Firefly cancelled!

[Umbran]

Okay, I have two people to respond to. I'll take 'em one at a time.

For Whodat:

I find a fundamental inconsistency between your premises. While I'm not certain, I can accept the notion that the Neilsen system is "broken" in the sense that it is simply inaccurate and inadequate. However, given that, I find it hard to believe that the networks are really putting a lot of effort into finding out who watches what, and when. If the system is broken now, it has been so for years. If the networks really were making a good faith effort to fix it, then it would have gotten fixed. They've had the money and the time, if they really wished to apply it.

For Villano:

I'll approach your "secondly" first. Turn on most of your cable channels. Don't you see the commercials there? Most cable programming is still paid for by commercials, not by paying your monthly cable bills.

The exceptions are "premium" channels - HBO, Showtime, and the like, which commonly run without much in the way of commercial interruption. Now, isn't it interesting how their in-house productions ("The Sopranos", "Oz", "Sex in the City", "Stargate SG1" to name a few) frequently get good viewership and critical acclaim?

Now, to approach your Firsts...

Whoever said that I wanted or expected this notion to change the TV landscape? I don't care about the landscape as a whole. I'm only concerned with getting a couple of shows on the air.

As for the investors not wanting profit - people have been investing in public TV for decades, without expecting any profit or creative control. People have been paying for HBO without such expectations. Why should this be all that different?

The networks can go ahead and keep their ratings systems. This notion works within the system. They go ahead and figure out the ratings, and thus the value of advertising time during the show in the normal way. By reducing the cost the network has to pay for the show to near zero, we make it profitable even if the ratings are low.

I don't think that the general public would opt for such a thing. Their television wants are already met by the usual system, so they have no pressure to pay out extra cash. What I'm talking about only works when you have a whole bunch of people who are rabid about how their wants aren't being met, and are willing to act to fill their own wants.

All I'm saying is the we could put our money where our mouths are. If we really like a show that badly, wouldn't it be worth a measly $22 bucks a year to be able to see it?

 

[Femerus the Gnecro]

Now, isn't it interesting how their in-house productions ("The Sopranos", "Oz", "Sex in the City", "Stargate SG1" to name a few) frequently get good viewership and critical acclaim?

Last time I checked, SG-1 wasn't being produced by a cable network at all (and it certainly was never an 'in-house' showtime production), and had switched to Sci-Fi (a commercial showing network), all the while getting far higher ratings due to better exposure.

-F

 

[Whodat]

I find it hard to believe that the networks are really putting a lot of effort into finding out who watches what, and when. If the system is broken now, it has been so for years. If the networks really were making a good faith effort to fix it, then it would have gotten fixed. They've had the money and the time, if they really wished to apply it.

Ah, but the networks DON'T spend a lot of time, effort, or money trying to find out what their viewers watch. Years ago they thought it would be better to enlist a non-partisan third party to collect that information for them. This way each “ratings point” would be standardized for all networks. That is what AC Nielsen does for them, and has been doing (wrongly, in my opinion) for years.

It may have had an acceptable margin of error back in the days of Sanford & Son, but today we're talking millions of dollars!

Now, in order to fix a system which has been the accepted industry standard for generations, you are talking about doing some major changes – and getting the networks to agree on how to fix them. So the networks either continue to use a system which they’ve become dependent on (even tough it doesn't accurately represent their viewing audience), or close their eyes and “use the Force”.

Perhaps I wasn’t being clear in my previous post. This was the point that I wanted to emphasize. Regardless of our misunderstanding, I don’t believe we are in disagreement.

In any case, I hope that the days of Nielsen Media Research and AC Nielsen are over. Thanks to the miracles of technology, we (the average fan) have short-circuited the system. Now, with the advent of the internet, fans can rally together (in the cases of Farscape and Firefly) and voice their opinions directly to the networks if our favorite programs are in danger of being yanked due to poor numbers.

Network executives are trained to look at polling information. Based on what that information tells them, they make a decision on whether a particular program is profitable based on the amount of revenue it can generate. They are simply not trained to deal with massive fan-based movements. And I think it scares the crap out of them!

At the very least, I hope it wakes them up to the fact that the ratings system that they use is broken. But then I’m not a network exec. If I were, I'd probably be worried more about my own shows, or the competition's new fall lineup than things like fixing the ratings system.

 

[Umbran]

Networks go through a lot of effort trying to find out how many people watch certain programs at certain times.

Now you say:

Ah, but the networks DON'T spend a lot of time, effort, or money trying to find out what their viewers watch.

While these statements are used to support different points, they are themselves mutually exclusive, as written. You expect us to not get confused by that?

 

[Mistwell]

More Neilsen griping? Okay, I will take a shot at it one more time:

1) They do not watch 5000 homes. They watch 30,000. 5,000 of that is a more permanant setting, while 25,000 is floating.

2) The claim that Neilsen is flawed in a manner that HURTS THE SHOWS YOU LIKE is itself flawed. It is a 50-50 chance that they are over-representing the shows you like. In fact, I would say the odds are even worse than that - that the sci-fi shows you like have more fanatical viewers with boxes than other shows, and that more Neilsen viewers are leaving the TVs on during a sci-fi show, even if they are not at home, to intentionally artificially increased the numbers for that show than they would for, say, a game show or talk show or court show (or something like John Edwards). Let's face it, you have no idea what would happen if the ratings became more accurate - it could mean the end of Sci-Fi.

3) This idea that you subscribe to shows directly is just silly. Take the shows mentioned - they don't even have 2 million viewers even with wide exposure and not charging for it. Do you think it would get more viewers if you have to pay to view it the first time? I really think all this talk about converting to a public television system is naive. It is lovely in theory, but in practice it has no commonality with reality.

 

[Villano]

For Villano:

I'll approach your "secondly" first. Turn on most of your cable channels. Don't you see the commercials there? Most cable programming is still paid for by commercials, not by paying your monthly cable bills.

I certainly agree that networks make most of their money from commercials. I said as much during my earlier post. However, I was responding to your statement that "people are griping about something for which they've paid nothing more than waiting for the commercials to end". My Direct TV bill is certainly more than nothing.

Whoever said that I wanted or expected this notion to change the TV landscape? I don't care about the landscape as a whole. I'm only concerned with getting a couple of shows on the air.

The idea of introducing a system to keep shos on the air that would normally be cancelled would indeed change the landscape of tv. You forget that, if the system is implemented, there will be many more people other than you trying to keep their "couple of shows" on the air.

Suddenly, instead of just Firefly and Farscape still being on the air, you have a hundred potential other shows trying to fill a limited number of timeslots. And ratings would still be the deciding factor in which shows stay and which go.

The networks can go ahead and keep their ratings systems. This notion works within the system. They go ahead and figure out the ratings, and thus the value of advertising time during the show in the normal way. By reducing the cost the network has to pay for the show to near zero, we make it profitable even if the ratings are low.

Okay, first, if this system was in effect, there would be many, many shows using it. Now following that, a network would still rather run a "free" series that garnered more ratings than one that didn't, meaning that there's no guarantee that Firefly would even make it then.

Actually, you don't really have to look to far to see proof of what I say. Every year, the networks spend millions upon millions on pilots which never see the light of day. There are even entire series that are shot which are locked away in vaults and will never air.

Now, with the money already spent on these things, why don't the networks take these shows and air them anyway? Because they feel that they won't recieve good ratings and, hence, can't get a good advertising rate.

Think about it. It isn't even a matter of getting a free show. They already spent the money on it. They are willing to take a million dollar loss rather than air it. They won't even dump it in late, late night timeslots because they will get more money from infommercials.

Fox even has those last, what is it, 3 episodes of Firefly which have been shot? Money already spent which they don't even want to attempt to recoup by airing. Plus they also bought 2 or 3 more scripts.

As for the investors not wanting profit - people have been investing in public TV for decades, without expecting any profit or creative control. People have been paying for HBO without such expectations. Why should this be all that different?

Because, what you are describing is different from PBS and HBO. First, most of the money you give to PBS goes to buying already produced series.

Secondly, with the premium channels, you are paying to gain access to additional channels. It's like an extension of your cable bill. Sure, those networks produce their own shows (although most of their business, I suspect, comes from theatrical movies), but the ratings still determine what they cancell.

If The Sopranos bombed its first season, no ammount of money you gave to HBO would bring it back.

What you are really descibing is a sort of limited partnership or a stock. You aren't just giving money to watch a show, you are giving money to produce a specific show.

Actually, there is an example in real life that sort of mirrors this; WWE (formerly the WWF).

You can buy stocks in the company and the company, among other things, produces several weekly wrestling tv series.

Granted, the investors can't tell Vince McMahon how to book his shows (considering how crappy they've been lately and how many fans are complaining, this is obvious).

However, stockholders still would like to see some return on their investment.

Ignoring those people and focusing on just those who bought stock just becuase they enjoy wrestling, they can still show their feeling by selling shares (causing the stock to lower). And since you can now buy WWE stock for the change you find in your couch, they may already have.

Okay, it's not really a great example, but it's the closest I can find.

All I'm saying is the we could put our money where our mouths are. If we really like a show that badly, wouldn't it be worth a measly $22 bucks a year to be able to see it?

I suppose it would. I'm just saying that the system really wouldn't work nor would it guarantee that the shows you want to see would make it to air.

That said, I'd buy a direct to video Firefly series. If Joss wanted to try it, there may be a market for it (I mean, look at how many people buy direct to video anime series).

 

[Umbran]

Again, it seems I've got two people to respond to.

Mistwell:

Sorry, but you're speculating as much as the rest of us. Unless you've got actual data, your "50-50 chance that they are over-representing" carries little to no weight. Sorry. Your contention that there aren't two million viewers out there is dependant upon the Neilsen ratings beign correct - they are the only measure we currently have. However, since we question that system too, we won't eagerly accept your contention that there aren't enough people.

And, even if there aren't quite as many viewers as I think - that only means the price for each goes up a bit. So you pay $2 per person per episode, rather than one. That's still less per hour than movie rentals in major metropolitan areas.

Villano:

Your direct TV bill may not be nothing, but IMHO you err in what you think you're paying for. You aren't paying for the shows. You're paying for a particular method of delivering the shows to your house. In that bill you're paying for a delivery system, not the thing being delivered. If you were paying for the actual shows, you should be up in arms about all the darned commercials

I disagree that there'd be lots of other people trying to bring back cancelled shows using the method I describe. You don't see massive letter-writing campaigns and 10,000 signatures in 24 hours on internet petitions over most shows.

I said this before, but you seem more to ignore it than to counter it - This sort of thing wouldn't be used by most folk, simply because their TV wants are already met. There are loads of sitcomes, prime-time dramas, and so on. If one goes off the air, there's always another. People who like them feel little pressure, because they can find something else to their liking when a show leaves the air. The same cannot be said for sci-fi fans.

That's the crux of it - sci-fi fans have repeatedly shown that they feel the need to make a stink over losing beloved shows, where you don't see the same thing each time a cop-show gets cancelled. That indicates that there's something different here. Something that may require a different approach.

As for unshown episodes of Firely - we don't yet have confirmation that they will not air the episodes. Only that they don't yet have them on the schedule. In considering airing them, there's more than simple "the money is already gone" to consider.

One thing to consider is the fact that if you choose to show those episodes, you'll extend the period over which the fans will gripe about the cancellation. There's something to be said for simply dropping it so that the letters and e-mails and phone calls that disrupt their day go away more quickly. Remember, the time required to process them is money.

There's also the possibility of corporate politics entering into the equation. We can speculate on that to our heart's content, but have nothing solid. We should remember, though, that while the general policies may pretty much depend on the bottom line, certain details (like if a few last episodes air or not) may be due to other influences.

 

[Villano]

Your direct TV bill may not be nothing, but IMHO you err in what you think you're paying for. You aren't paying for the shows. You're paying for a particular method of delivering the shows to your house. In that bill you're paying for a delivery system, not the thing being delivered. If you were paying for the actual shows, you should be up in arms about all the darned commercials

But my point was that people are paying money to watch and as such do have a right to complain about the system that determines what shows tey can watch.

Otherwise, only people who own stock in Fox could complain.

I disagree that there'd be lots of other people trying to bring back cancelled shows using the method I describe. You don't see massive letter-writing campaigns and 10,000 signatures in 24 hours on internet petitions over most shows.

That's because aside from Star Trek and a very few other shows, petitions don't work. People view it as a waste of time, and, sadly, it is.

I said this before, but you seem more to ignore it than to counter it - This sort of thing wouldn't be used by most folk, simply because their TV wants are already met. There are loads of sitcomes, prime-time dramas, and so on. If one goes off the air, there's always another. People who like them feel little pressure, because they can find something else to their liking when a show leaves the air. The same cannot be said for sci-fi fans.

I didn't ignore it, but thought my views were expressed elsewhere in my post. If this system is put in place (fans can put up money to put a show back into production), it stands to reason that others will use it in order to start production of a tv show.

Think about it. Firefly is gone. However, James Cameron says, "I liked that show. In fact, I want to do my own space western. Who wants to donate some money to see it made?" Most of those Firefly fans would put up their money for that.

There are a great many people who have ideas for series that won't get made because they don't have any backing. If money became available to them, they'd jump at making it themselves and handing over a finished product to a network.

Another factor to consider is who ended the show. Friends will (eventually) be cancelled because the people associated with the show want to cease operations. That's the same reason the MTV cartoon Daria was cancelled. Both could still pull in the ratings.

Also, popular shows usually outlive their welcome. By the time they are cancelled, people are sick of them. Usually, by this point, the quality has totally dropped off. Look at The Simpsons. I don't think that that show has been good in years.

X-Files is another example. A great many people were relieved went that was cancelled because it became almost painful to watch how far the quality had fallen.

Eventually, Survivor will go when the audience leaves.

That's the crux of it - sci-fi fans have repeatedly shown that they feel the need to make a stink over losing beloved shows, where you don't see the same thing each time a cop-show gets cancelled. That indicates that there's something different here. Something that may require a different approach.

The Cagney & Lacey cancellation launched a massive letter writing campaign. If they cancelled NYPD Blue, I'm sure there'd also be a campaign.

And, truthfully, you don't really know how many online petitons are out there for shows that have been cancelled.

As for unshown episodes of Firely - we don't yet have confirmation that they will not air the episodes. Only that they don't yet have them on the schedule. In considering airing them, there's more than simple "the money is already gone" to consider.

One thing to consider is the fact that if you choose to show those episodes, you'll extend the period over which the fans will gripe about the cancellation. There's something to be said for simply dropping it so that the letters and e-mails and phone calls that disrupt their day go away more quickly. Remember, the time required to process them is money.

There's also the possibility of corporate politics entering into the equation. We can speculate on that to our heart's content, but have nothing solid. We should remember, though, that while the general policies may pretty much depend on the bottom line, certain details (like if a few last episodes air or not) may be due to other influences.

And you're ignoring what I said about all the other unseen pilots and episodes out there that are finished and sitting in a vault (Aren't there more Tick episodes?).

Do you get Bravo? They ran a couple of specials about this. One was Brilliant But Cancelled in which they talked about shows which were well done but didn't last. Some were too edgy, others were ahead of their time.

They also did one on all the pilots and series that were never shown. Admittedly, some looked so bad that I'm not surprised (The Man With The Power!). Others were so strange, they could have been terrible or brilliant (The Tribe, which was an attempt to bring a Quest For Fire type series to the screen comes to mind).

Ultimately, that's millions in lost income for the networks every year. Granted, it used to be that a very few of the pilot movies are repackaged and shown theatrically overseas, but I'm not sure if they even do that anymore.

In the end, they have fully finished products that no one will ever see.

And unless there's something specific in Joss' contract, I doubt that we will ever see them (unless they dump them, unadvertised, mid-afternoon on a Sunday).

From what I saw in one interview, one of the directors said that Joss was committed to putting the episodes aready shot out on dvd. That's something, at least.

Maybe if all the people who were willing to pay that money in the system you proposed instead bought the dvds, it would show Joss that there is a market for a direct-to-video series. And you could sell the series as a tv series overseas.

So, buy those Firefly dvds!

 

[Mistwell]

Again, it seems I've got two people to respond to.

Mistwell:

Sorry, but you're speculating as much as the rest of us. Unless you've got actual data, your "50-50 chance that they are over-representing" carries little to no weight. Sorry. Your contention that there aren't two million viewers out there is dependant upon the Neilsen ratings beign correct - they are the only measure we currently have. However, since we question that system too, we won't eagerly accept your contention that there aren't enough people.

Umbran, are you being intentionally obtuse?

We have no data on how accurate the Neilsen rating system is. It could be over representing or under representing. You have offered no reason as to why it would tend to under represent sci-fi (though I offered at least one reason, speculation though it is, as to why it might over represent them). So, given we have no data, YOU STAND A 50-50 CHANCE. How are the odds, without data, anything OTHER than 50-50? It's a flip of the coin as to whether the number is higher or lower than what Neilsen says it is - and you insist that somehow the flaw in the system should go to the advantage of sci-fi shows? Why? How does that have any basis in logic?

 

[Rahkan]

I haven't read the entire thread but I gather that most of you liked Firefly. I personally am not in the majority opinion here. I tried to like it, I watched it several times each time with the firm intention of liking it. But it plainly made no sense to me, it was hard to pick up, and the dialogue and plot were boring. I even prefer Voyager to what I say. I am glad it has been cancelled.