Whedon's Dollhouse Bombs On TV, But A Hit On iTunes, Hulu

[ThatDarreinShow]

Buffy-creator Joss Whedon's new FOX show "Dollhouse" tanked on Friday, earning only 4.7 million viewers and a 2.0 share of adults aged 18 to 49.

But "Dollhouse" is a hit on iTunes, passing "Battlestar Gallactica" as the store's number one purchased download yesterday. It's also one of the five most popular episode available on Hulu right now.

For us its just more confirmation of what Heroes creator Tim Krig was getting at the other day: broadcast TV isn't the right place for Dollhouse's serialized format.

From a Michael Hirschorn piece in the Atlantic:

The serialized format is "a very flawed way of telling stories on network television right now," a blogger quoted Kring as saying, "because of the advent of the DVR and online streaming. The engine that drove [serialized TV] was, you had to be in front of the TV [when it aired]. Now you can watch it when you want, where you want, how you want to watch it, and almost all of those ways are superior to watching it on-air."



http://www.businessinsider.com/whedons-dollhouse-bombs-on-tv-but-a-hit-on-itunes-hulu-2009-2

 

[Edmund Blackadder]

The problem is the people who pay for the ads between the shows are the ones that, for this show at least, will decide its fate.

I think that maybe Dollhouse is a season or two too early.

Fox obviously makes money from iTunes and Hulu, but they make more money from the advertising giants who buy blocks of time through-out the week.

 

[Lindsey McDonald]

The problem is the people who pay for the ads between the shows are the ones that, for this show at least, will decide its fate.

I think that maybe Dollhouse is a season or two too early.

Fox obviously makes money from iTunes and Hulu, but they make more money from the advertising giants who buy blocks of time through-out the week.

But who's going to buy that time on a Friday? That's the thing - Friday was always going to suck for making money for FOX. Well, unless they could nab themselves another X-Files, but nobody expects that to happen anytime soon.

 

[Edmund Blackadder]

But who's going to buy that time on a Friday? That's the thing - Friday was always going to suck for making money for FOX. Well, unless they could nab themselves another X-Files, but nobody expects that to happen anytime soon.

The advertising companies already buy time on a Friday, thats not gonna change for your show to be saved!

They aren't gonna waste money on a show that 'bombs'.

Fox will still charge a fair whack because its a new show and they won't factor in the iTunes and Hulu into the fiscals yet.

IF they could/would do that, shows would already be being saved purely on the basis of this added money makers and the adverts would be all the low rent crap.

The networks that utilise the internet, need to sit down with the advertising giants and work out how they can ALL make money without offending a brand and this won't be achieved over night.

If you can afford to advertise on an evening you are paying big money, no matter what night, but it is rare that a company will only buy one slot a week.

If Fox offends, lets say Burger King, by saying 'We don't care that no one is watching on Friday night, we're gonna keep this show on' then Burger King will say, 'well we ain't paying for ours on Monday Night, you know the night we pay you a fortune for'.

Companies like this will take this action because ultimately they want to feel they have the power because they have the money.

It doesn't matter if the show does well in other mediums, its the fact that it is mainly paid for by the commercials that are placed in it, that will dictate what eventually happens to it.

As I said, this is probably a season or 2 too early, because with figures like this Fox et al, need to start working out how they can appease the ads while still making money from the show - thats the big problem with DVR's, iTunes and DVDs.

I would wager, pretty soon, these are going to come with alot more adverts on them, adverts you won't be able to fast forward through.

 

[Lindsey McDonald]

No, but this is all irrelevant. Dollhouse did pretty average, especially for a double holiday Friday night. It neither bombed, nor did it shine. But what more do they expect on a Friday night? What more do the companies who pay for the advertising on a Friday night expect. I'm not talking only about Dollhouse here, and I'm not talking about saving Dollhouse here. I'm saying that if it continues to bring an average amount of viewers in every week, why on earth would the advertisers complain? Sure, they'd prefer an X-Files, but that was an anomaly all of itself.

The only way that FOX could boost viewers in that slot would be to use shows like Supernanny etc. But that's not really what they are there for, and other networks do that already. I mean, I get your point if Dollhouse was to actually do worse than most shows FOX has put in that slot. Then it would make sense for the advertisers to pile on the pressure. But, really, what would they replace it with? What would magically revitalise that slot and bring in the dollars? It would just be something else that brings in average viewer numbers.

 

[AndrewCrossett]

I really think Fox has come to the realization that the profit is going to be made on the back end, for any show of this type. "Firefly" did much worse than "Dollhouse" in the ratings, yet resulted in a top-selling DVD set and a profitable movie. "Buffy" had much lower viewership numbers than this throughout its whole first season (despite much less competition back then from cable and the Internet), and it ran 7 seasons and became a groundbreaking success that's still making a lot of money 5 years after going off the air.

The download numbers prove that the audience for this show is very much there... but leveraging that audience is no longer the simple matter of "we air the show, and people tune in and watch it."

It seems to me that Fox has a plan here (and Joss probably wouldn't have gone back to them if that wasn't understood), and that plan is very well on track. Neilsen ratings that are low by general standards but not so much by Friday standards... lots of downloads... a built-in audience with an attractive demographic... and a DVD set at the end of the year that is virtually guaranteed to sell.

I still think cable is the right place for a Whedon show, though. He carries he audience with him wherever he goes, and 4.7 million viewers might be a poor result for Fox, but it would be brilliant for TNT or Sci-Fi.

 

[Silum]

Lol, 4.7millon is defined as bombed is it now? The more sensational they try to be, the less I listen.

Anyway, im not sure the revenues from advertising on hulu or the money they get from itunes is anything to laugh at. A few million downloading a tv show 4 times a month for a couple bucks amounts to quite a bit of money. I think FOX is definitely getting smarter (only way is up right? haha) and realize where money can be made and which shows have the potential for serious money... dollhouse is certainly that.

 

[AndrewCrossett]

The upshot is: the networks are starting to realize that they need to go to the audience now, rather than the audience coming to them. It took several years and the untimely deaths of many good shows before that sank in, but hopefully it has now.

 

[Edmund Blackadder]

Lol, 4.7millon is defined as bombed is it now? The more sensational they try to be, the less I listen.

Anyway, im not sure the revenues from advertising on hulu or the money they get from itunes is anything to laugh at. A few million downloading a tv show 4 times a month for a couple bucks amounts to quite a bit of money. I think FOX is definitely getting smarter (only way is up right? haha) and realize where money can be made and which shows have the potential for serious money... dollhouse is certainly that.

Its not that the money Fox isn't getting from Hulu/iTunes isn't good, its that the money it gets from the advertisers is bigger and IF they become told that they aren't required because of the money earned from the likes of these online methods, well the egos will be bruised.

Advertising is a very important factor in all of this, so if the big brands become affronted and take away their sponsorship/adverts, then the networks will suffer.

This is why the networks and the companies, need to sit down and work out how they can all make money.

I have experienced some of the big brands and they have an arrogance that is amazing. They believe they run the networks, not anything else - the thing is they kind of do. If they threaten to pull their money who do you think will win?
A show that is getting mediocre ratings and a decent, but not really phenomenal, amount of money online OR a group of advertisers that are ploughing in enough money to pay for the show in its entirety - hence why they all need to sit down.

This is also why I think that Dollhouse might be a couple of seasons too early because the Networks are only just understanding the potential, so it probably hasn't even occured to them how they can all work and keep the money.

---------- Post added at 12:32 AM ---------- Previous post was at 12:28 AM ----------

The only way that FOX could boost viewers in that slot would be to use shows like Supernanny etc. But that's not really what they are there for, and other networks do that already. I mean, I get your point if Dollhouse was to actually do worse than most shows FOX has put in that slot. Then it would make sense for the advertisers to pile on the pressure. But, really, what would they replace it with? What would magically revitalise that slot and bring in the dollars? It would just be something else that brings in average viewer numbers.

The advertisers don't just pay for one night - thats the point, they pay for blocks, some on a weekly, some on a monthly.
And rarely is it for just one night too.

Plus, it is rare that a show will retain its pilot viewing figures and the simple truth is, the people who watch it online once will probably continue - problem there is, another drop off will be people who DO watch it online.

 

[Silum]

Its...online.

I honestly think your expressing a point of view that existed a few years ago.... i think now is the point in time that networks and advertisers are getting wiser. Hulu's very existence very much identifies this fact which is a collaboration of networks to sit down and except a revolution in the way TV is viewed.

After reading the various ratings articles for dollhouse for the different mediums its available on... i very much believe it will be renewed, in fact i would be some very good money on it.

 

[Edmund Blackadder]

I honestly think your expressing a point of view that existed a few years ago.... i think now is the point in time that networks and advertisers are getting wiser. Hulu's very existence very much identifies this fact which is a collaboration of networks to sit down and except a revolution in the way TV is viewed.

After reading the various ratings articles for dollhouse for the different mediums its available on... i very much believe it will be renewed, in fact i would be some very good money on it.

There has been nothing to suggest that my view is outdated, none of the 'people in the know' are exactly saying we can see a possible way, the critics who get the three episodes to critique are arguably the ones at the forefront of TV information and they don't seem to be saying anything.

I think you need to forget that Hulu gives money to the networks.
Thats not where the problem lies, the problem is with the advertisers who don't see any of this revenue in terms of profit from their products, and they are the ones that still pay a whooping amount of money that keep the shows on air (Hulu won't be at that level, not yet at least) so the advertisers still need to be appeased.

The advertisers, the networks and the companies like iTunes/Hulu need to find a way that means they ALL make money.

I worked for a WiFi company, arguably one of the biggest in the UK, and they sold advertising space online - they sold it for a measly £500 per week (at 6 showings a day at 30 seconds time).

Lets do a comparison of the same channel, same show thing.
ITV sells one single slot of 30 seconds at 7:45 during Coronation Street for £20,000 (special episodes can go as high as £35k).
ITV sells a 30 second play before the episodes of ALL Coronation Street everyday for a week online at £1000.

If you're ITV which one is important to you, really?

There is a HUGE difference there because the advertisers don't view online ads as a really workable medium - yet.

Now, there needs to be some discussion between all the parties so that there can be a way to appease all, something that as yet is not there.

Unless, you can show me some strong links that say that the advertisers revenues aren't as needed as those of the likes of iTunes/Hulu.

Getting wiser doesn't necessarily mean there is a viable work around yet, and until there is, there will be a few more TV casualties.

The fact that I read on Buffy-Boards that Joss sees this show, to an extent, a show reel for Eliza, kinda gives me the impression he knows this isn't a long haul show, that it is destined to be a 'casualty'.

Note: the Joss/Eliza stuff is from memory in one of the Dollhouse threads - I'm not searching, I'll leave that pleasure to others.

 

[AndrewCrossett]

But if Dollhouse is getting low Nielsen ratings, there is a correspondingly lower interest in the big-ticket advertisers putting their money there. So, they don't really care if Fox looks to other revenue streams. A show like this is barely on their radar.

The advertisers are mainly interested in the big reality shows, game shows, and a handful of major scripted-drama franchises like "CSI" and "24." They'll be willing to throw some money at Dollhouse because of its very attractive demographics.

And the fact is, Fox is not about to cancel a show that's topping the charts in the cutting-edge new distribution channels... they'll find a way to keep it going and building an audience, and then cashing in on the DVD release. An economic crisis does wonders for one's willingness to embrace the wave of the future... because clearly the old way is not going to be good enough anymore.

If this paradigm had been in place when "Firefly" came out, I think there would have been a much different story there. (Or maybe not, since the coke-addled morons who Joss had to deal with then would probably never have caught on to it.)

 

[Revolver]

I don't know about the show's future. I think it has a shot at getting another season if it continues to get better ratings than Terminator and pulls decent itunes/hulu views, but it's definitely going to be on the bubble.

 

[Silum]

There has been nothing to suggest that my view is outdated, none of the 'people in the know' are exactly saying we can see a possible way, the critics who get the three episodes to critique are arguably the ones at the forefront of TV information and they don't seem to be saying anything...

I agree that we are not there yet but the fact remains that viewership is split between TV, Hulu, and itunes.. well there are others too 😉 Its FOX's job to integrate these viewers to the most profitable medium. If a show is as popular on the internet as dollhouse (#1) then there is no reason for it not to be popular when it airs.

For the advertiser this means a few things... a show that becomes more and more popular online will inevitably increase more and more of an audience as it airs on TV... the advertiser can bitch and whine all they want (their not, 4.8million for a friday show is still acceptable) but when FOX shows them the total audience dollhouse is receiving (and will inevitably increase due to its current online viral success) then they will be ok... afterall... popular shows tend to get more popular

I do agree that we are still not at the point where online advertising can be as profitable as it should be. But a show like dollhouse that is #1 online yet is only average on TV is exactly what the industry needs to figure HOW to do it effectively.

 

[Edmund Blackadder]

I agree that we are not there yet but the fact remains that viewership is split between TV, Hulu, and itunes.. well there are others too 😉 Its FOX's job to integrate these viewers to the most profitable medium. If a show is as popular on the internet as dollhouse (#1) then there is no reason for it not to be popular when it airs.

There is no reason, and I must stress we only have one airing figures for all this discussion, but there is no precedence for a TV show getting mediocre airings, getting fantastic online viewing figures online then increasing viewers as airs.

I haven't argued whether Dollhouse will or will not be cancelled, I have argued that if the TV ratings don't pick up then the people who pay for it, the advertisers, they won't continue to back a TV show that they see no return from, which is what they will have if it continues to be successful online.

For the advertiser this means a few things... a show that becomes more and more popular online will inevitably increase more and more of an audience as it airs on TV... the advertiser can bitch and whine all they want (their not, 4.8million for a friday show is still acceptable) but when FOX shows them the total audience dollhouse is receiving (and will inevitably increase due to its current online viral success) then they will be ok... afterall... popular shows tend to get more popular.

You say 'inevitably' but you can't know.
There are few shows that retain the initial viewership of the pilot.
So the TV airing will lose some viewers.
This MIGHT be plugged up with people who were out/viewing online, but chances are the people who viewed online will continue to watch that way - (I know many examples of people actual people that watch TV predominantly online - I am one of them) because its easier. The advertisers, currently, don't have much interest in this medium. They know it has potential but so far, they are behind.
Until they can justify giving the huge sums over to the internet, they won't pay for a show that doesn't attract the viewers where they are paying the huge amounts of money.

I do agree that we are still not at the point where online advertising can be as profitable as it should be. But a show like dollhouse that is #1 online yet is only average on TV is exactly what the industry needs to figure HOW to do it effectively.

It might be the #1 and exactly what the industry needs HOWEVER, this doesn't mean it is safe.
On the contrary, shows that are in this position generally are the ones that are sacrificed to so that the next one can start and be the proper template - which goes back to my point of it being a season or 2 too early.

BUT the fact I have made the same point in each of my arguments suggest we're just running around in circles.

I hope you guys keep your TV show because at the end of the day, you don't care about the rest of it, you just want your weekly fill, and quite rightly so, I just don't see this show being a several season hoopla because none of the signs before it looked promising (from a business POV) and the signs aren't exactly fantastic now.

 

[Electra Woman]

You know, you keep saying the advertisers won't back a show that isn't doing well in the ratings, but you couldn't be further from the truth. What about Friday Night Lights, or most NBC shows for that matter. What about any shows on the CW, or SCC? Most of their ratings stink but people still continue to pay for advertising spots. If what you were saying was true like you think it is then the CW would not be a network. The fact is, Dollhouse caters to a certain crowd and there will still be advertisers wanting to pay for time, just like they do for all the teen shows.

Going back to the FNL example: it already aired on DirecTV when it came back to NBC a few weeks ago. Why on earth would advertisers want to back something that had already aired, and is already out there on the internet?

And, yes, you keep making the same point over and over that's why I haven't replied yet because you just find new ways to say the same thing, but you don't ever look at everything to try to make your point.

Oh, and as someone who didn't even watch the show, you sure are adding more than your fair two cents. It got decent ratings on a Friday when all the signs pointed towards it tanking and it's doing very well online. Quit trying to make it seem like it is doing horrible because the fact is, it's just not. No matter how hard you try to spin it.

---------- Post added at 08:53 AM ---------- Previous post was at 08:47 AM ----------

Funny how when I give examples going against what you keep saying you have nothing to say when all along you've been typing lengthy responses...

 

[Edmund Blackadder]

You know, you keep saying the advertisers won't back a show that isn't doing well in the ratings, but you couldn't be further from the truth. What about Friday Night Lights, or most NBC shows for that matter. What about any shows on the CW, or SCC? Most of their ratings stink but people still continue to pay for advertising spots. If what you were saying was true like you think it is then the CW would not be a network. The fact is, Dollhouse caters to a certain crowd and there will still be advertisers wanting to pay for time, just like they do for all the teen shows.

Do you even understand what advertisers want?
Obviously not.
The advertisers will not continue to give money to a network for a spot that is not reaching their desired audience because that is a waste of money.
You need to understand more about the point of advertising before you can make these arguments.
All my points are valid, yours seem to be the ramblings of someone affronted by the fact that someone has dared comment against a show.

And, yes, you keep making the same point over and over that's why I haven't replied yet because you just find new ways to say the same thing, but you don't ever look at everything to try to make your point.

Thats what I said - I said I am saying the same things over and over.
Doesn't make my point wrong, just means there is not point reiterating what I have said.

---------- Post added at 03:10 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:00 PM ----------

Funny how when I give examples going against what you keep saying you have nothing to say when all along you've been typing lengthy responses...

Ohh, see what you did there - you made an assumption that my Rep was my only comment and while I was replying to your post, you edited then double posted.
That makes you look silly, which to be fair, isn't necessarily a unfounded suggestion!

Going back to the FNL example: it already aired on DirecTV when it came back to NBC a few weeks ago. Why on earth would advertisers want to back something that had already aired, and is already out there on the internet?

You will probably notice that there is a different calbre of advertising in between these shows.
Again, you need to understand advertising.
Its not that there wouldn't be advertisers, its who would be prepared to show.

You have a leading cosmetics firm willing to pay $20,000 for a 30 second ad during a commercial break that is almost guaranteed great viewers of the demographic they want.
IF that doesn't happen, the $20,000 isn't a justifiable amount of money to pay.
Instead, the money is dropped to, say $5,000.
Now, if that show is expensive to make, you've lost 3/4 of the money you make, so the budget has to be slashed. IF that show is dependant on a high budget, see Firefly, it has to be axed because it isn't fiscally sound to continue making it.

Oh, and as someone who didn't even watch the show, you sure are adding more than your fair two cents. It got decent ratings on a Friday when all the signs pointed towards it tanking and it's doing very well online. Quit trying to make it seem like it is doing horrible because the fact is, it's just not. No matter how hard you try to spin it.

Doesn't matter if I have seen the show or not - we're not discussing the quality of the show at all, we're discussing the business sode of it.
Also, what the heck are you on?
I have not once discussed the merit of the show, I didn't even post these findings, I have merely commented on them, on a forum, with information that is a universal fact in the show.

You seriously need to get a clue.


Ohh and this time, apart from REP, I am out of the conversation because, as I said, I am simply remaking the same SOUND point. My thoughts are well know, there is no need for me to continue.

 

[Electra Woman]

Gossip Girl: Does like crap on TV, does well on iTunes and the internet.

Give me one of your sound points on that, and not the quality of advertising because if someone backs out, someone else will just fill the spot.

 

[Silum]

You say 'inevitably' but you can't know.
There are few shows that retain the initial viewership of the pilot.
So the TV airing will lose some viewers.
This MIGHT be plugged up with people who were out/viewing online, but chances are the people who viewed online will continue to watch that way - (I know many examples of people actual people that watch TV predominantly online - I am one of them) because its easier. The advertisers, currently, don't have much interest in this medium. They know it has potential but so far, they are behind.
Until they can justify giving the huge sums over to the internet, they won't pay for a show that doesn't attract the viewers where they are paying the huge amounts of money.

Well i guess if viewership goes up sharply in episode 2, that might be an indication that online viewers translate into TV viewers.

 

[Edmund Blackadder]

Gossip Girl: Does like crap on TV, does well on iTunes and the internet.

Give me one of your sound points on that, and not the quality of advertising because if someone backs out, someone else will just fill the spot.

Fine I will bite, one more time.

Here is some information that I gleaned from a site.

According to the Nielsen ratings, just 2.44 million viewers tuned in to "The Blair Bitch Project" (the return of Gossip Girl) - only slightly better than its last original episode, which aired January 9.

However, these Gossip Girl ratings did help The CW score its highest ratings ever in the Monday 8-9 p.m. time period among total adults ages 18-34 (1.9/6) and specifically women 18-34 (2.9/8).
http://www.gossipgirlinsider.com/2008/04/gossip

So, while its Nielsen was low it scored the HIGHEST for the CW EVER in that time slot AT the key demographic for that show thus advertisers.

Put it in context, thats all you have to do.

Thats fact, it ticks all the correct boxes.
NOW, I am out!