Meg James of the Los Angeles Times has a long story today on NBC's woes, and whether Angela Bromstad can revive the peacock's ailing prime-time schedule.
Two years ago, Bromstad, then president of NBC's television production studio, made what was seen as a suicidal career move. After losing a power struggle over control of the network's programming, she walked away from her job.
Fast-forward to last November. NBC's fall prime-time schedule had collapsed, Bromstad's nemesis at the network was long gone, another rival was about to be shown the door, and NBC Universal Chief Executive Jeff Zucker desperately needed to restore order to NBC after two tumultuous seasons with Ben Silverman in charge.
[...]
The pressure is on to revive the fourth-place network as it heads into the all-important advertising selling season. Bromstad's first big test comes tonight, when NBC premieres two new programs: "Parks and Recreation," a sitcom that borrows a page from "The Office" and stars "Saturday Night Live" alum Amy Poehler; and "Southland," a gritty police drama about L.A.
One of Bromstad's early calls was to put "Southland" in the marquee 10 p.m. Thursday slot, and shuffle to Sunday night the lavish drama "Kings," starring Ian McShane. "Kings," which costs about $3 million an episode to produce, had been championed by Bromstad's predecessors. But Bromstad had doubts that a drama about a modern-day king who struggles with moral dilemmas and family conflicts would work on network television.
"The objective now is to broaden the network out, to give it a wider appeal," she said.
No, she can’t. Parks and Recreation will be gone after this season. Southland MIGHT get picked up, but it would be just because of its producer and whether or not development looks strong (lol) for the network.
Kings costs $3 million per ep???
I’m going to disagree with you Kevin. I think NBC really wants Parks and Rec to succeed, so I think they’re willing to live with mediocre ratings because they believe it can be a success like the Office.
With everything Parks & Recreations has going for it in terms of the lead and production team it’s going to have to bomb hard for NBC not to bring it back next year. As long as it holds steady with what Earl has been doing (low 2’s) I think NBC bring it back next year without doubt. Whether or not they should bring it back with those numbers is another story completely.
Southland I think will be slightly more interesting in terms of its renewal prospects – unless the monster promotion pays of and this somehow catches fire. I’m interested to see how it does but again I think it ultimately has to bomb and bomb hard for NBC not to bring it back primarily because of the people behind it. Of course the question that has to be raised for Southland and to a lesser extent Parks is how high is the bar? Given the sheer promotional weight that NBC has thrown behind both shows is the bar now higher than it would have been? The new Thursday line-up was all they advertised during the ER finale and from all reports they’ve hammered it ever day since as well and that LA Times ad for Southlands won’t have been cheap.
I think both will be able to maintain an average above 3.0 for their short episode orders. I am prepared to be wrong. And perhaps very wrong.
But that is still my guess.
I hope Southland does good in the ratings. I saw the pilot last week and it was really good. It’s alot better than most cop/drama shows airing right now.
I think Parks and Recreation is about the most “sure” thing NBC has as far as new shows go. I don’t think there’s much doubt that fans of The Office will tune into at least the first episode, and I’m sure there are some Amy Poehler fans who will also watch. Southland seems like it could be a hit, with its main problem being that it’s on NBC. So the ceiling for ratings is much lower than on another network.
Keep chuck!!
Ugh. I guess I have to read the whole story. Who was her nemesis?
I hear she doesn’t get along with BS. I hope that she can save “Life” as she’s the one who developed it. Plus, at this moment, it falls inline with the success of NBC’s other programming :p
It seems that the strike precipitated a fundamental change in the way audiences viewed tv. Maybe? I’m not sure how TV was affected in the two years following the late 80s strike.
This is the time when a new economic model may have to be put in place so that networks can make money off of 1.5-2.0 demo shows, which seem now to be the norm.
Hopefully Parks and Southland do well, then NBC can cancel Earl and L&O and move Chuck and Heroes to a night where they can hopefully return to respectable #’s.
Andrea, 1.5 and 2.0 demos are definitely not the norm. At least not yet. All four nets have season averages higher, or much higher, than that.
Southland *really* needs to succeed to have been worth the expensive sacrifice of Kings. Although it really needs to succeed anyway.
Jack looking at how Kings has panned out I think moving it away from the Thursday line-up was a smart move. I don’t think there’s any additional pressure on Southland because of Kings because Kings hasn’t put in the kind of ‘what if…’ performance on Sunday.
How much swearing/violence/etc. was there on the previews of Southland? Not that I mind it, but that would make it tougher to slot without either toning it down a notch or putting it at 10PM on Sunday nights once football is over. Neither of those are very thrilling prospects.
I think the big reason NBC needs Parks & Rec to succeed is that they’re incoming comedy pilots look very unimpressive, going by the list on The Futon Critic. (A Stripes-esque show about community college? REALLY?!?!?) If P&R can succeed, either NBC can pull the double-reverse and have it lead next season, followed by Earl (like what CBS did with flip-flopping The Big Bang Theory and How I Met Your Mother), or let Earl go to Fox and bring in another sitcom.
Although for the Chuck fans out there, the success or failure of either of these shows has no real bearing on Chuck. Certainly not Parks & Rec, and I doubt a 10PM show can affect an 8PM show that much.