Some things never change. Like the struggle to keep your dog from chewing the remote. But these are strange times in Hollywood and change is very much in the air. Here’s a look at some of the latest shifts afoot on the TV side.
NBC is reportedly floating an idea to reduce its prime-time programming every night from three hours to two. As reported by the Wall Street Journal, that would mean nixing the 10 p.m. ET slot — which would free up those seven hours a week to local programming.
Why? To cut costs, of course. Of the 11 scripted shows on NBC’s fall season, six are from producer Dick Wolf: The three Chicago shows and the three “Law & Orders.” You can bet those Wolf shows will stick around, they draw strong ratings. But with their large ensemble casts, they’re not cheap. You know what is cheap? Not having to pay anyone to do anything. Maybe NBC figures the ad revenue doesn’t justify whatever it costs to program that third hour.
It’s also possible executives will look at all the angles and decide, nope, we’re sticking with the status quo. If the plan does come to fruition, it won’t affect things until a year from now, but it will be bad news for TV writers. Here’s why: Landing a gig on an NBC drama can often mean more job security — and more money — than writing for a streaming series.
Also: More experience. Writers for broadcast shows still get to be on set for their episodes and learn how to produce a show. That used to be standard. It’s how future showrunners are made. If the bulk of new TV writers aren’t learning those nuts-and-bolts skills, that’s not great for the health of the TV industry in general.
Meanwhile, over on streaming, we’re getting preliminary information about Netflix’s ad-supported tier. According to Bloomberg, the monthly price point will likely be between $7 and $9: “The goal is to attract subscribers who are willing to watch some ads in exchange for a lower monthly rate … (while) trying to strike a careful balance between reaching a more cost-conscious consumer while still offering a pleasant experience.”
For now, that means about four minutes of commercials per hour. That’s a lot less than broadcast TV (where ads eat up 17-20 minutes per hour) but more than the current setup, which is zero. Netflix will introduce the new tier later this year in half a dozen markets before a full rollout in 2023. Also: “A lot could change as the company builds out the business.” Sorry, I had to laugh; a lot has changed in just the past year, considering Netflix was formerly adamant about staying commercial-free.
Also: Am I curious if a third party comes along and invents ad-skipping technology for streaming? Oh, yes.
Then there’s Amazon’s venture into Thursday night football that begins two weeks from now. And it got me thinking: If streaming is going to resemble old school TV — with ads and the ability to carry live programming, like sports — aren’t we mostly back where we started? Where is the revolution we were promised?
The NFL games present an interesting wrinkle for streaming: For the first time, we’ll actually be getting some hard viewer data. That’s because Nielsen — which has tracked traditional TV ratings for decades, but has so far only been able to provide educated guesses when it comes to streaming content — has a deal in place with Amazon to measure viewership of those Thursday night football games.
That’s a big departure for any streaming platform, none of which (until now) have been especially transparent or let a third party have direct access to viewer data.
September is a big month for Amazon, which also includes the release of its “Lord of the Rings” prequel “The Rings of Power.” It’s worth noting that Amazon is not teaming up with Nielsen to track that one. But expectations are high. They would be, considering the money that’s been plunked down on this one.
Consider this headline from the digital outlet Insider: “Amazon insiders say its $1 billion ‘Lord of the Rings’ series will determine the company’s streaming future: ‘If we can’t make it successful, why is Amazon Studios even here?’”
But what constitutes success? According to the piece, Amazon’s number crunchers “typically know within the first week if a project is going to trend well (and) will be looking to spin ‘Rings’ numbers into the sunniest possible story.” The company will also be measuring whether the show “awakens 30-day dormant Prime members,” meaning people who haven’t streamed anything in the past month.
So which metric matters the most: If a certain number of people watch, or the right kind of people (dormant subscribers) watch? “If it’s not the highest-performing thing Amazon has ever done, it’s a failure,” a former Amazon Studios insider said. “But the outside world may not ever know.”
On Netflix, there’s apparently different criteria for success, one that’s pegged to completing a show within 28 days — binging it — rather than spreading it out and watching at your convenience.
Watching when you want, how you want, is supposed to be one of the perks of streaming. And yet on social media we’re seeing creatives who have worked at Netflix suggesting that if shows don’t reach a certain bench mark in those first 28 days, they’re more likely to be canceled.
The goal posts for “success” keep changing from one streamer to the next — from one project to the next. For this reason, this is an especially challenging time for show creators.
Not every show can be a massive hit. Are modest performers given a chance to stick around and grow an audience over time, the way so many series from the not-so-distant past once did? Increasingly the answer is no.
Shows are expected to deliver big or go home.
———
ABOUT THE WRITER
Nina Metz is a Chicago Tribune critic who covers TV and film.
———
