Sci-Fi Channel finally discusses Farscape’s cancellation

[jdavis]

That was the end all be all of the decision to cancel, money. They didn't care about any other factor but what they figured was the profit vs. the cost. The show cost too much to allow for a good profit on the ratings it was getting, I'm sure that was the end of the conversation. A bad show with crappy ratings can still make money if it is done cheap enough. Science Fiction shows are not cheap, John Edwards talking on a stage is very cheap. ratings only matter by what they can charge for advertising and they compare that to what it cost to make the show, if the profit is good then the show stays. Some huge shows like Friends also increase the ratings of shows before and after them but I doubt John Edwards show does. They don't make Sci Fi because they like it they make it because they can hit a niche market for profitability. I'm sure that alot of people who work there like science fiction but at the end of the day the only thing that matters is that they made a profit.

 

[GuardianLurker]

Broadcast vs. Narrowcast

I wonder how valid it is to compare broadcast statistics (those typically gathered by Neilsen and others) that are based on the entire population are to a "narrowcast" network like the typical cable channel (like SciFi, Cartoon Network, A&E, etc.).

For instance, suppose you have a show that draws in 90% of its target demographic, but only receives a .1 broadcast rating. Assume that your business plan projects success at something less than 90%, which it would to get approved/launched.

Now, suppose you can raise the broadcast rating to .3, but your target demo draw drops to 40%. Is that a success? How about if your broadcast boost drops the target demo draw below business plan sustainability?

Now, I have no idea how you would develop "narrowcast" statistics, but neither the TiVo or TVC approaches seem like the complete answer.

 

[National Acrobat]

You know, I love Farscape. Just like I loved the X-Files (until it got full of itself) but I admit. I got lazy and stopped watching it. I had 2 kids, I started having to be at work at 5 A.M. etc, etc. When it was on at 9pm, I could stay up the extra hour but when they switched to 10pm it was no go. I am also one of those people that TV execs hate. I channel flip during commercials and if I find something more interesting, I start watching that.

I would have loved for the series to continue but I have to agree with the folks who have made the previous point-A channel or company can do whatever they want with their product, including removing it from circulation. The only thing that will save a series for sure these days is for a company to reap a significant profit via ads during the broadcast of their show. It has to be immensly popular in order to do that, and in the genre of sci-fi where lots of computers and digital animation come into play, that makes it even harder.

I love the show. Unfortunately, there weren't enough of us watching. I was one.

 

[Psychotic Dreamer]

It may very well be that there were not enough people watching it, but it also did not help when SciFi would move when the show was on or have nearly year long breaks. Hmmm. Let's see we want people to watch the show, but we will make it hard to find. Just doesn't make sense. Such is life. It sucks, but like I said such is life.

 

[Umbran]

That was the end all be all of the decision to cancel, money. They didn't care about any other factor but what they figured was the profit vs. the cost.

Perhaps. But Sci Fi is perfectly aware that the measure of "profit vs cost" is not necessarily simple, and is not only Neilsen ratings. Fan loyalty and critical acclaim are a coin, too. Unfortunately, they are coin whose value is difficult to measure.

The pronoun "they" (as in "they did this to us") is really easy to throw around. However, it's a bit all inclusive, and tends to gloss over things - like that fact that the Sci Fi Channel is part of a larger corporate structure, and there are people to whom Bonnie Hammer and others must answer. When corporate politics are involved, we must be careful of the word "they".

Originally posted by GuardianLurker
For instance, suppose you have a show that draws in 90% of its target demographic, but only receives a .1 broadcast rating. Assume that your business plan projects success at something less than 90%, which it would to get approved/launched.

Now, suppose you can raise the broadcast rating to .3, but your target demo draw drops to 40%. Is that a success? How about if your broadcast boost drops the target demo draw below business plan sustainability?

I'd think that what counts as success in such a case may count on many factors, and your point of view.

Let's say you are an advertiser, selling men's deodorant. In that case, broadening outside that small target demographic is probably okay, as your product has a broad appeal. Your only problem may have beent hat you used a commercial that was also designed for the narrow demographic.

Now let's say you are selling something with a more narrow appeal - like tickets to a big science fiction convention. To you, catching more of the broad audience may not be helpful, and losing the narrow audience may be disasterous.

All in all, the network will consider it a success if the advertisers do.

 

[LightPhoenix]

Another thing that Bonnie (and others, not just her) has failed to mention regarding statistics is that Farscape had it's timeslot moved later, which almost universally means lower ratings.

I will agree that Farscape was exceedingly complex though, and while it makes for a good show, it does make it hard for new viewers to join in. This is something I think the writers never really understood.

 

[Mistwell]

You mean, it is constucted in a substantially similar way to the show they decided to keep: Stargate: SG1? Now, I like Stargate: SG1, but for them to claim that Farscape has extended storylines and Stargate doesn't (like they do in the interview) is just asinine. Half of each Stargate episode most of the time relies upon some piece of information (or multiple pieces of information) from previous shows.

Basically, based upon their own statements, Sci-Fi's claims are crap, since they don't make sense. They just don't like "space" shows, and want to make the channel into the John Edwards paranormal crap network (something they have effectively stated in the past, before they realized that this would lose them most of their current viewers).

I'm sorry, I have to disagree with you. I watched Farscape from the beginning, then stopped, then tried to jump back in. Despite having watched the first couple of seasons, I was totally lost. I had no idea what was going on in the new episodes. None. They bore no resemblance to my prior two seasons of the show.

I jumped into Stargate FAR into it (having never had Showtime). I had no trouble picking it up. None. With the exception of a few things here and there, it all made sense to me.

Others have mentioned shows like Buffy & Angel - I agree. I have no prayer of jumping into one of those shows now. And, that is having a huge impact on them. Buffy is losing $1 Million per episode right now, and Angel has ratings below some PAX TV shows. Both are doomed to cancellation. And while I am sure there are plently of good OTHER reasons why those two shows are struggling, at least one good reasons is their overly-serialized nature.

Others mentioned ER, the Practice, and related popular shows - bullcrap. You can jump into those shows at almost any time without trouble. The most you need is a couple of recaps.

24 - It is serialized, but on a season by season basis, with most plot threads (though not a few major ones) generally wrapped up in a few episodes. It is not entire show run basis of serialization. That means they can give you pretty much EVERYTHIHNG you need in the first couple of minutes of the show. Generally, all they need to do is recap 3 plot threads, and you are set. Farscape could not possibly do that.

I think people who refuse to admit Farscape had a problem with too much serialization are not being realistic. If I were alone in my experience, I'd give the argument more attention. But I'm not. Several others here (and I consider this a sophisticated crowd) experienced the same thing, and Sci-Fi channel itself said that is what they werehearing also. It was happening, and to a fairly wide extent, and was hurting the show. It wasn't happening with other shows like Stargate SG-1 (which not only moved times, but moved channels a bunch of times, and got it's start on a channel most people do not have).

 

[jdavis]

I'm sorry, I have to disagree with you. I watched Farscape from the beginning, then stopped, then tried to jump back in. Despite having watched the first couple of seasons, I was totally lost. I had no idea what was going on in the new episodes. None. They bore no resemblance to my prior two seasons of the show.

I jumped into Stargate FAR into it (having never had Showtime). I had no trouble picking it up. None. With the exception of a few things here and there, it all made sense to me.

Others have mentioned shows like Buffy & Angel - I agree. I have no prayer of jumping into one of those shows now. And, that is having a huge impact on them. Buffy is losing $1 Million per episode right now, and Angel has ratings below some PAX TV shows. Both are doomed to cancellation. And while I am sure there are plently of good OTHER reasons why those two shows are struggling, at least one good reasons is their overly-serialized nature.

Others mentioned ER, the Practice, and related popular shows - bullcrap. You can jump into those shows at almost any time without trouble. The most you need is a couple of recaps.

24 - It is serialized, but on a season by season basis, with most plot threads (though not a few major ones) generally wrapped up in a few episodes. It is not entire show run basis of serialization. That means they can give you pretty much EVERYTHIHNG you need in the first couple of minutes of the show. Generally, all they need to do is recap 3 plot threads, and you are set. Farscape could not possibly do that.

I think people who refuse to admit Farscape had a problem with too much serialization are not being realistic. If I were alone in my experience, I'd give the argument more attention. But I'm not. Several others here (and I consider this a sophisticated crowd) experienced the same thing, and Sci-Fi channel itself said that is what they werehearing also. It was happening, and to a fairly wide extent, and was hurting the show. It wasn't happening with other shows like Stargate SG-1 (which not only moved times, but moved channels a bunch of times, and got it's start on a channel most people do not have).

I agree that it is a very serialized show, but I watched the first season, missed the second season and half the third season and had no problem picking back up, it's not that complicated but it does require people to pay attention, ER did not require you to pay that much attention, heck you could turn a episode of ER on in the middle of it and follow along. I tried to give Stargate a chance and I found it to be in the same vien as most of the lowbrow sindicated shows that followed Hercules and Zena, most of which are already dead. It's got the same feel as Relic hunter or Beastmaster the series. Farscape never looked or felt cheap (probably why it wasn't cheap), the serialization of it is a big part of why it got as popular as it is, it's big weakness is also one of it's big strengths. I find it funny that the good old fashoned cliffhanger every week serials would now be considered too hard to follow. They are the history of science fiction. Yes they were cheesy but that was a sign of the times. It's like saying Farscape failed because they were actually trying to tell a story.

I don't think Buffy and Angel are having problems because they are too serialized I just think the idea is played out, it's pretty common with modern TV sometimes a show just goes stale and people stop watching, the show can still be good but the idea isn't new and exciting anymore. I gave up on Buffy years ago when they started branching out from her killing vampires.

 

[Khorod]

I think its just sad that Sci-Fi went from a cool network of stuff you can't get elsewhere, to one which disrespects the sci-fi fans and plays John Edwards.

I'll watch Farscape, and Stargate, but after those two (or just the one) end, there is no reason to even check the TV Guide for this channel.

If anyone over there actually read these boards, I would post more. As it is, that's enough venting.

Later,

 

[WayneLigon]

... disrespects the sci-fi fans and plays John Edwards.

*headshake* The mere idea that that fraud garners more in ratings than probably Stargate and Farscape put together is just sickening. Anyone have hard numbers on Sci-fi channel ratings?