PDA

View Full Version : SciFi's future bosses


MediaSavant
02-04-2004, 10:08 PM
...and you think it's bad now.

Peacock's feathers are all mussed up
Tim Goodman
Monday, February 2, 2004
©2004 San Francisco Chronicle | Feedback | FAQ
URL: sfgate.com/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2004/02/02/DDGTN4M05Q1.DTL

Finally, a reality show that was good for something.

Last week NBC continued its quest to alienate not only the producers of its own shows but also the viewing audience. The Peacock moved "The Apprentice, " its hot new reality show featuring Donald Trump, to Thursdays because it was getting bloodied in the gobstopper by Fox's hot old reality series "American Idol" on Wednesday nights.

Having grown a bit bored with "Idol" and its creation of vile, ferociously mediocre and manufactured talent, it's good to see at least one lovely side effect to the show: It made NBC get all stupid in public.

Truth be told, the fading empire that is NBC has for years been doing questionable things in the public eye, honing that art this season into jaw- dropping bouts of stupidity. What "Idol" did was make NBC entertainment president Jeff Zucker -- soon to move upstairs and away from the carnage -- do the public perp walk.

Zucker, the whiz kid who turned around the "Today" show and made it a powerhouse (with Katie Couric -- give the guy the Nobel), brazenly approached his stint as entertainment president by not sucking up to the creative community. During Zucker's reign there have been constant rumblings about his heavy hand and executive decisions that have alienated a number of producers of NBC shows.

But much of this goes on behind the scenes, as it should, and you, the viewing public, only get the tail-end fallout. Like this: "Hey, honey, do you know what this crap 'Good Morning, Miami' is?" Or, after that: "I can not believe that they killed 'Boomtown.' I loved that show."

That's your role, essentially. Bemoaning Zucker's befuddling moves. But now things have reached a new level of, well, upper management nimrodian tampering, with the far-reaching ramifications being nothing short of this: NBC has now solidified itself as the network most likely to annoy the bejesus out of its own people.

And its audience.

Never mind the small, aggravating injustices, like starting and stopping shows off the hour or half-hour, resulting in messed up VCRs and confused TiVos (not to mention untaped episodes). Never mind the odd, unknowable rerun patterns for shows. One week it's on, next week and the week after -- reruns.

What has really mucked up the works for virtually everyone are these things, not necessarily in this order:

-- An inability to find a hit to replace exiting hits like "Friends" and "Frasier."

-- Over-promising, under-delivering on fall shows.

-- A lack of patience with series that may need it.

-- A fix-it now mentality bred from fear that often results in the mismanagement of current series.

Oh, there's more, but we're being frugal with our triangles.

Let's take a look, though, at what these management missteps really mean: Quick, name a new hit on NBC? Take your time. No problem, got all day. Right - - "The Apprentice," which just isn't as big a hit as "American Idol," hence some of the current madness. Ooh, ooh! "Queer Eye for the Straight Guy"! Nope. That's a Bravo show that NBC borrows.

The point is, "Coupling" was a disaster, the much-hyped "Lyon's Den" with Rob Lowe was a failure, the magazine-cover magnet and early fall buzz show "Miss Match" was soundly roughed up by CBS's "Joan of Arcadia" and switched out of the time period, and now appears to be missing. Maybe it's on Bravo.

Though the vaunted "Whoopi" series was given some patience and ended up finding a semblance of an audience, its time slot is moving -- for at least the second time -- thanks to the domino effect of "The Apprentice" decision. "Happy Family"? Not happy -- not enough families see it. "Las Vegas"? Congratulations on a minor hit. As the former No. 1 network, you should be so proud.

Perhaps in the plus column could be the pending cancellation of "Good Morning, Miami," whose premise, just for trivia sake, seemed awfully similar to the life story of one Jeff Zucker. Let's go out on a limb and say that might be the reason it was renewed from last fall.

Meanwhile, as NBC's management somehow mysteriously survives a period of less than stellar successes, all around them there are signs of rot. Historians will tell you this -- find the rot, witness the beginning of the end. Just a few weeks into the season, NBC shelved its critically acclaimed series "Boomtown," which is just as well, because the network's ratings-fueled panic had all but neutered the content anyway. Besides, they had to move Alicia Silverstone's struggling "Miss Match" from going head to head with that girl who talked to God, and once you get to moving pins on a push board, anything is possible. Poor "Miss Match" -- it even got bumped by "Dateline." Now that's just humiliating.

Back in Burbank, there was a neat game of blame-the-sagging-series. Bypassed was "The West Wing," which had just had all the creativity and subtleties sucked out of it by John Wells, whose other series, "ER," had long become as relevant as a bow tie on a homeless man, but that's another story altogether. As "The West Wing" morphed into "Not the West Wing," NBC played tough guy with "Ed." NBC has always begrudgingly accepted "Ed." But it's like the middle child that gets neither freedom or pampering and so suffers in a kind of silent, unappreciated bitterness. When the Donald and his "Apprentice" appeared, "Ed" had to be moved to Friday nights, where the victim of that move was, you guessed it, "Miss Match."

Oh, and also "Ed," because now "Ed" is all but dead. There's two episodes left and probably no more ever, and NBC will undoubtedly acknowledge this passing in its typical way by saying, "What, we had a show called 'Ed.' Really?"

Meanwhile -- and there's always a meanwhile because the NBC minions are busy little bean counters -- the home viewer kept getting this nagging feeling that the "Law & Order" franchise was encroaching on everything else. "Didn't I see two episodes from each of these shows this week already? Three? Honey, whatever happened to that Rob Lowe show?"

We haven't even begun talking about Thursdays. We'll talk about Thursdays later.

Way off in the background, barely audible, as if coming from a hole, were the sounds of the "Frasier" people. "Hey, this is our last season ever. We used to win you guys all those Emmys, remember? What about us? Hello? Can you throw us down some food?"

But nobody in Burbank heard, because they were shouting into their cell phones all kinds of praise to the "Friends" people for episode after great episode in this, their much-hyped farewell season. What went unsaid when the flip phones snapped shut: "They should have quit last year. Anyway, did you see 'Survivor' last night?"

Before getting much farther into this, you should be reminded that, when pressed about a lack of success this fall, Zucker said the reason was simple. The shows "sucked." He didn't say, "We have continued our terrible overestimation of our fall projects, which could be, come to think of it, my fault."

We're almost about to talk about Thursdays. And Thursdays are really Zucker's Last Stand. You won't want to miss it.

With turmoil starting to seep up through the cracks in the NBC home base, a neat little story broke in the paper: Negotiations to save "Frasier" failed (surprise!) so yeah, this really is the last season of what was once a crown jewel NBC series.

The negotiations went like this: NBC asked everybody to take a massive pay cut. The "Frasier" people said no. Push the chairs back and turn out the lights.

NBC then decided to start hyping the "Frasier" farewell. You could almost, if you closed your eyes, feel the sincerity of the gesture.

Ah, Thursdays. Pause. Breathe.

NBC built its entire fortress on Thursday nights. It was the network mandate. Thursday is the biggest viewing night of the week and networks get to charge more for advertising and also reap the rewards of lucrative movie ads for blockbusters opening the next night. Thursday is where NBC keeps its biggest hits, historically. Once they lose a little lustre, they get shifted to Tuesdays. That's life. Thursdays are for winners.

Now, "Friends" is leaving, "Will & Grace" is sagging and "ER" is on a ventilator. CBS wins this night, leaving Zucker to snicker that NBC makes more money, even in second place (which CBS scoffs at). Nyah, nyah, nyah -- the comeback of the defeated. The only really good series NBC has managed to put on Thursday nights in a post "Will & Grace" world is "Scrubs."

In a perfect world, "Scrubs" would be a huge hit with lots of Emmys. But this is not a perfect world, it's the Peacock, and the network pulls "Scrubs" off the schedule as often as an overbearing soccer coach pulls his fat daughter off the field. It's embarrassing and unfair, but so is life. When NBC "supersizes" -- a Zucker favorite -- it allows "Friends" and others to run longer, say 40 minutes. Getting the butt-end of that is, yes, "Scrubs."

Now, because "The Apprentice" got thwacked by "American Idol" on Wednesday, NBC has decided to move it to Thursday nights. Loser there? "Scrubs, " which gets bumped to Tuesdays, in turn bumping "Whoopi" to a new timeslot and midseason series "The Tracy Morgan Show" -- which needed patience but got none of it -- to Saturday nights. In the TV business being told you're moving to Saturday nights is akin to being told this: "Here's a gun. Go put it in your ear."

Check your playbook: What's on Wednesday nights where "Ed" used to be and then, in its place, "The Apprentice" used to be? Reruns of "The Apprentice." Meanwhile -- and yes, that's yet another meanwhile -- "Ed" is on Friday, "Scrubs" is on Tuesday, "Tracy Morgan" is on Saturday, "Frasier" is on -- but not for long.

That's called making friends, people.

But if you're Zucker and you're looking at the small picture, maybe you see it this way: "The Apprentice" really is a fun show. And maybe it will become the network's new Thursday night staple -- until people get sick of Trump, which, put your money down, might not be too far from now. Still, it's a hit right now, and Zucker is all about now. Which is easy to say when you're leaving the mess for someone else to clean up next fall.

Wait! There's "Fear Factor." That's Zucker's baby. Maybe not the gold standard you want to be known for, but it's a hit right now. (See above.) And if you combine that with "The Apprentice" you get, let's see, um, something short of a legacy.

VBKatLou
02-05-2004, 03:37 AM
This article went great with my first cup of coffee. Thanks for posting.

Oh, and I'm sooo glad I'm not in show business.

BlackThorn
02-05-2004, 03:56 AM
:roflmao: That was hilarious! Thanks, MS.

But much of this goes on behind the scenes, as it should, and you, the viewing public, only get the tail-end fallout. Like this: "Hey, honey, do you know what this crap 'Good Morning, Miami' is?" Or, after that: "I can not believe that they killed 'Boomtown.' I loved that show."


Sounds familiar.

Never mind the odd, unknowable rerun patterns for shows. One week it's on, next week and the week after -- reruns.

Also familiar.

And the whole thing about how bumping one show to a new time slot bumps a bunch of others shows. I can't believe the number of times I've heard people complain about not being able to keep track of the shows they like to watch.

stellar
02-05-2004, 04:16 AM
Isn't it understood that a move (especially a move to another night) is the kiss of death? I understand it. Why don't they?

vhsiv
02-05-2004, 05:34 AM
Nothing new there, MS! It looks as though Mr. Zucker is overly familiar with the panic room which Bonnie inhabits. I think that my non-network habits are pretty much here to stay.

But while we're on the topic of Network execs, television, and in another thread, the 'Galactica' pick-up, here's something I found just the other day, about Bonnie and the WWF (c.1998, before she became VP at Skiffy):from:The Cincinatti Post, March 30, 1998 - Sports sec. (http://www.cincypost.com/living/1998/wrest043098.html)

Bonnie Hammer, the appropriately named programming executive for USA Network, calls professional wrestling a soap opera in which fans develop either a loyalty or a loathing for certain characters.

Right now ''Stone Cold'' Steve Austin is the hottest property in the WWF.

''People love to hate this guy. He's kind of a negative guy and he creates kind of an eerie attitude,'' said Ms. Hammer, who's been overseeing wrestling programming for about a year.

''It's drama - soap opera with wrestling and physical prowess added to it,'' she added.

Ms. Hammer credited Vince McMahon, owner and promoter of the WWF, with making the changes that brought wrestling into the '90s and re-energized it for a new generation of fans.

She said he ''cleaned up the storylines'' so that even casual fans could follow the soapy developments in the lives of the WWF stars. He also improved production values so that matches didn't look as if they were videotaped by amateurs in a YMCA basement.

She also said McMahon has been successful in developing new stars.'Soap-operas' in wrestling, soap-operas in 'Galactica', shoestring budgets and mercurial programming: The 'new' boss is definitely going to be the same as the 'old' boss.

Damn! Looks like I wasted a couple of stamps...

stlscape
02-05-2004, 05:58 AM
Thanks for posting this, MS. It helps put things in perspective. ::goes off to thank a deity that I don't work for NBC - they appear to be worse than *my* upper management::

Antrobus
02-05-2004, 07:20 PM
That article hits the nail on the head - unfortunately!:(

Television COULD offer so much, yet it offer so little!! What a waste!

Scaper989
02-06-2004, 11:14 AM
Seems to me like that reporter has an axe to grind with NBC.
Couldn't that article have been written about any of the three
major networks? I agree with the sentiments expressed whole-
heartedly, I'm just thinking this "panic room" mentality isn't
restricted to just NBC.

Maybe not, I don't watch much broadcast TV these days and
there haven't been any shows that I've actually wanted to follow.

AnnieBW
02-06-2004, 06:23 PM
Well, I hate to admit it, but Bonnie's right. Wrestling is a soap opera for pre-teen boys. Maybe that's what Farscape should have done - gotten a pro wrestler or two on the show? Had D'Argo and John in a tag-team match? :D

Frell, things are so bad at NBC that I actually miss the days of Warren Littlefield! But, sounds like Bonnie and company will fit right in with the new corporate bosses. After all, they're doing just fine with stupid reality shows, mediocre dramas and aging series.

I MISS BOOMTOWN, DAMMIT!!!

stlscape
02-06-2004, 08:11 PM
Originally posted by AnnieBW
Well, I hate to admit it, but Bonnie's right. Wrestling is a soap opera for pre-teen boys. Maybe that's what Farscape should have done - gotten a pro wrestler or two on the show? Had D'Argo and John in a tag-team match?
Silly Annie. You know better than that. Not John and D'Argo - the advertising department would have gone with Aeryn and Chiana...mud wrestling. :rollin:

Frag_You!
02-06-2004, 11:44 PM
Well, I STILL don't consider in coincidence that Crichton uses Stone Cold Steve Austin's "Hell Yeah" line on a network run by Bonnie Hammer.

It's a conspiracy!! :P

MediaSavant
02-07-2004, 04:44 AM
Originally posted by AnnieBW
Well, I hate to admit it, but Bonnie's right. Wrestling is a soap opera for pre-teen boys.

Bonnie wasn't the first one to say it or notice it.

I used to make the observation it was like a soap opera when I had a male boss back in the 80's who would stop by my office to update me on the latest happenings in the WWF. I used to tell him "this sounds like a soap opera".

My boss wasn't a pre-teen boy. He just loved wrestling. I think he still does and he's now in his 50's. But, the audience usually is concentrated in the younger demos.

The 80's were wrestling's first revival (it's been around for a long time). Those were the days of Lou Albano and Cyndi Lauper, Rowdy Roddy Piper and, of course, Hulk Hogan. It was Vince McMahon who spearheaded the "soap opera/story arc" idea to great success. At its peak, NBC would even preempt Saturday Night Live for wrestlemania specials. Vince McMahon himself appeared on the very first David Letterman late night show.

Then things faded. It didn't have a comeback of sorts until a new generation in the 90's--the period Bonnie was talking about. They upped the soap opera elements that had always been there to a new level and the ratings went up again. They also got in a new bunch of stars like The Rock.

I don't know how much of a hand Bonnie had in it, but her description is right on. Vince McMahon is a bit of a marketing genious. She was involved through the USA Network connection but she may only have been along for a ride with McMahon in the drivers seat.

MediaSavant
02-07-2004, 04:54 AM
Originally posted by Scaper989
Seems to me like that reporter has an axe to grind with NBC.
Couldn't that article have been written about any of the three
major networks? I agree with the sentiments expressed whole-
heartedly, I'm just thinking this "panic room" mentality isn't
restricted to just NBC.


That's absolutely true.

But, this season Jeff Zucker has taken it to a level not seen before so he becomes the whipping boy and the "leader of the pack". Deservedly so.

I'm particularly peeved about the supersizing and odd start times he's initiated. Every time my schedule does include an NBC show--which thankfully isn't that often anymore--I have to manually overide the Tivo settings to allow for it. If I didn't have a Tivo that keeps track of the changing schedules for me, I'd be screwed.

The executives seem to have forgotten that the average viewer doesn't pay as close to the schedules as they do. They are exacerbating the reasons the viewer is moving over to cable.

LiLOrion
02-07-2004, 05:41 AM
Very funny article. The writer has an axe to grind, but who cares, it put a smile on my face. :D

My question is, why is Zucker still in power? Granted I know nothing about NBC hierachy...so is it that he CANT be fired, or more like they are just staying with the lesser of two evils, since TV and more specifically network TV, seems to have mostly gone to crap anyway.

MediaSavant
02-07-2004, 03:33 PM
Originally posted by LiLOrion
My question is, why is Zucker still in power? Granted I know nothing about NBC hierachy...so is it that he CANT be fired, or more like they are just staying with the lesser of two evils, since TV and more specifically network TV, seems to have mostly gone to crap anyway.

That's the million dollar question. I've seen Zucker present at the upfronts and he has a very good stage presence (despite being short). Remember also that he works for GE and GE has its own rules and methods of good management vs. bad management. Perhaps Zucker meets those.

Also, interpersonal skills count for a lot as one moves up (or nut up) the corporate ladder.

NBC does make a profit, which many of the major networks don't.

People certainly can and do get fired in network management. It's one of the jobs with the least job security.

MediaSavant
02-08-2004, 10:37 AM
This is from today's NY Times, talking about the business drivers for network behavior in a less diatribal way:

February 8, 2004
Shorten TV Season? Rules Shifting at Networks
By BILL CARTER

When NBC recently invited Donald J. Trump to move into its most exclusive neighborhood on Thursday night, the network's competitors immediately recognized the momentousness of the programming maneuver.

For the sake of finding the best location for Mr. Trump's new reality series, "The Apprentice," NBC broke with a two-decade tradition of offering its four best comedies in a row on Thursday night, the night of "Friends" and "Cheers" and "Seinfeld," the night that has generated the most advertising revenue by far for any network.

Now that "The Apprentice" has become the most successful new show of the season, NBC executives have announced that they plan to bring it — as well as Mr. Trump — back in the same 9 p.m. time slot in the fall.

NBC's decision to overturn its "must see" comedy strategy for a reality show is only the latest sign that the playbook that has governed prime-time programming since the days of radio is in the midst of its most substantial revision.

"If ever there was a watershed moment in this business, this is it," said Lloyd Braun, the chairman of ABC Entertainment. "This is NBC walking away from its greatest strength, from the thing that has made its name for 20 years."

Network television — battered by years of audience defections to cable channels and fearing the devastation that personal video recording machines like TiVo could wreak on advertising, its only revenue source — is beginning to embrace tactics considered heretical just a few years ago as it struggles to keep viewers tuned in and attentive.

Network executives now say they are moving toward abolishing the traditional television season, that 35-week period from mid-September to mid-May that confers bragging rights on the network with the highest ratings. In a plan designed to reduce or do away with repeats, new shows will increasingly be introduced year-round rather than in the typical mid-September and midseason slots.

Instead of the typical 22-episode seasons, the networks are also planning more short-term programs, including reality shows and even scripted dramas. And they will be offered in bursts of 8 or 10 or 13 episodes in consecutive weeks, like "Stephen King's Kingdom Hospital" next month on ABC. (The lone holdout so far is CBS, which is committed to a traditional structure of 22 or so episodes in a season, followed by a summer of mostly repeats.)

Many network executives are even considering the elimination of the television-season subsections known as sweep months, the three-times-a-season special ratings periods filled with stunt programming.

"If you play by the old rules, you will be left behind," said Jeff Zucker, the president of NBC Entertainment.

The threats facing the networks are not new. Cable has been eating into the networks' share of the audience for years, surpassing the combined viewership of CBS, NBC, ABC, Fox, The WB and UPN last year for the first time. Repeats of all but a few shows have lost their allure. And the networks have not had a breakout comedy in six years.

"Have you laughed at a sitcom once this year?" said Jon Mandel, co-chief executive of MediaCom, which buys advertising for clients like Procter & Gamble and Mars Inc. "Something has happened to television comedy. It's like they sucked the creative juice out of anybody who was ever good at writing television comedy."

But several recent developments appear to have shaken network executives out of their inertia, spurring them to turn previously infrequent experiments into permanent decisions.

Worried that advertisers were turned off by the sometimes low-rent reality shows that were filling more of the television schedule, the networks committed last spring to hew to the old formula of scripted comedies and dramas for the 2003-2004 season. The gamble mostly failed. The most talked-about comedy of the season, "Coupling" on NBC, was quickly yanked from its 9:30 p.m. spot on Thursdays after disappointing ratings. Critical darlings like Fox's "Skin," from Jerry Bruckheimer, the producer of "CSI," were quickly canceled. And a striking number of younger viewers, particularly men, mysteriously stopped watching network prime-time television.

Meanwhile, "The O.C." benefited from beginning its run in the dog days of summer, free from the onslaught of shows making their debut in September. Short-run reality shows like "The Simple Life" on Fox and "Average Joe" on NBC continued to thrive, particularly among those disappearing young adults. This prompted network executives to set aside their disdain for the genre and proudly proclaim its virtues to advertisers.

NBC decided to place Mr. Trump and "The Apprentice" in its Thursday night lineup because its executives saw a fundamental shift among young viewers — the ones most networks covet because many advertisers pay a premium to reach them.

"No comedy has hit big since `Will and Grace' six years ago," Mr. Zucker said. "That's not to say there won't ever be another great sitcom, but right now to a lot of these young viewers, comedies just feel artificial."

The apparent durability of the reality trend dovetails with the networks' moves toward limited-run series throughout the year. "Our job is to get the audience what they want, but in doses that are easily digestible," Mr. Braun of ABC said.

In addition to "Kingdom Hospital," ABC is producing an epic about ancient Rome, "Empire," to be shown over eight consecutive weeks. If successful, both shows could be brought back for subsequent runs.

NBC will bring back "The Restaurant," its reality show set in an Italian restaurant in Manhattan, for six episodes in April. And on Feb. 16, Fox will introduce "The Littlest Groom," a two-episode show in which a 4-foot-5 man will search for a wife among short and regular-sized women.

Fox is also leading the charge against the long-held notion of a September-to-May television season.

"The television season doesn't matter to me," said Gail Berman, the president of Fox Entertainment.

She said she would soon announce a roster of new scripted shows for the summer, likely to include a legal drama called "The Jury," from the producer Tom Fontana.

As for the sweeps, network executives have for years urged ending the focus on November, February and May. They have complained that sweeps are an antiquated concept that has drained them of a substantial portion of their most appealing programs in other months. Until now, the sweeps have been considered essential — not for networks, which get ratings information every day, but for local stations, which are measured en masse only during those three months.

Now, however, Ms. Berman, Mr. Zucker and other executives are pointing to coming changes in how Nielsen Media Research measures viewership, saying that by 2006 the sweeps will be rendered irrelevant for the 10 largest markets. Those markets represent about 30 percent of the total national viewers — and almost 50 percent of local television advertising revenue. Because the networks own most of their stations in those cities, their incentive to use their highest-profile programming in sweeps months could be eliminated.

These predicted changes come with caveats. Jack Loftus, corporate spokesman for Nielsen, said, "Remember: 70 percent of the stations will still need the sweeps."

And CBS, the most-watched network, rejects the premise that sweeping change is necessary.

"All these people talking about dropping the notion of a season and going to 52-week schedules, I think can be translated into, `We're not doing so well, so let's deflect the story,' " said David F. Poltrack, the CBS executive vice president for research.

But Mr. Zucker of NBC said that network television's still-profitable model was doomed to obsolescence.

"Things are working for CBS now, but it's a very short-sighted strategy," he said. "Maybe it will work O.K. for two years, but we've got to be ready for the next five years."

waltersgirl
02-08-2004, 10:49 PM
In a plan designed to reduce or do away with repeats, new shows will increasingly be introduced year-round rather than in the typical mid-September and midseason slots.

wow. stupid much?

why should i bother watching something if i have no chance of catching the whole thing because there won't be any reruns.

Worried that advertisers were turned off by the sometimes low-rent reality shows that were filling more of the television schedule, the networks committed last spring to hew to the old formula of scripted comedies and dramas for the 2003-2004 season. The gamble mostly failed.


the gamble mostly failed because the shows sucked, not because the model is bad. people are leaving the networks for cable because cable is putting out quality product. it's not about the length of the show. it's about the quality of the show. and hey, cable and pay-tv do reruns cuz, hey, check it out, they might find new viewers. what an idea.

and sweeps are a bad idea because it's gimmicky, pandering to the flawed Nielsen system. why not try to put out a good show all season?

what a bunch of cowards. instead of writing quality shows, and embracing TiVo and using it to help them better evaluate their viewing audience, they're going to change the models completely so they can run screaming from the problem. good job, guys. way to treat the symptomology and completely ignore the disease.

makes me want to watch CBS just to show them my support.