So you’re a CCO, what would you do? (contest)
ByEvery Harvard Business School case study seems to open with a manager sitting at his or her desk, contemplating a problem. The case study put us in the manager’s shoes. Here’s the problem, the case says, what would you do?
Let’s say, you’re Patricia Lindbergh. You are the newly appointed CCO at the XYZ corporation.
And your CEO has a question.
Last night, in a rare moment of respite, he was sitting with his wife and kids watching their favorite TV shows. And the family got to talking. Is TV changing? They thought maybe it was. But no one could figure out how or why.
The CEO says, "Hey, not to worry. We just hired a Chief Culture Officer. I’ll ask Pat tomorrow. She’ll know."
So this morning, when you got to work, there was a little note on your desk from the CEO. It reads, "Hey, my wife and I were wondering: is TV changing? Clue us in! Thanks. Charlie."
Geez. Big question. As a CCO, you follow TV. And there’s lots of stuff in play. One of the ways to approach this question is to look at Charlie and his family were watching last night. If you knew what they was looking at…that might help.
As a CCO, you subscribe to lots of data sources, and one of your favorites comes from Marc Berman. Marc writes The Programming Insider, and here’s the snippet that gets your attention.
It’s clear that CBS and ABC are in pretty good shape. And it’s clear that NBC continues to struggle. It’s not that the NBC programming is bad programming. You like some of NBC shows that are tanking. They’re smart, interesting, funny television.
As you sit at your desk, and gaze down into the tidal flows on the Avenue of the Americans, you think, "hmmm."
There’s something here. But what?
Something tells us that this comes down to the cultural difference between what Berman calls "yesterday’s winners" and "yesterday’s losers." What is the difference between these two groups of shows. What do they tell us about TV and our culture?
Please answer this question ("What’s the cultural difference between Berman’s Winners and Losers?") as briefly and as pungently as you can. Please keep your answer to fewer than 500 words.
Best three answers get a copy of Chief Culture Officer and my undying admiration.
References
Berman, Marc. 2010. The Programming Insider. Media Week. January 15. here.
Winners of the last contest
The winner’s of the last competition are:
Bryan
Simon Steinhardt
Batcraft
Congratulations on great work. Please send me your best mailing address, so I can send you your copies of Chief Culture Officer.
20 Comments
January 15th, 2010 at 1:08 pm
I don’t think that the information provided allows us to make widescale predictions on “Is Television changing”… in fact the limitation of data might make it dangerous to do so.
That being said, here are some possibilities.
(1) The shift to fantasyland – Coming out of an age of economic uncertainty, it’s quite interesting that many of the highly rated shows feature career choices that allow people to ’step into the shoes of someone with an interesting and challenging role’. Working as a Forensic Anthropologist, A brilliant young Doctor or in a crime lab sure is much more entertaining that your 9-to-5 playing with paper trying to make ends meet in a cubicle, ain’t it?
(2) Problem Solving – Based on the limited information that we’re given, the shows that are at the top of the list all feature some sort of mystery which the audience is invited to solve. These stimulate dialogue about the show and allow for a degree of interaction with the medium. All of these programs provide an online outlet to share information and discuss with other fans.
(3) The evening cocktail – The lead shows on the list are all one hour dramas that play in the 10pm slot before the evening news. These serve as somewhat of a mini-theatre for people to step away from life’s real problems. How off was NBC in deciding to replace this historic-drama-time with a 5-nights-a-week talk show. Look how it affected the entire ratings of the network. It’s a delicate balance that is tried and true. It has affects both direct and indirect. For whatever reason, once people change the channel, they tend to stick for a while.
db
January 15th, 2010 at 5:21 pm
I’d like to cannibalize Daniel’s concepts a bit. First I agree that an era of economic uncertainty may have a great deal to do with the the TV choices we make. But I don’t know if it has much to do with the professions on the shows per se. I rather think it has more to do with the fact that they are dramas. NBC is getting killed running half hour comedy after half hour comedy, only to follow them up with one hour of “variety.” Drama is where it’s at, after all in these trying times, misery loves company.
Also, while many of these characters are forensic archeologists and scientists, in the end these dramas are cop shows and doctor shows. These are tried and true formulas. And perhaps there is something comforting about the familiarity of these narratives as opposed to kooky college and office shows.
I do think Daniel is right on in the idea that the 10 o’clock hour is vitally important to the performance the rest of your schedule. Leno is like the heaviest albatross in the world in this regard. The concept of 10 o’clock as mini theater is perfect.
This does make me think that while TV is changing in regards to who is watching and how much, in terms of content the more things change the more they stay the same.
January 15th, 2010 at 7:10 pm
The winning dramas feature heroes who strive to do the right thing and compensate for the injustices of nature and society. The losing programs feature stories where almost all the characters act in self-interest and display weakness. I suspect that because the current times make us all feel less powerful, identifying with someone who works to overcome life’s universal challenges (death, crime, illness) is more soothing.
January 15th, 2010 at 7:45 pm
Let’s start with the most glaring and obvious of differences between the winners and the losers. Firstly, the winners are all in the 5th season (excepting the Mentalist, which I will get to). Furthermore CSI is in its 10th season. The losers are all in the 1st or 2nd season (excepting 30 rock). Obviously in a time of economic hardships people want consistency, but then again, people ALWAYS want consistency. When anybody changes the formula, whether it be Bob Dylan going electric, or Coke bringing out “new” Coke, failure happens (at least at first). These shows have been around for longer than the recession, they are a reminder of good times.
So why is the mentalist successful? The Mentalist may be new but the genre is not. Once again looking at consistency, all the top 5 (as mentioned by Daniel) are either medical dramas or crime dramas. Now these are formulas that work. From MASH to ER to Grey’s Anatomy, people have loved medical dramas for years. Put a sexy man in a scrub and you have yourself a hit! Same goes with crime dramas (Law & Order, CSI)
Yet this doesn’t tell us why these types of TV shows have always been successful. I believe, as the above gentlemen mentioned, it is because the people in the shows are winners. Yes, there may be failures and hardships (or else it wouldn’t be a drama), but these are successful people. High powered investigators, doctors and detectives. They are highly educated, good looking and generally witty as well. Who wouldn’t want to be these people, or at least watch them? It comes from the same idolization behind our obsession with celebrities. I don’t think it’s necessarily because they are exciting, but because they are successful, and that is exciting.
So why are the losers losing? In a word it is because they are quirky. On top of that they are sometimes ostracized, looked down upon or disenfranchised in the world. There are no high powered, smooth talking, beautiful people here. These people have normal jobs (Parks and Recreation), work behind the scenes (30 Rock), and are odd (Fringe).
So why is television changing? Why are these shows coming out? Because there has been an immergence of data that tells the TV executives that quirk sells, and it does. Look at Wes Anderson movies, Micheal Cera, Judd Apatow, leagues of indie bands, geek chic, Lady Gaga, stuff white people like blog. These are all examples of quirky things that are succeeding. The problem is the people who subscribe to quirk (young, generally less than 30, educated, cynical, bored) aren’t watching TV the traditional way. They aren’t stopping their lives, going home to catch the latest Fringe or Parks and Recreation. If they are watching it, they are watching it online. And that is something that the ratings can’t catch.
January 16th, 2010 at 12:40 am
My initial reaction to Yesterday’s Losers – does America not want to laugh?
I think the bigger question here is how we tally ratings, and who is sitting down to watch prime time on a weekly basis. Half-hour comedies are well-suited to the shift towards internet streaming. There’s little context necessary to jump in and out of a series like 30 Rock or Community – the characters are stereotypes and caricatures, the gags are mostly self-contained in each episode.
There are two distinct trends of Yesterday’s Winners – they are hour-long series based upon professionals with expertise (doctors, scientists, etc.). Hour-long dramas may be a shift to an “HBO-lite” type of series, they allow for a bit more depth and development in the writing, which demands that viewers watch week-to-week to follow the plot.
Maybe America doesn’t need comedy, but can benefit instead from a bit of schadenfreude. It’s important to remember, especially in times of economic uncertainty, even doctors and scientists have problems – like the socially inept Bones, or the (constantly) love-lorn Meredith.
January 16th, 2010 at 2:23 am
I agree with many of the observations about what makes the winning shows winners, especially the notion that the shows, Bones, CSI, The Mentalist, Grey’s Anatomy and Private Practice – lord help us, with the exception of Bones, I love that show – are:
1. tried and true formulas for TV;
2. shows that, for the most part, have had time to develop a loyal, invested audience and
3. shows that offer viewers an escape to a world where order is usually snatched from the jaws of chaos by very good-looking, successful people.
I’d like to add one more reason why these shows are winning, and that’s because, unlike “yesterday’s losers,” they offer irony-free entertainment that is totally and completely accessible. Viewers who are sitting down to watch and be counted by Nielsen don’t want to feel like they’re the only ones not in on the joke. I love 30 Rock, but I know non-fans who’ve said that they just don’t understand why everyone thinks it’s so funny. The political and social satire – and maybe this is the quirkiness that was talked about earlier – is too edgy. It just doesn’t resonate.
Another quick thought, I think people do like to root for characters who act in self-interest and display weakness (people loved JR Ewing and the characters of Seinfeld), but perhaps only as long as they feel like their own values are not being judged or put at risk?
January 16th, 2010 at 4:23 pm
The short answer: relevancy (and an apparent lack of solid market research at NBC to underpin its business decisions).
The “winners” all all either one-hour serial shows or dramas; the “losers” heavy on half-hour comedies leading into the Leno hour. But comedy vs. drama is too simple an answer. I don’t have the deep dive data, but just from my anecdotal observations over the years there is a reason that the 10 p.m. hour has been traditionally reserved for drama. Even NBC’s “must watch t.v.” lineup led into a 10 p.m. drama. If your brand is working (at least somewhat), test pilot stuff before you screw it up completely. NBC didn’t do this.
January 17th, 2010 at 12:45 pm
To get clues for Charlie, I would collect them in this manner, as “Pat” is not watching TV at all:
1. I would reach out to my web2.0 network and ask=tweet my contacts
“What’s the cultural difference between Berman’s Winners and Losers?” including link to Berman’s post
2. I would use real time social media search and looked up the keywords and topics people talk about right now (like #Heroes, #Grey’s Anatomy, #CBS or #ABC)
3. I would try to get a minute with Charlie and ask him his take, “Why does he think that TV is changing?” or “What prompt him to ask this question?” , I would even ask the same his wife (would SMS her, if she is free for quick call)
4. After collecting this inputs I would have clearer picture about what people think and talk about.
After this kind of temperature check I would be able to recollect in more details what is going on.
I don’t think so, it has something to do with economic uncertainty as Jason said, as I believe that there is no such thing as certainty. We are witnessing an era of personal brands of people “who strive to do the right thing” as Theresa pointed out, but those heroes are one of us and no more only TV shows heroes. We can watch online real life stories, personalized TV shows who are broadcasting their passions.
Plus we should be aware of what people do during prime time, do they sit in front of TV? What do they do? How do they entertain themselves? What matters for them? How can be technology influencing TV industry? For how long will ad companies pay millions to the TVs , if many of them are already selling their ads to web2.0 world, where the attention of people is…
Aaah, tons of thoughts in” Pat’s head”;-)
Cheers from Slovakia
i.
January 18th, 2010 at 12:49 pm
I agree there is no such thing as certainty in reality, but people tend to believe that there is until it’s taken away from them. We are much more inclined to accept nudges in this or that direction when things are going well. But when it’s not, change becomes an enormous proposition. The violent reaction to the Tropicana packaging being a case in point. So current viewership in prime time gravitates to the successful formulas of the past.
I agree however that there is some question as to whether or not the losers are truly losers in the grand scheme of things. What kind of viewership are they developing on Hulu and the like? What is the demographic of the audiences tuning into the hour long drama? Perhaps TV is better suited towards the hour long drama and the internet towards the half hour comedy. And maybe that half hour comedy is getting right t the heart of a certain demographic. I don’t know. And Nielsen ratings aren’t going to tell you.
But I get the sense that TV needs to do what they can to create things that are appointment viewing. Whether that be events or the kinds of shows where watching online the next day puts you culturally behind the curve. Everyone hates the guy who didn’t watch “Lost” the night before because he kills the chance to talk about it. While that doesn’t seem to explain in any way the success of CSI after what seems like an eon of being on the air, it may become evident when the numbers are teased out.
January 18th, 2010 at 2:39 pm
I think the ‘winners’ are just ‘smarter.’ Because they are ‘smarter’ they are more relevant, and as such become MORE ENGAGING. So, I agree mostly with Daria’s point.
What makes them ‘smarter’ is that they seem to be more in-step with today’s realities and lifestyles. Apparently, they represent a progressive, expert / insider’s perspective offering –even a multicultural– true-world view framed in the velocity and stress levels of what it means to be successful today. Complete with problems/solutions and pretty people.
So, this ‘smart factor’ combined with:
- A longer format, an hour
- Time slot: when people are finally ready to focus before hitting the hay
- With stronger, realistic, story lines structured like Soap Operas
Add up to a more engaging production.
The ‘losers,’ are mocking in tone or spoofs, which are like ‘imitations of humor’ that try too hard. It’s as if there’s a moment where they ‘wink’ at the audience as if to say, ‘This is only a TV show and it’s not real.’ Bursting the bubble, losing believability, and making them similar to older, classic TV shows like “I Dream of Jeannie” or “Bewitched” with story lines that were so outrageous there was no question as to their being fiction. Only back then, those shows seemed great because they were new, not re-runs, and the audience wasn’t as media savvy. Look at the show ‘Community,’ for example. Do you actually believe those people (actors) would go to a community college? And btw what’s so attractive about going to a community college? Oh, that’s a draw! What is this ‘Welcome Back Kotter’ meets 2010?!
Not that a 30-minute, comedy can’t be successful. I submit ‘Family Guy.’ It’s even animated like another winner, the Simpsons. It’s smart, and it doesn’t pretend to be what it’s not.
As for Jay Leno’s show being a ‘loser,’ I think having him in that time slot has just thrown off everyone’s circadian rhythm or something. I’m not sure it has to do with content. You know the old, big 3 networks BETTER get with it because the media upfront monies are likely to be shrinking and there’s less and less room for them to experiment and produce losers.
January 18th, 2010 at 2:56 pm
Here’s the result of my ponderings. I should disclose upfront that I’m not 100% immersed in North American culture as I’ve spent some two-thirds of my life in Europe so may have a slightly different take on this than less nomadic souls.
Starting with the patterns in both groups, I note the following:
Winners
1. Type of show – Dramas. Bones is a slight outlier here as it also has comedic aspects
2. Context – Applied, problem/solution professions. Forensic anthropology, medicine, forensic medicine, law enforcement, psychology
3. Structure – Complete story per episode (start-middle-end), with a continuing thread of a story between episodes
4. Storyline style – Problem-solution
Losers
1. Type of show – 3 comedies, 1 sci-fi/drama, 1 talk show. Fringe seems to be an outlier as it’s neither episodic nor non-episodic in nature
2. Context – More random occupations – students, lawyers, public servants, actors/TV producers, plus FBI agents
3. Structure – mini stories per episode with ongoing story across episodes
4. Storyline style – quite random
Culturally, I think we seek mostly to escape from our own lives through our viewing and all great TV programming lets us do this. And, looking at the winners and losers right now, the easiest escapes seem to be provided by episodic dramas which have a lot of black and white (problem-solution) about them.
I see two possible reasons for this. Firstly, that these winners take us away from our own lives more easily than the losers – that their drama in episodic form makes them quite different from our own lives which may be more complex (i.e. they have more non-episodic drama) and without such tidy beginnings, middles and ends.
And secondly, because perhaps there are no great comedies or non-episodic shows on right now. I suspect that the ‘escape standards’ are much higher for non-episodic dramas and comedies making them a rarer commodity. They need to be great (e.g. Lost, early 30 Rock) in order to keep our attention through their inherent complexity, whereas the more simplistic episodic shows can get away with being merely good or indeed average (e.g. Private Practice, Grey’s Anatomy).
January 18th, 2010 at 5:30 pm
Here is a very long shot (from the cold north of Norway).
Fragmentation. NBC shows seems to have taken in the fact that fragmentation means that viewership will be lower. That does not mean that it´s not worth doing. It´s just that you earn your money from the show on multiple platforms and perhaps can charge a higher price for commercials and placements because your viewers are a more defined group of people than an 18-49 demographic.
It might be that NBC in short term are loosing, but perhaps they might be more attuned for the future of broadcast.
Also I think it is worth mentioning that shows like Fringe has a transmedia element. The thick plot (that can be a bit heavy for the common man), can create a deep relation with fanboys online were they can explore sidestories not told in the actual show.
Yes, we will seek out the traditional dramas, yes some can make a good living from them, but some networks need to accept lower ratings and generate more engaged fans of specific shows. And that engagement can be worth more to potential commercial partners. Because they can engage only those they really want to engage. As I said. A long shot. But at least a very different angle:-)
January 18th, 2010 at 5:40 pm
Don’t ask me why I have such a random interest in this. I really couldn’t tell you. But reading Sarah’s post brings up the episodic nature of some of the shows. However let’s look at Grey’s Anatomy and Private Practice. The writing on these shows has frankly tanked dramatically and yet they’re in the winners column. Additionally some of the threads through the episodes are pretty convoluted and I can see a casual viewer being completely baffled by some of the things happening on these shows.In fact the stories in these two shows are hardly ever complete. But they seem to be plodding along successfully.
Meanwhile the losers like 30 Rock and Community really can be watched casually without a ton of confusion. You very easily pick up on the quirks of each character and quickly get the drift of the relationships.
Perhaps there’s something to the Soap Opera nature of Grey’s and the like that is inspiring loyalty and viewers. Also, NBC has managed to tank everything so egregiously it’s hard to imagine what they have to do to recover. And it is frankly hurting shows that are pretty good.
January 18th, 2010 at 11:54 pm
Has anyone thought that perhaps it is the crappy inconsistent scheduling involved in these shows? or the fact that they had writer strikes that screwed up seasons? or maybe it is the comedy shows are too intelligent as the humor is not always poop and fart jokes? I dont think anyone will get fringe as they never reveal anything.
Those other shows are basic formulas with little to no real world reality – do you really think the FBI has no paper work? or that those Dr.s have no malpractice lawsuits? etc…
Smart comedy shows and smart shows in general don’t work. Think Arrested Development. People are lazy and lazier in front of TV’s. They like to be fed things – and all those shows allows them to think they are learning something when in reality most of the time the knowledge in those shows (medical or anthropological) are probably as reliable as wikipedia. Stick with rote formulas and prescribed information.
January 19th, 2010 at 2:05 am
The quick answer is “yes it is”. If my CEO wants more info, I would want to know why and for what purpose – is this company in the media/entertainment/advertising business? Pet projects are great, but can we have a reality check in isle CCO?
If deeper exploration is worth the time, than there are a plethora of areas to begin our research. Specifically, starting with the CEO and his family to establish the context of the question (as previous people noted). Then let’s determine why we need more information, what specific information we need, where to get it, plus a few more things (i.e., the basics).
Now, before we jump too far into the “rabit hole” – let’s not get caught up in what these TV statistics tell us, until we have more details. We already know that TV viewing options are enormous and control is ubiquitous – let us not forget about the growing impact of DVR.
People are busy. People have options. People watch what they want, when they want, how they want – and those are changes that every culture is experiencing.
Now, back to my original question…”Mr. CEO, what do you really want to know, and why?”
January 19th, 2010 at 4:56 pm
A: People are interested in Crime, Health Care, and science; so seek it out in their recreation. More than one is even more interesting.
B: People are not interested in creepy pseudo-science.
C: People are uninterested in making fun of small towns. Small town life is either nostalgic or uninteresting.
D: It’s hard to keep a political comedy fresh when the party in power changes.
NBC has yet to understand A-D.
January 19th, 2010 at 10:14 pm
Aimar and Jason: I like where you guys are going with your ideas about fragmentation, alternate platform viewing, demographics, etc. I think one of the things that has been largely overlooked in this debate is that NBC’s programming seems to be targeted more toward younger (18-34) viewers, and the reality of TV viewership these days is that Millennials and Gen Y-ers are watching 20-40% less TV than members of older generations, and they’re increasingly ignoring the TV set in favor of other screens.
On top of that, NBC has stubbornly stuck to their “must-see TV” strategy of “owning” Thursday nights, as they did in the ’90s with anchor programs like Seinfeld and Friends that they could bookend with newer shows to try to siphon audiences vertically. The siphoning doesn’t work today because of Tivo and improved cable network programming alternatives, both of which provide improved viewing experiences over the old-fashioned, single-network viewing block.
NBC has also failed to realize a cultural shift in Thursday night activity patterns. The reason that networks generally avoid targeting 18-34-year-olds on Friday and Saturday nights is that they wisely presume those people are out and about at those times. In the last two decades, Gen Y-ers and Millennials, being the maximizers we are, have decided to extend the weekend to Thursdays. Throughout the ’90s, it was the edgy urban thing to be out on the town Thursday night only to drag oneself to work wearing a hangover as a badge of courage on Friday morning. Today it’s a national phenomenon. Maybe NBC execs have been too busy fretting over the overnight numbers come Friday morning to notice the bags under their interns’ eyes.
January 21st, 2010 at 4:45 pm
Looking solely at the shows that are winners and losers, I think two issues are at play: the formula and the generational gaps.
The winners all seem to follow a fairly similar formula where an ensemble cast (for the most part duos, though Grey’s is an exception) face conflicts with clear moral winners and losers. The answers become clear over the hour and the good guys (or popular crowd) win.
The losers all seem to focus on a loser band of misfits who either do not advance morally, or who face messier worlds that cannot be cleanly explained at the end of the episode. However, the protagonists are often of great ability and pull it out in the end (the misfits ala Real Genius coasting until they have to.
The difference between success is who these formulas appeal to. The popular crowd always winning appeals to Baby Boomers and Gen Y. The Real Genius generation? Gen X. The size difference is large enough to account for both ratings despite Gen Y’s viewing of content on screens other than TV.
January 24th, 2010 at 2:17 pm
very much enjoyed reading all these comments. one thing i’ve noticed, perhaps more broadly than the winners and the losers, may relate to your slow v fast culture. in particular, comedy, as it’s being defined these days is almost always founded upon notions of loneliness, dysfunctional families and, yes, irony. irony much more fast culture than slow culture and can be remarkably inaccessible and alienating.
the winners, on the other hand, celebrate function, accomplishment and relationships that are, more often than not, modeled on the family. it’s heightened familiarity that provides more of a reflection than a challenge to the aspirations/struggles of the average home.
while it’s not there, i think the evolution of NCIS is a particularly fascinating case of this kind of shift. i’m not sure mark harmon would’ve signed on if he knew it would look like it does in it’s later seasons, as opposed to it’s CSI format in the first.
January 27th, 2010 at 11:20 am
One thing not touched on here is context – what comes before and after each of the winners? As Jan Leno learned recently – TV and the ratings – aren’t discrete data points – but are relational. The pre/post shows may have a huge impact on the winners/losers.
No mention of time shifting either. I watch a lot of the losers – as much as I do the winners – but do it on my time vs. their time.