Source : Vancouver Sun

Fox chief says it's a result of the 'new' business model, while CBS head says it's all about 'content'

LOS ANGELES - In a book about the Hollywood screen trade, legendary screenwriter William (Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid, All the President's Men) Goldman wrote that "Nobody knows anything," in trying to nail down why movie producers and studio heads never know from one year to the next what's going to fly, and what's going to flop faster than Joe Millionaire's second shot at stardom.

An oft-heard variation on Goldman's theme at the just-concluded semi-annual gathering of the Television Critics Association is, "They don't know what they're doing" -- this to describe TV network executives' efforts to nail down an increasingly volatile and hard-to-read television landscape.

Audiences are down, profits are up. The television business has never been better; television has never been worse.

Or maybe it's the other way around. (Dennis Franz, for example, claimed in an interview that network television is as good as it's ever been; the proliferation of cable channels, Franz insisted, and cutting-edge cable fare like The Sopranos and Six Feet Under forced NYPD Blue to become better, in order to compete for viewers' time.)

Network executives blame widely reported audience erosion among men age 18-34 last year on faulty methodology in the Nielsen ratings.

It is true that Nielsen moved to a new, more accurate measurement system in the U.S. at the end of last summer. Whether that meant Nielsen previously counted viewers who didn't exist, or whether young men have indeed fled network television in the past year, is open to interpretation. No one seems to have the answer.

What is evident is that the 2004-05 season is going to be chaotic, with two networks -- NBC and Fox -- launching their fall season weeks earlier than usual (Fox has even hinted it will go to a year-round schedule) and CBS and ABC insisting they will stay where they are. Their respective decisions will inevitably affect CTV, Global and CHUM, as so much of their programming is simulcast on the Canadian networks.

Compelling cases are to be made on both sides of the debate, which only underscores the fact that nobody truly knows what they're doing. They talk a good game, though.

Here's Gail Berman, entertainment president of the Fox network, which will launch some new shows in March, more in June and the rest of its new shows in November, after baseball's World Series. The O.C., one of the few bona fide new hits of the year, debuted last August, before the clutter of new shows and returning series in late September.

"The way people used to watch television was based on a business model that forced them to watch television when it was presented to them," Berman says.

"When [specialty channels] recognized that they could launch their shows at a time when everyone else was in repeats, they cut into the summer audience, and that created a ripple effect across the board. We learned something from watching them, which is that there are audiences available at all times of the day. ... They counterprogrammed against the networks, and gained tremendously as a result. I don't believe the viewers have any restrictions any more on what they want to have. If they can have it all, they're going to demand it all.

"The choices in people's homes now are abundant. And if we're to survive in this business, we're going to have to adapt. ... By definition, a broadcast network is designed to reach the widest possible audience. That's our goal as broadcasters. And we still have the unique ability to do that. A show like American Idol, or a show like Joe Millionaire in its first year, was able to galvanize the audience in numbers that were simply staggering.

"The flip side of that coin is that, over time, all the networks have had to settle for hit status at a lower level than they settled for in years past, when there were just three networks to choose from. People today are doing other things. Their attention is somewhere else. There is more competition. Young people are playing video games, or watching DVDs.

"Technology has changed the world profoundly, and the business has to recognize that. What constitutes a hit today would have been laughable when some of our more mature colleagues ran these companies, years ago. A 20-per-cent share in those days was unacceptable. That was failure. An abject failure. Today, a 20-per-cent share is a huge success. The business has changed, no question about it."

Sounds reasonable, right? Year-round programming for a media-savvy audience that has grown used to getting what it wants, when it wants it.

Only listen to Leslie Moonves, chairman and CEO of CBS, the network that has made more gains in the U.S. marketplace than any other network over the past 10 years.

"The only thing I have to say about that," Moonves says, "is that it doesn't matter. It's about one thing: Content. You can do all the [short] series you want. You can put them on whenever you want. If they're no good, they're not going to work. If you launch a bad show in August, it will still be a bad show in September. It's not going to help you.

"Yes, NBC has the Olympics. Yes, it will be a great platform for them. But let me ask you a question: Would Coupling have worked in August any better than it did in September? That's the real question. [Law & Order creator] Dick Wolf sent me a little motto once, which I have on my wall. And even though he's with NBC, he's a great producer and a good friend. And it says, 'It's the writing, stupid.'

"And you know what? It's the content, stupid. All the rest -- the gimmicks, the super-sizing, the switching days and times, the this, the that -- it doesn't matter. You have to put on shows people want."

Sounds fair. Only, why is there so little to see most nights that's actually worth watching?

I don't have the answer. After listening to network executives for the past 10 days, I'm not sure I know anything either.

© Vancouver Sun