Thursday, October 8, 2015

Historical and cultural context

Historical and Cultural Context

LANGUAGE


The birth of spoken language marked a major development in the evolution of our species. By necessity, oral-based societies became very dependent upon their members to have exceptional memories. The challenge was to accurately pass down from generation to generation as much information as could be remembered. That limitation, however, caused our collective knowledge and information base to grow slowly. As hunter-gatherer societies evolved into more complex agricultural societies, our need for better record keeping intensified.


WRITING


Two problems needed to be solved before writing emerged: (1) what symbols to use to represent sounds and ideas, and (2) upon what type of surface could these symbols be recorded.

Sign Writing Vs. Phonetic Writing

The first problem was solved in two ways: (1) with systems that used graphic symbols to represent objects, sounds and ideas, e.g., Chinese pictographs and Egyptian hieroglyphics, and (2) with systems that used symbols (later known as alphabet letters) to primarily represent sounds; groups of letters made a word and groups of word made a sentence, a complete thought. The Phoenicians are generally credited for creating the first alphabet. The Romans later modified our alphabet to its present 26 characters.

Clay vs. Paper

Writing surfaces evolved. In Sumeria, soft clay tablets were inscribed with wedge-shaped tool. Egyptians wrote on woven papyrus plants made semi-smooth by rock polishing. Greeks used parchment made from sheep or goat hides; parchment sheets could be stitched together to form scrolls. The Chinese made paper from a pressed pulp made of tree bark and fibrous materials; in use by 100 AD, but unavailable in Europe for another 1,000 years.

Social Impact of Writing:

. created a new division among people; those who could write and read, and those who
could not, the result was an access or non-access to power garnered through knowledge
. facilitated the birth, growth, and maintenance of powerful ancient empire civilizations
. knowledge could be accumulated by preserving and passing it down to new generations
. laws could be codified and applied consistently throughout the land

The Middle Ages

Began with the fall of Rome in the 6th century. Demand for books continues to rise, but the slow, error-prone, expensive, method of hand-copying each manuscript kept supplies minimal.
Monks in monasteries often took a year to copy just one commissioned book. Mistakes were common and cumulative, and there was no standard book filing or cross-indexing system in use.

By 1150, trade routes were expanding, the idea of universities was emerging, strong central governments began forming, and the need to accumulate information continued to grow. Over the years the demand for more books continued to increase, and eventually book production moved from the religious to the secular arena. Helped by the widespread introduction of paper from China, writing shops, or scriptoria, opened all across the European continent. Nonetheless, supplies were still limited by the number of books that scribes could hand-produce.


PRINTING

Though early Asian variations of printing existed before Johann Gutenberg, his use of moveable metal type in 1453 revolutionized communication. Printing could become cheap, quick, and error-free.

Effects of the Gutenberg Revolution

. helped standardize and popularize vernacular (everyday) languages (as opposed to Latin),
which in turn helped spawn the growth of nationalism in Europe in the later Middle Ages
. information quickly became more accessible to a wider range of people
. more books fueled the demand for literacy which in turn created a demand for more books
. generated new schools of social and religious doctrines during the Reformation era, such as Martin Luther’s Protestantism
. accelerated the publication of and interest in scientific research
. helped encourage exploration by the timely publishing of maps, geographical information,
and the colorful accounts of early explorers
. had a profound effect on the growth of accumulated knowledge, with more books resulting
in an increased number of scholars and students; helped make possible the Renaissance of the 16th Century
. led to the development of current concept of “news”

Technology and Cultural Change

If we ascribe too much credit for cultural change to a specific technology, we risk viewing social development through the narrow lens of technological determinism, the view that technology drives historical change. A more moderate position might suggest that technology functions with various social, economic, and cultural forces to help bring about those changes.

The introduction of moveable type marked the start of what we generally define as mass communication, a critical event in Western history.


CONQUERING SPACE AND TIME:
THE TELEGRAPH AND TELEPHONE

Development of the Telegraph

Before the telegraph, messages traveled only as fast as the fastest form of transportation; but with one invention the speed of communication went from 30 miles per hour (train) to 186,000 miles per second (the speed of light). It was the first device that made possible instantaneous point-to-point communication at huge distances. The word telegraph comes from Greek words meaning “to write at a distance.” It was also the first technology to use digital signals—dots and dashes.
Using a device to vary the time an electric current was sent across the wires, the telegraph made point-to-point communication possible by sending codes across the wires. Samuel Morse’s code of telegraphic dots and dashes, still in use today, is the most famous.

Cultural Impact of the Telegraph

. by 1850, almost every city on our Western frontier was linked with other cities
. in 1866, the U.S. laid a trans-Atlantic cable connecting America with Europe

Parallel to the expansion of the railroads, the telegraph helped change the way we moved goods, coordinated services (particularly military actions), and helped speed up communication between buyers and sellers. Because of near-instant communication, market prices between cities were standardized and stabilized. The telegraph also affected the flow of news, making it both possible and a commercial “must” to carry up-to-the-day’s events from far distant points. News stories also became shorter due to the fact that telegraph services charged by the word.

Government and Media

Unlike other countries where the telegraph was seen as an extension of the postal service, and therefore under logical control and operation of the government, the United States followed a model of private ownership and commercial development.

A Change in Perspective

The telegraph changed how people thought of distance; as the new device reconfigured old concepts of space and time, every “there” became a “here.” We began rethinking our world, as mass media writer Marshall McLuhan came to describe it, as a “Global Village.” Thanks to the telegraph system, most countries on the planet became inextricably linked together.

Soon after the telegraph, the telephone began linking people together by voice, eliminating the need to understand telegraphic codes. Its ability to network and offer private communications made it a “must have” in homes and businesses. And just as big business came to dominate the telegraph industry (Western Union), AT&T (which later acquired Western Union) quickly became the giant of the telephone industry.


CAPTURING THE IMAGE:
PHOTOGRAPHY AND MOTION PICTURES

Early Technological Development

Two inventions were needed to make photography a reality:

. a way to focus light rays from a subject onto a surface
. a way to permanently store (and copy) those images

In the 16th century artists discovered that they could project an inverted image of a subject in the end of a dark box through a pinhole at the other end of the box, a device called the camera obscura (dark chamber).

In the 1830s, two Frenchmen, Joseph Niepce and Louis Daguerre, found a way to capture images on glass plates treated with silver iodide. Early photos (called Daguerreotypes) required long exposure times, and made them particularly suitable for portrait work. At about the same time William Fox Talbot, from England, found a way to store images (and subsequently produce multiple copies) on paper. In the 1890s, George Eastman introduced and marketed his new box camera, the Brownie, thus making photography accessible to the masses.

Mathew Brady

Brady was the first to capture war—in this case our Civil War—on film, giving a more accurate, rather than glorified, record of what war was actually like. Though most of his glass plate negatives were lost, enough survived to show generations then and now the real horrors of warfare; his pictures, and their impact on the public, were a forerunner to what television would show us 100 years later in the Vietnam war.

Photography also affected art, dispensing with any need art may have had to accurately depict the real word. Photography freed artists to interpret the world and events in new and unique ways. Photography itself became its own art form, however, and spawned such noted photographers as Alfred Steiglitz, Margaret Bourke-White, Edward Steichen, and Ansel Adams.

Photography’s Influence on Mass Culture

Once in the hands of the masses, photography enabled people to create a permanent record of their personal histories. Printing advances made it easy to publish photographs in magazines and newspapers, creating a new profession—photojournalism. The 1920s saw a surge in time-saving devices, and the spread of photographic news added to that movement; Americans could now see, rather than have to read, newsworthy events. Printed columns soon decreased while space devoted to pictures increased; the movement later gave birth to such popular picture magazines such as Life and Look. Partly as a result, our definition of news became visually biased; news became that which could be shown.

Pictures in Motion

Helped by the advent of three great social movements (industrialization, urbanization, and immigration), the demand for film entertainment flourished in crude store-front theaters around the 1900s. By 1910 there were over 10,000 of these nickelodeons, which helped create the motion picture industry.

Motion Pictures and American Culture

Eventually, only the large companies who could afford to produce feature length films survived. They soon dominated the production, distribution, and exhibition of movies. The film industry killed Vaudeville and forever altered our concept of leisure time activities. In part due to photography and the  mass appeal newspaper, a mass culture of idolized film stars, movie images, and popularized portrayals of model “American” values and cultural icons was created.

Film gave impetus to a perceived need to study what impact motion pictures (and later other media) might have on the public psyche; the 1930s Payne Fund was one of the first serious efforts to investigate the media’s potential effects. During the 1930s film also injected itself into journalism in the form of newsreels, ten-minute short takes of various news, sports, weather, and human interest stories. Dying out in the 1950s under pressure from TV news, the newsreel format continues to influence the conventions of present day TV news formats.


NEWS AND ENTERTAINMENT AT HOME:
RADIO AND TELEVISION BROADCASTING

A byproduct of electromagnetic research in physics, the advent of radio (or wireless as it was first known) in the 1910s made it possible for one source to send a message to multiple receivers. In World War I military planners quickly saw radio’s applicability to warfare, thus encouraging both research and development in the medium while at the same time ending some long-standing patent wars that had delayed radio’s development.

Broadcasting

Radio’s one-to-many communication format, known as broadcasting, was the first medium to bring sports, music, talk, and news into the American living room. Manufacturing radio sets, the original profit motive for radio, was soon replaced in the 1920s by advertising (selling air time, or rather supplying audiences to businesses for a fee).

Radio growth was so frenzied, however, that the government was forced to intervene in 1927 by establishing the Federal Radio Commission to regulate radio’s technical side. In 1934. the FRC was replaced by the Federal Communications Commission; after that, the government opted to take a hands off approach to radio content, leaving radio’s fortunes in the hands of business.

Paralleling an era of newspaper consolidation, two national radio networks (later three) emerged. Radio content quickly moved toward mass appeal programs, which provided huge audiences for major advertisers. During the 1930s, economic pressures from the Great Depression forced many out-of-work Vaudeville performers to enter radio, thus increasing the level of professionalism and appeal of network programming. In the late 1930s, radio journalism came into being as a new and strong news medium and strongly rivaled the newspaper industry.

Cultural Impact of Radio

. radio helped popularize different kinds of music
. radio introduced a new entertainment genre, the soap opera, which by 1940 accounted for
some 60 percent of all daytime network programming
. radio was first medium to introduce mass content aimed at children, thus recognizing
children as a viable commercial market
. radio was first to introduce situation comedies, a program genre that’s become a staple on
television
. radio news came of age in the 1930s-40s as a result of serious world events.
. radio personalized news, giving rise to trusted and well-known news celebrities
. radio changed how Americans spent their free time – by the 1930s-40s, radio had become
the prime source of American entertainment and news in usually during the early evening hours, later known as prime time.

Television

Halted during WW II, television’s growth surged during the prosperous era of the early 1950s. Pent up consumer demand fueled spending (and thus TV ad dollars) following the war years. Sales of TV sets took off (it took only 10 years to be in 85 percent of U.S. homes), and an increasing amount of American leisure time was now being spent in front of the TV set.

Cultural Impact of TV

Television is in 99 percent of all households, and the set is on for over seven hours a day. It’s become our third largest time consumer (third only to sleep and work), and in the process it’s transforming almost every aspect of our culture, from politics, to religion, to news, and to the way we learn.

Today we routinely expect live coverage of events from anywhere at anytime. Time and space no longer seem important, and we have all come to share a national, even global, consciousness through the common visual icons provided by television—the Japanese Tsunami, the Arab Spring, President Kennedy's funeral, the Apollo moon landings, the Challenger explosion, and the planes striking the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001, etc.


THE DIGITAL REVOLUTION

Nicholas Negroponte, MIT’s Media Laboratory Director, summed up the digital revolution as the difference between atoms and bits. Information, once solely comprised of atoms (material goods such as paper, film, tapes, and CDs) and which moved to and from the marketplace relatively slowly, is rapidly being replaced by the instantaneous transfer of bits—electronic zeros and ones.

Digital technology is a system that encodes information—sound, text, data, graphics and video—into a series of on-and-off pulses, denoted as zeros and ones. Once digitized, information can be easily copied and transported at extremely low costs. Digital technology and the Internet have triggered a revolution in the way information is stored and transmitted.

Digital technology is now mainstream (iPods, YouTube, Twitter, Facebook, MySpace, DVR, Digital TV, HDTV, Hulu, etc.).


Social and cultural implications of the digital age are considerable.
. many of the creative arts have embraced digital technology.
. the notion of what “community” means may have to be rethought, with relationships that
can be formed on the basis of needs and interests rather than locale
. consider what the digital age might mean for politics; perhaps representative democracy
could be rivaled by a digital democracy made possible by direct and instantaneous links
between the people and their government.
. there’s the problem of the digital divide, or the problem of the “have” and “have-nots”—
those who can afford the technology and have the training to use it, and those who can’t
and don’t.


THE NEXT REVOLUTION?
WIRELESS HANDHELD MEDIA

Smart phones, laptop computers, and tablet computers share common characteristics:

. they are linked together using wireless technology
. they are portable and allow users to access information from anywhere
. they are interconnected and allow users to hook into the worldwide phone network or the
Internet
. they combine features of mass communication and interpersonal communication

These devices will eventually merge into one, and have the potential to transform traditional media drastically and to alter American culture. Some of the changes we've already seen include:

. they have changed the practice of journalism, replacing pencil and paper as the tools of the
trade, and allowing reporters to send text, audio, and pictures from the field
. many media organizations are distributing content to wireless media
. wireless mobile media have taken on some of the surveillance functions of the media
. they facilitate mobile parenting
. they have "softened" the concept of time
. on the downside, they allow people to coordinate illegal activities, they can impair driving,
they can create social annoyance, and they cost money – will the digital divide increase?


CONCLUDING OBSERVATIONS

. it’s difficult to accurately predict the ultimate use of any new medium.


. it appears that the emergence of any new communication advance changes but does not make extinct those advances that came before it.

Wednesday, October 7, 2015

Please bring textbooks to class on Thursday, October 8

Good evening,

We'll be using our texts on Thursday to review for next Tuesday's exam.

Thanks.

Jack

Tuesday, October 6, 2015

Review Sheet for Exam #1

Review Sheet Exam #1
Intro to Media Industries
Fall 2015

Understanding Television System(s) in the United States (mostly from blog and class) 
Why do the media exist in the United States?
How are the media in the U.S. different from media outlets from around the world?
Commercial broadcast network system
            - networks
            - affiliates
            - studios
            - syndicators
            - advertisers
Cable/satellite television system
Public television system
Components of the broadcast system (networks, affiliates, studios, syndicators, advertisers)
How do the three different TV systems get money?
Nielsen media research (Share vs. Rating)
Ad rates for top shows of 2015 season  (Sunday Night Football, The Walking Dead, The Big Bang Theory, Empire)  
Know the major networks and the parent companies of each

Communication: Mass and Other Forms (blog + class + text) 
Elements in the communication process
            -source
            -encoding
            -message
            -channel
            -decoding
            -receiver
            -feedback
            -noise
The major mass media
Intrapersonal communication
Interpersonal communication
Small Group communication
Public communication
Mass communication
Common characteristics of traditional mass media outlets
            -complex and formal
            -multiple gatekeepers
            -need vast cash to operate
            -exist to make a profit
            -highly competitive
Future of mass media (segmentation, convergence, disintermediation)

Perspectives on Mass Communication (blog + class + text) 
Functions of the mass media:
surveillance;
interpretation;
linkage;
transmission of values;
entertainment
Categories of the uses and gratifications approach:
cognition;
diversion;
social utility (conversational currency; parasocial relationships);
withdrawal

Historical and Cultural Context (blog + class + text) 
Media time line (eight milestones in communication evolution—language, writing, printing, telegraph/telephone, photography/motion pictures, radio/TV, digital media/handheld devices
Importance of “writing” (alphabet, surface, social impact, etc.)
Printing (China, Germany)
Effects of the Gutenberg Revolution
Technological determinism
Significance of the telegraph to mass communication
Cultural impact of radio and TV
Digital media (mobile parenting, time softening)

Rules of Language (class) 
Phonemic rules (pronunciation; how many sounds are there in the English language?)
Semantic rules (what we mean when we say things)
Structural/syntax rules (grammar)
Pragmatic rules (how we actually use language)
Normative rules (what is considered appropriate)

Typical Steps to an Advertising Campaign
1. choosing the marketing agency
2. selecting the main appeal or theme
3. translating the theme into the various media
4. producing the ads
5. buying space and time
6. executing and evaluating the campaign 


Material about App Inventor
Designer
- Palette
-Viewer
-Components
-Properties

Blocks-
- Drawers
 - Event Handlers
 - Setters
 - Getters

Articles Posted on Blog

Golden Age for Women in TV
TV vs Internet: Who Will Win?
TV 2015- The Future in Questions
TV 2015- 5 Lessons Learned from Premiere Week 
TV vs Film, Part I
TV vs Film, Part II  

Wednesday, September 30, 2015

Reaction #3 Prompt

Below you'll find two articles. The first is from MonkeySee, the pop-culture news and analysis blog from NPR, and the second is from The Hollywood Reporter. The former (first article) deals with where television might be heading, and the latter (second) deals with early lessons learned from the Fall 2015 TV season. 
Your task is to read the articles and write a 1-2-page reaction to them, drawing from both. What do you think of the future of TV? Are the questions on the right path? Why or why not? What about the lessons learned thus far? Will broadcast networks (NBC, CBS, ABC, FOX, CW) be able to sustain themselves in the long run if viewers quit watching live? Why or why not? Think of your own television viewing habits as you prepare your reactions.
Please post your reactions to Reaction #3 on Sakai, under Assignments. 
Per usual, they are due Sunday, by midnight PDT. 


Television 2015: The Future In Questions

The channel button on a remote.i
iStockphoto

So now that we've taken a look at some of what's going on in television now, it raises the natural question: what's next?
How do viewers find what's good?
Whether or not you think there's a quantity problem with great television or good television, there's certainly a large enough shift in the sheer quantity of all television that people really do need strategies to find both the very best stuff and the stuff that's suited to them.
The traditional ways of organizing recommendations are things like "What's On Tonight" columns in newspapers and now on general-interest web sites, which certainly have a place in surfacing what people might have missed. But they've only got a handful of slots a day, and they have a funny reliance on airdates that feels out of step with the direction that on-demand viewing is going.
Recommendation engines like the one at Netflix – a part of their functioning in which they take enormous pride – can help inside of a particular service, as can "Recommended For You"-style functions on a cable box or an Amazon account. But as long as the record of what you've watched lives in separate places (streaming accounts, cable box, YouTube), no one source is even getting the right raw data to apply an algorithm to determine your taste, no matter how good that algorithm gets. And relying on this kind of data assumes you even want there to be some central location that knows about everything you've ever watched on TV. There's a whole tricky relationship between personalization and privacy that would gum up the most blue-sky version of what an automatically generated list of recommendations would look like.
There remains a need for good matchmaking between willing eyes and good content, beyond best-ofs and reviews of pilots. Where will it come from?
What kinds of viewing numbers are meaningful?
As we've talked about, measuring who's watching what is really difficult when you consider the sheer number of ways people can choose to watch things and how long it can take them to get around to it. But it's not even clear which of those numbers we should be trying to get. It's not clear which ones journalists who are interested in tracking "success" from a commercial standpoint should be willing to report on, or what they should expect in the way of evidence before they call something a hit.
In a sense, Nielsen ratings have always been two things at once: a cultural measure of what's striking a nerve and a business measure of what's making money. Without one number that combines everybody who's watching, it's harder to get to that cultural measure than it's ever been. Without carefully broken-out numbers and a more detailed understanding of different outlets' business models than it required to roughly translate broadcast eyeballs into advertising, it's harder to get to the business measure than it's ever been. Whether you're into the horse race or the capacity of TV to stand for What We're Into Right Now, numbers are slippery and complicated.
What's the best version of fan engagement?
Shows that are successful on social media are sometimes really successful. At the same time, everyone has watched as stars of struggling shows lifelessly live-tweet episodes as if there's a network publicist standing over them, glowering menacingly. While there are exceptions like Scandal where the social-media plan seems to have worked out perfectly, efforts to force hashtags into use by flashing them in the corner of the screen are often embarrassing and pointless. How ordinary shows without social-media superpowers should try to incorporate Twitter, for instance, can seem like a head-scratcher, because there's no way to fake or force the kind of enthusiasm that bubbles up naturally, but they sure keep trying.
Similarly, Twitter in particular allows fans to interact with creators and actors in a way that can be a lot of fun, and for the right creator or the right actor, can be key to building the kind of passionate base that little shows need. But there's ugliness, too, around the way the need to react at all costs can beat down nuance. We haven't had direct fan engagement at the level that Twitter allows it for long enough to really know whether it takes a toll on creative people in a broad sense, but there are certainly individual creative people who have either made it clear that it does or acted out in a way that tells you it does.
What about the never-pay problem?
Cable companies have long suffered from (1) bad reputations for customer service, (2) resentment over lack of choice of providers, (3) discontent about bundling that requires people to pay for more service than they use, and (4) the sheer frustration of bills that go up and up. In some cases, cord-cutting is a matter of shifting who you're paying – if you're still paying the same company you were paying for cable, only now you're paying it for broadband and a variety of subscription services and a la carte episode purchases, that's more a redistribution of your money than anything.
But there's a whole separate problem of people who are checked out of a lot of these systems entirely, where part of what they watch is just downloaded from torrent sites. When people are currently paying zero and they're happy with what they're getting, how do you persuade them to pay something, even if you put in place the kinds of a la carte systems they've been asking for? Why pay anything when you can pay nothing and you've had time to get used to paying nothing?
What's the right role of a network?
There was a great piece from Maureen Ryan the other day in which she expressed some skepticism about the claims from Netflix in particular that they never interfere with the work of their creators. What, she wondered, about quality control? I can't say it better than Mo did, so I'll leave it there.
What is success?
Maybe the most interesting question as we head into the 2015-16 season is this: what constitutes success on television?
Americans have a habit that people in many other countries do not have at all, which is to define a successful show as one that runs for years (or at least for absolutely as long as anyone wants to do it), is hugely popular, remains great forever, and then leaves at the very top of its game. In other words: we define the enormous majority of shows as unsuccessful, creatively or commercially or both. For a while, it seemed like the "limited series" might be an answer to some of this – take Under The Dome, for instance, which appeared to have an undeniably limited appropriate life, since there's only so long you can keep people under a dome. Networks are too hard-up for successes to deny themselves more of just about anything that works, and that means the open-ended model is very hard to walk away from.
But to step back a little in time, what about a show like Arrested Development? It ran for three seasons on Fox and walked away beloved, as something that people spoke about in largely glowing terms, despite the fact that it was never massively popular. It launched or boosted careers. That seems like a successful project to me. It then came back for a fourth season on Netflix that got, it's fair to say, more of a mixed reaction, and they're talking about doing more. Is the show really becoming more successful merely by finding a way, any way, to continue? We can get excited about a show likeThe X-Files or Twin Peaks returning, but are all endings automatically undesirable?
Look at something like Bunheads, a show on ABC Family that did remarkable work in 2012 and 2013 for 18 episodes and then was canceled. As someone who loved it, I'd have loved to see it continue. I'd have loved to watch more. But casting the show as somehow a failure feels bizarre to me; it succeeded in just about every task it set for itself: it was weird and fun and moving and different. It failed only in the one sense that the person making a show has absolutely has no control over, which is that not very many people watched it. That's a shame (mostly for them), but ... so what? That show isn't a sad story – it's a great story. People got together and made a thing that was wonderful. People who loved it can (and do) shake fists over not having gotten to see more of it, but particularly now, with shows available more easily for longer than ever, that work isn't wasted. You can still show your kid or your best friend Bunheads– I recommend it! And Trophy Wife, which I would have watched more of. AndHappy Endings, which is manic and strange and not everybody liked it, but boy, I did, and they made a bunch of it. And maybe the only way to make it something everybody would have watched would have been to make it something the people who did watch it wouldn't have liked. So aren't there times when small audiences are expected, normal, functional and correct for shows that are creatively successful?
A creative work gets made, it connects with people who get something from it, and it ends. Not everything becomes a franchise, and not everything becomes a hit. We (and here, I mean critics and fans both) can be very outcome-oriented and do too much scorekeeping about TV in a way that serves it poorly. A seven-season series becomes all about "sticking the landing" at the end. A one-season series full of great work somehow becomes something to be sad about. In reality, everything that makes it onto anybody's television that's interesting, thoughtful, artful, funny, inventive – everything like that is a win. You get your weird little show on TV for 10 or 13 or 22 episodes, that's a win, and it can still be a win even if not every decision you make is one your audience would have made. (If it were, they might as well write and make it themselves.) You somehow put your passion project in front of people in anything like the form you imagined, that's a win. And it's easier than ever for it to be a win that lasts, at least somewhere.


Schedule Significance, Tweet Trouble: 5 Lessons Learned From Premiere Week

'Heroes Reborn'
'Heroes Reborn'
 Christos Kalohoridis/NBC

Patience matters (but social doesn't) as the networks put the best face on ratings: "There are vestiges of programming strategies from years ago that still work."

A version of this story first appeared in the Oct. 9 issue of The Hollywood Reporter magazine. To receive the magazine, click here to subscribe.
Each network boasts at least one win, but TV's annual fall premiere week brought a reminder that the days of counting on same-day viewers are over. The Big Four's primetime ratings among adults 18-to-49 dropped 13 percent, year to year. As they downplay those numbers, and trumpet the first round of time-shifting, here are other trends that quickly are emerging.
1. Schedules Still Matter
While live audiences are declining, plenty still watch the old-fashioned way — so scheduling is important. Fox's Rosewood, with dismal reviews, benefitted from its Empire adjacency to earn a 2.8 rating in the key demo over three days. Shonda Rhimes' three-hour Thursday lineup remains lucrative for ABC, as does the net's four-pack of sitcoms the night before."That comedy block on Wednesday has done remarkably well," says analyst Brad Adgate: "There are vestiges of these programming strategies from years ago that still work."

2. Blaming Doesn’t Work
Talking points ran the gamut. Fox's Minority Report supposedly fell victim to like-minded Scorpionon CBS; Scream Queens courted a young demo that doesn't own TVs; and ABC's Blood & Oil was ineffective against football. Another excuse gathering steam: two-hour premieres feel like work.Scream Queens and NBC's soft Heroes Reborn followed FX's low debut for Kurt Sutter's The Bastard Executioner (also a 120-minute bow).
3. Awareness Won’t Always Help Reboots
Familiar titles topped the list of shows viewers knew about going into the fall, but that did not translate to an audience — unless, of course, Ms. Piggy is involved. (The Muppets premiere delivered a 3.8 three-day rating with adults 18-to-49 for ABC.) CBS' Limitless, based on the 2011 sci-fi thriller starring Bradley Cooper, got off to a promising start, but Heroes Reborn, even with a solid 3.1 rating in its first live-plus-3 showing, hemorrhaged viewers in each half-hour of its two-hour opener. And Minority Report, executive produced by Steven Spielberg, already slid to a 0.9 same-day showing in its second episode. "I think having familiar IP is an advantage, and yet you’re held to the same standards as with everything else you do," says Fox Television Group chairman and CEO Gary Newman. "Even if none of those shows ends up working, you won’t see us shy away from rebooting what we think is great IP."

4. Social Media Cachet Is a Crapshoot
A correlation between tweets and ratings remains tenuous. Empire performed insanely well on both social (1.3 million tweets) and TV (a bonkers 8.7 in the key demo rating and 22.5 million multiplatform viewers). Scream Queens trended Sept. 22, yet registered only 4 million night-of viewers (it nearly doubled after three days of streaming, DVR and VOD). "It's a great indicator for the level of passion in our viewer," insists Newman, who, with counterpart Dana Walden, has touted Queens' social stats and robust multiplatform plays. "When we go to the next markets with these shows, be it SVOD, consumer products or syndication, it's a great measure of a likely success."

5. Patience Remains a Virtue (and a Luxury)
Even the most fervent ratings-watchers now find premiere week a bore — it provides little insight into the decisions programmers are going to make. The fate of most scripted series isn’t decided without at least 30 days of multiplatform data. "We no longer look at same-day numbers (or even live-plus-3-days)," Fox's David Madden recently told THR, with NBC's Jennifer Salke adding, "We need to look for growth potential more than anything else." Another exec calls out good same-day ratings as irrelevant "ego gratification."