TV Ratings (Thursday 10th April)
- Thread starter Jax
- Start date
People vote in American Idol quite happily knowing that others are voting against them. It just spurs them to vote more often, and therefore have a bigger say in the matter. All of which increases the attention they pay to the show and is a large factor in its success. So using this same tactic on a Battle of the Network Pilots series is likely to work, too.
I think it proves that if you use a lowest-common-denomenator approach such as "sex sells," you better have a lowest-common-denomenator mainstream product (cop show, doctor show, lawyer show, sitcom, reality show) because that tactic falls on its face when applied to the genre-show audience, who aren't quite dumb enough to fall for that crap.
That's what tripped up Knight Rider, too. Time was, a show like that was a slam dunk, but now anything sci fi tinged is too "weird" for the mainstream audience.
the problem is the length of time it takes for a change to appear on screen, in a drama or a sitcom.
I am not against a "battle of the network pilots" idea, fine let people vote for which pilot they like the best, but beyond that consulting the viewing about every little detail of the program is going to real annonying real quick.
Lets give you an example:
CBS announcer: youve been watching BigBangTheory, you told us you wanted Penny to become a stripper, and we just did that for you, now in two months time we plan to have a guest start in the show: should it be
a: Leonard Nimoy, from Star Trek
b: David Tennant, from Doctor Who
or c: Michelle Ryan, from Bionic Woman
Call now, lines close at midnight, calls from a BT land line will be charged at £1, and from mobiles considerable more, please get permission of the bill payer before you call.
Tune in, in 8 weeks time to find out who you voted for, and dont forget next weeks episode where we find out if Sheldon & the gang go to see a Star Trek or a Star Wars marathon.
no I dont wish to be consulted on every little detail of a TV show that I enjoy.
That's not my premise. This is how the game will be played:
Descriptions of characters and the premise for five eager new series will be presented on the TV show and on a website for discussion. There will be some sort of visuals as well, such as clips of actors playing various roles, set design, etc.
The voting will be limited to simple matters: which of the five actors in the audition tapes do you want to play "Phil"? Should Phil be (select one of five options) 1) a clown; 2) cynical; 3) secretly a serial killer; 4) a multi-millionaire; or 5) dying of a horrible disease which will cause his nose to fall off in season three?
Okay those examples are comical, but they will be the kind of choices that people will be able to make and see them enacted in the pilot episode. People will also vote whether they like the set design or even the characters' hairstyles. Anything simple on which people will have opinions is fair game.
The debate will come into play because one decision cannot exist in isolation. If Phil is a serial killer, then shouldn't Sandra be a cop? If Phil is a multi-millionaire, shouldn't Sandra be a hussy who's after his money? And all this has profound implications for Sandra's hairstyle and wardrobe, not to mention the premise of the series.
Voting might create bizarre scenarios, such as Sandra being a golddigger while Phil loses his fortune to fighting his terrible nose-eating virus, so there's no point to her chasing him for his money. The resulting chaos is part of the fun.
The show and website can both have a lot of give and take. Actors can lobby for their character and for votes to go in certain ways. Writers, makeup people, set designers, etc can also get in on this. The voters don't need to obey them, of course, but all this creates yet more fodder for discussion and argument, more controversy (we hate the guy playing Phil, let's make his nose fall off!) and more interest.
The end result will be five pilots, only - not full series. The audience will vote on which of the pilots they want to see go to series. Then if the network has enough guts for it, the pilot does go to series and people get a real-world look at the results of their horrible or brilliant decisions.
I think people would love that, and it would create a great deal of viewer interest. Some people would be happy that their choice won and others would be angry but still engaged because they would be rooting for that dumb actor to fail.
The problem with that is that you are messing with a show that's already on the air, that the network has investment in, and they probably don't want to take the risk of the viewers voting for a dumb idea. It's better to do this for shows that don't exist, and the reality show about the shows is the only one whose ratings we need to worry about - and as long as there is plenty of controversy, the ratings should be good because people will have a motive to watch.
Even if the resulting pilots are unusable for series in their own right, you've got a reality show with good ratings and you can try again next season. You can even make the failure of the first season part of the second season - where did the audience go wrong?
sorry im just not seeing it, who on earth would they find to write such a series where decisions are made by the audience, shows work best when made by a creative type, and for the most part the show is normally totally there vision, just giving writers characters & situations made up by the viewers, is not going to lead to creative thinking, and that is what any show needs to survive.
just replying to the 2nd part of Temis post, which has been edited in.
TBH I am reminded of a Popstar spin-off run by ITV called Soapstars, the format was to find 5 actors to play a new family in the ITV soap opera Emmerdale, not only did Soapstars fail, the new family totally failed once they joined Emmerdale itself.
The show you suggest sounds similar to Soapstars.
http://www.ukgameshows.com/page/index.php?title=Soapstars
ok the guest star thing not the worst idea that could be had.
so the second series insults the audience and tells them that they are stupid and know nothing about making TV, then gives them another go, yep that is a really good way to engage with the audience.
TBH I am reminded of a Popstar spin-off run by ITV called Soapstars, the format was to find 5 actors to play a new family in the ITV soap opera Emmerdale, not only did Soapstars fail, the new family totally failed once they joined Emmerdale itself.
The show you suggest sounds similar to Soapstars.
http://www.ukgameshows.com/page/index.php?title=Soapstars
Mean't to do friday/sunday combo ratings earlier but didn't get round so will do it tommorow. Let me just say Dollhouse was low maybe a series low and SCC was no better...Expect both to be cancelled very very shortly, why oh why did FOX make Whedon change the show and then slap it at 9pm why oh why MR FOX.
Terminator is not moving to the CW this fall. They can't afford it.
It'll draw less ratings than it does now if they do it. It doesn't fit the teen girl demo Dawn Ostroff and CW wants. They're determined to follow that formula and they'll do it into bankruptcy. IF T:SCC was a money maker for Warners worldwide they might push it, but I don't think it is.
^ International ratings are higher than they are in the US.
Truth is the only reason they are even remotely considering the move is they can't deal with the negative press right before Salvation comes out. If it moves to another network it isn't as bad as an outright cancellation.
Truth is the only reason they are even remotely considering the move is they can't deal with the negative press right before Salvation comes out. If it moves to another network it isn't as bad as an outright cancellation.
Reality TV shows already have writers. Just hire some of them. There are plenty of writers who want to break into the biz. And most of the decisions would be made by the writers who set up a few factors in the shows as multiple choice questions.
This is a reality TV show. The writers on those shows are already hemmed in creatively so why would they quibble. This would give them more creative leeway than most reality TV shows offer, which are at least nominally supposed to be "un-scripted."
You must not watch a lot of TV if you think creativity has much impact on ratings.
It would only be an "insult" if it were inaccurate.
Look at how people vote on American Idol - they obviously know nothing about music, but that doesn't deter them from voting or that show from getting ratings.