Mike Cohen's Blog

This Blog is Brought to you With Limited Commercial Interruption by...

Last season I started watching Terminator; The Sarah Connor Chronicles. The first episode was not impressive, but it got better and is now a pretty good show. You certainly need to leave your logical mind at the door, but it is fun. This week's episode takes its cue from past seasons of 24, also on FOX. The episode had fewer commercial breaks, all of them from Dodge, promoting the very truck featured in the show. Seriously, most people I know fast forward through the commercials anyway.

Here is the problem for me. Sarah, John and Derek Reese (Michael Biehn's brother) are on the run from both the law and the various pre-Ahnold Terminator models (if these things are made in a factory, why do they all look different?). However the cars they drive get nicer with each episode, culminating this week with the exact same Dodge pickup being promoted in the commercials. Presumably they steal a new vehicle whenever they need one, but this pushes the limits of believability (in a show about cyborgs from the future).If you want to be inconspicuous, don't drive around the latest model. Didn't these people see Goodfellas?

Now no one believes the show is a real life documentary, but a certain suspension of disbelief applies to any dramatic show. Once you see the proscenium arch, if you will, you are disengaged from the action and you realize you are watching a tv show. Blatant product placement is one way to break that 4th wall and remind the viewer that they are watching a car commercial in the guise of a tv show. I don't think the show has completely jumped the shark, but it comes close.

On the other hand, we all realize that these shows are expensive to produce. However, most action sequences take place on deserted roads, in abandoned factories or inside homes. Thus far, the show has avoided any big action pieces from a Michael Bay movie, thus cutting costs. Someone has to pay for these free shows.

Lately I have been watching videos on Hulu.com. The website has made deals with studios and networks, to give away content, much like broadcast television, only with limited commercials. I predict that one day, individual shows will be subscription based. You only pay for what you want to watch. iTunes does this, but as an option to watch shows previously on broadcast channels at no charge. I see that one day the free broadcasts will go away, because the audience will be so fragmented that advertisers won't want to waste their money. Instead of paying $59 a month for every channel, why not pay $10 a month for a connection, then an incremental charge per program viewed, up to a limit selected by the viewer. You never know.

The problem with premium TV is just that -- subscriptions add a premium above regular cable. The problem related to that is that it's increasingly difficult to maintain ratings, and recover costs as a result.

For example, the audience for Sarah Connor are way down this year, so far down that Fox has only just now ordered the second half of the season -- down 34% overall. And still, nearly 4 million viewers weekly...which puts it in the lower half of ratings among all network shows. Compare this to, say, The Wire on HBO, with 864,000 viewers in its final, most award-winning season.

4.1 million is also a record high for Showtime, the season 4 premiere of Weeds earlier this year. HBO's highest rated night is 8 million, for the premiere of the final season of The Sopranos, whose sustained ratings were of course lower. Compare again to a show barely breaking into the Top 20 like Three and a Half Men, which with ratings down continues to average 9 million viewers.

This puts it behind CBS's overall average, including the bottom of the barrel, of 9.3 million weekly. While Fox's overall average is only 7 million, it includes American Idol, which averaged well north of 30 million, and House...in yet another down year...still averaging well north of 20 million.

A basic cable show like Battlestar Galactica has been called a trainwreck because its ratings are down to "only" 2.1 million.

But say an advertiser is on Sci Fi and Fox - that's still 10 million viewers average viewers for the season , instead a record-breaking dozen Sundays with 8 million. Week in and week out, averaged across even the dogs, commercial TV makes more money than any pay channel. Advertisers follow the eyeballs.

That's also why cable operators have adamantly opposed a la carte packages -- the net effect would be so little money that they couldn't stay in business. Why? Because networks pay to be carried on cable.

It's certainly a long way from being a simple equation as models change, but for now, there's no financial incentive to change.

Besides, I like commercials. I use my DVR to watch my favorites 2 or 3 times before returning to the show. My very very favorite commercials? I watch 'em again on YouTube. They sometimes offer the best drama, best comedy, best effects and most creativity on TV. I'd sorely miss them.

That said, I'm also enjoying shows with fewer commercials, like Fringe, my favorite new show of the year. But those shorter breaks -- as few as 60 seconds, often enough for only one commercial -- add 8 minutes to the average episode: 50 minutes compared to 42. That's nearly a 20% increase in programming, which I'm guessing translates to something similar for production costs. Since overall ratings aren't up 20%, networks have to find new revenue streams. Advertisers aren't paying more for non-focused advertising either, but for matching demographics of shows with demographics of products? They're standing in line to pay big bucks, and the money is going straight into the pockets of production companies. Look for a lot more of this in the future.