This week the broadcast networks are announcing their primetime fall schedules for next season. In the days that follow, insiders at advertisers and their agencies, as well as TV critics and media analysts like me, will get to see all the pilots for their new fall TV shows. Predictions of hits and misses will commence soon thereafter.
In the 30 years that I’ve been analyzing TV programming, the idea of what makes a successful series has changed dramatically. In the 1980s, a 30 share among households was the benchmark of success for a new broadcast network series (something that today would be a truly remarkable number). During the 1990s, as cable began siphoning off broadcast viewers, a 20 share or a reasonably strong demographic performance (finishing first or second in its time period among adults 18-34 or 18-49) was considered successful. Throughout the 2000s, as DVR, multimedia device and streaming penetration started growing, definitions of success became more nebulous – finishing first or second in a time period, holding a solid portion of its lead-in audience, performing well among a certain demographic segment, doing well relative to the network’s other programming, receiving a strong bump in time-shifted viewing, and being popular on social media, all contribute to whether a new show is perceived as successful.
What to look at when evaluating the success potential of a particular pilot, however, has not changed much. But how long a new series is given to reach that potential has. Long gone are the days when a Cheers can debut as the lowest rated show on television, but end its final season 11 years later in the top 10. Or a Miami Vice can generate low ratings during its first season, and become a word-of-mouth hit over the summer. Or a Seinfeld can air for three years in mid-season before earning enough viewers to make the fall schedule. Or an Everybody Loves Raymond can start out with low ratings on Friday night, move to Monday, and become a major success. Part of the reason is how close the network standings are these days. In the 1970s, 1980s, and 1990s, one network was generally so far ahead or so far behind the pack, that giving a poor performer the network liked time to build an audience didn’t have much downside. Today, however, replacing two or three weak performers with others that do only slightly better can move a network up in the standings.
While the actual quality of the pilot is obviously important where it’s placed on the schedule has traditionally been just as significant. It is still a consideration, but much less so than in years past. Scheduling a new show opposite a blockbuster hit such as E.R., CSI, or Grey’s Anatomy, for example, was almost guaranteed to fail. A new show following Seinfeld or NCIS, on the other hand, was a good bet to draw a sizable audience. But today’s network world is different, and significantly more splintered. There is no NBC Thursday night “Must See TV” anymore, where a network can throw anything at 8:30 or 9:30 and get a solid rating. There are no 40- or even 30-share programs or time periods anymore. Having a strong lead-in, while still valuable, is not nearly as significant as it once was. A good show can succeed anywhere, and a bad show can flop anywhere.
So being able to correctly evaluate a pilot’s success potential is more important than ever. Here are some guidelines:
Shows make stars, stars don’t make shows. The failed TV series with major stars attached are too numerous to list here. In most cases, it’s the show that makes the star, not the other way around. Hit shows, ranging from comedies such as, Cheers, Friends, Seinfeld, Everybody Loves Raymond, The Big Bang Theory, and Modern Family, to broadcast dramas such as, E.R., The X-Files, Lost, Grey’s Anatomy, Empire, This is Us, The Good Doctor, and A Million Little Things, to cable dramas such as, The Shield, The Closer, Mad Men, Breaking Bad, Sons of Anarchy, The Walking Dead, and Game of Thrones, were cast largely with actors who were not well known to the general public at the time.
Some stars, such as Tom Selleck (Blue Bloods) or James Spader (The Blacklist), can bring long-time fans to a new series (and usually appeal to an older audience). But they are the exception.
Established stars (more commonly TV personalities) bring high viewer expectations, based on other popular roles, which are often hard to live up to. This is why stars from long-running hit series have trouble immediately succeeding with another new show. After Seinfeld, Julia Louis-Dreyfus had a failure in New Adventures of Old Christiine before finding major success in HBO’s Veep. The same is true for Designated Survivor’s Keifer Sutherland, who had a failed series after his iconic 24 run (Touch), which lasted one season. The CBS drama, Bull, starring Michael Weatherly (who left NCIS to star in the new show), is a notable exception.
Comedies should be funny because of the characters, not the plot. Did some specific event happen in the pilot to make it funny? Is it a romantic comedy where the two main characters meet in the pilot? Is it a “fish out of water” comedy where the main character returns home to her small town after years of having a career in the big city? Does some poor schlub somehow strike it rich or get some major promotion at work? Does someone not ready for a family inherit his or her sister’s kids? You get the idea. By the second episode, these plot-driven comedy pilots often become substantially different shows. So even if the pilot is hilarious, it provides little indication of whether it can be maintained on a weekly basis.
A couple of years ago, I cited ABC’s comedy, The Mayor (which co-starred Lea Michele, who had become a star on Glee) as one of the best comedy pilots, but also pointed out that while the events that led up to an aspiring rap singer becoming mayor was both timely and funny, by episode two it would be a different show. I thought its success would depend on whether they could maintain the comedy in this new situation week after week (they couldn’t). I also thought The Good Place had similar potential, and they far exceeded my expectations.
Some of the most successful, long-running comedies on TV had pilots that I can’t recall at all. A few that come to mind are, The Cosby Show, Golden Girls, Cheers, Roseanne, Home Improvement, 30 Rock, Modern Family, and The Big Bang Theory. They were funny because the characters were funny and compatible with one another, not because of anything that happened in the pilot. The casts had strong chemistry, and people wanted to see them interact week after week irrespective of any storylines or plot devices.
What will a drama’s third episode look like? Is it a good one-time movie, or will it work as a weekly series?
Some of the things you look at to predict comedy success, also apply to dramas. Are there specific events or guest stars in the pilot that drive the story but won’t exist by the second episode?
Medical, police, or legal dramas can seem compelling based solely on the case covered in the pilot episode. Or, the pilot could miss the mark, but the series gets better over time. Of course, if the pilot misses the mark these days, it usually isn’t given enough time to get better. We need to consider the potential strengths and charisma of the lead characters and ongoing themes of the series beyond the pilot’s script. I pegged ABC’s The Good Doctor as one of the best medical drama pilots I had ever seen. It was able to maintain the quality of the pilot, and is now one of the highest rated shows on television. I also said ABC’s For the People was one of the best legal drama pilots I had ever seen. Despite maintaining the quality from week-to-week it couldn’t find enough viewers and was just canceled. But I was reasonably sure The Good Doctor would have broader appeal.
For procedural dramas, does the cast gel and are there enough humorous elements that people will want to tune in to slight variations of the same situation week after week. These can be telling when you compare shows in the same genre – the differences between the excellent Criminal Minds and the failed Criminal Minds Beyond Borders, or the original CSI, and the short-lived CSI Cyber, are dramatic (and demonstrate the importance of good casting). All of the NCIS’s, on the other hand, managed both the casting and the mixing of drama and humor quite well, and all are hits.
Dramas that focus almost exclusively on the characters’ work lives tend to appeal to an older audience. Those that also focus on their personal (i.e., sex) lives tend to skew younger.
It typically takes three or four episodes before a drama settles in to its regular audience level. CBS dramas tend to get high viewer sampling – its audience base is more network-loyal than most broadcast or cable networks and tend to check out any new procedural, so it sometimes takes a bit longer for CBS shows to hit their regular performance level.
Broadcast TV series based on movies generally don’t work. There are a few reasons for this. Successful movies bring high expectations, which are seldom met. There are also generally lesser “stars” associated with the TV show than were in the movie. Movies are typically designed as a single two-hour contained event, not as an ongoing series (unless it’s Marvel, DC, or one of the other action/sci-fi franchises out there).
Between 1985 and 2018, the broadcast networks aired 41 television series based on movies. Only six lasted three seasons or more – In The Heat of the Night (1988-94), Clueless (1996-99), Buffy the Vampire Slayer (1997-2003), Friday Night Lights (2006-2011), Parenthood (2010-2015), and Nikita (2010-13). That’s a 15% success rate, about half that of the average network new series.
In 2016/17 and 2017/18, there were an unprecedented seven new series based on theatrical movies. Only one, Lethal Weapon, was even moderately successful (and was just canceled – more because of on-set turmoil than low ratings). Time After Time, The Exorcist, Frequency, Training Day, and Taken did not last long. There were no series based on movies this season.
TV reboots typically don’t work – unless they do. There have been many reboots and remakes of successful (and not so successful) TV shows over the years. Both the positives and negatives are fairly obvious. Reboots are pre-sold concepts that don’t require the same level of promotional weight to generate awareness. They also tend to receive a fair amount of pre-season buzz. At the very least, they tend to get viewer sampling, so if they’re good, they have a better than average chance to succeed. On the down side, they tend to carry high expectations, which are often hard to meet.
Netflix started the new trend of reboots with Fuller House and One Day at a Time. The latter was canceled after two seasons, but is currently looking for another home. CBS All Access reportedly wanted it, but Netflix won’t allow it to go to a competitive streaming service, insisting it can only go to a linear network.
Popular shows that come back with the original casts can do quite well (see Dallas, The X-Files, and Roseanne). Murphy Brown, on the other hand, didn’t perform as well and was canceled after a single season. Will & Grace started out OK, but then declined (although NBC renewed it for some reason). Part of the problem with these types of shows is that younger viewers are often unfamiliar with the series and older viewers, who liked the original are often disappointed with the new version.
Reboots with new casts (e.g., Bionic Woman, Ironside, Dragnet, Charlie’s Angels, Melrose Place, 90210, The Odd Couple,) usually can’t match the original and often don’t last long – although there have been some notable exceptions). Battlestar Galactica, for example, became iconic in its own right, far surpassing the impact of the original series. Hawaii Five-0 and MacGyver are doing just fine. Magnum PI is not as strong, but has been renewed (despite having virtually identical ratings to the canceled Murphy Brown).
So how do you know if a reboot with a new cast will work? You don’t. You need to evaluate them just as you would any other series in that genre, at the same time realizing that the pilot will probably get a larger viewer sampling than it otherwise might.
Pilots often look better in a conference room, online, or on DVD than they will in your regular viewing environment. When I watch network pilots it is typically online or on DVDs the networks send me. I watch them at my leisure, with no commercials and no distractions. When the show finally airs on TV, of course, it will be following some other program, opposite some other programs, while I’m simultaneously doing some other activity. Despite the high degree of DVR time-shifting, scheduling and the competitive landscape are still important to a new show’s success.
This is one of the major reasons to take what a network says about how well a pilot tested with a grain of salt. They are most often tested in laboratory, not real-life settings. Let’s always remember that Seinfeld was NBC’s worst testing comedy pilot ever.
Don’t buy the buzz. I’m going to write a separate analysis in September about how much impact pre-season buzz has on whether or not a new series becomes successful. That report will include the shows that are getting the most pre-season buzz this year.
Much of the buzz these days comes from social media and comic-cons, and is often heavily skewed toward sci-fi series or shows with former sci-fi stars attached.
Most pre-season buzz has traditionally come from people who have not seen the pilot and don’t know if the show is actually any good (although today, the trailer is generally available online well before the show’s fall debut). People who discuss new shows online are not necessarily going to watch them on television – particularly if the series is scheduled opposite one of their favorites. This remains true even in today’s DVR, streaming video, time-shifted world. Social media buzz often provides a good indication of whether a series is poised to grow or decline after it’s already on the air, but has little impact before the season begins.
Three years ago, This is Us was a significant exception. It received a strong amount of positive pre-season buzz (and was one of the most viewed trailers online). The chatter, however, was not primarily about the genre or any of its stars. It was simply that it was a good show – well-written, diverse, and something you can watch with your whole family. On the other hand, the following season’s drama hit, The Good Doctor, did not receive nearly as much pre-season buzz. A future issue of The Sternberg Report will look specifically at new series that have been helped by pre-season buzz, and what, if anything, they have in common.
Comments