Comments on: Beyond I Told You So: NBC Could Have Saved Network TV

By: Jonathan Nichols-Pethick

Jonathan Nichols-Pethick — Wed, 13 Jan 2010 13:51:51 +0000

I think the answer to the question that Jeffrey raises about what “affiliate” will mean in 2020 is a supremely important one. It’s surprising to me that the affiliates are still able to wield such power as they did in the Leno case. With the appointment of Stuart Benjamin as the FCC’s “Scholar in Residence” and the recent notice penned by the FCC — National Broadband Plan Public Notice #26 — as well as the waning stock value of companies like Nexstar and Belo, the growing trend of private equity firms taking over ownership grops, etc., it seems like a perfect storm is brewing that will eventually render the affiliates virtually powerless. Benjamin has made the “modest proposal” that broadcasting may not be the best use of the spectrum (see his “Roasting the Pig to Burn Down the House: A Modest Proposal,” published in the Journal on Telecommunications & High Technology almost exactly a year ago). For their part the FCC put forward the notice mentioned above in order to ask tough questions about the best use of the broadcast spectrum. The notice is serious enough to have prompted a response from the NAB along with the Association for Maximum Service Television, and spawned an ad campaign to “Save Free Antenna Television.” It seems to me that the best hope for the affiliates is if the NAB can convince the public and Congress that they would be giving away (or rather selling off) one of the most valuable public resources, and that it would be political suicide to do so. The question is: do people even care? What would make them care?

By: Myles McNutt

Myles McNutt — Tue, 12 Jan 2010 18:25:58 +0000

I think NBC had options in terms of trying to salvage the situation in Primetime without throwing Leno back to Late Night and essentially saying “Our bad!” I argued in a post last week that they could have kept Leno on at 10 on Tuesdays and Thursdays (where he has his strongest lead-ins) and simply connected his content more carefully to those lead-ins: feature talent from those shows (previewing the At-Home challenge on Biggest Loser, featuring comedians from Office/Parks/Community/30 Rock) in a way to try to keep viewers watching.

The problem with Leno’s show creatively is that it was his late night show transplanted into prime-time: while turning the hour into shameless self-promotion of the rest of the network’s programming might seem, well, shameless, if they’re actually going to try something different that could save the Network TV model there are ways which go beyond financial concerns to engage with creative opportunities present in programs like Leno’s.

I’m not saying I wouldn’t prefer all sorts of new drama (or even, as Jonathan notes, more reality), but the Leno Primetime experiment could have been tinkered with much more with potential success were it not for a combination of bad press, NBC’s strange desire for Jay Leno to be 100% happy at all times, and the legitimate (although, as Jeffrey argues, potentially in transition) power of affiliates to influence these decisions.

(You can find that whole Leno post here: http://bit.ly/63DGsn.)

By: Erin Copple Smith

Erin Copple Smith — Tue, 12 Jan 2010 17:28:30 +0000

Ha! Then I’ll concede the point.

By: Jonathan Gray

Jonathan Gray — Tue, 12 Jan 2010 05:41:14 +0000

Well, I wouldn’t have found it marvelous, I wouldn’t have thought Zucker a marvel, and I’d prefer to read Marvel comics than watch Leno, BUT yeah, I guess I’d be marveling, if only in a wtf kind of way 😉

By: Erin Copple Smith

Erin Copple Smith — Tue, 12 Jan 2010 01:53:51 +0000

Mightn’t you still have been “marveling”–even if it’s the same kind of marveling that makes you wonder why NCIS is the most-watched show on TV? We would have been surprised, sure, and yes, maybe even saddened at losing an hour of prime-time scripted programming every night of the week. But I think we would have been amazed that they took a gamble that paid off.

(Mind you, I agree that the risk they took was neither educated nor intelligent. I wanted to say it wasn’t calculated, either, but that seems to be the only thing it was–they were calculating how much money they could save, and as we all know, success with audiences is not just about finances. And I certainly agree that the Antenna hive mind could have come up with a better gamble.)

By: Jonathan Gray

Jonathan Gray — Mon, 11 Jan 2010 23:19:45 +0000

“Everyone would have been marveling,” Erin? Not me 🙂
If they pulled it off, I would be saddened that by giving up on an hour of prime time and got rewarded for it.

Indeed, I’m not that impressed with taking risks per se — educated, intelligent risks are what’s needed. I could jump off a 40 storey building and everyone would be impressed if I live, but I wouldn’t live, so the risk would just be dumb. I think NBC was dumb here, and they got punished. That punishment will continue to dole itself out as they now have to fill an hour of prime time last minute. So, yeah, they tried something, but I’m sure between the four of us commenting on this, we could have come up with something smarter if they wanted a smart risk. (or so says the armchair Zucker)

By: Jeffrey Jones

Jeffrey Jones — Mon, 11 Jan 2010 17:46:32 +0000

Oops. I see the word affiliate now. Well, again, what do affiliates mean in 2020? Something without the power they have in 2010.

By: Erin Copple Smith

Erin Copple Smith — Mon, 11 Jan 2010 17:19:28 +0000

I can’t believe this hasn’t occurred to me! This is a great point, Jonathan. I think you’re absolutely right–semi-stripping reality franchises does seem to be the workable solution to this issue, at least at the moment.

In fact, this reminds me of ABC’s failed experiment in airing Who Wants to be a Millionaire? so frequently across the prime time schedule several years ago. Audiences got burned out, and everyone said “I told you so!” to ABC…and yet…the tactic seems to be working now. It gives Amanda’s central point about avoiding “I told you so” in favor of “Congrats on making a move” some historical context that makes the argument particularly persuasive!

By: Erin Copple Smith

Erin Copple Smith — Mon, 11 Jan 2010 17:16:13 +0000

I had a discussion about this with my uncle over New Years, and said essentially the same thing: had this worked, it would have been huge and everyone would have been marveling at NBC’s courage at taking such a bold step that paid off.

Amanda, I agree completely that big changes are what will define the next 10 years in terms of programming, and someone had to go first. Yes, in this case, the gamble resulted in a big loss (your point about “grown-up” programming is very apt–my husband just said the other day, “SVU just isn’t a 9pm show”), but they took a risk.

Excellent post addressing lots of the things that have been on my mind, too.

By: Jeffrey Jones

Jeffrey Jones — Mon, 11 Jan 2010 15:16:22 +0000

I agree with Amanda (bold move, weak deployment), but the one word missing is “affiliates.” I like Amanda’s impetus to ask, “what does 2020 look like,” and I can’t help wondering what the word “affiliate” means in 2020. Because for better or worse, affiliates still had a big role in all this.