TVQ, The Year Long Season..(And What's The Deal With Those Hewitts?)

The U.S. TV 'season' needs to be redefined. It used to be a whack of new shows would premiere in the fall, usually September...and then depending how they fared, some would survive and some would be cancelled...and a slew of mid-season replacement series would hit the air, usually in January.

Not anymore.

In the past decade, we've watched as several of the U.S. cable nets began to premiere new series in the summertime, some to moderate success. HBO and Showtime began specifically premiering series 'off prime', as in during the so-called 'down times' like March and June.

And over the next several weeks, there will be no less than 11 series premiering, and at least 5 favourites returning to the airwaves. That's a lot of new TV to have to keep track of again.

This USA Today article examines how the networks have fared thus far with their 2006/07 slate and profiles some of these new series. And this complimentary USA Today article attempts to explain this emerging trend in programming and scheduling. Most of it seems to relate to either trying to avoid 'The Idol', or trying to let existing series eventually find an audience.

At any rate, it seems we're almost at the point of expanding 'pilot season' to being all year round; and should start to question the value of 'sweeps months' and how relevant they really are anymore.

Nevertheless, these new shows TVQ better be spectacular.

TVQ measures the familiarity and appeal of all regularly scheduled broadcast programs, in all scheduled dayparts, to determine targeted audience attraction.

The strength of a program is not always apparent in Nielsen ratings. Programs often succeed when their early TVQ Scores predict on-air success, before the Nielsen ratings can catch up. Programs can achieve strong Nielsen ratings and not have strong appeal. The weak appeal is camouflaged by the "lead-in" and "lead-out" programs.

TVQ measures how much an audience likes the programs.

When I was on U.S. shows and we were looking for a 'star', network and company execs would always be asking if the person we might suggest had 'good TVQ'. I always wondered what that meant exactly. Good 'television' quotient? Bottom line was whether the performer was recognizable to audiences and were they generally liked by viewers.

But looking into it today, stars seem to get categorized as to whether or not they have good Performer Q.

Performer Q measures the familiarity and appeal of personalities in a variety of categories to determine targeted audience attraction. Performer Q data enables clients to make informed decisions about a specific personality's demographic appeal and/or examine the field of possible alternatives.

So in a (somewhat) related topic (and speaking of returning supposed favs), will someone explain to me the Jennifer Love Hewitt attraction?

No offense, but 'Ghost Whisperer' is like watching paint dry while having a tooth extracted... yet it continues to perform well. And a quick review of J LoH's other recent movies and/or television shows reveals nothing to get excited about...at least not in the acting department. Then why the love? And the answer can't just be her boobs. There are many actresses with nice boobs. In fact, most if not all of them have nice boobs. Besides, a good portion of her fans appear to be female. So how come her TVQ/Performer Q is so darn high?


It can't all be attributed to 'Party Of Five', can it?

SONG&ARTIST? - "Say that you'll be true
Say that you'll be true
Say that you'll be true
And never leave me blue..."

"I Got Nowhere Else To Go!... (but down?)"

I hear you, Zack (Richard Gere)! And I feel your pain.



It's sorta how I feel right now.


First, I kinda feel like I've shot my wad with the blog. Yeah it's been fun posting, and commenting...participating in the small but entertaining circle of like minds. All good. And I feel like I can take some credit for inspiring Henshaw to join the fray. I even was happy to provide the Bones fans with fodder to chew me out on numerous live journals and fanzites? and forums over at televisionwithoutpity and rottontomatoes and tv.com and stumbleupon.com --- e.g. 'Hart Hanson Interviewer Bitches About Having An Audience' (I guess wondering aloud about how the fast the fans found the interview and the pictures and questioning non-crediting of the source of the material (though most of that was corrected eventually) was out of line. Or perhaps using the words 'vultures' was a bit harsh...I stand down.), but after the Hart interview...where to go from here?

I have no encore.

Then you compound it with the mess that is the Canadian tv industry these days. I have been seriously thinking about moving back to Toronto of late, but with the eviction notice served to the Cinescape studios, ACTRA strike and the producers rebuttal, craftspeople losing their houses, Jim Shaw withholding CTF funds, followed by analysis of Shaw's threat by Toronto Star's Zerbisias, ...it all can make one seriously think about heading south instead. Except...

That would be a bad idea right now.

You think it's looking dire up here? Well, it is. But the U.S. entertainment industry is also heading into a labour negotiation year with the WGA. Variety thinks the odds of a writers strike is high, and so do the studios and networks. Stockpiling is underway. Reality or non-scripted programming is a high priority once again. And with SAG's contract expiring in 2008, everyone's getting very nervous in L.A.. Some telltale signs...

--Networks will be ordering fewer drama and comedy pilots and more reality.
--There won't be the usual late-spring hiatus in production.
--Continuing shows will get renewed earlier, with more backup scripts ordered so production can continue past Halloween if the writers walk out.
--Shows on the bubble between renewal and cancellation will become more likely candidates for renewal because they represent a smaller gamble than betting on a new show.
--Talkshows, news and gameshows will be more likely to migrate to primetime.
--Producers will take a long, hard look at shooting non-union and outside the U.S.

Deja vu.

I've been here before....'cept I wasn't paying as much attention back then.


See, I packed up and moved down in late 2000...just as Hollywood was heading into a labour negotiation year with the Writers Guild and Directors Guild and Screen Actors Guild. When it looked grim, stockpiling took place and reality tv took off. And it was all accomplished with those already firmly established within the Hollywood family. Newbie's were more or less shut out. Did I mention I'd just made the move down there?

So I struggled along, working mostly on reality shows or flying back to Canada to direct episodic. And then the strikes were averted. Yay! But things remained quiet because the networks and studios had already spent most of their money for the year. Stockpiling remember. Then, as the summer wound down, development money started to trickle out. Yay! I got into development with a couple of tween/family shows. And then... 9/11.

Boom.

Everything shut down again...for months and months...as everyone tried to figure out what happened and how the industry should move forward.

Presuming talent, timing and luck play such a huge role in surviving this game. So was it bad luck or bad timing? I've concluded it was a bit of both. You've got to have a lot going your way in order to make it, and as little as possible working against you. This was a 'working against you' perfect storm of sorts.

It's was brutal for a newbie. Even an experienced newbie.

So as for 2007, I'm not forecasting another 9/11. Or assuming there will be any strike. But I'm thinking it's not a good time to be considering that jump from Canada to Hollywood.

Not if you want to try to break into film and television at any rate.

Your mileage may vary.