Variety Article On My Network TV

[Markxxx]

The bluster about MyNetwork TV being "profitable from Day 1" ceased shortly after the first ratings reports rolled in last year.

The primetime program service cobbled together by News Corp. last year in the wake of the CW merger announcement has nowhere to go but up in its second year, after bombing in its debut last fall with a risky strategy of airing two hours of low-budget telenovelas six nights a week.

This season, MyNet is still adjusting to the 180-degree turn it took last spring in replacing the woefully low-rated nighttime serials with a patchwork quilt of nonscripted programs (i.e. "Celebrity Expose" and the "Cops"-like "Jail") and movies.

The ratings on a national basis are still not pretty -- less than 1 million viewers for most of its programs -- but the fact that neither News Corp. nor its station affiliates are prepping to bail out en masse on MyNet speaks volumes about the peculiar state of the local broadcasting biz...

...In short, most of the stations affiliated with MyNet don't have viable alternatives in primetime. Dramatic changes in the local television landscape during the past 15 years have left broadcasters who once proudly billed themselves as "independents" reliant on their association with a national network imprimatur in order to have any traction with viewers and, more importantly, advertisers.

In the view of some MyNet affil owners, a go-it-alone strategy in primetime would be more costly and pull ratings just as weak, if not worse.

Full story at:

http://tinyurl.com/28d4nn

Any thoughts?

 

[imhomerjay]

There's a nostalgic pull for the "independent" stations of yesterday, but by and large those stations had their greatest success when there was little to no meaningful competition for viewers not watching the big three channels. Two hundred and fifty satellite or cable channels are competing for attention now; going back to running "Planet of the Apes" movie weeks just because it worked decades ago is a tough road. Even My Network TV, dismal as it may seem, can be a better business alternative.

Yes, some independent stations will survive, and some may even thrive, but that doesn't mean it's a viable path the way it once was for others.

 

[JayR]

For one thing, the product just isn't there like it used to be in the 1980s and early '90s...The major syndicators stopped churning out first-run syndicated dramas a la "Star Trek: The Next Generation" and "Baywatch" after the expansion of WB and UPN sucked away all the available time periods.

Correct to an extent.

What about the off-hours? I used to catch first-run syndicated shows in the off-hours. Save for Cheaters it's now just off-network reairings and Byron Allen programs (UGH!).

 

[imhomerjay]

For one thing, the product just isn't there like it used to be in the 1980s and early '90s...The major syndicators stopped churning out first-run syndicated dramas a la "Star Trek: The Next Generation" and "Baywatch" after the expansion of WB and UPN sucked away all the available time periods.

Correct to an extent.

What about the off-hours? I used to catch first-run syndicated shows in the off-hours. Save for Cheaters it's now just off-network reairings and Byron Allen programs (UGH!).

The economics dictate cheaper fare for lower HUT level time periods. Baywatch jokes aside, shows like Star Trek The Next Generation (or Deep Space 9) and some of the others that flourished back then cost bigger money. That's not viable for, let's say, Saturday night at 11:35...hence, reruns of proven performers like CSI Miami work better in today's environment.

 

[TexasTom]

There's a nostalgic pull for the "independent" stations of yesterday, but by and large those stations had their greatest success when there was little to no meaningful competition for viewers not watching the big three channels. Two hundred and fifty satellite or cable channels are competing for attention now; going back to running "Planet of the Apes" movie weeks just because it worked decades ago is a tough road. Even My Network TV, dismal as it may seem, can be a better business alternative.

Yes, some independent stations will survive, and some may even thrive, but that doesn't mean it's a viable path the way it once was for others.

I'm not sure that there is a simple answer on the question of whether independent television stations can be viable today and into the future.

It's not just about competition. going way back to the fifties, when competition to the big three was even more minimal than during the seventies/eighties heyday of the independents, we see the licensee of channel 12 in Wilmington, DE turning in the license because they didn't believe that running an independent in the fourth largest market in the country (Philadelphia) was viable. Were there as many as ten markets with successful independents prior to 1970? I tend to doubt it -- and it wasn't just the UHF disadvantage, or else we would have seen successful indepedents in UHF-only markets. That didn't happen until into the seventies, with the successful launch of KMPH/26 in Fresno/Visalia.

So what changed in the seventies to allow the independent stations to become a real factor in their local markets for the next twenty years? Part of it was surely a payoff from the all-channel act, which allowed UHF independents to compete in otherwise VHF-only markets. Part of it was almost certainly the availability of a lot of syndicated product. Compare a list of programs available in syndication in the early eighties with one for today, and one of the things that stands out for me is the length of the list -- there was much more for local stations to choose from back then then there is today.

But another part of it is simply that by the seventies, independent operators were figuring out the programming formula that worked. With a few exceptions, it consisted of morning and afternoon kids programs, matinee and primetime movies on weekdays, "family friendly" situation comedies in the early evenings, and lots of live, local sports. And it was the ability of new independent stations coming into new markets to copy that formula that allowed for the massive increase in the number of successful independent stations in the seventies and early eighties.

Unfortunately, that programming formula doesn't work anymore. There's no revenue to be made from kids shows, and the movies and sports have largely moved to cable channels. Meanwhile, the newer sitcoms tend to be snapped up by the Fox and CW affiliates in a market, which only leaves older shows for the independents. While that may work well as a niche in many markets, its probably not going to lead to the same level of dominance when "Friends" on the local Fox is competing with "Two and A Half Men" on the CW affiliate -- and the independent is coming in with "I Love Lucy" in the same time period.

And this is where the independent stations run into a big problem: the old programming formulas seem not to work anymore, but no one has come up with something to replace it. At some point, someone may stumble on a formula that works for their station, it may get copied into other markets, succeed in those additional markets -- and a new golden age for independent stations could occur. But while it's possible, it is far from guaranteed. And if it does happen, we don't know what it will look like.

 

[FilmCritic3K]

What about the off-hours? I used to catch first-run syndicated shows in the off-hours. Save for Cheaters it's now just off-network reairings and Byron Allen programs (UGH!).

I flipped past Comics Unleashed wih Byron Allen on our affiliate of The CW the other day. It was like seventeen train wrecks. I was finally able to extricate myself. Man, what a horrible show.

 

[JayR]

The economics dictate cheaper fare for lower HUT level time periods. Baywatch jokes aside, shows like Star Trek: The Next Generation (or Deep Space 9) and some of the others that flourished back then cost bigger money. That's not viable for, let's say, Saturday night at 11:35...hence, reruns of proven performers like CSI: Miami work better in today's environment.

I was thinking along the lines of Forever Knight, Highlander: The Series, Psi Factor, Viper, etc. Did such shows cost as much as the Star Trek series to produce?

 

[genius]

The economics dictate cheaper fare for lower HUT level time periods. Baywatch jokes aside, shows like Star Trek: The Next Generation (or Deep Space 9) and some of the others that flourished back then cost bigger money. That's not viable for, let's say, Saturday night at 11:35...hence, reruns of proven performers like CSI: Miami work better in today's environment.

I was thinking along the lines of Forever Knight, Highlander: The Series, Psi Factor, Viper, etc. Did such shows cost as much as the Star Trek series to produce?

They may or may not have. Today producing a TV show is very expensive, and thats why a lot of sitcoms and soaps are looking to lose their sets and go "on location" the way many dramas do to save on budget costs.

 

[pabsungenis]

I was thinking along the lines of Forever Knight, Highlander: The Series, Psi Factor, Viper, etc. Did such shows cost as much as the Star Trek series to produce?

The Star Trek series were done relatively on-the-cheap when you look at the product they put out with 1980's technology. The first-season budget for "The Next Generation" was $1M an episode; today, you'd be lucky to find a prime-time drama of any real quality done for much less.

 

[KTN Corp]

They may or may not have. Today producing a TV show is very expensive, and thats why a lot of sitcoms and soaps are looking to lose their sets and go "on location" the way many dramas do to save on budget costs.

Anybody think that these telenovelas on MNTV might become soaps on FOX daytime?

BTW, how's The CW or ION TV doing compared with MNTV?

 

[arnoldevns]

The bluster about MyNetwork TV being "profitable from Day 1" ceased shortly after the first ratings reports rolled in last year.

The idea that either My Network or the CW would be profitable from day one was a farce and absolute puffery on the part of their backers. However, I said that the economics of MyNetwork TV were better for local stations than the CW simply because they keep a lot more of their advertising time than CW affiliates do. The network itself has a relatively low overhead because so many of its functions are shared with Fox. The network is losing money because it doesn't get enough national ad dollars to cover programming costs. I suspect the recent shift to reality programs and movies will close that gap some though.

The most telling aspect of the whole MyNetwork TV history is the fact that they haven't had a bunch of affiliate defections. Stations are sticking with it. Fox will eventually figure this out. It may take a few more years, but they'll make this work. They really don't have much choice.

 

[Markxxx]

Part of it is the "new economics" of the 90s which dictate companies can't just be profitable they have to be MOST profitable.

For example if I run a sitcom and make $10,000 an episode, that USED to be good. It was a profit.

Now analysts and stockholders demand you make the MOST POSSIBLE profit.

So if I can do a reality show and get lower rating but make more money because of cheaper actors, writers and scripts, I may make $13,000 an episode profit.

So even if the sitcom is better with higher ratings, the producers have to answer to the stockholders who are there to make money. So they go with the lower rated, less prestigue, but more profitable reality show.

 

[FightingIrish]

A weird idea I had a while back goes something like this...

What if MYTV, instead of the crappy reality shows and stale movies, started importing shows? Some decent stuff is being made in other English-speaking countries. Wouldn't it be rather cheap to just pick up US rights? We are seeing some of that on some cable channels like Lifetime, AMC and WGN.

Granted, the best stuff on UK TV is being shown here on BBC America and other cable channels like SciFi (and NBC has the old British version of "The Office" ready to go on in case of a writers strike), and most of the remaining original stuff coming out of Canada is not of the best quality. Australia, meanwhile, has some stuff that actually looks pretty good. With all those FOX contacts there, that stuff could probably be brought over cheap. They may be a bit squeamish about the cultural differences and accents, but at least it's something different. And we all remember how well WOR did with that idea back in the 70s.

Another option would be to rerun stuff from FX, like NBC does with their cable properties (albeit in reverse).

Another idea is to expand on the stale movie idea, and go really stale, with a B-grade horror or exploitation flick on a weekend night, complete with ridiculous host, an idea from USA Network's "Up All Night."

 

[JeeperOne]

Anybody think that these telenovelas on MNTV might become soaps on FOX daytime?

I was just thinking the same thing earlier today. They'd be a GREAT counter for the sitcoms on The CW.

BTW, how's The CW or ION TV doing compared with MNTV?

I would have to say that while The CW is faring better than MyNetwork TV, I think it's safe to say that ION isn't even in the same league as MyNetwork TV. That's bad.

Just my $.02 worth

Cheers