Shows that fail due to handling, because of cluelessness or deniability?

[Antiyonder]

When a new show premieres on the network, it can either succeed or fail. A show that fails can do so for multiple reasons:

1. Poor quality.
2. Bad choice of timeslot. (Too early/late in the day.)
3. Lack of advertisements. (Viewer doesn't know it exists.)
4. Airs too much or to little (Endless marathons or airs one every week.)

Yet, from what I gather about many canceled shows, the execs always seem to assume it's 1. Poor quality.

Can they really be so clueless that they think the quality determinds the success without question or is it because acknowledging so would make them look poor if they admit it (denial)?

Don't get me wrong, I'm fully aware that some shows have garnered success without the benefits of proper airtime or by viewers tuning in by luck.

My question, are the majority of successful programs well successful because of the correct amount of advertising and sutiable timeslot, or do the higher majority of successful shows lack those advantages? If it's the latter, how can the higher ups not figure on their handling of the show as a factor of success or failure?

[Gatomon41]

I'm thinking Stagate Alantis. The producers made several decissions that not only ruined the great potential of the show, but is now killing off the fanbase.

Enterprise and Voyager, for having two hacks to produce and write the series. Sure, the series didn't reach good quality, but only because the guys making it had no talent. ENT season 4 was amazing after they changed producers and writers.

[Tobias]

Complete Savages, that ran on ABC a few seasons ago, and was the ONLY good comedy to come out of that season. ABC stuck it on Fridays and didn't really give it the push it needed, considering that Mel Gibson (who produced and directed a few episodes) and Betty White were frequent guest stars.

Then of course, who can forget Futurama?

[Ragebot]

Voyager, for having two hacks to produce and write the series. Sure, the series didn't reach good quality, but only because the guys making it had no talent.

That's simply not true. Brannon Braga only worked as show runner for two seasons. Producers Michael Piller, Jeri Taylor and Kenneth Biller also worked as show runners for a good long while, and showed no recognizable shifts in quality.

I don't know if you've read Ron Moore's interview he gave after his short stint on the series, but the bottom line seemed to be that there was a great deal of animosity between the writers, and that this resulted in the staff simply having very little desire to make the best show they could.

Though, I do agree that Berman and Braga were primarily responsible for Enterprise's faults. After all, the fact that they wrote most of the episodes themselves speaks for itself.

[Jeff Harris]

A few shows come to mind:

The Loop (FOX): Lack of advertisements, bad choice of timeslots, aired too little, oh, and an unfairly high ratings standard.

Arrested Development (FOX): Bad choice of timeslots and an unfairly high ratings standard. Seriously, not every show can get 24, House, or American Idol-sized ratings. AD was critically acclaimed, but it was on a terrible night that was usually tuned into another network. The Loop was AD's spiritual successor, but people didn't know it existed. I didn't even know this was the SECOND season of The Loop myself.

The Knights of Prosperity and In Case of Emergency (ABC): Bad choice of timeslots, aired too little, and an unfairly high ratings standard on ABC's part.

Traveller (ABC): Lack of advertisements and an unfairly high ratings standard on ABC's part. Traveller was a great series, but after the less than Lost-level ratings of the series, ABC just stopped advertising for the show for no reason whatsoever. They only concentrated on The Next Best Thing and American Inventor and ignored the 10 PM E/P show for some odd reason. Even Masters of Science Fiction, which was buried Saturday nights at 10 PM, had more advertisements for it in subsequent weeks than Traveller did.

[Desensitized]

2. Bad choice of timeslot. (Too early/late in the day.)
3. Lack of advertisements. (Viewer doesn't know it exists.)
4. Airs too much or to little (Endless marathons or airs one every week.)
Clerks: TAS basically falls under all 3 categories. It was up against the Final Four, aired with no real advertisement and only aired two of it's six episodes.

I don't care what anyone says, that show was given no chance at all by it's network. But we all know how ABC feels about sitcoms since 'Who Wants To Be A Millionaire' came around.

[RayChuang]

A couple of comments:

1. Futurama failed on its initial run on Fox because they placed the show at 1900 hours ET/PT on Sundays, and given the overrun from Fox NFL broadcasts, many episodes were NEVER shown on its first run on the US East Coast. Fortunately, Fox learned from this mistake, and during the NFL season nowadays Fox runs a NFL postgame show at 7:00 pm ET instead. Futurama found new fans when it went on Cartoon Network's Adult Swim programming block, and that's why new animation are being produced that will be shown on Comedy Central next year.

2. Arrested Development was a show that didn't work well if you saw the show in individual episodes. Because of the way the show intertwined multiple plotlines over several episodes, this show was far better appreciated by watching it on a DVD full season set.

[Antiyonder]

Maybe I should have made this clear, but I'm not looking for a list of shows that were handled poorly. I could provide some myself, but that's not the point.

The point I'm looking for, is if the network execs really think that a show should be successful regardless of timeslot and advertising (or lack therefore of).

Do they really think quality is the definate clincher or are they aware they messed up, and want to save face?

[Desensitized]

They think if a show doesn't have ratings, it's a failure PERIOD. They figure it must not be very good if people aren't watching it from it's premiere, so they cancel it for something they think will give them insta-ratings from the word go.

It didn't use to be that way, but it definitely is now.

They seem to think the general public are psychics that know when a show is on, even if they don't advertise for it and put it in a crappy time-slot, (hence, my 'Clerks' example) and when they don't get any ratings they assume the show just isn't any good.

[Antiyonder]

They think if a show doesn't have ratings, it's a failure PERIOD. They figure it must not be very good if people aren't watching it from it's premiere, so they cancel it for something they think will give them insta-ratings from the word go.

It didn't use to be that way, but it definitely is now.

They seem to think the general public are psychics that know when a show is on, even if they don't advertise for it and put it in a crappy time-slot, (hence, my 'Clerks' example) and when they don't get any ratings they assume the show just isn't any good.

So I take it business schools don't teach things like method of product handling, cause I'd think it's an essential lesson.

[Shawn Hopkins]

I don't know anything about Hollywood so I'm just going to completely ignore you and gripe about a show that I think was treated unfairly.

I'll be honest, I don't think Firefly would have ever been a hit. But its DVD sales have shown that it could definitely have developed a loyal niche audience it Fox hadn't promoted it so poorly and shown episodes out of order.

And I think we've got to look at the flipside of this. Sometimes quality shows stay on way longer than they should if it were a simple numbers game, because they have executives that fight for them. Buffy the Vampire Slayer could have been killed in the cradle, it was no instant hit, but it had support. Seinfeld got good word of mouth, but they could have cancelled it based on its early numbers.

I really don't think the execs always assume it's poor quality. I just think getting eyes on the screen and ad dollars in their pocket always takes precedence.

[Antiyonder]

I really don't think the execs always assume it's poor quality. I just think getting eyes on the screen and ad dollars in their pocket always takes precedence.

I don't see why instant success is so important nowadays.

Because for one, it's been proven in the case of Nickelodeon and Cartoon Network's past programming that patience can sometime pay the bill.

Ed Edd and Eddy
Spongebob Squarepants
Fairly Oddparents

These hit shows weren't the ratings juggernaunts when they first premiere but overtime they became the hits they are now.

Honestly, what do they do with all of the extra money they make, light them like cigars or give them selves an undeserved bonus?

[Shawn Hopkins]

I don't see why instant success is so important nowadays.

Because for one, it's been proven in the case of Nickelodeon and Cartoon Network's past programming that patience can sometime pay the bill.

Ed Edd and Eddy
Spongebob Squarepants
Fairly Oddparents

These hit shows weren't the ratings juggernaunts when they first premiere but overtime they became the hits they are now.

Honestly, what do they do with all of the extra money they make, light them like cigars or give them selves an undeserved bonus?

You gotta understand, the execs have someone on their ass every day of the week who expects their shows to perform. If they want to get ahead they have to show results, so they go for the things that get bang for their buck instead of supporting arty shows that drag their careers down. They probably could be even more sucessful if they would back potential hits, but a lot of them seem to think only in the short term, probably because of the pressure, and pull the plug too soon.

[Wounded_Dragon]

The market's also changed a lot from when shows got a lot more chances. With all the channels that exist now, it's a lot harder to justify giving a whole season to a show on the chance ratings might rise. "Seasons" are mutant beasts now, with shows picking "weird" dates to premiere in an attempt to get free time. Shows with one episode get shown to try and recoup the money that went into making the pilot rather than just not showing it at all.

But that doesn't mean TC doesn't have a point. FOX scheduling anything for Friday night is practically killing it right off the bat.

[Jeff Harris]

The point I'm looking for is if the network execs really think that a show should be successful regardless of timeslot and advertising (or lack therefore of).I think that all network execs have confidence in their shows initially feeling that out of all the shows that they looked at, the ones initially scheduled represents something they feel is strong and attention-grabbing. They only start to sweat when ad execs and critics start analyzing them like vultures circling dinner.


Do they really think quality is the definite clincher or are they aware they messed up, and want to save face?Quality is pointless.

The only thing that matters to everyone involved is money and "ratings." How much could be earned, how much something costs, and how much they could save. When money could be made, quality goes by the wayside at times.

"Ratings" also factor in show decisions, or at least the perceived notions of what the current ratings system is supposed to accomplish. The Nielsens are not perfect by any stretch, but until someone develops something a little stronger, fairer, and more accurate, it's the only one we've got. And television execs take the ratings too far. Nowadays, when something gets monster ratings like Lost, Heroes, American Idol, House, America's Got Talent, Two and a Half Men, or CSI, they expect EVERY SHOW to have the same level of success. Anything less and it's scrapped.

ABC expected Traveller to have Lost-sized ratings. It didn't. It's gone.

NBC wanted Criminal Intent and Trial By Jury to have the same size audience of Special Victims Unit. They didn't. Trial By Jury got cancelled and Criminal Intent is only on USA.

FOX wanted On The Lot to have Idol-sized ratings . . . okay, bad example. On The Lot sucked hard and deserved to die a quick death. However, since the advertising sponsors already paid their money upfront and FOX spent the money to light Rupert's fireplace, they had to keep it on the air.

Quality doesn't matter much these days. I think YouTube's success is proof of that.

[Bones Justice]

Doesn't the cost of making the show go into the mix somewhere? I think the cost has a lot to do with ratings expectations. A show that's expensive to make (science fiction, for example) has to have much higher ratings to justify it's costs. Compare that to a show that's cheap to make (game show, reality show) where even small ratings will means a profit.

Unfortunately, I think serialized shows are another reason that a show can fail. I like these kinds of shows but they tend to turn off new viewers that missed the beginning.

[Antiyonder]

Look, I understand that they can't just support every show, but part of the problem is the recent rises of expectations.

They either see the show as junk or gold. The idea of a show just being plain successful seems to be nonexistent nowadays.

You know those hit cartoons I've listed for one? Had they been greenlit today and had the same exact results today, then they wouldn't have the chance to become the network's golden egg, so high expectation hurt as well as help.

[Brandon Pierce]

You know what group annoys me more? "Focus Groups". These people are the biggest cheaters in terms of deciding if a show is good or not. Basically it's just another devision of executives who only care about money.

Wouldn't it be feasible to have an actual "audience" who have no connection to a company, be a good starting point? Of coarse not. Executives feel they automatically know what people want (sex seems to be on top of their lists. I wander what THEY'RE love lives are like :eek: ).

[RAINMAN]

Police squard. The series that give birth to naked gun was canned after 6 eps? What went wrong? I guess people did not like that type of comedy?

[Brandon Pierce]

I actually was in contact with Jerry Zucker a few years ago, and he told me that Police Squad was canceleld after creative differences between them and the network.

[Shawn Hopkins]

You know what group annoys me more? "Focus Groups". These people are the biggest cheaters in terms of deciding if a show is good or not. Basically it's just another devision of executives who only care about money.

Wouldn't it be feasible to have an actual "audience" who have no connection to a company, be a good starting point? Of coarse not. Executives feel they automatically know what people want (sex seems to be on top of their lists. I wander what THEY'RE love lives are like :eek: ).

A focus group is an actual audience who has no connection to the company. They recruit them at malls and stuff. They aren't executives.

[Hanshotfirst113]

So, how many people are going to mention Wonderfalls and Firefly?

[Brandon Pierce]

A focus group is an actual audience who has no connection to the company. They recruit them at malls and stuff. They aren't executives.
Once in a while they are. The cast of MST3K said that the focus group from Gramercy for the upcoming MST3K feature film was not made up of an "audience" or MST3K fans, but actual film executives.

[Shawn Hopkins]

Once in a while they are. The cast of MST3K said that the focus group from Gramercy for the upcoming MST3K feature film was not made up of an "audience" or MST3K fans, but actual film executives.

They almost always are regular joes. The whole point of a focus group is to hit the target market for a product, so they pick people who would likely consume that product. That MST3K thing might be one weird exception, but I don't get that from the official FAQ.

Q: I hear the suits at Gramercy did a lot of meddling. What happened?
A: Skittish Gramercy executives cut and rewrote some riffs, which may explain why -- as many MSTies noticed -- the movie has fewer of the really obscure references that make the TV series so delightful. One example: When "Scrotor" the bug-eyed monster first appears, the original riff was "Bootsy Collins!" This was changed in the movie to "Leona Helmsley!" reportedly because the Gramercy executives had never heard of Bootsy Collins. (The irony of a bunch of white guys from Minnesota trying to explain Bootsy Collins to supposedly hip L.A. movie executives did not go unnoticed by BBI.)
The same nervousness about the movie on the part of Gramercy executives led to the film being subjected to the appalling "focus group" process (riotously parodied in a host segment of episode 704- The Incredible Melting Man; at the second convention Jim Mallon said those host segments were very much like the real thing, and were BBI's way of expressing their anger at the infuriating process).
For reasons BBI did not understand, Gramercy asked BBI to create a "story arc" within the host segments of the film. Grudgingly, BBI complied (though they felt it wasn't necessary). But when focus groups complained the film was too long, an entire host segment was cut, and the ending host segment completely reshot, utterly demolishing the very story arc Gramercy had asked them to create. (Which is why, in the finished film, you see Crow pick up a chain saw in Tom's bedroom, but nothing more is made of it. In the original ending, Crow returns to his ditch below decks and uses the chain saw in another escape attempt.)
At the ConventioCon, Bridget Jones expressed her exasperation over reading focus group comments from, for example, "the popular girl from high school. The handwriting had big looping letters and i's dotted with hearts, saying: 'I just didn't think it was funny!' This was the sort of people they were listening to," Jones said with annoyance. In the cut host segment (which was shown in public for perhaps the only time ever at the 1996 ConventioCon), Mike and bots retreat to the SOL's "storm shelter" during a meteor shower, and when the air is cut off, the bots race heroically (and hilariously) to save their pal Mike from asphyxiation.

[Kid Cloudkicker]

well i'll add my 2 cents worth, anyone remember the Flash tv series from the late 80's? i thought it was a good show and it certainly got better in the season but CBS first put it on Thursday against the Cosby show, which was the stupidest thing to do since back then the Cosby show was still the #1 show in it's time slot, and then to add insult to injury CBS was airing the World Series that season so the Flash got pre-empted alot and then they started airing it on different days so no one could figure out when it was on and that's what killed it.