If we're going to skewer TV critics who get it wrong, we should give them credit when they get it right. USA Today's Robert Bianco got it right. Royal Pains, Burn Notice and The Closer are not shows that broadcast networks covet. And he didn't even get into the the 18-49 numbers. I'm not sure how cheap Mad Men really is to make, but generally concur with Bianco here, and the bit about how it would've gone if Lost was on USA was funny.
And the broadcast networks did try a few scripted shows of their own; they just tended to attract too small an audience for broadcast purposes.
And that's the cloud in TV's otherwise bright summer sky. As fine as many of these shows were, the highest rated —Pains, The Closer and Notice —still only averaged around 7 million viewers. And while that may be enough viewers for USA and TNT, it's not nearly enough to support a full fall slate on broadcast TV.
So why do the numbers work for cable? It certainly helps that the basic cable networks (HBO and Showtime are in their own world) get money from subscribers as well as advertisers, but it helps even more that they spend less of it. They fill fewer time slots with fewer episodes of fewer series, which they repeat incessantly. They hire fewer actors and writers, and pay them less on average than the network norm.
It's amazing how much bang some of these series get for fewer bucks (notably Mad Men and Rescue Me). But more often, the cost cutting can be spotted on air, in the form of smaller ensembles, fewer speaking parts, longer scenes (to cut down on setup costs), and an overall tinny, bedraggled look. If Lost had been made for USA, it would have been about three people whose helicopter crashed on Catalina.
It was a great summer, with much to enjoy. But let's just hope those summer numbers and summer economics don't carry over into fall, because that could lead to a TV future that looks much less sunny.
I think that’s the great thing about cable TV though. People can enjoy quality tv, and not have to worry the whole season about whether it’ll be renewed with 5-7million ratings averages.
Isn’t this a circular argument?
Because they were broadcast on cable they suffered from tight budgets, because of the tight budgets they wouldn’t make it on Network.
Surely if they had network budgets the ‘scope’ of the shows would change, jees Mad Men looks fantastic and spins a good yarn on a tight budget…but I don’t think it would work on the Network because it would never appeal to a majority of Network TV viewers (No murders, big explosions etc…)
Craig, for me the key in what he said about the economics (beyond having subscription revenue that helps offset that commercial spots are nearly twice as cheap) was this:
They fill fewer time slots with fewer episodes of fewer series, which they repeat incessantly.
While I have no doubt a show like The Closer would expand its viewer base were it on one of the broadcast networks, I do have lots and lots of doubts about it increasing its 18-49 ratings enough to be viable. Though I know (from the comments) that some disagree w/me here when it comes to shows like Burn Notice and The Closer.
I do agree with you as far as Mad Men goes, though no show seems to appeal to a majority of broadcast or cable viewers. But in the worst case it seems like Mad Men would’ve been canceled pretty quickly if it aired on a broadcast network, and in the best case would’ve met a similar fate as a show like Pushing Daisies.
I read an article that stated Mad Men’s budget is just under $3 million per episode. While that makes it hardly one of the more expensive shows out there, it’s not on the cheap side either.
Isn’t this an apples to oranges comparison? Although, no, it’s true that stuff like The Shield and the AMC shows are probably too fabulously niche-tastic to generate a sufficient audience in any financially justifiable capacity for network audience (not to mention potentially serious issues with Standards and Practices), a number of these cable shows would undoubtedly generate significantly higher numbers if they existed on the right side of the axis of access/awareness of the ‘free’ network curve. There’s no reason why 7 mil for The Closer on TNT couldn’t translate into 15+ mil for CBS under the right circumstances. It’s not like it isn’t basically another procedural–even if it is more artfully performed and scripted than your average CSI episode.
And as for budgets, I dont’ think a lot of these cable shows are feeling the strain in a Samuel Fuller vs. Steven Spielberg kind of way, a lot of it is probably union rates, but I’m guessing a lot of the differences have to do with the fact that cable shows have markedly fewer producers than network shows–and a number of those dollars don’t even end up on screen anyway.
greenogo, here’s where I disagree with you:
a number of these cable shows would undoubtedly generate significantly higher numbers if they existed on the right side of the axis of access/awareness of the ‘free’ network curve.
Reasonable people can disagree, and do. I absolutely doubt that these shows could pull significantly higher numbers (it could be we have different definitions of significant though), particularly in the 18-49 demo, and especially when factoring in reruns.
So what’s undoubtedly true for you is doubtful for me
I really don’t think you see the smaller budget on screen in most cases. Maybe Psych/Monk, Burn Notice occasionally (although they go all out sometimes too), Nurse Jackie, … That’s about it. And the quality is so much better than most of the crap on the airwaves that you barely ever notice any slight budget issues.
Greennogo raises a great point that’s bugged me now for years….
What the h*ll do all these “Producers” (cough cough) actually do?
I realise some are writers and some show runners, but I’ve seen credits for some shows that had getting on for 15 producers (in multitudinal different prefixes).
When I see so many producers I’m reminded of Natalie Kalmus (that’ll get you all running off to Wikipedia) and have to conclude most of them add bupkis but cost a fortune.
I agree with Robert (Seidman and Bianco).
Bianco’s last [excerpted] paragraph was also interesting. Presumably he was referring to broadcast primetime when he wrote ” let’s just hope those summer numbers and summer economics don’t carry over into fall, because that could lead to a TV future that looks much less sunny.”
Look for a post from me soon about how the “Accountant’s Spring” on some broadcast networks will become a Fall of ratings lament.
I think the article overlooks one major point: broadcast, by its nature, has inherently higher viewership. Therefore, if a show such as The Closer were being aired on a broadcast channel, the ratings figures would escalate. It performs at the exceptional level it does on the less-viewed cable channel TNT. Speaking hypothetically, if, say CBS, had bought the show from creator James Duff instead, it is likely that a show with such proven mass popularity would have had very strong ratings on broadcast. We can only speculate, though, because we only have data about how it performs on cable. It could be that had any of these showed debuted on broadcast they’d have double or triple these audience tallies. You can’t just say “Well, if you put this show on broadcast, then it would still have these same figures.” It wouldn’t. It would be a totally different ballgame.
Cable seems to have a much smaller range of viewership for renewal ranging from 3m to 7m. On the other hand, broadcast can range from 7m to 18m (discounting AI and DWTS).
It seems like there are far fewer main characters with substantial lines in USA shows than TNT shows.
How much of the “mob of characters” on shows like Lost is due to the simple fact that they have the budget to HIRE that many actors? And producers.
I also can’t really see how cable shows have lower production values than broadcast, or at least I don’t see how many casual viewers would notice that or particularly care.
Does the average viewer of broadcast TV actually care whether the show spent $500,000 an episode, or $1.5 million an episode or $3 million an episode? Do they notice? I doubt it. There may be a difference between Doctor Who and Burn Notice, but between Burn Notice and a CSI show?
I think shows are shows. If they do well on cable, with its lower viewership per channel, I think they would do as well on broadcast in relative terms, i.e., more viewers and more demo.
As for the demo, is there skew between the demos on cable vs the demos on broadcast? Which is favored? If there are no shows on cable with high figures in the demo, why is that? What about broadcast TV brings in higher demo figures over cable?
Since cable seems to be attracting viewers more than broadcast, how then can we say no cable shows would be worth producing on broadcast? I realize the cable channels are more fragmented. Does that mean, then, that fundamentally broadcast TV can ONLY produce shows that guarantee 10 million viewers or they’re uneconomical? If that’s the case, I find it hard to believe that anything BUT reality shows and the odd hit like Lost could possibly survive on broadcast.
Just seems odd to me that I like both Fringe and Burn Notice and can’t tell the difference in quality between one and the other and yet one will be in its second season on broadcast and the other wouldn’t survive half a season on broadcast.
And then take a show like True Blood. Due to its content, you could never show it on broadcast TV – but does anybody really believe it wouldn’t be a winner on broadcast TV precisely BECAUSE of its content?
Argh, I wordified myself incorrectly (damn public schoolin’). I meant to say “There’s no reason why 7 mil for ‘something like’ The Closer on TNT couldn’t translate into 15+ mil for CBS under the right circumstances.” I don’t think you can arbitrarily take something from cable and plug it into a network schedule and expect to get blockbuster ratings. (Not even my beloved “From G’s to Gents”.)
But I do think that the likes of USA or TNT is certainly onto something–even if they have a more financially justifiable rebroadcasting model–in the sense that they’ve found specific brands of escapism that appeal to as officially as ‘broad as you’re gonna get in this day and age (AI on Fox aside)’ for general audiences. First of all, there is a conditioned awareness curve when it comes to general audiences in terms of scripted dramtic programming (especially considering that something like 80% of TV households have access to cable-ish stuff). There’s a lot of people out there on the other side of the digital divide who know to find it on the networks during the fall/winter/summer seasons, but just haven’t been conditioned to seek it out on cable during the summer. And although I’m not sure if and where that’s been statistically measured, I’m guessing that’s not an insignificant factor.
But on the other hand, cable (USA in particular)–inspite of a deeply and probably permenantly fragmented 18-49 demo–seems to have discovered an underserved audience for character driven action/mystery type shows that under the right circumstances could quite conceivably generate ‘Mentalist’ level audiences on the Nets. And I think that is what Kevin Reilly is talking about when he says he wants to find Fox it’s own “Burn Notice”–not that he wants Burn Notice itself to transfer to Fox in it’s 3.5th season, but that he wants a type of deft, ensemble driven, action/mystery/heist type of hybrid that can build an audience in the same fashion. And this is exactly the type of thing that seems to be finding legit audiences on cable right now. And that audience–if built in a similar fashion–will most likely be considerably larger than on USA.
Of course Reilly wants a show like that. But, what he doesn’t say is “we can only really do that though if the show premieres relatively strong. Sadly, we don’t have the luxury of giving much rope for a show with a 2.0 rating. Cable has the luxury of more rope when it comes to waiting out increases.”
It also strikes me that some of you aren’t thinking about the magnitude of increases that are necessary (or at least don’t view them as the significant challenge that I do). even if Burn Notice grew its demo for original episodes by 40% as a result of moving to FOX it would be at FOX’s 18-49 average for last year. Start adding reruns in and it gets to the bubble pretty quickly.
Do I think Burn Notice could grow a show like Burn Notice’s 18-49 rating by 40%? Probably if airing after House, and definitely if it was airing after American Idol.
But the more important question is, is it worth it to Fox studios (20th Century TV) that produces BN? What would it take for it to make sense to move a show like that from cable to broadcast?
My best guess back of the envelope math is that from a profitability standpoint it would need increases of more than 40%-50% to make sense for the producing studio.
Once again, WHY is Burn Notice’s 18-49 demo low? Is it because it’s on cable? Is it because it’s just not a good show for that demographic?
If Burn Notice moved to a broadcast network, and doubled its audience, is that unreasonable? Would it be unreasonable to believe that if its audience grew by that amount, that it would also grow in its demo rating?
I’m not getting why exposing a show to a much larger audience means its demo would stay the same or only grow by an amount that brings it to the average of whatever network it’s on. What is the MECHANISM here that prevents a show like Burn Notice from debuting on a network and getting whatever ratings any other new show would get on that network?
I don’t get it.
There are lots of interesting points in these comments.
Here’s another couple to throw into the pot.
Which Cable shows do we think could make it on the network.
Closer – Yes – Given the depth of it’s cast (so lot’s of people to do the promo circuit), quality of writing and quirkiness I don’t think this would have any problems on a Network. The only concern I would have is the writing is skewed to make it more attractive to women IMHO (I enjoy it and I’m an old f*rt!!) I don’t think you’d get the sub 35 Males watching it much.
Burn Notice – Yes – This must appeal to the sub 35 males given it’s story lines and execution.
Mad Men – No – Too stylish and slowly paced for the Networks IMHO. It would get an audience boost and probably a fantastic demographic, but not enough raw numbers.
Saving Grace – No – I love Holly Hunter but just hate her character in this role and I suspect the demos would skew all female.
Royal Pains – TETC (That’s Too Early To Call) – The show has drifted from where I thought it was going originally. Specifically given the nature of ‘personalities’ with extreme wealth and the ability to live a pretty hedonistic lifestyle in that part of the world the show has become a pretty run of the mill dramedy without the quirkiness quotient I was expecting. I’ll see how season 2 goes.
Nurse Jackie – No – Not enough to engage most viewers.
Hung – No – Material is too racy.
True Blood – No – Material is too racy.
Sons of Anarchy – No – Material is too racy.
That’s the ones off the top of my head, I’m sure people could add more.
The other comment I’d make is that isn’t this a reflection of the industry itself? The Networks have got their cost base seriously out of whack and that’s the core of their problem. It’s all very well for them to complain they can’t make money in Broadcast but as we all know if you get a hit show the revenue streams are huge, that’s why the failures are cleared out so fast, too make room for the next winner.
Lastly I’ve said this before and I’ll add it here again, IMHO NBC running Jay Leno 5 nights a week will be a disaster for the network, the vast majority of shows are promo’d on their own networks, if Jay gets the numbers that NBC think are acceptable then there will be a huge shortfall in eyeballs even being made aware of other NBC shows. I honestly expect this will take at 5%-10% of NBC’s totals viewer figures down this year even if you exclude the 10pm slots, i.e. If you look at the total NBC viewers 8pm-9pm last year and the same next year there will be a huge drop.
Why not merge, Put USA Dramas that get cable dollars on the 10 o clock hour instead of Leno
I mostly agree with craiguk. I think if you put The Closer on CBS it would immediately be one of the ten if not five most popular shows on TV.
But Mad Men is another story. It’s just too narrow, which in this case is unfortunately code for too smart.
Somebody made a point about Mad Men’s budget being almost $3m per episode, which is probably accurate, but consider how often they re-run each episode compared to a broadcast network. If you consider their budget on a “per exposure” basis it’s cheap.
I do think there’s a major built-in advantage to being on broadcast, probably bigger than just the percentage difference in penetration. For example, stuff like Monk & Psych (which scored low-1′s both for USA originals and for writer’s strike second-runs on NBC) and Law & Order: CI (which has have pulled about the same if not better in its summer NBC repeats than the USA Sunday originals). In this day and age, almost nothing gets more than 60% of its original demo for a rerun, so clearly even in those not-too-heavily-promoted cases there’s a lot of “new audience.” Even Dexter second-runs scored upper-1s on broadcast during the strike, and it gets maybe a .5 on Showtime, though obviously there’s a huge penetration difference there.
I think Burn Notice and The Closer would pick up on that as well if they had originals on broadcast. Saying that nothing that’s ever premiered on cable would’ve been a success on broadcast is a really, really tough pill to swallow, because these shows haven’t behaved like the flops of broadcast do. They’ve self-started, they’ve grown, etc. But that doesn’t mean Burn Notice/Closer will or should make the move. I don’t think it’s worth the risk.
I don’t understand whats wrong with having a tighter cast. Personally I think it works well. Heroes could benefit from a tighter cast and tighter plotlines. I don’t watch Lost so I can’t comment on that show. Throwing money at a show and cramming it full of cast members won’t make it better. In fact it can make it worse at times.
Also I watch a lot of cable shows and a lot of network shows and I can’t tell the difference in quality. The only show where you can tell they have a budget in my opinion is Heroes and that’s on broadcast. Sylar and Peter had hundreds of powers but all we saw were telekinesis and maybe one or two more from each of them because of the expense. Every big fight between those two is done off screen and its blatantly obvious why. I have never watch a cable show and had that problem.