The most compelling two hours of television in recent memory was Monday from 8 to 10 PM: “Drive” and “Heroes.”
“Drive” literally hit the ground running and didn’t slow down. Incredibly compelling, expertly directed, confidently written, well-acted, Kath and I were immediately pulled in. I mean, sure, the fanboy in me loved the notion that Captain Malcolm Reynolds was married to Winifred Berkel, but there was way more to the series than. WAY more.
By the third episode, I knew. I knew beyond question:
Fox would cancel it.
Why?
Because it’s Fox, the network that wouldn’t recognize a quality show with both hands and a flashlight. If Fox were airing “Heroes,” they would have canceled it by the fourth episode.
After the third episode, I turned to Kath and said, “You realize Fox is going to dump it and we’re never going to find out how any of it ends.”
Sure enough, they just dumped it. One more episode will air next Monday, and two more already in the can will never be broadcast.
They’re idiots. It’s that simple: Idiots.
PAD
• 
O.K., that last test post went through, so I’ll give this one a try again. I originally tried to send it last night, and again this morning, but it got caught in the filter both times. Maybe this time it’ll get through. Two posts I made in the last few minutes did.
If it does get through, PAD, please tell Glenn not to bother with trying to get the earlier attempts posted.
Rick
Bill Mulligan asked, “PAD, is it possible that we are beginning to see a kind of parallel to the infamous “I’ll wait for the trades”, only now for TV?”
Wouldn’t surprise me, Bill. I wrote a column earlier this year entitled “Are DVDs Changing the Way We Watch TV?”, in which I noted changes in viewing habits, especially my own.
One of the people I interviewed was a university marketing professor who said living patterns have changed, and one pattern that’s become the norm is that of people preferring to watch DVDs over first run shows.
I also interviewed a co-worker who doesn’t watch much TV (mainly because he has young kids), but when he does, more often than not, it’s on DVD. His theory: With the hectic pace of many people’s lives, sitting down at a specific hour to watch a specific show is no longer an option.
In recent years, I also tended to watch more DVDs than first-run shows. In the 2003-2004 TV season, I only watched three first-run shows, but still spent a lot of time in front of my TV. Most of that time I watched DVDs from my home library.
Most of the DVDs I own are of shows I originally watched first-run, like Buffy, Angel and Babylon 5, but not all. I never saw a single frame of Firefly on TV. I bought the DVD set of that series based mostly on the fact that I’d liked Buffy and Angel. Once I saw Serenity, that pretty much clinched the deal, but even before that, I knew I’d buy the Firefly DVD set one day.
Likewise, I bought Neverwhere without having seen an episode. Since I don’t have cable, I never had an opportunity to do so (assuming it was ever on a cable channel in my area). I bought it on the strength of Neil Gaiman’s reputation as a writer.
I’m probably not alone in that respect, either. I’m sure people have bought DVD sets based on either the premise or involvement of particular people (whether behind or in front of the camera), or some other factor(s).
Is this a “wait for the trades” mentality? Obviously not with regard to shows I’d previously watched first-run, but with some current shows, I may be leaning in that direction. I’ve seen perhaps five episodes of 24 this year. Maybe seven. I’m more interested in Heroes, and I know 24 will be out on DVD by what, September? I can rent the series then, and watch several in a row, if I’ve a mind to do so.
True, I could, in theory, tape it and watch it later; but my VCR’s no longer very reliable when it comes to tuning in stations. I found that out awhile back when I tried taping Smallville and Supernatural because I had to be some place that particular Thursday.
On the other hand, I have no urgent need to go out and buy the current season of 24 on DVD. Renting is fine. So, if I’m waiting for the trade with regard to 24, I’m waiting for it to come to the library, not my local comics shop.
I concluded my column with this statement: “The question remains, will it become commonplace for people to buy a DVD set of a season (or entire series) of a show they never saw, based just on the description and/or word of mouth?
Time will tell.”
And so it will. It’ll be interesting to see what people’s viewing habits are like a decade from now. Will there be more direct-to-DVD TV shows? We already have direct-to-DVD movies? Granted, some are probably very bad and never had a prayer of making it to theaters; but others, like the new Babylon 5 project, The Lost Tales, are marketed for direct DVD release from the get-go. Perhaps a decade from now a show like Drive will go direct to DVD.
If so, expect to see a lot more product placement, if not actual advertisements, included with the series.
Rick
P.S. I never saw a frame of Firefly when it was on the air because I deliberately didn’t watch it. Not because I was waiting for the DVD (I didn’t yet own a DVD player, and didn’t have any thoughts along those lines.) I didn’t watch it because I felt sure I’d like it, and I wanted to cut back on my TV viewing. Which was easier when I didn’t have a DVD library.
I also didn’t watch Drive. The premise didn’t interest me (and doesn’t), but I agree with PAD that FOX seems to cancel shows too quickly. I might still have never watched it, but “TheJohnWilson” has a point. A show about a race is obviously structured to have an end. The network should have agreed to approve the series as a whole, with the caveat that whether it’s a six, 13 or 22-episode series would depend on how well it did in the ratings. If it does well, it goes a whole season. If it does poorly, it becomes a mini-series.
Of course the writers would have had to structure the show in such a way that it could both logically wrap up in six episodes and logically continue for 13 or 22. But I’m sure they could’ve done that.
P.P.S. Amy Acker was in Drive? If I’d known, I might’ve tuned in at least once.
“Peter, you are talking about throwing good money after bad by continuing to broadcast the show. The opportunity costs Fox was looking at were what made it untenable to continue with broadcasting the program. If the ratings weren’t there, new viewers aren’t going to suddenly be manufactured and the financial picture improve.”
Congratulations. With an attitude like that, you’d be an ideal Fox exec.
PAD
I’ve been trying to get a post through the filter without success since last night. Yet two recent posts made it through. So, maybe the one I’m failing to get through is too long. I’ll try breaking it into segments.
PAD, if this works, please let Glenn know he doesn’t need to spend time trying to get my previous attempts posted.
Anyway, here we go. Part 1:
Bill Mulligan asked, “PAD, is it possible that we are beginning to see a kind of parallel to the infamous “I’ll wait for the trades”, only now for TV?”
Wouldn’t surprise me, Bill. I wrote a column earlier this year entitled “Are DVDs Changing the Way We Watch TV?”, in which I noted changes in viewing habits, especially my own.
One of the people I interviewed was a university marketing professor who said living patterns have changed, and one pattern that’s become the norm is that of people preferring to watch DVDs over first run shows.
I also interviewed a co-worker who doesn’t watch much TV (mainly because he has young kids), but when he does, more often than not, it’s on DVD. His theory: With the hectic pace of many people’s lives, sitting down at a specific hour to watch a specific show is no longer an option.
In recent years, I also tended to watch more DVDs than first-run shows. In the 2003-2004 TV season, I only watched three first-run shows, but still spent a lot of time in front of my TV. Most of that time I watched DVDs from my home library.
Most of the DVDs I own are of shows I originally watched first-run, like Buffy, Angel and Babylon 5, but not all. I never saw a single frame of Firefly on TV. I bought the DVD set of that series based mostly on the fact that I’d liked Buffy and Angel. Once I saw Serenity, that pretty much clinched the deal, but even before that, I knew I’d buy the Firefly DVD set one day.
Likewise, I bought Neverwhere without having seen an episode. Since I don’t have cable, I never had an opportunity to do so (assuming it was ever on a cable channel in my area). I bought it on the strength of Neil Gaiman’s reputation as a writer.
I’m probably not alone in that respect, either. I’m sure people have bought DVD sets based on either the premise or involvement of particular people (whether behind or in front of the camera), or some other factor(s).
Part 2:
Is this a “wait for the trades” mentality? Obviously not with regard to shows I’d previously watched first-run, but with some current shows, I may be leaning in that direction. I’ve seen perhaps five episodes of 24 this year. Maybe seven. I’m more interested in Heroes, and I know 24 will be out on DVD by what, September? I can rent the series then, and watch several in a row, if I’ve a mind to do so.
True, I could, in theory, tape it and watch it later; but my VCR’s no longer very reliable when it comes to tuning in stations. I found that out awhile back when I tried taping Smallville and Supernatural because I had to be some place that particular Thursday.
On the other hand, I have no urgent need to go out and buy the current season of 24 on DVD. Renting is fine. So, if I’m waiting for the trade with regard to 24, I’m waiting for it to come to the library, not my local comics shop.
I concluded my column with this statement: “The question remains, will it become commonplace for people to buy a DVD set of a season (or entire series) of a show they never saw, based just on the description and/or word of mouth?
Time will tell.”
Part 2:
Is this a “wait for the trades” mentality? Obviously not with regard to shows I’d previously watched first-run, but with some current shows, I may be leaning in that direction. I’ve seen perhaps five episodes of 24 this year. Maybe seven. I’m more interested in Heroes, and I know 24 will be out on DVD by what, September? I can rent the series then, and watch several in a row, if I’ve a mind to do so.
True, I could, in theory, tape it and watch it later; but my VCR’s no longer very reliable when it comes to tuning in stations. I found that out awhile back when I tried taping Smallville and Supernatural because I had to be some place that particular Thursday.
On the other hand, I have no urgent need to go out and buy the current season of 24 on DVD. Renting is fine. So, if I’m waiting for the trade with regard to 24, I’m waiting for it to come to the library, not my local comics shop.
I concluded my column with this statement: “The question remains, will it become commonplace for people to buy a DVD set of a season (or entire series) of a show they never saw, based just on the description and/or word of mouth?
Time will tell.”
Part 2:
Is this a “wait for the trades” mentality? Obviously not with regard to shows I’d previously watched first-run, but with some current shows, I may be leaning in that direction. I’ve seen perhaps five episodes of 24 this year. Maybe seven. I’m more interested in Heroes, and I know 24 will be out on DVD by what, September? I can rent the series then, and watch several in a row, if I’ve a mind to do so.
True, I could, in theory, tape it and watch it later; but my VCR’s no longer very reliable when it comes to tuning in stations. I found that out awhile back when I tried taping Smallville and Supernatural because I had to be some place that particular Thursday.
On the other hand, I have no urgent need to go out and buy the current season of 24 on DVD. Renting is fine. So, if I’m waiting for the trade with regard to 24, I’m waiting for it to come to the library, not my local comics shop.
O.K., I don’t know what’s going on now. Part 1 got through, but two separate attempts to send part 2 failed. I don’t get it. Especially since part 2 is of a shorter length.
Rick
I just find it hard to swallow that airing a show for all of 3-4 weeks, and calling it a failure, is giving said show a fair shake.
Yeah, some shows do build an audience over time. These guys know that very few shows are overnight successes, yet they don’t want to give shows that don’t fit this category a chance.
Which is why we more and more @#$%ing reality shows.
To summarize parts 2 and 3 (assuming this post gets through)
Is this a “wait for the trades” mentality? With some current shows I may be leaning in that direction. I’ve seen perhaps five episodes of 24 this year. Maybe seven. I’m more interested in Heroes, and I know 24 will be out on DVD by what, September? I can rent the series then, and watch several in a row, if I’ve a mind to do so.
On the other hand, I have no urgent need to go out and buy the current season of 24 on DVD. Renting is fine. So, if I’m waiting for the trade with regard to 24, I’m waiting for it to come to the library, not my local comics shop.
I concluded my column with this statement: “The question remains, will it become commonplace for people to buy a DVD set of a season (or entire series) of a show they never saw, based just on the description and/or word of mouth?
Time will tell.”
And so it will. Perhaps in a decade direct to DVD TV shows will be more common. A show like Drive might be one such show.
Well, so much for posting even a summary of parts 2 and 3. Bill Mulligan, since the original post was in response to one you’d made, I can just E-Mail it to you, if you wish. Bill Myers has my E-Mail address.
Rick
“Peter, you are talking about throwing good money after bad by continuing to broadcast the show. The opportunity costs Fox was looking at were what made it untenable to continue with broadcasting the program. If the ratings weren’t there, new viewers aren’t going to suddenly be manufactured and the financial picture improve.”
M*A*S*H*?
Most of NBC in the 80’s?
Baywatch?
Star Trek?
There are a lot of others as well. Lots of shows that started weak came in to their own after a season went by, they actually got exposure or when the show that was getting the viewers went into reruns.
There have been a lot of really good shows that were canned too soon, moved to bad time slots or just plain bounced all over the place because the way things are now is stupid.
Some of my favorite shows would be dead and gone if they were treated then as they would be treated now. Who knows how many hits have died in the last few years thanks to the hair trigger of spineless execs.
Most of the DVDs I own are of shows I originally watched first-run, like Buffy, Angel and Babylon 5, but not all. I never saw a single frame of Firefly on TV. I bought the DVD set of that series based mostly on the fact that I’d liked Buffy and Angel. Once I saw Serenity, that pretty much clinched the deal, but even before that, I knew I’d buy the Firefly DVD set one day.
That opens the possiblilty for a show that has dismil ratings to still make money–I’m sure the producers make more money selling a $15 dollar dvd to me than they do selling advertising based on whether or not I watch (especially since I’m not a Nielson family member).
So I guess teh question is how many do they need to sell to make up for, say, 1 rating point? And how can they know this?
I wonder if someone could figure out how many DVDs of WODERFALLS sold and whether the combined income from the (low) rated show and the DVD sales would have justyifed a second season.
Rick, my email is kaiju@aol.com. I’ve occasionally had trouble posting. Sometimes it turns out to be a single word, especially one that shows up in spam– credit, Nigerian bank notes, enlarge your pëņìš, that sort of thing. Sometimes it’s printing links to news items (shortening it just to http://www.whatever seems to fix that.)
Rick–pretty much all of the TV I watch is on DVD, mostly because the biggest chance that I get to watch TV is at work, during the day, and I don’t like Springer(reminds me too much of my in-laws) and I don’t like court shows(reminds me that I shoulda gone to law school.) Throw in the fact that my wife works 70 hour weeks and likes to curl up with a good Reba episode(her opinion, not mine, pretty much that entire show irritates the living crap outta me) I’m not gonna deny her. Throw in the five-year old who loves horror cartoons-(Martin Mystery-current fave) and I don’t get to watch much here. Well, except for the horror cartoons. Makes me proud.
Wow, Bill, I had no idea Nigerian bank notes would do that. Gonna have to get me hands on some.
Congratulations. With an attitude like that, you’d be an ideal Fox exec.
So what exactly did you do back when you worked in Marvel’s Sales department? I recall you were part of the cash register initiative. Did you also recommend retailers to keep buying books that didn’t sell for them, because, despite no reason to think otherwise, eventually it’d sell?
M*A*S*H*?
Yes, a sitcom made 35 years ago is clearly something that can be compared to an effects heavy/location based action drama made today.
Most of NBC in the 80’s?
Do you actually own a calendar?
Baywatch?
Baywatch survived in Syndication for a lot less money than it started with. It also sacrificed it’s concept of action/crime drama at the beach for a jiggle fest.
Star Trek?
TNG was a syndicated success, which again is a different world than network. And as for TOS…well I suppose if you think a movie would be successful…I mean, Serenity proved that people who make a big fuss about canceled shows staring Nathan Fillon can’t be bothered to actually go to a theater to watch him, but just maybe a winning idea like the Serious Cannonball Run will change that!
You work pretty hard to miss a point, don’t you. I referenced older shows because it’s an older mindset that doesn’t seem to surface anymore.
All of those shows, and loads of others that are held up as some of the best of TV’s history, would never survive today. Some of those shows were dead last for a full season before catching on by word of mouth. These days, a show gets the ax the same day it’s second episode airs.
Shows these days have to find their audience by day one or they die. Shows that show every sign of being a hit get yanked before they’ve had the chance to be seen by most people. And some shows aren’t given much of a chance to get that day one chance. If a new show gets put up against a returning powerhouse, it’s dead. If a show gets stuck on a dreaded “death night” slot, it’s dead. Lots of good shows get pulled to be replaced with reruns of established shows.
Star Trek is an example of a different sort. It was canceled, un-canceled, moved around, screwed with and finally killed. Then, as syndication let it find an audience, it became one of the biggest forces in pop culture history and a major cash cow for its studio. You think the guys who canned it and gave it so much trouble ever helped to nurture or create something that became that huge? I wonder how many “Treks” have been killed by second or third episode cancellations?
Scavenger,
I think you are arguing that shows are investments that need to make financial sense, and I think that most reasonable-minded people, fans and non-fans alike, wouldn’t dispute that.
I think the disconnect that’s occuring is that PAD, myself and others are making the contention that a show needs to be given a “reasonable” chance to justify its existence.
If you’re saying that Firefly had its chance and just didn’t cut it, I think that’s a poor example. The scheduling was inconsistent(juggled to accomodate the World Series), the episodes shown out of order, and Fox executives cowed Joss Whedon into taking specific a creative direction they chose.
In a similar vein, I think most people would say that the ratings over two episodes of Drive might not be a very accurate measure of the long-term viability of the show. Maybe it is, but did every “successful” show shoot out of the cannon right out of the gates?
If you’re staunchly in the corner of free markets-dictate-a-show’s-worth, I really don’t argue with you. I do think that’s the way the world works.
But I’d say that not everyone was enraptured by “American Idol” versus “The Biggest Loser” versus “The Bachelor” versus “Who wants to Marry a Millionaire” during the reality-show-craze. Not everyone feels that showing Cho Seung-Hui’s “manifesto” was justified, even if it did bring NBC heaps upon heaps of traffic.
For me and I suspect for most folks including you, free markets are the measure that ultimately matters. But they’re not necessarily the right one. I’ll never be convinced otherwise that the ambition, or heart, or creativity of a show don’t count for something.
I think a show with enough ambition or heart or creativity matters, even if it doesn’t find commercial success and ultimately gets cancelled. Or, as a wise man once put it, “Might’ve been the losing side. Still not convinced it was the wrong one”
It’s why I keep watching Scrubs and The Office and BSG and The Shield, etc.
>>Fox did the right thing. Yeah, they have a habit of pulling the trigger quickly, but let’s not forget that television is a business. Losing money hand over fist is a good way to lose that business. Fox did the right thing.>>Fox did the right thing. Yeah, they have a habit of pulling the trigger quickly, but let’s not forget that television is a business. Losing money hand over fist is a good way to lose that business. Fox did the right thing.
No, they set it up for failure by putting it against established and remarkably successful shows: Dancing with the Stars and Deal or No Deal.
Do you truly think that any show would have a chance against such popular shows??
FOX might have advertised it a lot, but they didn’t promote it well. If they had, the premiere of the show would have gotten high enough ratings for the show to continue after four hours.
As Jerry Chandler said above, “Shows these days have to find their audience by day one or they die.” That is the mentality that FOX had and unfortunately they did not bring the audience to the premiere. From what I understand, typically the advertisements are from the networks promotion department and not the show’s creative staff. So, the responsibility is entirely on FOX.
They even premiered it against a show that they probably figured would share in the audience – The Amazing Race. They aired the show in a way that was practically guaranteed for failure.
Neil
“So what exactly did you do back when you worked in Marvel’s Sales department? I recall you were part of the cash register initiative. Did you also recommend retailers to keep buying books that didn’t sell for them, because, despite no reason to think otherwise, eventually it’d sell?”
No, I gave them hints as to how to take books that were slow sellers for them and increase their sales. Which, more often than not, worked.
PAD
Figures. I really liked Drive. It was kinda like a blend of Lost/24. I already lost “The Class” this year and now this.
I had guessed that Big Enos and Little Enos were behind the race.
Three weeks? Thats all it got. This years Keen Eddie.
Eric
PAD,
If Fox called you today and asked how to grow Drive’s audience, what advice would you give them?
“But I might be the only sci-fi fan who isn’t impressed with Heroes.”
After hearing all the hype about it I decided to
give “Heroes” a chance on Sci-Fi the other night
and after about 5 minutes I turned the TV off and
played “Oblivion” on my Xbox 360.
Maybe it’s the hype about “Heroes” that just irriates me or something.
I watched the pilot for “Painkiller Jane” and didn’t get into the second episode so I decided to catch them on DVD.
As too the TV/DVD and Comic/TPB anlogy I think it’s perfect analogy. There’s show called “TNA Wrestling Impact” on Spike TV, if TNA would release all the episodes of Impact on DVD I would probably not watch it every week (I would watch it just not regually) because I would have no reason too. I would just watch the show when
they have a match that I would like to see. But because there are no plans to relase a “TNA Wrestling Impact season 1 DVD box set” in the near future.
I have to watch every show requardless if sucked it or not.
“But I might be the only sci-fi fan who isn’t impressed with Heroes.”
After hearing all the hype about it I decided to
give “Heroes” a chance on Sci-Fi the other night
and after about 5 minutes I turned the TV off and
played “Oblivion” on my Xbox 360.
Maybe it’s the hype about “Heroes” that just irriates me or something.
I watched the pilot for “Painkiller Jane” and didn’t get into the second episode so I decided to catch them on DVD.
As too the TV/DVD and Comic/TPB anlogy I think it’s perfect analogy. There’s show called “TNA Wrestling Impact” on Spike TV, if TNA would release all the episodes of Impact on DVD I would probably not watch it every week (I would watch it just not regually) because I would have no reason too. I would just watch the show when
they have a match that I would like to see.
But because there are no plans to relase a “TNA Wrestling Impact season 1 DVD box set” in the near future. Because I know this I have to watch every show requardless if sucked it or not.
>I watched the pilot for “Painkiller Jane” and didn’t get into the second episode so I decided to catch them on DVD.
Other way around for me. I generally really like HEROES, but couldn’t finish one episode of JANE.
Weren’t the ratings on Drive really, really bad? Also, I was only able to get halfway through the first episode…didn’t like it at all.
Mr. David, you said this about your time in Marvel’s sales:
No, I gave them hints as to how to take books that were slow sellers for them and increase their sales. Which, more often than not, worked.
How did that work, exactly? Was it hints for the retailers (put the slow-sellers at eye level so they were more visible)? For the distributors? Did they allow you to offer suggestions to the writers and artists, especially the cover artists?
I don’t think you’ve talked much about this part of your career, which seems to have given you unique insight in the business of comics. In fact, if you wish to answer, you might want to put it in a “But I Digress” column.
And maybe, on a consumer level, it might explain why I buy some comics I wouldn’t normally buy, but felt compelled to for some inexpicable reason.
Just a thought… I’ve seen at least a couple of people wanting the network to wait for “word of mouth” to build a following. You do realize that word-of-mouth works both ways, right? It lost over 400,000 viewers from the first episode. That’s a whole lot of people telling friends and co-workers not to bother. Then it lost another million. Now, I’m not studio or ad exec, but that’s a pretty clear trend, especially if there was considerable negative buzz. Hëll, I have to wonder if it would have had even as many viewers as it did if it hadn’t starred Nathan “the guy from Firefly” Fillion.
Also, by all accounts the current television season has been quite possibly the most bloodthirsty ever.
http://www.tvseriesfinale.com/2006/12/200607_cancelled_shows_missing_tv_series_and_upset.php
And it’s not just FOX, either, nor was Drive the fastest cancel at four hours in.
Of course, as is the nature of the internet, there will be plenty of sturm and drang for a while due to some very vocal people still smarting over Firefly’s cancellation and Serenity’s less than stellar box office showing. Then, in a couple of months, much like Snakes on a Plane and other internet causes celebres, it’ll be forgotten.
-Rex Hondo-
“If Fox called you today and asked how to grow Drive’s audience, what advice would you give them?”
Off the top of my head? A different, more character-driven approach to the advertising (what made the show compelling was the stories of each of the individual drivers.) Something along the lines of, “Who do YOU want to win?” Also do promo-oriented tie ins with other shows: “There’s no Race more Amazing than this one.”
Double pumping: Airing the show in different slots or even twice in the same night as FX and USA routinely do, and even the way Fox does with “House.”
Make a public announcement that Fox, committed to high quality, is definitely showing all twelve episodes because they believe in the series and want to encourage people who currently are missing it to have a chance to catch up.
Make a concerted PR effort to get placement for it in Entertainment Weekly, TV Guide, etc.
As I said, off the top of my head.
PAD
“How did that work, exactly? Was it hints for the retailers (put the slow-sellers at eye level so they were more visible)? For the distributors? Did they allow you to offer suggestions to the writers and artists, especially the cover artists?”
Believe me, if sales had offered suggestions for writers, artists and cover artists to editorial, they would have only stopped laughing long enough to tell us to get out of their offices.
It was purely at the distribution and retail level, and mostly the latter. Suggestions would range from different display approaches to being alert to possible buyers based on what else they were buying.
PAD
“Just a thought… I’ve seen at least a couple of people wanting the network to wait for “word of mouth” to build a following. You do realize that word-of-mouth works both ways, right? It lost over 400,000 viewers from the first episode. That’s a whole lot of people telling friends and co-workers not to bother. Then it lost another million. Now, I’m not studio or ad exec, but that’s a pretty clear trend, especially if there was considerable negative buzz.”
Going on the assumption that your numbers are correct:
The drop from Sunday to Monday? Different, less heated timeslots. The only real competition on Sunday at 8 PM is “The Simpsons,” and “Drive” pre-empted it.
From one week to the next? Why assume that it was a drop based on negative assessment of quality? Could have been whatever was happening on “Dancing with the Stars.” Could have been something even more fundamentally problematic: Viewers realizing the serial nature and saying, “I’m not sticking around because Fox will just cancel it.”
Plus there’s the fundamental problem that you’re blindly accepting Nielsen ratings as being accurate. Just because Nielsen claims that a million viewers went away doesn’t make it so. Let’s say, for instance, that “Drive” has a huge following in college dorms. A dozen people grouped around a single television. In the meantime a couple of Nielsen families decide that they want to see if Heather Mills’ leg flies off this week. In actuality, “Drive” real viewership is more solid than the incremental ratings system will reflect. It’s only through long-term viewership that you can even begin to get a real idea of how popular something is, not to mention earn an audience’s trust that a show will stay around. On Fox, there’s very little reason for trust.
PAD
Plus there’s the fundamental problem that you’re blindly accepting Nielsen ratings as being accurate. Just because Nielsen claims that a million viewers went away doesn’t make it so. >>
Also these Nielsen ratings are based on watching the show “live.” How many people decided to record Drive on Monday night while watching “Dancing with the Stars” live so they could be ready for the results show of that the next day?
For that matter, how many Nielsen families decided they couldn’t devote three hours to one show over two nights and recorded it all that first week?
Neil
One of the reasons I think Heroes continues to find an audience…aside from not dragging secrets out…is by using the network’s partner channels…Sci Fi in this case…to show repeats of the new episodes the same week as the main channel. I know for us…since we watch 24 pretty much as it’s released, and our DVR can’t record two shows at the same time…it’s the only way we’ve been able to see the second half of the Heroes season.
Had Fox made an effort to expose a wider audience by repeating the premiere on different nights, rather than showing three hours in two nights,it could have given more people a chance to see it, like it, and make the commitment to come back for the next 13 weeks to find out what happens next. Instead, the got three hours into the show with only the folks that already knew they wanted to watch, and left everyone else in the dust.
Neilson numbers do take into account DVR’s and VCR’s.
And whether you like them or not, that’s the standard of measurement. And Drive failed by the standard of measurement used. And it didn’t just fail…it failed to the point where it’s most cost effective to not show it, and instead show reruns of another show.
PAD suggests they show it multiple times, like they do with House. They show House multiple times because other shows fail and so they fill their schedule with their hit show. Just like CBS does with CSI and Criminal Intent.
PAD thinks a more character based ad campaign would have worked…more character based then the whole Nathan has to race or he never sees his wife again?
The show was placed in a spot where it was teamed with a like action drama that does well.
It was upagainst game shows and dance contests, so it was the only show like it in it’s time slot.
And no one cared.
There weren’t million’s of folks recording it to watch later.
There weren’t “Drive Parties” held at Dorms where the entire student bodies of colleges would gather to watch.
There weren’t millions saying “Well Fox cancels shows, so why bother”.
I said it before…If there were so many folks upset about Firefly’s cancellation their fox boycott mattered numerically…Firefly wouldn’t have been canceled in the first place.
It wasn’t that Fox didn’t advertise it. The launched with a Sunday/Monday night blitz…the same way the launch 24!!!
It wasn’t a failure of Fox…it was that no one wanted to watch it.
“PAD suggests they show it multiple times, like they do with House. They show House multiple times because other shows fail and so they fill their schedule with their hit show.”
Unless you’re a Fox executive, you don’t *really* have any idea why they show House when they do and, oh, by the way, it’s also shown on USA.
“PAD thinks a more character based ad campaign would have worked…more character based then the whole Nathan has to race or he never sees his wife again?”
Yes. There’s an assortment of characters, each with their own reason to want to win. You make clear the demographic variety of characters, all with their own stories to tell.
“The show was placed in a spot where it was teamed with a like action drama that does well.
It was upagainst game shows and dance contests, so it was the only show like it in it’s time slot.
And no one cared.”
So I’m a no one. So every person on this board who watched it and wanted it to succeed was a no one. So the six million people who watched it are alllllll no one.
How about people who post from hiding behind fake names are no ones? How about that?
PAD
Also, comparisons to shows like Star Trek and M*A*S*H don’t really hold up, since back in those days, there simply wasn’t as much competition for the advertising dollars. There were, what, three networks, and that was it?
Nowadays there are at least three entire networks I can think of right off the top of my head dedicated to the target demographic of a show like Drive. For good or for ill, the television landscape is such that if a show tanks right out of the gate, the advertisers have no incentive to not pull out and focus on other, proven, properties.
Also, I’m curious that if the Nielsen ratings are not to be believed, from where are people magically producing a “loyal fanbase” or a “more solid” “real viewership”?
-Rex Hondo-
Also, comparisons to shows like Star Trek and M*A*S*H don’t really hold up, since back in those days, there simply wasn’t as much competition for the advertising dollars. There were, what, three networks, and that was it?
It still holds up because the concept is the same. Give a show more then two to four eps to find its viewership.
It still holds up because the concept is the same. Give a show more then two to four eps to find its viewership.
With what advertising? If it’s already costing the network money to keep it on the air, and it’s lost dang near a quarter of its audience within that first four episodes with no indication that it’ll ever gain any more, what incentive do they have to keep it on the air?
-Rex Hondo-
Yeah, Fox is getting bagged on alot in this thread. However, I still say it is my favourite “Big Four” network on TV. Why? Because it has/had some of my favourite shows on there: “Simpsons”, “24”, “Arrested Development”, “Family Guy”, “Prison Break”, “Married With Children”, “Firefly”, “X-Files”. And maybe a few more.
The thing about FOX as a network is that it isn’t afraid to take chances to Weird-As-Shìŧ shows. HOWEVER, it is rather ruthless when it comes to deciding if these shows will continue to exist.
I don’t think FOX is a network run by idiots at all. I think they are, in fact, one of the more balsy and interesting networks out there. When it comes to New Product. 2 weeks later, of course, all bets are off. FOX has done a ton of really great stuff, and some of the better shows in last few years, but it kills its darlings very early on in the run, which may make it open for being bagged on.
However, after all that being said, how long has “COPS” been on the network. I mean, like, what the fûçk?
Plus there’s the fundamental problem that you’re blindly accepting Nielsen ratings as being accurate. Just because Nielsen claims that a million viewers went away doesn’t make it so. Let’s say, for instance, that “Drive” has a huge following in college dorms. A dozen people grouped around a single television.
True enough. Nielsen ratings do not take into account completely hypothetical Drive viewers, but neither does it count hypothetical viewers for other shows, so it all really evens out in the end.
-Rex Hondo-
“How about people who post from hiding behind fake names are no ones? How about that?
PAD”
Strawman much?
Not sure if anyone brought this up (I skimmed through about half of the comnents and didn’t see it), but there is NO new episode of Drive tonight. The sweeps schedule released last week that implicitly confirmed Drive’s demise didn’t have Drive on it and that covered this week’s shows.
-Dave OConnell
The cancellation of the show was immediate. The two remaining filmed episodes may be shown later in the summer. They are showing House repeats in the Monday 8 PM EDT timeslot.
Neil
How about people who post from hiding behind fake names are no ones? How about that?
That’s what you’re argument comes down to?
Seriously?
I’ve been using “Scavenger” as a pen name online for over 15 years. Me and you have been parts of the same forums, online, for over 15 years. We’ve argued and discussed topics, online, for over 15 years. We’ve met in real life. I was a character in a Star Trek book you edited. You and your cohorts almost borrowed my dog for your Mystery Trekkie Theater show at Shore leave one year. Dude, I introduced you to your wife! (Ok, I’m kidding about that one). Frankly it’s the name I’m known by in the online communities I participate in, far more than going by “Todd”.
My email address has always been my real name, so it’s hardly like it’s “hiding”.
On House…yes it’s shown on USA…who syndicates it. USA is part of the NBC family of Channels, like Sci-Fi and Bravo. It was a hit show, so USA decided to give Fox money to show it. It’s not a situation like Heroes being on Sci-Fi.
And it doesn’t take a genius to understand why Fox fills holes in their schedule with House re-runs, anymore than it does to figure out why AI is an hour long on Wednesdays now or why CBS puts in CSI reruns when it has a hole. It’s the popular show that’ll get viewers.
And I’m sorry to offend you and the 6 million..5 million..4 million and dropping people who want to watch drive. Here’s a plan…if you all send Fox $10 that’ll give them the money to offset how much airing it cost them.
DRIVE
P.O. Box 900
Attn: FOX BROADCASTING Publicity Dept.
Beverly Hills, CA 90213 0900
With what advertising? If it’s already costing the network money to keep it on the air, and it’s lost dang near a quarter of its audience within that first four episodes with no indication that it’ll ever gain any more, what incentive do they have to keep it on the air?
One thing to remember with television advertising is that the networks say to the ad agencies, “We guarantee you’ll get X rating. If we get below X rating, we refund you Y percent of what you’ve paid to advertise on this program.” If Drive wasn’t making X rating–whatever that threshold was–then continuing to broadcast the show would cost FOX money over and above the costs they had incurred to produce the program as they have to kick money back to the advertisers for failing to hold up their end of the contract. The question is, where do you want to hemorrage the money, at the front end or the back end? Yes, it’s a brutal calculus, but it’s the right decision. Giving the show time to develop an audience may seem like a course of action that can reap rewards down the road, but in the short-term the costs were against that. In FOX’s case, they decided to take their losses on the front end by refusing to throw good money after the bad.
PAD suggests they show it multiple times, like they do with House. They show House multiple times because other shows fail and so they fill their schedule with their hit show. Just like CBS does with CSI and Criminal Intent.
************
SER: One important note — HOUSE, like CSI and the LAW & ORDERS, is a non-serialized show. Episodes can — for the most part — be watched in a vacuum. In fact, I was halfway through a HOUSE rerun on Friday before I realized it was from the first season (a subplot gave it away).
Such programming can be aired multiple times and can snatch up new viewers. Any show that is serialized (i.e. 24 or DRIVE to an extent) is difficult to “strip” like this. In fact, it can actually result in alienating potential viewers.
Umm I enjoyed it, mostly cause it was so bad it was funny, yet kind of entertaining.
I can’t say it was well acted or written, though. The acting (other than Fillion) was absolutely atrocious.
Kind of like Kyle XY, a very guilty pleasure of b-movie quality hilarity.
>Such programming can be aired multiple times and can snatch up new viewers. Any show that is serialized (i.e. 24 or DRIVE to an extent) is difficult to “strip” like this. In fact, it can actually result in alienating potential viewers.
What I don’t understand is why this is such a problem in North America. Look at other countries. Japan has had hundreds of serialised shows – and I’m not talking anime, here, though it’s often true of that, too. Admitedly often short run things designed to last about 12 episodes, but I can’t recall following any which wound up being cancelled in mid run. They tend to COMMIT to a show and STICK WITH IT. So the audience knows it’s safe to do so as well. An audience which starts off at less than half that available in the U.S. (129 million approx) and is also divided between satellite and other services. But, hey, they start a show on date “x” and they keep it on the same night, at the same time, week after week, without reruns until it’s finished. Then they stick on something else. Maybe it’s time they considered doing that here? Oh, wait they DID do that here. Thirty years ago. But, for the most part (game/reality shows excepted), not any more. And they wonder why they lose viewers?
I was bored with Drive about 5 minutes in and turned it off. While I’m fans of all the people involved, I just couldn’t get into a series where people, well, drive.
> I just couldn’t get into a series where people, well, drive.
So … not a KNIGHT RIDER Fan, hunh?