The phenomenal success of
“Desperate Housewives” is evidence of a significant trend in television: The
reality bubble has finally burst. So concludes a study released last week by Magna Global
USA.
Citing the strong starts of new dramas “Housewives,”
“Lost” and “CSI: New York”—coupled with the failure of “The
Benefactor” and “The Next Great Champ” and declining audience numbers for
“The Apprentice,” “The Bachelor” and “Fear Factor”—the
Magna Global study suggests that viewers are tired of reality fare and that the end of the
genre is near. Further, viewers can expect to see more scripted shows come midseason if
the latest crop of new reality shows flop.
The Magna study presents an interesting argument, but it's wrong. The success of
scripted shows and the failure of reality shows have more to do with those shows
individually and less to do with any major trend. There is no major trend afoot.
True, if “Housewives” continues to captivate viewers, we probably
will see more scripted dramas. But that speaks more to the networks’ proclivity to
copycat successful shows on rival networks.
Nor does the failure of “The Benefactor” or the slow start of
“The Apprentice” speak to the future of reality shows. It speaks loads about the
weaknesses of those two shows.
Reality as a genre is not dying. If anything, considering the growing number
of reality shows on broadcast and cable, the opposite is true. Reality as a genre is
actually stronger than ever, and could get even stronger.
Here's what we can say about this new season. It's totally consistent with
past seasons. The pattern is this: Of all the new scripted shows introduced in a season,
one or two will catch with viewers.
This season we have three hits: “Housewives,”
“Lost” and “CSI: New York.” The only real surprise is that two of
these shows happen to be on ABC, a network with a long and sad track record when it comes
to introducing successful new dramas.
But equally true is that the majority of new shows in a given new season will
flop. Fact: More than 70 percent of all television series never live to see a second
season. This holds true across all genres: drama, sitcoms, reality.
But the big flaw in the Magna study is in extracting a trend regarding
reality TV based on the performances of "Apprentice" and "Benefactor."
Reality is no longer the hot new thing on television, but just what makes a
successful reality show is still a big unknown, even among the top reality producers.
“Survivor” is the standard by which most successful reality shows
are judged, and it has been up and down since its debut in 2000.
At most, we now know better why a reality show doesn’t work, and the
perfect case in point is “The Benefactor.” Here's a show that had flop written
all over it. It prided itself on having no rules, which could only confuse viewers who
have been trained to believe that rules are at the heart of reality TV.
It was voyeuristic when we learned early on that voyeurism was not something
that worked on reality. Sports mogul/series host Mark Cuban made up the game as he went
along, eliminating contestants for no apparent reason, and in the process spying on them,
which seemed like borderline cruelty. It was a no-brainer for critics like Media
Life’s Toni Fitzgerald to predict that the show would bomb.
The only thing the failure of "Benefactor" establishes is that
television doesn't always learn from its past, and in a way that's good. If it learned too
well, primetime would lack all variety.
As for “The Apprentice,” its decline, while certainly a shock to
NBC, was not hard to anticipate. Many did anticipate it, and it had to do with having
Donald Trump return for a second year. The first season was so successful that it would
have been hard to imagine that season two would have seen a rise in ratings.
And with Trump again in the host seat, it was not hard to imagine that some
share of viewers would skip the second season, having gotten their fill of the Donald in
season one.
But the concept of “The Apprentice” is still a good one. Might
the show revive hosted by a George Steinbrenner or a Sumner Redstone or a Larry
Ellison or (once she gets out of prison) Martha Stewart? Perhaps.
The point is this: The flaw is within the show, and the flaw is comparable to
a flaw in any scripted drama or sitcom. It calls for fixing, and if it can't be fixed the
show continues its slide.
But the big reason reality isn't going to decline is that it makes such good
economic sense for the networks. Reality shows are cheaper to make, and while networks
will never openly opt for a particular show on cost alone--delivering an audience will
always win out--cost will always play a role. |
