i hope the management changes soon for both channels

Here comes my idea. NBC Universal operates a bunch of channels in additional to NBC. There are two new ones that do not have a very wide carriage yet on cable. These two networks include Chiller and Sleuth. What NBC needs to do is add these channels to their network over the air broadcast as digital sub channels. They could then do all kinds of promotions like a concept I call PRIME TIME OVERNIGHT where they repeat their entire PRIME TIME offering to folks that may not choose their shows when in competition with stronger shows at the other networks yet would watch if available. The draw I mention is the younger folks that refuse to pay cable for the few shows they watch could in fact watch for free using a digital tv .Local cable providers would likely begin to add the Chiller and Sleuth as a local network pickup thus giving a much wider audience to these upstart channels. The cost would be very small because the networks already exist. To compete with online viewers over the air free digital tv is workable. The additional exposure for the NBC shows could keep a few going long enough to get a following and maybe a new hit or two could emerge.

I suspect Chuck could remain on the air and be shown several times making the Chuck lovers happy. Life would also get a few viewers that watch the other shows now and never see it and might grow a following. And yes all those wonderful original movies that were shown on the channel once known as “ The Science Fiction Channel”. every Saturday and Sunday for the last many years could be repeated on Chiller breading a new group of mindless monster movie fans.

so arent they cutting their own wrists bymaking another channel?
seems crazy to me to create more competition for themselves
do i have it wrong?

heres the link
i think it gives a little insight on nbc u thinking

http://scifiwire.com/2009/03/sci-fi-president-dave-how.php#comments

thoughts?
oh and something i heard-is there is a new channel called chiller
which is an NBC u channel like scifi that will be a horror kind of channel
does anyone know if this is so
and if it is arent they cutting their own viewership?

Eric Post, You’re right, it only takes one or two real hits to turn a network around. The problem isn’t that NBC can’t make a comeback, it’s that they don’t seem to be trying.

FOX is only strong due to “American Idol” once that dies, FOX will struggle. The reality TV programming became strong because actors and writers have outpriced themselves in the market.

It amazes me the amount of GOOD TV that was made at 39 NEW episodes a year by ONE writing staff. Then the number of episodes went down and the quality was spread out over teams of writers.

There is TONS of talent out there but no one looks for it. Why are the Simpsons repeating storyline after storyline, when you can go to dozens of websites with suggestions for stories that would be great. They aren’t scripts but ideas.

TV is the issue not NBC. NBC will come around when they hit a Cosby or the next big thing, then milk it to death. Just like all the networks do. Remember “Friends” was an attempt to recreate “Seinfeld” and so on and so on and so on.

NBC should give low budget shows to writers who are BRAND NEW who want only a chance.

there was talk earlier about the change to the name sci fi to SY FY
its an article on scifi wire
scifi president dave howe describes the name change and plans for the fututre of scifi-the channnel- also i think it gives a good indication of what NBC-U are thinking for their channels
So why they are doing what they are doing
though i disagree its working…

has anyone else seen/read this?
can the link be posted here?

The biggest problem in my mind of most TV execs is their separation from society. The longer you’re in the industry the more separated you become. To have a good idea of what people want to watch, you need to understand every day people. That is something Execs are too detached to do. So they use “panels,” and panels are imho part of the problem.

Take comedy for instance. The industry thing to do is attach a stand up comic to a show. It has worked for a long, long, long period of time. However these comics are “attached.” The producers and Network still run the show. The most successful shows that had comedians were CONTROLLED by the comedians. THE COSBY SHOW and SEINFELD immediately come to mind. The comics were big enough to demand control and hold out for a gig until they got what they wanted.

What would be smart would be to go find the comics and let them control the show and what it is about, etc. Why? They’re comedians! It’s their job to make people laugh. They understand comedy better than just about any producer or exec.

I tell you if I had the power I’d go get Jerry and say “you’re VP in control of Comedy Production, go get us talent.” Jerry would also LOVE to do it. He has long shared the same opinion as me, and I’m know he’d love to prove our way is better.

That is just one aspect, and I’m sure the others who stated they could turn around NBC likely could because they’re living closer to reality than Zucker or BS.

Back into la la land – I wholeheartedly agree that Hammer has killed the Syphilis Channel, for which I would consign her to the Jericho/Moonlight/Life/Pushing Daisies/Stargate(All)/Insert name of favorite canceled show here Circle of Hell.

With BSG gone… everyone just keep their g0d@mn dirty ape hands off Supernatural – you feel me

PS Dollhouse was MUCH better tonight – and I was expecting “amazing episode #6″

Still I could turn it around in one season.

I think your theory is accurate. I think they have given up on on completing for the lucrative 18-49 demo and going for CBS’s 50+ crowd with an inexpensive nightly dose of Leno during the 10 pm slot.

Zucker’s statement about him not seeing his network as #1 again tells me that he has thrown up his hands. Some of their shows have been wonderfully written and produced, but because NBC didn’t know what to do with them, they floundered in crummy time slots. As soon as ER dropped from the top ten, then should have moved it to another night. Instead, they kept the over-bloated behemoth in a prime location and took good programming off the air for so long that their viewers had to go somewhere else to fill that time.

Please are creatures of habit , so if a show (like, let say CHUCK) goes on hiatus for almost two months for no real reason, then viewers will look to filling their time with the newly positioned HOUSE, or fall into sitcoms like THE BIG BANG THEORY and HOW I MET YOUR MOTHER. These shows become their comfort food and then, out of said habit, they won’t switch back. They’re already involved with these new (to them) characters. Why go back?

This strategy does not work and just alienates the viewers. That’s why NBC won’t be #1 again. They don’t have a clue on how to program their network. Find someone who really does (someone who understands how to position scripted programming), and let them do their job.

How good is the team gonna be if the coach dosent think the team can be number one eventually?
un beliveable he said that
What kind of leader/CEO says his company sucks?

NBC=nothing but crap

Too bad like i said
im watching fewer and fewer shows from the peacock these days

Seems like Zucker should dress up as the fat lady in a viking suit and start clearing his throat
the towel has been thrown
someone was talking SYFY-was the name shange necessary?
used to be a channel i watched often now as withNBC less and less
seems they are running repeats instead of new shows
all the good shows are gone or leaving the rest are uninspired or reality campy junk…
So i disagree whole heartedly on HAMMER being a gd choice.

Also, with Kings, it WAS going to have a decent spot on Thurs 10p, but they moved it to friggin Sundays?! What was the thought on that?! We all know that the thought was to promote Southland for the ER exec, but that doesn’t help out the network in the least.

So I would agree that for the most part they play it safe and vanilla, but they do buy shows with great potential; only to not know how to properly position them.

I would be truly fascinated to hear what Jack Welch thinks of this statement.

As for creative risk, I’d be a terrible judge of that.

As an examples of television strategies that assume *less* business risk:
- CBS sharing production costs with CanadianTV for Flashpoint
- NBC getting DirecTV to subsidize the cost of Friday Night Lights
- NBC putting Leno at 10pm weekdays. Much less cost (lower risk), Prior ratings track record (less uncertainty)

Well, I guess I’ll just watch reruns of good programming instead of the crap they subject us to today.

Ooo! Ooo! Allow me to do that!

Everytime Zucker lowers his expectations, it raises the prospects of Chuck coming back, right? Right?

I realize that’s one hell of a leap and i’m mostly just saying that to try to spark a Chuck-centric conversation just for the heck of it, but i’m bored. Western Kentucky’s at halftime.

Zucker should just resign. People who project success will be successful. If you say you’ll fail, you will. resigning to that fact is not gonna help things.

If he means, which i suppose he does, that he never cares to be #1 in total viewers again, fine. Then say THAT. Don’t make vague references to not being #1 ever again.

But then, the more I think about it, why say that you’ll never be #1 in viewers ever again, even if that measurement is futile? Even if all you care about is demo, or some extremely specific demo, like CW… it could never hurt to be tops in the category you care about AND total viewers (even if it doesn’t mean more revenue, it’s not a negative).

So why open your mouth at all? What does he gain? Bad publicity? Getting ripped on various media nationwide? It’s mind blowing, really.