
There’s more trouble for Jeff Zucker and Ben Silverman. NBC’s upcoming Universal Media Studios sitcom
Parks And Recreation was supposed to be a real winner since the mockumentary comes from Greg Daniels and Michael Schur of The Office and stars Amy Poehler. I say “supposed” because there are problems galore in the rough-cut pilot, according to a March 18th-dated “Consumer And Market Intelligence Research Summary” which I saw this weekend. Considering the show starts airing April 9th, can Parks And Recreation get fixed in time? You be the judge: here are some excerpts from the 12-page report (9 are charts and graphs):
• PARKS AND RECREATION’s overwhelming resemblance to THE OFFICE caused many viewers to simply see it as a “carbon copy” of a successful show. The pilot was seen as “predictable” and lacking in character development, even for a pilot. PARKS AND RECREATIONS needs to differentiate itself from THE OFFICE; otherwise it runs the risk of being seen as “derivative,” “forced,” and “unoriginal.”
• Expectations for this show are very high, especially among OFFICE viewers. Many had seen the promos and were expecting an “OFFICE-type mockumentary” with the same tone, but felt the pilot was too close and similar to the OFFICE. However, many OFFICE fans were quick to point out that THE OFFICE did not become their favorite show overnight. For many, the show grew on them overtime and viewers expect a similar pattern with PARKS & RECREATION and, given their excitement for the show, most are willing to give it a longer commitment than they would another new comedy. This goodwill is stronger than usual, but viewers will expect to see the show to be as good as THE OFFICE soon. Furthermore, labeling the show as being “from the producers of THE OFFICE” adds credibly to the show and helps raise viewers’ expectations.
• Focus needs to evolve away from the pit — consider showing Leslie [Amy Poehler] and her team dealing with various parks and recreation duties. There is a lot of interest in exploring the comedy potential in a government office. The bureaucracy that exists at this type of local government is “very believable” and viewers hoped it could provide for some quirky and silly situations. Based on the promos that are currently airing, most expect storylines to take place in parks around the city.
Characters
• Although many saw her as the “Michael Scott character [from The Office]”, Amy Poehler was well liked. SNL fans felt her character Leslie was a bit “too serious” and “too low-key” and many expected her to have more energy and enthusiasm, especially when she is getting drunk at the end of the show. Viewers appreciate her “big heart” and the fact that she is trying to help Ann and Andy.• The show could use a genuinely likeable male lead. The lack of quality male characters was evident in both the Dial Test and Focus Groups. While Leslie, Ann and April are good characters; all the men in the show were seen as “sleazy” in one way or another. Because there are no “datable” men in the cast, there is little “romantic tension” or “interesting relationship potential” in the show.
Execution & Tune-out
• The beginning of the show needs to better explain the setting and situation. Many were confused as to the reasons and motivations behind the “documentary.” Many asked if it was about Leslie or Ann or the pit even given that the show opens on Ann and Andy and not Leslie.• Pacing was seen as “slow”. 40% of Viewers felt the “pace of the show was too slow.” This was especially evident during the scenes in the conference room or offices of the municipal building.
• Good positive spikes in the opening scenes and during the classroom open forum session but positive spikes flatten during the scenes in Leslie’s office and when she meets Mark out on the patio (Approx Mins 8:30-9:30).
• Highest positive spike comes from Leslie falling into the pit.
• The last 6:30 (approx) suffer from lower positives and higher negatives as “slower” and “more tedious” scenes are featured. Ron’s opinion on the role of government and his discussion with Mark received low positives throughout. The conference room discussion about the committee’s name as the tag was “too long” and “too much of the same joke” for many viewers.
• High tune-out during the opening 4 minutes, especially during Ron’s description of public forums. Tune-outs resume after the classroom forum scene when the action takes place in Leslie’s office and out on the patio during her discussion and testimonials with Mark.
Editor-in-Chief Nikki Finke - tip her here.
• Expectations for this show are very high, especially among OFFICE viewers. Many had seen the promos and were expecting an “OFFICE-type mockumentary” with the same tone, but felt the pilot was too close and similar to the OFFICE. However, many OFFICE fans were quick to point out that THE OFFICE did not become their favorite show overnight. For many, the show grew on them overtime and viewers expect a similar pattern with PARKS & RECREATION and, given their excitement for the show, most are willing to give it a longer commitment than they would another new comedy. This goodwill is stronger than usual, but viewers will expect to see the show to be as good as THE OFFICE soon. Furthermore, labeling the show as being “from the producers of THE OFFICE” adds credibly to the show and helps raise viewers’ expectations.






Testing only captures how you feel when you see a show once; I was in the testing audience for ‘King of Queens’ and I hated it. Shows you how much I know.
Sometimes you have to catch comedies a couple of times before their rhythm sets in. I never got into Friends until it was in syndication and I caught it while making dinner night after night.
Amy is whip smart and will land on her feet no matter what happens.
Analysis by Marketing & Research always makes comedy funnier.
Now the folks at NBC need to get back to work polishing up the scripts for derivative copies of old hits like Seinfeld, The Cosby Show and Cheers.
Haters (on Nikki) say what??? The report makes some valid points — likeability is not a bad thing, nor need it take away from a character’s edge. Ari Gold? Angry, douchey but ikable. George Costanza? Fat, ugly, but Likable. One of the creators of the office (and I’m spacing on the name) said that the only way the show would work is if they “had hope for the characters.” Which means that they have to be likable, even if it’s just in a teeny, frustratingly tiny way.
And if that’s not the case for Parks and Rec, then something is terribly, terribly wrong.
Amy should not have left SNL.
“Look how Greenzo’s testing. They love him in every demographic: colored people, broads, fairies, commies…gosh we’ve got to update these forms.” ~ Jack Donaghy
I kind-of want this show to bomb, so just Daniels and Schur can go back and focus on “The Office” which is slowly losing its identity. Poehler is a good actress and she can get work elsewhere. It’s not like she and Arnett are struggling actors or anything. And quite frankly, I could care less about Jones. She’s not a comedic actress. She bored the life out of me when she was on “The Office” and she’ll probably bore the life out of me with this show.
This whole thing reminds me of that TV Set movie w/ David Duchovny. Sigourney Weaver’s character running around messing up the whole show by trying to make it something it was never supposed to be. Focus groups and especially that dial test procedure seem to be a ridiculous way to “research” a show’s overall ability to entertain.
Once again we see the failure of creativity because nets keep using the same game plan for production. They go to the same tired friends of friends and close the door to new voices.
They buy Kings from a Heroes writer when they show is doing good and it’s a piece of crap. They buy this show from a writer on The Office and it’s shit as well.
Black people have disappeared from primetime relegated to backup positions on shows. Quietly the last shows were canceled with new sitcoms coming because those work so well.
This is how we die, people.
Nikki,
The fact that you published this information is both transparent and low-class. Shame on you.
The commercial for this made me not want to watch it. I couldn’t care less about the tests… it looks totally and completely lame.
This is a cool “get,” Nikki.
Nice work.
The script was terrible but I will still tune in.
its really sad that you went to thin level nikki. it makes me sad. of course ben sucks, but greg daniels and michael schur and super talented and super nice guys. a rare double in the tv business. this show will overcome the idiots in testing, and the idiots at nbc….
What is the point of this exercise, airing NBC’s laundry (dirty or otherwise) here? This is part of the creative process (whether we like it or not) and should remain internal business. I’ve had my ass handed to me in the testing stage, but thank god it remained private. It’s a kick in the teeth and I can only imagine how lousy it feels to have it shared with the world.
You have got to be kidding, Nikki. Why on earth would you publish these reports? So you can post a big “TOLDJA” when the first ep ratings don’t exceed expectations? This is why sitcoms die on the vine — please don’t add pesticides like these posts.
You know what pilot tested best when I was at NBC? “Emeril”, and Zucker used the testing to force it onto the schedule telling everyone who would listen “Look at the focus groups, this guy is a tv star!!” See if you can remember how that worked out, three episodes and then…BAM!
As Peter Tolan once said, “If you want to know what a bunch of housewives and skinheads from the valley think of your show, go ahead and test it, but that won’t tell you if it’s a hit…”
Well. Thank god they’re not pandering to the lowest common denominator in determining what’s working and what’s not. Can we vote the less spike-dependant Executives off the show? Now, there’s a show I’d watch.
The problem with PARKS AND RECREATION is the idea isn’t based on a smart, funny, and engaging BBC original.
That way, NBC could dumb it down, stock it with caricatures and catch-phrases, and then call it a “hit” when it came in 37th every week.
The highest testing pilot in tv research history was “Here’s Boomer,” in case anyone was curious. I don’t have high hopes for this show, but I base it on reasons other than a bs research report.
Testing is the great bane of our industry simply because it empowers a group of people, paid to be there because they either have nothing else to do, or are savvy enough about film and television that they do it to mess around with the unduly impressionable lemmings sitting on the other side of the glass window. If they really knew that those lemmings were stuffing their faces with so much deli that they’ve forgotten to watch the audiences reaction leat alone the graphs on the television, maybe stop masking their reactions with faux “honest reactions”. We have schedules built on testing and not on the clear minded personal expresson of creators empowered by executives to do something defining. History has proven that decisions made by committee and not true leadership, have invariably failed. I know, I know, testing can be helpful with comedy and jokes and can show that a story point isn’t landin in Act 4, so I don’t advocate for it’s complete elimination, but to learn that, “The last 6:30 (approx) suffer from lower positives and higher negatives as “slower” and “more tedious” scenes are featured.” is quite frankly banal and tedious unto itself. Like everything today, as people operate in fear, you get what your testing allows you to have, and that’s a pretty sad state of programming.
Wow, I’m glad I’m not the only one who has a degree in Parks and Recreation. (I’m not really all that proud of it, but hey). I’m disappointed that this show might not make it. Agree with above posters, the profession has possibilities that are perfect for a comedy. I worked at a yearly Mighty Mud Mania (which is exactly what it sounds like) in Phoenix.in July. Summer camps with the most obnoxious kids, onerous city regulations.Hope this can be turned around, Amy is aces.
To air out private testing data like this is truly low. You should be deeply ashamed for posting this. It shows a true lack of class, you cunty blog bitch.
Heh -
You mean like “30 Rock”? What does that come in every week? How “real” are any charachter on that show (except maybe Tracy Morgan)?
Nikki -
I agree with most of the commentators that this was an unnecessary and I feel a misleading post. “Problems”(IMO) would be: Amy not getting along with Greg or Mike or Amy not getting along with castmates or Greg and Mike not getting along or if they were doing massive reshoots or recasting.
Unless DHD is going to become like Aintitcoolnews and start doing this to all TV shows (and we can see how EVERY show stacks up in research).
“The fact that you published this information is both transparent and low-class. Shame on you.”
Gee, journalist, I can feel the red-faced shame starting to burn up my noggin…NOT. The other posters are right, when connections & personal blowbacks start to trump talent, it needs to be pointed out. So Greg Daniels is a nice guy, I get it. But even nice guys will start to have their creative axis shift for the worse when enough smoke is blown up their ass. A lot of people think it’s a lame idea and now some testing has confirmed that. Amy Poehler is truly talented, so why not let HER pitch ideas? How about an idea for a PT television show by a woman created for PT television’s main audience: women? (Just not another forum for male-boss bashing, please.)
Considering that the U.S. version of THE OFFICE is a pale imitation of the original U.K. THE OFFICE it seems a little silly to wring our hands that this series is a weak imitation. As the THE OFFICE has shown, weak derivatives can do big business.
The (U.S.) OFFICE does not do “big business.” Its ad rates are commensurate with its mediocre ratings, and it had an extraordinarily low sale to syndication.
Don’t believe the hype.