) losing viewers in droves because of stupidity, because of this idiotic irregularity. Yes, a show will keep its hard-core fans, but the casual viewer that kind of liked it and was willing to keep watching? GONE.

Throughout a single season, that simply isn't true (with a few exceptions, like Lost S3, and every season of Heroes since S1). Where you see the drop-off will be in the 2nd seasons. But sporadic scheduling isn't usually why shows don't survive, it's because when the show WAS on, nobody watched it. Especially today, with serial shows becoming more and more popular (Lost, 24, Flashforward, V), if someone doesn't watch the pilot and the first few shows after that, there's no way you're going to get new viewers later on.

But there's got to be some kind of controlled madness because this is no normal--advertisers hold all the power, so if they said, make it 20 episode straight, they would do that (and they do for Lost and 24). But they can't do that for every show because there simply isn't enough episodes to only have new television at a certain time of year and NO advertiser will want their ads to show in the summer and around the Xmas break (let alone during the Olympics).

It's all about audience patterns, and that can also be applied to movies--there's a reason why virtually nothing good comes out in January, February, August and September.

 

[Gaddabout]

Chap and Gad, that's still nonsensical. I understand the Olympics bump; Chuck isn't on until after, and that's something you simply have to live with. Shows on Fox, ABC and CBS don't have that excuse. Okay, if they don't want to compete with the Olympcs, that's fine and something understandable.

But why such irregular intermissions, at completely random intervals, on shows? If anything, advertisors should strive for regularity, because they will (and must be) losing viewers in droves because of stupidity, because of this idiotic irregularity. Yes, a show will keep its hard-core fans, but the casual viewer that kind of liked it and was willing to keep watching? GONE.

One thing is advertisers called B.S. on Nielsen and networks called B.S. on Nielsen, so Nielsen completely changed how they kept data. The result is showing far, far, far fewer people watching network television, which is what the advertisers felt all the time. However, networks have been complaining for years that Nielsen doesn't include DVR views, and so they will ... I think this summer. But advertiser say DVR views are pointless since people do that so they can blow through commercials.

In addition to fewer people watching, the DVR issue comes into play with people delaying watching a show by, say, 16 minutes, so they can blow through the commercials then. This means Nielsen has to come up with some ratio to sparse the data even smaller.

The new data is broken down into 15 minute segments, by intensive demographics, by channel. Advertisers take this stuff and jump to conclusions no one on the other side of the table would, such as programming for when they think people will be in front of the television rather than forcing people to be in front of the television every week at a certain time in a certain time slot. Networks have always been able to manipulate people into a schedule, but advertisers think it has to be the other way around -- that people have left television and now television should bend to the demands of soccer moms to lure them back. Also, shows get moved when they KNOW we'll be in front of the TV, such is Jerry Seinfeld's new show debuting directly after the Olympics' closing ceremony, even though it will never again see the 9pm Sunday slot ever again.

Advertisers don't care about building audiences. Advertisers don't care about programming or if you can follow the serial plot. Advertisers just care that the most people possible are forced to see their ad. They believe you no longer care enough about a show to be such a slave to a time slot, so they believe they're bending TV programming to your will.

 

[Chaplin]

And it's changing the way people watch stuff on the internet. People go to Hulu because they are only forced to see one ad at a time. But believe me, that time is rapidly coming to a close. Internet viewing will creep closer and closer to duplicating the on-air experience.

The problem is that people don't understand the system and blame the wrong people. Personally, I think the BIGGEST problem in all of television is Nielsen. With or without the DVR numbers, the system is antiquated and skewed away from the majority of television watchers.

Think about it, a Nielsen viewer has to have a special box on their television, AND they have to document their watching habits. It's no surprise that networks like CBS and they're older-skewed shows win the ratings battle. It's almost a guarantee that ratings on Fox and The CW are much different then what is reported. But unfortunately, Nielsen is all we got, and advertisers sure don't understand anything else BUT that.

 

[Stout]

I love the explanations, guys, and it really is good stuff, but it still isn't explanation. Chap, you said you see it with the shows people don't watch, but that just isn't the case. Explain how House is new one week, a re-run the next week, new the week after, and then re-runs for two weeks before a new show is on? That is an incredibly popular show, yet they do it with House too.

 

[Gaddabout]

I love the explanations, guys, and it really is good stuff, but it still isn't explanation. Chap, you said you see it with the shows people don't watch, but that just isn't the case. Explain how House is new one week, a re-run the next week, new the week after, and then re-runs for two weeks before a new show is on? That is an incredibly popular show, yet they do it with House too.

That's actually easy to answer. They don't have enough shows to string you out through May, so they plug in re-runs. You'll still watch. The ratings show it. The difference between a new show audience and a recent re-run audience is on the right side of the decimal point. If they've got you trained they can string you out. But I think it was mentioned a couple of times above that networks are no longer ordering a full slate of shows. This is one of the reasons why.

 

[Chaplin]

I love the explanations, guys, and it really is good stuff, but it still isn't explanation. Chap, you said you see it with the shows people don't watch, but that just isn't the case. Explain how House is new one week, a re-run the next week, new the week after, and then re-runs for two weeks before a new show is on? That is an incredibly popular show, yet they do it with House too.

A show like House (or any of the CSI's or even Grey's) can afford to stretch things out with reruns because the audience doesn't leave it. Keep in mind that the audience (as dictated by Nielsen) doesn't have anything else to do except watch reruns.

The Nielsen people just aren't those that have many alternatives to what they are watching--that's why repeat numbers are MUCH worse for shows that skew younger.

Granted, Idol does wacky things to numbers, so when Idol is actually in season, you'll see a lot of repeats on those nights. It's just a fact of life that has nothing to do with TV execs.

 

[Stout]

Maybe they'll get idiots to watch, but it ain't difficult to look at the show and see 2008. Then again, America is full of idiots.

 

[chickenhead]

I think because networks aren't ordering a full slate of shows, the placement is starting to resemble the way something like SNL works. A few new shows, a repeat, and then the return to new episodes is promoted as such.

I wonder how the data would break down for this method as opposed to the old way of mostly new episodes up the season finale, then re-runs through the summer. In the past I would know when something was in re-runs and avoid accordingly unless I wanted to re-watch. Now I usually know when something is going to be new based on promotion, but I don't necessarily know if it's not new, because I might have missed the promotion. I still probably won't watch it if I've seen it, but I'll probably tune in before I make that decision, which is probably what advertisers want--a chance.

 

[Gaddabout]

Advertisers are willing to drive away an older audience accustomed to reliable time slots. They feel like they're training a new generation who will be the first generation who grew up with cable, internet, and cell phones -- all the things that have eroded network television's grasp on the American public.

 

[Stout]

Advertisers are willing to drive away an older audience accustomed to reliable time slots. They feel like they're training a new generation who will be the first generation who grew up with cable, internet, and cell phones -- all the things that have eroded network television's grasp on the American public.

I think advertisers need to realize that TV advertising sucks anymore because it is rarely seen. Commercials were traditionally bathroom breaks, but they were still seen by a large portion of the viewing audience and were thus effective. Now, with so many people simply fast-forwarding commercials, they have almost no effect. Oh wait, don't tell them that...TV would probably collapse! D'oh! What have I done?

 

[ozzfloyd]

I think advertisers need to realize that TV advertising sucks anymore because it is rarely seen. Commercials were traditionally bathroom breaks, but they were still seen by a large portion of the viewing audience and were thus effective. Now, with so many people simply fast-forwarding commercials, they have almost no effect. Oh wait, don't tell them that...TV would probably collapse! D'oh! What have I done?

How long before we have to start paying a subscription for individual shows we like? It's coming...

 

[Chaplin]

I think advertisers need to realize that TV advertising sucks anymore because it is rarely seen. Commercials were traditionally bathroom breaks, but they were still seen by a large portion of the viewing audience and were thus effective. Now, with so many people simply fast-forwarding commercials, they have almost no effect. Oh wait, don't tell them that...TV would probably collapse! D'oh! What have I done?

Exactly why free network television will eventually be gone completely.

 

[Gaddabout]

Exactly why free network television will eventually be gone completely.

I agree, I just can't fathom what's going to replace it. Pretty sure it's not the Internet. Maybe Netflix will start producing their own programming, or sign some kind of deal with HBO, and stream it as part of a separate and additional cost to their service.

Any guesses?

 

[Chaplin]

I agree, I just can't fathom what's going to replace it. Pretty sure it's not the Internet. Maybe Netflix will start producing their own programming, or sign some kind of deal with HBO, and stream it as part of a separate and additional cost to their service.

Any guesses?

It'll be awhile before it's completely replaced, but it will all be part of cable packages. No more rabbit ears and digital converters. The only way you will be able to get NBC/ABC/CBS/PBS/etc. will be if you pay for it. Most people do anyway, but the structure will be changed. Not sure how that will work though. I'd expect cable/satellite bills will go up.

 

[Gaddabout]

It'll be awhile before it's completely replaced, but it will all be part of cable packages. No more rabbit ears and digital converters. The only way you will be able to get NBC/ABC/CBS/PBS/etc. will be if you pay for it. Most people do anyway, but the structure will be changed. Not sure how that will work though. I'd expect cable/satellite bills will go up.

In the meantime, I could see Nickelodeon and Disney becoming over-the-air networks because the money's there in droves.