Hot Off The Press! The Latest Television News and Info [Text View] - Page 96

fredfa

03-16-07, 02:19 AM

TV Sports
Tournament tangles with Web ness
By Larry Stewart Times Staff Writer March 16, 2007

If watching sporting events on a computer is the wave of the future, then the future hasn't been perfected.

On the first day of the NCAA men's tournament, there were some good things about NCAAsports.com's March Madness on Demand, which offers video-streamed games from the first three rounds not available on CBS. But there were also glitches.

Getting on just before the first tipoff proved difficult, particularly for those who didn't pre-register for VIP access. There were 189,000 people waiting in line, according to CBS SportsLine, which operates the site.

By 1 p.m., 800,000 people had registered and made 1.5 million visits. Last year, through the first three rounds, a total of 1.3 million people made 5 million visits.

This year, with the bandwidth doubled, getting on became easier as the day progressed. It was considerably easier than last year, when the site was free for the first time — and was overwhelmed by the response.

On Thursday around halftime of the earliest games, one Times colleague who had pre-registered had no trouble getting on and one who hadn't got on quickly as well. However, the colleague who didn't pre-register said he couldn't get the Maryland-Davidson game to come up on his screen.

A big plus this year is that the picture is sharper and the opening screen is bigger — 5 1/2 inches wide by 4 1/4 compared with last year, when it was about half that.

Users can also switch to full screen, where the picture isn't as clear but is watchable.

As for glitches, an early one was that the "watch now" button was not on the screen. And some people may not have realized that games being televised by CBS in their market were not available online.

The biggest problem, however, seemed to be getting bumped off the site. The colleague who had pre-registered said that she got bumped off because of no activity.

A CBS SportsLine spokesman says if there is no activity for 30 minutes, the visitor gets bumped. But it seemed that it was more like 10 minutes of inactivity that got you bumped.

It happened to me too, and for this technologically challenged individual, getting back on wasn't easy. It took two calls to CBS SportsLine in Fort Lauderdale, Fla., and the help of two patient, computer savvy young men to get me back on.

Another thing was the broadband feed was out of sync with the TV feed. The CBS announcers were apparently not aware of this and broadband viewers could hear their off-camera conversations for a few seconds.

All things considered, paying $69 for the DirecTV out-of-market Mega March Madness package might be the way to go. Generally, a television remote is easier to navigate than a computer — at least for me.

One fun thing about the broadband site, however, is the "boss button."

The operators of the site, showing a sense of humor, created this feature last year for those watching at work. One click of the icon instantly brings up a ready-made spread sheet, just in case the boss is nearby.

The fake spread sheet last year offered this advice: "Cheering in the office gives you away." Even more creativity went into this year's elaborate fake spread sheet, which provided a breakdown of products consumed while watching sports events.

Beer was listed No. 2. No. 1, by a slim margin, was Pepto — apparently just to make sure that no one thought this was a legitimate spread sheet.

However, Pepto — still known as Pepto-Bismol to old-timers — could have come in handy at times Thursday when getting bumped had the stomach churning.

Court-side seat invitation

Basketball would seem to be an easy sport to televise, since it is played in a relatively confined area. A midcourt camera situated in the stands provides viewers with all they need to see.

Although CBS directors seemed to show restraint during the NCAA tournament on Thursday, others seem obsessed with sky cams or cable cams or whatever those cameras are called that can make a real game look more like a video game.

This trend was particularly noticeable on a Lakers-Cleveland Cavaliers game televised by ABC in February.

A week later, when NBA Commissioner David Stern was in Las Vegas for the All-Star game, the subject of camera angles was brought up.

"The one I really like is the one that puts the viewer in a courtside seat," he said.

Then Stern would like what Tom Feuer, executive producer of FSN West and FSN Prime Ticket, has planned for tonight's Lakers-Portland Trail Blazers game at Staples Center.

FSN West will have a traditional telecast. At the same time on Prime Ticket, there will be a special telecast that provides what Feuer calls a "courtside view." The idea is to put the viewer in a courtside seat.

Feuer, who also did this last season on a Lakers-Clippers game, said, "We took what we learned with the first 'courtside view' and made it better."

For one thing, there will be five cameras dedicated to the Prime Ticket telecast instead of three. And Patrick O'Neal will interview the actual courtside seat patrons at the game. And he will have time for this because there will be only one commercial break each half-hour.

Nine cameras are used on regular FSN West telecasts, and Feuer said, "We can use those cameras as well on our Prime Ticket telecast to help tell the story of the game.

"But our main objective is to let our viewers experience what it is like to sit courtside."

http://www.calendarlive.com/tv/cl-sp-tvcol16mar16,0,3963118,print.story?coll=cl-tv-features

foxeng

03-16-07, 06:34 AM

Washington Notebook
NCTA to Lobby on Retransmission Consent
By Ted Hearn MultiChannel News 3/15/2007

The cable industry’s principal trade association, in a policy shift, is going to lobby Congress about problems with laws governing cable carriage of local TV stations, National Cable & Telecommunications Association president Kyle McSlarrow told reporters Thursday.

How phoney can you get? As long as stations were not asking and getting retrans money, life was great for the last 15 years. Now stations are getting what is legally and rightfully theirs, we now have to change the rules because cable might loose money.

And cable wonders why people distrust them? "Fell sorry me, I am cable. I have too much competition. I can't make double and triple digit profits anymore. Poor pitiful cable." Phooey! Cable better strap in. It is going to get worse before it gets better for them, and they know it. All of those years of that bad karma they spread around is coming home to roost.

DoubleDAZ

03-16-07, 09:12 AM

How phoney can you get? As long as stations were not asking and getting retrans money, life was great for the last 15 years. Now stations are getting what is legally and rightfully theirs, we now have to change the rules because cable might loose money.

And cable wonders why people distrust them? "Fell sorry me, I am cable. I have too much competition. I can't make double and triple digit profits anymore. Poor pitiful cable." Phooey! Cable better strap in. It is going to get worse before it gets better for them, and they know it. All of those years of that bad karma they spread around is coming home to roost.Give me a break! How is that phoney? If you really want to do things right, get rid of ALL the rules and let the marketplace/subscribers determine what is fair. Let cable and sat make whatever deals they can and provide whatever content they deem marketable in whatever way, shape or form they deem profitable.

fredfa

03-16-07, 09:34 AM

TV Notebook
'08 syndie scramble is on
More games, talkers, court shows bandied about
By Kimberly Nordyke The Hollywood Reporter March 16, 2007

Syndication development is gearing up for fall 2008 as the major distributors look to find their next first-run hit.

Buena Vista Prods. is in the early stages of development on a bowling-centric game show and a psychic-driven talk show, sources said. The tentatively titled "Up Your Alley" is said to be a game show from Picture This TV that revolves around bowling and celebrities. The talker, being called "Past, Present and Future," is a project from Flame TV that features multiple psychics.

Sources said Warners Bros.-based Telepictures Prods. is discussing a possible project that would feature Jeanine Pirro, former district attorney for New York's Westchester County. Earlier this year, Pirro was tapped to preside over Telepictures' celebrity-jury show that didn't go forward.

Indeed, there still seems to be interest in court shows, with Sony Pictures Television launching "Judge David Young" in the fall and nine others on the air. Sources said another judge, Mary Beth Bonaventura from the MTV series "Juvies," is meeting with distributors for a potential court show.

Sources said a dating show project called "Brutally Honest Personals," long in the works, may still have life at CBS Television Distribution. The project is believed to originate from the Esquire magazine feature in which single people looking for love give candid descriptions of themselves.

Rachael Ray, who is said to be a fan of the magazine's feature, has included a segment dubbed "Brutally Honest Dating" in her talk show, which also is from CBS TV Distribution.

Talk is still circulating that "The View" co-host Rosie O'Donnell might be looking to return to a solo gig hosting her own talk show, possibly at Telepictures -- where her previous talker was produced -- though her contract with ABC reportedly mandates that she must negotiate with the Walt Disney Co. before doing so. Actress-comedian-author Jackie Guerra also has thrown her hat in the ring as a possible host of her own daytime talker, holding meetings around town (HR 2/8).

Meanwhile, a syndicated version of NBC's game show "Deal or No Deal" is alive at NBC Universal Domestic Television Distribution, according to sources.

Industry insiders said that Twentieth Television is working on a development slate than spans multiple genres, including game, talk and court. That seems to be the consensus with the major syndicators, including others like SPT, but all of the companies declined comment Thursday on their development slates.

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/hr/content_display/news/e3ic85c5d7c8fb9be46926c0ba220d6bb00

fredfa

03-16-07, 09:45 AM

Yesterday’s metered market over-night prime-time ratings – and Media Week Analyst Marc Berman’s view of what they mean -- have been posted just near the top of Ratings News the second post in this thread.

fredfa

03-16-07, 10:06 AM

The Business of Television
Behind the name change for Court TV
By Kevin Downey MediaLifeMagazine.com staff writer Mar 16, 2007

In television, there's nothing quite as risky as changing your name, and it would seem to make even less sense if your ratings are strong.

So it came as shock earlier this week when Court TV announced it was ditching its name of 16 years for a new name to be announced this summer. This comes just two months before the upfront and when the network's ratings are surging.

But for the Time Warner cable network, the risk is worth taking, says Marc Juris, general manager at Court TV. Juris argues that it's a case of the brand outgrowing its name and actually being held back by it.

Juris says there are two problems with the Court TV name, and one is advertiser resistance. While the network's ratings are up, ad revenues are not. Ad sales in 2006 were flat to 2005 at $223 million, according to TNS Media Intelligence.

Juris says that among advertisers the Court TV name conjures up images of live trials with foul language and grisly testimony, which can sully a brand's image.

“We feel that certainly there are advertisers who are sensitive to live courtroom coverage,” he says. “It’s hard to say, ‘Yes, but that isn’t what you’re buying in primetime.’ We have to explain a lot.”

But there's also a problem of audience disconnect. Juris says viewers don’t always identify the program they're watching, such as “Forensic Files” and “Beach Patrol,” as Court TV shows. Says Juris: “I can’t tell you how many times, anecdotally or in focus groups, that people know the show they’re watching but don’t realize it’s on Court TV.”

The reality is that Court TV long ago began its move away from being a network of live court coverage, and that's especially the case in primetime, with more and more original programming. More than a year ago, the network rebranded itself into two distinct parts, trial news during the day and entertainment-based programs at night, rolling out the tagline "Seriously Entertaining."

Ratings are way up. Its daytime audience in February was up 57 percent over the same month last year, and in primetime, its audience was up 33 percent, to an average 1.2 million viewers, ranking No. 11 among all networks.

Juris says the network will reveal its new name over the summer and will officially change it come Jan. 1. He won't reveal the new name, or whether one has been chosen, but he does say it will be a generic one that doesn't attempt to identity with programming in the way Court TV has.

Court TV isn’t dramatically overhauling its programs, says Juris.

It is tweaking its daytime lineup by further downplaying trials and emphasizing talk shows, including one with Star Jones Reynolds, formerly of “The View,” and a continuing show with firecracker Nancy Grace.

In primetime, it will continue with trial- and crime-related shows, including new programs such as “Bounty Girls,” about female bounty hunters, and “The Room,” where real cops interrogate criminals.

Juris says part of the aim of the new programming is to reach more men, a demographic sought after by advertisers.

“It’s like a new package for a product people love,” he says, referring to the re-branding. “The ingredients pretty much stay the same, except we’re broadening the type of programming we are doing, but still very much in the real-life, first person that we’re doing now.”

The risk with the name change is that it won't catch, even after a hugely costly rebranding effort with viewers and advertisers. It means giving up the known for the unknown. Court TV now has 96 percent name recognition among cable subscribers, according to Beta Research. The new name will have zero.

And while some name changes have stuck, others have not. MTV and A&E abbreviated their names as they moved beyond their original mandates, and it worked for both. But that's not been the case as yet for the former Outdoor Life Network, which first became OLN then changed its name to Versus. Ratings are down.

In the end, Court TV will have to overcome the doubters, and there will be more than a few.

“Changing the name Court TV, unless they are going to really radically change, sounds a little bit like changing the recipe of Coca-Cola,” says Robert Thompson, director of the Center for the Study of Popular Television at Syracuse University. “That may be over-complimenting Court TV. But, at the same time, why are they doing this?”

http://www.medialifemagazine.com/artman/publish/printer_10819.asp

CPanther95

03-16-07, 10:09 AM

I am not sure ESPN would end up costing$30 a month.......................... IMO, and I certanly could be wrong, ESPN by itself would simply price itself out of the market at $30 a month.

That's the problem with these price estimates. The cablenets simply divide current revenue by the number of regular viewers and the price soars. 1 in 6 regularly watch ESPN (perceived as "free"), so under a la carte, the price would go from $3 to $18. They don't want the analysis to go any further because that "scary" number looks a lot less scary when you look at the obvious result of that pricing.

1 in 6 when free - how many at $18? Half that many (1 in 12)? Now the price would need to jump to $36. How many would now sub at $36? a third of those remaining?........$108 :eek:

The price speculation, based on maintaining their current revenue is meaningless without factoring in demand for the channel. When demand is entered into the equation, the price will end up being at the level that when combined with demand yields the maximum amount of revenue. That could just as easily be $4.00 x 15 million subs if the alternative is only 4 million subs at $15 - especially when they factor in the impact on advertising revenue.

Bottom line, with a la carte, the price will be exactly what the marketplace (as a whole) decides is fair. There are no revenue guarantees. That will affect ESPN, USA - just as much as the minority interest channels. Because while minority oriented programming may be consided more "worthy" of subsidation - the fact is that all non-broadcast networks are, from the perspective of "numbers of viewers", minority-interest channels.

Sorry to side track the thead fredfa - I'll bump up one of the many a la carte threads if people want to discuss this further.

fredfa

03-16-07, 10:45 AM

TV Sports
NCAA Day One:
CBS flexes muscle
By Neil Best Newsday March 16, 2007

It's a big, complicated hoops nation, from the mountains to the prairies to rabid Kentucky fans' mouths white with foam.

In a small room on West 57th Street yesterday, though, the entire multi-mascot, multi-time zone, multi-bracket festival somehow had to be distilled, shrink-wrapped and presented to an anxious continent.

It ain't easy, in spite of the (mostly) calm demeanor of CBS Sports executives - notably president Sean McManus and executive producer Tony Petitti - who had a front-row seat in the "multi-purpose room'' of the CBS Broadcast Center.

At times four games must be juggled for about 200 affiliates, with potentially millions of viewers ready to second-guess CBS' decisions on when to leave one game for another - or not.

"You do get feedback from people as you listen to talk radio driving in the next day,'' Petitti said after the relatively calm afternoon session.

To minimize the discontent, Petitti, McManus and the other dozen people in the room (plus others in the adjacent control room) monitor a wall of 40 screens, including separate ones for each site that are marked "constant'' or "flex.''

"Flex'' indicates the market was assigned a particular game but can leave it for a better one. "Constant'' means a market with a local team involved, and fans who presumably want to watch every minute.

Net effect: When four games are in progress, there are eight blocks of markets about which CBS must make decisions: four flex areas and four constants.

The early slot on the first day illustrated the inevitable complications.

Boston College-Texas Tech and Maryland-Davidson both were close. Louisville-Stanford was not, but 5 percent of the nation was stuck watching nearly every minute.

That probably was fine with the hoops-heads in Kentucky. It surely was not fine with many in the San Francisco area, where the lackluster interest in Stanford faded fast as Louisville pulled away.

A CBS public relations official soon got a call from a northern California reporter asking what could be done. Short answer: Not much. History has proven more people get mad when you bail on a local team in a boring game than when you don't.

(Thus, there is at least one bonus in having the metropolitan area shut out of this year's field of 65: We can be flexed out of any stinker.)

Petitti said most people come to the event wanting a sample of the action, "so we tend to be aggressive whenever we can.''

The color-coded maps CBS uses to keep track of all of this illustrate a diverse nation.

The most broadly assigned game of Day One was last night's Gonzaga-Indiana contest, with 56 percent assigned to it on a flex basis, 5 percent as a constant.

A total of 68 percent will get Georgia Tech-UNLV early today, but New York is part of the 15 percent of the nation that will get Virginia-Albany.

Petitti did most of the talking in the "MP'' room, instructing the far-flung staff in matters as trivial as the volume level in Winston-Salem and as important as when to rescue the 26 percent of America eligible to flex away from Louisville-Stanford. (Very early, as it turned out.)

McManus, also president of CBS News, sits by Petitti's side, even as he juggles his two disparate jobs. Last year, he spoke to a reporter in Baghdad even as he monitored the hoops action.

By the end of the early games, Petitti, McManus and Michael Aresco, senior VP of programming, each was standing as they monitored the final minutes of the two close games.

New York mostly stuck with the BC-Texas Tech game, but by the time it ended and CBS got around to switching to the Maryland-Davidson near-upset, the Terrapins finally had taken control. It happens.

Was it too soon? Too early? Petitti will hear about it on the radio this morning. In the meantime, there still were 13 more games on the schedule, then 16 more today.

http://www.newsday.com/sports/columnists/ny-spbest5132234mar16,0,960310,print.column?coll=ny-sports-columnists

fredfa

03-16-07, 11:34 AM

Yesterday’s fast national over night prime-time ratings – and Media Week Analyst Marc Berman’s view of what they mean -- have been posted near the top of Ratings News the second post in this thread.

fredfa

03-16-07, 11:46 AM

TV Sports
Commentary: MLB battles to attract average fan
George M. Thomas Akron Beacon Journal March 16, 2007

Choose your sports metaphor or cliche regarding the current dilemma between Major League Baseball and cable operators:

We gotta win one for the Gipper. Fourth-and-goal. Bottom of the ninth with a runner in scoring position ...

You get the idea.

In case you hadn't heard, MLB signed what amounts to a de facto exclusive deal with satellite TV provider DirecTV giving that company the rights to air baseball's Extra Innings package. With the service, fans can view up to 60 out-of-market baseball games per week for $179 for the season. That has cable operators screaming foul at the prospect of losing the product.

Should they be? It depends on your point of view. If you're a current Extra Innings customer in the area via cable and you have no plans to switch or even to add satellite service -- or you're one of many sportswriters knocking the deal -- then sure.

I don't see it that way.

After being outflanked by the National Football League when it comes to savvy business decisions for years, baseball blitzed the NFL for once.

Don't for a minute believe this is about hardcore fans. The seven-year $700 million deal between MLB and DirecTV has everything to do with a 24-hour channel MLB wants to start by 2009. This is where the guys who run baseball have proven shrewd.

While the NFL continues to battle the likes of Time Warner for placement in the basic tier of cable channels, as opposed to the sports ghetto of premium tier, baseball says, ``Wait just a minute. You want our premium programming? Then you gotta put our channel on where it has the best chance for baseball fans to see it -- in the basic package.''

Some have written and said that once again, baseball is snubbing its fans. I don't see it that way. Not even close.

If anything, baseball, with the addition of a 24-hour baseball channel, is trying to appeal to more fans.

Consider this: The Extra Innings package had only 500,000 subscribers for the 2006 season, according to a spokeswoman for MLB. More than half of those viewers came courtesy of DirecTV's 15.5 million subscribers. That leaves, at most, a paltry 250,000 fans divided among the 65 million or so cable subscribers out there.

MLB knows it has the hardcore fan, but as a league or a sport, if baseball is to continue to grow, it must look beyond that base. That means capturing Joe or Jane Average surfing TV channels on slow nights when nothing else is on. The deal possesses the potential to draw the casual fan and, yes, it will provide MLB with another source of income.

If cable subscribers to the package are that rabid, they -- as many who purchase the NFL Sunday Ticket already do (including yours truly) -- will subscribe, then turn off the dish the rest of the year.

There is hope still, however. Fans who received Extra Innings through InDemand, the pay-per-view service owned by a consortium of cable companies (including Time Warner), can rest uneasily knowing that negotiations are ongoing, an InDemand spokeswoman said.

Why do I get the impression cable companies are about to strike out the same way some of them have mishandled the situation with NFL Network?

http://www.ohio.com/mld/ohio/sports/16915758.htm?template=contentModules/printstory.jsp

fredfa

03-16-07, 11:50 AM

Overnights in the 18-49 Demo
Fox's '5th Grader' holds its own alone
Rating tumbles from last week without 'Idol'
By Toni Fitzgerald MediaLifeMagazine.com staff writer March 16, 2007

As expected, Fox’s “Are You Smarter Than a 5th Grader?” saw its ratings tumble without the benefit of the “American Idol” lead-in it enjoyed during its first four outings. But even without “Idol,” “Smarter” won its 8 p.m. timeslot easily last night and suddenly gave Fox a presence on Thursday night, where it has long struggled.

“Smarter” averaged a 4.5 adults 18-49 rating last night, according to Nielsen overnights, down 44 percent from last Thursday’s 8.0, when “Idol” was its lead-in.

But even with the big rating drop, “Smarter” still finished well ahead of the competition at 8 p.m., a full 1.1 ahead of “Ugly Betty” and 1.2 ahead of CBS’s NCAA men’s basketball coverage.

“Betty” had its lowest rating for an original episode in weeks, likely hurt by both “Smarter” and basketball, but it did finish 0.1 ahead of "Smarter" in households with a 7.4.

Fox had been airing low-rated sitcoms “’Til Death” and “The War at Home” in the timeslot, and “Smarter” roughly doubled their average in their most recent outing last month (“Idol” aired three special Thursday episodes the past three weeks).

This gives Fox something to build on Thursday and a chance to be competitive on a night where NBC, ABC and CBS all have footholds.

But it won’t be easy to carry that success into the 9 p.m. period. As ABC showed last night, its “Grey’s Anatomy” continues to be the night’s dominant show, and “Grey’s” lifted the debut of the new drama “October Road” to strong numbers at 10 p.m., too.

“Road” averaged a 5.8 rating, doubling NBC’s “Raines,” a new drama that also debuted in the same timeslot, and performing much better than usual timeslot occupant “Men in Trees.”

“Road” declined 14 percent from its first to its second half hour, not a bad number. And it was by far the highest-rated of the night’s three premieres, which also included NBC’s critically lauded but low-rated “Andy Barker, P.I.” That show averaged just a 2.4.

ABC finished first for the night among viewers 18-49 with a 6.0 average rating and a 16 share. Fox and CBS tied for second at 3.5/9, with NBC fourth at 2.7/7 and Univision and CW tied for fifth at 1.7/5.

Fox started the night in first place, posting a 4.5 rating at 8 p.m. for “Smarter.” ABC was second that hour with a 3.4 for “Betty,” CBS third with a 3.3 for NCAA basketball tournament coverage and NBC fourth with a 2.8 for a repeat of “The Office.” Univision and CW tied for fifth at 2.0, Univision for “La Fea Mas Bella” and CW for “Smallville.”

At 9 p.m. ABC took the lead with an 8.8 rating for “Grey’s Anatomy,” the night’s top-rated show among 18-49s. CBS was second with a 3.8 for basketball and NBC and Fox tied for third at 2.6, NBC for “Scrubs” (2.8) and the premiere of “Barker” (2.4) and Fox for an hour of “Family Guy” repeats. Univision was fifth with a 1.7 for “Mundo de Fieras” and CW sixth with a 1.4 for “Supernatural,” a bubble show for next season that did draw its biggest total viewers audience (3.5 million) since October.

ABC led again at 10 p.m., this time with a 5.8 rating for the premiere of “Road.” CBS was second with a 3.3 for basketball, NBC third with a 2.9 for the premiere of “Raines” and Univision fourth with a 1.4 for “Aqui y Ahora.”

Among households, ABC finished first for the night with a 10.6 average rating and a 17 share. CBS was second at 6.2/10, Fox third at 5.4/9, NBC fourth at 5.0/8, CW fifth at 2.5/4 and Univision sixth at 2.1/3.

http://www.medialifemagazine.com/artman/publish/article_10846.asp

fredfa

03-16-07, 12:00 PM

There have been some changes made in the CBS NCAA Basketball Tournament starting times. Those changes are reflected at the top of the sceond post in this thread.

fredfa

03-16-07, 12:14 PM

The TV Column
'5th Grader': The Class of '07?
By Lisa de Moraes Washington Post Columnist Friday, March16, 2007

Before Fox execs had even seen the numbers on last night's first "Are You Smarter Than a 5th Grader?" broadcast without an "American Idol" lead-in, the network ordered 13 more episodes of the show critics say panders to the country's intellectual torpidity.

Or, if you're a glass half-full kind of gal, you call it another show that is bringing young kids and adults to the same TV set and turning, ironically, the Fox network into a bastion of Family Friendly programming.

Of course, "5th Grader" isn't just a quiz show. "It's also a comedy," Fox Executive Vice President Preston Beckman told The TV Column.

Starring down-home stand-up comic Jeff Foxworthy and a bunch of precocious camera-savvy kids who have been given workbooks with which to cram for the broadcasts, the slow-moving quiz show features adults struggling to answer questions taught to children in grades 1 through 5.

The adults aren't competing against the kids. In fact, they are allowed to use the kids to cheat.

In much the same way "Jeopardy!" seeks contestants who won't freeze up on camera, the "5th Grader" adults seem to be picked for their deer-in-the-headlights reaction to the fact they're trying to answer grade-school questions on camera, in front of a crowd, for a lot of money.

We've all seen the promo clip of the guy who has trouble multiplying 2 times 5, or the guy who tries to figure in his head how many E's there are in "Pledge of Allegiance" by counting the number in "pledge" and in "the."

Actually, I think it's the same guy.

Few of the questions on "5th Grader" are as simple as the multiple-choice question asked of a contestant back in the early days of ABC's monster hit "Who Wants to Be a Millionaire" -- the correct answer to which was the kids' game "Duck Duck Goose."

Four-year-old Walker McKinney of Tulsa was thrilled when he knew the answer while watching with his family, according to an Associated Press story written seven years ago about critics who lambasted that show's stupidly simple questions as contributing to "the dumbing down of America," as the AP wrote at that time.

But, as with "5th Grader," the simple questions were one of the secrets of "Millionaire's" success.

"The questions are deliberately easy in the beginning, because you want to get everybody into the show," executive producer Michael Davies explained at the time. Little kids become invested if they can answer a couple of the early questions, he explained -- adults enjoy answering the later questions.

Like "Millionaire" (before ABC killed it by running it to death across its prime-time landscape), "5th Grader" is a very broad hit. Its debut, following an episode of "American Idol," attracted an average of nearly 27 million viewers -- the best launch in Fox's history and the best launch on any network in five years.

"5th Grader" is the No. 1 new program of this TV season in all demographic groups, from kids to grandparents. It's averaging a 24 share among teens -- which means that a quarter of the teens watching TV when the show is on are glued to it -- nothing short of miraculous, given the fragmentation of that age group across media platforms.

That it attracts kids to the show makes it much more desirable for prime time, when advertisers pay a premium to reach younger eyeballs. Kids and teens bring down the median age of the game show. It's no coincidence the median age of "5th Grader" viewers is 39 years old, while the median age of the audience for "Jeopardy!" is 62.

Similarly, when "Millionaire" debuted, its median age was around 42. During its initial season, "Millionaire" was a top 10 show across virtually all demographic categories, including kids 2-11, teens 12-17, adults 18-34, 18-49, 25-54 and 55-plus.

Next time you feel like calling "5th Grader" a stupid show that's dumbing down the country, sit down and watch it with a small child.

You'll enjoy yourself. Now, NBC's screaming-at-briefcases series -- that's another story.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/15/AR2007031502283_pf.html

jandron

03-16-07, 12:17 PM

I predicted that Raines would open bigger than Donnellys, and it did, in total viewers.

It also held on to a much bigger portion on it's audience in the second half hour. :)

fredfa

03-16-07, 12:19 PM

foxeng

03-16-07, 12:26 PM

Give me a break! How is that phoney? If you really want to do things right, get rid of ALL the rules and let the marketplace/subscribers determine what is fair. Let cable and sat make whatever deals they can and provide whatever content they deem marketable in whatever way, shape or form they deem profitable.

You need to wake up and realize that if you can't ala carte past, what you suggest isn't going to happen either. It is all for cable and nothing for anyone else. Cable's "oh poor pittiful me" act is getting pretty damn old in light of what they actual get. That IS phooney.

fredfa

03-16-07, 12:32 PM

Local HDTV Notebook
Tucson to get first HD Local News
From TVNEWSDAY Mar. 16, 2007

KVOA Tucson, Ariz., (DMA #70) will join the growing ranks of TV stations broadcasting news in HDTV, General Manager Gary Nielsen announced today.

If all goes well, he said, the service will be up and running in time for the May sweeps.

“We feel HD is the killer app for digital broadcasting,” Nielsen said. “I just bought a HD set six months ago. I’ll watch an ant on Discovery if it’s in HD.”

The conversion will include upgrading the NBC affiliate’s weathercasts to True View HD by WSI.

Unless a rival stations jumps in ahead of it, KVOA will be the first station in Tucson to offer HD news and Tucson will the second smallest market (DMA 70) with HD news. Reno, Nev., is the smallest (DMA 110).

“We are dedicated to giving our TV stations the tools they need to provide their viewers the highest quality local newscasts in their respective markets,” said Terrace Hurley, president of Cordillera Communications, owner of KVOA and 10 other TV stations.

“By supporting KVOA in its goal of becoming the first local news organization in Tucson to present all of its newscasts in high def, we believe News 4 will continue to lead the market and set the standard in Southern Arizona.”

About 30 others station have made the switch to HD. Like most, KVOA will shoot widescreen (16x9) SD video in the field and upconvert it for broadcast. “We want to wait for the next generation of HD field cameras before we go there.”

Nielsen said that he has seen upconverted video in news at other stations. “It looks pretty good.”

http://www.tvnewsday.com/articles/2007/03/16/daily.4/

fredfa

03-16-07, 12:34 PM

Local HDTV Notebook
Lexington Kentucky’s WKYT to air HD News by June
No upconverted SD from the field. It's the "biggest thing" since color, GM says
By Harry A. Jessell TVNEWSDAY

Gray Television’s WKYT Lexington, Ky., (DMA #63) plans to offer “true and full” local HD news by June 1, according to Wayne Martin, general manager of the CBS affiliate.

Unlike other local HD news pioneers, WKYT will shoot HD in the field, according to Martin.

“We will be true and full HD,” Martin says. “We have already acquired and are using [Sony] HD cameras in the field. We will have HD cameras in creative services. We will have HD cameras in the studio.”

About 30 other stations are now offering HD news. But most are shooting news in the field in widescreen SD, upconverting it and then integrating it with real studio HD for broadcast.

At WKYT, Martin said, the only programming that will be upconverted after June 1 is “legacy footage” and non-HD syndicated programming.

WKYT will be the first Gray station to go with HD news, and likely the first in Lexington, the 63rd-largest TV market.

“It’s going to be the biggest thing for our viewers since the conversion from black and white to color,” Martin says. “I think it is that significant. The investment that we are making will not have an immediate return, but long range people are going to recognize the quality of what we are providing.

“Our market penetration with HD sets is in the mid teens right now,” he adds. “That will increase exponentially over the next two years.”

Martin says that WKYT has been gradually equipping itself to be fully HD for the past four and a half years. “We didn’t just decide to do this six months ago.”

Martin credits station engineer Chas Callaway with the HD upgrade. “The vision has come from [Gray COO] Bob Prather and the execution is with Chas.”

“It’s going to be a distinct competitive advantage when 2009 rolls around,” Prather told TVNEWSDAY.

“It’s like going back to 1969,” Prather says. “If you watch color TV all day, you don’t want to see the local news in black and white. Once people get use to seeing HD programming, they are going to expect the news to be in HD and they are going to expect us to be the leader.”

Prather said five or six additional Gray stations will make the move to HD news over the next two or three years, but he declined to identify them. “I don’t want to give a competitor a chance to jump in there too.”

In connection with the news upgrade, WKYT will also upgrade its digital CW affiliate to HD by June 1, Martin said.

http://www.tvnewsday.com/articles/2007/03/15/daily.11/

fredfa

03-16-07, 12:35 PM

Hey foxeng, with all the announcements about local news going HD, any hint about when your station will join the parade?

HDTVChallenged

03-16-07, 12:37 PM

fredfa

03-16-07, 12:38 PM

By the way, the increasing announcements of stations in relatively small markets going to HD news probably adds pressure to DirecTV and Dish to add those markets to their HD offerings sooner rather than later.

shuttermaker

03-16-07, 12:41 PM

You were right, Jandron.

There was a downside, though: Raines got trashed by October Road in the 18-49s.

As for The Black Donnellys, I think we can expect the cancellation word to come at any time.

And the relative success of October Road could prove troubling for the renewal of Men In Trees, too.

I think October Road did as well as it did due to the "men folk" watching the NCAAs which left the female viewers to watch October Road. Not to mention it followed Grey's.

When the NCAAs are done more of that audience may be inclined to check out Raines.

HDTVChallenged

03-16-07, 12:44 PM

dad1153

03-16-07, 12:52 PM

Raines got trashed by October Road in the 18-49s.

As for The Black Donnellys, I think we can expect the cancellation word to come at any time.

And the relative success of October Road could prove troubling for the renewal of Men In Trees, too.

Screw all these shows, when is Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip coming back? That's the one show whose uncertain future (and potential return on the air) I want to know about ASAP. Maybe there's a switch to HBO in the works (it's a Warner show after all)! :rolleyes:

fredfa

03-16-07, 01:15 PM

You know .... What I find "interesting" (not to mention quite amusing) about this it that apparently the proposed solution to lack of ala-carte options is to force even more "bundling" via some form of multicast must carry. The "partisan" spins are just breathtaking. :D

I agree, HDTVC, and I sure can't sort them out. I suspect many of these proposals are being made just to confuse the situation...because the movers and shakers can't figure out what is going to happen, either.

archiguy

03-16-07, 01:42 PM

Screw all these shows, when is Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip coming back? That's the one show whose uncertain future (and potential return on the air) I want to know about ASAP. Maybe there's a switch to HBO in the works (it's a Warner show after all)! :rolleyes:

Dad, dad, dad - it ain't coming back, or if so, it will just be to burn off any remaining episodes already in the can and/or because TBD has tanked even worse. You need to let it go, man. It's a bummer for sure, but S-60 is toast. :(

SirJW

03-16-07, 02:22 PM

Does anyone know when KCBS/KCAL News is moving to Studio Center and going HD?

kjpjr

03-16-07, 02:39 PM

fredfa

03-16-07, 02:48 PM

Does anyone know when KCBS/KCAL News is moving to Studio Center and going HD?

I think the only official word is "later this year".

fredfa

03-16-07, 03:19 PM

Critic’s Notebook
No “Bones” About It:
My Favorite Procedural
By Matt Roush TV Guide critic

In this week's episode of Bones, we learn there's a community of "Brennanites," avid followers of Temperance "Bones" Brennan, that fictional triple-threat forensic anthropologist, crime-solver and best-selling mystery novelist. Add me to the fan base.

As this second season has progressed, I've found myself getting more and more attached to this prickly "squint," her engagingly quirky lab mates and her FBI partner Seeley Booth. With clever writing, appealing casting and just enough of the "ick" factor — decomposed victims are the norm that helped put CSI on the map — Bones has slowly but surely become the most purely entertaining procedural crime drama on TV. (My top five, after Bones: TNT's The Closer, when it's on; the original and still champion of Thursdays CSI; and the twofer of Cold Case and Without a Trace, in part because the formula of these Sunday dramas invites a more emotional connection to the victims.)

Having just watched this week and next week's Bones episodes, more than ever I'm enjoying the chemistry between Emily Deschanel and David Boreanaz as Bones and Booth. Their relationship has been strained a bit lately because of her passionate fling with the more laid-back FBI guy Sully (an unusually agreeable Eddie McClintock). In classic crime-team tradition, Bones and Booth needle and complement each other with banter that only barely masks a mutual (but usually unspoken) attraction. Both are damaged goods. Her family past is a nightmare; his sniper past haunts him and led him to therapy (with the droll Stephen Fry) this season.

Those factors alone would almost be enough to recommend this series, but there's more. The interplay in the Jeffersonian lab is priceless among the lab "squints," and this season, throwing together good-time girl Angela (the terrifically funny Michaela Conlin) and buggy bug expert Hodgins (T.J. Thyne) in a relationship has added some nice emotional resonance to the workplace camaraderie, fleshing out many a scene played out over a bunch of bones. Even at its grisliest, there are light touches, like Angela confronting her coworkers next week to declare, "You know what you people lack? Whimsy. It's a genuine deficiency." Thankfully, Angela more than makes up for it. She's good enough to deserve her own show. But I hope and imagine she'll stay put.

The mysteries are usually pretty good as well, especially this week's, in which Bones' latest best-selling thriller appears to have inspired a serial killer who's copycatting her gross-out plot. (Which involves victims being chewed up by animals, and it isn't pretty. The squeamish get plenty of warning so they can hide their eyes.) Speaking of her books, there's a neat in-joke tonight. Listen for a throwaway line in which Brennan refers to her books' fictional heroine. Still, her career does bring up one thing that strikes me as false about Bones, and Bones. If Brennan is such a successful pop-culture writer, you'd think she'd know more about the culture at large. (She often says, "I don't know what that means" when someone brings up a popular movie or TV show.) Next week, she continually turns colloquialisms into malapropisms, at one point referring to a "switcha-macallit." It's funny, but she really should be smarter than that.

But that's a small detail. Next week's episode, which forces Bones to confront her happy fling with Sully — "There's more to life than corpses and murderers," she's told (oh really?) — offers up another Bones specialty, one shared by the best procedurals: using forensics to introduce us to unknown, exotic customs. Here, that's an ancient Asian ritual involving the burial of a man's and woman's bones together for symbolic afterlife purposes. We enter the case with the discovery of a young mail-order bride's body, which has been boiled so the skeleton could be complete removed (and the skin is sewn back together).

Ewww? You bet. Wouldn't have it any other way.

http://community.tvguide.com/thread.jspa?threadID=800010787

foxeng

03-16-07, 04:22 PM

Hey foxeng, with all the announcements about local news going HD, any hint about when your station will join the parade?

I could tell you but then I would have to kill you! (Seriously!!) If I could talk about it I would, but I can't. I can't even say if we are even thinking or not thinking about it. I just can't say, period. Competition, and all that, you know.

foxeng

03-16-07, 04:24 PM

You know .... What I find "interesting" (not to mention quite amusing) about this it that apparently the proposed solution to lack of ala-carte options is to force even more "bundling" via some form of multicast must carry. The "partisan" spins are just breathtaking. :D

That came out of the FCC, not the broadcasters. IMO, I don't think many broadcasters want to do that kind of multicasting away, hence the luke warm to no comment reception from broadcasters.

foxeng

03-16-07, 04:25 PM

TV Technology Email Newsletters :: Doug Lung's RF Report
MSTV Preps Broadcasters for 2009 Transition
March 16, 2007

MSTV invited broadcasters to a Web cast this week to focus on the steps broadcasters need to take to prepare for the shutdown of analog TV broadcasting less than two years from now.

The key message was that broadcasters have to begin preparation now if they are changing channels on Feb. 17, 2009. David Donovan, president of the Association for Maximum Service Television showed the results of a survey conducted by MSTV listing the number of tower companies qualified to work on tall broadcast towers and the number of major manufacturers of critical components such as transmitters and antennas that indicate it will be difficult for manufacturers to meet demand. In the northeast U.S., only two summers remain to complete tower and antenna work.

While Andrew Long, associate chief of the FCC's Media Bureau said the commission was moving as quickly as possible to process applications and develop post-transition rules, he didn't appear optimistic that all the international coordination issues would be resolved before the transition. This may result in some stations being forced to operate with less coverage than they expected. Many stations are waiting on adoption of the final DTV table of allotments or removal of the freeze on modification applications extending coverage area before ordering equipment.

When questioned about when broadcasters might see the final DTV table, Long said that the FCC was moving "as fast as it could," but that he said he couldn't provide a time line. FCC rulemaking procedures require time for filing comments and replies to comments. The FCC then has to consider these comments in creating the final report and order.

John Lawson, president and CEO of the Association of Public Television Stations described the problems public TV stations face obtaining funding for transmission system changes in the limited time before the transition. He recommended public TV stations not wait for the final DTV table or for applications to be granted before filing requests for the funds needed to complete the DTV transition. At a minimum, they need to work with equipment manufacturers to make sure the equipment will be available when the funding comes.

Marcellus Alexander, executive vice president of television with NAB described the efforts the association was making to educate consumers about the DTV transition. Recent studies have shown many Americans do not understand the transition.

All of the panelists agreed a successful transition depended on cooperation between broadcasters, manufacturers, consumer electronics manufacturers and the FCC. In some markets, stations will be exchanging channels with other stations. In many cases, a station may have to move to its allotted DTV channel before another station in the same or adjacent market can move to its final channel. This will require coordination on the local level.

MSTV will soon begin conducting meetings across the country to help broadcasters coordinate local transition efforts. Stations hoping for a delay in the transition may be disappointed. All the participants on the panel saw little chance the Feb. 17, 2009 date would be changed. There is simply too much political pressure to recover the spectrum and broadcasters, some of which have been keeping analog transmitters running well past their useful lifetime, want to eliminate the high cost of operating two transmitters simultaneously.

MSTV has made a recording of the Web cast available online, either in Real or Windows Media formats. A PDF of the slides is also online. Look for them at www.MSTV.org.

http://www.tvtechnology.com/pages/s.0115/t.3200.html

fredfa

03-16-07, 04:51 PM

TV Q&A
Ask Matt (from the Ask Matt column at TVGuide.com)
Matt answers your questions about “American Idol”, “House”, “BSG”, and “Buffy”
By Matt Roush: TVGuide.com TV Critic Friday, March 16, 2007

Question: Before everyone starts to beat the drum about the folly of the American Idol eliminations, I wanted to write and say that I think that, rather than this season being an aberration, these past few weeks leading up to the formation of the top 12 represent the American Idol that everyone — its makers and fans — truly deserves. I don't think a show that begins by presenting the greatly untalented as entertainment, and allows its judges to laugh and poke fun at them, can turn around during its "serious" portion and stomp its feet and whine that the viewers aren't choosing the best singers. If you make humiliation part of the equation at the outset, then people will vote accordingly. The lesson here: You shouldn't make a double-edged sword and then be surprised when it cuts both ways. What do you think?— Nicolaus A.

Matt Roush: Agree totally. I know the audition episodes are too popular for Fox ever to drop, but I deplore them. And it does create an environment in which some of the more marginal talents, once they're exposed on the big stage in the semifinals, are given way too long a leash, either at the urging of perverse websites that think it’s funny when people vote for the earsores (it's not) or by misguided altruists who may think they're being kind by voting for those they think the judges are treating too harshly. (Trust me: They're not.) There's no way that, given the performances in the past few weeks, Sanjaya and Haley should have made it this far in this competition — and that's just to single out the most notably notorious. But that's nothing new for this show, and as Nicolaus says, Idol reaps what it sows for its cynical cruelty at the start of each season.

Question: I wanted to vent about the show House. I absolutely love the show, the drama, the cast, the "miracles," etc, but I am really growing tired of the House "issues" (his addiction, his inability to be real, his sexual innuendos, his using his friends for his benefit, etc) getting attention in every single episode lately. Is there an end to this? Can't they just let House be a miracle worker again? Are the ratings suffering at all? Am I the only one who feels this way?— Mary M.

Matt Roush: I'm sure you're not alone. (Example: in next week's issue of TV Guide, we're publishing a letter in the "Jump the Shark" space from someone who thinks House went too far in faking brain cancer recently, which really was over-the-top, you have to admit.) It doesn't appear to be hurting the show's ratings, though. They're through the roof, and are strong even when there's no Idol around. I more or less agree that since the disappointing resolution of the Tritter prosecution, when House appeared to have learned nothing from that mess, that his boorishness sometimes verges on caricature. But it comes with the show's territory. House works (or doesn't work, depending on whether you choose to embrace the show) on two levels: as an extreme medical-mystery procedural and as a character study of one of TV's most fascinating yet exasperating antiheroes. If you liked him all the time, House wouldn't be doing its job. Even so, they do sometimes seem to be pushing it. For now, though, they're getting away with it.

Question: Last Sunday's Amazing Race was the biggest farce I have ever seen! I will never believe that Rob and Amber would come in last for any reason other than something beyond their control. It was amazingly clear to me when they spelled Philippines incorrectly (as I might have) that they were just making obviously ridiculous mistakes. The whole thing was ridiculous! My intelligence was insulted. Do you think that they bring certain people back for ratings, knowing that they will not let them win?— Diane G

Matt Roush: Let them win? What show are you watching? There's no question Rob and Amber were brought back for ratings (not that this all-star edition is going exactly gangbusters), which is why I was actually more amazed that when Rob and Amber stepped last on the mat, we didn't magically learn that this was somehow an earlier-than-usual nonelimination round. I'd bet the show's producers regret losing this team so early, though as I noted in my Dispatch earlier this week, and I'm sure to few readers' surprise, I don't agree and I'm happy to see the last of them. For now. From where I sat, Rob and Amber simply had a very bad spell of continued bad luck on this leg. It happens in this game. Until they hit the team challenge, they were doing just fine. And while it may have been "amazingly clear" to you that the misspelling was the problem, Rob and Amber didn't see it. Again, it happens. Why feel more insulted by this than when other teams screw up? But after allowing a number of teams to pull ahead during that botched challenge, they made several more mistakes (including missing a clue box) that they weren't alone in making, all of which put Rob off his game during the mail-sorting challenge (a task the more focused Amber should have done) and allowed the ultra-annoying Charla and Mirna to miraculously pull ahead. Do I sense a conspiracy here? No. And neither, from what we saw on the show, did Rob and Amber. They accepted their defeat gracefully. Why can't you?

Question: Was the supposed death of Kara "Starbuck" Thrace on the March 4 episode of Battlestar Galactica legitimate, or will Katee Sackhoff be returning to the series? I noticed on the next episode that her name was not shown in its usual place during the opening montage that begins each show. I've been checking TV Guide to see if there was any mention that Sackhoff was leaving for good, but I found nothing, though I did read on the BG website on Sci Fi that a pilot episode for some new series is being developed for her. Do you have any information as to whether we have seen the last of Sackhoff/Starbuck, and what reasons she might have had to leave the show?— David R.

Matt Roush: There is no way I would answer this question even if I could. My advice, as it always is when it comes to shows like this, is to just sit back and watch and let things unfold in their own time. In this Internet age, I am dismayed at how much people need to know about every twist on shows that rely on surprise, reversals and even tragedies for their ultimate impact. I don't want to know in advance when someone meets their maker on 24. I certainly didn't want to know that Starbuck was going to meet her "destiny" (whatever that may signify) in the March 4 episode, although I'd unfortunately swallowed enough hype before screening a preview copy that I expected that something like that might happen. At this moment in BSG time, we're meant to see the situation the same way everyone in the fleet does: that Kara is dead. I understand the curiosity and concern, and it's fun to play the game up to a point, but I also think there's something ultimately damaging about the need to troll websites, official or otherwise, to snoop out clues and spoilers about every single thing that's going to happen on a favorite show. I've seen these next few episodes, and except for urging everyone to see them to experience the surprises as they roll out, I will only comment on them after they've aired. It's the only professional way to approach shows like this, and I can't believe fans actually want it all ruined for them in advance.

Question: As much as I have always enjoyed Battlestar Galactica (so much so that I've talked others into trying it out), I am starting to feel disappointed with it. It's not the quality that's gone down, it's that it has become nothing but tragic. Don't get me wrong, the thing I always liked about Galactica was its gritty feel, but now it's come to the point of being humorless and morose. I saw this first with the death-of-Kat episode, and later with the death of Starbuck, both episodes being so painful to watch that I was almost unable to get through them. I miss the dark humor that Baltar always brought to the show, and I truly wonder if the writers have forgotten that they are here to entertain us.— Lyle

Matt Roush: Maybe the dramatic events during Baltar's trial will lift your spirits, although once again, moments of comic relief on this show these days are pretty rare. Personally, I don't see a disconnect between a show being this intense and still having entertainment value. It's like President Roslyn said during the labor-strike episode (my favorite of the recent stand-alones): "Nobody's having a good time…. There is nothing ideal about this fleet." This has unquestionably been a tough, grueling season, from the occupation of New Caprica onwards. And as I've noted several times since the show's return on Sunday, I'm not crazy about the new scheduling, because this is one heavy show to watch on a busy night right before the work week begins. Still, for me, it's worth the effort.

Question: I have to say, Matt, in the past, you've never led me astray. But your review of The Winner is a real puzzler to me. In this day and age of excellent comedies like Scrubs, The Office and the late, great Arrested Development, how could you possibly enjoy one of the lamest half hours on television? The laugh track is right out of the '50s: loud, intrusive and completely off base. (For instance, in the pilot, why would anyone laugh at his unfunny parents during the scene at the breakfast table? And there were not only laughs but actual guffaws!) I'm a huge fan of The Daily Show, and I love Rob Corddry. But his personality goes too far and needs to be toned down. The obnoxious laugh track does not make this show funny, only silly and stupid.— Jan A.

Matt Roush: I've never led you astray before? Nice to know, but hard to believe. I've been doing this a while. You won't find me defending the laugh track here, although I'll admit I'm mostly immune to it, and wonder about those who rail against it like it's something new to TV. Any show filmed in front of an audience tweaks its laugh track, although not to the degree of The Winner, for sure. I was also put off by the opening scene with the parents in the pilot. In fact, I was sure I was going to hate the show based on how overplayed that scene was, matched by the laugh track. But then, the show and its main character unexpectedly charmed me, despite the inherent creepiness of it all. Look, The Winner isn't going on my top-10 list, or even my top 40. But given what Fox has shown us lately in live-action comedy (The War at Home, 'Til Death), this one disarmed me, and I treated it generously. Maybe more than it deserved, but ultimately in my view, a laugh track does not a show make, or unmake. Look at how successful CBS is with its traditionally produced Monday sitcoms, which all clearly make use of sweetened laugh tracks. It's not necessarily a deal breaker.

A similar gripe, about shaky camerawork, is voiced by Kathy L.: "What is it with the camerawork on Boston Legal? While it's not a must-see for me, I enjoy it occasionally as the "New Ally McBeal with Boys" that it is (mostly just to see Julie Bowen and Mark Valley) — but unless I just listen and occasionally glance at it, it's almost impossible to watch without a full load of Dramamine. The camera whips and swoops and spins around to the point of nausea! I know I miss a lot by not watching the characters and just listening, but it's the only way I can stand it for an hour. I see it a lot on shows that try to be 'edgy,' whereas I only find it distracting. Will this trend ever end, or do I just give up on BL and other shows that make me seasick?"

This complaint dogged Friday Night Lights for much of this season as well, and I'm happy to note that the UnSteadyCam has been toned down a bit (though not entirely abandoned), or maybe I just don't notice it anymore. As with laugh tracks, this camera movement is something that rarely bothers me, going back all the way to NYPD Blue and Homicide: Life on the Street, both of which employed whipsawing handheld cameras, sometimes to their disadvantage. It has become a signature of shows that want to evoke a quasidocumentary realism, and sometimes it does come off like a gimmick, especially when David E. Kelley uses zooms to hammer home every innuendo and joke. My problem with Boston Legal, and it extends to the acting and writing as well as the camerawork and cutesy editing, is that it's all so heavy-handed.

Question: The March 12 Ask Matt featured a letter where the writer asked how many of America's 60 million Pentecostals are represented on TV, or how many of the eight million Mormons. The real answer should have been, "Who knows?" How do you tell a character's religion when the dialogue or setting provides no clue? There are hundreds of TV characters who could easily be either Mormon or Pentecostal, but the show has simply never done anything to indicate their religion. The assumption here seems to be that if a character isn't shown going to church or at least talking about their religion, then they must not have one. That just doesn't make sense. Most TV shows focus on very specific aspects of the characters' lives and only show a fraction of what's really going on. A program like ER is 41 minutes long and covers a time period of anywhere from a few hours to a few days per episode, while switching between six or eight major characters. Most characters probably have less than 10 minutes of screen time per episode. Ultimately, 99 percent of a character's life is spent off screen, so if a show hasn't explicitly specified a detail like their religion, the only thing we can really say for sure is that we don't know.— Mike F.

Matt Roush: Good point. Although this season on ER, we've been introduced to a character (played by Busy Philipps) who declared her faith up front, so it's possible for it to become an issue even on shows like that. The argument here isn't that we can imagine unspoken religious backgrounds for any number of TV characters, but that when religion is presented on TV, it's often to cast people of faith in a negative or extreme light — or, on the other hand, to make them look like simple, pious ninnies, none of which reflects the reality of most people of faith anywhere. You can believe in something (or not) and not be entirely defined by that belief (or lack of). Which leads me to the next few questions about a different sort of TV diversity.

Question: I read with interest your comment that you long for the day when gay characters on TV are treated as completely unremarkable. It occurred to me that such an event has already occurred, earlier this year, on a little reality show called Survivor. In last fall's Cook Islands edition, the same edition that initially divided the tribes by ethnicity, two male contestants later revealed off camera that they were gay, but that topic did not even surface on air. It is hard to believe that the subject never came up on the island among the contestants, and that cameras did not capture it. So I found it refreshing that producer Mark Burnett did not deem the sexuality of either contestant to be remarkable enough to fashion (through editing) a little story point about it. Certainly the homosexuality of previous Survivor contestants (Richard Hatch and many others) had been story points in previous editions. So in a way, I found that the granddaddy of TV's current reality craze broke ground once again: first when an openly gay man won the original Survivor, and then, six years later, by choosing through the editing process to not make a story point of the sexuality of a couple of its gay contestants.— Robert

Matt Roush: Don't ask, don't tell? In this case, I like it. I bet if these contestants' sexual orientation had had an effect on how they related to other tribe members (the way, say, Rudy reacted to Richard Hatch's being gay), it would have been shown. The fact that it apparently didn't make waves is worth noting. Reminds us all that being gay isn't of itself inherently dramatic, just a fact of life. Thanks for pointing that out.

Question: I'm writing in response to Nikki's letter on the sexual orientation of Justin on Ugly Betty. If Justin is indeed meant to be gay, I think he is still probably still too young to fully address the issue of his sexuality. However, I think his character and the writers at Ugly Betty have a unique opportunity. As far as I can recall, there has never been a main character who is a young gay teen that the audience gets to see evolve, realize his orientation and deal with people's attitudes about it (for better or worse). Sure, many shows have had the "coming out" moment, but we never get to see their evolution and growing pains as we do other main characters. The writers on Ugly Betty have already leaned towards this. There was a very touching and funny scene between Marc and Justin where Justin tells him that no one at school understands him. It's also quite touching to watch the support he receives from his family, regardless of his "quirks." His father, who thinks Justin should engage in more "manly" activities, comes to his defense at the end of the episode where he performs songs from Hairspray on the train. I honestly don't care if Justin is straight or gay, and I think to concentrate on that would overlook the whole point of the show: That despite our eccentricities and quirks, we can be accepted and loved for who we are.— Hannah

Matt Roush: That was the point I was trying to make in my answer to Nikki. You said it better. Thanks.

Question: This week marks Buffy the Vampire Slayer's 10-year anniversary. (The show debuted on the WB on March 10, 1997). Looking back at those 10 years, it's difficult to ignore the show's remarkable influence on other shows, on all genres and on the industry itself. Just to name a few: Alias, Smallville, Lost, Heroes, Veronica Mars, Battlestar Galactica, and even shows like Gilmore Girls, Scrubs and Grey's Anatomy. (The creators of those three shows have declared in recent interviews their undeniable love for Buffy.) Moreover, Buffy created a genre of its own: "the multigenre," a mix of a few genres in one show — fantasy, horror, comedy and drama, for instance. Looking at some of the shows on TV right now, it's easy to see shows that embraced Buffy's special multigenre: The O.C., Lost, Grey's Anatomy and Veronica Mars. Another interesting aspect of this influence is the writer. Joss Whedon surrounded himself with a fabulous group of talented writers who were almost kidnapped to other productions as soon as Buffy said her goodbye. They can be found all over the industry, from Battlestar Galactica, Smallville, Alias and Lost to 24, Gilmore Girls and even on Dexter. My question is: Can you think of any other show (scripted show, that is) that has had as much influence as Buffy had during the course of these 10 years? Because I certainly can't. Sure, Lost had its influence for a short period. The O.C. was thought to be innovative (but just to a certain extent). 24 pretty much created the "serialized" genre, but this genre took a huge hit recently. But none of them, to me, had the effect that Buffy had. So, can you think of any other show, Matt?— Nadav

Matt Roush: Wow. Thanks for making me feel old. Buffy is 10 years old? How time flies. (This question came in on the same day I got in the mail the second season DVD of Twin Peaks, which also took me back. Way back.) Anyway, without taking on your specific genre generalizations (or we'd be here forever), I agree that Buffy the Vampire Slayer had an impact on the culture that far outweighed its meager ratings. My love for Buffy is pretty well known and hasn't faded in the years since it went into repeat/syndication/DVD heaven. The way it fused genres was both remarkable and a clear influence on many shows that followed. And whether you liked it or not, Meredith's sweeps-month journey into limbo on Grey's Anatomy showed the touch of Marti Noxon, who has been upped to executive producer of that megahit. Buffy spawned good writers, who've migrated onto other good shows. That's a plus for the industry, but hardly unprecedented. To address your basic question, I can think of one show that has had at least as profound an impact on the industry and culture at large: The Sopranos. Without it, you don't get the risk-taking of FX, you probably don't get the renaissance of Showtime, and you probably wouldn't have seen the networks get as adventurous with the drama format as they have been in recent years. But I see no reason to make absolute statements about the legacy of one groundbreaking TV show over another. Let's just all do a Scooby Gang group hug and declare, "Happy birthday, Buffy!"

http://www.tvguide.com/News-Views/Columnists/Ask-Matt/Default.aspx#01idol

shuttermaker

03-16-07, 04:54 PM

That's the problem with these price estimates. The cablenets simply divide current revenue by the number of regular viewers and the price soars. 1 in 6 regularly watch ESPN (perceived as "free"), so under a la carte, the price would go from $3 to $18. They don't want the analysis to go any further because that "scary" number looks a lot less scary when you look at the obvious result of that pricing.

1 in 6 when free - how many at $18? Half that many (1 in 12)? Now the price would need to jump to $36. How many would now sub at $36? a third of those remaining?........$108 :eek:

The price speculation, based on maintaining their current revenue is meaningless without factoring in demand for the channel. When demand is entered into the equation, the price will end up being at the level that when combined with demand yields the maximum amount of revenue. That could just as easily be $4.00 x 15 million subs if the alternative is only 4 million subs at $15 - especially when they factor in the impact on advertising revenue.

Bottom line, with a la carte, the price will be exactly what the marketplace (as a whole) decides is fair. There are no revenue guarantees. That will affect ESPN, USA - just as much as the minority interest channels. Because while minority oriented programming may be consided more "worthy" of subsidation - the fact is that all non-broadcast networks are, from the perspective of "numbers of viewers", minority-interest channels.

Sorry to side track the thead fredfa - I'll bump up one of the many a la carte threads if people want to discuss this further.

OT : How bout them Eagles !

biggiE48

03-16-07, 05:13 PM

A fair concern if you are more interested in the profits of the owner of BET or your member's access to The Parkers or The Wire reruns than you are in the financial welfare of your members. :rolleyes:

Since BET is part of Viacom who own MTV,Nick at Night among others.
Want the large players simple force carriages for all of there brands in Al Crate world.

URFloorMatt

03-16-07, 05:32 PM

"A la carte would have to be devastating for a network like BET"

BET is owned by Viacom. About BET Networks (http://www.viacom.com/view_release.jhtml?inID=7&inReleaseID=227541)

But what does that matter? BET currently exists on basic cable platforms. It's widely distributed and probably available to 90-some percent of cable subscribers. (Is this not true in the "flyover states"/overwhelmingly white communities? I don't know.)

Establish a la carte and BET's carriage is going to drop to niche status pretty quickly. I certainly wouldn't keep it, and given it's target demographic, which only makes up 12% of the U.S. population and which is, on the whole, probably disadvantaged from subscribing to a cable or satellite service to get BET in the first place (especially the digital cable offerings that they have now) and the BET empire would crumble in a flash.

To some degree, this is true for a lot of stations that target niche audiences, but I just singled out BET because of the clear demographic downside to a network that targets such a comparatively small subset of the American audience yet which has managed to acquire a slot in the basic tier of most cable systems.

Unless your point was that since Viacom acquired BET that it's become a soulless and indistinguishable subset of the MTV empire, which is probably true.

rebkell

03-16-07, 06:43 PM

You were right, Jandron.

There was a downside, though: Raines got trashed by October Road in the 18-49s.

As for The Black Donnellys, I think we can expect the cancellation word to come at any time.

And the relative success of October Road could prove troubling for the renewal of Men In Trees, too.

Men In Trees has not been the same show since the writers broke up Marin and Jack, the Lynn(Justine Bateman) character has ruined the show and chemistry that the show was generating. Of course I guess that's what I should have expected from the writers of Sex and the City.

keenan

03-16-07, 06:51 PM

Men In Trees has not been the same show since the writers broke up Marin and Jack, the Lynn(Justine Bateman) character has ruined the show and chemistry that the show was generating. Of course I guess that's what I should have expected from the writers of Sex and the City.
I agree, and I've never liked Bateman, and like her even less now.

fredfa

03-16-07, 07:04 PM

I agree with both of you.

And the silly subplot of Marin's agent and the hunk made no sense at all -- especially since we never had even met the hunk before hand. And it just ain't that easy to get from NY to Elmo as quickly and easily as the characters seem to routinely accomplish the feat.

The writers better get back to the Jack - Marin story line or they might not get a second sdeason.

DoubleDAZ

03-16-07, 09:37 PM

One issue I see missed in all this is that TWC or any other cable co plays Mom and Dad with us. They act like they know what is best for all of us and we have no choice. If the ESPN family -- all of it -- was available to me for $30 a month I would buy it. I realize many of you would not but that is Mom and Dad kicking in. Let me make the choice. I pay $7 a month now to get ESPN HD and a few other channels I never watch. On the other end I have Fox News blocked on my boxes so why should I pay whatever it is a month. MBL -EI is another example, although a bit different. I was told by a TW rep that they are trying to protect me by holding down costs and the pack would get too expensive. Let me make that decision -- not them.You, like so many others, blame cable when it is ESPN's demand that they be carried on the basic tier so they get paid per ALL subscribers, not cable's desire to carry them that way. That is true of almost all channels that are part of a bigger bundle, they demand carriage in a particular tier. NFL Networks is a perfect example. In the world of "negotiation" it's carry me the way I want, give me the cash I demand, or hit the road and take us off your system. I'm not saying that's right or wrong, just blame the right entity for your lack of options. :)

SJKurtzke

03-16-07, 09:48 PM

kjpjr

03-16-07, 09:49 PM

You, like so many others, blame cable when it is ESPN's demand that they be carried on the basic tier so they get paid per ALL subscribers, not cable's desire to carry them that way. That is true of almost all channels that are part of a bigger bundle, they demand carriage in a particular tier. NFL Networks is a perfect example. In the world of "negotiation" it's carry me the way I want, give me the cash I demand, or hit the road and take us off your system. I'm not saying that's right or wrong, just blame the right entity for your lack of options. :)

You miss my point. I would like to have ESPN2 HD, ESPN360, and ESPNU. I really don't care what they cost, I am a "certified " sports junkie and those are important to me. Their are others who would like to have other sets of channels but the cable co does not carry them. We can't have a dish where we live and with the coastal insurance problems and the depressed real estate market moving is not really an option. I would just like my cable company to offer the products I would like to buy. Hard to do in a monopoly! A la carte would allow me to have the channels I want and remove the ones I don't want. That is how a free market should work.

CPanther95

03-16-07, 09:58 PM

You, like so many others, blame cable when it is ESPN's demand that they be carried on the basic tier so they get paid per ALL subscribers, not cable's desire to carry them that way. That is true of almost all channels that are part of a bigger bundle, they demand carriage in a particular tier. NFL Networks is a perfect example. In the world of "negotiation" it's carry me the way I want, give me the cash I demand, or hit the road and take us off your system. I'm not saying that's right or wrong, just blame the right entity for your lack of options. :)

The problem was created by the cablenets (more accurately, their Big4 network parents). Now it is only perpetuated by the major cablecos, since thanks to consolidation, they find themselves in the position of content owners. Key exceptions are Cablevision, many of the small cablecos, E* and (I believe) FIOS who have come out in support of a la carte.

They know they, and their customers, will be fine under a la carte. Only the content owners seem to think it is unworkable for distributors - not the pure distributors.

DoubleDAZ

03-16-07, 10:08 PM

You need to wake up and realize that if you can't ala carte past, what you suggest isn't going to happen either. It is all for cable and nothing for anyone else. Cable's "oh poor pittiful me" act is getting pretty damn old in light of what they actual get. That IS phooney.I know that's not going to happen, but why is it always one way with you, anti-cable no matter what? I realize you are a broadcasting insider and there is money to be made, but I simply don't understand the pure hatred of anything cable. Maybe they do lobby and get some rules in their favor, but the beef should then be with the the FCC/government. You don't seem to mind any rules against cable, but you sure seem to dislike any in their favor.

Why is it okay to begrudge them their profits, but not the broadcaster's? Do you think I as a consumer see any difference? I pay my bill and you ALL get a piece of it, either directly or indirectly. Granted, cash looks better on that side of the ledger than advertising does on the other side to an accountant and shareholders, but there is very little difference to me.

And even more frustrating is what we get for those dollars; crappy multicast (CBS, ABC, and PBS here), only 6 nights of primetime programming, only 2 hours of nightly primetime content (FOX), lousy HD soaps (MYTV), cancelled series without endings, series interruptions all season long, etc. Come to think of it, maybe all that will change now that you guys will be rolling in dough. Maybe I should rethink my position. Oh wait, I don't really have a position, I just don't understand all the animosity.

I'll grant you, I wouldn't have run to the FCC, but when Sinclair and others say pay up or else, what would you do? I'm sure you'd just roll over and empty your pockets. :)

BTW. I'm not trying to be personal, just trying to understand. Heaven knows I've got my problems with cable, satellite, and OTA, just not all one-sided.

DoubleDAZ

03-16-07, 10:31 PM

You miss my point. I would like to have ESPN2 HD, ESPN360, and ESPNU. I really don't care what they cost, I am a "certified " sports junkie and those are important to me. Their are others who would like to have other sets of channels but the cable co does not carry them. We can't have a dish where we live and with the coastal insurance problems and the depressed real estate market moving is not really an option. I would just like my cable company to offer the products I would like to buy. Hard to do in a monopoly! A la carte would allow me to have the channels I want and remove the ones I don't want. That is how a free market should work.I did kind of miss the point that your cableco doesn't carry them, but what makes you think ala carte will fix that? Ala carte doesn't make anyone carry any prarticular channel just because it's available and I don't know what monopoly has to do with it. My guess is it's a bandwidth problem at the moment, we only got those after INHD2 ceased operation. We still don't have MAX-HD (presumably because of a VOD demand), TMC-HD (haven't heard any reason), or any of the new ones.

Conservatively speaking, analogs take up the space needed for 140 HD channels (2 per analog) or 560 SD channels (8 per analog). I don't know the specifics of satellite bandwidth compared to cable, but this seems like a huge difference and current limitation for cable. Then too, I don't know the specific rules, but I believe cable has to still provide something to cable-ready TVs without an STB. Let cable require an STB like satellite does and all that analog bandwidth gets freed up. I know that's a little simplistic, but I think you get the point. Maybe we should have a real "must-carry" rule that simply says every service has to carry all channels, regardless of broadcaster demands (or technology limitations :) ). Put the cost of each channel on the bill and let the consumer choose. Let the cableco/satco act simply as a carrier/biller and let the broadcasters sell you their content.

fredfa

03-16-07, 11:25 PM

The problem was created by the cablenets (more accurately, their Big4 network parents). Now it is only perpetuated by the major cablecos, since thanks to consolidation, they find themselves in the position of content owners. Key exceptions are Cablevision, many of the small cablecos, E* and (I believe) FIOS who have come out in support of a la carte.

They know they, and their customers, will be fine under a la carte. Only the content owners seem to think it is unworkable for distributors - not the pure distributors.

And it the public really gets messed with when one of those big companies gets carriage for a channel -- then totally changes the channel's content. They seem to feel they can put whatever they want on the channel and still get paid (by us, of course.)

It has been going on forever, with the imminent changes at Court TV onlt the latest example. Remember TNN becoming Spike? There are inumerable examples, America's Talking morphing to MSNBC was another.

The big corporations get a channel then decide to do whatever they want to do with it. And because the business basically is one big company scratching another's itch, nothing ever changes.

A la carte will come sooner or later (and a lot sooner than it seemed just three or so years ago).

And when it does there certainly will be some new challenges.

But bandwidth won't be one of them. The bottom 50 channels or so, watched by very few, can easily be dropped altogether, or simply moved to a digital base where those who wnat to pay can receive them.

theratpatrol

03-16-07, 11:38 PM

The Business of Television
Behind the name change for Court TV
Maybe MTV/MTV2 will change there names too since they don't show music videos anymore. ;)

fredfa

03-16-07, 11:44 PM

TV Notebook
Q: What is 1 in 25 Million?
A: Chances of a “Jeopardy!” Match Ending in a Three Way Tie
By P.J. Bednarski Broadcasting & Cable 3/16/2007

Friday's episode of Jeopardy! ended with a weird twist. For the first time in the show's 23-year history, the game show concluded with each of the three contestants having exactly the same winnnings--$16,000.

That means all three contestants--Scott Weiss, an assistant professor of computer science from Maryland; software engineer Anders Martinson from California and James Kirby, a humanities teacher from Gainesvilla, Fla.--will be back Monday, when only one will win.

On Friday's show, all three competed closely throughout the game, and then correctly responded to Final Jeopardy round clue, "One of the men who shot her realized when he saw her body that she'd often waited on him at a cafe in Dallas." The question that all the guys gave was "Who is Bonnie Parker" of Bonnie & Clyde fame.

Being too careful probably cost returning champ Scott Weiss, who didn't up his wager much for the "Final Jeopardy!" round. The other contestants essentially doubled their earnings up to that point.
CBS Television Distribution, which syndicates the show for Sony Pictures claims a statistician they hired calculated the odds of a three-way tie on the show as one in 25 million.

http://www.broadcastingcable.com/index.asp?layout=articlePrint&articleID=CA6425798

DoubleDAZ

03-16-07, 11:54 PM

And when it does there certainly will be some new challenges.
I think that is a big understatement. I can't wait to see ABC/Disney told they can't bundle ABC, The Disney Channel, or the ESPNs, but I also can't see the FCC simply declaring all current bundle agreements nul and void without some hassles/complaints.

I agree that consumers and most providers will be just fine. Anything worthwhile on defunct channels will almost certainly get picked up by remaining channels and we'll have fewer reruns.

Though I don't keep track of who owns what, I totally agree with your comment about SpikeTV. I used the tune into TNN quite often, but I rarely tune to SpikeTV. I also never thought of the back-scratching concept with regard to cable-owned channels. I never did like distributers owning channels, but it really didn't seem all that different from ABC/Disney/ESPN until you mentioned back-scratching.

One of my concerns is that the FCC seems to be on a mission with little public input and even less understanding, especially when it comes to the difference between HD and SD, multicasting impact on PQ, and all this supposed excess bandwidth the stations and distributors have.

fredfa

03-17-07, 12:18 AM

I doubt the FCC will do anything major.

I suspect Congress will simply pass a bill saying that carriage guarantees can't be built into contracts between networks and providers.

Thus with cable and satellite almost universally avaiable, and the telcos coming on strong, there would be more than enough com[petition so that one of them -- if not more -- would simply become the a la carte provider.

Many people would find their bills substantially lower --although heavy sports users probably wouldn't.

fredfa

03-17-07, 12:53 AM

Sunday's NCAA Basketball Tournament starting times have been posted at the top of the second post of the thread.

foxeng

03-17-07, 07:47 AM

I know that's not going to happen, but why is it always one way with you, anti-cable no matter what?

I am not anti-cable, just realistic. If you think the CSRs are bad, to deal with the people who actually make and do things, they are unbelievable at times. The kind of things you hear coming out of NCTA, is pretty much what all of the systems say. They walk lock step with NCTA. The joke is cable will gladly walk off a cliff with NCTA.

We have 16 cable systems in our market. Out of all of those, and they are of all sizes and owners, from TWC with 50% of the market share to several Mom and Pop systems with 10,000 subs or less and only 2 of them I would bend over backwards to help because they get it. They understand that people DO have a choice and they really try to win your business. The rest are what can I get out of you for nothing today. They all have the attitude that "you just can't survive without us and be damn glad we even serve you." If we need a favor from them, it takes an act of Congress to get them to do anything about it. And no matter what the problem is, it is ALWAYS the stations fault, even when you can prove it isn't. But when they need something from us, we are expected to jump that instant to provide it no questions asked.

Like I have said in the past, cable wants to be considered a utility like electric or water until it hurts them and then they don't want to be a utility. You can't have it both ways and cable has played that fine line with great finese for years.

It isn't anti-cable, it is just reality.

DoubleDAZ

03-17-07, 09:11 AM

I am not anti-cable, just realistic.Well, I could be wrong, but that's the first time I've ever heard you say anything nice about any cableco. I certainly understand a negative attitude toward those that don't play nice themselves, I wouldn't be very accommodating of that sort either, but every comment seems to lump them all into the same pot. Maybe because of your position you feel you have to comment that way.

I'm not much of a union guy (though I guess I understand their usefulness in some areas) and I don't believe in walking lockstep with any group. I don't follow the NCTA, but I think I understand the monopoly attitude that cable can certainly be accused of displaying. I guess I'm just perplexed by what I perceive to be a sudden demand for cash when it's probably been brewing for years. It just seems that station groups like Sinclair are using the digital transition to extort cash out of cable. I don't know all the in's and out's of negotiations with cable or satellite, but it seems there shlould be a less hostile way of determing what is fair without putting consumers in the middle.

I simply see Sinclair "demanding" $.50/sub vs negotiating and settling for $.50/sub. When a company or union enters a negotiating session publicly saying they plan to ask for $x.xx/sub, that usually tells me that is their starting point and they are really willing to settle for something less, and that begins the give and take process. In this case though, it seems that Sinclair, CBS, etc., have decicded their signal is worth $.50/sub and all else be damned.

Conversely, I see the cableco's saying the signals aren't worth any cash and I can't agree with that either, though I'm not sure I get the "real" distinction between in-kind compensation vs cash, except to accountants. Maybe the difference is as simple as the stations being able to make their own decision to purchase various advertising, even though the same amount of dollars are in play. The Sinclair/MCC thing just seemed to me to be a bunch of chest-pounding by a bunch of kids vs any kind of "negotiation".

fredfa

03-17-07, 10:00 AM

Local HDTV Notebook
Local News in HD Gains Momentum
By Paige Albiniak Broadcasting & Cable 3/19/2007

With the government-mandated deadline for the digital-TV conversion less than two years away, broadcast stations are stepping up their efforts to upgrade their local newscasts to high-definition.

Although the networks have been broadcasting primetime in HD for years, most TV stations are just now undertaking the expensive process of rebuilding news sets, swapping standard-def cameras for hi-def models and outfitting already expensive helicopters with HD equipment. But about three dozen stations embraced HD earlier, some more as a strategic imperative than a panicked response to the Feb. 17, 2009, changeover.

Capitol Broadcasting's WRAL Raleigh, N.C., was one of the country's earliest adopters and biggest champions of HDTV. “We knew that the future was going to be in HD, and we wanted to be out in front with it,” says News Director Rick Gall. “We wanted to be able to show and tell our viewers about this truly great enhancement in picture and audio quality.”

WFAA Dallas, Belo Corp.'s flagship station, was one of the country's first to offer high-definition programming, in 1998. But the station didn't convert its local news to HD until last month, with the launch of their all-HD news studio on Feb. 2.

“To some degree, being an innovator is the cost of doing business,” says WFAA VP Dave Muscari, who acknowledges that it has been extra expensive to gather HD equipment fresh off the assembly lines. “When we first switched over to HDTV, we found that some of the equipment we needed hadn't even been invented yet.”

The new studio is “fully digital,” he says. “It's linked via fiber back to the mothership, and the signal is almost flawless. From where we were back in 1998 to where we are today, it's a quantum leap.”

Among the challenges of producing content in hi-def, say Muscari and others, is learning to shoot footage for the larger, 16:9 aspect ratio.

“Shooting in a 16:9 world really mimics the way the eye sees,” says Patti Dennis, news director at Gannett's KUSA Denver, which has been offering local news in high-definition since April 2004 and is still the only station in the market to offer HD local news. “But a huge percentage of viewers are still watching on standard-definition sets [with 4:3 aspect ratio], so you have to protect that center cut.”

The dimensional switch also requires TV stations to upgrade graphics and rebuild sets.

“The graphics that are hanging over the anchors' shoulders look like they are hanging nowhere” in the larger HD frame, says Dennis. And with the wider frame, the on-air talent can spread out on an expanded set, she adds. “But,” she says, “you also don't want people so far apart that it looks like they are in different worlds.”

As for talent's fears that crisp high-definition pictures would accentuate even the slightest flaws in appearance, news directors say such concerns are overblown.

“Certainly, our anchors are cognizant of the enhanced quality of HD and what that means for them,” says WRAL's Gall. “But viewers are pretty savvy. They recognize that, with the sharper picture quality, you are going to see things good and bad in a sharper way.”

Says WFAA's Muscari, “Our focus is journalism. The newscasters here are the first to tell you that what they look like is a secondary issue to what they deliver to the community.”

A Clear Picture
At least three dozen stations now produce and broadcast local news and non-sports programming in high-definition:

Station Market Affiliation Owner
WSB Atlanta ABC Cox
WXIA Atlanta NBC Gannett
WLS Chicago ABC ABC
WJW Cleveland Fox Fox
WKYC Cleveland NBC Gannett
WEWS Cleveland ABC Scripps
WFAA Dallas ABC Belo
KTVD Denver MNT Gannett
KUSA Denver NBC Gannett
WXYZ Detroit ABC Scripps
KHOU Houston CBS Belo
WTHR Indianapolis NBC Dispatch
KABC Los Angeles ABC ABC
KTLA Los Angeles CW Tribune
KLAS Las Vegas CBS Landmark
KARE Minneapolis NBC Gannett
WTVF Nashville CBS Landmark
WABC New York ABC ABC
WNBC New York NBC NBC
WFTV Orlando ABC Cox
WRDQ Orlando Independent Cox
WPVI Philadelphia ABC ABC
WTXF Philadelphia Fox Fox
KPNX Phoenix NBC Gannett
KAZR Reno Azteca America Pappas
KRNV Reno NBC Sunbelt
KREN Reno CW Pappas
KSDK St. Louis NBC Gannett
KGO San Francisco ABC ABC
KTVU San Francisco Fox Cox
KFMB San Diego CBS Midwest TV
KING Seattle NBC Belo
KOMO Seattle ABC Fisher
WUSA Washington CBS Gannett
• Source: B&C Research

http://www.broadcastingcable.com/index.asp?layout=articlePrint&articleID=CA6425583

builtfordtough

03-17-07, 10:37 AM

Nashville's HD News offering is WTVF not WFTV. If you notice Orlando's is WFTV too.

HDTVChallenged

03-17-07, 11:06 AM

Like I have said in the past, cable wants to be considered a utility like electric or water until it hurts them and then they don't want to be a utility. You can't have it both ways and cable has played that fine line with great finese for years..

Just like "broadcast" likes to pretend they are playing in a free-market ... until it suits them to behave like the monopolies they really are. :rolleyes: :D

fredfa

03-17-07, 11:13 AM

Thanks for the correction, builtfordtough.

And welcome to the thread. :)

fredfa

03-17-07, 12:02 PM

fredfa

03-17-07, 04:19 PM

Technology Notebook
Grass Valley Squeezes High-Def
By Todd Spangler MiultiChannel News 3/19/2007

Thomson’s Grass Valley division plans to deliver a video-encoding system this fall — based on an integrated chip it spent three years developing — which the company claimed will deliver high-definition MPEG-4 signals using as little as half the bandwidth of existing encoders.

Competitors, though, questioned Grass Valley’s explanation for claiming such savings.

The first Grass Valley ViBE MPEG-4 encoder based on the chip will support high-definition video and is set to ship in September. That will be followed by support for standard-definition MPEG-4 video, said Jean Macher, director of marketing for Grass Valley’s video-network systems unit.

Likely prospects

Grass Valley is aiming the MPEG-4 products primarily at direct-broadcast satellite players, such as DirecTV and EchoStar Communications, and telcos with Internet Protocol TV offerings. DirecTV is an existing customer, as are Cox Communications and programmers including HBO and Turner Broadcasting System.

Both DBS and telco providers are deploying MPEG-4 today, whereas cable operators are more likely to stick with less-efficient MPEG-2 technology because of their large installed base that uses the older spec.

The “breakthrough” technology in the new ViBE encoder, Macher said, is the Mustang application-specific integrated circuit, developed by 60 Thomson engineers over three years. “This dramatically changes how MPEG-4 is done,” he said.

The chip can deliver high-motion HD video at 4 Megabits per second, and 5 Mbps with an audio channel. “That’s with sports video; very tough content,” Macher said.

Mustang-based encoders will be twice as efficient as Grass Valley’s current MPEG-4 encoders, which provide high-definition MPEG-4 at between 8 Mbps and 12 Mbps. In addition, Mustang also provides 30% lower bandwidth at constant bit-rate encoding than competing products, according to Grass Valley.

How, exactly? Macher said the ASIC is optimized for MPEG-4 compression algorithms, whereas some first-generation encoders used “consumer-grade” digital-signal processors. That lets Mustang employ the full range of compression techniques available in the MPEG-4 Advanced Video Coding H.264 specification, according to Grass Valley.

“Other guys don’t have the horsepower to do this,” he said.

One example he provided was an MPEG-4 technique called weighted prediction, which can better process scenes that fade in or out by predicting the content of upcoming video frames.

Grass Valley’s two main competitors in the video-encoding market are Tandberg Television and Harmonic. The Thomson unit is still a comparative small fry, estimating its worldwide market share in the video-compression and digital TV headend equipment segment at around 10%, and Grass Valley hopes the new encoding chip gives it some additional momentum.

Corner cases?

However, both Tandberg Television and Harmonic said that the bandwidth savings claimed for Mustang sounded fishy.

Carl Furgusson, vice president of product management for Tandberg Television’s video-compression business, acknowledged that his company’s MPEG-4 offerings use various off-the-shelf chips, such as DSPs or field-programmable gateway arrays (FPGAs).

But simply having this circuitry doesn’t mean compression rates will necessarily be higher, he said.

“All of the vendors have done the quick-win techniques,” Furgusson said. “Most of the rest of the MPEG-4 toolset is really based around niche, corner-cases of video.” Weighted prediction, for example, “really doesn’t gain you much,” he added.

Greater improvements in MPEG-4 compression will be achieved in the preprocessing stage by eliminating noise in content that’s transcoded from MPEG-2 video, according to Fergusson.

Moreover, the performance of an encoder will always depend on the content, said Harmonic director of digital video product marketing J.C. Morizur.

“A movie is not as demanding as a soccer match,” he said. “If I take a non-action-packed movie, yes, I can do that at 5 Mbps. I can show you HD at 3 Mbps… But we’ve always been careful about setting the right expectations for customers.”

To Macher, the real test of how well the chip performs will be demonstrated by customer selections as the number of high-definition channels expands in the next few years. “We are geared toward a massive deployment of HD,” he said.

http://www.multichannel.com/index.asp?layout=articlePrint&articleid=CA6425423

fredfa

03-17-07, 04:51 PM

Critic’s Notebook
'Trace' Draws a Solid Fan Base
By Marc D. Allan Special to The Washington Post Sunday, March 18, 2007

Fans of the missing-persons drama "Without a Trace" know little about the early life of Samantha Spade, the FBI investigator played by Poppy Montgomery. That changes (Sunday) night with the first of a two-part story in which Spade's sister is introduced -- and then goes missing.

"We find out some stuff that's incredibly dark about her past and her relationship with her family," Montgomery said of her character. She declined to elaborate in hopes of, as she said with a laugh, being "vague yet intriguing."

Executive producers Greg Walker and Jan Nash were willing to share a bit more. Those who follow the show, they said, have seen hints in the second and third seasons of Spade's broken family, along with allegations of abuse. And in an episode earlier this season, Spade reacted impassionedly to the case of a missing artist.

"That episode ends with what appears to be a flashback from Samantha Spade's point of view of someone being hit with a shovel," Nash said. The episodes tonight and next Sunday "start to answer what that incident was about and why she had such a strong emotional reaction to that one case."

If "Desperate Housewives" had worked up a story line like this, the anticipation would be intense. But "Without a Trace" has generated little of what Hollywood likes to call "heat" -- the attention that creates headlines and yields magazine cover stories.

"I haven't had to buy a tux yet in five years, and I don't know if I'll need to," Walker said. "But we're everybody's mom's or sister's or aunt's favorite show."

"Without a Trace" debuted in 2002, going head-to-head with -- and ultimately beating -- "ER" on Thursdays at 10 p.m. Since moving to Sundays this past fall, the show has regularly won its time slot despite being delayed frequently during football season. "Trace" averages more than 14 million viewers per week and earlier this season passed the 100-episode landmark, which sent it into syndication. TNT airs the syndicated reruns on Wednesdays at 6, 7 and 11 p.m.

"It's huge recognition from our fans," Montgomery said. "Having done five series that failed, it seems to me like such enormous recognition just to hit our 100-episode mark and have such a huge audience. I know how hard it is to get a hit show on the air, so I feel like it's recognized a lot."

Walker said he thinks "Without a Trace" is an under-the-radar type of show. "No one feels abused and isolated," he said, "and no one feels like we're in a situation where we're completely undernourished in terms of praise."

The series succeeds, he and Nash said, because it deals in hope. In the first season, senior agent Jack Malone (Anthony LaPaglia) called himself "a hope junkie," and that phrase is never far from the minds of the writers.

The show doesn't open with a dead body, the way procedural dramas such as "Law & Order" and the "CSIs" typically do. Instead, the mystery begins with what happens just before someone vanishes. The missing person's story is then told through a series of flashbacks that explain the circumstances behind the disappearance.

The "Without a Trace" detectives will usually find the missing person and, in the process, solve the crime -- but the outcome isn't always a happy one.

"Procedurals like 'Without a Trace' have been a staple of TV since the '50s," said Jason Mittell, an assistant professor of American studies and film and media culture at Middlebury College in Vermont. "It's a very comfortable format. You know when you watch that things will be resolved by the end of the episode.

"Most procedurals have a mystery focus, so whether it's a murder mystery like 'CSI' or a medical mystery like 'House,' there's a real sense of 'There's a problem, you're going to spend an hour figuring out how it happened, and by the end there'll be an answer.' And traditionally, the answer is reassuring -- the bad guy is caught, the victim is found," Mittell said.

Rather than stealing from the headlines, some episodes of "Without a Trace" have eerily seemed to forecast them. The Laci Peterson case in California made news months after a Season 1 episode was filmed that centered on a missing pregnant woman. During the second season, the show told the story of a priest involved in a hit-and-run accident; an Arizona bishop was charged in a fatal hit-and-run soon after. And this season's first episode dealt with a boy held captive, a story that played out a lot like the case of missing teens Shawn Hornbeck and Ben Ownby in Missouri in January.

If that sounds spooky, imagine how the writers feel. In brainstorming episode ideas, Nash said, chuckling, "there's a standard rule around here that no writer of a procedural television show should go missing."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/14/AR2007031400152_pf.html

fredfa

03-17-07, 04:59 PM

Critic’s Notebook
TV Time of Year: Nervous
Spring can be the cruelest season for our favorite shows
By Melanie McFarland Seattle Post-Intelligencer TV Critic

It happens every year, right around daylight-saving time. We start to get antsy at the prospect of warmer weather, easier living, an end to cabin fever -- and the threat of cancellation for our favorite shows.

Programming executives already are mulling over their options for next season. Room must be made, so if a series isn't a solid ratings grabber, consider it vulnerable.

But not necessarily. Sometimes the ratings a series rakes in during its first season matters less than its potential and the prestige it brings to a network's lineup.

Economics plays a huge role, too. An expensive show that isn't delivering the numbers may find itself with a bull's-eye on its back, while its inexpensive, similarly rated cousin could be spared.

By far, though, the biggest threat comes in the form of new development possibilities for fall. A selection of fierce, innovative pilots may be good news for us, but gives the "Crossing Jordans" of the world reason to tremble.

Maybe you figure it's time to organize some zany campaign in which you decide to, say, ship rock salt and Zippos by the ton to The CW to show your support for "Supernatural."

Nice thought. Campaigns like that have worked before, which is why we've included snail-mail and Web-site addresses here. (These are the general feedback addresses, but putting a network head's name on the envelope may grant you some comfort.)

To be honest, mail floods probably won't make much difference in most cases. I refer you to that statement about economics. So save your stamps for now, but in the meanwhile, here are the series that have reason to fear the Reaper.

CBS

With few exceptions, the Eye is not exactly a patient network. Stability has kept it successful thus far, and weak spots in its structure tend to be ripped out hastily. So we should all be amazed that a lackluster performer such as "The Class" made it this far. But now that "Rules of Engagement" has mixed into Mondays successfully, CBS likely will dismiss that other puppy.

Another show sporting a warning sign: "Jericho." Proving how fickle fortune and audiences can be, the post-apocalyptic drama had momentum and buzz on its side last fall, only to be crushed by "American Idol" when it returned in February. CBS could move it, but finding a suitable fit is going to be problematic. Besides, why shift "Jericho" if replacing it with a show potent enough to fend off the "Idol" threat makes more sense?

Direct your ire at: Nina Tassler, entertainment president, CBS-TV; 7800 Beverly Blvd.; Los Angeles, CA 90036; or go to cbs.com.

ABC

Only a few seasons ago, ABC had no luck landing a decent drama. Now that it's lousy with 'em, including a couple that are among television's highest-rated, it can't score a decent sitcom to save some development executive's neck. No one could blame the network if it scrapped the lot and started completely fresh, which includes dumping "Knights of Prosperity," "In Case of Emergency," "George Lopez" and "According to Jim." "Big Day" already has ended, which leaves "Notes From the Underbelly" as the sole survivor of this season's newbies -- because it hasn't premiered yet. (Look for it April 11 at 9:30 p.m. on KOMO/4.) There may be one strong possibility the network could use to launch a new comedy slate. Keep reading.

Direct your ire at: Stephen McPherson, president of entertainment, ABC; 500 S. Buena Vista St.; Burbank, CA 91521-4551; abc.com.

NBC

The Peacock is facing a bit of a dilemma as is flies into May. "Heroes" became a hit, but other freshmen such as "30 Rock" and "Friday Night Lights" suffer from a mismatch between acclaim (high) and ratings (low); and veterans, even "Law & Order: Original Flavor," are barely treading water.

What stays and what's roasted largely will depend on how development is looking. NBC's executives must be missing the days of being the 800-pound gorilla and have to be heartened by signs of a creative renaissance. The best way to nurture that is to bring on more fresh programs. However, patience paid off with "The Office," and its Thursday night comedies are winning over more people. So we're betting "30 Rock" sees a second season. Ditto for "FNL." NBC fumbled the promotion campaign for this outstanding series last summer, but it can make up for that in the run-up to season two. The push has already begun. A repeat episode of "Friday Night Lights" will air on Bravo at 7 p.m. every Friday, followed by three back-to-back episodes between 2 and 5 p.m. on Saturdays beginning this weekend through April 13.

Something's got to give, which means NBC may sign a do-not-resuscitate order on "Scrubs." Don't lose hope; in January, creator Bill Lawrence told critics that Touchstone could move it to ABC. There's less hope for the likes of "Crossing Jordan" and "Law & Order: Criminal Intent," which might be pushed on top of the cancellation grenade to preserve the Mothership -- and save the cost-cutting NBC some money. As for "Studio 60," abandon all hope.

Direct your ire at: Kevin Reilly, president, NBC Entertainment; 3000 W. Alameda Ave.; Burbank, CA 91523; nbc.com

Fox

Fox never looks bad in the springtime. It has "Idol" and already renewed "Bones" and "House." Fall is when it hurts. That means Fox needs as many anchors as possible to hold it down for the new guys. "Prison Break" has yet to be renewed, but it's safer than "Standoff," which is getting a last chance to justify its existence by turning around the Friday night death slot. (Not gonna happen.) And since Michael Rapaport is set to take the male lead in the CBS pilot "Fugly," you might as well make your peace with "The War at Home." Ditto for "The Winner," sorry to say.

Direct your ire at: Peter Liguori, president, Fox Broadcasting; Box 900; Beverly Hills, CA 90213; fox.com

The CW

"Veronica Mars" fans are used to hearing gloomy predictions about its survival odds this time of year, but now they really have to be worried. First, its season order was shortened. Then, hiatus replacement "The Pussycat Dolls Present: The Search for the Next Doll" drew in higher ratings. Another whammy: The stars of "Gilmore Girls" haven't decided whether to extend their contracts for another year. Without "Gilmore," Neptune's finest might be done. If those shows go down, they had better take "The Game" and "7th Heaven" with them.

Direct your ire at: Dawn Ostroff, president of entertainment; The CW Network; 3300 W. Olive Ave.; Burbank, CA 91505; cwtv.com

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/printer2/index.asp?ploc=t&refer=http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/tv/307666_tv16.html

GeorgeLV

03-17-07, 06:13 PM

TV Q&A
Ask Matt (from the Ask Matt column at TVGuide.com)
Matt answers your questions about “American Idol”, “House”, “BSG”, and “Buffy”
By Matt Roush: TVGuide.com TV Critic Friday, March 16, 2007

*snip*

Question: This week marks Buffy the Vampire Slayer's 10-year anniversary. (The show debuted on the WB on March 10, 1997). Looking back at those 10 years, it's difficult to ignore the show's remarkable influence on other shows, on all genres and on the industry itself. Just to name a few: Alias, Smallville, Lost, Heroes, Veronica Mars, Battlestar Galactica, and even shows like Gilmore Girls, Scrubs and Grey's Anatomy. (The creators of those three shows have declared in recent interviews their undeniable love for Buffy.) Moreover, Buffy created a genre of its own: "the multigenre," a mix of a few genres in one show — fantasy, horror, comedy and drama, for instance. Looking at some of the shows on TV right now, it's easy to see shows that embraced Buffy's special multigenre: The O.C., Lost, Grey's Anatomy and Veronica Mars. Another interesting aspect of this influence is the writer. Joss Whedon surrounded himself with a fabulous group of talented writers who were almost kidnapped to other productions as soon as Buffy said her goodbye. They can be found all over the industry, from Battlestar Galactica, Smallville, Alias and Lost to 24, Gilmore Girls and even on Dexter. My question is: Can you think of any other show (scripted show, that is) that has had as much influence as Buffy had during the course of these 10 years? Because I certainly can't. Sure, Lost had its influence for a short period. The O.C. was thought to be innovative (but just to a certain extent). 24 pretty much created the "serialized" genre, but this genre took a huge hit recently. But none of them, to me, had the effect that Buffy had. So, can you think of any other show, Matt?— Nadav

Matt Roush: Wow. Thanks for making me feel old. Buffy is 10 years old? How time flies. (This question came in on the same day I got in the mail the second season DVD of Twin Peaks, which also took me back. Way back.) Anyway, without taking on your specific genre generalizations (or we'd be here forever), I agree that Buffy the Vampire Slayer had an impact on the culture that far outweighed its meager ratings. My love for Buffy is pretty well known and hasn't faded in the years since it went into repeat/syndication/DVD heaven. The way it fused genres was both remarkable and a clear influence on many shows that followed. And whether you liked it or not, Meredith's sweeps-month journey into limbo on Grey's Anatomy showed the touch of Marti Noxon, who has been upped to executive producer of that megahit. Buffy spawned good writers, who've migrated onto other good shows. That's a plus for the industry, but hardly unprecedented. To address your basic question, I can think of one show that has had at least as profound an impact on the industry and culture at large: The Sopranos. Without it, you don't get the risk-taking of FX, you probably don't get the renaissance of Showtime, and you probably wouldn't have seen the networks get as adventurous with the drama format as they have been in recent years. But I see no reason to make absolute statements about the legacy of one groundbreaking TV show over another. Let's just all do a Scooby Gang group hug and declare, "Happy birthday, Buffy!"

http://www.tvguide.com/News-Views/Columnists/Ask-Matt/Default.aspx#01idol

Arguably, the risk-taking of FX can be traced back to Buffy as well. The first of the FX "gritty" dramas, The Shield, was created by Angel producer Shawn Ryan.

DoubleDAZ

03-17-07, 07:05 PM

Just like "broadcast" likes to pretend they are playing in a free-market ... until it suits them to behave like the monopolies they really are. :rolleyes: :DEverybody's a monopoly as long as there is only one, 1 FOX, 1 NBC, etc., but I'm not sure what the point would be to 5 FOX's in the same market. I must admit though that for non-primetime (and sports back when I cared :) ), it was nice having both San Francisco and Sacramento stations when I lived in Fairfield. And I'm quite sure the folks who live in the southern part of metro-Phoenix are pretty happy that they can receive at least some of the Tucson stations, especially those that don't multicast and provide a full HD broadcast.

fredfa

03-17-07, 07:27 PM

I tend to agree, Dave.

But it is kinda fun to see the big boys, who love monopolies as long as THEY have them, manage to parse their words, change their strategies, and do anything they can to keep the advantages they have managed to buy or get legislated.

foxeng

03-17-07, 09:28 PM

Just like "broadcast" likes to pretend they are playing in a free-market ... until it suits them to behave like the monopolies they really are. :rolleyes: :D

There you go confusing apples with oranges.

You are mad because you can't watch any station you want just because you want to. You feel that is a denial of some right and/or freedom that has been upheld as not a right/freedom by the highest court in the land. Set. Match. Game.

The Retrans Issue deals with fair value of a product that cable feels is not worth anything more than free when it has been demonstrated that if cable DIDN'T have that product, their service looses value. Obviously if DOES have value in a dollar sense or cable wouldn't be kicking and screaming to keep it for free. Hence the current "debate." Cable can't win in the arena of business so then "let's try getting the rules changed in our favor."

See the difference now?

SJKurtzke

03-17-07, 10:12 PM

Arguably, the risk-taking of FX can be traced back to Buffy as well. The first of the FX "gritty" dramas, The Shield, was created by Angel producer Shawn Ryan.
Not to mention that Buffy airs on FX. ;) Cooincidence? Yeah, probably.

rebkell

03-17-07, 10:20 PM

Not to mention that Buffy airs on FX. ;) Cooincidence? Yeah, probably.

I hated that Angel ended abruptly, I thought they were gonna give us a couple of episodes the next year to wrap it up, but alas, no. :( At least Buffy ended on it's own terms.

Inundated

03-17-07, 10:31 PM

WJW Cleveland Fox Fox
WKYC Cleveland NBC Gannett
WEWS Cleveland ABC Scripps

Yep, we're still the only market with three separate local news operations in HD! (We gotta have something going for us here. :D)

The CBS affiliate, WOIO, is rumored to be working on making it four for four sometime in the near future. WOIO also does a 10 PM show on MyNetworkTV affiliate WUAB/43.

And already up here on one of these threads - Dispatch CBS affiliate WBNS/10 Columbus launches in HD on April 2nd.

DoubleDAZ

03-17-07, 11:32 PM

See the difference now?I don't want to belabor this, I think I see your POV, but please don't use the word "free". Stations have always gotten some kind of compensation, just not cash. If you were a cableco, would you simply open your wallet and let the cash fly out? I think not, so I can't begrudge them doing so kicking and screaming.

I understand stations have been forced to spend a lot of money for DTV, but AFAIK the cableco's/satco's have too, and in some regards, the cableco's/satco's have gotten the worse end of the deal. Not only do they get to lay fiber/launch new birds, but now they have to pay cash for something they (at least cable) got "in-kind" for the past many years.

I don't know how it came about that satco's agreed to pay cash, but I assume it had something to do with a digital signal vice analog and since they started from scratch, they simply modeled their budget with that in mind. I won't say both sides shouldn't be able to come to terms, but IIRC groups like Sinclair were the first to go to public saying they were going to get cash come hell or high water.

I think cable responded stupidly, but that seems to be beside the point now. I would have simply passed the cost on and let the customer see how much the locals were adding to the bill. Who knows? Maybe customers would have thought it was worth it, they obviously had no problem paying D* $5.95 before it was simply rolled into the base price.

My take is that you think cable should simply suck it up and accept reduced profits. I dare say that is not the way most businesses are run. No one likes to reduce their profits, though I'm sure you'll say many do if they want to stay competitive, but there is a point of no return. At any rate, perhaps you'd reduce your ad rates and then milk and gas and everything else wouldn't cost so much. It's all a vicious cycle and I think all of you are the bad guys. :)

fredfa

03-18-07, 12:01 AM

GeorgeLV

03-18-07, 12:14 AM

I hated that Angel ended abruptly, I thought they were gonna give us a couple of episodes the next year to wrap it up, but alas, no. :( At least Buffy ended on it's own terms.

While it's a shame Angel ended while still going strong, looking back, I think I could have gone without the UPN seasons of Buffy.

fredfa

03-18-07, 12:18 AM

Critic’s Notebook
“SNLs” Amy Poehler:
Please Don’t Tell Her She’s Funny for a Girl
By Dave Itzkoff The New York Times March 18, 2007

On a rare winter weekend when “Saturday Night Live” was in reruns and Amy Poehler had not been called upon to play Hillary Clinton, Paula Abdul, Nancy Grace or any of the dozens of women she gleefully cuts down to size, she could have spent her Sunday evening any way she wanted — say, at home, with the phone disconnected, catching up on much-needed sleep. Instead she was standing on the subterranean stage of the Upright Citizens Brigade Theater in Chelsea, navigating through another marathon night of performing, this time without the benefit of cue cards or a script.

Surrounded by dozens of young audience members dressed in hooded sweatshirts and heavy coats, Ms. Poehler, 35, clad in a vintage Michael Jackson T-shirt and blue jeans, was improvising a skit about rival Ping-Pong players. Furiously swatting at an imaginary ball with a nonexistent paddle, she explained to her opponent — played by Jack McBrayer, who plays the perpetually optimistic page on the sitcom “30 Rock” — that she’d learned her technique from the self-help documentary “The Secret.”

“You are pretty good,” Mr. McBrayer replied, “even though you’re a girl.” And everyone in the room burst into laughter, even Ms. Poehler.

If there’s a bit of truth in every joke, then the truth is that Ms. Poehler has done exceedingly well in her chosen field. At a time when the comedy herd has been dominated by ample alpha males who strip to their skivvies and run half-naked around Nascar tracks, Ms. Poehler, a slender actress who stands at most 5 foot 2 in silver Converse sneakers, has nonetheless elbowed her way to the front of the pack.

As a founder and owner of the Upright Citizens Brigade Theaters in New York and Los Angeles, she has become an influential figure in the mostly masculine world of improvised comedy. And in her six seasons on “Saturday Night Live,” once the inspirational keg from which all frat-house laughs were tapped, she has risen to become one of the show’s most versatile cast members and an anchor at the “Weekend Update” news desk.

Still, Ms. Poehler would prefer not to be celebrated for her achievements simply because she is a woman. Better yet, she would prefer not to be reminded so frequently that she happens to be a woman surrounded by men.

“You have to be grateful for it, and you want it to go away at the same time,” she said a few days later, enjoying a brief moment of calm in her dressing room. “If you try to analyze comedy at all, it’s deadly. If you try to bring your gender into it, it’s unbearable.”

Let’s be unbearable for a moment: On “SNL” Ms. Poehler is one of just 3 female performers in a cast of 11, and there are only 3 female writers on a staff of more than 20. Yet to friends and colleagues who witnessed her breakthrough on the Chicago improv comedy circuit in the 1990s, she has always been one of the guys.

When Ms. Poehler, a native of Burlington, Mass., and a graduate of Boston College, first arrived in Chicago in 1993, the scene was in flux. “You’d hear, ‘Oh, women aren’t funny,’ and most of the improv teams were eight guys and one woman,” said Rachel Dratch, a Chicago veteran who would later join the “SNL” cast. “But within like four years it had kind of switched up.”

As Ms. Poehler rose through the ranks at ImprovOlympic (now known as I.O.) and Second City, gender divisions within these institutions’ comedy teams began to even out, and she found herself in the company of strong female performers like Ms. Dratch and Tina Fey, the future “Saturday Night Live” head writer and “30 Rock” creator and star, who appeared with Ms. Poehler in an I.O. group called Inside Vladimir.

Soon Ms. Poehler was invited to join the Upright Citizens Brigade, a sketch comedy troupe whose formidable roster included Adam McKay, another future “SNL” head writer and the director of “Talladega Nights,” and Horatio Sanz, soon to be one of the show’s stars.

“We were a group where I think our shortest guy was like 6 foot 1,” recalled Matt Besser, a founding member. “So it’s not just intimidating to perform with us because of our experience, but also because we were literally towering above most people physically. But Amy was able to get onstage with us, and that just didn’t seem to matter.”

In 1996 Ms. Poehler, Mr. Besser and two fellow members, Ian Roberts and Matt Walsh, brought the troupe from Chicago to New York, where they continued to perform showcases and teach improv classes. Within two years they landed their own Comedy Central sketch series, on which Ms. Poehler played various irascible housewives and big-bottomed bus drivers and appeared with the troupe in hidden-camera pranks perpetrated on unsuspecting civilians.

The three-season run of “Upright Citizens Brigade” would lead Ms. Poehler in 2001 to “Saturday Night Live,” where Ms. Dratch and Ms. Fey were already employed. Her debut appearance was the show’s first broadcast after the 9/11 attacks.

“You’re just trying to figure out where the bathrooms are,” she said, “and on top of it, everyone’s like, ‘Will comedy be able to go on?’ If you didn’t feel small and insignificant before, you definitely did then.”

Ms. Poehler is especially good at impersonating powerful women like Senator Clinton (“I like her quiet fury,” she said), but she also has a soft spot for precocious children like the actress Dakota Fanning and an overstimulated preteenager named Kaitlin, a character she created with Emily Spivey, a writer on the show.

“When I was that old, I was a little wound up myself,” Ms. Poehler said. “I like that age, where you’re not quite into boys yet and really think you can be an astronaut, a teacher, a doctor and a roller skater. That girl and I live in the same world.”

Some of that affection is being channeled into “The Mighty B,” an animated series Ms. Poehler is producing for Nickelodeon in which she provides the voice of the title character, a girl she described as “superoptimistic and a super spaz.” Grown-up fans can also see her in the forthcoming Will Ferrell comedy “Blades of Glory,” in which Ms. Poehler and her husband, Will Arnett, play a brother-sister figure-skating duo who share a mysterious if undeniable friction.

“She’s funnier than most dudes I know, and she sort of demands that people don’t look at her as a funny lady but just as a funny person,” Mr. Arnett said. “She’s able to command that.”

Ms. Poehler is reluctant to dwell on any aspect of her success for too long, for fear of convincing herself that she doesn’t actually deserve it.

“You have to be in a state of cautious optimism and egomaniacal denial at the same time,” she said, laughing off a momentary lack of confidence. “Believe you belong there, and then go home every night and feel like a fraud. Isn’t that how comedy works?”

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/18/arts/television/18dave.html?_r=1&oref=slogin&ref=television&pagewanted=print

rebkell

03-18-07, 12:25 AM

AAF

03-18-07, 01:05 AM

“SNLs” Amy Poehler: Please Don’t Tell Her She’s Funny for a Girl

Okay. How about, "You're not bad looking for a comedian?"

(never write email after a night out)

fredfa

03-18-07, 02:44 AM

Passings
Stuart Rosenberg, 79
TV, film director
By Claire Noland Los Angeles Times Staff Writer March 18, 2007

Stuart Rosenberg, a prolific director of episodic television who is best known for directing the 1967 film "Cool Hand Luke," has died. He was 79.

Rosenberg died Thursday of a heart attack at his Beverly Hills home, his son Benjamin said Saturday.

Rosenberg began directing television episodes in the 1950s for such dramatic series as "The Defenders," "The Untouchables," "Naked City," "The Twilight Zone" and "Bus Stop." He racked up more than 300 TV directing credits and won an Emmy Award in 1963 for an episode of "The Defenders." But after completing his first feature film — "Cool Hand Luke" — he never went back to the small screen.

A gritty, riveting tale about life on a chain gang, the film starred Paul Newman as a nonconformist who becomes a reluctant hero to his fellow inmates.

The film received four Academy Award nominations — though none for Rosenberg — with George Kennedy winning for best supporting actor. It also provided one of the most quoted lines of that film era, spoken by the camp's warden, played by Strother Martin: "What we've got here is failure to communicate."

Rosenberg had found the novel, written by Donn Pearce, at Pickwick Bookstore in Hollywood and brought it to Jack Lemmon's production company.

"It was the first time I had come across an existentialist hero — not an antihero — in American literature," he told the New York Times in 1968.

Nominated for the Directors Guild Award but losing to Mike Nichols and "The Graduate," Rosenberg would direct Newman three more times, in "WUSA" (1970), "Pocket Money" (1972) and "The Drowning Pool" (1975).

"He was as good as anybody I ever worked with," Newman, who has been directed by Martin Scorsese, George Roy Hill and Sidney Lumet among others, said in a statement Saturday.

Critics gave Rosenberg high marks for "Cool Hand Luke" and praised some of his later efforts, including "Voyage of the Damned" (1976), "Brubaker" (1980) and "The Pope of Greenwich Village" (1984). But other movies, such as "The Laughing Policeman" (1973) and "The Amityville Horror" (1979), pleased audiences more than reviewers.

Although Rosenberg's list of credits is heavy on crime dramas and thrillers, his son said he did not have a favorite genre.

"I think that he always felt that if you were a director it was criminally insane to be pigeonholed," Benjamin Rosenberg said. "If you can direct, you can direct."

Stuart Rosenberg was born Aug. 11, 1927, in Brooklyn, N.Y., and studied Irish literature at New York University. While attending graduate school and teaching at NYU in the early 1950s, he got a job in television as an apprentice film editor, then rose to film editor before directing.

He also met his wife, the former Margot Pohoryles, at NYU. They married in 1950 and had one son, Benjamin. In addition to his wife and son, Rosenberg is survived by four grandchildren.

Rosenberg's son is an assistant film editor who worked with him on several of his later films.

"He would have preferred I had been a doctor, lawyer or Indian chief," said Benjamin Rosenberg, but added, "We had a terrific time working together."

Services will be private.

http://www.calendarlive.com/tv/cl-me-rosenberg18mar18,0,1032578,print.story?coll=cl-tv-features

foxeng

03-18-07, 08:39 AM

I don't want to belabor this, I think I see your POV, but please don't use the word "free". Stations have always gotten some kind of compensation, just not cash. If you were a cableco, would you simply open your wallet and let the cash fly out? I think not, so I can't begrudge them doing so kicking and screaming.

Since 1992, and upheld in 1994 by the SCOTUS, stations have been eligible for either cash or non cash compensation. Just because stations have not asked for cash in mass doesn't make it less legal. CBS was on record in the 90's that they intended to ask for cash. This isn't news and hasn't been for over 10 years. Cable just didn't think stations would have anything of value to offer. HD changed all that and both cable and broadcast knows it.

I understand stations have been forced to spend a lot of money for DTV, but AFAIK the cableco's/satco's have too, and in some regards, the cableco's/satco's have gotten the worse end of the deal. Not only do they get to lay fiber/launch new birds, but now they have to pay cash for something they (at least cable) got "in-kind" for the past many years.

The difference is broadcasters had no choice. They were handed a federally unfunded mandate to either do this or go out of business. Cable and sat both have no mandate to do anything if they so choose not to. The only force cable and sat has to do anything is market pressure.

I don't know how it came about that satco's agreed to pay cash, but I assume it had something to do with a digital signal vice analog and since they started from scratch, they simply modeled their budget with that in mind. I won't say both sides shouldn't be able to come to terms, but IIRC groups like Sinclair were the first to go to public saying they were going to get cash come hell or high water.

Sat and now FIOS pay for locals to get on to a level playing field with cable. With that stance, cable should have lower cost to consumers because they don't have the local stations cost. But in case after case, as fred and others have pointed out, and also considering that cable has phone and internet money where sat doesn't, cable is consistently higher than both. What is wrong with this picture?

I think cable responded stupidly, but that seems to be beside the point now. I would have simply passed the cost on and let the customer see how much the locals were adding to the bill. Who knows? Maybe customers would have thought it was worth it, they obviously had no problem paying D* $5.95 before it was simply rolled into the base price.

Sure, that would have been the smart thing, but with cable, it is all about the ego. Business is second. Look at Mediacom. Not only did Mediacom probably pay more than they needed to (because it turned into a personal thing between the heads of each company), they lost business that will take years and LOTS of marketing money to recover from. Now, IMHO, THAT IS STUPID. I don't think you will see the TWC's and Comcast's going down that road.

My take is that you think cable should simply suck it up and accept reduced profits. I dare say that is not the way most businesses are run. No one likes to reduce their profits, though I'm sure you'll say many do if they want to stay competitive, but there is a point of no return. At any rate, perhaps you'd reduce your ad rates and then milk and gas and everything else wouldn't cost so much. It's all a vicious cycle and I think all of you are the bad guys. :)

No, I don't “think cable should simply suck it up and accept reduced profits.” Cable has enough profit built in to handle stuff like this and they certainly don't have any guilt about passing along increases. Cable should do the honorable thing and pay the fair market value for a given station. If not, then they should cut the station loose and let the chips fall where they may and quit all of the b*tching about going and getting legislation to tip the advantage in their favor. Like the NCTA suggesting that the US go to a UK type TV tax for consumers so cable doesn't have to pay retrans. Now THAT IS STUPID! With that statement, NCTA made my point better than I ever could, so thanks NCTA!

CPanther95

03-18-07, 08:53 AM

My take is that you think cable should simply suck it up and accept reduced profits. I dare say that is not the way most businesses are run.

That's exactly how businesses are run if they choose not to raise prices to offset their costs. Most businesses can't go to another business and expect them to give away the product for free just so their profit margin can be maintained.

You're either forgetting that the local broadcaster is also a business, or you seem to be telling them to just "suck it up". The equipment manufacturers surely didn't offer free upgrades to digital just so the broadcasters could avoid accepting reduced profits.

DoubleDAZ

03-18-07, 09:07 AM

I believe a number of smaller market stations have gotten very little, or nothing, Dave, but your point is well taken.

But cable runs a real risk if it just "passed the cost on" of what it would have to pay for local retrans rights. Then people would demand to know the costs of the other channels. And then they'd find out how much cable tacks on to so many of the channels appearing in that "basic tier" before they get to you in th form of your monthly bill.

And breasking down the local costs would also just increase the pressure for a la carte.

I am all for eliminating must-carry provisions entirely, and letting the local stations deal with cable, satellite and telco just the way other channels do. And even the lowest-rated MyNet stations would have a pretty good argument to get some payment.

I'd have to go look at the numbers, but I would guess there aren't 15 cable nets which average higher viewership levels than MNTV..
Yeah, I know. It's just so frustrating seeing the locals act as if they get nothing out of being carried by cable. The other thing is that consumers have NO choice in the matter. I subscribe to cable/sat, I HAVE to pay for MYTV, FOX, ESPN, whatever.

When I mention breaking out costs, I'm actually looking for something like cable delivery cost, local channel package, Disney bundle, ESPN bundle, HGTV bundle, etc. It seems to me that very few channels are purchased on an individual basis, they are all part of some bundle from someone like ABC/Disney. I know exactly what HBO, MAX, SHO, etc., are costing me. If we can't yet have ala carte, I'd like to see something more useful than just Basic, Expanded, Digital, and a few other tiers where the price has very little relationship to actual costs.

I understand that cable tacks on their margin just like everyone else does for goods and services. And I'm not advocating showing exactly what FOX, NBC, CBS, etc., are demanding. Like anything else in this world, everything is marked up and I guess the difference here is the visibility drawn to prices by both sides. If cable ends up paying $2.50 for all locals and they charge us $5.00, so be it (I'm sure that's what D* is doing), but show the $5 on my bill and raise that part of the bill as locals demand more and more, which is sure to happen. Today it's $.50, next year it's $.60, the next it's $.75.

As for running the risk, I think that's already in play via the current pressure for ala carte. I just think cable is missing a PR opportunity to define who is costing us what and showing that some for the rising cost of service is not due to simply to fill cable's coffers. There are real cost increases that cable has little choice but to pay. Who is going to subscribe to cable if it doesn't carry House, Survivor, AI, etc.?

Right now, the only way for us to get those programs is to get the locals. But what if we could get them direct from ABC, CBS, etc., like we do cable net programming and like others have advocated? As far as I'm concerned, my locals could cease to exist. I'd be much happier (and more willing to pay cash) if ABC were more like a cable net and repeated DH, Lost, etc., many times a week instead of filling the day with The View and other garbage. I think the success of cable nets, at least in part, is due to the fact that they offer fewer programs, but at more convenient times.

As for viewership levels of MYTV, I'm sure you are right, but I'd certainly like to see those levels based on cable subs only and then not just primetime. Cable nets like HGTV, FOOD, etc., aren't primetime driven like ABC, CBS, etc. Then too, you have to consider every broadcast of a given episode to capture total viewership. I watch Rome, but I no longer watch it on Sunday nights because of conflicts. If I now watch it on Thursday, where is that captured? Certainly not in the overnights, maybe the weekly's. Some folks watch BSG, but they wait for it to show up in HD on TNT vs catching it ealier in SD on SciFi. How do the HD numbers get rolled in with the original SD broadcast? My guess is they don't and that's a problem when trying to compare local fare that is repeated once a year vs cable nets where programming is repeated often, even multiple times on the same day.

DoubleDAZ

03-18-07, 09:47 AM

That's exactly how businesses are run if they choose not to raise prices to offset their costs. Most businesses can't go to another business and expect them to give away the product for free just so their profit margin can be maintained.

You're either forgetting that the local broadcaster is also a business, or you seem to be telling them to just "suck it up". The equipment manufacturers surely didn't offer free upgrades to digital just so the broadcasters could avoid accepting reduced profits.That is a good point and I don't dismiss it. The difference is that locals are broadcast for free OTA and they have been an advertiser supported entity. They get a lot of penetration from cable and advertisers pay "based on that viewership". They also get compensation from the cableco and now they want more in the form of cash. And let's not forget all the $$$ cable and sat have had to lay out for DTV too. Funny how we forget cable/sat costs, but oh the poor little locals (to coin a phrase :) ).

As for sucking it up, the cableco's weren't the ones who forced DTV down their throats, but the cableco's and we subs are the ones being asked to foot a bigger share of the bill. Satco's agreed to pay for locals long before DTV, presumably for a direct feed or something that made life easier for them. They certainly didn't agree simply because they're nice guys. I don't know why they didn't set compensation up the same way as cable at the time, but I suspect they saw that people would be willing to pay for locals to avoid putting up the antenna and they'd be able to tack on some extra profit. And they were right. They didn't altready have a compensation system in place, so they were free to work out their own.

I'll say it once again, I don't have a problem with paying for locals. I have a problem with the way it's being done, take it or leave it. There is absolutely not one ounce of "negotiation" in what I've seen thus far. The locals continue to rake in exhorbitant ad $$$ and now they demand yet more cash. All I see is my hard-earned $$$ going into a different pocket. With cable I at least have the possibility of future enhancements, features, offerings, etc. With locals all I get is the promise to cancel my favorite show in the middle of it's run, month long interruptions, preemptions, yet more ad time, etc.

And don't get me wrong, I really, really don't care. I'm just arguing the other side because this and other threads seem to be filled with broadcast industry insiders and I don't think anyone's motives are pure, certainly not Sinclair's, not Belo's, and not MCC's. CBS can at least make the argument that they no longer have other channels/content to bargain with.

xnappo

03-18-07, 10:09 AM

Just finished watching the last episode of Day Break online. Wow that was a great ride! I highly suggest renting this series on DVD if you missed it. Great mix of action and sci-fi. The good news is the 13 episode season wraps up as well as your typical action movie - it leaves room for a sequel but doesn't leave you hanging.

From a 10 second blurb the show sounds like an action Groundhog day - well yeah, to some degree it is - but there are a lot of subtleties to the sci-fi aspect that are different plus the mystery itself is well put together.

xnappo

CPanther95

03-18-07, 10:31 AM

I'm too lazy to break up the quote, so I'll just add some thoughts:

1) If the definition of impure motives is making money, then you're right, nobody's are pure.

2) CBS can make the argument, but it's a bit insincere now that the damage is already done. The Viacom/CBS split is more about posture than anything else. Those O&O's are no more worthy of retrans fees than the other CBS affiliates.

3) Nobody is forgetting about the DBS/Cableco costs in favor of the "poor little locals" - on the other hand, we're not the ones suggesting that they eat those expenses and give away their product for free.

4) Local's advertising revenue is of no concern to the cablecos - just as telephone/internet revenue is of nobody elses concern.

Bottom Line: Once a local wants retransmission cash, there's no government involvement or mandate requiring the cableco to pay a single penny more than they feel that product is worth. If the local has an "all or nothing" approach, the cableco can make their choice. Pretty much the same thing my cable company does to me - they give me a price, and I make my choice.

BTW - They (my cableco) happen to control, through government involvement, all cable, DSL and phone options in my county - and despite prices that are more than double for DSL than all neighboring counties - they still complain about the ~$0.50 fee and claim it's unfair.

DoubleDAZ

03-18-07, 11:13 AM

If the local has an "all or nothing" approach, the cableco can make their choice.And what planet are you from again? You know there is absolutely NO realistic choice and that, to me, borders on legal extortion. :)
BTW - They (my cableco) happen to control, through government involvement, all cable, DSL and phone options in my county - and despite prices that are more than double for DSL than all neighboring counties - they still complain about the ~$0.50 fee and claim it's unfair.The key for me is "through government involvement", though I have no idea how on earth a cableco keeps a phone company from offering DSL or telephone service in your county. I can get lower DSL rates here too, but for lower speeds (though not in my area and not because of government involvement, Qwest is just too lazy/cheap to expand services). Anyway, I also have the option for lower cable internet rates for lower speeds, so maybe there is simply more competition here than other places. Without knowing more specifics, I guess the difference is I would be blaming the government more than the cableco.

And, I don't want to hijack Fred's thread anymore than I already have. I've had my day in court and we'll still all end up paying more, though the pot will be distributed a little differently, kind of what politics is all about, huh?. :)

fredfa

03-18-07, 11:45 AM

No one is hijacking the thread, Dave, and certainly not you.

But I do think we have all staked out our positions clearly, and we'll have plenty of time in the future to react to new developments as events in the a la carte and retransmission stories unfold.

I must note though, that it is refreshing to see people disagree vigrously, but with none of the vitriol and personal attacks which seem to infect so many postings of controversial issues.

fredfa

03-18-07, 11:52 AM

Saturday’s fast national over night prime-time ratings – and Media Week Analyst Marc Berman’s view of what they mean -- have been posted near the top of Ratings News the second post in this thread.

CPanther95

03-18-07, 11:57 AM

OK, my last comment - forgot what thread we're in:

And what planet are you from again? You know there is absolutely NO realistic choice and that, to me, borders on legal extortion. :)

If the programming is that valuable that they have no real choice to decline carriage - then certainly you'd have to say $0.50 doesn't sound that unreasonable, and "free" doesn't seem fair at all.

The key for me is "through government involvement", though I have no idea how on earth a cableco keeps a phone company from offering DSL or telephone service in your county. )

It's a back-asswards deal here. The local phone company got a "Rural Exemption" meaning they don't have to lease lines to any DSL or telco competitors. Then they merged with the local cableco and the merged company jacked up the DSL rates to double the norm to steer people to cable modem. So basically we have to sub to cable just to get internet, and there's no high-speed internet competitive options. Additionally, they require basic cable TV if you want cable modem service which helps them close the TV price gap with DBS.

DoubleDAZ

03-18-07, 12:50 PM

It's a back-asswards deal here. The local phone company got a "Rural Exemption" meaning they don't have to lease lines to any DSL or telco competitors. Then they merged with the local cableco and the merged company jacked up the DSL rates to double the norm to steer people to cable modem. So basically we have to sub to cable just to get internet, and there's no high-speed internet competitive options. Additionally, they require basic cable TV if you want cable modem service which helps them close the TV price gap with DBS.Wow! That certainly is a convoluted situation and sounds like someone needs to revisit that exemption. I've never seriously considered DSL, mostly because it's not available in my part of Phoenix yet, but also because the same speed is more expensive and some folks I know simply gave up on Qwest's service. I take it you live somewhere outside of Charlotte in a more rural area.

As for choice, I seriously doubt any cableco/telco/satco would survive long without carrying the locals in some way. I don't have a problem with the $.50, just don't say it was any kind of negotiation, it was pay the $.50 or else, at least with MCC. If you look at the Comcast/Sinclair deal, it at least "appears" that there was some negotiation there, some give and take by both parties. Perhaps the $$$ came out the same overall, but it certainly looks like things progressed very differently than with MCC. It seems that the Comcast deal resulted in something less than $.50/sub with the additional monies for something else, maybe similar to the compensation deals they have today, and both sides can say they got what they wanted. To be totally honest, I don't understand why the locals would ever have agreed to compensation in-kind vs cash, I just can't subscribe to the all or nothing attutude I see applauded here. :)

CPanther95

03-18-07, 01:19 PM

That's the funny part. I'm in York County, SC which is one of the fastest growing Charlotte area counties (right on the Charlotte beltway). The need for any kind of rural exemption has for a long time been unwarranted.

To give you an idea of how bad the manipulation is, our DSL options are:

Comporium York County (Rural Exemption):
384 Kbps - $59.95
768 Kbps - $109.95
$100 Install fee

To our South is TruVista Chester County (also have a Rural Exemption - probably deserved):
384 Kbps - $27.96
1500 Kbps - $40.95
3000 Kbps - $44.95
Free Installation

To our North is Bell South Charlotte:
384 Kbps - $24.95
1500 Kbps - $32.95
3000 Kbps - $37.95
6000 Kbps - $46.95
Free Installation
$75 cash back

fredfa

03-18-07, 01:48 PM

Good luck against the Ducks, CP95.

There should be a LOT of 3s.

CPanther95

03-18-07, 01:58 PM

Thanks, it'd be nice if they are still in the hunt when the kids go back to campus from spring break.

GeorgeLV

03-18-07, 02:31 PM

CPanther, you're plight of "rural" (more like suburban) DSL makes me glad that AT&T choose Pahrump to beta test their WiFi deployment. (not sure what's it's advertised as, but it speeds tests to 2mbit for $29.99/mo).

RussTC3

03-18-07, 02:47 PM

I recently switched my broadband from cable ($50/month for 2 Mbps download and 512 upload) to AT&T DSL.

I'm now paying $34.99/month for 6 Mbps download, 768kbps upload.

Stupid local cable company was my only option for years. I'm, to say the least, incredibly happy to now have the opportunity to ditch them.

My speeds are rock solid too (about 5.1Mbps download and 650kbps upload right now).

dad1153

03-18-07, 04:29 PM

Well, today is the one-week anniversary of my unpacking the Olevia 747i 1080p LCD and am happy to report... that SD TV shows look bigger and better than ever! ;) Seriously though, HD is so gosh-darn pretty that it makes me tune in to stuff I'd never watch on my own: American Idol, NCAA March Madness, even all three freaking CSI shows for a couple of minutes each, Discovery HD documentaries about elephants and Rupyard Kipling, etc. BTW, is it me or is Sunrise Earth a hi-tech ripoff from the old CBS Sunday Morning segment at the end of the show where they'd show footage of nature for two uninterrupted minutes before they rolled credits? Regardless, I never knew watching tall grass blowing in the wind on the Florida Everglades could be so hypnotic. Right now (Sunday afternoon) there are four HD sports on all four major networks: NCAA basketball on CBS, Arnold Palmer Invitational on NBC, NASCAR on Fox and NBA on ABC. Except for the NBA game (which looks bit-starved as hell and dull) the other three sports events are fracking amazing to look at. I'm a golf nut so the chance to see Tiger totally screw-up and fall flat on his face in HD is a glorious sight to behold! :D

And yet, for all the new HD I'm watching (which include a muted Saturday Night Live last night while watching old gameshow repeats on PIP split-screen), I haven't lost touch with my sense of content driving my viewing habits. 60% or more of what I watch is still SD because, frankly, I'm so used to watching the regular shows I'm addicted to I can't just give them up overnight. Jeopardy! and Wheel of Fortune look unbelievably sharp and colorful in HD (and the fact that I'm even watching them for a few minutes speaks volumes since I think both shows are incredibly boring) but they're no Price Is Right or Match Game. David Letterman and Jay Leno look unbelievable in HD (its tough to hear what the second guest in Leno's couch is saying because I can't keep my eyes off the first guest to the left of the screen pretending to be interested in what guest #2 has to say! :rolleyes: ) but that hasn't stopped me from enjoying my nightly dose of SD Jimmy Kimmel Live. What HD has done though is made me enjoy tenfold shows that I was already a fan of. Every Law & Order show last week on NBC (including the Saturday night repeats) took my breath away even though I had seen them. To see a photorealistic Jack McCoy arguing in court as if I were a member of the jury made me realize I spent my $3K wisely. Even Battlestar Galactica on UHD, a grainy handheld show that doesn't benefit much from being HD (like Fredfa's golden boy Friday Night Lights), was exciting to watch.

Guess all I can hope is that NBC airs the remaining episodes of Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip so I can have a chance to experience the glorious sight of Aaron Sorkin-scripted walking dialogue scenes in glorious Super 16mm HD. Hey, a guy can dream right? :(

zaphod7501

03-18-07, 04:43 PM

Well, today is the one-week anniversary of my unpacking the Olevia 747i 1080p LCD
Make sure you save the packing. Their only service center is in California. (City of Industry, I believe)

DoubleDAZ

03-18-07, 10:46 PM

That's the funny part. I'm in York County, SC which is one of the fastest growing Charlotte area counties (right on the Charlotte beltway). The need for any kind of rural exemption has for a long time been unwarranted.
Guess I'd change my tune if Cox here was like that, those rates are way overboard. I can see putting DSL at a disadvantage if they'd rather folks subscribed to cable for internet, but there has to be some other reason for that large of a disparity. Why would anyone even bother at those rates? What is the price for cable internet?

kb7oeb

03-19-07, 12:12 AM

Satco's agreed to pay for locals long before DTV, presumably for a direct feed or something that made life easier for them. They certainly didn't agree simply because they're nice guys. I don't know why they didn't set compensation up the same way as cable at the time

Thats not the case, many locals for satellite are picked up OTA. They started paying locals when (dish I think) started uplinking locals without asking and got sued. It was easy to argue for cash when both companies directly charged customers 5.99 for locals.

HDTVChallenged

03-19-07, 01:25 AM

You are mad because you can't watch any station you want just because you want to. You feel that is a denial of some right and/or freedom that has been upheld as not a right/freedom by the highest court in the land. Set. Match. Game. ?

We've covered all this before ... and it's late :p And by the way, there's always "a way."

I don't want to watch "any station," I just want to watch the stations (or national feed) that actually 1) carries the network programming (instead of continually preempting) and 2) Watch said programming at the highest possible technical quality. If local affiliates weren't such turdbirds, I wouldn't be so "angry" (as you say) See the difference? :D

fredfa

03-19-07, 01:34 AM

The Business of Television
Cable Alternatives Lift Share as FiOS, U-verse Grow
By Katy Bachman MediaWeek March 19, 2007

Cable is girding for a dogfight to maintain its dominance in the subscription TV world. In the Television Bureau of Advertising’s latest crunch of Nielsen Media Research data being released today, satellite TV has been gradually grabbing a larger share of the pay TV market, growing from 9.5 percent in February 2000 to 29.2 percent in February 2007, while wired cable over the same period has lost share, dropping to 71 percent from 89 percent.

According to the TVB, satellite TV, with 29 million subscribers, now reaches 25.2 percent of all TV households. In the past year, cable’s subscriber base fell by 2.3 million subs to 68.3 million and penetration fell from 64.1 to 61.3 percent of TV households, the lowest it has been since February 1990.

Hoping to raise the stakes in the subscription TV business are Verizon’s FiOS and AT&T’s U-verse, which today have tiny distribution. Offering bundled voice/Internet/video services, they are gearing up to take on cable, which has been aggressively pushing its “triple-play” offerings.

“We’re looking at an industry that is in the middle of redefining itself. The competitive battle is just starting,” said Jeff Kagan, an independent telecom analyst.

FiOS, currently the leader with 207,000 subscribers to U-verse’s 7,000, recently showed its competitive zeal by hiring Jason Malamud, a former MTV Networks affiliate sales exec, as vp, general manager of Verizon FiOS Media.

While cable may have a head start with bundled services, the telco services are touting prices 20–30 percent lower than cable bills, along with features like a multi-room DVR.

In the markets where the telcos are currently rolling out services, “they can likely get 25 percent of the market,” said Bruce Leichtman, president of Leichtman Research Group. “Over time that will pinch both sides [wired cable and satellite TV].”

But whether the telcos become a major force remains to be seen, he added. “There’s a presumption that this time is different, but [the telcos] are three years behind where they said they’d be.”

With a number of pipes going into the home, content is again trumping distribution, an advantage TV groups are more than happy to leverage in their retransmission negotiations.

“Between now and the digital-switch date of 2009, broadcasters will look to divide and conquer, dangling the fruit of high-definition video to the highest bidder,” said Lee Westerfield, managing director of BMO Capital Markets.

“With satellite and telco companies building and enhancing their distribution platforms, [we will get] to a place and time where the value of our product would have to be recognized,” said David Barrett, president/CEO of Hearst-Argyle Television, which has done retrans deals with both AT&T and Verizon.

http://www.mediaweek.com/mw/news/recent_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003559455

fredfa

03-19-07, 01:44 AM

OK -- ENOUGH
Let's tone down the rhetoric

I take a couple of days more or less off the enjoy some hoops and some of you start slinging mud at each other.

Come on.

Let's keep all our discussions civil. Not to pick on foxeng, (really!) but there is absolutely no need for "Game, Set, Match" type comments. Sometimes, you should reread your post and make sure it really doesn't attack anyone else. In the heat of writing a response, sometimes we all get carried away.

I probably go back five times a day and soften a post because it just reads too harshly. And I probably could go back more often than that, if truth be known.

(If the retrans debate or the a la carte discussions were that easy a lot of the very smart people who post here -- and disagree -- would all clearly see the same light.)

So far, for more than two and a half years in this thread, we have managed to keep discussions civil. Let's not let things get out of hand -- and they seem to be teetering on the brink

Strong opinions are welcome. Agree with me, disagree with me, I don't care a bit. In fact I welcome a healthy debate, and have often allowed things to go pretty far off topic. But call me -- or any other poster -- stupid or anything derogatory and you have crossed the line.

It is a very simple line: anything ANYTHING at all derogatory about another poster and/or his/her opinion is not welcome. Make your points to counter the ones you disagree with. Make them concisely (or not), make them with passion, but always make them with good humor. Treat your "opponent" with the same respect you expect. There are no enemies here simply because others don't share your (or my) choices of TV programming, providers, TV sets or even vision of where the TV business is headed.

I thought it had been a simple thing to understand: there will be no flaming, no matter how subtle, of other posters here. None. At all.

Any violations of this very simple code of conduct simply won't be tolerated.

This is a grown-up thread. There are plenty of places which welcome and even seem to encourage such childish and rude behavior.

Hot Off The Press ain't one of them.

vonzoog

03-19-07, 06:08 AM

To give you an idea of how bad the manipulation is, our DSL options are:

Comporium York County (Rural Exemption):
384 Kbps - $59.95
768 Kbps - $109.95
$100 Install fee

Wow! And I was complaining that I can't get any service so I went (had to) with satellite internet. Advertised at 1000 Kbps and I have been getting a steady 1100 Kbps for $69.99.

foxeng

03-19-07, 07:22 AM

OK -- ENOUGH
Let's tone down the rhetoric

Let's keep all our discussions civil. Not to pick on foxeng, (really!) but there is absolutely no need for "Game, Set, Match" type comments. Sometimes, you should reread your post and make sure it really doesn't attack anyone else. In the heat of writing a response, sometimes we all get carried away.

Since I have been singled out again, I will respond.

First off, I contend, I have been very civil in this thread of late and this debate in particular. The Game Set Match comment was intended to put to rest this notion that because someone feels they don't have a right for something, even though the highest court in the land has ruled that you in fact do not have that right, that if it is brought up enough times on an internet board, that right will magically be granted. Nice thought, but life doesn't work that way. There was no malice in that statement and was no malice intended, just to put a point on the subject. Now to be quite honest, if that offends people, then it offends people. Sometimes the facts are not pretty, in either direction. Yes, this is a hot button issue, but I think the majority of people who read this thread do not post and so to have the "other side," no matter how good or bad, benefits all.

DoubleDAZ

03-19-07, 07:52 AM

Thats not the case, many locals for satellite are picked up OTA. They started paying locals when (dish I think) started uplinking locals without asking and got sued. It was easy to argue for cash when both companies directly charged customers 5.99 for locals.I didn't remember that, thanks for the reminder.

Maestro J

03-19-07, 08:22 AM

Fred, sorry if I missed it...what were the ratings for Identity's return Friday night? How did it compare to last December's run? Thanks!

DoubleDAZ

03-19-07, 08:33 AM

Since I have been singled out again, I will respond. I think this whole conversation has been very civil and I, for one, took no offense to the Game/Set/Match comment. I particularly appreciate your willingness to indulge me in trying to see the broadcaster's POV. I admit to preferring cable, mostly because sat's advertising borders on falsehoods IMHO and I really dislike being hooked for 1-3 years. I don't like that part of cell phones either, but that seems to be the only way to get one of those and most cell service is pretty much the same anyway.

I do think we've beat the subject to death (again?), so I won't comment any further, at least not until the next round of "negotiations". :)

fredfa

03-19-07, 09:40 AM

TV Sports
Two Saturday cliffhangers goose glum NCAA ratings
By Michael Hiestand, USA TODAY

Basketball brand names can help. But ratings for the NCAA men's basketball tournament on CBS also show that nothing sells like suspense.

Consider that CBS second broadcast window Saturday (3:30-6:30 p.m. ET) had Louisville-Texas A&M, initially scheduled for 84% of U.S. households, and Maryland-Butler. But with both matchups close, CBS drew a 6.8 overnight rating, translating to 6.8% of TV households in 56 major media markets — an 11% increase over last year and the best rating for that particular NCAA TV window since 1988.

But even with three overtime games Saturday — the first time the NCAA tournament has had that many on a single day — NCAA ratings aren't going to break any records. Through the wall-to-wall basketball buffet of the first three days, CBS' overnights are averaging 5.5, up 2% from last year but down 2% from 2005. (Last year, CBS' total coverage averaged 6.3% of U.S. TV households — its NCAA average hasn't topped 7% since 1998.)

And like its ratings, CBS' coverage so far seems largely unchanged from past years. There was only one announcer change —James Brown, coming from Fox, replaced Craig Bolerjack— and CBS continues to go without sideline reporters. Although, says CBS coordinating producer Harold Bryant, the network will probably add reporter Samantha Ryan on the Final Four.

CBS was also largely able to keep to its tentative weekend schedule, having only to give Florida-Purdue an earlier tip time Sunday so that UNLV and Nevada wouldn't play at the same time.

CBS' on-air types went through their familiar paces. Likable studio analyst Clark Kellogg continues to offer up words he presumably invented, like when he talked Sunday about "orchestrating and maestring" — presumably how "maestro" might sound if it could be a verb. And play-by-play announcer Gus Johnson once again seems to be getting intermittent shock therapy while he's trying to call basketball. Someone should lower the voltage.

CBS' only obvious change on coverage was an improvement. It put the game score/stats horizontally across the bottom of the screen, rather than in a box in a corner which, says producer Bryant, would occasionally "cover action."

One apparent glitch, however, came when CBS Thursday and Friday aired a Hooters ad featuring ESPN's Dick Vitale— an ad the NCAA didn't like. Sunday, CBS' LeslieAnne Wade said "we won't discuss specifics of our conversations with rights-holders" — but added the ad won't run again.

But something that viewers might have assumed was a glitch was something that CBS had planned all along. This is the first year that all tournament games were covered in high-definition. But audiences deemed "constant" — usually teams' home TV markets, which are almost never switched from the games they're assigned — couldn't see action in HD because CBS didn't have the technical capability. With fewer games next weekend, HD coverage of all games will be available to all viewers.

P.S.: CBS on-air assignments for regional games: Jim Nantz/Billy Packer on top seed North Carolina's East region, Dick Enberg/Jay Bilas on top seed Kansas' West region, Brown/Len Elmore on Florida's Midwest region and Verne Lundquist/Bill Raftery on Ohio State's South region.

Say what? As Sunday's Kentucky-Kansas game wound down, CBS' Nantz kept flogging the 60 Minutes show that would follow as featuring American Idol'sSimon Cowell— although Nantz, understandably, never mentioned the name of the hit Fox show. After Nantz called on-air partner Packer "the Simon Cowell of college basketball," Packer had this response: "I've never touched you when we were watching a basketball game."

Huh? As Nantz remained silent, Packer helpfully added: "Isn't that the accusation?" We might already have a winner for 2007's coveted "Say What Award."

Spice rack: Clyde Drexler had a cameo on ABC during NBA action Sunday to plug his hoofing — along with speedskater Apolo Ohno and boxer Laila Ali— on ABC's Dancing with the Stars, starting Monday night. You might not want to bet on the ex-NBA star, who sounded nervous about being more than a foot taller than his dance partner. … Johnny Miller, on NBC's Arnold Palmer Invitational on Sunday, noted golfer Vijay Singh's flexibility with an analogy not used enough on TV sports — "he's like Gummi Bear." … On June 6, HBO debuts a documentary on Barbaro, the horse euthanized after being injured at last year's Preakness.

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/columnist/hiestand-tv/2007-03-18-weekend_N.htm

fredfa

03-19-07, 09:44 AM

Sports Overnights in the 18-49 Demo
Hot Saturday boosts CBS's NCAA play
Primetime up 23 percent in 18-49s over last year
By Toni Fitzgerald MediaLifeMagazine.com staff writer March 19, 2007

Close games and upsets are the big ratings boosters in the opening days of the NCAA men’s basketball tournament.

After a first round in which many of the games were blowouts and nearly all the higher seeds won, CBS got some ratings mojo Saturday night, when three second-round games went into overtime and one of the lower seeds, No. 5 Butler, won.

Saturday’s mid-day 3:30 p.m. to 6:30 p.m. window, which included tight games between Louisville and Texas A&M as well as No. 4 Maryland and No. 5 Butler, averaged a 6.8 overnight household rating, up 11 percent over last year. That was also CBS’s best Saturday NCAA performance in the slot since 1988.

In primetime Saturday, CBS's adults 18-49 average was up 23 percent over last year, from a 3.1 to a 3.8 Nielsen overnight.

That came after two days of solid yet unremarkable ratings. Friday night was flat to last year in households and 18-49s, while Thursday was down slightly.

Three days into the tournament, first- and second-round games were averaging a 5.5 household rating, up 2 percent over 2006.

That was down 2 percent from 2005, when the tourney opened with its best ratings in several years. Sunday’s second-round ratings will be released later today.

Overall, CBS has had a fairly decent performance considering there were very few Cinderella teams like last year’s George Mason, an 11 seed that marched all the way to the Final Four.

Yet that could bode well for CBS next weekend. While Cinderellas are quite popular in rounds one and two, their ratings magic generally wears off during the second weekend of NCAAs, when fans want to see traditional powers like North Carolina and UCLA face one another.

And this year’s Sweet Sixteen, which will begin third-round games Thursday night, boasts a number of tradition-rich programs: the Tar Heels and the Bruins, as well as Kansas, Georgetown and UNLV.

No double-digit seed advanced to this year’s third round, marking only the second time in the past 22 years that has occurred. The lowest-seeded team to advance was No. 7 UNLV, but with the Running Rebels’ storied basketball history of the early 1990s, it’s a stretch to call them Cinderella.

All four No. 1 seeds— UNC, Florida, Kansas and Ohio State— advanced, and only one No. 2 seed, Wisconsin, fell.

That means there is the potential for several highly ranked teams to match up this weekend and next, which should provide a further goose to CBS’s ratings

http://www.medialifemagazine.com/artman/publish/article_10853.asp

fredfa

03-19-07, 10:03 AM

Fred, sorry if I missed it...what were the ratings for Identity's return Friday night? How did it compare to last December's run? Thanks!

From Marc Berman's blog "...Viewers: #2, 9.26 million; A18-49: #2, 2.8/ 8..."

It grew very slightly from its lead-in, the season finale of 1 vs. 100, and beat ABC's Wife Swap and Fox's The Wedding Bells handily. It finished behind the CBS NCAA games. (It moves to 8 PM this Friday.)

Those Friday numbers were on a par with its first run, as I recall, Maestro J. I'll keep an eye out for any NBC comments later in the day.

CPanther95

03-19-07, 10:18 AM

Guess I'd change my tune if Cox here was like that, those rates are way overboard. I can see putting DSL at a disadvantage if they'd rather folks subscribed to cable for internet, but there has to be some other reason for that large of a disparity. Why would anyone even bother at those rates? What is the price for cable internet?

Nobody bothers with DSL in York County because of those rates and the cable modem service is only about 35% higher (plus $109.95 more for installation) than comparable Road Runner service from TWC - so it's a relative bargain. :rolleyes:

The main reason they are discouraging DSL customers is that the big money is in pay television and both TV and Internet are "must have" commodities. A competitive DSL price only makes the combination of DSL/DBS a more viable option. This way they steer every household in the county to cable modem for internet and pair it with a mandatory subscription to $13.95 lifeline basic cable TV. Now they have a $13.95 price advantage on DBS right out of the gate - so instead of comparing $44.50 for expanded basic vs. a comparable lineup from E* at $35, subs will instead only be looking at a $30.55 upgrade charge from the cableco.

Maestro J

03-19-07, 11:02 AM

Thanks Fred.

I see the broadcast teams have been announced for the next round of NCAA matchups. I can't believe they put James Brown in one of the regions. He's horrible as a play by play guy. Gus Johnson is so much better and much more passionate about the game. Stupid move CBS. I guess they have to justify Brown's salary.

URFloorMatt

03-19-07, 11:09 AM

I agree, Maestro. Between his annoying play by play and Gumbel's constant fumbling with, well, everything, maybe the two should switch places. I haven't heard a Gumbel call a CBS NFL game in a couple years now, but I seem to remember him doing that competently, and JB is certainly the king of the NFL pregame show.

Unfortunately, I think NCAA play-by-play was part of his CBS contract.

...and I, for one, took no offense to the Game/Set/Match comment.

I did, though mostly for its awkward butchering of a tennis analogy. ;)

fredfa

03-19-07, 11:14 AM

Overnights in the 18-49 Demo
'60 Minutes' soars on bball and Simon
Nearly doubles prior week's adults 18-49 rating
By Toni Fitzgerald MediaLifeMagazine.com staff writer March 19, 2007

Many people tuned in to hear what Simon Cowell said on “60 Minutes” last night, most of it just as outrageous as you’d imagine from the “American Idol” judge.

The long-running CBS newsmagazine averaged roughly a 3.7 or 3.8 rating last night from 7:45 p.m. to 8:45 p.m., according to Nielsen overnights, following the network's NCAA men's basketball coverage. Fast national ratings measure timeslot data, not actual program data, so these ratings will be adjusted when finals come out tomorrow.

It seems a safe bet, however, that “Minutes” received a huge boost, likely doubling last week’s 1.9 rating or coming close to it. That helped CBS to an easy victory in the demographic for the night.

CBS smartly selected a subject, the “Idol” judge, that would speak to the young people who watch the NCAA games, as Fox’s “Idol” is the No. 1 show on broadcast among 18-49s. Indeed, “Minutes” held onto much of the NCAA second-round games’ 4.3 rating at 7 p.m.

It likely will be “Minutes’” highest-rated show in months, since the National Football League season ended.

And Cowell, known as the surliest of the “Idol” judges, was as outspoken in his interview with Anderson Cooper as he appears on his own show, claiming to be more valuable to Sony BMG as a talent finder than Bruce Springsteen is as a singer.

CBS finished first on a relatively slow Sunday night, averaging a 4.0 rating among 18-49s and an 11 share. ABC was second at 2.6/7, NBC third at 2.5/7, Fox fourth at 2.4/7, Univision fifth at 1.8/5 and CW sixth at 0.7/2.

CBS led each hour of the night, starting with a 3.9 at 7 p.m. for the end of its NCAA basketball coverage and the start of “Minutes.” ABC was second that hour with a 2.3 rating for a repeat of “America’s Funniest Home Videos,” NBC third with a 1.7 for “Dateline” and Univision fourth with a 1.5 for the first of three hours of “Bailando por la Boda de Mis Suenos.” Fox finished fifth with a 1.3 for an hour of “The War at Home” repeats and CW sixth with a 0.7 for a repeat of “Pussycat Dolls Present: Search for the Next Doll.”

At 8 p.m. CBS led with a 3.9 for the rest of “Minutes” and the start of “The Amazing Race,” with ABC a close second with a 3.8 for a rerun of “Extreme Makeover: Home Edition.” Fox moved to third that hour with a 3.0 for a repeat of “The Simpsons” (3.3) and a new “The Winner” (2.7), with NBC’s “Grease: You’re the One That I Want” and Univision’s “Bailando” tied for fourth at 1.9 CW was sixth once again, this time with a 0.6 for “7th Heaven.”

CBS led with another 3.9 at 9 p.m., this time for the end of “Race” and the beginning of “Cold Case.” NBC was second with a 3.6 for a repeat of “Deal or No Deal,” Fox third with a 3.0 for a repeat of “Family Guy” (3.5) and another “The Winner” original (2.5) and ABC fourth with a 2.5 for a “Desperate Housewives” rerun. Univision was fifth with a 1.8 for its last hour of “Bailando” and CW sixth with a 0.9 for a repeat of “America’s Next Top Model.”

At 10 p.m. CBS completed the nightly sweep with a 4.2 rating for the end of “Cold Case” and the beginning of “Without a Trace.” NBC was second with a 2.8 for “The Apprentice,” with ABC and Univision tied for third at 1.9, ABC for a “Brothers & Sisters” rerun and Univision for the first hour of a Mexican soccer game.

Among households, CBS finished first for the night with an 8.8 average rating and a 14 share. NBC was second at 5.1/8, ABC third at 5.0/8, Fox fourth at 3.4/6, Univision fifth at 1.9/3 and CW sixth at 1.4/2.

http://www.medialifemagazine.com/artman/publish/article_10880.asp

fredfa

03-19-07, 11:17 AM

TV Notebook
Reilly Aims To Keep 30 Rock Rolling
By Ben Grossman Broadcasting & Cable, 3/19/2007

Tina Fey got a prime indication late last week that NBC is expected to bring back 30 Rock for a second season: a vote of confidence from network Entertainment President Kevin Reilly.

"I literally just got off the phone with [Reilly], and he still tells me he will do everything in his power and feels strongly about it," says Fey, the show’s star and creator. "We really are lucky to be one of the handful of shows he feels personally responsible for—us and Friday Night Lights."

Reilly’s decision to bring back the well-regarded but low-rated shows would put some teeth into his stated desire to return the "quality" to NBC.

Before the decisions are finalized, 30 Rock will get a tryout at 9 p.m. ET on Thursday, a half-hour earlier than its current slot.

"I think it will be very telling as to whether we really had a tough time slot or whether people just aren’t interested in the show," Fey says in her signature deadpan tone.

The serious answer—unfortunate though it may be for one of the season’s best newcomers—could be both.

Despite heavy critical acclaim, 30 Rock is averaging a modest 2.7 rating/6 share this season at 9:30, although it does retain a quite respectable 81% average out of lead-in Scrubs. It is doing so in an absolutely brutal time period, against heavyweights Grey’s Anatomy on ABC and CSI on CBS and, most recently, the surprising Are You Smarter Than a Fifth Grader? out of the massive American Idol lead-in on Fox.

Although 30 Rock will still battle Grey’s and CSI in its new home at 9, it will get some relief as Fifth Grader shifts to 8.

Even given the show’s numbers, Fey says, network executives have not been too hands-on with the creative. Outside of encouraging her not to make 30 Rock "too snobby or too New York," they have just let her make her show. "They haven’t made us try and cast Miss USA, thankfully."

While beauty-pageant winners are kept at bay, a slew of stars have made "appearances" in name only, and are frequently cast in a less than flattering light.

One ongoing character is Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, who in the world of the show is an often ridiculed ex-love interest of Jack Donaghy, the bombastic General Electric executive played by Alec Baldwin. Fey says these mentions have yet to ruffle too many feathers.

"Thankfully, we haven’t had trouble yet," she says. "I don’t expect to run into Condi anytime soon, so I think I’ll be okay there."

Ratings aside, the move to a sitcom for the long-time Saturday Night Live veteran has been a big adjustment. "I miss the people and the camaraderie," she says of SNL.

"But," she adds, "I would much rather shoot a scene in my show about sketch-comedy writers staying up all night than actually be back staying up all night writing sketches again. That I don’t miss."

http://www.broadcastingcable.com/index.asp?layout=articlePrint&articleID=CA6425782

fredfa

03-19-07, 11:34 AM

The Business of Television
Cox Offers Free MLB.TV In San Diego

Sports Business Daily reports that Cox is offering its cable subscriobers in San Diego a rebate if they purchase the MLB.com 2007 TV subscription.

The Cox offer is detaled here: http://www.cox.com/promotions/mlb/

In an article by John Ourand & Eric Fisher, SBD says the offer is only good for subscribers who purchased the MBL-EI package through Cox last season.

San Diego’s Padres are broadcast over a Cox-owned channel and have not been made available to the MLB-EI package. For the fourth straight year, the Channel4 San Diego channel will broadcast well over 100 Padres games in HD this season.

SBD reports that sources say the Cox San Diego MLB.TV offer is another sign that cable companies will not be agreeing to carry MLB-EI this season. It says the rebate in San Diego “…offers a glimpse at how the cable industry plans to fight back. It is unknown whether or when Cox will reach out to its other markets in the same fashion. Cox’ San Diego cable system is its fourth largest in the country with more than 420,000 basic cable customers. In a letter sent to its San Diego subscribers detailing the offer, Cox says it is still negotiating to get access to Extra Innings. But the move appears to ensure that it will not accept MLB’s proposal….”

MLB, according to SBD said is was unaware of the Cox offer in San Diego. But earlier this month a senior MLB official said “We will not allow any of our assets to be used to undermine this deal.”

HDTVChallenged

03-19-07, 11:44 AM

OK -- ENOUGH
Let's tone down the rhetoric

IThis is a grown-up thread. There are plenty of places which welcome and even seem to encourage such childish and rude behavior.

Hot Off The Press ain't one of them.

I would agree especially the last sentence above. ... and for the record, I *did* soften my remarks considerably before clicking the post button. :D

HDTVChallenged

03-19-07, 11:52 AM

Yes, this is a hot button issue, but I think the majority of people who read this thread do not post and so to have the "other side," no matter how good or bad, benefits all.

The problem with your "game/set/match" rhetoric is that some (perhaps a lot) of "we the people" would disagree (sometimes quite violently) with so-called "set in stone" SCOTUS decisions. ;) :D

"We the people" (aka J6Pk) would be much better served by a true free market system ... the only winners in the current regime are big-corporations. That's Truth. :D

One could make a legitimate comparsion that things like HD-Lite whether caused by channel cramming on DBS/Cable or Broadcaster Multicasting is just like your grocer/butcher "resting" their thumb on the scale while weighing your produce/meat. ;)

fredfa

03-19-07, 11:56 AM

fredfa

03-19-07, 11:57 AM

The NCAA Basketball Tournament schedule has been updated at the top of the second post of the thread.

RemyM

03-19-07, 12:04 PM

Gus Johnson is so much better and much more passionate about the game.

Gus sounds like his head is going to explode every time something exciting happens. He gets on my nerves.

fredfa

03-19-07, 12:07 PM

Sunday’s fast national over night prime-time ratings – and Media Week Analyst Marc Berman’s view of what they mean -- have been posted near the top of Ratings News the second post in this thread.

fredfa

03-19-07, 12:14 PM

The Business of Television
Cable Penetration Hits 17-Year Low
By Steve Donohue MultiChannel News 3/19/2007

Cable penetration dropped to a 17-year low of 61.3% in February, as pay TV competition from direct-broadcast satellite and telephone rivals continues to eat into the basic-subscriber counts of cable distributors.

The number of cable subscribers dropped to 68.3 million in February, down from 70.6 million in February 2005, according to an analysis of Nielsen Media Research data conducted by the Television Bureau of Advertising.

Combined DBS penetration from DirecTV and EchoStar Communications hit 25.2% in February, up from 21% this time last year, TVB said.

Dallas-Fort Worth, ranked the sixth-largest designated market area by Nielsen, was one of the hardest hit by cable competitors, with 48.5% of subscription TV households in the DMA ordering a pay TV package from an alternate delivery system, TVB said. Time Warner Cable and Charter Communications are battling Verizon Communications, AT&T, DirecTV and EchoStar in the market.

Other markets hit hard by alternate delivery systems -- which are comprised mostly of DirecTV and EchoStar subscribers -- include Salt Lake City, where 48.5% of pay TV subscribers buy an alternative to cable; Albuquerque-Santa Fe, N.M. (48.4%); Sacramento-Stockton-Modesto, Calif. (41.2%); Memphis, Tenn. (39.3%); and Los Angeles (34.3%).

Springfield, Mo., was the DMA hit hardest by cable competition, with 57.7% of pay TV subscribers going with an alternate delivery system, TVB said.

http://www.multichannel.com/index.asp?layout=articlePrint&articleid=CA6425963

fredfa

03-19-07, 12:17 PM

Note to the above DMA report on cable: The dominant cable supplier in the Springfield MO DMA is Mediacom.

CPanther95

03-19-07, 12:20 PM

Note to the above DMA report on cable: The dominant cable supplier in the Springfield MO DMA is Mediacom.

Additional note: Sinclair has the ABC affiliate in St. Louis.

fredfa

03-19-07, 12:26 PM

Critic’s Notebook
Emmys have a vision, and it's usually cloudy
By Tim Goodman San Francisco Chronicle Television Critic Monday, March 19, 2007

Everything we know we learned from television:

• Wouldn't it be great to go a week without reading anything about Simon Cowell or "American Idol"? One can dream.

• Not sure if this is encouraging or just plain sad: Daily Variety reported that the Emmy folks have instituted some changes to protect the awards show from -- well, let's be clear here, from embarrassment. There will now be a so-called "Ellen Burstyn Rule" which means that to get nominated you have to be in at least five percent of the miniseries or movie in which you appear. Burstyn was in "Mrs. Harris" for all of 14 seconds, proving conclusively what everybody familiar with the Emmys already knew -- voters picked familiar names, especially if they hadn't seen what they were voting on.

Ah, not seeing. Yes, the vision thing has always dogged the Emmys. And one of the new rules will be that producers must explain, in 250 words or less, what their show is really about so baffled voters who haven't watched say, "Lost," will then understand the complicated mythology. Essay questions. Another way to make the Emmys better!

• Sometimes the "ripped from the headlines" approach of the "Law & Order" franchise makes for some real eye-opening plotting and casting, if not always great television. Right now we are loving that "Criminal Intent" is going to do an Anna Nicole Smith-inspired story and comedian David Cross is being cast as the attorney Howard K. Stern, or whatever fake alias the show will use. That's brilliant. It's just perfectly sublime. We've always suspected Cross may have fathered a baby with Anna Nicole Smith anyway, so this works out wonderfully. We always knew you were straight, Tobias.

• Former "Survivor" winner Richard Hatch says that doing time in prison is hard. Pause for that. He also says that guards are spitting in his food. Which reminds us that comedians everywhere missed the irony of a "Survivor" contestant doing time. Perhaps it's because Hatch was on the very first installment and our memories are short. Golden opportunity missed? Yes. Though it's hard to feel sorry for the willing stupidity of tax evasion. You think the guards, in addition to the spit takes, are reciting Sue's infamous "rats and snakes" speech to Richard? Plus the whole nude thing must have an entirely different effect in the slammer.

• Who was rooting for Meredith to die on "Grey's Anatomy"? Show of hands. Whoa, this might take a calculator.

• We try and we try to educate on issues of television, but the one rule that most people seem to miss is our explanation of why Your Favorite Show goes missing so often during the season, often for no reason. So pay attention for a quick second here: It's a 36-week TV season. There are normally only 22 episodes of a show. It's a math problem. End of story.

• Whoops, there are actually three other reasons that could conceivably come in to play: 1. Your Favorite Show is getting killed in the ratings and the network is tired of bleeding money; 2. Your Favorite Show is no longer the favorite of the network, so it gets tossed around like a rag doll and the network doesn't feel compelled to tell you why or say it's sorry; 3. It's actually on every week, but you're off your meds and you can't find it.

• This Emmy revamp thing is both interesting and absurd. By asking producers -- and in some cases, actors -- to write 250 words or less about what the show is or what their role on it may be, doesn't that kind of shout out, "We're not actually watching TV?" No?

• The imaginary Emmy entry from Emilie de Ravin, of "Lost": "Hi. I play Claire. For much of this season, and last, I've been sitting on the beach a lot, not talking. I have a baby that got snatched a long time ago, but it's back and everything is cool. Not a lot of explanation about that, but hey, I'm on the beach getting paid, so no worries. I'm totally sick of Charlie. I wish he'd die. I had black hair in a flashback and that was a really bad idea. Wow, this isn't even 100 words. Oh, well."

• Just when you thought the "Law & Order" thing was abating -- no. "Criminal Intent" has hired Tate Donovan to play a central figure in the whole diaper-wearing-crazy-astronaut story. That's fine and all, but isn't this just a wake-up call to movie-of-the-week producers to get off their backsides and dramatize this nutty story? One such movie has already fallen through. Come on, people. You're not trying hard enough. No matter how poorly you write this thing, a woman in diapers in a car racing to kill another female astronaut is guaranteed 10 million viewers even if you do it with mimes. Come ON!

• Last take on the Emmy thing this week. So, the "blue ribbon panel" idea from last year -- the one meant to spread the wealth, cover worthy TV series and generally make the Emmys look hip? Yeah, that one. The one that instead botched the nomination process? It's still intact. But it will only have a 50 percent impact now, as the other Emmy voters (the ones needing a 250-word essay about what they're voting on because they haven't seen it) will have the other 50 percent sway.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2007/03/19/DDGS1OMT9B1.DTL&type=printable

fredfa

03-19-07, 12:29 PM

TV Sports
YES Bulks Up Hi-Def Coverage
By Glen Dickson Broadcasting & Cable 3/19/2007

YES Network will now provide high-definition coverage of all New York Yankees games, both home and away, on YES HD, a new standalone HD channel that launches April 1. YES, which telecast its first HD game in 2004 and produced about two-thirds of Yankees games in HD last year, has secured carriage for the HD service on DirecTV as well as major cable operators Comcast, Time Warner and Cablevision.

YES HD will also feature all studio programs in HD, including pre- and post-game shows, “Yankees Batting Practice Today,” and select “Mike & the Mad Dog” shows, utilizing a new 1200-square-foot HD control room within its Stamford, Ct. headquarters. Beginning in late fall, YES plans to expand its high-definition offerings by providing high-definition coverage of the NBA’s New Jersey Nets home and away games throughout the 2007-08 season.

YES Chief Operating Officer Ray Hopkins says that YES is moving to HD to maintain its “gold standard” production values for regional sports coverage. He notes that YES HD also meets demand from affiliates who are “looking to have highly-rated products in HD in order to drive HD penetration.”

YES will also have the ability to deliver commercials in HD, though Hopkins isn’t sure what percentage of spots will be hi-def at launch. He notes that a small number of advertisers, including consumer electronics concerns like Sony, have run HD spots on YES in the past.

Starting with the Yankees home opener on April 2, YES HD will also offer “bonus cam” views and other interactive features, such as in-depth pitching and batting stats, through the YES Interactive on DirecTV service. YES Interactive, which relies on the processing power of DirecTV set-top boxes to generate the extra graphics, was only available in standard-definition last year.

New features for 2007 include in-game “Rival Alerts” that give frequent scoring updates on that longtime Yankees nemesis, the Boston Red Sox (unless they fall too far behind in the standings), as well as more in-depth “out-of-town scoreboard” statistics on other MLB games, including real-time situational updates on pitchers, batters and pitch count.

“Last year, you could scroll to the right and see who’s pitching, who’s batting and who’s on base,” says Hopkins. “Now for the same game, for example, you’re able to see that Texas has Mike James pitching, Boston has David Ortiz batting, and the count is 3 and 2.”

YES experienced strong usage for YES Interactive last season, as 42% of DirecTV viewers who had access to the service used it. Out of that subset, 82% used it more than once, and 25% used it 11 times or more.

http://www.broadcastingcable.com/index.asp?layout=articlePrint&articleID=CA6425687

Maestro J

03-19-07, 01:43 PM

fredfa

03-19-07, 01:48 PM

I would suspect so. Since Yankees games usually draw far higher ratings than other teams do, it would make sense that DirecTV would make sure all (or almost all) YES games are available.

Obviously, (assuming the new satellites get in place) by 2008, the answer will be a resounding yes. (Or YES.)

fredfa

03-19-07, 01:59 PM

TV Q&A
Ask Matt (from the Ask Matt column at TVGuide.com)
Matt answers your questions about “Grey’s Anatomy II”, “24”,and “Veronicas Mars”
By Matt Roush: TVGuide.com TV Critic Monday, March 19, 2007

Question: I know that since the announcement of Addison's spin-off of Grey's Anatomy, you have been against the idea. And at the beginning, I was in complete agreement with you. Grey's is my favorite show, and I love the Addison character. I think her absence will change the dynamic of the show, and I was hoping she and Alex would have a fling — I guess that's not going to happen now. However, the recent casting announcements are piquing my interest (I'm a huge Amy Brenneman fan and I've always loved Tim Daly), and I'm very curious to see how the new show will be structured. Given the new information, has your opinion changed?— Justin

Matt Roush: I still don't really have an opinion, since I haven't seen it and it's not my practice to pre-judge. Shows, anyway. My initial resistance was to the programming imperative that seeks to clone hits to improve the bottom line, regardless of its impact on the creative process. But I'll admit, as the cast of this backdoor pilot continues to take shape — Taye Diggs! Paul Adelstein (possibly rescuing him from the lunacy that is Prison Break)! — I am more and more intrigued. Far be it from me to second-guess or underestimate Shonda Rhimes' abilities. I hope it's great, and I hope it's a hit, and that doing double duty won't cause a noticeable decline in the quality of the mother ship. Bring it on. (In other words, I'm looking very forward to it, though not without some trepidation.)

Question: Hm. I think you got it wrong with your lukewarm review of The Riches. I read your review of The Riches in this week's TV Guide, and decided not to watch the show as a result. I don't have time to waste on a show that "is hard to believe and not much easier to embrace." Fortunately, the "new episode" choices that night were the shows What About Brian and The Black Donnellys. Yawn. So we flipped on The Riches. Wow. Real actors. Good actors. What a refreshing concept. The characters they portray? Believable. The premise? The "have-nots" almost magically step into the lives of "the haves." It's the American Dream. And I cannot wait to find out more about how this fish-out-of-water family struggles to hold onto their dream. This is a very good show with tons of potential to be great.— Linda C.

Matt Roush: Hm. I thought maybe I got it wrong, too, after reading raves from many fellow critics whom I respect. I've got to say, that was the hardest review I've had to write so far this year, in part because ambivalence is the most difficult sort of opinion to express in a tight space. I wanted to love The Riches, really I did. As one of my fellow critics told me, "It has you written all over it." And I did have good things to say about it. I touted its originality, put it in context with other risky FX projects (many of which I have touted for years), praised the acting of Eddie Izzard and others, and declared that it was intriguing, if not (to me) compelling. Yet it was a mixed review to be sure, in part because I just don't buy the incredible setup, and find the "stealing the American dream" premise awfully obvious. I feel about The Riches the way I have about certain HBO shows (Six Feet Under, Big Love), which have their passionate defenders and critics but which I feel get too much praise just for being different. And yes, I do hold FX to that high HBO standard. The world of The Riches just isn't one I see myself returning to enthusiastically for an indefinite period of time, a feeling that was only compounded as I continued watching the second and third episodes. But I am very pleased that the ratings were strong for the premiere, and I hope they hold up. And I do agree that given what else is on Mondays at 10 pm/ET, this show's the way to go. FX deserves to be rewarded for taking a risk like this, and giving actors like Izzard and Minnie Driver such meaty roles. It's a big step up from Dirt, praise be to the TV gods. And I plan to continue watching, with a very open mind. [Note to Linda: I apologize for editing out the references in your original question to The Winner, which seemed ill-suited to an argument about this show. One's a silly guilty pleasure at best; The Riches is much more ambitious and important a series, and one I imagine I will continue reviewing in depth as the show continues.]

Question: In the last letter from Steve B. about 24 being set at the UN, you mentioned the expense of it. Maybe I just don't fully understand the economics of filming the series, but I would think that with the amount of viewers the show has (and has lost), it would be worth the expense to "shake things up." As for "a new cast of CTU operatives," why would we need a new cast? I love Chloe, Morris, Bill and the rest of the gang we have now.— Donna

Matt Roush: Given New York's reputation as a terror magnet, should we really be asked to believe that this city doesn't have its own CTU team? I suppose the major L.A. players could relocate if the backdrop was a huge international gathering that required their services. But if the show was going to shake it up enough to move geographically (again, this is all just wild speculation), then why not add lots of new characters? Especially since the CTU stuff has grown so stale this season. A few letters also came in challenging my opinion that you couldn't adequately fake New York, since shows like Alias have faked settings successfully. Which is true, but 24 is a different animal, and because there would be so much location filming — and you have to imagine Jack would be required to use actual subways, ferrys, cabs, etc, — doing it artificially from Hollywood backlots, or faking Manhattan in Toronto, or asking for stock footage to set the scene each time would be much more noticeable and off-putting. But to your point: I agree. Even if it cost a fortune to produce 24 in New York, it might be worth the investment to reignite the show's creative juices. I know I'm tired of watching Jack drive miraculously quickly around L.A. The downside: It could take Jack two entire episodes to go crosstown in Manhattan, unless he's in a 'copter or something.

Question: Seriously, does anyone really think a sitcom about the Geico cavemen is a good idea? They are commercials, and while the first couple were funny, you can't possibly create a half hour based on this premise. I guarantee, as just a TV fan who sort of knows the biz, that this series will not last even as long as Joey did. It is just a mistake waiting to happen, just like when ABC ruined Who Wants to Be a Millionaire by airing it too often.— Eric

Matt Roush: Are you likening Joey Tribbiani to a caveman? The very idea. Something else for those thin-skinned neanderthals to pout about, I suppose. Seriously, don't put the cart before the dinosaur here. Developing a pilot is a long way from putting it on the air, but consider how desperate ABC's comedy executives must be to tap this rich vein of humor. (Not since CBS's short-lived It's About Time, about astronauts and cavemen, which lasted all of 26 episodes in 1966-67.) But honestly, can whatever they come up with be much worse than In Case of Emergency?

Question: Riana worries that Veronica Mars won't be able to wrap things up like Everwood, but I have been wondering if it isn't a good thing that they aren't. Last year the main choice for the CW seemed to be between Everwood and One Tree Hill — which had a cliff-hanger that left all the teenage girls begging for more — while Everwood was able to give the network the perfect ending for the show. I have often wondered if that only made the decision easier for the network. If Veronica Mars shot a perfect ending for the season finale and the network heads were already considering not bringing it back, would that make it easier for them?— Jennifer

Matt Roush: Perhaps, but the CW isn't going to keep the show alive just because the producers left some unresolved issues. I'm thinking about the viewer here who's going to be doubly frustrated if the CW cans Veronica Mars and, adding injury to insult, is also left hanging. At least one aspect of this is still in the writers' control. As for Everwood versus One Tree Hill, that's an old, sad story by now. In merging the networks, the CW execs had to make some tough choices, and as much as I deplored this decision, I couldn't exactly argue that One Tree Hill fit this insipid new brand better. Everwood was always wasted on the WB.

Question: Do you think that producers are in deep denial over the survival chances of their shows? The Class went out on a cliff-hanger when they could have easily tied up loose ends that still led to more stories if a second season should occur. The unfortunate truth is that a sophomore year is probably not in the cards for the show. Why can't they acknowledge this and satisfy an audience that has been very loyal to them? The same goes for Veronica Mars. Rob Thomas has said that he won't end the season as if it could be the end in an attempt to make it more difficult for the network to cancel them. It's not as though a show has never gone out on an unresolved cliff-hanger, or that the network would shudder at the thought of doing so. Joss Whedon always ended his seasons as a closed book with a potential sequel, and it always worked. In the likely chance that Veronica Mars does not get its much-deserved fourth season, then we won't receive any closure to these beloved characters that we've followed for three years. The viewers' satisfaction, in this case, should come first. Aren't the viewers — the fans, the people who have become invested in this universe — whom they are making the show for in the first place?— T. Paul

Matt Roush: My point exactly. As for denial and Hollywood: a perfect match. Including The Class in this discussion also makes sense. Lots of mail has come in since that show's early exit, indicating a high level of frustration. The Class ended many of its episodes with jarring twists, so it didn't surprise me that the show failed to tie up all of its loose ends and instead created new complications, even with its future in doubt. I like to think of this show's characters as perpetually screwed up, blessed with miserable timing, and that even if we don't get to see the rest of the story, that Duncan and Kat would stick to their guns that their impulsive fling was just that, and that the right characters would eventually end up with each other. Like Ross and Rachel did.

Question: I really enjoy your column; I read it every week! In light of recent episodes of Battlestar Galactica and your comment in your column about the practical impossibility of Katee Sackhoff (or any other member of the BSG cast in general) ever getting recognition for their work, I was wondering if you had any thoughts about the psychology of why there is such a huge prejudice against sci-fi/fantasy/horror TV, even when it is often the best stuff on TV. (Other than BSG, I'm thinking about Buffy and Angel, and, back in the day, the better Star Trek franchises.) Personally, I've always been a little disturbed by what I see as an unnaturally strong aversion to good sci fi (aka not Heroes — sorry, I tried, but it's just so ridiculously cheesy) on the part of many people. For instance, I know a family friend who became a fan of Star Trek: TNG (not a "going-to-conventions-every-week" fan, just a regular viewer) and whose wife subsequently forbid all sci-fi/fantasy TV shows and movies in the house because she felt, and I quote, "uncomfortable with entertainment that isn't 100 percent real." (Yeah, 'cause Grey's Anatomy is just chock-full of realism!) While I don't think most people who vote for the Emmys feel exactly this way, I find their derision for sci-fi/fantasy TV to be extremely narrow-minded in a worrying way: They're like the "cool" kids in high school who pick on the "geeks" because they don't understand anything or anyone that's different, no matter how fun or smart they might be beneath the surface. That's how I feel, what do you think?— Jackie

Matt Roush: It is a paradox, isn't it? What would the entertainment industry be without its fantasy/sci-fi/horror franchises, on TV, at the movies, in literature, comics, etc? A lot poorer, for one thing. The fact that this sort of escapism is seen as a more juvenile or lesser pastime is nothing new, but it can wear you down. When I say, as I often do, that The Twilight Zone is my favorite series ever, I'm not being a geek. I'm serious. What other enduring TV classic worked on so many levels: not just as suspense or fantasy, but as ironic and satiric allegory, as social commentary, as fable, told with a wit and humanism you rarely find in other TV of that era? The idea that someone would ban a certain type of TV show from their house, based entirely on genre, is ridiculously narrow-minded. For as many people who have an aversion to the fantasy genre, you can find people who hate sitcoms with laugh tracks, half-hour comedies in general, medical or legal dramas on principal, and so on. The good news about TV is that there truly is something for just about everyone, and while landing a hit in this particular genre isn't easy, it's not impossible, as Lost and BSG and (sorry) Heroes have recently shown.

Question: As I read and enjoy your columns each week, I find it more and more obvious, albeit interesting, that viewers perceive the networks as only being capable of certain genres. Comedies will apparently fail unless they are on NBC, no one does a procedural like CBS, ABC has cornered the market on soapy dramas, and Fox seems pretty safe in reality land, save a 24 here and there. (Who knows where the CW fits in!) I wonder how the networks feel about that? Do creators of new shows start talks first with a certain network because of these generalizations?— Kristen

Matt Roush: Good question and a fair perception. Networks do sometimes look like they get locked into a certain type of show. (NBC with its offbeat single-camera comedies, CBS with its more populist traditional studio-audience comedies, Fox with its animated comedies, the CW with its African-American comedies, ABC with its awful comedies.) Looking at the development slate, it's clear that CBS for one is trying to verge from the all-procedural formula in the fall, but who knows how many and what risks the network will actually be willing to take. I know if I had a killer twist on a crime drama, I'd still take it to CBS first. But this kind of reasoning is limited. House doesn't look like it should work on Fox — it's ironic that it's produced by NBC Universal, since the show would be a perfect fit for NBC — and yet, the Fox audience has embraced it, and the show obviously has crossover appeal for viewers for whom the show may well be the only thing they watch on Fox. The most successful networks are those that program a variety of shows across the lineup. CBS is doing great right now, but when the public appetite for procedurals ebbs (which is inevitable, no matter how it looks right now), the network had better have something else to offer. Which is why I'm so intrigued by their offbeat development lineup. Like the one mentioned in the question below.

Question: Any early thoughts on Hugh Jackman's CBS project Viva Laughlin? The musical/drama seems like a very ambitious project!— Robin

Matt Roush: Doesn't it, though. I loved the BBC America series it's based on (Viva Blackpool), a fantastical hybrid of musical and mystery with echoes of Dennis Potter (The Singing Detective, Pennies from Heaven). With characters breaking into song, basically singing along to pop standards on the soundtrack that comment on the action, it is definitely a big risk for this most conventional of networks. I'm sure comparisons to Cop Rock will be on the minds of all the inevitable naysayers. I'd love to see CBS swing the bat with this one. If it fails, it would do so grandly. But if it turns out that this is something America has actually been waiting to see (shades of Lost's early breakthrough), imagine the thrill.

Question: I just have to ask: How do you work in the television industry and not stay completely depressed at the idiocy of most television viewers? As a huge Veronica Mars fan, I have already been worried for awhile about its chances for renewal, and now I read that the Pussycat Dolls reality show had great ratings for its first episode. Apparently one more nail in the VM coffin. I constantly ask myself how people can willingly waste an hour of their life watching mindless, disgusting drivel like the Pussycat Dolls show instead of a quality show like VM. What is wrong with people?! And as for the CW: maybe I am naive, but I would think that a new network trying to make a name for itself would prefer to do it with quality programming instead of trash. Am I missing something?— Elizabeth

Matt Roush: First off, who says I'm not depressed? (I don't actually work in the TV industry, I merely comment on it. But let me tell you: The magazine business is hardly roses these days.) Yes, it is discouraging when junk like this degrading Pussycat Dolls series — which makes America's Next Top Model look like The Princess Diaries, or a Mensa convention — can notably outrate a high-aiming show like Veronica Mars. But I've been surprised for a while that the CW didn't rush in to the reality marketplace more aggressively, given the tastes (or lack thereof) of its target audience. Pussycat Dolls is very much on brand, given what a reliable draw Top Model has turned out to be. It may very well have sealed Veronica's doom — the jury's still out, but it doesn't look great. But the good news is: How does the CW get a sequel out of this one? Surely the demand for new "dolls" is limited. We can hope.

http://tvguide.com/News-Views/Columnists/Ask-Matt/Default.aspx

fredfa

03-19-07, 05:22 PM

Nielsen Notebook
TVs Outnumber People in U.S. Homes
By Michele Greppi Television Week March 19, 2007

The average television home in the United States houses slightly more TV sets (2.8) than people (2.5).

The average TV home in 2006 received a record 104.2 channels, up eight channels from 2005. However, the percentage of cabled homes dropped from 68 percent in 2005 to 64 percent in 2006, according to data released Monday by Nielsen Media Research. There are 111.4 million TV homes in the U.S.

Twenty-eight percent of the U.S. TV universe has digital cable, while 23 percent has satellite or other specialized antennae receiving TV signals.

The number of channels to which viewers tuned for at least 10 minutes per week grew from 15.4 to 15.7.

Nielsen also reported 57 percent of commercials run 30 seconds.

http://www.tvweek.com/news.cms?newsId=11732

fredfa

03-19-07, 06:05 PM

HDTV Notebook
The Wider World of 'Nightly News
By Glen Dickson Broadcasting & Cable 3/19/2007

NBC will become the first broadcast network to provide a national evening newscast in high-definition when NBC Nightly News With Brian Williams launches in widescreen HD March 26.

Three dozen stations offer local newscasts in HD today, and network morning news programs Good Morning America on ABC and Today on NBC broadcast in HDTV. But so far, high-definition technology hasn’t made its way to the evening-news desk, mainly because of the technical and logistical challenges involved in creating high-definition control rooms and studios amidst network news operations busy on a 24/7 basis.

That will change come Monday, when Nightly News, as well as NBC News special reports and political coverage, starts broadcasting in 1080-line interlace (1080i) HD from its New York studio.

While the potential audience for a nightly HD newscast is still small—perhaps 20 million or so HD households—that doesn’t mean it’s not important, says Nightly News director Brett Holey.

“An HD viewer is probably someone who cares about TV,” says Holey, who began planning for Nightly News’ HD launch in 2003. He admits to another crucial factor: “I always like to be first.”

Ahead of the Competition

ABC’s top news and engineering brass are evaluating whether World News With Charles Gibson needs to go HD later this year or in early 2008. But ABC still hasn’t picked a next-generation camcorder format to capture HD news in the field; it considers available equipment not quite ready for primetime.

CBS is rebuilding the program playout at its New York facilities to handle more HD feeds, primarily for NFL coverage; sources say the control room for Evening News With Katie Couric needs to be rebuilt to support HD.

Like Today, Nightly News will still carry a lot of standard-definition, 4:3 video from the field, both in edited packages and live remotes. That content will be upconverted and complemented with graphic “wings” in the side panels to fill HD screens. NBC is still in the process of moving to a new high-definition newsgathering format, although some owned stations have experimented with XDCAM HD, Sony’s optical-disc format. In the interim, it may use Sony HDCAM tape-based camcorders for acquiring widescreen HD footage in the field.

From the White House Lawn

NBC’s Washington bureau has HD cameras, so David Gregory’s stand-ups from the North Lawn of the White House will be widescreen HD from the start. NBC News also owns two HD satellite trucks, one of which it will deploy to Orangeburg, S.C., to broadcast the first Democratic presidential debate, on April 26.

In New York, Nightly News is taking advantage of a high-definition infrastructure installed to launch Today in HD last September. The network has fiber paths running across the street from 10 Rockefeller Plaza, home of the Today studio and 1-A control room, to graphics, editing and playback facilities located at headquarters at 30 Rock. Those fiber paths initially allowed Today to produce from Nightly News’ 30 Rock control room, 3-A, while its new HD studio was being built last summer. Now the same fiber paths will allow Holey and his team to use the 1-A control room to remotely produce Nightly News.

The remote–control-room scheme for Nightly News fits with NBC’s grand plan to standardize production technology, letting a single control room produce several shows and using fiber links to share expensive HD gear among multiple properties. In that vein, Holey was initially consulted during the design of the hi-def control room for Saturday Night Live, which went HD in October 2005, as well as on 1-A. The space where 3-A is now will be rebuilt to accommodate cable network MSNBC and centralize other NBC News functions.

Essential Gear

The Nightly News set itself stays intact. Last week, it was being equipped with new Sony HDC-1500 handheld cameras, fitted into special pedestal-mounted sleds to achieve the same functionality as traditional hard cameras. SNL and Today already use the Sony HDC-1500 models, which allow the flexibility of expanding their arsenal of handheld cameras when necessary.

“Today has plowed a lot of paths for us,” says Holey, adding that Williams is excited about the HD launch.

Equipment in 1-A includes a Sony MVS-8000a production switcher, Calrec audio console and Barco virtual-monitor wall driven by Evertz software. The monitor wall, which uses DLP projection technology, lets Today and Nightly News staff switch between their customized monitor interfaces at the push of a button.

Today’s monitor setup includes more live cameras, while Nightly News has more prerecorded sources to pull from, such as edited segments stored on Avid and EVS servers. (Holey wishes the news industry would find a new word for “tape,” because most prerecorded segments today are files playing from servers).

Since NBC News provides video to the Web and mobile TV, Holey must consider details like graphics font sizes, assuring that the same text crawl can be seen clearly on a cellphone screen or a 40-inch HD set (a process he calls “pushing up and pushing down”).

But he predicts that, despite the proliferation of HD sets and production equipment, news will never be all hi-def: “There will always be the kid who catches a bank robber on their cellphone camera or a tornado ripping through Kansas. And while the picture might be grainy, you’re still going to put that on-air.”

http://www.broadcastingcable.com/article/CA6425582.html?display=Feature

kizzo

03-19-07, 06:35 PM

Gus sounds like his head is going to explode every time something exciting happens. He gets on my nerves.

Gus rules. He's better than that boring Jim Nantz guy and others. In fact whenever I'm watching any sport on CBS. It feels very old. Its like they are aiming for those in retirement homes.

Majority of the announcers are just terrible(boring, not into the game, robotic, just plain boring)... besides Gus :D

URFloorMatt

03-19-07, 07:01 PM

Gus has an annoying voice is the problem.

I like Jim Nantz, his subdued manner notwithstanding. Dick Enberg has a great announcing voice.

dad1153

03-19-07, 07:48 PM

HDTV Notebook
The Wider World of 'Nightly News
By Glen Dickson Broadcasting & Cable 3/19/2007

Any news on whether Meet the Press will also be broadcast in HD starting that same week (the end of the week actually)? If David Gregory's stand-ups from the WH can be HD then surely they can also do HD from the single studio where Russert does "Press." Or is the NBC affiliate in Washington where "Press" is aired not yet equipped to handle HD?

dad1153

03-19-07, 08:05 PM

TV Sports
YES Bulks Up Hi-Def Coverage
By Glen Dickson Broadcasting & Cable 3/19/2007

Yes and MSG are two of the handful of HD stations carried my my Time Warner Cable system (NYC) and I was surprised at the quality of their HD signal. Since they're basically regional sports networks for the tri-state area (primarily NYC and Jersey) I'd figure their HD quality would be second-rate, even if the satellite birds carried it furhter. Imagine my surprise Sunday afternoon when a High School Girls Basketball game on MSG HD and a Nets-Clippers game on Yes HD, and it matched pretty much the HD quality of national channels like UHD and HDNet (while kicking the living crap out of TNT HD's 'stretch-o-vision'). In MSG's case I guess it helps that the Garden is their centralized base of operations, enough that a girl's HS basketball game looks as crisp and professional as a Knicks broadcast (with better b-ball play to boot... ba-boom! :D ).

BTW, I'm watching right now my second HD show via split-screen (primary big screen) that is completely silent while watching/listening to SD gameshows on the other screen (secondary one). Hope this doesn't become a habit but damn, watching even tiny background details that would go unnoticed on a regular tube TV is much more entertaining than the main progam itself. The 1st HS silent show viewing was the live broadcast of Saturday Night Live (OTA WNBC-DT), and right now Dancing with the Stars (on WABC-DT) is the second show that I wouldn't be caught dead watching on my own that I can leave as glorified background to the sound/picture of Match Game and Super Password. Oh well, at least Shandi from GSN's Lingo is coming soon. What the hell is wrong with me? :(

SJKurtzke

03-19-07, 08:44 PM

Any news on whether Meet the Press will also be broadcast in HD starting that same week (the end of the week actually)? If David Gregory's stand-ups from the WH can be HD then surely they can also do HD from the single studio where Russert does "Press." Or is the NBC affiliate in Washington where "Press" is aired not yet equipped to handle HD?
I thought Meet the Press was set up years ago for HD, back when they were testing.
What's weird is that the local NBC O&O was the "pioneer" for HD, yet has forgotten to upgrade their top-ranking local news to HD, and they frequently forget to flip the switch. (One time, last year, there was a power outage, and the news was done in the dark with a few flashlights and a portable camera)
Anyway, yeah, MTP has been set up for HD since the days of WHD-TV. I have no clue why they haven't aired it in HD since then, or maybe they never fully equipped the studio.

RemyM

03-19-07, 09:23 PM

Yes and MSG are two of the handful of HD stations carried my my Time Warner Cable system (NYC) and I was surprised at the quality of their HD signal. Since they're basically regional sports networks for the tri-state area (primarily NYC and Jersey) I'd figure their HD quality would be second-rate, even if the satellite birds carried it furhter. Imagine my surprise Sunday afternoon when a High School Girls Basketball game on MSG HD and a Nets-Clippers game on Yes HD, and it matched pretty much the HD quality of national channels like UHD and HDNet (while kicking the living crap out of TNT HD's 'stretch-o-vision'). In MSG's case I guess it helps that the Garden is their centralized base of operations, enough that a girl's HS basketball game looks as crisp and professional as a Knicks broadcast (with better b-ball play to boot... ba-boom! :D ).

MSG Network was one of the first stations to broadcast HD. As a matter of fact CBS borrowed MSG's equipment to do their first HD sports telecast. Now if we can just get more road games.

URFloorMatt

03-19-07, 11:02 PM

fredfa

03-20-07, 02:39 AM

I wouldn’t dare post this in the “24” thread, but I imagine Tim’s comments will get some reaction here…..
Critic’s Notebook
"24": "The target is San Francisco!"
Yeah, but the show is killing us.
By Tim Goodman San Francisco Chronicle in his TV blog “The Bastard Machine”

"I repeat, the target is San Francisco!"

Oh, isn't it just like Los Angeles to send us trash we don't want?

Listen, and listen good: "24" is dead. It's over. The only things compelling about it were, in this order: 1) The implausible humor 2) The ridiculously bad acting, writing and outlandish scenarios that reinforced No. 1; 3) Stuff blew up 4) The Jack drinking games; 5) There is no 5.

For weeks on end, this has been less funny and more an outright theft of everybody's time. "24" is dead. Long live "The Riches."

If you want to go off on "24, be my guest. I'll still TiNo it and we still have plans to do a podcast mocking of it, but honestly - the show has been reduced to novelty for a long time now and that joke isn't funny anymore.
(Great song, however...I think watching "24" with a catty Morrissey would be pretty cool.)
So, did anyone watch the vastly superior "The Riches"? Look for a post on Tuesday getting into that. And let me apologize for half-assing these "24" posts.

Last year was soooooo much more enjoyable and entertaining. I was into it then. Arms aching + "24" lameness = time to move on. From here on, Tuesdays will be for recaps of "The Riches." Set your TiVo.

The clock has stopped on Jack.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/sfgate/indexn?blogid=24

keenan

03-20-07, 02:53 AM

dad1153

03-20-07, 07:59 AM

I could look like an ass in a few hours when Fredfa posts last night's ratings report, but I'm going to predict Dancing with the Stars suffers a huge drop in viewership/ratings from its move to Monday nights (compared to both year-to-date numbers and last Fall). The show prospered in the Summer and Fall months on nights (Tuesdays and Wednesdays) when it faced either repeats or shows that had a different kind of appeal (like NCIS, one of the few network shows that is American Idol and reality series proof). But last night as I was watching "Dancing" live (silent so I could watch/listen to other shows on Picture-in-Picture; I was just watching the pretty HD pictures that are new to me) it dawned on me how uber-competitive Monday night is: 24, Deal or No Deal, the CBS sitcom block (particularly Two and a Half Men & Rules of Engagement) and eventually the return of Heroes. These shows are established and have solid fan bases. How can "Dancing" get any Monday night love when its Tuesday-Wednesday viewership was probably split all over the dial on Monday night? ABC should seriously consider using "Dancing" only as a Summer and Fall series, leaving Winter and Spring to "Idol." As a matter of fact all other networks except CBS should shut the lights and go dark whenever "Idol" is on. I mean, what's the point? :rolleyes:

Grampaw

03-20-07, 08:40 AM

[• We try and we try to educate on issues of television, but the one rule that most people seem to miss is our explanation of why Your Favorite Show goes missing so often during the season, often for no reason. So pay attention for a quick second here: It's a 36-week TV season. There are normally only 22 episodes of a show. It's a math problem. End of story. ]

When I went to school, we were taught that there are 52 weeks in a year.
Maybe some of those business school grads should go back for some remedial math.

And the nets wonder why they losing viewers...

Walt

CPanther95

03-20-07, 08:47 AM

He was talking about the TV season - there's 52 weeks in a year, but only 36 or 37 in a TV season (Sept to May).

DoubleDAZ

03-20-07, 09:03 AM

But, we used to get the 22 episodes without so many long interruptions and then got them repeated over the summer in total and in sequence. The interruptions used to be for mini-series, Hallmark-type special presentations, and the like, not fluff simply to hang on for the stupid sweeps periods. I don't want 3 mini-seasons centered around Nov, Feb, and May for crying out loud.

fredfa

03-20-07, 09:46 AM

shuttermaker

03-20-07, 10:05 AM

Maybe this has been discussed and maybe im uninformed but, sweeps periods(when all the first run episodes are shown) are supposed to set advertising prices (based on viewer ratings)during the TV schedule.

How does this work?

Because, after the sweeps are over and the networks set their advertising rates the networks turn around and broadcast reruns that less viewers are likely to tune in to .

What am I missing?

fredfa

03-20-07, 10:11 AM

Sweep ratings are really used to set the rates in smaller of the local markets, where the ratings are not taken every night as they are in 55 major markets.

It also allows the networks to put their best shows up against the other guys' best and see what happens. Kind of a macho mano-a-mano thing.

It is a remnant o TV's past which is relatively quickly fading. Probably the reason it hasn't left is that it does give the nets a 12-week mini-season around which to hang their 22 or 24-week seasons.

dad1153

03-20-07, 10:50 AM

So how did Dancing With The Stars do in its return?

Yesterday’s metered market over-night prime-time ratings – and Media Week Analyst Marc Berman’s view of what they mean -- have been posted just near the top of Ratings News the second post in this thread.

Pass the crow, I'm eating craploads of it right now! :( Damn, "Dancing" kicked CBS' ass and held its own against the two-hour "Deal or No Deal" and "24." Guess ABC has officially cemented its own reality "go to" tentpole (like NBC has with "Deal," CBS with "Survivor" and Fox with "American Idol"). And is it my imagination or was "Black Donnelly's" actually up in the ratings from a week ago? :(

CPanther95

03-20-07, 10:53 AM

It's a very cumbersome system where the national networks adjust their scheduling of first run shows - and even manipulate plot lines - just for the indirect gain of viewers to the local news and syndicated programming who were exposed to more local promos or just too lazy to turn the channel when the 10pm show was over.

Obviously, if you are in this thread, you know that ratings for primetime shows are monitored on a daily basis. Like fredfa said, the sweeps system is only around because those 3 periods are the times when local station viewing is measured.

URFloorMatt

03-20-07, 11:06 AM

Critic’s Notebook
"24": "The target is San Francisco!"
Yeah, but the show is killing us.
By Tim Goodman San Francisco Chronicle in his TV blog “The Bastard Machine”

...Last year was soooooo much more enjoyable and entertaining. I was into it then.

More like, you were just jumping on the hype train, you worthless sheep. I don't disagree that this season is imploding, it just grates on me to NO END how he always slips in there some crack about how Season 5 was the pinnacle of entertaining television.

Find a new job, Tim. You wouldn't know good television if it bit off your nose.

fredfa

03-20-07, 11:22 AM

fredfa

03-20-07, 11:25 AM

More like, you were just jumping on the hype train, you worthless sheep. I don't disagree that this season is imploding, it just grates on me to NO END how he always slips in there some crack about how Season 5 was the pinnacle of entertaining television.

Find a new job, Tim. You wouldn't know good television if it bit off your nose.

Wow, tell us what you really think, Matt!

I guess I fell for the hype too. I have run out of patience with "24". To me, what was once a fun and innovative show has turned into a churlish, nasty, and very second-rate offering.

I am, of course, more than happy to post contrasting opinions as I find them.

And now I am going back into my cave to try to survive Mattr's wrath. :)

fredfa

03-20-07, 11:30 AM

Overnights in the 18-49 Demo
Best debut for 'Dancing with the Stars'
Averages a 6.3 in adults 18-49, up 12 percent
By Toni Fitzgerald MediaLifeMagazine.com staff writer March 20, 2007

ABC’s hit show “Dancing with the Stars” returned yesterday to give the network a much-needed ratings boost on a night where it has struggled. With the show’s best-ever debut in both total viewers and 18-49s, ABC waltzed away with its first Monday win of the season based on regularly scheduled programming.

“Stars” averaged a 6.3 18-49 rating, according to Nielsen overnights, up 11 percent over last fall’s then-record 5.7 bow. It also drew 21.7 million viewers from 8 to 10 p.m., 1.5 million better than September.

The show received loads of pre-premiere publicity over the participation of Heather Mills, the first participant with a prosthetic leg. By all accounts, she did well last night, and viewership for the show rose every half hour.

“Stars” took a bite out of the competition, too, as CBS, Fox and NBC were all below their recent averages in the two-hour timeslot in 18-49s, though to be fair, NBC had a two-hour edition of “Deal or No Deal” instead of “Heroes.”

CBS’s comedy lineup looked especially vulnerable, with “Two and a Half Men” and “Rules of Engagement” hitting season lows in the 9 p.m. hour.

This is promising for ABC, whose ratings have plummeted since “Stars” left the air in November. It suddenly gives the network a strong presence on Monday, where it had trailed the other three networks badly in 18-49s.

“Stars” led ABC to a first place finish for the night among 18-49s with a 5.2 average rating and a 13 share. Fox was second at 4.0/10, CBS third at 3.9/10, NBC fourth at 3.6/9, Univision fifth at 1.7/4 and CW sixth at 1.0/3.

ABC started the night in the lead with a 5.9 rating at 8 p.m. for the first half of its “Stars” premiere. NBC was second with a 3.8 for “Deal,” Fox third with a 3.4 for “Prison Break” and CBS fourth with a 2.7 average for “How I Met Your Mother” (2.9) and “The New Adventures of Old Christine” (2.5, tying a series low). Univision was fifth that hour with a 2.1 for “La Fea Mas Bella” and CW sixth with a 1.0 for “Everybody Hates Chris” (1.1) and “All of Us” (1.0).

At 9 p.m. ABC led again with a 6.7 for the second half of “Stars,” followed by a 4.7 for Fox’s “24” and a 4.6 for NBC for another hour of “Deal.” CBS was fourth that hour with a 3.8 for “Two and a Half Men” (4.0) and “Rules of Engagement” (3.6), with Univision fifth with a 1.8 for “Mundo de Fieras” and CW sixth with a 1.0 average for “Girlfriends” (1.0) and “The Game” (1.0).

CBS took the lead at 10 p.m. with a 5.3 for “CSI: Miami,” with ABC second with a 2.8 for “What About Brian,” NBC third with a 2.4 for “Black Donnellys” and Univision fourth with a 1.2 for “Cristina.”

Among households, ABC was first for the night with a 10.8 average rating and a 17 share. CBS was second at 7.7/12, NBC third at 7.1/11, Fox fourth at 6.1/9, Univision fifth at 2.2/3 and CW sixth at 1.5/2.

http://www.medialifemagazine.com/artman/publish/printer_10908.asp

CPanther95

03-20-07, 11:32 AM

I also don't really get the critical acclaim of Season 5 in relation to previous seasons. It was much more "over the top" - something the reviewer seems to now be complaining about.

fredfa

03-20-07, 11:47 AM

I have to admit that I started to fall away after season two and was completely gone by mid season three.

HDTVChallenged

03-20-07, 12:20 PM

I have to admit that I started to fall away after season two and was completely gone by mid season three.

I didn't last past Season 1, Episode 1 ... :D

fredfa

03-20-07, 12:25 PM

TV Notebook
Fox Pushes Back Launch of “On the Lot”
By A.J. Frutkin MediaWeek March 20, 2007

Fox has pushed back the launch of its Steven Spielberg-Mark Burnett reality show On the Lot. But the postponement gives the filmmaking contest series a bigger boost than it might have had on its original premiere date.

The program now is set to debut on Tuesday, May 22, following the final performance episode of American Idol. The second episode will air on Thursday, May 24. The series then moves onto its regular nights, with a special two-hour episode on Monday, May 28 and the first round of elimination on Tuesday, May 29.

On the Lot originally was scheduled to premiere on May 16, and then take a week off during Idol's final week of broadcasts.

http://www.mediaweek.com/mw/news/networktv/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003560259

Iteki

03-20-07, 12:25 PM

I didn't last past Season 1, Episode 1 ... :D

I enjoy Jack Bauer being Jack Bauer...this season is a bit of a letdown. I know it's unrealistic to have gone what Jack has gone through and still remain 'the same', but he's a basket case right now, and it ain't fun to watch.

We need a Jump The Shark 'Jack gets amnesia and can't remember the last 10 years' storyline. That way he's still the same badass Jack. Just don't tell him that his wife is dead :-)

fredfa

03-20-07, 12:29 PM

Last week’s complete network average prime-time results (with demographic and season-to-date averages) are now at the bottom of RATINGS NEWS the second post in this thread.

fredfa

03-20-07, 01:22 PM

Last week’s updated top 10 prime-time program ratings are now toward the bottom of RATINGS NEWS -- the second post in this thread.

fredfa

03-20-07, 01:25 PM

The Business of Television
Cox Throws Fellow Ops a Curveball
By R. Thomas Umstead MultiChannel News 3/20/2007

Cox Communications has thrown a curveball into the ongoing negotiations between cable and Major League Baseball over the league’s out-of-market game package.

The MSO’s decision to give past Extra Innings subscribers what amounts to a free pass to MLB.TV, baseball’s broadband out of market package, puts the cable industry in an awkward position as In Demand continues to try and connect on deal for a linear channel slated to launch in 2009, according to at least one MSO executive with knowledge of the negotiations.

Cox will provide a full rebate to “a very small percentage” offormer Extra Innings subscribers that purchase MLB’s $89 Internet-based out-of-market package, according to a Cox spokesman. Cox would not revealexactlyhow many subs actually purchased the $179 package last season.

Officials at Time Warner Cable and Cablevision Systems said they don’t plan to follow Cox’s lead and offer an $89 rebate for baseball’s broadband video package.

Executives from Comcast, In Demand and MLB could not be reached for comment on the matter.

The announcement comes two weeks before the cable industry has to decide whether to match DirecTV’s deal to distribute the Extra Innings package. The satellite company reached a seven-year, $700 million deal with baseball to distribute the 60-game-a week Extra Innings package, along with the league’s upstart baseball channel -- in which DirecTV will hold a 20% ownership interest -- to most of its 15 million subscribers when it throws out its first pitch in 2009.

In Demand has panned -- but not outright rejected -- baseball’s offer. Cox’s move, however, appears to undermine the industry’s efforts to secure a deal for the linear package.

“It wasn’t the most opportune time to make that announcement,” said one MSO executive with knowledge of the agreement.

Cox’s rebate playalso comes a week before Congress is scheduled to hold a hearing on the issue. The U.S. Senate Commerce Committee has set March 27 as the date to examine the viewer implications of the MLB/DirecTV Extra Innings deal. Representatives from baseball, DirecTV and In Demand are expected to appear at the hearing, according to sources close to the parties.

http://www.multichannel.com/article/CA6426253.html?display=Breaking+News

fredfa

03-20-07, 01:38 PM

Lowest Rated Shows By Network
Week of March 12-18, 2007

These are the lowest-rated programs, generally excluding repeats, by network for last week.
(Shows are listed by overall rank and viewers in millions.)

A B C
76 ABC SAT MOVIE OF THE WEEK ABC 5.18
76 AMER FUNN HOME VIDEOS-TUE ABC 5.18
84 WHAT ABOUT BRIAN ABC 4.69
88 IN CASE OF EMERGENCY ABC 4.66
90 CELEBRITY A-LIST BLOOPERS(S) ABC 4.57

C B S
34 CBS NCAA BSKBL CHP-EVEFR1(S) CBS 8.48
36 OLD CHRISTINE CBS 8.34
39 JERICHO CBS 7.76
40 UNIT, THE CBS 7.64
41 OLD CHRISTINE - 8PM SPCL(S) CBS 7.59

Fox
66 WEDDING BELLS FOX 5.75
70 FAMILY GUY-THURS 9P FOX 5.67
79 WINNER, THE-SUN 9:30P FOX 5.14
86 COPS FOX 4.67
99 WAR AT HOME FOX 3.43

N B C
68 DATELINE SUN-7PM NBC 6.13
69 DATELINE NBC-TUE NBC 6.11
74 30 ROCK NBC 5.74
82 DATELINE-SAT NBC 5.15
83 FRIDAY NIGHT LIGHTS NBC 5.07

CW
118 THE GAME CW 1.89
119 ALL OF US CW 1.86
120 7TH HEAVEN CW 1.81
121 GIRLFRIENDS CW 1.66
122 PUSSYCAT DOLLS PRESENT-EN CW 1.66

• Source: Nielsen Media Research data

fredfa

03-20-07, 01:40 PM

Highest Rated Prime-time Shows By Network
Week of March 12-18, 2007
(Listed by viewers in millions; overall rank is at left)

A B C
3 GREY'S ANATOMY ABC 22.68
9 OCTOBER ROAD ABC 13.93
13 LOST ABC 12.48
19 UGLY BETTY ABC 10.80
21 EXTREME MAKEOVER:HOME ED. ABC 10.72

C B S
5 COLD CASE CBS 15.09
6 60 MINUTES CBS 14.40
7 CSI: MIAMI CBS 14.36
10 WITHOUT A TRACE CBS 13.05
11 TWO AND A HALF MEN CBS 12.71

Fox
1 AMERICAN IDOL-TUESDAY FOX 29.83
2 AMERICAN IDOL-WEDNESDAY FOX 26.18
8 TIL DEATH FOX 14.07
12 SMARTER THAN 5TH GRADER FOX 12.56
14 24 FOX 12.39

N B C
4 DEAL OR NO DEAL-MON NBC 16.77
15 DEAL OR NO DEAL-SUN NBC 12.17
23 RAINES 3/15(S) NBC 10.46
28 1 VS 100 NBC 9.13
30 IDENTITY NBC 9.05

CW
78 AMERICA'S TOP MODEL-2 CW 5.16
82 FRIDAY NIGHT SMACKDOWN CW 4.75
85 SMALLVILLE CW 4.69
98 SUPERNATURAL CW 3.52
101 PUSSYCAT DOLLS-3/14(S) CW 3.36

• Source: Nielsen Media Research data

fredfa

03-20-07, 02:07 PM

... is it my imagination or was "Black Donnelly's" actually up in the ratings from a week ago? :(

It is your imagination.

Here are the numbers since the "Donnellys" premiere (for the sake of comparson, all are fast nationals)

March 5 7.03 million viewers
March 12 6.75 million viewers
March 19 5.83 million viewers

At this rate TBD will be a serious candidate for the CW in two or three weeks.

dad1153

03-20-07, 02:15 PM

Lowest Rated Shows By Network
Week of March 12-18, 2007

These are the lowest-rated programs, generally excluding repeats, by network for last week.
(Shows are listed by overall rank and viewers in millions.)

A B C
84 WHAT ABOUT BRIAN ABC 4.69

Fox
66 WEDDING BELLS FOX 5.75
99 WAR AT HOME FOX 3.43

N B C
74 30 ROCK NBC 5.74
83 FRIDAY NIGHT LIGHTS NBC 5.07

CW
118 THE GAME CW 1.89
119 ALL OF US CW 1.86
120 7TH HEAVEN CW 1.81
121 GIRLFRIENDS CW 1.66
122 PUSSYCAT DOLLS PRESENT-EN CW 1.66

• Source: Nielsen Media Research data

Can anyone explain to me how these shows are allowed to stay on the air? I don't care how much critics love it, "Friday Night Lights" does not deserve renewal based on its ratings performance versus the amount of hype/promotion/patience the network has bestowed upon it. That's a pitiful performance all-around, especially the lowest-rated shows on the CW. By contrast the lowest-rated show on CBS, "Old Christine," ranks in the mid-40's.

fredfa

03-20-07, 02:32 PM

TV Notebook
The sitcom is not dead. It just moved
Viewership of comedies is actually up
By Kevin Downey MediaLifeMagazine.com staff writer Mar 20, 2007

The death of the American sitcom would seem a puzzler. Next to nothing the broadcast networks try interests viewers. The genre appears all but dead.

But in fact the sitcom is quite healthy. As it turns out, TV viewers are watching as many or more comedies than ever. But they are watching them as reruns on cable or in syndication.

The problem is not with the sitcom but with the broadcast networks and the sitcoms they choose to air, according to a new report from Magna Global. The networks have simply got it all wrong, choosing comedies with themes that do not resonate with viewers over shows that do resonate, Magna contends.

What works is what has always worked in sitcoms: shows about families, such as "Everybody Loves Raymond," or family-like groups of people, such as "Friends" or "Seinfeld," to mention three former hit network series that are still popular on cable and in syndication.

But increasingly the networks are airing sitcoms set in the workplace, such as NBC’s "30 Rock," lacking laugh tracks and the familiar family groups.

Why? The networks believe that families no longer watch TV together, and that has led them to move away from shows about families, says Steve Sternberg, executive vice president of audience analysis at Magna. But Sternberg says that premise is incorrect.

"We’ve demonstrated that 80 percent of homes only have one TV set turned on during primetime," he says. "People have multiple TV sets for convenience, not so everyone can scurry off and watch TV by themselves. Certainly anyone with kids knows that they are always searching for programming families can watch together."

Still, Sternberg believes it’s unlikely the networks will return to family-themed sitcoms anytime soon. "Unfortunately, I don’t see anything to indicate that network comedies are moving in that direction," says Sternberg.

The networks are already developing programs for next fall and while each has a long list of sitcoms in the works, many of these continue the trend away from family-oriented sitcoms toward quirkier, single-camera comedies closer in style to NBC’s "The Office" or "My Name is Earl" that appeal to a relatively small segment of the audience.

ABC, for instance, is developing a slew of single-camera comedies like "The Call," about doctors, while Fox is trying new things with shows like "Anchorwoman," a comedy-reality hybrid.

But even as such sitcoms stumble, Sternberg says the networks will likely roll out even more of them than in recent years. "I think we will start to see more comedies in development because the schedules are becoming too saturated with procedural dramas. And reality is probably at a saturation point as well."

But whether viewers will particularly notice is another matter, considering the wide offerings of sitcom reruns on cable and in syndication and the amount of time they already spend watching them.

So far this season, the average household has spent an average 4.55 hours watching comedies each week. And while that's down from 5.26 hours last season, it's up dramatically from 4.09 hours in the 1999/2000 season and 3.98 hours in 1993/94.

What has changed is the source of this viewing.

In 1993/94, more than 55 percent of comedies were watched on the broadcast networks, according to Magna. That has since fallen to less than 10 percent. Today, 56 percent of sitcoms are watched on cable TV, up from 21 percent in 1993/94, and 34 percent are watched in syndication, up from 23 percent.

http://www.medialifemagazine.com/artman/publish/article_10906.asp

fredfa

03-20-07, 02:39 PM

Can anyone explain to me how these shows are allowed to stay on the air? I don't care how much critics love it, "Friday Night Lights" does not deserve renewal based on its ratings performance versus the amount of hype/promotion/patience the network has bestowed upon it. That's a pitiful performance all-around, especially the lowest-rated shows on the CW. By contrast the lowest-rated show on CBS, "Old Christine," ranks in the mid-40's.

Strange comments coming from a hardcore fan of the almost-never-watched GSN! :)

Fortunately, NBC is taking a more sophisticated take on 30 Rock and FNL. (I know we both wish it would take a similar approach to "Studio 60".) But the extremely upscale viewers of both 30 Rock and FNL give NBC some reason to hope -- along with continual critical praise, which helps salve the disappointing ratings of the network (although it is the only net to show season-to-season gains this year. But all, or almost all of that come sfrom Sunday Night Football.)

As for Brian -- color it gone.

And let us be brutally honest: the CW really has no reason to exist -- other than to cheaply fill prime-time programming slots of stations which generally are owned in duopolies by major corporations.

steverobertson

03-20-07, 02:40 PM

fredfa

03-20-07, 02:44 PM

I do not think it is going, Steve.

NBC would rather have a show its executives love get those kind of ratings rather than try something new which probably wouldn't do much better, and would earn NBC the wrath of critics.

If NBC tries one more season of FNL and it still doesn't work, there can be no critical screaming.

It is similar, although not as well rated, as the recent three-year run of "American Dreams", also a critical -- not viewer -- favorite.

barcod

03-20-07, 02:56 PM

The mere fact that it feeds its owner is its reason for existence. There are teams in professional sports that will never amount to anything, but they feed someone and that's reason enough for them to stick around. I think CW is the same.

As for the shows, it all depends on what you will replace it with. If you don't have any programming, then what can you do?

Strange comments coming from a hardcore fan of the almost-never-watched GSN! :)

Fortunately, NBC is taking a more sophisticated take on 30 Rock and FNL. (I know we both wish it would take a similar approach to "Studio 60".) But the extremely upscale viewers of both 30 Rock and FNL give NBC some reason to hope -- along with continual critical praise, which helps salve the disappointing ratings of the network (although it is the only net to show season-to-season gains this year. But all, or almost all of that come sfrom Sunday Night Football.)

As for Brian -- color it gone.

And let us be brutally honest: the CW really has no reason to exist -- other than to cheaply fill prime-time programming slots of stations which generally are owned in duopolies by major corporations.

steverobertson

03-20-07, 03:09 PM

fredfa

03-20-07, 04:02 PM

Cable Nielsen Notebook
“Gálapagos” Scores for National Geographic
Special Generates Record Rating for Three-Hour Premiere on Network
MultiChannel News 3/20/2007

National Geographic Channel said its Gálapagos special drew 7.7 million viewers Sunday night, setting a new record at the network for a three-hour premiere.

The program, shot in high definition, was the 11th highest rated premiere of any telecast in National Geographic history.

Gálapagos pulled a 1.7 rating on March 18, and a 0.82 rating in the persons 25-54 demographic, National Geographic said.

The special performed the best in New York, where it pulled a 1.19 rating, followed by Boston (1.33 rating); Cleveland (1.63); St. Louis (2.36); Raleigh-Durham, N.C. (1.24); and Columbus (1.31).

http://www.multichannel.com/article/CA6426316.html?display=Breaking+News

grittree

03-20-07, 06:15 PM

I agree with you on FNL but it is the best show on TV just wish more people agreed I will hate to see it go.

I just started watching FNL last week. I'm up to episode 7.

While I love it, I can see why it hasn't caught on with the masses.

I can see it not appealing to megacity people with no experience living in smaller places in flyover country. It's audience in large northern cities is likely limited to those who don't enjoy watching people pick briefcases. A minority.

In my opinion, the networks have to make their decisions based on the $s. I don't like it, but I like the alternatives less.

CPanther95

03-20-07, 06:17 PM

And let us be brutally honest: the CW really has no reason to exist -- other than to cheaply fill prime-time programming slots of stations which generally are owned in duopolies by major corporations.

Wait until you see the crap they transition to if MNTV starts making headway with a 100% reality/game show format.

They failed to redefine the CW after merging and just carried over all the programming that didn't work on WB or UPN. What did they expect to happen? Did they really think that the exciting new network name by itself would draw new viewers?

Davinleeds

03-20-07, 06:38 PM

Wait until you see the crap they transition to if MNTV starts making headway with a 100% reality/game show format.

They failed to redefine the CW after merging and just carried over all the programming that didn't work on WB or UPN. What did they expect to happen? Did they really think that the exciting new network name by itself would draw new viewers?

With 6 choices of OTA HD, CW and MNTV being two, I'm part of the captive audience. As in all things, we do with what we have, and complain.

GeorgeLV

03-20-07, 08:04 PM

CPanther95

03-20-07, 08:32 PM

Don't they all to some degree?

fredfa

03-20-07, 08:33 PM

But not many shows, GeorgeLV -- and of those very few actually seem to rate well with African-American viewers.

CPanther95

03-20-07, 08:36 PM

fredfa

03-20-07, 08:40 PM

GeorgeLV

03-20-07, 08:42 PM

But not many shows, GeorgeLV -- and of those very few actually seem to rate well with African-American viewers.

Well, correct me if I'm wrong, but since Bernie Mac was canceled, the big four has zero shows.

fredfa

03-20-07, 08:43 PM

Fred - I forgot to check Sunday's numbers, but I was curious if there was going to be a drop-off in viewers of Amazing Race with Rob & Amber getting booted. My whole family decided they didn't want to watch anymore - no one left to root for. Wondered if that was a widespread sentiment.

I'll look it uper...but with the NCAA skewing things, it will be hard to tell. CBS get its best number in a long time, for example.

CPanther95

03-20-07, 08:49 PM

You beat me to it fredfa - I found this list from a 3/13/07 article - only one CW show on the list. Grey's Anatomy must not have aired, I thought it was always high on the list.

Top 25 Broadcast Shows in Black Households

*Rank | Program | Network

1 AMERICAN IDOL-WED FOX
2 AMERICAN IDOL THU FOX
3 AMERICAN IDOL-TUE FOX
4 HOUSE FOX
5 SMARTER THAN 5th FOX
6 CSI: NY CBS
7 CRIMINAL MINDS CBS
8 WEDDING BELLS FOX
9 WITHOUT A TRACE CBS
10 CSI: MIAMI CBS
11 SHARK CBS
12 CSI CBS
13 AMER TOP MODEL-2 CW
14 COLD CASE CBS
15 DEAL OR NO DEAL-MON NBC
16 HEROES NBC
17 AMERICA FIGHTS BACK FOX
18 WIFE SWAP ABC
19 24 FOX
20 LAW AND ORDER:SVU NBC
21 PRISON BREAK FOX
22 SUPERNANNY ABC
23 THE UNIT CBS
24 48 HRS MYSTERY TUE CBS
25 60 MINUTES CBS

Source: Nielsen Media Research.

CPanther95

03-20-07, 08:53 PM

Well, correct me if I'm wrong, but since Bernie Mac was canceled, the big four has zero shows.

Not sure how you are defining that. Even Bernie Mac had a white guy on the show occasionally. How many whites have to show up before it no longer appeals to African-Americans?

fredfa

03-20-07, 09:13 PM

Fred - I forgot to check Sunday's numbers, but I was curious if there was going to be a drop-off in viewers of Amazing Race with Rob & Amber getting booted. My whole family decided they didn't want to watch anymore - no one left to root for. Wondered if that was a widespread sentiment.

The Amazing Race is hard to quantify this past Sunday since it ran 8:45-945 PM ET.

But using the 8:30-9:30 numbers it averaged 13.28 million viewers.

The previous week (Bye, Rob and Amber) 10 million watched.

But as I noted, CBS did better than average numbers Sunday following the NCAA coverage.

GeorgeLV

03-20-07, 09:13 PM

Not sure how you are defining that. Even Bernie Mac had a white guy on the show occasionally. How many whites have to show up before it no longer appeals to African-Americans?

I don't really understand your point.

GeorgeLV

03-20-07, 09:18 PM

How many Americans have to show up before the Premiership is the MLS?

dad1153

03-20-07, 09:20 PM

Not sure how you are defining that. Even Bernie Mac had a white guy on the show occasionally. How many whites have to show up before it no longer appeals to African-Americans?

One? :confused: ;) :p

If NBC tries one more season of FNL and it still doesn't work, there can be no critical screaming.

Yes the critics will all scream at once that America is dumb and can't appreciate quality programming if it came up to it and bit it in the rear. They did it after American Dreams, Arrested Development and shows of that ilk were cancelled. You're right though, the critic's ire will not be directed at the network if 'FNL,' '30 Rock' and 'Studio 60' (wink) get renewed for a second year.

CPanther95

03-20-07, 09:40 PM

I don't really understand your point.

You said that the CW was the only network that programs for African-Americans. But the CW had only 1 show in the Top 25 shows among Black Households - 24 of the most popular 25 came from the Big4.

Then you said that the Big4 had no programs that appealed to black viewers since Bernie Mac was canceled. I'm questioning how you are defining shows that appeal to African-Americans, and how Bernie Mac passes muster but none of these other 24 shows do.

GeorgeLV

03-20-07, 09:53 PM

SowegaBowler

03-20-07, 09:54 PM

How many Americans have to show up before the Premiership is the MLS?
Good question, George. While the impending arrival of David Beckham in America (to play for the L.A. Galaxy) will no doubt boost MLS' TV ratings quite a bit in the short term, he is now in the twilight of his career and may very well retire some 2-3 years from now, after which ratings may go back to pre-Beckham levels.

By contrast, there is FWIH only a bit of a 'niche' audience for Premiership matches on TV (usually Saturday and Sunday mornings, on digital cable through PPV and Fox Soccer Channel), though there are now several American players on English clubs.

DoubleDAZ

03-20-07, 09:56 PM

I don't know about everyone else, but my African-American friends (as well as those from other ethnic backgrounds) tend to watch the same programs I do. I don't know if that's just because that's what's available, though I rather doubt it. I tend to think it's because more TV now mirrors reality with more diverse characters from all ethnic groups rather than specifically programming for a specific group and doing it poorly.

CPanther95

03-20-07, 10:08 PM

hd nOOb

03-20-07, 10:12 PM

Weekly Nielsen Notebook
Top-10 Programs among African-American Viewers
March 12-18, 2007
(Audience 2+ in millions)

1 AMERICAN IDOL-TUES FOX 4.33
2 AMERICAN IDOL-WED FOX 3.73
3 GREY'S ANATOMY ABC 2.05
4 AMERICA'S TOP MODEL-2 CW 1.92
5 WITHOUT A TRACE CBS 1.74
6 CSI: MIAMI CBS 1.62
7 CSI: NY CBS 8.9 1.46
8 TIL DEATH FOX 1.53
9 60 MINUTES CBS 1.40
10 COLD CASE CBS 1.36
10 24 FOX 8.1 1.506

• Source: Nielsen Media Research data

These shows have there place I personally like Law and Order CI over CSI but to each there own. As for the CW I am with GeorgeLv on this is the only network that appeals to me and my pepes for content. I will contiue to support the CW as long as these shows airs. people act like they don't rember all the shows wtte ( FOX ) had that were catered to blacks that made the network large to my people.

CW
118 THE GAME CW 1.89
119 ALL OF US CW 1.86

121 GIRLFRIENDS CW 1.66

I would much rather watch theses than the others mentioned. It is good that there is programing for all types.

dad1153

03-20-07, 10:54 PM

Holy cow, Adam Sandler is guest-hosting "The Late Show with David Letterman" (3/20/07) and doing a surprisingly good job at it. Dave apparently has a stomach flu so Adam, who was scheduled to be the main guest, stepped in at the last second to guest host. I normally don't watch Letterman but since I got my new HDTV (Olevia 747i) two weeks ago I normally watch the OTA feed of "The Late Show" while watching other stuff on a Picture-in-Picture window. Who knew?

DoubleDAZ

03-20-07, 11:26 PM

dad,

It's really fun to see you where many of us were 3-4 years ago when we started watching stuff simply because it was in HD and finding that we actually liked quite a bit of it. :)

dad1153

03-20-07, 11:41 PM

But 3-4 years ago the entry fee for HD was quite high and beyond the reach of many people (myself included). The $3K I spent on my 1080p LCD in 2007 couldn't have bought anything remotely good (by today's standards) back in '03 or '04. All good things come to those who wait. I waited a year, the right HDTV came along at the (rather high) right price for me and the trigger was pulled. No going back to the SD reruns of Law & Order shows on USA, Bravo or regular TNT. It's "L&O" in TNT HD and UHD or nothin' babe. :cool:

fredfa

03-21-07, 12:27 AM

The Business of Television
And Now, a Commercial Break That Doesn’t Seem Like One
By Stuart Elliott The New York Times March 21, 2007

ABC is considering changes in the decades-old way it interrupts programs for commercial breaks. The goal is to encourage viewers to stick around rather than reaching for the remote or racing to the refrigerator.

At a meeting scheduled for today in Burbank, Calif., ABC, part of the Walt Disney Company, will show several ideas to executives from media agencies gathered for the network’s annual spring development meeting. The meeting offers ABC a chance to share program concepts that are being considered for the 2007-8 season.

Along with the program proposals will be suggestions for what Michael Shaw, president for sales and marketing at the ABC Television Network unit of ABC, called “ways to hold the audiences the best we can” during commercial pods, which is the term for the series of spots that runs during a break.

“We want to bring the audiences right to the commercial so they don’t feel they’ve gone into the commercial,” Mr. Shaw said after a panel discussion at an industry conference yesterday.

“The more commercials are being seen,” he added, “the more value you are to advertisers.”

That opinion was echoed by a major national advertiser. “Anything that engages and holds the audience will benefit everybody,” said Perianne Grignon, vice president for media services at the Sears Holdings Corporation, which owns Kmart and Sears.

“It’s not about labeling a ‘good’ commercial or a ‘bad’ commercial,” Ms. Grignon said. “It’s about engagement.”

ABC has created several video clips, Mr. Shaw said, to demonstrate the ideas the network is considering. He declined to describe them further, deferring to Stephen McPherson, president at the ABC Entertainment unit of ABC, who is to be the host of the meeting today.

If ABC changes how it presents commercial breaks during programs like “Desperate Housewives,” “Grey’s Anatomy” and “Lost,” it would be the biggest broadcast network to do so. A smaller broadcaster, the CW network, owned by CBS and Time Warner, introduced what it calls content wraps for the 2006-7 season.

CW is selling commercials that resemble programs, with the sponsors’ products incorporated into the plots. They typically appear as a skein of three two-minute segments during commercial pods. Marketers that have bought content wraps on CW shows include Cadbury Schweppes and Procter & Gamble.

On the cable side, the VH1 network, owned by Viacom, tested last month a method of keeping viewers tuned in during commercial breaks that it calls Showstoppers. The experiment, during a show named “Hogan Knows Best,” commingled program snippets and spots in a way that was intended to lead the viewers through the commercial pods to the moment the show came back.

The trade publication Mediaweek reported this week the results of the test, including a finding that 47 percent of the viewers surveyed by VH1 said they paid more attention to the commercials in the Showstoppers format than they normally would. The growing interest among all networks in retaining viewers throughout commercial pods is primarily because of the advertisers and agencies are focusing on what are known as commercial ratings.

For decades, the ratings gathered by Nielsen Media Research, which help marketers select the series they support or ignore, have measured viewership of the programs. It was up to Madison Avenue to figure out how many viewers stayed to watch the spots.

Now, Nielsen is moving toward reporting average commercial minute ratings, based on the average of all the spots in a program. Madison Avenue is asking for more, in the form of ratings that would be brand specific — that is, for each individual commercial.

• • • • • • • • • • •

The subject was a central theme of the conference at which Mr. Shaw spoke, sponsored by the Association of National Advertisers. The conference, called the TV Forum, drew about 400 people to the Marriott Marquis hotel in Midtown Manhattan.

“Without this change, I don’t know how long television can be sustainable as an advertising medium,” said O. Andrew Jung, senior director for advertising and media services at the Kellogg Company. He has been leading the push for brand-specific commercial ratings.

“We need to make our advertising more effective,” Mr. Jung said, but “25 percent of an average hour is not measured properly.” His reference was to the typical amount of commercials during 60 minutes of TV.

“We do not know and cannot quantify how many people watch commercials and how many people skip through commercials,” he added, which is disturbing for a $70-billion industry. That is the estimated value of the commercial time sold each year on American television.

Another speaker at the TV Forum offered results from a test of what, if anything, viewers notice when they skip through spots while using digital video recorders.

The speaker, Beth Comstock, president for integrated media at NBC Universal, part of General Electric, described some preliminary data from “physioneurological research, with brain waves and eye tracking, of how people react to certain images on screen.”

“When people fast-forward commercials on a DVR,” Ms. Comstock said, “they’re scanning the commercials, eyeing the logos at the end of the commercials, registering the price in the auto ad.”

Even so, Ms. Comstock said, that is no substitute for “creating better marketing messages” that viewers will stop DVR replays to watch.

For example, “too often advertisers are just giving us their 30-second spots from television” to accompany programs being shown on nbc.com, she added. “That’s not good enough.”

The search for more effective methods of preventing viewers from changing channels or walking away during commercial breaks is nothing new. But the amount of time commercial pods last nowadays, and their cluttered nature, are bringing the subject additional attention.

In the so-called golden age of television, when shows did not make it on the air without sponsors, the commercials were often integrated into the programs. That helped keep viewers tuned in.

• • • • • • • • • • •

General Electric is evoking that era in commercials in new-media outlets like video on demand and the Internet, which bear titles like “G.E. One-Second Theater” and “G.E.’s Imagination Theater” that echo the days when the company sponsored “General Electric Theater.”

Viewers in the 1950s and 1960s also kept watching commercials because the spots were often delivered by the hosts or stars of the shows in which they appeared. The industry coined a term, cast commercial, to describe spots in which, say, Jack Benny and Don Wilson bantered about Jell-O or Dick Van Dyke and Mary Tyler Moore puffed Kent cigarettes together.

The test of the Showstoppers segments during “Hogan Knows Best” on VH1 featured a comedian, David Wain, who appears on another series on the network, “Best Week Ever.”

What next, ABC asking Dr. McDreamy and Dr. McSteamy on “Grey’s Anatomy” to diagnose ailments during commercial pods?

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/21/business/media/21adco.html?ref=media&pagewanted=print

dad1153

03-21-07, 12:33 AM

The Business of Television
And Now, a Commercial Break That Doesn’t Seem Like One
By Stuart Elliott The New York Times March 21, 2007

General Electric is evoking that era in commercials in new-media outlets like video on demand and the Internet, which bear titles like “G.E. One-Second Theater” and “G.E.’s Imagination Theater” that echo the days when the company sponsored “General Electric Theater.”

Viewers in the 1950s and 1960s also kept watching commercials because the spots were often delivered by the hosts or stars of the shows in which they appeared. The industry coined a term, cast commercial, to describe spots in which, say, Jack Benny and Don Wilson bantered about Jell-O or Dick Van Dyke and Mary Tyler Moore puffed Kent cigarettes together.

So in order to make commercials attractive again ABC and the networks are seriously considering going back to the way commercials were shown back in the early days of television? This means we've come full circle, literally!

GeorgeLV

03-21-07, 12:40 AM

fredfa

03-21-07, 12:42 AM

Weekly Nielsen Notebook
'Idol' on top, but slipping?
By Gary Levin USA TODAY March 21, 2007

• Idol finals.American Idol easily remained tops, but the first week of its top-12 finals yielded a dip from last year's comparable episodes: Tuesday's performance show (29.8 million) fell 9%, while Wednesday's results show (26.2 million) dipped 7%. Fox cited the early switch to daylight saving time, which depressed overall viewing levels.

• Smooth Road. The premiere of October Road (13.9 million) set a four-year time-slot high for ABC against unusual competition: CBS' NCAA tournament and the weaker premiere of NBC's Raines (10.5 million). Road marked the biggest retention yet of lead-in Grey's Anatomy's audience. But Grey's (22.7 million) was down by nearly 5 million viewers from its last new episode Feb. 22, a season high.

• Quiz shows. Fox's Thursday time-slot debut of Are You Smarter Than a 5th Grader?, the first without an Idol lead-in, drew a winning 12.6 million viewers and sent ABC's Ugly Betty to a series-low 10.8 million. The return of NBC's Identity (9 million) Friday easily topped the second episode of Fox dramedy The Wedding Bells (5.8 million), which lost half the audience of last week's post-Idol debut.

• Life for Death. 'Til Death, the struggling Brad Garrett comedy newly transplanted behind Idol's results show, zoomed to 14.1 million Wednesday, more than doubling its season average.

• Barker bow. The premiere of NBC comedy Andy Barker, P.I. (6 million) fell short of previous time-slot occupant 30 Rock, which returns next month.

• Christine low. CBS' The New Adventures of Old Christine returned to a new time slot — and a season-low 8.3 million viewers.

• Rich Riches FX drama The Riches opened with 3.8 million viewers Monday, in line with early numbers for the network's previous hits. It more than doubled Tuesday's audience for the Courteney Cox drama Dirt (1.7 million).

• Housewives high. The season finale of Bravo's Real Housewives of Orange County claimed a series-high 1.5 million viewers, well ahead of last year's season-ending 923,000.

http://www.usatoday.com/life/television/news/2007-03-20-nielsens-analysis_N.htm

URFloorMatt

03-21-07, 01:40 AM

fredfa

03-21-07, 02:23 AM

The TV Column
Don't Laugh: Comedies Rule
By Lisa de Moraes Washington Post Columnist Tuesday, March 20, 2007

Comedy is alive and well on television.

Kinda.

Turns out, you're spending more time than ever watching comedies on ad-supported television, according to a new study by the media ad-buy firm Magna Global.

Viewership of broadcast network sitcoms has dropped, but you're more than making up the difference by watching comedy in syndication and on ad-supported cable, the study says.

In fact, more people are watching "Seinfeld," "Friends" and "Everybody Loves Raymond" this season than when the shows were at the height of their popularity on their respective broadcast networks, according to the study's author, Magna Global Executive Vice President Steve Sternberg.

In 1993-94, the average U.S. TV household spent just under four hours a week watching comedies. This season, it's just over 4 1/2 hours, the study asserts.

"Every year at this time, as the networks start revealing their program development plans for the new season, press stories abound about how they might revive the genre and get viewers back to watching comedies," Sternberg writes.

"Seldom noted in these stories, however, is the fact that people still like watching comedies and, in fact, are watching them more than ever."

Which is why Sternberg predicts we'll see more comedy in the broadcast networks' lineups next season. This week, the broadcasters are chatting up their new-season development to advertisers; those schedules will be unveiled to advertisers in May.

During the '93-94 TV season, there were about 180 hours a week of comedies on TV, including broadcast, syndication and ad-supported cable.

This season, it's up to more than 600 hours a week, even though this season marked a record low in the number of comedy hours per week across the broadcast networks.

There are a lot more high-profile comedies in syndication these days. Back in the '93-94 season, only eight comedies played in syndication, and six of them were so-called "off-network" programs, which means they'd already aired on a broadcast network and had moved to syndication in repeats.

This season, of the 22 comedies in syndication, 20 are off-network; the other two (think "Sex and the City") are off-cable.

In fact, this season, the 10 most popular comedies -- across broadcast, cable and syndication -- are:

Former CBS sitcom "Everybody Loves Raymond," former NBC sitcom "Seinfeld," CBS's comedy "King of Queens," former Fox series "That '70s Show," aged former NBC sitcom "Fresh Prince," former NBC sitcom "Friends," ex-ABC comedies "Full House" and "Roseanne," the can't-kill-it-with-a-stick "M*A*S*H," which first aired on CBS, and former ABC comedy "Home Improvement."

• • • • • • • • • • •

One of the reasons TV suits hate a la carte (allowing cable subscribers to choose individual channels):

In 2006, the average U.S. home received 104 television channels, but the people in those homes watched only about 16 of them for more than 10 minutes per week, Nielsen Media Research says.

Put another way, that means each week you're watching only about 15 percent of the channels available in your home for at least the same length of time as it takes one "American Idol" contestant to prattle on about how incredible it was to meet what's left of Diana Ross, sing one of her old tunes, get blasted by the show's judges, beg viewers to vote for them, and cut to commercial break.

The number of channels each home could receive was a record, up from 96 in 2005 and 61 in 2000. But the percentage of available channels actually watched took a dive.

In 2000, when the average home received only those 61 channels, approximately 14 channels held your interest in a week for those golden 10 minutes or more.

• • • • • • • • • • •

"Extras" creators Ricky Gervais and Stephen Merchant have formally said no to a third season of the series.

The two, who also form the creative team behind the British original version of "The Office," will wrap up "Extras" with a special; they did the same with "The Office."

"Extras," which follows the antics of struggling actor Andy Millman (Gervais) and his agent from hell, Darren Lamb (Merchant), has played on HBO in the States.

Merchant won a trophy for his work as Lamb at the United Kingdom's Royal Television Society awards last week.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/19/AR2007031901862_pf.html

kizzo

03-21-07, 02:30 AM

Agreed. Shows that pander to some stereotype don't serve any group any better than culturally mixed programming that appeals to the masses.

And I'd much rather see a show like Grey's Anatomy get credit for the multi-racial show they present than some show that justs puts together an all-black cast to try and target that demographic by overtly using color.

I do agree 100%

I'm not surprised by that list. Some of those shows compete directly with the so called "black shows" on The CW. I guess people like myself would rather watch Heroes instead :D

Diversity among these shows are constantly improving though... But IMO I don't think race is a factor. Some of the shows on that list are very good, and people of any race should find any of these shows entertaining. Although it is still very good to see diversity in the cast, and not just some stupid "stereotypical black guy". That really turns me off.

I do have a surprise.. I really don't like any of the so called "black shows" on The CW.. This black guy actually likes Smallville and Supernatural on The CW :D

Thanks for the list Fredfa!!

fredfa

03-21-07, 02:39 AM

Critic’s Notebook
Kevin Reilly of NBC…
…talks 'Friday Night Lights' (and a little '30 Rock').
From Maureen Ryan’s Chicago Tribune blog “The Watcher”

(Here) is an interview (I conducted a week or so ago) with Kevin Reilly, head of NBC Entertainment, regarding the genesis and fate of "Friday Night Lights." We also talked a little about "30 Rock's" chances for renewal.

The show obviously look so different from most of what’s on the broadcast networks. Was there ever a desire to rein that in, or tone that down? What was the impetus to let it be so different?

“Pete Berg, who directed the movie, adapted the film’s style for television and also directed the pilot. So it truly was a vision of sorts. A lot of people talk about that, but he had a particular docu-style feel. The television show is a little less so than the movie, less desaturated looking, but it did have this kind of handheld feel.

“But if you look at it, it has evolved a little bit over the season. The way television is done, you’re kind of set on a certain path, and then episodic directors come in every week to try to recreate that. Particularly in a first season, when you’re trying on different directors for size, for some of that first batch of episodes, we had guys trying to mimic it, by being very herky-jerky with the camera and just trying a little too hard to be artsy.

“I remember there was a terrific scene in the diner, but [the director] shot the whole thing through the blinds. And I just said, ‘I’d like to actually see the people.’ And all the producers agreed. So we did settle it down a little bit. And we tried to make it a little more conventional coverage. But it does still have its own unique rhythm and feel to it.

From being on the set, it seems like there’s a lot improvisation and changing lines and so forth on the fly. Is that pretty unusual in your experience?

“It is. Each show has its own personality, but for a drama in particular, that’s very unusual. I think again, it emanated from the tone and template that Pete Berg set on the pilot. Pete likes being very spontaneous, he’s an actor himself. He’ll say, ‘Hey, on the fly, try this, do that.’ I think they all kind of like it and it was also his of way of juicing up the young actors.

“It’s also a very efficient shooting style. It doesn’t take as much time as a conventional set up, light this shot, get this shot, go in for the closeup, do the master. You get a lot of coverage very quickly [with three cameras]. Production has been very efficient.”

Obviously the Bravo airings of “FNL” haven’t begun yet, [Note: they began last Friday and Saturday] but as far as putting episodes online and doing other ventures like that, have you gotten any measurable results from that yet?

“Well, yes and no. There continues to be this very fervent fanbase out there. We haven’t quite yet payoff in terms of a consistent updraft in the ratings. We see the ratings tick up here and there.

“But the main thing is, I feel like the show, there are a lot of people, women in particular, [who should try the show]. This is a women’s show. At its core, it’s a women’s show. Unfortunately, I think a lot of women felt the football wasn’t for them and didn’t get on board. And now the women, I think, feel like, they’ve heard it’s good and they’d like to try it, but either it’s in a tough time slot or they just never got on board from the beginning so they feel like they’re behind.

“Going forward I hope we can kind of reset it for people and get them on board and that’s why we’re trying all these different avenues.”

If the show does come back, would the marketing for it be different?

“Yes. It’s been so clear to me that [the marketing for] the show ended up confusing people in terms of what [the public thought] it was supposed to be. Women in particular. It didn’t help that we squared off against one of the strongest shows for women on television, ‘Dancing With the Stars.’

“Then I see in all of our feedback and our own research that there’s a very positive impression of the show, but you’ve got to get into it. Hopefully if it comes back, everyone kind of says, ‘Oh, it’s going to be around for a while, let me check it out and see what all the fuss is about.’

If you were to bring it back, would you re-air it in the summer and do a DVD release?

“Yeah, we’re looking at all of the above. That’s what we need to do – come up with a relaunch plan. We need to give people a chance to get into it. I can’t just flip the switch back on in the fall.”

What kind of numbers would you want it to get next season, if it comes back?

“It would have to do better over the long haul. I wouldn’t be expecting a huge number, but you’d love to see surge a little and know that you recruited some new viewers. I would not want to go through the heartbreak of having another season of having this hugely passionate fan base that we can’t grow.

“I always believe that if you stick with quality and give people a chance at the time, that people eventually get on board with it. It’s been my experience more than not. Once in a while there’s a show that you just can’t seem to break through on.”

Just in the last couple of months, it seems like there’s been an uptick in terms of press attention and also, anecdotally, from the emails I’ve been getting about the show.

“It’s clearly a passionate and vocal [fanbase]. I just got an email today forwarded to me from one of the heads of one of the major advertising agencies – and I literally get a version of this every day – saying this is the best television show in years, or the best television show on the air. So it’s a vocal fanbase, but I’d like to see evidence of people saying, ‘I never watched it before, but now we’re really getting into it.’ That’s what I’d like to see.”

If it came back, would we see a time slot change?

“We’ve got to really do the analysis for the fall. I’m just about to start working on my schedule for the fall. I don’t have my new pilots yet. Yeah, I would anticipate a time change.”

Obviously audiences can embrace many different kinds of shows, but do you ever just get up in the morning and look at the numbers for “Are you Smarter than a Fifth Grader” and go, “What? Why?”

“That’s one of the ironies of TV. I do believe that the audience is capable of embracing quality. But a lot of times, they’ll be like, ‘Why isn’t there ever anything good on TV? Put something good on.’ ‘Uh, if you watched this, it would help.’”

I’d be remiss if I didn’t ask how you like “30 Rock’s” chances of coming back.

“I really like its chances. I’d say that ‘30 Rock’ is not entirely analogous to [‘FNL’]. I see no reason why that doesn’t have upside to it. We are playing with the [Thursday] schedule, which I hope doesn’t backfire, but I’ve been feeling for a while that the audience profile flowing out of ‘The Office’ would be better matched [to ’30 Rock’] than ‘Scrubs,’ so we’re going to flip [’30 Rock’ and ‘Scrubs’].

“Look, I get the fact that a football show trying to appeal to women is a challenge, but ‘30 Rock’ -- it’s just a funny comedy and it’s gotten better and better. That will be ‘The Office.’ [’30 Rock’] is just hanging in there until we get more sampling for it and then it’ll start to move. I really see the underlying interest building there. There’s a lot of timeshifting on that show, people timeshift [’30 Rock’] because they’re watching ‘Grey’s.’

“There’s no scenario in my mind where at least one of these doesn’t come back.”

OK, to put it baldly, can you characterize “FNL’s” chances for renewal?

[Pause] “Well, it depends if you want me to put my emotional hat on, my lover of TV hat on -- it’s 100 percent. If you want me to put my business hat on, it’s 55 percent. Let all those factors weigh in, and [its chances] are somewhere in between.”

http://featuresblogs.chicagotribune.com/entertainment_tv/2007/03/kevin_reilly_of.html

HDTVFanAtic

03-21-07, 03:52 AM

You said that the CW was the only network that programs for African-Americans. But the CW had only 1 show in the Top 25 shows among Black Households - 24 of the most popular 25 came from the Big4.

Then you said that the Big4 had no programs that appealed to black viewers since Bernie Mac was canceled. I'm questioning how you are defining shows that appeal to African-Americans, and how Bernie Mac passes muster but none of these other 24 shows do.

If you want to effectively purchase a schedule targetted to Persons 18-34 OR African-Americans, the CW MUST play a big part in the schedule.

Sure, you can reach them purchasing Grey's Anatomy or AI or 24, but you are also paying for 35-54 year olds OR Anglos as well.

Do you really want to spend big money on Grey's Anatomy if over 90 cents of every dollar is going to a non-targetted viewer? I sure would not and most media buyers will not either - especially when you consider you can purchase America's Next Top Model and reach 1.9 Million African American Viewers - or purchase Grey's Anatomy and reach 2.0 Million African American Viewers?

If you were trying to reach African Americans, do you spend 5x as much to reach 100,000 more African Americans or purchase the same commercial on American Next Top Model and reach them 5x instead of 1?

Maestro J

03-21-07, 08:32 AM

News
Cox Offers MLB Extra Innings For Free
The $89.95 online offer will be offered nationally.
By Phillip Swann

Washington, D.C. (March 20, 2007) -- Cox Cable may have tossed a curve at Major League Baseball's 'Extra Innings' agreement with satcaster DIRECTV.

Cox is offering the package of out of market games for free, according to the San Diego Union-Tribune.

There's a catch, though. The newspaper reports that the free offer extends only to MLB.TV's Broadband service which offers the games online for $89.95 a year. However, the offer apparently will be made to all Cox subscribers regardless of market.

MLB and DIRECTV this month announced a seven-year agreement for the satcaster to carry MLB's Extra Innings TV package, which includes dozens of out of market baseball games each week. DIRECTV plans to air most of the games in High-Definition by 2008.

The final deal allows MLB to offer the same package to DIRECTV's cable and satellite rivals such as EchoStar and In Demand, a cable-owned company that has provided Extra Innings to cable operators in the past.

But the agreement says EchoStar and the cable operators must match DIRECTV's offer by the start of the 2007 season. And with less than two weeks left before Opening Day, it looks unlikely that EchoStar and In Demand will be successful.

http://www.tvpredictions.com/coxmlb032007.htm

Iteki

03-21-07, 08:49 AM

ctmooregottapee

03-21-07, 09:09 AM

[long time lurker so bear with me as i summarize many past msg thoughts]

-ala carte is just not going to happen the way 'you' want it to. even if cable cos/sat are forced into it, they will offer something along the lines of:
ESPN only: $45
ESPN, ESPN2, ESPN News, Disney, etc, etc: $10
nothing says what price they can sell it for or how they have to determine it, and any good business can tweak numbers if the rules did. it is just like the tax man creating laws while the accountants and cheats find new loopholes. many of those throw away networks will either hitch a ride or offer themselves for free - nothing new as many new networks pay cable cos to carry them. you'd also start seeing many new programs from lower rated networks making guest appearance on higher rated ones, something like how the nets have done with their cable fair.

heck what if channels started airing sweeps like programming on the 30th of each month with big cliff hangers to make sure you re-upped for the 1st ;)

the real reason ala carte won't happen is it flies in the face of how the distribution and content companies do business. it is not financially practical to split up each offering and market and allow nitpicking. complicated contracts with long terms can't be hashed out for every channel. this would actually force more niche only channels so programing would be guarantied for the buyer. other service sectors work in the same manner. you can't lower your phone bill by only buying phone service from 4pm-11:30pm, you get the whole day. the predictability or lock-in of your purchase allows efficiencies that keep the price low. there are already other avenues for acquiring individual programs of your choice, either online, vod, or dvd.

can you imagine the chaos as people called in every couple weeks to change their channels based on what shows were coming on? um drop sopranos the next 2 months, its repeats; add Versus for Tour de France; my team is out of the tournament, drop ESPN2 for the next 2 weeks; and so on. also, will ala carte apply to local networks? will those crazy christians want to block the devil that is fox?

and no need to worry about many of the niche networks like BET; if a cable co tried to drop that jesse jackson would be out front with a busload of protesters pronto.

to counter the walmart example of buying individual products = when you go to wally world, you can buy a whole dish set with 4 plates, cups, spoons, forks, etc for $20, but if you want to buy just one cup, it cost you $5; because bundling allows business efficiencies which allow lower cost. you also can't mix various individual plates, cups, spoons, and forks and then pay the $20 price of the set; it is all or nothing the way they offer it.

-many deride the cw, and it has its faults, trying to bring over upn shows, choosing a horrific pilot, and having to take wrestling which doesn't belong on any respectable networks primetime. if it weren't for the cw/wb, many beloved shows from buffy to veronica would never see the light of day. i wish the wb/cw would just stick to doing what it used to do best, shows like abc's 'october road' or the upcoming 'hidden palms'. the excuses of execs about not being able to find the network is silly when you see people easily able to find heroes in the middle of nbc monday, a dead network, or others turning to bravo for reality shows. tv is cluttered with promotional shows, almost as many as real ones now so people are aware of what is out there.

-poor veronica
it is not fair to lambast upn/cw for veronica's woeful performance. both networks have given it many opportunities and their premiere network spots, after 'top model' and after 'gil girls'. 'one tree hill' proved people would stick around after 'top model' if you gave them something they wanted; 'everwood', oth, and 'supernatural' blossomed after 'gilmore girls'.
veronica is ok at best... really its cult like following gives it the buzz it has, not the content. if it even began to compare to a show like 'the o.c.' season 1, then you would have a point to make. it is the low rated sci-fi equivalent aimed at women.

-and speaking of the o.c.
i think its cancellation was a great thing as it sent a clear message that the old status quo was no longer acceptable. you can't create a hit show, and get a big head and run off after season one to develop other projects and hope it all just works out. people use to have to suffer through that but now we have choices and can revolt. abc saw this with 'desperate housewives' and wisely resigned the head honcho after a dismal season 2. imagine what 'the o.c.' would be today if mr big britches wasn't so busy trying to spin off marisa's sister into a show that never saw the light of day.

-religion vs gays
gays appear more prominent on some tv shows because a large proportion of the population has a major issue with them. generally gays are not characterized as themselves, but as devices to tame homophobic parents, co-workers and the like - of course we have to wring them for all the punchlines and cliches first. it was common to see gay characters but never see a gay partner or romantic situation - sometimes it was just a 'confused' gay phase - while the rest of the cast got it on weekly. religious folk are very visible on tv, and often pivotal scenes of film and tv revolve around religious practices: the baptism, the funeral, sunday morning church, catholic mass, the wedding. priests and rabbis are generally revered characters, the place where troubled tv stars go for the proper advice and shelter. faith is often not proclaimed because it is assumed. minority faiths often have whole characters that revolve around them and their stereotypes; where are those stingy jews??? what is really missing on tv is agnostics or atheists. gays will blend into the background on tv when society as a whole stops persecuting them; tv is a reflection of our local environment.

-african americans
to say the cw programs for them is nonsense. you can't classify what tv program is suited for what race. maybe the cw does program stereotypical african american shows for blacks that feel the need for them, the same any other person of another race finds a need/desire for that program. grey's anatomy has more black stars than bernie mac if you want to add; various seasons of e.r. could also make a claim on that one.

-fnl
i too have fallen in love with this show, but would have never sampled had a friend not forced me into it. the problem with fnl is nbc. they botched the marketing, and botched its debut, last on the schedule weeks later. this show would be thriving right now after gilmore girls. fnl just doesn't belong on nbc, period, and they don't have a time slot for it. people generally don't join good shows in progress unless they have a buzz worthy factor to force them to sample it and join the crowd. following tv critics whining is not one of those reasons.

-and finally someone asked why a csi:ny ep had substantially higher ratings a while back. it was because it followed the post superbowl 'criminal minds'.

ctmooregottapee

03-21-07, 09:10 AM

...oh one more thing

can we have a rule that when replying to a lengthy story, only the first few lines is included?

fredfa

03-21-07, 09:35 AM

RemyM

03-21-07, 09:38 AM

Phillip is always a day late and a dollar short.

fredfa

03-21-07, 09:51 AM

wow, ctmooregottapee, welcome to the thread. Great post.

Taking your points one at a time, I agree long posts should be edited when quoted.

As to your own lengthier and maiden post, I'll respond as I am able, topic by topic.

But just a starter: I don't think anyone is proposing that a la carte be mandated for all customers. Just offered. If tying one channel's carriage in basic (or any tier) by contract were prohibited, the market place would take over. With cable now facing competition not only from satellite, but also telcos in the upcoming years, aggressive pricing would be an available tactic for some providers.

Bundles would still be allowed. But mandatory placement of channels by (usually secret) deals between networks and providers would not. If I were writing the law, on at least a yearly basis I would make all providers supply customers a list of how much they pay per channel. They and the telcos are certainly capable (and very willing) to point out federally-mandated taxes and fees in each monthly bill.

But again, great first post and welcome to the rosters of posters.

dad1153

03-21-07, 09:53 AM

fredfa

03-21-07, 09:54 AM

Phillip is always a day late and a dollar short.

To be fair, he did include one bit of new information. According to the U-T, Cox will offer the deal nationwide to its customers. But again, as noted by the Sports Business Journal story I referenced two days ago, (or the MultiChannel News story which followed later that day) only to those who bought MLB-EI last season.

Maestro J

03-21-07, 10:02 AM

Sorry Fred. I had no idea that story had been referenced. I was gone for a bit and didn't catch up to the last few pages. Again, apologies for reposting.

fredfa

03-21-07, 10:05 AM

keenan

03-21-07, 10:05 AM

Welcome to the thread ctmooregottapee. You covered just about everything except the key topic: WHY THE HELL DOES REILLY KEEP TALKING ABOUT "30 ROCK" AND "FRIDAY NIGHT LIGHTS" BUT IGNORING "STUDIO 60"??!! :mad: Damn it, Sorkin's show has consistently rated higher than these two overrated losers but there's zero positive words coming from anyone on NBC about one of the few good shows (better than the two they're trying to save) they put on this season. Where's the love for "Studio 60" ctmooregottapee, where??!! :(
I suspect that Reilly is always wearing his "business hat" even when he puts his "emotional hat" on, Studio 60, given it's no doubt tremendous salary costs(among other costs), is probably not breaking even, or is more of a loss against advertising, than the other two shows. Does NBC/Uni produce Studio 60? That could also be a factor as I know FNL is a NBC/Uni property, not sure about Rock.

It wouldn't surprise me if Studio costs over 3 times what FNL does, and FNL is 100% location shot to boot.

fredfa

03-21-07, 10:06 AM

Sorry Fred. I had no idea that story had been referenced. I was gone for a bit and didn't catch up to the last few pages. Again, apologies for reposting.

No problem, MJ. I am always happy to have your contributions -- and as I noted, the SD U-T story did advance the original a bit.

fredfa

03-21-07, 10:11 AM

Jim:

"30 Rock" is produced by NBC Studios in association with Broadway Video.

"Studio 60" is a Warner Brothers/Shoe Money Productions show.

dad1153

03-21-07, 10:14 AM

...Studio 60, given it's no doubt tremendous salary costs(among other costs), is probably not breaking even, or is more of a loss against advertising, than the other two shows. Does NBC/Uni produce Studio 60? That could also be a factor as I know FNL is a NBC/Uni property, not sure about Rock.

It wouldn't surprise me if Studio costs over 3 times what FNL does, and FNL is 100% location shot to boot.

Warner owns "Studio 60" and, from media reports, the cost per episode (mostly fueled by the salaries of the star-studded cast, producer/writer Sorkin's fee and the gigantic studio-within-a-studio set) hovers around the $3 million mark.

fredfa

03-21-07, 10:18 AM

I would think the total per episode costs of "FNL" might not even cover the salaries of the creative team and actors in "Studio 60".

fredfa

03-21-07, 10:22 AM

Weekly Nielsen Notebook
Nifty ratings bump for NBC's newpeat
Episode of spliced 'Office' reruns up 27 percent
By Toni Fitzgerald MediaLifeMagazine.com staff writer March 21, 2007

These days few viewers bother to watch repeats on the broadcast networks. They can catch most shows online or on cable if they miss them, and ratings for reruns on the Big Four have dipped sharply over the years.

But by adding something new to old repeats, NBC may have found a way to draw viewers into such episodes. It’s called the newpeat, and it mixes previously filmed but never aired footage into already-aired shows, essentially supplementing a rerun with a fresh subplot.

“The Office” aired the network’s first newpeat last week, and it saw a nice ratings bump over the network’s usual repeat average. An hour of “Office” last Thursday, March 15, averaged a 2.8 adults 18-49 rating, up 27 percent over a 2.2 average for NBC sitcom repeats the previous week.

The episode still placed fourth in its timeslot, but that bump came against tough competition: CBS’s NCAA tournament coverage, ABC’s “Ugly Betty” and Fox’s “Are You Smarter Than a 5th Grader?,” all in the 8 p.m. hour. It nearly matched the ratings for all-new episodes of “Scrubs” and “Raines” later that night on NBC.

The newpeat could be a good way to fight the traditional rerun doldrums in March, the month after the networks roll out their February sweeps originals and before they start gearing up for May finales with several weeks of fresh shows.

It didn’t cost NBC much to remix the footage, and so even if ratings hadn’t improved, the network wouldn’t have lost a thing.

NBC says it has no immediate plans for any more newpeats but that may change in the future. Even then, they probably wouldn't air that often, appearing as occasional specials, in part because they could require a full hour to be set aside. Viewers also would likely lose interest if too many aired, which would defeat their purpose.

The idea of rewrapping old material isn’t entirely new. Old NBC Thursday night shows like “Friends,” “Family Ties” and “The Cosby Show” all aired multiple remembrance episodes, in which highlights of old shows were strung together with minimal original content.

But those were considered new episodes because the memories occurred as part of an actual plotline, such as Monica and Chandler reflecting on the past while writing their wedding vows on “Friends.”

More recently, ABC has aired recap episodes for popular dramas such as “Lost” and “Desperate Housewives” to bring fans and new viewers up to date on the shows’ action. But they haven’t packaged them as part of an ongoing plot.

Perhaps most importantly, NBC’s newpeat got people talking about “Office.” The idea received extensive press coverage and spurred discussions on message boards devoted to the show in a week where the show was at its core a rerun.

Meanwhile, in broadcast ratings for the week ended March 18:

Among adults 18-49: Fox led with a 4.4 average rating and a 12 share, followed by CBS at 3.4/10, ABC at 2.8/8, NBC at 2.5/7, Univision at 1.6/4, CW at 1.2/3, Telemundo at 0.4/1, Telefutura at 0.3/1 and Azteca at 0.1/0.

Among adults 18-34: Fox led at 3.9/12, with CBS at 2.8/9, ABC at 2.4/8, NBC at 1.8/6, Univision at 1.6/5, CW at 1.4/4, Telemundo at 0.5/1, Telefutura at 0.3/1 and Azteca at 0.1/0.

Among adults 25-54: Fox was first at 4.8/12, with CBS at 4.0/11, ABC at 3.2/8, NBC at 3.0/8, Univision at 1.6/4, CW at 1.1/3, Telemundo at 0.4/1, Telefutura at 0.3/1 and Azteca at 0.1/0.

Top five (18-49s): 1. Fox’s “American Idol - Tuesday” 11.7; 2. Fox’s “American Idol - Wednesday” 10.1; 3. ABC’s “Grey’s Anatomy” 9.0; 4. Fox’s “Til Death” 5.8; 5. ABC’s “October Road” 5.6.

Top five (total viewers): 1. Fox’s “American Idol - Tuesday” 29.82 million; 2. Fox’s “American Idol - Wednesday” 26.18 million; 3. ABC’s “Grey’s Anatomy” 22.68 million; 4. NBC’s “Deal or No Deal” 16.77 million; 5. CBS’s “Cold Case” 15.09 million.

Bottom five (18-49s): Tie-92. CW’s “All of Us,” “The Game” and “Gilmore Girls” 0.8; Tie-95. CW’s “Girlfriends” and “The Pussycat Dolls Present: Search for the Next Doll-Encore” 0.7; 97. CW’s “The 7th Heaven” 0.6.

Bottom five (total viewers): 93. CW’s “The Game” 1.89 million; 94. CW’s “All of Us” 1.86 million; 95. CW’s “7th Heaven” 1.81 million; Tie-96. CW’s “The Pussycat Dolls Present: Search for the Next Doll-Encore” and “Girlfriends” 1.66 million.

Show on the rise: “60 Minutes,” CBS, Sunday 7:45 p.m. The classic news magazine got a later-than-usual start due to the NCAA basketball tournament, and it also got a ratings boost. The show posted a 3.6 rating among viewers 18-49, an 80 percent jump over a 2.0 the week before.

Show on the decline: “Supernanny” ABC, Monday 9 p.m. ABC’s parenting show posted a 3.1 rating among 18-49s last week, off 16 percent from a 3.7 the previous week, despite the fact that it didn’t have to air against normal timeslot competitor “Heroes.”
http://www.medialifemagazine.com/artman/publish/article_10909.asp