I went over to good ol' Deadline Hollywood the other day and some news caught my eye:
"The Office Head Writer Daniel Chun Signs Overall Deal With ABC Studios"Congratulations to Daniel. I don't know him, but I'm sure he's extremely talented and this is well deserved.
After stints at The Simpsons and The Office, Daniel Chun is embarking on development with a two-year overall deal at ABC Studios. The seven-figure pact, which will start in the summer, was made in a competitive situation, with ABC going aggressively after the sought-after writer-producer.
This story was of particular interest to me because like him, I also happen to be the head writer of a show. So we have that common. What we don't have in common is overall deals and 7 figures, I have neither of those. No one is competitively trying to sign me up to do anything.
Now I know what you're thinking, "hey buddy, you write on a stupid cable clip show, this dude is on The Office. You're not even close to that level".
You're right. You're totally right. Except for one small thing:
MY SHOW GETS BETTER RATINGS THAN HIS!!!
Did you hear that? I feel like I need to repeat it:
My show gets better ratings than his.
Oh, and also, his show is most likely getting canceled this year. Meanwhile, if my network could order a thousand more episodes of mine, they'd do it in a second.
So here we have two head writers, one on a show with better ratings, the other on a show that used to be successful and is now about to be canceled, and the guy with the shittier ratings is getting 7 figures and the other guy is getting no love. How am I supposed to be cool with all of this again?
Does this not seem like it would be frustrating? Maybe it's me.
And I didn't even mention how my show costs a tenth of what their show costs to make, thus making it a million times more profitable. But hey, why delve into the messy facts that make me want to blow my poverty stricken brains out?
Now, I'm not a fool. I'm not surprised by any of this, and I don't expect people to throw millions of dollars at me. However, I'd take a fucking 5 figure deal at this point!
It's not like I'm asking for the world here, people. I'm saying, this guy gets 7 figures, I'd like a free lunch, maybe. I'd take that. So far, my phone ain't ringing.
Okay, that's the frustrating, annoying as shit micro look at things. But I bring it up here in order to look at the bigger picture because I think it's pretty interesting. The TV landscape is getting weird.
Maybe, just maybe, Jeff Zucker was smarter than everyone else. Maybe the Jay Leno show was the right move. And maybe, the Jay Leno Show is the future, and Zucker was ahead of his time.
Ratings wise, Leno usually got between a 1.5 and a 1.7. That's not all that great. But let's check out what kind of numbers NBC is doing now:
You know how Tina Fey is a genius and everything? Well, last week 30 Rock got a 1.5.
How about everyone's favorite show, Parks and Rec: 1.7.
But those shows were on during the 8:00pm hour. The Jay Leno show was on at 10pm, so what did The Firm do (on February 2nd), you ask? A .8.
.8.
Meanwhile Jersey Shore was busy doing a 2.9.
Here's Wednesday for NBC: Whitney 1.5, Chelsea 1.3, Rock Center .6, Law and Order 1.6.
On cable, at MIDNIGHT, Robot Chicken did a 1.0.
Jesus, it seems like NBC would kill to have Jay Leno on in prime time right now. And the brilliance of it is that it was on every night of the week. You get that programming, and that rating, every night. And it costs a million times less than paying Tina Fey, Alec Baldwin, Tracy Morgan, and a cast of thousands.
Things have changed.
And through all of this, I think I've forgotten my point. Oh yeah:
Less and less people are going to the big networks to watch a majority of the TV shows they are putting on the air, so maybe it's time to stop putting the people who do network shows on a pedestal.
I understand the prestige of having 30 Rock on your network, but the fact is, nobody is watching.
Is a 2.5 rating on cable worth less than the Office's 2.5 rating? No, in fact, it's worth way more. So why give a guy 7 figures to make another show that gets a 2 when you can pay someone else 5 figures to get the same number?
Cool, niche cable shows have eaten away at the big boys, so there are certain things they should stop doing. However, there's still a big audience for bland, expensive procedural dramas, lame competition reality shows, and even lamer, CBS style, lowest common denominator sitcoms. But everything else, at some point, is going to be too expensive than they're worth.
But right now, to answer the question of the title of this post, the difference between cable and network is still 7 figures.
Eventually though, the networks will turn back to stuff like the Jay Leno Show. And because of that, they may even have to turn to...me. Because that's what I do. I am a cheap, comedy writing whore. I just hope I haven't killed myself by the time they do the math on all of this.
17 comments:
All that I can say, Hack, is hang in there and it’ll eventually all work out in your favor.
You’re too good for it not to.
Someone will come along, when you least expect it, and offer you everything that you want.
That sounds like what I tell myself about Match.com... and the dates keep staying at .8.
.8.
p.s. I can feel your frustration in this post, so sorry for laughing through it.
You just make me laugh, dude!
Theres stigma in reality tv casting, too. Big name shows like, ahem, the bachelor, are always better to have under your belt to help get you more money for future shows. unless it's a cable show. they pay shit. always. even HDNET, and that's owned by a billionaire.
I'm sure they'd toss 7 figures your way if the deal guaranteed the involvement of Daniel Tosh to continue making the material funnier than it would be otherwise.
It's interesting that you say that, Anonymous.
I was thinking the opposite, when I posted my first comments. To me, Daniel Tosh is very good... probably really appeals to the college crowd. But, I'm way past that phase, and when I watch Jon Stewart right after Tosh O. I always think they should move Tosh O. No one should have to be right before Jon Stewart, who I believe is the best on any cable or network show.
Not trying to evaluate Tosh O., Hack, as I know that wasn't the intent of your blog. Just had to point out that in my opinion it's the writing that makes Tosh O funnier, and not visa versa.
If I may play devil's advocate, I think you're being a little disingenuous. 30 Rock and The Office don't entirely depend on rating because they have multiple revenue streams. In addition to DVDs, they're the biggest shows in syndication right now, while Tosh isn't likely to syndicate, I would assume. Plus they win Emmys, which helps the network's prestige, which helps them land more talent. Like it or not, these shows are long-term investments and Tosh isn't.
You're a great writer and I'm glad your show's a hit, and I wouldn't be surprised if you ended up with a hit movie or sitcom, but stewing over exaggerated unfairness is an abyss nobody wants to fall into.
When did you get a 2.5 rating?
According to this, Tosh is doing a 1.7:
http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/2012/02/23/tuesday-cable-ratingsteen-mom-special-tosh-0-lead-justified-chopped-ink-master-hardcore-pawn-more/121423/
Still impressive, btw (and I read that for the premiere, you guys did 4.0 for young males.)
no offense, matt, but you are being a little naive. we've got revenue streams coming out of our ass over here. i think you'd be surprised.
and i reserve the right to stew on my own blog, that's what it's for (and also, the bachelor).
i know we're all focusing on my personal bitterness, but to me, this was more about how the tv business is changing. it's very interesting to me.
i'll be fine.
I have my screenwriting group meet-up in Culver City on Sunday. I usually get there early. There's a nice greek place across the street, I'll totally buy you a late lunch. Serious.
gabys? that's what i had for lunch today. had to buy it myself though.
Nope, it's more in the ghetto of Culver City. It's called Almaza. On the corner of Venice and National. It's right across the street from where we meet.
I don't think the difference in money comes from the fact that your show is on cable and others are on network TV. Guys working on cable get big contracts too. Weiner got shitload of money for running Mad Men and Gilligan just signed big deal to complete Breaking Bad. It's probably more about content. People that sign checks think they can swap you for whole buncha guys and there would be no difference... which I'm sure is not true, but those type of things are more about perception than reality I guess.
Think on the bright side: once you get that network show you've been working on I'm sure you will go all 'look at those poor fucks from cable riding their bikes to work... fuck those guys!'. Amirite?
you are correct, i cannot wait to laugh at guys like me. it's what i aspire to. i definitely do not begrudge anyone's success, and hope to be a rich asshole myself someday. who doesn't?
but there is an argument to be made that there are a lot of guys who can do what daniel can do, especially considering the fact that that show has sucked balls this season.
also, in your example, weiner and gilligan and those guys CREATED those shows. they're auteurs, in a sense. i thought my comparison was good because it was a little closer to apples to apples.
Ew. Gross.
Sorry, but what he does is harder than what you do, there are fewer people who can do it well. Writing coherent narrative to support product placement is harder than writing disconnected jokes about viral videos with no throughline.
Maybe you can do what he does, but you aren't.
sorry, but you are not reading this post correctly.
this is a business, correct? and the point of business is to make money. well, if my show makes the most money, or makes more money than his show, then who the fuck cares about building "coherent narratives"?
put things on TV that people want to watch!
I know you'd like to think everyone in show business is artistically and intellectually bankrupt just because you are, but it's not true. To some people, there are more important things than money.
To some of them, it's not art but prestige. That's just as valid as money in your world, isn't it? Your show is low brow, the jokes are cheap and dumb. Some people would be ashamed to be associated with your show, no matter how much money it makes.
Sorry, but it's true.
Ah, you must be one of my republican conservative friends. Thanks for reading.
Ashamed to be associated with my show? That's a first, pal!
Post a Comment