HOW TV WORKS:
(an aicn post regarding sunday's cancellation of "wonderfalls")
I cannot divulge what it is I do. I am involved in the "business" so to speak, but I am not involved with a production company, network or audience testing firm.
The only hints I will give is that I am on the phone and Internet a lot, am officed with a view of Wilshire, am on the phone with clients in NYC, handle my share of "accounts" and have a giant marker board in my office with the names of TV shows (cable, not broadcast networks, but others in my office have the network lineup on their boards), I do lots of research, and I write reports -- lots of them, unfortunately for me. In fact, keeping track of message boards on the Internet is part of my job, though what I glean online is hardly taken seriously by my superiors and clients.
For fun, my co-workers and I have office pool bets on which shows will be cancelled and which will be renewed. I lost on Wonderfalls -- I bet it would survive 5 episodes at least.
What happened with that show is that when the pilot was first produced, there were already concerns that a series would not draw in a strong enough female viewership. The following early episodes that were produced didn't address any of this either, and this worried the FOX creative development heads.
This is why the episodes were shown out of order, but it's obvious the producers just didn't "get it" -- women were not going to watch this show.
In network television, women are the biggest demographic.
This is why Law & Order and CSI are such continual hits that have been (and are still being) spun off. NBC even seriously floated the idea of creating spin-offs for every Friends cast member who wanted their own show, in fact.... Imagine tuning in to Thursday night on NBC and watching Joey, Monica, Chandler, etc. each with their own sitcom.
Male viewers (what little there are who remain) tend to watch Comedy Central, Cartoon Network, ESPN (especially so), HBO and Showtime when our viewing time isn't taken up by video games, DVD movies, and online porn. Women are the ones who are the most "faithful" when it comes to TV viewing. They exhibit the highest "recall" when it comes to commercials that are aired, they don't use gadgets like VCRs and TiVO (and when they do, they tend not to skip over the commercials), and they don't "steal" programming via downloading them. (Wonderfalls has a strong download appeal; the network knows this and is not impressed by this at all.)
Women, in other words, are Good TV Viewers compared to us men who "steal" and are too busy whacking off to porn and PS2. These are not necessarily my opinions but I am stating the nature of how network programming works and is targeted today. Those who have commented that the editor of this site's (aicn) support for Wonderfalls might have not entirely helped have it half right. It affirms what those in power already feel about the young male demographic -- they are only passionate about specific shows but not about a general cross-section of shows. In other words, if you want to have an audience for shows like Wonderfalls taken seriously, you need to be not necessarily fans of that one show, but you must demonstrate you are fans of TELEVISION in general.
That's why the comments here that there should be a broader discussion of more shows, the kind of programming that appeals to our underserved demographic, would be more beneficial than to focus on just one show. Somebody who emailed me mentioned Mutant X. A bad show, I think, too. However, if even crappy shows like that were discussed occasionally, evaluated more, producers and television executives might take note: There could be a DEMAND for genre programming but what this demographic wants is GOOD genre programming, they might sense.
By not talking about a variety of genre/quirky shows here, the impression is given that our demographic is only a fan-based, "activist" one, and "activism" is the last thing a TV exec wants to deal with. (Future tip: If you want to voice your support for a show, just mail a postcard with your return address on it. Forgo gimmicky stuff like sending crackers or Tabasco, cough, cough -- they HATE that, because they have to assign a peon assistant to throw out that crap, when that person should be busy doing other work for the execs.)
As for Wonderfalls, its appeal to women was limited. In fact, most women in the testing audiences (more than one test was held) hated her. I will refrain from posting what I heard, but the comments weren't nice. The producers needed to seriously address this after the pilot but I think they buried their heads and believed they could force it through, onto an audience when there was none.
I heard, but cannot confirm, that the character Jaye was originally conceived as lesbian. Ever notice that her name is, interestingly, asexual? The dev execs immediately nixed this idea, so the producers spun off the lesbian thing into a new character, the sister. Ever notice that the sister seems to exist for no reason other than "being gay"? My guess is that Jaye was gay and the male bartender was supposed to be her best friend.
What could have been done to fix things? Personally, I think bringing in a female showrunner after the pilot to evaluate and present ideas for how to carry the series might have been the best. No insult to Mr. Minnear, but I don't think his good writing skills were enough to offset the serious issues this show was already marked with.
Keeping with the fandom for all things Buffy and Whedon on this board, I think bringing in another writer from that circle to showrun could have helped, maybe Jane Epenson or even the controversial Marti Noxon, to address concerns that women had with the show. Jane would have had my vote (disclaimer: I don't know her personally nor have I met her). I think she would have made the show more appealing to a broader audience, yet maintained the original basic integrity and intent of the series' concept. FOX felt the concept had potential for further development after the pilot, but when the showrunning was in place and episodes were being produced, they saw that virtually nothing had been changed.
That's why it never made it for Fall 2003. As for "Arrested Development", believe it or not, this show has a chance for renewal and it needs your support. But please don't be snarky toward FOX when you write in your support for it. They're already behind it, and they are really wanting to prove it to ad buyers that there is an audience and one which will grow next season.
Full disclosure: I have $20 in the pool for its renewal.
(an aicn post regarding sunday's cancellation of "wonderfalls")
I cannot divulge what it is I do. I am involved in the "business" so to speak, but I am not involved with a production company, network or audience testing firm.
The only hints I will give is that I am on the phone and Internet a lot, am officed with a view of Wilshire, am on the phone with clients in NYC, handle my share of "accounts" and have a giant marker board in my office with the names of TV shows (cable, not broadcast networks, but others in my office have the network lineup on their boards), I do lots of research, and I write reports -- lots of them, unfortunately for me. In fact, keeping track of message boards on the Internet is part of my job, though what I glean online is hardly taken seriously by my superiors and clients.
For fun, my co-workers and I have office pool bets on which shows will be cancelled and which will be renewed. I lost on Wonderfalls -- I bet it would survive 5 episodes at least.
What happened with that show is that when the pilot was first produced, there were already concerns that a series would not draw in a strong enough female viewership. The following early episodes that were produced didn't address any of this either, and this worried the FOX creative development heads.
This is why the episodes were shown out of order, but it's obvious the producers just didn't "get it" -- women were not going to watch this show.
In network television, women are the biggest demographic.
This is why Law & Order and CSI are such continual hits that have been (and are still being) spun off. NBC even seriously floated the idea of creating spin-offs for every Friends cast member who wanted their own show, in fact.... Imagine tuning in to Thursday night on NBC and watching Joey, Monica, Chandler, etc. each with their own sitcom.
Male viewers (what little there are who remain) tend to watch Comedy Central, Cartoon Network, ESPN (especially so), HBO and Showtime when our viewing time isn't taken up by video games, DVD movies, and online porn. Women are the ones who are the most "faithful" when it comes to TV viewing. They exhibit the highest "recall" when it comes to commercials that are aired, they don't use gadgets like VCRs and TiVO (and when they do, they tend not to skip over the commercials), and they don't "steal" programming via downloading them. (Wonderfalls has a strong download appeal; the network knows this and is not impressed by this at all.)
Women, in other words, are Good TV Viewers compared to us men who "steal" and are too busy whacking off to porn and PS2. These are not necessarily my opinions but I am stating the nature of how network programming works and is targeted today. Those who have commented that the editor of this site's (aicn) support for Wonderfalls might have not entirely helped have it half right. It affirms what those in power already feel about the young male demographic -- they are only passionate about specific shows but not about a general cross-section of shows. In other words, if you want to have an audience for shows like Wonderfalls taken seriously, you need to be not necessarily fans of that one show, but you must demonstrate you are fans of TELEVISION in general.
That's why the comments here that there should be a broader discussion of more shows, the kind of programming that appeals to our underserved demographic, would be more beneficial than to focus on just one show. Somebody who emailed me mentioned Mutant X. A bad show, I think, too. However, if even crappy shows like that were discussed occasionally, evaluated more, producers and television executives might take note: There could be a DEMAND for genre programming but what this demographic wants is GOOD genre programming, they might sense.
By not talking about a variety of genre/quirky shows here, the impression is given that our demographic is only a fan-based, "activist" one, and "activism" is the last thing a TV exec wants to deal with. (Future tip: If you want to voice your support for a show, just mail a postcard with your return address on it. Forgo gimmicky stuff like sending crackers or Tabasco, cough, cough -- they HATE that, because they have to assign a peon assistant to throw out that crap, when that person should be busy doing other work for the execs.)
As for Wonderfalls, its appeal to women was limited. In fact, most women in the testing audiences (more than one test was held) hated her. I will refrain from posting what I heard, but the comments weren't nice. The producers needed to seriously address this after the pilot but I think they buried their heads and believed they could force it through, onto an audience when there was none.
I heard, but cannot confirm, that the character Jaye was originally conceived as lesbian. Ever notice that her name is, interestingly, asexual? The dev execs immediately nixed this idea, so the producers spun off the lesbian thing into a new character, the sister. Ever notice that the sister seems to exist for no reason other than "being gay"? My guess is that Jaye was gay and the male bartender was supposed to be her best friend.
What could have been done to fix things? Personally, I think bringing in a female showrunner after the pilot to evaluate and present ideas for how to carry the series might have been the best. No insult to Mr. Minnear, but I don't think his good writing skills were enough to offset the serious issues this show was already marked with.
Keeping with the fandom for all things Buffy and Whedon on this board, I think bringing in another writer from that circle to showrun could have helped, maybe Jane Epenson or even the controversial Marti Noxon, to address concerns that women had with the show. Jane would have had my vote (disclaimer: I don't know her personally nor have I met her). I think she would have made the show more appealing to a broader audience, yet maintained the original basic integrity and intent of the series' concept. FOX felt the concept had potential for further development after the pilot, but when the showrunning was in place and episodes were being produced, they saw that virtually nothing had been changed.
That's why it never made it for Fall 2003. As for "Arrested Development", believe it or not, this show has a chance for renewal and it needs your support. But please don't be snarky toward FOX when you write in your support for it. They're already behind it, and they are really wanting to prove it to ad buyers that there is an audience and one which will grow next season.
Full disclosure: I have $20 in the pool for its renewal.
VIEW 3 of 3 COMMENTS
from the Canadian rumor mill:
the show was a hit in Canada and the rumor is that Global TV, the network which carried the show, is considering purchasing the rest of the thirteen episodes, to complete its run.
It seems like respectable shows do eventually find their audience... it's just the audience has to pay...
If they "know" men watch porn, why don't they broadcast porn?