ABC and Showtime interested in picking up Arrested Development

[uw_madtown]

Variety article (http://www.variety.com/article/VR1117934587?categoryid=1238&cs=1&s=h&p=0)

[ QUOTE ]
Fox still hasn't officially canceled "Arrested Development," but if it does, other networks are interested in the show.

Both ABC and Showtime have had conversations with 20th Century Fox TV and indicated they're open to making a deal for new episodes of the critically beloved, Emmy-winning comedy from creator Mitch Hurwitz. No formal negotiations have taken place, and there are still numerous hurdles that might prevent such a move -- including the show's hefty pricetag.

That said, those familiar with the talks described them as serious, with Showtime said to be in particularly hot pursuit of the ratings-challenged laffer, now on life support at Fox.

[/ QUOTE ]

Great, great news. Still might not happen, but I was skeptical that even on network would pursue the show, let alone two.

The article also mentions that AD costs 1.2 mil per episodes to make, and that FOX takes a 400k deficit on each episode right now. I'm guessing that if the move happens, it might mean a budget cut, and that the net they move to will have to guarantee 36 episodes so that they make enough for FOX to put it into syndication.

[Soul Daddy]

Eggsalad.

I would absolutely consider ordering Showtime for AD.

[tomdemaine]

then you should email showtime and tell them that. It can't hurt.

[Soul Daddy]

I think I'll wait and see what develops. Obviously, I would rather ABC or FOX win out in this scenario.

[pryor15]

this is great news.

[Dudd]

Great news, hopefully Fox doesn't cancel it, but it's nice to know other networks are interested in picking it up should it happen.

[B Dids]

If I was NBC I'd be falling overmyself to put this together with Scrubs, The Office, and My Name is Earl and form the "slightly wacky commedy" night. I would watch that, and you would too.

[BottlesOf]

Fantastic. And FOX: you suck. If you can't figure out how to monetize one of the funniest shows on TV then YSSCKY.

[Aloysius]

[ QUOTE ]
Fantastic. And FOX: you suck. If you can't figure out how to monetize one of the funniest shows on TV then YSSCKY.

[/ QUOTE ]

JBB - don't hate Fox. Hate America. In large part the ratings will determine what can be monetized. It's a fairly simple analysis whether or not Fox should keep AD on the air.

If: (Network Ad Sales - License Fee) + ((Syndication Revenue + DVD Sales + Online Sales + VOD Sales) - (Production Cost + Other Expenses)) < 0... it's tough to justify keeping it on the air. It's a business after all.

I bet Fox would keep it on if it wasn't losing a LOT of $. The network I work for keeps unprofitable shows on the air for a variety of reasons. You'd think Fox would love to keep their critically acclaimed, Emmy winning jewel going if it wasn't very expensive to do so.

-Al

[B Dids]

Why we can hate Fox:

http://www.ifilm.com/ifilmdetail/2683859 (profanity included)

Fox didn't put in the best effort trying to keep this show viable.

[SackUp]

this would be damn awesome...any hope is good for me!

[TheBlueMonster]

[ QUOTE ]
this is great news.

[/ QUOTE ]
"I'd cry but I need to save the moisture"

[Aloysius]

Dids - Hahaha that's pretty amusing. As a sidenote, although I love David Cross, my friend who was a writer for Oliver Beene (a show he voiced the narrator character for) noted Cross is a super curmudgeon who hates the "industry", so you know, he could be biased somewhat.

In terms of raw numbers - I believe Fox spent a good amount of $ on paid media, and I recall seeing a good amount of on-air promos. So while the marketing message may have not hit the right chord with America to make AD a hit... could any marketing have done that?

This is an incredibily difficult show to market... and really it's questionable it could ever be a "hit" by network broadcast standards, even with optimal marketing. (This is America's fault for having bad taste IMO.) We're having the same problems with Sons & Daughters (a mid-season very much with the feel of AD, btw I like this show and would recommend it to AD fans).

Hoping AD Gets Picked Up By Showtime,
-Al

[B Dids]

Based on Cross's standup, I'm shocked that he was still doing TV. Slow Donny was always his best role.

Fox moved it around a lot didn't they? That's the biggest complaint I've heard. I don't recall seeing as many promos for it as say "The Simpsons" which I can't imagine needs those $ nearly as much. However, it sounds like you work in the industry, so it's likely you know more than me.

[Aloysius]

Dids - you're spot on.

But I'm not saying Fox couldn't have done more to make AD viable (not moving around timeslot, more marketing, better marketing), I just think Fox probably did enough to give it a "chance to succeed." Meaning AD probably had enough exposure to build an audience. (Unfortunately, Fox does have other series to market... too bad they couldn't take the combined marketing spend for their crappy shows and put it against AD instead...).

I mean, this show won an Emmy, got lots of buzz for it, got decent marketing support, and the audience still didn't come... once a series cuts through the "clutter" and is a known quantity, and still remains unprofitable, there's really not alot of options.

Remember, it's not like AD is limping along with mediocore ratings. It's doing really really badly.

-Al

[Aloysius]

Madtown - If Fox Studios is deficiting at $400k, at a $1.6M production cost, then Fox Network is paying $1.2M / ep license fee to the studio. That's really expensive for say, an ABC, to pay for this series (relative to the current comedy market). Especially for a ratings loser. (ABC would not own any of the syndication or DVD rights, and would only be making network ad $, determined solely by ratings).

This means that, as you pointed out, Fox Studios may cut the production budget with a lower license fee to maintain a $400k deficit.

I think this would totally suck for a series that is strong in part due to high production / cast value. I would hope Fox Studios take the stance that either 1) they would be willing to deficit more to keep the show going, or 2) not continue at subpar production levels.

I sincerely hope it goes to Showtime. They would be willing to pay a higher license fee than a network and help maintain the shows quality. I would prefer the series to end then see a lame, watered down version of it.

-Al

Edit - sorry to bump but we're actually looking at this at work right now... so obviously it's on my mind...

[Jack of Arcades]

What was the last good Fox show that did well in the ratings? Malcom in the Middle? That 70's show?

[istewart]

Neither of those shows were good, wtf.

[B Dids]

Whoa.

istewart was wrong.

Up is down and left is right.

[Aloysius]

JackofArcades - Here's Fox sitcoms in the Top 40 for the past 3 seasons (these are Nielsen In-Season A18-49 Final Rankings for primetime season) -

2002/03:
Simpsons - 17
Wanda at Large - 19 (only 6 eps. aired)
That 70s Show - 24
Malcolm - 33
Bernie Mac - 34
(No AD)

2003/04:
Simpsons - 26
That 70s Show - 29
(Bernie Mac was 57, Malcolm was 52, AD was 91)

2004/05:
Stacked - 28 (only like 5 eps. aired)
Simpsons - 30
(70s Show was 54, AD was 78, Malcolm 89, Bernie Mac 99)

This season, AD is on pace to do much worse than 2004/05. WTF. Stacked?

-Al

[B Dids]

Christ.

So this year, Stacked is getting the best ratings?

Everybody must pay.

[Aloysius]

Dids - 2004/05 was last season (ending May 2005). This season is 2005/06. Sorry that might've been confusing. Stacked is doing OK this season, and as noted above AD on pace to do much worse in 2005/06. My "WTF Stacked?" referencing last year's performance, and somewhat this season's current performance.

-Al

[B Dids]

So that was last season, when it preimiered, what's the avg rating for a new show? I assume for most shows that bomb- their best night is going to be their first?

[Soul Daddy]

[ QUOTE ]
This season, AD is on pace to do much worse than 2004/05

[/ QUOTE ]
Could that not be absolutely attributable to its new time slot? Was it considerably less of a loss to run with last season's ratings.?

[Aloysius]

Dids - yeah for failed series (ones that get cancelled in a season or 2) usually premiere night is its highest rating (sometimes week-to-week competition changes, and a failed series will have a better second airing, but as a rule of thumb pretty true).

Hence, as you point out, Stacked looking so good in 2004/05, with its premiere night weighted in there. (I don't think it has bested its premiere night ratings to-date.)

In general, an absolute avg. rating of new show < important than how it fares against the competition that night. That's why a show might have an overall final nielsen ranking that's not so great, but could be winning its time slot (or coming in 2nd or something) and we're ok with it. Things like this, as well as random senior mangement tastes, strong demos in niche audiences, nothing else to air, etc., keep low-rated (which always means unprofitable, but the question is how unprofitable?) series on the air.

For 2005/06, all Fox sitcoms look off last year's pace and should do worse... bad news for them.

-Al

[pryor15]

[ QUOTE ]
For 2005/06, all Fox sitcoms look off last year's pace and should do worse... bad news for them.

[/ QUOTE ]

if Fox's ratings are off across the board, then could it be a problem that's less AD and more Fox?

I would think the potential cost of finding and producing a new series would outweigh what Fox is losing by keeping AD and promoting it, since i'm sure there's a ratio of pilots to actual shows and all those pilots cost money. Especially when you consider the critical acclaim, DVD sales and potential for syndication.

i know film libraries are quite valuable to studios, so i'd think having enough eps of AD that they could air it over the next, say, 20 years on cable would be a pretty strong argument to at least keep it long enough to get there. what are they, 2 or 3 seasons away?

or am i way off?

[Aloysius]

SoulDaddy - the move from Sundays at 9pm to Mondays at 8m definitely had an impact on overall ratings. Last year ended at a 2.8, this year probably comes in around 2.2 or so, ~20% drop off. Is it safe to assume at Sundays at 9pm AD would stay at similar ratings level? I think so.

However - Fox was unhappy with those Sunday ratings. Just because AD stays on at Sundays, doesn't necessarily diminish the chances it get cancelled. AD's ratings last year were boosted by strong lead-ins (Simpsons, etc.) when compared to this year, where it has no lead-in.

Fox had high expectations (due to Emmy, and of course high price tag). That I think was a main driver for AD's move to Monday - they thought it could break out and establish itself as an achor show. Rather, AD had to do this, in order to stay on the air. So it had no lead-in, but it also had less stiff timeslot competition on Mondays. AD fell woefully short of expectations.

Main question is - did AD get a fair shot this year to be a hit? Sampling numbers from Monday night's AD performances (the number of people who tune-in) are pretty high. Similar to Sunday's numbers. It just has no retention. People simply do not want to watch this show. That's why it has bad ratings. Bad ratings on Monday. Better (but still bad) ratings on Sunday.

So while the ratings drop off is definitely attributable in part to the timeslot switch, I don't think it has a material impact on its staying on the air. And hey, the people have spoken - and they are retarded.

Sidenote: for its primetime Fall Launch, Fox is always kinda screwed because of baseball - especially for a serialized show like AD. Kills the momentum for a series to go away for like a month, especially while other nets get to air their stuff and build an audience.

-Al

[B Dids]

I would also guess that for a more serialized show like AD, moving timeslots is probably a worse idea than for shows that have eps that stand alone.

[Aloysius]

Pryor - Yes, there is probably alot of pressure on Fox's comedy development people right now, as they need new comedies badly. Then again, all the networks do.

The industry ratio for pilots produced that are picked up for series is around 5:1 or so for comedies. This would mean cancelling AD would require about 5 pilots produced. If AD is losing $, say $1m an episode or so (probably more), then it is way cheaper to produce those 5 pilots (cost of producing a pilot, script talent everything, not that high). You are also getting another at-bat and might make some $ off the replacement series, vs. def. losing $ with AD.

Fox must look at the syndication value (and any other value of AD, on-line, VOD, of course DVD) in making their decision. It's just that AD might not command alot in the syndication market (serialized shows do not sell well, e.g. Alias, self-contained eps much better e.g. L&O), and DVD sales might not be great enough to bring the series to profitability.

Even if Fox could be profitable on a nominal basis if it got AD to syndication, they'll be taking a P/(L) hit up front waiting for ancillary market revenues to flow in. They might not want to do that for budgeting reasons / management pressure.

-Al

[Aloysius]

Dids - yeah... I think you're right, I'm sure research would back that up makes sense to me that moving serialized shows around is much worse than procedural (self-contained).

While it's true Monday night audiences rejected AD (this is indisputable), maybe there's a chance that AD could've grown its audience on Sundays. Personally, I think they should've just kept it on Sundays, and hoped they could get a hit that way. It was probably asking too much of a series to break out on a new night with no lead-in.

-Al

Edit - OK I'm done now... not surprising 2+2'ers smarter / ask better questions about the biz than people I work with...

[uw_madtown]

Bump, for two reasons.

First, Washington Post recently reported that the Nielsen ratings will be accounting for DVR viewings as soon as next week, something that I think would probably help this show as it lends itself IMMENSELY to multiple viewings.

Secondly, I finally saw last night's episode. Easily my favorite episode of Arrested Development ever, and it might just be the funniest half-hour of television I've ever seen. This show is so densely packed with jokes, and I can't think of a single one that fell flat IMO last night.

If FOX cancels it and no one picks it up, it's a goddamn crime.