Syfy's "Warehouse 13," "Alphas" season premiere ratings

[David]

SYFY�S Warehouse 13 GRABS 2.1 MILLION TOTAL VIEWERS IN SEASON FOUR
RETURN

Alphas FINDS 1.7 MILLION VIEWERS IN SOPHOMORE DEBUT

BOTH SERIES UP DOUBLE-DIGITS IN ADULTS 18-49 AND ADULTS 25-54 VERSUS
LAST SEASON�S FINALES

NEW YORK � July 24, 2012 � Syfy�s potent one-two punch of hit series
Warehouse 13 and Alphas returned to the Powerful Mondays programming
block on Monday, July 23, racking up impressive ratings in their
respective season premieres.

From 9-10PM (ET/PT), Warehouse 13 averaged 2.1 million total viewers,
1.1 million Adults 25-54 � up 17% compared to the season three finale
-- and nearly 1.0 million (967K) Adults 18-49, jumping 23% versus last
year�s cliffhanger, during its season four debut.

Following from 10-11PM (ET/PT), the season two return of Alphas found
1.7 million total viewers along with 826K Adults 25-54 and 725K Adults
18-49. The Season 2 return of Alphas was up double digits compared to
its season 1 finale across all key demos -- +24% in Adults 18-49, +25%
in Adults 25-54 and +50% in total viewers.

Warehouse 13 is produced for Syfy by Universal Cable Productions. Jack
Kenny (The Book of Daniel) is executive producer and showrunner.

Alphas follows a clandestine group of ordinary people with superhuman
mental and physical abilities. The series stars Emmy Award-winner and
Academy Award-nominee David Strathairn as Dr. Lee Rosen, a preeminent
neurologist and psychiatrist who leads an unlikely team of Alphas who
take on cases the CIA, FBI and Pentagon are unwilling or unable to
solve going head-to-head with many of the criminal Alphas hiding among
the normal population. Alphas also stars Malik Yoba, Ryan Cartwright,
Warren Christie, Azita Ghanizada and Laura Mennell. Erin Way (Detroit
187, Private Practice) joins the cast this season as Kat.

Alphas is produced by Universal Cable Productions and BermanBraun
Television with executive producers Bruce Miller, Gail Berman, Lloyd
Braun, and Gene Stein. Zak Penn and co-executive producer Michael
Karnow are series creators.

[Jim G.]

David sent the following on Tue, 24 Jul 2012 16:02:10 -0400:

> SYFY�S Warehouse 13 GRABS 2.1 MILLION TOTAL VIEWERS IN SEASON FOUR
> RETURN
>
> Alphas FINDS 1.7 MILLION VIEWERS IN SOPHOMORE DEBUT

They grab ... they find ... fewer viewers than EUREKA was getting before
they destroyed it with sucktacularness!

> BOTH SERIES UP DOUBLE-DIGITS IN ADULTS 18-49 AND ADULTS 25-54 VERSUS
> LAST SEASON�S FINALES
>
> NEW YORK � July 24, 2012 � Syfy�s potent one-two punch of hit series
> Warehouse 13 and Alphas returned to the Powerful Mondays programming
> block on Monday, July 23, racking up impressive ratings in their
> respective season premieres.
>
> From 9-10PM (ET/PT), Warehouse 13 averaged 2.1 million total viewers,
> 1.1 million Adults 25-54 � up 17% compared to the season three finale
> -- and nearly 1.0 million (967K) Adults 18-49, jumping 23% versus last
> year�s cliffhanger, during its season four debut.
>
> Following from 10-11PM (ET/PT), the season two return of Alphas found
> 1.7 million total viewers along with 826K Adults 25-54 and 725K Adults
> 18-49. The Season 2 return of Alphas was up double digits compared to
> its season 1 finale across all key demos -- +24% in Adults 18-49, +25%
> in Adults 25-54 and +50% in total viewers.

Ah, PR departments. They would even try to spin an obituary as a good
thing.

So ALPHAS was down to 850,000 viewers at the end of its first season?
Wow. Renew the poor performers and deliberately (and successfully) set
out to destroy your best player. It's as if Syfy *wants* to fail. Either
that or they want to be the team with the lowest payroll as opposed to
the team that wins its division (or at least a few games).

--
Jim G. | Waukesha, WI
"I find it's best if you just ... go with it." -- Lincoln Lee, providing us with FRINGE's "Every question just leads to more questions" moment

[Mason Barge]

On Wed, 25 Jul 2012 15:31:09 -0500, Jim G. <jimg...@geemail.com.invalid>
wrote:

>David sent the following on Tue, 24 Jul 2012 16:02:10 -0400:
>> SYFY�S Warehouse 13 GRABS 2.1 MILLION TOTAL VIEWERS IN SEASON FOUR
>> RETURN
>>
>> Alphas FINDS 1.7 MILLION VIEWERS IN SOPHOMORE DEBUT
>
>They grab ... they find ... fewer viewers than EUREKA was getting before
>they destroyed it with sucktacularness!
>
>> BOTH SERIES UP DOUBLE-DIGITS IN ADULTS 18-49 AND ADULTS 25-54 VERSUS
>> LAST SEASON�S FINALES
>>
>> NEW YORK � July 24, 2012 � Syfy�s potent one-two punch of hit series
>> Warehouse 13 and Alphas returned to the Powerful Mondays programming
>> block on Monday, July 23, racking up impressive ratings in their
>> respective season premieres.
>>
>> From 9-10PM (ET/PT), Warehouse 13 averaged 2.1 million total viewers,
>> 1.1 million Adults 25-54 � up 17% compared to the season three finale
>> -- and nearly 1.0 million (967K) Adults 18-49, jumping 23% versus last
>> year�s cliffhanger, during its season four debut.
>>
>> Following from 10-11PM (ET/PT), the season two return of Alphas found
>> 1.7 million total viewers along with 826K Adults 25-54 and 725K Adults
>> 18-49. The Season 2 return of Alphas was up double digits compared to
>> its season 1 finale across all key demos -- +24% in Adults 18-49, +25%
>> in Adults 25-54 and +50% in total viewers.
>
>Ah, PR departments. They would even try to spin an obituary as a good
>thing.
>
>So ALPHAS was down to 850,000 viewers at the end of its first season?

Nice math skills. More like 1.1 - 1.2 million.

If 1.5x = y, then x = y/1.5 = .66y

If you'd gone to school in, say, Serbia, you wouldn't have missed this :)

>Wow. Renew the poor performers and deliberately (and successfully) set
>out to destroy your best player. It's as if Syfy *wants* to fail. Either
>that or they want to be the team with the lowest payroll as opposed to
>the team that wins its division (or at least a few games).

What Syfy needs is a catchy slogan. Like maybe, TV Now.

[Jim G.]

Jim G. sent the following on Wed, 25 Jul 2012 15:31:09 -0500:

Yeah, I can divide 1.7M by 1.5. Usually. When I haven't taken a stupid
pill. And with my wi-fi access limited at the moment, I won't even be
able to post a correction before my mistake gets pounced on. In the next
18 hours or so, I expect any number of people of being up to the task of
gooning me for this one, so don't let me down. :)

In any case, even at the correct count of 1.13M, my point stands with
regard to Syfy's decision-making. They seem far more interested in costs
than in income these days.

[Rob Jensen]

Keep in mind that no basic cable channel (or advertiser) gives a shit
about total viewers. All they care about is the target demos.

-- Rob

[Jim G.]

Mason Barge sent the following on Wed, 25 Jul 2012 17:11:20 -0400:

I can't believe that you're the only one busting me for this. And
honestly, do you have *any* idea what it's like for me to see a blatant
screw-up like that and know that I'm not gonna be able to do a darn
thing about it for almost an entire day? I needed another finger or two
of Scotch on Wednesday night, let me tell you. :)

> >Wow. Renew the poor performers and deliberately (and successfully) set
> >out to destroy your best player. It's as if Syfy *wants* to fail. Either
> >that or they want to be the team with the lowest payroll as opposed to
> >the team that wins its division (or at least a few games).
>
> What Syfy needs is a catchy slogan. Like maybe, TV Now.

"Syfy: Our Ratings Suck, But Our Costs Are In Line With Budgets"

Yeah, that'll draw viewers. :(

--
Jim G. | Waukesha, WI

"You will create an evil of your own making." -- Knights Templar Grandmaster Data

[Jim G.]

Rob Jensen sent the following on Thu, 26 Jul 2012 18:24:38 -0500:

When you start out with 1.13M *total* viewers, aren't you already in
trouble even if 100% of your audience is in a target demo?

--
Jim G. | Waukesha, WI

[shawn]

On Sat, 28 Jul 2012 15:37:30 -0500, Jim G.

<jimg...@geemail.com.invalid> wrote:

>Rob Jensen sent the following on Thu, 26 Jul 2012 18:24:38 -0500:
>> On Thu, 26 Jul 2012 14:00:45 -0500, Jim G.
>> <jimg...@geemail.com.invalid> wrote:
>>
>> >In any case, even at the correct count of 1.13M, my point stands with
>> >regard to Syfy's decision-making. They seem far more interested in costs
>> >than in income these days.
>>
>> Keep in mind that no basic cable channel (or advertiser) gives a shit
>> about total viewers. All they care about is the target demos.
>
>When you start out with 1.13M *total* viewers, aren't you already in
>trouble even if 100% of your audience is in a target demo?

Depends. If you are on the CW you are probably in their top five
shows.

[Ian J. Ball]

No, no - if you're The CW, you cancel all of your shows with the
*highest* Total Viewer ratings!!

[Rob Jensen]

On Sat, 28 Jul 2012 15:37:30 -0500, Jim G.

<jimg...@geemail.com.invalid> wrote:

>Rob Jensen sent the following on Thu, 26 Jul 2012 18:24:38 -0500:
>> On Thu, 26 Jul 2012 14:00:45 -0500, Jim G.
>> <jimg...@geemail.com.invalid> wrote:
>>
>> >In any case, even at the correct count of 1.13M, my point stands with
>> >regard to Syfy's decision-making. They seem far more interested in costs
>> >than in income these days.
>>
>> Keep in mind that no basic cable channel (or advertiser) gives a shit
>> about total viewers. All they care about is the target demos.
>
>When you start out with 1.13M *total* viewers, aren't you already in
>trouble even if 100% of your audience is in a target demo?

Not these days. Keep in mind, too, that SyFy owns Warehouse 13 (which
*is* high-rated) and Alphas. Shows that the given channel
owns/produces itself have a lower threshhold for profitability because
the channel isn't sharing any of the profits -- not just from the
original broadcasts of the episodes, but also from all the ancillary
revenue streams such as DVD and foreign -- with an outside studio.

I know that because Eureka *was* cancelled due to its enormous (for
basic cable) budget despite its being SyFy's highest-rated show makes
it seem like budget is the *only* thing that the channel looks at,
but, c'mon, Eureka also had a relatively large cast of both leads and
recurrings (keep in mind, too, that both Wil Wheaton and Felicia Day
were regulars -- despite however they were credited -- in seasons 4,
4.5 and 5).

Even if we were to speculate for the sake of argument that W13 and
Eureka have the same VFX budget this year (and IMO, W13 is still
cheaper in that department because the effects of the various
artifacts are largely based on altering characters' behavior than
manifesting as a VFX), the overhead for the talent on Eureka was quite
large.

-- Rob

[Rob Jensen]

That normally happens because that given show is among their *lowest*
rated shows in the target demos. Nikita is the clearest exception to
that rule for The CW, but that's because it's a hit overseas. Overseas
sales are for Nikita what Subway was for Chuck: an *unexpected*
revenue stream both large enough and stable enough to justify its
continued existence.

-- Rob

[David]

On Sat, 28 Jul 2012 15:37:30 -0500, Jim G.

<jimg...@geemail.com.invalid> wrote:

>Rob Jensen sent the following on Thu, 26 Jul 2012 18:24:38 -0500:
>> On Thu, 26 Jul 2012 14:00:45 -0500, Jim G.
>> <jimg...@geemail.com.invalid> wrote:
>>
>> >In any case, even at the correct count of 1.13M, my point stands with
>> >regard to Syfy's decision-making. They seem far more interested in costs
>> >than in income these days.
>>
>> Keep in mind that no basic cable channel (or advertiser) gives a shit
>> about total viewers. All they care about is the target demos.
>
>When you start out with 1.13M *total* viewers, aren't you already in
>trouble even if 100% of your audience is in a target demo?

There was an interesting comment today from the President of FX that
no basic cable dramas can make money off advertising alone.
http://twitter.com/thefutoncritic/status/229247583879581697

So if that's true then ratings must not be that key to measuring
success.

[Ian J. Ball]

This leads further credence to my theory that the entire TV industry
is basically unsustainable, and is on the way out rather soon.

I just hope it's replaced by something less aggravating and *less
irritating*...
:/

[Adam H. Kerman]

David <diml...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>Jim G. <jimg...@geemail.com.invalid> wrote:
>>Rob Jensen sent the following on Thu, 26 Jul 2012 18:24:38 -0500:

>>>Jim G. <jimg...@geemail.com.invalid> wrote:

>>>>In any case, even at the correct count of 1.13M, my point stands with
>>>>regard to Syfy's decision-making. They seem far more interested in costs
>>>>than in income these days.

>>>Keep in mind that no basic cable channel (or advertiser) gives a shit
>>>about total viewers. All they care about is the target demos.

>>When you start out with 1.13M *total* viewers, aren't you already in
>>trouble even if 100% of your audience is in a target demo?

>There was an interesting comment today from the President of FX that
>no basic cable dramas can make money off advertising alone.
>http://twitter.com/thefutoncritic/status/229247583879581697

>So if that's true then ratings must not be that key to measuring
>success.

Then screw the target demographic. Basic cable gets pass-through revenue
from the cable provider that a raw count of subscribers, not demographics.

[David]

The insane amount of original shows now on cable suggests that they're
good business. Another thing the FX Prez said today was he once
couldn't imagine having 12 original shows on-air. Now he can imagine
having 20.

[Mason Barge]

On Sat, 28 Jul 2012 15:37:30 -0500, Jim G. <jimg...@geemail.com.invalid>

wrote:

>Rob Jensen sent the following on Thu, 26 Jul 2012 18:24:38 -0500:
>> On Thu, 26 Jul 2012 14:00:45 -0500, Jim G.
>> <jimg...@geemail.com.invalid> wrote:
>>
>> >In any case, even at the correct count of 1.13M, my point stands with
>> >regard to Syfy's decision-making. They seem far more interested in costs
>> >than in income these days.
>>
>> Keep in mind that no basic cable channel (or advertiser) gives a shit
>> about total viewers. All they care about is the target demos.
>
>When you start out with 1.13M *total* viewers, aren't you already in
>trouble even if 100% of your audience is in a target demo?

Well, sometimes execs have the sense to grow a program. 1.7 m. total is
probably in the profitable range for FX, although this is a fairly
high-budget show. They have a pretty big star and some fairly elaborate
sets.

They've really proven that one of the secrets to tight-budget success is
getting great actors who are pretty much unknown. It takes a lot of
talent to cast that well.

[Rob Jensen]

It's still gonna to be based on what percentage of the raw count of
the subscribers are of the target demos. Even when the TV industry
switches away from the Neilsens to a method of ratings that is even
slightly in the vicinity of being scientifically accurate, the
advertisers are *still* going to pay for the shows that the new
ratings method says attracts the target demos. It's always going to be
about the target demos.

-- Rob

[Rob Jensen]

On Sun, 29 Jul 2012 11:21:58 -0400, Mason Barge <mason...@gmail.com>
wrote:

The axiom in the movie, TV and theater worlds is that 90% of the
reason for a show's success is in the casting. There's too much money
involved to deliberately cast badly. While it happens -- any casting
director that casts Megalyn Echikunwoke, for example -- those bad
choices do catch up with the casting director and/or the given bad
actor eventually.

Likewise, it explains why 80-90% of shows are flops. You can have all
the talent in the world on your show and it can *still* flop. Forget
that other 10% of the reasons for a show's success (scripts, director,
etc.) -- if there's something off about the casting, the show's going
to flop. Case in point: FOX's sitcom "Back To You" a couple of years
back. That one starred Kelsey Grammer, Patricia Heaton and Ty Burrell
-- but it also starred the screechy, pre-Book of Mormon Josh Gad,
before he learned to tone the screechiness down to something even
remotely watchable. I still think that the sole reason that that
sitcom was cancelled, regardless of the official explanation (its
ratings weren't that bad, after all), is that FOX's programming head
couldn't stand to hear even a second of Gad's voice.

-- Rob

[Adam H. Kerman]

Rob Jensen <Shut...@aol.com> wrote:
>"Adam H. Kerman" <a...@chinet.com> wrote:
>>David <diml...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>Jim G. <jimg...@geemail.com.invalid> wrote:
>>>>Rob Jensen sent the following on Thu, 26 Jul 2012 18:24:38 -0500:
>>>>>Jim G. <jimg...@geemail.com.invalid> wrote:

>>>>>>In any case, even at the correct count of 1.13M, my point stands with
>>>>>>regard to Syfy's decision-making. They seem far more interested in costs
>>>>>>than in income these days.

>>>>>Keep in mind that no basic cable channel (or advertiser) gives a shit
>>>>>about total viewers. All they care about is the target demos.

>>>>When you start out with 1.13M *total* viewers, aren't you already in
>>>>trouble even if 100% of your audience is in a target demo?

>>>There was an interesting comment today from the President of FX that
>>>no basic cable dramas can make money off advertising alone.
>>>http://twitter.com/thefutoncritic/status/229247583879581697

>>>So if that's true then ratings must not be that key to measuring
>>>success.

>>Then screw the target demographic. Basic cable gets pass-through revenue
>>from the cable provider that a raw count of subscribers, not demographics.

>It's still gonna to be based on what percentage of the raw count of
>the subscribers are of the target demos.

What is the basic cable fee share of revenue? There, you want to know how
many subscribers are retained and how your satellite channel is responsible
for that. That's just a raw number of viewers.

>Even when the TV industry switches away from the Neilsens to a method of
>ratings that is even slightly in the vicinity of being scientifically
>accurate, the advertisers are *still* going to pay for the shows that
>the new ratings method says attracts the target demos. It's always going
>to be about the target demos.

They'll target different demographics if it's more accurate. Young men
are targeted because they're difficult to measure.

[Dimensional Traveler]

No, not usually. They target the demographic they do because that is
the demographic _that can be swayed by commercials_ and _spends money_.
Older demos are not targeted because their spending habits are already
set and they don't have as much discretionary money to throw around.
Too young and they don't have any money to spend. And they target women
because women are still the ones who do most of the shopping and buying.

Yes, there are some products that aim for a different market but the
majority of the money comes from that long established target demo.
These are not just hunches or guesses, billions are spent on consumer
opinion surveys and sociological studies and have been for decades.

[erilar]

In article <nmcb18lcme1s2hd21...@4ax.com>,

Rob Jensen <Shut...@aol.com> wrote:

> Even when the TV industry
> switches away from the Neilsens to a method of ratings that is even
> slightly in the vicinity of being scientifically accurate, the
> advertisers are *still* going to pay for the shows that the new
> ratings method says attracts the target demos. It's always going to be
> about the target demos.

They don't expect their ads to have any influence on mature adults 8-)

--
Erilar, biblioholic medievalist

[erilar]

In article <jv4kmv$489$1...@news.albasani.net>,

"Adam H. Kerman" <a...@chinet.com> wrote:

> Young men
> are targeted because they're difficult to measure.

Or because they figure they're gullible?

--
Erilar, biblioholic medievalist

[Adam H. Kerman]

erilar <dra...@chibardun.net.invalid> wrote:
>"Adam H. Kerman" <a...@chinet.com> wrote:

>>Young men are targeted because they're difficult to measure.

>Or because they figure they're gullible?

Hahahahahahahahaha

[Adam H. Kerman]

erilar <dra...@chibardun.net.invalid> wrote:
>Rob Jensen <Shut...@aol.com> wrote:

>> Even when the TV industry
>> switches away from the Neilsens to a method of ratings that is even
>> slightly in the vicinity of being scientifically accurate, the
>> advertisers are *still* going to pay for the shows that the new
>> ratings method says attracts the target demos. It's always going to be
>> about the target demos.

>They don't expect their ads to have any influence on mature adults 8-)

Maybe they should hire people who have mastered the art of selling and
persuassion to copywrite their ads. Let's face it: A lot of ads are
absolutely attrocious.

[Jim G.]

shawn sent the following on Sat, 28 Jul 2012 16:58:53 -0400:

Heh. There are probably times when even CBS would salivate at the
thought of 1.13M 18-49s--even as they're drawing in 20M blue-haired
viewers.

[Jim G.]

David sent the following on Sat, 28 Jul 2012 19:45:32 -0400:

Color me skeptical. (Yeah, I know. Go figure.) When it comes to profit,
studio heads and network presidents lie as much as a Congresscritter. To
hear them tell it, nothing that has ever been released has made a dime
in profit.

[Jim G.]

Rob Jensen sent the following on Sat, 28 Jul 2012 18:21:16 -0500:

> On Sat, 28 Jul 2012 15:37:30 -0500, Jim G.
> <jimg...@geemail.com.invalid> wrote:
>
> >Rob Jensen sent the following on Thu, 26 Jul 2012 18:24:38 -0500:
> >> On Thu, 26 Jul 2012 14:00:45 -0500, Jim G.
> >> <jimg...@geemail.com.invalid> wrote:
> >>
> >> >In any case, even at the correct count of 1.13M, my point stands with
> >> >regard to Syfy's decision-making. They seem far more interested in costs
> >> >than in income these days.
> >>
> >> Keep in mind that no basic cable channel (or advertiser) gives a shit
> >> about total viewers. All they care about is the target demos.
> >
> >When you start out with 1.13M *total* viewers, aren't you already in
> >trouble even if 100% of your audience is in a target demo?
>
> Not these days. Keep in mind, too, that SyFy owns Warehouse 13 (which
> *is* high-rated) and Alphas.

EUREKA wasn't owned by Syfy?

> Shows that the given channel
> owns/produces itself have a lower threshhold for profitability because
> the channel isn't sharing any of the profits -- not just from the
> original broadcasts of the episodes, but also from all the ancillary
> revenue streams such as DVD and foreign -- with an outside studio.
>
> I know that because Eureka *was* cancelled due to its enormous (for
> basic cable) budget

I keep hearing that, but it's not as if Syfy has ever shared payroll
numbers with the audience, or anything. Are you basing this on
scuttlebutt, or on something legitimate that you read in a reputable
source?

> despite its being SyFy's highest-rated show makes
> it seem like budget is the *only* thing that the channel looks at,
> but, c'mon, Eureka also had a relatively large cast of both leads and
> recurrings (keep in mind, too, that both Wil Wheaton and Felicia Day
> were regulars -- despite however they were credited -- in seasons 4,
> 4.5 and 5).

Yeah, I mentioned soon after the start of the final season that the
EUREKA folks weren't doing themselves any survival favors by adding cast
members and jacking up the effects budget (as seemed to be the case).
That's why, especially after the final horrid (but visually impressive)
season, I realized that it was almost as if they were *begging* to be
dropped. It's not a good combo when the writing quality nosedives even
as the expenses rise. And, frankly, I've never been a fan of what I call
"stunt casting," which in this case meant the addition of fanboi faves
Wheaton and Day--and especially Day, who sucked from start to finish.
(Or maybe it was mostly her Holly character, but either way she sucked.)

> Even if we were to speculate for the sake of argument that W13 and
> Eureka have the same VFX budget this year (and IMO, W13 is still
> cheaper in that department because the effects of the various
> artifacts are largely based on altering characters' behavior than
> manifesting as a VFX), the overhead for the talent on Eureka was quite
> large.

Then write out the actors who insist on trying to break the budget when
contract time rolls around. The show survived and did well after Stark
left, after all, and he was clearly a major player at the time. Heck,
sometimes a change in cast also gives the writers a chance to change
direction in certain ways, which itself can keep a show fresh. For
example, I would have hated to see them write off Carter, but I could
also see how someone new in place of Carter would give them a chance to
break away from the somewhat tired pattern of the the dumb-but-nice guy
who saves the day every week.

In short, there is no need to kill the entire show--and certainly no
need to *expand* the cast--if payroll is becoming a concern.

[Jim G.]

Mason Barge sent the following on Sun, 29 Jul 2012 11:21:58 -0400:

> On Sat, 28 Jul 2012 15:37:30 -0500, Jim G. <jimg...@geemail.com.invalid>
> wrote:
>
> >Rob Jensen sent the following on Thu, 26 Jul 2012 18:24:38 -0500:
> >> On Thu, 26 Jul 2012 14:00:45 -0500, Jim G.
> >> <jimg...@geemail.com.invalid> wrote:
> >>
> >> >In any case, even at the correct count of 1.13M, my point stands with
> >> >regard to Syfy's decision-making. They seem far more interested in costs
> >> >than in income these days.
> >>
> >> Keep in mind that no basic cable channel (or advertiser) gives a shit
> >> about total viewers. All they care about is the target demos.
> >
> >When you start out with 1.13M *total* viewers, aren't you already in
> >trouble even if 100% of your audience is in a target demo?
>
> Well, sometimes execs have the sense to grow a program. 1.7 m. total is
> probably in the profitable range for FX, although this is a fairly
> high-budget show.

I think Rob's FX (for special effects) has you saying FX when you mean
Syfy. :)

> They have a pretty big star and some fairly elaborate
> sets.

Yeah, and I mentioned soon after the start of this past season that they
seemed to be upping the ante on costs, which almost had them begging to
be cancelled by the suits who surely saw the same writing decline that
many of us here saw.

> They've really proven that one of the secrets to tight-budget success is
> getting great actors who are pretty much unknown. It takes a lot of
> talent to cast that well.

Absolutely. Using baseball terms again, it's like the small market GM
who has to field a big league team with a very limited payroll budget
while the Yankees and Red Sox can spend whatever they want picking up
free agents when contract time rolls around. And in the end, what the
small market types do is to develop/identify talent that then gets
poached at the first opportunity by those with deep pockets.

[Adam H. Kerman]

Jim G. <jimg...@geemail.com.invalid> wrote:
>Rob Jensen sent the following on Sat, 28 Jul 2012 18:21:16 -0500:

>>Jim G. <jimg...@geemail.com.invalid> wrote:
>>>Rob Jensen sent the following on Thu, 26 Jul 2012 18:24:38 -0500:

>>>>Jim G. <jimg...@geemail.com.invalid> wrote:

>>>>>In any case, even at the correct count of 1.13M, my point stands with
>>>>>regard to Syfy's decision-making. They seem far more interested in costs
>>>>>than in income these days.

>>>>Keep in mind that no basic cable channel (or advertiser) gives a shit
>>>>about total viewers. All they care about is the target demos.

>>>When you start out with 1.13M *total* viewers, aren't you already in
>>>trouble even if 100% of your audience is in a target demo?

>>Not these days. Keep in mind, too, that SyFy owns Warehouse 13 (which
>>*is* high-rated) and Alphas.

>EUREKA wasn't owned by Syfy?

Universal Cable Productions, a sister company, same as Alphas and W13.

It could still be a different deal.

[shawn]

On Mon, 30 Jul 2012 14:35:47 -0500, Jim G.

I certainly don't have any inside information but it is possible that
the salaries had gone up some just due to the series being in the
fifth season. Obviously they couldn't demand the huge bumps that
someone on a #1 show could get but I could see them requesting more
than what they had been getting just for being jerked around (off air
for 1.5 years) the way SyFy did.

>> despite its being SyFy's highest-rated show makes
>> it seem like budget is the *only* thing that the channel looks at,
>> but, c'mon, Eureka also had a relatively large cast of both leads and
>> recurrings (keep in mind, too, that both Wil Wheaton and Felicia Day
>> were regulars -- despite however they were credited -- in seasons 4,
>> 4.5 and 5).
>
>Yeah, I mentioned soon after the start of the final season that the
>EUREKA folks weren't doing themselves any survival favors by adding cast
>members and jacking up the effects budget (as seemed to be the case).
>That's why, especially after the final horrid (but visually impressive)
>season, I realized that it was almost as if they were *begging* to be
>dropped. It's not a good combo when the writing quality nosedives even
>as the expenses rise. And, frankly, I've never been a fan of what I call
>"stunt casting," which in this case meant the addition of fanboi faves
>Wheaton and Day--and especially Day, who sucked from start to finish.
>(Or maybe it was mostly her Holly character, but either way she sucked.)

Stunt casting isn't a bad thing if the casting is good. I didn't have
a problem with Wheaton showing up as a nemesis for Fargo when it was a
one off thing. Even having him show up a couple times a season
wouldn't be bad, but adding him in as a regular cast member messed
with the cast dynamics in a way that didn't work well for me.

>> Even if we were to speculate for the sake of argument that W13 and
>> Eureka have the same VFX budget this year (and IMO, W13 is still
>> cheaper in that department because the effects of the various
>> artifacts are largely based on altering characters' behavior than
>> manifesting as a VFX), the overhead for the talent on Eureka was quite
>> large.
>
>Then write out the actors who insist on trying to break the budget when
>contract time rolls around. The show survived and did well after Stark
>left, after all, and he was clearly a major player at the time. Heck,
>sometimes a change in cast also gives the writers a chance to change
>direction in certain ways, which itself can keep a show fresh. For
>example, I would have hated to see them write off Carter, but I could
>also see how someone new in place of Carter would give them a chance to
>break away from the somewhat tired pattern of the the dumb-but-nice guy
>who saves the day every week.

I don't think he means that someone was requesting a huge bump in
salary. More likely it's just due to the sheer numbers of people on
the show. Think about how many people showed up in just about every
episode plus all of the cast they had in the background. That large
cast would create a large budget even if they were just getting scale
(especially by the fifth season since scale salaries go up as the
years go by.)

>In short, there is no need to kill the entire show--and certainly no
>need to *expand* the cast--if payroll is becoming a concern.

Very true. Smart writing can avoid a huge regular cast.

[BTR1701]

In article <a3cd185gj6vclupp4...@4ax.com>,

Jim G. <jimg...@geemail.com.invalid> wrote:

> Then write out the actors who insist on trying to break the budget when
> contract time rolls around. The show survived and did well after Stark
> left, after all, and he was clearly a major player at the time. Heck,
> sometimes a change in cast also gives the writers a chance to change
> direction in certain ways, which itself can keep a show fresh. For
> example, I would have hated to see them write off Carter, but I could
> also see how someone new in place of Carter would give them a chance to
> break away from the somewhat tired pattern of the the dumb-but-nice guy
> who saves the day every week.

As long as they kept Alison. And maybe turned her into a ground-breaking
human-dolphin linguist specialist which required her to spend many, many
hours in the dolphin tank in a bikini.

[Rob Jensen]

On Mon, 30 Jul 2012 14:35:47 -0500, Jim G.

<jimg...@geemail.com.invalid> wrote:

>Rob Jensen sent the following on Sat, 28 Jul 2012 18:21:16 -0500:
>> On Sat, 28 Jul 2012 15:37:30 -0500, Jim G.
>> <jimg...@geemail.com.invalid> wrote:
>>
>> >Rob Jensen sent the following on Thu, 26 Jul 2012 18:24:38 -0500:
>> >> On Thu, 26 Jul 2012 14:00:45 -0500, Jim G.
>> >> <jimg...@geemail.com.invalid> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >In any case, even at the correct count of 1.13M, my point stands with
>> >> >regard to Syfy's decision-making. They seem far more interested in costs
>> >> >than in income these days.
>> >>
>> >> Keep in mind that no basic cable channel (or advertiser) gives a shit
>> >> about total viewers. All they care about is the target demos.
>> >
>> >When you start out with 1.13M *total* viewers, aren't you already in
>> >trouble even if 100% of your audience is in a target demo?
>>
>> Not these days. Keep in mind, too, that SyFy owns Warehouse 13 (which
>> *is* high-rated) and Alphas.
>
>EUREKA wasn't owned by Syfy?

My shorthanding was a little too good in my original post -- i did a
cursory glance of the spine of my Warehouse 13 s1 DVD set that's
sitting on my to-watch stack 'cause I still have to get to the extras.
SyFY doesn't own its shows the way that ABC Family directly
owns/produces Amy Sherman-Palladino's new show Bunheads. Universal
Television produces W13, Alphas and Eureka.

>> Shows that the given channel
>> owns/produces itself have a lower threshhold for profitability because
>> the channel isn't sharing any of the profits -- not just from the
>> original broadcasts of the episodes, but also from all the ancillary
>> revenue streams such as DVD and foreign -- with an outside studio.
>>
>> I know that because Eureka *was* cancelled due to its enormous (for
>> basic cable) budget
>
>I keep hearing that, but it's not as if Syfy has ever shared payroll
>numbers with the audience, or anything. Are you basing this on
>scuttlebutt, or on something legitimate that you read in a reputable
>source?

It's been in pretty much *every* news article about why Eureka was
cancelled. I suggest doing a title search on Eureka at either
deadline.com or tvguide.com or both.

>> despite its being SyFy's highest-rated show makes
>> it seem like budget is the *only* thing that the channel looks at,
>> but, c'mon, Eureka also had a relatively large cast of both leads and
>> recurrings (keep in mind, too, that both Wil Wheaton and Felicia Day
>> were regulars -- despite however they were credited -- in seasons 4,
>> 4.5 and 5).
>
>Yeah, I mentioned soon after the start of the final season that the
>EUREKA folks weren't doing themselves any survival favors by adding cast
>members and jacking up the effects budget (as seemed to be the case).
>That's why, especially after the final horrid (but visually impressive)
>season, I realized that it was almost as if they were *begging* to be
>dropped. It's not a good combo when the writing quality nosedives even
>as the expenses rise. And, frankly, I've never been a fan of what I call
>"stunt casting," which in this case meant the addition of fanboi faves
>Wheaton and Day--and especially Day, who sucked from start to finish.
>(Or maybe it was mostly her Holly character, but either way she sucked.)

Horrid? I think season 5 was waaaaaay better than season 3 and both
parts of season 4. And, IMO, you're 150% wrong about Felicia Day, who
rocked it.

>> Even if we were to speculate for the sake of argument that W13 and
>> Eureka have the same VFX budget this year (and IMO, W13 is still
>> cheaper in that department because the effects of the various
>> artifacts are largely based on altering characters' behavior than
>> manifesting as a VFX), the overhead for the talent on Eureka was quite
>> large.
>
>Then write out the actors who insist on trying to break the budget when
>contract time rolls around.

That's pretty hard to do when they were all likely getting salaries
that were commensurate with their roles on a basic cable show. The
only person in the cast who could conceivably have broken the bank
would have been Colin Ferguson and, well, without him, you don't have
a show.

>The show survived and did well after Stark
>left, after all, and he was clearly a major player at the time.

He was fired not to save cost but because his character wasn't
working. I think Ed Quinn was playing Stark waaaay too soft, but
having seen him on the Eureka panel at Comic-Con after season 2 or 3
(I forget which) and seen how energetic and funny he is, I think that
the problem with Stark as a character is that he was misconceived as a
typical, lurky Lex Luthor-type and then the writers found the show's
voice and realized there was no room for a Lex Luthor on the show, so
they quickly humanized him and took him as far as they could with the
corporate-tool-who-regains-his-conscience angle. And when that
happened, they discovered that they had no real ongoing antagonist
other than the government as the generic looming threat.

>Heck, sometimes a change in cast also gives the writers a chance to change
>direction in certain ways, which itself can keep a show fresh. For
>example, I would have hated to see them write off Carter, but I could
>also see how someone new in place of Carter would give them a chance to
>break away from the somewhat tired pattern of the the dumb-but-nice guy
>who saves the day every week.

Get real. WIthout Carter, you don't have the show, period. The "Dumb
Guy Saves the Smart Guys" thing is the *whole point of the show.*
You'd might as well suggest that Hamlet not star a wishy-washy,
manic-depressive prince or Batman not star a rich guy who mitigates
his psychotic break from reality by using a lot of high-tech toys to
beat the crap out of criminals.

>In short, there is no need to kill the entire show--and certainly no
>need to *expand* the cast--if payroll is becoming a concern.

Two words: The Practice. David E. Kelley eviscerated the cast list
when he should have just given it a true final episode the year
before, when the writing was on the wall. Instead, its final season
swept away three quarters of the cast and spent the second half of the
season painfully, awkwardly, nonsensically and with maximum
tone-deafness transforming it into the first season (Season Zero) of
Boston Legal.

And, of course, there was SeaQuest DSV. The less said about that one,
the better.

But that's what happens to a show when you put payroll before story
and character: it becomes a true piece of shit.

-- Rob

[Rob Jensen]

On Mon, 30 Jul 2012 00:32:31 +0000 (UTC), "Adam H. Kerman"

Again, it's about what percentage of those viewers are of the target
demos. If satellite companies ditched the Neilsens today and started
to actively survey and document the viewing habits of their
subscribers rather than passively record what channels the boxes are
turned to, you can bet your bottom dollar that they would strip those
statistics down by demographics and the advertisers would do what they
always do: disregard *everything* except their target demo.

Hell, even for CBS's older-skewing shows, it's all about target demo.
The Good Wife, for instance, doesn't survive because of its total
household ratings, it gets renewed because its major advertisers
(especially high-end car companies) want that richer, older
demographic. IIRC, its target demo is something like A25-54 or
something like that (I'm slightly hazy on the upper end because, well,
even the people that talk about ratings just basically ignore anything
older than 49.)

This is the part where some clarity is necessary: while the term
"target demos" is most often used as a shorthand to refer specifically
to the A18-49 demo (A18-34 in the case of the CW and similar
networks), it really refers to any target demo that is the target that
a given show aims for. It just so happens, though, that the majority
of advertisers -- and the advertisers that pay the most and the most
often -- are the ones who aim for the A18-49 demo. Or younger.

>>Even when the TV industry switches away from the Neilsens to a method of
>>ratings that is even slightly in the vicinity of being scientifically
>>accurate, the advertisers are *still* going to pay for the shows that
>>the new ratings method says attracts the target demos. It's always going
>>to be about the target demos.
>
>They'll target different demographics if it's more accurate. Young men
>are targeted because they're difficult to measure.

Young men are NOT targeted because they're difficult to measure. NO,
really, men ARE NOT difficult to measure, they're just difficult to
get in front of the TV.

Young men are targeted because once you get them in front of the TV
screen, they're easily swayed and will spend the most money on
whatever their obsession of the moment is. Once you *have* them,
they're the *easiest* demo to separate from their money.

-- Rob

[Adam H. Kerman]

You're ignoring my question, since basic cable isn't entirely reliant on
national advertising, which is cheap to sell as it's subject to pre-emption
at the head end. As basic cable receives pass-through revenue from basic
cable subscription fees, it's a game of raw numbers.

What share of revenue does national advertising represent? It should be
far less significant versus a broadcast network. Therefore, demographic
breakdowns shouldn't be nearly so influential, given that perfectly skewing
to the target demographic won't boost national ad revenue that high.

>If satellite companies ditched the Neilsens today and started to actively
>survey and document the viewing habits of their subscribers rather than
>passively record what channels the boxes are turned to, you can bet your
>bottom dollar that they would strip those statistics down by demographics
>and the advertisers would do what they always do: disregard *everything*
>except their target demo.

This has nothing to do with the question I asked.

[Rob Jensen]

On Tue, 31 Jul 2012 13:24:38 +0000 (UTC), "Adam H. Kerman"

I'm not ignoring your question, I'm restating that it doesn't matter
who measures the numbers, the advertisers are always going to pay for
their target demos. Subscription fees are entirely irrelevant -- as
long as basic cable channels use advertising *at all,* the channels
are *always* going to be beholden to the advertisers and their quest
for the type of viewers that they want to advertise to.

Or, look at it a different way: the only model where advertising is
irrelevant is the premium model, whether it's HBO or VOD. There's a
reason that basic cable channels are basic cable channels and not
premium channels: because they wouldn't be able to survive as premium
channels. Viewers are *NOT* going to pay any additional money beyond
the tiered subscription fee to pay for shitty reality shows, reruns of
shows that they saw in their initial runs on network TV or the
disposable, formulaic detective and other genre shows that the
channels produce that are often done just as competently by the
networks, which they'd get for free if they didn't get cable.

Subscribers, total viewers -- completely. fucking. irrelevant. Full
stop.

-- Rob

[Adam H. Kerman]

That's what advertisers will pay for, yes.

>Subscription fees are entirely irrelevant -- as long as basic cable
>channels use advertising *at all,* the channels are *always* going to
>be beholden to the advertisers and their quest for the type of viewers
>that they want to advertise to.

Then if they don't care about my basic cable fees, they are free to
return them.

You're claiming that raw numbers of viewers, which represent a
substantial part of revenue (I assume close to two thirds), are
irrelevant when making programming decisions.

>Or, look at it a different way: the only model where advertising is
>irrelevant is the premium model, whether it's HBO or VOD.

I have no idea what the economic model for video on demand is.

>There's a reason that basic cable channels are basic cable channels
>and not premium channels: because they wouldn't be able to survive as
>premium channels. Viewers are *NOT* going to pay any additional money
>beyond the tiered subscription fee to pay for shitty reality shows,
>reruns of shows that they saw in their initial runs on network TV or the
>disposable, formulaic detective and other genre shows that the channels
>produce that are often done just as competently by the networks, which
>they'd get for free if they didn't get cable.

Whose to say a la carte pricing wouldn't work if the basic cable model
were eliminated?

>Subscribers, total viewers -- completely. fucking. irrelevant. Full
>stop.

Uh, huh.

[Rob Jensen]

On Wed, 1 Aug 2012 12:37:37 +0000 (UTC), "Adam H. Kerman"

Congratulations, you've stumbled onto the actual reason that you're
pissing into the wind.

>>Subscription fees are entirely irrelevant -- as long as basic cable
>>channels use advertising *at all,* the channels are *always* going to
>>be beholden to the advertisers and their quest for the type of viewers
>>that they want to advertise to.
>
>Then if they don't care about my basic cable fees, they are free to
>return them.
>
>You're claiming that raw numbers of viewers, which represent a
>substantial part of revenue (I assume close to two thirds), are
>irrelevant when making programming decisions.

Yep. The raw numbers of total household viewers do not matter. They do
not represent *any* part of the revenue, much less a substantial part
because the advertisers do not want to pay for them and thus, are
*not* paying for them and moreover, the channels and networks *are not
selling their advertising space to the advertisers* on the basis of
those raw numbers. The raw total number of viewers is meaningless --
they're like the points on Whose Line Is It Anyway? They just don't
matter.

You're welcome to try to convince them to *want* to make the total
household viewers matter if you want -- it's really the *only*
credible avenue you have to get get them to count 'em -- but you'd
might as well try to convince a pig to fly. It's not going to happen.

>>Or, look at it a different way: the only model where advertising is
>>irrelevant is the premium model, whether it's HBO or VOD.
>
>I have no idea what the economic model for video on demand is.
>
>>There's a reason that basic cable channels are basic cable channels
>>and not premium channels: because they wouldn't be able to survive as
>>premium channels. Viewers are *NOT* going to pay any additional money
>>beyond the tiered subscription fee to pay for shitty reality shows,
>>reruns of shows that they saw in their initial runs on network TV or the
>>disposable, formulaic detective and other genre shows that the channels
>>produce that are often done just as competently by the networks, which
>>they'd get for free if they didn't get cable.
>
>Whose to say a la carte pricing wouldn't work if the basic cable model
>were eliminated?

35 years of premium cable channels not expanding much beyond HBO,
Showtime, Starz and Porn. Moreover, the Disney Channel *started* as a
premium channel and couldn't survive on that model even when Disney's
catalog was exclusive to the Disney Channel.

We already have a la carte pricing -- it's premium cable, and it only
works for that handful of channels. The flaw in the argument of you
proselytizers of a la carte have is your baseless assumption that the
pricing for the basic cable channels would stay either the same or
seriously dirt-cheaper than that of the premium channels when what you
would have is the channels increasing their prices by triple digits to
cover the losses in fees that they would incur by not having the
revenue streams of the other channels. You'd see fewer channels taking
risks on shows like The Walking Dead, Mad Men or even Warehouse 13 in
favor of the TV show equivalents of Twinkies and other junk food --
you know, Rizzoli & Isles. You'd see the studios, networks and
channels dumbing down their programming to appeal to the lowest common
denominator just like they did in the early 80's just before the
explosion of basic cable -- with long-lasting fucking awful crap like
The A-Team, T.J. Hooker, Matt Houston and the later seasons of Happy
Days and All In the Family. Even the formulaic stuff on USA these days
(I'm talking about you, Burn Notice) wouldn't get a chance.

-- Rob

[Adam H. Kerman]

It was never a point in dispute, Rob.

>>>Subscription fees are entirely irrelevant -- as long as basic cable
>>>channels use advertising *at all,* the channels are *always* going to
>>>be beholden to the advertisers and their quest for the type of viewers
>>>that they want to advertise to.

>>Then if they don't care about my basic cable fees, they are free to
>>return them.

>>You're claiming that raw numbers of viewers, which represent a
>>substantial part of revenue (I assume close to two thirds), are
>>irrelevant when making programming decisions.

>Yep. The raw numbers of total household viewers do not matter. They do
>not represent *any* part of the revenue, much less a substantial part
>because the advertisers do not want to pay for them and thus, are
>*not* paying for them and moreover, the channels and networks *are not
>selling their advertising space to the advertisers* on the basis of
>those raw numbers. The raw total number of viewers is meaningless --
>they're like the points on Whose Line Is It Anyway? They just don't
>matter.

I am aware that shared basic cable fees are not revenue from advertisers nor
revenue to the brands being advertised. Duh. It's revenue to the
satellite channel. If these fees are as substantial as I believe they are,
the programming executives are shooting themselves in the foot if they
are making programming decisions, in part, on the desires of the general
audience and not merely for the subset that's packaged for national
advertisers.

Do I pay basic cable fees to subsidize programming on Teen Nick that appeals
to teenagers and Ian and Mason, because the advertisers trying to sell to
them simply won't pay enough for airtime for this model to work?

>You're welcome to try to convince them to *want* to make the total
>household viewers matter if you want -- it's really the *only*
>credible avenue you have to get get them to count 'em -- but you'd
>might as well try to convince a pig to fly. It's not going to happen.

>>>Or, look at it a different way: the only model where advertising is
>>>irrelevant is the premium model, whether it's HBO or VOD.

>>I have no idea what the economic model for video on demand is.

>>>There's a reason that basic cable channels are basic cable channels
>>>and not premium channels: because they wouldn't be able to survive as
>>>premium channels. Viewers are *NOT* going to pay any additional money
>>>beyond the tiered subscription fee to pay for shitty reality shows,
>>>reruns of shows that they saw in their initial runs on network TV or the
>>>disposable, formulaic detective and other genre shows that the channels
>>>produce that are often done just as competently by the networks, which
>>>they'd get for free if they didn't get cable.

>>Whose to say a la carte pricing wouldn't work if the basic cable model
>>were eliminated?

>35 years of premium cable channels not expanding much beyond HBO,
>Showtime, Starz and Porn. Moreover, the Disney Channel *started* as a
>premium channel and couldn't survive on that model even when Disney's
>catalog was exclusive to the Disney Channel.

>We already have a la carte pricing -- it's premium cable, and it only
>works for that handful of channels.

Obviously that's not the model I'm speaking of.

>The flaw in the argument of you proselytizers of a la carte have is your
>baseless assumption that the pricing for the basic cable channels would
>stay either the same or seriously dirt-cheaper than that of the premium
>channels when what you would have is the channels increasing their prices
>by triple digits to cover the losses in fees that they would incur by
>not having the revenue streams of the other channels.

I think channels should get paid for programs that are actually watched.
That's what I call a la carte pricing. My basic cable fees shouldn't go
toward programs and channels I'm not watching, and certainly not to fully
sponsored programs, infomercials, and shopping channels. The head end
knows what's being watched and the fees could be distributed accordingly.

>You'd see fewer channels taking risks on shows like The Walking Dead,
>Mad Men or even Warehouse 13 in favor of the TV show equivalents of
>Twinkies and other junk food -- you know, Rizzoli & Isles.

You couldn't possibly conclude that.

[David Johnston]

On 8/1/2012 11:40 AM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:

>> The flaw in the argument of you proselytizers of a la carte have is your
>> baseless assumption that the pricing for the basic cable channels would
>> stay either the same or seriously dirt-cheaper than that of the premium
>> channels when what you would have is the channels increasing their prices
>> by triple digits to cover the losses in fees that they would incur by
>> not having the revenue streams of the other channels.
>
> I think channels should get paid for programs that are actually watched.

So you want nothing but View On Demand. Well that should be about five
bucks an episode.

[Dano]

"David Johnston" wrote in message news:jvbqqm$ism$1...@dont-email.me...

===============================================

Choice will also be severely limited. And how would you learn about new
offerings?

Anyway. There already is such an option. Buy episodes on ITunes or Amazon
or other places. But Adam should leave the rest of us...who LIKE our
cable...alone.

[Adam H. Kerman]

You're an asshole, David. I just explained how I'd want my basic cable
fee distributed, but you cut that bit out. No, I didn't suggest a
pay per view (not view on demand, idiot) model as that would discourage
sampling.

[David Johnston]

On 8/1/2012 12:04 PM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
> David Johnston <Da...@block.net> wrote:
>> On 8/1/2012 11:40 AM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
>
>>>> The flaw in the argument of you proselytizers of a la carte have is your
>>>> baseless assumption that the pricing for the basic cable channels would
>>>> stay either the same or seriously dirt-cheaper than that of the premium
>>>> channels when what you would have is the channels increasing their prices
>>>> by triple digits to cover the losses in fees that they would incur by
>>>> not having the revenue streams of the other channels.
>
>>> I think channels should get paid for programs that are actually watched.
>
>> So you want nothing but View On Demand. Well that should be about five
>> bucks an episode.
>
> You're an asshole, David. I just explained how I'd want my basic cable
> fee distributed,

Your basic cable fee goes to the cable company in return for providing
you with service. The cable company then pays to be allowed to carry
various cable channels. Once you pay the cable company, it's not your
money. It's their money.

[Adam H. Kerman]

Yes, David. That's still totally irrelevant to anything I wrote, so please
just totally fuck off.

You're wrong, anyway, given than a substantial chunk of the basic cable
fee belongs to the satellite channel on a per subscriber basis, regardless
of my viewing habits. This is the situation I've been discussing for
several rounds here. Can you read?

[Jim G.]

Adam H. Kerman sent the following on Mon, 30 Jul 2012 20:04:18 +0000
(UTC):

Yeah, I suppose one side or the other might have pushed to change things
after seeing how EUREKA panned out on the divvying-up-profits front.

[Jim G.]

shawn sent the following on Mon, 30 Jul 2012 17:14:46 -0400:

Yeah, but I guess it's also true that they sorta screwed *themselves*
over even before Syfy got in on the act. IIRC, Salli Whatshername got
pregnant in real life, and essentially the entire cast and crew offered
to delay some things until after she had the baby. (At least I think
that it was entirely voluntary on the part of everyone.) Then, after and
on *top* of that, Syfy started to split up "seasons" into two parts for
some asinine reason. It's amazing that the show retained *any* viewer
interest after all of that.

> >> despite its being SyFy's highest-rated show makes
> >> it seem like budget is the *only* thing that the channel looks at,
> >> but, c'mon, Eureka also had a relatively large cast of both leads and
> >> recurrings (keep in mind, too, that both Wil Wheaton and Felicia Day
> >> were regulars -- despite however they were credited -- in seasons 4,
> >> 4.5 and 5).
> >
> >Yeah, I mentioned soon after the start of the final season that the
> >EUREKA folks weren't doing themselves any survival favors by adding cast
> >members and jacking up the effects budget (as seemed to be the case).
> >That's why, especially after the final horrid (but visually impressive)
> >season, I realized that it was almost as if they were *begging* to be
> >dropped. It's not a good combo when the writing quality nosedives even
> >as the expenses rise. And, frankly, I've never been a fan of what I call
> >"stunt casting," which in this case meant the addition of fanboi faves
> >Wheaton and Day--and especially Day, who sucked from start to finish.
> >(Or maybe it was mostly her Holly character, but either way she sucked.)
>
> Stunt casting isn't a bad thing if the casting is good. I didn't have
> a problem with Wheaton showing up as a nemesis for Fargo when it was a
> one off thing. Even having him show up a couple times a season
> wouldn't be bad, but adding him in as a regular cast member messed
> with the cast dynamics in a way that didn't work well for me.

He didn't bother me as much since he was a good foil as a character and
a relatively good actor--although his limited shtick and range were
becoming evident as he spreads himself around a bit on different
projects, including EUREKA (unless all of those projects have wanted the
Exact Same Character).

> >> Even if we were to speculate for the sake of argument that W13 and
> >> Eureka have the same VFX budget this year (and IMO, W13 is still
> >> cheaper in that department because the effects of the various
> >> artifacts are largely based on altering characters' behavior than
> >> manifesting as a VFX), the overhead for the talent on Eureka was quite
> >> large.
> >
> >Then write out the actors who insist on trying to break the budget when
> >contract time rolls around. The show survived and did well after Stark
> >left, after all, and he was clearly a major player at the time. Heck,
> >sometimes a change in cast also gives the writers a chance to change
> >direction in certain ways, which itself can keep a show fresh. For
> >example, I would have hated to see them write off Carter, but I could
> >also see how someone new in place of Carter would give them a chance to
> >break away from the somewhat tired pattern of the the dumb-but-nice guy
> >who saves the day every week.
>
> I don't think he means that someone was requesting a huge bump in
> salary. More likely it's just due to the sheer numbers of people on
> the show. Think about how many people showed up in just about every
> episode plus all of the cast they had in the background. That large
> cast would create a large budget even if they were just getting scale
> (especially by the fifth season since scale salaries go up as the
> years go by.)

Looking at things again, I'm not so sure that the cast *did* increase
all that much. Yes, they added Wheaton and Day, but they also dropped
Zoe and all but dropped Vincent, and they ditched Beverly for quite a
while, and so on...

At the same time, it wouldn't surprise me to learn that everyone was
initially contracted for five "seasons," which would explain some of the
cutesy stuff with season numbering *and* would also explain why Syfy was
looking at some payroll hikes if they committed to a season six. And
given how bad seasons four and five were...

> >In short, there is no need to kill the entire show--and certainly no
> >need to *expand* the cast--if payroll is becoming a concern.
>
> Very true. Smart writing can avoid a huge regular cast.

I'll have to compare "regular" cast credits from the pilot to "regulars"
in the final season and see if the number jumped significantly. I
suspect that a lot of 'em were "also starring" or less throughout the
show's run.

[Jim G.]

Rob Jensen sent the following on Tue, 31 Jul 2012 00:04:42 -0500:

Yes, but first of all there's rumor and supposition, and then there's
the tendency for lazy writers (and are any other writers more lazy than
entertainment writers?) to simply poach someone else's research. So
unless at least one of those articles actually had a legitimate cite
from a legitimate authority...

>
> >> despite its being SyFy's highest-rated show makes
> >> it seem like budget is the *only* thing that the channel looks at,
> >> but, c'mon, Eureka also had a relatively large cast of both leads and
> >> recurrings (keep in mind, too, that both Wil Wheaton and Felicia Day
> >> were regulars -- despite however they were credited -- in seasons 4,
> >> 4.5 and 5).
> >
> >Yeah, I mentioned soon after the start of the final season that the
> >EUREKA folks weren't doing themselves any survival favors by adding cast
> >members and jacking up the effects budget (as seemed to be the case).
> >That's why, especially after the final horrid (but visually impressive)
> >season, I realized that it was almost as if they were *begging* to be
> >dropped. It's not a good combo when the writing quality nosedives even
> >as the expenses rise. And, frankly, I've never been a fan of what I call
> >"stunt casting," which in this case meant the addition of fanboi faves
> >Wheaton and Day--and especially Day, who sucked from start to finish.
> >(Or maybe it was mostly her Holly character, but either way she sucked.)
>
> Horrid? I think season 5 was waaaaaay better than season 3 and both
> parts of season 4. And, IMO, you're 150% wrong about Felicia Day, who
> rocked it.

Have you suffered some severe head trauma lately? :)

Season four was bad and season five was putrid. Only the finale shined
during all of that time. And there's a reason why Day went from guesting
on Buffy to doing web work, and it's because she sucks as an actress.

> >> Even if we were to speculate for the sake of argument that W13 and
> >> Eureka have the same VFX budget this year (and IMO, W13 is still
> >> cheaper in that department because the effects of the various
> >> artifacts are largely based on altering characters' behavior than
> >> manifesting as a VFX), the overhead for the talent on Eureka was quite
> >> large.
> >
> >Then write out the actors who insist on trying to break the budget when
> >contract time rolls around.
>
> That's pretty hard to do when they were all likely getting salaries
> that were commensurate with their roles on a basic cable show. The
> only person in the cast who could conceivably have broken the bank
> would have been Colin Ferguson and, well, without him, you don't have
> a show.

Not true at all. It's an ensemble thing and always has been. Yes, Jack's
the focus, but it's always gonna be true that it's easier to lose a
player when you have lots of other likable players there to pick up the
slack. Again, Stark was a huge part of things early on, and the show
barely hiccupped when he left. And honestly, while I would not have
wished to see Jack written off, the thought of replacing him with
someone brilliant (or maybe just promoting Andy?) would have changed
some dynamics in a way that I would have found interesting to explore.

> >The show survived and did well after Stark
> >left, after all, and he was clearly a major player at the time.
>
> He was fired not to save cost but because his character wasn't
> working. I think Ed Quinn was playing Stark waaaay too soft, but
> having seen him on the Eureka panel at Comic-Con after season 2 or 3
> (I forget which) and seen how energetic and funny he is, I think that
> the problem with Stark as a character is that he was misconceived as a
> typical, lurky Lex Luthor-type and then the writers found the show's
> voice and realized there was no room for a Lex Luthor on the show, so
> they quickly humanized him and took him as far as they could with the
> corporate-tool-who-regains-his-conscience angle. And when that
> happened, they discovered that they had no real ongoing antagonist
> other than the government as the generic looming threat.
>
> >Heck, sometimes a change in cast also gives the writers a chance to change
> >direction in certain ways, which itself can keep a show fresh. For
> >example, I would have hated to see them write off Carter, but I could
> >also see how someone new in place of Carter would give them a chance to
> >break away from the somewhat tired pattern of the the dumb-but-nice guy
> >who saves the day every week.
>
> Get real. WIthout Carter, you don't have the show, period.

You're just piling on the mistakes here. Yeah, yeah, it's all subjective
opinions, but that doesn't mean that you're anywhere close to correct
with any of yours. :)

> The "Dumb
> Guy Saves the Smart Guys" thing is the *whole point of the show.*

For you, maybe. For me, it was much more a case of "smart people do dumb
things and need to be saved *from themselves*." And Jack could do the
saving one way while Andy (or someone else as a replacement for Jack)
would do things another way and take things in new directions. But at no
point did I find Jack's dumbness to be an irreplaceable part of the
show's concept.

> You'd might as well suggest that Hamlet not star a wishy-washy,
> manic-depressive prince or Batman not star a rich guy who mitigates
> his psychotic break from reality by using a lot of high-tech toys to
> beat the crap out of criminals.

If the show had been called JACK CARTER, then you would have a point.
But it was called EUREKA, emphasizing the town and its *ensemble* of
residents.

> >In short, there is no need to kill the entire show--and certainly no
> >need to *expand* the cast--if payroll is becoming a concern.
>
> Two words: The Practice. David E. Kelley eviscerated the cast list
> when he should have just given it a true final episode the year
> before, when the writing was on the wall. Instead, its final season
> swept away three quarters of the cast and spent the second half of the
> season painfully, awkwardly, nonsensically and with maximum
> tone-deafness transforming it into the first season (Season Zero) of
> Boston Legal.
>
> And, of course, there was SeaQuest DSV. The less said about that one,
> the better.

You can constantly refresh a cast with a change here or there or you can
wipe out a cast and essentially start fresh. If Kelley did the latter,
then it's not what I would *ever* recommend.

I'm a big college sports fan, and in that context, you essentially have
an entirely different team every four years. Each year, the seniors move
on and a new class of recruits comes in as freshmen. And despite this
constant turnover, you never really get the sense that it's ever an
entirely different team since it's not a case of going four years with
the same group and then starting over from scratch for another four
years, after which you start over from scratch again, etc. Instead, it's
gradual change with gradual and ongoing replacements. If I ran a show,
*that's* how I would do it. Both to keep it fresh and to keep payroll
from getting out of control.

> But that's what happens to a show when you put payroll before story
> and character: it becomes a true piece of shit.

On that we can agree. Perhaps your concussion is not as serious as it
first seemed. :)

[Jim G.]

BTR1701 sent the following on Mon, 30 Jul 2012 18:27:28 -0700:

I would have wanted them to use her as their test subject for all of
that body printing business. And I would want to see detailed and
step-by-step descriptions of the process. With GIFs. :)

[David Johnston]

But isn't their slice negotiated based on their ratings?

[Adam H. Kerman]

Some may be. The ones I've heard of were negotiated on either a homes passed
basis (maybe they don't expect cable providers to report their subscriber
numbers accurately) or subscriber basis.

[BTR1701]

In article <kgni18l9udv5b9et2...@4ax.com>,

Jim G. <jimg...@geemail.com.invalid> wrote:

> BTR1701 sent the following on Mon, 30 Jul 2012 18:27:28 -0700:
> > In article <a3cd185gj6vclupp4...@4ax.com>,
> > Jim G. <jimg...@geemail.com.invalid> wrote:
> >
> > > Then write out the actors who insist on trying to break the budget when
> > > contract time rolls around. The show survived and did well after Stark
> > > left, after all, and he was clearly a major player at the time. Heck,
> > > sometimes a change in cast also gives the writers a chance to change
> > > direction in certain ways, which itself can keep a show fresh. For
> > > example, I would have hated to see them write off Carter, but I could
> > > also see how someone new in place of Carter would give them a chance to
> > > break away from the somewhat tired pattern of the the dumb-but-nice guy
> > > who saves the day every week.
> >
> > As long as they kept Alison. And maybe turned her into a ground-breaking
> > human-dolphin linguist specialist which required her to spend many, many
> > hours in the dolphin tank in a bikini.
>
> I would have wanted them to use her as their test subject for all of
> that body printing business. And I would want to see detailed and
> step-by-step descriptions of the process. With GIFs. :)

Yes, that body-printing machine is second only to the holo-deck in the
breadth and depth of possible pornographic uses to which it could be put.

[Jim G.]

BTR1701 sent the following on Wed, 01 Aug 2012 19:17:48 -0700:

I'm thinking strictly of the ramifications for science, of course. Shame
on you for being pervy. :)

[Dragon Lady]

"Adam H. Kerman" <a...@chinet.com> wrote in message
news:jv6hpt$dqn$3...@news.albasani.net...

> erilar <dra...@chibardun.net.invalid> wrote:
>>Rob Jensen <Shut...@aol.com> wrote:
>

>>> Even when the TV industry
>>> switches away from the Neilsens to a method of ratings that is even
>>> slightly in the vicinity of being scientifically accurate, the
>>> advertisers are *still* going to pay for the shows that the new
>>> ratings method says attracts the target demos. It's always going to be
>>> about the target demos.
>

>>They don't expect their ads to have any influence on mature adults 8-)
>
> Maybe they should hire people who have mastered the art of selling and
> persuassion to copywrite their ads. Let's face it: A lot of ads are
> absolutely attrocious.

Some of them are so attrocious I actually change the channel when they come
on (provided I'm even in the room).

[Dragon Lady]

"Adam H. Kerman" <a...@chinet.com> wrote in message

news:jv6hn6$dqn$2...@news.albasani.net...
> erilar <dra...@chibardun.net.invalid> wrote:

>>"Adam H. Kerman" <a...@chinet.com> wrote:
>
>>>Young men are targeted because they're difficult to measure.
>

>>Or because they figure they're gullible?
>
> Hahahahahahahahaha

My experience with men of any age is that they tend to channel surf when ads
come on. My husband drives me crazy. I haven't seen the first part after
the commercial when watching TV with him in years.

[Dimensional Traveler]

I do most of my TV watching via DVR (again, finally) and usually I'm
willing to let the commercials play thru because I'm not really paying
any attention to them and I'm doing something else while watching TV.
But if one of them is annoying enough to make me skip ahead, I skip
ahead thru _the rest of the commercial break_. So any commercials that
come after the one that annoys me pay the price too.

I just wish there was some way to communicate that to the commercial
makers. :/

[Dragon Lady]

"Dimensional Traveler" <dtr...@sonic.net> wrote in message
news:50246533$0$7124$742e...@news.sonic.net...

I watch mine mostly on either DVD or On Demand. Since DVD commercials are
all at the beginning of the set, I rarely watch them. On Demand commercials
are minimal compared to the commercials they show on the air, and I can't
recall ever seeing one so bad I had to turn it off. I can fast forward
through them, but there's no way to set it to just fast forward through the
commercials, so I usually just go do something else.

[Edward McArdle]

In article <k01ose$n0q$1...@dont-email.me>, "Dragon Lady"

If commercials ran for about thirty seconds I would happily watch them.
But I know they are going to run three minutes, which is quite a long
time, so I get up and do something else.

--
Edward McArdle

[Dano]

"Edward McArdle" wrote in message news:mcardle-1008...@10.1.1.6...

=========================================

That would be awesome. I would then program the DVR remote to skip forward
exactly thirty seconds. I almost never watch TV "live" anymore.

[David Barnett]

In article <k03fmb$i13$1...@dont-email.me>,
janea...@yahoo.com says...

> I almost never watch TV "live" anymore.

<snip>

Neither do I, even our non-commercial channel - because of
phone calls & doorbells.

--
David Barnett

[Dano]

"David Barnett" wrote in message
news:MPG.2a90395fd...@news.bigpond.com...

=======================================

And at my age...bathroom breaks. :)

[Dragon Lady]

"Edward McArdle" <mca...@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message
news:mcardle-1008...@10.1.1.6...

In On Demand, it depends on the popularity of the show. If it's popular, it
may run for the entire hour with the usual complement of commercials. If
it's not, it may have only one or two 15-30 second commercials per break,
and only run about 48 minutes.

[Dimensional Traveler]

It also depends on how recently it was broadcast. My cable provider has
the 60 minute with full commercial load version up for some days (I'm
guessing three because of the SD+3 ratings) then replaces it with the 42
minute no commercial version. I think this allows viewings within those
three days to be counted in the Nielsen ratings.

[David Barnett]

In article <k04478$ceh$1...@dont-email.me>,
janea...@yahoo.com says...

Me too.
I forgot about that.
):
--
David Barnett

[Dimensional Traveler]

Adult diapers?

:P

[inf...@mindspring.com]

Depends.
>
>:P

[Dimensional Traveler]

:D

[Dragon Lady]

"Dimensional Traveler" <dtr...@sonic.net> wrote in message

news:5025c2b6$0$7154$742e...@news.sonic.net...

Yeah, that makes sense, although I haven't heard anything about them
counting on-demand viewings for Nielsen. On the other hand, they would be
pretty stupid not to, even if they weight them for "not being the original
viewing" or something.

[Dragon Lady]

"Dimensional Traveler" <dtr...@sonic.net> wrote in message

news:5026db59$0$7097$742e...@news.sonic.net...

TMI, dude.

[Brian O'Neill]

On 8/14/2012 9:44 PM, Dragon Lady wrote:
>
> "Dimensional Traveler" <dtr...@sonic.net> wrote in message
> news:5025c2b6$0$7154$742e...@news.sonic.net...

>> It also depends on how recently it was broadcast. My cable provider
>> has the 60 minute with full commercial load version up for some days
>> (I'm guessing three because of the SD+3 ratings) then replaces it with
>> the 42 minute no commercial version. I think this allows viewings
>> within those three days to be counted in the Nielsen ratings.
>
> Yeah, that makes sense, although I haven't heard anything about them
> counting on-demand viewings for Nielsen. On the other hand, they would
> be pretty stupid not to, even if they weight them for "not being the
> original viewing" or something.
>

A network TV exec explained to me that if on-demand/online showings
include the same commercials as broadcast, then they do get included in
the important ratings (C3 IIRC - basically Live+3 but actually measures
based on commercials, so the advertisers like this one). If they don't,
then they are counted completely separately, and don't count for much.

-Brian

[Dimensional Traveler]

I'm not the one forgetting his bathroom breaks.

[Dragon Lady]

"Dimensional Traveler" <dtr...@sonic.net> wrote in message

news:502c6375$0$70414$742e...@news.sonic.net...

I'm still trying to figure out how anybody can "forget" a bathroom break,
unless they're in the second childhood - literally. :P

[Rob Jensen]

On Thu, 9 Aug 2012 19:00:01 -0600, "Dragon Lady" <sgt...@comcast.net>

wrote:

>
>"Adam H. Kerman" <a...@chinet.com> wrote in message
>news:jv6hn6$dqn$2...@news.albasani.net...
>> erilar <dra...@chibardun.net.invalid> wrote:
>>>"Adam H. Kerman" <a...@chinet.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>Young men are targeted because they're difficult to measure.
>>
>>>Or because they figure they're gullible?
>>
>> Hahahahahahahahaha
>
>My experience with men of any age is that they tend to channel surf when ads
>come on. My husband drives me crazy. I haven't seen the first part after
>the commercial when watching TV with him in years.

I strongly recommend that you get a DVR. The ability to skip
commercials with a few flicks of a button would definitely cut down on
the channel surfing *and* afford the ability to watch an extra episode
or two of something every night.

-- Rob

[Dragon Lady]

"Rob Jensen" <Shut...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:msiq28l88qj4vklud...@4ax.com...

I can already do that in On-Demand, at least with most of the shows I watch.
I'm planning to get a DVR when I'm working again though, just because my DVD
players doesn't record. :P