First Week of TV Primetime Captures an Audience
New Show Season Attracts Viewers; Broadcast Networks Breathe Easier
Sep 28, 2009
Today's Broadcasting & Cable cover story – Broadcast Execs Can Breathe Again – says much about the mindset of the television industry. The premise: now that premiere week is basically over, broadcast creative executives can take heart in the fact that viewers are still willing to watch their shows.
Yes, this counts as news in television. Broadcast networks were nervous going into premiere week. The article contends it's a common fear: "Every broadcast network executive had the same nightmare heading into premiere week: The viewers finally aren't coming back." It's presented as if viewers decide to watch or not in a void, completely independent of broadcast executives.
Executives Responsible for New Show Season
This loses sight of a rather important fact. Broadcast network shows don't just magically appear; executives are responsible for them. If viewers "aren't coming back," it means they're not returning to watch the shows those executives developed, shepherded, and decided people would like. Executives have a major role in what eventually reaches viewers; they're ultimately the gatekeepers. If viewers don't come back, it's partly their fault.
Perhaps that's why they're breathing a sigh of relief. And yet, that's not how it's framed. Yes, the media universe is more fragmented than ever and viewers have more choices, but few will choose to watch something of poor quality. The key to luring back viewers is to make good, entertaining shows. It's easier to say than to do, but one shouldn't legitimize the idea that people won't watch a show for any other reason than that they don't like the show.
Are Broadcast Network Shows Distinct from Cable?
This holds an underlying assumption that viewers will discriminate, as if they see broadcast network TV shows as fundamentally different from cable or premium cable shows. Perhaps this was true when one could get broadcast channels over the air without a digital converter box, but the digital transition made such distinctions things of the past.
More importantly, people don't watch networks; they watch shows. They may stick around after a show ends to see what's on next, but if the next show is terrible, they won't watch it. And that's the point: people watch shows to be entertained. Period. Categories like network, cable, or premium cable matter little when a show is good. Summer demonstrated this when viewers eschewed broadcast network shows in favor of high-quality original cable series.
Quality Shows in Broadcast TV Primetime
Granted, sometimes a "quality" show can't find an audience – Arrested Development is an oft-cited example – but such cases beg the question: who determines quality? Usually it's the critics, often with despair over how visionless and pedestrian people's tastes are. That doesn't help a show's cause; people can't be guilted into watching a show that they don't find compelling. Critical acclaim may get a show sampled by more people, but it won't make them watch every week. Pushing Daisies is a perfect example. It was lauded, it even gave Kristin Chenoweth an Emmy for Best Supporting Actress, but none of that could save it from cancellation when people just didn't tune in.
The article's strategic audience analysis commenter had it exactly right: "it was a good week for good shows." If executives want to make sure audiences keep coming back, then they should take risks on new and different voices rather than feeding people the same stable of medical, legal, and law enforcement procedurals. It worked when the then-floundering ABC greenlit such shows as Desperate Housewives, Grey's Anatomy, and Lost. Those returning shows still perform well.
But risk-taking only happens when a network gets desperate. In that case, perhaps it's not such a good thing that broadcast executives breathe a sigh of relief.
 |
