Reaper’s fate: behind the scenes at CliqueClack TV

Cross programing hurts.  You mentioned Monday 8pm…  Gossip Girl is one of my favorite shows, but I wouldn’t count as a viewer because I didn’t watch it live.  Against Chuck, HIMYM, and Terminator (in the fall), something has got to give (And if I watched House, which is a show written about me — except the doctor part — I’d be more screwed).

You also mentioned Life, one of my favorite shows on the air last season.  Yes, I’m a savvy enough viewer to follow it around the week as NBC tried different several different nights, but I’d imagine that there are a lot of viewers out there that are not.  I love the quote that’s basically become cliche, that Seinfeld could never have the time to develop that it did when it premiered.  Blame the viewers as much as you want, but with the Execs, advertisers, and the economy all involved, the people watching are the only ones to blame.

BRETT: Cross programming hurts shows that already have problems. Hit shows are hit shows. What do you suppose would happen if Lost somehow ended up on the NBC Monday at 8? Would it suddenly lose three million viewers and half it’s demo, matching Chuck‘s results? Or would more viewers magically appear and House, Big Bang Theory, DWTS, and Lost would all be successful?

The same can be said of moving shows. It’s a lame argument for shows that were failing anyway. House is a good example. The network moved it to Monday in the middle of the season, and the numbers went up. The
Mentalist aired on Sunday and Thursday, with no ill effects. How many slots has Lost had? It’s a can’t win situation for the networks. Fans of a show complain that their favorite show has a crappy time slot, but if it gets moved and the numbers are still crap, then it’s again the network’s fault for moving the show.

It’s not meant to take shots at Life or Chuck, because I’ve seen every episode of both, and would choose both of them over most of the shows that actually get ratings. But it is how TV works. Chuck, Life, etc. don’t need new time slots, they need viewers. And there’s the rub. If getting viewers was so easy, everybody would be doing it.

I’d also argue the Seinfeld point. The networks have given plenty of shows that could have reasonably been canceled time to find an audience. Arrested Development, Chuck, Dollhouse, Pushing Daisies, Gary Unmarried, Old Christine, Life, etc. The difference is that none of those has actually gained any traction and started performing, but the axe isn’t quite as quick as that cliche implies.

Oh, and the fact that you brought up Terminator illustrates it perfectly. One of the complaints from Terminator fans was that Monday was a bad time slot. Yet, when Dr. House arrived, suddenly it was a pretty sweet place to be.

JULIA (random mention of cool cult show): Veronica Mars always suffered from this hardcore — it kept being pitted against Lost or the Thursday night Supernatural/Grey’s juggernaut. And Thursday nights this spring were… Christ. I would have nothing all week and then Thursday I’d have, like, five hours of programming and I’d have to do some VERY tricky DVR work. Thank god for Hulu, is all I’m saying.

BOB (peacemaker, self-proclaimed oddity): Brett, would you agree that time slotting can kill a show when it first airs?

I feel like getting a prime slot can get you new viewers that wouldn’t normally watch. Now, I may be a lemming, but I watched Bones back when it was on Tuesdays because it was the only thing on. Since it moved, I haven’t seen an episode. There must be other viewers like me out there. I know I’m odd, but…

BRETT: Bob, I would agree with that to a degree. Dollhouse is a special case, because I think the network is throwing good money after bad in trying to launch anything on Friday night. If they really wanted to succeed on Friday, they would have to move an established show, like Bones, to build from. A decade of failures is no longer a trend, it’s a rule.

To your other point though, the Dollhouse numbers would certainly have been better if it had Fringe‘s time slot, because you could literally put anything on after Idol and it would start with good numbers. That said, I don’t think they would have been as good as the Fringe numbers. Similar initially perhaps, but I doubt they would have stabilized at the same level. The sheer power of Idol may have been enough to keep the show alive, and earn it an extra season, but it wouldn’t have changed the general trend of viewers leaving. For whatever reason, viewers didn’t like Dollhouse, and they left in bunches. Even after the ‘good’ episodes aired, the numbers still dropped, and it finished its season with the lowest numbers yet. Likewise, had Fringe premiered in Dollhouse‘s place, the numbers would have been down, but I would argue that it would have still outperformed Dollhouse. It’s not an exact transfer of numbers from slot to slot, but the general idea holds true.

And again, while a nice lead-in like that is nice, an actual hit show doesn’t need it. Remember, Lost was at its most successful when it followed Freddie [Prinze Jr.].

I’m sure there are other viewers like you out there like you that gave up Bones when it moved, and the numbers say the same. But it doesn’t change the fact that Bones is still relatively successful, no matter where the network places it. At the end of the day, there are only six days in the television week. Every time slot is tough. And while it may happen on occasion that a show is screwed by its timeslot, more often than not, that’s just an excuse for the fact that it’s not a successful show.

KONA (who really loves Samantha Who?): I would just like to add that Samantha Who? is a perfect example of how timeslots can, in fact, hurt shows. It was pulling down decent ratings, which is why people were surprised when ABC put it on hiatus. When it returned on Thursdays, it was not only hurt by a long hiatus, but by a comedy of errors. Two separate weeks it ended up being pitted against Idol due to Obama taking over the airwaves on two separate Tuesday/Wednesday nights. In addition, the ER finale aired against it, not to mention the 100th episode of Grey’s Anatomy.

Sure, the die-hard Samantha Who? fans tuned in regardless of what it was up against, but when your average TV watcher is faced with a choice between a sitcom that you can pretty much jump in and out of without losing your place, and special episodes, series finales and live programming, they’re not going to choose the sitcom. This doesn’t mean that Samantha Who? wasn’t a good show, or that it couldn’t find an audience — it was a victim of circumstance, and I guarantee that if ABC gave it a third season, it would have an audience.

BRETT (goes to the numbers): The decent ratings part of that is questionable. Yes, Samatha Who? was doing fine when it was airing after DWTS, averaging something around 11 million viewers and a 3 in the demo. The problem is, and the reason for the hiatus, the first week after DWTS ended, the show dropped to 6 million viewers and a 1.9, following The Grinch (11.41m/3.8). It came back on Thursdays with 6.5 million, and then proceeded to fall below 5 million for the rest of the run. Say what you will about competition, but the show placed 5th in the demo the second week back, behind Smallville on CW, and the only thing that let it move back up to a distant 4th was a string of Smallville reruns. Also, the ER finale didn’t air against it. The ER retrospective did, which wasn’t nearly the force that the finale was.

Rather than showing how timeslots hurt shows, I think that shows that Samantha Who? never actually found an audience of its own, and it was only ever going to succeed when given the gift of the DWTS lead-in. I don’t think it’s unreasonable for the network to give the show 24 episodes in a protected time slot and then ask that it stand on its own. That’s what ABC did, and Samantha Who? failed.

ARYEH (wiseass): So wait; Reaper‘s officially dead?

—

As you can see, we tend to be a chatty bunch.

Clacked by Debbie McDuffee
on Jun 11, 2009 @ 16:30 EST5EDT