I don't marathon shows anymore...

At some point I decided I don't marathon shows anymore. It was fun, for a while, but it largely left me feeling empty. Watching an entire series in a day or across the span of a weekend just isn't satisfying. Even if I have that much free time, I just can't justify doing nothing but watching a show. Maybe it's because my style of watching a show means that I'm WATCHING a show. I'm not washing dishes while the show plays in the background. I'm not filling out paperwork and glancing at the screen from time to time. I'm not playing a game on my phone and catching the show in the corner of my eye. When I'm watching a show, I'm exclusively watching a show. This means marathoning a show left absolutely nothing else done. I also find that I prefer to talk about individual episodes of a show after watching them. When you're chugging down the whole gallon of milk at one time you can't have a meaningful discussion of the third sip. I like having something to look forward to. If I'm watching an episode per night of the hot new show on Netflix, I have something to look forward to each night, getting through the day becomes its own little reward. When you marathon the entire series the only thing you can look forward to is the next season, which won't be out until probably next year around this time. Slow down. Are you racing against someone or are you only cheating yourself out of truly enjoying a show?

Ad-Free TV is a Pipe Dream in the US

Lately, I've been doing some thinking (and table-napkin math) regarding ad-free streaming TV programming. The average 1-hour TV show costs about $2 million per episode to produce. While there are some outliers, such as Game of Thrones that cost as much as $8 million per episode, we're going to start small. To pay for that average show's production costs alone with subscriber money, it would cost about 70¢ per subscriber, assuming we can get an average audience size of 2.8 million viewers per episode. For the sake of our thought experiment, we're going to assume a season of the show will consist of 13 episodes. In addition to the production costs of the show, we also need to fund distribution (servers and bandwidth) as well as advertising. We're not going to be able to get 2.8 million viewers per episode if we don't have an ad campaign, at least for the first season. Let's triple our per-episode estimate to $2.10 to cover production, distribution, and advertising. That leaves us with one season of one show at a subscription cost of $2.10 per episode, for a grand total of $27.30. How many new shows will you watch in a year? We'll assume 5 new shows. Assuming the same costs for production, distribution, and advertising, that means we'll have to be willing to pay $136.50 per year for 5 new shows.

What about older shows? The dirty little secret of TV production is that shows get more expensive to produce as time goes on because salaries increase. Actors demand more money when they sign new contracts. The show that costs $2 million for the first season might cost $3 million for the second season. Audiences tend to get smaller for subsequent seasons on most shows. The 2.8 million who watched each episode of the first season might fall to 2.5 million for the second season. For the older shows that are still in production, let's assume $2.60 per subscriber per episode to cover production, distribution, and advertising. How many older, in-production shows are you going to watch each year? If we assume 5 shows, that means we'd be paying $169 per year for those shows.

Now, let's toss in some older shows that are no longer in production. We can eliminate the production cost but we'd still have to pay for distribution and maybe a tiny bit for advertising. For the sake of argument, we'll say 25¢ per episode per subscriber. Assuming 5 older, out-of-production shows for the year, that's $16.25. All of this leaves us with an ad-free streaming entertainment package of $321.75 for a year, or $26.81 per month.

Most people watch far more TV than that.

For our fledgling ad-free streaming network we're also going to need development money. For every show that makes it into production, many more don't make it past the pilot stage. Fresh ideas cost money. That money is going to have to come from subscribers.

I'm not saying ad-free streaming TV isn't possible, I'm just saying there are financial considerations. If we want the same production values as we've gotten used to, we're going to have to pay. Visual effects cost money. Sets cost money. Location shooting costs money. Actors cost money. Servers and bandwidth cost money. Advertising costs money. Disney will be able to do it because they can merchandise the hell out of their franchises. Most others will struggle and fail.

What is Star Trek?

Over the years I've heard many people proclaim many iterations of Star Trek to not be Star Trek. It has even gone so far as to proclaim certain individual episodes of particular series as specifically not Star Trek. As an example, some have said "The City on the Edge of Forever" in TOS is a great episode of science fiction but it is not Star Trek. My particular bias is that they are all Star Trek in some way or another, so I'm not equipped to argue what is or is not Star Trek about any particular episode or movie. I watch them for the entertainment value and character exploration. I do have my biases as to which episodes, series, or movies I like or dislike but that is in terms of writing, character development, or acting.

One of the chief complaints I've heard to define Star Trek is that true Star Trek is always optimistic. I would argue this is a false notion. There are plenty of episodes in TOS that are not optimistic. There are episodes which, if you sit back and think about it, present a pretty awful reality. Optimism wasn't always the key feature of TNG either, most definitely not DS9, and not of VOY either. Some of those episodes were bleak, if not for our heroes but for the folks they encountered.

Another argument I've heard to define Star Trek is that it's about exploration. That, too, is a false notion. Not every episode of TOS was about exploration. Some were personal stories about one or more of the characters. Some were about war. Some were merely space westerns. With the TNG era shows, some episodes were just holodeck adventures. Exploration did not define Star Trek.

I've also heard some say Star Trek is supposed to be lighthearted and fun. No. Have those people actually sat through an entire season? Most episodes of TOS were neither lighthearted nor fun. There was some comedy in there but those episodes were few. The same can be said of the TNG era shows. Each season gave us a few fun episodes but most were not played for laughs. Ditto ENT and DSC. Star Trek cannot be defined as lighthearted and fun.

Some have said Star Trek is family fare. No way. TOS pushed as many limits as they possibly could in regards to story and wardrobe. The Standards and Practices department rode their asses about some of the stuff they tried to get away with on the show. They tried hard to not be family fare, but the network kept the reins pulled tight. The TNG-era shows pushed as many boundaries as they could as syndicated shows. Star Trek was not meant to be family fare, they were forced to color within the lines by the S&P bean-pushers.

What it comes down to is that certain iterations of Star Trek are, or are not Star Trek depending on the goalpost that you wish to move in order to define Star Trek. For some people, only the original series is Star Trek. Nothing else qualifies. For some people, TNG is Star Trek but not DS9. For some people, VOY is absolutely not Star Trek. For many people, TOS and the TNG-era shows are fine but ENT isn't Star Trek. For some people, most of the other series are Star Trek but not DSC. It all gets so confusing.

I'm not one to be a gatekeeper. I'm not going to say who is, or is not, a fan of Star Trek. I will say if you don't like certain iterations of the franchise, you should be able to clearly articulate what you don't like and consider that some of the things you voice in that regard could be hiding in plain sight in the iterations of Star Trek that you do like.

The TV Ratings Game

I've always been fascinated with television, not so much television shows themselves but in the ratings game that determines what we all get to watch. I don't watch much television but I have a keen interest in the numbers and how they are determined. Somehow I've also been part of the Nielsen survey 3 times in my life, once while I was a teen and twice since I've been living on my own.

The ratings game has changed drastically since the dawn of the video cassette recorder (VCR). The VCR enabled time-shifting. Prior to the VCR all television viewing was what I like to call "appointment viewing." Your show came on at a certain time and you made an appointment in your busy daily schedule to sit down and watch your show at that time. The VCR enabled people to record their shows and shift them to view later. In my own life I would often record shows during the week and watch them all on the weekend. I had a separate tape for each day of the week and each morning before leaving for work I would pull the previous day's tape and replace it with the current day's tape. Eventually I developed a system of having 4 tapes for each day of the week, labeled A through D, so it would be a month before I might have to record over something. In any case I no longer had to set an appointment to watch anything. I watched a show when I was ready to watch it, not when a networked dictated that I should watch it.

The VCR complicated things greatly in the ratings game because it meant tv networks could no longer guarantee eyeballs for ads. See, the advertising is the thing. The shows we all love are just convenient wrappers for the ads. The shows are used to set ad rates so the networks can make money and pay for content. The ads are responsible for paychecks. If you can't guarantee that people are watching your shows then you can't sell ads easily. TV ratings are still built on the daily ratings, how many people made an appointment to watch a show on the day it aired. The dailies are important because they represent people who didn't skip through the ads. Next in line are the people who viewed a show within 24 hours of its original airtime. Next are those who viewed it within 3 days of its original airtime. Last in line are those who viewed the show within 7 days of its original airtime. This remains true in the digital video recorder (DVR) era. They are referred to as the DVR+1, DVR+3, and DVR+7 ratings for any given show. A show can be quite popular in DVR viewing but if it's weak in same-day viewing it probably won't survive. Why is this the case? It's all about the ads. DVR viewers generally skip commercials, so ad rates can't be set from DVR views. This is unfortunate since there are some shows that see their audience size increase by 100% in the DVR+7 ratings, but they could still be canceled.

A comparison I've often seen with tv shows is that Show A beat Show B in the 8PM Thursday timeslot, so Show B is probably going to get canceled. From what I've read from various sources that's probably not an accurate assessment. It doesn't matter so much that Show B lost to Show A in head-to-head competition on Thursday night. What does matter is how Show B has been doing compared to other shows on the same network. If Show B lost to Show A head-to-head but Show B is still one of the strongest shows on that particular network Show B is probably going to be renewed for another season. If push comes to shove Show B might be moved to a different night where it could potentially get a bigger audience. So if your show keeps getting trounced by another show in the same slot on a different network there's no reason to fret unless your show is dragging the bottom on its network. You generally don't dump your best player.

Cable shows are less likely to get canceled due to low ratings than broadcast network shows. Why is this the case? As always, it's a numbers game, but in this case it's a scheduling game. The top 4 broadcast networks have primetime schedules that are completely full. They have shows in every slot for every day of the week. If a show isn't doing well it's better for the broadcast network to pull it off the air and try something else in that slot to see if that other show does better. You'll often notice that every broadcast network has a lineup of midseason replacements that they announce even before the new season has started. They know they're going to have to cancel some shows and they already have the replacements set. For the cable networks there are huge gaps in the primetime schedule, with the possible exception of the USA Network. Most cable channels don't have every primetime slot filled with new original programming for every day of the week. This means if a show does poorly they can typically afford to leave it on the air longer because it's not taking up a slot that could be used for another show which might pull better ratings. Cable shows are simply less likely to be canceled because the network probably doesn't have something else with which to fill the slot. If a cable network had a stable of midseason replacements lined up you could bet they would use them. Since they don't, they can't.

The last bit that I'll add here on the ratings game is that networks tend to air their strongest shows on Sunday and the shows tend to get weaker as the week progresses. You'll never see a strong show on Saturday unless it's a rerun of the show from earlier in the week. Why is Sunday the big night? Everyone is home. The networks know they're more likely to get "appointment viewers" in front of the tv set on Sunday night than any other night of the week. Viewership numbers tend to be highest on Sunday and lower throughout the week. If your favorite show is on Sunday night the network probably has confidence in it. If it airs later in the week, things could go either way in terms of renewal versus cancellation.

That's it for now, go watch some tv.

I Only Watch 5 Shows, Deal with It

I've mentioned to several people in the past that I only watch 5 television shows on a weekly basis. Most are fairly incredulous when I say it because they watch a lot more television than that. Trust me, I used to as well.

During the 90s I realized I was watching about 30-40 hours of television a week. I had 2-4 different shows each night of the week and caught up with other shows by watching the recordings on the weekend. I was coming home from work to watch specific shows. I was flipping from one network to another to watch different shows in different time slots. I had a "must-see" show for each night. It dawned on me that it was altogether too much. I needed to cut back and I needed to cut back severely. I decided to only watch 5 shows.

My 5-show routine comes with a few conditions. The 5 shows must be current weekly shows. One-shot specials don't count. Mini-series don't count. News programs, whether local or national, likewise don't count. Reruns of series that are no longer on the air in weekly production don't count. Since I don't watch "reality" tv this means my 5 shows are all scripted. Since I don't watch sitcoms it means they're all scripted dramas. My 5-show routine also means that if I add a show to my list of 5 I must also drop a show from my 5. This means if I'm going to start following a show on a weekly basis I have to be willing to give up something I'm already watching. In the past it was a strict rule. Lately I've been a little looser with it but adding a show means dropping a show. Occasionally the dropping of a show happens for me, especially with cable shows that have seasons of only 10-13 episodes. Once the season ends I can pick up another show to put in that slot. My 5-show routine also does not include tv shows that I watch exclusively from streaming on either Netflix or Amazon, although I'm mindful to not watch episodes from more than 2 streaming shows in a week. Currently my streaming shows are Orange is the New Black and House of Cards. I'm not doing marathons of either. I'm treating both as regular (roughly) weekly tv shows.

It all adds up to mean that between my 5 shows, various news shows, streaming shows, and the occasional documentary I might consume about 12-15 hours of television in a week. At other times the television set is turned off. I don't use tv to provide background sound while I'm doing other stuff. I'm perfectly comfortable sitting in silence. When I do watch something on tv I give it my undivided attention. When the show ends I turn the tv set off. I do watch movies, both on DVD and streaming, but that is separate from my tv viewing and I never watch more than 2 movies in a sitting and rarely more than 3 movies in a week. As a general rule I don't watch "live" tv except for the news. All 5 of my weekly shows are recorded on my TiVo and I usually watch them within a few days after they air. If I'm spending time listening to podcasts I'll save my tv shows to watch on the weekend.

Chances are fairly good that whatever show you're watching I've never seen. There are tons of popular shows that I've never seen. There are many shows that have come highly recommended by friends that I've never seen. Adding a show means dropping a show and a show has to do something unforgivable to truly piss me off before I decide to drop it in midseason to add a new show. It's happened before. I dropped House, M.D. in the middle of the fourth season after they aired 3 episodes in a row that I totally didn't like. I don't recall what I added in its place but I definitely dropped Dr. Gregory House and did not look back. When I heard the series was ending I didn't even tune in to see the finale. I dropped Bones for the same reason. They aired several episodes in a row that were boring and formulaic so I dropped the show midseason. Over it means over it, for the most part.

So, that's how I watch tv. As always, your mileage may vary.