Slashdot Mirror
Should TV Networks Put Pilots Online For Judgement Like Amazon Is Doing?
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."
...they follow Bennett Haselton's forthcoming advice on how to improve the process.
I watch all of my TV on a traditional set.... through a HTPC running XBMC. All my shows grabbed using SickBeard on a server. It's like a massive DVR machine. Also just added NetFlix to the mix for Movies and Arrested Development.
As history has shown, clearly the Fox executives *do*
yes. of course, and if something doesn't get picked up, they can crowd source fund a few episodes.. and they should use more of the British model where a 'season' might be just 3 to 4 episodes.. all done with quality..
They should sign people up for subscriptions and allow them to watch anywhere, any time.. and be part of the process of picking what they wil be watching.. after all if you ask nicely most people will tell you what they think.
They are basically creating content (by buying it or paying for it) and then finding advertisers to fund it.. that's a model that easier to do online than offline, esp. now that people are time shifting, Etc. They need to forget that they are going out Over The Air and start to incorporate everything they can do when they to OTT (over the top)..
http://www.hawknest.com/
The summary makes a good point that the sample audience could have very different tastes than the target audience. I think it's probably a good idea for shows that are intended to be released online, in the same format as the pilot is previewed.
Conversely, if you’re a network executive, you usually don’t need millions of people to tell you a show sucks.
Apparently, you do, based on how many TV shows utterly fail due to poor ratings. But here's the problem: TV (especially sitcoms and reality TV) aren't about making quality entertainment, they're about ratings. Some network exec thought Animal Practice would make money, not necessarily be a quality show. TV is primarily a business, not a medium for artistic expression. Internet TV is not that different, but Amazon's approach could give shows a chance that otherwise would have been nixed by an exec that guessed wrong.
my, your, his/her/its, our, your, their
I'm, you're, he's/she's/it's, we're, you're, they're
I want a TV series of just pilots or things that got picked up but were canned and never shown. Stuff like that. If done right it could be entertaining. Give some details on it before it shows. Who knows there could be a winner lurking in there and it would get the attention it deserves.
Internet may give you a skewed audience, but there's nothing saying you couldn't just create a large base set of pilots, show all the pilots during a set of "Preview Weeks!" at the beginning of the year, or over the summer, and then pick up those ones that poll well or reasonably for the fall semester.
You are correct. The problem is that people don't know what they want. But perhaps, if they tried, the networks would find that "Box of Puppies" and "Pictures of Cats with Funny Captions" are their highest rated programs.
All ideas^H^H^H^H^Hprocesses in this post are Patent Pending. (as well as the process of patenting all postings)
Would easily be more entertaining than Deadliest Swamp Ice Road Trucker Catch People.
The model is to put something on the air, on the cable or on the net which will cause people to stop doing anything else and to focus their attention on the content. This enables the content providers to add their own other content to mix in with the stream. This enables them to influence our knowledge, perception, thoughts, beliefs and ideals. MOST of the time, the additional content is advertising which does all of the afore mentioned with the purpose of getting people to buy things.
SO. With that said, it is most efficient to create content which most interesting to the people that buy the most and are most easily influenced.
This is why the good shows don't last while crap shows stay on forever and are replicated over and over and over again.
The exception is when "the content is the product" of course, but that's a rather rare in the grand scheme of things.
You're saying that like it's a bad thing. I might end up buying a TV.
Exactly, best case you'll end up paying $50 for a 26 episode season, that you can watch ONCE. Box set would cost the same and you'd own them.
Let the networks die with the rest of the Luddites and their business models. I'll happily continue to consume my niche entertainment streaming a la carte from the likes of Netflix and Amazon. I have no interest in hundreds of channels worth of mass consensus crap. I have even less interest when its for ridiculous sums of money.
Two of my imaginary friends reproduced once
The box set can also be stripped of it's DRM and converted to any format and played on any device or app you want.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
I do not pay for a service that has advertising.
I do not care how you want to rationalize it.
Netflix has more selection than Hulu and costs less than $100/month. Advertisers are not paying Hulu anything like $100/month/user.
OTOH, we are a demographic full of people with extra spending cash.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Here, let me explain:
24 - Good
The Agency, Jericho, and Terra Nova - Crap.
And I mean objectively. The writing the filming the acting.
even though I didn't like 24 for subjective reason,it was much better technically then those other shows.
"I'm sick of the real catty housewives of the next urban location. I'm tired of Dodgy the bountiful hunter, and every lame "re-enacted" reality shows like Operacion Repo."
I agree, but they are cheap to make so they can make a lot of maybe for the studios even with lower ratings. So they keep trying that model.
However there end is near. People are getting tired of many of them.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
I remember the Cartoon Network did a bunch of shorts more than fifteen years ago that people were supposed to vote on (by phone, because that's how we rolled back then). Johnny Bravo was the winner (deserved. I know it got bad later on, but that original short and the start of the series were funny as hell), Cow and Chicken and the Powerpuff Girls also came out of this little experiment. Maybe more, I don't remember.
I thought this was a brilliant way of coming up with new shows and it seemed successful from my perspective, but I don't think they ever did it again.
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.
Read a good book, go for a walk, be creative with something, cook, garden, there is no need for TV.