Harry's Law, ratings guinea pig - Macleans.ca

Harry’s Law, ratings guinea pig


One of the more interesting stories from the recent round of U.S. upfronts, to me, was about the cancellation of a show I mostly didn’t watch: Harry’s Law. What made the story interesting was that this was the absolute perfect test case for a question a lot of people have been debating lately. That question is: do over-50 viewers matter? Or, as TV By the Numbers claims, do only 18-49 ratings matter to advertisers? Harry’s Law was probably the best test we’re going to get for a long time.

It was, by the standard of total viewers, the highest-rated scripted show on its network. But by the standard of viewers aged 18-49, it was one of the lowest-rated shows even on a very low-rated network. Though Kathy Bates managed an Emmy nomination for the first season, it wasn’t the kind of prestige production that a network might keep on for the awards and reviews. And unlike The Good Wife, it wasn’t owned by its network, so the things that can be done to monetize a show – overseas sales in particular – didn’t matter here. All that it really came down to is whether the network could find advertisers willing to pay broadcast-network prices for viewers over 50. If those buyers exist, then the show earned a renewal. (This is not about the quality of the show, you understand; I haven’t seen it much this season anyway. Just that normally, instinctively, you’d expect a network’s most popular show to get renewed.) But it got canceled.

So it looks like the TV By the Numbers people, with their smug, taunting, link-seeking manner (see, it worked), were right. From the point of view of figuring out what the most popular shows are, total viewers are still worth looking at – as are DVR numbers and other data. But in terms of figuring out what the advertisers will buy, and therefore what will get renewed or canceled, the Coveted Demographic™ really does appear to be the only thing that matters. You have to give credit where credit is due; the TV By the Numbers guys seem to have accurately described the way the broadcast TV business works.

Update: Further evidence that older viewers don’t matter much to networks or advertisers: the Jesse Stone series of TV movies has been canceled by CBS.

One question is whether this kind of situation – popular shows getting canceled because they’re unpopular with younger viewers – will get more or less common. I could see it becoming more common since television viewing is getting more and more stratified by age. The assumption that any popular show will have a sufficient number of young viewers to keep advertisers interested is an assumption that has traditionally worked, and it still works for CBS, but it might not work any more. On the other hand, it could simply be that Harry’s Law getting on the air at all was a fluke: broadcast networks don’t usually greenlight new shows with older stars, precisely because they’re afraid of this situation. It just seems more likely that if you want to build a new show around a middle-aged or older star, it’ll be difficult to sell to a cable network and nearly impossible to sell to broadcast, rightly or wrongly.

Whether advertisers are right about over-50 viewers, I don’t even know and couldn’t begin to generalize about, since every product and service is different. We’ve been over this before, and you can bet that network sales departments have been over it with advertisers: young people today don’t have any money, and they’re not watching TV anyway. But remember, advertisers operated on the same basis that broadcast networks do – that is, even though their model is crumbling beneath them, it still basically sort of works. Broadcast networks have lost a tremendous number of viewers, but they haven’t lost their ability to make money; they just raise the ad prices, and they will continue doing all right until they reach the point where they can no longer raise their prices (or find new places to put text ads in the middle of the show). Advertisers, similarly, are working from a model that may or may not be outdated, but still hasn’t failed.

And networks at least can say with certainty that they’re losing money because they can’t sell enough ads; it’s much harder to say with certainty that an advertising buy has failed to create new buyers for a product. So the broadcast network advertising model could, for all we know, outlast the broadcast networks. Businesses don’t usually change until they absolutely have to, and the current situation seems to be that even NBC is not so hard up for viewers that they need to find a way to monetize over-50 viewers. The current model will keep going until it absolutely positively collapses, and it might never completely collapse in our lifetimes. It’ll get less relevant, because it’s alienating its older core audience and not doing much to bring along a new generation – but that’s true of many art forms and businesses. But I don’t see networks or advertisers really panicking until they reach a point where they can’t make money, and even with cable and DVRs and the internet and so on, that point hasn’t come yet. The slow slide into nothingness is more likely than a sudden swift change.

Filed under:

Harry’s Law, ratings guinea pig

  1. From what I’ve read, even though 18-49 viewers (and 18-34) have much weaker buying power than 25-54s and older, it’s the younger demographics that advertising research shows that can actually be influenced by ads. A lot of young adults, buying their first car, first home, etc, probably just inherit a lot of their brand preferences, for products they may not have ever previously bought themselves, from their parents, but they are also more open to trying competing brands/products, while someone in their 50s and above have such deeply entrenched buying habits by this point in life, that there’s very little chance they’ll change now, so there’s little upside in trying to target them with ads. And since younger viewers aren’t watching as much tv as older people, there’s the scarcity element, an advertiser that seeks a younger audience will have to pay a premium for ad slots in programmes that can deliver this audience. NBC could probably get significantly more than what they got for ad slots during Harry’s Law for a programme that has even a slightly higher 18-49 demo result.

  2. If television networks don’t care about older viewers, then what’s the deal with NCIS? Do people younger than 50 actually watch that show? I’m in my early 30s, and basically nobody I know who’s around my age watches that show, while nearly everyone I know who’s around my age has at least one parent who regularly watches it.

    I guess it’s possible it’s really popular with people in their 40s? But, really, isn’t this a show that is basically aimed at people over 50?

    • In the final rankings for the season that just ended it was ranked # 17 overall in 18-49, which makes it the second most popular drama (after GREY’S ANATOMY). It actually beats GLEE, its time-slot competitor, in 18-49, though I’m sure GLEE beats it in viewers 18-34. CBS’s strategy has basically been to assume that if a show captures a large audience there will be enough young viewers in there to keep advertisers interested, which is a pretty traditional broadcast strategy, and it works with a lot of their shows (it also works with DANCING WITH THE STARS and some other old-skewing shows) – but if a show is only popular with people over 50, it’s going to get canceled.