New NBC chief vows racier fare to boost ratings

[stationless listener]

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/business/peacock_no_prude_lIoOF9BwEvbp1bPl4ZkptI

An excerpt:

NBC's new chief, Bob Greenblatt, the programming executive who transformed Showtime into a pay-TV powerhouse, is telling Tinseltown producers that he's going to push the boundaries of broadcast television in a bid to revive the Peacock network.

Greenblatt, who built his reputation on shows such as "The L Word," "The Tudors" and "Dexter," is eager to ramp up production of edgier, less mainstream programming when he officially takes over as chairman of NBC Universal Entertainment, according to sources.

One source, who recently met with Greenblatt, said he's prepared to push the envelope as far as his new bosses will let him.

Well, as long as it means less reality shows...

 

[DToTheJ]

I can picture the switchboard scene from the Howard Stern movie "Private Parts" with the phones lighting up with angry listeners - only there will be viewers calling, and instead of "WNBC, please hold," they'll be saying, "NBC, please hold..."

And as far as Showtime being a "pay-TV powerhouse"... David Chase deciding to screw "Sopranos" fans on that epic "ending" may have a little something with HBO losing ground to Showtime, if any.

 

[LKellerIII]

I can picture the switchboard scene from the Howard Stern movie "Private Parts" with the phones lighting up with angry listeners - only there will be viewers calling, and instead of "WNBC, please hold," they'll be saying, "NBC, please hold..."

And as far as Showtime being a "pay-TV powerhouse"... David Chase deciding to screw "Sopranos" fans on that epic "ending" may have a little something with HBO losing ground to Showtime, if any.

Gotta disagree there. Showtime started producing more and better original series (Nurse Jackie, Dexter, Weeds, Californication, United States of Tara) at about the same time HBO virtually stopped producing complelling original series, and even had some clunkers (John from Cincinatti)

So Showtime became the "powerhouse" - at least temporarily - by default. HBO is doing better again lately (Boardwalk Empire).

 

[ShawnHill1]

I have to wonder how NBC's potential new programming strategy will sit with the affiliates in more conservative areas like KSL in Salt Lake City or others in parts of the Southeast. I'm with stationless listener...less reality shows, the better.

 

[1069_KIFR]

History repeating itself? Remember the Fred Silverman era?

During that time, especially ABC, it was T and A TV.

 

[DoctorWu]

"Less mainstream programming".

Great. Just perfect for a mass-market network.

I've said it before: TV programming executives are like a bunch of hyperactive monkeys on crack, only with less focus.

-- Doc

 

[TheBigA]

I think it's interesting, because one might assume that Comcast wants to divert viewers to cable might not care if broadcasting improves ratings. But as I said in another thread, media companies don't just have a single focus or purpose. As long as they're driving dollars some way, it doesn't matter if it's in broadcast or on cable. If NBC can create a few series that are as powerful as the Sopranos or Dexter, all the better for Comcast. That is, if they still own NBC when all the dust settles.

 

[Silkie]

Racy is the reason Comcast has to give away freebies on Showtime. Nobody wants it.

 

[MattParker]

I think it's interesting, because one might assume that Comcast wants to divert viewers to cable might not care if broadcasting improves ratings. But as I said in another thread, media companies don't just have a single focus or purpose. As long as they're driving dollars some way, it doesn't matter if it's in broadcast or on cable. If NBC can create a few series that are as powerful as the Sopranos or Dexter, all the better for Comcast. That is, if they still own NBC when all the dust settles.

Since so few people watch TV off-the air any more, terrestrial stations are for all practical purposes cable channels, too. The FCC might just as well shut down terrestrial TV and put the bandwidth to better use - including expanding the FM broadcast band.

 

[radiojomo]

The real question here is does racier fare really boost ratings?
I saw that Skins on MTV lost half their audience this week and that's pretty racy to most people's standards.
I say get the guy in charge of programming on USA Network to start working on NBC. Their programming seems to be very successful.
And will this also involve changing up news broadcasts and late night? What will happen to the Today Show and Brian Williams? What about late night? Jay and Jimmy make a very solid late night line-up, I am huge believer that Jimmy Fallon can successfully take over The Tonight Show due to Jimmy's somewhat mainstream appeal. He could work on his monologue a little more though...

 

[landtuna]

Since so few people watch TV off-the air any more, terrestrial stations are for all practical purposes cable channels, too.

No they aren't. While OTA stations haven't been up to historical standards they are, in general, way better than the flotsam being shown on cable.

The FCC might just as well shut down terrestrial TV and put the bandwidth to better use - including expanding the FM broadcast band.

Assuming more FM bandwidth would just mean more of the same old junk we already have I see no reason.

 

[TheBigA]

The real question here is does racier fare really boost ratings?

It can. The problem with Skins, in my opinion, was they focused the promotion on it being risque without creating any interest in the story or characters. What makes Jersey Shore popular is the combination of pushing the limits on content, plus strong character development.

 

[JayR]

The real question here is does racier fare really boost ratings?

It can. The problem with Skins, in my opinion, was they focused the promotion on it being risque without creating any interest in the story or characters. What makes Jersey Shore popular is the combination of pushing the limits on content, plus strong character development.

You forgot your sarcasm disclaimer...

:

 

[MattParker]

Since so few people watch TV off-the air any more, terrestrial stations are for all practical purposes cable channels, too.

No they aren't. While OTA stations haven't been up to historical standards they are, in general, way better than the flotsam being shown on cable.

The FCC might just as well shut down terrestrial TV and put the bandwidth to better use - including expanding the FM broadcast band.

Assuming more FM bandwidth would just mean more of the same old junk we already have I see no reason.

What I said was few people are watching terrestrial TV off the air - meaning their receivers pick up the station directly through an antenna. Most people are watching NBC, CBS, ABC, Fox, CW and the others via cable, fiber optics or satellite. Meaning the broadcast networks are - de facto - cable channels - just a part of the cable line-up for most viewers, pretty much on a level playing field with all the "other" cable channels.

And I'd argue that cable is often - even usually - better than the "legacy" networks. Certainly, USA has got better programs on right now than its stable-mate, NBC.

 

[TheBigA]

You forgot your sarcasm disclaimer...

:

Ha! You're right. Hey different strokes for different folks. For most of them, this will be the highlight of their life.

 

[TexasTom]

What I said was few people are watching terrestrial TV off the air - meaning their receivers pick up the station directly through an antenna. Most people are watching NBC, CBS, ABC, Fox, CW and the others via cable, fiber optics or satellite.

The majority may be watching by cable or satellite -- but there's still quite a few OTA viewers. Just consider the VHF DTV stations that are trying to move to UHF to resolve reception problems that there viewers are experiencing -- if the OTA audience was of little consequence, those stations would hardly be willing to invest the time and money to move back to UHF. (This does vary by market, since OTA-only viewing varies from around 2% in Boston on up to 30% in Boise)

 

[landtuna]

Meaning the broadcast networks are - de facto - cable channels - just a part of the cable line-up for most viewers, pretty much on a level playing field with all the "other" cable channels.

When one uses the word "cable" to describe a TV service they are describing the programming, not the transmission method. I know of no one, excepting possibly yourself, who would call NBC, CBS, ABC or Fox a "cable channel" even when it may be delivered via cable.

And I'd argue that cable is often - even usually - better than the "legacy" networks. Certainly, USA has got better programs on right now than its stable-mate, NBC.

And I'd argue the opposite. "Legacy" networks are still held to a standard higher than that of cable services. They don't show racy, sexually explicit, or intensely violent programs nor is their usual fare reruns of decades-old TV shows. And while you may deplore the various "legacy" reality programs I've yet to see any one of those quite as bad as those of the cable outlets. I will grant you cable does have some quality programming (outside live sports) but not enough for me to write a check each month.

As for your remark on NBC (and you could include Fox in that as well) I watch nothing on NBC save for the occasional NHL or NCAA football game and nothing on Fox except the very occasional NASCAR race (and virtually all these are DVR'd). Other OTA's - ABC (very seldom), ThisTV (very seldom), ION (never), CW (never), PBS & PBS World (seldom), RTV (never).

 

[WPPCProductions]

CBS is doing good with the sitcoms and drama series with all the cursing going on.

 

[MattParker]

When one uses the word "cable" to describe a TV service they are describing the programming, not the transmission method. I know of no one, excepting possibly yourself, who would call NBC, CBS, ABC or Fox a "cable channel" even when it may be delivered via cable.

You're right. They/we don't call legacy networks "cable channels.' But given current reality, maybe we should. In the way they are delivered to the vast majority is viewers, there's really no difference. If some malfunction took down all the transmitters in a market but the links to cable and satellite system still functioned, few would notice.

 

[tripinva]

You're right. They/we don't call legacy networks "cable channels.' But given current reality, maybe we should. In the way they are delivered to the vast majority is viewers, there's really no difference. If some malfunction took down all the transmitters in a market but the links to cable and satellite system still functioned, few would notice.

Given that many cable and most satellite feeds are procured with an antenna pulling down the same signal you and I can receive with a home antenna, there's not really a way to take down those transmitters without putting cable and satellite out of commission.

- Trip