Tuesday: The New Thursday...kind of.
Remember when Thursday night was chock-full of good shows for years? I do. For years there was at least something that pretty much any TV fan would watch. You had your “Friends”, your “Seinfeld”, your “Cheers”, etc. Even now there are a few shows that do well in the ratings on Thursday (“ER” and “CSI:” come to mind). Here’s the thing, though. Back when Thursday was “Must See TV” from top to bottom, it was all on one network. That was when NBC was king. Other networks tried for years to horn in on Thursday nights with no luck. This brings me to my question: Why do networks try to horn in on one timeslot when there are so many other good ones available?
Let’s look at Tuesday night this fall season. In the 9:00 hour, we have “My Name is Earl”/”The Office” on NBC, “Commander in Chief” on ABC, “The Amazing Race” on CBS, “House” on Fox, “Supernatural” on the WB, and “Sex, Love and Secrets” on UPN. If you look at NBC, CBS, Fox, and the WB, you’ve got one of the funniest shows on TV (“Earl” is supposed to be good too, but Shoeless Joel will let us know if that’s the case after the premiere), the reality show with the widest appeal, one of the best dramas on TV, a new and promising sci-fi/horror show (review coming after the second episode), and another show that's supposed to be decent (but coming from UPN, who can say for sure?).
I can halfway see the reason behind scheduling all these shows at the same time. They're pretty diverse in the audiences that they seek. The problem with that reasoning is that the appeal of the shows is wide, even with the different target core audiences. The buffoon of the whole situation is NBC, who is putting on a great show that's gotten very good reviews but not good ratings against two proven ratings winners in "House" and "Amazing Race". Remember when Fox kept "Arrested Development" around after its critically acclaimed but ratings-wise lackluster first season? They didn't put it up against arguably two of the overall strongest shows. They kept it on Sunday night. Even now it's on Monday, against the sinking (though still funny) "King of Queens" and the buzz-less "Surface". If NBC had any brains in this situation, they'd put "The Office" on the same night but at 8:00 or 8:30, opposite "According to Jim"/"Rodney", "NCIS", and "Bones". What do they have on there instead? Dead-in-the-water reality show "The Biggest Loser".
My point here is that a show can be successful on any night if it's a quality program. There are hits on every night of the week (except for maybe Friday). Why not find a weaker time slot for your good shows? Everyone knows when they've got promising shows and when they've got stinkers. Why else would there be mid-season relief pitchers out there in the network's bullpen waiting to take the place of the shows that fail? Do they think people will watch a sub-par show because there's nothing else on? While that may be true to an extent, wouldn't more people watch a good show that's up against a couple of lousy ones? I know it'd be going against what they usually do, but why not give it a try?
But hey--that's just my two cents.
Let’s look at Tuesday night this fall season. In the 9:00 hour, we have “My Name is Earl”/”The Office” on NBC, “Commander in Chief” on ABC, “The Amazing Race” on CBS, “House” on Fox, “Supernatural” on the WB, and “Sex, Love and Secrets” on UPN. If you look at NBC, CBS, Fox, and the WB, you’ve got one of the funniest shows on TV (“Earl” is supposed to be good too, but Shoeless Joel will let us know if that’s the case after the premiere), the reality show with the widest appeal, one of the best dramas on TV, a new and promising sci-fi/horror show (review coming after the second episode), and another show that's supposed to be decent (but coming from UPN, who can say for sure?).
I can halfway see the reason behind scheduling all these shows at the same time. They're pretty diverse in the audiences that they seek. The problem with that reasoning is that the appeal of the shows is wide, even with the different target core audiences. The buffoon of the whole situation is NBC, who is putting on a great show that's gotten very good reviews but not good ratings against two proven ratings winners in "House" and "Amazing Race". Remember when Fox kept "Arrested Development" around after its critically acclaimed but ratings-wise lackluster first season? They didn't put it up against arguably two of the overall strongest shows. They kept it on Sunday night. Even now it's on Monday, against the sinking (though still funny) "King of Queens" and the buzz-less "Surface". If NBC had any brains in this situation, they'd put "The Office" on the same night but at 8:00 or 8:30, opposite "According to Jim"/"Rodney", "NCIS", and "Bones". What do they have on there instead? Dead-in-the-water reality show "The Biggest Loser".
My point here is that a show can be successful on any night if it's a quality program. There are hits on every night of the week (except for maybe Friday). Why not find a weaker time slot for your good shows? Everyone knows when they've got promising shows and when they've got stinkers. Why else would there be mid-season relief pitchers out there in the network's bullpen waiting to take the place of the shows that fail? Do they think people will watch a sub-par show because there's nothing else on? While that may be true to an extent, wouldn't more people watch a good show that's up against a couple of lousy ones? I know it'd be going against what they usually do, but why not give it a try?
But hey--that's just my two cents.
Tha Docta's two cents. | 8:30 AM
<< Home