For Deadline today, freelance journalist Diane Haithman covered the Hollywood Radio and Television Society’s Newsmaker luncheon at the Beverly Hilton:
What will the TV industry have left to buzz about after fallen NBC talk show host Conan O’Brien’s new 11 PM show launches in November on TBS? And the world finally finds out whether his young, hip, Twitter-happy fans will follow him from NBC to cable? Once again, NBC and Conan launched the discussion at yet another industry gathering. O’Brien’s choice to sign with TBS instead of Fox after the “fairly catastrophic” NBC debacle (as FBC’s Kevin Reilly called it) was used as a starting point for a discussion about whether cable TV represents the television industry’s sweet spot in 2010. Oprah Winfrey’s move from syndication to starting her own cable network got a mention, too, but that was announced way back in 2009 — and she’s just not as much fun to talk about as Conan.
On the panel billed as “a post-upfronts look at the business of the business”: O’Brien’s attorney Leigh Brecheen, partner and head of television at the law firm Bloom Hergott; Paul Lee, president of ABC Family; Steve Mosko, president of Sony Pictures Television; Kevin Reilly, president of Fox Broadcasting Company; Chris Silbermann, president of ICM; and Tim Spengler, president of Initiative USA.
Well, time will tell whether cable is good to Conan – but what about everybody else? The rest of the discussion revolved around whether 2010’s promising upfronts mean that traditional, scripted broadcast TV series are back on top – and whether the networks can exist in happy harmony with cable channels, online TV options and VOD.
Reilly was among those riding the post-upfront broadcast high. Conan’s move to cable, he said, represented the continuing growth of cable but “this year, the upfront [showed] the resilience of the broadcast model…we could do this panel five years from now, or 10 years from now, I do believe it.”
Sony’s Mosko believes that TV is TV. “I think it’s silly to talk about cable vs. broadcast, we’re talking about television shows,” he said. “People who like Conan are going to find Conan. We’ve got to throw that out.”
Mosko also offered this somewhat frightening statistic – although clearly the executive saw it as a positive: The average person, he said, watches “158 hours of TV per month – and it’s growing.”
Lee, of cable’s ABC Family, was, not unexpectedly, touting the magic of cable. “It is the moment for cable and I think we should celebrate that [and] create shows for a dual revenue stream business,” he said. He’s big on niches and “branding.” I’ve come to believe that brands are critical. “When I was a showrunner, the only brand I thought was important was the name of the show,” he said. “The brand is a promise, it’s not just a demo; it’s how that demo wants to watch television.” He said that ABC Family’s research showed that their target audience, aged 14-28, is “a more optimistic, a warmer generation… We have an easier job focusing on that demo, and it works.”
But ICM’s Silbermann and Initiative USA’s Spengler were on hand to provide some hard stats: Network television is still the preferred choice among advertisers and has the highest syndication potential.
“The problem with the syndication model — not the international syndication model — is that because cable networks do so many fewer shows, they get so defined by their original programming,” Silbermann said. “The Shield defines FX, and it’s very hard to sell it into syndication. ‘
Said Spengler, on the advertising issue: “Advertisers use the power of television, and the bigger the audience, usually the more value it is.” While advertisers sometimes take advantage of a particular niche offered by a cable show, “in general, advertisers are paying for size. “
Spengler added that, right now, network television can offer bigger numbers than cable, and vastly larger numbers than online TV – but said that the positive response to many new shows at the upfronts is “a little Pollyanna” given that ad revenue has been “fairly flat in the last five years. Revenue in 2010 will be off in 2010 vs. 2007. The business is going to have to figure out where the new money is going to come from, because the majority of it, on the broadcast side, comes from advertising, and advertising is flattening out in national television. “
Spengler did say that, while the jury is out on whether advertisers will continue to go for size above demographic specificity, expect the digital revolution to change the way advertisers evaluate the success of their ads in all entertainment media.
“As the world goes digital, the way that television is monetized in the next 2 to 4 years is going to change significantly,” Spengler said. “In the first 50 years of television, the world was, you pay for ratings… in the last three years, we have more data, can measure if people are watching the spots… the way we evaluate the data we have to look at will be, does my ad in a particular show provide a response? With the interactivity of the ad, will they click on the ad, click on the website, go to purchase? Advertisers would rather pay for 8 million views with more response than 10 million views with less response. The word for that is performance, that’s how Google built their business. That’s the way it will be three years from now.“
Brecheen addressed the Conan matter. “We all thought initially that we would probably end up at Fox… But, like a lot of networks now who have a single revenue stream with advertisers, they are struggling to make things work, and I think this whole retransmission crisis going on right now is an example of the fact that there is a huge shift between network and cable…”
But when Brecheen was asked what ratings numbers she expected Conan to do, it was Fox’s Reilly who jumped in instead to say: “The decimal will be on the left side of the number, not the right… I’ve worked in cable; the decimal is going to be on the wrong side.”
Reilly, who also joked publicly about whether O’Brien was a good guy or a bad guy, later told me, “When I first got to the cable network FX, I said: ‘What is success?’ In all seriousness, I had never seen a decimal on the left side of the number. But Conan would be thrilled with that decimal. The Daily Show does a .6, and it’s a huge success.”
Editor-in-Chief Nikki Finke - tip her here.


O’Brien and Stewart are going to cancel each other out their audience are the same people.
The risk for cable is that its main revenue, fees per subscriber for being carried on satellite or cable outlets, could go away.
It could go away if people just cut cable and satellite TV as unaffordable — big recession, particularly a double-dip one. That’s fairly possible, but hard to estimate probability wise. It’s definitely larger than zero.
It could go away if Reps or Dems or both seize on “ala carte” pricing to drive prices lower and write a law forbidding bloc pricing and/or subsidizing via regulating how much cable channels can charge.
Either of these, by limiting revenues (about 70% or so comes from cable subscribers not advertisers) will just kill the revenue model of most niche cable groups. Its worth noting that TBS, TNT, and WGN all grew out of serving local sports to a wider audience, not “niche” stuff like the Golf Channel, two food networks, Home and Garden, Logo, OUT, Oprah’s new network, etc.
As long as per-subscriber (and bundling) remains the same, cable channels like Oprahs or food or gay networks are OK. They get money. But as soon as people can buy unbundled (because Congress required it to make things cheaper while raising say Soda taxes) and/or Congress limits how much cable channels can charge to make cable TV cheaper, niche folks are screwed.
Is this a reasonable risk? Sure. Congress, regardless of party, will HAVE to raise taxes, because so much has been spent. Taxes on sodas, more gas taxes, more electricity taxes, food taxes, internet taxes, likely cable TV taxes.
They’ll be required for political self-preservation for a low-cost feel good way of lowering something in daily life, and screwing over cable channels is an easy target without much comeback. I’m surprised this has not been done already.
Big Government is Big Government, it intrudes in every aspect of life and makes political calculations about business as important as current cash flows. Because Big Government can stop future cash flows.
If that’s the case, the smart money would bet on Over the Air broadcasters, as tight consumer money makes only broad stuff (NFL, Baseball, American Idol) profitable. You can pay nothing for TV and still get most of the football you want every week.
Every year, every season, what is known as “cable” gets more and more legit. The day is coming – and soon – when there will be little, if any, differentiation between cable and network broadcast television. Internet delivery aside, the future of televised programming is written on the proverbial wall.
Yeah, advertisers want to put content (shows) on the web so that people can click on ads pertaining to the show. “Hey Carla – did you see that necklace Jackie was wearing last night on ‘Beverly Hills Bitches’? I just had to have it, so I clicked on the link and ordered it!” Maybe – for the 15 year-old set – but not for grown-ups. I think an audience mostly wants to enjoy a TV show again without all of the extraneous BS of interaction, direct marketing and product placement, and they’re willing to suffer a few advertisements and subtle product placements for that.
Advertisers are getting a HUGE savings on cable shows for the time being, taking those dollars away from network – that’s not unfair, it’s just market rule. Those ad dollars should balance out, and soon. Hell, pretty much everyone has basic cable (at least) now and the difference in quality of a network show vs cable is greatly diminished.
Which is to say that I don’t believe the reported numbers of “eyeballs” vis-a-vis cable vs network. Sure, call me a skeptic but any data can be manipulated and compromised. Once cable gets the ad dollars it deserves, cable shows will have the revenue to compete fairly with network. (And not that they have to throw money at cable shows to make good TV – cable has taught network a lesson here – but it would help.) Once that happens, the production and distribution cost of televised content should level out as well.
Cable TV has come of age. The new(er) kids on the block have grown up, while the legitimacy of “The Big Four” networks is waning.
I think Reilly is right and wrong about Conan. I think he’s right in the sense that it will be relatively low compared to broadcast, however I think it’ll be somewhere right above 1 million. His core audience will follow him where he can really play to them (i.e. do what he wants) on cable, which will make everyone happy (creatively).
Can we all agree that ad agencies and marketing depts of fortune 500 companies are completely retarded?
watch what happens!
TV broadcast is very limited and cable is expensive. Aside from the $100+/month bill, I always had problems with the signal.
I get my TV via Internet from a program at seetvpc.com. Have used it for a couple years and its dirt cheap.
Except for political ads and prescription drugs, spending on TV advertising (both broadcast and cable) by all other categories of advertisers has decreased over the past several years.
Only the growth in political and pharmasecutical advertising have prevented massive financial problems in the industry.