The Sternberg Report

A Brief History of the Upfronts: Do They Still Matter?

As they do every year in mid-May, the major media companies are about to unveil their multi-platform strategies for the upcoming broadcast year, which includes their respective fall TV schedules.  This marks the start of the “upfront” season, when advertisers will spend upward of $20 billion buying commercial time on national television shows slated to air during the 2025-26 broadcast year. 

It’s called “the upfront” because advertisers spend their money on programming well before the shows actually air and before they know which new series will succeed or flop.  In return for getting advertisers to spend all this money upfront, buyers receive guarantees that if they don’t reach an agreed-upon number of people, they will get free commercials until they do.  Commercial inventory is also typically less expensive during the upfront than it is to buy the ads throughout the year. Ordinarily, networks sell roughly 70% of their annual commercial load during the upfront.

It’s theoretically a win-win situation – (cancellation options notwithstanding) media companies get to show Wall Street and the press how much money they’re taking in (not really, but it seems that way) and advertisers get some certainty on how many eyeballs they’ll reach at a set cost  (not really, but it seems that way).

As I do every year, I will be reporting on each company’s presentation.  Once I watch all the new series pilots, I will release a report (in June or July) evaluating their upcoming TV shows.

For the past several years, questions have arisen, particularly in the media press, about whether the upfronts (i.e., glitzy industry presentations and after-parties) are still relevant.  Do they still matter?   Five years ago, I would have (and did) loudly proclaim that they do.  In 2025, however, whether the upfronts have the same significance they once did is questionable.  They no doubt have more value to the presenting media companies, particularly the streamers who have recently joined the party, than to advertisers and media agencies.

Annual reminder of broadcast strength:  Until around 2020, upfront presentations served as annual reminders to the ad industry and the press that the broadcast networks are watched by more viewers than any other video source and are still the best way to reach large chunks of viewers at one time.  On this basis alone, the upfronts have been extremely valuable to the broadcast networks (as well as some of the larger ad-supported cable networks, which also had big upfront presentations and were able to claim their own unique benefits).

Designed for a different time:  These expensive industry upfront presentations were designed for a time (1960s – 1980s) when the broadcast networks controlled 90 percent or more of the TV viewing landscape and considered one another as their only real competition.  Upfront events were elaborate, star-filled ways to thank advertisers for all the money they were about to spend on the Big Three broadcast networks.

Maintaining relevance through early 2000s:  The upfronts were still relevant during the late 1980s when a fourth network (Fox) crashed the party, and through the 1990s when ad-supported cable expanded and two new “emerging networks” (WB and UPN) burst on the scene.  In fact, they were more relevant than ever because there were real and significant differences between the various networks, with each being able to claim advantages in different areas.

In the 2000s, ad-supported cable was broadcast’s main competition, with several cable networks starting to air their own distinctive original scripted programming (most notably, AMC, FX, MTV, TNT, and USA).   Throughout the mid-1990s- 2000s, some cable networks – A&E, MTV, Turner, and a few others – spent a lot on upfront presentations to rival the broadcast networks.

When networks had unique selling propositions (USPs): In the 1970s, an NBC executive famously derided ABC’s programming (which included Charlie’s Angels, Three’s Company, and Wonder Woman) as “jiggle TV’ (also “T&A TV”), which ironically became a strong USP in the minds of viewers, undoubtedly improving the then struggling network’s ratings. 

Over the years, every broadcast network has had its own unique selling proposition to tout during upfront presentations.  CBS was the “Tiffany Network” and “America’s Most Watched Network,” NBC had “Must See TV.”  Fox had edgier programming than the Big Three networks – at one time, there was something called the “Fox viewer.”  Fox in the 1990s, and then WB/CW in the 2000s, had significantly younger median ages than the other broadcast networks – another strong USP.  UPN was also younger than the Big Four networks and was unmatched in reaching African-American viewers.  The overarching broadcast USP was that they had significantly higher reach than cable (you got more bang for your buck). 

On the ad-supported cable front, AMC became known for having critically acclaimed original series, FX, for having the edgiest original dramas on television.  TNT knew drama; TBS proclaimed, “we’re comedy,” and USA welcomed characters.  All had distinctive programming that fit in with their individual brands.  You could tell which network a show was on – the branding was so effective, that when a network tried a show that had a different feel, it typically flopped. 

There were many other, more general USPs: everybody wanted their MTV and knew “the music revolution will be televised”; ESPN was the “worldwide leader in sports”; CNN was the “most trusted name in news”;

Nickelodeon was “The kids network,” but Cartoon Network was the best place to reach boys;   And, of course, when premium ad-free HBO started airing original scripted series, it had the classic, “It’s not TV, it’s HBO.”

In late 2019 and 2020, it became more of a streaming world (or streaming-war world) when Disney+, Apple TV+, HBO Max (now Max), and Peacock, joined Netflix, Prime Video, Hulu, and CBS All Access (now Paramount+) – each spending huge amounts of money on original scripted content.  Broadcast and ad-supported cable became lumped together under the linear TV label (by the media and advertising industries, if not the viewing public).

Are there still any unique selling propositions?  Today, the big five media conglomerates have their own streaming platforms to go with their stables of broadcast and cable networks (and other media properties).  The upfront sales pitch is no longer “Broadcast is bigger and better, and the only place to reach your customers all in one place” or “Our cable network has the most engaged audiences and is the only one that can effectively compete with the broadcast networks.” 

In essence, they are all telling us that they – Disney (ABC, ESPN, FX, Hulu, Disney+…), Paramount Global (CBS, MTV, VH1, Nickelodeon, Comedy Central, BET, Showtime, Paramount+…), Warner Bros. Discovery (TNT, TBS, Discovery, CNN, HBO, Max...), Comcast/NBCU (NBC, USA, Syfy, Bravo, MSNBC, CNBC, Peacock...), and Fox (Fox Entertainment, Fox News, Fox Business, Fox Weather, Tubi…) – are basically self-contained, massive communication hubs.  Unrivaled, unmatched, unparalleled, and unified companies, armed with multiple networks, platforms, and genres, that can reach everyone, everywhere, all at once – although each still claims to have the best on-screen product.

When everyone’s selling point is that they are scaled-up, omnipresent goliaths, legitimate USPs for the individual pieces of these giant pies can easily get lost in the shuffle.  When the broadcast networks had upfront presentations focusing on just one network, CBS’s claim of being “America’s most watched network” or NBC being the leader among adults 18-49 might be the one key point advertisers took away from these events.  Probably not the case today.  When everyone claims they are the most watched and everyone claims they’re #1 at something, it’s not really a unique selling proposition.  No one company stands out among the others when they are all saying essentially the same thing.

Do the upfronts still generate buzz?  Upfronts used to serve as a launching pad, generating pre-season buzz for new fall TV series.  Not too long ago there was a fair amount of anticipation among the general public during this period.  After the upfront schedule announcements, pundits like me would proliferate on syndicated entertainment TV shows, as well as in print magazines, and newspapers, throughout the summer, talking about the new fall TV series and predicting hits and misses.  Around 2009 (or thereabouts), online chatter would ensue for the most buzz-worthy shows. 

In 2009, Fox’s hit series. Glee, may have been the first online-generated hit.  It had debuted to modest ratings the previous May (following that season’s American Idol finale).  But clips from the show and its great musical number went viral over the summer, and when the series premiered that fall, it was a hit.

But most viewers today (at least those under 60) don’t think in terms of TV seasons anymore.  Unless it’s an extension of a popular franchise, new broadcast or ad-supported cable shows simply don’t generate as much pre-season buzz as they did just a few years ago.  Pre-2018, there was little else happening in the television arena, and the upcoming fall season was one of the only big TV-related entertainment news items.  Original scripted streaming series were limited to Netflix and little else.   Now, with so many high-profile streaming shows, and with lots of new product premiering year-round, the primetime fall TV season is no longer the only game in town.

But let’s not forget these media companies still make the most money from selling advertising in their linear network programming.  It’s no coincidence that virtually every major streaming platform (except Netflix) has been losing tons of money each year as they have been laser-focused on adding new subscribers and spending billions of dollars annually on original scripted content. 

As profitability became more essential for survival (and stock prices), virtually all are promising to reduce spending on original programming.  At the same time they have all increased subscription prices and implemented advertising tiers.  So, certainly to these media companies, the upfronts are still important selling tools.

Unveiling the fall TV schedules, long the centerpieces of upfront presentations, have slipped into the background.  Expanding to include virtually every property a media company owns, at the same time they are cutting the length of the presentations (after years of complaints that they were too long), makes it difficult to spend too much time talking about the new broadcast primetime schedule.

Following are some common themes from last year’s upfronts.  All statements regarding how many people they reach, the scope and scale of their operation, whether they are #1 at something, or how much better they are than their competitors, are the individual claims of each company (whether or not I put comments in quotes).  I have not vetted their assertions.  It will be interesting to see how (or whether) their claims vary this year.  

For the third consecutive year, Paramount Global (owner of CBS, Paramount+, and several cable networks) is bypassing its traditional upfront presentation at Carnegie Hall in favor of more intimate gatherings with agencies and advertisers.  I thoroughly enjoyed CBS’s presentations and after-parties over the years, and it does seem like the end of an era.

We are iconic, unified, everywhere, and can reach everyone

We have the greatest reach, scale, scope, and impact.  We are armed with multiple networks, platforms, and genres that combine into a unified force that can impact anyone and everyone.  We have the largest, most engaged audience across our many platforms.  We have the best technology and tools to bring all our platforms together for advertisers. 

“Unified” was one of the big words of the last few upfront weeks, as was “one” and “unrivaled” (or “unmatched” or “unparalleled”).  “Depth and breadth” was one of the more common phrases, as was “bringing it all together,” and “best or powerful, or most unique, or most complete, portfolio of brands.” 

It’s always interesting to see how many of these types of words and phrases they all seem to discover at the same time.  I wonder if AI will add to the list this year.

Half the world’s population connects with Disney every day.  “We have built a reach machine of billions of commercial impressions at scale, all delivering the business outcomes and metrics that matter to advertisers.”  “We harness the power of the Disney ecosystem to provide an unparalleled experience across all platforms.”  According to Nielsen, Disney is the #1 media company in minutes viewed across its entire portfolio of brands.  “Disney has had the highest viewership every month for the past six months – higher than YouTube, Netflix, everyone.”

 “NBCU is everywhere you look.”  “We have the unrivaled reach of broadcast.”  “Telemundo is the #1 Spanish-language network.”  “We have the beloved talent, brands, and Intellectual properties of the iconic entertainment companies, and we have the reach and scale of the social media platforms.”  “While we continue to evolve, our vision remains crystal clear.  We are going to harness the power and expertise that comes with being an iconic media company, and use it to drive experimentation and growth.”  ”No one can do what we do and how we do it.”  “While the others have been spinning, we spent the last year investing.”

“The Fox portfolio (which includes, Fox broadcast network, Fox Sports 1, Fox Sports 2, Fox Deportes, Fox News, Fox Business, Fox Weather) is designed to drive maximum impact for your brand.”  “While other media companies have hurt themselves by investing so much in streaming platforms and trying to get bigger, Fox has focused on growing each of its verticals.” 

“Warner Bros. Discovery is second to none in the marketplace when it comes to our iconic content offerings and IP, with the unique ability to move culture and influence consumer behavior around travel, shopping, dining, and more of life’s important moments.”  “We’re out to unlock the full power of this media company, creating an unparalleled opportunity.”  With more than 3,000 hours of original content created annually, WBD networks “make more hours of cable television than any other portfolio”.  “We draw the biggest collective audience in cable, and provide an unparalleled way to reach consumers in a trusted environment.”  Warner Bros. Discovery content is seen by 85% of all adults in the U.S. on a monthly basis.  WBD reaches 88% of all Black viewers, 75% of all Hispanic viewers, 90% of all affluent and educated viewers, and 87% of all business decision makers. 

 “Prime Video offers hit movies, great series, award-winning Amazon Originals, and the best in live sports in a single destination, available in one application across thousands of devices.” “No other streaming service can reach the number of customers with premium entertainment that we can.  And our audience is not just a number on a page.  We know them.  And we want to help you get to know them too.  They’re highly engaged viewers who are passionate about the deep and broad selection of programming we deliver, including live sports, series, and film.”   “Prime Video is reaching viewers that aren’t being reached by other streaming services and linear TV.”  “Only Amazon has the ability to dive into IP and spark new obsessions across books, podcasts, music, fashion, and games.  No other studio offers creators so many ways to engage with an audience.  And this has made Amazon MGM Studios the home for talent.”

The Netflix Effect “starts with wonderful stories that become unmissable moments for millions of fans.  But then it spreads across Netflix, where our trailers get billions of views, and across our social media channels, where we have a billion very active followers.  Netflix’s objective isn’t just to press play, but to “press play and stay.”  “Our audiences are highly engaged… they are choosing to spend their time watching Netflix.  That’s important because engagement is the key to success in streaming.  When people watch our shows and movies, they get more value from Netflix, they stick around longer, and they are more likely to recommend us to their friends.”

“For billions of viewers who come to engage with all the content they love, for millions of creators who innovate to attract new audiences, and for brands who connect to move their business forward, there is only one YouTube.”  “A big part of why viewers consistently choose YouTube is creators.”  “YouTube creators are reimagining classic TV genres, and inventing new ones.”  “Along the way, creators are redefining what we think of as TV.  In fact, in the last three years, the number of creators that have received the majority of their watchtime on the big screen increased by 400%.”  “People are never far from their phones, so formats like QR codes drive engagement.  Interactivity on TV screens has more than doubled in the past year.  The new, more branded QR code will allow viewers to engage with brands right away while making the big screen a more holistic branded experience.”  “The magic of YouTube isn’t just about our scale, or our captivating content, or viral hits.  It’s that we bring everything together in a way you won’t find anywhere else.  There’s only one place where you can find a truly unique connection to fans.  There’s only one place you can reach every audience you care about.  There’s only one YouTube.

We have the best content; it’s all about storytelling

“Storytelling,” “connections,” “imagination,” “passion,” “visionaries,” “engaged viewers,” “cultural touchpoints,” and “beloved franchises,” joined the word salad of upfront week.  Diversity has also been a key word, as all media companies pledged to tell more diverse stories and give a voice to under-represented groups.  In light of the Trump administrations anti-DEI stance, it will be interesting to see how they discuss their diversity efforts this upfront (or whether they mention them at all).

“It’s always challenging bringing great stories to life – giving visual form to characters and places that have only existed in the imagination (a quote from Walt Disney).  But it’s the kind of challenge we enjoy.”  “It all starts with a story…when those stories ignite the imagination and become connections.”  “This is where great storytellers and groundbreaking visionaries come together.  And when it happens, it’s like magic.”  “Stories bring the world together, and no one tells stories like Disney.”  “We have endless stories to tell…that connect with each new generation.”  Disney has long-standing relationships with talent and understands audiences – “Other companies may talk about their users, but we talk about our guests.”  “Disney is unlike any other media company because of the emotional connection people have built with us for over 100 years.”

NBCU is the “home for incredible storytelling.”  “No matter if it’s a second season or a second decade, NBC never stops imagining how to make stories better.”  NBCU has “content for the broadest audience.”  “We have the unique ability to bring stories forward, and by doing that, giving voice to visionary artists with something to say.”  “NBCU has a universe of content people want to return to over and over – comedy and cultural touchpoints, and the adventure they crave.”  “There’s a difference between reach and connection.”  “Connection is what we seek out as humans.  Not only from our relationships, but also from our favorite sports teams, shows, and movies.  This is what we all strive for our brands, to have your product show up in moments of consumer connection.”

“The strength of WBD’s unparalleled portfolio of brands…unleashes the power of rich story-driven connections between brands and audiences.”  “Our recent theatrical releases have benefited from brilliant cross-company collaboration, amplifying our amazing storytelling, celebrating our creators and creating true cultural moments.”  “We are the most powerful creators of unscripted content across platforms and places.”  The value of great content never changes.”  “Diverse audiences will always show up for great content.

“Cultural passion and pride run deeply in our veins, and our content ecosystem ensures that no matter the genre or the screen, we are the destination for Hispanics.”  “The biggest differentiator is our live programming.  We have more live programming than any other network, and it’s all original.  We’re bringing families together for the biggest culture-defining entertainment. 

We have the best technology, which unifies our portfolio

Most of the major media companies now have the tools and technology to better target ad campaigns across their portfolio of brands, throughout their linear and streaming platforms.

“Our technology is making it easier and easier to put your ad in front of the right people at the right time across the Disney universe, regardless of screen.”  Disney’s Magic Words is “an advertising product that ties mood to messaging.  Technology analyzes scenes across Disney’s vast library and then serves advertising around that specific emotion or cultural touchpoint.”

“We should focus on strategic audience targeting, not adults 18-49 or 25-54.  People in these groups are not all the same.  Not all impressions are created equal.”  NBCU’s One Platform total audience tool automates planning measurement across its linear and streaming assets. 

Fox noted its ad innovations, such as Tubi’s technology for serving ads across Fox’s various assets, and a partnership with Amazon for consumer data and shoppable ad formats.

WBD’s Olli is a unified, cross-portfolio audience planning and measurement tool – part of the company’s One WBD strategy for serving ads across linear and streaming.  “By fusing data, audience intelligence, and ad tech solutions, Olli allows for seamless campaign planning, activation, and measurement across WBD’s entire portfolio of premium content and brands.”

These new ad formats include, Shoppable Content (allowing viewers to browse featured products during commercial breaks), advanced Contextual Targeting, Interactive Video, Click-to-Contact (viewers can actively engage with a brand and choose to receive more information), and Viewer’s Choice (viewers can select ads that best match their interests and be emailed additional product info).

TelevisaUnivision has a suite of sophisticated capabilities, from its massive creator’s practice through Asi Studios, to its Household Graph, which covers nearly 100% of Spanish-speaking households in the U.S. and has been activated by more than 250 brands in the past year.

TelevisaUnivision’s leadership position as the home of Latin music was emphasized with the launch of Sistema Uforia, a new “always-on capability for brands to plug into the company’s 500+ music touchpoints spanning its music portfolio.”

Amazon’s revenue growth in advertising is centered around Prime Video, and its strategy is to “integrate Prime Video’s vast reach with advanced ad technology.”  “To connect the dots between the robust universe of premium content and audiences, Amazon Ads has the scale, insights, and ad tech to deliver results for brands.”

“It doesn’t matter whether you sell on Amazon or not.  With our clean rooms and other leading ad tech, we can help all advertisers connect awareness and brand objectives directly to sale outcomes and category growth.”

By the end of 2025, Netflix will launch a new ad technology platform.  “Bringing our ad tech in-house will allow us to power the ads plan with the same level of excellence that’s made Netflix the leader in streaming technology today.”

 “We want to ensure that your brand can show up at the right moments on the big screen to connect with engaged viewers.  Google AI-powered video campaigns are now being optimized for the living room.  Video Reach Campaigns Non Skips, powered by Google AI, will now deliver on your reach and awareness goals more effectively, using your existing, non-skippable assets.  Google AI has been at the core of our ad solutions for years, and as we make advances, our ability to help brands drive ROI just keeps getting better.”

Everything is streaming, and we have the best content library

It’s been 12 years since the first streaming hit, Netflix’s House of Cards debuted, eight years since CBS All Access (now Paramount+) joined Netflix, Prime Video, and Hulu, producing original streaming content, and four years since HBO Max (now Max), Disney+, and Peacock joined the mix.  So streaming is no longer a new thing.  It’s also been roughly two years since every streaming platform implemented an advertising tier (including Netflix, which at one time said that would never happen).

As streaming services tried to compete with Netflix, and adding subscribers took priority over profit, everyone spent gobs of money on new content, creating a Platinum age of programming for viewers (at least those who could afford multiple streaming subscriptions).  But as Netflix flourished and everyone else lost money, profit again became a priority – which led to reduced content spending (for everyone except apparently Netflix, Prime Video, and Tubi), more advertising tiers, increased subscriber fees, and finally streaming bundles (shades of cable).

 “Disney is built for the future and anchored in streaming.”  “We have the best streaming technology in the business, globally.”  “Disney’s global streaming has iconic characters, beloved franchises, culture-piercing originals, blockbuster films, live sports, live events, news, and an unrivaled library of hits.”

Disney+ Marvel series, Agatha All Along (spin-off from the highly successful WandaVision), Ironheart, and the highly anticipated Daredevil: Born Again, were highlighted, as was the new series in Star Wars universe, The Acolyte.  Ellen Pompeo came out to talk about her show, Grey’s Anatomy, being the #1 show globally on Disney+, and that “streaming libraries allow fans to discover and rediscover the most beloved films and franchises.”  “And Disney is home to the strongest catalogue on TV.”  We saw clips from Hulu’s new political thriller, Paradise and from season 3 of The Bear.  “Hulu has some of the best limited series on television.”

Peacock picked up virtually all its new shows for a second season.  NBCU highlighted several new star-laden series on Peacock, including Fight Night: The Million Dollar Heist (with Kevin Hart, Terrence Howard, and Taraji P. Henson), horror thriller, Teacup (with Kathy Baker), comedy, Laid (with Stephanie Hsu), Day of the Jackal remake (with Eddie Redmayne), Those About to Die (with Anthony Hopkins), and limited series, Long Bright River (with Amanda Seyfried).  

“Streaming has an unacceptable lack of transparency.  Advertisers have a right to know where every single unit ran.”

Warner Bros. DIscovery talked about the one year anniversary of combining HBO Max and Discovery+ into the Max streaming service.  “It’s the early days of Max as we are only now approaching our first anniversary.  Since the launch, we continue to attract audiences in a variety of unique ways.”  “As we grow, we remain focused on providing more and more reasons to make Max the one to watch.  Subscribers are now looking to us for live news on CNN Max, and we’re also offering can’t-miss live sports with B/R sports on Max.  This blends seamlessly with HBO, Max Originals, Magnolia, and a powerful mix of shows from Discovery, TLC, HGTV, ID, Food Network, TCM, Adult Swim, and others.”

Fox’s Tubi is increasing its spending on original content, and is expert at reaching Gen Z viewers.  According to Nielsen, Tubi now accounts for 1.7% of all TV viewing, with about 80 million active monthly users – making it “”the most-watched free TV and movie streaming service in the U.S.”  Tubi enjoyed 15% audience growth in 2023 and a 35% increase in adult 18-49.  “More than 60% of Tubi users are either cord-cutters or cord-nevers.  One hundred percent of Tubi’s viewership is ad-supported and 90% is on-demand.”

Fox touted a new Tubi initiative called Stubios, a “fan-fueled studio for aspiring creatives,” where social creators can make Tubi films and series, and at the same time, post behind-the-scenes content.  Stubios is intended to “bring new voices and their fans into Hollywood.”  Issa Rae will serve as mentor to Stubios creators.

TelevisaUnivision’s ViX is the “largest global Spanish-language streaming service (with 50 million monthly active users).”  ViX’s new ad-supported premium tier is now available, and includes “contextual and interactive capabilities, as well as commerce and social.”  Subscribers have access to more than 17,000 hours of premium original series, movies, and live sports with limited ad load, in addition to the 70,000+ hours available through the free ad-supported tier.

Prime Video has 200 million global customers, and is the largest global ad-supported streaming service.  Amazon reaches 115 million people in the U.S. monthly.  The company has also developed free advertiser-supported TV channels (FAST); it licenses new shows and movies – in addition to Amazon’s own content.  Prime Video’s extensive library includes content from third-party services like Max, Paramount+, and Crunchyroll.

“With hit shows and movies ranging from The Idea of You, The Summer I Turned Pretty, Reacher, Fallout, The Lorde of the Rings: The Rings of Power, Mr. and Mrs. Smith, and more, Prime Video has established itself as a premier entertainment destination.”

“Amazon will continue to invest in premium programming.  Along with the original series and films from Amazon MGM Studios that audiences love, Prime Video offers sought-after licensed series and movies across every genre, more than 500 free ad-supported channels, live events like the Academy of Country Music Awards, and, of course, the ever-expanding offering of live sports.”

Netflix’s ad tier has surpassed 40 million monthly active users (compared to 5 million a year ago).  More than 40% of new sign-ups in the ads countries come from the ads plan.  Over 70% of Netflix’s ad-supported members watch for more than 10 hours per month (15 percentage points higher than their closest competitor, according to Nielsen) – more than half watch for more than 20 hours per month.  Netflix’s ad-supported members have a higher household income and are younger than linear TV audiences, with a median age of 37. According to EDO Inc., Netflix members are around twice as likely to respond to an ad  on Netflix compared to other streaming services and linear TV.

Some of the most popular streaming shows are returning on Netflix, including season 8 of Elite, season 6 of Cobra Kai, season 4 of Emily in Paris and The Umbrella Academy, season 3 of Sweet Tooth and Vikings Valhalla, and season 2 of Squid Game and The Diplomat.  Netflix will likely have as much new content as all the other major streamers combined, and will lead the way in non-English-language series.  In addition to Nielsen, measurement partners include, Affinity Solutions, DoubleVerify, EDO Inc., Integral Ad Science, iSpotTV, Kantar, Lucid, NCSolutions, and TVision.

“For more than a year, YouTube has been the #1 most watched streaming platform on TV, according to Nielsen.  And this week, Nielsen shared that YouTube continues its incredible momentum as not only the top streamer, but the second most watched media distributor overall on TV.”

It’s the programming, stupid

Last year, everyone seemed to realize that when they all have roughly the same massive scale and reach, the main thing that distinguishes one media company from another is the actual product they put on their many platforms and screens.  With no more pandemic-related production delays, and the writers’ and actors’ strikes a thing of the past, network talent was out in force, as were trailers of new series.  Missing for the past few years were night-by-night run downs of each broadcast network schedule and the strategy behind them – which used to be the centerpiece of each presentation.  As the length of the upfront presentations has been generally cut to two hours or less, while more properties and company divisions need to be highlighted, there’s just not enough time for such detail.

Some things to look for this upfront

Will the hard sell get harder?  With President Trump implementing tariffs just as the upfront is getting underway may cause media companies to sell harder, but also make selling harder.  The upfronts are essentially a futures market, and heightened uncertainty could result in advertisers reducing upfront, or advance spending.  This makes selling themselves during these presentations more important than ever – particularly since there are no real “must buys” anymore.

Talent will be out in force.  With no more production delays (induced by the pandemic or strikes), and the hard sell perhaps being more important than ever, expect every company to bring out as many stars in their universe that will fit on the stage to help their efforts (and then, of course, mingle at the after-parties).

Alternative currencies: Despite months of non-stop discussions about “alternative currencies” leading up to last year’s upfronts, the actual media company presentations barely mentioned it.  I think it’s become clear that Nielsen will remain the foundational marketplace currency (particularly in light of Paramount Global recently renewing its multi-year deal with Nielsen) with the vast majority of guarantees based on its Big Data-plus panel measurement.

This, of course, doesn’t mean ComScore and newer companies, such as VideoAmp and iSpot won’t be heavily used as supplements to Nielsen in understanding more enhanced and nuanced audiences and viewer behavior beyond the standard age/sex audience demographics.  But for now at least, it seems Nielsen continues to be locked in.

Diversity re-defined?  For the past few upfronts. Media companies have been promising increased commitments to diversity both in front of and behind the camera, providing voices to traditionally underserved communities.  How will the current administration’s anti-DEI (Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion) stance impact how everyone discusses diversity this year?  I would expect words and phrases like “inclusive,” “multicultural,” or “cultural touchpoints” to dominate.

Will streamers finally sell the advantages of their commercials?  When I see ads when I’m streaming something, I am typically exposed to the message – much more so than when I’m watching primetime linear TV, much of which I watch on DVR.  There are, of course, no fast-forwarding and virtually no channel switching when watching TV on a streaming platform.  There’s also significantly less clutter, which in and of itself increases attentiveness and recall.  My own research has indicated that live commercial viewing has roughly three times the brand-message recall as DVR delayed viewing.

In a recent issue of The Sternberg Report, I point out that media conglomeration has limited good audience research, because things that benefit one division of a company often hurt some other division.  So media companies that own TV networks, and streaming platforms, are not likely to touch this topic.  But I’m really surprised that Netflix and Amazon Prime Video (and Apple TV+) don’t heavily lean into this.  It should be the centerpiece of their presentations.

TV Reviews - The Good, The Too Bad, and The Ugly (Severance)

Welcome to The Sternberg Report’s series where I review TV shows and label them The Good, The Too Bad, and The Ugly. 

By way of definition, The Good is a show you should enjoy if you like that particular genre, The Too Bad is a show that could have (or should have) been better, or simply doesn’t live up to expectations set by previous seasons, and The Ugly is a show that completely misses the mark or is just  an ill-conceived mess.

Ordinarily, each issue reviews three series.  But sometimes a show is so good or so bad it deserves a report all its own.  Such is the case with Severance.  This series isn’t for everyone.  You’ll either love it or hate it – probably no middle ground for a show this weird.  I am firmly in the love-it crowd, so take my review in that context. 

There have been a number of television series I’ve reviewed over the past couple of years where a strong first season is followed by a disappointing second installment.  Severance is not one of those series.  Season 2 not only lives up to the great first season, it surpasses it and builds on it, often in spectacular fashion.  Ther are some spoilers ahead.

Severance – season 2 (Apple TV+

(Feb. 2022, Jan. 2025)`

Work-life balance is at forefront in this mystery thriller from Ben Stiller.  Office workers voluntarily undergo a medical procedure known as “severance,” in which a chip is surgically embedded in the recipient’s brain, dividing memories between their work and personal lives.  The elevator ride into the office activates the chip and the elevator ride out of the office deactivates it.  When they are in the office, they do not recall anything about their outside lives, friends, or families.  When they leave the office, they remember nothing about their jobs or co-workers. 

Their work selves are referred to as Innies and their outside selves as Outies.  There is extremely tight security and full body scans upon entering the building’s elevator to prevent either version of an employee from trying to smuggle communications or clues to their other self.  No electronic devices are allowed in the office.

“Severed” employees work on secretive projects at the mysterious Lumon Industries.  The late founder of the company, Kier Eagan (Marc Geller), is worshipped as a prophet, with cult-like devotion, and his policies and tenets, many of which are posted throughout the company, are strictly adhered to by Lumon executives with a religious-like fervor.

The series centers around “severed” Lumin employees in the Macrodata Refinement (MDR) division.  At first, when we see what the group is doing with numbers on a computer screen, it seems like gibberish, and the workers don’t seem to know what it all means.  But it eventually becomes clear that something insidious is going on. 

Kier believed that the human soul is made up of four core tempers, or emotions – Woe (green), Frolic (yellow), Malice (blue), and Dread (red).  The numbers on the computer are actually linked to the minds of “severed” Innie employees on the Testing floor, with the MDR team manipulating the numbers to identify and balance these four core emotions, thereby creating a calmer, more controllable Innie consciousness.

While the Innies and Outies are technically the same people, only the Outies have any life experience.  The Innies only exist at work, and are essentially placed into a world where they have no past and no knowledge of anything or anyone beyond the few co-workers, with whom they share a windowless fluorescent-lit office space, and their controlling bosses, who dole out rewards if they meet production quotas and punishments if they break the rules. 

Once they leave the office they have no memory of going home or going to sleep.  Their experience is leaving the office and immediately returning to the office (and somehow feeling refreshed if their Outies had a good night’s sleep).

On the outside, the severance procedure is controversial, with many people protesting it as unethical.  Some severed employees see it as a torturous existence, but if their Outie wants to work there, they are essentially trapped and can’t quit.

Here are the major players and their stories. 

In season 1, Mark S. (a perfectly cast Adam Scott), is promoted to lead a team in the Macrodata Refinement division on the “severed” floor (located in the basement of the building).  He is elevated to the position after the previous team leader, and his best friend (at work), Petey (Yul Vaquez), was fired under mysterious circumstances.  Mark’s Outie is grieving the death of his wife, which is the main reason he agreed to become “severed.”  But as his pregnant sister (Jen Tullock) on the outside tells him, “forgetting for eight hours a day is not the same as healing.”

At work, with no recollection of his outside life, Mark is relatively content, although he misses Petey and is constantly trying to deal with his replacement, Helly R., and prevent her from being punished for breaking the rules and trying to escape. 

In Mark’s outside life, a man he doesn’t recognize approaches him and says he is his co-worker Petey, and has managed, with help from a secret organization, to reverse the severance in a procedure called reintegration (something which is supposed to be impossible).  He goes on to tell him that Lumon industries is an evil company, but won’t say exactly what they do – he fears the company is searching for him and his life is in danger.  The process of merging someone’s Innie and Outie minds is extremely dangerous, and Petey dies of “reintegration sickness.”  This sets up everything that follows.

In the thrilling season 1 finale, Mark and his team try to escape from Lumon, while keeping their Innie selves intact, so they can find out information about their Outies and their lives in the outside world.  Mark discovers something shocking about the supposed death of his wife Gemma that makes him want to investigate what’s really going on at Lumon.

In the season 2, former Lumon surgeon Dr. Asai Roghabi (Karen Aldridge) helps Mark’s Outie undergo the dangerous experimental reintegration process she has developed that will potentially allow him to have access to memories from both his Innie and Outie selves.  As the procedure goes on for several episodes, Mark’s consciousness keeps shifting between his Innie and Outie personas. 

At the same time, Mark discovers who is being experimented upon on the Testing floor, and races to try and rescue her.  This culminates in the masterful season 2 finale, in which Mark has to make a choice that will have major implications for season 3.

In season 1, Petey’s replacement, Helly R. (the terrific Britt Lower), quickly decides she doesn’t want to work there, but since her Outie does (and she has no idea why) there’s no escape.  She gradually becomes closer with Mark S. as he tries to protect her from the repercussions of her escape attempts. 

In the season 1 finale, she (and we) discovers her Outie’s real identity and her relationship to the head of Lumon Industries, which changes the entire direction of the show.  

Her performance is nothing short of brilliant – particularly in season 2 when her Outie (known as Helena) infiltrates the Innie world and pretends to be Helly R. until the deception is discovered – and things get even more chaotic, especially Helena’s/Helly R.’s relationship with Mark S.

The third member of the Macrodata Refinement team is Irving B. (the always good John Turturro).  He initially seems to be the happiest “severed” employee, devoted to the Lumon philosophy, and a stickler for company protocol.  He often warns his colleagues when they are violating one of the many  rules.  He has worked at Lumon the longest, having been there for six years before agreeing to be “severed” three years ago (so he thinks he’s been there for only three years).

At work, Irving often falls asleep at his desk, and dreams of black goo forming around his cubicle and on his computer.  At home he has a compulsion to paint a black hallway with an elevator at the end with a downward arrow.  He paints this image repeatedly while listening to hard rock.  He doesn’t realize he’s painting the elevator to the Testing floor, where a secret experiment called Cold Harbor is taking place – which has severe implications in season 2.

Irving consumes large amounts of coffee so his Outie can stay awake and his Innie can fall asleep and dream about the painting.  Since sleeping at work is forbidden, this leads to a Wellness session with the mysterious Mrs. Casey, where he meets Burt (Christopher Walken), with whom he develops a close friendship, and eventually a romantic one.  

It was Burt’s mysterious retirement that made Irving start to be more suspicious about Lumon.  He didn’t want the Burt he knew to die.  After Burt’s retirement party, Irving told his team they should “burn Lumon to the ground.”

In season 2, Irving is the one who realizes Helena is impersonating Helly R., which leads to an explosive confrontation, and affects Irving’s future at Lumon.  He knows if he leaves the company, his Innie will cease to exist.  At home, Irving’s Outie finds Burt, who had recently retired room Lumon.  Now, fearing Irving’s life might be in danger, Burt helps him escape.

Rounding out the Macrodata Refinement team is Dylan G. (Zach Cherry), a follower, who enjoys the bizarre company perks employees receive for achieving certain goals (such as finger traps, waffle parties, or five-minute music/dance breaks).  He is both the most hostile and humorous member of the group.

Dylan’s Outie is married to Gretchen (Merritt Wever), drives a minivan, lives in a cul-de-sac, and has three children, ages 6, 4, and 2.  Unable to find steady work, and struggling to support his family, he agreed to be “severed,” where he excels at his job as a Macrodata Refiner, often meeting his quotas well before anyone else.

When Dylan briefly sees his son in something called the Overtime Contingency Protocol, he becomes obsessed with finding out more about his Outie’s life.  He is instrumental in helping the others escape to discover their Outies’ identities during the season 1 finale.

In season 2, in the Outie family visitation suite, Dylan’s Innie is allowed to meet his Outie’s wife.  While in the outside world, Dylan and Gretchen have a strained relationship, Dylan’s Innie and Gretchen fall in love – which leads to trouble when Dylan’s Outie finds out.

Other members of this brilliant cast include:

Patricia Arquette is chilling in season 1 as Harmony Cobel, Mark’s boss at Lumon, who is also his next door neighbor, Mrs. Selvig, on the outside.  Although she takes on two separate identities, we soon realize  she is not severed, and is actually keeping tabs on Mark.  She eventually comes into conflict with the Lumon Board and in season 2  becomes Mark’s ally of sorts.

Christopher Walken plays another of his many quirky characters as Burt, the severed chief of the Optics and Design division, who has a mutual attraction to John Turturro’s Irving.  He retires from Lumon and in season 2 we discover that his Outie lives with his husband (John Noble), who seems to approve of Burt’s Innie’s relationship with Irving.  There’s still a lot we don’t know about him.

Tramell Tillman is effectively creepy as Mr. Milchick, the constantly smiling supervisor of the severed floor, who doles out rewards and punishments to Lumon employees.  Despite being mistreated by his superiors, he remains extremely loyal to the company, and fights to prevent Mark and his team from escaping or finding out what’s going on in the Testing floor.  

Dichen Lachman is a find as the robotic Mrs. Casey, a Lumon wellness counselor on the severed floor, who may be more than she seems – we find out in the season 1 finale that her Outie has a key relationship with Mark.  In season 2, we see her on the Testing floor, undergoing behavioral experiments, as Mark races against the clock to rescue her.

Sara Bock is Eustice Huang, the young new Deputy Manager of the severed floor in season 2.  Mark and his team are unsettled by her age.  When they ask her why she’s a child, she simply replies, “Because of when I was born.”

Sydney Cole Alexander is Natalie, Lumon’s PR representative, who is also speaks on behalf of the mysterious, unseen Board.

The season 1 finale has some major reveals and one of the most tension-filled cliffhangers I can recall, as Mark, Helly, Irving, and Dylan attempt to escape and learn about their outside lives.  If possible, the season 2 finale is even better.  And then there are the goats.  It’s been renewed for a third season.

Academy Awards: A Few Bright Spots Amid the Boredom

I’m an avid movie fan, and before the pandemic I was a reasonably heavy moviegoer.  Today I watch more movies on streaming platforms (A Complete Unknown was the only Best Picture nominee I saw in an actual movie theater).  Of course, that’s partly because before awards season, I hadn’t even heard about several of the best picture nominees.  But I still look forward to watching The Oscars broadcast every year.

And every year I find myself asking the same question: “Is it always this boring?”  I invariably find myself answering, “yes.”  And every year I forget about last year’s show, and look forward to watching it all over again.  Unfortunately, there has been little effort over the years to make the broadcast more viewer friendly.

The problem has never been the length of the telecast, which is typically 3 ½ hours (that is only an issue because of how the show is structured).

The problem has never been the host.  There has been much discussion over the past few years about whether there needs to be a host for the Academy Awards broadcast, and if so, who would be best suited for the role.  This came to a head in 2019 after the scheduled host. Kevin Hart, was forced to step down when some old controversial tweets were discovered.  For the first time since 1989, they proceeded without a host, and decided to do so again in 2020. 

The pandemic restrictions in 2021 made a host irrelevant.  In 2002, hosts returned, as Wanda Sykes, Amy Schumer, and Regina Hall shared the spotlight.  Jimmy Kimmel took over the hosting duties in 2023 and 2024 (as he did in 2017 and 2018).  This year, Conan O’Brien took the reins and did an excellent job. 

There is little doubt that hosts do make the show flow better and provides more natural transition from one segment to the next.  But unless they resurrect Johnny Carson or a young Billy Crystal, the host will have little to do with whether the show does better or worse in terms of attracting viewers (although Kimmel and Conan have been among the better hosts).

The main problem is that the Oscars broadcast is geared more toward Hollywood insiders than the television viewer.  There’s no reason it can’t do both.

Starting an Hour Earlier Makes a Big (and Better) Difference

One major drawback of the show is that the major awards, Best Actor, Actress, Director, and Picture, which are given out last, have traditionally been presented after primetime.  The decision last year to move the start time back an hour (from 8pm to 7pm), something I and many others have been suggesting for years, was in and of itself a major improvement – not just for viewers, but likely for ratings as well. 

What a lot of people don’t realize, is that what should be the highest rated portion of the show, when they present the Best Actor, Actress, and Picture awards, has traditionally not even been measured by Nielsen.  The ratings company only measures national telecasts through the last national commercial (the post-primetime portion of the broadcast typically contains only local commercials). 

The 2024 telecast hit a four-year ratings high among total viewers (about 4% higher than 2023).  At this writing, the 2025 ratings are not yet available.

Last year, for the first time I can recall, the Big Four awards were presented before 11pm (which was also the case this year).  As a viewer, this change was noticeable and welcome – probably because I wasn’t tired and ready to go to sleep before the Best Picture winner was announced.

Why Rush Through the Major Awards at the End of the Show?

There was a time when it was logical to hold back the major awards as a way to keep viewers tuned in.   There was a time (pre-1995) when there were basically only three or four broadcast networks, fewer cable networks, and no multi-media devices.  There was a time (pre-2007), when there was no social media.  There was a time (pre-2013) when there were no streaming platforms.  And through it all, there were virtually no original TV series airing opposite The Academy Awards.  But today is not any of those times.  With so many other outlets competing for viewers, it is counter-productive to wait until the last half-hour to present the most popular awards.  Even competing broadcast networks now air original scripted programming against The Oscars – which, 10 years ago, would have been unthinkable.

Particularly with big live events, social media often keeps viewers tuned in.  Had the major awards been spread out over the entire telecast, Facebook, X, Instagram, and the like, would have seen significantly more Oscar-related activity, and kept more people tuned in and discussing the show.

Either Supporting Actress or Supporting Actor is always presented during the show’s first half-hour.  This year, the Supporting Actor award was presented at 7:27.  But the big four awards – Director, Actor, Actress, and Picture – are held back until the last half-hour (until 2024, after primetime).

Looking at the last several years, we saw little change, although it did reach new heights of ridiculousness in 2017 when Best Director was presented at 11:41 pm, Best Actor at 11:46 pm, Best Actress at 11:55 pm, and Best Picture at 12:02 pm.  Since then, it’s gotten slightly better.  But still, in 2022, we had to wait until 10:55 pm for Best Director, 11:07 for Best Actor, 11:23 for Best Actress, and 11:31 for Best Picture.  In 2023, it wasn’t until 11:10 pm that they got around to presenting Best Director, then a local commercial break leading into Best Actor (11:19), Best Actress (11:25), and Best Picture (11:30).

Last year was different and better.  At around 9:45pm they announced that “The biggest awards are coming up next.”   Then they presented Best Actor (9:56), Best Director (10:02), Best Actress (10:09), and Best Picture (10:19).  But still, it was on for roughly 2 hours, 45 minutes before they got to the four major awards.

This year, the show ran a little longer, with the announcement that the biggest awards are next coming at 10:14, about 3 hours and 14 minutes into the broadcast.  Best Actor was presented at 10:18, followed by Best Director (10:28), Best Actress (10:36), and Best Picture (10:41, with the show ending at 10:46.

But still, the major, most popular awards are bunched up at the end, and seem rushed.  Why not give these awards more time?  Costume Design, Original Song, and Cinematography, were given the same amount of total time as Best Actor, Best Actress, and Best Picture.  That’s not to denigrate the other awards, but the big four awards should receive more emphasis.

Some Bright (and Dull) Spots

The show opened in spectacular fashion, with Wicked stars Ariana Grande and Cynthia Erivo belting out songs from The Wizard of Oz, The Wiz, and Wicked.  Ariana Grande opened with Somewhere Over the Rainbow, followed by Cynthia Erivo singing Home, and then the two stars joining for Defying Gravity.

Last year, they added a feature that was brilliant, and worked extremely well.  For each of the four major acting awards, they had five previous award winners come on stage and honor each of the five nominees before the ultimate winner was announced.  These segments were riveting and well received.  Unfortunately, it was not repeated this year – although they did do something similar with Costume Design and Cinematography, which made those categories more interesting.

Mick Jagger (of the Rolling Stones) made a surprise appearance, presenting Best Original Song, joking that they asked Bob Dylan (the subject of A Complete Unknown), who said they should get someone younger (Dylan is 83, Jagger is 81).

Mogan Freeman gave a heartfelt tribute to his late friend and co-star Gene Hackman, leading into the annual In Memoriam segment.

Oprah Winfrey and Whoopi Goldberg gave a tribute to Quincy Jones, which culminated with Queen Latifah singing Ease on Down the Road from The Wiz.

There was a lengthy, seemingly pointless James Bond tribute, with the songs, Live and Let Die, Diamonds are Forever, and Skyfall.  Had they eliminated this and the ridiculous song-and-dance routine by Conan O’Brien about wasting time (which probably seemed like fun on paper), the show would have ended on time.

Complete Unknowns – Even After 3½ Hours

I usually pay attention to what movies are out there, but I must admit of the 10 movies nominated for Best Picture, I have seen only three of them, and have no idea what six of them are about.  Even after the lengthy award show, I don’t know anything about Anora – other than it’s one of the lowest grossing winners ever and that every time they win an award they praise sex workers. 

I have no idea what Emilia Perez is about – but I do know that everyone I know who has seen it hated it and it was panned by many critics, but Hollywood seems to love it.  One thing I do know about it is that Zoe Saldana has a big dance number (that seems to be one of the only clips they ever show). 

I think The Brutalist is about a Holocaust survivor who is now an architect, but the clips they show never mention the Holocaust, Hitler, or Nazis.

I’m Still Here and Nickel Boys were never on my radar, and I only know anything about The Substance because of the scene with Demi Moore looking into a mirror that award shows have played over and over again – I think it’s a horror movie.

The shame of it all is that nothing I saw during The Oscars broadcast made me want to see any of these movies.

It’s a Generational Thing

I already mentioned that look forward to watching The Oscars every year.  But then, I’m a Baby Boomer.  Folks in my generation, as well as Generation X and early Millennials, grew up watching the Academy Awards at a time when you seldom saw or heard much about movie stars outside of what their publicists put out there or what you might see on talk shows.  Movie stars were more glamorous to the public, and it was interesting to see them in real-life, unscripted settings.  There was no social media.  People generally did not see behind the curtain (and celebrities didn’t communicate with their fan bases on X or Instagram as they do today).  There were also no streaming services, and no major competition for the broadcast networks, which typically scheduled repeats opposite The Oscars, which was always the second highest rated show of the year (next to the Super Bowl).  Among advertisers, it was dubbed the “Super Bowl for women.”

When I was 25 years old, I had watched the Academy Awards every year for about 20 years.  I bring this up because my now 25-year-old son hasn’t watched any of the Academy Awards for nearly 20 years.  I asked him why he never watches it, and his response includes, “it’s boring, I get notifications about the winners on my phone, and I haven’t seen most of the nominated movies.”

Thirty years ago, the median age of Oscar viewers was around 40.  Today, it’s well over 55.  The show is not attracting new generations of viewers – much of its audience is simply aging along with the show.  It’s also interesting to note that the average age of Oscar voters (60+) is more than twice that of actual moviegoers (30).

Making The Oscars More Viewer (and Advertiser) Friendly

The biggest thing that contributes to making the show as boring as possible for the home viewers, is that the awards they care about the most are bunched together and rushed through at the end of the show (just in case I haven’t made the point crystal clear by now).

After the Best Supporting Actor award was presented (7:27-7:33), the next 2 ½ hours contained 18 awards, 2 production numbers, and 11 commercial breaks – Animated Feature Film (7:38), Animated Short Film (7:42), commercials (7:47), Costume Design (7:54), commercials (8:00), Original Screenplay (8:06), Adapted Screenplay (8:10), commercials (8:14), Makeup and Hairstyling (8:20), James Bond tribute (8:23), commercials (8:32), Film Editing (8:38), Supporting Actress (8:42), commercials (8:48), Production Design (8:53), Original Song (8:57), commercials (9:04), Documentary Short Film (9:04), Documentary Feature (9:12), commercials (9:16), tribute to LA firefighters (9:22), Sound (9:25), Visual Effects (9:28), commercials (9:32), Live Action Short (9:36), In Memoriam (9:39), commercials (9:45), Cinematography (9:50), International Feature Film (9:56), commercials (10:00), Original Score (10:05), Quincy Jones tribute (10:08), Queen Latifah (10:11), commercials (10:14).

I’m not suggesting giving short-shrift to any of these awards, rather spread them out differently so they surround what most viewers at home consider the major awards.  If they spread out the awards by presenting the six acting/directing/picture awards every 30 minutes or so, ratings for the entire broadcast would be significantly higher. 

Present one of the four major awards every 30 minutes – Supporting Actor at 7:45, Supporting Actress at 8:15, Director at 8:45, Actor at 9:15, Actress at 9:45, and Best Picture at 10:15.  Schedule everything else to fit into these parameters.  Precede these awards with 2-3 minute clips of each nominee.  This will provide a better picture of each performance and greater anticipation for each award.  It will also serve as more effective promotion for the nominated movies.

Each half-hour segment of the show, can be sponsored by a different advertiser.  While showing the clips, they could give viewers a chance to vote online and by phone, and then show their choices at the end of the show (or on an after-show) to see how viewers’ votes compared to the actual winners.  Viewers could vote only for the nominated movies.

If these suggestions are implemented, I believe the show will flow better, viewer and social-media interest will be elevated, ratings will improve, younger viewers might tune in, and people may be interested in seeing some of the nominated movies they might have missed.  A win all around. 

A Brief History of Television Audience Measurement (and why nobody really wants it to get "better")

Nielsen and Paramount Global finally reached an agreement on a new multi-year deal, which, not surprisingly, coincided with CBS’s Grammy Awards telecast. So this seems like a good time to provide a brief history of TV audience measurement, and discuss why it is so difficult for anyone to compete with Nielsen to become marketplace currency (although there might now be minor – and I stress minor – cracks in Nielsen’s armor).

This report will cover several topics, including:

• How and why Nielsen is an industry-mandated monopoly.
• Are legacy research companies nimble enough to keep up with rapid and continual change?
• Why virtually no one really wants more accurate TV/video audience measurement.
• Can samples still measure the TV universe?
• When Nielsen was forced to improve its measurement.
• When research started taking a back seat to marketing.
• Shifting alliances: why TV research is not what it used to be.
• Measuring live vs. DVR viewing – implications for streaming ads.
• Why alternatives to Nielsen have traditionally failed to sustain industry support.
• Why industry committees traditionally don’t accomplish much.
• Does big data = more accurate data?
• How to determine the accuracy of Nielsen (or anyone else’s) ratings and actually improve audience measurement (and why it won’t happen).

Yes, Nielsen is a Monopoly, Albeit an Industry-Mandated One
When it comes to national television measurement used as currency for the buying and selling of commercial time, Nielsen is an industry-mandated monopoly. From the 1980s through the early 2020s, potential competitors have periodically emerged, but most failed to sustain enough media industry support to survive – not necessarily because Nielsen did anything specific to impede them, but because advertisers and networks have been unwilling to pay for multiple sources to provide similar national TV audience data.

While there have been many calls for change over the years, the industry’s unwillingness to support any real competition to Nielsen, along with media conglomerates and media agencies continuing to sign long-term Nielsen contracts, make the status quo hard to budge.

I’ve dealt with Nielsen contracts on both the buy and sell sides, and we always opted for the longest-term contract Nielsen offered. The simple reason was that the yearly cost for a five or seven year contract came with a significantly lower annual cost than a three year or one year deal. And since no one expected any real competition to emerge, why not take the least expensive option? Until the industry decides that they will only sign one or two year deals, any thoughts of a competitor actually replacing Nielsen as industry currency is imaginary.

After Years of Stagnation, Continual and Rapid Change to Video Landscape
Until the early 2000s, the pace of change to how and where viewers received content was relatively slow, enabling Nielsen to trudge along with serviceable audience measurement. Most people across the country had access to the same programming at the same time on roughly the same number of channels on the same platform. Then, after years of the status quo, technological advancement, multiple viewing devices, multiple program distribution platforms, and multiple on-demand viewing options, resulted in quick and continual change to consumer viewing habits – but how those viewing habits are measured has not nearly kept pace.

Here’s a brief look at how the video media landscape has evolved over the past four decades:

During the late 1980s, VCRs started to become widely available and watching pre-recorded videocassettes became the first major new use of the television set since videogames (the Magnavox Odyssey was the first home videogame that plugged into a TV in 1972). This was the first time a new device impacted network programming decisions. The broadcast networks gave up on original scripted series on Saturday nights (which was now the biggest movie rental night of the week), and eventually cut back on airing made-for-tv and theatrical movies as well.

The home VCR became the fastest growing electronic device since television itself, going from 1% penetration in 1980, to 66% in 1990, to 90% in 2000. It then started to decline when DVDs and Blu-ray became available. In 2001 DVD players outsold VCRs for the first time, and by 2007 reached 80% of American households.

VCRs had promised but never realized the idea of people programming their own viewing schedules. Its major use continued to be renting or buying movies. The average amount of actual time-shifted viewing in primetime never rose above 5%.

VCRs caused real problems for audience measurement, however. It marked the first time Nielsen had to admit it couldn’t measure an element of television viewing. Never able to measure VCR playback among people (although it could measure recording and playback among households), Nielsen made the controversial decision to ascribe household playback to demos. While this became a big deal among advertisers and agencies, the networks didn’t see it as a problem (since it artificially inflated their ratings). Nielsen eventually just said sorry, nothing we can do, and the industry moved on.

In 1990, the average home could still only receive 33 channels. Viewing habits remained relatively stable, and aside from VCR usage, there weren’t many major challenges to audience measurement. During the early-to-mid 1990s, as cable and satellite television expanded, and phone companies were allowed into the TV business, the number of channels available to the average home began to rise sharply.

In the late 1990s, DVRs became a reality, but growth was considerably slower than it had been for VCRs. It would take another decade before DVRs were even in 20 percent of the country and needed to be addressed in developing television samples for audience measurement. DVR penetration started to grow more quickly when cable and satellite systems started integrating them into their set-top boxes, and people no longer needed to buy separate devices. But even then, DVRs topped out at slightly under 55% of U.S. TV households.

Throughout the 1990s, cable continued to siphon off broadcast viewers, and the number of channels available to the average home continued to rise. But the TV set was still the only viewing platform. People couldn’t watch reruns of TV shows or series they hadn’t seen unless a network aired the show again or they bought previous seasons on DVD.

Prior to 2005, changes to the media landscape – what was available to view and how it could be viewed – were gradual. Cable had just recently started airing original scripted series. Less than 20% of the country had HDTV. The slow pace of change made predicting consumer television viewing habits relatively simple, and slow-to-change research companies didn’t have to pivot too quickly, nor innovate too often.

Since then, rapid change has been the norm – from the founding of YouTube, and introduction of Apple’s first video iPod in 2005 (and the revolutionary step of ABC making a deal with Apple allowing people to access five TV shows from iTunes, including the popular Desperate Housewives and Lost for $1.99 each), to social media led by Facebook and Twitter in 2006, to the first iPhone in 2007, to the launch of Netflix and Hulu in 2008/2009, to the first iPad in 2010. HDTV became the standard in 2009, and rose from 23% of the U.S. in 2008 to 75% by 2013. Facebook (now Meta) launched Instagram in 2010. TikTok was released internationally in 2017. By 2005, the average home could receive roughly 100 channels, which continued to rise, hitting more than 200 today.

Netflix’s first original scripted hit (House of Cards) debuted in 2013. Prime Video released its first original scripted series the same year (Alpha House and Betas). Hulu debuted its first successful original scripted series in 2013 as well, with the teen drama, East Los High. Other subscription video on demand services followed. CBS All Access (now Paramount+) launched in 2014, with its first original scripted programming, Star Trek: Discovery and The Good Fight, debuting in 2017. In late 2019, Disney+ and Apple TV+ joined the mix, followed in mid-2020 by HBO Max (now Max) and Peacock.

Despite recently cutting back on spending, the eight major streaming services are now spending at least as much on original content each year as the five broadcast networks combined. All of them now have advertising tiers. There are also numerous smaller and niche streaming services available to viewers. Today the average home subscribes to four streaming platforms. Three-quarters of Americans have at least one, with almost 10% having six.

Can Samples Even Measure the TV Universe Anymore?
It’s hard to imagine now, but before people meters debuted in 1987, the national Nielsen television sample was only 1,700 homes (which had grown from just 1,200 a decade earlier), and demographic data was only available 36 weeks of the year. In a three-network, one-screen, single platform, 15-channel, one or two TV home, live-viewing world, this was acceptable. People generally had the same access to the same channels and devices, and as cohesive demographic groups with similar viewing patterns aged, their media habits were largely predictable and relatively easy to measure.

The whole purpose of a TV sample is to be representative of the total U.S., with the idea that you and your demographic cohorts have similar viewing habits. Demographic cohorts are based on characteristics that Nielsen has determined impact viewing behavior – such as age, sex, race, ethnicity, presence of children, household income, education, language spoken at home, etc. Also important is whether or not you have cable/satellite/telco (i.e., pay TV services) or DVRs.

In today’s video environment, with hundreds of channels available to the average home on multiple and mobile devices, with numerous streaming platforms and on-demand viewing sources, people in the same demographic segments don’t watch the same things at the same time anymore.

In the past, broad platform mattered more than individual platform. In other words, whether or not you have cable does not require the sample being representative of every cable system, because that does not significantly affect viewing choices or behavior. Nor is it important to know what type of DVR you have, since that will not substantially impact your viewing behavior and how much you fast-forward through commercials.

Whether or not you subscribe to streaming services, however, is not at all the same. If you only have Netflix, the programming available to you, and your actual viewing habits, will be dramatically different than if you only subscribe to Paramount+. Likewise, if you bundle Disney+, Hulu, and ESPN+, and add Max, your viewing habits will be different than if you have Netflix, Prime Video, Peacock, and Apple TV+. And there won’t just be differences in what you stream, there will be significant differences in your linear TV viewing as well. The days when all Nielsen needed to worry about were broadcast vs. cable and DVR penetration are gone forever.

But even if you are able to put together a sample that keeps up with the shifting combinations of streaming service usage, it won’t necessarily provide significantly more accurate data. This is primarily because as more and more programming becomes available on more and more platforms, demographic cohorts no longer have similar viewing patterns. That means samples can no longer accurately measure TV viewing across the country.

Does Anyone Really Want More Accurate TV Audience Measurement?
The short answer is no. The long answer is more complicated and has more words, but still winds up being no. Claims to the contrary notwithstanding, neither buyers nor sellers have traditionally wanted more accurate audience measurement (although advertisers certainly do). Sellers want higher ratings so they can charge more for ads; buyers want stability so they can project future performance. More accurate audience data is conducive to neither.

Whenever television audience measurement is actually improved, the higher rated networks tend to decline and the lower rated tend to increase. So unless marketplace forces compel changes to how audiences are counted, inertia sets in and the biggest players resist any real improvements.

Sellers want higher ratings – you never hear any network complain that Nielsen is overcounting their audience (as it did for most of its history). But every time I can recall reported television usage or network ratings declining suddenly, or for no reason anyone can pinpoint, they blame Nielsen and call for change. There’s a reason some networks pushed so hard for viewing in bars and restaurants to be included in currency measurement. Anyone who knows anything about viewing habits or audience measurement knows how absurd it is to think more than a small fraction of people in bars or restaurants watch (or can even hear) commercials. It’s all about higher reported ratings. When Nielsen was unable to report VCR playback, on the other hand, the networks were happy to continue using the artificially inflated numbers Nielsen reported (for about 20 years) until DVRs overrode the need to properly measure VCRs.

Any new measurement system does not provide higher broadcast network ratings than Nielsen, was not able to sustain major media support. Today, however, with the major media companies owning linear broadcast and cable networks, as well as streaming platforms, losing broadcast viewers but gaining more viewers elsewhere may be more palatable.

Buyers want stability – accuracy is fine, but stability is required to be able to project future performance. Anyone who was in a media agency research group when the industry switched over to buying and selling based on C3 remembers the chaos and exponential workload increase that ensued during the upfront and for much of that year. There’s a reason that what was supposed to be a “one-year band-aid” is still being used 15 years later. Moving to more accurate commercial measurement would require not only additional staff, but would result in significantly less stable and projectable ratings.

Back in the days when there were relatively few viewing options, and most networks started and ended their seasons at the same time, there actually was a degree of stability to people’s viewing habits. Not so today. Traditional TV seasons, with new series debuting in the fall and spring, might still exist for the broadcast networks, but not for other platforms (or for viewers). Streaming services drop new seasons and new shows throughout the year (as do cable networks), whenever they are ready, and not always at the same time as previous seasons.

Some streamers drop entire seasons at once, some two or three episodes before switching to weekly, and others use the broadcast network once-a-week model. When a new season of Stranger Things, or Squid Games, or a new show like The Agency or Landman premieres, for example, my viewing habits immediately change. I’ll binge a few episodes a night, and DVR my regular linear shows (which I’ll binge two or three weeks later). My viewing is not nearly as stable or predictable as it was 10 years ago, and much of my viewing would not be captured by Nielsen’s C3 (or C7) measurement.

The main problem, of course, is that neither sellers nor buyers have any incentive to actually figure out the real shortcomings of video audience measurement. Sellers certainly don’t want to risk finding out how much smaller actual viewership is to their commercials than what Nielsen currently reports. Buyers don’t want to have to tell their advertising clients that data they’ve been using for decades is fundamentally flawed, and they waited until now to do anything about it, when this could have been handled years ago.

And both buyers and sellers realize that once you pinpoint specific weaknesses in research methodology, you have to actually fix them – which will be time-consuming and expensive. Media agencies do not want to incur dramatically increased costs for improved ratings systems or multiple currencies that require significant spending for new or custom databases (and staff) but do nothing to increase their revenue.

When Nielsen Has Been Forced to Improve TV Audience Measurement
Not counting increasing sample sizes, there have been only two instances, more than 20 years apart, when Nielsen made real improvements to its audience measurement and how it reported television viewing – in 1987, when the switch was made from the household meter and persons diary system to national people meters, and in 2009, when DVRs and time-shifted viewing led to the shift from program ratings to average commercial-minute ratings (C3).

In 1985, when AGB, which had been using people meters in the UK, tried to introduce them into the U.S. market, it represented the first real threat to Nielsen’s dominance. Even Nielsen had to admit that this new electronic measurement was far superior to its own meter/diary system, which contained considerable human bias.

The highest rated networks and programs, as well as shows airing multiple times per week (daytime, early morning, evening news, late night, syndication) benefited when people manually filled out diaries at the end of each week. Recall favors the most popular and longer-duration programming. For example, people often didn’t remember that they watched MTV for 20 minutes three or four days ago, and they also tended to think they watched their favorite program this week, even if they missed it. Facing the prospect of losing clients for the first time, Nielsen was forced to develop its own people meter.

Nielsen started including DVR households in its national people meter sample in January 2006, when the devices were in nearly 20% of homes, but did not report DVR usage as part of its regular ratings. By 2007, commercial avoidance through DVR fast-forwarding had become one of the biggest and most urgent concerns among advertisers. Unlike VCRs, the DVR allowed viewers to record television shows without having to use videotape, and both recording and playback were significantly more convenient and user-friendly. As a result, there was a substantial amount of time-shifted viewing. Also unlike VCRs, Nielsen was able to measure playback activity among people.

Measuring DVR playback and commercial ratings became an industry priority. Virtually every study and survey ever done indicated that anywhere between 70% and 80% of VCR or DVR playback involved fast-forwarding through commercials. But there was no actual Nielsen data to prove it. Nielsen was forced to report DVR playback, which led to C3 (average commercial minute ratings up to three days after the original broadcast).

Commercial Pod studies paved the way for C3. As the industry started to publicly grapple with how to deal with delayed DVR viewing and fast-forwarding, some media agency analyses were already underway. My Audience Analysis group at MAGNA Global conducted extensive commercial pod studies over four consecutive years (2005-2008), examining the dynamics of commercial pod versus program performance for broadcast, cable, and syndication.

We recorded hundreds of television shows across seasons, dayparts, and genres. We separated program segments from commercial pods for each telecast, and matched it up with Nielsen’s NPower minute-by-minute ratings. We shared our reports with advertisers, networks, Nielsen, and the press. These studies gave the industry confidence that commercial-minute ratings were consistent enough from year-to-year to use as marketplace currency – which led to Nielsen implementing C3 in 2009.

When Research Started to Take a Back Seat to Marketing
How these two fundamental changes (people meters and C3) were handled shows how much the industry’s priorities shifted over time – the rapid change in the volume of and access to video content and multi-media devices, as well as delayed viewing options and the resulting changes in consumer behavior, caused good research to take a back seat to rushing new products to market.

There was a time when any changes to audience measurement needed to undergo extensive vetting by both buyers and sellers before the industry would consider implementing them. People meters were evaluated by committees of researchers from agencies and broadcast and cable networks for nearly three years – including a full year of side-by-side data to compare it with the old meter/diary method – before it was deemed ready to use as marketplace currency.

Nielsen switched to C3, on the other hand, with virtually no research into the methodology or whether it actually accounted for all fast-forwarding. While an extensive amount of analysis went into determining whether “commercial-minute” ratings were viable to use as marketplace currency, virtually no research was done by Nielsen to determine the proper methodology for calculating them. Speed to market was considered more important than evaluating the measurement methodology. The MAGNA Global Commercial Pod Studies defined commercial minutes as minutes containing at least 30 seconds of commercials, and recommended measuring commercial pods. Nielsen decided to define commercial minutes as those containing even one second of commercial time – and then weight averaging those minutes based on their commercial duration to arrive at the “average commercial-minute” rating.

In 2006 and 2007, Nielsen held a series of industry-wide meetings to figure out how to report DVR playback and commercial-minute ratings. The biggest debate at the time was not on methodology, but rather on what to report. Buyers (advertisers and their agencies) wanted only live viewing to be used as marketplace currency. Sellers (broadcast, cable, syndication) wanted a full seven days of delayed DVR viewing included in the reported ratings.

The final meeting on the subject, in which the C3 compromise was established, was the first time that Nielsen had invited top research, buying, and sales executives in the same room to discuss audience measurement methodology and related business issues. This was also the first time that business concerns overrode the necessity for validating research methodology. And most significantly, it was the moment that Nielsen shifted away from being a pure research company – at the following year’s national client meeting, Nielsen actually proclaimed that getting a product to market was now more important than validating the research beforehand.

Those of us who were involved in the discussions on how to best measure commercial-minute ratings, recall that C3 was designed as a one- or two-year band-aid. The industry’s major computerized pre- and post-buy analysis systems, Donovan Data and Media Bank (which have since merged to create MediaOcean), could not yet handle individual minute measurement. They still needed audience data in the format of Nielsen’s MIT tapes, which used average ratings data. Advertisers wanted individual commercial ratings as soon as they were feasible. I had been working with Donovan and Media Bank, and both did have the capability of providing pre- and post-buys based on individual minutes the following year.

Even though research was starting to clearly demonstrate fundamental flaws in C3 measurement, we were told it didn’t really matter because individual commercial measurement would soon be the marketplace currency. I recall telling whoever would listen at the time that given the disruption during the upfront with the switch to C3, and the additional expense and staffing required to handle moving to actual commercial measurement, that C3 would likely be the end point. That was 15 years ago.

It should also be noted that the vast majority of Nielsen executives did not (and probably still do not) know exactly how C3 is calculated. Many have probably forgotten, that when the “C” streams of ratings data were first made available, Nielsen sent an advisory to clients saying that you couldn’t simply subtract Live viewers from Live + 7 Days to calculate the amount of time-shifted viewing. Since that’s what everyone was doing, and it made logical sense to do so, many of us research types started to wonder why. It raised some uncomfortable questions about exactly how these calculations were done, because Nielsen quickly stopped saying it. If you specifically asked them they would tell you, but otherwise they never brought it up again.

Nielsen’s rules for allocating minute-by-minute viewing were designed for a time when virtually no one had remote control and it actually took a minute or more to get up and change the channel. Basically, Nielsen looks for the plurality of viewing to a minute. For example, if you watch ABC for 20 seconds of a clock minute and four other networks for 10 seconds each, you are counted as watching ABC for that minute. If there’s no plurality, Nielsen continues to go back a minute until there is a plurality, then allocates that viewing to the current minute.

In the 1960s and 70s, before remote control, plurality of viewing to a given minute was pretty much the same as viewing to the entire minute. Individual minutes were not reported, so it didn’t matter how Nielsen measured them. They were simply aggregated up to average program ratings. No one ever thought about how viewing to a single minute was derived.

When it comes to time-shifted viewing, however, the flaws in C3 methodology become apparent. With live viewing, there are multiple channels. During a commercial break, you can stay on that channel for 20 seconds and then scan several other channels during a given clock minute. When you DVR a program and play it back, however, there is only one channel. The majority and plurality of viewing are therefore the same.

If you are playing back a program, watch 20 seconds of a commercial minute and fast-forward the remaining 40 seconds, your viewing falls into something Nielsen calls AOT (“all other tuning”), and the commercial minute will receive no credit for your viewing (because both the majority and plurality of tuning is not to the commercial minute). You would need to be tuned to the majority of a clock minute to be counted in delayed DVR viewing. So, Nielsen’s methodology for counting live commercial minutes and delayed commercial minutes are not only different, they are both fundamentally flawed.

Shifting Alliances: Why TV Research is Not What it Used to Be
When broadcast and cable networks became siblings under the same corporate umbrella, it started to affect the type of research these companies were willing to underwrite. The broadcast networks and network television and cable television trade organizations used to do a fair amount of research highlighting their strengths and their competitors’ weaknesses (who remembers CBS’s The Cable Fable?). The CAB is now the VAB (Video Advertising Bureau), with membership including both broadcast and cable networks.

Not only do giant media conglomerates now own broadcast and cable outlets, they all now have their own streaming platforms as well.

The upfront sales pitch is no longer “Broadcast is bigger and better, and the only place to reach your customers all in one place” or “Our cable network has the most engaged audiences and is the only one that can effectively compete with the broadcast networks.” In essence, they are all telling us that they – Disney (ABC, ESPN, Hulu, Disney+…), Paramount Global (CBS, MTV Networks, Showtime, Paramount+ …), Comcast (NBCUniversal, USa, Syfy, Bravo, Peacock...), Warner Bros. Discovery (Turner cable networks, HBO, Max...) – are basically all the same: self-contained, massive communication hubs and unrivaled unified companies, armed with multiple networks, platforms, and genres, that can reach everyone, everywhere, all at once.

As a result, there is seldom any good research that highlights the weaknesses of any part of these entities (which also results in little research showing the strengths of other parts). Advertisers (remember them?) are often left with meaningless studies proclaiming “advertising works,” along with assurances that if they just add this, optimize that, or use this new and improved planning or buying tool, everything will be better.

Measuring Live vs. DVR Viewing and the Implications for Streaming Ads
Ten years ago, when I was head of audience analysis at ION Media, my group conducted a study that I believe is still the best (only?) analysis comparing engagement and ad recall between Live and DVR playback viewing. At the time, ION (now owned by Scripps) was an independent network, whose programming consisted almost exclusively of off-network repeats, which are largely watched live (more than 95% of ION’s adult 25-54 average audience at the time watched its shows live). Highlighting the advertising strength of live viewing would not hurt any other part of the company.

Trying to measure ad recall a day or more after the commercials aired is not particularly meaningful unless it’s at the start of a new ad campaign with new creative that is airing for the first time. Otherwise, you don’t really know where the respondents actually saw the commercial. Much better is measuring ad recall right after the program airs.

I got the idea for this analysis from a CAB study that was conducted roughly 30 years ago, which remains the best I’ve ever seen. It was an unaided ad recall study, where adults 18+ were surveyed by phone at home during primetime (I believe they got permission from respondents to call them after 10pm). It demonstrated that there was no statistical difference between broadcast and cable based on verified recall of commercials and attentiveness to the programming.

There were also a lot of other interesting findings about the impact of commercial pod positioning and length. The main purpose of the study was to show that cable should have the same value per rating point as broadcast. At the time, ad-supported cable networks were not yet producing original scripted programming, and they were still considered lower quality and less valuable than the much higher rated broadcast series.

We used a similar approach, although the times had changed – we conducted our survey online.

Here’s what we did along with the results.

• We maintained a panel of television viewers through Vision Critical. We recruited members to participate in a special research study (there were 476 respondents).

• Respondents were allowed to watch any program they wanted, and could view the program live, at the time it originally aired, or via DVR playback. They only had to tell us the day and time they would be watching (it had to be between 7pm and 10pm).

• They were instructed to watch TV as they normally would. The only stipulation was that it had to be a regular program that contained commercials.

• Each participant received a 9-question survey at 10pm the night they watched the program. If they submitted the completed survey by 11pm that night, they were placed in a drawing to receive a $500 Amazon gift card. We made sure they understood that correct answers were not necessary to win the prize – so if they recorded a show they wouldn’t go back and try to find the right answers.

• Questions included asking respondents to list up to three plot points of the program, list all the brands they could recall in the commercials, and to list any specific messages they remembered from each brand they listed.

The results were eye opening but not really surprising.

• Attentiveness and recall to the program content was virtually identical for live viewing and DVR playback.

• The percentage of respondents who recalled one brand during commercials was 2.3 times greater among live viewers than among DVR viewers (the percentage who recalled three brands was lower, but was more than 3 times greater among live viewers).

• Brand message recall was roughly 3 times greater among live viewers.

• There was no advertising on the few streaming platforms at the time, so there was no reason to include them. But now, this type of analysis can easily include streaming.

When I left ION, I recommended that they replicate this analysis every year, so chances are there’s more recent data out there. But despite changes in the media landscape over the past 10 years, there’s no reason to think the difference in ad recall between live and DVR viewers is much different.

So, how does any of this apply to advertising on streaming platforms? Well, we know that DVR penetration has remained steady over the past 10 years at about 50% of the U.S. It some cases, streaming has taken the place of DVRs – ABC and FX series come to Hulu soon after airing, as do CBS shows on Paramount+ and NBC shows on Peacock. So, if you missed the original broadcast, you can catch up if you subscribe to the right streaming service. People can’t pause or fast-forward through the commercials, and virtually no one switches channels when they are streaming a series or movie. There are also shorter and fewer commercial pods on streaming platforms, both of which we know (from numerous research studies) positively impacts ad recall.

So, while the advantage of streaming over linear TV ads might not be quite as extreme as that of live versus DVR viewing, it is certainly substantial. I’d love to see more research done on this. It seems like a prime project for Nielsen or ComScore, or one of the other emerging potential audience measurement competitors to tackle (or Netflix). I think if positioned properly, it would enhance efforts to sell streaming ads without necessarily hurting anyone’s linear TV efforts.

Why Alternatives to Nielsen Have Failed to Sustain Support
Over the past 40 years, there have been several failed attempts by various companies to compete with Nielsen. Except for ComScore (and more recently, VideoAmp and iSpot), none have managed to pose any real threat to Nielsen’s dominance in the U.S. Even these more recent companies have been seen as complements to Nielsen, not replacements (at least on a national level). While some of these companies served to pressure Nielsen to make improvements to its own service and increase its sample size, the industry (both buyers and sellers) has balked at funding multiple audience measurement companies that provide essentially the same thing.

Here’s a brief look at the most notable attempts to compete with Nielsen.

• 1985: After more than 30 years of being essentially unchallenged in the national TV audience measurement arena, British company AGB (Audits of Great Britain) entered the game and posed the first real threat to Nielsen’s dominance. It had been using something called people meters in Europe, and saw an opportunity to expand into the U.S. market. AGB had the advantage of actually using a better methodology than Nielsen’s antiquated meter/diary approach.

AGB spent nearly two years testing its people meter in Boston before trying to roll it out nationally. Nielsen responded by launching its own people meter, and increased its sample to 2,000 homes (to match the size of AGB’s sample). The following year Nielsen increased its sample to 4,000. As a result, AGB failed to sustain industry support and ceased its U.S. operation in 1988. The main problem was that ad agencies were not willing to pay for two identical national measurement services, and most of the networks were not willing to support a new ratings system that did not report higher numbers than Nielsen (I believe at the time only CBS, MTV, and a few other cable networks were willing to go forward, but agency support virtually disappeared).

• 1987: R.D. Percy & Co. developed a passive meter, which used a heat-sensitive, infrared device to detect when someone was in front of the television set and when someone left the room. But when people found out that the heat sensors could be thrown off by the presence of a large dog, jokes ensued, and industry support eventually fizzled. Nielsen announced its own plans to develop a passive meter, but it never went beyond the testing phase.

• 1991: Arbitron’s ScanAmerica tried to marry TV viewing to product usage. Sample participants were asked to run a scanner wand over the product code on each store-bought item. Single-source data was considered the holy grail at the time, and this approach seemed to be what advertisers had been seeking. It consisted of 1,000 households in five markets – New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, Atlanta, and Dallas. But a lack of belief in the methodology, the limited number of scannable items, and an unwillingness to invest in an unproven system in a faltering economy, resulted in ScanAmerica shutting down only a year after being introduced. Had ScanAmerica come along a few years later, when the economy was back on track and other viewing sources were cutting into network ratings, it probably would have received more interest and support.

• 1993: Arbitron, which had been competing with Nielsen for four decades in collecting local TV ratings (in more than 200 markets), canceled the service. Local stations, which had been forced to subscribe to both Nielsen and Arbitron to accommodate advertisers and their agencies, who were more or less equally divided among the two services, were under increasing economic pressure from cable and other competition. It no longer made financial sense for them to support two essentially identical rating systems. Nielsen, which already had a lock on national TV measurement, won the day. Nielsen acquired Arbitron (renamed Nielsen Audio) in 2013.

• 1993: The broadcast networks tried to develop a rival rating service, SMART (System for Measuring and Reporting Television), with a new people meter provided by Statistical Research, Inc. (SRI). But they couldn’t get the necessary ad-agency support and it never got beyond the “media lab” stage (I thought at the time SRI did great work and provided valuable insights). It folded in 1997.

• 1999: IAG Research, founded to address the growing concerns about ad avoidance via DVRs, started conducting research to measure ad effectiveness and viewer engagement across television and the internet. In 2004, it introduced product-placement and branded-content measurement. While there was a lot of skepticism about IAG’s methodology, it was the only company providing this type of data, leading all the broadcast networks and an increasing number of advertisers to subscribe. Advertisers wanted it so agencies were forced to subscribe (I didn’t know a single agency research executive who believed in the data). IAG was largely seen as a supplement to Nielsen, rather than a replacement. Instead of trying to develop its own version, Nielsen acquired the company in 2008.

• 2007: erinMedia’s plan to launch a new national ratings system to collect and process viewing data from set-top boxes was derailed when Nielsen announced it was forming a new unit called DigitalPlus to essentially do the same thing (which caused erinMedia’s funding to disappear). erinMedia had filed an anti-trust lawsuit against Nielsen Media, which was confidentially settled in 2008.

• 2008: TRA (Television ROI Audit), founded by Mark Lieberman and Bill Harvey, was the first company to merge single-source and big data . TRA’s Media TRAnalytics combined second-by-second live and time-shifted viewing in 1.5 million homes with information from 55 million frequent-shopping-card users to create a single-source database of 370,000 anonymous households where TV viewing and purchase behavior could be compared and tracked. CBS and MTV were early subscribers (both networks tended to subscribe to the most promising new research companies). Several media agencies and advertisers also used TRA data. The company was sold to TiVo in 2012.

• 2008: Rentrak started tracking viewing behavior from 35 million televisions across all 210 markets, and provided video on demand measurement from set-top box data, as well as metrics on TV engagement. By 2015, more than 440 local stations across 68 station groups were using Rentrak for daily measurement. It was never seen as competition for Nielsen on a national level.

• ComScore, which merged with Rentrak in 2016 to form a new cross-platform measurement company, had been the only real competition to Nielsen – primarily with local TV stations. Most major media agencies, networks, station groups, and streaming services subscribe to some level of ComScore data.

• Other companies have emerged over the past few years, most notably VideoAmp and iSpot. While both provide important insights, including cross-platform and co-viewing measurement, and are becoming widely used by advertisers and media agencies, they are currently complements or supplements to Nielsen, not replacements. Until Paramount Global finally signed a new multi-year Nielsen contract, it had briefly been using VideoAmp data as its sole marketplace currency.

Industry Committees Traditionally Don’t Accomplish Much
There’s an ongoing truism in this business that if you want to appear to be doing something but don’t really want to accomplish anything, form a committee. I’ve been in this industry long enough, and sat on enough committees, to see the humor, frustration, and reality in that statement.

There are just a few times I can recall that advertisers, media companies (sellers) and media agencies (buyers) were in the same room discussing how to improve TV/video audience measurement (not including industry trade organizations). Ordinarily, buyers and sellers were separated. Even prior to the switchover to people meters, Nielsen held separate meetings among researchers from the networks and ad agencies – and neither the network salespeople nor agency buyers were present.

• In 2005, the Council For Research Excellence (CRE) was formed. The CRE initially consisted of 40 top industry researchers, representing advertisers, networks, local station groups, syndicators, and media agencies (I was privileged to be one of its founding members, representing Interpublic). While the CRE did conduct some landmark research, it didn’t lead to any changes in Nielsen’s measurement methodology – not really surprising, since the “independent” Council’s research was funded by Nielsen (roughly $3.5 million per year).

For those who don’t remember or weren’t around at the time, the CRE was formed following Senate hearings on Nielsen’s purported measurement bias, so Nielsen could avoid the federal government becoming involved in overseeing national TV audience measurement. Lawyers were present at many of our early meetings because the potential for collusion between buyers and sellers was a major concern. Nielsen pulled its funding in 2017.

• As already mentioned, in 2009, buyers, sellers, and researchers convened for a meeting with top Nielsen executives to discuss how to measure television viewing via DVRs. There was urgency to arrive at a solution before the 2009 upfront. Advertisers and agencies wanted only live viewing reported as marketplace currency, while the networks wanted a full week of delayed viewing (C7) reported. After much discussion, we arrived at the C3 compromise.

• A few years later, the Association of National Advertisers (ANA) convened a select group of advertisers, sellers, buyers, and researchers to discuss replacing Nielsen’s C3 measurement with true commercial ratings. This meeting ended with Nielsen, in its typical arrogance, basically telling us they heard our concerns, but had no intention of shifting away from C3 anytime soon (that was 12 years ago).

• In 2021, a number of advertisers, media agencies, and industry trade organizations joined NBCUniversal’s Measurement Innovation Forum, which was designed to evaluate current audience measurement methodology and come up with alternatives to Nielsen. NBCU sent out a request for proposal (RFP) to more than 50 companies (including Nielsen) to help “build a new measurement ecosystem for us that reflects the future.” Ironically, this was not in response to the basic flaws in current C3 measurement, but rather was spurred by the problems Nielsen encountered maintaining its national people meter sample during the pandemic – which resulted in reported network audience declines that seemed illogical to say the least. Again, media companies only seek action when they believe reported ratings are too low, not when they believe they are inaccurate.

Tests of potential alternatives to Nielsen (such as ComScore, iSpot.tv, Samba TV, VideoAmp, Xandr, and LiveRamp) reportedly did not yield the results the industry was looking for. Different companies provided substantially different numbers from Nielsen and from one another. And even the same suppliers sometimes produced widely different numbers from one week to the next. As I’ve already mentioned, in today’s media world, currently structured samples (and data modeling) are woefully inadequate in measuring the universe of TV viewers, so significant disparity in data produced by different samples should not surprise anyone – in fact, it proves my point.

In 2023, five major media companies (NBCUniversal, Paramount Global, Fox, TelevisaUnivision, and Warner Bros. Discovery) along with the Video Advertising Bureau (VAB) formed a “joint industry” committee (JIC) to create standards for audience measurement. Notably missing from this alliance (at the moment) is Disney (which owns ABC and ESPN as well as Disney+ and Hulu). Other members include, A&E Networks, AMC Networks, Discovery, Hallmark Media, Scripps, Samsung, OpenAP, Roku (the only streaming platform to join), and agencies, butler/till, Dentsu, Group M, Havas Media, Horizon Media, IPG Mediabrands, Omnicom Media Group, Publicis Media, and RPA.

When the JIC was formed, Disney’s reason for not joining, as they put it, “We own our own tech and we own our own audience graph (a proprietary tool which helps advertisers identify distinct segments of the audience across Disney’s media properties).” It is “anchored in the industry’s only scaled audience graph for streaming, with 250 million identifiers that represent 112 million households, across hundreds of thousands of audience attributes that paint a picture of your consumer.” Nevertheless, they said, “We are working with everyone, VideoAmp, Samba TV, and iSpot.” “We’re talking about measurement expansion…it’s important to differentiate between measurement and currency. Nielsen will be the currency in this upfront.” “We are going to be as flexible as possible on the measurement side, but from a currency perspective, no one has been able to scale currency to take the place of Nielsen today.”

The main purpose of the JIC is to audit and certify the transactional readiness of new potential marketplace currencies. In its own words, “The U.S. Joint Industry Committee (JIC) was created in January 2023 as a collaborative forum for both media suppliers and video suppliers to work together to define a more sustainable model for long-form video measurement. By driving consensus on common standards and requirements for cross-platform measurement, the organization seeks to provide transparency into transactional readiness of cross-platform currencies while enabling more accurate measurement of today’s modern consumer.” JIC initiatives include, creating standards for cross-platform measurement, certifying currencies for transaction, and building a publisher first-party streaming dataset.

JIC has certified ComScore, VideoAmp, and iSpot to be transactable as national TV currency. This basically means that all three have accurate and census-representative data sets, which the JIC considers the baseline requirements for buyers and sellers to transact. This, of course, says nothing about who will actually use these data and how they will be used. The JIC published a POV on the state of TV currencies in its 2004 Guidelines for Transactability of National Cross-Platform Solutions.

Lots of New Cross-Platform Measurement
ComScore, which has effectively taken on Nielsen on the local television measurement currency front, recently announced a new cross-platform solution, ComScore Content Measurement (CCM), which it calls “a major step in unifying ComScore’s device and platform-specific measurement capabilities…provides a deduplicated view of audience reach across linear TV, CTV/Streaming, PC, Mobile, and social, providing unmatched insights into viewer engagement…”

All the major media companies are using both VideoAmp and iSpot data to varying degrees, and several cable companies are using one or both, including A&E Networks, AMC Networks, Hallmark Media, and Scripps Networks. Media agencies, including Dentsu, IPG Mediabrands, OMG, and RPA are using them as well.

VideoAmp is currently powering advanced data platforms, Paramount’s Vantage and Warner Bros. Discovery’s Olli, and is available to advertisers via NBCUniversal’s One Platform. VideoAmp recently announced its VideoAmp Cross Screen Planner (VXP™), which is geared toward helping agencies and brands reach target audiences. The company is expanding its integrations to include census-level streaming data from publishers, including Disney, Paramount, and Fox.

Byron Allen’s Allen Media Group reportedly struck a 10-year deal with VideoAmp. iSpot has an ongoing partnership with Roku, the first of its kind with a steaming platform.

Both VideoAmp and iSpot have deals to use TVision’s 5,000 household panel of people with TVs outfitted with equipment to monitor who is watching, in the room, and whether they are actually looking at the screen. VideoAmp has also used HyphaMetrics to help shape its big data TV measurement. It collects viewing data for its panelists passively and measures viewing across a variety of devices.

In June 2024, The Association of National Advertisers (ANA) announced “significant progress and new milestones reached in its desire for a Cross-Media Measurement (CMM) solution. Improving advertiser decision-making for its members by enabling unduplicated reach and frequency at the campaign level is a strategic priority for the ANA. A new entity, Aquila, has been established by the ANA to govern, operationalize, and execute a CMM system in the U.S., which will support a broad range of use cases for planning, optimizing, post campaign reporting and outcome measurement. Aquila’s leadership includes a founder’s coalition of ANA member advertiser companies, and platforms including Google, Meta, Amazon, and TikTok.”

“After sufficient testing and validation, Aquila is moving the CMM initiative to the next phase of bringing a scaled CMM solution to the U.S…. Aquila has contracted with Kantar Media to build a single source cross-media calibration audience panel in the United States. The panel will be used for calibration purposes and as a core component of the service. Aquila is working with Accenture on an upfront phase of planning for the rollout of the CMM solution and the definition of its technology requirements.”

Aquila is reportedly expanding its research panel from 1,000 to 5,000 households and preparing to sign an as-yet unnamed TV measurement partner, as it plans a beta launch later this year (and a full rollout next year). This will, of course be competing with other companies’ cross-media measurement efforts, including Nielsen, ComScore, VideoAmp, and iSpot.

The Big Data (+ Panel) Solution
Nielsen understands the flaws in audience measurement as well as anyone, and now has a system that is a radical change from the way it did things in the past. Heading into the 2025 upfront, Nielsen will be combining viewership data from 45 million households across the country, covering more than 75 million set-top boxes and smart TVs (from partnerships with Comcast, DirecTV, Dish, Roku, and Vizio), as well as some first-party streaming data with a panel of more than 100,000 people. The Media Rating Council (MRC) has recently accredited this process (which basically means Nielsen is doing what it claims to be doing – it doesn’t attest to the accuracy of the product).

Obviously, a giant set-top sample in the range of tens of millions is a step in the right direction, but it still needs to be representative of the country at large based on age, income, ethnicity, media device ownership, streaming subscriptions, etc. But even that would significantly under-report viewing sources with a large amount of over-the-air only homes. But it will provide audience data for vehicles that are currently too small for Nielsen to measure. If I had faith that the household sample was indeed representative of the country at large, I’d have no problem with a large panel for demos (there’s really no other solution).

When You Can’t (or Won’t) Improve, Distract and Change the Subject
Whenever ratings substantially decline, sellers become focused on adding something and pointing out that the actual number of viewers don’t matter as much as (insert subject here).

In the early 1990s, as “network erosion” had entered the advertising lexicon, declining broadcast ratings started to become a thing. Linking TV viewing to product usage was in vogue, with survey-based companies like MRI and Simmons (which combined in 2019) providing cross-tabs to link various aspects of media consumption with product usage. Since this data was not really projectable from one year to the next, and the TV data was as soft as can be, it was used more as a looking back tool than a looking forward one.

Then it was viewer engagement. In the early 2000s, advertisers were understandably concerned about ad-skipping via DVRs and of high levels of commercial clutter. IAG Research (founded in 1999), purported to be able to measure advertising effectiveness, ad likeability and recall, and program engagement across television and the internet. In 2004, the company introduced a measurement for product placement and branded content. I remember discussing IAG with Nielsen executives, who were quick to point out what they believed was IAG’s flawed methodology, insisting they would never do that kind of shoddy research. In 2008, Nielsen acquired IAG, and suddenly the methodology was sound (although Nielsen did make some notable changes).

Over the years, I can’t count the number of times the broadcast networks and Nielsen pushed agencies to accept out-of-home viewing to be included in Nielsen’s currency ratings. We always laughed them out of the room. It was OK in a supplemental report, but no one who knew anything about research or viewing behavior would allow viewing in bars and restaurants to be given the same weight as in-home viewing. Unfortunately, research directors at media agencies don’t have nearly the clout they once did, and despite most not wanting OOH included in Nielsen ratings, couldn’t prevent it as they had so many times before.

Now, as multi-channels, on multi-platforms, on multi-devices, saturate the video landscape, attentiveness is the big thing (as it periodically is), even though you can’t really measure it on any cost-effective, ongoing basis. Most attempts at measuring attentiveness I’ve seen over the years have been gibberish. But as is always the case, someone will proclaim to have unlocked the secret, someone will start using it, and a lot of other folks will fall in line. I learned long ago that if you tell a prospective client something can’t be done, and someone else tells them they have the secret sauce, they will go with the someone else.

How to Actually Improve TV Audience Measurement (and why it won’t happen)
Even with all the criticism leveled at Nielsen, the company is still used as the base to compare any new potential vendors to gauge the validity their reported ratings. So, if another company reports data that is 30% higher or lower than Nielsen’s, it is immediately thought to be “wrong.” But we really have no idea if this is the case.

In addition to re-thinking sample construction, the first thing that needs to be done is to get a handle on what current rating services can and cannot accurately measure. While this might sound logical and simple, I can’t remember this ever being done (outside of the old telephone coincidental days). Even when the industry took the major step of moving to average commercial minute measurement (C3) in 2009, there was precious little analysis done into the methodology Nielsen uses to calculate these ratings.

The only good attempt I recall to get some of these answers was in the CRE’s landmark Video Consumer Mapping Study in 2007-08. I was co-Chair of the CRE’s Media Consumption and Engagement Committee, which commissioned the study. It was a massive (and expensive) undertaking, where trained observers shadowed a few hundred families and recorded their real-time television exposure and viewing over a full day (down to 10-second increments). The study was designed and executed by Ball State University and Sequent Partners. It took place in Atlanta, Chicago, Dallas, Philadelphia, and Seattle, with 376 participants, in spring and fall 2008. The study looked at live versus DVR viewing, and included viewing at home, in other people’s homes, at work, at other out-of-home locations such as bars and restaurants, schools, stores, and basically anywhere people are exposed to video and ads.

One of the lesser-known findings of the study was that Nielsen’s overall usage levels of households and broad demographic segments, such as total viewers and adults 18-49 were remarkably similar to the observed viewing behavior in our sample. Once you started to look at narrower age groups, however, the reported Nielsen data started to stray significantly from the observed viewing data.

And this was just overall TV usage levels, not individual program ratings. That was 17 years ago, when video viewing was not nearly as splintered as it is today – DVR penetration was barely 20% of the U.S., and there were no streaming services. At the time, I suggested we replicate the study every five years, but that never happened – primarily because it was so expensive, and the CRE (and Nielsen) had other priorities.

It is actually not that difficult to figure out how accurate current TV measurement is. I bring this up every time I write on this topic. When I was on the CRE, I proposed a methodology for gauging how accurate Nielsen was at measuring an increasingly fragmented video viewing environment. Nielsen didn’t want to have anything to do with it then, but the industry should consider it now.

Here’s all you need to do:

• Develop a sample of 100+ of the top researchers in the industry (buyers, sellers, advertisers), who are adept at detailed work and understand how audience measurement works. Nielsen, ComScore (and others) could meter their TVs, DVRs, smartphones, computers (desktops, laptops, tablets) and any other video viewing capable devices they own. They would also be given portable meters to measure their exposure to out-of-home video and audio.

• Set up several different viewing scenarios for what and how each participant will view video content and commercials during a single day, which would include linear TV (both live viewing and viewing via DVRs) and streaming.

• Participants log in their video and commercial exposure and viewing (down to the second).

• Compare their actual viewing to what the measurement companies report. We would then be able to see and address weaknesses in audience measurement, see how much real-world viewing is not being captured by current methodology, and gauge the differences between such things as exposure (the opportunity to view) and actual viewing, and between individual commercial viewing and average commercial minutes. We’d also be able to see how many people are actually watching the commercials in bars and restaurants compared to what portable devices pick up as “exposure.”

Not only will this demonstrate for the first time, the accuracy of reported ratings, but it will also tell us exactly where improvements to audience measurement need to be made (which was the original but unfulfilled purpose of the CRE). The project could be overseen by a group of retired research executives or some well-respected company with no skin in the game.

So Whats Next?
That’s a good question. I doubt whether the industry will follow my proposal to discover the actual weaknesses in current audience measurement techniques. That would require the expensive, time-consuming process of fixing them, and would not necessarily supply the answers anyone wants to deal with.

So, if past is prologue, we’ll probably see more talk and several new proposals on how to “better” measure video and cross-platform viewing. Nielsen will be forced to make some changes to how it operates. When the next upfront rolls around, virtually everyone will still be using Nielsen as their primary (but not necessarily only) national marketplace currency.

If the media conglomerates continue to sign long-term contracts with Nielsen, we’ll know most of the rumblings about finding an alternative currency was just talk and they have no genuine interest in improving audience measurement. If they sign one-year deals, making Nielsen (and others) continually prove themselves, then maybe real change will happen.

In today’s (and tomorrow’s) increasingly splintered media environment, there is room for additional players, which may not have been the case 10 years ago. ComScore is not going anywhere, and I don’t see VideoAmp or iSpot disappearing any time soon. While Nielsen has long dominated partly because it has decades trendable linear TV viewing data on conventional demographics, when it comes to the more advanced audience data, the newer players have a more even playing field.

But as has always been the case, when Nielsen starts perceiving another company as a real threat, it has the deepest pockets to develop something similar. And no matter what other services anyone uses, their multi-year Nielsen contracts means they are still paying Nielsen millions of dollars each year. So for any alternatives to sustain long-term support, they really have to produce data Nielsen doesn’t provide that media companies see as profitable. Should VideoAmp, which specializes in targeting advanced audiences, online behavior, and cross-screen measurement, merge with iSpot, which is widely used for planning and evaluating the impact of ad campaigns, they might combine into something that can be a real challenger to Nielsen’s dominance. And let’s not forget that Kantar Media, which competes head-to-head with Nielsen outside the U.S. is being acquired by private-equity firm, H.I.G. Capital, and seems poised to enter the U.S. market. Will they acquire or partner with either VideoAmp or iSpot (or ComScore)? Who knows?

Here are the LinkedIn overviews for some of these companies in their own words…

ComScore is a global, trusted partner for planning, transacting and evaluating media across platforms. With a data footprint that combines digital, linear TV, over-the-top and theatrical viewership intelligence with advanced audience insights, ComScore empowers media buyers and sellers to quantify their multiscreen behavior and make meaningful business decisions with confidence. A proven leader in measuring digital and TV audiences and advertising at scale, ComScore is the industry's emerging, third-party source for reliable and comprehensive cross-platform measurement.

VideoAmp is a software and data company creating a more sophisticated data-driven advertising ecosystem that redefines how media is valued, bought and sold. The VideoAmp platform provides measurement and optimization tools that unify audiences across the disparate systems of traditional TV, streaming video and digital media. Unlocking new value for those currently operating within a siloed view of their audiences, VideoAmp creates efficiencies for the entire industry. VideoAmp is transforming a 100-year old industry by powering a more effective three-way value exchange that results in advertisers increasing their return on investment, publishers increasing their revenues and improving the viewing experience for consumers.

iSpot helps advertisers measure the brand and business impact of TV and streaming advertising, from concept to airing to conversion. Fast, accurate and actionable measurement and attribution solutions enable advertisers to assess creative effectiveness, enhance media plans and attribute advertising results for cross-platform campaigns, all while benchmarking against competitors and historical norms. Unlike legacy and ad hoc solutions, iSpot is purpose-built to measure the performance of every ad on television with digital-like precision and granularity in real time. With always-on performance insights unified across linear and streaming TV, advertisers can take quick and confident action to consistently drive business results.

Television remains a vibrant cultural influence and an essential source of entertainment and information worldwide. Tremendous growth in content choices, and viewing platforms that allow us to watch anything, anytime, on any screen, has actually made it harder for viewers to discover and keep up with all the great programming available. It’s also more competitive for content providers to keep your attention, and for marketers to make strong, measurable connections with their target consumers. Technology that improves the viewing experience, enables content discovery, and addresses audience fragmentation across screens will strengthen television’s business model and relevance to consumers. Data is at the center of any solution to make TV better. Samba TV's technology is built into Smart TVs and easily maps to smart phones and tablets. By recognizing what's on screen, Samba TV learns what viewers like and using machine learning algorithms, enables discovery of shows and actors in a whole new way. Likewise, our data and measurement products are transforming the way stakeholders across the media landscape are thinking about their business. Given the dramatic growth in streaming services, connected devices, time-shifting, and multi-screen viewership, our data products solve real problems and create a meaningful competitive advantage for our clients.

When we look at the way TV has always been measured - a lot is missing from the equation: Who’s actually in the room, and are their eyes even on the screen? TVision is the leader in TV performance metrics - an advertising technology firm that delivers real-time performance metrics for marketing effectiveness and efficiency. We use cutting edge technology to measure what was once unmeasurable - how people really watch TV. We’re a venture-backed company, deeply immersed in the intersection of data, media, and advertising. TVision enables the media industry - brands, networks, and data partners alike - to reduce waste and drive greater marketing results.

HyphaMetrics provides a unified understanding of media behavior that evolves at the speed of culture. We serve as the objective technology standard globally for the precise measurement of media at the individual level. Using Artificial Intelligence and Machine Learning to analyze and optimize advertising and video content for media executives overseeing content, ads, brand sponsorships, and product placements, we cost-efficiently support interoperability across the entire media ecosystem serving measurement companies, brands, agencies, and media publishers.

As people increasingly move across channels and platforms, Kantar Media’s data and audience measurement, targeting, analytics and advertising intelligence services unlock insights to inform powerful decision-making. Working with panel and first-party data in over 80 countries, we have the world's fastest growing cross-media audience measurement capabilities, underpinned by versatility, scale, technology and expertise, to drive long-term business growth for our clients and partners.

 

Counting Down the Best TV Shows of 2024: #10-1 (1/25)

The first three parts of my 40 best TV shows of 2024, contained a wide variety of program genres. The top 10 has just as much program diversity, but more significantly has the greatest amount of platform diversity. My top 10 series come from eight different platforms – only Netflix and HBO (with two apiece) are represented more than once. This is a sign of a robust television landscape.

Another positive sign is that 23 of my top 40 series are new (compared to 16 last year and 18 two years ago). And just two were in their final season (compared to 10 last year and 7 two years ago). This is because several top-tier television series finished their runs over the past two seasons, including, Better Call Saul, The Good Fight, Killing Eve, Ozark, and Peaky Blinders in 2022, and Barry, Billions, Jack Ryan, The Marvelous Mrs. Maisel, Reservation Dogs, and Succession in 2023.

So, even as press headlines shout that streamers are cutting back on spending and there are fewer new shows being produced, there are still so many linear and streaming series on so many platforms, that there’s something (actually many things) for everyone. The era of Peak TV+ is far from over.

That said, the schedules I’ve seen for 2025 original scripted series do indicate that there are significantly fewer new shows planned on virtually every major streaming platform compared to the past few years. It will be interesting to see how many new series make the cut for my top 40 list next year. I’m hoping quality over quantity will rule the day.

As I’ve pointed out in previous reports, trying to place shows as different as The Penguin, Black Doves, Shogun, Industry, and Hacks in rank order is kind of silly. Depending on your generation and personal genre tastes, your ranking is doubtless different from my own. So, you can take the order with a grain of salt. And, of course, I may have left off some shows you would put on your list that might be just as good or better than some of the ones I included. Opinions invariably vary, and any “best of” list is by definition subjective.

That said, on the following pages are my top 10 shows of 2024. If you haven’t seen a series that has been on for more than one season, I suggest watching the previous seasons first.

Just as a reminder, #40-11 were, Elsbeth (CBS), High Potential (ABC), Presumed Innocent (Apple TV+), Will Trent (ABC), Joan (CW), Cross (Prime Video), Hightown (Starz), The Brothers Sun (Netflix), Murder in a Small Town (Fox), NCIS: Origins (CBS) The Sticky (Prime Video), Only Murders in the Building (Hulu), Star Trek: Discovery (Paramount+), The Walking Dead: Daryl Dixon – The Book of Carol (AMC), Griselda (Netflix), 3 Body Problem (Netflix), True Detective: Night Country (Netflix), Tulsa King (Paramount+), The Agency (Showtime with Paramount+), The Bear (Hulu), Matlock (CBS), Agatha All Along (Disney+), Masters of the Air (Apple TV+), Mayor of Kingstown (Paramount+), Sugar (Apple TV+), The Gentlemen (Netflix), The Old Man (FX), Lioness (Paramount+), A Man on the Inside (Netflix), and The Veil (HBO).

 

#10 - The Day of the Jackal (Peacock)
Nov. 2024
This British thriller is a modern reimagining of the 1971 novel (and 1973 feature film) of the same name. Eddie Redmayne is riveting as Alexander Dugan, aka the Jackal, an internationally renowned contract killer, highly-skilled sniper, and chameleon-like master of disguise.

The series starts out with the Jackal assassinating a German politician. When Bianca Pullman (Lashana Lynch), a brilliant MI6 agent, firearms expert, and former police officer, learns that the kill shot was from a distance of more than two miles (a shot deemed impossible by all expert assessments), she’s intrigued, and becomes obsessed with finding out who he is, and capturing him before he can carry out his next hit.

The Jackal and Bianca are almost like two sides of the same coin. Both are charismatic and expert at manipulating people to do what they want, both can be brutal and put innocent lives in danger to accomplish their goals, and both have families they are forced to lie to and often abandon at the drop of a hat – he when his “job” dictates and she when a new clue emerges. They both see collateral damage as the ends justifying the means. And both are addicted to what they do, which is why their jobs almost always come before their families.

But while Bianca and MI6 might put others in danger if it will help with a mission, the Jackal will coldly murder anyone, whether friend, ally, or innocent bystander, if he thinks they might provide clues to his whereabouts or evidence against him.

There are several flashbacks to Dugan’s time in Afghanistan, when he was an elite sniper in a squad tasked with killing Taliban leaders. The main purpose of these scenes seems to be to create some empathy by showing the events that might have turned him into a ruthless killer. But the end result is to show the viewer that he might have been a monster all along.

Because the Jackal is so charming, and in many ways more likeable than those who are relentlessly pursuing him, you’re often not sure who to root for. It’s easy to lose sight of the fact that he’s a sociopath. His calm demeanor makes it more jarring each time he eliminates an innocent civilian who gets in his way. He occasionally seems pained by what he does, showing mercy to a potential victim (although you never know when he will choose to do so or whether it will last).

The Jackal’s Spanish wife, Nuria (Ursela Corbero), knows him as Charles Calthrop, but she eventually discovers his deception, which puts a rift between them. When he is trapped and on the verge of being discovered in Budapest, he reaches out to her – but will she help him escape? Bianca’s personal life is no less rocky as her husband Paul (Saul Rimi) and daughter Jasmine (Florisa Kamara) are initially unaware of the true danger of her MI6 job (until it hits close to home).

As the Jackal tries to complete a high-profile hit, the wealthy and powerful group who hired him are planning to eliminate him rather than risk anyone finding out they were involved. At the same time, the final confrontation between the Jackal and Bianca comes to a tension-filled conclusion (different from the movie version).

Sleek, stylish, and suspenseful, with a James Bond-ish opening credit sequence, the cat-and-mouse game between Bianca and the Jackal plays out over 10 intense and exhilarating episodes, as the Jackal continually escapes being caught (often by the skin of his teeth), and leaves bodies of potential witnesses in his wake. Since this version focuses on fictional prey, rather than the real-life target in the original, the viewer has no idea what will happen next, which increases the tension.

With the Jackal still needing to attend to some unfinished business, the series has been renewed for a second season.

#9 - The Penguin (HBO, Max)
Sept. 2024
This is an example of how superb acting can elevate a series to unexpected heights. An unrecognizable Colin Farrell gives a stunningly good performance as Oswald “Oz” Cobb, aka The Penguin, reprising the role he played in the 2022 The Batman theatrical movie. It follows the DC Comics character as he rises to power in the Gotham City criminal underworld.

Cristin Milioti provides an equally mesmerizing performance as Sofia Falcone, the psychopathic daughter of the deceased former crime boss of Gotham, who battles The Penguin for control of the city. Her father’s death (at the end of The Batman) created a power vacuum that several gangsters have been trying to fill.

In lesser hands this might have seemed cartoonish (as non-Joker Batman villains often are), rather than the intense and compelling drama it turned out to be.

You need not know anything about Batman heroes or villains to appreciate and enjoy this thrilling crime drama. If you bypass it because it’s based on a comic-book villain, or because you didn’t like the most recent Batman movie, you’ll miss two of the most brilliant (and I hope award-winning) performances in years from Farrell and Miloti.

The series is basically an origin story of the two main villains, getting into details about the harrowing backstories that turned Oz and Sofia into the hardened criminals they are today.

Sofia has just spent 10 years in the brutal psychiatric hospital, Arkham Asylum, which houses Gotham’s criminally insane. She was accused of being a serial killer and strangling numerous prostitutes (which gave her the nickname, “Hangman”) – crimes she was framed for by her father, the real killer. Sofia’s time at Arkham turned her into a real psychopath. After she is released, she takes her revenge against family members who helped keep her imprisoned all these years.

Oswald Cobb, was Sofia’s driver before she was sent to Arkham, and helped her father cover up his involvement in the crimes. Ironically, Sofia treated Oz with the same disregard and disrespect with which her father treated her, which likely contributed to his agreeing to betray her. Oz then slowly rose through the ranks of the criminal underworld, allowed to run a nightclub and be involved in the drug trade, but still not respected or trusted by the top mobsters.

Oz’s craving for respect (he does not like being called the Penguin) drives him to become a dominating force in trying to control Gotham City. When he impulsively kills Carmine’s son and heir apparent, who had been ridiculing him and his aspirations to be a powerful mobster, events spiral forward at a breakneck pace, with Oz constantly being on the verge of triumph or disaster. His talent for talking his way out of trouble gets him out of one mess after another, until it doesn’t.

The supporting players are all excellent, several of whom you might recognize from character roles in other series.

Rhenzy Feliz is Victor Aguilar, a homeless teenager who was one of a group of teens attempting to steal rims from Oz’s car. Oz spares him when he hears him stutter and recruits him to be his driver – Oz has a disability of his own, which causes him to limp, so he has some empathy toward Vic. Reluctant at first to commit any violent acts, Vic slowly settles into the role of Oz’s enforcer. Oz displays moments of seemingly genuine affection and tenderness toward Vic, but his true nature shows through in the end in one of the more brutal scenes of the year.

Dierdre O’Connell is Francis Cobb, Oz’s mother, who suffers from early-onset dementia. She has a love/hate relationship with Oz, who she blames for the deaths of her other two sons when he was a child (the events of which are seen in flashbacks). When kidnaped by Sofia, her performance, alternating between a tough-as-nails gangster mom, and a confused, vulnerable woman living in the past, is remarkable. Emily Meade portrays a younger Francis in flashbacks.

Clancy Brown is Salvatore Maroni, a mob boss and drug trafficker who Carmine Falcone informed on, sending him to prison. He teams up with Sofia in an effort to destroy Oz and take over his operation.

Michael Kelly is Johnny Viti, the underboss of the Falcone crime family and acting boss following Carmine’s death. He threatens Sofia that unless she leaves town, he will have her killed. He continues to underestimate her until she gets her revenge.

Theo Rossi is Dr. Julian Rush, a former psychiatrist at Arkham and Sofia’s therapist. After participating in her electroshock “treatments” at Arkham, he realizes she is innocent and quits. He has been obsessed with and in love with her for years, and eventually joins her in her bid to become head of her own crime family.

Marie Botha is Magpie, an Arkham inmate who tries to befriend Sofia during her incarceration. But her overbearing demeanor and non-stop chatter drives Sofia crazy. She starts believing Magpie is spying on her for her father, and brutally attacks her.

Oz and Sofia’s power struggle comes to a head in the action-packed season finale. We see what a true monster Oz is (and always was), and what a monster Sofia has become. While her actions are ruthless, callous and lead to dozens of deaths, he does something more intimate and shocking, which is sudden and jarring, and is sure to disturb many viewers.

There’s also a surprise or two at the end of the season finale which might bring another Batman villain into this universe, and leads into the next Batman movie, slated to be released in 2026 (in which Oz will reportedly have a role).

The Penguin was designed as a miniseries and no plans for a second season have been announced. But given its popularity, another season wouldn’t surprise me – particularly if the show accumulates some high-profile awards (which seems likely).

 

#8 - Black Doves (Netflix)
Dec. 2024
British spy thriller starring Keira Knightley as Helen Webb, the seemingly loving wife of the U.K.’s Secretary of Defence Wallace Webb (Andrew Buchan). She is secretly a Black Dove, a spy working for an organization that sells industrial, political, and diplomatic secrets to the highest bidder. Although based in the U.K., the Black Doves are not aligned with any country or part of any branch of government.

As the series opens, Helen is having a passionate affair with a civil servant named Jason (Andrew Koji), and is seriously considering leaving her husband and her secret life. But events soon spiral out of her control.

When Jason is shot and killed in a park by a long-range sniper, Helen becomes obsessed with finding out who killed him and why (and seeking revenge). Was there more to Jason than meets the eye? Fearing Helen’s life as a Black Dove might be exposed and her life in danger, her handler, Reed (Sarah Lancashire), sends Sam (Ben Whishaw), an elite triggerman and old friend of Helen’s, to protect her. He has his own problems – seven years earlier, he disappeared before finishing a hit for Lenny Lines (Kathryn Hunter), head of a criminal organization. She is now demanding that he finish the job or she will kill his ex-boyfriend Michael (Omar Douglas), whom he still loves, and his young daughter.

In a flashback to 2017, we discover Sam was assigned to kill the Newman brothers, but failed to complete the job when he discovered that Hector Newman was just a child. Although he did kill all of his adult brothers, his “code” prevented him from killing a kid. When assassins are sent to kill Sam, a then pregnant Helen saved his life and he escaped. Now he’s back to return the favor

In a flashback to 2014, Helen, who is going by the name Daisy Bradshaw, applies for a job as a translator (she’s fluent in multiple languages). The interviewer seems to know a lot about Helen’s mysterious past (she had left the country for 10 years), and forwards her to Reed, who offers her the opportunity to become a Black Dove.

After Reed explains that the job entails becoming a spy and selling state secrets to the highest bidder, Daisy asks Reed why she thinks she’d want to do something like that. Reed tells her, “Because you’re a highly intelligent risk taker, because you’re a survivor…and because when most people look at you they see a beautiful woman. But me, I see a coiled spring. I see a weapon. You sized me up the minute I walked up to you. You’ve got an escape strategy in your head. You know where all the exits are. You know I’m not wearing shoes I can run in. I’ll bet you remember my car number plate (which Helen promptly recites). And don’t think I don’t know you have your hand balled up into a fist in your pocket, ready to swing it… Daisy isn’t your real name is it? How would you like a new one?” Needless to say, Daisy, soon to be Helen, accepts the offer. There’s a reason we’re not yet privy to why the idea of starting a new life with a new identity appeals to her.

In present day, after years of playing the loving and supportive wife, while covertly providing government secrets to Reed, Helen has something of an identity crisis. While she seems to love her husband and their two kids, he is her long-term mark, and her identity as Helen Webb was created just for that purpose. She doesn’t always know if this life is still a pretense or if this is who she actually is now.

The MacGuffin that drives the plot forward is that the Chinese ambassador to Great Britain has been killed, and the Chinese believe the U.S. is responsible and that the British are helping to cover it up. Apparently there’s a recording device that captured the entire incident on tape that everyone is searching for, including Alex Clark (Tracy Ullman), head of the powerful Clark crime family, who might be implicated in the crime. This puts our heroes’ lives in grave danger – particularly when the Clarks kidnap Sam and the Chinese ambassador’s daughter Kai-Ming (Isabella Wei) and demand that Helen find the recording device and hand it over to them the next day or they will torture and kill them.

While all this is going on, Reed, decides she no longer trusts Helen (thinking her personal life is getting too messy and in the way of her being cold enough to carry out her assignments). She instructs Dani (Agnes O’Casey), a new Black Dove, to get close to Secretary Webb and prepare to replace Helen. This leads to a thrilling knife-fight showdown between Helen and Dani.

Some comic relief (and a considerable amount of violence) is provided by a couple of oddball professional assassins Williams (Ela Lily Hyland) and Eleanor (Gabrielle Creevy), who work for Lenny Lines, and have agreed to help Sam hunt down and kill Hector Newman (for a price) and protect Kai-Ming. They have numerous, and often hilarious, nonchalant conversations and arguments on any number of topics as they plan and carry out hits. For example, when Sam tells them their odds of survival are 80/20 that they will all die, they are unconcerned about the danger and spend much of the car ride arguing about whether Sam’s estimate is a percentage, a fraction, or a ratio.

In one of the trio’s first attempts to find Hector at a discotheque, they kill about 20 bad guys as the soundtrack plays Johnny Cash’s The Little Drummer Boy. There are a number of other pitch-perfect background songs on the soundtrack as violence and mayhem ensue.

A lot happens in just six episodes, which all comes to a thrilling conclusion in the season finale, which sets up a second season (the series was renewed before the first season aired). If you like spy thrillers, this is one of the best.

#7 - Slow Horses – season 4 (Apple TV+)
Apr. 2022, Dec. 2022, Nov. 2023, Sept. 2024
Based on Mick Herron’s novels of the same name. British MI5 agents who screw up are exiled to Slough House, a decrepit London building that serves as an administrative purgatory, where drudgery and paperwork are the tasks of the day. The motley crew of agents who were deposited at Slough House either because of embarrassing failures or just bad luck are a surprisingly talented and resilient bunch (when properly motivated), and somehow keep being pulled into investigations of major threats to Britain (and the world).

Known derisively as slow horses, these outcasts report to the notorious Jackson Lamb (played with relish by Gary Oldman). He is seemingly past his prime, slovenly, borderline alcoholic, and contemptuous of those he is forced to oversee. As the apropos opening song, Strange Game (by Mick Jagger) goes, “Surrounded by losers, misfits and boozers…” Lamb’s acerbic and obnoxious demeanor, however, belie the keen mind of a legendary intelligence officer (still respected by the higher-ups at MI5, and feared by just about everyone). He’s also fiercely loyal to his people, although you’d never get him to admit it.

Part taut conspiracy thriller, part workplace comedy, the sharp writing and Gary Oldman’s terrific performance make Slow Horses a winner. The supporting cast of characters are also top notch. It's definitely a good idea to watch the first three seasons before season 4. Each is just six episodes, so catching up is not a daunting task.

Here are some of the main players:

Jack Lowden is River Cartwright, an up-and-coming MI5 agent who got assigned to Slough House in season 1. He actually proves to be one of the company’s best agents. His grandfather is retired MI5 royalty, which has on occasion saved him from being fired because of his tendency to go rogue.

Rosalind Eleazar is Louisa Guy, also assigned to Slough House in season 1. After an agent she was involved with is killed, she has to deal with that trauma while trying to save another agent from the same fate.

Saskia Reeves is Catherine Standish, the office administrator (and recovering alcoholic) who keeps Slough House running as smoothly as possible. She has a complicated relationship with Jackson Lamb and worked for his long-deceased predecessor (whom she idolized and Lamb hated).

Christopher Chung is Roddy Ho, a brilliant computer tech whiz who was relegated to Slough House because he’s so obnoxious no one wants to work with him.

Aimee-Ffion Edwards is Shirley Dander, a competent agent who has anger and drug issues. Her partner, Marcus Longridge (Kadiff Kirwan), has a gambling problem. They are constantly pressing each other’s buttons. They both joined Slough House in season 2.

Tom Brooke is J.K. Coe, a former operative from Psych Eval, suffering from PTSD, who joins Slough House in season 4. He is constantly wearing a hoodie, seldom speaks, and seems decidedly out of place even among the other outcast agents. He initially shows nothing but disdain for the other slow horses.

Jonathan Pryce is David Cartwright, River Cartwright’s grandfather and legendary MI5 officer, who knows where all the bodies are buried. In season 3, he starts showing the first signs of dementia.

In season 1, when MI5’s Deputy Director-General Diana Taverner (a perfectly cast Kristen Scott Thomas) tries to blame Slough House for a failed MI5 false-flag operation that results in potential disaster, the slow horses spring (or trot) into action in an effort to uncover the truth and save a hostage (and themselves), all the while trying to stay one step ahead of elite MI5 operatives determined to stop them and blame them for the mission’s failure.

Season 2 is even better than the first season, as they no longer needed to spend time introducing us to all the characters and the dynamics of Slough House. We get right down to business here as the team investigate whether Russian sleeper agents have been embedded in British society, which MI5 had previously dismissed as a hoax. The agents are in considerable danger as one of their own dies suspiciously and they go all out to find the killers. At the same time, they discover Russian plans to set off a chemical attack on the streets of London, and race against the clock to stop them.

Season 3 hits the ground running, with a brisker pace than the first two seasons. One of Slough House’s own has been abducted by a rogue MI5 agent. As our heroes try to figure out what’s going on and how to get her back, they become enmeshed in yet another scandal. But this time the real danger comes from within MI5. In an attempt to cover up some dirty business from the past, Ingrid Tearney (Sophie Okonedo), Director-General of MI5, Diana Taverner’s main rival, ordered a hit on an agent who was about to expose them. The dead agent’s brother (also an MI5 operative) seeks revenge, and entices two Slough House agents to help him find the evidence. When they get too close to the truth, they become targets as well.

In the superb fourth season, the stakes are higher than ever, and more personal, as the series shows no signs of slowing down. A suicide bomb goes off in a London shopping mall. Frank Harkness (Hugo Weaving), a former CIA operative turned mercenary, with mysterious ties to one of the slow horses, puts a hit out on River Cartwright and his grandfather (Harkness has spent the last 30 years secretly training an assassination squad). Are these events related? And, as seems to always be the case here, there’s a high-level coverup by MI5, which has used Harkness’s assassins over the years for their own purposes. There’s lots of action as the slow horses battle assassins while also being pursued by MI5 security forces.

One of the more interesting aspects of the show is that unlike the typical broadcast procedural, where you can be reasonably sure none of the main characters will be killed off, that is not necessarily the case here. The danger is real, their lifestyle and chosen profession have consequences, and everyone doesn’t always walk away unscathed.

At just six episodes per season, the stories are tight and move along at a crisp pace. Four seasons contain only slightly more episodes than a single season of most dramas on a broadcast network. Apple TV+ announced it’s been renewed for a fifth and sixth season.

 

#6 - The Diplomat – season 2 (Netflix)
Apr. 2023, Oct. 2024
At just six episodes (the first season had eight), season 2 of this terrific political thriller is tight and fast-paced with virtually no exposition. It begins immediately following the season 1 finale’s cliff hanger and might be a bit confusing if you don’t immediately recall all the characters and what happened (since there was a year-and-a-half between seasons). I recommend re-watching the season 1 finale before starting the new one. If you haven’t seen the show yet, you need to watch the first season to understand what’s going on.

Here's a brief season 1 recap.

Kate Wyler (Keri Russel), the newly appointed U.S. Ambassador to the U.K., starts her job just as an international crisis is unfolding. A British aircraft carrier in the Middle East is attacked, killing more than 40 sailors. No one claims responsibility (was it Iran, the Russians, or someone else?). A career diplomat used to operating under the radar in war zones, Kate now has to forge new alliances in her high-profile position in London, and help figure out what to do next.

Initially underestimated by her new colleagues, superiors, and subordinates, Kate quickly demonstrates that despite her lack of experience in this particular role, she’s usually one of the smartest (and most competent) people in the room.

This political thriller is also a romantic comedy (at least in the first season). In addition to dealing with international crises, Kate has to navigate her turbulent, on the verge of ending but never quite over, marriage to the former ambassador Hal Wyler (Rufus Sewell), a political star, whose reputation as a rogue, but brilliant operator often overshadows her. He’s expected to now be the ambassador’s “wife,” as Kate once was, but this is not his style, and it is virtually impossible to rein him in. Then there’s the growing and mutual attraction between Kate and the U.K. Foreign Secretary, Austin Dennison (David Gyasi), and a romance between Kate’s assistant, deputy chief of mission at the U.S. embassy (Ato Essandoh), and the no-nonsense CIA station chief Eidra Park (Ali Ahn).

At the same time, there is a political scandal brewing in the U.S. that might cause the resignation of the current Vice President. Kate’s name has been floated as a possible replacement.

All this political and romantic maneuvering are taking place as the increasingly unpopular British Prime Minister Nicol Trowbridge (Rory Kinnear) raises global tensions by telling a grieving widow of a sailor killed in the attack, that he will “rain hellfire” on Iran if they are found to be responsible (which quickly goes viral). After a significant amount of behind-the-scenes intelligence gathering, the Iranian ambassador reveals that Roman Lenkov, the head of a Russian mercenary group, directed and provided funding for the attack. The question now is who hired him?

As plans are being formulated on how to proceed, Kate comes across information that leads her to believe the attack was a false-flag operation that went wrong, and the Russian mercenary may have actually been hired by either the Prime Minister himself or one of his people. Then a car bomb explosion throws everything and everyone into disarray.

Season 2 starts off right after the explosive season 1 finale. Romantic entanglements are virtually all put on the back burner as everyone scrambles to figure out who ordered the attack on the British aircraft carrier in the Persian Gulf, who planted the car bomb, and how to avoid a potential international catastrophe.

Allison Janney (great as always) joins the cast as Grace Penn, Vice President of the United States. At first, she warms to Kate, giving her advice on how to look the part of VP, but slowly starts to see her as a threat. As the tension between them mounts, both of these strong, fiercely independent and powerful women warily start to plan their next moves.

There’s a big reveal in episode five, followed by gasp-worthy final moments in the episode six season finale, which is sure to shake things up in season 3 (it’s been renewed).

Intelligent, compelling, and suspenseful, with crisp pacing and some unexpected turns, combined with a strong cast, make The Diplomat hugely entertaining.

 

#5 - Shōgun (FX, Hulu)
(Feb. 2024)
Epic historical fiction based on James Clavell’s 1975 novel of the same name (which was previously adapted into a popular 1980 miniseries). The story takes place in feudal Japan at the start of the 17th century, when events are unfolding that will lead to a potential civil war and the rise of a new Shōgun to rule the country.

Unlike the 1980 miniseries (which starred Richard Chamberlain, Toshiro Mifune, and Yoko Shimada), much of the drama here is from the perspective of the Japanese characters. While initially intended as a one-time miniseries, its critical acclaim, high viewership, and multiple awards, led to a renewal for a second and third season.

On his deathbed, Japan’s previous ruler created the Council of Regents, comprised of five powerful feudal lords, to rule until his heir, then only five-years-old, is able to become Shōgun. One of these Regents is the brilliant military and political strategist, Lord Yoshii Toranaga (the regal Hiroyuki Sanada), who has vowed to protect the heir to the throne until he comes of age.

Other members of the Council fear Toranaga (apparently his family has a claim to the throne) and betray him, threatening not only his life, but his family, his subjects, and his allies as well. This sets the plot in motion as the embattled Toranaga, with the help of some key allies, parries all the moves of his conspiring enemies.

Thrust into this turmoil, is John Blackthorne (Cosmo Jarvis), a Protestant English sailor, serving on a Dutch ship, seeking to establish trade with Japan. He and his crew are shipwrecked on the coast of Japan and captured by local samurai. Blackthorne must survive in a land whose culture is vastly different from his own and whose people see him as a “barbarian.”

Blackthorne also has to deal with the Portuguese traders and the Catholic Church’s Jesuit order, political and religious rivals of Protestants. They see Blackthorne as a heretic, feel threatened by his presence, and want him executed, claiming he’s a pirate. But Toranaga has other plans.

Blackthorne and Toranaga become unlikely allies – Toranaga realizes he can use Blackthorne’s knowledge of British military techniques, weapons, and strategy, and at the same time create discord among his enemies on the Council, while Blackthorne knows this is the only chance he has to free his crew and get his ship back so he can return to England. The other Regents and the Catholic Church want him dead or imprisoned, so this is his only option.

Finish dinner and put your smartphones down – much of the series has subtitles, so you need your eyes on the screen. It’s well worth it – a titanic combination of a superb casting, political intrigue, colliding ambitions, clashing cultures, and heroic sacrifice, make Shōgun one of the most distinctive (and best) series to come to linear television in years.

While Cosmo Jarvis is fine as John Blackthorne, it’s the Japanese actors who shine brightest. Anna Sawai gives a remarkable performance as Lady Toda Mariko, a highly skilled female samurai from a disgraced family. With just a glance or a curve of the lip, she can convey a wide spectrum of emotions and a whole world of subtext. Taken under Toranaga’s wing, she is fiercely loyal to him, and has been given the task of serving as translator between him and Blackthorne, with whom she develops a bond (much to the chagrin of her husband). A decision she makes in episode nine reverberates through both sides of the conflict.

Shinnosuke Abe is Toda “Buntaro” Hirokatsu, a skilled samurai who serves Toranaga – he is also Mariko’s husband, and is jealous of her relationship with the “barbarian” Blackthorne. But his loyalty to Toranaga takes priority.

Yuki Kura is Yoshii Nagakado, Toranaga’s inexperienced and dangerously compulsive son. His attempts to impress his father lead to near catastrophic results.

Tadanobu Asano is Kashigi Yabushige, a lord who has served Toranaga for many years – although he often seems to be playing both sides. We don’t know where his true loyalty lies until the penultimate episode.

Takeshiro Hira is the powerful Ishido Kazunari, one of the five Regents and Toranaga’s chief rival. He persuades the other Regents to turn against Toranaga. He is ruler of the fortress-like Osaka Castle.

Fumi Nikaido is Ochiba no Kata, the only consort of Japan’s late ruler, who bore him a male heir. She is now Ishido’s fiancé, and is the real power behind the plan to capture and kill Toranaga. She controls the young heir’s armies. Lady Mariko was her childhood friend, and her actions in episode nine have a profound effect on Ochiba. In the end, she makes a decision that changes everything.

Tokuma Nishioka is Toda “Iron Gist” Hiromatsu, Toranaga’s closest friend, conscience, advisor, and most trusted general. He makes a major sacrifice that helps Toranaga’s ultimate plan.

Moeka Hoshi is Usami Fuji, Hiromatsu’s proud granddaughter, with a strong sense of self, who overcomes tragedy – her husband spoke out of turn, offending the Council of Regents, and his punishment was the death of their baby son. Toranaga assures Hiromatsu that he will make sure his granddaughter lives, and orders her to become Blackthorne’s consort for six months. She eventually becomes a key ally of both Toranaga and Blackthorne.

As the Council of Regents pressures Toranaga to either surrender or face overwhelming forces that would destroy his army, his master strategy comes into focus. A major betrayal and a tragic sacrifice add to the chaos and uncertainty as the four Regents are amassing their armies preparing to battle Toranaga’s powerful but heavily outnumbered troops.

While some who are used to watching western Game of Thrones type epics might have been expecting a large scale final sequence with the two sides facing off in a bloody battle, Shōgun’s resolution to the conflict and its more contemplative and reflective ending seems far more fitting.

 

#4 - Fallout (Prime Video)
April 2024
Based on the popular role-playing video game, this is certainly not everyone’s cup of tea. But if you like post-apocalyptic TV series, movies, or video games, this might be just the right brew to satisfy your craving. It has a near-perfect mix of suspense and brilliant satire. I

Post-apocalyptic thriller based on the popular role-playing video game franchise. For those unfamiliar with the story, it involves an alternate history that emerges after World War II in which nuclear technology becomes prevalent, the Cold War/Communist paranoia of the 1950s never ends, computers never evolve beyond the most basic capabilities, and there is no internet or social media. So we have cold fusion, nuclear-powered cars and hi-tech weapons, alongside 1950s era pop-culture, televisions and computers. The 21st Century entertainment industry is also like our 1950s, with westerns being the most popular movie/TV genre.

On the geopolitical front, a resource war between the U.S. and China, leads to the Great War of 2077, when a two-hour nuclear exchange lays waste to much of the world, and creates a devastated and radiation-contaminated landscape. Most of the series takes place roughly 200 years later, when the surface is still largely a wasteland.

Many of the more wealthy and privileged took refuge in underground fallout bunkers known as Vaults, where generations of survivors have been living seemingly idyllic lives. Each vault is self-sustaining, with its own customs and laws. But most vault dwellers are unaware that the vaults were actually designed by the Vault-Tec corporation to conduct secret and unethical psychological and social experiments on their residents to help determine the best way to survive on the surface, and eventually re-populate a new United States of America.

Those not fortunate enough to afford a place in a vault, had to take their chances on the radiation-plagued surface above – with the contaminated food and water causing various kinds of mutations (which also tended to extend life spans). There are still remnants of civilization on the surface, and pockets not directly affected by the nuclear fallout. But unlike the peaceful and orderly 1950s-style facade below, the surface is a dangerous and unforgiving place, with potential predators everywhere.

The excellent cast includes:

Ella Purnell as Lucy MacLean, a young resident of Vault 33. Much of the series is seen through her eyes. She is naïve, having lived a sheltered life, but is also strong, resilient, and relentlessly optimistic. When surface-dwelling raiders manage to infiltrate and brutally attack Lucy’s vault, they kill many of the residents and kidnap her father. She escapes from the vault and ventures out into the wasteland, determined to find him and bring him back home.

Walter Goggins as Cooper Howard, a once-famous Hollywood actor, most notable for his cowboy roles. He was also a Vault-Tec spokesperson before the war – until he discovered his wife (Frances Turner) was one of the architects of the war and the vault experiments. He’s one of the few characters we see before and after the war. After the bombs dropped, he mutated into a legendary figure known as The Ghoul, roaming the Los Angeles wasteland as a gunslinger and bounty hunter. He has survived for more than 200 years.

Aaron Moten as Maximus, a squire and later knight of the Brotherhood of Steel, a cult-like organization operating in the wasteland, whose main purpose is to collect and preserve technology. They are a self-contained community and have no interest in helping anyone else. The knights don giant mechanical armor, enabling them to survive in extreme and hostile environments. Maximus becomes one of Lucy’s key allies.

Moises Arias as Norm MacLean, Lucy’s younger brother and a resident of Vault 33. He stays behind when Lucy escapes to the surface. Suspicious of the true purpose of the raid, he discovers one of the secret experiments and the hidden agenda of the council of Vault administrators. This puts him in severe danger.

Johnny Pemberton as Thaddeus, a Brotherhood of Steel squire, who crosses paths with Maximus while on a mission and eventually joins him as they encounter one dangerous situation after another.

Kyle MacLachlan as Hank MacLean, Lucy’s father and overseer of Vault 33. He is kidnaped by raiders for unknown reasons. Lucy is determined to do whatever it takes to find him. He harbors a secret beyond the experiments on Vault residents that shocks Lucy and changes her entire perspective on what she previously thought about her reality and her family’s history.

Sara Choudhury as Lee Moldaver, commander of the New California Republic military division, who leads the group that abducted Hank MacLean. She has a previous connection to him, which dates back to before the war, and reveals startling information to Lucy about his past.

Michael Emerson, in a brief but significant role as Dr. Siggi Wilzig, a mysterious wanderer who many are searching for – his head apparently carries the solution to Cold Fusion.

Leslie Uggams, Zach Cherry, and Rodrigo Luzzi as Vault 33 council members, in charge of setting policies for its Vault’s residents.

As with the other recent great video game adaptation, The Last of Us, you don’t need to be familiar with the franchise to enjoy this terrifically weird series (although fans of the game seem to love it). A unique post-apocalyptic comedy-drama, it’s at once witty and tense, funny and tragic, violent and tender, despairing and hopeful – none easy balancing acts to pull off. And you’re left wanting more. Fortunately, there will be a second season to look forward to.

 

#3 - Industry – season 3 (HBO, Max)
Nov. 2020, Aug. 2022, Aug. 2024
Sex, drugs, secret alliances, personality clashes, deceptions, and betrayals abound in this gripping, tension-filled British-American drama about ambitious young financial traders at the fictional Pierpoint & Co., one of London’s top investment banks. These highly competitive trainees (and their bosses) work too hard, play too hard, and are constantly one wrong move away from having their newfound lifestyle abruptly ripped away.

This stylish show about unpleasant people doing unpleasant (and sometimes pleasant) things to one another, while spewing out incomprehensible jargon in rapid-fire succession, is somehow fascinating and compelling to watch – a testament to the brilliant writing and great acting. If you haven’t seen it, you need to watch the first two seasons before the third.

Industry has a large, diverse, and attractive ensemble cast. Here are some of the major players.

Myha’la Dexter is riveting as the smart, driven, and ruthless Harper Stern, who joined Pierpoint’s London office from New York. She never actually graduated from college (she forged her college transcript), which eventually catches up to her. She benefits from initially being underestimated as she unscrupulously betrays some supposed allies to get ahead. Former colleagues have called her a psychopath.

Marisa Abela shines as Yasmin “Yas” Kara-Hanani, an ambitious Pierpoint trader from a privileged background and connected father, who is fluent in English, Spanish, French, German, Italian, and Arabic. She is constantly trying to live up to her wealthy family’s high expectations and prove to her company that she has value beyond her family connections. After her father’s financial fraud is exposed, Yasmin becomes a pseudo-celebrity, with negative stories and memes about her saturating social media. She is one of the show’s central figures, having complicated and often chaotic relationships, sexual and otherwise, with several key cast members.

Ken Leung is excellent as Eric Tao, an old-school managing director who initially mentors Harper until they have a falling out. He is Pierpoint’s number one sales producer, and has a very intense leadership style. He is promoted in season 3, which only adds to his intensity and stress level.

Harry Lawley is Robert Spearing, an Oxford graduate from a working-class Welsh background. He is level-headed and not quite as ruthless as some of his colleagues. He has several complex relationships with women, including one of his clients, the sexually inappropriate Nicole (Sarah Parish). He also has a complicated relationship with Yas – their “friendship” comes to a head in season 3.

Sagar Radia is Rishi Ramdani, an ambitious Pierpoint trader known for his arrogance, inappropriate language, and high-risk trades. He manages to survive because when a risky trade works, the payoff is tremendous. But he has a gambling problem and owes a lot of money to gangsters, which eventually leads to tragedy.

Season 3 sees three new major cast members join the show.

Miriam Petche is Sweetpea Golightly, a new and enthusiastic hire with TikTok and OnlyFans businesses on the side. Her sweet demeanor belies the fact that she can be ruthless and should not be underestimated.

Sarah Goldberg (Barry) is Petra a portfolio manager at FutureDawn, an ethical investment fund. She and Harper become partners and make a major move against Pierpoint as they try to get backing for their own investment fund. In the process, Petra persuades Harper to betray Yas.

Kit Harington (Game of Thrones) is Sir Henry Muck, wealthy member of the British elite and CEO of the green tech energy company Lumi, which becomes Pierpoint’s buzziest new client. They try to take his company public, with unplanned results and severe consequences for Pierpoint. He manipulates Robert, who’s assigned to help with the Lumi IPO, and has a sexual relationship with Yas, which causes a fair amount of chaos.

Season 1 focuses primarily on the new hires competing for a limited number of full-time positions. Some come from privileged families, while others have working-class roots – but they’re all on relatively equal footing here, where their potential to make money for the firm is the key factor in their survival. They have six months to prove themselves before half of them are fired.

Season 2 revs up the tension as the bold and brilliant (but reckless) Harper makes deals that benefit the company but undermine her mentor, Eric, who ultimately makes some devastating moves of his own, as they scheme to potentially break away from the firm. But who’s really on whose side isn’t revealed until the superb season finale.

In season 3, everyone’s gloves come off as deception, betrayal, and near catastrophe envelop all the major characters. It’s messy and chaotic, and more ambitious and compelling than ever. The presence of new characters, Henry Muck (Kit Harington) and Petra (Sarah Goldberg), provide season-long story arcs that highlight the strengths and weaknesses, as well as the fears and insecurities of virtually everyone in and around Pierpoint.

The already complicated relationship between Robert and Yas becomes even more complex as both get sucked into the black hole that is Henry Muck. The season finale scenes between them are brilliant.

As Harper and Petra’s plans take shape, the confrontation between Harper and Eric is intense and explosive. Rishi’s gambling debt leads to a sudden and shocking consequence. And the future of Pierpoint and several of its key employees are in flux. Prior to the season 3 finale, HBO announced there will be a fourth season.

 

#2 - Evil – season 4 (Paramount+)
Sept. 2019, June 2021, June 2022, May 2024
In this supernatural mystery thriller from Robert and Michelle King (The Good Wife, The Good Fight), three investigators with vastly different backgrounds work for the Catholic Church as assessors. They are assigned to determine whether seemingly unexplainable events have rational explanations, involve demonic possessions, or constitute actual miracles.

Combining supernatural, religious, and horror elements with procedural drama and sophisticated humor, makes for a uniquely entertaining series.

Katja Herbers gives an extraordinary performance as Dr. Kristen Bouchard, a retired forensic psychologist raising four daughters. Kristen is not religious and does not believe in the supernatural or demons, but her skepticism is constantly tested as she is confronted by numerous events that defy rational or scientific explanation.

Kristen is recruited by David Acosta (Mike Colter), a priest in training, to work with him for the Catholic Church. He is a true believer in the existence of both godly and demonic events. One of his roles for the Church is to investigate reports of demons and assess whether an exorcism is in order. In season 3, he completes his training and officially becomes a priest. Unbeknownst to the rest of his team or his church superiors, David is recruited by the Vatican secret service known as The Entity, to undertake mysterious covert missions.

Rounding out the investigative team is Ben Shakir (Aasif Mandvi), a contractor who works with David as a technical expert. He was raised a Muslim, but is now even more of a skeptic than Kristen. He is always looking for the scientific explanation for any unusual phenomena. Despite increasing evidence to the contrary, he steadfastly holds onto his belief that everything has a rational explanation.

Here’s a look at some of series’ other major players:

Michael Emerson (best known for his roles in Person of Interest and Lost) is at his creepiest best as Dr. Leland Townsend, a rival forensic psychologist of Kristen’s, and the biggest threat to our heroes. He is obsessed with trying to get others to commit evil acts. In addition to constantly trying to undermine Kristen and get into her head, he despises David, constantly taunting him and trying to get him to doubt the Catholic Church and its teachings. Whether he is a psychopath or actually demonic remains to be seen. Either way, he’s an ongoing danger to Kristen and her family.

Christine Lahti sizzles as Kristen’s mom, Sheryl, who may have her own involvement with the supernatural. Much to Kristen’s chagrin, she is courted by Leland and eventually works with him at a troll farm (run by a demon). Does she have her own secret agenda? Is she working with satanic forces or simply trying to protect her daughter and granddaughters?

Brooklyn Schuck, Skylar Gray, Maddy Crocco, and Dayla Knapp play Kristen’s daughters, one of whom may have a supernatural secret of her own. One of the ongoing comic-relief themes is that whenever they are together they talk at the same time over one another.

Kurt Fuller is Dr. Kurt Boggs, a psychiatrist and Kristen’s therapist. He is a voice of reason and sanity, but gradually becomes exposed to and involved with the supernatural as Leland tries to corrupt him and turn him against Kristen.

Andrea Martin steals every scene she’s in as Sister Andrea, a nun who sometimes gives David advice. She sees herself and David as two of the few who are equipped to fight the war against demonic forces. She tells him that they are among the rare one in a hundred million who are close enough to God that they can see demons as they walk among humanity. Her confrontations with Leland and various demons are delicious (especially when she does her best Warrior Nun imitation, battling a room full of demons armed only with a shovel).

Wallace Shawn is Father Frank Ignatius (seasons 3 and 4), a terminally ill priest, who briefly dies but then returns to life and health. After this experience, he finds that he no longer believes in the Church’s teachings. He is assigned to give David, Kristen, and Ben new cases to investigate.

For most of season 1, Kristen is trying to raise her four daughters and dealing with Leland’s attempts to disrupt her career and her life – all while helping David and Ben investigate increasingly bizarre events. She has unwavering confidence in her own insights and abilities, yet the circumstances she finds herself in, and the relentless psychological assaults from Leland, make her feel increasingly frustrated and vulnerable.

The first season provides enough logical explanations for seemingly supernatural occurrences, that Kristen, David, and Ben each find enough evidence (or lack thereof) to support their own world view. As the series progresses, however, all three have reasons to question what they are experiencing and seeing with their own eyes.

In season 2, the series shifts from a largely procedural drama with some supernatural elements to a more horror-type series (episode four’s Elevator Game episode is genuinely creepy). Switching from the ad-supported linear CBS network to Paramount+ gave the writers significantly more creative freedom to take the series well beyond what would have been acceptable on a broadcast network.

Season 3 is brilliant on every level. The first two seasons were good but uneven, as it seemed as though they hadn’t decided whether Evil was a dark comedy, an Exorcist-style horror show, a supernatural thriller, or a CBS procedural. The third season leans into all of these genres with equal relish.

The season 3 finale has a distinct Rosemary’s Baby vibe. Has one of Kristen’s frozen eggs been fertilized by a demon and used to create a new Antichrist?

Season 4 is as bizarre and engrossing as ever. Paramount+ made the surprise announcement rather late that this would be the final season, but then gave them four additional episodes so they could adequately conclude multiple storylines. While the four additional episodes seem rushed and not at the same pace as previous episodes, the near perfect ending makes up for it.

There’s a lot going on in the final season, including…

On the comedic front, after Sheryl complains about not being promoted at work, Leland and his misogynist demon manager have her moved into an office that literally has a low glass ceiling, where she has to crouch to enter, and her male colleagues can all look down on her.

On the sci-fi front, a particle accelerator may have opened either a gate to hell or an Earth-swallowing black hole. A mysterious visitor says she is one of Kristen’s daughters from 30 years in the future, and claims to have come here through a wormhole created by the particle accelerator.

On the horror front, There’s a sudden and shocking beheading that never could have happened prior to this season. It comes out of nowhere, and will surprise you even after you know it’s going to happen (you’ll never guess who or when). And, of course, Sister Andrea fights off numerous demons in multiple episodes.

On the procedural drama front, our heroes uncover a conspiracy between Leland and The 60 (a group of 60 demonic houses) to kill Kristen and bring evil to New York City. And then there’s still the mystery of whether or not Kristen’s biological son is evil. The ending will make you wish there was one more season.

#1 - Hacks – season 3 (Max)
May 2021, May 2022, May 2024
Jean Smart is masterful as Deborah Vance, a legendary, stand-up comic, who started her career at a time when comedy was almost exclusively a men’s club. She’s been through big ups and just as big downs in both her career and personal life, and now finds herself at a crossroad. Baby Boomers might recognize shades of groundbreaking female comedians Phyllis Diller and Joan Rivers in Deborah, but Jean Smart is so good that she stands on her own as a fresh and vibrant character.

The best comedy on television is also the best series of 2024. Before getting into the brilliant third season, here’s a brief recap of the first two brilliant seasons – which you should definitely watch first.

As season 1 gets underway, Deborah is performing her same aging act to her same aging audience at her Las Vegas residency. Her ex-husband Marty (Christopher McDonald), who is also CEO of the casino, is threatening to replace her with younger, more contemporary talent.

At the same time, Ava Daniels (Hannah Einbinder), an up-and-coming 25-year-old bi-sexual comedy writer, is suddenly an industry outcast due to a nasty social-media joke she posted about a right-wing Senator and his gay son. Ava is forced on Deborah by their mutual agent, Jimmy LuSaque (Paul W. Downs) to help modernize her “stale” material.

The two women’s vastly different comedy styles and perspectives immediately clash. Deborah has no interest in collaborating with the young writer who has substantially different comedic sensibilities. Ava needs a job, but has no interest punching up the material of a “past-her-prime” comic.

The writing is crisp and clever, as Jean Smart and Hannah Einbinder bring these characters to life. The generational back-and-forth pulls no punches, but also takes no sides, which is both uncommon and refreshing. It would have been easy to simply make Deborah seem old-fashioned, out-of-date, and foolish. Both women are arrogant and self-centered, and each thinks she knows comedy better than the other. This odd couple has a love-hate relationship throughout most of the first two seasons, but eventually each realizes how incredibly talented the other is, and how well they complement one another.

After her final Las Vegas show, Deborah decides to go on tour, taking Ava along to help develop some new material. The tour takes up the entire second season. As several of her tour dates bomb, they try to figure out how to re-invent in her act and re-brand her image.

One of the funnier sequences in season 2 is when Deborah’s manager Marcus (Carl Clemons-Hopkins) books her on a gay cruise (gay men are among her biggest fans). But the cruise turns out to be exclusively for lesbians, who she claims “do not get her.”

When Hannah is researching Deborah’s career, she starts to realize how groundbreaking she really was, and how the hardships and obstacles she overcame paved the way for future generations of female comedians.

Deborah records a special with her new material, which is a surprise hit, revitalizing not only her career, but Ava’s as well. But Deborah’s borderline abusive behavior leads to a rift that seems insurmountable, and Ava crosses a line that she might not be able to come back from.

The first two great seasons of this wonderfully addictive series is somehow topped by the third (my wife and I binged the entire nine-episode season in one late Friday night sitting – each episode is 26-35 minutes).

At the start of season 3, Deborah and Ava have separate careers and lives. Both have had big career boosts following Deborah’s comedy special – Deborah is again a major in-demand star and Ava is a writer and co-producer of a popular TV show.

While both women are successful, neither is happy. Deborah struggles to develop new material with her new writers who don’t understand her comedy, and Ava never got over being so easily dismissed and abandoned by Deborah, whom she had considered a friend (Deborah simply thought Ava was ready to go off on her own and spread her wings).

Deborah’s life-long dream has been to host her own network late-night talk show, which almost happened many years ago. She lost out because back then the network was not ready to take a chance on a woman. Suddenly the current host is retiring and she is determined to get the job. But she’s still a woman, and now she’s 70.

Two other potential candidates are much younger men. She reaches out to Ava, who is on hiatus from her show for the next three months, to help her prepare to pitch the job. More brilliant (and touching) comedy ensues as Deborah enters a charity golf tournament to get closer to the executives and sponsors who will decide on the new late-night host. The finale paves the way for a completely fresh fourth season (it’s been renewed).

Some of the key cast members and guest stars include:

Megan Stalter as Kayla, who is the airhead daughter of Jimmy’s boss, who forces him to take her on as his assistant; Mark Indelicato as Damien, Deborah’s personal assistant;

Kaitlin Olson as Deborah “DJ” Vance Jr., Deborah’s sometimes estranged daughter; Ming-Na Wen as a talent agent rival of Jimmy’s who tries to steal his clients (season 2); Laurie Metcalf as “Weed,” an eccentric tour manager who also drives the tour bus (season 2);

Christina Hendricks as a wealthy executive who tries to seduce Ava when she thinks she is just Deborah’s golf caddy (season 3); Helen Hunt as a network executive in charge of deciding who gets the open late-night gig (season 3); Diedre Hall as herself, and Jimmy’s mother (season 3); Wayne Newton, Margaret Cho, George Wallace, Carrot Top, and Mario Lopez have cameos as themselves.

That’s it for now. I’m sure there are shows you think I missed. There are a number of series I either didn’t get to or had no interest in watching. If there are any shows you’d think I should have included, drop me an email at [email protected] and I’ll consider including it in a future report (and will let you know if I already considered it but it didn’t make the cut).

Don't Do That: The Problem With NFL Analytics (11/24)

With the NFL season just past the halfway point, I thought this might be a good time to publish an updated version of a column I wrote last season on NFL Analytics.  Over the past few years, one the more controversial aspects of NFL football games is the idea of going for it on fourth down when a team needs two or three (sometimes more) yards for a first down.  The reason?  Something called “analytics,” which has upended decades of NFL truism and tradition.

This analysis takes a look at how the ESPN analytics model works as it relates to recommending whether to go for it on fourth down, attempt a field goal, or punt.  Different teams use their own analytics models, but they likely contain many of the same elements – as evidenced by the common refrain that “analytics says go for it.”  I haven’t heard any broadcaster or analyst (or coach) say that analytics says don’t go for it on fourth-and-one or two.

Before getting into the analysis, here are key aspects of the model that I find problematic.

• ESPN acknowledges that its analytics model “recommends a go on fourth-and-1 in typical situations anywhere on the field.”

• It starts out with the premise that possession significantly outweighs field position in importance.

• It states that the seven points scored by touchdown (and extra point conversion) is actually three times as valuable as the three points scored by a field goal.

• When comparing a punt vs. a fourth down attempt, the model considers win probability expected given a fourth down success or failure based on league averages – without considering weather, injuries, matchups, what happened previously in the game, or your team’s success rate on going for it on fourth down.

Here’s my analysis.

In a recent Thursday night game, the Eagles are leading the Commanders by two points with roughly eight minutes left in the 4^th Quarter.  The Commanders have the ball on the Eagles 26 yard line.  It’s 4^th down and 2 yards to go.  A field goal would take the lead.  Neither team has been moving the ball well (the score is 12-10).  The Commanders have just had 2^nd and 1, and then 3^rd and 2, and failed to get a first down.  What should they do?  A few years ago, this would not really have been a question.  They would have kicked the field goal without giving it a second thought and taken the lead.  But instead they decided to go for it…and failed.  The revved-up Eagles subsequently scored a touchdown and wound up winning the game.

I can’t tell you how many times during the past three seasons I’ve watched games with multiple cases of a team passing up a field goal attempt and going for it on 4^th down.  And more often than ever we see teams going for it on 4^th down on their own side of the field – something that virtually never happened just a few years ago.  In some cases it makes sense, in others, not so much.  But in every single case, the announcers dutifully tell us that “analytics says to go for it”.

“Analytics,” of course, is just a fancy term for statistical research.  Unfortunately, TV sportscasters and analysts, whose main job is to inform and entertain the casual fan, seldom if ever discuss how these analytics work, what’s behind them, and how they should be used in the context of any particular situation on the field.  And most of the time, it’s only a topic of heated debate when it fails, not when it works.   And I’m not saying that if the Commanders kicked the field goal and took a 1 point lead that they definitely would have won the game.  But going for it a failing made winning less likely. 

Until a few years ago, unless it was desperation time toward the end of the game, you almost never saw a team go for it on fourth down and 2 or 3 yards to go, or from their own side of the 50-yard line.  If a coach did so, it was considered bold (if it worked) and foolish (if it didn’t).  Some coaches, such as Bill Parcells, Bill Belichick and Sean Payton, were known for taking such chances.  Fourth-and-three (or more), on the other hand, was virtually never attempted regardless of field position (again, unless it was toward the end of the game when a team needed to score to avoid losing).  Today, however, because of analytics (and all teams have their own analytics people), this has become commonplace.

Here is how ESPN explains various aspects of its analytics model, followed by my comments after each point.

• ESPN acknowledges its model is “more aggressive on fourth down than the average coach.” In fact, its model “recommends a go on fourth-and-1 in typical situations anywhere on the field.”  There are a few reasons for this.
  • “In the modern era when offenses are so explosive, possession significantly outweighs field position in terms of importance. A fourth-down conversion attempt might or might not fail, but a punt always turns the ball over to the other team.”

Comment:  In my view, any model that says you should always do something regardless of context is inherently flawed.  And the idea that possession significantly outweighs field position in terms of importance is simply ridiculous.  You are much more likely to win a game if your average possession starts at mid-field than if it starts inside your own 10-yard-line.  Field position is one of the most significant factors in winning or losing.  If you go for it on your own 30-yard-line and fail to convert, you are almost guaranteeing that your opponent score.  If you go for it on your opponent’s 20-yard-line and fail, they still have to gain 50 or so yards to attempt a field goal and 80 yards to score a touchdown.  Field position is at least as important as possession, oftentimes more so.

I’ve seen research done in the past that showed the increasing chances of scoring a touchdown or field goal as your starting position gets closer to your opponent’s goal line.  I’d love to see a multi-season analysis demonstrating the relationship between superior average starting field position and wins/losses. 

• “There are two factors for why the model often prefers going for it to a field goal in more situations than most fans would expect.”
  • “First, it recognizes opting for a field goal attempt rather than a guaranteed three points. Field goals don’t always go in.”
  • “Second, while touchdowns are worth seven points and field goals are worth three, both require kicking the ball to the opponent afterward. The possession and field position for the opponent is worth roughly one expected point in favor of the opponent.  Once we consider the opposing kickoff, we can think of touchdowns being worth roughly six points and field goals being worth roughly two to the game’s margin.  Thinking about scoring this way shows the relative value of a touchdown compared to a field goal is higher than you might think.”

Comment:  If kicking the ball to an opponent after a score is worth roughly one expected point in favor of the opponent, it has the same impact following a touchdown as it does following a field goal.  It’s a wash.  It doesn’t mean you subtract one point from a touchdown and one point from a field goal – that arbitrarily changes the value advantage of a touchdown vs. a field goal from the actual difference of 2.33 to 1 (7/3) to 3 to 1 (6/2).  That is a substantial difference, and biases the model to such a degree that it will almost always recommend going for it on fourth down.  This seems to me to be nothing more than a math trick – statistical gibberish.  It’s almost as if they went to their analytics folks and said come up with a math solution that justifies going for it on fourth down.

• “Close to the goal line failures still result in putting opponents in bad starting field position.”

Comment:  This is true, but seems to go against the previous assertion that “possession significantly outweighs field position in terms of importance.” 

• “In comparing a punt vs. a fourth-down attempt, ESPN’s model considers the win probability expected given a fourth-down success and fourth down failure, and weighs those by the expected conversion rate of that fourth down (the expected conversion rate is determined by league averages in similar circumstances and adjusted based on strength of the offense and defense). That produces an overall expected win probability given a fourth-down attempt, which can be compared to an expected win probability given a punt.  The higher win probability is the recommendation.”

Factors not in the model include, weather, injuries, matchup advantages or disadvantages, and what happened previously in the game.  Nor does it take into account your team’s success rate on going for it on fourth down in any given situation.

Comment:  On-field decisions should not be based on average league-wide results – even if you modify the data, it’s still based on a huge database that isn’t as meaningful as people might think.  The average of other teams, whose offensive and defensive capabilities can be vastly different from your own, or from today’s opponent, does not provide the most optimal insights.  Looking at your own team’s success rate in going for it on fourth and whatever combined with your opponent’s success rate in stopping it is a more valid analysis.

There’s also something to be said about what has already happened in the game providing an indication of what you should do next.  In other words, if you went for it on fourth-and-two twice and failed, the model would continue to advise going for it a third time – probably not such a good idea.

None of this is to say I’m against the concept of analytics.  I’ve been in the research field long enough to know the value of statistical analysis.  But I’ve also been around long enough to know the disadvantages of using big-data black boxes to make decisions that logically make no sense.  Context and human experience matter.

Of course, that doesn’t mean coaches always blindly follow analytics recommendations, but it often seems as if many do.  If you look at the very best coaches, such as Andy Reid, John Harbaugh, Mike Tomlin, and a few others, they sometimes go for it and sometimes not in seemingly similar situations.  Their experience and well-honed football instincts take precedence.  Sometimes it depends on the flow of the game and whether a field goal will put them up by three scores.  Sometimes it depends on whether they think their defense can stop the other team, or whether you’re facing a Patrick Mahomes or Lamar Jackson with less than five minutes left in the game. 

Several years ago, pre-analytics, Bill Belichick famously (or infamously) went for it on fourth-and-two from his own 28 yard line against the Colts because every time Peyton Manning got the ball he drove right down the field.  If the Patriots made the first down, they might have been able to run out the clock.  Even though it failed, it was a chance worth taking.

Last Sunday, the Bills were ahead of the Chiefs by just 2 points and had a 4^th and 3 from inside the Chiefs 30 yard line with time running out in the 4^th Quarter.  Rather than scoring a field goal and going up by 5 points, they went for it.  Josh Allen ran the ball in for a touchdown, sealing the win.  Had they failed, the Chiefs would have gotten the ball back in decent field position with two minutes left in the game, only needing a field goal to win.  But in this case, they didn’t want to give the ball back to Patrick Mahomes with so much time left on the clock.  It was a bold (and correct) move given the circumstances (although it would have been criticized has it failed).  The announcer mentioned that analytics would have said to kick the field goal in this situation.

the psychological impact and shift in momentum failing to convert on fourth down has on both the offense and defense.

This season, there have been numerous cases of teams going for it on fourth down that before analytics would never have even been considered.  I’d love to see an analysis of how many times when these fail has the other team scored on the subsequent drive versus how many times when it works has that team went on to score a touchdown.

Let the debate continue…

A Brief and Incomplete History of Comic-Cons (10/24)

Comic cons have come a long way since the first “official” comic book convention took place in New York in 1964 with just over 100 attendees in a hotel conference room sitting on folding chairs.  

Originally, these conventions focused primarily on comic books and the surrounding culture, where comic book fans could meet creators, artists, experts, and one another to discuss story arcs, cover art, and buy and sell back issues.  Today, most of them have grown into multi-day events that include numerous pop-culture and entertainment elements, including comic books, sci-fi, fantasy, horror, anime, manga, toys, animation art, collectibles of every stripe, card and video games, graphic novels, professional wrestling, and cosplay (costume play, where fans dress up as fictional characters from  movies, TV shows, comic books, or video games), as well as movie and television series previews and panels.

The most well-known and influential annual comic cons are in San Diego (July) and New York (October).  In addition to being a marketplace to buy and sell comic books and other pop-culture items, these have also become major marketing events – TV and movie stars and producers join panels geared to generating buzz, which their publicity machines try to make sure spill over to the general public. 

Anything related to superheroes or sci-fi tend to have a significant presence at these events.  On the TV front in recent years, anything sci-fi, fantasy, horror, or even peripherally pop-culture related, on broadcast, ad-supported and premium cable, or streaming platforms, have received strong buzz at these conventions.  

 San Diego Comic Con (SDCC), doing business as Comic-Con International, is a public-benefit non-profit organization.  It was founded back in 1970 as The Golden State Comic Book Convention.  It initially drew around 300 people.  It has since grown into a four-day, multi-genre, mega event.  Originally a convention designed to showcase comic books and sci-fi/fantasy, studios did not see it as having any value for marketing their upcoming projects.  Attendance steadily grew throughout the 1980s and 1990s, and stabilized at around 30,000-40,000.  There were numerous other annual conventions that were contained in their own universes – Star Trek, Star Wars, Dr. Who, etc. – which limited the growth of the San Diego show.

The early-to-mid 2000s saw the Star Wars prequels, the expanding Marvel movie universe (and its broadening fan base), edgier original ad-supported scripted cable series, and premium cable hits.  The 2010s and 2020s saw the emergence of streaming services.  As movie and TV studios provided sneak peaks of upcoming projects, and major stars began attending panel discussions, attendance started to grow dramatically. 

In 2004, SDCC took over the entire San Diego Convention Center, and by 2006, had reached 130,000.  In 2015, the year the highly anticipated Star Wars: The Force Awakens movie debuted, SDCC drew its highest attendance ever, at 170,000.  Since then, most counts place its annual attendance at 130,000+, which is the maximum capacity of its current venue.  It remains the most publicized and influential event of its kind.

The 2020 and 2021 conventions were canceled due to the pandemic, and a digital streaming event was held in its place.  A smaller in-person “San Diego Comic Con Special Edition” was held in November 2021 (which was quite controversial).  Proof of vaccination was required and masks were mandatory.  The regular convention returned in July 2022.

The 2023 event took place in the midst of WGA and SAG-AFTRA strikes, and was a more subdued affair with far fewer panels and less major studio participation and celebrity appearances than usual.   SAG-AFTRA members were prohibited from participating in promoting their projects, so they couldn’t be involved in most panels.

 It was back to full force in 2024 – although notably, Star Wars and Netflix have mostly skipped Comic-Con recently (they have their own fan events – Lucasfilm’s Star Wars Celebration and Netflix’s Tudum).  The SDDC’s contract with the city runs through 2026, and there have been rumors that the organizers might consider moving it to other cities (and venues that can hold even larger crowds).

Here’s a brief rundown of the major TV show-related panels and presentations at the past three years at San Diego Comic Con.  While the production studios typically host these events, I’m listing them based on the network or streaming service that airs them:

San Diego Comic Con 2022 TV Panels

ABC	Abbott Elementary, The Rookie, The Rookie: Feds (new)
CBS	Ghosts
CW	Riverdale, Gotham Knights (new)
FOX	Bob’s Burgers, The Simpsons, American Dad, Family Guy, The Great North, Krapopolis
Adult Swim	Smiling Friends, Rick and Morty, The Vindicators (new), Primal, Tuca & Bertie
AMC	The Walking Dead, Tales of the Walking Dead (new) Interview With the Vampire (new)
Cartoon	Sesame Street Mecha Builders (new), Muppets in the Sesameverse (new), Batwheels
Disney Channel	The Ghost and Molly McGee, Hamster & Gretel (new), Marvel’s Moon Girl and Devil Dinosaur (new)
Freeform	Motherland: Fort Salem
FX	What We Do In The Shadows, Mayans, MC, Archer
FXX	Little Demon
Nickelodeon	SpongeBob SquarePants, The Patrick Star Show, Kamp Koral: SpongeBob’s Under Years
SYFY/USA	Chucky, Resident Alien
TNets	AEW: Heroes & Villains
HBO	House of the Dragon (new)

 

Apple TV+	For All Mankind, Invasion, See, Mythic Quest, Severance, Foundation
Disney+	What If…?, X-Men ’97, Marvel Zombies, The Mandalorian, National Treasure: Edge of History (new), Solar Opposites, The Proud Family: Louder and Prouder (new)
HBO Max	Harley Quinn, Our Flag Means Death
Hulu	The Orville: New Horizons, Koala Man (new), Solar Opposites
Netflix	The Sandman (new), Stranger Things, Lost in Space
Paramount+	Evil, Star Trek: Picard, Star Trek: Lower Decks, Star Trek: Strange New Worlds, Wolf Pack (new), Beavis & Butthead (new), Rugrats
Peacock	Vampire Academy (new), The Resort (new)
Prime Video	Paper Girls (new), The Wheel of Time, The Lord of the Rings: The Rings of Power (new), The Expanse
Shudder	Queer for Fear

 

 

San Diego Comic Con 2023 TV Panels

CBS	Ghosts
FOX	The Great North, Bob’s Burgers, Family Guy
Adult Swim	My Adventures With Superman, Teenage Euthanasia, Rick and Morty
AMC	The Walking Dead Universe
FX	What We Do in the Shadows, Archer
TBS	American Dad
Starz	Heels
Apple TV+	Peanuts projects (new)
Hulu	Solar Opposites, Futurama
Max	Max original animation
Paramount+	Star Trek Universe
Peacock	Twisted Metal (new), The Continental (new)
Prime Video	Good Omens, The Ineffable, Invincible

 

San Diego Comic Con 2024 TV Panels

ABC	Abbott Elementary, The Rookie
CBS	Ghosts, Tracker
CW	Superman & Lois
FOX	Krapopolis, Universal Basic Guys (new), The Great North, Bob’s Burgers, The Simpsons
Adult Swim	Common Side Effects (new), Rick & Morty: The Anime (new), My Adventures With Superman
AMC/AMC+	Snowpiercer, The Walking Dead: Dead City, The Walking Dead: Daryl Dixon – The Book of Carol, Interview With a Vampire, Mayfair Witches
Comedy	Everybody Still Hates Chris
FX	What We Do in the Shadows
Nickelodeon	SpongeBob SquarePants
TBS	American Dad
Syndication	WOW: Women of Wrestling
MGM+	From
HBO	The Penguin (new)
Showtime	Dexter: Original Sin (new)
Apple TV+	Silo
Disney+	Percy Jackson and the Olympians, Dr. Who
Hulu	Solar Opposites, Futurama
Max	Harley Quinn, Kite Man: Hell Yeah! (new)
Netflix	Star Trek: Prodigy
Paramount+	Tales of the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles (new), Star Trek: Strange New Worlds, Star Trek: Lower Decks, Starfleet Academy (new)
Peacock	Teacup (new), Those About to Die (new)
Prime Video	The Boys, Lord of the Rings: Rings of Power, Invincible, Hazbin Hotel, The Legend of Vox Machina, Sausage Party: Foodtopia, Batman: Caped Crusader
TBA	Venus Prime (new)

 

The New York Comic Con (NYCC), now produced and managed by ReedPop, started in 2006, and was initially much smaller than the San Diego convention (and took place in February).  It was located in the main exhibition hall of the Jacob Javits Center, with a capacity of 10,000.  Many more attendees than anticipated showed up (roughly 33,000), and fire marshals had to lock down admissions until enough people left to make space for new folks.  I was there, and it was a real mess.  Over the next few years, the event took over more space in the Javits Center and attendance started to grow.  But over the next few years, it was still nowhere near San Diego Comic Con levels.

In 2013, when single-day passes for Thursday (the first day of the four-day event) were available for the first time, attendance topped 130,000, putting it on par with the San Diego show (in attendance, but not yet in the number of all-star panels or influence).  In 2014, attendance hit 151,000, making it the largest show in North America.  In grew  to 180,000 in 2017, and reached a high of more than 250,000 in 2018 and 2019.  The 2020 show was canceled due to COVID.  As was the case with the SDCC, a virtual event was held.  It returned in a somewhat subdued in-person convention in 2021.  All attendees over the age of 12 were required to show proof of vaccination.  Attendance was estimated at 200,000 in 2022 and 2023. 

Since the SDCC takes place in California, it has traditionally had a much larger presence of Hollywood studios and all-star panels.  But that has been gradually changing.  While the SDCC is in July, the NYCC is in October, just as the fall TV season is getting underway, and right before any holiday theatrical movies.  Panels are presented in various locations in Manhattan, with the main show continuing at the Jacob Javits Center.

Here’s a brief rundown of the major TV show related panels and presentations at the New York Comic Con during the past three years.  Note that there were fewer TV panels in 2023 – while the writers’ strike ended right before the convention, the schedule had already been set, and the actors’ strike was still in effect.

New York Comic Con 2022 TV Panels

CBS	Ghosts
CW	The Winchesters
Fox	Krapopolis
Adult Swim	My Hero Academia
AMC	Anne Rice’s Mayfair Witches (new), The Walking Dead
BBCA	Dr. Who
Cartoon Network	Batwheels
Disney Channel	Big City Greens, The Owl House, Marvel’s Moon Girl and Devil Dinosaur (new)
FX	Kindred (new)
MeTV	Svengoolie and Friends
SYFY/USA	Chucky, Reginald the Vampire (new)
HBO	His Dark Materials
Showtime	Let The Right One In (new)
Starz	Outlander

 

Disney+	The Mysterious Benedict Society, American Born Chinese (new), Moon Knight
HBO Max	Pennyworth: The Origin of Batman’s Butler, Velma, Doom Patrol, Titans
Hulu	Koala Man (new), The Paloni Show! Halloween Special! (new), Solar Opposites, Only Murders in the Building
Paramount+	Star Trek: Discovery, Star Trek: Picard, Star Trek: Prodigy, Transformers: EarthSpark (new), Wolf Pack (new)
Peacock	One of Us is Lying, Vampire Academy
Prime Video	The Legend of Vox Machina, Good Omens, The Wheel of Time, The Lord of the Rings: The Rings of Power, The Peripheral (new)
Netflix	Ultraman, Oddballs (new), The School for Good & Evil (new), Manifest, Wednesday (new), The Midnight Club (new)
Crunchyroll	Chainsaw Man (new)

 

New York Comic Con 2023 TV Panels

Fox	Krapopolis (new), Grimsburg (new)
Adult Swim	Rick and Morty, Aqua Teen Hunger Force, Smiling Friends
AMC/AMC+	The Walking Dead: Daryl Dixon (new), Orphan Black: Echoes (new)
Disney Channel	Moon Girl & Devil Dinosaur,
FX	Archer
MTV	RuPaul Drag
SYFY/USA	Chucky
Starz	Shining Vale

 

Apple TV+	For All Mankind, Monarch: Legacy of Monsters (new), The Changeling (new)
Disney+	Goosebumps, Percy Jackson and the Olympians (new), Daredevil: Born Again (new)
Hulu	Futurama, Goosebumps
Max	Max Original Animation, Our Flag Means Death
Paramount+	Evil, Star Trek Universe
Prime Video	Invincible
Crunchyroll	Dr. Stone, My Hero Academia, One Piece

 

New York Comic Con 2024 TV Panels

CBS	Ghosts, Elsbeth
Fox	The Simpsons, Grimsburg, Universal Basic Guys (new)
NBC	Saturday Night Live
Adult Swim	Rick & Morty, Women Wearing Shoulder Pads, Common Side Effects, YOLO: Rainbow Trinity (new), Lazarus (new)
AMC/AMC+	Mayfair Witches, Walking Dead: Dead City, Walking Dead: Daryl Dixon – The Book of Carol (new)
Cartoon Network	Teen Titans Go!
Disney Channel	Phineas and Ferb
FX	What We Do in the Shadows
Nickelodeon	SpongeBob SquarePants, Max and the Midknights (new)
SYFY	Wynonna Earp
HBO	The Penguin (new), Dune: Prophecy (new), The Franchise (new), House of the Dragon
Starz	Outlander, Sweetpea (new)

 

Apple TV+	Shrinking,
BritBox	Passenger (new)
Disney+	Phineas and Ferb, Goosebumps: The Vanishing (new)
Hulu	Futurama, Goosebumps: The Vanishing (new)
Max	Creature Commandos (new)
Paramount+	School Spirits, Star Trek: Lower Decks, Star Trek: Picard, Star Trek: Section 31 (new)
Peacock	Hysteria! (new)
Prime Video	Cross (new), Secret Level (new)
Netflix	The Fall of the House of Usher
Crunchyroll	Various anime

Other Comic Cons

There are many other annual comic-con-style events throughout the U.S.  Most of them include comic books, graphic novels, manga, anime, tabletop and video games, sci-fi/fantasy, horror, professional wrestling, webcomics, movies, and television, in addition to celebrity panels, seminars, workshops, and opportunities for photos and autographs with actors and artists.  Here are some of the largest conventions.

Fan Expo is a group of conventions operated by Fan Expo HQ, a unit of Informa plc.  Most of its events are run under the Fan Expo banner, which stems from its namesake, the Toronto-based Fan Expo Canada.

Informa acquired the Dallas Comic Con in 2014, MegaCon in Orlando in 2015, Boston Comic Con in 2016,  Calgary Comic and Entertainment Expo in 2017, and the Denver Pop Culture Con in 2021.

In 2021, Informa Acquired Wizard Entertainment’s conventions, widely known as Wizard World.  Wizard World produced between 15 and 20 smaller, multi-genre conventions across the U.S. throughout the year.  While attendance figures are hard to come by, they generally drew anywhere from 10,000 to 100,000 attendees – the largest one being the Chicago event in August.  All the Wizard World comic cons combined generated between 200,000 and 750,000+ attendees annually, depending on how many conventions are held in a particular year.

The highly popular Wizard magazine was founded in 1991.  Wizard purchased the Chicago Comic Con in 1997 and rebranded it Wizard World Chicago, as it expanded from its core publishing business into comic-book conventions.  In 2002, Wizard World expanded to Philadelphia, and then rapidly added other cities to the mix.  By 2011, the company discontinued its print division to focus exclusively on its convention business.

Over the years, Wizard World has had some financial difficulties, and the number of conventions it held fluctuated year-to-year – from a high of 25 events in 2015 to 13 in 2018, and just six in 2021  –

Chicago, Cleveland, New Orleans, St. Louis, Philadelphia, and Portland, which were rebranded as Fan Expo. 

In 2024, Fan Expo events in the U.S. include, New Orleans (Jan.), Portland (Jan.), Cleveland (April), Philadelphia (May), Dallas (June), Boston (June), Denver (July), Chicago (Aug.), and San Francisco (Nov.), as well as MegaCon Orlando (Feb.).

Megacon Orlando is the largest comic convention in the Southern U.S.  With an estimated 190,000 attending the four-day event in February 2024, it is now the second largest comic convention in North America (behind only the New York Comic Con).

Fan Expo Denver (formerly Denver Pop Culture Con) is held in July and is the largest Fan Expo branded comic con, attracting more than 100,000 attendees over its four days. 

Fan Expo Chicago (formerly Wizard World Chicago) takes place in July or August, and is one of the largest comic cons in the U.S., setting a record of more than 75,000 attendees over three days in 2024.

Fan Expo Dallas (formerly Dallas Comic Con) is a three-day event in June that typically draws more than 60.000 fans, and focuses on comic-book writers, artists, and publishers. 

Fan Expo Boston (formerly Boston Comic Con) is one of the largest comic conventions on the East Coast, drawing more than 55,000 attendees over three days in August.

Fan Expo Philadelphia (formerly Wizard World Philadelphia) is usually in May and attracts more than 50,000 fans annually.

Fan Expo San Francisco is in Nov./Dec. and draws 35,000+ fans, while the New Orleans (Jan.), Portland (Jan.), and Cleveland (Mar.) shows each draw more than 30,000 (the latter three were formerly Wizard World events).

Here are some of the other major comic-con and pop-culture events in the U.S.

The D23 Expo (renamed in 2024 to D23: The Ultimate Disney Fan Event) is a biennial three-day event organized for members of D23: The Official Disney Fan Club.  It is usually held between July and September.  The event was founded in 2009 (D is for Disney, and 23 is for 1923, the year Walt Disney founded the company).  D23 includes exclusive first looks at upcoming Disney projects (including anything Star Wars, Pixar, and Marvel, or premiering on Disney+), celebrity appearances, memorabilia trading, exclusive merchandise, and various fan contests.  D23 started out with a booth at the San Diego Comic Con in 2009, before the first D23 Expo.  It steadily grew, with 100,000 people attending the 2017 event, which rose to 140,000 in 2022.

L.A. Comic Con is one of the largest independent comic cons in the U.S.   Initially founded as Comikaze Expo in 2011 by Regina Carpinelli and her two younger brothers as an event to showcase local Los Angeles talent, the show has gone through several rebrandings – first to Stan Lee’s Comikaze Expo, then Stan Lee’s L.A. Comic Con, to just L.A. Comic Con.  The three-day October event has grown every year, going from 35,000 attendees in 2011, to 124,000 in 2023.

Emerald City Comic Con, inaugurated in 2003, is a three-day event that takes place in Seattle, Washington in March or April.  It is the largest comic con in the Pacific Northwest, drawing roughly 100,000 attendees in recent years. 

Chicago Comic & Entertainment Expo (C2E2) is one of the more recent additions to the comic con circuit, run by ReedPop, the same folks who organize the New York Comic Con.  Taking place in March or April, it has been known for some unique big events, such as when they auctioned off items from the Captain America, Iron Man, and Thor movies.  The three-day convention drew 27,500 people to its first show in 2010, and has since grown to about 90,000 attendees.

ATL Comic Convention (formerly Atlanta Comic Con) is one of the largest comic conventions in the Southeast, billed as a “family friendly pop-culture event.”  The three-day convention typically draws more than 90,000 attendees.  It was held in the summer prior to 2023, moved to February for 2023 and 2024.  It will again be in July in 2025.

Dragon Con was founded in 1987 with 1,400 fans in attendance.  It takes place every year over Labor Day weekend, encompassing five hotels in downtown Atlanta, Georgia.  Originally a sci-fi and gaming convention, it added a Comics Expo in 1990 and robotic competition (“Robot Battles”) in 1991.   Dragon Con also hosted the International Starfleet Conference, and in 1999 introduced the first Miss Klingon Empire Beauty Pageant.  Since 2002, it also hosted Atlanta’s largest annual parade.  As of 2017, it became a five-day event, starting the Thursday before Labor Day.  Attendance peaked in 2019, when it drew more than 85,000 attendees.  Attendance declined sharply post-pandemic to just 42,000 in 2021, but rose back up to 72,000 in 2024.

Rose City Comic Con was founded by Ron and Paula Brister, who got the idea while on a road trip to the San Diego Comic Con in 2011.  The first Portland, Oregon convention was held in September 2012 with about 4,000 attendees.  The following year, it was co-funded and co-organized by Emerald City Comic Con and attracted 18,000 people.  The three-day event steadily grew and attracted about 70,000 people in 2019 (the last year with available attendance figures).

Planet Comicon in Kansas City, Missouri is the region’s largest pop-culture and comic book event, held over three days in March.  The locally-owned and independently operated event started in 1999 with 1,200 attendees and just one celebrity guest (the original R2D2).  It celebrated its 25^th anniversary in 2024, and now typically draws 60,000+ fans.

WonderCon is a three-day comic book, sci-fi, and film convention held in Anaheim in March or April (and typically gets 60,000 or so attendees).  It started in 1987, and in 2001 was taken over by Comic-Con International the company that runs the San Diego Comic Con.

Awesome Con debuted in 2013 with just 7,000 attendees.  It has grown to be one of the larger conventions on the East Coast (Washington, D.C.), attracting about 60,000 people in 2024.

Phoenix Fan Fusion (formerly Phoenix Comic Con) is a three-day event held in downtown Phoenix in May or June (most often on Memorial Day weekend).  It was founded in 2002 as the Phoenix Cactus Comicon, with only a few hundred fans in attendance and grew to a record-high of 106,000 in 2016.  Since then attendance has declined – to 80,000 in 2017 and 57,000 in 2018.  I haven’t seen attendance figures since then.

Motor City Comic Con is held in Novi, Michigan.  The three-day event, usually taking place in May, was founded in 1989 by comics retailer, Michael Goldman.  Attendance has steadily grown through the years – there were 18,000 attendees in 2012, 30,000 in 2013, 40,000 in 2014, 50,000 in 2015, 60,000 in 2018, and topped out at 70,000 for the 30^th anniversary event in 2019.

Comicpalooza debuted in July 2008 in Houston, Texas, to coincide with the release of The Dark Knight.  The inaugural event had just 500 attendees.  It has since been re-invented a number of times and grown tremendously, into a multi-genre event and one of Houston’s largest conventions.  It takes place over three days in May, June, or July, and attracts upward of 50,000 fans.

Big Texas Comic Con was first held in San Antonio, Texas in 2019, when several staff members of the Alamo City Comic Con (which had been around since 2013) decided to break away and form their own event.  In its heyday (2014-15), the Alamo City Comic Con reportedly drew more than 70,000 attendees.  The Big Texas Comic Con, which takes place over three days in October, is estimated to draw around 40,000-50,000 attendees.

HeroesCon was established in 1982 and takes place in June in Charlotte, North Carolina.  It’s organized by the Heroes Aren’t Hard to Find comic book store, and continues to maintain a primary focus on comic books, with an emphasis on artists, writers, and the creative process.  It attracts about 40,000-50,000 attendees annually.  It is “the largest independently owned comic book convention in the U.S.”

GalaxyCon (formerly known as Super Conventions or Supercon) is run by GalaxyCon, LLC, a privately owned company based in Fort Lauderdale, Florida.  It organizes comic book and anime conventions throughout the country, which it refers to as a “3-day Festival of Fandom.”  Current markets include, Austin, Texas (Sept. more than 50,000 attend), Raleigh, North Carolina (July 50,000+), Columbus, Ohio (Dec. 40,000), Richmond, Virginia (Mar. 30,000), San Jose, California (Aug. 20,000+), Oklahoma City, Oklahoma (May), and Des Moines, Iowa (Sept.).  In 2025, GalaxyCon is expanding to New Orleans (July) and St. Louis (Oct.).

GalaxyCon is big on marketing autographed celebrity photos and merchandise, and during the pandemic expanded to include virtual events so fans could meet and chat with celebrities, and get personalized autographs without needing to travel.  They continue to provide numerous virtual events.

Indiana Comic Convention takes place over three days in March.  It started in 2014 with about 20,000 attendees, which grew to roughly 55,000 in 2018.  I haven’t seen any post-pandemic numbers.

Twin Cities Con was created by Ben Penrod in 2021.  He founded comic cons in several other cities, including Awesome Con in Washington, DC.  It takes place in Minneapolis over three days in November, and draws roughly 30,000 fans.

There are also numerous medium and smaller sized local conventions across the country every year that draw anywhere from 5,000 to 20,000+ fans.  These smaller shows don’t get the same media attention as SDCC or NYCC, but they do have loyal followings.  They tend to focus more heavily on comic books, with an emphasis on creators (artists and writers).  They have a more intimate feel than some of the larger comic cons.  Here’s just a few of them.

The Supercon trademark now only applies to Florida Supercon, which occurs in July in Miami, and draws an estimated 20,000 fans.   It was sold to ReedPop in 2019.

Baltimore Comic Con started out as a one-day show in 2000, focusing primarily on comic book, extended to two days in 2002, and due to demand from attendees and exhibitors, went to three days in 2014, as it continued to grow in size and popularity.  Traditionally takes place in September, and typically draws 15,000+ fans.

Big Apple Comic Con is the longest-running comic-book/pop-culture convention in New York City, having started by retailer Michael Carbonaro in March 1996 in the basement of a church, with 4,000 attendees.  During its heyday (2001-2008) it featured multiple shows a year, with its big one in November.  The show was acquired by Wizard Entertainment  from 2009-13, but reacquired by Carbonaro in 2014.  It’s generally held in the fall and draws roughly 10,000 fans.

Albuquerque Comic Con is “the largest and longest running convention in New Mexico (15 consecutive years).”  It takes place in January with an estimated 10,000 attendees.

Nickel City Comic Con is Western New York’s largest pop-culture and comic book convention, attracting more than 10,000 fans to Buffalo for its summer and fall editions.  It began in 2016, but was inactive in 2020-2022, due to the pandemic.

Garden State Comic Fest celebrated its 10^th anniversary in 2024.  There’s a summer version is in Morristown, New Jersey in June and a “Winter Fest” takes place in Sussex County in January.  They do not make attendance figures available, but some estimates place it at 5,000+.

Streaming Ads are Much More Valuable than Linear TV Ads

Live TV viewing has significant advantages over DVR playback when it comes to commercial exposure and brand message recall.  TV shows with a high percentage of live viewing are therefore substantially more valuable to advertisers than those viewed largely via DVRs.  A logical extension of this is that commercials on streaming platforms are significantly more valuable than those on linear television.  

For advertisers, streaming has all the advantages of both live and DVR viewing with virtually none of the major drawbacks.  As with DVRs, streaming is appointment viewing (which means the TV is not on as background noise, there is less multitasking, and viewers are more attentive).  But like live viewing, there is no fast-forwarding through commercials.  And unlike linear TV, there is no channel switching (or pausing) during commercials – when ads come on, if you don’t leave the room, you’re exposed to them. 

The (Research) Times They Are A Changin’

There was a time when extensive research studies were done by broadcast and cable networks that focused on their strengths while highlighting the weaknesses of their competitors.

Who remembers CBS’s The Cable Fable?  That was 35 years ago, in a much simpler media landscape.  The average home had fewer than 30 channels, and while two-thirds of homes had a VCR, time-shifting was not yet a major thing and DVRs were still more than a decade away.  Most broadcast and cable networks were not corporate siblings, so each had the freedom to treat the other platform as the enemy. 

The standard broadcast line (which for years was true) was that bigger is better, and nothing on cable provided the reach of the Big Four broadcast networks.  The Cabletelevision Advertising Bureau (CAB) tried to counter that narrative with numerous studies showing that cable programming is just as valuable to advertisers as the broadcast networks (remember, at the time ad-supported cable networks did not air original scripted series and were not thought of as being in the same league as the broadcast networks in terms of quality programming). 

The main goal on the cable front was to get advertisers to shift more and more money each year from broadcast to cable.  The broadcast networks, faced with eroding audiences for the first time, tried to minimize their losses.  Ad-supported cable made gradual inroads each season, which accelerated during the early 2000s as more cable networks started airing high-quality original scripted programming. 

The broadcast networks were hampered by the fact that in addition to cable, they also continued to treat one another as the enemy – as they had since the beginning of television.  Since they essentially owned the airwaves for so long, they couldn’t comprehend needing to ally themselves with those they still considered their main competitors to fend off the upstart and much smaller cable networks. 

Cable networks, on the other hand, quickly understood that while they did compete with one another, they were also allies against the bigger broadcast networks – if advertising dollars shifted from broadcast to cable, they all benefited.  Cable networks started to grow and siphon off broadcast viewers in no small part because they began cross-promoting each other’s programming – something the broadcast networks still stubbornly refuse to do.  While no individual cable network was able to even come close to reaching a broadcast network’s audience size, cable as an entity eventually did.

There was a time when it was a broadcast world (1960s-1970s), which was followed by a time when it was a broadcast versus cable world (1980s-2000s).  It became more of a streaming world (or streaming-war world) in late 2019-2020 when Disney+, Apple TV+, HBO Max (now Max), and Peacock, joined Netflix, Prime Video, Hulu, and CBS All Access (now Paramount+) in spending huge amounts of money on original content.  Broadcast and cable are now lumped together under the linear TV label (by the media and ad industries, if not consumers). 

Those different times, or media eras if you will, have impacted how much and what kind of research has been done on the effectiveness of television advertising.

Shifting Alliances: Why TV Research is Not What it Used to Be

When broadcast and cable networks became siblings under the same corporate umbrella, it started to affect the type of research these companies were willing to underwrite. The days of The Cable Fable and the CAB are long over.  The CAB is now the VAB (Video Advertising Bureau), with membership including broadcast and cable networks. 

Not only do giant media conglomerates now own broadcast and cable outlets, they all now have their own streaming platforms as well. 

The upfront sales pitch is no longer “Broadcast is bigger and better, and the only place to reach your customers all in one place” or  “Our cable network has the most engaged audiences and is the only one that can effectively compete with the broadcast networks.”  In essence, they are all telling us that they – Disney (ABC, ESPN, Hulu, Disney+…), Paramount Global (CBS, Paramount+, TV Networks, Showtime…), Warner Bros. Discovery (Turner cable networks, HBO, Max...), Comcast (NBCUniversal, USa, Syfy, Bravo, Peacock...) – are basically all the same: self-contained, massive communication hubs and unrivaled unified companies, armed with multiple networks, platforms, and genres, that can reach everyone, everywhere, all at once.

As a result, there is seldom any good research that highlights the weaknesses of any part of these entities (which also results in little research showing the strengths of other parts). Advertisers (remember them?) are often left with meaningless studies proclaiming “advertising works,” along with assurances that if they just add this, optimize that, or use this new and improved planning or buying tool, everything will be better. 

C3 and the Move Away From Vetting Research Methodology

This is the main reason we haven’t seen much research into the differences of commercial effectiveness in live viewing versus DVR playback – which was one of the biggest issues in the advertising industry beginning around 2005.  When I was head of audience analysis at Interpublic’s MAGNA Global, we conducted three years of groundbreaking Commercial Pod Studies (2005-07), which were instrumental in leading to the industry shifting from program ratings to C3 in Q4 2007.

There was a time when any changes to audience measurement needed to undergo extensive vetting before the industry would consider implementing them.  People meters, for example,  were evaluated by industry committees for nearly three years – including a full year of side-by-side data to compare it with the old meter/diary methodology – before agencies and networks decided to use it as marketplace currency.

Before switching from average program ratings to C3, however, virtually no research was done into the methodology for measuring average commercial minutes.  This was the first time that marketplace business concerns overrode the necessity for validating research methodology.  It is also the moment that Nielsen shifted away from being a pure research company – at the following year’s national client meeting, Nielsen actually proclaimed that getting a product to market was now more important than validating the research beforehand.

Precious little research has been done in this area since then.  The main reason?  Documenting the commercial recall advantage of live viewing over DVR viewing benefits virtually no one (other than advertisers).  Most of the networks that have the highest percentage of live viewers (cable news, sports networks, and cable networks with heavy loads of off-network repeats) are owned by the same companies that own broadcast and cable networks that have heavy DVR usage for their entertainment programming – which has traditionally accounted for the bulk of their revenue.  So, even though we all know what’s going on, neither ad buyers nor sellers are incentivized to publicly acknowledge it or produce research documenting it.

Ad Recall Among Live Viewers is 3x Greater Than Among DVR Viewers

Ten years ago, when I was head of audience analysis at ION Media, my group conducted a study that I believe is still the best (only?) analysis comparing engagement and ad recall between Live and DVR playback viewing.  At the time, ION (now owned by Scripps) was an independent network, whose programming consisted almost exclusively of off-network repeats, which are largely watched live (more than 95% of ION’s adult 25-54 average audience at the time watched its shows live).  Highlighting the advertising strength of live viewing would not hurt any other part of the company.

Trying to measure ad recall a day or more after the commercials aired is not particularly meaningful unless it’s at the start of a new ad campaign with new creative that is airing for the first time.  Otherwise, you don’t really  know where the respondents actually saw the commercial.  Much better is measuring ad recall right after the program airs. 

I got the idea for this analysis from a CAB study that was conducted more than 20 years ago, which remains the best I’ve ever seen.  It was an unaided ad recall study, where adults 18+ were surveyed by phone at home during primetime (I believe they got permission from respondents to call them after 10pm).  It demonstrated that there was no statistical difference between broadcast and cable based on verified recall of commercials and attentiveness to the programming.  There were also a lot of other interesting findings about the impact of commercial pod positioning and length.  The  main purpose of the study was to show that cable should have the same value per rating point as broadcast.  At the time, ad-supported cable networks were not yet producing original scripted programming, and they were still considered lower quality and less valuable than the much higher rated broadcast series.

We used a similar approach, although the times had changed – we conducted our survey online.

Here’s what we did along with the results.

• We maintained a panel of television viewers through Vision Critical (later rebranded as Alida). We recruited members to participate in a special research study (there were 476 respondents).

• Respondents were allowed to watch any program they wanted, and could view the program live, at the time it originally aired, or via DVR playback. They only had to tell us the day and time they would be watching (it had to be between 7pm and 10pm).

• They were instructed to watch TV as they normally would. The only stipulation was that it had to be a regular program that contained commercials.

• Each participant received a 9-question survey at 10pm the night they watched the program. If they submitted the completed survey by 11pm that night, they were placed in a drawing to receive a $500 Amazon gift card.  We made sure they understood that correct answers were not necessary to win the prize – so if they recorded a show they wouldn’t go back and try to find the right answers.

• Questions included asking respondents to list up to three plot points of the program, list all the brands they could recall in the commercials, and to list any specific messages they remembered from each brand they listed.

The results were eye opening but not really surprising.

• Attentiveness and recall to the program content was virtually identical for live viewing and DVR playback.

• The percentage of respondents who recalled one brand during commercials was 2.3 times greater among live viewers than among DVR viewers (the percentage who recalled three brands was lower, but was more than 3 times greater among live viewers).

• Brand message recall was roughly 3 times greater among live viewers.
• There was no advertising on the few streaming platforms at the time, so there was no reason to include them. But now, this type of analysis can easily include streaming.

When I left ION, I recommended that they replicate this analysis every year, so chances are there’s more recent data out there.  But despite changes in the media landscape over the past 10 years, there’s no reason to think the difference in ad recall between live and DVR viewers is much different.

The Streaming Advantage

So, how does any of this apply to advertising on streaming platforms?  Well, we know that DVR penetration has remained steady over the past 10 years at about 50% of the U.S.  It some cases, streaming has taken the place of DVRs – ABC and FX series come to Hulu soon after airing, as do CBS shows on Paramount+ and NBC shows on Peacock.  So, if you missed the original broadcast, you can catch up if you subscribe to the right streaming service.  We also know that in DVR homes, a high percentage of primetime viewing is via DVRs.  And virtually every study ever done on the subject has indicated 70-80% of DVR playback involves the use of fast-forwardiing through commercials.

And, as already mentioned, streaming is the very definition of appointment viewing, people can’t pause or fast-forward through the commercials, and virtually no one switches channels when they are streaming a series or movie.  There are also shorter and fewer commercial pods on streaming platforms, both of which we know (from numerous research studies) positively impacts ad recall.

So, while the advantage of streaming over linear TV ads might not be quite as extreme as that of live versus DVR viewing, it is certainly substantial.  I’d love to see such research done before this year’s upfront gets underway.  It seems like a prime project for Nielsen or ComScore, or one of the other emerging potential audience measurement competitors to tackle (or Netflix).  I think if positioned properly, it would enhance efforts to sell streaming ads without necessarily hurting anyone’s linear TV efforts.

TV Reviews: The Good, The Too Bad, and The Ugly (Mar. 2024)

This continues The Sternberg Report’s monthly series, where I review TV shows labeled the Good, the Too Bad, and the Ugly.  Every issue will not necessarily contain a show in each category, and some will have multiple shows in a single category.  This month’s report focuses exclusively on “the good.”

By way of definition, the Good is a show you should enjoy if you like that particular genre.  The Too Bad is a show that could have (or should have) been better – but doesn’t necessarily mean it’s bad.  The Ugly is a show that completely misses the mark or is just  an ill-conceived mess.

 There are some spoilers ahead…

The Good

All the Light We Cannot See (Netflix)

This four-part limited series based on Anthony Doerr’s 2014 novel of the same name is a shining achievement.  It tells the story of a blind French teenage girl, Marie-Laure LeBlanc, who has a radio broadcast in the Nazi-occupied French coastal town of St. Malo in 1944.  Working for the Resistance, She reads stories over the air containing secret codes that provide bombing targets for the Americans and British. 

Newcomer Aria Mia Lonberti, who is herself blind, gives an extraordinary performance as Marie-Laure, and more than holds her own with the superb supporting cast, which includes Mark Ruffalo and Hugh Laurie.

As the Americans get ever closer to liberating France, the town is under siege by an Allied bombing campaign.  The Germans are vowing to fight to the last man, while not allowing the trapped French citizens to leave.  In the midst of this destructive barrage, Marie-Laure is determined to continue her broadcasts, the Nazis are determined to find her, and most of the townspeople are determined to keep her location secret (at the risk of their own lives). 

Marie-Laure is also using her broadcast to communicate with and locate her missing father Daniel (Mark Rufalo), seen mostly in flashbacks, and her great uncle Etienne (Hugh Laurie), a World War I veteran with PTSD who is now a member of the French Resistance.

As the Nazis were invading France, Marie-Laure’s father smuggled many items out of The Museum of Natural History (where he worked), including an extremely valuable diamond known as the Sea of Flames.  This diamond is rumored to have supernatural properties, enabling its owners to live forever, but cursing their loved ones.  SS officer Reinhold Von Rumpel (Lars Eidinger), who is dying from some unspecified disease, will stop at nothing to find Marie, who he thinks was given the diamond by her father before he fled Paris.  (This “MacGuffin” is one of the few weak points of the series, but it does drive the plot forward.)

In a parallel storyline, a brilliant young German orphan, Werner Pfennig (Louis Hofmann), is separated from his sister (Luna Wedler) by a Nazi officer, and forced to join the Hitler youth because of his skills with radio technology.  He eventually becoming a soldier who specializes in detecting and tracking radio frequencies (so the SS can find and kill the broadcasters). 

The two storylines converge, as Reinhold Von Rumpel is now Werner’s commanding officer.  Werner and Marie-Laure grew up listening to the same radio frequency on which she is now broadcasting, where a calm-voiced host, known as the Professor, spoke to children about reason, science, philosophy, and light and darkness – with lines such as, “…the light lasts forever, but the darkness lasts not one second when you turn on the light.”  In a world filled with chaos and confusion, the Professor was a calming and hopeful voice for a generation of children throughout Europe.  Werner now secretly listens to Marie-Laure’s broadcast (listening to foreign broadcasts in Nazi Germany was punishable by death). 

Rumpel orders Werner to track down Marie-Laure, so he can kill her, and retrieve the Sea of Flames.  Werner tries to avoid revealing Marie-Laure’s location, until that becomes impossible.  He eventually risks his life in an attempt to save her.  She, in turn, tries to protect Werner when her Resistance group members want to put him on trial for war crimes and kill him.

I’ve read a number of inexplicably negative reviews by critics who have read the book and find the TV series wanting.  If like me, you haven’t read the book, ignore them.  The series is powerful, cinematic, thrilling, poignant, brilliantly written and acted, and simply riveting from start to finish (even though you may well guess how it ends).  Like the Sea of Flames at its core, All the Light We Cannot See is a rare gem.

 

Lessons in Chemistry (Apple TV+)

Based on the popular Bonnie Garmus novel of the same name, Brie Larson gives a captivating performance as Elizabeth Zott, who takes America by storm with her 1960s feminist (and chemistry-based) TV cooking show, Supper at Six, which inspires women across the country to challenge the prevalent notion of the time that a woman’s place in society was in the home.

This brilliantly written and acted series somehow manages to combine science, romance, tragedy, feminism,  single-parenthood, the civil rights movement, and workplace comedy (and drama) into a cohesive and compelling story (in just eight episodes).  It’s also beautifully shot, with the 1950s and ‘60s costumes and sets transporting the viewer to a different, if not simpler, time.

In the 1950s, Elizabeth Zott’s dream of becoming a scientist is held back by her gender and lack of a PhD – the only woman in the program, she had to drop out when she was sexually assaulted by her thesis advisor during her doctoral candidate exams (shown in flashbacks). 

Now a lab technician at the Hastings Research Institute, she is not allowed by her superiors to develop her own projects because she’s a woman (despite her being better than virtually any of the male chemists), and she can’t put her name as the lead chemist on her work because she doesn’t have a PhD.  She becomes friendly with the institute’s eccentric star researcher, Dr. Calvin Evans (Lewis Pullman), who recognizes her immense talent and supports her – but seems oblivious to the fact that her gender has held her back, as this conversation illustrates:

Elizabeth: “Of course, I would be much further along in my research if I wasn’t making excellent coffee for mediocre scientists.” 

Calvin: You’re on the verge of a major scientific breakthrough.  You need to talk to Donatti (the head of the Institute).” 

Elizabeth: I did, he said no.”

Calvin: “That doesn’t make any sense.  Why?” 

Elizabeth: “Sex discrimination.” 

Calvin: “What?” 

Elizabeth: “Well, also politics, favoritism, and general unfairness, but yes, mostly sex discrimination.” 

Calvin: “I don’t understand.  Why would anyone discriminate based on something as intellectually non-determinative as gender?”

As they start working closely together on independent projects, a romantic relationship develops, and she eventually moves in with him.  Calvin lives in Sugar Hill, a Black middle-class neighborhood, where they are now the only white couple (he seems not only oblivious to sexism, but racial inequality as well).  A side plot has the racist city council approving the Santa Monica Freeway plans to be built through Sugar Hill, which would demolish the neighborhood.  Elizabeth joins her neighbor, Harriet (Aja Naomi King), in fighting the losing battle.  One result is that Elizabeth becomes aware of systemic racism for the first time.

When tragedy strikes, Elizabeth no longer has Calvin’s reputation to protect her.  When she returns to the lab, she finds all their research has been removed – the higher-ups at Hastings are trying to recreate Elizabeth and Calvin’s research and claim it as their own.  Realizing she is pregnant (which leads to her being fired), but intent on continuing her research, Elizabeth impersonates Hastings’ administrator and orders the equipment she needs, to build a chemistry lab in her kitchen.

Elizabeth gives birth to a daughter, whom she names Madeline (“Mad” for short).  She earns money by secretly consulting for male chemists, none of whom are at her level of brilliance.  A time jump shows her meeting Walter (Kevin Sussman), the father of one of Mad’s classmates.  He’s a television producer, who, after sampling one of her scrumptious dishes (as Elizabeth says, “it’s just chemistry’), offers her a job hosting a cooking show.  She  initially turns him down, but when Mad’s teacher suggests Elizabeth enroll her in an advanced private school, the high cost leads her to accept Walter’s offer.

As Elizabeth tries to develop her own show, designed to empower and inspire women, she and Walter meet resistance from the misogynist station owner (Rainn Wilson).  The station and the show’s sponsors do not like the feminist aspects of her show, and are adamantly opposed to her taking a public pro-civil rights stance (she encourages her viewers to attend a protest organized by her friend, Harriet).  At one point he says to her, “Politics doesn’t belong in the kitchen.  A man wants his wife to make him a drink after a long day at work.”  Elizabeth replies, “What makes you think his day was longer than hers?  Why don’t you make the drink?”

She becomes such a hit with her female audience, that her newfound celebrity status gives her the power to do things her way (to a point).  Here’s how she opens her first show – “In my experience, people do not appreciate the work and sacrifice that goes into being a mother, a wife, a woman.  Well, I am not one of those people.  At the end of our time here together, we will have done something worth doing.  We will have made supper, and it will matter.”  Each episode of Supper at Six has her demonstrating how the use of chemistry and science helps prepare her wonderful meals.  And she always adds, “Children, set the table.  Your mother needs a moment to herself.”

There are a number of side plots and sub stories – flashbacks show Elizabeth’s gay brother committing suicide, largely due to the homophobia and abuse of their preacher father; Mad (Alice Halsey), with the help of a local Reverend (Patrick Walker), tries to find information about Calvin; Elizabeth gets involved in the growing civil rights movement, much to the chagrin of her show’s major sponsor – she gets Tampax as her new sponsor and talks about menstruation on air (not something that was done in the 1960s or ‘70s).  There’s also an episode narrated almost entirely by her dog, which is not nearly as cheesy as it could have been.

The ending, which includes another short time jump, is satisfying and hopeful.  And as is often the case with great characters, I’m left wanting to see what happens next.  I would love to see how Elizabeth and her daughter move through 1980s, ‘90s, and beyond.

The Good (broadcast)

Say what you will about the decline of broadcast and linear TV, many of the most popular shows on television start out there.  And CBS knows its audience, which tends to check out virtually any new series it airs.  The network often manages to put a new spin on the procedural drama, providing its long-time loyal (and older) viewers with easy-to-digest, low-risk comfort food. 

Originally scheduled for the fall, the writers’ and actors’ strikes caused these two new scripted dramas to debut in mid-season.

 

Elsbeth (CBS)

The character of quirky (but brilliant) attorney Elsbeth Tascioni (Carrie Preston) originated with recurring roles in CBS’s The Good Wife and later in  the Paramount+ spin-off, The Good Fight.  Now headlining her own show, Elsbeth moves from Chicago to start over in New York City, where she becomes a civilian and consultant to the NYPD – after the police department is sued for making unlawful arrests in a major case, Elsbeth is assigned as an outside observer by the Justice Department to monitor the NYPD for a year to make sure they do things by the book (but she also has a secret agenda revealed at the end of the first episode). 

Elsbeth’s unique investigative skills and unconventional style are instrumental in helping the NYPD solve crimes, much to the chagrin of police Captain Wagner (the always good Wendell Pierce), who is forced to work with her, and detective Smullen (Danny Mastrogiorgio), who is initially dismissive of Elsbeth, and finds her to be nothing more than a nuisance – until he starts to realize how adept she is at spotting clues that even he has missed.  Carra Paterson is officer Kanya Blanke, who is assigned by Captain Wagner to keep an eye on Elsbeth, but quickly sees how insightful she is, and becomes sort of a Watson to Elsbeth’s Sherlock. 

Somewhat reminiscent of Columbo (and Peacock’s wonderful Poker Face), Elsbeth manages to win the day often because both the police and the criminals constantly underestimate her. 

I’ve always enjoyed Elsbeth in small doses as a secondary character, but whether she can carry an hour-long series remains to be seen.  Much will depend on how the character is developed beneath the surface of her eccentricities – which was not required in her role as comic relief in the other shows.  But from what I’ve seen so far,  Elsbeth is witty and well-written, and most importantly, fun.  There’s no reason to expect this not to continue. 

As is often the case with crime-of-the-week comedy-dramas (see Poker Face), the series has an excellent cast of guest stars, including Stephen Moyer, Jane Krakowski, Jesse Tyler Ferguson, Blair Underwood, and Linda Lavin.

Tracker (CBS)

Based on Jeffery Deaver’s best-selling book, The Never Game, CBS manages yet another spin on the procedural drama.  Justin Hartley (This is Us) is Colter Shaw, a lone-wolf survivalist who travels across the country in his truck( with an Airstream trailer attached).  He refers to himself as a “rewardist,” which enables him to explain what he does in every episode when someone invariably asks “what’s that?”  If someone posts a reward for finding a missing person or object, or solving some mystery, he uses his extensive tracking skills to get the job done – as long as there’s a reward attached.  As he says in every episode, he only gets paid upon success.

Now, I’m certainly not saying this rises to the level of many other series I label as “good,” but if you’re a fan of CBS procedurals, and enjoy shows such as The Equalizer, you should find Tracker to be in the same mold.  It’s not designed to stay with you, and you may well forget what happens soon after you watch it, but that doesn’t mean you won’t like it – and it will probably enjoy significant repeat viewing if it’s on the schedule long enough for it to eventually be picked up by ION.

Colter had a traumatic childhood (seen through flashbacks) due to his paranoid and abusive survivalist father, who died under mysterious circumstances – Colter believes his brother, who he hasn’t spoken to since his father’s death, was responsible.

Each week finds Colter in a new locale, with a new mystery to solve, and facing a new batch of bad guys who don’t know who they’re messing with.

While Colter works alone in the field, he has a small team to assist him remotely.  Teddi and Velma (Robin Weigert and Abby McEnany), a wife-and-wife couple, provide him with potential clients and do basic research on cases he is working on.  Bobby (Erc Graise) is an expert hacker, who gets key information to help him each week.

While some critics have compared Tracker to Prime Video’s Jack Reacher, there is no similarity at all between the two shows or the characters (other than they’re both loners who travel around the country).  Bo award-worthy performances or brilliant writing here, just an entertaining distraction.

TV Reviews: The Good, The Too Bad, and The Ugly (Feb. 2024)

This is the start of a new monthly series, where I review new shows labeled the good, the too bad, and the ugly.  Actually, last month’s column, when I reviewed the three latest Marvel series, Loki season two (good), Secret Invasion (too bad), and Echo (ugly), can be considered the first one – I just hadn’t thought of this title yet.  

By way of definition, Good is a show that if you like this particular genre, you should enjoy, Too Bad is a show that could have (or should have) been good but somehow misses the mark, and Ugly is a show that is either an ill-conceived mess or has something about it that makes it unappealing.  Some of the shows I call “ugly” could also be placed in the “too bad” category, but then I wouldn’t have such a nifty title.  I think as these reviews take shape, you’ll start to see the distinction between “too bad” and “ugly.”

There are some spoilers ahead…

The Good

Griselda (Netflix)

Sofia Vergara gives a bravura performance in this heavily fictionalized miniseries about real-life drug lord, Griselda Blanco, referred to as “Godmother,” during what was known as the “cocaine cowboys” era of the late 1970s and ‘80s.  This quote appears on the screen leading into the first episode and sets the stage for what is to come – “The only man I was ever afraid of was a woman, Griselda Blanco.” – Pablo Escobar (drug kingpin). 

The series (in Spanish with subtitles or dubbed in English) chronicles Griselda’s stunning and violent rise from an abused former brothel worker married to a drug trafficker in Medellin Columbia, to one of the most feared members of the drug underworld, controlling the Miami cocaine trade.

As the drama gets underway, Griselda, having just killed her abusive husband, escapes to Miami with her three sons.  She’s taken in by her friend Carmen (Paulina Davila)  who also fled a husband in the drug trade, and now has a legitimate business as a travel agent.  Carmen tries to get Griselda to leave the past behind and start a new life, but Griselda wants to start her own business selling cocaine in the U.S., and gain enough wealth and power so her family is never in danger again.  She had stolen a kilo of cocaine from her husband, which she brought to Miami in one of her son’s suitcases, and hopes to sell for enough money to get started.

She is assisted by a bevy of friends, all former sex workers from Columbia, who come to Miami by the planeload (tickets supplied by her travel agent friend Carmen), their bras stuffed with cocaine.  

But Griselda is initially unable to sell her product because neither the Columbian cartels nor the Miami drug dealers want to do business with a woman, much less let her control any territory. 

But Griselda persists.  She identifies a previously untapped market – wealthy white suburbanites, and tries to persuade the Medellin cartel to supply her, and Miami drug traffickers to help distribute her product.  She manages to get one prominent drug dealer to partner with her, giving her the initial clout she needs to get started.  But while she is determined to succeed, the most powerful Miami dealers are equally determined to stop her.

From there, it’s a tumultuous decade, as she has to bargain with less competent men who don’t take her seriously, drug dealers who try to rip her off, and a powerful Columbia drug cartel that poses a threat not only to her business, but to her and her family’s lives.  By sheer will and overpowering personality, Griselda knocks down every obstacle thrown her way, often with extreme violence.  

Griselda recruits an army of "Marielitos” (refugees who fled communist Cuba during the Mariel Boatlift crisis) – she promises them a better life and respect, coming across more as a crusading politician than a ruthless gangster.  As she grows her own drug empire, and builds a reputation as a cunning and terrifying drug Queenpin, these Marielitos become her soldiers, guardians, and hitmen, helping her eliminate many of the drug lords who stand in her way (this period of the 1980s was known as the “Miami drug war”).

Griselda’s transformation from an apparent anti-hero single mom, rescuing other women from life in a brothel, and overcoming the testosterone-filled drug dealer world that sees her as little more than a nuisance, to becoming a murderous, power-hungry monster, is startling, and a testament Sofia Vergara’s acting chops – she’s unrecognizable from her role in the comedy Modern Family.

At the same time, a parallel storyline is unfolding, where another woman, June Hawkins (Juliana Aiden Martinzez), a Latina police officer, is investigating the murder of several top drug dealers.  She the first to figure out that there is a new player in town, a woman who might be more than just a “girlfriend.”  A female witness tells her, “she doesn’t walk like a girlfriend…she walks like a boss.” 

Like Griselda, June has to put up with the misogyny and sexism of her colleagues, who don’t take her seriously – expecting her to write analysis memos and make sure the coffee is hot, but leave the real investigating to men.  She gets involved in Griselda’s case basically because she’s the only one in the police station who speaks Spanish.  She soon becomes obsessed with bringing Griselda and her criminal empire to justice.  June becomes part of the newly formed CENTAC (Central Tactical Unit), a joint operation between the Miami police department and the DEA, which eventually compiles enough evidence to arrest Griselda.

At only six episodes, Griselda does not have the same logical narrative of USA Network’s superior female drug-lord crime drama, Queen of the South (also available on Netflix).  The downside of so few episodes is that time jumps are necessary to effectively tell a story that spans decades.  This makes Griselda’s transition from a largely sympathetic character into a vicious, paranoid, crack-addicted murderer, too sudden and jarring.  It could have benefited from a few additional episodes to better flesh out this transformation and show more of the dichotomy between Griselda and June  (on a broadcast TV procedural, this might have been June’s story). 

While the last couple of episodes don’t live up to the promise of the first four that this would be something substantially different from the typical rise-and-fall crime dramas we’ve seen in the past, it is still enjoyable, fast-paced, gorgeously filmed, well-acted, and binge-worthy.

The Too Bad

Mr. and Mrs. Smith (Prime Video)

Sometimes a series isn’t objectively bad in a vacuum, but simply falls short of expectations.  This is most common with reboots and TV shows based on popular movies.  You seldom have the original stars or movie-type budgets.  And while feature films are designed as one-shots, a series has to tell an ongoing story, usually with multiple plotlines.  Most TV series based on theatrical films can’t live up to the hype.  Such is the case with this spy comedy-drama inspired by the 2005 theatrical hit movie of the same name (with Angelina Jolie and Brad Pitt). 

For those who do not recall (or haven’t seen) the feature film, Brad Pitt and Angelina Joile portray married couple John and Jane Smith, highly trained operatives working for rival agencies.  Each believes the other to be an ordinary (and boring) citizen, until they are assigned to the same case and discover one another’s involvement.  Once their companies realize what’s going on, each is assigned to kill the other – until they discover the real plan is to kill them both.  Then they team up.  A battle royale ensues, action-packed from start to finish.  Unfortunately, this Mr. and Mrs. Smith has little in common with that one.

As the TV series opens, a married couple (Eiza Gonzalez and Alexander Skarsgard) seem to be vacationing in an idyllic setting.  They are clearly meant to resemble Angelina Jolie and Brad Pitt, so anyone who has seen the movie is expecting a straightforward continuation of the original.  It appears they are in hiding from the agencies who were trying to kill them, but when they sense armed intruders approaching, they decide to stay and fight (as they did in the movie).  Here, however, they are quickly (and way too easily) killed.  There is no explanation of who they are or who attacked them.

Then we switch to the real stars (Donald Glover and Maya Erskine), who are strangers, being interviewed separately online by some mysterious company – no person is seen, only questions popping up on the computer screen.  They get the job (after we discover other organizations, such as the CIA, won’t hire them).  They seem to have problems dealing with authority or working as part of a team, and she is determined to have sociopathic tendencies.  They are assigned to act as husband and wife, and are given various missions by their new employer. 

They received their invitations to be interviewed by email, get all their mission instructions by text, and initially have no idea who they are working for.  This stretches credulity to its limit, as do several other aspects of the show.  In the first episode Jane tells John she has no interest in any romance.  By the second episode they’re sleeping together.

One of the things that made the movie so riveting, was not just the sizzling chemistry of its two stars (who fell in love while filming), but their characters’ unwavering confidence in their own abilities and that they can overcome any obstacle, no matter the odds, even as their competing agencies assign them to kill one another (and eventually try to eliminate them both).

Part of the problem with the TV version is that if you are expecting the star swagger, non-stop action, and sexual tension of the original, none of that is present here.  The first few episodes have little action, and it never really ramps up.  None of their missions are very exciting (or even interesting).

Making it more frustrating is that because Donald Glover and Maya Erskine are so appealing, there’s some witty dialogue, the soundtrack is good, and it has a string of strong guest stars (Ron Perlman, John Turturro, Sarah Paulsen, Billy Campbell, Parker Posey) – you keep expecting something to happen, so you keep watching.  But nothing happens (until the final episode) and it doesn’t get any better.  They also try to include scenes that replicate specific situations from the movie, but they seem haphazardly thrown in to little effect.  It’s almost as if they couldn’t decide whether to make an action thriller or a rom-com, so it wound up being neither.

There’s a twist you’ll see coming from a mile away, and the season ends with a cliffhanger that doesn’t have much suspense.  After the season finale, my wife turned to me and said, “I’m glad that’s over.”  

If you are familiar with (and liked) the movie, you’ll probably be thinking it’s too bad, because with this cast it could have been a really good show.  If you haven’t seen the movie, you might think this is a decent distraction.  Check it out for yourself.

The Ugly

Feud: Capote Vs. The Swans (FX, Hulu)

The first season of Ryan Murphy’s Feud: Bette and Joan in 2017 focused on the rivalry between the great Hollywood actresses Bette Davis (Susan Sarandon) and Joan Crawford (Jessica Lange) during and after the production of their 1962 horror thriller, Whatever Happened to Baby Jane?  It’s well acted, and well written fun – high camp about high camp.  Unfortunately, this isn’t that.  The second installment of Feud, subtitled Capote Vs. The Swans, is neither well-written nor fun – and a mystery why anyone thought it would interest a large number of people. 

For those unfamiliar with Truman Capote (most people under 60?), he was an American novelist, screenwriter, playwright, and actor.  He wrote the novella Breakfast at Tiffany’s (1958), which was adapted into a major motion picture, and is most famous for his true crime novel, In Cold Blood (1966), also adapted into a feature film.  He was a darling of New York high society in the 1950s and ‘60s, and was a regular on the TV talk show circuit during the 1970s. 

The flamboyant, openly gay, often witty (and just as often, downright mean) Capote, became friends and confidantes to many wealthy socialites of the time – until he committed social suicide by betraying them in a 1975 Esquire article titled, La Cote Basque 1965 (named after the restaurant they all frequented), in which he exposed many of their secrets in a thinly fictionalized version of their lives.  It was a chapter in his never-finished novel, Answered Prayers. 

For those unfamiliar with “the Swans” (probably most people), it was the nickname Truman Capote gave to the his circle of female socialite friends – high-society members of the international set who often graced the covers of fashion magazines, the original influencers, many of whom vowed to ruin him as revenge for his article airing their dirty laundry.

 Being ostracized from New York society and abandoned by many of his former friends was the beginning of Capote’s downfall, as he spiraled further into alcoholism and self-destruction, which ultimately led to his death from liver failure in 1984 at the age of 59.

Even this fantastic ensemble cast can’t rise above the material – which alternates between boring and confusing (as it jumps back and forth in time), and lacks any dramatic or emotional depth.  None of the characters as portrayed here are even remotely likable, there’s no one to root for, and you’re left thinking what could have been a fun ride is just a jumbled mess.

The main cast includes, Tom Hollander as Truman Capote, Naomi Watts as Babe Paley, Diane Lane as Slim Keith,  Chloe Sevigny as C.Z. Guest, Demi Moore as Ann Woodward, Calista Flockhart as Lee Radziwill (Jackie Kennedy’s sister), Molly Ringwald as Joanne Carson (Johnny Carson’s second wife), Jessica Lange Capote’s mother, and the late Treat Williams (in his last performance) as CBS honcho Bill Paley,