Though I don't always agree with Alan Sepinwall on all his show's critiques, I do almost always agree with him down the line about LOST, and though he generally opines on TV show quality rather than the business end, I found his thinking particularly interesting in a post of his on the coming upfronts:
Mo Ryan suggested yesterday that these pick-ups might reflect a new kind of thinking at the networks, where the broadcast ratings aren't the only factor. ("Dollhouse" gets a significant bump, for instance, once DVR and Hulu viewing is factored in.) But I also wonder if the bad economy, and the splintering TV audience, might also make the networks reluctant to let go of even some of their more marginal performers. Simply put, these shows are the devil they know. "Chuck," for instance, may have drawn mediocre ratings on Monday nights, but "Deal Or No Deal" did dramatically worse in the timeslot a week later. The idea that a new show automatically has a better shot to draw viewers than a marginal returning series may not be the case anymore, and in this scary environment, a steady number is a steady number.
I figure outside of FOX and the advertisers themselves, I looked at the DVR data on Dollhouse more than practically anyone. I think it more likely whatever potential FOX saw via Hulu and FOX.com was far more meaningful than the DVR viewers. Not particularly meaningful, perhaps, but better than nothing meaningful. At least they can make some money on the online viewing, even if it's nowhere near as much as they'd make if people were watching live.
None of the networks has a good story for showing DVR viewers are valuable for 30 second commercial spots, and especially with the reports we hear that "Remote Free TV" limited commercial interruptions won't be back for FOX next year, the DVR numbers make for good PR for Dollhouse, but little else.
I think there was something else in play with Dollhouse besides "the devil you know" aspects. I call it the CW effect. Many people don't understand how the CW even can exist. The CW is bleeding red ink, but the way it works out, it doesn't seem to matter to Warner Brothers and CBS because the studios wind up making more from the shows CW airs than they lose on the CW. As a stand alone entity, the CW losing money doesn't make much sense, but if its investors wind up ahead in the deal, who cares?
Something similar seems likely for Dollhouse. If you look at it just from the aspects of FOX broadcasting, it doesn't make sense. People will (and have) tried to slice it in a lot of ways to make it make sense, but in the end, from that view, it still really doesn't make any sense singularly from The View of FOX Broadcasting. But since Fox's studio division is in on the deal too...
If News Corp winds up making more money than it spends on the show, and more money than it would've made from doing something else, it's a good deal. It's not crystal clear to me that is actually the case, but that seems to be what they're betting on -- that News Corp comes out ahead in the deal. That the real DVD dollars will roll in, plus whatever they can make online, and internationally, plus whatever they can make in TV advertising make it all a good deal for News Corp, a better deal than airing reruns of House -- even if it doesn't look like a good deal from just the perspective of the network.
Plus, they apparently got the costs for Dollhouse down to something extremely (rivaling cable production costs, and in some cases cheaper from what I hear) low.
An income in this day and age is still an income. Everyone is fighting for pennies. Even more now than ever.
Chuck, Dollhouse and to an extent Scrubs all have steady incomes. Especially in DVD sales and online viewing. Right now networks need stability and Chuck certainly gives them that.
As i asked Nick C and i think this is true but still awaiting to hear his thoughts. Its not that Chuck needs NBC to renew it to carry on. Its the fact NBC, FOX and ABC need Chuck, DH and Scrubs to keep bringing whatever income they generate in to the network.
Robert, I’m rather positive that the CW deficit is more than CBS Productions brought in from their shows on the Network by millions. Warner on the other hand makes slightly more than they spend on the CW and only because of SMALLVILLE.
Nick, but if CBS’s SHARE of the deficit isn’t millions it might not matter. If it is millions, it doesn’t seem like a good investment for CBS. If it’s a loss leader, fine, but if it’s just a loss…
Sorry if I sound cynical, but this is basically like, one day on an article about a bubble show you hear stuff like ‘International ratings doesn’t matter, online viewing doesn’t count, Nielsen live ratings is all that matters’. Then when something is surprisingly renewed, it does matter.
In hindsight, I’m not so surprised. Have you seen that Goddamned Dollhouse set? All the Fox executives and their families could live on it for five years and barely brush and elbow.
It’s cheaper to continue a show than launch a new one. Unless you’re T:SCC. Rest in peace, overblown CGI!
Hey I was wondering maybe one day you could possibly start doing articles telling us how much every show costs per episode, i’ve always been intrigued to know but i can never seem to find any actual numbers.. well anyways keep on doing what you do best
Robert, it’s a loss for CBS. Remove SMALLVILLE from the lineup and its overseas sales, and its massive DVD sales and Warner would be losing money on the CW too.
Which is why since next season is the last for SMALLVILLE I don’t see Warner wanting to keep it around, and Dawn is going to fail massively at getting her prized shows to resonate with the demo she’s after. Which means they will continue to lose money, and CBS Productions won’t make more than CBS loses again. Then Sumner will pull the plug.
However I think Sumner will sell their portion of the CW first.
I’m not sure Dollhouse was what I consider stable, it never once shown the capability of recapturing the audience. Going back through the archives I saw a theme developing: “series low, drops again” etc.
I’m also sure that the other show on Friday did just as well with the other channels factored in, save the DVD sales not contributing.
If they wanted stability, they should have kept Cops there.
Dog I think Robert was making the point that he doesn’t believe DVR or online viewing really made much difference in the case of renewal beyond the fact that online viewing adds a tiny amount to Fox’s profit margins for the show. The overall point for the Dollhouse renewal seems to be that its going to makes News Corp money so everyone within News Corp wants to keep the show on the air. Nick might be able to correct me on this but from everything that’s been said Dollhouse was predicted to turn a profit before online viewing was factored in and international rights were sold – in fact they earned significantly less from international rights than they’d originally planned so I’m almost positive that’s the case.
The point of this article seems to be (from how I’m reading it at least) that right now with the industry and economy as it is networks are more willing to stick with shows that are under performing but making a minimal profit than gamble on new productions that might not produce better results and could in fact produce worse results.
If this is true, then long live the devil!!! Anything that brings back Dollhouse is a win-win-win!!!
DOLLHOUSE is profitable now before DVD sales are even taken into consideration.
FOX wants Friday to work. So they’re providing stability on Friday for viewers. Viewers will find DOLLHOUSE on Friday next fall. It will show them it’s ok to get involved because FOX is in this for the long haul. Meanwhile FOX continues to profit on DOLLHOUSE.
Yes, they could profit on ARE YOU SMARTER THAN A FIFTH GRADER yet that means they have to give up on a scripted Friday.
Chad – except Cops isn’t about to sell millions in DVD revenue. Anything Joss Whedon touches will. It’s the almost certain residual revenue from his extremely loyal fanbase that makes business sense for Fox/ NewsCorp to renew Dollhouse.
Last year at Cannes there was a lot of increased discussion about content management and broader (bordering subjective) analysis of potential residual revenues for films (particularly international VOD). I’m far more involved in the feature film aspect of the business, but I’d be willing to bet this same discussion has been the theme for network execs this upfront season.
When you say cheap, how cheap are we talking relative to other broadcast shows?
Wouldn’t Terminator make a better choice if what you’re saying stands? It’s been on for a year longer, has a much stronger brand identity (plus the movie is coming out), and it was the only new show among pirates’ top 10 last year. (I know pirates don’t count, but they’re a more accurate measurement of audience loyalty independently of the advertising a show receives, and piracy in general gives the consumption of any kind of content a big boost, as the Wolverine movie illustrated the other week.)
But I also wonder if the bad economy, and the splintering TV audience, might also make the networks reluctant to let go of even some of their more marginal performers.
Dollhouse isn’t “Marginal” it’s down right CW numbers! It’s horrible numbers!
letthieri – T:SCC was a higher budget show, and so almost certainly made a loss, if not for Fox then for Warner. Everyone in the chain has to make some kind of profit on it.
I think that’s partially Nick C’s point. Dollhouse is going to be on a shoestring budget, so it’s kind of like a run of Cops (ok, exaggeration… I hope…) but with the added bonus of substantial DVD sales.
And with that, Robert’s argument comes into play: do you cancel a profitable Dollhouse in the hope that something with three times the budget might appeal to four times as many people, or do you stick with what you have and ratings be damned until the economy improves and you can afford to make bigger gambles. (I think that’s the argument anyway, I’m tired, I just had a curry and beer.)
letthieri, TSCC is produced by WB, not FOX, so FOX won’t make anything off DVD or international sales.
Sounds like a sort of backtracking that DVR, Hulu, etc aren’t meaningful there, Robert
No one at this point (outside of FOX) knows why DH was renewed. Monday should be very interesting, as will the next season, to see which decisions made now will be seen as genius or disastrous by this time next year.
This also ties in with why I think WB would like to keep some form of Terminator show on the air IF it makes money for the studio. The problem for WB is that it can’t keep the existing show on the air because a) it makes no money, indeed it costs them money even as a PR loss leader for the movies, and b) aside from a few die-hard fans, it doesn’t do the franchise any favors in terms of attracting new Terminator franchise fans.
But if they completely revamped and rebooted a Terminator show – even with the same lead actors (provided they could distinguish this show from the earlier version in promo) – I think they would do it. And I think they COULD do it and make it a success (provided once again they did enough promo and PR buzz to convince those burnt by TSCC that the new version was worth checking out.)
It’s not even a question of putting it on cable rather than broadcast. I think a Terminator show could be a huge hit on broadcast if it were done right. The only question is how badly has TSCC damaged that notion so that viewers couldn’t be lured back regardless of the promo.
TSCC arrived too soon if they wanted to thrive off of movie buzz. As much as I disliked Friedman’s pace and focus at times, he did open up the series to Anything in the finale.
I’m not sure how they’ll keep everyone in place if the show returns at a later date. The important components of Headey, Glau, and Dekker need to return.
I think the TV project is entirely dead, and the movies aren’t too spaced out to need a series to keep interest in the franchise.