ABC's "Has Been" Celebrity Survivor Show

[dzneelvr]

Just heard that ABC will be running it's "I'm a Celebrity...Get Me Out Of Here !" for 15 STRAIGHT nights.

Didn't they learn anything from Millionairre?? Too much of any one show is murder for the ratings. I think the entire premise is pretty sad--most of the "celebrities" couldn't get an invite to a "C" list party in Hollywood, let alone draw viewers away from other shows for 15 nights in a row.
Surveys are showing that even the original Survivor show isn't drawing the ratings it once did, so why get on the bandwagon when it's almost out of town!!

Another loser for ABC, I'm afraid. Add this to the current debacle of "....I'm Hot..." and you've got to wonder who's picking these winners !!
:earsgirl: :earsboy: :earsboy: :earsgirl:

[Another Voice]

I work in the entertainment industry and I don't know who half of these "celebrities" are. To call them "C Level" is an insult to all those people who can still get a booking on 'Hollywood Squares'. About the only fun that can be had with this show will be watching Bruce Jenner's face lift slide off his head.

Beleive it or not, there are even worse things then this and 'Am I Hot' on the way.

[raidermatt]

I heard a rumor one show under consideration actually involved stopping and starting someone's heart.....

[DisneyKidds]

Originally posted by raidermatt
I heard a rumor one show under consideration actually involved stopping and starting someone's heart.....
Yeah, it's called "I'm a Disney Stockholder........Get Eisner Out of Here!"

[raidermatt]

:teeth:

[JeffH]

""Didn't they learn anything from Millionairre??"
Funny, I remember Millionaire getting trememdous ratings when it ran several days a week...it was several months of this that killed it. It's 3-5 shows a week easily made it into the top 10 for many weeks...that's why ABC won the ratings war, unfortunately when the enthusiasm finally died for that show so did the ratings, since that was pretty much the only show ABC had.

[HB2K]

Originally posted by JeffH
""Didn't they learn anything from Millionairre??"
Funny, I remember Millionaire getting trememdous ratings when it ran several days a week...it was several months of this that killed it. It's 3-5 shows a week easily made it into the top 10 for many weeks...that's why ABC won the ratings war, unfortunately when the enthusiasm finally died for that show so did the ratings, since that was pretty much the only show ABC had.
Disney didn't win any war. They won a battle.

Don't you think the enthusiasm would remain if they stretched the show out and only showed it once a week? Maybe it would still be on TV.....

[WEDWAY100]

On the surface, it would seem that reality TV is a cheap way to produce a show that can bring great profit. But I have a question for those of you in the industry. It appears to me that none of the reality type shows will be worth anything in syndication. I can’t imagine that 5 or 10 episodes of any one show can be re-run over and over at 5:00 every afternoon. Isn’t syndication where the most money is made on TV shows? Isn’t that the money that keeps rolling in year after year? Isn’t that the reason I still can see about 10 episodes of M*A*S*H every night on satellite?

It appears to me (as far a showbiz outsider as you can get) that they are once again hurting the long term bottom line by going with the reality concept.

[KNWVIKING]

Last nite they briefly introduced the "Celebs". I recognized Robin Leach & Joan Rivers daughter,( that's how big a Celeb she is,can't think of her first name). The rest, I had no clue.

[Snow Brite]

Originally posted by WEDWAY100
On the surface, it would seem that reality TV is a cheap way to produce a show that can bring great profit. But I have a question for those of you in the industry. It appears to me that none of the reality type shows will be worth anything in syndication. I can’t imagine that 5 or 10 episodes of any one show can be re-run over and over at 5:00 every afternoon. Isn’t syndication where the most money is made on TV shows? Isn’t that the money that keeps rolling in year after year? Isn’t that the reason I still can see about 10 episodes of M*A*S*H every night on satellite?

It appears to me (as far a showbiz outsider as you can get) that they are once again hurting the long term bottom line by going with the reality concept.

I agree with this. EVERYONE, especially all the ABC shows have Trista and Ryan from the Bachelorette Show on this morning. I am embarassed to say I got sucked into this show against my better judgement and have laughed at myself over how much I was anticipating last nights show. They did a great job of springing a surprise at the end and it is getting them a lot of mileage this morning. But what now? How can they ever rerun this show when all 6 or so episodes are really about the "secret" of the last five minutes of the last show? Once you know that it is no fun to go back and watch the rest of the shows as you already know the ending. Unless of course you are a rabid fan and want to go back to catch all the "clues". But in this case, I think they did an incredible, sneaky, string-pulling job of editing, so that the clues all pointed to the wrong guy. As did all the rumors they leaked...

[raidermatt]

Good point about the syndication value....I can't imagine these having any value in that department.

[Another Voice]

Without going into a multi-volume explanation of TV ecomonics, the syndication revenue problem is one of the main reasons why Disney jumped so hard over Fox Family - it's a place to show repeats of reality programming while they're still "fresh". Anyone else notice that they repeated the entire run of 'Celebrity Mole: Kathy Grifin is the Only Reason to Watch This Junk' at least three times last weekend. That's an enormous amount of programmng.

In the end, most TV economics is based around syndication. Everyone in town knows this is a problem. Their solution is make reality programming even cheaper than it already is.

But the word is already out that the fade is ending as far as ratings go. Even the Bachloretter Finale finished second to 'Law and Order' (of all things). 'American Idol' is falling fast, 'Survivor' is on it's last legs.

Reality programing is the 00's what quiz shows were to the '50s and westerns were to the 60's.

[JeffH]

I personnally feel they played Millionaire perfectly capitalizing on it when it was hot, giving the audience what it wanted by playing it every night (the ratings proved it). A show like this thrived by being played almost everynight, and would have faded after a year either way. At least ABC got the most out of it this way.
======================================
Reality TV may be virtually worthless in syndication, but it costs next to nothing to produce. Compare it to a show like Friends where each star is paid at least a million an EPISODE, to a show like Survivor, where barely 2 million total is given out in the FINAL episode.

[Luv2Roam]

Has Been or Never Was? ;)

[WEDWAY100]

AV,

Thanks for the answer!

[Another Voice]

I should also add that the "syndication problem" is also being tackled by the "additional footage" ploy. ABC is doing this by inserting comments by the Bachlorette and/or Kathy Griffin when the shows are repeated. It's thought (or at least hoped) that this will be enough to get people to watch the shows again. It's a little early to tell if this is going to work, but the signs aren't good. Some of the other shows are airing uncensored footage (with the ever popular tease of nudity and langauge).

[dzneelvr]

This celeb survivor show is serving as great fodder for all the radio shows, both local and syndicated.
They are making "fun" of the choices, the facelifts (Bruce Jenner
is frequently mentioned), and the host.
At least it's good for something.
:earsgirl: :earsboy: :earsboy: :earsgirl:

[meowthew2]

The episode tonight hit a new low in reality televison, I think. Expecting someone to risk their life by diving in a muddy waterhole with five crocodiles and a large snake swimming around is horrifying, and the producers should be ashamed of themselves. The "safety expert" standing by with a tranquilizer gun made it even worse. Apparently ABC sees no problem in risking human life for the sake of ratings. Which they aren't getting anyway!

[Jeff in BigD]

Originally posted by Another Voice
Beleive it or not, there are even worse things then this and 'Am I Hot' on the way.
Worse? What's in store? A shirtless Eisner eating pudding on a webcam or something? Actually don't tell me, it'll ruin the horrible surprise. ;)

[Another Voice]

They have one show in development where a rich and elderly man has his various family members competing for pieces of his inheritance. They perform stunts, games, and other “activities” and are “awarded” a cash amount from the guy’s will.

Another show takes married men and offers them cash and prizes so their wives can go off on romantic trips with studly rich hunks. As it was eagerly described to me, “it’s like ‘Indecent Proposal’ meets ‘Temptation Island’, but with class”. My respect for ABC dropped even further when I realized that she was serious about this and couldn’t even see the pitiful irony in her statement.

Perhaps its tied to another show where divorcing couples compete to split up their community property. It’s all wrapped up in the “second chance” gimmick that failed ‘Last Resort’ tried to pull off.

There are rumors of other shows floating about. The worst I’ve heard whispered was another match making show – but between widows and widowers of the 9/11 attacks (CBS at least had the good sense to drop their sitcom based on the same premise). There are supposed to be a couple of competitive eating shows in development. Another is based on a family that has to live in a shopping mall store’s display window.

It’s also rumored now that ‘The Bachlorette’ ended up with fairly disappointing ratings, that plans to “spice things up” may be in the works. Instead of attractive, successful and (more or less) mature people, they want to go “younger, hotter, sexier”. So instead of “who will he choose”, the next one will very likely be “who hasn’t he slept with yet” in tone. Think ‘Elimidate’ and ‘The Fifth Wheel’ for network. One hopes the miserable ratings for ‘Am I Hot’ will throw some cold water on this idea.

Whispers say that it has come down to ABC that the network is supposed to become the “reality show leader”. All the mega-hyped sitcoms have done so-so, certainly not the massive breakout hits that Eisner demanded (and which would make the network profitable again). The new dramas have all tanked. So Disney is going back to the new corporate policy: cut costs faster than revenues fall.

It’s a vicious spiral ever downward at an accelerating rate.

[dzneelvr]

Yes--the Indecent Proposal idea that ABC has signed takes couples who are married or in serious relationships (probably unmarried but have kids) splits them up so they go to live one month with a "tempting" member of the opposite sex. Whomever yields to temptation, gets money.
This is SO disconnected with Disney's historical focus on positive family values !!
Can't Disney and the ABC hotshots get ahead of the pack by thinking up something new and family-friendly ??
In my opinion, the latest ABC reality shows are just embarassing .
I wonder when we'll see a Park tie-in?? Could Trista be signing autographs in Magic Kingdom by summer....Will we see the Indecent Proposal male hunk trying to seduce the married female with a "fun" date to WDW?? Unfortunately, I wouldn't put it past ABC and the morons in charge of current programming.

:earsgirl: :earsboy: :earsboy: :earsgirl:

[wtg2000]

My understanding of syndication was this: ABC orders an episode of MASH (I know it was on CBS - I'm just doing an example) for 1 million an episode. The production company that makes the show spends maybe $1.1 million an episode perhaps to make it. The show runs for a bit and they get a syndication committment, or something like that. Thus, it's the production company and not the network that benefits from syndication. Is this right? Network revenue comes from ads. The production company revenue comes from the network and syndication. At least that was my understanding.


Sort of on the topic. Other threads are complaining about a decline in the quality of theme park attractions, and are worried about cheap, generic rides perhaps going into EPCOT, for example. But this is the same company that bought ABC so they could give us quality programming like Bachelor, Are You Hot? (are we going to have Are You Hot? - Play It!), etc. So what makes them think this same company will give us quality, informative attractions? It's pretty much the same audience, isn't it? These recent TV offerings show just what they think about the audience's taste - and perhaps they are right, judging from the ratings.

[curtisl]

Well I guess axing "Once and Again" is a part of the plan. Certainly can't have any quality programs messing up ABC's schedule!

[curtisl]

Well I guess axing "Once and Again" was a part of the plan. Certainly can't have any quality programs messing up ABC's schedule!

[Jeff in BigD]

Originally posted by Another Voice
It’s a vicious spiral ever downward at an accelerating rate.
Man, if I didn't know better I would assume these were from the pages of Mad magazine. I guess when ABC hits bottom Eisner's solution is to hand them a shovel & tell them to start digging. :rolleyes:

[Luv2Roam]

No wonder I don't watch NBC, CBS, or ABC. :rolleyes:

[wtg2000]

The question is who is to blame for the recent spat of incredibly stupid shows on TV? The networks or the audience? People are watching this drivel in droves so what are the networks supposed to do, say "sorry but due to our sensibilities we aren't going to give you shows you obviously want to watch anymore?"

I blame the audience. The networks are discovering that they can't make a show stupid enough (or cheap enough) for people not to watch. Therefore, why would they even try anymore to make quality programming?

[Another Voice]

“I blame the audience”

Absolutely incorrect.

Today’s unscripted shows are drawing a fraction of the audience that major network shows drew ten or twenty years ago – and now the nets are shedding viewers at an even faster rate. For a long time people have understood that broadcast television is a dying industry, unscripted programs are just a symptom of that decline.

The networks like those shows because they are cheap to produce. Period, end of sentence. And for the most part, they draw a lower rating than traditional network fare – but since the profit margin is higher no one minds. Remember, the finale for ABC’s “hit” ‘The Bachelorette’ was beaten by a run of the mill episode of ‘Law and Order’ on NBC. But ABC probably made more money on that one night (forgetting about future syndication). While reality may have changed, the business model run today is still based on the same assumptions as when you could get 35 million people to tune into every weekly episode of ‘Mork and Mindy’. The costs of “traditional” programming remain too high for the current market.

In fact, the decline of network television is a sign that the audience really is looking for quality. Hollywood got lazy in the days of the three networks – anything they put on could draw a crowd. But with cable, satellite, home video, the Internet, targeted networks, syndicated markets, micro-stations and all the rest – choice is finally available. It’s much easier to find the good stuff these days, an also much easier to avoid the bad stuff. For someone like ABC it’s a real problem, they have hundreds of competitors now instead of just two.

The original draw of ‘Survivor’ was really its novelty factor. To be blunt, it wasn’t another wacky family sitcom where a befuddled father learns valuable life lessons from his spunky (and slightly hot) daughters, or a dark cop drama where the heroic men and women in blue fight against a system that’s as corrupt as the thugs out on the mean streets. The sitcom formats (and almost all of the plots) haven’t changed since the first run of ‘I Love Lucy’. Like I said, network television has always been a place where the lazy and untalented could makes lots of money. Maybe that’s why Eisner’s so keen on it…

But novelty looses it appeal very quickly. ‘Survivor’ has no ratings pull anymore. The vast majority of unscripted shows sink without a trace. Even the ratings “hits” are mediocre at best. These kinds of shows are nothing but a passing fad that a dying industry clung to in hopes of salvation. The networks put these shows on not because they draw an audience, but because the FCC still won’t let them broadcast static. “Reality” shows are simply the cheapest way of plugging the hole.

It has nothing to do with what the audience wants – other to highlight that so few in Hollywood have a clue about it. That's why we’re all out watching HBO or the Discovery Channel or popping in a new DVD.

[roymccoy]

I know that the USA has gotten many of our reality shows from Japan. The japanese are a strange group. They're low-key, formal and proper on the surface but they're pretty raunchy and sick on the inside. (At least on TV) Japanese TV has everything from simulated "snuff" movies to almost X-rated fare on at prime-time.

The latest and greatest Japanese reality show going on now in Japan is a show that puts eight people in a house and exposes them to diseases. Yes, I said diseases. I kid you not. The one who gets the most, wins. Examples of the diseases are rotovirus (montezuma's revenge) the flu, common colds, measles, sunburns, parasite infection, etc.

This is one that I absolutely hope never makes it to America. I WOULD have said that we would never accept a show like this until I saw what people will do or eat on that stupid show Fear Factor.

Have we all collectively lost our sense of style and class?

Roy

[wtg2000]

The networks put these shows on not because they draw an audience, but because the FCC still won't let them broadcast static. Reality shows are simply the cheapest way of plugging the hole.

I understand what you're saying, but they could easily put on "Are You a Genius? The Search for the smartest person in America." Not very catchy is it? And it wouldn't pull in ratings. The train-wreck mentality of these tawdry shows brings in ratings. Some of these shows are getting 20-30 million viewers per week - a lot more than static would draw.

To say that we're all out watching HBO, or Discovery Channel or DVD is confusing. The total of all those options don't come close to adding up to one night of a Joe M. or Bachelorette. I think one season finale of the Sopranos got 9.5 million viewers. And it is hard to compare premium cable with broadcast. The first new Survivor episode pulled in 23 million viewers. That's a lot of people plugging that hole.

They are many more options for viewers these days, and that is certainly good, and I agree this fad may die out leaving the networks with nothing. I don't think it's just unscripted (and I don't think they really are unscripted) shows that are pulling in less audience than years ago - it's all primetime shows due to the many other options.

The suggestion that these shows have nothing to do with what the audience wants seems to be contradicted by the ratings. It's certainly what they want right now - at least a big chunk of them.

[dzneelvr]

Why should ABC waste any salary dollars for their so-called network programming heads ??
Why not simply ship over a bunch of 20-somethings to absorb the latest depravity hitting Britain or Japan or Australia and bring it back !
I will not watch a show that is based on acquiring diseases !! the one that is scheduled to break up marriages was the bottom before I heard of this one.
ABC--wise up before we all desert you.

:earsgirl: :earsboy: :earsboy: :earsgirl:

[dahess]

I admit it, I watch it. There isn't a whole heck of a lot of other stuff on at night:)