Who Loses? (HULUses)

It was announced yesterday that The Daily Show and Colbert Report, along with less popular Comedy Central offerings will no longer be available on Hulu. My first reaction was...that's dumb, offering streaming video of your episodes increases awareness of the product and viewership. Granted most revenue is drawn from television advertisements, which are not at all helped by online watchers, but still...a viewer is a viewer regardless of the medium, and companies are beginning to draw revenue from online episodes too.

But then I found out that they will still offer full episodes on TheDailyShow.com and TheColbertReport.com, which makes much more sense for them because then the people watching online see their advertisements without a middle man taking a piece of the pie.

The only thing Hulu has going in its favor is the convenience of it all...which as we know, American's love. But convenience doesn't matter to the companies who pay for the development and production of these shows. They want numbers...they want results. So Hulu needs to prove that having videos on their sight will provide more viewers, more advertising dollars, and more promotion for upcoming episodes, otherwise Comedy Central won't be the last to pull their programming away from the popular media streaming website.

-- Steve Creswick
Ad Doctor

The NFL Daft

Apparently the NFL isn't done trying to turn the draft into some spectacle second only to the Super Bowl. Not only have they turned it into a primetime affair, but now they're trying to make the second day of the draft an exciting event as well by inviting popular college prospects who aren't expected to go in the first round to sit around for the second day of the draft waiting to be picked.

I get the whole angle that this one pick can change your team's fortune--even though that one pick costs a fortune and could tie up a sizable portion of your salary cap preventing you from fielding a competitive team. And the whole guessing game aspect of who's going to pick who is fun for fans. But in the end, the event consists of fifteen minutes of talking and then a man coming to a podium and saying a name. Not too exciting is it.

So now they're planning on trying to bank on the starpower of elite college players, whose game's might not translate well into the pro's (see Tebow, Tim), to try and turn the rest of the draft into a television event worth watching. But that's not what the draft is about. The draft is about fans hoping their team gets better, not to see where certain college players go. Because if they're not going to have an impact, the fans who actually watch this event, won't care.

-- Steve Creswick
Ad Doctor

When Comedy Becomes Tragedy

I watch a lot of TV. Well...actually no I don't. At least not when compared to a majority of people, but I do watch my fair share, which is more than I'd like. Naturally, I tend to turn to comedy when it's on. Not sitcoms, because they're all pathetic, tired, and I don't need a laugh track telling me something's funny when it clearly isn't. To me causing laughter is the greatest achievement...this means that an ill-fated, miserably-failing attempt to draw my laughter the greatest offense.

That mindset breeds a great deal of dislike for many mainstream comedians and shows, like say the Sarah Silverman Show for instance. One would think that taking a popular comedian and giving them a half-hour every week would have great effects, no? But it is often not the case. Then again, they often give shows to unfunny comedians simply because they have large fanbases because they put on accents and pander to specific demographics (see Lopez, George or Mencia, Carlos). I think the problem is...stand up comedy doesn't always translate into a good television show.

You can combat that by saying, "Steve...Seinfeld was the best show of all time, and he was a stand-up comedian."

And I can easily counter, "Yes, but he also had Larry David who has proved with Curb Your Enthusiasm he is a phenomenal writer."

The problem is that networks focus too much on the name. They look for a popular comedian to draw in audiences, but neglect the writing. The best comedy shows on Television--South Park, It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia, Curb Your Enthusiasm, and the Office--all have one thing in common...great writing. With the exception of the Office, none had a huge name involved, and even with the Office...other than Steve Carell the cast was a bunch of unknowns. A majority of people didn't know who Larry David was. Danny Devito didn't join Sunny until it's second season, and the writing was already there.

I understand the need for a name from a marketing standpoint...but you also need the writing from a quality standpoint...that's how you make an enjoyable show and build up a cult following who will watch religiously every week and buy every DVD and holiday special. But networks will never learn, other than FX...they know what they're doing.

-- Steve Creswick
Ad Doctor

Grow Up, America!!!

I was reading something today about Nipplegate (the incident where Justin Timberlake pulled off Janet Jackson's top or something), and it reminded me how sickeningly unclever it is when people put "-gate" at the end of whatever new conspiracy arises, and consider themselves a reincarnation of George Carlin. It's not creative...it's not funny...it's stupid and cringe-worthy.

The next thing I thought, "Really? Still this..."

Don't courts in America have more important things to worry about? Like the fact that the whole "all men are created equal" part of our Declaration of Independence is undermined by the fact that homosexuals don't have the same rights as everyone else because of an argument that is easily countered and dismissed by the theory of "separation of Church and State."

But no, the courts are too backed up because the FCC is still trying to reach into other people's pockets. Who knows, maybe someone from the FCC untied her top because they needed some new computers for the office so they could be more effective at taking away liberty with their out-dated standards of propriety. Let me tell you something, FCC: People curse, women have breasts, and sex sells. No matter how many people you steal money from, it won't change that.

Kids are exposed to enough explicit content in movies, magazines, and advertisements, so get off your moral high ground and stop claiming your purpose is about protecting kids or preserving decency. All you're doing is promoting more neglectful parenting from this nation by crucifying certain networks as scapegoats. If children are subject to coarse language or the human anatomy (both of which they become well acquainted with early), it is up to their parents to shield their eyes, or tell them it's wrong. Not only are you strangling freedom, but you're also making excuses for people to be poor parents. You taking money from a big corporation does nothing but get your top level workers a new Mercedes.

You serve absolutely no public good.

In fact, your publicizing of these outrageous and unconstitutional fines brings far more attention to these events than the occurrences themselves. In essence, you are contributing more to the corruption of the youth of America than these networks are by drawing awareness to these minor occurrences of innocent words and harmless sexuality. Perhaps you should fine yourselves, or better yet...close down your hypocritical and useless organization.

-- Steve Creswick
Ad Doctor

NBC Pucks Up, Yet Again...

Please, tell me something NBC. You and I have had our disagreements in the past, and we all know my stance on the Olympics. And then there's the matter of me dissing the NHL by excluding them when I make broad statements about major sports (NFL, MLB, NBA). But how, could you take the USA-Canada game, and put it on MSNBC where nobody is likely to look. People flipping through channels tonight who want to check out what's on the Olympics will likely flip to whatever channel your main network is on in their area, and if nothing entertaining is on...they'll move past it.


Well, tonight...nothing entertaining is on...because you took one of your most exciting and marketable events and decided to put it on a different channel (MSNBC). Now maybe you did this because you thought the event would draw enough buzz of its own that people would scour your family of networks to find it. Or maybe you overlooked the fact that it is an all-star grudge match between neighboring countries featuring the most recognizable names taking part in the Olympics. Or maybe Jay Leno decided he wanted to watch men in full-body spandex suits skate around in large white ovals over and over again.



And for that matter...how many different speed skating competitions could they possibly have? It seems like every day, the only event ever on is speed skating. I respect what they do, but watching people glide over a plane of white is pretty boring. Even watching it on an HD where you can see the reflections of people in the audience yawning it gets tiresome. And if it isn't speed-skating on...it's a taped skiing race, whose outcome has already been broadcasted all over the world on ESPN for the past seven hours.




But here you have a live competition (an actual head to head event, rather than people competing against a clock), and you figure "Eh...let's give our prime time spot on Sunday night to the same damn event we've been showing for the past ten days straight."

You continue to exceed my expectations NBC (my expectations are for you to make exceedingly unintelligent programming decisions.)

-- Steve Creswick
Ad Doctor

Why Watch the Olympics?

This weekend the Winter Olympics start on NBC, and I know everyone in America is on the edge of their seats. (I realize sarcasm does not translate well in the written word, so I'll point out that the previous statement was meant to be sarcastic). I should also point out that NBC instead of spending money securing rights to NBA or MLB games decided instead to lock-up the Olympics long-term, which could lose up to $200 million this year, and Notre Dame football, who haven't been good in years. The executive responsible for these shrewd programming decisions, Dick Ebersol, was just extended until 2015 at somewhere between $10-$15 million. Clearly, NBC isn't too busy ruining late-night to take some time to sabotage their sports department as well.

But this article is not about incompetent executives or their terrible business decisions...this is about the Olympics, and me trying to determine why people have no interest in them.

1. One of the first lessons learned in sports marketing is that America favors their professional leagues while Europeans live for international competition. This is probably because European countries are all so close to one another, so it is easier for a rivalry to build, and because America has enough heated match-ups in their own sports. It also hurts that America has never excelled at soccer which is the premier international sport in the eyes of our friends across the Atlantic. The only time we ever developed an interest in international competition is when we felt the need to display our superiority. Since sports are now big business, the best players of other nations now come to the United States to play, so the highest competition in most sports is right in our own backyard.

2. With Television packages showing every single game by every local team and major networks showing the match-ups of the best teams in the nation, there is an abundance of sports goodness every evening on television. Back when the Olympics were popular, they were the only sports on TV. Now, there are so many contests of familiar sports, that the American people are more emotionally invested in that they have no interest in watching the Olympics.

3. The United States likes stars and story-lines. Yes, Bob Costas does plenty of profiles of athletes to attempt to get the American people in their corners, but with the Winter and Summer Olympics switching off, and having 4 years between each competition, it is impossible for Americans to follow certain athletes when they're not seeing them every day.

4. Time Zone Difference. This is not the case this year, with the Olympics so close to home, but most of the time there is a substantial time difference, which causes NBC to delay the popular events so they can show them in prime-time. The only problem with that, is with the internet, everyone already knows the outcome and it ruins the surprise and excitement of it all.

5. Drama. We are used to last-second buzzer beaters, walk-off grand slams, and 4th and goal down-by-a-touchdown situations. All those situations involve one team getting the best of another team. That drama can not be matched by people sliding down ice only competing with a clock. I have nothing but the utmost respect for every athlete, and their respective sports, but sports is a form of entertainment, and the sports the American people have embraced also happen to be the most entertaining.

-- Steve Creswick
Ad Doctor

The following RANT has been approved for ALL AUDIENCES

What is the purpose of a movie preview?

Is it to promote awareness of an upcoming film, or is it to entice viewers to go to the theater and spend $10 on a ticket, $10 more on popcorn and soda, $7 for each action figure, $25 for the t-shirt, $15 for the poster, and eventually $30 for the three-disc special collector's edition dvd (pre-ordered, of course)?

I don't remember when movie executives made the decision to include the name and release date at the top of the screen throughout the entirety of every television trailer, but it needs to stop. Have our attention spans really become this embarrassingly short? Are some people really incapable of waiting to the end of a thirty second spot to see the release information?

If you have half-a-minute to make an impression, you should want all eyes on the small collection of images flickering across the screen, and not at the words plastered above them. People get distracted easily enough. Since this post is about film, it's only right I borrow a timeless phrase from the medium. "If you build it, they will come."

Well...if you build a compelling conflict in thirty seconds, the audience will find out when the movie comes out, because they'll be there at the end of the television ad. The inverse is a whole group of viewers who know nothing but a name and date, and have no inclination to see the film because they were too busy glancing up at the annoyance above than seeing anything compelling below.

I understand that in the Information Age marketers are just trying to get their name to cut through the clutter with the hope that merely recognition of the title might compel viewership or further investigation by watching the trailer online, but can 30 seconds of obstructed view really generate greater sales?

If it does...it's only a matter of time before every commercial has a bothersome black banner blotting out the top of the TV screen. And if that happens...it's only a matter of time before my TV has a big hole right in the center from where my shoe went through it.

-- Steve Creswick
Ad Doctor

Late Night Ramblings

All this news of late night television tore open a long-forgotten wound, which had since scabbed over ages ago. Luckily for me, the reason this scar was ripped open was because I found a way to heal it.

When Conan O'Brien left the 12:35am timeslot for 11:35pm, I wasn't sure how to fill that void. His replacement, Jimmy Fallon, has long been seen in my eyes as an incompetent entertainer with no comedic timing or any semblance of a stage presence to keep me from changing the channel. The Roots, who he hired to be his late-night band, are one of my favorite acts and I respect the fact that Fallon introduced the greatest band of all time, Guns N' Roses, at the VMAs with genuine enthusiasm, but the man's musical taste can never make up for his inability to flawlessly deliver a truly funny joke.

My schedule for TV viewing was pretty set for awhile. 11pm-12am I'd watch the Daily Show and the Colbert Report before tuning to CBS where I could watch Letterman interview his guests. Then at 12:35pm, the show I'd been waiting for all along would come on, and the night would be set. When Conan moved to 11:35pm, I had to change my viewing habits, which of course I did for him. Even though I have nothing but respect and admiration for Colbert and Letterman, they'd have to be viewed as either reruns or on DVR.

But what would I watch at 12:35am?

Jimmy Fallon? No.

What about Craig Ferguson? I loved him on the Drew Carey show, but I'd never watched him before, and it didn't occur to start now.

Eventually, I forgot about how comforting it was to have Conan there at 12:35am to keep me company in bed, and stopped looking for a daily replacement. But recently, upon recommendation from a friend, I gave Craig Ferguson a shot. And you know what? He was hilarious. His jokes were great, his improvisations when things didn't go according to plan were priceless, and his interviews were honest, relaxed, and thoroughly entertaining. So I started asking myself, Why haven't I given this guy a chance before?

I began to think about it, and came up with one major issue.

• His Set

The reason I always changed the channel was because the man's studio is so small. It looks like the crowd has to hunch over if they ever think of standing up. Ferguson is also forced to do his monologue standing directly in front of the camera, which is probably psychologically threatening in some way. Not to mention the claustrophobia invoked by the whole combination. And then there's the lighting situation. With everything so dim it borders on depressing, not something a late night comedy show wants to convey.

But regardless, now that I realize how enjoyable his program is I have no choice but to apologize to Mr. Ferguson for never giving him a chance, and make-up for it by giving him my dedicated viewership. I'll just have to hope his success will bring him a studio bigger and brighter than a closet of unused clothes.

And hopefully you'll watch too.

-- Steve Creswick
Ad Doctor

Coo Coo for CoCo? What's next? How about some wild speculation...

$40 million dollars, reportedly, and the undying support of an entire nation. This is what Conan O'Brien received as his severance from NBC's decision to abandon comedy for the sake of God knows what Jay Leno provides--certainly not anything entertaining. But what is next? We know the future of The Tonight Show...it is once again unwatchable and now I can give David Letterman the love and attention he deserves at 11:35pm until Conan settles elsewhere.

Rumors have the Tonight Show Pariah heading to FOX for a substantial deal. It makes sense for FOX to have a late night show of their own to compete with the other major networks (CBS, NBC, and ABC), but after a lifetime of Simpons and Seinfeld syndicated re-runs, a nighttime talk show seems a little out of place.

But where else can Conan go?

Does a late-night show really need to be on one of the big networks to succeed? In the 90's, the Emmy's were dominated by major networks with a few scattered wins from an HBO show here and there. In the new millennium, and continuing on further, cable networks have been showing an increased presence on the awards circuit, and FX, USA, Comedy Central, Showtime, and AMC have all been getting in on the action. Some of the best comedies and dramas are on cable networks, as well as the late-night show that has held the Emmy for that category since 2003, The Daily Show.

But despite The Daily Show's success, it still at best averages under Conan's mark of 2.2 million, and less than half as many viewers as The Late Show(1.5million versus 3.5+ million). Its spin-off, The Colbert Report, averages a similar number. With Conan's deserved cult following, could he average this many viewers on a cable network? I would think so. Could he rival the ratings of Letterman or Leno? Probably not, unfortunately.

For the sake of argument, though, let's defy the conventional wisdom of going where the highest ratings await and try to conceive the best possible product. The popularity and viewership of cable networks is on the rise, so eventually the ratings will be there. It just needs someone to take the leap(no George Lopez does not count because he is neither funny nor on a channel with entertaining original content). So imagine Conan and his unique brand of comedy on FX, following the funniest show on television, It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia, almost entirely unrestricted. Or better yet, picture a late-night line-up of The Daily Show, The Colbert Report, and Conan O'Brien--two hours of heralded comedy icons every evening.

Now which would you rather do: follow the ten o'clock news and a re-run on FOX, join a growing network in FX and further the evolution of cable TV, or combine forces with two brilliantly successful satirists to form a late-night powerhouse on the aptly named Comedy Central. Options two and three sound exponentially more appealing than the former.

If I were a cable executive at Comedy Central, FX, or a handful of other stations trying to make a splash, I'm calling Conan with the biggest offer my budget can handle, and then some. Because along with the good publicity and popular support, you'll get one hell of a funny man and a franchise to anchor your network for years to come, as cable continues to push the boundaries, and network TV remains stuck making the same formulaic sitcoms and talk shows.

No matter what happens, wherever Conan goes(even if he does delve into pornography), I'm sure he'll succeed and make me laugh in the process.

Where do you think Conan should go?

-- Steve Creswick
Ad Doctor

Support Conan - I'm With COCO