The Sternberg Report

Making the Academy Awards More Viewer and Advertiser Friendly (4/22)

As an avid movie fan and reasonably heavy moviegoer (pre-pandemic), I look forward to watching the Academy Awards every year.  And every year I find myself asking the same question: “Is it always this boring?”  I invariably find myself answering, “yes” (“the slap” notwithstanding).  And every year I forget the previous year’s telecast and look forward to watching the show all over again. 

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 settings.  There was no social media, and people generally did not see behind the curtain (and celebrities didn’t communicate with their fan bases on Twitter or Instagram).  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.”  It’s no coincidence that over the past 20 years the median age of the broadcast has gotten older by roughly 20 years – they’re not attracting new generations of viewers, and the audience is aging along with the show.

There’s been a lot of 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.  They proceeded without a host, and decided to do so again in 2020.  The pandemic restrictions in 2021 made a host irrelevant.  This year, hosts returned, as Wanda Sykes, Amy Schumer, and Regina Hall shared the reins.  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 bring back Johnny Carson or a young Billy Crystal, any host will have little to do with whether the show does better or worse in terms of Nielsen ratings.

Much was made this year about how eight “less significant” (to viewers) awards were given out before the Oscars telecast, and then edited for airing during the show.  This was supposedly to shorten the broadcast, provide more time for other bits, and possibly increase ratings.  To this viewer, it seemed as though all they did was cut some time that showed the winners walking to the stage – a very small impact on the home viewer for all the controversary and justifiably hurt feelings it caused.

That, of course, had little to do with improving either the broadcast or the show’s ratings.  The problem is not who the host is or whether the show runs 3 ½ or 4 hours.  The main problem is with the structure of the show itself.  The Academy Awards broadcast is geared toward Hollywood insiders rather than the television viewer.  There’s no reason it can’t do both.

Some relatively simple changes could revitalize the show, make it more viewer and advertiser friendly, and perhaps stall or reverse the trend that saw its median age rise from 40 to nearly 60 during the past 20 years.

Some have complained about the length of the telecast but that is only an issue because of how the show is presented.  The show is generally about three-and-a-half hours long, and they still don’t give out the biggest awards until after primetime.

In this year’s award ceremony, while the Supporting Actress award was presented at around 8:20 pm, it took another hour before they got to Supporting Actor.  The other awards presented between 8:30 and 10:55, during the bulk of primetime, when television usage is at its peak, were for sound, cinematography, documentary short subject, visual effects, animated feature film, animated short film.  international feature film, live action short film, costume design, original screenplay, adapted screen play, original score, film editing, documentary, and original song.

Now, I’m not suggesting giving short-shrift to any of these important awards or not showing them live; simply spreading them out differently so they surround what most viewers at home consider the major awards.  The Oscar for Director, for example, was presented at 10:55 pm (EST).  The award for Best Actor was at around 11:10 pm, Best Actress was at about 11:25 pm, and Best Picture wasn’t until 11:30 pm.  Anyone who pays attention knows that if they tune in after 11pm, they can still catch the three or four biggest awards.

What a lot of people don’t realize, is that what should be the highest rated portion of the show is not even measured by Nielsen.  The ratings company only measures national telecasts through the last national commercials (the post-primetime portion of the broadcast typically contains only local commercials).

There was a time when it was logical to hold back the major awards as a way to keep viewers tuned in.   Thirty years ago, there were basically only three broadcast networks, much fewer cable networks, no streaming options, no social media, and very little original programming opposite the Academy Awards.  But in today’s media world, with so many other outlets competing for viewers’ time, it is counter-productive to wait until after primetime to present the most important awards.      

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

I suggest that if they spread out the awards by giving out the six acting/directing/picture awards every 30 minutes or so, ratings for the entire broadcast would be significantly higher.  For example, present Supporting Actress at 8:15, Supporting Actor at 8:45, Director at 9:15, Actor at 9:45, Actress at 10:15, and Best Picture at 10:45.  Schedule everything else to fit into these parameters, and boom, the show is finished by 11pm – and even if it still runs long, ratings will not be negatively affected.

There are other ways to make the broadcast more viewer and advertiser friendly.

One solution would be to have a separate hour-long show from 7-8:30pm for these “other” awards (with a different host). Then they can have longer clips of how costume design, makeup, production design, sound mixing, etc., are done, which may actually be interesting to a lot of people.

The main awards show can then be from 8:30-11:30pm.  In the main awards show I would include Best Picture and Director, the four acting awards, as well as Original and Adapted Screenplay and Original Song.

Here are some suggestions on the flow of the main show.

Present one of the four major awards every 30 minutes – Best Director at 9:00, Best Actor at 9:30. Best Actress at 10:00, and Best Picture at 10:30.  Precede the award presentation 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, for Best Director, Actor, Actress, and Picture 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 would vote only for the nominated movies – this year’s attempt at Twitter voting for some made-up categories was awkward, and didn’t seem to belong here.

If these suggestions are implemented, 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, win, win, win, win, win.

Some Pre-Upfront Questions (and maybe some answers) (3/22)

Until the early 2000s, changes to the media landscape – what was available to view and how it could be viewed – were gradual.  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. 

Over the past 20 years, however, the media environment has been in a constant state of change.  How people use and relate to media, video, and individual television shows is largely dependent on the ever-expanding array of media devices and subscription video platforms they can access.  While most people eventually got the same access to almost everything (pre-2005), this is no longer the case.  Developing national television samples that adequately represent the country at large has become increasingly difficult.

The way broadcast networks, once the only national television presence, have dealt with threats to their dominance hasn’t really changed much over the years – they’ve traditionally tended to think of only one another as their real competition.  As a result, their combined audiences have continued to erode at an unnecessarily rapid pace.

With all that said, here are some related questions I have leading into the upfront season.

Why do the broadcast networks promote their competitors but not one another?

Yes, I know I’ve been writing about this for years, but I’ve yet to receive an answer that makes sense.  Whenever I ask network executives for their rationale, I get responses like, “Why would we ever help our competition?,” “Our affiliates wouldn’t like it” (a real 1980s response), “It’s an ego thing,” or “I don’t know.”  The answer should be, “Because we’ve been committing promotional malpractice, we’ve decided to change this absurd policy immediately.  We realize it’s the best way to maximize viewer sampling and improve our overall ratings.”

I do actually understand how this reasoning originated.  In the beginning, there were only three broadcast networks competing for national advertising dollars.  With no competitors other than themselves, they fought fiercely for every rating point, and would never think of helping one another.  Then, in the late 1980s and early 1990s, as more and more people started to get various cable networks, the term “network erosion” entered the media lexicon.  But it wasn’t until the early 2000s, when ad-supported cable networks started airing original scripted series, that cross-promotion became a key element in cable’s growth (at the expense of the broadcast networks). 

Cable networks, never encumbered by the tradition of ruling the airwaves, quickly understood the best way to grow their audience was to appeal to those who were watching similar shows on other networks.  They also realized that it didn’t really hurt them if other cable networks did the same.  The more cable networks that grew viewers, the more advertising dollars would shift from broadcast to cable, and everyone would eventually benefit – which is exactly what happened.

There are several cable networks that air some of my favorite scripted series, but I don’t watch much of their other programming.  I could name more than a dozen shows off the top of my head that I never would have started watching had I not seen it promoted on a different network.  This is also true for when those shows return mid-year for a new season – I would not have realized, for example, that Killing Eve (one of my favorite shows) had recently returned for its final season had I not seen it promoted on another network.

There’s a reason streaming services are spending so much money advertising on linear television.  They know that the best way to get viewers and new subscribers is to advertise where the most viewers still congregate.  How else would I have known two of my favorite streaming series, Ozark (Netflix) and The Marvelous Mrs. Maisel (Prime Video) had recently returned?  Yet while the broadcast networks constantly sell broadcast television to advertisers as the best place to reach large chunks of target viewers at one time, they still don’t act that way it when it comes to their own product.

Viewers don’t think in terms of ABC vs. CBS vs. NBC vs. FOX anymore.  Only network executives still think that way.  

The broadcast networks continue to stubbornly refuse to promote one another’s new shows, while gladly accepting ads from their real competitors – namely premium cable networks and streaming services.  The idea that a new show produced by CBS can’t be promoted on CBS because it airs on ABC, is, to say the least, ludicrous.  Another point that illustrates how absurd this all is – the  broadcast networks accepted ads for most streaming services, but not for CBS All Access, for no reason I can find other than it had “CBS” in its name.  As soon as it rebranded itself as Paramount+, the other broadcast networks started happily taking its ads (as I had predicted thy would).

In this year’s Super Bowl on NBC, there were 10 promos for NBC shows and 8 for its steaming service, Peacock.  But there were also 2 ads for Disney+, 2 for Prime Video, 1 for Netflix, 1 for HBO Max, 1 for HBO, and 1 for AMC+.  There were none for ABC, CBS, Fox, or CW.

In what other business does a company refuse to advertise its product to the largest group of readily available customers?  These aren’t just random consumers the broadcast networks are choosing not to pursue.  These are their prime prospects, whom the networks know are already watching similar programming, who are at that moment most receptive toward receiving a message about other TV shows.  They are already watching and engaged with the exact type of program the networks are trying to promote.  I’m not sure how to say it any more plainly.

It is essential for the broadcast networks to finally understand that keeping viewers tuned to any broadcast network is the best way to keep them in the broadcast arena and get them to switch over to their programming.  A broadcast hit on one network actually does benefit all networks – it reminds the industry and the press that except for the occasional cable blockbuster (such as The Walking Dead or Yellowstone), nothing else is capable of delivering as large an audience at one time as a successful broadcast series.  Yet the broadcast network seem perfectly willing to encourage their viewers to seek out other platforms. 

Why are rankings more important than ratings?

The networks (and the press) have long considered program rankings far more important than actual ratings.  This is likely another reason the broadcast networks still refuse to cross-promote one another – they’d rather they all decline and the other networks decline more, than they all grow, but the other networks grow more.

I still cringe when I see an article that talks about how well a program performed, winning its time period with a 0.5 rating among Adults 18-49 (it seldom mentions that the 4^th place network got a 0.35 rating).  The headline here should be, “If a 0.5 rating is good enough to win the time slot, the broadcast networks have big problems,” or, “If less than two-tenths of a rating point separates first and fourth place, who cares who’s #1?”

The upfront is designed to reward rankings over ratings, and enables the networks to continually raise prices for shrinking audiences.  I led research departments at major ad agency groups for more than 30 years, and while media buyers would often ask for program or network ranking reports, I can’t recall many instances where anyone asked if a show or network’s actual ratings were up or down from the previous season.  If I was putting together a ranker chart for a presentation, I was never asked to include the actual ratings (in fact, I was usually asked not to).

For the larger cable networks, ranking among the top 10 matters more than growing their audience.  I worked at a cable network where even though our average rating was up from the previous year, we slipped from 10^th to 11^th place among adults 25-54.  This was considered a disaster.  The fact that only three-tenths of a rating point separated the 3^rd and 20^th place cable networks was not relevant.  The following season, our average rating was unchanged, but we had managed to climb to 8^th place (because other networks declined).  Celebration time. 

Focusing on rankings, and hurting other networks at the expense of your own audience growth, is short-term thinking that leads to long-term decline.  Imagine how the industry (and press) would react if each broadcast network increased its audience next season.  The only reason it won’t happen is because the networks don’t want it to.

What audience measurement currency should be used this upfront?

The Video Advertising Bureau (VAB), the industry trade group that represents both broadcast and cable networks, is demanding that Nielsen stop releasing its new “Big Data” monthly audience reports, which include set-top-box data and smart TV Automated Content Recognition (ACR) data to complement Nielsen’s traditional age/sex panel data.  The VAB cites initial data provided to the industry as “rife with illogical audience patterns and contradictions, that render it currently unusable.”  They want any new data that could be used in pricing advertising inventory held back until after the upfront, and want Nielsen to explain how the data was created.  After the upfront, the industry can examine the data.  The VAB also believes that offering two different measures leading into upfront negotiations will just serve to create confusion.

Nielsen responded that it was disappointed the VAB chose to raise its concerns in the press, and that Nielsen has been in regular contact with its clients to review the audience methodology.  Nielsen went on to say “…a trade group associated with traditional TV channels is an incomplete and biased subset of the video marketplace.  We prefer to work openly with the entire industry to get the best measurement solution.  Furthermore, based on client feedback across buyers and sellers we made the decision to allow either data set to be used for trading in the fall.”

One key question should be, do industry expectations of what audience data “should” look like matter?  The answer if you want accuracy is no.  But since accuracy has never been as important to the buyers and sellers of commercial time as stability (without which the industry will have trouble functioning), the practical answer is yes. 

This is one reason no new measurement service has been able to unseat Nielsen as national industry currency, nor is any likely to.  The industry relies on trending data and a degree of stability,  A new system that generates substantially different data from Nielsen is scary.  Since virtually no one has ever really tried to understand how accurate Nielsen ratings are, no one wants to deal with trying to figure out if a new system that reports significantly different data is actually more accurate.  And if it provides essentially the same data, what’s the point in switching away from the only company with 50 years of experience and some of the best researchers in the business?

While much of the industry pretends to want the most accurate measurement possible, the reality is that sellers want higher ratings and buyers want stability.

I’ve been saying for a few years now that so-called demographic cohorts, the foundation of Nielsen audience samples, no longer necessarily have similar viewing habits or even access to the same viewing options – particularly when it comes to streaming services, DVRs, and multi-media devices.  This makes current sampling procedures woefully inadequate in projecting total U.S. television viewing.

I don’t know about you, but my viewing is not nearly as stable and predictable as it was 10 years ago.  I have a DVR and subscribe to multiple streaming services.  When Netflix recently dropped the 4^th season of Ozark, my linear TV viewing changed dramatically for a week or so as my wife and I watched all seven episodes and then caught up on the regular shows we missed via DVR (we forgot to record one HBO show, so we caught up with that one on HBO Max).  This happens whenever a streaming services drops one of our favorite series – our viewing pattern changes, even if they drop just one episode a week rather than a full season.  Often times we will wait until two or three episodes are available so we can watch more than one at a time.

Here’s my problem with both the VAB and Nielsen perspectives.  There is no question that census-level “big data” is more accurate than a relatively small national sample used in Nielsen’s panel.  There is also no question that the panel will provide more stable and “logical” data.  But Nielsen always likes to have it both ways.  It positions itself as the arbiter of good research when it suits its needs, and then as simply a data provider when it suits other needs.  By saying it is merely providing data and it’s up to buyers and sellers to decide which to use, it is in fact putting its stamp of approval on both.  In reality, one is better and should be used as marketplace currency.  Until both buyers and sellers can agree on which is “best,” it is probably a good idea to hold off until after this year’s upfront, and then spend the next few months examining and validating the new data.

It should be noted that anytime you dramatically improve audience measurement, the previously highest rated networks will tend to decline and the lower rated ones will tend to increase.  When Nielsen switched for the old meter/diary measurement to people meters, there were some significant changes in reported viewing patterns – no one thought they were “illogical” because we all understood it to be a vast improvement in measurement methodology.  Of course, at the time, there were limited viewing options, and  it had been long assumed that the old diary system resulted in human bias that cause the most popular TV shows, and those that aired multiple times a week in syndication to be overstated.  In today’s much more splintered video environment, with many more cable networks, numerous streaming services, and multiple viewing platforms, no one knows how a vastly improved audience measurement methodology will or “should” impact reported viewing.

Should Disney+ and Netflix offer lower-priced advertising tiers?

Yes.

Is it better for a streaming service to drop an entire season at once

or on a weekly episode basis?

I’ve always felt as though companies that owned both linear TV networks and streaming services tended to drop streaming series episodes once-a-week because they don’t want their network audience to become dependent on bingeing, but rather continue to expect new weekly episodes, which has always been the ad-supported linear network model.  This accounts for how Disney+, Hulu, HBO Max, Paramount+, and Peacock schedule most of their original series.  Apple TV+ probably does the same because it does not have the extensive libraries or acquired programming the others have stockpiled, so it benefits them to give viewers a reason to come back every week.  And I’m sure that all believe they will delay subscriber churn if viewers need to return every week for two or three months to watch one of their favorite shows (instead of watching 10-13 episodes in less than a week).

Netflix, of course, has always dropped entire seasons at once and couldn’t care less about the linear network model.  It also has so much more original content than any other streaming service that it doesn’t need any individual show to keep viewers coming back.  Amazon Prime Video used to drop entire seasons, but recently moved toward dropping a couple of episodes and then one per week.  This could be because they are not producing the same quantity of programming as in the past, and are putting on more “big event” series such as The Wheel of Time and the upcoming The Lord of the Rings: The Rings of Power.

There are a number of ways Netflix benefits from dropping full seasons of series.  When they drop an even moderately popular series, it will tend to show up on Nielsen’s weekly list of most viewed streaming shows.  And with the streaming service and the press reporting meaningless data such as billions of minutes viewed, Netflix’s full seasons have a tremendous advantage over other streamers’ once-a-week episodes.  Given the PR value of dropping entire seasons at once, which does lead to increased subscribers (who want to watch the “most popular” shows), I only see upside for everyone doing so – at least for some of their key shows.

I know with my own viewing habits, I never remember which day of the week a given streaming show debuts, so I tend to forget about a weekly show, and then wind up going back to it after two or three more episodes are available.

Squid Game Yes, Squid Game No - Discuss (11/21)

Netflix claims this South Korean survival drama is its most watched new series ever – the latest worldwide phenomenon in a string of major global hits, which include,  Money Heist (Spain), Lupin (France), Elite (Spain), Dark (Germany), Fauda (Israel), Ragnarok (Norway), Barbarians (Germany), Bordertown (Finland), and Kingdom (South Korea), among others.  Whether or not Squid Game is really Netflix’s most viewed series launch (the streamer is not exactly transparent with its audience metrics, and Nielsen streaming data is extremely limited), there’s no question that it’s one of the buzziest (and most controversial) shows in a long time.

Whether you see Squid Game as an insightful social commentary on capitalism and income inequality or simply as a brutally violent exercise with no other purpose than to be brutally violent, your reaction is valid and defensible.  I’d like to say it’s the former, because that makes me feel better about finding the series so entertaining – but I keep going back and forth.

            Here’s a not-so-brief synopsis.  Spoilers ahead…

In an over-sized, candy-colored playground, 456 desperate people who are drowning in debt are pitted against one another for a chance to win a life-changing amount of money.  They have to compete in a series of childhood games, sometimes competing individually, and sometimes as part of teams.  The catch is that all the losers through the six-rounds of contests are immediately gunned down by a group of masked and costumed guards.

Those who run the game do not force anyone to participate.  They invite people who they know have insurmountable debt and very few choices in life, with the caveat that once they accept, they cannot leave until the tournament is over (if they survive), or if a majority of players agree to end the game (and forfeit the prize money).  Once they accept, they are picked up by vans, gassed into unconsciousness, and driven to a secret location, where they awaken in a dormitory setting wearing green, numbered track suits.  A giant grid displays pictures of each participant along with their number.  The guards, who are  donned in pink jumpsuits, keep constant watch over the contestants.  The games are run by someone called the Front Man (Lee Byung-hun) in a black mask and uniform.

As the games unfold we are gradually introduced to the main characters and discover their motivations for playing.  Despite being from vastly different backgrounds, most have some basic things in common – they are broke and desperate for money or have insurmountable debt, they have either creditors, gangsters, or the police closing in on them, and there is virtually no hope of their situations getting better anytime soon.

You will cheer on some players while despising others, but all have an equal chance of being the next to be killed.  The main characters are no more safe than the many background characters, whose stories we never hear.  This is, of course, different from most TV shows, where you can be reasonably sure that the main characters will not be abruptly killed off.  It adds to the anxiety and unpredictability of the series.

A number of interesting philosophical questions arise as the games continue and a smaller and smaller group gets closer to actually winning the cash prize and instantly becoming wealthy.  Can you remain good in a system that is essentially corrupt?  Are you a better person for feeling guilty about betraying someone than if it doesn’t bother you at all?  Can one person change the system or will the system inevitably change every individual?

The acting is top notch.  Here are the main players: 

Lee Jung-jae (#456) is Seong Gi-hun, a divorced chauffeur and gambling addict, who is deeply indebted to some dangerous loan sharks.  He lives with his sick mother (who has no health insurance), and is estranged from his ex-wife and young daughter.  He is the first character we meet (before the games begin) and much of the series is seen through his eyes.

Park Hae-soo (#218) plays Seong Gi-hun’s childhood friend and classmate, Cho Sang-woo, a former top investment broker, who is wanted by the police for stealing money from his clients.  He also has massive personal debts from bad investments.  He is the smartest player and often comes up with winning strategies.  He went to SMU business school, and Gi-hun has always looked up to him.

Yeong-su (#001) is Oh Il-nam, an elderly man with a brain tumor, who would rather play the game than just wait to die on the outside.  He is more formidable than he seems. 

Jung Ho-yeon (#067) is Kang Sae-byeok, a North Korean defector hoping to get enough money to bring her parents across the border and get her little brother out of an orphanage.  She is also a pick-pocket who stole Gi-hun’s money after he won a bundle at the track. 

Heo Sung-tae (#101) is Jang Deok-su, a gangster with huge gambling debts, who has stolen money from his mob boss and is on the run.  He is mean and dangerous.

Anuparn Tripathi (#199) is a migrant worker from Pakistan who needs to provide for his young family after attacking and injuring his boss for refusing to pay his wages.  He is one of the physically strongest of all the players. 

Kim Joo-ryoung (#212) is a loud and manipulative con-woman whose reasons for entering the game are unclear (but she’s probably in debt and on the run from someone).

Wi Ha-joon is a police officer who infiltrates the game by impersonating a guard so he can find his missing brother.

More than half the competitors are eliminated during the first game – a surreal version of “Red Light, Green Light,” in which those who move even slightly after “Red Light” is announced by a giant little girl doll/robot (with a rotating head and eyes that scan the arena for any movement) are shot.

Each time a contestant is eliminated, his or her image in blinked out on the giant screen, and more money is added to the pot – which hangs from the ceiling as a constant reminder of how much money they can win (it eventually grows to 45.6 billion won, or roughly $38 million).

After the first game, where 255 of the 456 contestants are eliminated, the remaining players take a vote to end the game (which passes by a single vote).  They are deposited back into their normal lives – which are so miserable that 187 of the 201 remaining players decide to return to the game.

The second game involves cutting out one of five shapes (circle, square, triangle, star, or umbrella) embedded in a piece of candy without breaking it – relatively easy if you picked the square, not so easy if you picked the umbrella.  Players had to select a shape before they knew what the game entailed.  Anyone who doesn’t have a completely intact shape or doesn’t finish by the 10-minute time limit is immediately shot.  Seventy-nine more players are eliminated during this game. 

One player attacks a guard and forces him to remove his mask – the guard is killed by the Front Man because his identity was revealed.  The player commits suicide rather than having the guards shoot him.  During a break, the gangster (#101) beats another player to death with no consequences.  Players realize that if they kill other players between games, their odds of winning improve.  This adds a whole new element to the proceedings, as groups and alliances are formed. 

When Seong Gi-hun asks Kang Sae-byeok to join his team so they can protect one another between games, she responds, “I don’t trust people.”  He answers, “You don’t trust people because you can, you trust people because you have to.”  This is one of the ongoing themes – who should you trust and should you consider betraying them to save yourself?  During the night, when the lights are turned off, various players attack one another.  More than 20 additional players are eliminated.

One of the players (Yoo Sung-joo) is a doctor who has secretly been working with some corrupt guards to traffic the organs of dead players.  In return, they give him advance information on what the next game will be.  When the Front Man discovers what’s going on, he is not concerned with the selling of the organs, but rather the idea that any player would receive an unfair advantage.  He explains that this is the one place in their lives where every player has equality regardless of who they are or where they come from.  Everyone competes on equal footing.  The doctor and corrupt guards are killed and their bodies displayed out in the open for all remaining players to see.

The players are required to form teams of 10 for the third game, which they discover after the teams are selected will be tug of war – with each losing team falling into a chasm to their deaths below.  Stronger teams with all men seem to have a big advantage.  The old man (#001) and the smart one (#218) come up with strategies to help their group, which includes three women, defeat physically stronger teams.  Their main rival group, led by the gangster (#101), also wins.

For the fourth game, each player selects a partner who they assume will be their teammate.  But instead, after the players have paired up, they are told that they will be competing against one another (and one person from each pair will be eliminated).  They are each given a bag of 10 marbles and told they can make up their own game.  The one who winds up with all the marbles will be the winner.  Seong Gi-hun and Cho Sang-woo, friends who grew up playing the Squid Game together, have vastly different approaches.  Seong is mostly ruled by his emotions, while Cho sees everything as a solvable intellectual exercise.  Yet both arrive at the conclusion at the same time that the only way to win this game is to betray their friend and partner (rather than compete fairly and risk losing).  This wracks Gi-hun with guilt, while Sang-woo seems fine with his own actions.  After this game, there are only 16 players left.

For the fifth game, the players are required to walk across a bridge made up of glass panels.  Half the panels are tempered glass, which can support the weight of two people.  The other half are regular glass, which will shatter under the weight of a single person.  Step on the wrong panel and you fall to your death below.  Players were allowed to choose the order in which they would go before they knew what the game was.  Those who chose to go later have a big advantage.

In the seventh episode, we discover the tournament is funded by a group of bored, ultra-wealthy deviants, who bet enormous sums of money on the outcomes of each game.  All of them are seen wearing gold or diamond-encrusted animal masks, but they are clearly white westerners – Americans and Europeans.  

In the ninth episode season finale, a brutal competition of Squid Game results in a champion. We also learn who created the game and why. If the game itself does not make it clear that one of the main points the series is trying to make is that the ultra-rich see the poor as less than human, the game’s creator, when confronted by the eventual winner, who questions how they can be so brutal and dismissive of the death they caused, answers, “You bet on horses, we bet on humans.  You are our horses.”  This is a fascinating juxtaposition – at the beginning of the series we see one of the key players betting on a horse race; now he and the other players are the horses. 

The game creator goes on to say, “What does someone with no money have in common with someone with too much money to know what to do with?  Life is no fun for either of them.  If you have too much money it doesn’t matter what you buy…everything just gets boring.”  He explains that he and his clients wanted to figure out something to do where they could have fun, so they could feel something.  His adult life has become devoid of joy, so he hearkened back to the games he enjoyed playing with his friends as a young boy.  He justifies the brutality by pointing out that no one was forced to play.  These explanations actually weaken the impact of the series, because they feel like something just tacked on to the ending to explain to viewers that what they’ve just seen has some social relevance and that rich people have no idea what poor people go through – and see them as disposable and easily replaceable.

Some reviewers have compared Squid Game to Hunger Games and the Japanese action-thriller, Battle Royale, both of which focus on a dangerous competition where the only way to win is for all other contestants to die.  But the fact that these players are not forced to play, puts this on a completely different plane.  Participants have simply decided that their odds of survival here (187-1 after the first game) is far better than their chances out in the real world.

I often felt while watching that the income inequality stuff was just a thin veneer to justify the violence and carnage.  Perhaps that’s because I’ve seen similar themes in numerous other TV shows and movies.  A few people I know in their early 20s, however, are firmly in the “insightful social commentary” camp, so maybe it’s a generational thing. 

Here's What's Wrong With TV Measurement and How to Fix It (10/21)

When it comes to national television audience measurement used for the buying and selling of commercial time, Nielsen has long been an industry-mandated monopoly.  While potential competitors have periodically emerged over the years, they have failed to sustain enough support to survive – not because Nielsen did anything to impede them, but rather because advertisers and networks have been unwilling to pay for multiple sources to provide similar national data.

There have been a number of times when various issues arose regarding how and what to measure (household meters/persons diaries, people meters, passive meters, portable meters, commercial minute ratings, out-of-home viewing), new technology and devices (VCRs, personal computers, DVRs, tablets, smartphones) or “unusual” fluctuations in reported data (such as sudden TV usage declines among households, kids, or young men).  And most recently, problems maintaining a viable sample during the pandemic.  But while there have been occasional calls for change, the industry’s unwillingness to support any real competition to Nielsen, along with networks and media agencies continuing to sign long-term Nielsen contracts, made the status quo is hard to budge.

There have been only two instances, more than 20 years apart, when Nielsen was forced to completely overhaul how it reported television audiences – in 1987, when the switch was made from the antiquated household meter/diary system to national people meters, and in 2009, when DVRs and time-shifted viewing led to the switch from program ratings to average commercial-minute ratings (C3).

How those two fundamental changes were implemented shows how much the industry’s priorities have changed over time – or really how the speed of change in the access to video content and in consumer behavior has caused good research to take a back seat to rushing new products to market.

There was a time when any change 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 with the old meter/diary method – before agencies and networks decided to use it as currency.  AGB’s attempt to enter the U.S. market with people meters pressed Nielsen to develop its own system – and since AGB did not provide anything substantially different, there was no reason for the industry to pay for two essentially identical measurement services.  Of course, back then there were no compelling forces at work to make us move fast. 

VCRs had promised but never realized the idea of people programming their own viewing schedules.  Even though by the late 1990s, roughly 90% of the country owned a VCR, its major use continued to be renting or buying movies.  The average amount of actual time-shifted viewing in primetime never rose above 5%.  But even more significant, Nielsen was never able to measure VCR playback among people (although it could measure recording and playback among households – it ascribed household playback to demos).  While this did become a big deal among advertisers and agencies for a few years, the networks didn’t see it as a problem.  Nielsen eventually just said sorry, nothing we can do, and the industry moved on. 

DVRs actually changed viewer behavior and forced the industry to change.   Unlike VCRs, the DVR allowed viewers to record television shows without having to use videotape, and both recording and playback was significantly more user-friendly.  As a result, there was a substantial amount of time-shifted viewing.  Also unlike VCRs, Nielsen was able to measure playback activity.  But while VCRs had become the fastest growing electronic device since television itself, DVR ownership grew at a much slower pace.  Having been introduced by ReplayTV and TiVo in 1999, it took a decade before DVRs were even in 25% of U.S. TV homes, and another decade before it reached half the country.  Nielsen finally started including DVR households in it national people meter sample in January 2006, when the devices were in nearly 20% of homes. 

 

Commercial avoidance through fast-forwarding had become one of the biggest advertiser concerns, and measuring DVR playback and commercial ratings was now a 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.

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. 

Nielsen switched to C3 with virtually no research into the methodology, or whether it actually accounted for 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.  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) obviously 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.  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.

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 Media Ocean), 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 both 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 individual commercial measurement would soon be the marketplace currency.  I recall telling whoever would listen at the time that  given the chaos that ensued 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 12 years ago.

It should also be noted that the vast majority (if not all) 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 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.

While many people think the methodology for calculating C3 takes fast-forwarding through commercials into account, and only measures exposure to the commercial minute, this is actually not entirely correct.  It has to do with the way Nielsen measures viewing to the average minute.  Rather than counting the majority of viewing to the average minute, it takes the plurality of viewing.  In other words, the channel viewers tuned to the longest during the minute.  If, for example, in a given clock minute, you are watching 20 seconds of ABC, and 10 seconds each of four other networks, you are counted as watching ABC for the entire minute.  If there is no plurality for that minute, Nielsen goes back to the previous minute and uses that plurality for both minutes.

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.  In the 1960s and 70s, 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.

Nielsen still can’t accurately measure streaming, and won’t be able to until its sample reflects individual streaming service penetration and until it can measure viewing on all platforms and devices.  Netflix’s two minutes of viewing data is meaningless gibberish that tells us nothing about how many viewers are actually watching anything.  The press should stop repeating (as opposed to reporting) these bogus numbers provided by streaming services.  Is Squid Game really Netflix’s most popular series ever?  Maybe.  If ABC said 50 million people watched Grey’s Anatomy this month without any third-party verification, I doubt anyone would report it as a real number.  In reality, there are no streaming data that is anywhere near being comparable to linear ratings reported by Nielsen or ComScore.  The fact that Nielsen only reports on titles from Netflix, Hulu, Prime Video, and Disney+ (it just added AppleTV+), and only measures streaming on a TV set, is an ongoing embarrassment.  Netflix has repeatedly said that Nielsen’s limited reported streaming data is “not even close” to the actual numbers. 

A number of advertisers, media agencies, and industry trade organizations have joined NBCUniversal’s Measurement Innovation Forum, which is designed to evaluate current audience measurement methodology and come up with alternatives to Nielsen.  In August, 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 is 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.

This seems somewhat similar to the Council for Research Excellence (CRE).  I was one of the founding members of this group, formed in 2005, which consisted of 40 top research executives from major Nielsen clients – representing advertisers, media agencies, broadcast and cable networks, syndication companies, local television stations, and industry trade associations.  There are obviously some significant differences. 

The CRE was designed as an independently operated group, which was basically set up so Nielsen could avoid government intervention into how it measures media audiences.  It’s stated goal was to evaluate Nielsen measurement methodology and recommend ways to improve.  Nielsen funded the research at a cost of about $3.5 million per year (although having no say in the projects we undertook).  The CRE’s first major effort was the landmark Video Consumer Mapping Study, which still stands as the best original research into consumer media habits I’ve ever seen.  The study was conducted in 2008 by the Ball State University Center for Media Design and Sequent Partners.  This study cost about $2.5 million, a number simply out of the ballpark for any agency or network to conduct on its own.  At the time, it seemed as though the CRE was the only industry entity capable of doing real good independent research, designed solely to advance how audiences are measured, without any sales-related agenda or bias – in retrospect, perhaps a naïve notion.  While there were several more interesting analyses produced by the CRE over the years, it never lived up to its initial promise and Nielsen pulled funding at the end of 2017. 

The NBCU-led effort is obviously not funded by Nielsen, and it remains unclear how much any accepted proposal will cost and who will fund it.  Also unclear is whether this is designed to find an alternative to Nielsen or a supplement to Nielsen.

So, how do we “fix” TV/video audience measurement?  If the real (as opposed to PR) goal is to actually build a better system, there are three basic steps that need to be taken.  Here is my proposal to NBCUniversal’s Measurement Innovation Forum:

The first step should be to determine what current Nielsen measurement is doing right and wrong.

• Develop a sample of 300 or so industry researchers, people who are adept at detailed work and understand how audience measurement works. Nielsen (and others) would meter their TVs, DVRs, 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 scenarios, from the simplest to the most complex viewing environments, for what and how each participant will view video content and commercials, in-home and out-of-home during a single day.

• Participants would then log in their video and advertising viewing (down to the second). They should write down their media behavior in minute detail, what they are watching, what platforms they are using, whether they are time-shifting, when they are fast-forwarding through commercials, when they switch channels, which commercials they are seeing (and hearing), etc.

• Compare their actual viewing to what the meters report. We would then be able to 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 commercial exposure (the opportunity to view) and actual viewing, and between individual commercial viewing and C3.

Not only will this provide, for the first time, a look at how accurate reported ratings are, 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 second step is to determine whether samples or panels are even adequate to measure national video viewing in today’s increasingly splintered media environment.  I would argue as currently structured they are not.

• 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. Your cohorts are determined based on characteristics that Nielsen has determined impact viewing behavior – such as age, sex, race/ethnicity, presence of children, 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.  On occasion, Nielsen has added certain things to the list, but even then, it was always with the impact on linear TV viewing in mind.

• 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 really impact your viewing behavior and how much you fast-forward through commercials.  Whether or not you subscribe to streaming services, however, is not 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 HBO Max, your viewing habits will be substantially different than if you have Netflix, Amazon 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 only way to have a meaningful television sample, is to accurately represent the total U.S. based on every possible combination of streaming service and cable/satellite/telco subscriptions.  This means that the make-up of Nielsen’s national and local samples could need to change dramatically every year.  The days when all Nielsen needed to worry about was cable and DVR penetration are gone forever.

The third step is to decide if a single source or multiple sources are preferable for measuring multiple current and future platforms.  I used to be firmly on the side of believing single-source measurement was the way to go.  I’m no longer so sure that any one company is capable of measuring all video viewing on all platforms.

A final note in the category of “be careful what you wish for” - understand that having more accurate video viewing data is likely to make few people happy.  Although advertisers do want the most accurate data, they and their agency representatives need stable (i.e., projectable) audience data in order to effectively plan and buy commercial time.  Networks, on the other hand are interested primarily in higher ratings.  While the high cost of supporting a competing national measurement service to Nielsen is one factor in continuing to only have a single currency, the main reason is that none have demonstrated they would produce higher ratings.

The only real way to put pressure on Nielsen to make fundamental changes or to actually go with an alternate measurement system is to move toward one-year contracts.  As long as all the media conglomerates continue to sign long-term 5-to-7-year deals, not much is going to change.

Does the Media Industry Really Want More Accurate Ratings? A Brief History of TV Audience Measurement (9/21)

The advertising and media industries have traditionally relied on Nielsen for national and local television audience measurement as currency for the buying and selling of commercial time (and for evaluating the video landscape).  Now it seems that several forces are at work conspiring to have this tradition come to an end – most notably, Comcast-owned NBC Universal, a long-time Nielsen critic, which recently issued a request for proposals to more than 50 companies (including Nielsen) to “build a new measurement ecosystem for us that reflects the future.”  They believe, as do many others, that current research methodologies are not able to fully measure viewers in an increasingly splintered video environment, and a single source or single metric is no longer viable.

Whether NBCU or the other media conglomerates want to actually replace Nielsen, or develop systems to operate alongside Nielsen is unclear.  But it should be clear that no advertiser or media agency in their right mind is going to accept a measurement service where the sellers have oversight into how their own audiences are measured.  There will still need be a third-party independent measurement, and Nielsen will likely continue to be a major (if not the only) player.

Before I get into a brief history of TV audience measurement and some of the issues involved, here are some basic points worth noting.

• There have been more changes to the video viewing landscape in the past 15 years than in the previous 50. Since 2005, there has been a sea change in what, where, how, and when consumers could access video content – from the introduction of Apple’s first video iPod, to the widespread use of DVRs, to the rise of social media, to the first smartphones, to the availability of multi-media devices, to the launch of multiple streaming services.  It’s hard to believe Netflix’s first hit series debuted just eight years ago.  These changes have been rapid and constant, and are making measuring video viewing and audience behavior more complex.

• Research is traditionally slow to change and adapt to shifting marketplace conditions. Before people meters brought the first major change to TV audience measurement in 30 years, the 3-network, 15-channel, one-screen, live-viewing TV world did not require much change in how viewers were counted.  This enabled Nielsen to continue trudging along without needing to innovate too much or pivot too quickly.  More than 20 years separated the two fundamental changes in national TV audience measurement (aside from sample-size increases) – the introduction of people meters in 1987 and the shift from program ratings to average commercial minute ratings (C3) in 2009.

• Nielsen is an industry-mandated monopoly. There have been several attempts by various companies to compete with Nielsen (which I discuss later in this report).  Except for ComScore, none have managed to pose any real threat to Nielsen’s dominance.  While they have served to pressure Nielsen to make improvements to its own service, the industry (both buyers and sellers) has balked at funding two audience measurement companies that would essentially provide the same thing.  While everyone likes to complain about Nielsen, so far few have wanted to spend the money required to really do much about it or foster any real competition.

• Does anyone really want the most accurate ratings possible? Advertisers obviously should, but I would argue that neither buyers nor sellers do.  Sellers want higher ratings, buyers want stability – accuracy is conducive to neither. 

 

• Sellers want higher ratings – you never hear any network complain that Nielsen is overcounting their audience (although for years it did). Back when we were evaluating AGB, as soon as I saw that they were not producing higher ratings than Nielsen, I knew that network support would fade.  And why have some networks pushed so hard for viewing in bars and restaurants to be included in currency measurement?  Certainly not because they provide an accurate portrayal of commercial exposure.  Higher reported ratings. 

• 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 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 12 years later.  Moving to more accurate commercial measurement would require not only additional staff, but would result in significantly less stable and projectable ratings.

Here’s a brief look at some of the issues the industry has been grappling with for years…

Current Measurement is Not Nimble Enough to Handle Rapid Change

Until the early 2000s, the pace of change to how and where viewers received content was relatively slow, enabling cumbersome media measurement conglomerates to trudge along with serviceable audience measurement. 

It’s hard to imagine now, but before people meters debuted in 1987, the national Nielsen television sample was only 1,200 homes, and demographic data was only available 36 weeks of the year.  In a three-network, one-screen, single platform, 15-channel, live-viewing world, this was acceptable.  People generally had the same access to the same channels and devices, and as cohesive groups of people aged, their media habits were largely predictable.

Here’s a brief look at how the video media landscape has evolved since then:

• During the late 1980s, VCRs started to become prevalent, eventually being owned by 90% of U.S. TV households. Watching pre-recorded videocassettes became the first major new use of the television set since videogames.  This contributed to the broadcast networks giving up on original scripted series on Saturday nights (which was now the biggest movie rental night).  They subsequently cut back on airing made-for-tv and theatrical movies as well.  Time-shifted viewing, now possible for the first time, remained relatively minor (about 5% of overall primetime viewing).

The home VCR became the fastest growing electronic device since television itself, and caused real problems for audience measurement.  It marked the first time Nielsen had to admit it couldn’t measure an element of television viewing.  It was able to capture VCR recording, but playback among individual people remained beyond its scope.

• 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.

• Prior to 2005, changes to the media landscape – what was available to view and how it could be viewed – were gradual. Most people wound up getting the same access to almost everything.  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 introduction of Apple’s first video iPod in 2005, 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.

• Netflix’s first original scripted hit (House of Cards) debuted just over eight years ago, 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+) debuted in 2015.  In late 2019, Disney+ and Apple TV+ joined the mix, followed by HBO Max and Peacock in mid-2020.  The eight major streaming services are now spending at least as much on original programming each year as the five broadcast networks combined.  There are also several niche streaming services available to viewers.  Today the average home can receive more than 200 channels and subscribes to three or four streaming services.

Can Samples Even Measure the TV Universe Anymore?

Unless they are representative of the total U.S. population based on subscriptions to individual streaming services, and combinations of streaming services, Nielsen samples can’t accurately measure TV viewing anymore.

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.  Your cohorts are determined based on characteristics that Nielsen has determined impact viewing behavior – such as age, sex, race/ethnicity, presence of children, 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 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 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 HBO Max, your viewing habits will be different than if you have Netflix, Amazon 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 only way to have a meaningful television sample, is to accurately represent the total U.S. based on every possible combination of streaming service and cable/satellite/telco subscriptions.  This means that the make-up of Nielsen’s national and local samples could need to change dramatically every year.  The days when all Nielsen needed to worry about was cable and DVR penetration are gone forever.

Why Virtually All Attempts to Compete with Nielsen Fail

Over the years, there have been a number of unsuccessful attempts by other companies to compete – both on a national and local basis – not because Nielsen did anything in particular to impede them, but rather because the industry didn’t provide support long enough for them to be viable.  The most common result has been to pressure Nielsen into making improvements to its own methodology and increase its sample size.  

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

• In 1985, after more than 30 years of being essentially unchallenged in the national TV audience measurement arena, British company AGB 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 from 1,200 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 was only able to sign up one broadcast network (CBS, which had long been a Nielsen critic) and a few ad agencies.  I remember one of my first major decisions as Manager of Broadcast Research at a major ad agency was whether to continue supporting AGB (we had paid the first-round ask of $25,000, but balked at the second-round request).  Without widespread industry support, AGB 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 the networks were not willing to support a new ratings system that did not report higher numbers than Nielsen.

• In 1987, 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 any potential support fizzled.  Nielsen announced its own plans to develop a passive meter, which never came to fruition.

• In 1991, Arbitron’s ScanAmerica was way ahead of its time as it 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). This single-source approache seemed to be what advertisers had been seeking.  Once again, CBS was the first broadcast network to support an attempt to compete with Nielsen.  Unfortunately, no other network, only one ad agency, and just a handful of advertisers, were willing to provide funding – a lack of belief in the methodology, the limited number of “scannable” items,  and an unwillingness to invest in an unproven system, were cited as the main reasons.  Without industry support, Arbitron could no longer afford to continue with the system, and ScanAmerica shut down in late 1992, 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 might have received more interest.    

• Arbitron, which had been competing with Nielsen for four decades in collecting local TV ratings (in roughly 200 markets) canceled the service in 1993. 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.

• In 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. 

• erinMedia’s plan to launch a new national ratings system to collect and process viewing data from set-top boxes was derailed in 2005 when Nielsen announced it was forming a new unit to essentially do the same thing (which caused erinMedia’s funding to disappear). erinMedia filed an anti-trust lawsuit against Nielsen Media in 2005, which was confidentially settled in 2008.

• In 2009, NBC was the driving force behind a consortium of companies, which included the four major broadcast networks, some large cable companies, along with several big advertisers and media agencies, in an effort to back a potential new competitor to Nielsen. I don’t recall specifically what happened with this effort, but no new Nielsen rival emerged – although it did contribute to Nielsen finally measuring DVR homes, more screens, and commercial minute ratings (C3).

So, when it comes to national television audience measurement, Nielsen remains a virtual monopoly, albeit an industry-mandated one.  Nielsen ensures its monopoly status, with its clients’ approval, by continually signing long-term staggered contracts with networks and media agencies.  This means any fledgling measurement company cannot actually replace Nielsen, but must operate side-by-side (at least for several years).  Since the industry has long been loath to support two essentially identical rating services, particularly for national currency measurement, Nielsen has continued to operate virtually unopposed.

Today, ComScore, which merged with Rentrak in 2016, stands as 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.  And given the current situation (outlined below), the company is probably feeling good about the possibility of expanding its footprint.

The MRC Suspends Nielsen Accreditation:  So?

This should be a very big deal, but so far the industry isn’t acting that way.  While researchers are familiar with the Media Rating Council (MRC), until fairly recently, most of the folks who actually buy and sell media had little contact with or knowledge about the company.  The MRC was formed at the behest of the U.S. government following the 1950s quiz-show scandals.  It conducts audits of companies that measure media to basically determine whether they do what they claim to do and are in compliance with industry standards.

Even before the pandemic, and the VAB’s (the TV network industry trade group) claim that Nielsen was dramatically undercounting television usage, I had written about how the rise of multiple streaming platforms and the fact that the average home subscribes to at least three streaming services, resulted in Nielsen no longer being able to capture the full scope of television viewing.

Combine this with clear examples of problems related to the COVID-19 pandemic, when Nielsen field agents could not enter its 40,000 national television homes to conduct regular maintenance of its sample.  The VAB claims this resulted in significantly lower reported total weekly reach levels than pre-pandemic (from 92% to 87% - which is an unprecedented single-season drop when not changing measurement methodology), and major viewing declines among the TV networks, (in the neighborhood of 20%).  Neither seems reasonable at a time when virtually everyone was confined to their homes.

The VAB asked the Media Rating Council (MRC) to suspend its accreditation of Nielsen’s TV data.  Nielsen, in a curious move, said it wanted a temporary “hiatus” from MRC accreditation so it can better “focus on innovating our core products, continuing to deliver data that the industry can rely on and ultimately creating a better media future for the entire industry.”  This seemed designed to avoid getting bogged down in a process that could only provide negative publicity for Nielsen, which hoped to distract the industry into focusing more on such things as wearable portable meters, as well as its new Nielsen One service, which promises total cross-platform measurement. 

It would be far worse for the MRC to independently revoke accreditation than for Nielsen to voluntarily suspend it on its own.  The MRC responded saying that a company needed its approval to suspend accreditation, and that this issue was so serious that it “requires further consideration by the full MRC board.”  It also noted that Nielsen’s National Television Service had some “deep-rooted ongoing performance issues” that threatened it accreditation status even before the pandemic.  As I was writing this, the MRC announced that it was indeed suspending Nielsen’s accreditation. 

This won’t necessarily have much impact on whether the industry continues to use Nielsen data, but it does open the door to other companies, such as ComScore, to argue that Nielsen is no longer the “gold standard.”   ComScore has reportedly asked the MRC to move its own upcoming audit for its service from early 2022 to October 2021. 

More importantly, it lends credence to the idea that  transparency, innovation, and new measurement yardsticks are urgently needed in an industry that has been traditionally slow to make any substantial change.  The switch from meter/diary to people meters and the shift from program ratings to C3 were more than 20 years apart.  The next five years could see more innovation in TV/video currency measurement than the past 50 years.  Nielsen will certainly have a major role in this, but not the only role.  On the other hand, we’ve heard talk like this before.  Let’s see what happens when buyers and sellers have to agree on not only what needs to be changed, but how it’s going to be funded.

What the Industry Needs to Do to Improve Audience Measurement

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 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 to get some of these answers was in the Council for Research Excellence’s (CRE) 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.  One of the lesser-known findings 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 (and was 13 years ago, before video viewing was 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 had other priorities.

It is actually not that difficult to figure out how accurate current TV measurement is.  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 what you need to do: 

• Develop a sample of 100 or so of the top researchers in the industry (buyers, sellers, advertisers), who are adept at detailed work and understand how audience measurement works. Nielsen (and others) would meter their TVs, DVRs, smartphones, 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.

• Participants would then log in their video and advertising viewing (down to the second).

• Compare their actual viewing to what the meters 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 C3.

This will tell us what the industry needs to do next.  It would be a good idea to have Nielsen, ComScore, and a few other companies involved.  The project could be overseen by a group of retired research executives or some well-respected company with no current skin in the game.

Until something like this is done, all this talk will be little more than the sellers trying to get higher ratings, or moving away from just measuring eyeballs to the even more difficult to measure behavioral and attentiveness data (which everyone has been discussing for years).  There has always been a tendency to start focusing on the next shiny object before actually fixing what is still the biggest piece of the pie – in-home viewing to video screens.  But if we don’t get that right, measuring real cross-platform viewing will remain out of reach.

We should be clear about one thing, however.  Despite claims to the contrary, neither buyers nor sellers have traditionally wanted accurate audience measurement.  Sellers want higher ratings and buyers want stability (so they can project future performance).  Accurate ratings are conducive to neither.  Anytime you really improve audience measurement, the highest rated vehicles tend to decline and the lowest rate tend to increase.  And when you get more granular data, it will tend to be less stable from day to day or week to week.  Individual commercial ratings will almost certainly be less stable and projectable than C3.

You only need to look at what happened with C3 ratings to understand what’s going on.  The stated goal of advertisers and agencies has always been drilling down to actual commercial audiences.  The reason why average commercial minutes were used as a surrogate was ostensibly because the computer systems that processed Nielsen ratings for pre- and post-buys (at the time, Donovan Data Systems and Datatech) were unable to report actual minute-by-minute ratings.  

Implementing C3 instead of actual commercial or commercial pod ratings was a good excuse for agencies, which would have needed to hire extensive additional staff to deal with reams of more granular data, with little stability in reported numbers (making projections of future performance much more complex).  It was a good excuse for advertisers, who otherwise might have the creative execution blamed for poor individual commercial ratings.  It was also a good excuse for sellers, since we all did extensive research that indicated C3 ratings, as measured by Nielsen, would not be far off from the live program ratings it had previously reported (which, of course, is logical hooey – there is no way you can tell me that viewers are watching just commercial minutes, even over three days, at the same degree as those watching the actual program at the time it airs – that would mean most DVR users are not fast-forwarding through commercials, which is ridiculous).

C3 was planned as a one- or two-year band-aid until the industry’s pre- and post-buy systems were able to process more granular data.  I worked with both Donovan and Datatech, and they had this capability the following year.  That was 11 years ago.

So What Happens 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 fixing them, which would be expensive, time-consuming, and 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.  New companies will come in with innovative techniques for measuring the video landscape (or portions of it), but won’t get the funding they need to go through the year-long (or more) scrutiny the industry will require.  Nielsen will make some changes to how it operates – and possibly re-submit for MRC accreditation (unless the advertisers strangely continue to not be bothered by any of this).  If the media conglomerates sign long-term contracts with Nielsen during the next round, we’ll know most of this was just talk.  If they take a page out of the NFL’s playbook, and sign a one-year deal, making a measurement service prove itself, then maybe real change will happen.

A Brief History of Superheroes on TV (9/21)

Superheroes and sci-fi are more popular than ever, as anyone who attends the giant annual comic-cons in San Diego (July) and New York (October) can attest. They both consistently draw 150,000 attendees or more.  There are also numerous smaller comic-con events throughout the country, ranging anywhere from a few thousand to 100,000+ attendees.  Once considered niche, with very limited appeal, these have become major pop-culture events – but still have a strong focus on sci-fi and superheroes.  DC’s Batman and Wonder Woman movies, as well as  Marvel’s many mega-successful cinematic efforts, which began with Captain America and the Avengers, have shown that there are large audiences for these stories. 

The trick has become appealing to the hard-core fans who are well-versed in more than 60 years of comic-book canon, as well as new fans with only a passing or no familiarity with the characters’ backstories or superhero mythology.

From the earliest days of television, series featuring superheroes have had their ups and downs.  While occasionally popping up in the 1960s through early 2000s, most often as one network tried to counter-program and appeal to a younger audience, the creation of the CW network, along with the advent of streaming platforms, and the success of the Marvel Cinematic Universe, has led to a rebirth of the superhero genre.

The two major superhero factories, DC and Marvel, have traditionally appealed to different types of audiences, although there is some overlap.  The DC universe has always been in a different reality from our own, with names of major cities having generic fictional names, such as Metropolis, Gotham City, Central City, Star City, National City, etc.  Until 2008, with the release The Dark Knight Batman movies, DC was traditionally geared more to kids and teens than adults.  The Marvel universe, on the other hand, takes place in our world, with many of the superheroes living in New York City.  Marvel’s tendency to have flawed characters with stories focused on real-world problems has tended to appeal to more of a teen/young adult audience – both in comic books and on the screen.

Since Adventures of Superman, starring George Reeves, which aired in syndication from 1952-58, most superhero shows on television featured major DC characters.  They were always G rated, and were relatively low budget with limited special effects.  All superhero shows on TV prior to 2000 were designed for family viewing.  Seldom, if ever, did they address any social or political issues of the day.  Nor did they feature people of color (if you don’t count green).

Batman (ABC,1966-68), starring Adam West and Burt Ward, was designed with kids in mind, but its well-known weekly guest stars camping it up as villains appealed to adults as well – Cesar Romero as the Joker, Burgess Meredith as the Penguin, Frank Gorshin as the Riddler, Julie Newmar and Eartha Kitt as Catwoman, to name just a few.  It aired twice a week for its first two seasons, and weekly for its third.  Viewers were reminded to tune in next week at the “same bat time, and same bat channel.”

From the 1970s through the 1990s, there were only a handful of superhero shows on TV, primarily because they were not seen as appealing to a broad enough audience to generate strong ratings.  We had Shazam (CBS, 1974-76), starring Nichael Gray, Wonder Woman (ABC, 1975-79), starring Lynda Carter, the syndicated Superboy (1988-92), starring Gerard Christopher, The Flash (CBS, 1990-91), starring John Wesley Shipp, and Lois & Clark: The New Adventures of Superman (ABC, 1993-97), starring Dean Cain and Teri Hatcher. 

Pre-2000, there were just two live-action series based on Marvel superheroes.  The Amazing Spider-Man (CBS, 1977-79), starring Nicholas Hammond, and The Incredible Hulk (CBS 1977-82), with Bill Bixby and Lou Ferrigno playing scientist Bruce Banner and his big green alter-ego, respectively. 

Other live-action superhero series, not affiliated with DC or Marvel, all on ABC, included, The Green Hornet (1966-67), with Van Williams in the title role and Bruce Lee as his sidekick, Kato, The Six Million Dollar Man (1973-78), starring Lee Majors, Lindsay Wagner in The Bionic Woman (1976-78), and William Katt as The Greatest American Hero (1981-83). 

The modern era of superhero TV series began when the WB network (now CW) aired Smallville (2001-11), which provides a look at Superman’s life as a boy in the fictional town of Smallville, Kansas The series starts out as a young-adult high-school drama, before

Superman dons his uniform, when he is only known as Clark Kent (Tom Welling).  Eventually the series moves into his adult world where he gets a reporter job at the Daily Planet, working alongside Lois Lane.  Various DC Comics superheroes and villains are introduced throughout the series.

The WB tried to follow up the success of Smallville, with the one-season wonder, Birds of Prey (2002-03).  After the Joker kills Catwoman (Maggie Baird) and leaves Batgirl (Dina Meyer) in a wheel chair, Batman, grieving over the loss of his secret love, Catwoman, leaves New Gotham to fend for itself.  Batgirl takes on a new identity as “Oracle” and mentors the secret daughter of Batman and Catwoman, “Huntress” (Ashley Scott)  A third young woman with psychic abilities, Dinah (Rachel Skarsten), joins them and they become the Birds of Prey – committed to defeating the Joker and Gotham’s other criminals.  Had this debuted today, it might well have become a hit.

Fox did for the Batman mythology what the WB/CW did for Superman, when it debuted Gotham (2014-19).  This series provides a look at the largely corrupt Gotham City and a young Bruce Wayne (David Mazouz), as he seeks revenge for the murder of his billionaire parents.  He is assisted by a young police detective, Jim Gordon (Ben McKenzie) before he becomes Commissioner, and his butler, Alfred.  The series also focuses on the origins of his ally/adversary, Catwoman, and several well-known villains, such as Penguin, Riddler, and Joker (all more sinister incarnations than in previous Batman series).

Just as Smallville was coming to an end, the CW was about to unveil a whole new slate of superhero shows that would soon be known as the Arrowverse.  The name derives from the first series of the group.  All of the CW heroes exist in the same shared continuity, which enables cross-over appearances among the various series.  The CW shows are also notable for their diversity and inclusion, with people of color and LGBTQ+ characters in central or leading roles.

Arrow (2012-2020), which is based on the DC Comics character Green Arrow, stars Stephen Arnell as Oliver Queen, a billionaire playboy who was shipwrecked on a mysterious island for five years.  When he returns home to Star City, he fights crime and corruption in his secret identity as the vigilante known as Arrow (his weapon of choice is a bow and arrow).  Throughout the series, various other characters join him, forming Team Arrow, which continues to fight an array of bad guys.

 

Over the next decade, the CW debuted several other superhero series based on DC Comics characters.

 

The first series to spin off from Arrow was The Flash (2014-present), with Grant Gustin as the speedster. When a new scientific invention called a particle accelerator causes an explosion at S.T.A.R. labs, it creates a freak storm, and crime-scene investigator Barry Allen is struck by lightning.  He awakens from a coma nine months later to discover he now has super speed.  When he realizes that others have also gained powers from the explosion and use them for evil, he dedicates himself to protecting the innocent citizens of Central City, and hunting these other “metahumans.”  His super-speed allows him to occasionally move through time and parallel worlds, often with dire or unexpected consequences.  As is the case with Arrow, The Flash has a team of friends, scientists, and heroes to help him.

Superman was not the only one to escape from the planet Krypton before it was destroyed. Supergirl (2015-21), starring Melissa Benoist, focuses on his cousin Kara, who was sent to earth as a 13-year-old.  She was raised by foster parents, has a human sister, and now works as a reporter in National City.  Her adoptive sister is a government agent, whom she works with to bring bad guys to justice.  Several heroes and villains are introduced throughout the series, including Martian Manhunter, Mon-El, and Brainiac-5, a member of the Legion of Superheroes from the 31^st Century. 

Supergirl is actually from a parallel earth within the multiverse to the one where Flash and Arrow reside.  While on their world, metahumans are the biggest threat, on Supergirl’s earth, the biggest threats are aliens from other planets.  On several occasions, they have been able to cross over between worlds to help one another.  Supergirl debuted on CBS, but moved to the CW network for its second season.

Legends of Tomorrow (2016-present) consists of a ragtag team of heroes and villains recruited by rogue time traveler, Rip Hunter (Arthur Darvill), who venture through time in a stolen time ship known as the Waverider, protecting the timeline from aberrations.  There are continued conflicts among the Legends and various bureaus who are in charge of protecting the timeline.  The Legends include, Sara Lance/White Canary (Caity Lotz), Ray Palmer/Atom (Brandon Routh), Mick Rory/Heat Wave (Dominic Purcell), Nate Heywood/Steel (Nick Zano), Zari Omaz (Tala Ashe), John Constantine (Matt Ryan), and Ava Sharpe (Jes Macallan), as well as several other recurring characters.

Legends of Tomorrow is one of the first superhero series to have gay characters in central roles, including the leader of the team.

Cress Williams stars Jefferson Pierce, also known as the electricity-powered Black Lightning (2018-2021).  As the series begins, he is a legendary retired African-American superhero, now a high-school principal in Freeland, Georgia.  He’s forced out of retirement when his city and his daughters are threatened by a fearsome criminal gang.  His daughters Anissa (Nafessa Williams) and Jennifer (China Anne McClain) start developing powers of their own and join him as Thunder and Lightning.

Three years after Batman mysteriously disappeared from Gotham City, Bruce Wayne’s cousin, Kate Kane (Ruby Rose) picks up the mantle, becoming Batwoman (2019-present).  After season 1, Ruby Rose left the show for personal reasons, and with Kate Kane out of the picture, Ryan Wilder (Javicia Leslie) steps into her boots and becomes the new female vigilante.  Batwoman is assisted in her crimefighting by Kate Kane/s stepsister, medical student Mary (Nicole Kang) and Luke Fox (Camrus Johnson), son of Wayne Enterprise’s tech guru, Lucian Fox.

In season 1, Ruby Rose became the first openly gay superhero in a title role, while in season 2, Javicia Leslie was the first Black woman to have the lead in a superhero TV series.

Stargirl (2020-present), stars Brec Bassinger as high-school student Courtney Whitmore, who inspires a new generation of young misfits to become heroes and form a new version of the Justice Society of America (JSA) – most of the original supergroup members were killed a decade earlier in battle with the Injustice Society of America.  Courtney had discovered the Cosmic Staff of one of the JSA heroes, Starman.  When she learns her stepfather used to be Starman’s sidekick, she decides to form the new group.  

Tyler Hoechlin and Bitsie Tulloch star as Superman & Lois (2021-present), in this new take on the Man of Steel.  After years of fighting supervillains and alien invaders, Clark Kent and famed journalist Lois Lane, leave the big city of Metropolis to return to his small rural hometown of Smallville to raise their two teenage boys (Jordan Elsass, Alexander Garlin), one of whom has emerging super powers of his own.  The show balances superheroing, high-school drama, and parenting in today’s society. 

There have been a number of cross-over events where these characters interact and battle major threats to the city, planet, or universe.  So far, only Stargirl has yet to be involved in these cross-overs, but that is reportedly coming at some point.  The biggest cross-over event was during the 2019-20 season, which incorporated virtually every character in the Arrowverse, as well as a few from the DC theatrical universe (the first time the two universes acknowledged one another).  For example, Ezra Miller’s Flash from the Justice League movies appeared alongside Grant Gustin’s Flash from the CW series.  The cross-over event ended with the Multiverse being rebooted so that all these superheroes share the same world.

Numerous other DC heroes without their own individual series have been introduced within the Arrowverse, including, Martian Manhunter, Atom, Hawkman, Hawkgirl, Black Canary, Kid Flash, Speedy, Hourman, Mon-El, Brainiac-5, Vixen, Dr. Mid-Nite, the Legion of Superheroes, and the Justice Society of America.

These shows pretty much have straightforward comic-book style good guy versus bad guy storylines that are more-or-less suited for the entire family.  Most of the CW superhero shows have diverse casts, some with Black lead heroes, and several that feature LGBTQ+ characters.

Over the years, Marvel had done little more than dip its toes into the superhero waters of live-action television series.  But with a new phase of blockbuster theatrical movies, starting with Iron Man in 2008, Captain America: The First Avenger in 2011, and The Avengers in 2012, it was about to hit the small screen with considerable force.

Debuting a little more than a year after the first Avengers theatrical movie, Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. (ABC 2013-20) was the first television series to cross over from the Marvel Cinematic Universe.  S.H.I.E.L.D. (Strategic Homeland Intervention and Logistics Division) is a peacekeeping and spy organization tasked with protecting the world from hostile forces around the globe and beyond. 

This team of agents is led by Phil Coulson (Clark Greg), who was resurrected after apparently being killed by Loki in the first Avengers movie in 2012.  The series deals with Hydra (and the ramifications from Captain America: Winter Soldier), as well as introducing us to Marvel comics characters, the Inhumans, and alien species such as the Kree, and the Chronicoms. 

People die and are revived, they travel into space and through time, and enter alternate timelines.  Chloe Bennet portrays Daisy Johnson, aka Quake, a powerful Inhuman who joins S.H.I.E.L.D. Ming-Na Wen, Henry Simmons, Ian De Caestecker, Elizabeth Henstridge, and Natalia Cordova-Buckley round out the team.

In 2015, when Netflix was starting to become a media force and Disney+ was not even a glimmer in its parents’ eyes, Marvel entered into a deal with Netflix to develop series featuring some of its lesser-known “street-level” heroes.  Unlike the world-saving superhero teams (such as the Avengers, X-Men, and Fantastic Four), these characters have grittier, more personal stories, which better lend themselves to series-long plotlines – as opposed to one- or two-part blockbuster movies.  They protect their own cities or neighborhoods, rather than getting involved in planet-saving exploits. 

All of the Netflix Marvel series are significantly more violent and graphic than their TV predecessors, and contain sexual situations that were simply unimaginable in previous superhero shows. 

The heroes themselves are different from most other superheroes on TV as well.  They are haunted by events from their past, and are flawed characters, struggling with what it means to be a “hero.”  There was also a miniseries featuring the four Netflix heroes who came to be known as The Defenders – Daredevil, Jessica Jones, Luke Cage, and Iron Fist, who were brought together to battle a shadowy global conspiracy.

When Daredevil (2015-18) debuted on Netflix, it raised the bar for superhero storytelling on TV. Charlie Cox is Matt Murdoch/Daredevil – blind lawyer by day, vigilante crimefighter by night.  While he has no actual superpowers, he has ninja-like fighting skills and heightened senses to make up for his lack of sight. 

He is conflicted and haunted by events in his past, and struggles with the violence he is forced to inflict on the bad guys.  The fight choreography (check out the hallway fight sequence from season 1, the battle toward the end of season 2, and the prison gym fight in season 3) is well beyond anything I’ve seen on television.  His constant concern – at what point do you become what you are fighting?  Instilling fear into those who would threaten his rough New York City neighborhood, he is known as “the Devil of Hell’s Kitchen.”   This series also introduces us to The Punisher, one of Marvel comics most popular characters.

Netflix followed up Daredevil with Jessica Jones (2015-19), which has the distinction of being Marvel’s first female lead and title character in either television or movies.  Krysten Ritter stars as the reluctant hero, working as a private detective out of her Hell’s Kitchen apartment in New York City.  She has extraordinary strength, received through an experimental medical procedure that saved her life when her family was killed in a car crash. 

Jessica Jones shatters the mold of typical female TV protagonists by presenting a strong, brooding, independent woman on her own, who plays by her own rules.  She’s flawed, she swears, she drinks too much, and she has indiscriminate and casual sex on her own terms – the type of female character you rarely if ever see on television.  She’s a hero and a victim (who doesn’t need to be saved by a man).  The series is a strong commentary on male/female relationships and the abuse of privilege and power, focusing on such topics as addiction, rape, retaliation, revenge, and redemption – subject matter seldom dealt with on television, and not at all in the Marvel universe at large. 

Most of the strong, independent characters in Jessica Jones are women – including Rachael Taylor as her best friend Trish “Patsy” Walker, Carrie-Anne Moss as a high-powered attorney who has helped Jessica out of several jams, and Janet McTeer as her mom.  Notably, roles often played by women, the assistant, the girlfriend (in this case boyfriend), and the sidekick, are reserved for men.  All 13 episodes in its second season have female directors. 

 Luke Cage (2016-18) was the first Black superhero to be featured as a protagonist and title character of a comic book (first appearing in 1972).  This is an updated version, with Mike Colter in the title role as the quietly confident reluctant hero with super strength and unbreakable, bulletproof skin (caused by a sabotaged medical experiment when he was in prison after being wrongfully convicted). 

His plans to live a quiet life do not go as planned, as bad guys, some linked to his past, force him out of the shadows to fight crime and corruption in his city.  He is celebrated on the streets where he lives as “the Hero of Harlem.”  But new threats emerge, forcing him to question what it really means to be a hero. 

 

Luke Cage is different from other superhero series (and most television dramas), as it features a mostly Black cast, as well as numerous cultural references and visual images – bringing a socially conscious and fresh perspective to a genre in which it has been sorely lacking.  At a time when images of violence against Black men and women are more common than ever, watching an African-American man impervious to bullets and dispatching gun-toting assailants, should appeal to many viewers who have seldom, if ever, seen people who look like them in these roles.

Iron Fist (2017-18) stars Finn Jones stars as Daniel Rand, who was presumed dead in a mysterious plane crash that claimed the lives of his billionaire parents.  In truth, he was rescued by warrior monks, and he grew up in the mystical city of K’un-Lun, which is only accessible to the outside world every 15 years.  He was trained in martial arts to become a fierce warrior, eventually becoming “the immortal Iron Fist,” protector of K’un-Lun and fighter of evil forces.  Fifteen years later, he returns home to New York City to reconnect with his past and take his rightful place at the head of his family’s company, where he has to face off with numerous bad guys.  This is the weakest and least popular of the Netflix Marvel series,

Marvel’s most violent antihero, Frank Castle, known throughout New York City as The Punisher (2017-19), is played by Jon Bernthal.  He’s a former special forces marine, who, in the first season, is seeking vengeance on those who murdered his family.  He is cunning, ruthless, and brutal, and makes previous theatrical movie versions of the character seem tame and one-dimensional by comparison.  Unlike other Marvel vigilantes, he has no qualms or remorse about the high body counts he leaves in his lurch.  Although he has interacted with Daredevil, The Punisher is not part of the Defenders.

Other series based on Marvel characters have recently aired on Disney-owned ABC, Freeform, and Hulu, as well as Fox and FX (before Disney acquired 20^th Century Fox assets).  These were produced by Marvel’s television unit and were canceled once its film division took over and Disney+ was becoming a reality.

Marvel’s Runaways (Hulu 2017-2019): Lots of teenagers think their parents are evil, but in this case they really are.  A group of six diverse high-school students, with varying degrees of enhanced abilities, must band together to fight their parents, who may be part of an otherworldly threat to humankind.  The kids are classmates, who grew up together because their parents were friends.  When the kids discover their parents have been responsible for unspeakable deeds, and are part of a secret organization called The Pride, they band together to further investigate.  Are their parents actually evil, or are they being manipulated by outside malevolent forces?

Inhumans (ABC 2017) are evolutionary advanced humans with physical abilities far beyond normal people, who live in a secret city on the Moon (hidden from human eyes).  When they come of age, they enter something called the Terrigen Mist which can substantially enhance (and sometimes reduce) these abilities.  The Inhumans are led by the Royal Family – Black Bolt, Medusa, Karnak, Gorgon, Triton, and Crystal.  The Inhumans first appeared in Fantastic Four comics in 1965 (with some new characters introduced in the Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. TV series).  They have an interesting backstory and enough different and diverse characters that it should have the potential to make a good series.  But this was not it.

Legion (FX 2017-2019) is linked to the X-Men universe (before the rights to that franchise reverted from Fox back to Disney).  It centers on David Heller/Legion (Dan Stevens), who might be the most powerful mutant of all.  He was diagnosed with schizophrenia at a young age, and has spent much of his life in mental institutions (with several other mutants).  But the bizarre visions and monsters he thinks are delusions might actually be real.  There’s apparently a parasitic demon who has been living in his head.  And, of course, there’s a secret organization that wants to harness his power.    

The series received a fair amount of critical acclaim for its visual effects and departure from standard superhero fare – and it is the least Marvel-like Marvel series you will ever see.  Those familiar with his character from the comic books know who his famous father is.  Jean Smart heads up an ensemble cast, which includes Aubrey Plaza.

The Gifted (Fox 2017-2019) takes place in the X-Men universe.  The X-Men have disappeared, and mutants are being hunted by a special government unit.  When two suburban parents (Stephen Moyer, Amy Acker), discover their two children (Natalie Alyn Lind, Percy Hynes White) have developed mutant powers, they seek refuge with an underground network of mutants.  This group, with varying degrees of enhanced abilities, fights to survive in a world that fears them and puts them in constant danger.  They also clash with a more aggressive group of mutants, who believes a pre-emptive strike on the humans who are hunting them is the best way to keep them all safe.

Olivia Holt and Aubrey Joseph star as Cloak and Dagger (Freeform 2018-2019), two teenagers from very different backgrounds (she from privilege, he from the streets), who have both experienced major tragedies in their lives.  Taking place in New Orleans, they acquired superpowers when an oil Gulf platform collapses.  She has the ability to emit light energy daggers, he can engulf others in darkness and transport them through the Darkforce Dimension.  As their friendship and relationship grows, they start to realize that their powers are linked together and strongest when they work in tandem – all the better to help them fight against the evil Roxxon corporation.

As Netflix’s five-year partnership with Disney-owned Marvel came to an end, it canceled all five of its original scripted series based on these heroes – Daredevil, Jessica Jones, Luke Cage, Iron Fist, and The Punisher   This coincided with Disney ramping up efforts for Disney+, and taking full operational control of Hulu.  Netflix was moving toward owning more of its own content, and it did not have an ownership stake in any of its Marvel series – each season required paying a hefty license fee to Disney-owned ABC Studios.  Continuing with additional seasons of these series, which they would soon lose the rights to anyway, was not seen as financially viable for Netflix.  Marvel was not permitted to use any of the Netflix characters until two years after the series was canceled.  This period is now over for all the Netflix shows, and while there are rumors about reviving some of the characters, nothing has yet been officially confirmed.

Marvel Studios, which produces the theatrical movies, started producing their own series in 2018 for Disney+, the first of which debuted in January 2021 – more than a dozen more are planned over the next few years, and they have significantly larger budgets than the series produced by Marvel Television.  They are also tied more directly to the theatrical movies, and several include supporting characters who appeared in those films.

WandaVision (Disney+, 2021) stars Elizabeth Olsen and Paul Bettany reprising their roles as Wanda Maximoff, aka The Scarlett Witch, and Vision from the Avengers theatrical movies.  She has magical powers (telekinesis, telepathy, energy manipulation) and is one of the most powerful of all Marvel heroes.  He is an android with superhuman strength, speed, and analytical capabilities, as well as the ability to change his density and phase through objects. 

The series opens with our heroes in suburbia, living in simulation parodies of classic TV sitcoms from the 1950s through the early 2000s.  Wanda and Vision gradually start to realize something isn’t right when they seemingly can’t remember basic details of their new life.  Is this all an alternate-reality dimension created by Wanda, or is there something more nefarious afoot?  The mystery is unveiled in bits and pieces over the show’s nine episodes.  All of the quirkiness and weirdness of the series culminates in an action-packed finale, worthy of the Marvel Cinematic Universe at large. 

 

WandaVision was designed as a one-off series transitioning from the Avengers: Endgame theatrical movie to the upcoming Dr. Strange In the Multiverse of Madness, so another season seems unlikely.

The Falcon and the Winter Soldier (Disney+, 2021) stars Anthony Mackie and Sebastian Stan in their roles as Sam Wilson/Falcon and Bucky Barnes/Winter Soldier, respectively, teaming up in this six-episode series that finds them in the shadow of the recently departed Captain America (Sam’s mentor and Bucky’s former partner/foe/ally).

The series opens a few months after the events in Avengers: Endgame, with each of our heroes separately trying to adjust to life in a post-Blip world.  For those who don’t recall (or never knew), the “Blip” occurred when Thanos snapped his fingers and caused half of all life in the universe to disappear.  Thanks to the heroics of the surviving Avengers, they were brought back – but not until five years had passed, during which time much of the world was thrown into chaos.  

Although Sam has turned Captain America’s shield over to the government, expecting it to be displayed in a museum, they instead give it to a new “hero,” John Walker (Wyatt Russell), who they introduce to the world as the “new Captain America.”  Unlike Steve Rogers, John Walker did not receive enhanced abilities from being injected with the super-soldier serum, but rather is a decorated and highly trained special forces operative.  At first he seems like a decent enough guy, but that doesn’t last, and he is eventually forced to surrender the shield after a video of him brutally killing one of the bad guys goes viral.

The main bad guys are terrorists known as the Flag-Smashers, who believe things were better during the Blip, and want things to revert back to the chaos and that existed during that five-year period when half the population on earth had disappeared and many of the rules regarding how people lived, along with them.  These new foes are enhanced super-soldiers, led by a woman named Karli Morgenthau (Erin Kellyman). 

Our heroes win in the end.  Much of the drama focuses on the racial inequities that still exist in America, and Sam struggling with what it would mean for a Black man to be the symbol of our country.  The whole purpose of this series seems is to set up the next Captain America theatrical movie, with Anthony Mackie as the new shield carrying hero.  There are also some surprise guest appearances,

Loki (Disney+, 2021) stars Tom Hiddleston, who brings his movie character as the God of Mischief and Thor’s half-brother to the small screen.  In Avengers Endgame the Avengers went seven years back in time to when Loki was fighting them in the “Battle of New York” (from the first Avengers movie in 2012).  They needed to get the Infinity Stones before Thanos acquires them and wipes out half the universe.  In the chaos that ensued, Loki managed to get his hands on the powerful energy cube known as the Tesseract and disappears. 

This series follows what happens to that Loki, before we see him grow and redeem himself in Thor: Ragnarok and Avengers: Infinity War.  Loki’s disappearance has caught the attention of the Time Variants Authority (TVA), a powerful bureaucratic organization that exists outside of normal time and space.  The TVA is tasked by the mysterious Timekeepers to make sure people stay in their set timeline.  Any “variants” are put on trial and either reset into their expected timeline, or simply erased from existence.  Loki is now considered a variant.  A new major villain appears, and seems set to wreak havoc on the Marvel Cinematic Universe. 

The superhero genre extends beyond just DC on the CW and Marvel on Disney+.  Over the past few years, Netflix, Amazon Prime Video, and HBO Max have all developed successful entries in the genre. 

Titans (HBO Max, 2018- present) is based on the DC characters, the Teen Titans, young superheroes who fight evildoers.  This is not your parents’ group of heroes, however – the violence and sexual situations make it a much more adult version.  One thing that gives the show broad appeal is that it incorporates the version of the group that many Baby Boomers grew up with, namely Dick Grayson’s Robin (who eventually becomes Nightwing), Wonder Girl, and Aqualad, as well as vigilante partners known as Hawk and Dove, and brings them together with the newer version of the Titans – Jason Todd’s Robin, Starfire, Raven, and Beast Boy, as well as Conner/Superboy (a genetic clone of Superman and criminal genius Lex Luthor).

Titans originally debuted its first two seasons on the DC Universe streaming service, but shifted to HBO Max when that streaming service became the platform for original DC series outside the Arrowverse.

Doom Patrol (HBO Max, 2019- present) is another DC team of superheroes, although not from one of the more popular comics.  The group has undergone many different incarnations over the years.  The Doom Patrol is a group of super-powered misfits, each of whom received their powers due to horrible accidents that also left them scarred, traumatized, and alienated from society.  Members include, Chief, Negative Man, Robotman, Elasti-girl, Mento, Beast Boy (who joins the Titans), Space Case, Crazy Jane, Flex Mentallo, Danny the Ambulance, and Cyborg (who also becomes a member of the Teen Titans and Justice League).  Doom Patrol originally aired on DC Universe before moving to HBO Max.

The Boys (Amazon Prime Video, 2019-present) presents a world where superheroes are real, unaccountable, and can basically do whatever they want (such as accidentally kill ordinary citizens).  In this dark comedy-drama, based on the comic book series, a Justice League-type superhero group known as The Seven wreak havoc as they sometimes do and sometimes only pretend to do great deeds, often leaving destruction and death in their wake  They work for a multibillion-dollar conglomerate that licenses their images and covers up their crimes.  A vigilante group, known as the Boys, is committed to fighting and exposing these corrupt “heroes.” 

Just because this show centers around superheroes, however, does not mean it’s for kids.  Scenes of graphic and implied violence and sex are prevalent throughout.  Karl Urban stars as Billy Butcher, leader of the vigilante group sworn to bring down the “heroes.”  Antony Starr is Homelander, the Superman-style, most powerful member of The Seven.  Erin Moriarity, Dominique McElligott, Aya Cash, and Giancarlo Esposito, among others, round out the cast. 

The Umbrella Academy (Netflix, 2019-present) is based on the comic of the same name.  In 1989, 43 infants are inexplicably born to random women who showed no signs of pregnancy.  Seven of them, all with enhanced abilities, are adopted by a billionaire industrialist who creates the Umbrella Academy to prepare his “children” to save the world.  But first they have to solve his mysterious death.  The siblings travel through time in an attempt to avoid an apocalypse that they somehow ended up causing in the future, while being hunted by assassins sent to stop them from preventing the end of the world,

The ensemble cast includes, Elliot Page, Tom Hopper, David Casteneda, Cameron Britton, Emmy Raver-Lampman, Robert Sheehan, Aidan Gallagher, and Mary J. Blige.  It remains one of Netflix’s most popular shows.

Jupiter’s Legacy (Netflix, 2021) is based on Mark Millar’s comic-book series, about the super-powered children of legendary superheroes, who struggle to live up to the extraordinary feats of their parents.  They see the modern world differently, and their parents’ code of ethics about never killing the villains as a relic of a different, more civilized time.

Jupiter’s Legacy was supposed to be the first in a series of “Millarworld” shows, creating a new superhero universe for Netflix (to compete with Disney+’s Marvel and Star Wars franchises).  But despite being one of Netflix’s most watched series, it was mysteriously canceled after just one season.  The high budget and behind-the-scenes production battles were blamed.  Netflix and Millar spun the cancellation by saying they are proceeding with Jupiter’s universe, starting with an unrelated Millar comic-book series titled, Supercrooks.

Just as Disney+ will be expanding the Marvel on television, HBO Max will be trying to do the same for DC.  While the Marvel TV series will have links to its cinematic universe, it’s not clear if the same will be true for the DC series.

Several upcoming Marvel series on Disney+ will feature lesser-known characters from its vast array of comic-book heroes:

 

Hawkeye, with Jeremy Renner reprising his role from the Avengers movies, will have a six-episode run in fall 2021.  Hailee Steinfeld will play his young female protegee, Kate Bishop.  Vera Farmiga and Florence Pugh (who starred in the Black Widow movie) also star.

Disney+ is reportedly already working on a spin-off series, featuring another lesser-known Marvel character (first introduced in the Daredevil comic book in 1998), who will also appear in Hawkeye – Echo (Alaqua Cox), a deaf Native-American martial arts expert, whose superpower is her ability to mimic her opponents’ movements and fighting style.

 

She-Hulk will star Tatiana Maslany as Jennifer Walters, lawyer-turned green super-strong hero (who is also Bruce Banner’s cousin – in the comic book, she gains his Hulk powers after getting a blood transfusion from him, so look for Mark Ruffalo to show up).  Tim Roth will reprise his role as the Abomination from The Incredible Hulk movie.  Jameela Jamil will play Titania, a super strong rival of She-Hulk.  Ten episodes are scheduled for some time in 2022.

Ms. Marvel will star Iman Vellani as Kamala Khan, a 16-year-old Muslim Pakistani-American from New Jersey, who writes superhero fan fiction about Captain Marvel, and gains shape-shifting powers (from her latent Inhuman DNA).  Kamala Khan is Marvel’s first Muslim character to headline her own comic book or television series (she made her first comic-book appearance in 2013).  It is expected to debut its six episode run in October or November 2021.  Ms. Marvel is also reportedly going to appear in the feature film, The Marvels, scheduled for 2022.

Moon Knight is one of the more unusual Marvel characters.  Oscar Isaac will play Marc Spector, also known as Moon Knight – a former U.S. marine, C.I.A operative, and mercenary with Dissociative Identity Disorder (DID).  In the comic book, Marc Spector is near death in Egypt after being betrayed by his employer.  He is saved by the Egyptian moon god  Khonshu, and is given superhuman abilities, in exchange for becoming his conduit on Earth.  Upon his return to the U.S., he becomes the crimefighter, Moon Knight.  He has multiple identities with their own distinct personalities – from a cab driver to a millionaire socialite – which he uses to gain information without being noticed.  This character has been compared to DCs Batman (or at least what Batman might be like if he had DID).  Ethan Hawke will reportedly play the show’s main villain, with May Calamawy in an undisclosed role.  It has a yet to be announced 2022 release date for its six episodes.

Secret Invasion is based on the epic 2008 Marvel comic-book series about the Skrulls, shape-shifting aliens who have been infiltrating Earth for years and replacing various Marvel heroes.  Samuel L. Jackson will reprise his role as Nick Fury, with Ben Mendelsohn again playing the alien Skrull, Talos (first introduced in Captain Marvel).  Kingsley Ben-Adir and Olivia Colman, are set to co-star, and Emilia Clarke is in negotiations to join the cast as well.

Ironheart will be based on one of Marvel’s more obscure comic-book characters who first appeared in 20016, and will star Dominique Thorne in the title role.  She plays Riri Williams, a 15-year-old engineering student genius who attends MIT on a scholarship.  She designs a suit of armor similar to Iron Man’s with material she steals from her campus.  Tony Stark (Iron Man) takes notice of her achievement and encourages her in her goal to become a superhero.  They were  originally considering calling her Iron Woman or Iron Maiden, but thought the former was too old fashioned, and the latter simply inappropriate.  This will be the MCU’s first Black female title character.   It’s slated for an April 2022 release and will consist of six episodes.  Before the shows airs, the character will reportedly appear in the next Black Panther theatrical movie.

Armor Wars will star Don Cheadle reprising his role from the Iron Man and Avenger movies, as War Machine, another secondary Marvel hero to get the series treatment.  There was a seven-issue comic book series in 1987/88 where Tony Stark discovers the top-secret technology he used to create the Iron Man armor has been acquired by a group of supervillains.  But with Tony Stark having died at the end of Avengers: Endgame, it looks like James Rhodes/War Machine will be the one battling them to get the technology back.

Untitled Wakanda Series will star Danak Gurira, reprising her film role as Okoye, the head of the Dora Milaje, Wakanda’s all-female special forces, and the Black Panther’s bodyguards.  Nothing about the plot or additional casting is yet known.  There are unconfirmed rumors that one of Marvel’s great anti-heroes, Namor the Sub-Mariner, might make an appearance

What If…? is an animated series based on the comic book of the same name, which imagines what would happen if things in the Marvel Universe happened differently.  For example, what if Peggy Carter (Hayley Atwell) became Captain America instead of Steve Rogers, or if Loki wielded the hammer instead of Thor, and other alternate realities.  Many recognizable Marvel actors will voice their character roles.  Twenty-three episodes are planned for summer 2021, the first two of which have already aired.

While the CW will continue to be the primary broadcast network for DC series, particularly for the Arrowverse, HBO Max will not only be the home for former DC Universe series, but will have several new entries, featuring both popular and lesser known heroes.

Naomi from Ava Duvernay, will air on CW this season, and will star Kaci Walfall as the African-American teenage hero that saw her DC Comics debut in 2019.  Naomi is a cool, confident, comic-book and superhero loving teenage high-school student.  When a supernatural event shakes her small hometown of Port Oswego, Oregon, she sets out to uncover its origins, which leads to exploring the DC multiverse and uncovering the truth about her own super-powered origins.

The following series are slated for HBO Max.

Green Lantern, which Arrowverse mega-producer Greg Berlanti promises will be “our biggest DC show ever made,” will reportedly span several decades, and feature more than a few popular members of the Green Lantern Corps. (heroes with green-charged power rings, who protect the earth and the universe from cosmic threats), including Alan Scott, Guy Gardner, Jessica Cruz, Simon Baz, and Kilowog.  It will also include the iconic villain, Sinestro.  This has no relation to the failed 2011 theatrical movie.  The pandemic delayed production, so the planned 2021 release will likely be delayed until 2022.  Ten episodes have been ordered.

Peacemaker will star John Cena, reprising his role from the latest Suicide Squad theatrical movie as the highly skilled and equally unstable warrior, Peacemaker.  James Gunn, who is writing the series, has confirmed that other characters from the film will appear in the TV show.  The series was picked up for eight episodes, scheduled to premiere in January 2022.

DC Super Hero High is a comedy about a group of teenagers who are destined to become superheroes.  The series will be set in a boarding school for gifted children, and will deal with typical teenage issues before they become heroes.  It will probably debut in late 2021 or early 2022.

Justice League Dark is based on the Justice League spin-off comic about a team that battles supernatural forces.  In the comics, the team has included characters such as John Constantine, Deadman, Zatana, and Swamp Thing, but there’s no word yet on which of them or any others will be featured here.  There’s a chance that characters from this series will eventually be spun off into their own series (the opposite of what Netflix did with The Defenders) J.J. Abrams is developing the show.

Constantine will reportedly be another new series from J.J. Abrams.  It will focus on a younger version of the man who fights against supernatural foes (there could be cross-over possibilities with Justice League Dark, since John Constantine will be played by the same actor in both series).  No word yet on a potential release date.

Strange Adventures is an anthology series from Greg Berlanti, with each episode telling a cautionary tale focusing on different, mostly lesser-known characters within the DC universe (possibly someone like Adam Strange).  Stories could run the gamut from earthbound heroes to intergalactic themes and the supernatural.  Strange Adventures was a comic-book series that ran from 1950-1973, focusing largely on sci-fi stories that sometimes included superheroes.  I haven’t heard any details or a potential release date since it was originally announced as being in development.

Madame X will be adapted for HBO Max by J.J. Abrams and Angela Robinson.  Madame X is a sorceress who has helped both the Suicide Squad and Justice League Dark in the DC comic books.  The series is in the early development stage, so no release date has been announced.

The Batman Prequel will be a spin-off of director Matt Reeves’ upcoming The Batman theatrical movie, which is scheduled to be released in theaters in October 2021.  The series will focus primarily on the Gotham City Police Department and “will build upon the motion picture’s examination of the anatomy of corruption in Gotham City, ultimately launching a new Batman universe across multiple platforms.”  The series will take place a year before The Batman movie, as the masked vigilante first appears on the scene.  The story is seen through the POV of Gotham’s corrupt cops, and one in particular.  Reeves described the story as “a battle for the cop’s soul.”

Val-Zod Superman Series is being developed for HBO Max by Michael B. Jordan.  Val-Zod (who happens to be Black) is the Superman from Earth 2, where he is one of the last Kryptonians, and the second to assume the Superman mantle.  The character first appeared in a DC comic in 2014.

Aquaman: King of Atlantis is a three-part animated series aimed at kids, and focusing on the undersea superhero and his underwater kingdom of Atlantis.

There have been numerous animated series based on DC, Marvel, and other characters throughout the 1960s, 70s, 80s, and 90s, and 2000s, geared to kids, teens, and young adults.  Just some examples representative of each decade include,

1960s: Marvel: Spider-Man, Fantastic Four. DC: The New Adventures of Superman, The Superman/Aquaman Hour of Adventure, The Batman/Superman Hour, The Adventures of Batman. Other: Mighty Mouse Playhouse, Courageous Cat and Minute Mouse, Astro Boy, Underdog, 8 Man, Atom Ant, Secret Squirrel, The Herculoids, Space Ghost, Birdman.

1970s: Marvel: Spider-Man, Super Friends, Spider-Woman.  DC:  The New Adventures of Batman, The Batman/Tarzan Adventure Hour. Other: The New Adventures of Flash Gordon, The New Adventures of Mighty Mouse.

1980s: Marvel: Spider-Man, The Incredible Hulk.  DC: Super Friends, Shazam!.  Other: Thundarr the Barbarian, He-Man and the Masters of the Universe, The Transformers, She-Ra: Princess of Power, Defenders of Earth, The New Adventures of Mighty Mouse,  Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles.

1990s: Marvel: Spider-Man, Iron Man, X-Men, Fantastic Four, The Incredible Hulk, Spawn.  DC: Batman: The Animated Series, Superman the Animated Series.  Other: Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles, Dragon Ball Z, Darkwing Duck, The New Adventures of Captain Planet, The Tick, Mega Man, The Powerpuff Girls.

2000s: Marvel: The Spectacular Spider-Man, X-Men Evolution, Wolverine and the X-Men, Fantastic Four.  DC:  Batman Beyond, Batman: The Brave and the Bold, Teen Titans, Justice League Unlimited, Legion of Super Heroes.  Other:  Samurai Jack, Max Steel, He-Man and the Masters of the Universe, Teamo Supremo.

2010s: Marvel: Avengers Assemble, The Avengers: Earth’s Mightiest Heroes, Iron Man: Armored Adventures, Ultimate Spider-Man, Marvel’s Spider-Man, Hulk and the Agents of S.M.A.S.H., Guardians of the Galaxy, Big Hero 6: The Series.  DC: Young Justice, Teen Titans Go, DC Super Hero Girls.  Other: Transformers Prime, The Powerpuff Girls, Stretch Armstrong and the Flex Fighters, She-Ra and the Princesses of Power, Rise of the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles.

2020s: Marvel: Spidey and His Amazing Friends, Stan Lee’s Superhero Kindergarten M.O.D.O.K., What If… DC: Harley Quinn, Aquaman: King of Atlantis.  Other: Invincible, Kid Cosmic.

Is This Hidden Gem the Best Sci-FI Series Ever? (8/21)

There are so many sub-genres of science fiction, and so many excellent vastly different sci-fi movies and television series, that singling out any as “the best” seems silly. 

How can you compare stories featuring aliens (e.g., Falling Skies, Colony, Raised by Wolves) to fantasy (e.g., Buffy the Vampire Slayer, Game of Thrones, The Witcher), horror (e.g., American Horror Stories, Van Helsing, Servant), post-apocalyptic (e.g., The Walking Dead, The Last Ship, Z Nation), space operas (e.g., Battlestar Galactica, Babylon 5, The Expanse), super heroes (e.g., The Flash, Titans, Superman & Lois), alternate histories (Man in the High Castle, Watchmen, For All Mankind), cyberpunk (e.g., Dollhouse, Almost Human, Altered Carbon), dystopian futures (e.g., The Handmaid’s Tale, Westworld, Snowpiercer), parallel worlds (e.g., Sliders, Fringe, Counterpoint), time travel (e.g., Quantum Leap, Travelers, Outlander) the supernatural (e.g., X-Files, Supernatural, Stranger Things), or franchises (e.g., Star Trek, Star Wars, Stargate)?

That said, Netflix’s mystery thriller, Dark, needs to be carved into the Mount Rushmore of science-fiction dramas.  It’s the most meticulously well-crafted series I’ve ever seen.  It can be as confounding as it is compelling, but when it’s over, you realize you’ve just seen a masterpiece.  

Dark is among the very best sci-fi series ever made, and is certainly the best one incorporating time travel.  It is a rare thrill to watch a television series with such lofty ambitions so masterfully achieve its goals with a nearly perfect series finale.

Dark is Netflix’s first original German series.  It was originally pitched as a darker, more complex version of Stranger Things.  It premiered in December 2017 and aired for three brilliant and often mesmerizing seasons.  It is difficult to describe what it’s about to someone who hasn’t seen it because it isn’t linear strorytelling.  It jumps back and forth across time, and it takes a while before you realize what’s going on. 

According to Streaming On Demand Analytics (SODA), Dark was the second most watched non-English-language series on Netflix (behind only Money Heist) between 2017 and 2020, and was viewed by roughly half of all Netflix accounts in the UK, France, Spain, and Italy (significantly more in its home market of Germany).

I’ll try not to give too much away, but there are some spoilers ahead.

Dark is an intricate puzzle that manages to incorporate many elements of various science-fiction genres without fitting neatly into any one of them.  There are causal loops, multiple timelines, a parallel universe, a dystopian future, a group intent on causing an apocalypse (which has or hasn’t already happened), and another group determined to stop them (as they engage in debates about predetermination versus free will).  At the center of it all, spiraling in and out of focus, is an at once tragic and hopeful love story.

As the series begins, it appears to be a standard crime drama.  In the fictional small German town of Winden, with a nuclear power station at its center, two children disappear in similar fashion 33 years apart.  But you quickly discover there is a lot more going on here.  A time-travel conspiracy and hidden connections, secrets, and lies among four families, spanning three generations, are slowly unraveled over the course of 26 episodes.

The series starts out in 2019, but gradually expands to include several other time periods – first 1986 and 1953, then 1920, and eventually 2052 and 1888.  A wormhole (created by a blast at the nuclear power plant), which opens portals between two parallel worlds and several timelines, is located deep within Winden caves.  Dark has its own unique rationale as to why time travel is only possible in 33-year increments. 

It’s not always easy to follow who’s who as different characters and versions of characters at different ages and different realities interact with one another.  In one scene, multiple versions of the same character are in the same room at the same time.  The series requires your attention – no multi-tasking while watching or you’ll get lost pretty quickly.  Even if you’re paying attention you might get lost for a while.

As the philosophical pendulum swings back and forth between fate and free will,  some characters do horrific things, justifying them by “knowing” they are necessary for events to unfold the way they are “supposed to.”  Some characters are determined to stop a cycle of events that seems to keep repeating.  Others have no idea they are being manipulated by some sinister master plan.

I often find time travel stories annoying, because they typically follow one of two tracks.  Either you can’t change the past because if you could, there would be no reason for you to go back and change it in the first place (and if you are able to change some detail, it inevitably leads to causing the event you wanted to prevent).  Or, if you change the past, it simply creates an alternate timeline, rather than affecting the timeline you originated from. 

So I expected a familiar, unsatisfying ending, which would leave much of the complex web of mysteries unresolved.  Yet the writers somehow managed to pull it all together into a conclusion that makes sense and is close to perfect (and perfectly satisfying). 

The background music and the cinematography are appropriately ominous.  The large cast, which includes, Louis Hoffman, Lisa Vicari, Maja Schone, Jordas Triebel, Oliver Masucci, Mark Waschke, Sebastian Rudolf, Karoline Eichhorn, Moritz Jahn, Gina Stieibitz, Carlotte von Falkenhayn, Andreas Pietschmann, and Dean Lennard Liebrenz, are all spot on for their respective roles.

While debating the existence of God, and fate versus free will, one of the characters declares, “God is time, and time is not compassionate,” which describes this series as well as anything.  As does the Albert Einstein quote that appears onscreen during the first episode: “The distinction between past, present, and future is only a stubbornly persistent illusion.”

Police Shows Face a Reckoning (Sort of): A Brief History of Cop Shows on TV (7/21)

Despite irrefutable video evidence, there was real and justifiable concern among many observers that former Minneapolis police officer Derek Chauvin would be acquitted of murdering George Floyd and escape justice.  Juries have traditionally given police officers the benefit of the doubt.  Convictions, even with seemingly obvious wrongdoing, have been few and far between.  While I am certainly not claiming that television is the main culprit here, there is no question that more than 70 years of police portrayals on highly viewed scripted dramas have contributed to public perception of police as the good guys who often need to do whatever it takes to bring the bad guys to justice.

Now, for the first time, networks and producers seem willing (and financially motivated) to make changes.  Whether they are simply cosmetic and temporary remains to be seen.

While it’s all well and good to hire cultural and diversity consultants to advise producers and writers on how to more responsibly portray law enforcement, the one thing that will have the greatest impact is actually having more diversity in writers’ rooms (and among showrunners) – which, of course, means more than having one lower-level person of color at the table.

In 2020, a major study from the non-profit civil rights advocacy organization Color of Change titled, Normalizing Injustice, found that 84% of writers for the 19 crime series on broadcast TV during the 2018-19 season were white.  Five series had entirely white writers’ rooms (The Blacklist, Law & Order: SVU, Blindspot, NCIS, and Blue Bloods).  Five other series had 90% or more white writers (Bull, Criminal Minds, NCIS: Los Angeles, Chicago P.D., and Brooklyn Nine Nine).  All of the series (except for CBS’s S.W.A.T.) had 15% or less Black writers, while nine (47%) had none.  The networks have promised to improve these numbers. 

Over the years, there have been some common themes to most cop shows – the look and feel of these shows evolved over time, but many of the threads have remained basically the same, and are only now starting to be unraveled.

Here are the six universal truths of law enforcement shows on television:

1. Cops are typically honest, heroic, and good. From the earliest days of television this has been a basic tenet of virtually all cop series.  Many of these shows had the cooperation and “approval” of local police departments, so they exclusively showed the police perspective.  Starting in the late 1980s, we saw that cops could be corrupt.  But those were (and still are) usually presented as a few bad apples who eventually get their comeuppance.

2. Violent crime is on the rise everywhere so more cops are needed. Despite the fact that violent crime declined by 71% between 1993 and 2018 (according to the U.S. Department of Justice), a 2016 Vox-Morning Consult survey showed that roughly two-thirds of Americans  thought violent crime is getting worse.  While news reports certainly contribute to this, so are the increasing number of police series that show violent crimes in every episode.  Police procedurals, which usually have each week’s crime solved by the end of the hour, provide an unrealistic view of not only the crime rate, but on the effectiveness and relative quickness of solving each case – as long as the bureaucracy doesn’t get in the way.

3. Crossing the line is OK to catch the bad guy. The city (or the country, or the world) is only safe because of self-righteous avengers who are willing to do things no one else can do.  These are typified by Andy Sipowicz (NYPD Blue), Cordell Walker (Walker, Texas Ranger), Elliot Stabler (Law & Order: SVU), Jack Bauer (24), Sydney Bristow (Alias), Vic Mackey (The Shield), Danny Reagan (Blue Bloods), Matt Wozniak (Shades of Blue), and Hank Voight (Chicago P.D.).  Roughing up suspects is acceptable if it helps solve the case.  Other cops stand by and do nothing – even those who are opposed to what is happening, because they know the world is safer due to the few who are willing to take morally ambiguous action.  You can’t worry about constitutional or civil rights when time is running out to prevent innocent civilians from being hurt.

4. There is no systemic racism in police departments. There might be some individual racist cops, but they are rare and easily recognizable – and usually have discernable links to white supremacist groups. 

5. Cops are well trained. Rookie cops and FBI agents have training officers that teach them the right way to do their jobs.  The good cops, i.e., most cops, even rookies, can stand up to the few crooked or racist cops and eventually succeed in getting them removed from the force (or at least disciplined) – unless the show is geared toward highlighting the heroics of crooked cops, who viewers cheer for because they go up against even worse bad guys.

6. The evidence is color blind. FBI shows or those featuring other agencies (such as NCIS or CSI) seldom address racial inequities.  They simply follow the evidence.  The evidence never lies and virtually always leads to capturing the bad guys and getting them to confess.  Race has nothing to do with it.  Social context is irrelevant.  Most of these shows in recent times, Criminal Minds, the various NCISs and CSIs, The Blacklist, Blindspot, Quantico, FBI, FBI: Most Wanted,, feature diverse casts who are relentless in tracking down suspects, and have seemingly unlimited resources.  The bulk of the criminals in these shows range from serial killers (who are almost always white men), to white supremacists, to foreign bad actors.  FBI, is one of the few series in this genre that attempts to address racial bias.

Here’s a look at how cop and crime shows have evolved (and not evolved) over time.

1950s/60s:  It’s Black and White: Cops are the Noble and True

On law-enforcement shows that started airing in the 1950s, cops and FBI agents were older white men or clean-cut younger white men who looked up to the older white men mentors.  The names of these shows were simple and descriptive – Man Against Crime (1949-54), Martin Kane, Private Eye (1949-54), Racket Squad (1951-53), Treasury Men in Action (1950-55), Dragnet (1951-59), The Lineup (1954-60), Highway Patrol (1955-59), Naked City (1958-63), Peter Gunn (1958-61), 77 Sunset Strip (1958-64).  Those that debuted in the early 1960s, such as The Untouchables (1959-63), The Saint (1962-69), The Fugitive (1963-67), and The F.B.I. (1965-74), largely followed the 1950s model. Even the comedy, The Andy Griffith Show (1960-68) fit into this mold. 

Cops were honest and good, and almost never broke the rules.  Both the cops and the criminals were usually white men.  If the show continued to air into the early 1960s, you’d occasionally see a Black officer, detective, or secretary, and more minority criminals.  If FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover’s name was mentioned, it was always with reverence.

From the beginning, cop shows built relationships with local police departments.  Dragnet’s Jack Webb, who played upright “just the facts, ma’am” detective Joe Friday, submitted the show’s scripts to the LAPD’s Public Information Division and omitted anything they didn’t approve.  The F.B.I. vetted every detail of the original TV series, The F.B.I., which included background checks to make sure no “criminals, subversives, or Communists” were associated with the show.  The closing credits for Adam-12, stated, “Technical advice for the filming of Adam-12 was approved by the board of Police Commissioners and came from the office of Chief Thomas Reddin Los Angeles Police Department.” 

1960s/70s:  The Times They Are a Changin’

As the country experienced the turmoil led by the Civil Rights movement, the Vietnam War, and the resulting generational rifts, the networks seemed uncertain as to how they should present crime and punishment.  Cops, F.B.I. agents, and detectives were still mostly clean-cut white men, but you would occasionally see clean-cut Black officers or assistants/secretaries.  Cops were still universally good and heroic, and almost always played by the rules, using their cleverness to outwit and catch the bad guys.  J. Edgar Hoover was still seen as the epitome of righteous law enforcement. 

 

The differing public perceptions during the late 1960s/early 1970s is epitomized by the fact that Adam 12 (1968-75), which was as clean-cut and by-the-book as you can get, premiered the same year as The Mod Squad (1968-73), a show about young undercover cops, revolutionary not just for casting a woman and a Black man in leading roles, but for also trying to address the generation gap and social issues of the time. 

Other cop/detective shows debuting in the late 1960s, most notably Ironside (1967-75) and Mannix (1967-75), also had central (although not leading) Black cast members.  And, of course, Hawaii Five-0 (1968-80) had people of color in its cast.

For the first time in the mid-60s there were shows that satirized law enforcement – Car 54, Where Are You?, Get Smart (1965-70) and Batman (1966-68).  There were also several action spy series that were clearly influenced by the success of 1960s James Bond films, Dr. No, From Russia With Love, and Goldfinger.  These included, The Man From U.N.C.L.E. (1964-68), I Spy (1965-68), which was the first American TV drama to feature a Black actor (Bill Cosby) in a lead role, and Mission Impossible (1966-73), which also had a regular Black cast member.

In the late 1960s and 1970s, the only thing that changed about how the police treated suspects, was now they had to inform them of their Miranda rights (due to the 1966 Supreme Court decision).  You would sometimes see suspects having to be released because they weren’t read their right to remain silent and that anything they say can be used against them in a court of law.

1970s:  The Maverick “Outsider” Cop

Represented by tough white men – McCloud (1970-77), Columbo (1971-78), Cannon (1971-76),  Banacek (1972-73), Toma (1973-74), Kojak (1973-78), The Rockford Files (1974-80), Starsky & Hutch (1975-79), and Baretta (1975-78) – these maverick cops were part of the establishment, but usually played by their own rules.  But that was fine, because it almost always resulted in getting the bad guys.  As long as you “read them their rights,” everything else was O.K.  These characters were no doubt influenced by Clint Eastwood’s iconic 1971 theatrical film role as Dirty Harry – and the public perception among many at the time that criminals had more “rights” than their victims.

The 1970s were big on titles based on character names.  In addition to the ones mentioned above, the networks aired, Dan August (1970-71), Longstreet (1971-72), McMillan & Wife (1971-77), O’Hara, U.S. Treasury (1971-72), Banyon (1972-73), Chase (1973-740, Griff (1973-74), Harry O (1974-76), and Ellery Queen (1975-76).  Amy Prentiss (1974-75) was the lone woman in the bunch.

1970s:  Social Issues, Racial Diversity, and Women (for the Male Gaze)

Shows like The Mod Squad (1968-73) and The Rookies (1972-76) had more diverse casts than previous police shows.  Both had Black men in leading roles.  Both featured younger cops as the networks  tried to appeal to a younger audience.  They also took on the establishment and addressed social ills and the “generation gap” in ways not seen before on TV.  Streets of San Francisco (1972-77) dealt with social issues and generational differences as well.

 

CHiPs (1977-83) was the first cop show on television to feature a Latino police officer in a leading role.  Barney Miller (1975-82), one of the first comedies about cops, featured a diverse cast that included Black, Puerto Rican, Polish American, and Japanese American detectives in a New York police precinct (female detectives were not yet a thing).

Police Woman (1974-78) featured a female undercover cop (who mostly went undercover as a prostitute, dancer, prison inmate, nurse, or flight attendant).  Its lead, Angie Dickenson, was the first woman to star in an hour-long drama.  It also reportedly influenced many women to apply for police positions across the country.  Charlie’s Angels (1976-81), featuring three young female cops, became a hit and helped coin the phrase “jiggle TV” (basically scantily clad women jumping around – also known as “T & A TV”).  They took their assignments from a heard but unseen mysterious male boss.  Get Christie Love! (1974) had its roots in black exploitation films, being inspired by Pam Grier movies – Christie’s trademark line was “You’re under arrest, sugar.”  Its single season was historically significant because Teresa Graves was the first Black woman to star in an hour-long drama.

These shows, starring women but written by men as a sort of male-fantasy TV, obviously don’t hold up well today, but their success did pave the way for women being given more substantial and authentic leading roles in police and detective series.  And just as with the men, female cops were portrayed as universally good and often heroic.  But in the 1970s (and much of the 1980s) female diversity, for the most part, meant simply casting both blondes and brunettes.

1980s:  Crimes Get More Brutal, Co-Starring Women and People of Color

Police and detective shows of the 1980s were punctuated by two of the best and grittiest – Hill Street Blues (1981-87), and Miami Vice (1984-90).  Both groundbreaking series included women and people of color as police officers and detectives.  Both shows featured criminals who were far more brutal than those on television in previous decades.  So, of course, the cops were justified in being just as brutal to bring them to justice.  Hill Street Blues’ cops often faced off with street gangs (typically Black and Hispanic), while Miami Vice took on drug cartels (most often Hispanic or Asian).  Wiseguy (1987-90) also featured unusually brutal (mob-connected) bad guys. 

 

21 Jump Street (1987-91), Fox’s first hit drama, in addition to making Johnny Depp a star, featured a Black woman and other people of color in leading roles.  In the Heat of the Night (1988-95), based on the 1967 hit movie, featured a Black man as one of the lead characters, as did the one-season wonder, Tenspeed and Brown Shoe (1980).

Women were given more prominent roles in crime dramas during the 1980s, highlighted by Cagney & Lacey (1982-88), the first cop show to feature two female partners as the main characters (although as a sign of the times, the original casting was changed because network executives thought the viewers might think more aggressive women were lesbians).  

Murder, She Wrote (1984-96) also had a female lead.  Several other shows featured male/female partners – Hart to Hart (1979-84), T.J. Hooker (1982-86), Remington Steele (1982-87), Scarecrow & Mrs. King (1983-87), Hunter (1984-91), and Moonlighting (1985-89).  Female cops were generally portrayed as just as heroic as their male counterparts, but tended to be more likely to follow the rules and not mistreat suspects.

In the early 1980s, network sitcoms were in decline (until The Cosby Show premiered in 1984).  As a way of compensating, many dramas, including cop shows, premiering during that time incorporated comedic elements, often featuring humorous banter (romantic and otherwise) among partners.  These included, Hart to Hart (1979-84), Magnum, P.I. (1980-88), Simon & Simon (1981-89), Remington Steele (1982-87), Scarecrow & Mrs. King (1983-87), Hardcastle & McCormick (1983-86), Crazy Like a Fox (1984-86), Moonlighting (1985-89), and Jake and the Fatman (1987-92).  These types of shows typically featured white men and women – mixed-race romances, or even flirtations, were not yet acceptable on network television.

1990s:  Black and Latino Characters Move into Central Roles

In the 1990s, Black and Latino cops and detectives became more commonplace.  These included, In the Heat of the Night (1988-95), Law & Order (1990-2010), NYPD Blue (1993-2005), Homicide: Life on the Street (1993-99), Walker, Texas Ranger (1993-2001), New York Undercover (1994-99), and Pacific Blue (1996-2000).  The comedy-drama, The Commish (1991-96), was the decade’s anomaly, with a sole white male lead.  The show did, however, deal with issues such as racism, homophobia, sexual harassment, and police corruption more frequently than most of its peers. 

The X-Files (1993-2002) was one of television’s signature shows of the 1990s, pairing up male and female FBI agents who investigate unsolved cases involving paranormal phenomena.  Profiler (1996-2000) featured a female FBI agent.

It’s interesting to note that most of the Black cops portrayed in the 1990s were less likely to brutalize suspects than were their white counterparts.

2000s:  The Ends Still Justify the Means,  Cable Starts to Change Cop Portrayals

In 2002, ad-supported cable got into the original drama arena, when The Shield (2002-08) debuted on FX.  It  broke many long-standing conventions and led to a gradual increase in edgier original scripted dramas.  A decade earlier, Steven Bochco famously said he intended ABC’s NYPD Blue to be television’s first R-rated series.  The Shield, with its gritty portrayal of corrupt cops, really was.  It employed content and language never before seen on ad-supported television.  It also shone a light on police corruption and brutality throughout the police force.  The LAPD was reportedly not happy with The Shield’s portrayal of police, and threatened to withdraw standard security support for the production (according to the show’s executive producer Glen Mazzara).  Characters in the series therefore never refer to “LAPD” by name.  They also wear fake badges on the wrong side of their uniforms.  There are probably other cases of police departments trying to bully TV productions that I just haven’t heard about. 

A few months after The Shield debuted, HBO premiered The Wire (2002-08).  With its focus on corruption and decay in a major urban city (Baltimore), and the intersection of cops, gangsters, and politicians, it took storytelling to a new level, and demonstrated that for many people in this country, the American Dream is a fiction.  The Wire remains one of the few television series that depicts systemic police brutality against regular citizens (mostly people of color) in addition to showing honest individual cops.  In other words, there can be honest cops in a corrupt system.

 

The aftermath of 9/11, our government’s stance toward “enhanced interrogation,” and the new law known as The Patriot Act, paved the way for counter-terrorism and CIA shows such as 24 (2001-10), The Agency (2001-03), and Alias (2001-06), the first hour-long spy series with a female lead.  All were in production before 9/11, but the events that day changed the direction these shows would take.  The bottom line was that terrorism was such a threat that anything our heroes do to the bad guys is justified as long as it helps prevent the next attack or protects innocent civilians.  24, one of the more popular series on television, sent out this message for the entire decade.

The 2000s gave us a number of police dramas and procedurals with women either in leading roles –  Crossing Jordan (2001-07), Cold Case (2003-10), and The Closer (2005-12) – or in equal partnerships with men –  Law & Order: SVU (1999- ), Law & Order: Criminal Intent (2001-11), Bones (2005-17), In Plain Sight (2008-12), and Castle (2009-16).

There were also several series with racially diverse departments, teams, or partners, often with women in prominent roles, including, Third Watch (1999-2005), CSI (2000-15), The District (2000-04), CSI: Miami (2002-12), Without a Trace (2002-09), NCIS (2003- ), CSI: NY (2004-13), Criminal Minds (2005-2020), Sleeper Cell (2005-06), Psych (2006-14), Flashpoint (2008-12), Leverage (2008-12), NCIS: Los Angeles (2009- ), and Southland (2009-13).

Monk (2002-09), Numb3rs (2005-10), Dexter (2006-13), and The Mentalist (2008-15) were the only ones with solely white male leading characters.

While many of these shows could be placed in different sub-genres of police/detective series, they all had one thing in common – the ends justifies the means.  Protecting suspects rights is important only until innocent people are at risk.  Then, anything goes.  And if your suspect turns out to be innocent, you just apologize and move on with no regrets.  You were just doing your job and trying to protect the public.

2010s:  A Mixed Bag of Genres – Diversity Reigns But…

The 2010s had a number of crime shows whose main protagonists fit into several different categories:

the rogue loose cannons – Justified (2010-15), Luther (2010-15) – the former has a Black woman as a major character, the latter has a Black male lead.

a diverse group of rookies – Rookie Blue (2010-15), The Rookie (2018- ) – rookie cops on TV shows are always well trained and taught right from wrong. 

a diverse group of detectives (led by a woman) – Major Crimes (2012-18) – one of the best procedural crime dramas, balancing horrific crimes and light office banter.  One of the first series of its kind to highlight a gay teen character and same-sex relationships.  While it does have a diverse cast, both racially and age-wise, its sole Latino detective is the one to have a temper and anger management issues, often losing his cool and needing to be reeled in by his team mates.

a diverse S.W.A.T. team (led by a Black man) – S.W.A.T. (2017- ) – this series has dealt with racism, sexism, and homophobia better than most police dramas.

a diverse group of federal agents – The Blacklist (2013- ), NCIS: New Orleans (2014-21), CSI: Cyber (2015-16), Blindspot (2015-20), Quantico (2015-18), FBI (2018- ), FBI: Most Wanted (2020- ) – most shows focusing on the FBI or other federal agencies have diverse casts, but seldom deal with racism (unless in the context of going after violent white supremacist groups), and almost never deal with police brutality.

a diverse squad corrupt detectives – Shades of Blue (2016-18) – Jennifer Lopez and Ray Liotta lead a crew that takes bribes and protection money, and thinks nothing of crossing any line to catch the bad guys (but they only break the rules to give their families a better life).

a diverse group of detectives who often break the rules – Chicago P.D. (2014- ) – racism and corruption have become central themes, and they are now attempting to show that police brutality is wrong (after years of condoning it).

a diverse group of detectives in a comedy – Brooklyn Nine Nine (2013-2021) – might be the first series about detectives, where the captain happens to be gay.

diverse action teams – Strike Back (2010-20), Person of Interest (2011-16), Banshee (2013-16).  They’re not cops, so there are no “rules” to break, and there’s no moral backlash to hurting anyone who gets in their way.

female leads – Covert Affairs (2010-14), Rizzoli & Isles (2010-16), Body of Proof (2011-13), Homeland (2011-20), Unforgettable (2011-16), Jett (2019), L.A.’s Finest (2019-20) – most of these women are just as likely as men in similar shows to cross the line to bring the criminals to justice.

male/female, multi-racial partners/teams – Hawaii Five-0 (2010-20), Elementary (2012-19), Scorpion (2014-18), True Detective (2014-19), Lethal Weapon (2016-19), C.B. Strike (2018- ), Magnum P.I. (2018- ), Rellik (2018), City on a Hill (2019- ).

white male leads – White Collar (2009-14), Perception (2012-15), MacGyver (2016-21), Prodigal Son (2019-21).

This decade also brought us the noble police family in Blue Bloods (2010- ) – even when they occasionally cross the line, their intentions are good and they constantly question themselves – when a cop outside the family breaks the rules, the Commissioner (Tom Selleck) usually manages to boot them off the force by the end of the episode (as though police unions don’t exist), often getting them to resign (to avoid bad PR).  Blue Bloods has also had a number of episodes where Black activists try to frame innocent white cops for police brutality – until the righteous Commissioner Reagan   persuades them to come clean.  In this world, the main problem is public misperception of the police and Black activists who cause trouble.

And then there’s Fargo (2014- ), which defies genre labels but is certainly diverse, and features numerous women in leading roles.  It is also one of the few shows to present good, honest cops and corrupt, incompetent cops in relatively equal number.

2020s:  George Floyd’s Murder, a Year of Protests Change TV Cops (Sort of) 

In the aftermath of George Floyd’s murder, captured on video for all the world to see, there was a backlash against the portrayal of law enforcement on TV series as universally heroic and righteous.

The popular reality show Cops, which debuted in 1989, was canceled in 2020.  Its “real-life” portrayal of harsh police tactics, particularly toward minorities, was no longer acceptable.  Live PD, another highly rated reality show focusing on various police forces across the country, which had debuted in 2016, was also canceled in 2020.

Shows like Chicago P.D., The Rookie, and S.W.A.T.(the only police series on network TV with a Black showrunner and lead star), started having storylines that dealt with racism on the police force in ways never before seen on broadcast television.  Most of these plots, however, focus on racism as seen through the eyes of Black police officers – this does provide for interesting perspectives but hardly addresses the impact of police brutality and racial profiling on the daily life of regular citizens.  In most cases, the surrounding white cops seem oblivious to the issue until a Black colleague loses his cool.  Of course, it is still typically presented as just a few bad apples.  Police brass is usually shown as being unaware that racism is a widespread problem in the department and not knowing how to deal with it.  It’s up to the Black officers to educate their colleagues and superiors.

A number of these shows have taken to making a big deal about how police departments are instituting new policies against doing anything that crosses the line, such as roughing up suspects to get them to talk.  In one recent episode Chicago, P.D., for example, when the head of the unit is about to hit a suspect, one of his subordinates stops him and says, “we don’t do that anymore.”  The boss glares at him for a few seconds before backing off.  If only that would happen in real life.  Likewise, in Law & Order: Organized Crime, when Elliot Stabler is about to beat up a suspect, Olivia Benson says, “we don’t do it this way anymore” – not because they think it’s actually wrong, but because “everything is being looked at through a different prism now.”  They don’t want to be on a viral video roughing up a suspect and maybe losing their jobs.

While these series have started to incorporate the idea of treating suspects less harshly than in the past, they present these new rules as politically correct but dangerous limitations on protecting the public.  Chicago P.D., recently had an episode where the new police chief did not allow the detectives to enter a property to catch a dangerous suspect who was holding a hostage until the search warrant came through.  As a result of the delay, the hostage was killed.  The clear message of the show was that it’s fine to institute new policies to prevent cops from breaking the rules, but those who do are naïve, and are endangering the public by no longer permitting cops to do whatever it takes to catch the bad guys.

Law & Order: SVU had an episode where our hero, Olivia Benson, questions whether she unconsciously racially profiled a suspect (the main cops on TV shows never seem to consciously racially profile anyone).

And they still do no-knock warrants, where a dozen or so cops just bust down the door unannounced, which I assume writer’s still see as the best way to heighten the dramatic effect – I cringe every time I see a dozen or so cops on Chicago P.D., FBI,  or S.W.A.T. knock down doors with guns drawn, yelling at everyone inside to not move or get down.  Cops on TV shows never break down the wrong doors or shoot anyone in these situations by “accident.”

A dozen police dramas have premiered since 2020.  Nearly half of them only lasted one season.  They include, Big Sky (2020- ), Briarpatch (2020), Deputy (2020), Hightown (2020- ), Lincoln Rhyme: Hunt for the Bone Collector (2020), Next (2020), Tommy (2020), We Hunt Together (2020- ), Clarice (2021), The Equalizer (2021- ), Law & Order: Organized Crime (2021- ), and Walker (2021- ). 

Of these, four have Black leads (Briar Patch, Lincoln Rhyme, The Equalizer, and We Hunt Together), and two others have central Black characters (Big Sky, Clarice).  The lead character in Hightown is Latina.  Seven of these shows – Big Sky, Briarpatch, Hightown, Tommy, Clarice, The Equalizer, and We Hunt Together – have women in lead roles (Briarpatch and The Equallizer have Black female stars).  Tommy features a lesbian police chief, and did focus on sexism and homophobia.  Clarice, which takes place in the 1990s, has dealt extensively with sexism and racism.  Unfortunately, both Tommy and Clarice were canceled after just one season, as was Briarpatch.  None of the remaining shows seem particularly interested in addressing police brutality or racial inequities.

Will established police dramas continue to evolve in dealing with these issues now that full seasons will be produced post-pandemic and post-George Floyd backlash?  Or will the lessening press focus on these issues enable business-as-usual inertia?  Just as important will be what new police dramas look like.  So far, the only new shows in this genre announced by the broadcast networks are extensions of current franchises – NCIS: Hawaii, FBI: International, CSI: Vegas, and Law & Order: For the Defense.  The latter seems like the perfect opportunity to show how cops in the first half of the show might have mistreated suspects. 

The networks should not be patting themselves on the back just yet for the baby steps they are now taking after 70 years of what many refer to as “copaganda.”  There’s still a long way to go.  More diverse representation and perspectives in front of and behind the camera (and in the writer’s rooms) are the keys to real change.

A Young Media Person's Guide to Evaluating Pilots (7/21)

The broadcast networks recently announced their respective fall schedules in a series of virtual upfront presentations to the advertising industry.  Because of the pandemic, last year was the first time since I’ve been in this business that I didn’t see any pilots before the fall season began.  This year, as the world is inching back to normal, COVID production schedules are delaying several pilots until later this summer (although I have seen a few).

So, while I had planned to include my predictions of new series hits and misses in this report, that will have to wait until more pilots are available.  This report will focus exclusively on how to evaluate the success potential of new series pilots.

In the 40 years or so I’ve been analyzing the television landscape, the benchmark of success for a new broadcast series has continually shifted, with the bar gradually getting lower and lower. 

• In the 3-network world of the 1980s, as cable was just starting to impact the broadcasters, if a new show didn’t generate at least a 30 household share (something that simply could not happen today for a regular series), it was considered borderline – even if it won its time period. Although back then, if a network believed in a show it would often be given time or moved to a new time period to see if it could gain an audience.  One network was usually so far ahead or behind the pack that giving a show a network head of programming (or his spouse) liked more time had little downside.

• During the 1990s, as three networks grew to four, and then six, and cable began luring away broadcast viewers, a 20 share or a strong demographic performance was good enough for a show to be renewed. The fledgling WB and UPN networks (since combined into CW) had different and much lower metrics of success – they were all about the under 35 crowd. 

• Throughout the 2000s, as cable started airing more original scripted series, ratings and shares became less significant as an indicator of success. Rankings became more telling.  Finishing first or second in a given time period, ranking reasonably high among certain age groups, doing well relative to your network’s other programming, and holding onto a decent portion of your lead-in audience, all factored into whether a new show would make it to a second season or beyond.

• In the 2010s, as more people started owning DVRs and multi-media devices, and streaming services started to grow, definitions of success became even more nebulous – finishing first or second in a time period, holding a good portion of your lead-in audience, performing well among certain demographic segments, doing well relative to the network’s other programming, receiving a solid audience bump in delayed time-shifted viewing, and having a strong social media following, all contributed to whether a new show was perceived as successful.

How to evaluate the success potential of a pilot episode, however, has not changed all that much over the years.  But how long a new show is given to reach that potential has.  Today, the network races are closer than ever, with tenths of a rating point often separating first and fourth place.  When broadcast networks care more about rankings than growing their audience, potential is sacrificed in favor of anything that might immediately do even slightly better.  Gone are the days when a Cheers could debut as the lowest rated show on television, but end its 11-year run in the top-10.  Or a low-rated Hill Street Blues could sweep the Emmys and become a hit.  Or a Seinfeld can air for three years in mid-season before gaining enough viewers to make the fall schedule.  Or a low-rated Miami Vice can become a word-of-mouth hit during summer reruns.  Or an Everybody Loves Raymond can debut with low ratings on Friday, move to Monday, and become a hit.  Or a show like The Big Bang Theory can finish its first season in 68^th place and finish its 12^th season as the longest running multi-camera comedy ever. 

Traditionally, where a new series is placed on the schedule has been just as important, maybe more so, than the quality of the show.  It is still a consideration, but much less so than in years past.  At one time, scheduling a new show opposite E.R., CSI, or Grey’s Anatomy, was virtually guaranteed to fail.  A new show following Seinfeld, Roseanne, or NCIS, on the other hand, was a good bet to draw a sizable audience.  The broadcast world today is much different and more splintered.  There is no NBC Thursday night “Must See TV” lineup anymore, when they could throw anything in the 8:30 or 9:30 slot and get a solid rating.  There are no 30+ share programs or time periods anymore.  A strong lead-in, while still valuable, is not nearly as significant as it used to be.  A good show can succeed anywhere and a bad show can flop anywhere.  In the era of Peak TV+, the concept of “least objectionable programming,” a phrase with which people under 40 are probably unfamiliar, no longer applies.

So being able to evaluate a new show’s success potential based solely on the pilot episode is more important than ever.  Here are some guidelines:

Comedies should be funny because of the characters, not the plot.  Questions worth asking when evaluating a comedy pilot – 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 to his or her small home 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 sibling’s kids?  You get the idea.  By the second episode, these plot-driven comedies often become substantially different shows.  So even if these pilots are hilarious, you need to look more deeply to determine whether you think it can be maintained on a weekly basis.

In more my 30+ years evaluating television, the two funniest pilots I’ve seen were, The Famous Teddy Z (1989) and The Golden Girls (1985).  The former lasted one season, the latter ran for seven.

The Famous Teddy Z starred Jon Cryer as a lowly mailroom clerk at a talent agency, who, through a bizarre sequence of events, becomes the top talent agent at the company.  The problem was that by the second episode it was a different show.  The events that made the pilot so hilarious no longer existed, and the funny couldn’t be maintained on a weekly basis – and there wasn’t much chemistry among the cast members.

I remember watching The Golden Girls at the NBC Upfront in the days when the networks showed a number of full pilots during their upfront presentations or immediately after.  People were literally falling out of their seats laughing.  But I don’t remember anything specific about the pilot.  I think it was mostly just the four women sitting around a table talking.  It was funny because the characters were funny together, not because of anything that happened in the pilot.

In 2017, I cited ABC’s new show, The Mayor (which co-starred Lea Michele, who had become a star on Glee), as one of the best comedy pilots.  But I 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, and its success would hinge on whether they could maintain the comedy in this new situation (they couldn’t).  It lasted just one season.  There are many similar examples over the years.

Most of the funniest and longest-running network comedies, from All in the Family, M*A*S*H, and The Mary Tyler Moore Show, to Cheers, Seinfeld, and Friends, to Roseanne, Home Improvement, and Full House, to Everybody Loves Raymond, Modern Family, and The Big Bang Theory, lasted because they had casts that gelled and fit well together.  Viewers looked forward to watching slight variations of the same situations week after week – because of the characters, not the plots.

What will a drama’s third episode look like?  Does the pilot make a good one-time movie, or will it work as a weekly series?  Some of the things you look at to predict comedy success apply to dramas as well.  Are there specific guest stars or events in the pilot that drive the story but won’t be there by the second episode?

Medical, police, or legal dramas can seem compelling based on the cases presented in the pilot episode.  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 used to also say that sometimes the pilot might miss the mark but the series could get better over time.  Of course, if the pilot misses the mark these days, it usually isn’t given enough time to get better. 

I pegged ABC’s The Good Doctor as one of the best medical drama pilots I had ever seen.  The characters were strong, and the direction the show was headed seemed clear.  It was able to maintain the quality of the pilot from week-to-week and became one of the highest rated shows on television.  The same season, I said ABC’s For the People was one of the best legal drama pilots I had ever seen.  The characters were strong, and the direction the show was headed seemed clear.  It couldn’t find enough viewers and was canceled after its second season. 

So why did I think The Good Doctor would appeal to a broader audience, and have a better chance to succeed?  It’s not always easy to describe what makes me think one show will work, while an equally good show might not.  You often need to look beyond the things that make you like the pilot.  I think in this case it came down this – people like to root for a person or a side.  With The Good Doctor, the main character is someone people could empathize with or at least root for as he faces the many obstacles that an autistic savant surgical resident might face.  Most legal dramas focus on either the prosecutors or the defense lawyers, giving viewers a clear side to root for.  For the People presented both the prosecution and defense lawyers as essentially equal sides, with some winning their cases one week and losing them the next.  It just seemed to me that would not have as broad an appeal.  Another important indicator is that ABC had other programming in the same genre as The Good Doctor, making it easier to promote the new show (given the ridiculous policy of not cross-promoting broadcast series on other broadcast networks).  For the People did not have similar programming on its host network – it also debuted in mid-season, which often makes a show harder to market, particularly if a network gives its promotion short-shrift.

Procedural dramas are a lot like sitcoms.  They’re essentially situation dramas.  Does the cast gel and will viewers want to tune in to slight variations of the same situation week after week?  These can be telling when you compare successful procedurals and their spin-offs.  The differences between the excellent Criminal Minds and the failed Criminal Minds: Suspect Behavior and Beyond Borders, or the original CSI and the short-lived CSI Cyber are dramatic (and demonstrate the importance of good casting – CSI: Miami and CSI: NY were both successful).  All of the NCIS’s, on the other hand, managed both the casting chemistry and the mixing of drama and humor quite well (and all were hits).  A new entry in the franchise, NCIS: Hawaii, debuts next season.  FBI and FBI: Most Wanted are both succeeding, and we’ll soon see if the upcoming FBI: International can follow suit.  911 and 911: Lone Star are both hits.  I’m wondering if the new Law & Order: For the Defense will have the same obstacles as For the People (showing the prosecution and defense in equal light), although it has the power of the Law & Order franchise name.   In today’s splintered viewing environment, with linear TV on the decline, extending successful franchises is as close to a sure bet as you can get.

Dramas that focus almost exclusively on the characters’ work lives (most procedurals) tend to appeal to older viewers, while those that include just as much emphasis on the characters’ personal lives (i.e., sex lives) tend to appeal to a younger audience.

It typically takes three or four episodes before a drama settles into its regular audience level.  New CBS dramas tend to get high viewer sampling – its audience base is the most network-loyal, and they typically check out any new CBS procedural.  So it sometimes takes a new CBS drama longer to hit its regular performance level.

For certain types of action series such as The Equalizer, FBI, S.W.A.T., 911, and Seal Team, viewers know exactly what to expect from the get go, and it’s fairly easy to predict how they will perform. 

Shows make stars, stars don’t make shows.  The failed TV series with major stars attached are too numerous to list here.  Who remembers Hugh Jackman in Viva Laughlin, Halle Berry in Extant, Octavia Spencer in Red Band Society, Katherine Heigl in Doubt, Kyra Sedgwick in Ten Days in the Valley, or Edie Falco in Tommy?  Just a few examples. 

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, Married…With Children, Everybody Loves Raymond, Modern Family, and The Big Bang Theory, to broadcast dramas such as, E.R., The X-Files, CSI, Lost, Grey’s Anatomy, Empire, and This is Us, 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) and James Spader (The Blacklist) can bring long-time fans to a new show (and usually appeal to an older audience), but they are the exception.

Established stars (more commonly TV personalities) bring high viewer expectations to a new project, based on previous popular roles, which are often hard to live up to.  There are countless people who have starred in one series, but failed in subsequent efforts (and I’m not talking about spin-offs).  But some have made the transition from one successful show to another.  While both Julia Louis-Dreyfus and Kiefer Sutherland had a failure immediately following their iconic runs in Seinfeld and 24, respectively, she found major success in HBO’s comedy, Veep, and he hit in ABC/Netflix’s Designated Survivor.  Michael Weatherly successfully jumped from his role in CBS’s mega-hit, NCIS, to a starring turn in Bull.  Likewise, Shemar Moore, who was the most popular character on CBS’s Criminal Minds, successfully left that show to star in S.W.A.T. on the same network.

Broadcast TV series based on theatrical movies generally don’t work.  There are a few major reasons for this.  Movies are typically designed as a single two-hour contained event, not an ongoing series (unless it’s a Marvel, DC, or other action/sci-fi franchise).  Successful movies bring high expectations, which the television version seldom meets.  There are also lesser “stars” associated with the TV show than were in the movie.

Between 1971 and 2021, the broadcast networks aired 72 television series based on or adapted from theatrical movies.  Only 17 lasted three seasons or more – McCloud (1970-77), M*A*S*H (1972-83), Alice (1976-85), What’s Happening!! (1976-79), The Dukes of Hazzard (1979-85), House Calls (1979-82), Private Benjamin (1981-83), Hotel (1983-88), Mr. Belvedere (1985-90), In the Heat of the Night (1988-94), Buffy the Vampire Slayer (1997-2003), Clueless (1996-99), Friday Night Lights (2006-11), Parenthood (2010-15), Nikita (2010-13), Hannibal (2013-16), and Lethal Weapon (2016-19).  That’s a 24% success rate, significantly less than the 32% rate of the average network series.

During the 2016 and 2017 seasons, there were an unprecedented eight new series based on movies.  Only one, Lethal Weapon, was even moderately successful (it was canceled due to on-set turmoil rather than low ratings).  The others, Uncle Buck,  The Exorcist, Rush Hour, Taken, Frequency, Time After Time, and Training Day did not last long.  Since then, there has been only one, CBS’s Clarice, in the 2020/21 season.  It won’t be back on broadcast, although it might wind up on Paramount+.

Reboots typically don’t work – unless they do.  There have been many reboots of successful and not so successful TV shows over the years.  Both the positives and negatives are fairly obvious.  On the plus side, reboots are pre-sold concepts that don’t require the same amount of promotional weight as a completely new series to generate awareness.  They also tend to receive a fair amount of pre-season buzz.  Most will get decent viewer sampling, so if they’re good, they have an above average chance to succeed.  On the down side, they tend to carry high expectations, which are often hard to meet.  Also, younger viewers are often unfamiliar with the series, and older viewers, who liked the original, are often disappointed with the new version.

Popular shows that come back with the original casts can do quite well (see Dallas, The X-Files, Will & Grace, and The Conners).  Murphy Brown, on the other hand, didn’t perform well and was canceled after a single season.  Reboots with new casts (e.g., Bionic Woman, Ironside, Dragnet, Charlie’s Angels, Melrose Place, 90210, The Odd Couple) often can’t match the original (particularly if the original had iconic casts) and often don’t last long.  There have been notable exceptions.  Battlestar Galactica became iconic in its own right, far surpassing the impact of the original series.  Hawaii Five-0, MacGyver, and Magnum P.I., did just fine, while Walker and Kung Fu (both reboots in name only) are doing well by CW standards.

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 it will probably get an above average viewer sampling.

Pilots often look better watched at your leisure than in your regular viewing environment.  Over the years I’ve watched pilots at the broadcast networks with other advertising executives, in a conference room at work with media buyer and research colleagues, on VCRs and then DVDs at home, and these days online on my laptop.  I watch them at my leisure with no commercials and no distractions.

When the show premieres on television, of course, it will air following some other program, opposite some other programs, and most viewers will simultaneously be doing some other activity.  Just because you like the pilot, doesn’t mean you (or other people) will watch it in a real-world setting.  Despite the high degree of DVR and time-shifted viewing that currently exists, scheduling and the competitive landscape are still important to a new show’s success.

Don’t buy the buzz.  A recent issue of The Sternberg Report was titled, Does Pre-Season Buzz Really Matter?  I examined new broadcast and ad-supported cable series over the past 20 years, and found there is virtually no correlation between how much pre-season buzz a new show generates and how successful it becomes once it premieres.

Social media conversations often provides a good indication of whether a show is poised to grow or decline after it’s already on the air but has little impact before the show debuts.

If you are interested in getting the Pre-Season Buzz issue or any other issue of The Sternberg Report, contact me at [email protected].

Most big hits are accidental.  My track record of predicting new series hits and misses is pretty good.  Roughly 9 out of 10 shows I think will flop do (it’s much easier to pick a miss than a hit).  I’m also not bad at projecting which shows will win their time periods.  But the big-time hits almost always come out of nowhere (not counting spin-offs).  Anyone who says they predicted E.R., Friends, Law & Order, CSI, NCIS, American Idol, Survivor, Lost, Grey’s Anatomy, Blue Bloods, How to Get Away With Murder, Modern Family, The Blacklist, Empire, 911, This is Us, The Good Doctor, or The Equalizer, would be instant hits is lying.  You just never know what is going to connect with a broad spectrum of viewers.  The next This is Us is right around the corner.  But we won’t know it until after it debuts.