TiVo Community Forums Archives

TiVoCommunity.com
(c)opyright 1995-2005 All rights reserved
indexcheckTC
This area is a static history of posts in the TiVo Community Forum Archive.
This archive history was made for the simple indexing of search sites like Google.

Pages:1

A bit of a rant
(Click here to view the original thread with full colors/images)

Posted by: ADG

I remember when the "fall television season" begain early in September. I remember when new episodes were broadcast through May and how annoyed I'd get that there were reruns in December - in the middle of the season. And while I understand that production costs have skyrocketed (along with everything else), I can't stand that there are so many disruptions in normal programming and that series shows are only doing 20-22 new episodes a season.

At the end of last night's 24 they showed a preview of the next episode - which will be broadcast on March 30th. March 30th!!!. And after NYPD Blue was interrupted for 6 or 7 weeks so ABC could air a new series, after just two new episodes it was preempted by the new Millionaire game show. Just two examples of what has become "the norm".

Why have production costs gone through the roof? Because networks pay the stars and production companies ridiculous numbers. What would happen if all of the networks (cable included) said "No. We will pay you very well, but we won't make you our partners. And if the series does well then we will write into your contract that you will also benefit significantly. But we want 25 - 27 new episodes a year and that means that instead of earning $200K per episode you will only earn $150K per episode"? Somehow I think the stars could live on that and I think eventually things would get back to reality. Is it possible that for a period of time some stars would hold out and all of us would suffer? Sure. But in the long run everyone comes out ahead (except possible for a few stars who would have to work 6 extra weeks to earn the same money they currently do - and certainly they would have our sympathy for that imposition).

Or not. I don't know. But I do know that I've become increasingly annoyed and frustrated with having to adjust my viewing habits because of the whines and greed of pretty much everyone involved in broadcasting.

Okay. That's off my chest :rolleyes:

Posted by: QueenBee

It's your own fault for being a guy. 24 is probably holding off until after the basketball tournaments. ;)

Posted by: randyf

I agree completely ! (but shouldn't this be in TV show talk ? ) :)

So after a show is ON off off off ON ON off off off off ON ....... you get out of the rhythm of watching it, and then the execs wonder " why did NYPD Blues ratings drop so much " ? Hmmm we better cancel it :rolleyes:

Posted by: beLIEve

You mean this thread isn't post count related? Darn, I've been fooled.

Posted by: AJRitz

This is a MAJOR peeve for me as well. What makes me the most angry is when a network puts out a new show and then jerks it off and on the schedule, interspersing various "specials" and the like. Then, the network announces that they're cancelling the new show because of poor ratings. OF COURSE THE RATING WERE POOR, people couldn't rely on it being on and viewers couldn't get into the rhythm of the show because of the constant interruptions. And I don't buy that this is all about production costs - because they do this with shows that are produced on relatively reasonable budgets as much as they do the more expensive shows. It seems to me that it is mostly about network executive insecurities and their need to constantly tinker.

Posted by: Webchump

quote:
Originally posted by QueenBee
It's your own fault for being a guy. )

Science has found a way for us to choose our own genders without heavy surgery? :p

Posted by: DougF

quote:
Originally posted by QueenBee
It's your own fault for being a guy. 24 is probably holding off until after the basketball tournaments. ;)

I thought at first that might be the reason, but NCAA tournament games are only on Thursday-Sunday until the championship which is on a Monday.

Posted by: allan

quote:
Originally posted by AJRitz
This is a MAJOR peeve for me as well. What makes me the most angry is when a network puts out a new show and then jerks it off and on the schedule, interspersing various "specials" and the like. Then, the network announces that they're cancelling the new show because of poor ratings. OF COURSE THE RATING WERE POOR, people couldn't rely on it being on and viewers couldn't get into the rhythm of the show because of the constant interruptions. And I don't buy that this is all about production costs - because they do this with shows that are produced on relatively reasonable budgets as much as they do the more expensive shows. It seems to me that it is mostly about network executive insecurities and their need to constantly tinker.

I've quit watching several otherwise good shows because of them fiddling with the schedule. Star Trek DS9 did that and it's that only Trek show that I haven't seen every ep. It's not as big an issue with Tivo, but ratings aren't determined by Tivo users.

Posted by: Steveknj

It's one of the reasons I think the Networks have been shooting themselves in the foot for the last few years. I think a big part of the problem is that the nets have to NOW answer to corporate owndership that doesn't understand TV (NBC - GE) or are just looking at the short term "bottom line" (ABC - Disney and CBS - Viacom). There is now too much reliance on this "sweeps mentality" All the other times of the year, they just either put reruns on or low cost reality shows. How many sweeps weeks are there now? November, February and May? That's the only time we ever get new shows consistanly. So that's 12 of the 24 or so new episodes. Now we get a sprinkling of new shows once or twice a month the other times, just to whet our appetite.

The other problem, as I've stated numorous times, which ALSO lead to bad ratings, it that these shows are constantly moved around, and in many cases, it seems like it's on a whim. Case in point is The Apprentice, which I believe was originally scheduled to run Wednesdy nights. After ONE special showing on Thursday which got good ratings, they juggle their whole Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday night schedules in order for it to be on Thursday. The average viewer gets confused, can't find their shows, and eventually forget about it. How many of us have the time to constantly hunt down the shows we like? TiVo users are different because we can set an SP, but the other 95% of the population can't do that. Of course ratings are bad!! We have no idea when our shows are on anymore!!! Many of us just wind up channel surfing and watch something other than network entertainment, just by chance. Or watch sports and movies.

Then nets need to be more consistant in their scheduling. They need to give some lower rated shows a chance (heck if you leave a show in one spot long enough, people might even find it), and they need to change the way they determine ad rates which are based on a short time period rather than the life of the show, which doesn't give the show it's true value.

And don't get me even started on the "off-hours" sheduling, and the time bumps that go on now!!

Posted by: devdogaz

I agree that this is frustrating, but you guys are all acting like this is a new problem. The TV schedule has been the same for many years and 22 episodes has been standard for many years as well. The three sweeps periods have been in place just as long. There have always been periods during the season when they have shown reruns or tried out mid-season shows. It's nothing new. This is why we have TiVo. We don't care when the shows are on. We just watch the new episodes when they show up in our NP list.

Posted by: allan

quote:
Originally posted by devdogaz
I agree that this is frustrating, but you guys are all acting like this is a new problem. The TV schedule has been the same for many years and 22 episodes has been standard for many years as well. The three sweeps periods have been in place just as long. There have always been periods during the season when they have shown reruns or tried out mid-season shows. It's nothing new. This is why we have TiVo. We don't care when the shows are on. We just watch the new episodes when they show up in our NP list.

1. It's worse that it used to be, and it's getting worse every year.
2. I don't care about timeslots, but I DO care when at least 4 of my shows get cancelled, and at least 2 others (that I know of) are going on hiatus. I can only watch new shows, if they actually broadcast the damn things! :mad:

Posted by: ADG

I agree it's getting worse all the time. But to be honest, the only reason I posted this now is because this is the first time I've been at an appropriate forum to do so :D

Posted by: kitsap

Not a problem here! I'll start watching 24 once the whole season is on my Tivo. In the meantime, I've got a few hundred hours of other stuff unwatched and ready to go ... like both seasons of The Wire and (recording to be completed within about a week) all of the first two seasons of The Shield.

Really, Tivo makes all of these annoyances simply evaporate. :cool:

Posted by: Steveknj

It is definitely getting worse. Maybe I just don't remember correctly, but I don't recall so many reruns in the middle of the season. I only recall them having reruns during holidays (December, and Easter especially), and during the summer. I think there used to be more "specials" on during the season which is how they wound up spacing these things out. Now it's 3 new shows, 4 weeks of reruns, plus reruns of popular shows on other nights as well, 1 new show, 3 weeks of ruruns, then maybe 4 new shows in a row. Plus what you get is for a night, you will get one show new, 2 other shows reruns, and a fourth new. It seems to me I have to constantly check the listings and plan ahead what I'm going to watch, what I'm going to watch on TiVo etc. If it weren't for sports, I doubt I'd even find enough to watch most night (well maybe that's a good thing!!)

Posted by: devdogaz

Like I said, this has been going on for a long time. If you're comparing today's TV with TV from 30 years ago, then you may have a point. But if you look at the last 10 years, you will see that series have pretty much had 22 episodes per season every year. They haven't changed the length of the TV season during that time either so I don't see how it is possible that it is "getting worse." I think that with TiVo, you are just paying a lot more attention to TV than you have in the past and so it seems worse.

Friends has only 18 eps this year, that is one notable exception, but that was part of their contract negotiations. Most other series have 22 episodes. A couple of Fox shows (24 obviously, and The O.C. since it started in the summer) actually have more than 22 this season.

One thing that IS getting worse, IMO, is networks launching new shows and then not giving them a chance to succeed before cancelling them. How does any network executive expect to put a show on opposite a huge ratings leader (ala Karen Sisco vs L&O) and expect it to do well? They need to make their expectations more realistic for the first year of a show and let it develop an audience. Seems like it would be a lot less expensive to continue making episodes of a show you already have under contract than to order a bunch of pilots of shows you have no idea about.

Posted by: grecorj

The traditional tv season is changing.

According to an article I read recently (exact link can be found on my website, see sig below) more shows will be "event" type shows, following in the model of shows like The Sopranos, Six Feet Under, The Wire. So blame HBO!

NBC will be launching the fall season right after the Olympics (on NBC) ends at the end of August instead of waiting until the end of September, when the Fall Season traditionally starts. And Fox is running several new shows this summer.

Posted by: Steveknj

quote:
Originally posted by devdogaz
Like I said, this has been going on for a long time. If you're comparing today's TV with TV from 30 years ago, then you may have a point. But if you look at the last 10 years, you will see that series have pretty much had 22 episodes per season every year. They haven't changed the length of the TV season during that time either so I don't see how it is possible that it is "getting worse." I think that with TiVo, you are just paying a lot more attention to TV than you have in the past and so it seems worse.

Yes, over the last 10 years, it's been basically the same, with the exception of the added commercial time and the unusual start times. But I don't want to go back 30 years, how about just 20, or 15. I think the trend started with "Must See TV" which was SUCH a ratings hit, that the cost of doing those shows lead to all of the other problems. NBC started throwing so many reruns of their Thursday shows on other nights an THOSE reruns became ratings hits as well. This led to interweaving so many reruns throughout the season that the concept of a "season" has gotten lost. I do like the other suggestion you had about sticking with shows longer. IMO, it's rediculous to cancel a show after only 2 or 3 episodes as is the case sometimes, especially when the shows get bad ratings for 2 shows, then they yank it for 4 weeks, then bring it back, either in the same place, or somehwere else with no advertising. No wonder the shows fail.

I also like the idea of an "event" season of no more than 10 episodes That would be great for timeslots that are unsuccessful for networks, rather than plug in reruns. If I want reruns, I'll watch shows in syndication.

Posted by: Marco

Hey, where were you people 10 years ago, when Homicide was running like 1 1/2 episodes a month? I swear NBC was *trying* to kill that show in its crib.

Posted by: devdogaz

Just an FYI, I did some resarch on some older shows to see how long their seasons were. Here is a sample of what I found:

Show Season # of Episodes
M*A*S*H 1972-73 24 episodes
The Cosby Show 1984-85 24 episodes
Cheers 1982-83 22 episodes
Hill Street Blues 1982-83 22 episodes
Dynasty 1981-82 22 episodes
Dallas 1980-81 23 episodes
Vega$ 1978-79 22 episodes
Mary Tyler Moore 1970-71 24 episodes

So you see there has not been a significant change in the number of episodes produced over the last 20+ years. I don't know if the length of the TV season changed during that time but I don't think it did.

Edit: Sorry for the list format. I had it in columns but it didn't show up that way and I couldn't figure out how to fix it.

Posted by: grecorj

An aside:

Trivia, from Marc Berman's Programming Insider column yesterday:

Which one of the following shows did not produce more than 300 episodes?

a) The Adventures of Ozzie & Harriet
b) Bonanza
c) Dallas
d) Hawaii Five-O
e) Knots Landing

Is: d) Hawaii Five-O

At 285 episodes in 12 seasons (1968-80), CBS' underrated Hawaii Five-O was 15 episodes short of 300. As for the rest:

-The Adventures of Ozzie & Harriet (ABC: 1952-66): 435
episodes
-Bonanza (NBC: 1959-73): 430 episodes
-Dallas (CBS: 1978-91): 356 episodes
-Knots Landing (CBS: 1979-93): 344 episodes

Posted by: ClutchBrake

This is why I have upgraded DTiVos. I have entire seasons of shows building up.

Currently I have near entire seasons of:

CSI
Without a Trace
Tru Calling
Threat Matrix
Angel

I had 10-8 and Jake 2.0 but they got cancelled so I deleted them. At least I'm pretty sure 10-8 got canned.

Posted by: AJRitz

I don't think that, for the most part, the number of episodes have changes a whole lot. But the distribution of the episodes has. The on and off and moving around the timetable has gotten much worse, and I agree that networks have become much less patient with allowing a show to build an audience. Eventually the advertisers are going to figure out that fewer but loyal eyeballs can be just as valuable, if not more valuable, than more but casual eyeballs. Once the advertisers figure it out, the programmers will follow. Until then, the network programmers will continue chasing their tails and wailing about how cable and satellite and consumer choice and DVRs are killing network TV. GET A CLUE GUYS - you're doing it to yourselves (which is poetic justice, I guess, since I know I've often suggested that the network execs go off and do it to themselves).

Many great TV shows took more than one full season to develop an audience - in a half a season of bouncing around the schedule I can't see how any new show ever gets a real shot at greatness anymore.

Posted by: Steveknj

AJRitz,

I couldn't have said it myself!!! I think back in those days, there were set times that were considered repeat season. End of May until middle of September was one. Thanksgiving to New Years was another, End of March until Easter was another. But during the rest of the time, you generally got straight runs of series for weeks at a time, preempted only by sports or specials. At least thats the way it seemed. And definitely, shows were not moved around that much, and reruns of Thursday night shows were not shown on Tuesday as a "bonus" HAHAHAHA, a bonus, what a laugh, more like time filler because they don't have any decent first run shows to put there. The shame of it all is that ratings (which btw are based on a few hundred out of MILLIONS of viewers) show that the reruns do well.

TV is in need of a complete overhaul in the way they do business. I think what HBO is doing is starting to lead to some of that. But I think the only thing that will lead to a change is more progressive thinking by big business in this country, including the owners of the networks and affiliates, and advertisers. The other problem is, the nets have been buying up their cable competition in droves, so they will be able to do what they want without real competition from the those channels

Posted by: DougF

TV is just turning into the same kind of business as the movies. The suits want to see things come out of the gates strong. If the opening weekend/first episode ratings are not good, the movie/show is marked as a failure.

If a show doesn't perform well in its slot right away, it gets cancelled, put on hiatus or moved to a new slot pretty quickly. It's hard to develop an audience like that, but for some reason the bosses can't see that.

Remember how slowly both "Cheers" and "Seinfeld" started and then grew into the monster hits they eventually became? Nowadays, they'd both have been cancelled in just a few weeks time.

Posted by: ClutchBrake

quote:
Originally posted by grecorj
According to an article I read recently (exact link can be found on my website, see sig below) more shows will be "event" type shows, following in the model of shows like The Sopranos, Six Feet Under, The Wire. So blame HBO!

Blame HBO for three of the shows that are widely considered among the best on television? I'd love it if the networks would start putting out quality shows like The Wire and early seasons of The Sopranos, SFU, and Oz.

Posted by: Steveknj

quote:
Originally posted by Frozen Solid
TV is just turning into the same kind of business as the movies. The suits want to see things come out of the gates strong. If the opening weekend/first episode ratings are not good, the movie/show is marked as a failure.

If a show doesn't perform well in its slot right away, it gets cancelled, put on hiatus or moved to a new slot pretty quickly. It's hard to develop an audience like that, but for some reason the bosses can't see that.

Remember how slowly both "Cheers" and "Seinfeld" started and then grew into the monster hits they eventually became? Nowadays, they'd both have been cancelled in just a few weeks time.

Exactly!!! There are a lot of examples of shows that started out weakly and then found it's niche. All In the Family, MASH, Taxi, West Wing, L&O. There are very few Eds around anymore where they give a show three years before they finally have to ax it. But 3-5 episodes is just not enough time to tell how successful a show will be.

Posted by: devdogaz

I'm not sure about the others on your list, but I think The West Wing was a pretty big hit right from the start.

Posted by: Steveknj

I think West Wing was critically acclaimed and won an Emmy, but I am pretty sure it was NOT a ratings hit. The critical acclaim was what kept it on the air until it could develop a following

Posted by: jsmeeker

I'm OK with the distribution of new epsidoes.. The one thing we get from this is NEW programming during the months that were traditionally fileld with re-runs.

Time slots are still important to me. Why?? I only have ONE stand alone TiVo. Conflicts occur. right now, the biggest problem is The West Wing vs. The O.C.

Posted by: AJRitz

quote:
Originally posted by Steveknj
But 3-5 episodes is just not enough time to tell how successful a show will be.

And the corollary to this is that the more "different" a series is, the longer it needs to get established. As a result, shows that are new and different get axed while another iteration of the same old tripe survives because, being somewhat more familiar, it tends to have a better first month.

<Rant> Firefly dies because a "Space Western" was harder to get people into, but "King of Queens" keeps on rolling because it feels a lot like Roseanne and/or Everybody (except me) Loves Raymond. John Doe gets cancelled because it takes a few episodes to get into the "mystery" at the core of the show, but "Totally Outrageous Behavior Caught on Tape" keeps coming back because it's cheap and, having no mystery, requires almost no brain function to watch. "Angel" gets cancelled, because there's no established base of vampires to sell to the marketers. But "Reba" shows at every opportunity because the WB can convince advertisers that country music fans, an established demographic group, watches her. Reality shows proliferate because they're cheap to produce and people watch them like they watch the accident by the side of the road as they drive by. But good drama gets cancelled because viewers have to actually invest their brains to enjoy them and it takes time to build viewer investment in the drama. </Rant>

Posted by: allan

quote:
Originally posted by jsmeeker
I'm OK with the distribution of new epsidoes.. The one thing we get from this is NEW programming during the months that were traditionally fileld with re-runs.

Time slots are still important to me. Why?? I only have ONE stand alone TiVo. Conflicts occur. right now, the biggest problem is The West Wing vs. The O.C.

If this "new programming" is limited to s#itcoms & (un)reality shows, I'd rather have the reruns!

Posted by: devdogaz

quote:
Originally posted by steveknj
I think West Wing was critically acclaimed and won an Emmy, but I am pretty sure it was NOT a ratings hit. The critical acclaim was what kept it on the air until it could develop a following.

I was not able to find actual ratings for individual weeks during that season but I did find a column saying that for the season overall it ranked 30th but that it had moved into the top 10 by season end. So it wasn't a runaway hit right off the bat, but 30th for a new show is still considered a hit. In fact, it appears that the pairing of The West Wing with Law & Order had NBC winning the night by November of that first season.

Posted by: Azlen

Just as an example that this is nothing new, here is a list of episodes and airdates from the second season of Cheers. Note there wasn't a single episode in March or April.

23. 2-1 023 29-Sep-1983 Power Play
24. 2-2 025 13-Oct-1983 Little Sister Don't Cha
25. 2-3 027 20-Oct-1983 Personal Business
26. 2-4 024 27-Oct-1983 Homicidal Ham
27. 2-5 028 03-Nov-1983 Sumner's Return
28. 2-6 029 10-Nov-1983 Affairs of the Heart
29. 2-7 032 17-Nov-1983 Old Flames
30. 2-8 026 24-Nov-1983 Manager Coach
31. 2-9 031 01-Dec-1983 They Called Me Mayday
32. 2-10 033 08-Dec-1983 How Do I Love Thee, Let Me Call You Back
33. 2-11 037 15-Dec-1983 Just Three Friends
34. 2-12 030 22-Dec-1983 Where There's a Will
35. 2-13 034 05-Jan-1984 Battle of the Exes
36. 2-14 036 12-Jan-1984 No Help Wanted
37. 2-15 035 19-Jan-1984 And Coachie Makes Three
38. 2-16 040 26-Jan-1984 Cliff's Rocky Moment
39. 2-17 039 02-Feb-1984 Fortune and Men's Weight
40. 2-18 038 09-Feb-1984 Snow Job
41. 2-19 041 16-Feb-1984 Coach Buries a Grudge
42. 2-20 042 23-Feb-1984 Norman's Conquest
43. 2-21 043 03-May-1984 I'll Be Seeing You (1)
44. 2-22 044 10-May-1984 I'll Be Seeing You (2)

Posted by: Azlen

Here is All in the Family from season 6, which had 24 episodes and pretty much went straight through without any skipped dates, but the season also ended in early March.

Season 6
111. 6-1 08-Sep-1975 The Very Moving Day
112. 6-2 15-Sep-1975 Alone at Last
113. 6-3 22-Sep-1975 Archie, the Donor
114. 6-4 29-Sep-1975 Archie, the Hero
115. 6-5 06-Oct-1975 Mike's Pains
116. 6-6 20-Oct-1975 Chain Letter
117. 6-7 27-Oct-1975 Mike Faces Life
118. 6-8 03-Nov-1975 Edith Breaks Out
119. 6-9 10-Nov-1975 Grandpa Blues
120. 6-10 17-Nov-1975 Gloria Suspects Mike
121. 6-11 24-Nov-1975 The Little Atheist
122. 6-12 01-Dec-1975 Archie's Civil Rights
123. 6-13 08-Dec-1975 Gloria is Nervous
124. 6-14 15-Dec-1975 The Baby (1)
125. 6-15 22-Dec-1975 The Baby (2)
126. 6-16 05-Jan-1976 New Year's Wedding
127. 6-17 12-Jan-1976 Archie, the Babysitter
128. 6-18 26-Jan-1976 Archie Finds a Friend
129. 6-19 02-Feb-1976 Mike's Move
130. 6-20 09-Feb-1976 Archie's Weighty Problem
131. 6-21 16-Feb-1976 Love by Appointment
132. 6-22 23-Feb-1976 Joey's Baptism
133. 6-23 01-Mar-1976 Gloria and Mike's House Guests
134. 6-24 08-Mar-1976 Edith's Night Out

Posted by: ClutchBrake

quote:
Originally posted by Azlen
Just as an example that this is nothing new, here is a list of episodes and airdates from the second season of Cheers. Note there wasn't a single episode in March or April.

Perhaps I don't get what you are saying. I can't figure if you think it is good or bad. That schedule looks AWESOME. A blank week between episodes 1 and 2. A blank week at Xmas. The two months off after sweeps before airing the final two is a bit weird but the rest of it is great.

Posted by: devdogaz

quote:
Originally posted by ClutchBrake
Perhaps I don't get what you are saying. I can't figure if you think it is good or bad. That schedule looks AWESOME. A blank week between episodes 1 and 2. A blank week at Xmas. The two months off after sweeps before airing the final two is a bit weird but the rest of it is great.

I think his point was that there were even breaks in the schedule 20 years ago. The thread started with a complaint about the current state of the TV insdustry and used the fact that 24 won't be shown until March 30th as an example. I think Azlen was simply pointing out that this is nothing new and has been happening for quite a while.

With the current length of the TV season and the traditional number of episodes produced, there have to be weeks where the show either doesn't air or airs a rerun. This can either be a week here and a week there, or it can be in one big block, like Cheer's 2nd season and like this season's 24. Each person will prefer it one way or the other, but the network has to make a decision based on what is best for their business.

Posted by: jerobi

quote:
Originally posted by grecorj
The traditional tv season is changing.

According to an article I read recently (exact link can be found on my website, see sig below) more shows will be "event" type shows, following in the model of shows like The Sopranos, Six Feet Under, The Wire. So blame HBO!

NBC will be launching the fall season right after the Olympics (on NBC) ends at the end of August instead of waiting until the end of September, when the Fall Season traditionally starts. And Fox is running several new shows this summer.

Ah well, this is my preferred method of TV anyway - once a week straight through until finished. If I have to wait 9 months for the next season, no big deal.

I relish the day when Friends is done, with Fraiser off the air soon after. Perhaps that will signal a down period after years of "Everything MUST compete on Thursday night!!!!!" crazyness. From new shows moving back and forth (promising a slow death) to a TiVo-headache of timeslot clashes, I think the race to "win" Thursday should share a large part of the blame!

Posted by: jdfs

Well it would probably be illegal for all the studios to agree to pay the actors less.

I find our season in stark contrast to what the BBC does. The normal length for a season there is about 6 shows. HBO seems to be following their formula. Some would argue that the BBC shows are of higher quality (though certainly not all). I enjoy some of their shows a lot, but do feel cheated when 3 seasons worth of their shows is still less than one of ours. I guess they are able to provide more variety and bigger risks, since they only have to commit to 6 episodes and just bring back the successful ones for the next season. On the other hand you can constantly be rotating in new shows throughout the year and not stick to a October - March schedule.

Posted by: ADG

Of course it would be illegal if there was collusion. But if one netork did it and others happened to follow suit.... ;)

Posted by: TiVangelist

I don't see the problem with gaps in a few weeks in some shows. That's why I have TiVo. Crossing Jordan hasn't been on for a very long time, but it's coming back within a week or two, TiVo has found it, and I plan to watch it. Likewise with the OC, which started in the summer, stopped for a while, and re-opened a few weeks ago. I really don't feel the need to have my favorite shows on every week. Sometimes I miss shows due to conflicts with sporting events (Sharks hockey is my #1 season pass) so I'm happy to catch a rerun in the summer sometime.

Definitely read the NYTimes article mentioned above. "Rules Shifting at Networks" on Feb 8, 2004. It talks about NBC in particular and why they think short series are the way to go, at least in part. CBS, on the other hand, sees no need for change. Which network do you think is rolling with the punches better, trying to change with the times?

Posted by: cwoody222

Thank you to those who posted that this is nothing new. I'm sick of hearing people complain about this type of stuff like it's new. I'm also upset that 24 is not on for a few weeks but I understand it's not new.

Sure, I 'remember' when I was little that there was little reruns. But I imagine that my memory's a bit off. Everyone wants to remember a perfect TV land experience when they were younger.

The fact that the average TV show produces 22 episodes (it's been 22 give or take a few for decades) and that the average season has always started in mid-Sept and the average season ends in mid-May means...we're getting the SAME amount of episodes over the SAME amount of time.

In this case - "24" would not perform well with breaks every few weeks due to the continuing nature of the plot. So they take it off the air in "chunks" and then air it in "chunks".

Primetime soaps do this all the time too.

Posted by: ADG

quote:
Originally posted by cwoody222
Thank you to those who posted that this is nothing new. I'm sick of hearing people complain about this type of stuff like it's new.

Sorry to have upset you. If you let me know what's acceptable to you I'll try to keep future posts within those limitations.

Posted by: Steveknj

quote:
Originally posted by devdogaz
I think his point was that there were even breaks in the schedule 20 years ago. The thread started with a complaint about the current state of the TV insdustry and used the fact that 24 won't be shown until March 30th as an example. I think Azlen was simply pointing out that this is nothing new and has been happening for quite a while.

With the current length of the TV season and the traditional number of episodes produced, there have to be weeks where the show either doesn't air or airs a rerun. This can either be a week here and a week there, or it can be in one big block, like Cheer's 2nd season and like this season's 24. Each person will prefer it one way or the other, but the network has to make a decision based on what is best for their business.

But by looking at the scheduling of those shows, he just BLEW UP his agrument. For AITF, there were SIXTEEN consecutive episodes that aired from Sept until Xmas week, Then it ran for 9 of the next 10 weeks (probably pre-empted by a special of some sort). Yes the season ended earlier than I thought, but I'd be interested to know what CBS ran in that slot from March until May.

For Cheers, they ran 11 straight from Oct until Xmas week, and then 8 straight from Jan, through the end of Feb, then came back again in May for two episodes. Again, I'd be curious to see what they ran for those two month.

Notice the trend? There was none of this 3 weeks new shows, 4 weeks reruns, etc. When was the last time ANY popular show ran SIXTEEN consecutive weeks, let alone 11 straight?

Posted by: Steveknj

quote:
Originally posted by jdfs
Well it would probably be illegal for all the studios to agree to pay the actors less.

I find our season in stark contrast to what the BBC does. The normal length for a season there is about 6 shows. HBO seems to be following their formula. Some would argue that the BBC shows are of higher quality (though certainly not all). I enjoy some of their shows a lot, but do feel cheated when 3 seasons worth of their shows is still less than one of ours. I guess they are able to provide more variety and bigger risks, since they only have to commit to 6 episodes and just bring back the successful ones for the next season. On the other hand you can constantly be rotating in new shows throughout the year and not stick to a October - March schedule.

So if BBC series are only about 6 shows in lenght, does that mean they run 4 series a year for each time slot or do they just repeat the same 6 episodes over and over?

Posted by: grecorj

Maybe things aren't changing that much?

Posted by: devdogaz

quote:
Originally posted by steveknj
But by looking at the scheduling of those shows, he just BLEW UP his agrument. For AITF, there were SIXTEEN consecutive episodes that aired from Sept until Xmas week, Then it ran for 9 of the next 10 weeks (probably pre-empted by a special of some sort). Yes the season ended earlier than I thought, but I'd be interested to know what CBS ran in that slot from March until May.

For Cheers, they ran 11 straight from Oct until Xmas week, and then 8 straight from Jan, through the end of Feb, then came back again in May for two episodes. Again, I'd be curious to see what they ran for those two month.

Notice the trend? There was none of this 3 weeks new shows, 4 weeks reruns, etc. When was the last time ANY popular show ran SIXTEEN consecutive weeks, let alone 11 straight?

I think he made his point very well. The nets only have so many shows to fill a certain time period. They can either:
1. Run them all in a row, like AITF, and be out of new eps by early March
2. Run them fairly consistently until the end of Feb and then take a two-month break, or
3. Air them a few at a time, with a week or two off every month.

#1 would never work in today's world because of May sweeps. #2 might work, but it's possible viewers won't come back for May eps if the show has been off too long. So #3 is the logical choice. You get the same number of episodes over the same length of time, and no matter which way you do it, someone is going to complain.

Posted by: allan

There IS a difference from the "good old days". Back then, they normally did reruns, and since I didn't always see every show the first time pre-Tivo, some of those reruns were "new" to me. That's probably unavoidable.

What really bugs me is when, instead of rerunning, they just take the show off and replace it with yet another crappy (un)reality show! That does happen far more than it used to. Also, their habit of cancelling shows too quickly, and replacing those shows with still more crap.

Posted by: devdogaz

quote:
Originally posted by allan
What really bugs me is when, instead of rerunning, they just take the show off and replace it with yet another crappy (un)reality show! That does happen far more than it used to. Also, their habit of cancelling shows too quickly, and replacing those shows with still more crap.

It used to be that the networks could show reruns and enough people would tune in that the ratings would be decent. With the proliferation of quality shows on cable and the declining ratings overall for the networks, reruns have been bringing lower and lower ratings. Even summer, which used to be exclusively for reruns, has changed. The success of the first Survivor and subsequent shows during the summer has made reruns during the summer almost non-existant. Reruns used to be profitable but they are quickly becoming not so profitable. With rising production costs and fewer opportunities to show the episodes, a show almost has to make it to syndication to break even. And once it does, the networks will milk it for all it's got.

Posted by: Steveknj

quote:
Originally posted by devdogaz
I think he made his point very well. The nets only have so many shows to fill a certain time period. They can either:
1. Run them all in a row, like AITF, and be out of new eps by early March
2. Run them fairly consistently until the end of Feb and then take a two-month break, or
3. Air them a few at a time, with a week or two off every month.

#1 would never work in today's world because of May sweeps. #2 might work, but it's possible viewers won't come back for May eps if the show has been off too long. So #3 is the logical choice. You get the same number of episodes over the same length of time, and no matter which way you do it, someone is going to complain.

No, only ADVERTISERS would complain about #3. I think, and based on declining ratings, that the vast majority of viewers would rather see either #1 or #2. Viewers couldn't give a darn about sweeps this or sweeps that. Viewers would rather watch their favorite shows straigth through and see either re-runs or a new series after the run of shows are over. Sweeps is ONLY for advertisers and networks to set their rates, so networks screw around with the schedule in order to get the most bang during those periods. This is why I think the networks need to rethink the way they present their shows to the advertisers. I really think this strange scheduling style that is done today hurts viewership.

Posted by: Steveknj

quote:
Originally posted by allan
There IS a difference from the "good old days". Back then, they normally did reruns, and since I didn't always see every show the first time pre-Tivo, some of those reruns were "new" to me. That's probably unavoidable.

What really bugs me is when, instead of rerunning, they just take the show off and replace it with yet another crappy (un)reality show! That does happen far more than it used to. Also, their habit of cancelling shows too quickly, and replacing those shows with still more crap.

And when you run consecutive weeks of reruns AFTER the season is over, as was done in the old days, if you missed a series during first run, you used to be able to watch many of the episodes IN ORDER, during rerun season. Now it is so convoluted, I don't even bother watching ANY reruns any longer. Thus, shows like The West Wing, I have never gotten into, because it was on opposite something else I watched in that time slot (pre-TiVo) and it was difficult to catch up on those episodes in order.

Posted by: devdogaz

quote:
Originally posted by steveknj
No, only ADVERTISERS would complain about #3.

I think you meant that the advertisers would complain about #1. IMO, the advertisers would be thrilled with #1. The nets try to put their best programming on during the sweeps in order to get the best ratings. These ratings periods set the advertising rates for the following year. If they ended shows before May sweeps, their may ratings would likely go down and the ad rates would go down as well. Advertisers would love it, but it will never happen. This is why I said that option will never work in today's world.

quote:
Thus, shows like The West Wing, I have never gotten into, because it was on opposite something else I watched in that time slot (pre-TiVo) and it was difficult to catch up on those episodes in order.

You should really start catching this show on Bravo. The first few seasons of The West Wing are some of the best television ever produced and you can see it in order, for free on Bravo. Take advantage!

Posted by: ADG

Plus, they just started rerunning West Wing in order from the first episode this week. They are only up to the 4th episode tonight.

Posted by: paulfife

quote:
Originally posted by devdogaz
I think you meant that the advertisers would complain about #1. IMO, the advertisers would be thrilled with #1. The nets try to put their best programming on during the sweeps in order to get the best ratings. These ratings periods set the advertising rates for the following year. If they ended shows before May sweeps, their may ratings would likely go down and the ad rates would go down as well. Advertisers would love it, but it will never happen. This is why I said that option will never work in today's world.

I think the point being made is that the sweeps are really an artificial method of generating the rates. The advertizing rates should be based on how popular a show is in general, not just during a few fixed weeks of the year. Networks going to non-regular seasons is probably going to change this eventually.

Posted by: devdogaz

quote:
Originally posted by paulfife
I think the point being made is that the sweeps are really an artificial method of generating the rates. The advertizing rates should be based on how popular a show is in general, not just during a few fixed weeks of the year. Networks going to non-regular seasons is probably going to change this eventually.

I totally agree with this. I would love to see the sweeps periods go away. I'm not totally sure why advertisers put up with them since it creates artificial viewer numbers for the rest of the season.

All I was trying to say is that until things change (i.e. the length of the season, the sweeps periods, the way ratings are measured, the way ad rates are generated, etc.), no network is going end a show's run before May (if the show gets good ratings).

Posted by: aepman

The AITF model is exactly how I remember things being when I was a kid. I remember new shows pretty much every week, except when preempted by specials around the holidays. Sometime around March, they would start over again from the beginning.

I don't think its the scheduling that is hurting network television, though (other than potentially loosing a good show when they cancel shows without giving them a chance). Back in a day, the networks had no competition except for each other. Also, there were no Tivos, VCRs, or channels from other time zones either. If you watched a show at 8pm on Monday, you missed the other 2 shows that were on at that time. When reruns started in March, you could pick one of them if you wanted to (but were probably just as likely to watch the rerun of the show you normally watched).

Now, with Tivo and Satellite TV, I watch all kinds of shows that are normally on at the same time. I also have a LOT more choices (not necessarily better, but more at any rate).

The AITF model would not help the networks that much. They probably would have a few shows do better since the consistency would allow an audience to grow, but they would be in a world of hurt come March. The 22-24 episodes per 52-week year is going to continue to hurt them. Of course, any more episodes (or other shows to fill in those weeks) would cost them more money. So, we see more low production cost shows (reality tv).

Todd

Posted by: Steveknj

quote:
Originally posted by devdogaz
I think you meant that the advertisers would complain about #1. IMO, the advertisers would be thrilled with #1. The nets try to put their best programming on during the sweeps in order to get the best ratings. These ratings periods set the advertising rates for the following year. If they ended shows before May sweeps, their may ratings would likely go down and the ad rates would go down as well. Advertisers would love it, but it will never happen. This is why I said that option will never work in today's world.

You should really start catching this show on Bravo. The first few seasons of The West Wing are some of the best television ever produced and you can see it in order, for free on Bravo. Take advantage!

What I really meant to say, is that only advertisers care about the ratings during sweeps week, while viewers could care less. And that is ONLY because that is the time they base their rates. But don't these ad execs see that ratings are artificially skewed during that week? If NBC puts Friends on 3 and 4 times during that week (with only 1 new episode), then how do they get an accurate feeling for what the show is worth? Also, how do they set rates for the shows that are pulled during sweeps, but are shown before and after. Ed comes to mind as at least in 2 of the 3 seasons, the show was pulled during sweeps.

Posted by: 3D

I agree that it can be annoying when shows are preempted for several weeks at a time in order to extend the season(I think Alias only had one episode in February). That said, I don't know that 24 is the best example of the problem. First, as has already been mentioned, unlike many shows which have only 22 episodes, it has 24. Second, I think the hiatus is more a matter of circumstances than an attempt to artificially extend the season. Unless I'm mistaken, the two hour editions of American Idol will begin in about two weeks. Whether you like Idol or not, it pulls in huge numbers for Fox, so preempting 24 was a no brainer. IIRC, 24's ratings received a huge benefit by having such a good lead in, which made it more likely to be picked up again. Therefore, while I'm frustrated by the long hiatus (especially when things are finally starting to get interesting), I'll take it if it increases the chances that a show that I like will get renewed.

Posted by: devdogaz

quote:
Originally posted by 3D
I think Alias only had one episode in February.

In ABC's defense, Alias was the unfortunate casualty of a very strange scheduling month.

Feb. 1 - Super Bowl - Not very often the SB is in February (and sweeps didn't start until Feb. 5).
Feb. 8 - Golden Globes - Moved up due to early Oscars this year.
Feb. 15 - Original ep aired
Feb. 22 - Super Millionaire - ABC trying to juice up its sweeps ratings.
Feb. 29 - Academy Awards - First time ever these awards have been so early in the year.

I don't blame ABC for pulling Alias in any of those circumstances. The two biggest TV events of the year, another very popular awards show, and a ratings stunt. Alias doesn't have good enough ratings to compete with any of that and it would have been a waste of their episodes to air them opposite any of those.

Posted by: devdogaz

I wonder if anyone else has the same feelings as I do about shows not running consecutively. I am actually glad when a show takes a week or two off. I have so many shows that I watch religiously that it's very hard to keep up. During sweeps months it gets pretty ridiculous. Once sweeps are over, I'm usually really glad for the time to catch up on the shows I'm behind on, and be able to do some other things in the evening besides veg in front of the TV.

Posted by: allan

quote:
Originally posted by devdogaz
I wonder if anyone else has the same feelings as I do about shows not running consecutively. I am actually glad when a show takes a week or two off. I have so many shows that I watch religiously that it's very hard to keep up. During sweeps months it gets pretty ridiculous. Once sweeps are over, I'm usually really glad for the time to catch up on the shows I'm behind on, and be able to do some other things in the evening besides veg in front of the TV.

These days, I don't have that many new shows to watch. At least 4 of my shows are dead or dying, and most of my SP's are old TVLand stuff. I wouldn't mind a break if there was more good stuff to fill the void.

Posted by: 3D

quote:
Originally posted by devdogaz
In ABC's defense, Alias was the unfortunate casualty of a very strange scheduling month.

Feb. 1 - Super Bowl - Not very often the SB is in February (and sweeps didn't start until Feb. 5).
Feb. 8 - Golden Globes - Moved up due to early Oscars this year.
Feb. 15 - Original ep aired
Feb. 22 - Super Millionaire - ABC trying to juice up its sweeps ratings.
Feb. 29 - Academy Awards - First time ever these awards have been so early in the year.

I don't blame ABC for pulling Alias in any of those circumstances. The two biggest TV events of the year, another very popular awards show, and a ratings stunt. Alias doesn't have good enough ratings to compete with any of that and it would have been a waste of their episodes to air them opposite any of those.

The only one I take issue with is the Super Millionaire. I realize that it did extremely well in the ratings, but I think it could just have easily been used as a great lead in for a new episode of Alias. That said, given Alias' mediocre ratings, I'm just happy that it'll be back next year.