Re: No Pilots, No Shows

On Wed, 23 Jan 2008 23:35:14 -0800 (PST), WQ <wq@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Jan 24, 1:35 am, David <dimla...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
So by your definition there weren't any successful shows launched this
year. What about last year? Or the year before that? I'm guessing you
could count the number of "successful" shows launched in the last five
years on one hand. And yet somehow this definition makes sense to you.

--- I told you, Samantha Who? Until it lost its Dancing with the
Stars lead-in. By the end of November, it was pretty well official
that the fall season was a total wipeout since every new show,
including the ones on CW, rated below the season-to-date average for
the network that those shows were on. Every one of them. Except
Samantha Who? Until it lost is Dancing with the Stars lead-in. Which
would then make it *every* new fall show.

So in other words... every new Fall show. Why waste a whole paragraph
instead of just saying that?

Now as for this midseason,
NBC was scoring with American Gladiators but barely, because the
numbers on that one are slipping fast so it won't be long before it
too sinks below the network's season-to-date average.

As for last year, it was much better than this year. Just going by
the Top 30 list, there was Sunday Night Football, Heroes, Shark, Are
You Smarter Than a 5th Grader, all doing better for the season than
their network's season-to-date average, and Rules of Engagement and
Ugly Betty being very borderline.

We're not counting football and reality shows since the whole topic is
about pilots, and "Shark" got to air after "CSI" and "Rules of
Engagement" after "2.5 Men." So by your definition shows the networks
consider successful aren't but shows that are timeslot hits are.

Goes to show what a joke that series was if it couldn't
carry on with the same kind of strength post-Dancing as during it.
Besides, there's nothing poinless about my strict definition of
success because what it does is strip away any biases or what's a good
show or a bad show for any individual viewer, which show appeals to
18-29 year-olds or 25-54 year-olds, if it's the critics' darling or
bane of existence, etc.  

In other words it strips away the definition of success as defined by
the networks, which is the only definition that matters. You and your
cockamamie definitions...

--- The definitions the networks have come up with are asinine.

We're not talking about network spin or them trying to impress you.
We're talking about renewals/cancellations. They're not going to renew
a show unless it has value to them. If it has value to them it's a
success. I knew my definition would be too sensible for you.

How about this? A new show is successful if the network renews it for
a second year. It's simple. It's sensible. It takes into account a
show's worth to the network.

--- The problem with that is that there've been shows that few people
watch that get renewed and others that have had twice or three times
the number of viewers that got cancelled. So how can a show with 2
viewers be considered a success over a show with 13 million viewers?

Because the network said it is, and they're the ones who determine
what's a success and what's a failure.

--- I keep telling you, the system is fine. It's the people who are
too inept to get things right that's the problem. In every system
you're going to have ineptitude, it's just a matter of someone taking
responsbility to clean house, get someone who knows what they're doing
and refocus one's vision as to how it's going to get done without
destroying the institution. It's been done before, it can be done
again. But for some reason, there just isn't anyone who seems to want
to do it or has the knack, savvy and nerve to do it. The networks now
are run by a bunch of wimps in an age of wimps and they kind of
deserve whatever fate they get as a result.

Yes, of course, all they need to do is hire you. WQ, Madison Avenue
maven and savior of network tv.

I'm guessing there are a lot of good foreign concepts the networks
could benefit from mining but I think the majority will still come
from new ideas. There are lots of people with good concepts in
Hollywood and I can't imagine they'll all become unemployed.

They won't be unemployed.  They will simply have to go to a different
development network/studio since NBC is hanging a 'closed for business'
sign.

If NBC is doing it then most likely all the networks are doing it but
once again Zucker can't keep his mouth shut and NBC gets all the flak.
The same thing happened last year when NBC said they're turning the 8
o'clock hour to reality shows.

--- Why would all the networks want to follow the strategy of a losing
network?  Unless they're bound to some sort of suicide pact.

Once again, it's not a competition. They're all in business together
and they're all facing the same challenges. If NBC is changing the way
they do business than it makes sense for everyone to change.

--- So failure follows failure?  And in some strange way you view that
as success?

NBC isn't a failure, only a lesser success.

--- You're a joke, you know that.

If I'm a joke why does every thread you start end with someone telling
you you're an idiot?

You just keep proving my point that
to you there is no such thing as failure

Of course there is. For example, every show that doesn't get renewed
for a second season. However, NBC made $3.9 billion in advertising
revenue last year and expect to make more this year thanks to the
Olympics. I know to you "failure" is not finishing first, but to
someone capable of reasoning they look like a successful business,
just not as successful as others.

which I guess is why you'll
never understand what failure means. And to not understand failure is
to actually perpetuate it because then what's the point of trying to
improve anything if you believe you're still a success when you're a
failure? You and Zucker should have lunch together, I think you'll
find a lot in common with him.

I'll be sure to put in a good word for you since you're the only one
capable of running NBC. The network, the studio, the NBC/Universal
conglomerate... Everything since it's all the same thing to you.

They're making a lot of money too. And for the millionth time, television is cyclical. NBC is
in last place because it's their turn, or, t worst, because their
programmer is making bad decisions, not because they don't know how to
run a business.

--- They're in last place because they don't have shows that people
want to watch in more numbers than the other networks beating NBC.
And if they're not able to get more viewers to watch them than those
other networks, then they really don't know how to run their business,
or at least they're doing it very poorly.

The people deciding to do away with pilots aren't the same people who
actually choose the pilots. They're not responsible for what's on
NBC's schedule, except for hiring Ben Silverman. I would put on a
puppet show if that would help explain things to you but I'm afraid I
can't do it over the internet.
.