Expensive

In the wake of Channel 4 losing the rights to Lost, some comments from Channel 4 executives:

As part of a first-look deal with Disney, C4 snapped up the first two seasons of “Desperate Housewives” and “Lost” for a fraction of the price forked out last month.

While Sky One poached “Lost,” C4 retained exclusive U.K. rights to “Desperate Housewives.”

However, a bidding war with ITV, Sky One and Flextech pushed the “Housewives” price up to the same level as Sky paid for “Lost” — record fees for imported shows in the U.K.

Four’s program topper, Kevin Lygo, said he walked away from the bidding war for “Lost.” Under the terms of its deal with Disney, C4 had the right to match any competing bid, but the web could not afford to shell out for both “Lost” and “Housewives.”

In fairness to Channel 4, they are in a difficult position when it comes to imports: unlike Sky, they pretty much have to devote a big chunk of their budget to original production. If they wait and see what turns out to be a big hit, they risk having to pay through the nose when the rights come up. If they make a first-look deal they risk paying for shows that won’t do well over here, or spending a couple of years building an audience for a show only for a subscription-based broadcaster to swoop in and make them pay through the nose to keep the show. I wish they’d plumped to stick with Lost and dropped Desperate Housewives, but no doubt the demographics of the shows’ respective audiences guided their decision.

I wonder whether the poor prospects of new viewers jumping on board a relatively impenetrable show like Lost was a factor too. It’ll be interesting to see over the next couple of years whether the trend for multi-season story arcs and “novels for television” fades away as broadcasters come to realise that such shows have limited value as repeats and will tend to lose viewers over time. Of course, it’s fair to say that most shows lose viewers over time, but less tightly wound storytelling formats provide better opportunities for the producers to revamp a show after a few seasons and bring in a few new characters. In Desperate Housewives they can have a new family move in down the street: on Lost they have to either promote a couple of the characters who have been milling around in the background for the last couple of seasons, have another plane crash, or introduce us to yet another group living on the island who we’ve not seen yet.

On the subject of shows with a tightly-wound plot, Adam Sternbergh of New York Magazine has some suggestions about how to make such shows less frustrating for viewers. I think the notion of deciding in advance to limit your show to two seasons makes storytelling sense, but it’ll take a change in the business model for broadcast TV to make network executives bite; there’s a natural tendency for them to hang on to a show they know can pull in viewers rather than kill the golden goose and take a leap in the dark with a new show.

Also, I’m not convinced that viewers would follow creators when it comes to TV. To be sure a very few creators sustain a high profile, but as TV is such a collaborative medium it’s not always clear that it makes sense to follow one particular creator. If you enjoyed Buffy the Vampire Slayer and Angel which creator should you have followed to their next show? Joss Whedon was the driving force behind both shows, but David Fury and Jane Espenson and Marti Noxon and David Greenwalt and Doug Petrie all played a part in making the show a success and, crucially, in taking the show to new places once the original concept needed a boost after a couple of seasons. And that’s before you consider the contribution of new writers who came on board after the show was established.

It’s true that there are plenty of Buffy fans who can tell you at great length why they always looked forward to (or cringed at the thought of) a Jane Espenson episode, or fans of the new Doctor Who who can explain why Russell T Davies is a good producer but far from the best writer of individual episodes, but such highly engaged fans are emphatically not the norm and it’s hard to believe they ever will be. Following the creator makes sense with novels, where there’s a single name on the spine of the book and a new volume comes out every year or two: if a writer/producer/showrunner produces a new show three or four years after launching their first success, what are the chances that they’re working with the same creative team this time round?

[Variety article via Crocodile Caucus, New York Magazine article via LinkMachineGo]