Please educate me on the finer points of television production. by Haken

GENERAL DISCUSSIONS

Please educate me on the finer points of television production.

POSTED BY: HAKEN
UPDATED: Saturday, December 14, 2002 11:04
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 3463
PAGE 1 of 1

Friday, December 13, 2002 10:33 AM

Likes to mess with stuffs.

Not knowing the exact cost of producing Firefly, can someone please explain to the rest of us:

1. Why a smaller network wouldn't want to pick up Firefly?

2. Why it can't be syndicated?

3. Why a television series go straight to video?

4. Why the several millions of us who do watch Firefly can't all send in $20 and fund an entire season of the series?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, December 13, 2002 10:46 AM

CARDIE

1. A smaller network may pick up "Firefly." If UPN weren't having ratings troubles this year,including "Buffy" being beaten head-on by the WB's "Gilmore Girls," I could see "Firefly" making a nice Tuesday at 9 pm show. Still the best possibility imo. Since smaller networks reach far fewer markets than FOX, FF's ratings on a smaller network might be smaller than they are now.

Looking to a cable network like USA might also be an option. See successes of "Dead Zone" and "Monk."

2. The market for syndicated original genre series is collapsing. FF is too far from lowest-common-denominator programming to interest syndicators--and probably way too expensive to produce.

3. Again, expense. What video company is going to provide the hundreds of millions in upfront costs to produce ongoing series (rather than single-shot, cheapie movies?) Likelihood of recouping investment from rentals and purchases without advertising revenue is virtually nil.

4. Of the several million who watch, I doubt there are more than 100,000 so dedicated that they would fork over $20. That would pay for about an episode.

Cardie

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, December 13, 2002 11:06 AM

THELEFTHAND

Answer to #4: Even if you could get all the viewers to send $20 to keep production rolling (an impossibilty unless you are pay-cable[which is the point of pay-cable]), it's not about covering expenses it's about maximizing profit. If a show costs one million to make an episode, a full season will cost you 22 million. If you can get 30 million from advertisements, you net a cool 8 million a year, not too shabby. (Advertising prices are directly tied to ratings. The more people watch the show, the higher ad rates networks can charge.) But you look at your competitors and see that they are making more money (better ratings).

Normally, content does not play a part in evaluating the two shows. Take FOX's Friday numbers: It gets beat regularly by America's Funniest Home Videos, Providence, and the news show on the other station. Who watches those shows? Not the audience that is watching Firefly. Firefly's audience is the 18-30 age group. Is the 18-30 age group watching TV on Friday? Certainly a larger percentage is not.

So now you have a dilemma. Your object is to maximize profit. Do you replace a show that has been performing decently in its timeslot or do you take a chance and hope that another show will be able to increase your rating in that timeslot?

Remember this maxim: A network is a business. It exists for the sole purpose of increasing shareholder value. (Yes, there are businesses that are not concerned with shareholder value, but these are not publicly-held companies.) If FOX can make 8 million profit on Firefly or 20 million on Joe Millionaire, what is FOX going to do?

What would you do? As an executive with bills to pay and a family to support, you KNOW that if you do not deliver ratings you will be fired. Are you going to keep your job by axing the show or will you stand up and say "NO, this show has merit and I will not allow it to fail"? Congratulations, you have stood up against corporate America and allowed art to appear on television. As you are shown the door next month, and your replacement axes the show, what will be on your mind: "Thank goodness I allowed that show another two weeks of life" or "how am I going to feed my kids "

The system needs changing. There are more important things than ever-increasing profits. At least there should be.... Which is why I will never last in Corporate America: I don't care about ever-increasing profits.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, December 13, 2002 12:15 PM

XORYN

Quote:
Originally posted by TheLeftHand:
Remember this maxim: A network is a business. It exists for the sole purpose of increasing shareholder value. (Yes, there are businesses that are not concerned with shareholder value, but these are not publicly-held companies.) If FOX can make 8 million profit on Firefly or 20 million on Joe Millionaire, what is FOX going to do?

I think this particular view is slightly skewed. If this was the rationalization of all networks we would never see any shows except reality Millionaire shows. Of course a Network is a business, however as a business you can't survive in the short term basis business plan, which is what these shows are, a quick wham-bam-thank-you-mam now collect $20 million. The reason why Networks have shows in the first place is to hopefully rope in enough viewers everyweek so they can have a solid steady paycheck for the next 5-6-7 years(seasons).Throw in merchandising, syndication,special movies, and wham-o you've got Mr. Scrooges money bin. This might just be a hunch but I'll bet you that some of the top rated shows on Fox(i.e. 24,Boston Public, etc...) will not even come close to the amount of money Joe Millionaire will make in the same 7 week timeframe. However over multiple seasons those afore mentioned shows will dwarf Joe Millionaire by a long shot. Just look at the amount of money The X-Files made for Fox over their 7 season run, what with the marketing,movie, reruns, and merchandising.
I'm a big baseball fan, so as such I'll use a baseball analogy. Generally speaking when a rookie or new prospect comes up through the farm system there are two things you can do with him. 1)Let him find himself and develop over the course a few years and hope that he will blossom into the great hall of fame player you see in him.

2)Or you trade him away now for some proven older talent that is as good as he'll ever get right now, which is good but not great.

Well once in a while you have to make that trade to keep your team competitive and keep people come back to see you, but after doing that time after time the well eventually dries up. Sooner or later the older talent that you got retires or is useless on the field, and now you have no new talent and no old talent, which is practially the death of a team. Now you have to spend the next 5 years rebuilding.
Anyway my long and drawn out analogy is just saying that people who trade away the future potential for flasy bright lights and the here and now are eventually going to wind up without either. The sooner Fox realizes that, the sooner they will be able to compete with ABC,CBS,and NBC.

(stepping off soap box...now)

Xoryn

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, December 13, 2002 3:38 PM

BOBKNAPTOR

Quote:
If this was the rationalization of all networks we would never see any shows except reality Millionaire shows.

it seems to me that this is, if not *all* we see, they are at least the vast majority... that and date shows.

who watches this crap? It's sad to me that anyone would be idiot enough to watch these horrible shows. But worse then the fact that some people watch them is the knowledge that they are so popular! it's not just a few idiots who watch the drivel... it's enough to make them so profitable.

______________
You're pathetic, you know that? You're not even a loser anymore, you're a shell of a loser.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, December 14, 2002 4:25 AM

STRAYCAT

Lots of good answers. But they do bring up a fifth question, which is the one that I'm most curious about...

5) Being a business that needs to make money, and having just forked out umpteen millions for half a series, why would a network not make every effort to ensure it's *seen* so that they can recoup their investment and make money out of it? I ask this as Fox seem to have done bugger-all so far :-(

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, December 14, 2002 7:18 AM

THELEFTHAND

One reason could be in-fighting. I got the impression over the summer that some FOX executives were less than enthused with Firefly. Why leak the fact that you want the pilot re-shot? That speaks to me that there was no faith in the product from the beginning. At least from certain quarters. As to why, who knows? Jealously certain comes to mind. Whedon still has yet to deliver a creative dud. Unlike David Kelley(?). Girl's Club proved that he is capable of creating mindless drivel. There might be personal vendettas. Or could be as simple as the fact that they knew the show would fail. To be honest, I would have been extremely surprised if Firefly had gotten picked up for the season. A space western on a major network on Friday. Firefly has better ratings than both Buffy and Angel. The difference: UPN and WB. These are smaller markets and can make do with lesser ratings.

Plus, how many advertising dollars would you pour into a venture you were less than apathetic about?
Cut your losses while you're not too far behind.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, December 14, 2002 8:17 AM

HAKEN

Likes to mess with stuffs.

I'm somewhat in agreement with TheLefthand on his in-fighting theory. It's a possible double-edged sword with Gail Berman being President of Fox Entertainment and at the same time Executive Producer of Firefly.

Not knowing how the Entertainment industry work, I can only go by other corporate standards, but it seems to me that there's certainly a conflict of interest--one that I'm sure other FOX executives will point out and possibly take advantage of.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, December 14, 2002 10:06 AM

DARKLADY

Quote:
Originally posted by Straycat:
5) Being a business that needs to make money, and having just forked out umpteen millions for half a series, why would a network not make every effort to ensure it's *seen* so that they can recoup their investment and make money out of it? I ask this as Fox seem to have done bugger-all so far :-(

I know. All those other points seemed to work by our Earth logic right? But at this point, network executives are exposed as people who live by insane troll logic.

DL

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, December 14, 2002 10:41 AM

FIREFLEA

Having worked in the TV biz before, here's my answers.

1 - Smaller networks rarely pick up a show that failed somewhere else. If it was tough to sell Firefly when it was an orginal series, it would be even harder with poor ratings history already attached to it.

2 - Firefly is. It runs here in Canada on Friday night on Global TV and is also sold to independent stations. True "Syndication" (or "strip" in business) requires 5 full seasons of a show. Friends or Seinfeld is an example of that.

3 - Straight to video?? hmmm... Firefly will probaly be available on DVD within the year if that's what you're asking. It'd be a way to recoup some of the costs, sort of like 24.

4 - Sending money is a nice idea but come on... most people haven't even sent a postcard to keep the show alive, and that costs the price of a stamp. The way you're supposed to pay for a show is with "your time" as in watching it and hopefully have a neilson box.

What people don't understand about a network show is that there's many costs that aren't obvious and there's commitments on the part of the network. An an example, Fox may sell the show to Global Vancouver and guarantee a certain audience for the price. Why do they have to do that? It's because Global has to turn around and sell the show to advertisers who want a guarantee of an audience for their commercials.

The way most commercials are sold is on a guarantee that a certain rating level will be reached and if it isn't, then the advertiser is refunded. Imagine that happening all the way down the line with each station that airs the show. The show scores a 2.4 rating and advertisers get pissed off, then the stations get upset and they all turn to the network and say "give us something we can make money on".

My point is that it's not Fox that kills the show. It's the people that don't watch it and most importantly the people with Neilson ratings boxes in their livingrooms. The fact that this show even got made in the first place is proof that Fox believed in the concept, since there's literally hundreds of shows that never even get to the pilot stage.

My opinion on why this show failed is that it came down to the original pilot and promotion. They should've reworked the pilot and run it first so the following episodes would make sense even if it became a mid-season replacement rather than a "Fall launch" series.

I've watched every episode and still can't figure out what's going on or how/why they've reverted to the American Civil War regarding their clothes, language & lifestyle. Sorry Joss, but I didn't "read the book" this show is based on if that's the case.

This show is also very much like other space dramas anyway. The characters are all damaged in their own way but they have a heart of gold. The outside world is brutal but they have their own safe haven within their core group. The main characters *almost* get killed on a regular basis but always survive etc... much like Star Trek or other formula dramas.

Bottom line is that they produced the best product they could and it didn't sell for whatever reason. At least they got a chance to fail I guess.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, December 14, 2002 11:04 AM

SERGEANTX

Wow,

You've watched every episode and still don't understand what's going on? I do believe you when you say you've worked in the TV business before, hell maybe you were even a network executive.

SergeantX

"..and here's to all the dreamers, may our open hearts find rest." -- Nanci Griffith

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

YOUR OPTIONS

SHARE THREAD

NEW POSTS TODAY

USER	POST DATE

USER

POST DATE