NBC Gives Up

[eggwards]

We were watching Heroes last night. Surprisingly one of the more plot-heavy episodes. We seem to be following the show just to see if they can actually pull it out of the tailspin that it's been on since the last episode of the first season. Every once in a while there's a spark of life in it, but more often it's full of comic book clichés and characters that change motivations on a whim. Two of the biggest things that bug me, everyone can see the future and to many characters die only to see them come back to life, often in the same episode!

Strangely, this isn't a entry about Heroes, but about network television. One thing about Heroes is that it seems to be run on a series of polls. We're trying to redeem Sylar. Oh no, test audiences don't like that, now he's back to being evil again. Enough of that. The show needs to grow a pair and try to tell a consistent story, but I'm thinking that network executives won't allow it.

Too much of network television is dumbed down for the masses, just when the competitive marketplace shows they should be taking more risks. There needs to be more talked about shows and not just another season of Two and a Half Men.

Sadly, those talked about shows don't seem to find an audience large enough for the networks, so a show like Pushing Daisies gets canned. It seems that the networks have an unrealistic audience expectation in a world where there's too many other choices. I would have loved if Daisies appeared on a cable network that would have been happy for the loyalty, but that cable network wouldn't have had the money to produce such a show. Well, maybe HBO would have but there's not enough sex on Dasies to have a boob shot now and again.

I guess it's dammed if you do, damed if you don't these days. Shows like Law and Order and CSI can go on and on since there's little to follow from week to week and actors can be plugged in and out at any time. CBS seems to have an entire line up of these shows, and they manage to win in the ratings again and again. What reason would a network have to try something like Lost when you have to hope that an audience will keep watching.

The only show I watch on CBS in The Amazing Race. I really don't like procedural shows. I want something with a little more story, something that make me feel good for remembering something from the first season. The only problem is we all expect these shows to be cancelled (I'm just waiting for Josh Whedon's Dollhouse) so no one wants to get too involved.

So that brings me to the news from NBC yesterday. Apparently NBC has given up, again. A couple of years ago NBC said that they would no longer put scripted shows in the 8 o'clock hour (7 Central), relying on a series of reality and game shows to fill the time. It was purely a cost cutting move, and suddenly you saw as many episodes of Deal or No Deal as you do Law and Order on TNT.

NBC backed off of that plan a little bit, but you may notice that most networks no longer program new shows on Saturday nights, and even Friday night seems to be filled with reruns. The Networks are putting on fewer new shows than ever. The cost-cutting has meant that the big three (NBC, ABC and CBS, Fox never did program a full schedule) no longer have something different scheduled each night. In a 500 channel and TiVo world this doesn't seem to be significant, but from growing up in a time before Cable, it seems crazy to me.

NBC announced yesterday that it was planning to give Jay Leno a new talk show, rather than have him run off to another network. Leno was losing the Tonight Show gig after originally planning to retire, but then changed his mind. For his new talk show, NBC will clear out the 10 o'clock (9 o'clock central) schedule. That's right, NBC will move the Tonight Show with Jay Leno up before your local news and give up on their last hour of programming. This will mean fewer episodes of Dateline, which is fine, but it's seems to be a sign that NBC has given up. They are unwilling to produce shows and try to build up an audience.

If I were a local NBC station that had to earn ratings for my late local news, I think I'd be pretty pissed with this decision. I can't understand why people watch Leno anyway - heck, I can't watch Letterman anymore, either, but Leno always seemed to be a bad host and interviewer. Now they are going to entrust 5 hours of prime time programming to him each week?

I'll admit that good TV doesn't have to come from the networks, but it seems that they are no longer trying, which is odd as advertising gets more scarce. You'd think someone would want to take more risks. The Networks have become so inclined to try to appeal to the masses that they are turning people away from their product. It seems that the Networks are becoming less relevant to the total entertainment package as fewer people watch television in real time, over the air. When does it become viable to pass up the Nets all together and just produce a show strictly for on-demad delivery?

I think many of us are very close to ditching the networks and cable because the programming is available elsewhere. As it becomes easier to get content away from the networks and watch it how we want, well maybe it's time for Network TV to give way and for television to be produced without the need for an actual airdate.

I know I'd be happy to have a few more seasons of Pushing Dasies. Where do I subscribe?

Comments

[eggwards.livejournal.com]

I understand your argument, and I don't think it's wrong. In fact, I think that is exactly the strategy CBS uses. They like making solid performers where one episode is indistinguishable from another. CSI in tits incarnations, The Unit, NCIS, Cold Case, Numb3rs, it's all the same stuff all the time. Yet, CBS wins with this line up. It attracts an older audience, but it's one that stays with them.

To compete with this, do you do the same, or do you try to get noticed in order to woo viewers? ABC seems to take the opposite approach, going for flashy, colorful shows. They aren't particularly deep shows, Desperate Housewives, Grey's Anatomy, Ugly Betty, but the come off more feminine than CBS's line up. Poor NBC doesn't know what it wants to be though, and doesn't seem to have a vision.

Especially in NBC's case, since they do own Hulu (along with Fox) they need shows that will interest people and keep them looking for their content - either online or over air. They could use a flashy hit. More people will watch 30 Rock on Hulu or on DVD than would probably look at Law and Order. More will pick up Battlestar or Lost on DVD than more CSI. Shows that take risk have longevity on the shelf.

Sure, you say, Law and Order and CSI are on all the time in reruns, and that's true, but that's a broadcast mentality. Those shows are there because anyone tuning in can watch and episode and feel they never have to watch another. If we are moving to a world like the one magebear already lives in, content producers need to up their game in order to attract eyeballs.

Maybe it's the big broadcast network that needs to go, and maybe Zucker over at NBC is right. Perhaps he knows it's better to produce fewer quality shows than to try to fill all those hours with crap. It's just unfortunate that NBC Universal is not doing much more than crap. Remember when NBC was trying to be the quality network? Well, that was the 80's. The idea of a provider being able to produce programming to a large segment of the masses went away years ago, so maybe the model just doesn't fit anymore.

You are right about attention span. It's true that if I were just watching something in the background as I cook or something, it's not likely to be something I saved in the TiVo to watch later.

So there you go, you are right, and CBS is a network that puts your theory to the test, and wins with it, so maybe it is right, but how do you make yourself different from the competition? Still, in this economy CBS has been making layoffs as well.

Now the Tribune, and print media as a whole have a similar problem. The attention span that would be needed to read a newspaper through is gone - hence the Red Eye, but a problem with newspapers is than except for a few local stories, there's no reporting that you can't get from Yahoo or Google News, and the newspaper doesn't aggregate the news beyond just selecting what's printed and what isn't. Now I know with your job you are providing local content - and actually competing with the Tribune and other locals, that's value added, but newspaper owners have been killing off staffs to actually provide that content and actually killing off what made the publication worth reading. Killing newspaper staff, and encouraging writing stories from press releases and not actually reporting is what's doing in the business - in my opinion. How about yours?

[polomex.livejournal.com]

Being involved in the blogosphere and now in mainstream media has been an eye-opening experience.

As excited as I am about my new gig with NBC Chicago, I'm not going to pretend anything other than the truth. NBC gave the job to me because, well, I'm cheap. I'm a freelancer, not a full-time writer, so NBC doesn't have to spend nearly as much money on me as they would on an hourly or salary employee.

And the longer I'm around, the more I can see where corners are cut. The Sun-Times and Tribune were always known for being rivals, but in recent years have found themselves collaborating often. In fact, the Tribune actually delivers the Sun-Times papers for them!

But you're right, no one has time to read an actual newspaper anymore. Heck, does anyone even watch the news? Beyond The Daily Show and breaking headlines that leak onto social-networking sites, I have to wonder if anyone would even know what's going on around them.

No, news no longer comes from papers or TV, it comes from the Internet, and the media is realizing this. But despite that, while you can easily get information by searching Google, Google doesn't actually write the news. Someone still has to research and write it in order for Google to find it. NBC Local Media wanted in on some of that action, hence my new position.

Your idea on "writing stories from press releases" wouldn't be too far from the truth. Years ago, there were maybe a dozen or so journalists out on the street, battling for the scoop on a new story. But today, when information is spread so quickly on a massive scale, do words like "scoop" and "exclusive" mean anything anymore?

For example, the AP may print a story first, but then it's copied, pasted, and regurgitated on every local news site and specific-interest blog. On LiveJournal alone, I'll see the same story posted three different times. With information so readily available, is there such a thing as brand-loyalty in media? If we read a news story, do we make a note of who wrote it? Do we care?

I suppose the art of communication, whether it be for entertainment or informational purposes, is always evolving. From print to radio to television to the Web... people have always been skeptical and scared of change. I suppose, as we watch the newspapers and bound books crumble, this is just another step in the evolution. And one day, when the Internet is 50 years old, it too will be a dying breed.

[eggwards.livejournal.com]

The cost-cutting at news organizations really irks me because it effects the quality of the content. Sure, freelancers are great, especially since many will actually get out in the field, but I feel that so many city desk writers, only picking up a press release and calling out for a quote really don't do their job. I understand that editors want them at their desks, writing stories and not out at press conferences, city hall meetings, etc because they are time consuming, but it comes down to neglecting the job. We need the press at events to actually ask questions and dig deeper, not just take the word of the PR flack.

I will admit that I'm totally ignorant of local news here. I never watch local TV news, and I don't read the local paper or their online edition. There's little interest - and what I used to watch local news for, Weather and Sports, are available elsewhere. I'm much more interested in national news and seek out writing from Salon and Slate as well as my "My Yahoo" page that gives me national headlines.

It's too bad the UPI folded since almost everything written at a national level is written by the AP, if not them, then Reuters. Given that there is little difference in much of the content provided by newspapers, why not just get your news online from one or two aggregators?

I find it surprising that NBC has decided to put a greater emphasis on local coverage in their online world, but I guess it's done to keep the affiliates happy and to attract more ad dollars to their web offerings by trying to provide click-through content.

I'm with you about the anonymity of news writers. There's people I look to for commentary, but news? Not so much. I think media outlets know this and they try two different tactics, pay very little for news writers, and try to develop personalities. Anderson Cooper is less of a journalist but a media host. He's on because he's a recognizable brand. Newspapers try to do this as well with columnists and online outlets are doing it as well. We get less objective news coverage and more commentary than ever before because news outlets want you to watch Keith Obermann and not their news desk reporter.

There is something about a newspaper, flipping through the pages and seeing the articles you probably would have missed online, but online you deal with less waste and expense. Are we ready to take everything on-line now? Probably not, but the day is coming and the expense of the printing press is getting to be too much with the reduced readership. I'm already reading a lot on my iPhone, and the Amazon Kindle seems to be taking off, so it's just a matter of time where everyone on the el is reading from pixels and not from paper.

Now we just need to get newspapers to understand online content and how people aren't loyal to one source of news, like they had to be when the newspapers in a city were the only outlet. Now they have to compete in a national marketplace, trying to compete with other outlets all over the country for eyeballs as people look more and more to digg, Google and Yahoo, not to mention CNN and MSNBC to filter their news for them.