Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip

[Fidatelo]

Here's a question from a guy who knows almost nothing about how ratings are compiled:

As far as I know, I'm not a 'nielson family' or anything like that. As such, I always just download the episode later in the week and watch it when I want. Is this hurting its ratings in any way? Is there any possible way for me to effect the ratings of this show?

I really like it and I don't want it cancelled, but as far as I can tell it doesn't matter whether I watch it or not.

[Joe Canadian]

Originally Posted by Fidatelo

Here's a question from a guy who knows almost nothing about how ratings are compiled:

As far as I know, I'm not a 'nielson family' or anything like that. As such, I always just download the episode later in the week and watch it when I want. Is this hurting its ratings in any way? Is there any possible way for me to effect the ratings of this show?

I really like it and I don't want it cancelled, but as far as I can tell it doesn't matter whether I watch it or not.

No, you're not hurting ratings. Nielson gathers ratings from set top boxes that are given to "Nielson Families"... or by survey. So unless you have been contacted for a survey or have those boxes in your home... you don't count.

[Fidatelo]

Originally Posted by Joe Canadian

No, you're not hurting ratings. Nielson gathers ratings from set top boxes that are given to "Nielson Families"... or by survey. So unless you have been contacted for a survey or have those boxes in your home... you don't count.

So by the same token I can't help the ratings then either eh? That blows, TV needs a better way of measuring viewership.

[sterlingice]

Speaking of Nielsen, I got a call Sunday asking us to do diaries for this week. I'll be helping out Studio 60 a little.

SI

[Crapshoot]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

Speaking of Nielsen, I got a call Sunday asking us to do diaries for this week. I'll be helping out Studio 60 a little.

SI

Thanks. I thought tonight's episode was the best of the lot.

[sterlingice]

I haven't seen it yet- I taped it and will probably watch it tomorrow night (there's a column for that in the diary, apparently- I dunno, it's supposed to arrive Wednesday or Thursday they said).

SI

[lordscarlet]

Originally Posted by Crapshoot

Thanks. I thought tonight's episode was the best of the lot.

"

[cschex]

I really enjoyed tonight's episode and I think Tom's and Simon's characters got much-needed development. However, I really think the lack of a consistent plot-arc is hurting the show. West Wing obviously had that and even Sports Night, despite being a half-hour show, seemed to have more of a driving force behind it. It seems like Jack and Jordan are there for comic relief, for example. Maybe this new show that Jordan greenlighted will become an issue, but I doubt it. All that being said, I like the show a lot, but I have a hard time believing the ratings will be high enough to keep it on.

[Ksyrup]

'Heroes' salute:
Tops list of new series

NBC drama rises 9 percent in 18-49s from last week

By Toni Fitzgerald
Oct 24, 2006


NBC ran a three-episode marathon of its new hit show “Heroes” Sunday night during “Sunday Night Football’s” usual spot, taking advantage of the NFL’s break for the World Series to let newcomers catch up on the season’s top-rated new show in adults 18-49.

Apparently that extra exposure did bring in some new viewers. “Heroes” climbed to a series-best 6.2 rating in adults 18-49 last night, according to Nielsen overnights, the best rating for a new show yet this season.

“Heroes” was up 9 percent over last week’s 5.7 and was the top-rated show on Monday night, bettering CBS’s “CSI: Miami” by 0.3. “Heroes” also tied a season high in total viewers with 14.3 million.

In its 9 p.m. timeslot, “Heroes” dominated, with CBS at No. 2 nearly two full points behind. The big performance helped NBC to its fifth Monday win in six weeks this season, though by a small margin.

NBC led with a 4.6 rating and 12 share, followed by CBS at 4.5/11, ABC at 2.9/7, Fox at 2.6/7, Univision at 1.6/4, and the CW at 1.2/3.

At 8 p.m., NBC’s “Deal or No Deal” led with a 4.4 rating, followed by CBS’s “How I Met Your Mother” (3.6) and “The Class” (2.9) at 3.3, Fox’s “Prison Break” at 3.2, ABC’s “Wife Swap” at 2.8, Univision’s “La Fea Mas Bella” at 1.9, and the CW’s “Everybody Hates Chris” (1.2) and “All of Us” (1.2) at 1.2.

At 9 p.m., “Heroes” jumped ahead at 6.2, followed by a 4.3 for CBS’s “Two and a Half Men” (4.7) and “The New Adventures of Old Christine” (3.9), a 3.2 for ABC’s “The Bachelor,” a 2.0 for Fox’s relocated “Justice,” a 1.4 for Univision’s “Mundo de Fieras,” and a 1.2 for CW’s “Girlfriends” (1.2) and “The Game” (1.1).

At 10 p.m., CBS’s “CSI: Miami” dominated with a 5.9, followed by NBC’s “Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip” at 3.2, ABC’s “What About Brian” at 2.7, and Univision’s “Cristina” at 1.3.

“Studio 60” was up slightly from last week’s series-low 3.1 but lost half of its “Heroes” lead-in, a big cause for concern.

Among households, CBS led with an 8.8/13, followed by NBC at 7.8/12, ABC at 5.0/8, Fox at 4.7/7, Univision at 2.1/3, and the CW at 1.9/3.

[rkmsuf]

When you are trying to stay ahead of Univision it's not going well.

[Peregrine]

I really enjoy this show but I wish they would put it in a more protected time slot, I think it's the kind of show that can get popular but it needs some time. Of course shows like that are almost always cancelled.

[ISiddiqui]

I just saw Monday's show, and while I liked it, I thought the whole "what does the writer do" thing was annoying as Hell. I don't care how DUMB they are supposed to be, you can't convince me that they don't know what a head writer does, for fuck's sake!

[sterlingice]

Just watched this past week's episode last night. This is the first episode that will really make me miss this show if it's gone. It almost feels like it's starting to find its way.

The comic was the first really funny thing that was supposed to be a part of the show. I hope whoever writes that character starts writing some of the "in show" stuff as that character's material was really funny, even over the horrible (intentional) delivery.

The other sideplots were decent- the drunk Jordan was a bit obnoxious but it tied the baseball player plot together nicely. The Tom's parents thing was predictable but had some good moments. Lastly, the blacklisted writers plot is the type of thing which Sorkin can turn into gold. It's so much of a trademark and something he does so well that as soon as I saw the mysterious and unexplained old figure who wasn't as senile as we were supposed to believe- in short, even tho it was telegraphed- I knew it was going to be good and wasn't disappointed.

(minor spoiler)

As for the arc comment, the next episode looks like it's the first of a two parter so hopefully we'll start to get some bigger stories. And it has John Goodman as a guest star- bonus.

SI

[Joe]

remember that there is no episode next week. FNL is taking over Studio 60's spot for the night, and a repeat of the FNL episode is also airing on Tuesday. they aren't just switching.

[Brillig]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

As for the arc comment, the next episode looks like it's the first of a two parter so hopefully we'll start to get some bigger stories. And it has John Goodman as a guest star- bonus.

I guess they're not superstitious. After all, Sorkin left the West Wing right after John Goodman guest starred there.

All right, he made the discussion to leave well before. Just sayin

[Joe]

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,226092,00.html

Here we go: despite receiving an order for three more episodes on Friday, the Aaron Sorkin NBC drama “Studio 60 on Sunset Strip” is about to be put out of its misery.

Cast members are already confiding in friends that the end is near. It’s likely NBC will pull the plug shortly I am told by insiders.

Last week, Studio 60 had 7.7 million viewers. Compare that with competing "CSI: Miami," with 17.5 million. That gap cannot be closed.

But ‘Studio 60’ has trouble internally at NBC, forget its intramural rivals. According to ratings stats, the “Saturday Night Live” behind the scenes soap opera loses almost half the viewers delivered to it a few minutes earlier by another new show, “Heroes,” which has become a surprise cult hit.

On Monday, ‘Heroes’ had 14.3 million viewers. The substantial drop off with 'Studio 60' is probably the last nail in its coffin. The order of the three extra episodes is considered by insiders to be a contractual move, and not one based on faith that they will ever be made or aired. The all important demo situation didn’t help: 'Heroes' had 15 percent of viewers aged 18-49. Studio 60 had 8 percent. The notion that 'Studio 60' is a big draw for NBC among desirables is, sadly, blown on those stats.

Sorkin and friends will argue that NBC has done something wrong, or that the audience isn’t smart enough. Alas, in this case, neither is true. 'Studio 60'—as I wrote on August 7th after viewing the pilot—is just a bad show. There’s nothing wrong with the acting, directing, or dialogue writing. But the premise is faulty. No one cares whether a bunch of over caffeinated, well off yuppies, some with expensive drug habits, put on a weekly comedy sketch show from Los Angeles.

Even worse: no one cares whether or not the people from the Bartlett White House puts on a comedy show. That’s what 'Studio 60' is, essentially: the "West Wing" annual talent show. There’s so much earnestness involved in this endeavour, you start to think that nuclear war will be declared if the 'Studio 60' staff doesn’t air some joke—usually one we don’t hear anyway. The whole thing just feels weighted down and frankly, not entertaining.

There is one winner to come out of 'Studio 60,' however: Matthew Perry. In this show he’s proven himself to be a star on his own separate from "Friends." His comedic timing and ability to ad lib, toss off lines, and give restrained physical reactions is what keeps 'Studio 60' even remotely interesting. We can only be hopeful that someone comes up with a great new show for him quickly—but a comedy that’s funny, not a drama that isn’t.

NBC will probably fill the lost 'Studio 60' timeslot with 'Deal-No Deal: The Next Generation,' or some such thing. So the losers here will be the audience, which is about to be pummelled by more reality and game shows. It’s too bad because around the dial there are good new dramas. Despite its heavy “thirtysomething” feel, “Brothers and Sisters” is worth keeping if only for Sally Field, Ron Rifkin and Rachel Griffiths. (But there a mistake was made, too: killing off patriarch Tom Skerritt in the first episode.)

Oh well: I hope Regis is warming up the holiday edition of "Who Wants to Be a Millionaire." We’re ready!

[Raiders Army]

Originally Posted by Joe Canadian

No, you're not hurting ratings. Nielson gathers ratings from set top boxes that are given to "Nielson Families"... or by survey. So unless you have been contacted for a survey or have those boxes in your home... you don't count.

DirecTV tracks what shows all of its customers watch. I know this because there's a function where you can see the most popular shows at the moment (according to DirecTV users). I had it come up once but I can't figure out what I did to see it...nor have I had the inclination to look for it again.

Maybe they'll move 1 vs. 100 in its place.

[Draft Dodger]

Sorkin and friends will argue that NBC has done something wrong, or that the audience isn’t smart enough. Alas, in this case, neither is true. 'Studio 60'—as I wrote on August 7th after viewing the pilot—is just a bad show. There’s nothing wrong with the acting, directing, or dialogue writing. But the premise is faulty. No one cares whether a bunch of over caffeinated, well off yuppies, some with expensive drug habits, put on a weekly comedy sketch show from Los Angeles.

Even worse: no one cares whether or not the people from the Bartlett White House puts on a comedy show. That’s what 'Studio 60' is, essentially: the "West Wing" annual talent show. There’s so much earnestness involved in this endeavour, you start to think that nuclear war will be declared if the 'Studio 60' staff doesn’t air some joke—usually one we don’t hear anyway. The whole thing just feels weighted down and frankly, not entertaining.

There is one winner to come out of 'Studio 60,' however: Matthew Perry. In this show he’s proven himself to be a star on his own separate from "Friends." His comedic timing and ability to ad lib, toss off lines, and give restrained physical reactions is what keeps 'Studio 60' even remotely interesting. We can only be hopeful that someone comes up with a great new show for him quickly—but a comedy that’s funny, not a drama that isn’t.

these 3 paragraphs sum up my feelings on the show better than I could ever do. odd that of the two Monday night NBC shows, the one I thought would suck (Heroes) has been awesome, and the one I thought would be awesome (60) has been meh.

[spleen1015]

The first episode was pretty good I think. Amanda Peat's whittiness and the dynamic between Whitford and Perry was awesome. We haven't seen anything like it since the first episode. I am still enjoying the show, but I'm not heart broken over it getting the can.

[kcchief19]

Originally Posted by another nit wit bitter TV critic

'Studio 60'—as I wrote on August 7th after viewing the pilot—is just a bad show. ... So the losers here will be the audience, which is about to be pummelled by more reality and game shows. It’s too bad because around the dial there are good new dramas.

I'm not one to normally beat up critics, but this is a refrain that has been repeated quite frankly -- the claim that Studio 60 is a bad show. In this case, the writer betrays that by saying a cancellation would be bad for the audience because it will lead to more reality and game shows and there aren't enough good dramas on TV. It would seem that if Studio 60 were a bad show, it's cancellation wouldn't be a loss for the audience at all. After saying it's a bad show, the writer ends up defending the show.

I think much of the critical reaction has been a response to the hype or a response to the arrogance of Sorkin, or both. I think the viewer response is different -- I'm not a programming genius, but even I knew that Monday at 9 CT was a horrific time slot for the show, both from competition and compatability. So much is made of the drop off from Heroes to Studio 60, but the problem is that those two shows have nothing in common enough to tie them together, and running back-to-back hour-long dramas is rarely a winning combination. However, as hour long dramas go, CSI: Miami and Heroes are a better fit than Heroes and Studio 60, which is why I'm sure there are people who watch Heroes and then switch to CSI.

Where NBC made the mistake was not moving tired ER and its drooping ratings to another night and plugging Studio 60 there. Studio 60 is a much better fit style wise and demographically with The Office and Earl than it is with Deal or No Deal and Heroes.

[Joe]

Originally Posted by kcchief19

I'm not one to normally beat up critics, but this is a refrain that has been repeated quite frankly -- the claim that Studio 60 is a bad show. In this case, the writer betrays that by saying a cancellation would be bad for the audience because it will lead to more reality and game shows and there aren't enough good dramas on TV. It would seem that if Studio 60 were a bad show, it's cancellation wouldn't be a loss for the audience at all. After saying it's a bad show, the writer ends up defending the show.

I think much of the critical reaction has been a response to the hype or a response to the arrogance of Sorkin, or both. I think the viewer response is different -- I'm not a programming genius, but even I knew that Monday at 9 CT was a horrific time slot for the show, both from competition and compatability. So much is made of the drop off from Heroes to Studio 60, but the problem is that those two shows have nothing in common enough to tie them together, and running back-to-back hour-long dramas is rarely a winning combination. However, as hour long dramas go, CSI: Miami and Heroes are a better fit than Heroes and Studio 60, which is why I'm sure there are people who watch Heroes and then switch to CSI.

Where NBC made the mistake was not moving tired ER and its drooping ratings to another night and plugging Studio 60 there. Studio 60 is a much better fit style wise and demographically with The Office and Earl than it is with Deal or No Deal and Heroes.

It was originally planned to be on Thursdays, but NBC got scared to put it up against CSI and Grey's Anatomy in the same time slot.

[Raiders Army]

Originally Posted by kcchief19

I think much of the critical reaction has been a response to the hype or a response to the arrogance of Sorkin, or both. I think the viewer response is different -- I'm not a programming genius, but even I knew that Monday at 9 CT was a horrific time slot for the show, both from competition and compatability. So much is made of the drop off from Heroes to Studio 60, but the problem is that those two shows have nothing in common enough to tie them together, and running back-to-back hour-long dramas is rarely a winning combination. However, as hour long dramas go, CSI: Miami and Heroes are a better fit than Heroes and Studio 60, which is why I'm sure there are people who watch Heroes and then switch to CSI.

Where NBC made the mistake was not moving tired ER and its drooping ratings to another night and plugging Studio 60 there. Studio 60 is a much better fit style wise and demographically with The Office and Earl than it is with Deal or No Deal and Heroes.

Well, we used to DVR Studio 60 to watch on Tuesday nights (since we don't watch anything) but we don't anymore because we got tired of the show. I think the bottom line is that it just isn't interesting. We gave it three episodes and nothing was there to bring us back. Couple that with the fact that most of the characters think they're geniuses and it makes for a boring, egotistical show.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by kcchief19

Where NBC made the mistake was not moving tired ER and its drooping ratings to another night and plugging Studio 60 there.

Umm ...
http://www.medialifemagazine.com/cgi...7986&printer=1

Last May, even NBC seemed to be losing confidence in “ER.” At the upfront, the network announced that the 13-year-old hospital drama would be replaced for 13 weeks at midseason with the highly touted new drama “The Black Donnellys,” after a season in which “ER’s” adults 18-49 average slipped 28 percent, from a 7.2 to a 5.2.

Two days later, CBS decided to move “Without a Trace” from Thursdays at 10, where it had been sapping “ER’s” ratings, to Sundays. And five months later, “ER” has reestablished itself as the dominant 10 p.m. drama on TV’s most lucrative night. It's one of this season’s biggest shockers.

“ER” has averaged a 6.4 rating thus far this season, up 23 percent over last year’s average, and its household average is also up 21 percent, from an 8.1 to a 9.8.

Part of show’s turnaround is certainly the lighter competition. With “Trace’s” exit from the timeslot. viewers no longer need choose between the two programs, and the show that took “Trace’s” place on CBS, “Shark,” has averaged a 4.1, compared to “Trace’s” 5.6 last year. ABC’s “Six Degrees,” which is averaging a 4.3, hasn’t provided much competition either.

But “ER” has also been stronger creatively this year, with new actors and plotlines giving the show fresh life. John Stamos has come on as a regular, and last week “Frasier’s” John Mahoney gave a moving guest performance as a closeted cross-dresser.

Tonight Forest Whitaker, who’s getting major Oscar buzz for the new movie “The Last King of Scotland,” begins a five-week stint on the show playing a stroke victim suing Kovacs for malpractice.

[larrymcg421]

People also think the Grey's Anatomy move to Thursdays has inadvertently helped out ER. The idea is that people are changing channels at 10pm to create their own 2 hour medical drama block.

[Honolulu_Blue]

Originally Posted by kcchief19

I'm not one to normally beat up critics, but this is a refrain that has been repeated quite frankly -- the claim that Studio 60 is a bad show. In this case, the writer betrays that by saying a cancellation would be bad for the audience because it will lead to more reality and game shows and there aren't enough good dramas on TV. It would seem that if Studio 60 were a bad show, it's cancellation wouldn't be a loss for the audience at all. After saying it's a bad show, the writer ends up defending the show.

I don't know about this. I think there is a strong argument to be made that even a "bad" drama is much better/preferable than more reality TV/game show crap. I certainly find that to be true.

The failure of shows like this, or "The Nine", or "Friday Night Lights", or any of the other dramas that are struggling or have already been canned, means the networks will be less likely to take risks on more shows like them (hopefully better show) and will instead just go back to the cheaper alternatives.

[Joe Canadian]

Some good news...

http://publications.mediapost.com/in...&art_aid=50417

[kcchief19]

Originally Posted by Honolulu_Blue

I don't know about this. I think there is a strong argument to be made that even a "bad" drama is much better/preferable than more reality TV/game show crap. I certainly find that to be true.

The failure of shows like this, or "The Nine", or "Friday Night Lights", or any of the other dramas that are struggling or have already been canned, means the networks will be less likely to take risks on more shows like them (hopefully better show) and will instead just go back to the cheaper alternatives.

But that's exactly the problem. Personally, I agree that a "bad" drama is better than a "good" game show. I think most critics would agree to.

But they end up using two different scales to judge these shows. I think many critics are harder on dramas than they are on game shows because they expect more. If you were to poll a group of critics, I think most would say Studio 60 is better than Deal or No Deal. But because they expect so little from game shows and expect so much from dramas, they end trashing bad dramas and giving a pass to good game shows, even if in their perceived view they would rather watch a bad drama instead of a good game show.

But I still don't grant the premise ... I still think much of the negative criticism of the show has more to do with things other than the show.

[kcchief19]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Umm ...
http://www.medialifemagazine.com/cgi...7986&printer=1

Two days later, CBS decided to move “Without a Trace” from Thursdays at 10, where it had been sapping “ER’s” ratings, to Sundays. And five months later, “ER” has reestablished itself as the dominant 10 p.m. drama on TV’s most lucrative night. It's one of this season’s biggest shockers.

ER is 15th in the ratings going up against Shark and Six Degrees. You know more about ratings than I do -- do you consider that an accomplishment? It's relatively easy to be the dominant 10 p.m. drama on Thursday when all the dominant dramas are on at 9 p.m. ER has one-third the audience of CSI and Grey's Anatomy. Just because ER is doing better than its worst season last year doesn't mean it's doing well. I'll also doub it's profitability -- it's the 15th rated show on TV in ratings, but I'll hazard to guess the cost per episode ranks higher than that.

NBC is even ignoring its own history. When Hill Street Blue faded, NBC didn't link to plug a rookie drama (LA Law) in its place and move HSB to another night. Same thing when LA Law aged and was replaced by rookie ER. NBC is trying to grow a drama on another night to move it to Thursday -- which rarely works, Grey's Anatomy exception noted.

I still contend that if NBC had moved ER to another night, they could have temporarily created a tentpole for another night and built it around ER while creating a fresh new look for Thursday night. I don't think The Office/Earl is a good match with ER either.

Jon -- one thing you said earlier I do recognize. I do understand that networks expect shows to perform when there is so much money on the line. What I don't get is that networks don't look at their shrinking audiences and realize something is wrong. They keep tinkering away more and more, yet the more they tinker the less audience they have. I'd argue that the more networks take risks and act boldly, the better they perform. The more timid they act, the worse they perform.

[Honolulu_Blue]

Originally Posted by kcchief19

I still contend that if NBC had moved ER to another night, they could have temporarily created a tentpole for another night and built it around ER while creating a fresh new look for Thursday night. I don't think The Office/Earl is a good match with ER either.

Why is that? "Must See TV" was built on the four sitcoms as lead-ins to ER. It was, what, Friends, Seinfeld, a constant stream of rotating shows (that "Single Guy" show, that Tea Leone show, and others). I don't see why Earl/Office would be a particularly worse match than those.

Originally Posted by kcchief19

I'd argue that the more networks take risks and act boldly, the better they perform. The more timid they act, the worse they perform.

Yes and no.

I think CBS, for example, has performed very well of late by acting timidly. There was nothing really ground-breaking about CSI. It's a procedural drama with some flare to it. It really caught on. Then CBS proceeded to build off its strength by adding two more identical CSI shows. I'd consider that quite timid. Just like all of NBC's "Law & Orders."

A lot of the reality shows are based off European shows that had success. Importing those shows, at least to me, isn't being all that bold.

"Cop Rock", that was bold. I'd consider "24" bold. And Fox's early days had a lot "bold" programming at the time. It sort of built its foundation off of that stuff.

I dunno... I think a lot of networks have found success in playing it safe.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by kcchief19

... do you consider that an accomplishment? ...
It's relatively easy to be the dominant 10 p.m. drama on Thursday when all the dominant dramas are on at 9 p.m.

15th is 15th, doesn't matter if it's up against the Super Bowl or re-runs of Morely Safer clipping his toenails. And 10 p.m. success (if all things were equal, which they aren't) is even better than 9 p.m. success if my product is something meant for the weekend. Thursday night 10pm is about as good as it gets for a lot of products.

I'll also doubt it's profitability -- it's the 15th rated show on TV in ratings, but I'll hazard to guess the cost per episode ranks higher than that.

I haven't pulled network primetime rates in a good while, and it's been several months since I've even looked at local market prime, but even in the down period for their ratings, ER was among the most expensive shows to buy time in. Living off the past? Maybe so, but it was still effective when it came to pricing (although I suspect that was somewhat more true on the market level than on the national level).

What I don't get is that networks don't look at their shrinking audiences and realize something is wrong.

Actually, I think most of the powers that be do know that something is wrong. But what's most wrong is that more than 50% of the total available audience has drained away, scattered across a couple of hundred cable channels. And somewhere in there, it becomes the economy of scale (or something like that). A major network can't survive on 80,000 total viewers for a show, that's a couple of zeroes less than what they need. But The Outdoor Channel, BBC America, et al and etc can survive on those. And there's just so blasted many of them that the minnows have eaten about half the whale.

I'd argue that the more networks take risks and act boldly, the better they perform. The more timid they act, the worse they perform.

I tend to fall into the other camp on this, the most successful shows aren't all that risky IMO. Grey's is part soap, part medical drama. The CSI franchise are basically police procedurals. Dancing and Deal/No Deal are variety & game shows which have been around forever. Housewives is a modern day Peyton Place.

The only successful shows right now that are even a bit off the beaten path are probably Earl, Office,with Heroes as this year's token quirky hit. Maybe Lost fits in there too, although it might almost be categorized as a serial drama too.

In order to pull "network sized" numbers in today's media landscape, the networks have to pull from multiple demographics. And the broader the target, the more homogenized the product, hence the "safer" programs putting up bigger numbers. It's a push-pull on this, too narrow & the numbers are too small. Too broad (perhaps aka too safe) and viewers slip away elsewhere.

As far as I can tell, the only real hope broadcast TV has to ever come close to the numbers they'd like to be pulling is if something kills cable entirely (they're big fans of the proposed ala carte system). Otherwise, the viewing audience is likely to remain as fragmented as it is today, where we haven't quite gotten to every person having their own channel, but we ain't that far from it either.

[Joe]

From Studio Briefing 11/1/2006

NBC Chief Says 'Studio 60' Will Stay

NBC Universal CEO Robert Wright has denied reports that Aaron Sorkin's Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip is about to be canceled. In an interview with FoxNews.com's Roger Friedman, who originally quoted insiders as saying that the show was about to be yanked from the network's schedule, Wright said such a move was unlikely because "We have too much money invested in it. ... I think it will go on."

[Joe Canadian]

Originally Posted by Joe

From Studio Briefing 11/1/2006

NBC Chief Says 'Studio 60' Will Stay

NBC Universal CEO Robert Wright has denied reports that Aaron Sorkin's Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip is about to be canceled. In an interview with FoxNews.com's Roger Friedman, who originally quoted insiders as saying that the show was about to be yanked from the network's schedule, Wright said such a move was unlikely because "We have too much money invested in it. ... I think it will go on."

Great! Now if they can only continue the good writing that was in the last episode!

[larrymcg421]

Studio 60's average at Monday 10 pm - 6.3/10
Friday Night Lights last Monday at 10pm - 5.7/10

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

Studio 60's average at Monday 10 pm - 6.3/10
Friday Night Lights last Monday at 10pm - 5.7/10

I'm not sure what those numbers are supposed to be, households maybe?

Because the numbers for FNL and Strip are being reported & discussed for 18-49 pretty much everywhere I've seen as being about the same (for the Monday night special airing).

And 18-49 numbers for Strip were averaging only 4.2 through the first four weeks and I'm pretty sure they didn't improve enough between now & then to get anywhere near a 6 for an average.

edit to add: Actually, they've pulled a 3.1 and a 3.2 in A18-49 since that 4.2 average cited in the article, so they're going in the other direction. Right now, the more people see of 60, the less people watch it.

[Joe Canadian]

I didn't realize this until my dad pointed it out to me, but the old guy from "The Wrap Party" episode is Eli Wallach... the guy that played Tuco (The Ugly), in the movie The Good, The Bad, and the Ugly.

[Ksyrup]

From today's Media Life Mag website:

Despite the tough competition, NBC’s “Heroes” hit another series-best, averaging a 6.6 at 9 p.m. and recording the highest rating for any new show this season.

For the evening, ABC averaged a 5.4 rating and 13 share, followed by NBC at 4.8/12, CBS at 4.3/11, Fox at 2.7/6, Univision at 1.7/4, and the CW at 1.4/3.

At 8 p.m., ABC’s CMA led with a 4.9, followed by NBC’s “Deal or No Deal” at 4.4, Fox’s “Prison Break” at 3.5, CBS’s “How I Met Your Mother” (3.3) and “The Class” (2.9) at 3.1, Univision’s “La Fea Mas Bella” at 2.1, and CW’s “Everybody Hates Chris” (1.4) and “All of Us” at 1.4.

At 9 p.m., “Heroes” led with a 6.6, followed by CMA at 5.9, CBS’s “Two and a Half Men” (4.7) and “The New Adventures of Old Christine” (3.7) at 4.2, Fox’s “Justice” at 1.8, Univision’s “Mundo de Fieras” at 1.6, and the CW’s “Girlfriends” (1.4) and “The Game” (1.3) at 1.3.

At 10 p.m., CBS’s “CSI: Miami” led with a 5.6, followed by ABC’s CMA at 5.2, NBC’s “Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip” at 3.3, and Univision’s “Cristina” at 1.5.

[digamma]

Last night's episode was painful to watch.

[Butter]

I have 3 episodes of this on my DVR, yet I'm not compelled to watch them. I guess that's not a great sign.

[kcchief19]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

15th is 15th, doesn't matter if it's up against the Super Bowl or re-runs of Morely Safer clipping his toenails. And 10 p.m. success (if all things were equal, which they aren't) is even better than 9 p.m. success if my product is something meant for the weekend. Thursday night 10pm is about as good as it gets for a lot of products.

In a vacuum, I agree. My thought is that when a former No. 1 show is celebrating an upsurge in viewers because they're 15th, the show has eroded. ER isn't a tentpole anymore than can carry the rest of the night, and I think it's only going to get worse. Where will NBC be in two years when ER's ratings have completely eroded and they have nothing to move in its place? To me, the conservative thing to do is to launch a show on another night and move it to Thursday. The risky thing to do is to move ER to another night during its waning years and try to reenergize Thursday night. I also completely agree that's a much easier decision in my seat than it is in a seat at 30 Rock.

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Actually, I think most of the powers that be do know that something is wrong. But what's most wrong is that more than 50% of the total available audience has drained away, scattered across a couple of hundred cable channels. And somewhere in there, it becomes the economy of scale (or something like that). A major network can't survive on 80,000 total viewers for a show, that's a couple of zeroes less than what they need. But The Outdoor Channel, BBC America, et al and etc can survive on those. And there's just so blasted many of them that the minnows have eaten about half the whale.

I think they know too, but I think they make really dumb decisions about how to get viewers back. Case in point -- NBC this summer tested both Bravo's Project Runway and USA's Psych in a primetime slot on Monday's. The ratings were horrible, but they were also both reruns of shows just a few says old. Based on the ratings for the original airings and including multiple repeats already aired on cable, I have no doubt that 4-7 million people had already seen the shows. No wonder the ratings tanked. NBC also tried Battlestar Galactica out by airing an edited version of the pilot movie -- on a Saturday night in December. I think 2 of those 3 shows would be a hit on network primetime, but not with reruns in bad timeslots. I don't discount that there's a huge erosion of the audience to the hundreds of cable channels, but I think one reason the cable outlets are drawing audiences is that some of their shows are better than what's on network TV.

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

I tend to fall into the other camp on this, the most successful shows aren't all that risky IMO. Grey's is part soap, part medical drama. The CSI franchise are basically police procedurals. Dancing and Deal/No Deal are variety & game shows which have been around forever. Housewives is a modern day Peyton Place.

I absolutely agree with this largely in concept. I don't think Grey's Anatomy and CSI are particularly edgy either. CSI is essentially Law & Order. But ABC intentionally tried to play it safe when they put WWTBAM on five times a week and it exploded in their face. Then they roll out Lost and Housewives at a time when some people thought episodic dramas were toast. 24 was a cutting edge concept too. I think The Office and Earl are concept shows too. I think the easiest thing you can do as a network is put on low-budget shows (i.e. reality shows) and hope for a big audience. Any high-budget scripted show is a much bigger risk.

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

As far as I can tell, the only real hope broadcast TV has to ever come close to the numbers they'd like to be pulling is if something kills cable entirely (they're big fans of the proposed ala carte system).

I'm interested in how you feel about ala carte. Among the people I talk with, I'm amazed at how effective the ala carte pitch has been. I understand the appeal of "get what you pay for," but I suppose I watch enough shows on non-mainstream channels that the idea of paying $3 a month just so I can have Bravo or the History Channel. It's a necessary evil, but the current structure of cable definitely benfits me because I want the most number of channels at the lowest price. I think ala carte would kill a ton of cable networks.

[kcchief19]

Originally Posted by digamma

Last night's episode was painful to watch.

Back off threadjack, I cringed from the beginning. I abhor the two-part episode unless the episodes air back-to-back first of all. Secondly, I think we're all tiring of the religion plot. We get it.

I like the actors, I love the production and I love most of the writing. If Sorkin would just get off his high horse about the religious right. I thought he dealt with religious on The West Wing much better. Perhaps it's just that he's beating a dead horse that it's annoying me.

Worst. Episode. Yet.

[rkmsuf]

At 10 p.m., CBS’s “CSI: Miami” led with a 5.6, followed by ABC’s CMA at 5.2, NBC’s “Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip” at 3.3, and Univision’s “Cristina” at 1.5.

Go Univision!

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by kcchief19

I'm interested in how you feel about ala carte.

I think it's probably the worst idea to come along in mass media in the past, oh, 30 years.

-- it will be the end of 80% of all cable networks which in turn
-- will be the end of 80%+ of the shows I currently watch (and I don't watch all that many hours a week as it is)

That personal impact aside, the ultimate impact will be an increase in the cost to virtually every cable tv subscriber in the country.

Problem is, not enough people understand how it works to understand how it will end up that way. (Trust me, it took me a good two hours of painstakingly going through the process just to get my father to begin to understand it, and even still he has a hard time looking past "yeah, but I wouldn't have to pay that flat rate bill each month").

[Malificent]

Originally Posted by kcchief19

Back off threadjack, I cringed from the beginning. I abhor the two-part episode unless the episodes air back-to-back first of all. Secondly, I think we're all tiring of the religion plot. We get it.

I like the actors, I love the production and I love most of the writing. If Sorkin would just get off his high horse about the religious right. I thought he dealt with religious on The West Wing much better. Perhaps it's just that he's beating a dead horse that it's annoying me.

Worst. Episode. Yet.

I must be completely out of the loop because I really enjoyed the episode, but it was the comedy of errors thing that made it for me.

[lordscarlet]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

I think it's probably the worst idea to come along in mass media in the past, oh, 30 years.

-- it will be the end of 80% of all cable networks which in turn
-- will be the end of 80%+ of the shows I currently watch (and I don't watch all that many hours a week as it is)

That personal impact aside, the ultimate impact will be an increase in the cost to virtually every cable tv subscriber in the country.

Problem is, not enough people understand how it works to understand how it will end up that way. (Trust me, it took me a good two hours of painstakingly going through the process just to get my father to begin to understand it, and even still he has a hard time looking past "yeah, but I wouldn't have to pay that flat rate bill each month").

Honestly, I'm not sure why I even pay for cable (well, DirecTV). 95% of what I watch is on a network. If my Tivo weren't a DirecTivo I would consider cancelling it and getting the HBO shows from Netflix (I would only miss BSG, which I could also do on DVD, South Park, the same, ESPN and Small Space, Big Style).

[Celeval]

Huh, yeah - I really enjoyed last night's episode.

[wade moore]

Originally Posted by Celeval

Huh, yeah - I really enjoyed last night's episode.

"

[IMetTrentGreen]

Maybe this new show that Jordan greenlighted will become an issue, but I doubt it.

i think this element, like a couple others, are aaron sorkin's life being written into the show.

the director with a crank habit. the bit about upscale viewers (a real nbc exec trotted that line out a couple weeks ago about this show, im guessing sorkin has heard it before about his shows), the skeptical execs with u.n. show (west wing maybe).

some guesses, but i sense a lot of personal stuff with sorkin this go round.

[Draft Dodger]

I think this was the best episode yet, by a wide margin

[lordscarlet]

Originally Posted by Draft Dodger

I think this was the best episode yet, by a wide margin

I thought the previous one was.

[primelord]

I didn't think this one was the best, but I enjoyed it quite a bit