Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Should TV Networks Put Pilots Online For Judgement Like Amazon Is Doing?

Posted by Soulskill on from the prime-time-programming-brought-to-you-by-4chan dept.

An anonymous reader writes "EW debates how broadcasters might (and might not) benefit from letting the Internet help decide which of their pilots get series orders (like Amazon is doing with their new original content efforts). If NBC had posted its pilots online, would we have been spared 'Animal Practice'? It's an interesting idea, but not without faults: 'According to Nielsen’s research, the vast majority of TV viewing is still on a traditional set. Having pilots judged by online viewers would give networks a skewed sense of what might work in the fall — the entire broadcast schedule might be nothing but sci-fi shows, tween-lit adaptions and whatever Joss Whedon wants to do ... "If something isn’t picked up, for whatever reason, but people really liked it, that could be a problem," one network insider said. "Or if people hated something, and we pick it up — again, for whatever reason — you’re starting off on a bad note." ... Noted a major network programming researcher: "Great pilots don’t always make great television series." Conversely, if you’re a network executive, you usually don’t need millions of people to tell you a show sucks."

3 of 128 comments (clear)

  1. Don't need people to tell you? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Conversely, if you’re a network executive, you usually don’t need millions of people to tell you a show sucks."

    As history has shown, clearly the Fox executives *do*

  2. Re:"traditional set" by Junta · · Score: 3, Insightful

    All my shows grabbed using SickBeard on a server.

    And the networks don't care one bit about your opinion as you provide them no revenue opportunity.

    --
    XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
  3. Re:First let me buy your shows without cable by hedwards · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Bullshit.

    When my parents first signed up for cable it cost $5 a month during the mid '80s. There were about 30 stations available. When they canceled their Cable in favor of DirecTV the selections were like 70 and the cost per month had risen to about $70 a month, IIRC. The cost of the cabling was mostly paid for in the '80s and the maintenance should be substantially less than the cost of putting out all the cable, especially given the crap quality.

    So, my question is, what precisely is it that caused the cost of the service to increase by over 1000%? Because it sure as hell wasn't the result of them spending more money on service alone.