bushwackerbob wrote: ↑3 years ago
AvaHeinz wrote: ↑3 years ago
bushwackerbob wrote: ↑3 years ago
It depends upon how much they believe in the show and what they have in the pipeline. Yes, I totally agree with you that as a series gets older there is viewer erosion, but I think the massive viewer erosion that has enveloped all of broadcast television and cable as well has lowered the ratings/success threshold considerably. We are not living in 1985 anymore, and heck we are not living in 2015 anymore either. It's a whole new media landscape nowadays where execs don't sweat a 0.5 if the show has a decent 18 to 34 demographic. Ratings numbers that would have been regarded as a show's death sentence 5 or 10 years ago are now enough to sustain a series and keep it around a while. That is the reality of having 500 channels and a number of thriving streaming services that compete for eyeballs in this competitive media environment. I really cannot fathom you comparing a first year number for a series on CBS to a first year number on the CW. There is a tremendous difference in the reach and viewers of both platforms. CBS is a major broadcast network while the CW is a fledgling fifth network with a lot more weak affiliates then CBS, that CW is only a qualitative sturdy step up from a basic cable station.
Well, you are right about one thing, studio don't sweat over rating that much anymore, but they still will if the number is very low. It does not matter if It was on CBS or CW, you still need to pay to get TV series produce, and it cost a lot more than movie these days, so at the end of the day, you still need to justify it with rating and viewership, I don't think any studio would just green light a series simply because they felt good..
Of course, nowadays we have DVR and Streaming, but those revenue aren't exactly much since the ads package are very different and again, when a new series going to get this kind of number, anyone up there would think, is there are something wrong with the series.
Don't get me wrong, I do not wish to wish ill for Batwoman, in fact, I liked it and I watched it (as it feature fellow Australian Ruby Rose) but the program is a bit not to everyone taste on a already specific genre, and unless something was done. I can only see Batwoman slide down the cliff. and if they (the big exec) are not worry about 0.5, then they probably would when it hit 0.4 or 0.3.But that would be another discussion altogether.
Boy, I went to bed thinking after reading Scribbler's post where it clearly showed Batwoman outperforming Supergirl in the most important and relevant 18 to 49 demographic, I thought it was a Scribbler mic drop end of story. Here in the U.S, 0.5 is not the relevant number for a fledgling network such as the CW. CW is not a seven network, nine network, or network 10 in your neck of the woods, it almost exclusively targets the young demos. It's kind of like the sort of wrestling war happening on Wednesday nights her in the states. TNT has AEW wrestling going against NXT on the USA network. NXT is getting a better rating and averaging better ratings some weeks, that it goes back and forth, but AEW is clearly winning in the important young 18 to 34 demos, and most experts because of that demo win declare AEW the clear winner in the war. Make no mistake about it, AEW getting a three year extension is thanks to the demographic victories, not due to the performance among total viewer or ratings average.
To be honest, I never watched channel seven (although I work as one of their show producer, producing one of their segment in the Sunrise show, and I used to work for channel nine, which I preferred, but well, seven paid more and I needed the money...anyway..)
I speak on my own experience as a AP in one of the major network in Australia, maskripper said did not actually make sense when he compare a first year show to a 4th or 5th years, because when you deal with actor, you don't just think of "now", or what is going on this season, if you do that, you probably have cancelled your own show, every story you write is for a series of actors (not just one) to keep on playing their role, so when you write a show, you think of it 2 or 3 or may even be 5 years down the road.
So if I am producing a show, especially a new show, I look at the number and look at how feasible that would be, not just this year, but subsequently as well. That is why I said the show first year mediocre rating (we should at least agree the rating for batwoman is mediocre, shall we?) And that would affect the program get funding, that is because it WILL BE worse in the second year, and the third, if there are the third year.
Even tho today is 2020, not 2000, the rating is still relevant, even tho not too many people watch TV anymore. The problem is, the alternative is actually worst. I can sell a show to Netflix and get around 1 or 2 dollars per play, or if they buy it outright, I may get around 600,000 to 1 millions rights + residual, however, those are peanuts when you compare to network syndication and international broadcast right. Because say for example, if Channel 7 here in Oz want to buy the right to SG, they will need to negotiate right + residual, if I remember correctly, Fox bought the right of SG for $400,000 + residual with an unknown percentage. And that's channel specific, sometime they pay more, sometime less, but that is per channel. But at the end of the day, channel buys right does not looks at streaming platform, they still looks at stuff like accolade and rating. I mean, it's generally no one internationally will buy a show that done poorly in the US in terms of rating.
As for why you cannot compare a freshmen show and a veteran show? The answer is quite simple, and it's only one word. - Rerun, for a veteran show, you can afford to get low rating but that is not the same for a new show..
Re-run is probably second best (if not actually the best) way to earn money for a show, because when you rerun, you still need to pay for the show, either in a contractual rerun or residual, but since you already have produced the show, you, as the production company, pay nothing (except for a certain % of the actor retained residual) If I remember correctly, Friends earns like 20 times more money in reruns than when it was broadcasted originally in NBC, for example, Netflix signed a 120 millions, 2 years deal on all 10 season of Friends rerun during 2018-2020, I don't think the show have earn $120 millions on its entirely first run for WB?
This is not the same at all with sport program, they have another issue related and their payment are calculated separately than TV shows. For starter, there are no production cost for a sporting program, it's the same reason why reality show is a hit now, because there are next to nothing production cost.
100.jpg)
A disclaimer for this joke was requested. The above is intended to be read as a joke. The smiley face is also intended to indicate that the above is a joke. The user quoted wishes it to be understood that they do not hold an opinion in line with the humorously truncated quotation above.
