Hammond On Cannes: Robert Redford’s Brave New Role … 
Hot Trailer: Jennifer Aniston And Jason Sudeikis’ … 
Warner Bros Tells Space Story, From The Bra Designers Who … 
Brad Pitt’s Plan B Banner Promotes Jeremy Kleiner As … 
Hot Trailer: ‘Don Jon’ 
Billy Crystal-Starring Comedy From Matt Nix & Larry … 
UPDATE: Toronto Lands World Premiere Of Godfrey … 
RATINGS RAT RACE: ‘Dancing With The Stars’ … 
CBS Reups Tony Awards Through 2018 
HBO, FX Lead Critics’ Choice TV Awards — But … 
Hammond On Cannes: A New Day Comes To The Fest As HBO and … 
Cannes: Lionsgate Acquires U.S. On Guillaume Canet’s … 
Cannes: Radius-TWC Buys Keanu Reeves’ Helming Debut … 
Cannes: Fleming Reflects And Finds Talented Trio A Breath … 
Hot Trailer: ‘Man Of Steel’ 
Former Digital Domain CEO & Auditors Sued For Fraud By … 
Fox Acquires ‘Narc’; Zac Efron Attached To Play … 
ABC’s ‘Nashville’ Undergoes Production … 
CBS Wins Season & Ties Sweep In Demo; ABC Tops Adults … 
Mike Lobell Adds Cast To ‘Eisner,’ Plots … 
Sony Shares Rise On Report That It Will Consider … 
No big headlines from today’s HRTS luncheon featuring several cable chiefs: FX’s John Landgraf, Showtime’s David Nevins, USA Network’s Jeff Wachtel and BET’s Loretha Jones.
Landgraf spoke candidly about the difficulty of making serialized dramas work on basic cable. He noted that viewers seem to watch only reality series and sports live and prefer to view serialized shows in blocks of several episodes at a time on their DVRs. That hurts ratings tremendously and puts a lot of pressure on scripted programming, which doesn’t come cheap – Landgraf quoted a $200 million figure for keeping a basic cable drama series on the air for 7 years. Looking back at a show like Damages, while proud of it, Landgraf acknowledged that it didn’t work for FX and he wouldn’t do such serialized series in the future.
Other tidbits from the luncheon: Nevins spoke about broadening Showtime’s audiences, Wachtel called the final season of Law & Order: Criminal Intent a “victory lap” and Jones admitted even she was surprised by the huge success of the BET’s sitcom The Game.
TV Editor Nellie Andreeva - tip her here.
Loading ...
What about Sons of Anarchy? That is a serialized show that does well.
Did “The Shield” and “Nip Tuck” make money?
Landgraf is full of shit. He’s making shows that people don’t want to watch in Terriers, Lights Out and Damages. Cast your net a little wider and maybe you’ll get better numbers.
Then reduce the cost of scripted programming and stop paying outrageous above the line fees. There’s no reason a quality show has to cost $200 million for 7 seasons.
The old model of advertising is dying as well. Time to start thinking outside the box. Nobody wants to sit thru commercials. Therefore, they DVR. It’s not rocket science.
It was Justified-levelled episodic in season one though, it was only two and mainly three that brought on full Lost serialisation.
“The Closer” on TNT is wildly successful. DVD sales are excellent.
It’s been serialized. “Army Wives” on Lifetime has made a lot of dough. “Nurse Jackie” on Showtime is incredibly successful. What is he talking about?
“Nip Tuck” did incredibly well. “Damages” was downloaded and sold well on dvd. It still is.
Hello?
As a TV writer, this is heartbreaking to read. Serialized drama is the highest form of our craft. If not on cable, where can it exist? Certainly not on network. Will HBO and the premium networks be the only outlets left?
Leights Out on FX… will that make money after a season or two?
Wonder how Army Wives is doing for Lifetime after 5 years…
Just because talent was probably overpaid on Damages doesn’t mean the idea of scripted drama can’t work on basic.
Scripted shows historically don’t break even until subsequent runs. What he seems to be saying is that he can’t make money on the first run of the shows and is afraid to deficit them because the stockholders want profits every quarter rather than build equity in the library. And perhaps the off-network fees are low because of the sweetheart deals among the cross-owned networks. Or it’s just a ploy to cut budgets even more. Or all three.
I continue to believe there is a huge untapped audience for serialized shows. A lot of people can’t stand procedurals. Plus, doesn’t the DVR allow people *not* to miss an episode?
Mr. Landgraf has been drinking his own Kool Aid for too long. How many bad shows do you get to make before someone says it’s time for a new point of view? FX is his network through and through and it’s just not good enough to be considered an elite place like it was from ’01-’05.
I think John Landgraff is talking about entirely serialized shows with no episodic core. Essentially, things like Friday Night Lights, Damages, Caprica, Rome, Deadwood. He’s not wrong. Friday Night Lights never got the ratings on network. Damages and Caprica never got the ratings on cable. The only place that can support the numbers for serialized shows is premium… Rome & Deadwood.
People are watching serialized shows in 2-3 episode chunks on their DVR or On Demand, which means those people aren’t in the Live rating… they aren’t even in the Live+7 rating at that point. He said that he wished it was otherwise, but in the end this is a business and you can’t hang on to something that isn’t making you money. Premium doesn’t demand ratings… they make their money off subscribers (something Nevins discussed deeply about Showtime).
It doesn’t mean you can’t have a show with serialized elements… it just means the show shouldn’t be 100% serialized… or serialized to an impenetrable point by a new viewer. It needs to maintain some semblance of an “episode” or entry point for a new viewer or casual regular viewer.
It’s not really surprising what we’re seeing is a divide between network, cable and premium. Network is easy episodic viewing. Cable is harder edged but still mostly episodic viewing. Premium is serialized. This isn’t 100% true, but if you look at what is successful on network, then cable, then premium… it’s damn close to true.
“the difficulty of making serialized dramas work on basic cable” — what different approaches have they tried, I wonder?
@Jared Allen – right on re: viewing habits. That knowledge in mind, why don’t they start there and schedule episodes differently? Say, 2 episodes back-to-back? Makes sense to me.
@brick – LIGHTS OUT is a great show, I love it. Works as a drama and it’s also exciting. That fight last episode was exciting AND emotional. I think I was more worried about Lights than his wife looked in that sequence. Audience superiority
Very satisfying. Hope it will find its audience.
I have a hard time believing Nip/Tuck, The Shield (at least towards the beginning), Rescue Me (also towards the beginning) and Damages haven’t made money for F/X. I agree with whoever said F/X needs to get their shiz together. I used to tune into all of F/X’s original program… now I don’t watch a single show on their network. They need to make a comeback with more creative original programming. It doesn’t matter if its serial or not. If its good, people will watch.
I think F/X seriously needs to work on getting some female viewers. They completely alienate women from watching their network with such male-centric programming as a series about boxers, cowboys and a biker gang. Its common sense really. Damages was the last of their series that was “female” friendly. I think they need another soap-type program like Nip/Tuck to add to the mix.
The next F/X program I intend on tuning into (assuming it happens) will be the David O. Russell/Connie Britton collaboration.
@AMC Fan: You may have a hard time believing Damages hasn’t made money, but it hasn’t. It’s why they had to do a co-production with DirecTV to give it two more seasons. Nip/Tuck and The Shield are different. Both of those shows are actually episodic shows with continuing storylines and both series ran for a whole lot of seasons. Damages is just a continuing storyline. That said… FX could probably use females. Nip/Tuck certainly had female viewers. Though it may conflict FX’s brand identity which is MALE MALE MALE.
@A.M. : Back to back episodes is an interesting idea. HBO did that with In Treatment… but they’re a pay channel and their business model is different… basically their model is: put on interesting stuff and pray that it adds up to someone forking over $10/month since they can’t see stuff like that elsewhere. It’s a very ethereal business model. FX still needs viewers for ad dollars, and I would guess that airing episodes back to back would mean you burn through them too fast. Essentially you end up spending alot of money for a show that only results in a little bit of real estate being filled. Particular with regards to serialized shows, since viewers in general don’t repeat view those, yet they do repeat view episodic shows.