American Television Question

[eldargal]

No, it isn't 'why does American television suck', because it doesn't.:p

I have a question regarding audience numbers for US television programs. Some shows that are considered great successes (Homeland, Mad Men) get audiences between 1-3 million. Some shows that are considered moderately successful (Castle) get 10-12 million. My question is, why is the disparity so vast? I understand demographic and timeslot differences and whatnot but I'm just not sure how they can account for such a big difference in audience figures, and how thingamie that made Mad Men can afford to pay the creator many millions for a new series plus production costs which are quite high for costume dramas. So why does 2-3 million people watching Mad Men make it a hugely successful money spinner but ten million watching Castle make it moderately succesful?

[Tzeentch's Dark Agent]

Because reasons...


I'm so helpful.

[White Tiger88]

No, it isn't 'why does American television suck', because it doesn't.:p

I have a question regarding audience numbers for US television programs. Some shows that are considered great successes (Homeland, Mad Men) get audiences between 1-3 million. Some shows that are considered moderately successful (Castle) get 10-12 million. My question is, why is the disparity so vast? I understand demographic and timeslot differences and whatnot but I'm just not sure how they can account for such a big difference in audience figures, and how thingamie that made Mad Men can afford to pay the creator many millions for a new series plus production costs which are quite high for costume dramas. So why does 2-3 million people watching Mad Men make it a hugely successful money spinner but ten million watching Castle make it moderately succesful?

Because Cocaine is a hell of a Drug. Also who ever pays off the critics gets the reviews :(

I find British Tv much better then American however, Shows like Merlin are just great!

[Wolfshade]

It could be owing to things like the profit per episode, or the amount of ad revenue generated by a particular programme, for instance advertising holiday's in california wouldn't work too well in a programme about shooting in california.

[Psychosplodge]

It could be based on potential audience, Not sure how US tv works, but if the various networks are geographicly limited then somewhere broadcasting to a smaller potential audience won't need as many viewers as a nationally broadcast program to be considered successful...

[Up The Walls!]

Unless I'm very much mistaken, a lot of these 'huge success but tiny viewer figures' shows are HBO shows, which is an anomalous channel since it's pay-to-view and lacks adverts. Since its profits are much more direct (you buy the channel, you don't pay the advertisers who pay you a tiny slice) then it can make as much money off two million viewers as NBC or whatever can off eight. Generally you can tell which shows are HBO over here because the episodes are actually an hour long.

The good thing about this, of course, is that because of how it works HBO is generally much less swift ti wield the axe on its shows. So it's more able to show 'unorthodox' things like The Wire which started out as a relatively standard police procedural and went all over Baltimore, or Game of Thrones, which would be so very cancelled on any other channel. It's very, very good, but who on earth do you advertise to in the breaks*?


*Which, annoyingly, is why there's so little science fiction on these days. The target demographic for sci-fi's now so varied that any potential advertising suitor's likely to only attract a quarter of the audience at most.

[eldargal]

Homeland is Showtime and Mad Men is AMC, I didn't mention other big HBO things like Rome and Boardwalk Empire (amongst many others).

[Up The Walls!]

Ah. Showtime at least is the same thing, a pay-to-view thingy. Not sure about AMC.

[eldargal]

Well taht would help explain it.:)

[Sean_OBrien]

Yep - the demos are weighted depending on their particular channel type.

The big 4 (CBS, NBC, ABC and Fox Broadcast) are all free for all channels. Anyone with a TV and a set of rabbit ears can watch them. Because almost all of their revenue is from simple advertising they have a higher bar for viewership in order to keep them around from season to season.

After that you have the various basic cable channels. Channels like AMC and the CW (though CW is available as broadcast in some markets) make up a large portion of their income from license rights to the service providers. The exact rates will vary some, but for example the Fox News Channel recently signed a new contract with Time Warner Cable for $1 per subscriber. Since the subscription fees paid by the provider offset the costs of production, they are at a lower bar. There are also fewer potential viewers in general on the cable services (not by a whole lot - especially with the various Dish providers...but still). They also gain a fair amount of advertising revenue as well - IIRC the breakdown ends up being around 25/75 on average (license fee to advertising income).

Finally you get to the premium channels. Showtime, Cinemax, HBO and channels like them make almost all their money through subscription fees. Since the potential market is much smaller (only those who are paying extra for it) the number of viewers who watch the show is strong in relation to that market segment. They also have a bit more leeway in creation as they are not subject to the same pressures from advertisers and what not.

[eldargal]

Well that makes sense.:)

[Kyban]

Also the spin on it really matters, some shows just have a better presence. It especially matters on the internet, the more people discuss it, the more successful it sounds even when there are fewer viewers.

[Sean_OBrien]

Also the spin on it really matters, some shows just have a better presence. It especially matters on the internet, the more people discuss it, the more successful it sounds even when there are fewer viewers.

On that you need to properly separate the frothing fan base from the actual viewers. Several shows have had frothing fans - however, pretty much everyone who watched the show on TV was involved in the online discussions as well, which is a far cry from a large enough base to support a commercial enterprise. Those shows get the ax anyway.

There are a couple of online locations which delve deeper into the numbers (TV By the Numbers and Mediaite for example). One interesting bit which has been coming about in recent years is that the viewership of popular cable shows has actually been approaching (and occasionally exceeding) comparable shows on the broadcast networks. In large part this is a reflection of the total number of subscription service providers and their penetration within the markets, however it also indicates a shift away from the big 4 in regards to creative materials.

AMC is a good example (and one of the few which have a significant level of independence). Mad Men, The Walking Dead, Hell on Wheels, Breaking Bad have all had strong viewerships both in general and in the key demo while they have also had extremely strong showings in their related reward categories. However, even with as strong as they are on AMC - they wouldn't survive a season on broadcast TV given the same numbers.

Should be good moving forward though, a lot of TV shows would not have happened were it not for the oddities of the various programs outside of broadcast TV...or worse, they would happen and then the network hacks would cut it mid season without providing any closure at all.

[Wildeybeast]

How much influence does critical reaction matter in terms of shows getting renewed? I read that GoT season 2 got commissioned on the basis on viewing figures for the first episode of season 1 and likewise for season 3. Is it purely viewing figures that count?

[DarkLink]

Pretty sure they just throw darts at a collage of screenshots and see what shows get picked.

Budget is a big thing as well. For example, Game of Thrones has a remarkably small budget compared to similar shows, and a big viewership, so it's an easy choice for renewal.

[Deadlift]

Well you Americans keep letting Larry David make shows, that's just fine by me. I am sure he is the funniest man alive.

[Sean_OBrien]

How much influence does critical reaction matter in terms of shows getting renewed? I read that GoT season 2 got commissioned on the basis on viewing figures for the first episode of season 1 and likewise for season 3. Is it purely viewing figures that count?

Most of my contact with media is on the periphery - we set up a system to track viewership for a US cable company...so I don't have the whole picture.

That said - it is probably 95% actual viewership with the remainder being critical reaction and then the fan base. A term which was commonly tossed about was the bubble. Half way between being profitable enough in terms of commercial sales (based on viewership) and not. Those shows are much more influenced off from the critics/awards/fans. The show Chuck was one which was influenced somewhat recently in that manner (though it took a more direct approach to things).

Game of Thrones numbers off from the first episode likely covered expenses for a third of a season (or nearly so). The production budget for season 2 of GoT was around $70 million (high side...actual numbers were not released as far as I know). The difference in viewers from season 1 to season 2 for the first showing of the first episode was about 1.7 million viewers, a plurality of which added HBO primarily for the GoT series. That first episode then generated $17 million roughly in subscription fees. Spread over the length of the season - just the subscription costs for the change of viewers for the first showing ended up being $51 million. For premium cable that is almost unheard of - to nearly cover costs on new views...not counting the existing subscribers.

The goal for a successful series on the premium channels is around 1 million viewers per first showing of an episode IIRC. If it gets over that point, and there is still a story to tell...it will get picked up again. Other things go into the decision (for example Rome wasn't picked up for a third season because of the BBC anchor) - however a series like Spartacus which had higher production costs and lower viewership has been renewed for a third season (or fourth depending on how you look at things).

[Psychosplodge]

Well you Americans keep letting Larry David make shows, that's just fine by me. I am sure he is the funniest man alive.

Not Bill Bailey, or maybe Lee Evans?

[Deadlift]

Not Bill Bailey, or maybe Lee Evans?

Bill Bailey is good, no body else does mettalica with horns

http://m.youtube.com/#/watch?v=98xNx87hRbU&desktop_uri=%2Fwatch%3Fv%3D98xNx87hRbU&gl=GB

But I like my comedy with a touch of grumpy and Larry David is the master.

[Psychosplodge]

Bill Bailey is good, no body else does mettalica with horns

http://youtu.be/98xNx87hRbU


But I like my comedy with a touch of grumpy and Larry David is the master.

That was amazing.

[Tzeentch's Dark Agent]

I love Bill Bailey! He's an awesome guy!