Monday, March 10, 2008

When Networks Don't Know What They Want.

JOHN DOYLE in the Globe uses the axing of Intelligence (moment of silence...........there) to posit that "CBC doesn't know what it wants to be."

So, in getting rid of Intelligence, CBC TV has left itself open to the rage of its fiercely loyal viewers. Over the weekend, numerous readers wrote to me, all latching on to the same theme: "Cancelling Intelligence pretty well sums up CBC's decision to scrap this brilliant program." As many of those loyal CBC viewers see it, CBC has simply swapped intelligence for stupidity.

CBC itself was obtuse about the cancellations. "We certainly recognize they were frankly terrific shows and in many cases they attracted quite a degree of critical acclaim, but unfortunately they were unable to attract an audience. Audience is not our only consideration, but it is an important one," the CBC's spokesman told Canadian Press on Friday, speaking about the cancelled shows.

There's the rub - CBC TV really wants to be a big shot broadcaster, just like the commercial channels, and boast about audience success. And there's the problem - CBC doesn't know what it wants to be. A shrink would ask, 'Do you want to be popular or do you want to be smart?' CBC would probably answer, 'Well, popular is not the only consideration but it's an important one.' Then the shrink would tell CBC to make a decision, grow up and quit alienating those who love and cherish it.



It's a good column, but I'd say he doesn't go wide enough. In fact, as I wrote the other day, this isn't just a CBC problem. All the Canadian networks are like this. In CBC's case it's because they're bureaucratic and swing based on politics and management whims (even if I think the current strategy to try and woo under 50 year olds back to the broadcaster is ultimately the right call. If you want a future in broadcasting, I mean.)

CTV and Global, on the other hand, don't really develop enough of their own shows to even HAVE an identity beyond, "what did we buy this fall?" I think that's why they send out so many duelling press releases. They're desperate to prove that the audience prefers them, when really, I think the audience couldn't care less. They've made sure of that by simply being clearing houses for someone else's creativity.

In fact, you could make a strong argument that the only channel with a strong brand identity that knew what it was over the last five years was Showcase. And in the takeover of Alliance Atlantis last year by Canwest Global, they promptly sacked most of their development department. So let's see how they go from here. Fingers crossed.

These disconnects between networks and their core audiences, or even their own development people, aren't even strictly a Canadian thing, though it's probably more acute here because of the lack of development of original shows.

You could argue that the Frankenstein-like creation of the CW from the dessicated corpses of UPN and the WB was disastrous because it took one channel that knew what it was (the WB) and grafted it together with another that was far murkier (UPN.)

One of my favorite shows of the last few years, Love Monkey, was dead out of the gate -- even though the very few reruns have become a big hit in reruns on VH1. Why? It had the bad fortune to be on CBS, a network where it just did not fit.

Plus, ask any genre fan and they'll tell you that the development department at FOX has, for years, been way more ambitious and original than their current department. Fox is famous for developing these really interesting, original shows and then throwing them on the air and abandoning them. (New Amsterdam looks like the latest casualty in this regard.)

In a time when exactly zero eyeballs are guaranteed, maybe a loss leader like Intelligence is appropriate for a public broadcaster.

Then again, between DaVinci and Intelligence, Haddock did have something like nine or ten seasons of shows on the air with the CBC. CBC stuck with Ken Finkleman through series that drew increasingly smaller returns. At what point do you shake it up and try something else?

Intelligence is gone, and that's sad. But we won't know the second verse of this tune for a few more weeks.

In the meantime, I wonder if Showcase has some money to burn? Some of us still really want to find out what happened to Jimmy Reardon.

11 comments:

jimhenshaw said...

kobshtkI agree with much of what you've written in this post and your last one regarding development.

But it's hard to determine what path might lead to greater success when we've got so little empirical evidence to study and what we do have is so muddied by other issues like politics, regionalism and risk aversion.

CBC cancelled the two shows which were supposed to most appeal to their desired younger demographic because they didn't draw numbers.

But you have to wonder what the ratings for all four of the new series would have been if they had been required to compete head to head with US shows that weren't there because of the WGA strike.

And you also have to consider how much the corporation would have supported them in that situation.

Will "The Border' flirt with 800,000 viewers when it's up against "24" next season? Will "Little Mosque" retain the audience it barely maintained this year? And what will the CBC do to help those shows out if they get in trouble?

Whether or not you were a fan of "Intelligence" (and I wasn't) you had to respect the fact that it clearly defined the audience it was after and served them well. And a way could and should have been found to support that effort.

There seems to be a scattershot approach to development here which green-lights series that might reach a number that isn't embarrassing because of potential demographic appeal rather than supporting work that might "find" or create an audience based on its inherent entertainment value or uniqueness as an original work.

Can you imagine CTV developing the hits it now claims like "The Sopranos", "Nip/Tuck" or "Dexter"?

Even CBC which has an enormously successful record of family entertainment, seems almost embarrassed to have "Heartland" on its schedule instead of championing it. Maybe it's nobody's idea of cutting edge or "youth oriented" television but with a push, it could probably being doing much better than it is.

What's holding us back is what's always held us back. Our broadcasters are timid in development, afraid of negative reaction from the public, the press or Parliament and unwilling to fight for their shows when they see them struggling.

If the audience senses that you don't really believe in your own product, they have little reason to sample it.

Cunningham said...

Interesting reading the past few posts, DMc...

Canada has quite a few shows approaching and going over the 100 episode benchmark of success. You certainly can't do that if the audience, "hates Canadian television."

I also notice that several (many?) of the shows have played continuously on the cable nets here. In fact, I would venture to guess that you're all over the cable world like white on rice. Again, you can't do that if everyone hates the programming.

I can imagine INTELLIGENCE running on A&E (similar to MI-5 which debuted on A&E here before it moved to BBCA) and maybe that indicates a strategy and a branding that the CBC, CTV and Global can pursue:

Interesting (quirky, different, edgy, eclectic, biting, you pick) television that targets specific audiences, and doesn't try to be all things to all folks.

Doyle hits it on the head when he tells the CBC to "...grow up and quit alienating those who love and cherish it."

I have to parallel what Jim is saying and add -- Go for the win and create a bunch of small successes everywhere instead of trying to create this big, broad show (on half the budget) that tries too hard and fails.

(And of course, I must say you and I have said all this before many, many times, but I think it always bears repeating)

Frank "Dolly" Dillon said...

Regrettably, the private networks will not develop interesting programming until they guarantee a timeslot for a Canadian show. As their schedules are dependent on the US schedule (ie, if CBS moves a show from Tuesday to Thursday, CTV or Global are pretty much guaranteed to follow the move so to reap the max benefits of simulcast) there is never going to be any continuity as to where to slot their Canadian shows.

Therefore Canadian shows have to be "one ofs" that can be broadcast irregularly and the content has to be such that it can be shown in an eight, nine or ten o'clock slot.

This really hurts when one is trying to come up with something interesting as the minute you have to appeal to everyone you rob any chance of uniqueness to emerge. When you add to it that because there is no guarantee your show will be on regularly you are reduced to writing case of the week episodes which is fine as far as it goes but is not the hallmark of any of the shows in this latest TV renaissance.

Cunningham said...

Thanks, Frank - I didn't factor the simulcasting and scheduling conflicts into my original thesis...

Hmmmmm...

jimhenshaw said...

DMC,

Next time my word verification code appaers at the beginning of a comment, can you say "Geszundheit!"

Thanks,

Jim

ladycanuck said...

I know there's a lot of reason for negativity regarding our "beloved" broadcasters but you know, we do have reason to celebrate--look how many homemade first-run scripted dramas and comedies were shown on network television this past season:

CBC
--
The Border
Jpod
MVP
Heartland
Intelligence
Little Mosque On the Prairie
Sophie

CITY-TV
--
Murdoch Mysteries
Blood Ties
Grand Star
Across the River to Motor City
Terminal City (syndication)

CTV
--
Whistler
Corner Gas
Degrassi: The Next Generation
Robson Arms

GLOBAL
--
The Guard
Da Kink In My Hair

Sure, only 18 shows but when was the last time there have been that many? Has there ever?

CBC renewed 4 out of 7 of their scripted shows. Sure, Intelligence wasn't renewed, but unfortunately it just never found an audience. Therefore I'm not gonna complain about CBC. I'm gonna save all my complaining for Canwest Global (which rarely comes up with good Cancon scripted series) and CTV (which airs most of its scripted series in paltry Saturday timeslots).

Dwight Williams said...

ladycanuck: You may well be right about the numbers of CanCon shows that aired this year. If you are, then we've achieved something of a miracle to build upon.

I would also remind you that Intelligence did find its audience. I've been part of it from almost the beginning, and the Stolen Briefcase mailing list and the Facebook groups devoted to it are further evidence of a larger viewership, Nielsen numbers to one side.

Dwight Williams said...

Denis: I hope that Showcase can work something out with Mr. Haddock. I want to see that, or something of bigger scope. Badly.

ladycanuck said...

Dwight, I was part of that Intelligence audience too. However, despite the fact that the "ratings" are in no way accurate of the actual amount of people who watch a show, it's what the advertisers look at because it's the industry standard. I know that down in the States the nets have finally began to take into account DVR/PVR viewers but that still leaves out the countless amount of timeshifters. Many advertisers are of the attitude that including timeshifters in the ratings is not useful because they're out of their target market and they don't put as much stock in DVR/PVR viewers because they're less likely to watch the actual commercials.

Until the beginning of this season, DVR/PVR viewers and timeshifters weren't even considered in ratings. However, I think the turning point came when CBS cancelled Jericho last spring (which I happen to be a major fan of). Jericho had aired in the same timeslot as American Idol and registered 7-8 million viewers an episode. It was a bubble show but as it rated second in its timeslot against the "Deathstar" fans thought it was a shoe-in to be renewed and protested A LOT when it was cancelled. Eventually CBS realized just how many viewers watched it on timeshift and DVR (TiVo) playback and brought it back for seven episodes. CBS announced it was going to begin including DVR numbers and then all the other nets (the Canuck ones too) followed suit. However, as of yet, none of the nets include timeshifters but I think they should, especially if they want to accurately gage the number of younger viewers who watch the show since younger viewers are more likely to watch via timeshifting, online or DVR.

Does anyone know how exactly the ratings are figured out? Are cable, digital cable and satellite viewers all included? I'm guessing most satellite viewers use timeshifting.

Ken said...

There are three things about this post I can't resist commenting on. First: Love Monkey. I shot an episode of the show. I know the executive producer quite well (Michael Rauch-who oddly enough had a show at the CW this season which was axed at least partly because of the strike) By the time I got on Love Monkey -episode 5 or so- it was just beginning to air, and the numbers, although not through the roof, weren't bad. The news that he kept getting from CBS was, "don't worry, we love this. We're sick of forensic cop porn. We're stickin' with Love Monkey." Boom-cancelled without warning.

Second is New Amsterdam, another show I shot. It was cancelled before an episode ever hit the air. But then the writer's strike hit the air like a lead balloon, and suddenly New Amsterdam was back on. And you're right, Denis, it's DOA. They're going to air what they've got (eight eps plus the pilot I think) and then wave goodbye.

Third is Intelligence, a show I did not shoot, but really fucking wanted to. I couldn't get that gig because BC tax credits (same goes in Ontario) prevented them from hiring more than one or maybe two out of province directors per season, and they didn't know me from Adam.

All of this goes to your earlier post wherein you suggested niche, narrow focus, audience specific programming. Bad analogy (I'm famous for them) but Six Feet Under was no overnight success. Word of mouth drove that train. The CBC could not be more wrong in playing the numbers game when it comes to shows like Intelligence. I kind of get CBS and FOX when they axe a show, they have to, they've got shareholders. The CBC has stakeholders, and I'm one of them. Core audience as a concept never meant more than when you used it with regard to Intelligence. Core audience, INTELLIGENT content, bold programming is what our national broadcaster should be all about. The decision the cancel Intelligence belies a more parochial motive.

ladycanuck said...

I am gonna be one disappointed fan when New Amsterdam gets shelved. For some reason or other, the show just clicked with me and it's my fave new show of 2008. I couldn't help but notice how episode #1 aired Tuesday, episode #2 aired Thursday and episode #3 aired Monday (three different days of the week!). Obviously, jumping a starting show from timeslot to timeslot is a sure way to kill a show as viewers are usually clueless when it comes to timeslot changes. And, they also gave the show a bad lead-in too. CTV did the exact same thing with Whistler in 2006.