Upfronts 2009—Why Should We Care?
[Note from Jonathan: given my recent posts on the Upfronts, I thought I should go to an expert on the topic, Amanda Lotz, Associate Prof. of Communication Studies at University of Michigan, to ask for some analysis. Amanda has attended the Upfronts in the past, and her research on the topic can be found here and here. Welcome, Amanda]
The most intriguing aspect of this year’s upfronts was not whether Chuck would find a place on the NBC schedule nor does it have anything to do with the machinations that led to Medium’s transplantation from NBC to CBS in the fall. In fact, despite the galas, celebrations, and pounds of cocktail shrimp, the crucial question of this year’s upfront remains to be answered. Although perennially a possibility, this year more than others seems ripe for a reallocation of spending from broadcast to cable for primetime viewers.
There is certainly no good reason why this should particularly happen this year instead of in years past. For more than two decades, advertisers have paid steadily more for less in an effort to reach the diminishing “mass” audience. Despite thinning audiences, broadcasters maintained cachet as the most mass alternative in a fragmenting world. What has changed recently, however, is that cable increasingly offers a viable alternative as broadcast audiences for midrange shows continue to fall and ratings for original cable dramas climb. Perhaps some of the lack of excitement regarding the broadcast upfront presentations this year results from the fact that the programming being announced just isn’t that exciting, and even the game of handicapping apparently boneheaded moves has lost some luster as fewer and fewer care much about the programs on offer. Don’t get me wrong, there is a lot of good programming on television—perhaps more so than at any other time. Indeed, a lot of good programs won’t make it back next season—as it isn’t enough just to be good anymore. There is also a lot of great programming on the air. The trouble for broadcasters is that a lot of the good and great original programming can’t be found on their channels.
Increasingly, it is not just the television literati that has found favorite shows airing on cable. Sure, the New York Times-set will carry on endlessly about Mad Men and FX still offers sophisticated drama that now largely surpass the pay-cabler it once emulated, but USA and TNT have become destinations for reliably good series. Most offer a blend of convention (an episodic mystery or case) and an eccentric character or characters and far snappier writing than the average broadcast procedural. Many are also much less dark than the murderous fare that continues to succeed with the remaining “mass” audience, particularly for CBS. Turner will have seven original dramas on the air this summer (that’s one more than NBC’s fall schedule) and TNT’s The Closer averaged 5.8 million viewers this spring, while USA routinely beats The CW and even NBC in key demos — just to offer some sense of the shifting program terrain.
The difference, I’d argue, between these cable series and those offered by broadcasters is an emphasis on intriguing characters that help make what might otherwise be tried and trite program conventions tiresome. The cable shows have largely avoided the most conventional franchise formulas and somehow nuanced the stability such shows offer (the solving of crimes, pulling of capers). Indeed, the quirkiness of their characters may be particular to cable; precisely what makes the cable characters interesting is what might make them unappealing to broadcast’s still slightly more mass audience.
Which brings me back to the remaining excitement of this year’s upfront—will advertisers refuse to buy to broadcast the old way—based on minimal increase or decrease in last year’s rate and force a reevaluation of advertising pricing that makes more sense in the current television competitive environment. Certainly, the truly revolutionary shift actually warranted remains difficult to imagine even in this still change-embracing milieu. But some sort of meaningful shot over the bow is possible that suggests the beginning of a valuation of advertising time between cable and broadcast prime time that makes some sense.
Recent Comments