Re: "Friday Night Lights" renewed for two more seasons

On Tue, 31 Mar 2009 16:22:43 -0400, "Obveeus" <Obveeus@xxxxxxx> wrote:


"David" <dimlan17@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Mar 31, 1:52 pm, "Obveeus" <Obve...@xxxxxxx> wrote:
"Mason Barge" <masonba...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
In this case, NBC is managing to make money in a tough time slot,

Do we know that to be the case?

Yes, Yes, we do. If there was a Ben & Jerry's newsgroup would people
keep asking why they keep putting out a certain ice cream flavor? No?
People would assume that that certain ice cream flavor brings in more
money than it costs to produce? Then why do people wonder why a
network keeps producing a tv show?

We are talking about a network where many/most of their shows lose money

You think most NBC shows lose money? Which ones, aside from those that
have been/will be canceled this year??

and where there seems to be a desire to win awards rather than make money. The
mere fact that the show is on the air does not mean that it is making money.

No, it almost certainly does mean that. Rarely the networks keep a
show alive for prestige or to give it every chance to catch on but
that goodwill never lasts past two or three seasons. We're discussing
a show that'll run for five years and that's unlikely to ever win
awards (though it deserves them).

Plus that's the whole freaking point of the DirecTV deal. Peoples'
stubborness in refusing to see common sense so they can continue to
feel they can run the networks better than the execs can, and the need
to keep ridiculing NBC (which 5 years ago was ABC and 10 years ago was
CBS) is really out of hand.

One could easily suggest that it is limited to 13 eps per year becasue the
network is trying to limit their losses while still maintaining the prestige
of possible award wins.

It's not winning any awards. And 13 episodes is standard for cable.

Friday Night Lights ins't pulling in much
ad income...even less that Crusoe. Only NBC's Saturday lineup is less
valuable that FNL.

It's surprising that only a Saturday night lineup pulls in less than
Friday's? What's the case with the other networks? And how come no one
asks how CBS makes money off their Friday night lineup?

http://adage.com/images/random/0908/10-SpotCost-100608.pdf

ABC made more ad income with Supernany than NBC made with Friday Night
Lights.
CBS made more ad income with The Ex-List than NBC made with Friday Night
Lights.
FOX made more ad income with Don't Forget the Lyrics than NBC made with
Friday Night Lights.

Of course, some shows like The Ex-List likely generated some makegoods...but
then again likely so did Friday Night Lights.

Their ad rates
are 15-20% higher than FNL's, but they probably cost 50% more to
produce (I'm guessing, since FNL was already the cheapest drama on TV
and DirecTV pays a third of the cost).

I doubt very much that Supernanny or Don't Forget the Lyrics cost more than
Friday Night Lights.

I was talking about CBS's lineup. See: Previous sentence (how come no
one asks how CBS makes money off their Friday night lineup?)

I doubt that Deal or No Deal (the former timeslot
occupant) cost more, either. While The Ex-List almost certainly cost more,
it was replaced with Flashpoint...a show with costs split by Canadian
production so it likely doesn't cost a whole lot, either.

Most TV shows are aired at a loss by the networks. Money is made up only on
those shows that last long enough to be successfully sold into syndication.

....And now we're on a different subject.

Do the math. Use a conservative estimate of your choice. You'll see
that FNL is more valuable in its network airings than "Ghost
Whisperer" and "Numbers"
.

Quantcast