• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

HBO cancels "Luck"

For all the people in this thread who enjoy yammering about "marketing" without the first idea what they're talking about, the LA Times summarizes it nicely...
HBO brass often makes the case that because it is a pay cable channel that carries no advertising, it doesn't have to worry about ratings. That is true to an extent. HBO's billion dollars in profits comes from subscriber fees as well as sales of its content both here and abroad.

However, ratings do indicate whether a show is catching on with HBO's audience. HBO has close to 30 million subscribers. It is a number that has not been growing in recent years (while its competitors Showtime and Starz have added subscribers) and, in a tough economy, all pay cable channels have to be worried that frugal consumers may decide to save a few bucks.

That doesn't mean every HBO show has to be a home run. Indeed, a massive hit on HBO is considered a flop on a broadcast or basic cable channel that is available in more than 100 million homes. HBO knows it has a diverse subscriber base. It kept "The Wire," its critically acclaimed drama about the drug war in Baltimore, on for five seasons because it appealed to those who liked intellectual political drama as well as viewers who enjoyed a gritty crime show.

But "Luck" was not even a hit by HBO standards, drawing less than 500,000 viewers in its Sunday night time slot. While additional runs during the week and people watching episodes they had recorded earlier likely boosted those numbers, the show's limited appeal made "Luck" a bad long-term bet.

...

One reason such creative talent comes to HBO is that the pay cable channel is known for being very patient with its shows. Often, though, the network brings back a show with very limited appeal for a second season and then kills it -- as was the case with the series "How to Make It in America," "Rome" and "Carnivale." In that way HBO has avoided the stigma of having a first-season flop.
Blaming the horses' death was a smokescreen for the show's ratings failure. And yes, there's such a thing as a ratings failure even on premium cable.

Thus ends the marketing lesson for the day. :rommie:
 
Blaming the horses' death was a smokescreen for the show's ratings failure. And yes, there's such a thing as a ratings failure even on premium cable.

Thus ends the marketing lesson for the day. :rommie:

Luck was airing during the same time as The Walking Dead. What did people expect?

Zombies going up against horses? The Zombies will win every time.:rommie:
 
For all the people in this thread who enjoy yammering about "marketing" without the first idea what they're talking about, the LA Times summarizes it nicely...
HBO brass often makes the case that because it is a pay cable channel that carries no advertising, it doesn't have to worry about ratings. That is true to an extent. HBO's billion dollars in profits comes from subscriber fees as well as sales of its content both here and abroad.

However, ratings do indicate whether a show is catching on with HBO's audience. HBO has close to 30 million subscribers. It is a number that has not been growing in recent years (while its competitors Showtime and Starz have added subscribers) and, in a tough economy, all pay cable channels have to be worried that frugal consumers may decide to save a few bucks.

That doesn't mean every HBO show has to be a home run. Indeed, a massive hit on HBO is considered a flop on a broadcast or basic cable channel that is available in more than 100 million homes. HBO knows it has a diverse subscriber base. It kept "The Wire," its critically acclaimed drama about the drug war in Baltimore, on for five seasons because it appealed to those who liked intellectual political drama as well as viewers who enjoyed a gritty crime show.

But "Luck" was not even a hit by HBO standards, drawing less than 500,000 viewers in its Sunday night time slot. While additional runs during the week and people watching episodes they had recorded earlier likely boosted those numbers, the show's limited appeal made "Luck" a bad long-term bet.

...

One reason such creative talent comes to HBO is that the pay cable channel is known for being very patient with its shows. Often, though, the network brings back a show with very limited appeal for a second season and then kills it -- as was the case with the series "How to Make It in America," "Rome" and "Carnivale." In that way HBO has avoided the stigma of having a first-season flop.
Blaming the horses' death was a smokescreen for the show's ratings failure. And yes, there's such a thing as a ratings failure even on premium cable.

Thus ends the marketing lesson for the day. :rommie:

I'm so glad we have you here to explain these things to us. :)
 
A third died earlier this week during filming for the second season. The American Humane Association, whose representatives were at the scene, said the horse had just passed a veterinarian's inspection and was being walked back to its barn when it reared, fell backward and was seriously injured. The horse was euthanized.

The American Humane Association said that Tuesday's death was an accident "that was in no way a result of any mistreatment or negligence on the part of HBO."
Also,

HBO said on Wednesday that it had maintained higher safety standards during production of "Luck" than exist in horse-racing anywhere "with many fewer incidents than occur in racing or than befall horses normally in barns at night or pastures."
http://thewall.com/topics/22811-hbo-drama-luck-axed-after-deaths-of-horses

These horses were treated better while working for HBO than anywhere else, yet the show is going to shut down to "save the horses" and yet send them back to worse living conditions?

C'mon HBO, just admit the show was a flop and you wanted to cancel it.
 
Blaming the horses' death was a smokescreen for the show's ratings failure. And yes, there's such a thing as a ratings failure even on premium cable.

Thus ends the marketing lesson for the day. :rommie:

Luck was airing during the same time as The Walking Dead. What did people expect?

Zombies going up against horses? The Zombies will win every time.:rommie:

What about zombie horses?
 
Blaming the horses' death was a smokescreen for the show's ratings failure. And yes, there's such a thing as a ratings failure even on premium cable.

Thus ends the marketing lesson for the day. :rommie:

Luck was airing during the same time as The Walking Dead. What did people expect?

Zombies going up against horses? The Zombies will win every time.:rommie:

As already proven...

walking-dead-horse.jpg
 
I have no idea what hypereducated could even mean.
Can't help you there - you, not I, introduced that term to the thread.


But the successful programming on HBO relies far more on blatant sex and violence and salty language that can't be put on advertiser supported networks. What could that have to do with hypersensitivity?
You'd like me to explain the difference between human actors faking deaths and equine horses actually dying in order to produce TV series? :)
 
I have no idea what hypereducated could even mean.
Can't help you there - you, not I, introduced that term to the thread.

Seems I did. Shame on me.

]You'd like me to explain the difference between human actors faking deaths and equine horses actually dying in order to produce TV series? :)

Since the horse deaths aren't going to be put on screen, does it matter? Saying the HBO audience is hyper-sensitive suggests they would get worked up about even fake deaths. Getting worked up about real deaths seems just ordinarily sensitive. Personally, I lost all taste for Game of Thrones when one character threw a kid out a tower window and made a joke about it, because it aimed as a juvenile, sadistic taste. But then, that's exactly why I'm not a HBO viewer.

Or are you just saying that getting upset over the death of animals is hyper-sensitive?
 
Or are you just saying that getting upset over the death of animals is hyper-sensitive?
Aye; that was my gist. So long as sensible safety measures were in place (which, FWIW, Peta says totally wasn't the case), I'm not much bothered by the occasional accidental horse death for art as great as this. But I could easily see it becoming a big issue with many HBO subscribers if a full-blown media kerfuffle erupted. :)
 
For all the people in this thread who enjoy yammering about "marketing" without the first idea what they're talking about, the LA Times summarizes it nicely...

No, they don't. Just as many other reputable places wrote stories on why the deaths of the horses is likely the only reason the show ended. David Milch, the show's creator, is a huge horse lover, and no doubt felt guilty, especially when the production realized that there was no way that they could guarantee there wouldn't be more. With HBO receiving outside pressure, Milch most likely thought it would be the right move to end it.

There's no conspiracy here at all. If HBO wanted to cancel the show because of ratings, even if they wanted to use a smokescreen, they would've canceled it once this season ends. HBO is known for keeping well written shows around even if they don't get great ratings and axing Luck goes against that philosophy. So, again, there was no conspiracy. The show ended because of the horse deaths.

I'm sad about seeing the show end but I also understand it. From what I hear the show wraps up well enough at the end of this season so I encourage everyone to watch it as so far the show has been absolutely stellar.
 
This extensive investigative article in today's New York Times provides context and detail for HBO's earlier assertions that the death of three horses during production of Luck did not represent anything unusual given the nature of the sport.

Warning - if you're at all sensitive to the treatment of animals - or human beings, for that matter - the article and its accompanying images will be unsettling.

Mangled Horses, Maimed Jockeys

On average, 24 horses die each week at racetracks across America. Many are inexpensive horses racing with little regulatory protection in pursuit of bigger and bigger prizes. These deaths often go unexamined, the bodies shipped to rendering plants and landfills rather than to pathologists who might have discovered why the horses broke down.

Sadly, if anything the TV folks understated how brutal horse racing actually is.
 
So is season 2 going to be really really small, completely lost on a shelf for the next ten years or fast tracked into an extended season one?

The last anticipated episode of season one aired a few hours ago.
 
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top