Comments on: How successful are new shows at surviving?

By: Sebastian

Sebastian — Fri, 09 Nov 2012 18:12:56 +0000

Reading election coverage finally paid off. Make that “skews” not “skewers” as in “skewed the polls”

By: Sebastian

Sebastian — Fri, 28 Sep 2012 21:33:58 +0000

While I appreciate the look at the numbers (I’m a numbers guy) the problem with 2009 to 2011 is that 2009 the recession hit. That skewers everything.

By: Travis

Travis — Tue, 25 Sep 2012 06:10:01 +0000

Thanks for writing this up it was interesting to see all of year-by-year comparisons.

By: Ivey West

Ivey West — Tue, 25 Sep 2012 02:12:18 +0000

Absolutely fair points, but if you compare the same networks to themselves year over year, that marginalizes that some.

I think the greater point I was trying to make, and may have struggled in making it clear, was that looking across all five of the networks, most new shows do not see a second season. There are different reasons why each individual network might have more or less of a chance to find those pure hit shows or be willing to give a bubble show a chance.

Either way, when you step back and look at the results as a whole, there’s a lot more misses than hits

By: Ryan

Ryan — Tue, 25 Sep 2012 01:16:37 +0000

The straight percentage listings in the above charts are misleading. Just compare the average network ratings between CBS and NBC, where a hit on the latter would be cancelled on the former. CBS is in the strong position of being able to drop even moderately-successful freshman shows, since their older ones are closer to syndication deals. NBC, on the other hand, had to renew some outright stinkers just because they had to take what they could get.

FOX and the CW also only program two hours of prime time a night compared to the three hours of the rest of the networks. That’s not to say that the CW didn’t fail horribly at even that 2009-11, anyway.

By: Otto66

Otto66 — Mon, 24 Sep 2012 19:28:06 +0000

Ya but, quality shows on cable are successful and successful shows on networks are what keeps networks in business. This TV stuff am be complicated. The Amazing Race has been around for since 2001 and has earned 13 Prime Time Emmy Awards but how many people do ya know who watch it? Yet, it draws high Nielsens and has versions in 11 other countries. So it is a success and its success on CBS lets the network toy with dramas and comedies that many not last a full season. Your post is well written for the point your making. My 2 cents is about Hit Shows being the reason networks can accept low success rates with new shows. Not to argue, just to comment.

By: Ivey West

Ivey West — Mon, 24 Sep 2012 19:04:59 +0000

But my point was less to do with quality and more to do with success; and these guys have been so incredibly hit-or-miss in finding even moderate successes.

By: Otto66

Otto66 — Mon, 24 Sep 2012 18:14:53 +0000

In TV, its about moving forward to finding the Hit Show. And when that Hit Show is on another network, copy it and hope that your show will be close to a Hit. The new thinking and chance taking is on cable. USA has built their brand on Characters, AMC uses Madmen, Bad breaking and the Dead who walk. TNT has reruns and Dark hair girl detective with blonde sidekick, Perceptive guy with dark hair girl sidekick, Dark hair woman who bosses around a bunch of guys and Dallas reimagining. Showtime gives us Dexter and HBO gives Game of Thrones. The Networks (ABC, CBS, NBC, CW and Fox) are for Broadcast. Broad cast as is all sorts of shows that they can charge outrages commercial time for. These shows don’t need to be great or even good they just need a healthy Nielsen number.