Monsters of Television

As opposed to a long-winded ranted by me about the Golden Globes (geeze were they dull), there’s a more thoughtful and interesting roundtable discussion feature me, Myles McNutt, Lindsay H. Garrison, Kelli Marshall, and Kristen. We were all hosted by the welcoming, charming, and brilliant Anne Petersen. I thank everyone for a great discussion (and Anne for bringing us together), and I also thank this group of very smart people for letting me participate. Goodness know I’m the least profound person in the bunch, so hopefully I look smarter by association. But I doubt even I could manage that feat!

Single sponsorship programs have been around since TV was a wee infant (why do you think they call them soap operas?) so when I read that Subway’s special deal with Chuck is difficult to recreate, it gave me pause. I’m no industry fat cat or anything, but it seems like, with dwindling audiences (some might say even “concentrating”) and better research, it might be easier to pare down the number of advertisers, distill what specific demographics look for, and match ads to the viewers accordingly.

Again, I don’t own any cigars, top hats, or monocles, but it seems like, if a single-sponsorship is too hard, maybe looking at a decreased and targeted sponsorship might be the way to go. The aforementioned Ad Age article brings up the point of “Remote-Free TV” and how Fox had to scrap it because they couldn’t charge a premium that compensated for what they got with more populated yet disparate commercial breaks. But with all the great things that happen with fewer commercials (“less ad skipping, better recall, better engagement”), to abandon the idea altogether is reckless. Somehow, with historical or even current models (Hulu — if only its legacy media owners would take advantage of the focused potential of the internet) to look to, why are single- or few-partners-sponsorships so out of the question?

What do you think, dear readers? I’m willing to learn.

We here at Monsters of Television have no love for Jay Leno’s comedy. The only thing staler than the stand-up’s jokes are jokes about the size of his chin, his denim fetish, and the unintelligible squealing people do when they do “impressions” of him. So news that NBC might be cancelling (or scaling back) Leno’s 10pm comedy wasteland, The Jay Leno Show, driven by the network ordering a number of new pilots of scripted programming (none produced by John Wells, to be sure), brought us considerable pleasure.

And then TMZ had to go ruin it: Leno was returning, significantly less than victorious (but having performed up to NBC’s incredibly low expectations and killing news affiliates’ ratings) to his old time slot, leaving Conan out in the cold (we remain convinced that Conan never really wanted the gig anyway, but nervous schoolboy Jimmy Fallon was already promised Conan’s desk).

And then the New York Times had to go and (more or less) confirm it. Read more »

As Nick noted, USA Network is rapidly becoming the spy-procedural channel, much in the way CBS has become the cop-procedural channel. Their recent announcement of Covert Affairs (punny), a show about  CIA newbie Annie Walker (portrayed by Piper Perabo) who for some reason becomes a field operative and is dealing with the break-up with a mysterious boyfriend who happens to be of interest to her boss. (You can read the full rundown from THR here.)

But what’s more is that while CBS has replicated its procedural approach across many of its dramas, USA is hybridizing its shows to create its network identity without getting the ribbing CBS does for its CSI-cloning. Read more »