The Sternberg Report

Here's Why Most New Broadcast TV Shows Will Flop

At this year’s upfront presentations to advertisers, the broadcast networks reiterated something they remind us of every year – that they, the broadcast networks, are still the best platform for reaching consumers and impacting sales.  They are correct.  Despite steady audience declines, viewers still spend about five times as many hours watching traditional TV than video on all other screens combined. The broadcast networks, which account for 58 of the top 60 rated ad-supported primetime series, are still the best advertising vehicles out there.  And yet, inexplicably, as they tout their ability to sell everyone else’s products, ABC, CBS, NBC, FOX, and CW continue refusing to utilize one another to sell their own products.

The broadcast networks have been promoting their new fall series throughout the summer.  My wife and I tend to DVR around two-thirds of the primetime shows we watch, and we don’t watch the broadcast networks nearly as much during the summer as the rest of the year, so we’ve seen only a few of these promos.  Overall primetime ratings are down significantly this summer (as viewers of all ages find new shows to stream).  I haven’t watched much NBC this summer, so the first ads I saw for any NBC new show was during the first Thursday Night pre-season football game between the New York Giants and the Cleveland Browns.  The only new ABC show I’ve seen promos for is The Rookie, which I saw on ESPN. 

My wife and I were watching Instinct on CBS, and saw an ad for Amazon Prime Video’s legal drama, Goliath.  We had never heard of the show, but just binged the first season and will soon start watching season 2.   None of the other broadcast networks, of course, can advertise on CBS because they

still stubbornly hang on to the antiquated and self-destructive policy of not allowing one another to cross-promote their programming.

 

A Sternberg Report sponsored message

The best new Fall series: ABC – A Million Little Things, The Kids Are Alright, Single Parents; CBS – Murphy Brown, The Neighborhood; NBC – I Feel Bad, Manifest; FOX – Rel.  Check out sternbergreport.com  for evaluation of all new fall pilots.  To advertise here, contact [email protected]

 

The idea that CBS will allow Goliath, but not ABC’s new police drama, The Rookie, to advertise on Instinct is insane.  Of course, it’s not just CBS.  Why can’t NBC promote its new medical drama, New

Amsterdam on ABC’s The Good Doctor?  Why can’t ABC’s new drama, A Million Little Things, advertise on NBC’s This is Us?  Why can’t CW and FOX superhero/sci-fi shows cross-promote one another? 

Live TV viewing is declining.  DVR ownership continues to inch upward (going from 49% to 55% U.S. penetration over the past three years).  Viewing to streaming services is growing (SVOD penetration jumped from 42% to 64% in the past three years).  Netflix and Amazon Prime Video have committed huge sums of money to develop and promote original content.  Hulu and CBS All Access are also gaining viewers, while Disney is about to debut its own streaming service (as reportedly is Walmart).  Is there any question why streaming services, which can each advertise on 100% of the strongest ad platform, continue to gain ground on those who can only advertise on 20% of the strongest ad platform?   The broadcast networks should realize that nearly two-thirds of U.S. TV homes have at least one of the three major SVOD services (Netflix, Hulu, Amazon Prime Video) and more than 10% have all three.  They need to see one another as allies, as well as competitors.

 

Cable networks long ago realized the best way to grow their audience was to appeal to those who were watching similar shows on other networks.  They also understood that it didn’t really hurt them if other cable networks did the same.  If everyone gained viewers, more advertising dollars would shift from broadcast to cable, and everyone would eventually benefit – which is exactly what happened.  

Of course, it made sense at the time, since cable networks were trying to compete with the much bigger, stronger, and more established broadcast networks.  They initially saw themselves more as allies than competitors.  The broadcast networks, on the other hand, once controlled more than 90% of all television viewing, and traditionally have only seen one another as competitors.  They competed so fiercely for every rating point that cross-promotion was unfathomable.  Unlike cable networks, the broadcasters also needed to answer to their affiliates, which would vehemently resist promoting another broadcast network.

The competitive video landscape today is worlds beyond where it was back then.  It is not the 1980s or 1990s (or even the early 2000s) anymore.  A broadcast hit on one network actually does benefit all networks.  When an Empire, This is Us, The Good Doctor, or Young Sheldon takes off, people start believing in the power of network TV again.  Except for the occasional cable phenomenon like The Walking Dead, no other platform is capable of generating the audience of a successful broadcast network series. 

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 programs.  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 more plainly.

If I was a producer or actor in last season’s new military dramas, Valor on CW, or The Brave on NBC (both canceled after one season), I would be quite frustrated that neither series was promoted on compatible broadcast dramas such as CBS’s three NCIS’s.  Both should certainly have been cross-promoted with CBS’s new SEAL Team.  Not to do so is akin to promotional malpractice (particularly for Valor, which was co-produced by CBS Television Studios).

MediaPost recently ran an article sourcing iSpot.tv about how much on-air promotion each network has devoted to its new fall series this summer. 

ABC’s promos have been largely on ABC, with some also airing on its sister cable networks, ESPN and Freeform.  At this writing, the network has run 275 promos for A Million Little Things, 204 for The Rookie, 218 for Single Parents, and 140 for The Kids Are Alright.  Imagine how much greater awareness would be had they also been promoted on CBS, NBC, and FOX.

CBS has so far aired the most on-air promos, focusing on six new series – Magnum P.I. (288 promos), FBI (234 promos), The Neighborhood (215 promos), God Friended Me (213 promos), Murphy Brown (162 promos), and Happy Together (149 promos).

NBC is focusing on just three new primetime fall series – Manifest (222 promos), New Amsterdam (201 promos), and I Feel Bad (187 promos) – again, mostly on NBC’s own air.

FOX has been heavily using its cable FX Networks group in addition to its broadcast network – Last Man Standing (168 promos on FOX, 1,717 overall), Rel (82 on Fox, 1,078 overall), and The Cool Kids (63 on FOX, 879 overall).  FOX has also been heavily promoting its exclusive 11 weeks of Thursday Night Football (585 overall promos).

CW has aired promos for Charmed (72), All American (125), and Legacies (3).

I have no doubt that if the broadcast networks started cross-promoting one another’s shows, new series viewer sampling (and subsequently, success rates) would rise dramatically.  In a MediaPost article last year, I opined that networks only care about how they rank among one another, not whether they actually grow their audience – short-term thinking that could lead to long-term disaster.  If they continue to not advertise to the biggest chunk of available viewers, their audience declines will continue at a steady pace, and the long-term will get here a lot sooner than they think.

A Sternberg Report sponsored message

Binge This: 12 shows you should check out – Bosch, Glow, Queen of the South, Rick and Morty, The Good Fight, Mindhunter...  Check out sternbergreport.com  to see the full list and why these series are so good.

 

 

Fall TV Pilots - the Good, the Bad, and the Too Bad

In today’s video world, the very idea of a fall TV season seems antiquated.  For years, cable networks have debuted original scripted series throughout the year, most often in spring or summer when the broadcast networks typically air repeats or reality shows.  OTT streaming services, such as Netflix and Amazon Prime Video, drop new series whenever they are ready to go.  But the broadcast networks still have the most and the highest rated original scripted series (The Walking Dead notwithstanding), so as long as they continue to premiere so many programs over a two-week period in September, the new “fall season” will be relevant.

I’ve been analyzing television programming for roughly 30 years, and have seen many good pilots flop, but also more than a few lackluster pilots build into hits.  Increasingly, however, the latter is harder to come by.  Long gone are the days when a Miami Vice can start out slowly and become a word-of-mouth success over the summer.  Or a Seinfeld can take three years to find an audience and grow into an iconic hit.  Or an Everybody Loves Raymond can start out on Friday with low ratings, move to Monday and become one of the highest rated comedies on television.  The TV landscape is simply too competitive.  These and many other long-running hits would have been canceled today after just a few episodes.  Let’s hope the networks have the fortitude to give shows they believe in but are not instant hits a chance to build.  We will always have Empire, This is Us, Young Sheldon, and The Good Doctor – shows that immediately strike a chord with viewers.  But we can also use another Cheers, which debuted as the lowest rated show of the week, but ended its 11-year run among the top 10.

While it is clear that broadcast networks ratings overall continue to decline, and there are more competitors than ever nipping at their heels, there are a number of positive signs going forward.  Chief among them are that 58 of the top 60 rated series are still on broadcast TV, and that six of the top eight rated original scripted series debuted within the past two seasons.  Will any from the current batch join them in the top 10 next season?  Read on…

---

A Sternberg Report sponsored message

Reach highly engaged media/ad industry decision makers. 

Contact [email protected] for exclusive ad rates.

---

 

Evaluating the New Pilots

In the April edition of The Sternberg Report, titled A Young Media Person’s Guide to Evaluating Pilots, I laid out several criteria for determining the success potential of a new series.  I just want to reiterate a few of them here, and provide some examples based on this year’s new shows.

• A comedy should be funny because of the characters, not the plot. In other words, does something specific happen in the pilot to make it funny?  Is there some kind of fish out of water storyline?  Does someone switch jobs, suddenly become poor or rich, move from a small town to the big city or vice-versa?  You get the idea.  Often times these plot driven comedy pilots can be hilarious, but essentially become different shows by the second episode.  Last season, I cited ABC’s The Mayor as fitting this category.  The pilot was excellent, but by episode 2 it was a different show (and didn’t last long).  The new pilots that fall into this category include, CBS’s The Neighborhood and Happy Together, and FOX’s Rel (which is not to say they won’t succeed).  You’ll see what I mean in the section evaluating each pilot.

On the other hand, I can’t remember details about some of the funniest comedy pilots of all time, including The Cosby Show, Golden Girls, Roseanne, Home Improvement, 30 Rock, Modern Family, and The Big Bang Theory.  That’s because they were funny not because of anything that happened in the pilot, but rather because the characters were funny, had strong chemistry, and people wanted to see them interact week after week irrespective of storylines or plot devices.  New comedy pilots that fit this mold include ABC’s Single Parents and The Kids Are Alright, and NBC’s I Feel Bad (which is not to say they will all succeed).

• What will a new drama’s third episode look like? Is it a good one-time movie or will it work as a weekly series?  Some of the things you look at to predict comedy success also apply to dramas.  Are there specific events or guest stars in the pilot that drive the story but won’t exist by the second episode?  Medical, police, or legal dramas can seem compelling based solely on the case covered in the pilot.  We need to consider the strengths and charisma of the lead characters, and ongoing themes of the series beyond the pilot’s script.

Before this season began, I pegged ABC The Good Doctor as one of best medical drama pilots I had ever seen.  I also cited ABC’s mid-season series, For the People as one of the best legal drama pilots I had seen in years.  The former is one of the highest rated dramas on TV, and the latter has moderate ratings, but has been renewed for another season.

For procedural dramas, does the cast gel and are there enough humorous elements that people will want to tune in to slight variations of the same situation week after week.  This can be telling when you compare series in the same genre – the differences between the excellent Criminal Minds and the canceled Criminal Minds Beyond Borders, or the original CSI and the short-lived CSI Cyber are dramatic (and highlight the importance of good casting).  All of the NCIS’s, on the other hand, managed to find the right formula – drama, humor, and compatible cast – and all are hits.

Here is my take on all the fall pilots which, at this writing, were made available for screening. 

These are not my predictions of hits and misses, but rather which new pilots I liked and which ones have potential.  You might be able to figure out by my comments the ones I think will actually succeed. 

By way of definition:  those I label as “The Good,” have excellent casts, are executed well, and have the best chance to succeed; the “Almost Good” are not quite at the level of The Good, but have potential, and if promoted properly could work; the “Run of the Mill” pilots are either of the cookie cutter variety, miss the mark, or are simply nothing special.

 

 

The Good

The Kids Are Alright (ABC, Tue. 8:30-9):  Two of my favorite TV actors, Michael Cudlitz and Mary McCormick head a traditional Irish-Catholic family with eight kids.  They live in a working-class neighborhood outside Los Angeles, and are trying to navigate big and small changes and the generation gap during the turbulent 1970s.  There are several comparisons to events today, including the conservative pro-Nixon dad calling Watergate “phony news.”

The pilot was funny, and this would have been a good fit as originally scheduled, following Roseanne on Tuesday night.  it could still succeed following the new show focusing on Roseanne’s family.

From ABC Studios, Meadow Lark Lane Productions, and Industrial Brothers.

Single Parents (ABC, Wed. 9:30-10):  A diverse group of single parents lean on one another as they try to raise their precocious 7-year-olds and still maintain some kind of personal lives.

It was a pleasure to watch a pilot I expected to be so bad that turned out to be so funny.   Good ensemble cast (including the always great Brad Garret).  Should fit in well on Wednesday following Modern Family.  The only question is whether it can be maintained on a weekly basis without getting stale. 

From 20^th Century Fox Television, ABC Studios, Meadow Lark Lane Productions, and Elizabeth Meriwether Pictures.a million little things

A Million Little Things (ABC, Wed. 10-11):  A group of friends from Boston, who met and bonded several years ago when they got stuck in an elevator together, try to come to terms with why one of them, who seemingly had it all, committed suicide.

ABC is hoping this will be the new This is Us.  It has that potential.  The best new series pilot I’ve seen this year.

From Kapital Entertainment, ABC Studios, and Next Thing You Know Productions.

The Neighborhood (CBS, Mon. 8-8:30):  White family from the Midwest moves into a black neighborhood in Los Angeles.  Cedric the Entertainer is one of the neighbors who doesn’t think they belong there.

The pilot was funny, but that was based on a white family being introduced into the black community.  It remains to be seen whether this can be maintained on a weekly basis.  It has potential if executed properly.

From CBS Television Studios.

Murphy Brown (CBS, Thu. 9:30-10):  Candice Bergen and series creator, Diane English, as well as most of the original cast (plus Tyne Daly), reunite for the revival of this once groundbreaking, Emmy-winning comedy.

No pilot is available (they wanted to be as timely as possible), so I’m taking a leap of faith.  But how can a Murphy Brown take on “fake news,” social media, and the Trump administration not be funny? 

From Warner Bros. Television.

I Feel Bad (NBC, Thu. 9:30-10):  From Executive Producer Amy Poehler.  Sarayu Blue is Emet, the not-so-perfect mom, boss, wife, friend, and daughter.  She feels bad when people think she’s turning into her mother, or when she has a sexy dream about someone other than her husband, or when she pretends not to know her kids when they misbehave in public, or when she uses her staff to help solve personal problems, or any number of things going on in her hectic life.

The pilot was good.  As is the case with most comedies, how the supporting cast gels will tell the story.  A new NBC comedy can’t ask for a better spot than following Will & Grace on Thursday night (unless, of course, it airs opposite Murphy Brown).

From Universal Television, Paper Kite Productions, CannyLads Productions, and 3 Arts Entertainment.

Rel (FOX, Sun. 9:30-10):  Lil Rel is a prideful, self-made success who lives by the code, “always believe in yourself and great things will come.”  This attitude is put to the test when he discovers his wife is having an affair with his barber.  He tries to rebuild his life as a long-distance single father on the South Side of Chicago, looking for love, respect, and a new barber.  Also stars Sinbad as his father.

The pilot was quite good, and there’s no reason to think it can’t be maintained on a weekly basis.

From 20^th Century Fox Television.

 

The Almost Good

The Rookie (ABC, Tue. 10-11):  Nathan Fillion stars as a middle-aged, small-town guy, who, after a life-altering incident, pursues his dream and becomes the oldest rookie on the LAPD.

The pilot was interesting and it has a good ensemble cast, although it seems like we’ve seen this before.  Might have trouble up against CBS’s NCIS New Orleans, which appeals to a similar audience.

From ABC Studios and The Mark Gordon Company.

God Friended Me (CBS, Sun. 8-9):  Brandon Michael Hall is a self-proclaimed pod-casting atheist.  So imagine his bewilderment and skepticism when he is friended by God on Facebook, and then poked to help strangers.

An interesting take on faith and social media, which may or may not find an audience.

From Warner Bros. Television.

All American (CW, Wed. 9-10):  When a star high-school football player from South L.A. is recruited to play for Beverly Hills High, two very different worlds collide.  Inspired by the life of NFL football player, Spencer Paysinger.

We’ve seen all this before, which doesn’t necessarily mean it can’t work here.  Not particularly compatible to its Riverdale lead-in, however.

From Berlanti Productions, CBS Television Studios, and Warner Bros. Television.

Manifest (NBC, Mon. 10-11):  When a routine but turbulent flight lands, the crew and passengers discover that while only a few hours passed for them, five years have passed for the outside world.  Their friends, families, and colleagues thought they were lost, have mourned them, and moved on with their lives.

Seems like a combination of Lost, Resurrection, and The Leftovers.  If executed well, it could work.  It might have tough sledding opposite ABC’s The Good Doctor and CBS’s Bull, two of the most popular dramas on television.

From Warner Bros. Television and Compari Entertainment.

 

The Run of the Mill

Happy Together (CBS, Mon. 8:30-9):  Daman Wayans Jr. stars as a pop star’s accountant.  The Beiber-ish star is drawn to their normal suburban life, and he moves in with them to escape the paparazzi following his latest scandal. 

There was nothing funny in the pilot, and this is another in a long string of interchangeable Monday 8:30pm CBS sitcoms.

From CBS Television Studios.

Magnum P.I. (CBS, Mon. 9-10):  A reboot of the 1980’s CBS hit, about an ex-military P.I., who tackles cases no one else will take, with sun-drenched Hawaii as the backdrop.

It’s not just that they took the comma out of the title, or that they replaced the lead (Tom Selleck), a white guy with an iconic mustache, with a Hispanic guy (Jay Hernandez) with a goatee, or that his colleague, Higgins, a middle-aged white guy who provided much of the original series’ humor, was replaced by a woman with no humor at all.  It’s that there is no chemistry among the cast, and the comedic elements that made the original series so fresh at the time is virtually non-existent (at least in the pilot).  Those who remember the original will be disappointed, while those who don’t will wonder what the fuss was about.

From CBS Television Studios in association with Universal Television.

FBI (CBS, Tue. 9-10):  Dick Wolf and the team behind the Law & Order franchise try their hands at this procedural drama about the inner workings of the New York Office of the FBI.

Decent cast led by Missy Peregyn and Jeremy Sisto are trapped in a series that is as generic as they come.  But that occasionally works for CBS procedurals.

From Universal Television in association with CBS Television Studios.

New Amsterdam (NBC, Tue. 10-11):  New medical director (Ryan Eggold) sets out to fight the bureaucracy of a large public hospital. He wants his superiors and colleagues to institute a system that values providing exceptional care over pure profit.  Good luck with that.

This has been done before and better.  Following The Voice and This is Us will probably get it decent viewer sampling.  Then it will live or die (probably the latter) on its own merits.

From Universal Television, Pico Creek Productions, and Mount Moriah.

Charmed (CW, Sun. 9-10):  Whether or not rebooting Charmed, which originally debuted in 1998 and ran for eight seasons, was a good idea remains to be seen.  To refresh your memory, after their mother is murdered by demons, three sisters discover that they are powerful witches, and are tasked with fighting evil.

The new cast members (Sarah Jeffery, Madeleine Mantock, Melonie Diaz) have neither the charisma nor chemistry of the original trio (Shannen Doughrty, Holly Marie Combs, and Alyssa Milano).  I would have preferred seeing a continuation of the original (with an original cast member or two), rather than simply a remake with a lesser cast.  It will follow Supergirl, as CW expands to Sunday night, so it will probably be given every chance to succeed.

From CBS Television Studios.

The Cool Kids (FOX, Fri. 8:30-9):  Three 70-something guys (Martin Mull, David Alan Grier, Leslie Jordan) are top dogs at their retirement community until a female rebel (Vicki Lawrence) invades their space.

Excellent cast to draw 60+ year-old viewers.  This would be a good fit on CBS Monday night, not on a FOX network that still wants to claim a younger audience.  Given that it’s going on Friday following Last Man Standing tells me they’re not expecting much.  So neither am I.

From 20^th Century Fox Television and FX Productions.

 

The Unknowns (pilots not available at this writing)

Legacies (CW, Thu. 9-10):  No pilot yet available, but here’s part of the official description of the series: 

Continuing the tradition of The Vampire Diaries and The Originals, this is the story of the next generation of supernatural beings at The Salvatore School for the Young and Gifted.

Should be compatible with its Supernatural lead-in.

From Warner Bros. Television.

Networks Better Start Caring About Declining Ratings

Both the broadcast and cable networks have traditionally cared much more about their ranking compared to their perceived competition than whether or not their actual ratings went up or down.

Sounds strange I know, but why should they care about ratings? 

Wall Street and the press tend to focus on who's first, who's last, and whether the standings have changed.

For years, ad-supported cable has been siphoning broadcast network viewers, but their combined audience remained remarkably stable.  Separate upfronts have created artificial supply and demand, enabling the broadcast networks to get more money from advertisers for declining ratings at the same time that half a billion dollars shifted to cable every year.

The audience going from broadcast to cable each season was so splintered that no single network got too close to any of the Big Four Networks.  So the broadcast networks were able to correctly claim that they still far outrated and outreached cable, while the cable networks were able to claim that in aggregate, cable was higher rated than broadcast. 

There was a time, not long ago, when there were "must buy" programs on the broadcast networks and "must buy" cable networks.  At the height of Cheers, Friends, Seinfeld and E.R.'s success, everyone wanted to buy a limited number of NBC Thursday night slots.  If you wanted news viewers you needed CNN, teen and young adults you needed MTV, kids you needed Nickelodeon (as much for the environments as for the actual viewers they provided).  Today, only fractions of rating points separate the top four broadcast networks, no single series will again get a 30+ share of viewers, and there aren't any must buy blocks of programming. 

MTV is not the cultural touch point it once was, CNN competes with multiple news networks and has long ago lost its cache as industry leader, there are several kids networks, and so on.  ESPN is one of the only remaining must buy cable network (although some might say Walking Dead makes AMC a must buy).  TNT and USA, because of their diverse lineups of strong original scripted series, are also in this category.

Cable networks are still allowed to sell ROS schedules (basically, all of primetime as a single entity) rather than individual series, letting them continue airing multiple low rated (and profitable) programs held aloft by a few stronger rated shows that advertisers actually want.

I’ve worked at large media agencies and a network, so I’ve seen these dynamics from both the buy and sell sides of the aisle. 

If you were to ask any broadcast network whether they would rather lose 5% of their audience next season but move into first place (because everyone else declined more) or gain 5% but slip into third or fourth place, they would all rather be in first place. 

Likewise, if you asked every cable network that currently ranks outside the top 10 among adults 18-49 and 25-54 if they would rather gain viewers and stay where they currently rank or lose viewers but move into the top 10, they would all choose to lose viewers. This, despite the fact that less than half a rating point separates 20 or so cable networks.  At ION, we went from being in the top 10 to ranking 13th despite virtually the same ratings.  Management acted like it was the end of the world.  I had to figure out how to position this to media buyers, who would now think we weren't as desirable to advertisers.

Traditionally, viewers and money shifted around the TV pie, but the pie remained the same size.  But now the pie is starting to shrink.

I’ve been saying for years that the short-term strategy of only thinking about where you rank could lead to long-term disaster.  Welcome to the long term. 

Broadcast ratings continue to slip, and now non-ad-supported TV/video is siphoning viewers from cable. 

In addition to HBO’s original programming (it leads in the recent Emmy nominations), Showtime, Starz, Cinemax, DirecTV, and other premium cable services have more and more original scripted series.  Netflix subscriptions continue to grow by leaps and bounds, Hulu continues to draw viewers, and Amazon Prime is making some headway as well.

But we may be reaching a tipping point, where the way buyers and sellers see the television marketplace starts to fundamentally change.  The transition of the Cabletelevision Advertising Bureau to the Video Advertising Bureau may have signaled the beginning of this shift.  But we’re not there yet.  It remains to be seen whether they really start behaving as if they are allies rather than sworn enemies.

Broadcast networks still stubbornly refuse to promote one another as cable networks have done so effectively for years.  In today’s media world is there really any broadcast network executive who believes his only competition is one of three or four other broadcast networks?  I would not have known when one of my favorite shows, TNT’s The Last Ship was returning if I hadn’t seen it advertised on CBS (and in movie theaters).  Another show I used to watch with my wife, Rookie Blue, came back on and I had no idea (because we haven’t watched any ABC this summer).  We may catch up on demand, but we may not.  Until this changes, the largest group of potential viewers in which to promote broadcast network programming will remain untapped, and their ratings will continue to drop.

Until the marketplace dynamics and industry perceptions that continue to make audience rankings more profitable than audience size change, we'll be analyzing rankings of continually declining audience bases. 

Evaluating the New Fall TV Series

My friends and family think its cool that I get to see all the new series pilots before they air on television.  It actually is pretty cool, but it's not always fun.  That's because I have to watch them all - the good, the bad, and the very bad.  After examining the fall schedules and watching most of the pilots, here are a few takeaways – keeping in mind that hits are almost always a surprise:

Scheduling Trumps Buzz, Part 1:  I’m not sure why ABC’s The Muppets is getting so much buzz this pre-season, or why anyone thinks it will be a hit.  But airing opposite NCIS, The Voice, and The Flash, does not bode well for its chances.

Weak Comedy Development:  How else to explain scheduling NBC’s People Are Talking (not a single funny moment in the pilot – although my 16-year-old son says there was one funny scene) and CBS’s Angel From Hell (starring Jane Lynch, which I really wanted to like, but just couldn’t)? 

CBS’s Life in Pieces is a Modern Family wannabe, which might be helped marginally by following Big Bang Theory.  It has a good cast (James Brolin, Diane Wiest, Colin Hanks), so maybe subsequent episodes will be better than the pilot.  For some reason, NBC will have a revival of Coach in mid-season (can Nielsen even measure a median age over 70?). ABC’S Dr. Ken has some potential, but the network is basically throwing it away on Friday behind the incompatible Last Man Standing.

On the other hand, I didn’t expect much from a comedy starring Rob Lowe and Fred Savage, but FOX’s The Grinder looks good.  I really enjoyed the pilot.  Another FOX comedy, Grandfathered, starring John Stamos, also has potential, particularly if Criminal Minds alumna, Paget Brewster continues to have a strong presence in the show.

CBS will likely need to bring back Odd Couple, 2 Broke Girls, and Mike & Molly sooner than they expect to.

Vagina is the new Penis:  Several years ago, when the word “penis” was first allowed on ad-supported television, it became so overused in network comedies that it quickly subsided.  One hopes that the same will be true with “vagina,” which has already stopped being funny or shocking.

Scheduling Trumps Buzz, Part 2:  CBS’s Supergirl is probably the most buzzed about new series on the five-network schedule.  The pilot is very good. So hey, let’s schedule it opposite FOX’s Gotham.  While it might be true that Supergirl will attract a slightly younger viewer, the bulk of its potential audience is exactly the same as Gotham’s.  But it will also air opposite Dancing With the Stars (median age 60+) and The Voice (median age 53), so there may be room for two superhero-based series here.  It would undoubtedly do better in a different time slot though.

It will be interesting to see where CW places DC’s Legends of Tomorrow in mid-season.

Crime/FBI Dramas are Still Strong:  The broadcast networks are still able to produce high quality dramas. NBC’s Blindspot, ABC’s Quantico, and FOX’s Rosewood are best of the bunch.  On the non-crime front CBS’s Limitless and Code Black are worth a look.

At this writing, NBC’s Heroes Reborn and FOX’s Scream Queens have not yet been made available for screening.  Both will get a lot of buzz, which, as usual, will have no relation to whether or not they succeed.

Can Supergirl Soar in a Male Dominated Genre?

The trailer for CBS’s upcoming Supergirl reportedly got more than 10 million views in one week.  This doesn’t really mean anything in terms of whether or not the show will succeed. The traditional press coverage of the high volume of trailer views probably has more impact than the actual online viewing itself.

Over the years, I’ve demonstrated many times that pre-season buzz has no correlation with new series success – this is particularly true for sci-fi/superhero shows, which always get the most online and comic con buzz from fanboys (and girls).  One reason for this is that the pre-season online chatter comes from people who haven't even seen the pilot, so are essentially commenting on the stars attached to the show, or the genre.

Soon after the trailer came out, the pilot was leaked online.  Given that the series was getting a significant amount negative speculation, it wouldn’t surprise me if it was leaked “on purpose.”  Regardless, the pilot was very good, so the fact that it was leaked can only help the series.  It already seems to have turned much of the pre-season noise positive.  When a lot of people can say, "I've seen the pilot and I loved it, check out this link," that's a whole different type of pre-season buzz.

There are several additional factors to consider when projecting its success potential.

Other heroes who occupy the same DC Universe, The Flash and Arrow, are both successful on CW.  But CW’s barometer of success is lower than CBS’s.  Had either aired on CBS, and averaged the same rating (under 1.5 among adults 18-49) they might have been canceled after just a few episodes.

ABC’s Marvel Agents of Shield gets a slightly higher rating, but if not for its tie-in to The Avengers movie franchise, and Disney (ABC) owning Marvel, it would probably not have been renewed.  FOX’s Gotham is the only one to generate higher than a 2 rating among adults 18-49 (and 25-54).

The Flash and Arrow both have median ages under 45, while Agents of Shield and Gotham have median ages of 48 and 49, respectively.  So obviously, CBS, who’s average median age is 59, is hoping for the same. Supergirl’s median age should be slightly lower than Gotham – both have a mythology most familiar to Baby Boomers, but Supergirl is more kid and teen friendly.

It will also be interesting to see if men and boys will watch a superhero show where virtually all the main characters are women (including the main villain).

Supergirl is trying to be a combination of the breeziness, humor, and tone of The Flash and the more serious “let’s protect the world from enhanced powered people and aliens” tone of Agents of Shield.  Whether it can be maintained on a weekly basis remains to be seen.  It can if it doesn’t fall into the same trap as the Superman movies – namely the only real threats to her are others from Krypton or someone with kryptonite.  That will get boring fast.  The interactions among the regular ensemble cast will be just as important to the show’s success as the action and special effects.

It seems primed for crossovers with The Flash (less so for Arrow), and with continual references to her super powered cousin in Metropolis, an occasional sweeps appearance would certainly help.  With DC’s upcoming Batman vs. Superman movie, and plans for a Justice League of America franchise, there seems to be ample opportunity for Supergirl to be part of that universe.

In a real head-scratching move, CBS will schedule Supergirl at 8pm on Monday, opposite Gotham, which will have a month and a half to re-establish its audience base before Supergirl debuts in November.  This will not only limit its audience, but will further hurt it by limiting its live audience.  There’s nothing worse than a low-rated series with high DVR (i.e., low commercial) viewing.  Here’s hoping CBS decides to move the series to a more appropriate time period – otherwise it might not get off the ground.

With a better time period and proper promotion on similar programming, Supergirl could soar and be the under-50 hit CBS is looking for. It is primed to appeal to Baby Boomers and their kids (and grand kids).

Why Most New Broadcast Network Shows Will Flop

CBS’s Madam Secretary is one of my wife and my favorite shows.  The last episode we watched had a promo for a new TNT show, Proof, premiering in June.  It looks interesting, and we are probably going to at least check out the first episode to see if it’s worthy of being placed in one of our DVR queues.

Some of my favorite original scripted series are on TNT. But other than for those and sports I don’t watch the network much. So I wouldn’t have known the June start date of one of my favorites, The Last Ship, if I hadn’t seen it promoted on ABC’s Marvel Agents of Shield, CBS's NCIS: New Orleans, and NBC's The Blacklist.

Over the past few years, I've watched several cable series that I never would have known about had I not seen them promoted on other networks.

Cable networks long ago came to understand that the best way to grow their audience was to appeal to those who were watching similar shows on other networks.  They also understood that it didn't really hurt them much if other cable networks did the same.  If everyone gained viewers, more advertising dollars would shift from broadcast to cable, and everyone would eventually benefit. Yet the broadcast networks still stubbornly refuse to see that the reverse is also true.

The broadcast networks still don't seem to understand that they are no longer enemies.  They are, in fact, or should be, allies.  The press has headlines screaming about the broadcast networks losing viewers (not ABC or CBS losing viewers).  Everyone except the broadcast networks themselves see them as a single entity.  My wife and I DVR most of what we watch, and she doesn't even know what network (or time) the show is on.  The broadcast networks will, strangely enough, take advertising from their real competitors – ad-supported cable networks, HBO, Showtime, and even Netflix, but not from one another. 

It is not the 1980s or 1990s anymore. The broadcast network rating races are so close, that potentially good shows are often canceled after just a few episodes because viewers haven't heard about them yet.  Shows like Cheers, which was the lowest rated show of the week when it debuted, ended its 11 season run in the top 5.  Seinfeld took three seasons to become a success.  These and many other TV classics might not have lasted more than a month if they premiered today.

A broadcast hit on one network actually benefits all networks.  When an Empire takes off, people start believing in the power of network TV again.  Except for the very occasional cable phenomenon like The Walking Dead, no other platform is currently capable of generating the audience size of a successful broadcast network show. Even AMC's just ended Mad Men, while generating tons of press and buzz, was very low rated by broadcast network standards.

Looking over the primetime schedules just announced at the broadcast upfronts, there are numerous candidates for cross-promotion. Some obvious examples – new medical dramas, Heartbreaker (NBC), and Code Black (CBS) should be promoted on Grey’s Anatomy (ABC), the new FBI drama, Quantico (ABC) should be promoted on Criminal Minds (CBS) and The Blacklist (NBC).

Why in the world wouldn’t all five broadcast networks cross-promote new series, Supergirl, Heroes Reborn, and DC’s Legends of Tomorrow and returning shows, Marvel's Agents of Shield, Gotham, Flash, and Arrow? They are all trying to reach basically the same audience.  Supergirl, Flash, and Arrow take place in the same DC universe and will probably (eventually) have an epic crossover (so why not some cross promotion?).  The networks can and will have heavy online presences leading up to these new series premieres, but that is dwarfed in both size and impact to promoting them on air in shows that appeal to the same audience.

The last time I raised the issue of the broadcast networks' refusal to promote one another's series, an anonymous network source was actually quoted as saying it's not going to happen because "it's an ego thing."  He couldn't come up with a single valid reason not to do it. 

Putting ego aside for a moment, the broadcast networks should realize that every time they do cross-promote their products, ratings soar.  Just look at NFL Football ratings over the past few years, or the NCAA Men's College Basketball Tournament.

In what other instance does a company refuse to advertise its product to the largest and most easily accessible and measurable audience?

Let's be clear.  These aren't just random consumers the broadcast networks are choosing not to pursue.  These are the best possible prospects, who the networks know are already watching similar programming, and are at that moment at their most receptive toward receiving a message about programming.

They are viewers who are already watching and engaged with the exact type of program the networks are trying to promote to them.  I don't know how to say it more clearly.

There is absolutely no question in my mind that if the networks started cross-promoting one another's shows, new series success rates would rise dramatically, and overall broadcast ratings would stabilize (or at least decline less). 

It is interesting to note that at the upfront schedule presentations, the networks still relish talking about how they are #1 at this or that, but seldom show any actual ratings anymore.  If they continue to not advertise to their largest chunk of available and engaged viewers, two or three years from now a broadcast network will be bragging about being number one with 1.0 adults 18-49 primetime rating (if they are still talking about demos – which is another topic for another time).

Top 10 TV Audience and Research Myths and Misconceptions

In honor of David Letterman’s final month, here is my own top 10 list from the home office in Hoboken, New Jersey.

 
#10.    Millennials spend more time streaming than watching traditional TV.

 This makes for a good headline, but has no basis in reality.

 Millennials actually spend more than seven times as many hours per week watching traditional TV than watching video on the internet, multimedia devices, and smartphones combined (compared to 12 times as much for Adults 25-54).  As a group, they also DVR and fast-forward through commercials at a lower rate than older viewers.

 #9.    C3 ratings account for DVR fast-forwarding through commercials.

 Sorry.  Not true. 

 C3 ratings for most networks are higher than the live program rating.  Let’s think about this for a second.  Half the country doesn’t even have a DVR, yet we are seeing higher ratings for three days of just commercial minute viewing than for live viewing of the actual programs. This is so ridiculous on its face, that the industry should be crying out WTF!

Let's not forget that C3 was initially designed as a one or two year measure until industry post-buy systems were able to handle minute-by-minute ratings.  Nielsen did very little research into how C3 ratings should be calculated.

 #8.    Median Age can tell you which networks attract more young viewers. 

 Audience skew has nothing to do with audience size.

 Half the top-30 rated general entertainment cable networks among Adults 18-49 have median ages over 45.  Their average Adults 18-49 rating is about the same as those with median ages under 45.

 If you combined the Adult 18-49 impressions to all of the general entertainment cable networks with median ages between 35 and 45, they would add up to about the same as CBS’s Adult 18-49 audience (CBS’s average median age is approaching 60).

 
#7.    Online surveys.

 I know, let’s ask people who will take the time to answer an online survey, better yet, those who spend enough time online that they want to be in an online panel, how much time they spend online.  And then let’s assume they represent the country at large. 

 Because these types of surveys are so quick and relatively inexpensive, too many companies think that anyone can write the survey questions and analyze the results.  These surveys are only valuable if you have the right people asking the right questions.

 #6.    Pre-season buzz matters for new TV series.

 There are several reasons why pre-season buzz has virtually no impact on whether or not a program becomes successful.

 Despite the fact that much of their audience is older, the traditional press has always tended to focus on the younger and sexier programs.  It’s always fascinating to see what shows newspapers and syndicated entertainment magazines focus on, almost oblivious as to whom their own viewers or readers are.   CBS, often with the most successful new series, has traditionally received less pre-season buzz than other networks.

 Comic-con buzz is often heavily skewed toward sci-fi or super hero series, or shows with former sci-fi stars attached, and seldom have any affect on a show’s success potential.

 People who are chatting about new shows on social media before they premiere generally have not seen the pilot, and are not necessarily going to be watching the shows (even if the chat is positive) – particularly if the new show is scheduled opposite one of their favorites.  That’s different from people chatting about a show that’s already on the air that they have been watching.  That actually can provide an indication of whether a show is poised to grow or decline.

Over the past 15 years, roughly 30% of the series with the most pre-season buzz became successful – slightly lower than the average new series success rate during the same period.

#5.    Day-after recall studies.

In the 1960s and 1970s, when there were only three networks and a few independent stations, studies where you ask people if they remember seeing a given commercial in a given program might have had some value.  Not today.

Unless you know that the commercial in question is new and only aired in certain programs yesterday, there are simply too many viewing options to have any idea where viewers might have actually seen the ads. 

Several  years ago, the Cabletelevision Advertising Bureau (CAB) conducted the best recall study I've seen.  They called people while they were watching TV, asked what they were watching, asked what the last commercial was that they recalled, and then independently verified that those commercials actually ran in those programs. 

When I was at ION, I conducted a similar study through our Vision Critical panel, to compare ad recall among live and DVR viewers.  There is really no other way to get at this type of intelligence other than through near-immediate recall.  Day-after recall is an anachronism when it comes to commercials (though it still works quite well for program engagement).

#4.     Two words. Big Data.

#3.     Higher ratings lead to more ad revenue.

This is actually not the case.  Both broadcast and cable networks care much more about their ranking compared to their perceived competition than whether or not their ratings go up.

If you were to ask any broadcast network whether they would rather lose 5% of their audience next season but move into first place (because everyone else declined more) or gain 5% but slip into third or fourth place, they would all rather be in first place.  Otherwise, you'd see them advertising their programming on one another the way cable networks do so effectively.

Likewise, if you asked every cable network that currently ranks outside the top 10 among adults 18-49 and 25-54 if they would rather gain viewers and stay where they currently rank or lose viewers but move into the top 10, they would all choose the latter. This, despite the fact that generally less than half a rating point separate 20 or so cable networks.

Until the marketplace dynamics and industry perceptions that continue to make audience rankings more profitable than audience size change, we'll be analyzing rankings of continually declining audience bases.

#2.    Broadcast Networks Need to Follow the Cable Model.

If they want lower ratings, that's the way to go.  Only a handful of original scripted cable series are managing even a 1.0 rating among adults 18-49.  Even the lowest rated primetime broadcast series get more viewers than that.

#1.     Social media drives TV viewing.

I have not seen any credible research to indicate this is the case.  I would not take on face value any studies done by social media companies or Nielsen in partnership with social media companies.  TV viewing drives social media comments about those programs, but there is not yet any evidence that the reverse is true.  The average person spends about 8 minutes per day on Twitter (and 30 minutes per day on Facebook).  

Traditional Television Continues to Grow

The headline of this article is not really accurate, but many will just see the headline, so I’m getting a lot of people to get the message I want them to get.  It’s still more accurate than many of the articles and columns proclaiming the decline of television viewing that always surface right before (and during) the upfront buyng/selling season.

 I’ve had many debates with my editor friends at both print and online outlets about their responsibility reporting dubious research claims as “fact.”  But this is really only marginally a press problem.  As long as they have a credible source, and present the data sourced and quoted, they’re off the hook – regarding the content of the story at least.  Working under daily deadlines, they have neither the time nor the resources to vet every claim.  They simply report what people say.  I would not want the editors of MediaPost to question every research-based claim I make.  If someone has a problem with it, let them say so in the comments section, or write their own article.  It's not hard to discredit bogus research, but the big problem is that many who see the initial headline do not see subsequent stories (if there are any) disproving them.

 I do think, however, that reporters who have been covering this business for years shouldn’t pretend they know nothing about these topics.  When they do use some of these mediocre or agenda-based research studies, they should at least quote a more objective source within the same story (I, and several other research executives I know, would gladly offer our services in this regard).  And while I realize that certain headlines grab attention, knowledgeable media reporters should know (and care) that these headlines are misleading.

 Several years ago, my colleague, Sharianne Brill and I were co-chairs of the Council For Research Excellence’s Media Consumption and Engagement Committee.  Along with some of the best research minds in the business (buyers, sellers, and advertisers) we helped develop the landmark Video Consumer Mapping Study. 

 
There were two tidbits that came out of this study that did not receive much press.  First, when asked about their media behavior, people dramatically overstate their online usage and understate their TV usage.

 I recall after the study we asked the participants about their media behavior.  One person was asked how much time she spends on her smartphone.  She thought it was at least 2-3 hours a day.  It was actually about 20 minutes.  And this was someone who knew we had just observed her actual media usage.  People simply have no real idea about how much time per day they spend using different media devices.

 The second point, which came as a surprise to me, was that Nielsen data for broad usage levels (total people, Adults 18-49) was remarkably similar to the results of the observational data.  This started to change as the demo groups got smaller, but for the broad categories it was spot on.  I only bring this up because when it comes to determining whether TV viewing is shifting I much prefer to rely on Nielsen data and its Total Audience Report than studies done by companies that benefit from people thinking TV viewing is declining while alternate sources are growing unabated.  When it comes to media and device usage trends, Rentrak, TiVo, and other such companies that rely on electronic measuring are also significantly better than any survey-based research.

 In reality, television viewing is down by 3% from last year, while video viewing on internet, smartphone, and multi-media devices combined is up by 45%.  Even these are misleading statistics considering their vastly different starting points.  A more telling statistic is that 91% of all video viewing is still to traditional TV (and more than 90% of that is live viewing).  Even among the under-25 crowd, more than 80% of viewing is still to traditional television.  And this data does not even include out-of-home TV viewing.

 
Another way to look at it is that viewers spend nearly 5 ½ hours per day watching television, compared to about 25 minutes per day watching video on the internet and smartphones combined.

 Television viewing, while not immune to the many other sources available to consumers, is still dominant and quite healthy thank you.

 What’s the bottom line here?  When seeing headlines proclaiming or predicting the downfall of traditional television, read the entire article and note the source.

A Young Media Person's Guide to Evaluating Pilots

At this time of the year, I am reminded about the old TV industry joke about the Devil trying to persuade someone to go to Hell.  He shows him a video that makes it look like paradise - beautiful women, great food, golf courses, and luxury wherever he looks. 

Sold on the great video, the man goes to Hell and immediately realizes his horrible mistake.  He goes to the Devil to complain that the video showed paradise and the reality is misery and despair.  The Devil smiles and says, "That was the pilot, this is the series."

Pilots are basically designed to sell a show to networks and advertisers.  They throw in everything but the kitchen sink (sometimes that too), and often use directors that are not involved in subsequent episodes.

I've been analyzing television programming for more than 30 years. I’ve seen many good pilots become weak series and some lackluster pilots become excellent, long-running hits.

 People are always asking me what I look for when evaluating a pilot.  Here are some guidelines.

 Comedies should be funny because of the characters, not the plot.  Is it a one-joke show or can it be maintained as a weekly series?

 I recently saw an interview with Jon Cryer, one of the stars CBS’s long-running comedy it, Two and a Half Men.  He was talking about how between his success on the movie, Pretty in Pink, and his successful CBS show, he was getting a reputation as a show killer (someone who appears in a lot of pilots that either don’t get picked up or quickly become flops).

 One of those failed shows, The Famous Teddy Z (1989), had one of the funniest pilots I’ve ever seen.  Mr. Cryer portrayed a guy who worked in the mailroom of a major talent agency.  Through a hilarious string of events he becomes the top talent agent in the company.  By the second episode, however, it was a different show, and couldn't be maintained on a weekly basis. 

 Other funny pilots that come to mind are, The Cosby Show, Golden Girls, Cheers, Roseanne, The Big Bang Theory, and Modern Family.  But I can't recall what any of them were about.  They were funny because the characters were funny and compatible, not because of anything that happened in the pilot.  The casts had strong chemistry, and people wanted to see them interact week after week. 

 
The best and most successful comedies all have this in common.  It's very difficult to write 15-22 strong storylines in a season.  People tune in for the characters, not the plot.  They're called situation comedies for a reason.  People want slight variations of the same situation week after week.  This is the main reason shows like Seinfeld and The Big Bang Theory can thrive in syndication and on cable, with viewers watching the same episodes over and over again.

 What will a drama's third or fourth episode be like?  It's relatively easy to write one compelling medical, courtroom, or police drama (well, not for me perhaps, but for seasoned television writers).  We need to consider the potential strengths and charisma of both the lead and supporting characters. Is it something that can be maintained on a weekly basis?  In other words, is the pilot a good one-time movie or will it make a good weekly series?

 Stars don’t make shows; shows make stars.  The failed TV series with major stars are too numerous to list here.  In most cases, it's the show that makes the star, not the other way around - particularly for younger skewing series - think Friends, Grey's Anatomy, Mad Men, The Walking Dead, Modern Family, The Big Bang Theory, or Glee. 

 
Some stars, such as Tom Selleck, can bring long-time fans to a show, which will but again, without a strong supporting cast, the show would not succeed.  Established stars usually bring high viewer expectations, which are often hard to live up to. 

 Most series look better in a conference room than in your living room.  I typically watch a pilot in a conference room, on a dvd sent to me by the networks or on a special website that I can watch at my leisure.  There are no commercials and no distractions.  When the show finally airs, of course, it will be on following some other program, opposite some other programs.

 Scheduling and the competitive landscape are often just as important to a show's success as the quality of the show itself.

 Most big hits are accidental.  My track record of predicting new series hits and misses is pretty good.  At least 9 out of 10 shows I think will flop do (it's easier to pick a miss than a hit).  I'm also pretty good at predicting which new shows might win their time periods.  But the big-time hits almost always come out if nowhere.

 Anyone who says they predicted Friends, Law & Order, CSI, Grey's Anatomy, American Idol, Lost, Scandal, How to Get Away With Murder, The Blacklist, or Empire would be instant hits is simply lying.  You just never know what's going to click with a broad spectrum of viewers.  The next Modern Family, 24, or Empire is right around the corner, but we won't know it until after it debuts. 

Cable Upfront: Are All Rating Points Equal?

In May, the broadcast networks will be unveiling their new programming and primetime schedules for next season.  But March and April are when cable networks try to persuade advertisers they are the best among the many cable networks that get virtually the same number of viewers.

If you look at season-to-date C7 Adult 18-49 primetime ratings for the broadcast networks, there is about three-tenths of a rating point separating first-place and second place – a small difference.  But in the cable world, this same small gap is considered massive.  The #3 and #25 ranked ad-supported cable networks are separated by just three-tenths of a rating point.  Why is this marginal rating difference so big for cable?  

Every cable network (except ESPN and Adult Swim) averages less than half a rating point among adults 18-49 in primetime. When ratings are so small, even modest disparities become big percent differences. Unlike broadcast, cable network ratings are analyzed using two decimal places instead of one.  Otherwise there would be too many networks with identical ratings for buyers to rank (and we know how network buyers, sellers and researchers like to rank things).  Whenever you start playing around with expanding decimal places, you know you're dealing with  small numbers.

Do rankings matter? When trying to project next season’s performance, however, there really is no difference between a network that gets a .33 and a .27 rating this season.  The difference may just be statistical noise, and those numbers could easily be reversed next season.  Since the switch to C3, this is more likely than ever.  Instead of averaging 60 minutes for an hour-long program, for example, you’re averaging maybe 15-20 minutes.  This can only add to the statistical bounce when dealing with such small ratings and small sample sizes (the two major contributing factors to statistical error).  The .33 rating will rank 8^th among Adults 18-49 while the .27 (which is just six-hundredths of a rating point lower!) will rank 14^th, and most people will think the network with the .33 rating is much better positioned and will get more viewers next season.  This, of course, is not necessarily true.

Having recently worked at a cable network where we went from ranking 14^th one season, to 8^th the next, to 11^th the next (with average ratings that were essentially unchanged), I can attest to how crazy this is.  Industry perception of our performance  changed significantly despite our stability and consistent ratings.

 If actual rankings based on ratings don’t matter much (at least among the top 20 or so cable networks) what does matter?

Original scripted series have been key in branding and re-branding several cable networks.  They often create buzz, improve the network’s reach, and have more engaged program viewers than any other genre.  More than half of all viewing to original scripted cable series, however, is time-shifted via DVRs. In 2010, there were only two original scripted series on cable that had 50% or less live viewing (Rescue Me and Mad Men).  During the 2013/14 broadcast year, the vast majority of original scripted cable series had less than 50% live viewing.

Live viewing matters. Whether or not you believe C3 or C7 take fast-forwarding through commercials into account (they don’t), the best research I’ve seen on the subject (and not just because I conducted the study) showed brand message recall to be three times as great for primetime series viewed live than those time-shifted via DVRs (there was virtually no difference in program engagement).  I think that’s all that needs to be said on the value of live viewing.

Median Age is a secondary measure.  Audience size should trump audience skew.  In other words, if your target is Adults 18-49, if two networks have the same number of those viewers, why does it matter that one network has a median age of 48 and the other has a median age of 52?  Several years ago, when CBS first took the rating lead among Adults 18-49, it was the only network with an average median age over 49.  Median age does not tell you how many viewers are watching.   There seems to be some mystical value still pegged to anything under 50, which is simply ridiculous, particularly when the actual size of the audience is similar.

Median Income is valuable but misleading. If you’re looking at Adults 18-49 $100K+, it’s really the household income of those adults 18-49.  For 18-24 year-olds, that is often their parents’ income.  Any income measure should start with 25 at the youngest. 

It also does not take household size into account.  A 45 year-old couple with three kids and a household income of $100,000 probably does not have as much disposable income as a single 35-year-old with a household income of $75,000. 

Someone with a household income of $100,000 in New York City, doesn’t have as much spending money as someone with the same household income in Omaha.  When I was at Magna Global, I had Nielsen include income by region in NPower.  I believe it is still there.

So while there is some directional value in median income analyses, people should be careful how they use it.  At the very least, it should be merged with household size.