on save insert show here campaigns

[burntcopper]

This was something that came up at the pubmeet.

understand that pubmeet has a large proportion of old school sci-fi fans, a high percentage of con-goers, a convention runner or two, people who work at the BBC, and writers. Which means we often as not end up discussing the mechanics of commissioning, cancelling, producing, etc, etc. Which probably isn't that interesting to the average fan, but it gives you insight into how media gets produced and why it does or doesn't. Sometimes it's pure gossip and speculation. Sometimes it's gossip that's true and that you can *never* repeat. Sometimes it's bitching and squeeing.

Today, the topic was the 'save _insert show here_' campaigns and what use these deluded people think they are.

Seriously. Talking on the internet will not help. Petitions sent to producers will get 'oh, how nice'. Trying to watch more? nada. Hardcore fans, I'm sorry to say to anyone who holds any illusions, make up a tiny, tiny, tiny proportion of the viewing public. the decision has normally been made waaaay before the fans got to hear about it. In America, it comes down to cost and ratings. Sure, there are shows that got brought back after being cancelled. Some got cancelled several times. (Due South and JAG are prime examples) However, there are major considerations to be taken into account. Re-vitalised shows are normally cheap to produce and make. And there's schedule space to fill. Better something that gets *some* ratings if the fresh crop of pilots didn't perform very well.

We could think of *two* shows where write-in worked. Original Trek (different era, when they cared about what the public thought and there were less channels) and Roswell.

This went on to *why* people get so enraged and possessive and thinking they can make a difference, and that write-ins will make a difference, and why it's a US thing. Not a UK thing.

We boiled that down to Americans being used to having influence on their government and daily life (write to your congressman, senators not doing things because they don't want to upset voters, etc), and the tv system being so dependent on ratings, so you get to think of it as 'yours'. UK? We have major pessimism and very little influence. (writing to your MP? Suuuuure. The MP might make nice noises but they'll fall into line behind the party whip) TV? We had until very recently four channels in most households. Which had mandates and quotas on what you could show. Large amounts of viewers were a nice side-benefit, but stuff would stay on because some higher up liked it or it was considered worthy if it didn't get much in the way of viewers. A season is tiny in the UK compared to the US, because the schedules were so crammed. When the US viewers bitched about Dr Who only being 13 eps, we gaped - 13 eps is *marathon* in UK land for non-soap. Most series are 6-8. It doesn't make up such a large part of your waking life, so when it goes, it elicits grumbling and an 'oh well'. We know it's out of our hands and was never in our hands to start with.

Comments

[fahrenheit-f430.livejournal.com]

I agree with all of that, but I do think a large part of recent 'save [insert title]' campaigns and their prevalence on the internet is because of the MPAA/FACT squeals about copyrighted material.

The more the MPAA/FACT shriek about loss of revenue in insanely exaggerated figures, the more viewers equate that in personal terms to DVD sales/buying merch/watching a block of ads on their local channel and feel empowered and important when the REAL figure is much less than MPAA/FACT quotes and much more than viewers generate.

Result? The liars lead the deluded, and you've got the execs & producers in the middle trying to make money from reselling, syndication and format rights. Imo, shows only get cancelled if the commission point hasn't got enough customers to sell the series onto after the season midway point. Fan-centred Save Our Show campaigns are always focused on the commission point. Which is ridiculous as they wanted the show to succeed as much as the fans did/do, it's just their customers don't want to buy it! And the commission point's customers AREN'T viewers.

Viewers think they are. Viewers think they are, because they're bombarded every 5mins with how evil and costly their torrenting habits are; how important viewing figures/ratings are; the relevance of demographics, reach and penetration etc.

Imo, Save Our Show campaigns are a symptom of disinformation and bluster that attempts to personalise and individualise a wholly inter-corporate business model. They're the Little Man getting it wrong because This Is The Internet, and the Little Man is always right.

Sorry, Save Our Show campaigns annoy me. They're the Jehovah's Witnesses of fandom living as far as I'm concerned.

[animeartistjo.livejournal.com]

Recently, I stumbled upon a British article about how British children spend about 4 hours a day in front of the television, they eat in front of it, have one in their room... If you have so few channels and such short seasons, what are they watching for so long?

(speaking as an American with no idea of British daily life beyond said newspaper article)

[cidercupcakes.livejournal.com]

See, I'm not sure I'd buy that as explanation for the difference -- part of it, maybe, but lord knows there aren't many people who bother to do a whole lot of writing to our congresspeople. They do come more frequently in fandom, but even then, I've found it has to be something really appalling before most fans will start taking action. That said, I could buy the sense of that tradition as part of it.

Sidebar: are "save the show" campaigns really all that common? I always got the impression the past few years that most of them were motivated by crazy ship wars or other issues on the show, rather than the show's existence.

[dario006.livejournal.com]

Also Family Guy and Futurama - possibly because they were animated they were easier to resurrect and bin if they didn't work second time out.

[karen747.livejournal.com]

I really like your take on this (and just found it - sorry, a bit late.) Sounds like everyone at the pubmeet weighed in and you ha a cool discussion. I can only comment on the U.S. side, but you're totally right and have summed it up very well. I have had to explain to SO many people re: the UK 6-8-13 episodes-in-a-series situation. Americans, used to a 22-ep. season, are struck dumb at this, as you said, a la Who, RH, etc.

The "SAVE THE SHOW" JERICHO fans with their "Nuts!" campaign was...unique. But it (like the Roswell campaign) was stunt-driven. Not that that's bad. But stunts helped garner media attention as opposed to a simple petition. (You may wish to Google it, if interested.) The fans got part of a second season, and the producers/cast/crew got the chance to write/film two diff. versions of the series finale which is more than most cancelled series get.(They had altered final scenes, in case the series got reupped - it didn't. Brilliant try though, as those finale scenes were written so that, via editing, they could have gone either way, and still satisfied the story/viewer.) At least there was some closure. Irony: JERICHO is now in repeats on the CW (another basic U.S. broadcast channel - not cable). So, money is still being made.

The pubmeet sounds really interesting to me, (especially the "the mechanics of commissioning, cancelling, producing...") but that could be because that's tangentially- related to how I spend my days. ;-) I'd love have been a fly on that wall and heard an honest, different take on things, and how things are done.
Question: Perhaps Discussed??
Paraphrasing: A very snarky, yet bitingly well-thought-out comment to a recent Guardian article (concerning the BBC) took the position that based on a conference (?) that said person had recently gone to, it was clear that the BBC is afraid to fund things and when it did, it only let established talent write/produce/create, and then kept interferring all along the way, until the final product was watered down. Conversely, Canal+Plus (France) seeks out new talent, who can really write,etc., funds the work, then leaves them alone. And they're apparently doing well. Leaving aside potential UK/French issues for a moment, and the person's potential (clearly) anti-BBC bias, was there any discussion along these lines at the pubmeet? This night or previously? Or can you even say? ;-)

Thanks for your time. And for moderating the RH boards. Your posts are REALLY interesting! May I friend you?