*Pages 1--96 from  cpage paper 5 marae sept 30.doc*
 FEDERAL  COMMUNICATIONS  COMMISSION 
 Media  Ownership  Working  Group 


 Program  Diversity  and  the 
 Program  Selection  Process 
 on  Broadcast  Network 
 Television 
 By  MaraEinstein 
 September  2002 


 2002  -  5 
1
 Executive  Summary:  This  paper  examines  the  extent  to  which  program  diversity  has  changed  over  time  on  prime  time,  broadcast  network  television.  This  issue  is  assessed 
 using  several  different  measurement  techniques  and  concludes  that  while  program  diversity  on  prime  time  broadcast  network  television  has  fluctuated  over  time,  it  is  not 
 significantly  different  today  than  it  was  in  1966.  The  paper  also  explores  the  factors  used  by  broadcast  networks  in  recent  years  in  program  selection.  It  finds  that  networks 
 program  selection  incentives  have  changed  in  recent  years  as  networks  were  permitted  to  take  ownership  interests  in  programming. 
2
 2 
 A  HISTORICAL  PERSPECTIVE  ON  PROGRAM  DIVERSITY 


 Mara  Einstein  Department  of  Media  Studies 
 Queens  College  City  University  of  New  York 


 The  views  expressed  in  this  paper  are  those  of  the  author  alone  and  do  not  necessarily  reflect  the  views  of  the  Federal  Communications  Commission,  any  Commissioners,  or 
 other  staff. 
3
 3 
 Introduction 
 This  paper  analyzes  the  correlation  between  the  FCCs  imposition  of  financial 


 interest  and  syndication  rules  and  program  diversity  on  prime  time  broadcast  network 
 television.  To  demonstrate  this,  diversity  will  be  examined  in  terms  of  1)  content 
 diversity  (types  of  programming)  and  2)  marketplace  diversity  (suppliers  of 
 programming).  This  analysis  suggests  that  the  structural  regulation  represented  by  the 
 FCCs  financial  interest  and  syndication  rules  have  not  been  an  effective  means  of 
 achieving  content  diversity. 


 Study  Methodology 
 By  evaluating  the  content  of  programming  over  the  periods  surrounding  the 
 introduction  and  elimination  of  the  financial  interest  and  syndication  rules,  we  will 
 measure  the  trend  in  program  diversity  during  the  time  when  the  financial  interest  and 
 syndication  (  fin-  syn)  rules  were  in  effect.  In  particular,  this  analysis  focuses  on  how 
 programming  was  affected  by  the  presence  or  lack  of  the  financial  interest  and 
 syndication  rules,  which  perforce  requires  examining  the  networks  as  economic  entities. 
 In  evaluating  the  content  of  programming,  determining  an  appropriate  taxonomy 
 that  remains  valid  from  decade  to  decade  is  the  first  step.  For  this  study,  two  types  of 
 categorizations  were  used.  The  first  set  of  categorizations  are  from  a  study  by  Sterling 
 and  Kittross,  which  quantified  different  types  of  programming  from  1947  through  1974 
 (Sterling,  1984,  p.  195-  198).  This  taxonomy  was  selected  because  it  provided  the  most 
4
 4 
 thorough  analysis  of  programming  during  the  initial  evaluation  period  (1969-  1973).  1 
 This  taxonomy  was  applied  across  the  entire  time  period  studied. 


 The  second  set  of  categorizatio  ns  which  are  used  to  analyze  the  period  after  fin-syn 
 was  developed  from  three  different  sources.  One  source  was  a  study  conducted  in  the 
 1960s  called  The  People  Look  at  Television.  In  this  study  commissioned  by  CBS,  Steiner 
 (1963)  created  program  categories  based  on  how  viewers  actually  watch  television  versus 
 how  networks  or  producers  would  categorize  programming.  The  second  source  was  the 
 Dominick  and  Pearce  (1976)  study.  The  third  source  was  our  own  analysis  of  prime  time 
 network  programming  between  1989  and  2002.  The  second  taxonomy,  which  was 
 specifically  designed  to  take  1990s  genres  into  account,  is  applied  only  to  the  1989-  2002 
 time  period. 


 Previous  researchers  used  between  five  and  fifteen  program  categories  to  analyze 
 program  diversity  (Dominick  and  Pearce,  1976;  Steiner,  1963;  Wildman  and  Robinson 
 1995).  This  research  uses  22  categories  for  both  the  1966-  1974  and  1989-  2002  time 
 periods.  This  was  done  in  large  part  to  improve  categorization  of  the  various  subtypes  of 
 programming  within  the  drama  category.  While  drama  is  one  of  the  predominant 
 program  genres,  there  are  certain  subcategories  within  this  segment  that  attract  more 
 attention  than  others,  and  these  categories  change  over  time. 
 Fall  program  schedules  were  taken  from  McNeil  (1996)  for  the  1960s  and  1970s 
 as  well  as  up  until  1995.  Subsequent  years  were  from  Broadcasting  and  Cable  and 
 Variety,  major  industry  trade  publications.  Midseason  replacements  were  only 
 considered  if  they  were  part  of  the  schedule  the  following  year.  Only  regularly  scheduled 


 1  See  appendix  for  full  listing  of  categories. 
5
 5 
 programming  was  considered  eliminating  specials  from  this  analysis.  Movies  were 
 grouped  together,  since  any  more  fine-  grained  distinctions  would  require  a  special  study. 
 Shows  were  categorized  based  on  descriptions  in  McNeil  and  in  later  years  from 
 zap2it.  com  (and  its  predecessor  ultimatetv.  com),  a  website  that  includes  show 
 descriptions  and  press  releases  containing  descriptions  of  television  programs,  as  well  as 
 network  and  program  distributor  websites. 
 The  time  periods  eva  luated  were  determined  with  specific  reference  to  the 
 creation  and  elimination  of  the  fin-  syn  rules.  The  initial  period  of  study  is  1966  to  1974.  2 
 This  time  period  allows  for  four  years  of  data  prior  to  the  start  of  the  rules,  the  actual  year 
 the  rules  went  into  effect,  and  four  years  of  data  following  their  implementation.  The 
 time  period  evaluated  allows  for  any  changes  in  program  selection  to  appear  on  the 
 schedule  and  any  fluctuation  that  may  be  due  to  programming  trends  unrelated  to  the  fin-syn 
 rules.  The  second  time  period  covers  1989  to  2002.  This  period  was  selected 
 because  changes  were  made  to  the  rules  in  1991  and  1993.  The  rules  were  finally 
 repealed  in  1995.  Therefore,  this  time  period  covers  two  years  prior  to  any  rule  changes 
 through  the  years  of  the  rule  changes  up  until  the  present  time.  We  evaluate  prime  time 
 programming  because  fin-  syn  affected  only  programming  during  this  time  period. 
 Time,  rather  than  shows,  was  used  as  the  basic  unit  for  analysis.  This  was  to 
 account  for  the  variety  in  show  lengths  in  the  earlier  evaluation  period.  Some  shows 
 were  45  minutes,  some  90  minutes,  in  addition  to  the  30  or  60  minute  shows  we  are  used 
 to  today.  Therefore,  quarter  hours  were  used  as  the  time  period  of  analysis.  More 
 programming  was  evaluated  in  the  seasons  prior  to  1971.  After  1971,  program  hours  in 


 2  Throughout  this  research  individual  years  represent  the  beginning  year  of  the  broadcast  season,  therefore 
 1966  represents  the  1966-  67  season,  1974  represents  the  1974-  75  season  and  so  on. 
6
 6 
 prime  time  were  reduced  significantly  due  to  the  introduction  of  the  Prime  Time  Access 
 Rules. 
 Using  the  two  taxonomies  described  above,  we  analyzed  three  types  of  data.. 
 First,  we  examined  program  content  in  the  two  time  periods.  Changes  over  time  were 
 evaluated  using  simple  percentages  of  the  various  program  genres  and  the  percentage  of 
 time  these  genres  appeared  on  the  program  schedule  during  each  season. 
 Next,  we  looked  at  diversity  in  the  program  schedule  in  several  ways.  First,  we 
 used  Dominick  and  Pearces  diversity  indicator.  This  is  an  index  of  the  extent  to  which 
 a  few  categories  dominate  prime  time.  It  is  derived  by  summing  the  percentages  in  the 
 top  three  categories  per  season  and  subtracting  from  100.  It  can  range  from  zero  (all 
 content  is  accounted  for  by  only  three  or  fewer  categories)  to  79  (content  is  divided 
 equally  into  14  categories).  A  low  score  would  indicate  a  restricted  range  of  choices  for 
 the  audience  (p.  73).  With  22  categories,  the  numbers  could  range  from  zero  to  86. 
 This  index  is  helpful  in  evaluating  changes  in  the  types  of  programming  that  may 
 dominate  the  prime  time  schedule.  Next,  we  evaluated  the  diversity  of  programming  on 
 the  schedule  overall,  e.  g.,  how  programs  were  concentrated  into  a  limited  number  of 
 genres  or  how  they  were  distributed  over  many  genres.  This  is  known  as  vertical 
 diversity  and  is  measured  using  the  Herfindahl-  Hirschman  Index  index,  which  is  used  by 
 economists  to  measure  concentration  in  a  particular  industry.  It  has  been  adapted  by 
 social  scientists  to  measure  diversity  in  program  content.  This  analysis  builds  on  the 
 Dominick  and  Pearce  index  by  taking  all  of  the  schedule  into  account  and  not  jus  t  the  top 
7
 7 
 three  categories.  3 
 Vertical  diversity,  however,  does  not  provide  a  complete  picture  of  what  is 
 available  to  the  viewer  at  any  particular  point  in  time.  Therefore,  we  examined  horizontal 
 diversity  as  well.  The  horizontal  diversity  index  evaluates  the  number  of  different  types 
 of  programs  available  to  the  viewer  during  a  particular  half-  hour  period. 
 The  final  area  of  analysis  focused  on  the  suppliers  of  prime  time  programming. 
 This  was  done  to  determine  if  there  is  a  correlation  between  the  types  and  diversity  of 
 programming  and  the  producers  of  that  programming    an  area  that  is  overlooked  in  most 
 diversity  research.  Here,  too,  changes  over  time  were  evaluated  using  simple 
 percentages.  For  example,  how  much  prime  time  programming  is  produced  by  Warner 
 Brothers  and  how  has  that  changed  over  time?  Has  this  number  been  affected  by  the 
 change  in  the  fin-  syn  rules?  Does  the  company  produce  more  programming  now  that 
 they  own  a  television  network?  Percentages  were  also  used  to  determine  the  amount  of 
 concentration  in  production  of  prime  time  programs  over  time. 


 Measuring  Program  Diversity 
 Figure  1  shows  the  percentage  of  time  the  three  broadcast  networks  devoted  per 
 week  to  each  of  the  program  genres  from  1966  to  1974.  Figure  2  presents  the  same 
 information  from  1989  to  2002.  (The  categories  have  been  collapsed  for  easier 
 presentation.  For  a  full  listing  of  the  categories  and  percentages  by  type,  see  the 
 appendices.) 


 3  For  other  studies  that  have  relied  on  the  Herfindahl-  Hirschman  Index  index,  see  Litman  (1979),  Park 
 (1999). 
8
 8 
 Program  Genres  by  %  -  1966-  1974 


 0.0% 
 10.0% 
 20.0% 
 30.0% 
 40.0% 
 50.0% 
 60.0% 


 1966  1967  1968  1969  1970  1971  1972  1973  1974 
 Year 


 Percentage 
 Drama 
 Comedy 
 Motion  Pictures 
 News  and  Information 
 Variety 
 Quiz/  Panel 
 Music 
 other 


 It  is  clear  that  the  quantity  of  certain  types  of  programming  fluctuate  during  this  time 
 period.  In  the  1970s,  the  largest  growth  was  in  dramas  and  motion  pictures,  accounting 
 for  56%  and  23%  of  prime  time  programming  hours,  respectively,  by  the  1974-  75  season. 
 Quiz  and  panel  shows  had  disappeared  by  the  early  1970s,  as  did  music  and  variety 
 series.  Documentary  series,  part  of  news/  information,  had  disappeared  from  regular 
 prime  time  programming  by  1973.  The  increase  in  other  programming  is  attributable 
 solely  to  the  introduction  of  Monday  Night  Football  in  the  1970-  71  season.  Situation 
 comedies  remained  a  steady  percentage  of  the  prime  time  schedule  throughout  the  time 
 period. 
9
 9 
 Program  Genres  by  %  -  1989-  2002 


 0.0% 
 5.0% 
 10.0% 
 15.0% 
 20.0% 
 25.0% 


 30.0% 
 35.0% 
 40.0% 
 45.0% 
 50.0% 


 1989  1990  1991  1992  1993  1994  1995  1996  1997  1998  1999  2000  2001  2002 
 Year 


 Percentage 
 Drama 
 Comedy 
 Motion  Pictures 
 News/  Information 
 Variety 
 Quiz/  Panel 
 Music 
 Other 


 Looking  at  the  1989-  2002  period,  there  are  two  interesting  trends.  First,  there  was 
 a  significant  increase  in  situation  comedies  over  the  previous  time  period.  Whereas 
 comedies  accounted  for  between  13-  20%  of  the  schedule  during  the  1960s  and  1970s,  for 
 much  of  this  later  time  period  that  number  hovered  around  30%.  In  1998,  the  percentage 
 of  situation  comedies  began  to  decline  and  are  now  back  in  the  15-  20%  range.  News  and 
 information  programming  has  increased  significantly  versus  the  previous  period.  Quiz 
 and  panel  shows  briefly  reappeared  in  2000  and  2001  but  were  not  present  in  2002. 
 Motion  pictures  were  on  a  steady  growth  path  in  the  early  1970s,  but  declined  through 
 much  of  the  1990s  and  are  flat  entering  the  new  century.  Dramas  also  appeared  to  be 
 declining  early  in  this  time  period,  but  there  has  been  a  stead  growth  trend  since  the 
 beginning  of  the  1990s.  Dramas  have  particularly  taken  off  within  the  last  two  years. 
 Variety  programming  has  disappeared  from  the  prime  time  schedule,  at  least  from  the 
 networks  perspective.  The  recent  spurt  in  other  programming  can  be  attributed  to  an 
10
 10 
 increased  hour  of  Monday  Night  Football,  an  extended  hour  of  the  Wonderful  World  of 
 Disney,  and  an  increase  in  reality  programming. 


 Programming  and  Regulation 
 Analyzing  these  data  in  connection  with  the  rise  and  fall  of  the  fin-  syn  rules,  there 
 appears  to  be  a  strong  correlation  between  the  cost  structure  of  various  program  types  and 
 the  content  of  prime  time  network  programming.  The  only  program  genres  to  increase  in 
 quantity  during  the  1970s  were  dramas  and  motion  pictures,  which  are  among  the  more 
 expensive  types  of  programming.  Driving  the  growth  in  dramas  was  the  increase  in 
 crime/  detective  shows.  There  does  not  appear  to  be  any  economic  or  regulatory  cause 
 associated  with  that  trend.  The  increase  in  motion  pictures,  however,  belongs  to  an  area 
 where  the  networks  continued  to  produce  their  own  programming.  At  that  time,  ABC 
 and  CBS  had  been  producing  made-  for-  television  movies  in  house. 
 Even  without  the  financial  interest  and  syndication  rules,  the  prime  time 
 landscape  had  begun  to  change  in  the  late  1960s  and  early  1970s. 
 1.  There  has  been  a  shift  away  from  the  half-  hour  situation  comedy  series,  and  half-  hour  series  generally. 
 2.  Dramatic  programs  have  become  increasingly  one-  hour,  90  minutes,  or  even  two  hours.  This  is  known  as  the  long  form.   
 3.  Fewer  original  programs  are  being  ordered  by  the  networks.  Ten  years  ago,  a  typical  season  was  39  originals  and  13  repeats.  Today  it  is 
 likely  to  be  23  originals  and  23  repeats,  or,  at  best,  26  originals  and  26  repeats.  When  23  originals  and  23  repeats  are  ordered,  making  a  total 
 of  46  weeks  of  programming,  the  remaining  weeks  are  often  used  for  news  or  entertainment  specials,  including  pilots. 
 4.  A  new  program  form,  the  mini-  series,  has  evolved.  These  mini-  series  usually  have  fewer  than  20  original  programs  in  any  one  season,  for 
 example,  NBCs  popular  Columbo  series  has  only  eight  original  episodes  in  any  one  season,  and  this  mini-  series  rotates  with  other 
 mini-  series  on  the  network.  (Pearce,  1973,  p.  34) 
11
 11 
 Several  factors  contributed  to  these  programming  changes,  the  most  important  being  the 
 escalating  cost  of  programming.  Program  costs  increased  approximately  60%  from  1965 
 to  1972  during  a  period  of  time  when  the  cost  of  living  rose  by  33%.  Increased  program 
 production  costs  can  be  attributed  to  the  introduction  of  color  television,  the  production 
 of  which  is  more  expensive  than  black  and  white.  The  cost  of  a  half-  hour  pilot  increased 
 from  $72,000  to  $250,000  between  1960  and  1973,  while  program  costs  for  a  half-  hour 
 ongoing  television  series  increased  from  $50,000  to  between  $115,000  to  $135,000 
 (Pearce,  1973,  p.  34-  35). 
 The  quantity  of  public  affairs  and  childrens  programming  began  to  decline  in  the 
 early  1970s.  This  may  be  attributed  in  part  to  the  Prime  Time  Access  Rules.  With  fewer 
 hours  available  in  the  prime  time  period,  the  networks  reduced  less  profitable  public 
 affairs  programming  in  favor  of  established,  scripted  genres.  In  fact,  public  affairs  and 
 documentary  programming  virtually  disappeared  from  the  prime  time  schedule  in  the 
 early  1970s,  when  regularly  scheduled  prime  time  public  affairs  programming  dropped 
 by  30  percent.  This  type  of  programming  did  increase  during  the  1973-  74  season,  but  it 
 was  likely  attributable  to  the  significant  amount  of  prime  time  coverage  given  to  the 
 Watergate  hearings  and  the  Presidential  election  during  that  season.  Only  NBC 
 maintained  a  weekly  series  of  this  type,  America  and  NBC  Reports  during  the  1972-  73 
 season.  By  the  following  season,  no  network  had  a  weekly  public  affairs  program  in 
 prime  time  (p.  43).  Childrens  programming  was  virtually  eliminated  due  to  the  Prime 
 Time  Access  Rules.  As  the  start  of  prime  time  moved  from  7:  30  to  8:  00  p.  m.,  networks 
 no  longer  had  the  time  period  in  which  they  used  to  schedule  this  genre  of  show. 
12
 12 
 The  early  1990s  show  an  increase  in  programming  that  is  either  less  expensive  to 
 produce  and/  or  more  easily  sold  into  syndication.  Reality  programming  and 
 newsmagazines  are  the  least  expensive  types  of  programming  that  the  network  can 
 produce.  Even  a  program  such  as  Survivor  has  minimal  upfront  expenditures  on  the  part 
 of  the  network,  because  there  are  no  writing  or  talent  costs.  4  Newsmagazines  are  also 
 relatively  inexpensive  to  produce.  The  industry  figure  is  approximately  $400,000  per 
 one-  hour  show  (versus  $2  to  $3  million  for  a  one-  hour  drama)  (Schlosser,  J.,  2002,  p.  21). 
 Also,  newsmagazines  are  produced  by  the  networks  themselves.  They  do  not  have  to  pay 
 an  outside  production  company.  Talent  costs  are  amortized  over  many  programs.  This 
 programming  is  also  repackaged  on  other  network-  owned  news  entities,  providing  added 
 opportunities  to  amortize  the  cost  over  several  airings. 
 One  other  type  of  inexpensive  programming  made  a  comeback  on  network  prime 
 time    game  shows.  ABC  had  such  a  successful  run  during  the  summer  of  2000  with  a 
 game  show  called  Who  Wants  to  be  a  Millionaire?  that  the  network  aired  the  show  four 
 times  a  week  during  the  2000-  01  season.  This  show  was  responsible  for  pulling  ABC 
 from  last  place  to  first  in  the  Nielsen  ratings  race.  The  other  netwo  rks,  hoping  to 
 replicate  ABCs  success  came  out  with  new  game  shows,  some  of  which  were  more 
 successful  then  others.  Only  NBC  was  able  to  replicate  Millionaire  s  success  with  its 
 game  show,  The  Weakest  Link.  These  shows  are  very  attractive  from  an  economic 
 perspective.  First,  production  costs  consist  primarily  of  editing,  talent  costs  and  prize 
 money    miniscule  in  comparison  to  costs  associated  with  a  scripted  program.  Second,  a 


 4  A  downside  to  reality  programming  is  the  uncertain  market  for  syndicating  these  types  of  shows. 
13
 13 
 successful  prime  time  game  show  can  be  repackaged  as  a  syndicated  strip  show,  which 
 Millionaire  and  Link  have  both  done. 
 Comedies  are  more  expensive  to  produce  tha  n  reality  series  or  game  shows,  but 
 they  have  proven  to  be  the  best  genre  for  sale  into  the  syndication  market.  First,  affiliates 
 and  independents  like  to  program  this  type  of  show  during  the  prime  access  and  late-  night 
 time  periods.  Second,  comedies  have  the  added  advantage  of  being  less  expensive  to 
 produce  initially  than  drama  series.  While  comedies  were  13  percent  of  the  schedule  in 
 1974,  by  1989  comedies  accounted  for  over  27  percent  of  the  schedule.  This  genre 
 represented  almost  a  third  of  the  schedule  through  the  1990s,  when  it  began  to  decline  in 
 1998  Thus  it  would  appear  that  the  elimination  of  the  fin-  syn  in  the  early  1990s  may 
 have  combined  with  the  attractive  economics  of  comedies  to  produce  peak  quantities  of 
 comedies  by  1997.  Since  that  time,  the  networks  have  pulled  back  because  it  does  not 
 make  economic  sense  for  them  to  over-  produce  one  type  of  programming. 
 The  recent  growth  in  drama  programming  should  be  noted.  This  has  occurred  in 
 spite  of  dramas  being  more  expensive  to  produce  than  comedies  and  being  less  lucrative 
 in  the  syndication  market.  One  reason  for  this  increase  is  the  elimination  of  Sunday  night 
 movies.  The  networks  used  to  program  this  night  with  blockbuster  movies,  made-  for  TV 
 movies,  or  miniseries.  It  is  possible  that  the  networks  exit  from  the  movie  business  may 
 have  freed  up  revenue  to  produce  more  original  (and/  or  more  expensive)  programming. 
 Another  possible  reason  for  the  move  toward  dramatic  programming  is  the  increase  in 
 repurposing.  Repurposing  refers  to  the  appearance  of  a  show  on  a  cable  network  within 
 one  or  two  weeks  of  the  shows  debut  on  a  broadcast  network.  Repurposing  began  in  the 
 late  1990s  as  a  way  for  producers  to  more  quickly  recoup  their  investment.  It  has  since 
14
 14 
 become  a  way  for  networks  to  do  the  same  thing.  Repurposing  started  with  Law  &  Order: 
 Special  Victims  Unit  in  1999.  The  show  would  air  first  on  NBC  and  then  on  USA  Cable 
 Network  nine  days  later.  USA  Network,  owned  by  the  same  company  as  Studios  USA 
 (now  Universal),  is  the  producer  of  Law  &  Order.  In  this  way,  repurposing  is  doubly 
 attractive  for  Studios  USA.  They  make  money  from  selling  the  show  to  NBC,  and  then 
 they  sell  advertising  within  the  show  when  it  is  repurposed  on  USA  Networks.  Other 
 companies  have  begun  repurposing  as  well.  Once  and  Again  aired  first  on  ABC  and  then 
 on  Lifetime    from  production  to  double  distribution,  all  owned  by  Disney.  Alias,  which 
 is  produced  by  Touchstone,  airs  first  on  ABC  and  then  on  ABC  Family.  Thus  far, 
 repurposing  has  not  been  applied  to  genres  other  than  drama.  5 


 Program  Diversity  Analysis 
 A.  Dominick  &  Pearce  Methodology 
 The  following  chart  is  based  on  Dominick  and  Pearces  diversity  indicator.  This 
 index  demonstrates  the  extent  to  which  a  limited  number  of  categories  dominate  prime 
 time.  It  is  derived  by  summing  the  percentages  in  the  top  three  categories  per  season 
 and  subtracting  from  100  (p.  73).  With  22  categories,  the  numbers  could  range  from 
 zero  to  86.  The  lower  the  number,  the  less  diversity. 


 5  Because  this  phenomenon  is  so  new,  the  long-  term  syndication  implications  have  not  yet  been  tested  in 
 the  market. 
15
 15 
 Dominick  Pearce  Diversity  Indicator 


 43 
 47  50  49  50 


 40 


 31 
 37  39  38  37 
 42 
 38  40  35  36 


 30 


 44 
 39 


 46  49  44  44 


 0 
 10 
 20 
 30 
 40 
 50 
 60 
 70 
 80 


 1966  1967  1968  1969  1970  1971  1972  1973  1974  1989  1990  1991  1992  1993  1994  1995  1996  1997  1998  1999  2000  2001  2002 
 Year 


 D/ 
 P 
 Index  Dominick  Pearce  Index 


 Diversity  in  this  sense  was  at  its  peak  in  between  1968  and  1970.  However,  diversity 
 began  a  downward  trend  beginning  in  1971,  the  first  full  year  of  the  fin-  syn  rules. 
 Remember,  the  lower  the  number,  the  less  diversity  in  programming.  Thus  more  time 
 was  being  devoted  to  fewer  types  of  programming.  The  ten-  point  decline  in  diversity 
 from  1970  to  1971  can  be  attributed  to  an  increase  in  motion  pictures  on  the  prime  time 
 schedule.  Twenty-  five  percent  of  program  hours  made  up  of  movies  became  the  norm  for 
 several  years.  Crime/  detective  programming  also  became  a  major  staple  of  prime  time. 
 In  1973  when  diversity  was  at  its  lowest  during  that  period,  three  categories    motion 
 pictures,  crime/  detective  dramas  and  situation  comedies    accounted  for  69  percent  of 
 network  prime  time  programming.  It  is  likely  that  the  increase  in  motion  pictures  can  be 
 attributed  to  the  introduction  of  fin-  syn.  Since  the  networks  couldnt  participate  in 
 programming,  they  put  on  programming  that  wouldnt  benefit  other  television  producers. 
16
 16 
 However,  cable  television  was  not  yet  widely  available  and  Hollywood  was  just  starting 
 to  release  films  to  the  networks,  so  this  too  may  have  contributed  to  the  increase  in  this 
 type  of  programming.  Certainly  the  increase  in  crime/  detective  programming  is  difficult 
 to  attribute  this  to  economics  or  regulation.  It  may  have  been  that  the  networks  wanted  to 
 create  a  situation  whereby  they  could  say  to  regulators  that  diversity  decreased  when  they 
 were  no  longer  allowed  a  stake  in  the  programming.  However,  there  is  no  evidence  to 
 support  this  theory  other  than  speculation. 
 By  the  1990s,  diversity  had  recovered  from  its  1970s  low  of  30  to  rebound  to 
 almost  peak  levels  by  the  2001-  02  season.  Early  in  the  decade,  diversity  hovered  in  the 
 30s.  Some  of  this  may  be  attributable  to  the  repeal  of  fin-  syn.  Throughout  this  time 
 period,  the  networks  would  begin  to  produce  their  own  programming  and  to  look  for 
 long-  term  syndication  opportunities.  This  need  to  exploit  economic  opportunities  led  to 
 the  increase  in  situation  comedies  and  an  abundance  of  newsmagazines  throughout  the 
 decade.  Motion  pictures,  sitcoms  and  crime/  detective  shows  accounted  for  the  three  top 
 programming  slots  through  most  of  the  decade. 
 1997  is  a  pivotal  year  during  this  time  period.  After  diversity  has  remained 
 constant  for  eight  years,  it  dives  sharply  in  1997  and  then  rises  even  more  sharply 
 thereafter.  The  flood  of  situation  comedies  on  the  networks  saw  its  peak  in  1997  with  40 
 comedies  on  the  air  representing  30  percent  of  prime  time  programming.  The  same  year, 
 crime/  detective  dramas  represented  25  percent  of  programming.  That  is  55    more  than 
 half  of  all  programming    represented  in  only  two  genre  categories. 
 The  current  diversity  trend  may  be  attributable  to  the  changing  economic  structure 
 of  the  industry.  The  networks  have  a  handful  of  expensive  programming  they  have  had 
17
 17 
 to  balance  with  less  expensive  programming.  This  has  led  to  the  new  genres,  like  game 
 shows,  reality  programming  and  even  comedy  variety  programming  coming  back  to 
 prime  time.  While  game  shows  appear  to  have  been  a  short-  term  fad  as  evidenced  by 
 their  disappearance  from  the  schedule  and  an  accompanying  decrease  in  diversity,  other 
 shows,  particularly  reality  programming,  seem  to  have  staying  power.  It  is  important  to 
 note  that  diversity  increased  after  the  repeal  of  fin-  syn.  While  diversity  initially  dropped, 
 particularly  in  the  years  immediately  following  the  rules  repeal,  diversity  has  most 
 recently  increased  to  pre-  fin-  syn  levels.  This  is  not  to  say  that  there  is  a  breadth  of 
 diversity    the  scale  reaches  to  86  and  the  diversity  score  never  exceeded  50  in  either 
 decade. 
 The  bottom  line  is  this:  diversity  increased  after  the  repeal  of  fin-  syn.  While 
 diversity  initially  dropped  in  the  years  immediately  following  the  rules  repeal,  diversity 
 has  most  recently  increased  to  pre-  fin-  syn  levels. 
 To  ensure  the  coding  was  not  skewing  results  based  on  categories  not  existing  in 
 the  1970s,  the  programs  were  also  coded  using  an  index  geared  toward  1990s 
 programming.  The  prime  time  schedule  in  the  1960s  and  1970s  was  filled  with  westerns 
 and  variety  series    programming  that  has  disappeared  from  prime  time  in  the  1990s. 
 Similarly  reality  programming  and  newsmagazines  are  genres  that  did  not  exist,  or  only 
 existed  on  a  limited  basis,  in  the  earlier  time  period.  By  creating  a  code  for  the  later  time 
 period  wherein  the  categories  aligned  with  the  currently  schedule,  a  more  fine-  tuned 
18
 18 
 analysis  of  the  latter  time  period  could  be  done. 
 Dominick  Pearce  Index 


 48.0 
 43.0 
 48.0 


 41.0  42.0  41.0  41.0  39.0 


 49.0  50.0 


 60.0 


 46.0 
 60.0 
 52.0 


 0.0 
 10.0 
 20.0 
 30.0 
 40.0 
 50.0 
 60.0 
 70.0 
 80.0 


 1989  1990  1991  1992  1993  1994  1995  1996  1997  1998  1999  2000  2001  2002 
 Year 


 D/  P 
 Index  Dominick  Pearce  Index 


 The  pattern  follows  a  trend  similar  to  that  using  the  codes  from  the  1970s. 
 Diversity  is  at  its  highest  during  the  2001-  2002  season  and  continues  into  the  2002-  03 
 season.  The  lowest  point  is  during  1997  when  the  schedule  was  dominated  by  situation 
 comedies.  This  coding  does  suggest  that  the  programming  is  more  diverse  then  using  the 
 coding  from  the  earlier  periods.  Whether  we  believe  that  or  not,  the  similarity  in  trends 
 further  supports  how  ineffective  the  fin-  syn  rules  were  in  achieving  their  diversity  goal. 


 B.  HHI  Methodology. 
 An  alternative  means  for  looking  at  diversity  is  the  Herfindahl-  Hirschman  index 
 (HHI).  The  HHI  is  calculated  by  summing  the  squares  of  the  percentage,  or  share,  of 
 each  program  type.  This  index  measures  the  size  distribution  of  programming  The 
19
 19 
 higher  the  HHI,  the  greater  the  concentration  of  programming  into  a  few  program  types, 
 and  hence  the  less  the  diversity  (Litman,  1979,  p.  403).  Thus  if  we  can  equate  high 
 concentration  with  a  limited  number  of  program  genres,  then  we  can  use  this  index  as  a 
 determinant  of  lack  of  diversity.  While  Dominick  and  Pearce  allowed  us  to  evaluate 
 concentration  within  the  top  three  categories  of  programming,  HHI  goes  one  step  further 
 by  taking  into  account  all  program  types  on  the  schedule. 
 The  following  chart  provides  the  Herfindahl  indices  for  the  years  being  studied. 
 Figure  3 


 Herfindahl  Index 


 0 
 0.05 
 0.1 
 0.15 
 0.2 


 0.25 


 1966  1967  1968  1969  1970  1971  1972  1973  1974  1989  1990  1991  1992  1993  1994  1995  1996  1997  1998  1999  2000  2001  2002 
 Year 


 Lower 
 Data 
 Points 


 = 
 Greater 


 Diversity 


 Herfindahl  Index 


 As  with  the  Dominick  index,  the  1970s  showed  a  marked  decline  in  program  diversity  on 
 the  networks  suggesting  a  strong  concentration  of  programming  into  a  few  program 
 types.  The  HHI  follows  the  same  pattern  as  the  Dominick  Pearce  index.  The  pattern  is 
 consistent    after  the  rules  were  enacted,  diversity  decreased;  when  the  rules  were 
20
 20 
 repealed,  diversity  increased.  It  would  seem  possible,  therefore,  to  correlate  the 
 regulation  to  diversity  in  programming. 


 Using  1990s  coding,  again  we  see  a  now  familiar  pattern    programming  at  its 
 most  concentrated  during  the  1997-  98  season.  With  this  coding,  the  increasing  diversity 
 trend  continues  into  the  2002-  03  season.  Remember  with  the  Dominick  Pearce  index, 
 diversity  remained  flat.  Since  the  HHI  shows  increasing  diversity,  it  demonstrates  that 
 past  the  top  three  categories  of  programming  there  is  more  variety  for  the  television 
 viewer. 


 Herfindahl  Diversity  Index 
 0 
 0.02 
 0.04 
 0.06 
 0.08 
 0.1 
 0.12 
 0.14 
 0.16 
 0.18 


 1989  1990  1991  1992  1993  1994  1995  1996  1997  1998  1999  2000  2001 
 Year 


 Diversity 
 Index  Herfindahl  Diversity  Index 
21
 21 
 C.  Horizontal  Methodology 


 While  the  two  previous  methods  evaluate  programming  vertically,  that  is  across 
 the  entire  programming  schedule,  another  means  of  looking  at  diversity  is  to  measure  it 
 horizontally.  A  horizontal  index  evaluates  what  is  on  the  three  networks  at  any  given 
 point  in  time,  so  it  more  truly  evaluates  the  diversity  of  programming  a  viewer  has 
 available  to  him  or  her  at  any  particular  half-  hour  period.  This  is  an  important  distinction 
 from  a  horizontal  index.  Litman  (1979)  provides  the  following  example: 
 assume  each  of  the  networks  decides  to  offer  a  new  documentary  program  in  its  schedule.  This  would  increase  the  vertical  diversity  in 
 each  networks  schedule;  however,  if  these  new  documentaries  are  broadcast  opposite  each  other,  then  the  viewer  has  no  choice  at  that  point 
 in  time.  Hence,  changes  in  vertical  network  diversity  may  not  fully  translate  into  increased  viewer  options.  (p.  403) 


 A  horizontal  index  is  calculated  by  counting  the  number  of  program  genres  available 
 during  each  half-  hour  period  of  the  prime  time  schedule.  This  number  is  divided  by  the 
 total  number  of  hours  or  prime  time  programming.  This  determines  the  average  number 
 of  program  types  during  prime  time.  Perfect  imitation  would  equal  one  while  perfect 
 diversity  would  equal  three  (p.  404). 
22
 22 
 Horizontal  Diversity  Index 


 2.72  2.78 
 2.82  2.82 


 2.68 


 2.84 


 2.60  2.58 
 2.50 
 2.41  2.45  2.36 


 2.27 


 2.45  2.45 


 2.23 
 2.14 


 2.50 
 2.32 
 2.43 


 2.68 
 2.52 


 2.88 


 1.00 
 1.20 
 1.40 
 1.60 
 1.80 
 2.00 
 2.20 
 2.40 
 2.60 
 2.80 
 3.00 


 1966  1967  1968  1969  1970  1971  1972  1973  1974  1989  1990  1991  1992  1993  1994  1995  1996  1997  1998  1999  2000  2001  2002  Year 
 Diversity 
 Indes  Diversity  Index 


 This  index  tells  a  slightly  different  story  than  the  other  two.  In  the  early  time 
 period,  the  fluctuations  in  horizontal  diversity  reflect  the  fluctuations  in  diversity  overall. 
 That  is,  as  fewer  types  of  programming  were  available  overall,  the  networks  had  more 
 similar  programming  on  at  the  same  time.  However,  this  is  only  on  a  very  limited  basis. 
 Perfect  diversity  is  a  three.  Until  1974,  the  diversity  index  does  not  go  below  2.6 
 suggesting  that  the  networks  are  counter-  programming  in  order  to  pull  viewers  from  their 
 competitors.  In  the  1990s,  the  re  is  a  significant  reduction  in  horizontal  diversity  on  the 
 networks.  This  would  make  sense  in  light  of  the  new  program  options  available  to  most 
 viewers.  The  networks  may  feel  less  of  a  need  to  diverge  from  one  another,  but  rather, 
 want  to  diverge  from  cable.  For  example,  one  reason  variety/  music  programming 
 disappeared  from  the  schedule  in  the  1990s  is  because  these  programs  were  available  on  a 
 24-  hour  basis  on  individual  cable  networks  like  Comedy  Central  and  MTV.  These 
23
 23 
 program  types  are  no  longer  viable  options  for  the  networks,  so  instead  they  produce 
 more  comedies  and  drama  s  which  are  their  forte  and  which  cost  less  to  produce  than 
 movies.  Economics  comes  into  play  here  as  well  as  the  networks  production  of 
 programming  that  is  less  expensive  and/  or  more  easily  syndicated.  Not  surprisingly, 
 horizontal  diversity  has  its  lowest  point  in  1997,  just  as  programming  reached  its  lowest 
 level  of  diversity.  It  is  also  not  surprising  to  see  this  index  rebound  during  the  2001-  02 
 season  when  there  were  many  more  new  genres  available  for  viewers. 


 1970s  vs.  1990s  code 


 0.00 
 0.50 
 1.00 
 1.50 
 2.00 
 2.50 
 3.00 


 1989  1990  1991  1992  1993  1994  1995  1996  1997  1998  1999  2000  2001  2002 
 Year 


 Horizontal 
 Diversity 
 Index 
 1970s  code 
 1990s  code 


 As  we  have  seen  with  the  previous  charts,  recoding  the  information  has  little  impact  on 
 the  diversity  index. 


 The  Connection  Between  Producers  and  Diversity 
24
 24 
 The  FCCs  contention  has  been  that  there  is  a  correlation  between  who  the 
 suppliers  of  programming  are  and  the  diversity  of  programming  that  they  produce.  This 
 is  based  on  the  Commissions  past  minority  ownership  and  EEO  policies  as  well  as  the 
 fin-  syn  rules  which  suggested  that  more  producers,  and  specifically  not  the  networks  as 
 producers,  would  create  more  diversity  for  prime  time  network  viewers.  To  test  this 
 theory,  we  assessed  the  identity  of  the  program  suppliers  during  the  the  two  time  periods 
 surrounding  the  introduction  and  repeal  of  fin-  syn.  Changes  over  time  were  evaluated 
 using  simple  percentages.  This  information  is  then  compared  with  the  program  diversity 
 information.  By  looking  at  who  the  producers  are  and  comparing  that  with  the  level  of 
 diversity,  we  can  see  whether  or  not  the  FCCs  hypothesis  is  correct. 
 The  FCC  has  also  been  concerned  about  the  level  of  concentration  within  the 
 television  industry.  One  of  the  major  effects  of  the  repeal  of  the  fin-  syn  rules  was  the 
 change  in  the  structure  of  the  television  industry.  This  change  led  to  significant 
 concentration  in  the  supply  side  of  the  television  industry  as  well  as  increased  vertical 
 integration  of  the  broadcast  networks.  Examination  of  program  suppliers  would  not  be 
 complete  without  examining  the  impact  of  this  significant  change.  As  mentioned 
 previously,  many  media  scholars  have  decried  the  effects  of  media  consolidation  as 
 anathema  to  diversity.  This  research  will  suggest  otherwise. 
 Unfortunately,  information  for  the  earlier  period  was  intermittent,  so  the  analysis 
 there  is  limited.  There  is  enough,  however,  to  evaluate  who  the  major  suppliers  were  and 
 how  many  there  were.  Information  on  the  1990s  and  beyond  was  plentiful  and  provides  a 
 thorough  picture  of  the  interaction  between  supplier  and  content. 
25
 25 
 Table  1 
 Twenty  Leading  Network  Suppliers:  Prime  Time,  1970,  1977  Share  of  Programming  Hours  (%) 


 Supplier  1970  Supplier  1977 
 1  Universal  12.8  Universal  18.4 
 2  Twentieth-  Century  Fox  7.3  Warner  6.7 
 3  Paramount  6.4  Spelling/  Goldberg  6.1 
 4  Columbia  6.1  Lorimar  5.4 
 5  MGM  4.5  MTM  5.3 
 6  Filmways  3.6  Columbia  3.6 
 7  ITC  3.0  MGM  3.5 
 8  Harbour  2.6  Paramount  3.5 
 9  Spelling/  Thomas  2.3  Aaron  Spelling  3.2 
 10  Talent  2.2  Twentieth-  Century  Fox  3.2 
 11  Teleklew  2.0  Walt  Disney  2.9 
 12  CBS  19.  Tandem  2.9 
 13  Walt  Disney  1.  9  Quinn-  Martin  2.7 
 14  Leonard  Freeman  1.8  Tat  2.4 
 15  NBC  1.8  Toy  2.2 
 16  Sullivan  1.8  CBS  2.0 
 17  Peekskill  1.7  Four  D  2.0 
 18  Xandu  1.7  Whacko  1.7 
 19  Van  Bernard  1.5  Schick-  Sunn  Classics  1.6 


 20  Glenco  1.5*  David  Gerber  1.6 
 66.9  80.9 
 *  Others  with  1.5  market  share:  Barnaby  Note.  Adapted  from  NISS  Report. 


 The  above  chart  shows  the  share  of  programming  by  the  leading  prime  time 
 program  suppliers  during  the  1970  and  1977  television  seasons.  This  provides  data  for  a 
 year  before  the  fin-  syn  rules  and  for  a  year  after  the  rules  had  been  in  effect  for  a  number 
 of  years.  While  in  both  years  the  top  ten  included  many  of  the  major  studios,  such  as 
 Universal  and  Warner  Brothers,  there  were  still  several  independent  companies 
 accounting  for  significant  percentages  of  the  prime  time  schedule.  In  1970,  while  the  top 
 five  slots  were  held  by  major  studios,  the  next  five  were  held  by  independent  studios. 
 Eleven  of  the  top  20  suppliers  were  independent  production  companies.  Also  of  note  is 
 that  the  top  20  suppliers  accounted  for  almost  67%  of  prime  time  programming.  In 
 1977,  independent  producers  were  still  well  represented  in  the  top  20.  Spelling/  Goldberg, 
26
 26 
 Lorimar,  MTM  and  Aaron  Spelling  were  all  independent  producers  in  the  top  ten  in  1977. 
 Eight  out  of  the  bottom  ten  suppliers  were  also  independent  companies.  Overall,  then,  12 
 out  of  the  top  20  suppliers  during  1977  were  independent  companies.  However,  the 
 program  supply  market  was  beginning  to  consolidate,  which  is  evidenced  by  the  fact  that 
 the  top  20  suppliers  in  1977  accounting  for  almost  81%  of  the  prime  time  hours  versus 
 67%  only  seven  years  before. 
 By  the  1990s,  I  could  not  even  evaluate  based  on  the  top  20  because  there  were 
 not  enough  suppliers  to  fill  that  many  spaces,  so  the  top  15  were  analyzed  for  1995,  10 
 for  2002.  (Totals  do  not  equal  100  percent  because  of  movies  on  the  schedule,  i.  e., 
 movies  represent  12.2%  of  the  2002  prime  time  schedule). 
 Table  2 
 Network  Suppliers:  Prime  Time  1989,  1995,  2002  Share  of  Programming  Hours  (%) 


 Supplier  1989  Supplier  1995  Supplier  2002 
 1  Lorimar  12.9  Warner  Brothers  18.9  CBS  28.0 
 2  CBS  7.6  CBS  12.1  ABC  21.2 
 3  Columbia  7.6  NBC  8.3  NBC  14.4 
 4  Universal  6.8  ABC  7.6  Warner  Bros.  9.9 
 5  Warner  Brothers  6.8  Paramount  6.8  Universal  6.8 
 6  ABC  6.1  Universal  5.3  20th  Century  Fox  1.5 
 7  MGM  4.5  Columbia  4.5  Bochco  Prod.  1.5 
 8  Paramount  4.5  Disney/  Touchstone  4.5  Endemol  Ent.  1.5 
 9  Stephen  J.  Cannell  Prod.  4.3  20th  Century  Fox  3.0  Hallmark  Ent.  1.5 
 10  Disney/  Touchstone  3.8  Steven  Bochco  Prod.  3.0  Next  Ent.  1.5 
 11  20th  Century  Fox  3.8  Carsey-  Werner  Co.  2.3  87.8 
 12  NBC  3.0  Brillstein-  Grey  1.5 
 13  Viacom  3.0  Cosgrove/  Muerer  1.5 
 14  Carsey-  Werner  3.0  Gothic  Renaissance  1.5 
 15  16 


 17  18 
 19 
 20  21 


 22 


 New  World  Castle  Rock  Productions 
 Cosgrove/  Muerer  Prods.  GTG  Productions 
 Alien  Productions 
 Steven  Bochco  Prods.  Carson  Productions 


 MTM  Productions 


 2.3  1.5 
 1.5  1.5 
 0.8 
 0.8  0.8 


 0.8 


 Castle  Rock  Ent.  0.8  81.6 
27
 27 
 87.7 
 *  1989  =  1989/  90  season 
 **  Lorimar  attributed  as  part  of  Warner  Brothers  as  of  1990 
 ***  Spelling  and  Viacom  counted  as  part  of  Paramount  as  of  1994 
 ****  Witt  Thomas  attributed  to  Warner  Brothers  as  of  1995 
 *****  1996  -  Disney/  Touchstone  attributed  to  ABC  and  Castle  Rock  to  Warner  Brothers  If  a  broadcast  network  owned  any  part  of  a  show,  the  show  was  created  to  the  network. 


 In  1989,  there  were  still  a  number  of  independent  companies    Lorimar,  which  was  the 
 leading  supplier  that  year,  Cannell  Productions,  Carsey-  Werner  ,  New  World  and  a 
 handful  of  smaller  companies  like  Alien  Productions  and  GTG  Productions.  ABC  and 
 CBS  had  already  cracked  the  top  ten  while  NBC  was  at  Number  12.  6  This  was  likely  in 
 anticipation  of  changes  to  the  fin-  syn  rules.  Consolidation  of  top  suppliers  continued 
 with  fifteen  suppliers  accounting  for  80%  of  prime  time  programming.  By  1995,  the 
 three  broadcast  networks  were  the  second,  third  and  fourth  leading  program  suppliers  for 
 prime  time,  together  accounting  for  28%  of  prime  time.  Only  Warner  Brothers  produced 
 more  programming  than  the  networks.  While  there  were  six  independent  companies 
 within  the  group  of  the  top  fifteen  suppliers,  they  accounted  for  just  over  ten  percent  of 
 programming.  By  this  time,  the  top  15  accounted  for  more  80%  of  programming.  By 
 2002,  the  three  original  broadcast  networks  are  the  top  three  program  suppliers 
 accounting  for  almost  64%,  or  two-  thirds  of  all  of  prime  time.  In  fact,  the  top  six  (which 
 by  this  point  consisted  of  the  six  broadcast  networks  and  Universal)  accounted  for  82%  of 


 6  The  fin-  syn  rules  did  not  forbid  the  networks  to  produce  their  own  programming.  It  was  the  consent 
 decrees  that  limited  this  production.  By  1989,  the  networks  could  produce  4  hours  of  programming  per 
 night  and  by  1990,  that  would  restriction  would  be  eliminated. 
28
 28 
 programming.  The  leading  six  suppliers  accounted  for  less  than  50%  only  eleven  years 
 earlier.  7 
 Table  3 
 Six  Leading  Network  Suppliers:  Prime  Time,  1989,1995,  2002  Share  of  Programming  Hours  (%) 


 Supplier  1989  Supplier  1995  Supplier  2002 
 1  Lorimar  12.9  Warner  Bros  18.9  CBS  28.0 
 2  CBS  7.6  CBS  12.1  ABC  21.2 
 3  Columbia  7.6  NBC  8.3  NBC  14.4 
 4  Universal  6.8  ABC  7.6  Warner  Bros.  9.9 
 5  Warner  Bros  6.8  Paramount  6.8  Universal  6.8 
 6  ABC  6.1  Universal  5.3  20th  Century 
 Fox 
 1.5 


 Total  top  6  47.8  59  81.8 


 Breaking  this  down  a  bit  further,  since  the  financial  interest  and  syndication  rules 
 were  concerned  with  maintaining  the  vitality  of  the  independent  production  community, 
 an  analysis  was  done  of  the  percentage  of  programming  by  type  of  producer. 


 7  Twentieth-  Century  Fox  appears  to  be  under-  represented  in  this  chart.  That  is  because  most  of  its 
 programming  appears  either  on  the  Fox  network  or  the  mini-  nets,  or  shows  are  produced  in  conjunction 
 with  a  networks  as  is  the  case  with  several  Fox  shows  that  appear  on  CBS. 
29
 29 
 Figure  14 
 Prime  Time  Programming  Producers  -  1989-  2002 


 0.0% 
 10.0% 
 20.0% 
 30.0% 
 40.0% 
 50.0% 
 60.0% 
 70.0% 


 1989  1990  1991  1992  1993  1994  1995  1996  1997  1998  1999  2000  2001  2002 
 Year 


 Percent 
 of 
 Prime 


 Time 
 Programming  Network  Majors  Mini  Majors  Independents  Movies 


 Producers  were  categorized  as  network  (this  includes  only  the  3  major  networks  for  this 
 analysis),  Hollywood  major,  what  we  term  a  mini-  major  (which  are  companies  such  as 
 Lorimar,  Orion  and  Viacom),  independents,  and  movies.  Movies  were  evaluated  as  a 
 separate  category,  because  their  suppliers  are  varied,  but  their  presence  on  the  prime  time 
 schedule  is  significant. 
 As  the  chart  clearly  demonstrates,  the  mini-  majors  have  all  disappeared  by  the 
 end  of  the  decade,  having  all  been  acquired  by  a  larger  corporation  (the  exception  being 
 Viacom  which  acquired  CBS  and  thus  no  longer  qualifies  as  a  mini-  major).  Independents 
 have  fallen  from  supplying  15%  to  6%  of  the  prime  time  schedule  from  1989  to  2002.  It 
 appears  the  major  studios  have  lost  the  largest  share,  going  from  a  high  of  48.5%  in  1990 
 to  18.2%  in  2001.  This  is  deceiving,  however.  Instead  of  three  networks  and  eight  major 
30
 30 
 studio  producers,  we  now  have  six  combined  network/  producers.  These  studios  have  not 
 disappeared,  but  rather  have  merged  with  networks  to  become  vertically  integrated 
 corporations.  Because  of  this,  the  big  winners  have  been  the  three  major  broadcast 
 networks.  These  three  companies  went  from  a  low  of  13.6%  in  1990,  just  prior  to  the 
 changing  of  the  fin-  syn  rules,  to  a  high  of  65.9%  in  2001  with  a  slight  drop  in  the  2002 
 season.  However,  that  is  an  increase  of  over  450%. 
 Based  on  the  diversity  analysis  earlier  in  the  chapter,  diversity  was  at  its  peak 
 between  1968  and  1970.  Based  on  the  current  analysis,  we  saw  that  the  industry  was  the 
 least  consolidated  in  1970.  Although  that  would  suggest  that  a  larger  number  of  suppliers 
 tend  to  produce  greater  program  diversity,  that  trend  does  not  continue  into  the  1990s. 
 While  programming  during  the  1990s  was  in  the  mid-  level  of  diversity,  between  35  and 
 42  on  an  86-  point  scale  up  until  1997,  by  2001  diversity  is  at  its  highest  (49)  even  while 
 the  industry  was  its  most  consolidated. 
 In  looking  at  the  consolidation  of  the  supply  market  for  prime  time  programming, 
 the  changed  structure  of  the  industry  has  to  be  taken  into  account.  8  Up  until  this  point, 
 only  the  three  original  networks  have  been  considered  as  networks.  However,  this  is  not 
 the  reality  anymore.  Fox  is  considered  by  all  in  the  business  as  well  as  outside  of  the 
 industry  to  be  a  full-  fledged  network.  The  newest  networks  --  UPN  and  WB  --  have  also 
 established  the  mselves  as  full  broadcasters.  WB  more  so  than  UPN,  but  this  too  may 
 change  with  Viacoms  purchase  of  UPN  and  Foxs  purchase  of  a  number  of  UPN  affiliate 


 8  Many  programs  are  produced  as  collaborations  between  networks  and  studios,  networks  and  producers  or 
 producers  and  studios.  In  this  analysis  the  network  was  considered  the  producer  if  they  had  any  financial 
 stake  in  a  show.  The  network  was  given  primacy  to  show  the  impact  of  fin-  syn. 
31
 31 
 stations.  When  we  take  this  into  account,  the  distribution  of  program  supply  changes  a 
 bit,  as  is  evidenced  in  the  chart  below. 
 Table  4 
 Suppliers  of  Prime  Time  Programming    2002 
 As  3  Networks,  4  Networks  and  6  Networks 
 %  by  Supplier  in  Hours 
 3  Networks  4  Networks  6  Networks  #  of  Hours  %  by 
 Supplier  #  of  Hours  %  by  Supplier  #  of  Hours  %  by  Supplier 
 Networks  42  63.6%  52  64.2%  77.5  74.5% 
 ABC  14  21.2  14  17.3  14  13.5 
 CBS/  UPN  18.5  28.0  18.5  22.8  25.5  24.5 
 NBC  9.5  14.4  9.5  11.7  9.5  9.1 
 FOX  10  12.3  12.5  12 
 WB  16  15.4 
 Majors  12  18.2%  12  14.8%  5.5  5.3% 
 Columbia  0  0  1  1.0 
 20  th  Century  Fox  1  1.5  0  0 
 Universal  4.5  6.8  4.5  5.6  4.5  4.3 
 Warner  Brothers  6.5  9.8  7.5  9.3  9 
 Independents  4  6.1%  7  8.6%  9  8.7% 
 Bochco  Prod.  1  1.5  1  1.2  1  1.0 
 Barbour/  Langley  1  1.2  1  1.0 
 Carsey-  Werner  1  1.2  1  1.0 
 Endemol  Ent.  1  1.5  1  1.2  1  1.0 
 Hallmark  Ent.  1  1.5  1  1.2  1  1.0 
 Next  Ent./  Telepictures  1  1.5  1  1.2  1  1.0 
 STF  Productions  1  1.2  1  1.0 
 Titan  Sports  2  1.9 
 Movies  8  12.1%  10  12.3%  12  11.5% 


 This  chart  analyzes  the  percentage  of  prime  time  programming  supplied  to  the 
 networks  by  source.  This  is  done  in  three  different  ways.  First,  suppliers  are  calculated 
 simply  based  on  the  three  original  broadcast  networks.  Then,  Fox  is  added  to  the  original 
 broadcast  networks,  making  it  a  four-  network  analysis.  Finally,  all  six  networks  are 
 considered  as  part  of  the  network  group. 
32
 32 
 There  is  little  difference  in  the  percent  of  production  by  the  networks  when 
 analyzing  a  three  versus  four  network  universe.  If  we  look  just  at  the  three  broadcast 
 networks,  they  account  for  63.6%  of  prime  time  broadcast  network  programming.  When 
 we  add  Fox  that  number  increases  slightly  to  64.2%.  However,  add  UPN  and  WB  and 
 the  number  increases  to  nearly  75%  of  the  prime  time  schedule  being  supplied  by  these 
 six  companies.  This  increase  occurs  principally  because  not  only  are  UPN  and  WB 
 added  to  the  network  total,  but  Warner  Brothers  (WBs  parent  company)  is  eliminated 
 from  the  major  studio  figures.  The  only  majors  not  associated  with  a  network,  Columbia 
 and  Universal,  account  for  5.3%  of  programming. 
 Independents  account  for  only  four  hours  or  6.1%  of  programming  on  the  three 
 original  broadcast  networks.  When  all  six  networks  are  analyzed,  independents  account 
 for  9  hours  or  8.7%  of  programming.  While  not  significant  in  comparison  to  what  the 
 major  studios  are  producing,  it  is  significant  in  relation  to  what  they  produce  for  the  Big 
 Three.  When  viewed  from  the  six-  network  perspective,  independents  had  slightly  more 
 success  with  the  three  newest  networks  than  with  the  three  oldest  networks.  For  purposes 
 of  program  supply  analysis,  perhaps  the  most  salient  fact  is  that  the  six  vertically 
 integrated  network/  producers  create  and  distribute  three-  fourths  of  all  prime  time 
 programming.  This  means  that  only  25%  of  prime  time  programming  is  being  supplied 
 by  companies  other  than  the  six  networks  themselves  and  almost  half  of  that  percentage 
 is  movies,  not  regular  prime  time  series. 
 Having  said  all  of  this,  it  is  important  to  bear  in  mind  the  previous  diversity 
 analysis.  While  many  media  critics  have  decried  the  consolidation  of  the  media  industry 
33
 33 
 due  to  its  negative  effects  on  diversity,  this  research  does  not  support  that  theory.  As  the 
 industry  has  become  more  consolidated,  program  diversity  has  increased. 


 Summary/  Conclusion 
 Diversity  was  at  its  peak  in  the  late  1960s  before  the  advent  of  the  financial 
 interest  and  syndication  rules  and  declined  two  years  after  those  rules  were  implemented. 
 Throughout  the  1990s,  diversity  has  remained  fairly  constant,  approximately  in  the 
 middle  of  the  historical  range,  but  has  increased  sharply  in  the  years  following  fin-  syns 
 repeal.  The  recent  increase  in  program  diversity  has  coincided  with  increased 
 verticalization  within  the  broadcast  television  business.  That  is,  as  networks  began 
 owning  and  producing  more  of  the  program  they  distributed,  our  taxonomy  finds  that 
 program  diversity  increased. 
 Changes  in  program  diversity  correlated  in  similar  fashion  under  all  of  fin-  syn 
 rules  on  all  of  the  measurements  tested.  Based  on  Dominick  and  Pearces  diversity 
 index,  which  is  a  measure  of  the  concentration  of  programming  in  the  top  three  genres, 
 diversity  decreased  from  an  index  of  50  in  1969  to  a  low  of  31  in  1973  and  rebounding  to 
 37  in  1974.  This  number  increased  to  39  in  1989,  dove  to  30  in  1997,  but  has  since 
 jumped  to  49    virtually  matching  the  pre-  fin-  syn  high.  The  Herfindahl-  Hirschman  Index 
 index,  also  a  measure  of  concentration,  demonstrated  the  same  pattern  of  diversity. 
 Based  on  these  figures,  it  may  be  possible  to  say  that  fin-  syn  contributed  to  a  decline  in 
 diversity,  since  the  drop  occurred  at  the  same  time  as  the  rules.  Similarly,  the  repeal  of 
 the  rules,  led  to  an  increase  in  the  diversity  of  genres  within  two  seasons  after  its  repeal. 
34
 34 
 These  indexes  analyzed  vertical  diversity,  that  is  diversity  within  a  single  network 
 or  throughout  the  entire  broadcast  schedule.  A  horizontal  index  was  used  to  measure 
 diversity  across  networks  at  any  given  time  period.  The  horizontal  index  also  showed 
 that  diversity  was  flat  in  the  early  1970s  and  throughout  the  1990s  and  beyond.  What  this 
 index  also  demonstrates  is  that  the  networks  do  not  schedule  the  same  type  of 
 programming  at  the  same  time  as  their  competitors.  The  networks  counterprogram 
 against  one  another.  The  networks  did  this  in  the  1970s,  and  they  continue  to  do  so  in  the 
 2000s.  Even  with  three  to  four  dominating  program  types  it  is  possible  for  the  networks 
 to  put  on  programs  that  are  different  from  the  other  networks  in  any  given  time  period. 
 And  they  do. 
 Looking  at  program  genres,  three  types  of  programming  dominated  the  prime 
 time  viewing  hours  throughout  the  time  period  studied.  These  were  dramas,  situation 
 comedies  and  movies.  In  both  the  1970s  and  1990s,  drama  was  the  leading  program 
 genre.  In  the  1960s,  these  dramas  were  primarily  action/  adventure  shows  or  westerns 
 whereas  by  the  1970s  the  dramas  were  in  the  crime/  detective  category  and  this  trend 
 continued  into  the  later  period.  In  the  early  period  studies,  dramas  were  followed  by 
 motion  pictures  and  then  sitcoms.  The  order  was  reversed  in  the  1990s.  The  reason  for 
 the  increase  in  sitcoms  over  movies  in  the  1990s  is  twofold.  First,  with  the  advent  of 
 cable,  movies  became  more  readily  available  to  viewers.  Cable  also  provided  these  films 
 uncut,  uncensored  and  without  commercials,  something  broadcasters  could  not  do. 
 Second,  situation  comedies  are  relatively  inexpensive  to  produce  with  the  added  bonus  of 
 syndication  after  their  network  run.  Purchasing  movies  are  a  sunk  cost  for  the  networks 
 while  creating  sitcoms  is  a  long-  term  investment. 
35
 35 
 Recent  developments  in  program  diversity  may  be  due  in  part  to  the  economics  of 
 program  production.  As  broadcast  networks  aggressively  sought  to  limit  program 
 production  costs,  they  began  relying  more  heavily  on  non-  scripted,  less  expensive 
 programming.  The  primary  example  is  newsmagazines.  In  fact,  for  the  first  time  in 
 1998  this  genre  overtook  movies  as  the  third  most  prominent  genre  in  prime  time.  This 
 was  likely  due  to  economics.  The  economic  efficiency  of  newsmagazines  may  derive  not 
 only  from  their  lower  production  costs  than  scripted  programming,  but  also  from  the 
 networks  ability  to  use  existing  news  production  assets  to  generate  newsmagazines. 
 However,  even  with  the  addition  of  this  new  genre,  there  was  no  perceptible  increase  in 
 diversity,  because  rather  than  being  an  incremental  genre,  it  replaced  other  more 
 expensive  programming  genres. 
 It  should  be  noted  here  that  the  increase  in  newsmagazines  may  be  attributed  to 
 the  repeal  of  fin-  syn.  Before  fin-  syn,  the  networks  had  the  most  experience  in  producing 
 news  and  public  affairs  programming.  While  news  departments  were  cut  in  the  1980s, 
 the  networks  always  maintained  these  divisions.  Thus,  the  networks  were  in  a  position  to 
 produce  their  own  programming,  e.  g.,  newsmagazines,  without  buying  or  creating  a 
 studio  as  soon  as  the  consent  decrees  let  them  so  do.  While  these  were  not  the  only 
 shows  in  which  the  networks  had  a  vested  interest,  they  were  the  only  shows  in  which  the 
 networks  were  the  sole  producer. 
 In  addition,  the  networks  introduced  other  low-  cost  programming  beginning  in 
 2000.  Game  shows  provide  inexpensive  programming  that  can  be  flexibly  slotted  into 
 the  network  schedule.  Reality  programming,  depending  on  the  format,  can  also  be  slotted 
 as  needed.  These  shows,  particularly  game  shows,  can  be  quickly  produced  and  are 
36
 36 
 family  friendly.  A  show  like  Survivor  or  Big  Brother  has  the  added  benefit  of  being 
 produced  by  CBS  News  (though  they  call  it  something  else).  Allowing  what  has  become 
 a  cost  center  to  become  a  potential  profit  center. 
 The  conclusion  is  worth  restating.  There  has  been  a  discernable  cha  nge  in 
 diversity.  Yes,  there  has  been  consolidation  in  the  production  side  of  the  business.  Yes, 
 the  networks    whether  we  are  talking  about  three,  four  or  six    now  account  for  an 
 overwhelming  majority  of  the  programming  that  appears  in  prime  time.  However,  while 
 that  change  in  program  supply  might  be  expected  to  have  a  negative  effect  on  program 
 diversity,  this  paper  finds  such  consolidation  has  not  had  a  meaningful  effect  on  the 
 diversity  of  content. 
 After  the  fin-  syn  rules  were  repealed,  the  broadcast  networks  have  reverted  to 
 their  pre-  fin-  syn  behavior  in  airing  a  significant  portion  of  programming  that  they  own  or 
 produce.  The  majority  of  programming  not  produced  in-  house  is  programming  in  which 
 the  networks  have  a  financial  interest.  In  addition,  network  production  of  entertainment   
 separate  from  network  ownership  of  programming  --  now  exceeds  the  levels  produced  by 
 the  networks  in  past  years.  In  the  1970s,  the  networks  produced  news  and  public  affairs 
 programming  and  left  the  entertainment  programming  to  outside  suppliers.  This  in-  house 
 production  of  entertainment  has  led  to  a  corresponding  reduction  in  the  number  of  studio-produced 
 programs  and,  in  fact,  fewer  Hollywood  production  companies  altogether. 
 This  analysis  suggests  that  it  does  not  matter  who  or  how  many  people  produce 
 programming  for  network  prime  time  schedules.  Rather,  it  is  economic  factors  that 
 contribute  to  the  variety  of  programming  that  will  be  available  to  audiences.  As  networks 
 needed  to  be  more  creative  in  their  financing,  they  found  both  new  types  of  program 
37
 37 
 genres  and  new  ways  of  paying  for  it.  This  further  supports  our  conclusion  that  program 
 diversity  on  prime  time  broadcast  television  is  unrelated  to  the  number  of  firms 
 producing  the  programming  or  whether  the  network  has  an  ownership  stake  in  the 
 programming.  Instead,  one  possible  explanation  of  changes  in  program  diversity  is  the 
 economics  of  program  production  and  cost  recovery.  The  extent  to  which  purely 
 economic  considerations  affect  program  diversity  on  broadcast  television  cannot  be 
 determined  with  any  precision.  What  can  be  said  based  on  the  analysis  contained  in  this 
 paper  is  that  program  diversity  declined  in  the  years  immediately  following 
 implementation  of  fin-  syn,  and  in  the  years  immediately  following  fin-  syns  repeal.  This 
 correlation,  at  a  minimum,  casts  some  doubt  on  the  effectiveness  of  the  FCCs  fin-  syn 
 rules  in  achieving  program  diversity  on  prime-  time  network  television. 
38
 38 
 References 
 Dominick,  J.  R.  &  M.  C.  Pearce  (1976).  Trends  In  Network  Prime-  Time  Programming,  1953-  74,  Journal  of  Communication,  26,  70-  80. 


 FCC  Network  Inquiry  Special  Staff  (1980).  Volume  I:  Final  Report:  New  Television  Networks:  Entry,  Jurisdiction,  Ownership  and  Regulation.  Washington,  DC: 
 GPO. 
 Litman,  B.  R.  (1979).  The  Television  Networks,  Competition  and  Program  Diversity.  Journal  of  Broadcasting,  23(  4),  393-  409. 


 McNeil,  A.  (1996).  Total  Television:  The  Comprehensive  Guide  to  Programming  from  1948  to  the  present  (4th  Edition).  New  York:  Penguin  Books. 
 Park,  S.  K.  (1999).  Trends  in  the  Supply  of  Television  Programs  for  Network  and  Syndication  Markets.  Feedback,  40  (2),  14-  21. 
 Pearce,  A.  (1973).  The  Economics  of  Prime  Time  Access.  Washington,  DC:  FCC. 
 Schlosser,  J.  (2002,  January  21).  The  Plot  Thickens.  Broadcasting  &  Cable,  p.  21. 
 Steiner,  G.  A.  (1963).  The  People  Look  at  Television:  A  Study  of  Audience  Attitudes.  New  York:  Alfred  A.  Knopf. 
 Sterling,  C.  H.  (1984).  Electronic  Media:  A  Guide  to  Trends  in  Broadcasting  and  Newer  Technologies  1920-  1983.  New  York:  Praeger. 
 Wildman,  S.  S.,  &  Robinson,  K.  S.  (1995).  Network  Programming  and  Off-Network  Syndication  Profits:  Strategic  Links  and  Implications  for  Television  Policy.  The 
 Journal  of  Media  Economics,  8  (2),  27-  48. 
39
 Appendix  1 
 Content  of  Prime-  Time  Network  Television  Programming 
 1966-  1975  and  1989-  2003 
 Coded  Based  on  Sterling  and  Kittross 
 Program  Hours  by  Quarter  Hours  per  Week 


 1966-  67  1967-  68  1968-  69  1969-  70  1970-  71  1971-  72  1972-  73  1973-  74  1974-  75  1989-  90  1990-  91  1991-  92 


 Special/  Varied  20  6.7%  20  6.7%  20  6.8%  12  4.0%  8  2.7%  0.0%  4  1.6%  8  3.2%  4  1.6%  0.0%  0.0% 
 Comedy  8  2.7%  12  4.0%  24  8.1%  19  6.4%  24  8.1%  20  7.9%  16  6.3%  12  4.8%  4  1.6%  0.0%  0.0%  4 
 Country  and  Western  0.0%  0.0%  0.0%  0.0%  4  1.3%  0.0%  0.0%  0.0%  0.0%  0.0%  0.0% 
 General/  Talk  0.0%  0.0%  0.0%  4  1.3%  0.0%  0.0%  0.0%  0.0%  0.0%  0.0%  0.0% 
 Variety  9.3%  10.7%  14.9%  11.7%  12.1%  7.9%  7.9%  7.9%  3.2%  0.0%  0.0% 


 Musical  Variety  16  5.3%  16  5.4%  12  4.1%  35  11.7%  28  9.4%  8  3.2%  12  4.8%  4  1.6%  0.0%  0.0%  0.0% 
 Light  Music  0.0%  0.0%  0.0%  0.0%  0.0%  0.0%  0.0%  0.0%  0.0%  0.0%  0.0% 
 Music  5.3%  5.4%  4.1%  11.7%  9.4%  3.2%  4.8%  1.6%  0.0%  0.0%  0.0% 


 General  12  4.0%  4  1.3%  8  2.7%  22  7.4%  28  9.4%  20  7.9%  26  10.3%  20  7.9%  36  14.3%  40  15.2%  48  18.2%  32 
 Women's  Serials  8  2.7%  4  1.3%  4  1.4%  0.0%  0.0%  0.0%  0.0%  0.0%  0.0%  12  4.5%  8  3.0%  4 
 Action/  Adventure  74  24.7%  56  18.8%  24  8.1%  16  5.4%  12  4.0%  16  6.3%  12  4.8%  0.0%  20  7.9%  12  4.5%  16  6.1%  16 
 Crime/  Detective  10  3.3%  22  7.4%  46  15.5%  32  10.7%  46  15.4%  40  15.9%  42  16.7%  66  26.2%  66  26.2%  48  18.2%  28  10.6%  36 
 Suspense  0.0%  0.0%  0.0%  0.0%  4  1.3%  10  4.0%  18  7.1%  14  5.6%  12  4.8%  8  3.0% 
 Westerns  44  14.7%  54  18.1%  40  13.5%  26  8.7%  18  6.0%  16  6.3%  12  4.8%  8  3.2%  8  3.2%  8  3.0%  4  1.5% 
 Animated  Cartoons  0.0%  0.0%  0.0%  0.0%  0.0%  0.0%  0.0%  0.0%  0.0%  0.0%  0.0% 
 Drama  49.3%  47.0%  41.2%  32.2%  36.2%  40.5%  43.7%  42.9%  56.3%  45.5%  42.4% 


 Motion  Pictures  40  13.3%  48  16.1%  56  18.9%  62  20.8%  54  18.1%  66  26.2%  58  23.0%  64  25.4%  58  23.0%  32  12.1%  40  15.2%  48 
 Comedy/  Situation  52  17.3%  40  13.4%  46  15.5%  54  18.1%  50  16.8%  44  17.5%  36  14.3%  44  17.5%  32  12.7%  72  27.3%  76  28.8%  82 


 Audience  Participation  4  1.3%  4  1.3%  6  2.0%  6  2.0%  4  1.3%  0.0%  0.0%  0.0%  0.0%  0.0%  0.0% 
 Quiz  and  Panel  1.3%  1.3%  2.0%  2.0%  1.3%  0.0%  0.0%  0.0%  0.0%  0.0%  0.0% 


 Newscasts  2  0.7%  2  0.7%  0.0%  0.0%  0.0%  0.0%  0.0%  0.0%  0.0%  0.0%  0.0% 
 Forum/  Interviews  0.0%  2  0.7%  4  1.4%  4  1.3%  4  1.3%  0.0%  0.0%  0.0%  0.0%  20  7.6%  16  6.1%  20 
 Documentary/  Information  4  1.3%  4  1.3%  0.0%  2  0.7%  2  0.7%  0.0%  4  1.6%  0.0%  0.0%  8  3.0%  8  3.0%  8 
 News  Information  2.0%  2.7%  1.4%  2.0%  2.0%  0.0%  1.6%  0.0%  0.0%  10.6%  9.1% 


 Children's  Shows  4  1.3%  8  2.7%  6  2.0%  4  1.3%  4  1.3%  4  1.6%  4  1.6%  4  1.6%  4  1.6%  4  1.5%  0.0% 
 Sports  0.0%  2  0.7%  0.0%  0.0%  8  2.7%  8  3.2%  8  3.2%  8  3.2%  8  3.2%  8  3.0%  8  3.0%  8 
 Miscellaneous  2  0.7%  0.0%  0.0%  0.0%  0.0%  0.0%  0.0%  0.0%  0.0%  0.0%  4  1.5%  6 
 Other  Types  2.0%  3.4%  2.0%  1.3%  4.0%  4.8%  4.8%  4.8%  4.8%  4.5%  4.5% 
 Total  Quarter  Hours  300  100%  298  100%  296  100%  298  100%  298  100%  252  100%  252  100%  252  100%  252  100%  264  100%  264  100%  264 
 Source:  Sterling,  195-  6 
40
 1992-  93  1993-  94  1994-  95  1995-  96  1996-  97  1997-  98  1998-  99  1999-  2000  2000-  01  2001-  02  2002-  03 
 0.0%  0.0%  0.0%  0.0%  0.0%  0.0%  0.0%  0.0%  0.0%  0.0%  0.0%  0.0% 
 1.5%  0.0%  4  1.5%  0.0%  0.0%  0.0%  0.0%  0.0%  2  0.8%  4  1.5%  4  1.5%  2  0.8% 
 0.0%  0.0%  0.0%  0.0%  0.0%  0.0%  0.0%  0.0%  0.0%  0.0%  0.0%  0.0% 
 0.0%  0.0%  0.0%  0.0%  0.0%  0.0%  0.0%  0.0%  0.0%  0.0%  0.0%  0.0% 
 1.5%  0.0%  1.5%  0.0%  0.0%  0.0%  0.0%  0.0%  0.8%  1.5%  1.5%  0.8%  0.0% 


 0.0%  0.0%  0.0%  0.0%  0.0%  0.0%  0.0%  0.0%  0.0%  0.0%  0.0%  0.0% 
 0.0%  0.0%  0.0%  0.0%  0.0%  0.0%  0.0%  0.0%  0.0%  0.0%  0.0%  0.0% 
 0.0%  0.0%  0.0%  0.0%  0.0%  0.0%  0.0%  0.0%  0.0%  0.0%  0.0%  0.0% 


 12.1%  40  15.2%  24  9.1%  36  13.6%  24  9.1%  32  12.1%  24  9.1%  40  15.2%  52  19.7%  52  19.7%  60  22.7%  48  18.2% 
 1.5%  8  3.0%  4  1.5%  0.0%  8  3.0%  0.0%  0.0%  0.0%  0.0%  4  1.5%  0.0%  0.0% 
 6.1%  12  4.5%  8  3.0%  12  4.5%  8  3.0%  12  4.5%  8  3.0%  12  4.5%  12  4.5%  4  1.5%  16  6.1%  16  6.1% 
 13.6%  36  13.6%  40  15.2%  40  15.2%  44  16.7%  44  16.7%  64  24.2%  44  16.7%  36  13.6%  36  13.6%  34  12.9%  52  19.7% 
 0.0%  0.0%  0.0%  0.0%  4  1.5%  0.0%  4  1.5%  0.0%  0.0%  0.0%  0.0%  0.0% 
 0.0%  0.0%  4  1.5%  4  1.5%  4  1.5%  4  1.5%  4  1.5%  0.0%  0.0%  0.0%  0.0%  0.0% 
 0.0%  0.0%  0.0%  0.0%  0.0%  0.0%  0.0%  0.0%  0.0%  0.0%  0.0%  0.0% 
 33.3%  36.4%  30.3%  34.8%  34.8%  34.8%  39.4%  36.4%  37.9%  36.4%  41.7%  43.9% 


 18.2%  40  15.2%  48  18.2%  48  18.2%  48  18.2%  48  18.2%  24  9.1%  32  12.1%  36  13.6%  48  18.2%  32  12.1%  32  12.1% 
 31.1%  72  27.3%  76  28.8%  70  26.5%  80  30.3%  76  28.8%  80  30.3%  64  24.2%  60  22.7%  48  18.2%  42  15.9%  42  15.9% 


 0.0%  0.0%  0.0%  0.0%  0.0%  0.0%  0.0%  0.0%  0.0%  16  6.1%  16  6.1%  0.0% 
 0.0%  0.0%  0.0%  0.0%  0.0%  0.0%  0.0%  0.0%  0.0%  6.1%  6.1%  0.0% 


 0.0%  0.0%  0.0%  0.0%  0.0%  0.0%  0.0%  0.0%  0.0%  0.0%  0.0%  0.0% 
 7.6%  24  9.1%  32  12.1%  36  13.6%  28  10.6%  32  12.1%  40  15.2%  40  15.2%  48  18.2%  36  13.6%  32  12.1%  32  12.1% 
 3.0%  12  4.5%  8  3.0%  8  3.0%  4  1.5%  4  1.5%  0.0%  0.0%  0.0%  0.0%  0.0%  0.0% 
 10.6%  13.6%  15.2%  16.7%  12.1%  13.6%  15.2%  15.2%  18.2%  13.6%  12.1%  12.1% 


 0.0%  0.0%  0.0%  0.0%  0.0%  0.0%  8  3.0%  8  3.0%  8  3.0%  8  3.0%  8  3.0%  8  3.0% 
 3.0%  8  3.0%  8  3.0%  8  3.0%  8  3.0%  8  3.0%  8  3.0%  16  6.1%  8  3.0%  8  3.0%  8  3.0%  8  3.0% 
 2.3%  12  4.5%  8  3.0%  2  0.8%  4  1.5%  4  1.5%  0.0%  8  3.0%  2  0.8%  0.0%  12  4.5%  24  9.1% 
 5.3%  7.6%  6.1%  3.8%  4.5%  4.5%  6.1%  12.1%  6.8%  6.1%  10.6%  15.2% 
 100%  264  100%  264  100%  264  100%  264  100%  264  100%  264  100%  264  100%  264  100%  264  100%  264  100%  264  100% 
41
 Appendix  2 
 Content  of  Prime-  Time  Network  Television  Programming 
 1989-  2003,  Coded  with  1990s  program  code 
 Program  Hours  by  Quarter  Hours  per  Week 
 Genres 


 Comedy  1989-  90  1990-  91  1991-  92  1992-  93  1993-  94  1994-  95  1995-  96  1996-  97  1997-  98  1998-  99  1999-  2000  2000-  01  2001-  02  2002-  03 
 Situation  comedy  --  family  38  14.4%  38  14.4%  40  15.2%  32  12.1%  38  14.4%  34  12.9%  28  10.6%  20  7.6%  32  12.1%  26  9.8%  22  8.3%  16  6.1%  10  3.8%  16  6.1% 
 Situation  comedy  --  office  18  6.8%  20  7.6%  22  8.3%  22  8.3%  14  5.3%  12  4.5%  22  8.3%  14  5.3%  20  7.6%  16  6.1%  16  6.1%  10  3.8%  10  3.8%  12  4.5% 
 Standup  or  star  comedian  2  0.8%  4  1.5%  6  2.3%  8  3.0%  20  7.6%  20  7.6%  22  8.3%  32  12.1%  18  6.8%  12  4.5%  12  4.5%  16  6.1%  14  5.3%  10  3.8% 
 situation  comedy  14  5.3%  14  5.3%  14  5.3%  10  3.8%  4  1.5%  4  1.5%  8  3.0%  10  3.8%  10  3.8%  10  3.8%  10  3.8%  6  2.3%  8  3.0%  4  1.5% 
 TOTAL  COMEDY  72  27.3%  76  28.8%  82  31.1%  72  27.3%  76  28.8%  70  26.5%  80  30.3%  76  28.8%  80  30.3%  64  24.2%  60  22.7%  48  18.2%  15.9%  15.9% 
 Animation  0.0%  0.0%  0.0%  0.0%  0.0%  0.0%  0.0%  0.0%  0.0%  0.0%  0.0%  0.0%  0.0%  0.0% 
 Comedy  -  Variety  0.0%  0.0%  4  1.5%  0.0%  4  1.5%  0.0%  0.0%  0.0%  0.0%  0.0%  2  0.8%  4  1.5%  4  1.5%  2  0.8% 
 TOTAL  VARIETY  0  0.0%  0  0.0%  4  1.5%  0  0.0%  4  1.5%  0  0.0%  0  0.0%  0  0.0%  0  0.0%  0  0.0%  2  0.8%  4  1.5%  4  1.5%  0.0% 


 Drama 
 Light  and  medium  drama  8  3.0%  4  1.5%  4  1.5%  0.0%  4  1.5%  4  1.5%  4  1.5%  8  3.0%  8  3.0%  16  6.1%  8  3.0%  12  4.5%  8  3.0%  8  3.0% 
 Heavy  drama  20  7.6%  12  4.5%  8  3.0%  12  4.5%  0.0%  0.0%  8  3.0%  4  1.5%  4  1.5%  4  1.5%  0.0%  4  1.5%  0.0%  0.0% 
 Personal,  "real  life"  or  family  drama  8  3.0%  12  4.5%  16  6.1%  20  7.6%  16  6.1%  20  7.6%  12  4.5%  12  4.5%  4  1.5%  4  1.5%  12  4.5%  12  4.5%  20  7.6%  8  3.0% 
 Legal  drama  12  4.5%  12  4.5%  8  3.0%  12  4.5%  8  3.0%  4  1.5%  16  6.1%  4  1.5%  12  4.5%  8  3.0%  16  6.1%  16  6.1%  24  9.1%  16  6.1% 
 Medical  drama  4  1.5%  4  1.5%  0.0%  4  1.5%  0.0%  8  3.0%  8  3.0%  8  3.0%  8  3.0%  12  4.5%  12  4.5%  16  6.1%  12  4.5%  20  7.6% 
 Action/  adventure  20  7.6%  16  6.1%  12  4.5%  8  3.0%  4  1.5%  4  1.5%  4  1.5%  8  3.0%  4  1.5%  8  3.0%  8  3.0%  4  1.5%  12  4.5%  8  3.0% 
 Sci-  Fi  4  1.5%  4  1.5%  4  1.5%  4  1.5%  4  1.5%  8  3.0%  8  3.0%  8  3.0%  12  4.5%  4  1.5%  8  3.0%  0.0%  4  1.5%  8  3.0% 
 Drama,  stories  --  other  or  general  4  1.5%  16  6.1%  4  1.5%  8  3.0%  8  3.0%  4  1.5%  4  1.5%  0.0%  0.0%  0.0%  8  3.0%  4  1.5%  4  1.5%  4  1.5% 
 Crime  drama  16  6.1%  20  7.6%  12  4.5%  12  4.5%  8  3.0%  16  6.1%  8  3.0%  12  4.5%  12  4.5%  12  4.5%  8  3.0%  8  3.0%  4  1.5%  12  4.5% 
 Police,  detective,  private  eye  24  9.1%  12  4.5%  12  4.5%  12  4.5%  28  10.6%  24  9.1%  20  7.6%  28  10.6%  40  15.2%  24  9.1%  20  7.6%  20  7.6%  22  8.3%  32  12.1% 
 TOTAL  DRAMA  120  45.5%  112  80  92  80  92  92  92  104  92  100  96  102 
 Movies  32  12.1%  40  15.2%  48  18.2%  40  15.2%  48  18.2%  48  18.2%  48  18.2%  48  18.2%  24  9.1%  32  12.1%  36  13.6%  48  18.2%  32  12.1%  32  12.1% 
 TOTAL  MOVIES  32  12.1%  40  48  40  48  48  48  48  24  32  36  48  32  0.0% 


 Other 
 Sports  8  3.0%  8  3.0%  8  3.0%  8  3.0%  8  3.0%  8  3.0%  8  3.0%  8  3.0%  8  3.0%  16  6.1%  8  3.0%  8  3.0%  8  3.0%  8  3.0% 
 Reality  series  8  3.0%  8  3.0%  18  6.8%  24  9.1%  12  4.5%  8  3.0%  4  1.5%  4  1.5%  0.0%  12  4.5%  0.0%  0.0%  12  4.5%  20  7.6% 
 Newsmagazines  20  7.6%  16  6.1%  20  7.6%  24  9.1%  32  12.1%  36  13.6%  28  10.6%  32  12.1%  40  15.2%  40  15.2%  48  18.2%  36  13.6%  32  12.1%  32  12.1% 
 Children's  Show  4  1.5%  0.0%  0.0%  0.0%  0.0%  0.0%  0.0%  0.0%  8  3.0%  8  3.0%  8  3.0%  8  3.0%  8  3.0%  8  3.0% 
 Miscellaneous  0.0%  4  1.5%  4  1.5%  4  1.5%  4  1.5%  2  0.8%  4  1.5%  4  1.5%  0.0%  0.0%  2  0.8%  16  6.1%  16  6.1%  4  1.5% 
 Total  1/  4  hours  264  100.0%  264  100.0%  264  100.0%  264  100.0%  264  100.0%  264  100.0%  264  100.0%  264  100.0%  264  100.0%  264  ######  264  100.0%  264  100.0%  264  100.0%  264  100.0% 
42
 1 
 THE  PROGRAM  SELECTION  PROCESS 
 Introduction 
 Ultimately  what  appears  on  prime  time  broadcast  network  television  is  the 


 responsibility  of  a  handful  of  network  programming  executives.  The  process  for 
 selecting  programming  has  been  in  existence  almost  since  the  mediums  inception.  At  its 
 simplest,  producers  come  up  with  a  show  idea,  they  pitch  the  idea  to  the  network  and  the 
 network  says  yes  or  no  to  the  show.  A  number  of  factors  determine  which  shows  the 
 network  will  accept  or  reject.  Those  factors  have  changed  over  time  even  while  the 
 process  itself  has  not.  One  factor  that  has  been  cited  as  affecting  the  program  selection 
 process  is  the  imposition  and  subsequent  repeal  of  the  FCCs  financial  interest  and 
 syndication  rules.  This  paper  describes  the  steps  involved  in  broadcast  networks 
 selection  of  programming  and  evaluates  the  effect  of  the  fin-  syn  rules  on  that  process. 
 In  the  1970s,  what  led  the  FCC  to  institute  the  financial  interest  and  syndication 
 rules  was  a  concern  that  the  networks  were  becoming  both  too  powerful  and  too 
 demanding  when  it  came  to  this  selection  process.  Too  powerful,  in  that  they  were  the 
 gatekeepers  of  news,  information  and  entertainment  for  the  American  public.  This  was 
 so  because  of  the  limits  of  the  radio  spectrum,  which  made  the  broadcast  networks  the 
 only  providers  of  television  programming  in  most  U.  S.  markets.  Too  demanding, 
 because  networks  were  requiring  an  equity  stake  in  a  program  before  it  would  be 
 accepted  as  a  part  of  the  prime  time  schedule.  The  networks  had  ownership  in  more  than 
 70  percent  of  their  prime  time  schedule  by  the  mid-  1960s,  up  from  only  45  percent  the 
43
 2 
 previous  decade.  This  strong  arming  of  producers  was  a  fundamental  reason  for  the 
 creation  of  fin-  syn.  Not  only  was  the  Commission  concerned  about  network  participation 
 in  the  selection  of  programming.  They  were  concerned  about  network  input  into 
 programming  once  it  appeared  on  the  air. 
 Since  the  rules  were  repealed  in  1995,  the  economic  structure  of  the  industry  has 
 changed  drastically.  The  television  networks  have  become  vertically  integrated 
 institutions  with  the  ability  to  produce  programming  through  internal  business  units.  A 
 number  of  developments  in  the  video  market  may  have  encouraged  this  trend.  First, 
 production  costs  and  licensing  and  talent  fees  have  continued  to  outpace  the  rate  of 
 inflation.  Corporate  parents  pressure  the  networks  to  purchase  programming  internally  in 
 order  to  achieve  synergies  and  increase  profits.  But  perhaps  the  most  observable  basis 
 for  increased  financial  pressure  on  the  broadcast  networks  is  the  increased  competition 
 they  face  from  newer  broadcast  networks  and  from  programming  networks  on  cable 
 television  and  Direct  Broadcast  Satellite  (DBS)  systems  (McClellan,  2002,  p.  6). 
 These  developments  have  caused  networks  to  aggressively  seek  out  new  ways  to 
 increase  revenue  and  decrease  costs.  Networks  are  increasing  revenue  through  new 
 methods  of  syndication,  repurposing  of  recently-  aired  shows,  and  taking  a  financial 
 interest  in  programming  that  appears  on  air.  Decreased  costs  are  achieve  through 
 purchasing  more  in-  house  productions,  producing  more  lost-  cost  programming  like  game 
 shows  and  reality  series,  and  by  cutting  layers  of  middle  management.  These  pressures 
 from  corporate  parents  come  in  the  face  of  increasing  competitive  pressures  from  new 
 broadcast  networks,  cable,  and  DBS. 
44
 3 
 Based  on  a  series  of  interviews  with  network  executives  and  prime  time  program 
 producers,  it  appears  the  incentives  introduced  into  the  program  selection  process  by  the 
 repeal  of  the  fin-  syn  rules  have  clearly  affected  the  program  selection  process  within 
 broadcast  networks.  This  paper  describes  the  program  selection  process  at  broadcast 
 networks  and  how  it  has  been  affected  by  the  elimination  of  the  fin-  syn  rules.  The 
 interviews  and  other  information  presented  in  this  paper  suggest  that  the  networks  have  a 
 greater  incentive  to  select  programs  produced  in-  house.  That  incentive,  however, 
 continues  to  be  tempered  by  networks  competing  incentive  to  attract  audiences  by 
 selecting  the  best  program  irrespective  of  its  source.  Although  it  appears  that  networks 
 continue  to  prefer,  all  else  constant,  the  acquisition  of  programming  from  in-  house 
 sources,  the  acquisition  of  programming  from  independent  (i.  e.  non-  network)  producers 
 is  made  more  attractive  by  the  ability  of  networks  to  obtain,  in  many  cases,  partial 
 ownership  of  the  show  in  exchange  for  the  show  being  picked  up  by  the  network.  While 
 networks  increased  ownership  has  increased  post  fin-  syn,  as  we  discuss  in  a  separate 
 paper,  the  post-  fin-  syn  program  selection  process  has  not  resulted  in  a  meaningful  change 
 in  program  diversity. 
 There  are  two  fundamental  ways  networks  can  procure  programming  to  distribute 
 over  their  owned  and  affiliated  stations    acquire  a  show  from  an  independent  producer 
 or  produce  the  show  in-  house.  In  either  case,  the  network  will  pay  an  annual  license  fee 
 to  the  producer,  which  allows  the  network  to  air  the  episode  twice.  That  fee  is  negotiated 
 once  the  show  has  been  selected  for  the  prime  time  schedule.  Historically,  the  fee  was 
 set,  with  minor  annual  increments,  for  the  first  four  years  of  the  shows  life.  In  the  fifth 
 year,  the  network  and  the  producer  negotiate  the  license  fee  for  one  or  more  subsequent 
45
 4 
 years.  More  recently,  that  five  year  period  has  been  extended  to  seven  years  or  more. 
 The  terms  of  renewal  are  greatly  affected  by  whether  the  network  has  an  ownership 
 interest  in  the  program.  If  the  show  is  truly  independent,  the  network  is  going  to  pay  a 
 higher  license  fee  than  if  a  show  is  produced  in-  house  or  if  the  show  is  partially  owned  by 
 the  network.  This  is  so,  because  if  the  network  has  a  financial  interest  in  a  show,  it  has 
 far  greater  control  over  renewal  terms  than  if  it  lacks  an  ownership  interest.  1  Another 
 way  to  think  about  this  is  to  imagine  that  you  are  buying  a  house.  If  you  are  buying  the 
 house  from  someone  you  dont  know  you  are  likely  to  pay  one  price.  If  you  are  buying 
 the  house  from  your  mother,  the  price  is  going  to  be  very  different.  (The  same  is  true 
 when  it  comes  to  syndicated  programming.  Often,  the  vertically  integrated  companies 
 will  buy  their  own  programming.  For  instance,  The  X-  Files  is  produced  by  20  th  Century 
 Fox,  originally  aired  on  the  Fox  network  and  then  was  syndicated  on  FX,  the  Fox  cable 
 network.  Fox  has  been  accused  of  not  selling  the  show  at  market  rates  because  all  of  the 
 selling  was  done  internally.) 
 What  is  true  now  and  has  always  been  true  is  that  selecting  programs  for  the 
 prime  time  schedule  is  the  most  important  aspect  of  a  network  programming  executives 
 job.  Prime  time  programming  is  the  lifeblood  of  the  television  network  because  it  fills 
 the  most  visible  and  most  profitable  of  time  period.  2  It  is  the  product  that  is  sold  to  all 
 constituencies    viewers,  affiliates  and  advertisers.  And  while  advertisers  may  be  most 
 concerned  about  the  audience  a  program  attracts,  affiliates  will  focus  on  how  a  show  will 


 1  Under  the  financial  interest  and  syndication  rules,  the  networks  could  have  an  equity  stake  in  only  a 
 limited  number  of  prime  time  programs.  2 
 Success  in  prime  time  ratings  have  traditionally  spilled  into  other  dayparts.  For  example,  if  people  are 
 watching  CBS  in  prime  time,  they  are  more  likely  to  watch  CBS  late  night  (David  Letterman).  Also,  wherever  a  television  set  is  turned  off  is  where  the  set  turns  on  again,  so  if  someone  is  watching  NBC  in 


 prime  time,  they  will  automatically  turn  on  the  Today  Show  the  next  morning. 
46
 5 
 play  in  their  community,  and  viewers  are  interested  in  entertainment  and  information,  the 
 network  executive  is  concerned  about  all  of  those  things  when  selecting  shows  for  the 
 prime  time  schedule. 
 Content,  audience,  and  programming  mix  are  just  some  of  the  factors  that  are 
 considered.  In  addition,  network  executives  must  juggle  business  relationships  between 
 networks  and  studios  and  between  networks  and  producers.  They  must  also  take  into 
 consideration  test  results  from  audience  research  on  pilots.  These  things  are  not  new. 
 What  is  new  since  1995  is  their  incentive  to  select  in-  house  productions  and  to  obtain  an 
 equity  stake  in  a  programming  that  is  not  produced  by  the  network.  A  second  change  is 
 the  evolution  of  the  syndication  market,  which  affects  programming  decisions  by  altering 
 the  timing  and  perhaps  the  level  of  the  financial  return  for  the  network. 
 The  bottom  line  for  media  critics,  however,  is  two-  fold.  First,  with  increased 
 vertical  integration,  independent  producers  have  less  access  to  audiences  or  they  must 
 align  themselves  with  studios  or  networks  in  order  to  get  their  show  on  the  air.  It  has 
 become  standard  that  producers  will  align  themselves  with  a  studio.  The  ones  that  we 
 spoke  with  did  not  necessarily  feel  that  this  was  a  bad  thing.  Second,  more  attention  to 
 the  bottom  has  led  to  lesser  quality  programming.  No  one  that  we  spoke  with  claimed 
 that  television  is  of  low  quality  overall.  Yes  there  are  some  shows  that  are  very  low 
 brow,  but  taken  as  a  whole  the  prime  time  schedule  could  be  compared  to  the  Golden 
 Age  of  Television. 
47
 6 
 Network  Prime  Time  Program  Selection  Timeline 
 Programs  may  be  developed  throughout  the  year,  but  the  majority  of  programs  are 
 developed  using  a  timeline  that  has  been  around  since  the  beginning  of  television.  (This 
 timeline  provides  a  context  for  understanding  the  program  selection  process.)  It  is  a 
 schedule  based  on  the  broadcast  year  of  September  to  May.  This  schedule  is  one  that 
 most  suits  advertisers.  For  reasons  discussed  below,  its  compressed  and  somewhat 
 inefficient  design  may  contribute  to  what  some  critics  contend  is  a  lack  of  quality 
 programming. 
 Throughout  the  fall  and  after  the  launch  of  the  new  season,  programming 
 executives  will  meet  with  producers  and  writers  to  hear  new  programming  ideas.  If  the 
 network  likes  a  particular  idea,  they  will  ask  that  a  pilot  script  be  developed.  This  is 
 known  as  a  script  commitment.  This  script  is  a  sample  script,  an  idea  of  what  the  first 
 show  will  be  like.  The  network  will  finance  this  script,  which  currently  costs  around 
 $75,000  to  $100,000.  In  return  for  financing  the  script,  the  network  retains  the  right  to 
 order  the  pilot  (a  fully  created  episode  of  the  show)  and  if  they  like  the  pilot,  the  show 
 itself.  The  network  may  have  100  to  150  scripts  written  during  a  typical  pilot  season. 
 From  these  scripts,  the  network  will  select  approximately  20  to  30  shows  to  be  produced 
 as  pilots.  The  number  of  shows  to  reach  the  pilot  stage  may  be  less  than  this  depending 
 on  the  number  of  shows  the  network  needs  to  replace  in  its  current  schedule. 
 Once  a  pilot  is  approved  for  production,  the  producer  of  the  show  will  be  given 
 development  money  by  the  network.  The  amount  is  approximately  one  million  dollars 
48
 7 
 per  pilot  3  and  usually  covers  most  of  the  producers  costs.  Often  the  producer  will 
 supplement  the  money  provided  by  the  network  in  order  to  produce  a  better  pilot. 
 Once  the  network  selects  a  pilot  for  its  schedule,  a  licensing  agreement  is  signed 
 between  the  network  and  the  producer.  The  network  retains  the  exclusive  right  to  air  the 
 series,  usually  for  five  years,  with  a  network  option  to  cancel  prior  to  that  time. 
 The  networks  start  to  make  decisions  about  what  will  appear  on  the  fall  schedule 
 in  March,  when  the  networks  hold  what  are  known  as  development  meetings.  These 
 meetings  are  small-  scale  presentations  for  the  top  100  to  200  advertising  clients.  There, 
 the  top  network  programming  executives  tout  the  networks  recent  performance  and, 
 more  important,  tell  the  advertisers  what  they  think  will  be  on  the  fall  schedule.  No  final 
 decisions  have  been  made  by  this  point,  but,  it  is  an  opportunity  to  begin  building  interest 
 among  advertisers  for  the  networks  new  programming.  There  is  some  interaction 
 between  the  network  executives  and  the  advertisers  in  the  form  of  a  question  and  answer 
 period.  However,  since  most  of  the  programming  decisions  are  so  preliminary,  it  is  not 
 possible  for  the  advertisers  to  have  input  into  the  programming.  While  these  meetings 
 are  private,  soon  after,  the  trade  press  begins  to  speculate  about  what  will  appear  on  the 
 fall  schedules.  Although  these  meetings  occur  two  months  before  programming 
 decis  ions  are  finalized,  these  meetings  continue  to  serve  the  advertisers  apparent  interest 
 for  these  events.  4 
 Throughout  the  remainder  of  March,  April  and  May,  pilots  are  created  and  refined 
 with  input  from  the  network  programming  executives.  During  the  first  two  weeks  of 


 3  This  is  an  average  number.  Depending  on  the  track  record  of  the  producer,  whether  it  is  a  half-  hour 
 comedy  or  an  hour  drama,  it  can  be  more,  though  usually  not  less.  4 
 In  2002  for  the  first  time,  as  a  cost-  cutting  measure  the  networks  did  not  hold  these  meetings. 
49
 8 
 May,  pilot  screenings  are  held  where  all  the  top  network  executives,  not  just 
 programming  executives,  evaluate  the  potential  shows.  Again,  no  final  decisions  are 
 made  at  these  meetings,  but  everyones  input  is  taken  into  consideration.  Final  pilot 
 decisions  are  made  during  the  second  and  third  week  of  May. 
 Programmers  use  a  number  of  criteria  to  determine  what  shows  appear  on  the  new 
 schedule.  For  returning  shows,  programmers  look  at  factors  like  past  performance,  age  of 
 the  show,  and  ho  w  many  other  shows  are  not  returning  to  the  schedule.  For  new  shows 
 the  programmers  will  think  about  the  track  record  of  the  producers  of  this  program,  the  fit 
 of  the  program  with  the  rest  of  the  schedule,  and,  if  necessary,  the  fit  of  the  show  for  a 
 particular  day  and  time.  For  all  shows,  programmers  consider  the  demographics  of  the 
 audience  the  show  is  likely  to  attract,  whether  the  show  can  be  used  effectively  to 
 counter-  program  against  the  competition,  and  whether  the  costs  are  reasonable  and  the 
 tale  nt  recognizable  or  if  not,  at  least  likeable  (Head,  1989,  p.  28). 
 The  final  prime  time  program  schedule  is  presented  to  all  advertisers  during  the 
 third  week  of  May  in  New  York  City.  These  presentations  are  large-  scale  productions 
 that  can  cost  the  network  up  to  a  million  dollars  or  more.  From  the  network  perspective, 
 these  presentations  are  valuable  opportunities  to  make  a  favorable  impression  on 
 advertising  executives  responsible  for  placing  several  billion  dollars  worth  of  advertising 
 time.  After  the  advertiser  meetings  are  held,  the  networks  present  the  new  fall  schedule 
 to  their  affiliates.  Next,  the  networks  present  the  shows  to  the  press  at  the  annual  July 
 press  tour,  where  the  nations  television  press  screen  the  pilots  and  can  interview  the  cast 
 and  producers  of  the  programs  selected.  The  viewers  finally  get  to  see  the  shows 
50
 9 
 sometime  around  the  third  week  of  September  when  the  new  fall  season  launches.  After 
 the  new  season  starts,  the  process  begins  all  over  again. 
 This  method  for  choosing  programming  may  contribute  to  what  some  critics 
 believe  is  a  lack  of  quality  programming  on  broadcast  networks.  Since  all  pilots  are 
 being  produced  at  the  same  time,  talent  resources  are  being  stretched  thin.  This  is 
 particularly  true  in  the  last  few  years  with  the  introduction  of  two  new  broadcast 
 networks  and  the  continued  forays  by  cable  networks  into  original  production.  In 
 addition,  the  shows  are  being  produced  under  severe  time  constraints  in  order  to  meet  the 
 May  deadline.  It  is  possible  that  this  schedule  affects  the  quality  of  programming 
 ultimately  aired  on  broadcast  networks. 
 In  the  remainder  of  this  research,  network  programming  executives  and  prime 
 time  program  producers  provide  additional  insight  into  this  process.  They  discuss  the 
 elements  that  are  part  of  the  consideration  set  when  deciding  on  what  programs  will 
 appear  on  the  prime  time  schedule.  These  executives  had  opinions  on  all  of  these 
 processes,  from  how  a  show  is  selected  to  the  number  of  people  involved  in  the  process. 
 They  are  concerned  about  the  networks  increased  participation  in  programming,  though 
 more  so  from  a  financial  standpoint  than  a  creative  one.  They  also  had  suggestions  for 
 changing  the  process,  but  they  were  not  overly  optimistic  that  it  ever  would. 


 Prime  Time  Program  Development  Process 
 As  discussed  above,  while  there  are  several  steps  in  the  selection  of  programming 


 for  the  prime  time  schedule,  the  two  primary  areas  are  development,  which  is  the 
 nurturing  of  a  show  through  the  pilot  stage,  and  selection.  We  ha  ve  separated  these  into 
 two  areas  for  more  clarity  of  the  process.  As  well,  while  it  is  the  selection  process  that  is 
51
 10 
 of  particular  interest,  it  is  important  to  understand  how  network  executives  assemble  the 
 pool  of  programs  to  select  from. 
 The  development  of  prime  time  programming  is  done  primarily  by  the 
 programming  division  of  the  television  network.  The  process  is  fairly  standardized,  and 
 the  participants  were  consistent  in  presenting  the  process.  From  the  network  point  of 
 view,  the  first  step  in  the  process  is  the  needs  assessment.  Warren  Littlefield,  a  television 
 producer,  working  with  Paramount  Television,  whose  show  Do-  Over  appears  on  the  WB, 
 explained  this  process.  Prior  to  his  current  position,  Littlefield  had  been  at  NBC  for  over 
 20  years,  through  the  time  of  Cosby  and  Family  Ties  to  Friends,  ER  and  Will  &  Grace. 
 He  oversaw  the  development  process  for  nine  years  as  the  Entertainment  President  at 
 NBC,  a  position  he  left  at  the  end  of  1998.  The  first  thing  you  do  is  you  look  at  your 
 schedule.  You  assess  your  needs.  An  example  would  be  if  you  were  at  ABC  in  1999,  all 
 you  knew  all  year  long  was  Home  Improvement  was  leaving.  Home  Improvement  was 
 leaving!  What  are  you  going  to  do  to  lead  off  Tuesday  night  at  8  oclock?  Well,  you 
 have  to  deal  with  that.  And  you  formulate  based  upon  the  needs  of  your  schedule  and  the 
 strength  of  your  competition,  a  strategy.  So  you  look  at  your  assets,  you  look  at  your 
 liabilities,  you  do  a  needs  assessment.  5  Flody  Suarez,  currently  an  independent 
 producer  and  former  programming  executive  at  NBC,  expanded  on  this  process.  At  the 
 beginning  of  a  development  season,  development  people  at  a  network  will  sit  and  look  at 
 their  schedule  and  say,  Okay  best  case  scenario  were  going  to  need  this  many  shows. 
 Worst  case  scenario  were  going  to  need  this  many  and  this  is  probably  where  were 


 5  Interview  with  Warren  Littlefield,  producer  and  former  Entertainment  President,  NBC  (July  28,  1999). 
 All  subsequent  quotations  from  Littlefield  are  derived  from  this  interview. 
52
 11 
 going  to  need  them.  What  are  the  kinds  of  shows  that  we  think  can  succeed  in  those  time 
 periods?  And  lets  focus  on  those.  Whats  not  on  television  right  now?    6 
 Once  the  network  has  determined  the  types  of  shows  it  needs  and  the  time  periods 
 that  need  to  be  filled,  they  must  go  about  getting  the  programming  to  fill  those  slots.  This 
 is  where  the  network  turns  to  the  Hollywood  creative  community,  which  includes 
 independent  producers,  the  major  studios  and  their  own  in-  house  production  units.  As 
 Warren  Littlefield  explains,  this  next  step  in  the  process  is  to  open  your  doors  to 
 producers.    Come  bring  us  your  shows.    And  in  that  process  you  listen  to  all  the 
 studios,  as  well  as  your  own  studio  and  you  constantly  are  telling  the  studio  community, 
 the  agent  community,  the  writer/  producer  community  every  forum  you  can  possibly 
 speak  to  heres  what  we  think  we  need  and  what  do  you  have?    Suarez  agreed  saying, 
 You  put  out  the  word  to  the  town.  Thats  kind  of  what  youre  looking  for,  and  you  take 
 pitches.  7  Sometimes  somebody  pitches  you  something  that  doesnt  fit  your  model  at  all, 
 but  its  a  good  pitch,  and  theyre  good  writers  so  you  buy  it. 
 As  this  comment  suggests,  just  because  the  network  has  done  a  needs  assessment 
 and  publicized  its  needs,  the  creative  community  may  bring  different  programming  to  the 
 network  and  the  network  will  consider  such  programming.  Suarez  explained  that 
 networks  will  look  at  programming  that  may  not  be  part  of  the  initial  plan,  but  that  has  an 
 interesting  creative  element  attached  to  it.  [  T]  hey  bring  you  stuff  you  werent  looking 
 for.  They  pitch  you  writers  and  you  say,  Okay  I  like  the  writer.  Lets  hear  the  idea  and 


 6  Interview  with  Flody  Suarez,  producer  and  former  programming  vice  president,  NBC  (August  25,  1999). 
 All  subsequent  quotations  from  Suarez  are  derived  from  this  interview.  7 
 Pitches  are  meetings  where  a  writer  or  producer  or  a  studio  pitch  there  idea  to  a  network.  This  may  be  a 
 phone  call  or  a  more  formal  meeting. 
53
 12 
 then  the  department  ends  up  buying,  a  slate  of  projects.  A  lot  of  them  will  be  right  in  that 
 target  of  what  you  were  looking  for  and  then  a  lot  of  them  will  be  these  wild  cards. 
 These  flyer-  type  projects,  which  end  up  in  many  cases  seeming  special  and  different 
 because  you  dont  have  five  of  them  sitting  there. 
 The  selection  process  described  by  these  networks  is  not  a  science.  The  networks 
 start  with  a  framework    the  needs  assessment.  They  know  they  need  to  replace  certain 
 shows  that  are  going  off  the  air  because  they  are  too  old  or  the  ratings  have  not  been  high 
 enough  to  warrant  that  the  shows  return  for  another  season.  They  understand  that  there 
 are  certain  time  slots  that  need  to  be  filled.  This  could  be  an  8  oclock  comedy  or  a  10 
 oclock  drama.  This  too  will  affect  what  the  network  asks  for  from  the  creative 
 community.  However,  the  needs  assessment  is  not  a  hard  and  fast  rule.  It  is  a  game  plan 
 from  which  to  work.  The  executives  want  to  leave  themselves  open  for  unplanned  for 
 opportunities.  Most  of  those  so  called  flyer  projects  that  Suarez  spoke  of  come  from 
 producers  or  writers  who  have  a  strong  point  of  view  about  a  project.  [  A]  lot  of  things 
 also  just  come  in  where  simply  someone  says  heres  my  idea.  You  know,  this  is  my 
 idea.  A  funny  thing  happened  to  me.  I  want  to  write  about  my  life  experience.    Family 
 Ties  came  out  of  the  life  experience  of  Gary  Goldberg  being  an  aging  hippy  and  having 
 kids  who  were  more  conservative  than  he  was.  The  Cosby  Show  came  out  of  Bill 
 Cosbys  experiences  of  being  a  parent.  Home  Improvement  from  Tim  Allen.  So  a  lot  of 
 it  in  the  development  process,  particularly  in  a  half  hour  comedy,  is  creators  or  talent 
 coming  up  with  a  point  of  view,  according  to  Littlefield. 
 A  strong  point  of  view  is  fundamental  to  the  pitch  and  ultimately  the  long-  term 
 viability  of  a  show.  Matt  Williams,  one  of  the  producers  of  Home  Improvement, 
54
 13 
 described  his  development  of  the  show  much  in  the  same  way  as  Littlefield  talked  about 
 it  from  the  network  perspective.  I  wanted,  and  my  partners  wanted,  to  write  a  show 
 about  an  American  family  and  especially  a  show  built  around  a  father.  And  then  we  end 
 up,  thank  God,  bumping  into  Tim  Allen  through  Jeffrey  Katzenberg  at  Disney,  and  this 
 was  a  perfect  match.  So  we  really  took  our  time  and  really  hone  d  the  concept  of  the 
 show  and  what  that  show  was  about,  what  we  wanted  to  say  and  it  was  driven  purely  by 
 Tims  personality,  Tims  standup  and  what  we  wanted  to  do  about  family  life.  8 
 The  pitches  described  thus  far  are  the  simplest    a  writer  creates  a  concept  for  a 
 show  and  tries  to  sell  it  to  a  network  or  studio.  There  is  a  range  of  additional  sub-  issues 
 in  this  basic  sequence,  particularly  with  respect  to  the  financial  arrangements.  .  Stephen 
 McPherson  is  the  President  of  Touchstone  Television,  the  production  division  of  ABC 
 Entertainment.  McPherson  was  formerly  at  NBC  as  a  programming  executive.  He 
 provided  the  following  analysis  of  the  development  process.  The  simplest  [way  for  a 
 show  to  get  picked  up  is  a  writer  walks  in  the  door  and  pitches  a  show  to  a  studio  and 
 they  go,  great  wed  like  to  do  it.    They  then  pitch  it  to  the  network,  they  say,  great  wed 
 like  to  do  it.    He  writes  a  script;  its  picked  up  to  pilot;  its  picked  up  to  series,  and  it 
 goes  on  the  air.  The  most  complicated  ones  are  a  British  television  series  exists  and 
 youre  going  to  do  a  remake  of  it  and  you  make  a  deal  with  the  exec  producers  of  the 
 British  show  to  supervise  American  writers  who  do  it  through  a  studio  here  and 
 potentially  its  a  co-  production  because  theres  not  domestic  financing.  Big  stars  always 


 8  Interview  with  Matt  Williams,  producer  (January  11,  2002).  All  subsequent  quotations  from  Williams  are 
 derived  from  this  interview. 
55
 14 
 make  a  difference  and  big  properties  make  a  difference  and  pre-  existing  network 
 commitments  and  penalties  make  a  difference.  9 
 But  whether  simple  or  complex,  after  a  show  has  been  pitched  and  the  network 
 has  determined  that  it  is  interested  in  a  show  idea,  the  negotiation  of  the  contract  begins. 
 The  contract  can  be  for  a  script,  a  demo,  a  pilot  or  a  series  commitment.  The  following 
 describes  what  might  be  a  typical  production  deal  for  better-  than-  average  independent 
 producers.  NBCs  experience  with  Friends  is  typical  of  this.  [  W]  hen  we  bought 
 Friends  from  Warner  Brothers,  Bright,  Kauffman,  Crane  were  not  super  hot,  but  they 
 were  fairly  hot,  says  Littlefield.  And  so  we  had  to  say  based  upon  their  heat,  we  had  to 
 guarantee  a  pilot  commitment.  Now,  what  does  that  mean?  That  probably  when  the 
 deal  was  all  said  and  done  in  a  negotiation  it  probably  meant  if  we  didnt  make  the  pilot 
 off  of  what  they  were  writing,  we  probably  would  have  owed  them  a  couple  of  hundred 
 thousand  dollars.  To  make  the  pilot  was  a  million  dollars.  And  so  many  deals  are  simply 
 a  script,  75,000  plus  fringes.  Okay,  so  under  100.  Then  you  get  the  little  more  heat,  a 
 pilot  commitment,  so  now  your  exposure  is  several  hundred  thousand.  And  if  its  a  firm, 
 you  gotta  roll  film,  a  demo,  is  500  thousand,  and  a  firm  pilot,  youre  going  to  make  it,  is 
 at  least  a  million  and  can  be  for  a  half  hour  up  to  2  million. 
 Programming  executives  at  each  network  go  through  this  process  with  twenty  to 
 thirty  producers.  That  number  will  vary  depending  on  how  many  shows  the  network 
 needs  to  replace.  It  is  not  this  particular  step  of  the  process  that  critics  of  the  post-  fin-  syn 


 9  Interview  with  Stephen  McPherson,  President  of  Touchstone  Television  and  former  programming  ivce 
 president,  NBC  (January  11,  2002).  All  subsequent  quotations  from  McPherson  are  derived  from  this  interview. 
56
 15 
 environment  take  issue  with.  Rather  it  is  the  actual  selection  and  what  goes  into  deciding 
 what  finally  ends  up  on  the  screen. 


 Prime  Time  Program  Selection  Process    Factors  in  the  Final  Decision 
 Several  factors  go  into  making  the  final  decision  on  what  programs  will  appear  on 
 the  prime  time  schedule.  These  include  relationships  between  networks  and  producers, 
 what  is  most  profitable  for  the  network,  whether  the  show  is  produced  internally,  how 
 well  the  show  has  tested  with  audiences,  the  shows  prospects  for  attracting  advertisers, 
 and  the  shows  prospects  for  success  in  the  syndication  market. 


 Relationships 
 A  major  factor  in  the  final  selection  process  is  the  relationship  between  a  network 
 and  a  studio.  If  the  studio  already  has  a  show  on  the  network,  or  has  a  particularly  hot 
 property,  it  can  use  it  as  leverage  to  sell  more  programming  to  a  network.  This  is  not  an 
 unusual  business  practice.  In  fact,  networks  do  it  themselves  when  selling  advertising 
 time.  If  an  advertiser  wants  to  be  on  ER,  for  instance,  the  network  will  package 
 commercials  in  that  show  with  commercials  in  other  less  popular  programs.  The 
 implications  may  be  smaller,  but  the  business  practice  is  the  same. 
 Of  course,  a  very  important  relationship  now  is  the  one  that  exists  between  the 
 network  and  its  own  in-  house  studio.  All  of  the  networks  have  their  own  in-  house  studios 
 either  through  merger,  acquisition  or  creation.  A  few  years  ago,  Disney  restructured  its 
 organization  in  order  to  increase  the  sale  of  programs  internally.  Stephen  McPherson, 
 President  of  Disneys  Touchstone  Television,  explained  his  relationship  with  the  ABC 
57
 16 
 network  this  way,  Were  incredibly  close  [with  the  network]  we  try  to  work  as  closely 
 as  we  possibly  can  and  frankly  the  closer,  the  better  Were  not  obligated  to  sell 
 everything  to  ABC.  Certainly  we  try  to  mine  that  rela  tionship  and  its  an  important  one 
 for  us  and  for  them  we  have  a  vertically  integrated  relationship  with  a  network  but  we 
 produce  successful  material  for  other  broadcast  networks  as  well. 
 While  the  implications  of  the  internal  relationships  will  be  discussed  more  fully 
 below  in  the  section  about  vertical  integration,  it  is  important  to  note  here  that  internally 
 produced  programming  has  an  advantage  in  the  networks  program  selection  process. 
 Ted  Harbert,  former  chairman  and  president  of  ABC  Entertainment,  explained  why  this  is 
 so.  Mr.  Harbert  worked  at  ABC  for  20  years,  the  last  four  (1993-  1997)  of  which  he  was 
 responsible  for  all  prime  time  and  late  night  programming.  He  left  ABC  and  signed  a 
 multi-  year  deal  to  develop  programming  with  Dreamworks,  where  he  worked  on  Arsenio, 
 a  vehicle  for  Arsenio  Hall,  and  Its  Like  You  Know,  another  short-  lived  sitcom.  In  1999, 
 Harbert  was  named  president  of  NBC  Studios,  the  in-  house  production  unit  for  NBC 
 which  produces  for  multiple  dayparts  including  prime  time.  Harbert  explained: 
 Michael  Eisner  is  saying  okay  ABC  [and  Disney]  everybody  just  get  together  in  the  same  room  and  do  it  together.  I  think  their  [Disneys]  shows  will  get  on  the 
 air.  That  isnt  going  to  mean  that  theyre  better.  If  you  put  the  network  person  in  charge  of  both  sides  of  the  fence,  saying,  Okay,  youre  in  charge  of  the  studio 
 side,  of  developing  shows  from  the  studio  side  and  you  also  have  to  choose  the  shows  as  the  network  person  that  go  on  the  air.    Its  impossible  to  ask  the 
 network  person  to  have  that  much  objectivity.  To  be  able  to  look  at  the  show  theyve  been  developing  from  the  very,  very  beginning  and  say,  Oh,  no  what  Ive 
 just  been  working  on  personally,  that  Im  personally  invested  in  from  the  very  first  moment  with  the  writer,  gee  thats  much  lousier  than  the  Warner  Brothers 
 show.  Im  gonna  go  with  the  Warner  Brothers  show.    I  just  think  its  a  virtually  impossible  thing  to  ask  the  people.  10 


 10  Interview  with  Ted  Harbert,  President  NBC  Studios,  formerly  producer  and  chairman  and  president  ABC 
 (August,  1999).  All  subsequent  quotations  from  Harbert  are  derived  from  this  interview. 
58
 17 
 Another  very  important  factor  is  the  relationship  between  a  network  and  an 
 individual  producer.  These  usually  exist  in  the  form  of  a  series  commitment.  This  is  a 
 contract  between  the  producer  and  the  network,  whereby  the  network  agrees  to  pick  up 
 the  next  project  by  the  producer  virtually  sight  unseen.  Contracts  certainly  play  a  big 
 part  in  [the  decision  making  process]  Marta  Kaufman,  David  Crane  have  two  shows  on 
 the  air  that  were  22-  episode  commitments  because  we  had  commitments  to  them,  says 
 Suarez,  about  his  experience  at  NBC.  John  Wells  has  commitments,  you  know,  based 
 on  ER.  And  those  are  good  shots  to  take...  Sometimes  it  works  and  sometimes  it 
 backfires.  Certainly  Frasier  worked.  Wings  was  a  success[  Pursuit  of 
 Happiness]  was  a  disaster.  But  its  not  a  science.  It  is  an  art  and  you  have  to  treat  it  as 
 that.  When  you  start  treating  it  like  a  business,  it  tends  to  fall  apart. 
 Series  commitments  have  been  a  means  by  which  the  networks  reward  producers 
 for  having  a  successful  show.  The  networks  are  willing  to  risk  acquiring  an  unsuccessful 
 show,  because  once  a  producer  has  a  hit,  the  other  networks  want  to  work  with  that 
 producer.  This  is  important  because  historically  the  success  of  a  producer  is  a  key 
 determinant  for  the  success  of  a  show  overall  (Biebly  and  Biebly,  1994).  By  providing 
 the  producer  with  a  series  commitment,  the  network  guarantees  that  the  next  creation  by 
 the  producer  will  appear  on  that  network.  NBC  did  this  with  Steve  Levitan,  producer  of 
 such  hits  as  Frasier  and  Just  Shoot  Me.  Littlefield  explains,  Everybody  wanted  to  be  in 
 business  with  him.  So  it  was  going  to  cost  thirteen  on  the  air  no  matter  what,  so  NBC 
 stepped  up,  made  a  commitment  to  thirteen  on  the  air.  He  did  a  pilot  Now,  if  you  hate 
 the  pilot,  you  can  buy  out  of  it,  but  its  really  expensive,  millions  and  millions.  More 
 likely  you  say,  Hey,  you  know  what,  this  is  who  we  said  wed  be  in  business  with,  lets 
59
 18 
 see  what  they  do.    A  commitment  usually  consists  of  thirteen  episodes,  but  can  be  as 
 many  as  22  or  even  higher  in  very  special  cases.  As  Littlefield  described  was  the  case 
 with  Cosby  on  CBS.  Cosby  I  think  was  a  44.  CBS  Cosby  But  they  have  the  ability  to 
 I  think  probably,  theyll  end  it  up  with  44  guaranteed  fees,  but  they  could  have  cut  back 
 to  22  episodes  or  something,  but  anyway,  its  quite  unique  and  that  was  a  time  when  CBS 
 was  desperate  for  an  announcement,  so  thats  the  deal  they  made. 
 Paul  Haggis  is  an  example  of  a  producer  who  has  a  series  commitment.  His 
 commitment  is  with  CBS  which  means  he  must  first  present  his  work  to  the  network 
 before  he  can  sell  it  elsewhere.  Mr.  Haggis  is  a  writer/  producer,  whose  most  recent 
 show  is  Family  Law  which  aired  on  CBS.  He  has  worked  in  Hollywood  for  more  than  20 
 years  as  a  writer  and/  or  producer  on  such  shows  as  thirtysomething,  Due  South  and  EZ 
 Streets.  While  he  has  a  commitment  with  CBS,  he  is  not  tied  to  a  particular  production 
 studio,  which  is  the  case  with  many  other  producers.  He  spoke  about  the  different  ways 
 his  shows  have  gotten  onto  the  network: 
 Ive  had  a  long  relationship  with  CBS.  Oh,  I  guess  Ive  been  creating  series  for  ten  to  twelve  years  for  them.  And  I  think  Ive  done  four  or  five.  I  cant 
 remember.  I  dont  like  to  count  the  failures.  (laughs)  [With  Due  South],  Jeff  Sagansky  approached  me  and  said  would  you  create  a  show  about  a  Canadian 
 Mountie  or  trapper  who  comes  to  Big  City  USA  and  that  show  was  owned  entirely  by  Alliance  Entertainment.  [With]  EZ  Streets  which  was  my  next 
 show  I  sold  the  project  myself  as  a  writer/  producer  to  CBS  and  then  I  sent  it  out  for  bids  around  to  the  various  studios,  met  with  them  and  finally  decided  and  it 
 got  down  to  either  Universal  or  Paramount,  and  Universal  was  willing  to  put  the  most  money  into  the  budget  and  so  we  went  with  Universal.  11 


 For  Haggis,  the  series  commitment  could  mean  ownership  by  the  network  or  by  an 
 outside  production  company. 


 11  Interview  with  Paul  Haggis,  producer  (February  22,  2002).  All  subsequent  quotations  from  Haggis  are 
 derived  from  this  interview. 
60
 19 
 Most  often  with  a  series  commitment  the  network  does  not  get  a  financial  interest 
 in  the  show,  12  which  is  why  series  commitments  are  expected  to  become  a  thing  of  the 
 past.  According  to  Littlefield,  A  lot  of  shows  have  gotten  on  the  air  because  there  were 
 series  commitments  and  I  would  say  that  that  trend  will  probably  fade  away.  The 
 networks  always  want  to  make  fewer  of  those  so  theyre  not  shackled  by  them.  This  is 
 true.  Networks  want  to  have  as  much  control  over  what  appears  on  the  schedule  as 
 possible.  What  is  also  true  is  that  by  eliminating  commitments,  the  networks  eliminate  a 
 lot  of  overhead.  13 
 McPherson  agrees  with  this  assessment,  but  explains  that  the  economics  of  the 
 business  has  changed  networks  reliance  on  producer  commitments: 
 Giant  overall  deals  [were  based  on]  the  model  used  [by]  the  movie  studios  [whereby]  your  one  hit  pays  for  all  your  failures,  and  I  think  theres  really  a  sense 
 that  that  cant  be  the  way  that  we  operate.  We  have  to  do  shows  for  less  money.  We  have  to  cut  down  the  deficits.  As  foreign  money  becomes  harder  to  get,  as 
 domestic  syndication  becomes  more  cluttered,  as  there  become  more  channels  and  choices  for  everybody,  theres  less  off-  network  money,  so  youre  really  just 
 talking  about  people  looking  at  the  business  and  saying,  Ok  this  didnt  make  sense.  This  didnt  make  sense.  How  can  we  save  money  here,  save  money  there.   
 Because  in  the  end  it  all  comes  down  to  money. 


 Financial  Considerations 
 Perhaps  most  importantly,  and  the  factor  underlying  the  other  aspects  of  the 
 decision  making  process  is  the  cost  of  production,  which  of  course  ties  into  the 
 companys  bottom  line.  The  first  place  where  cost  cutting  occurs  is  in  the  pilot  stage. 


 12  Networks  do  not  receive  a  financial  interest  in  shows  with  a  series  commitment  because  the 
 producer/  studio  has  the  upper  hand  in  negotiating  the  terms.  As  Suarez  explained  it,  NBC  had  a  lot  of 
 deals  that  made  it  impossible  to  own,  you  know  the  John  Wells,  the  Marta  Kaufmans,  the  Steve  Levitans,  they  couldnt  force  ownership  in  those 


 13  The  networks  are  not  the  only  ones  doing  this.  Studios  have  reduced  the  number  of  writer/  producers  on 
 their  payrolls  as  well  as  a  cost-  cutting  measure. 
61
 20 
 [  T]  heres  not  a  dramatic  reduction,  but  there  are  fewer  [pilots],  according  to  Littlefield, 
 because  the  development  process  is  so  costly  that  people  have  gotten  a  little  more 
 conservative  about  that.  Ted  Harbert  agreed.  The  process  hasnt  really  changed.  Yes, 
 there  are  less  pilots  made  than  there  were  before,  because  networks  are  losing  money  and 
 so  theyre  cutting  their  budgets  so  theyre  making  less  pilots..  So  far,  the  only  major 
 studio  to  reduce  production  dramatically  is  Twentieth  Century  Fox,  which  reduced  its 
 pilot  output  by  one  third  in  2002  (Adalian,  2002,  p.  8).  Recently,  there  have  been 
 rumblings  in  trade  publications  about  producers  creating  presentations  rather  than  full-blown 
 pilots.  However,  McPherson  attributes  this  to  posturing  by  the  networks  rather 
 than  a  change  in  the  process.  [  P]  resentation  just  means  the  networks  are  going  to  pay 
 less  money  But  you  have  to  realize  with  that,  it  was  studios  competing  to  get  on  the  air 
 and  being  deficit  entities  were  going  to  do  everything  we  can,  and  everything  we  can 
 includes  spending  more  money  to  make  the  best  show  we  can  because  its  a  sales  tool. 
 So  by  people  saying  were  just  going  to  do  presentations  thats  just  a  way  of  saying  were 
 going  to  pay  less  for  pilots  When  they  [the  networks]  look  at  their  budget  rightfully 
 they  say    lets  [use]  fake  numbers    they  say,  Ok,  we  have  10  million  dollars.  Were 
 going  to  do  10  drama  pilots.  But  you  know  what,  were  going  to  actually  do  12  drama 
 pilots  but  for  each  of  them  were  not  going  to  pay  a  million  dollars,  were  going  to  pay 
 800,000.   
 Rather  than  spend  less  on  pilots,  it  seems  the  networks  have  become  more 
 selective  in  who  they  give  money  to.  Certainly  the  cost  of  production  has  increased.  In 
 1988,  a  half-  hour  pilot  cost  between  $650,000  and  $750,000.  A  one-  hour  pilot  was  more 
 than  double  that  amount  (Lewine,  Eastman  and  Adams,  1989,  p.  148).  Now,  the  cost  of  a 
62
 21 
 half-  hour  sitcom  pilot  can  approach  two  million  dollars.  When  the  relationship  is 
 important  enough,  that  number  can  go  higher.  Warren  Littlefield  gave  me  an  example  of 
 an  outrageously  expensive  drama  pilot.  Well,  if  you  want  to  be  as  recent  as  John  Wells 
 8  oclock  Sunday  night,  Third  Watch,  I  was  told  that  was  a  little  under  6  million.  Pilots 
 have  reportedly  been  created,  however,  for  as  much  as  $10  million  (Wild,  1999,  p.  76).  14 
 This  suggests  that  while  the  networks  continue  to  express  concern  about  rising  program 
 production  costs,  they  are  willing  to  pay  for  shows  that  they  believe  will  ultimately  make 
 them  money  in  the  backend.  Fewer  pilots  being  produced  would  mean  less  access  for 
 producers,  however,  there  is  no  clear  evidence  to  date  that  the  number  of  pilots  being 
 produced  has  been  significantly  reduced. 
 One  way  that  program  cost  issues  have  clearly  affected  program  selection  is  the 
 acquisition  by  networks  of  a  financial  interest  in  programming.  As  mentioned  above, 
 when  networks  take  a  financial  interest  in  a  show,  they  are  more  able  to  control  the  terms 
 of  renewal.  This  is  true  because  they  are  in  essence  negotiating  with  themselves  and 
 therefore  will  create  the  most  favorable  terms  possible.  A  turning  point  for  the  way 
 networks  view  the  value  of  ownership  and  control  of  programming  was  the  infamous  ER 
 license  renewal  in  1997.  NBC  was  so  desperate  to  retain  this  show  for  the  network  that 
 they  ended  up  paying  $13  million  per  episode.  That  license  fee  appears  to  have 
 galvanized  the  networks  in  their  aversion  to  shows  in  which  they  have  no  financial 
 control.  Littlefield  explained  the  networks  perspective  on  the  importance  of  ownership 
 in  the  following  terms: 
 Well,  the  fact  of  the  matter  is  if  you  look  at  the  traditional  model,  the  network  basically  rents  for  a  four,  five,  six,  whatever  year  period,  rents  a  show  in  the  form 
 of  a  license  fee.  Its  an  unacceptable  model.  Because  in  the  first  four  years,  the 
 14  UPN  reportedly  paid  this  figure  for  a  series  called  Seven  Days. 
63
 22 
 network  has  all  the  leverage,  you  build  a  monster  hit  or  even  a  modest  hit  and  the  lions  share  of  the  profits  come  to  you  at  the  network.  However,  you  have  built 
 from  nothing  this  phenomenal  asset  and  then  they  can  turn  around  and  ER  you.  And  then  the  shift  changes  dramatically  and  you  can  eliminate  all  profitability  for 
 a  time  period.  You  can  destroy  your  financial  equation  and  you  have  no  participation  whatsoever  in  the  lifelong  value  of  the  asset  when  you  have  done  a 
 tremendous  amount  to  help  create  the  asset,  so  its  just  not  a  model  thats  acceptable.  So  what  youre  going  to  see  is,  not  100%  ownership  of  a  schedule  at 
 a  network,  but  youre  going  to  see  more  and  more  ownership  or  joint  ownership  So  what  youll  see  I  think  is  a  lot  more  joint  venture  deals.  Youll 
 see  more  long-  term  protection  for  networks,  so  that  an  ER  cant  be  repeated. 


 There  is  widespread  agreement  that  the  ER  deal  was  a  bad  one,  particularly  from 
 other  producers.  According  to  Dick  Wolf,  producer  of  the  Law  &  Order  franchise  of 
 shows,  The  ER  deal  is  the  worst  deal  in  the  history  of  show  business.  And  if  they  had 
 made  it  a  year  earlier,  it  would  have  been  about  3  million  an  episode.  NBC  lost  football, 
 they  lost  Seinfeld,  and  this  was  a  perceived  emergency.  Theres  nothing  on  television 
 worth  13  million  an  hour  (Longworth,  2000,  p.  17). 
 The  ER  deal  had  ramifications  beyond  just  paying  such  a  high  fee  for  one  show. 
 It  affected  almost  every  other  show  on  the  network  schedule.  Tom  Fontana,  producer  of 
 Homicide,  was  forced  to  reduce  the  budget  on  his  show  to  accommodate  the  ER  fee. 
 NBCs  capacity  for  profit  has  been  basically  eliminated.  Thats  not  to  say  theyre  losing 
 money,  but  theyre  not  making  money.  Im  told  GE  has  a  policy  that,  if  one  of  the 
 companies  which  it  owns  doesnt  earn  10  percent  profit  a  year  of  its  budget,  then  they  sell 
 that  company.  Right  now,  NBC  is  not  going  to  do  that  so  they  are  in  the  process  of 
 downsizing  NBC  the  network  airs  Homicide,  and  NBC  the  studio  produces  Homicide, 
 so  I  have  been  asked  to  try  to  reduce  the  budget  in  the  eighth  year  (Longworth,  2000, 
 p.  44).  Both  existing  and  new  shows  are  affected. 
64
 23 
 Taking  a  financial  interest  in  programs  has  become  a  way  for  networks  to  protect 
 themselves  against  this  type  of  financial  hit.  Suarez  predicted  in  1999  that    it  [will]  be 
 [no]  more  than  a  year  of  two  away  when  the  networks  own  a  piece  of  every  show  on  their 
 air.  Otherwise  people  can  hold  them  up  for  ransom  the  way  ER  did.  NBC  turned  that 
 show  into  a  hit  with  the  producers  and  with  everyone  else,  but  ended  up  being  the  only 
 one  who  had  to  pay  through  the  nose  for  it.  He  was  right.  With  only  limited  exceptions, 
 all  of  the  networks  have  some  financial  stake  in  the  new  shows  that  appear  on  their  air. 


 The  Impact  of  Network  Ownership  on  the  Decisionmaking  Process 
 The  significant  factor  affecting  program  selection  was  not  necessarily  whether  the 
 network  produces  a  show  themselves,  but  whether  or  not  they  have  a  financial  interest  in 
 it.  The  television  executives  interviewed  for  this  report  agreed  that  networks  would 
 continue  to  increase  their  level  of  program  ownership  in  the  coming  years.  Some 
 producers  and  executives  were  surer  than  others  that  the  networks  would  require  at  least  a 
 piece  of  every  show  that  appeared  on  their  air.  Some  thought  it  was  a  bad  thing  and 
 others  were  neutral  about  it. 
 As  noted  earlier,  network  executives  sometimes  have  conflicting  incentives 
 between  selecting  the  best  show  versus  selecting  the  one  that  will  make  the  network  the 
 most  money.  The  continued  concern  about  being  forced  into  an  ER-  type  renewal 
 situation  (i.  e.  being  forced  to  pay  higher  license  fees  on  successful  shows  in  the  fifth  year 
 when  owned  entirely  by  outside  suppliers)  plays  heavily  into  the  executives  decision 
 making  process.  Explained  Littlefield: 
 [Y]  ou  really  do  have  to  focus  on  one  level  whats  the  best  show.  On  another  level,  you  have  to  say,  however,  it  may  be  the  best  show,  but  it  could  bring  about 
65
 24 
 my  extinction  or  it  could  be  part  of  my  extinction.  So  youre  constantly  fighting  [selecting  the]  best  product,  or  how  do  I  get  a  piece  of  it  or  how  do  I  protect 
 myself?  And  thats  the  age  that  were  in  right  now  you  can  create  a  great,  great  value  through  network  television  for  the  life  of  the  product  and  enough  people 
 still  want  to  do  that  and  you  can  only  do  that  with  a  network  thats  what  the  networks  are  good  for  to  create  asset  value.  So  thats  why  people  are  willing  to 
 say,  Hey,  well  be  in  business  with  networks.    And  virtually  all  the  studios  are  open  to  some  form  of  a  sharing  of  risk  and  sharing  of  equity. 


 So  even  while  the  networks  sometimes  must  decide  between  best  show  versus  best  buy, 
 they  remain  acutely  aware  of  their  ability  to  provide  something  that  no  other  media 
 vehicle  can,  and  that  is  the  ability  to  create  a  valuable  asset  because  no  medium  can 
 provide  the  kind  of  exposure  and  promotion  that  network  television  does.  This  is  why 
 producers  are  willing  to  accept  the  new  economic  realities. 
 As  expected,  ownership  in  programming  contributes  to  one  program  being 
 selected  over  another.  It  is  generally  believed  that  some  shows  are  also  being  maintained 
 on  the  schedule  for  longer  than  they  might  be  if  the  network  did  not  have  an  interest  in 
 the  show.  Even  shows  in  which  the  networks  did  not  originally  have  an  interest  have 
 had  their  financing  restructured  to  allow  the  network  to  become  a  financial  partner  in 
 order  for  a  show  to  stay  on  the  air,  particularly  in  that  ever-  important  fifth  year. 
 NewsRadio  is  an  example  of  this  type  of  negotiating.  Half  a  season  short  of  syndication, 
 the  show  was  going  to  be  cancelled.  The  producers  gave  up  ten  to  fifteen  percent  of  their 
 syndication  profits  in  order  to  remain  on  the  air  (Stroud,  1998,  p.  26).  This  type  of 
 negotiation  concerns  production  executives  like  Tony  Jonas,  president  of  Warner  Bros. 
 Television,    Shakedown  is  probably  too  strong  a  word,  but  they  should  not  have  the 
 right  to  insist  on  ownership  just  to  provide  real  estate  on  the  airwaves  (Wild,  1999,  p.  11) 
 Giving  a  piece  of  the  show  to  the  network  has  become  a  normal  way  of  doing 
 business  since  the  repeal  of  the  fin-  syn  rules,  because  access  to  the  airwaves  depends  on 
66
 25 
 giving  the  network  a  financial  interest  in  the  program.  Sometimes  these  requirements  are 
 subtle,  like  requesting  that  a  producer  create  their  show  with  their  studios  production 
 facilities,  and  sometimes  they  are  quite  blatant    your  money  or  your  show.  While  some 
 producers  are  not  happy  with  this  situation,  others  see  partial  network  ownership  as  an 
 opportunity  to  improve  the  shows  chances  of  getting,  or  staying,  on  the  air. 
 Suarez  says  it  can  actually  work  in  the  producers  favor.  We  have  no  problem 
 with  splitting  ownership  of  a  show  with  a  network.  Its  the  same  deal  to  a  producer.  I 
 dont  care  whos  paying  us  to  produce  the  show.  And  the  backend  is  the  backend  to  us. 
 So  actually,  I  like  it  because  then  a  network  is  invested  in  the  show  and  they  have  more  at 
 stake  and  more  reason  to  put  it  on  And  more  reason  to  keep  it  on  in  kind  of  middling 
 success,  because  its  harder  and  harder  to  launch  a  show.  Rob  Burnett,  president  of 
 Worldwide  Pants,  an  independent  production  company  which  produces  Ed  and 
 Everybody  Loves  Raymond,  suggested  that  network  ownership  may  even  help  small 
 independent  producers  by  sharing  start-  up  production  costs.  For  us  since  we  are  not  big 
 enough,  we  are  not  desirous  of  deficiting  shows  ourselves  necessarily.  If  we  are  not  set 
 up  to  deficit  and  distribute  shows  we  ultimately  need  a  financial  partner.  So  it  makes 
 more  sense  for  us  to  get  a  financer  earlier  in  the  process  If  we  are  ultimately  going  to 
 have  to  invite  someone  to  the  party,  you  might  as  well  invite  them  to  help  set  up  the 
 party.  15 
 The  networks  have  sought  and  received  ownership  of  programs  to  varying 
 degrees. 


 15  Interview  with  Rob  Burnett,  producer  and  President  of  Worldwide  Pants  (March  22,  2002).  All 
 subsequent  quotations  from  Burnett  are  derived  from  this  interview. 
67
 26 
 CBS  will  have  a  91  percent  stake  in  its  total  network  schedule  next  season,  representing  23  shows  and  20  hours  of  programming;  Fox  will  have  a  72 
 percent  stake  in  its  total  network  schedule,  or  18  shows  representing  13  hours;  ABC  will  have  a  62  percent  stake  in  its  total  network  schedule  or 
 21  shows  representing  19  hours;  and  NBC  will  have  a  52  percent  stake  in  its  schedule  or  23  shows  representing  19  hours  next  season  UPN  has  a 
 67  percent  economic  stake  in  its  fall  schedule,  and  AOL  Time  Warners  WB  Network  has  a  47  percent  stake  in  its  schedule.  (Mermigas,  2002,  p. 
 30) 


 CBS  has  been  very  aggressive  in  requiring  that  the  company  have  a  financial  interest  in 
 all  new  shows  that  appear  on  their  air.  In  the  1999-  2000  season  every  new  show  on  the 
 network  was  partially  owned  by  CBS  (  TV  Season  Preview,  1999,  p.  A6).  That  trend 
 has  continued.  While  a  few  new  shows  have  gotten  on  the  air  without  the  network 
 having  an  equity  stake,  these  shows  are  the  exception.  This  trend  exists  at  the  other 
 broadcast  networks,  but  to  a  lesser  extent.  ABC,  as  discussed,  combined  its  Disney 
 production  division  with  its  ABC  programming  area  in  1999.  This  was  done  specifically 
 to  increase  the  amount  of  Disney-  owned  programming  on  the  ABC  schedule,  and  thus  far 
 ABC  has  in  fact  taken  ownership  stakes  in  a  larger  percentage  of  shows  since  that  time. 
 In  1999,  ABC  produced  only  four  scripted  entertainment  programs  on  its  prime  time 
 schedule.  Three  years  later,  it  has  eleven  such  shows.  NBC  is  the  only  network  not 
 affiliated  with  a  major  television  production  studio.  Unlike  the  other  networks,  NBC  had 
 to  create  its  own  studio  whereas  its  competitors  became  integrated  through  studio 
 acquisitions.  Because  of  this,  NBC  has  not  been  as  synergistic  as  the  other  networks. 
 According  to  Suarez: 
 There  is  no  set  rule,  but  I  think  that  CBS  was  certainly  incredibly  aggressive.  They  own  a  part  of  every  show  that  they  put  on.  NBC  was  incredibly  aggressive, 
 but  had  a  lot  of  deals  that  made  it  impossible  to  own,  you  know  the  John  Wells,  the  Marta  Kaufmanns,  the  Steve  Leviathans,  they  couldnt  force  ownership  in 
 those,  but  I  think  they  own  a  good  deal  of  everything  else  they  put  on.  Which 
68
 27 
 may  work  or  may  not.  You  know  its  great  to  own  it  because  the  upside  is  so  huge  and  you  are  spending  a  lot  of  time  and  money  to  create  a  hit  that  you  want  a 
 piece  of  that  backend.  I  think  ultimately  at  the  end  of  the  day  in  the  next  few  years,  every  network  will  own  a  piece  of  every  show  that  goes  on  their  air  and  it 
 will  just  become  standard.  To  be  on  the  air  at  any  network,  youre  going  to  give  up  X%  of  your  show  Then  people  wont  play  this  game  any  more.  Its  just, 
 Okay,  youre  on  with  us.  We  own  50%,  you  own  50%.  Lets  call  it  a  day  and  make  a  hit.    And  theres  enough  profit  there  for  everyone. 


 One  of  the  areas  most  affected  by  in-  house  production  is  the  genre  of  made-  for-TV 
 movies.  It  is  an  area  that  the  networks  have  been  readily  able  to  enter  at  the  expense 
 of  the  independent  production  companies.  Movies  that  are  being  produced  by  outside 
 production  companies  are  primarily  big-  budget  miniseries  that  the  networks  could  never 
 afford  to  produce  on  their  own.  In  fact,  movies  have  virtually  disappeared  from  the 
 network  schedule  with  each  network  having  only  one  night  devoted  to  this  type  of  long-form 
 programming. 


 Vertical  Integration 
 Relationships  with  the  production  community,  audience  testing,  profit  motive 
 have  long  been  part  of  the  consideration  process  for  network  programming  executives. 
 Vertical  integration,  however,  is  a  new  element  in  this  decision-  making  process.  Vertical 
 integration  exists  when  a  producer  of  any  product  owns  multiple  aspects  along  the  line  of 
 production.  In  the  case  of  television  networks,  they  now  can  own  production  (creating 
 the  show),  distribution  (presenting  the  show  to  audiences)  and  ancillary  markets  (selling 
 the  show  into  syndication).  This  is  only  a  recent  turn  of  events.  With  the  repeal  of  the 
 fin-  syn  rules,  networks  were  allowed  to  produce  and  own  the  programming  that  they 
 distributed  via  their  owned  and  affiliated  stations.  The  market  was  opened  for  networks 
 to  be  unlimited  in  producing  their  own  programming.  This  led  to  considerable 
69
 28 
 consolidation  within  the  industry  among  producers,  networks  and  syndicators,  thus 
 vertical  integration.  Now  network  executives  need  to  keep  these  multiple  aspects  of  the 
 business  in  mind  when  making  their  program  selection. 
 The  network  executives  interviewed  for  this  paper  were  asked  if  they  felt  there 
 was  a  difference  in  the  process  of  developing  programming  internally  versus  externally. 
 They  saw  little  difference  between  acquiring  programming  from  an  in-  house  studio 
 versus  an  external  source,  at  least  in  terms  of  the  actual  process.  The  selling  may  be  a 
 little  different,  but  essentially  what  youre  always  trying  to  do  is  package  elements,  says 
 Littlefield.  We  have  an  idea  or  they  have  an  idea.  Find  the  writer  and  then  you  commit 
 to  a  script.  They  come  in,  they  lay  out  the  characters,  they  lay  out  the  story.  You 
 approve  the  story.  They  write  a  draft.  You  react  to  that,  you  give  notes  and  then  you  say 
 lets  try  it. 
 Having  multiple  perspectives  on  this  process,  Harbert  agrees  with  the  assessment 
 of  internal  programming  selection.  Traditionally,  even  an  in-  house  operation  will  come 
 in  and  pitch  a  show  and  its  bought  the  same  way  and  is  selected  as  a  pilot  the  same  way 
 and  is  turned  into  a  series  the  same  way. 
 Currently,  ABC,  Warner  Brothers  and  News  Corp.,  owner  of  Fox  Broadcasting, 
 have  a  vertically  integrated  organization  whereby  a  studio  and  a  network  report  up 
 through  the  same  management  structure,  but  operate  as  separate  divisions  of  the 
 respective  companies.  Stephen  McPherson  at  Touchstone  explained  it  this  way,  I  think 
 vertical  integration  is  both  a  management  thing  and  a  relationship  thing,  because  you  can 
 vertically  integrate  an  organization  and  if  the  people  managing  those  various  divisions 
 and  parts  are  not  working  together  then  it  really  doesnt  matter.  I  think  you  need  to  make 
70
 29 
 sure  that  each  of  the  divisions  maintains  its  autonomy,  because  I  think  thats  what  makes 
 them  productive  and  profitable,  so  its  a  constant  balancing  act,  [but  in  terms  of  the 
 selection  process]  certainly  vertical  integration  makes  a  difference. 
 Vertical  integration  is  seen  as  eliminating  a  valuable  step  in  the  development 
 process.  First,  developing  programming  is  a  creative  process.  When  one  entity  created 
 the  programming  and  another  would  select  it,  the  two  companies  would  argue  and 
 disagree  and  out  of  those  discussions,  the  show  would  often  be  improved.  What  has 
 happened  instead,  according  to  Suarez  is    you  ended  up  not  pitching  internally.  Youd 
 just  develop  the  shows  yourselves.  So,  unlike  other  executives  interviewed,  Suarez 
 stated  that  the  process  did  favor  internal  shows  and  eliminated  the  much  of  the 
 development  process  altogether.  Producers  also  stated  that  this  process  was  detrimental 
 to  the  overall  quality  of  network  programming.  I  believe  the  best  creative  work  always 
 happens  when  there  is  a  creative  tension,  says  Matt  Williams.  It  used  to  be,  studio 
 executives  would  go  into  the  network  and  they  would  fight  like  hell  because  they  had 
 ownership  of  this  show,  literal  ownership,  but  also  they  felt  proud  about  a  show  and  they 
 would  beat  the  shit  out  of  the  network  to  get  their  show.  How  do  you  do  that  when  its 
 the  same  company?  And  so  what  usually  happened  is  out  of  that  tension  there  was 
 always  a  better  show  evolving  where  you  challenged  each  other. 
 Another  issue  with  vertical  integration  is  that  objectivity  is  lost  in  the  selection 
 process.  While  network  executives  are  given  incentives  to  programming  the  best  shows, 
 there  is  the  possibility  that  that  incentive  is  not  enough  when  someone  has  worked  on  a 
 show  himself.  If  you  put  the  network  person  in  charge  of  both  sides  of  the 
 fence  developing  shows  from  the  studio  side  and  you  also  have  to  then  choose  the 
71
 30 
 shows  as  the  network  person  that  go  on  the  air,  its  impossible  to  ask  the  network  person 
 to  have  that  much  objectivity,  according  to  Ted  Harbert.  To  be  able  to  look  at  the  show 
 theyve  been  developing  from  the  very,  very  beginning  and  say  Oh,  no  what  Ive  just 
 been  working  on  personally,  that  Im  personally  invested  in  from  the  very  first  moment 
 with  the  writer,  gee  thats  much  lousier  than  the  WBs  show.  Im  gonna  go  with  the 
 WBs  show.    I  just  thing  its  a  virtually  impossible  thing  to  ask  the  people. 
 Some  of  these  issues  may  be  self-  correcting  by  the  market.  While  Disney 
 restructured  to  be  more  synergistic  that  strategy  has  not  proved  to  be  successful  for  ABC. 
 ABC  has  been  unable  to  retain  a  network  president  and  the  y  have  been  going  out-  of-house 
 for  their  programming.  So  much  so  that  ABC  has  entered  into  a  first-  look 
 agreement  with  HBO  and  has  begun  repurposing  Monk,  a  show  that  airs  first  on  the  USA 
 cable  network. 
 Given  vertical  integration  and  the  combined  netwo  rk/  programming  departments, 
 all  things  being  equal,  an  internally  produced  show  is  going  to  get  an  airing  over  one  in 
 which  the  network  does  not  have  an  interest.  It  is  also  more  likely  to  get  a  better  time 
 shot  and  be  kept  on  the  air  longer.  While  it  is  possible  that  some  shows  of  lesser  quality 
 shows  are  given  preference  over  those  produced  by  outsiders,  this  is  a  situation  that  may 
 be  self-  correcting  by  the  market.  Ultimately,  the  networks  job  is  to  make  money  and  the 
 best  way  to  do  that  is  to  put  on  the  best  shows.  Much  in  the  same  way  that  the  networks 
 overproduced  comedies  in  1997,  they  realized  that  was  not  in  their  best  interest  and 
 pulled  back  production  of  these  shows  in  subsequent  years.  Similarly,  if  producing 
 shows  internally  is  not  going  to  make  a  network  profitable,  as  was  the  case  with  ABC, 
 producing  shows  with  external  entities  will  be  reinstated. 
72
 31 
 Pilot  Testing 
 Once  the  network  has  selected  the  scripts  to  make  into  pilots  and  the  pilots  have 
 been  produced,  the  networks  must  decide  which  ones  will  actually  be  scheduled  for  prime 
 time.  Part  of  that  process  is  program  testing,  which  has  been  accused  of  leading  to  risk-averse 
 program  selecting.  You  have  to  have  this  star,  says  Paul  Haggis.  You  have 
 to  frontload  the  project,  so  if  it  fails  someone  can  point  a  finger  and  go  well,  it  had  all  the 
 right  earmarkings,  it  had  this  actor  and  this  actress  and  this  showrunner  and  it  had  a  good 
 script  and  so  they  can  report  to  their  bosses  that  they  did  everything  they  could  and  it  still 
 failed.  Rather  than  taking  a  flyer  on  something  with  some  strange  idea  with  a  bunch  of 
 nobodies  in  it  and  if  it  fails  they  say  oh  how  could  you  be  so  stupid.  Oh,  I  dont  know  I 
 guess  were  just  stupid.  All  of  this  leads  to  a  reliance  on  research  and  testing    a 
 quantifiable  way  to  justify  decisions. 
 Testing  has  long  been  part  of  the  television  industry.  In  Inside  Prime  Time,  Gitlin 
 (1983)  quotes  networks  executive  in  the  1980s  who  explain  that  testing  is  a  tool  which 
 should  take  a  back  seat  to  instincts  (Tom  Werner,  head  of  prime  time  programming  at 
 ABC)  and  as  one  of  ten  things  that  feed  into  a  [programming]  decision  (Barbara 
 Corday,  head  of  comedy  development  at  ABC)  (p.  44-  45).  Producers  have  complained 
 about  testing  for  thirty  years  (Cantor,  1988,  p.  165),  and  they  continue  to  do  so  today. 
 There  are  inherent  problems  with  testing  methodologies  and  in  this  sense,  testing  for 
 television  is  no  different  than  testing  for  any  other  product    people  are  concerned  about 
 the  impression  that  their  response  will  have  with  the  person  performing  the  test.  Dick 
 Wolf  provides  the  following  example,    Its  just  like  when  Ill  Fly  Away  was  the  second 
73
 32 
 highest  testing  pilot  in  five  years  because,  if  you  call  up  a  bunch  of  people  on  a  cable  test 
 and  ask,  Would  you  watch  a  show  every  week  about  the  civil  rights  movement  in  the 
 sixties?    what  do  you  think  people  are  going  to  say?  No,  Im  a  racist,  I  have  no  interest 
 in  watching  that?  Of  course  theyre  going  to  say  yes  but  nobody  watched. 
 (Longworth,  2000,  p.  16). 
 The  difference  now  versus  ten  or  twenty  years  ago  is  that  testing  methods  have 
 become  more  sophisticated.  In  years  past,  the  network  would  rent  an  auditorium  and 
 invite  people  off  the  street  to  view  and  evaluate  a  particular  pilot.  This  type  of  audience 
 testing  has  largely  been  replaced  by  cable  testing  in  which  programs  are  sent  to  test 
 subjects  homes  through  their  cable  box.  Cable  testing  is  considered  superior  to 
 auditorium  testing  because  the  programming  is  viewed  in  its  natural  setting  and 
 because  larger  numbers  of  people  are  included  in  the  testing  sample,  which  make  the 
 numbers  more  statistically  significant.  It  does  still  have  its  flaws.  First,  viewers  are 
 seeing  the  show  without  any  pre-  publicity.  Second,  viewers  are  only  seeing  the  show 
 once.  If  a  concept  is  new  or  different,  this  type  of  testing,  as  with  previous  methods,  will 
 tend  to  have  that  show  test  badly.  Harbert  explains  the  process,  Cable  testing  we  put 
 out  a  show  to  15  markets  and  call  up  and  recruit  30  families  a  market  and  get  450 
 families  to  watch  a  show  and  then  theyre  called  immediately  afterwards  but  the  big 
 fallacy  in  that  is  that  not  a  show  goes  on  the  air  now  without  at  least  a  half-  million  dollars 
 of  marketing  put  into  it  where  the  audience  is  prepared  for  what  they  are  going  to  see. 
 The  shows  shown  on  cable  testing  theyre  seeing  them  cold  and  again  if  the  show  has 
 any,  a  lot  of  edges  anything  too  different  or  unusual  the  audience  will  be  sort  of  caught 
74
 33 
 off  guard  and  say,  I  dont  like  that,    but  when  they  get  used  to  what  theyre  seeing  after, 
 then  they  can  grow  to  love  it  and  again  those  become  the  biggest  hits. 
 Networks  also  use  focus  groups  to  supplement  cable  testing  when  assessing 
 programming.  These  are  groups  of  10  to  12  people  selected  specifically  because  they  fit 
 a  demographic  profile  of  the  programs  target  audience  and  who  are  asked  questions 
 about  the  show  and  asked  to  evaluate  it  after  having  viewed  a  pilot.  Rob  Burnett 
 explained  the  problem  with  this  research  methodology. 


 It  does  is  have  a  terrible  averaging  effect  on  what  they  put  on  television  and  what  is  misleading  about  it,  I  believe,  is  if  you  have  a  group  of  people  and  you  go 
 around  the  room  and  rate  the  show  1-  10,  and  if  everyone  rates  the  show  a  6,  theres  your  rating.  And  then  you  have  another  show,  where  3  people  rate  it  a  10 
 and  7  people  rate  it  a  0,  that  rating  is  a  3  basically  for  those  10  people  in  the  room  and  that  3  wont  get  on  the  air.  But  the  truth  is,  a  show  that  can  get  3  people  to 
 give  it  a  10  can  be  very  powerful,  because  that  is  a  30  share  and  you  have  3  people  that  are  very  passionate  about  the  show  and  the  other  people  hate  the 
 show,  it  doesnt  matter.  Theres  the  other  show  where  everyone  is  getting  5s  and  6s,  no  one  is  going  to  watch  the  show,  because  no  one  cares  about  the 
 show  you  know  its  kind  of  like  if  you  think  of  everyone  in  your  house,  all  twenty  people  in  your  house  and  you  have  to  decide  what  to  get  for  food,  and 
 everyone  is  going  to  vote  and  you  have  to  pick  something  that  everyone  likes,  you  know  that  you  are  ne  ver  going  to  get  the  crazy  Vietnamese-  Thai  food,  thats  never 
 going  to  happen.  You  are  always  going  to  get  pizza,  every  time,  and  I  think  thats  what  happens  here. 


 The  testing  story  of  Seinfeld  is  well  known  in  the  industry.  Seinfeld  was  one  of 
 the  worst  testing  shows  ever.  Due  to  the  willingness  of  network  executives  to  consider 
 factors  other  than  audience  testing  results,  Seinfeld  was  picked  up  by  NBC  and  went  on  to 
 be  one  of  the  most  successful  shows  in  the  history  of  television.  Nonetheless,  examp  les 
 like  this  generally  have  not  tempered  network  executives  dependence  on  testing  in 
 program  selection  decisions. 
75
 34 
 Research  has  been  called  the  lamppost  to  the  drunk.  It  is  something  that  network 
 executives  can  lean  on  to  justify  their  decisions.  Whe  n  large  sums  of  money  are  at  stake 
 executives  tend  to  rely  on  research  to  validate  their  decisions.  This  over-  reliance  on 
 testing  has  been  criticized  as  one  of  the  culprits  to  making  network  executives  more  risk 
 averse  and  relying  on  old,  accepted  program  formulas. 


 Changes  in  the  Syndication  Marketplace 
 Increasing  numbers  of  channels  competing  with  broadcast  networks  has  only 


 increased  the  financial  pressure  on  networks.  One  consequence  of  this  financial  pressure 
 has  been  to  move  programs  into  syndication  more  quickly  than  ever  before.  Syndication 
 has  traditionally  been  a  major  source  of  profits  for  owners  of  hit  television  shows. 
 Syndication  of  a  program  was  generally  delayed  until  the  show  had  run  for  approximately 
 five  years  or  when  there  were  200  episodes.  This  was  done  in  part  to  avoid  siphoning 
 viewers  from  the  network  airing  and  in  part  to  have  enough  shows  in  the  can  to  be  able  to 
 strip  it  during  the  week.  Since  syndication  is  where  money  is  made,  the  networks  are 
 becoming  less  concerned  with  this  potential  conflict  and  opting  to  monetize  their 
 investment  in  programming  more  quickly  than  in  years  past.  As  a  result,  networks  have 
 begun  selling  shows  into  broadcast  and  cable  outlets  at  the  same  time  even  at  the  risk  of 
 reducing  viewership  of  newly-  produced  episodes  of  that  show.  45  Ted  Harbert  explains 
 what  happened  with  Home  Improvement.  Now  networks  cant  wait  to  get  a  show  that 
 they  have  into  syndication  to  a  fault.  They  want  them  out  there  so  quickly  to  try  and  reap 
 some  revenue,  but  possibly  to  the  detriment  of  the  show  thats  still  on  their  prime  time 


 45  One  exception  to  this  has  been  Law  &  Order,  which  saw  increased  ratings  on  the  network  after  it  began 
 airing  in  syndication  on  the  cable  channel,  A&  E. 
76
 35 
 schedule.  I  mean  the  studies  prove  that  once  a  show  thats  on  the  air  goes  into 
 syndication  the  network  ratings  come  down.  The  best  example,  I  think,  is  Home 
 Improvement,  which  is  a  show  that  a  lot  of  kids  and  teens  watch.  And  when  it  was  on  the 
 air  in  syndication  at  7  oclock,  there  was  no  reason  for  parents  to  let  their  kids  watch  it 
 again  at  8  oclock  or  even  when  it  was  at  9  oclock,  actually  it  was  at  9  oclock  then. 
 Kids  used  to  beg  to  stay  up  and  to  watch  Home  Improvement  when  it  was  on  at  9.  When 
 it  went  into  syndication,  parents  could  say,  Okay  you  saw  it  already  tonight.  Go  to  bed.   
 And  that  hurt  the  show. 
 Shows  are  no  longer  on  a  timetable  when  it  comes  to  syndication.  As  McPherson 
 explained  it  to  me,  a  show  goes  into  syndication  whenever  that  distribution  entity  feels 
 that  it  can  take  advantage  of  the  asset  in  the  most  productive  way.  That  most 
 productive  way  is  changing  due  to  the  proliferation  of  television  outlets.  Theres  200 
 channels,  800  channels,  if  you  get  DirecTV,  theres  many  more  choices  and  theres  less 
 of  a  value  to  a  lot  of  the  programming  that  used  to  make  up  a  lot  of  that  air  time.  Theres 
 just  much  more  stuff  being  done.  Disney  channel  produces  for  itself.  Theyre  not  going 
 to  take  reruns  of  a  family  sitcom.  As  you  have  this  proliferation  of  choices,  theres  still 
 going  to  be  a  great  syndication  market  for  Friends  or  Seinfeld,  but  theres  going  to  be  less 
 of  a  market  for  a  lower  level  hit,  mid-  range  show  that  people  feel  like,  Well,  rather  than 
 pay  syndication  money  for  that,  Ill  produce  my  own.    This  means  that  syndication  may 
 not  be  the  pot  of  gold  at  the  end  of  the  rainbow  that  it  used  to  be.  Paul  Simms,  producer 
 of  NewsRadio,  [  T]  here  are  so  many  more  channels,  but  there  are  also  so  many  more 
 sitcoms  now.  You  make  your  money  back,  and  you  make  a  good  amount  of  money,  but 
 its  not  the  huge  jackpot  payoff  it  used  to  be.  Thats  going  to  affect  the  business.  It  used 
77
 36 
 to  be  production  companies  could  say  that  ten  flops  are  worth  it  to  get  one  hit;  its 
 getting  to  be  more  like  its  worth  four  or  five  flops  to  get  one  hit  (Wild,  1999,  p.  29). 
 In  addition  to  accelerating  the  traditional  point  for  selling  programming  into 
 syndication,  networks  are  attempting  to  reap  more  immediate  financial  benefits  on  shows 
 they  own  by  repurposing  them  on  cable  networks.  Repurposing  refers  to  airing  episodes 
 of  network  programming  on  another  channel  within  a  few  days  after  its  initial  broadcast 
 network  airing.  An  example  of  this  is  Alias.  This  program  is  produced  by  Touchstone, 
 airs  on  ABC  on  Sunday  night  and  repeats  later  in  the  week  on  ABC  Family.  Fox  also  did 
 this  with  24  when  it  aired  its  original  show  on  a  Tuesday  night  and  then  repeated  that 
 same  episode  twice  on  the  FX  channel  within  one  week  of  its  initial  broadcast  airing. 
 What  has  made  the  selection  process  different  how  versus  during  the  time  of  fin-syn 
 is  plain  and  simple  economics.  The  marketplace  is  more  complex.  Production  is 
 more  expensive.  Syndication  is  more  uncertain.  Audiences  are  more  fragmented.  The 
 networks  are  doing  what  they  can  to  make  money  within  a  very  volatile  business 
 environment.  It  appears  that  their  programming  decisions  reflect  the  constant  tension 
 between  selecting  and  airing  the  best  programming  and  selecting  the  programming  that 
 will  make  the  most  money  for  the  network. 


 How  Producers  Stay  in  the  Game 
 In  the  changing  marketplace  of  program  selection,  producers  have  had  to  become 
 more  creative  in  the  way  they  do  business.  In  many  cases  this  has  meant  being  aligned 
 with  a  major  studio  or  with  a  broadcast  network,  particularly  since  they  are  becoming    if 
 have  not  already  become    one  and  the  same  thing.  This  aids  in  getting  a  show  produced 
78
 37 
 and  ultimately  on  the  air.  As  explained  by  Warren  Littlefield,  these  deals  can  be 
 structured  in  a  variety  of  ways. 
 Theres  all  kinds  of  deals.  Lets  go  to  some  examples  20  th  Century  Fox  Studios  pays  [David  Kelley]  a  lot  of  money  to  have  the  distribution 
 worldwide  and  the  joint  ownership  with  David  Kelley  of  all  of  his  television.  David  Kelley  has  series  on  ABC,  CBS,  and  Fox.  So  their 
 strategy  has  not  been  exclusivity.  Their  strategy  has  been  they  would  go  out  and  sell  a  couple  of  series  deals  here  and  a  series  deal  there  and  they 
 spread  it  around.  Bochco  had  the  opposite  concept.  He  had  a  deal  at  20  th  Century  Fox  for  many  years  just  like  David  Kelley,  only  he  would  go  in 
 and  tie  up  exclusively  with  a  network.  Originally  with  NBC,  then  with  ABC  and  then  with  CBS  Hes  very  frustrated  by  the  stuff  he  put  on 
 CBS,  that  it  didnt  get  treated  differently  and  Bochco  decided  to  go  to  a  studio  and  hes  not,  it  would  seem  now,  making  an  overall  network  deal, 
 so  hes  going  to  spread  it  around.  Hes  going  to  do  it  more  like  Kelley  at  a  new  studio,  Paramount  its  safe  to  say  with  someone  like  Bochco,  of  his 
 caliber,  that  its  a  joint  venture.  Theyre  probably  50/  50  partners.  And  that  gives  him  a  very  healthy  initial  deal  to  come  to  the  studio  and  it  gives 
 him  heavy  ownership  in  what  he  creates. 
 Paul  Haggis,  again,  is  affiliated  with  CBS  and  not  with  an  independent  studio.  He 
 explained  his  experience  with  CBS  on  a  show  he  produced  called  Family  Law.  I  sold 
 the  concept  to  CBS,  I  said,  Here  is  what  I  want  to  do,    the  head  of  drama  development 
 and  I  talked  it  back  and  forth.  He  said,  Thats  a  great  idea.  Where  do  you  want  to  do  it?   
 I  said,  Lets  do  it  at  Columbia.  Theyre  good  people.  And  so  I  took  it  to  Columbia  and 
 they  said,  Great.  Lets  do  it.  And  then  Columbia  and  CBS  got  together  and  said  this 
 should  be  a  Columbia  and  CBSP,  or  CBS  Productions,  co-  production,  and  that  was 
 without  my  input.  I  didnt  disagree,  but  thats  a  studio  and  network  decision.  Im  a  profit 
 participant,  Im  an  owner  of  the  show,  but  Im  not,  I  dont  know  the  copyright. 
 Producers  sign  it  over  to  the  studios  and  the  studios,  in  this  case,  co-  sign  it  over  to  the 
 network. 
79
 38 
 Most  producers  are  now  aligned  with  a  major  studio  or  a  network.  As  discussed 
 here  and  in  other  sections,  this  does  not  appear  to  be  problematic  from  the  perspective  of 
 producers  interviewed  for  this  paper.  It  has  meant  an  added  level  of  security  in  having  a 
 vested  financial  partner  early  in  the  process.  While  there  is  no  guarantee  that  these 
 relationships  will  lead  to  a  show  being  put  on  the  air,  being  with  a  studio/  network 
 provides  some  added  security  that  a  show  will  be  picked  up  particularly  if  the  network 
 has  a  financial  stake  in  the  show. 


 Once  the  Show  is  on  the  Air 
 In  addition  to  the  selection  process,  the  FCC  was  concerned  about  the  level  of 
 network  involvement  in  a  show  once  it  was  on  the  air.  Executives  and  producers 
 uniformly  agreed  that  established  producers  were  left  alone  by  the  networks.  They  also 
 agreed  that  young  talent  (when  they  could  get  in  the  door)  was  heavily  managed  by  the 
 networks.  Littlefield  gave  an  example  of  what  happens  before  a  show  gets  on  the  air. 
 When  Will  &  Grace  was  pitched,  we  had  made  a  deal.  I  made  a  deal  at  NBC  Studios  for 
 Mutchnick  and  Cohen  [Will  &  Graces  producers]  And  so  the  y  came  in  and  pitched 
 this  huge  ensemble  of  characters  and  kind  of  over  in  the  far  right-  hand  corner  were  the 
 Will  and  Grace  characters.  And  so  what  I  said  to  them  is  Well,  take  those  characters, 
 forget  all  these  other  people,  take  these  two  characters  over  here  in  the  corner  and  put 
 them  in  the  center  and  youve  got  a  show  over  several  meetings  and  discussions  where 
 they  came  back  and  refocused  the  idea,  pitched  it  out  again,  then  wrote  a  draft,  did  a 
 couple  of  re-  writes,  finally  there  was  a  piece  of  material  that  I  felt  was  strong  enough  to 
80
 39 
 go  forward.  So  then  I  sent  it  around  to  everybody  else  at  the  network,  let  them  freak  out 
 because  were  putting  gay  characters  on  the  air  and  then  eventually  we  made  it. 
 Little  has  changed  in  terms  of  the  network  involvement  in  the  creative  process 
 once  a  show  gets  on  the  air.  Cantor  (1988)  described  how  the  network  involvement 
 worked  in  the  1960s  and  early  70s.  For  new  shows,  a  network  executive  would  sit  in  on 
 story  conferences,  scripts  would  be  reviewed  by  the  network  censor  and  the  show  was 
 viewed  for  final  approval  (Cantor,  p.  122).  On  the  other  hand,  highly  rated  shows  or 
 shows  with  competent  producers  were  exempt  from  network  supervision  (Cantor,  p.  127). 
 Now,  the  story  is  very  much  the  same.  Once  a  show  is  on  the  air,  the  network  executives 
 were  in  agreement  that  many  shows  needed  network  oversight. 
 The  amount  of  network  supervision  was  dependent  upon  the  experience  of  the 
 producer.  Again,  Littlefield  explains: 
 It  varies  tremendously  based  upon  who  yo  ure  in  business  with[  T]  hink  of  it  as  a  chart  that  went  from  1  foot  tall  to  6  feet  tall  and  you  have  all  types  of  sizes  in 
 between,  1  being  theyre  very  young,  theyre  very  inexperienced,  they  need  a  lot  of  help  and  a  lot  of  supervision,  then  they  get  a  lot  of  that.  That  can  also  be 
 termed  interference.  But  the  fact  of  the  matter  is  theres  a  lot  of  people  out  there,  because  there  are  so  many  networks,  because  theres  such  a  drain  on  talent  who 
 dont  fully  know  what  theyre  doing  and  they  havent  had  the  training.  And  youre  paying  them  enormous  amounts  of  money  every  week  and  so  they  get  a  lot 
 of  involvement  where  stories  have  to  be  approved,  directors  have  to  be  approved,  guest  casting  has  to  be  approved,  every  draft  is  gone  through,  runthroughs,  theres 
 a  lot  of  network  and/  or  studio  intervention.  Or,  therere  people  like  Kaufman  Bright  Crane  [producers  of  Friends  and  Veronicas  Closet]  who  are  extremely 
 competent  showrunners.  They  know  what  they  want  to  do  and  probably  the  greatest  thing,  with  a  Larry  David  and  Jerry  Seinfeld,  the  greatest  thing  you  can 
 do  is  get  out  of  their  way.  You  know,  I  mean  I  think  our  greatest  input  ever  on  the  Seinfeld  show  was:  you  need  a  girl.  Okay?  We  looked  at  the  pilot,  its  funny. 
 Get  a  girl.  Okay?  That  was  our  contribution.  That  and  we  didnt  fuck  it  up.  We  kept  it  going. 


 Ted  Harberts  experiences  at  ABC  reflect  those  of  Littlefield  at  NBC.  There  are 
 a  lot  of  producers  who  have  shows  on  the  air  that  arent  very  good,  both  the  shows  arent 
81
 40 
 very  good  and  the  producers  arent  very  good.  It  requires  a  lot  of  network  involvement  to 
 try  to  help  that  producer  find  out  what  their  shows  about,  find  out  how  to  tell  a  story  that 
 makes  sense,  and  really  help  in  just  about  every  area  of  the  show.  There  are  other  shows, 
 like  NYPD  Blue  or  The  Practice  from  David  Kelley  and  Steven  Bochco,  where  theres  no 
 network  involvement  needed  at  all,  because  those  people  are  incredibly  competent  and 
 not  only  are  not  looking  for  network  involvement,  but  also  dont  need  it  because  theyre 
 that  good.  It  goes  from  0  to  100[  U]  nfortunately  we  live  in  this  business  where  we  eat 
 up  so  much  volume,  we  invite  a  lot  of  hacks  into  the  room  to  put  on  shows  that  need  a  lot 
 of  editorial  restraint  and  oversight. 
 McPherson  offers  a  similar  view  on  the  extent  of  creative  input  by  network 
 executives: 
 I  think  it  depends  on  the  relationship  with  the  exec  producer,  frankly,  says  McPherson.  I  think  in  some  shows  theyre  [the  network  is]  incredibly  involved 
 and  in  other  shows  theyre  not  Theres  only  so  much  a  network  or  a  studio  executive  can  impact  on  a  show  if  you  havent  hired  someone  who  has  a  vision 
 that  they  can  execute  on  a  week  in  week  out  basis.  There  are  very  few  shows  you  could  point  to    I  couldnt  point  to  one    where  it  isnt  driven  by  a  singular 
 creative  personality  who  has  a  vision  for  the  show  or  a  team  in  Larry  David  and  Jerry  Seinfeld,  that  is  executing  it  day  in  and  day  out.  Can  you  help  it  with  promo 
 and  make  sure  theyre  getting  seen?  Yes.  Can  you  help  with  casting?  Sure.  Can  you  make  sure  that  the  story  lines  are  going  in  the  right  direction  or  what  you 
 perceive  is  the  right  direction?  Yes.  But  in  the  end  its  about  those  people  doing  the  shows  and  thats  why  they  are  such  valuable  assets.  And  they  are  few  and  far 
 between,  unfortunately. 
 From  the  producers  perspective  the  networks  are  involved  in  programming  on 
 two  levels:  oversight  by  a  programming  executive  and  review  by  the  networks 
 standards  and  practices  group.  16  The  producers  expect  the  networks  to  be  involved  by 
 providing  notes  at  table  readings.  You  always  have  your  point  person,  says  Matt 


 16  The  Standards  and  Practices  area  of  the  network  reviews  scripts  and  final  shows  to  make  sure  that  they 
 adhere  to  the  networks  requirements  in  terms  of  language,  sexual  content,  etc. 
82
 41 
 Williams.  You  always  have  your  executive  that  comes  to  the  readings.  Its  not  your 
 president  of  the  network  or  anything,  and  they  make  suggestions  and  they  give  script 
 notes  and  Im,  at  least  we  have  always  made  it  a  policy,  we  are  political  and  rightfully  so. 
 You  listen  to  all  notes  and  then  you  go  off  and  if  you  hear  a  good  idea  fine  and  good.  But 
 there  was  no  one  who  ever  came  in  and  said  you  must  do  this,  you  MUST  change  this. 
 Says  Haggis, 
 Well,  you  know  you  have  a  different  set  of  people  developing  the  pilot  and  then  the  people  who  are  going  to  supervise  the  series  on  the  network  level.  So  your 
 current  department  takes  over  after  about  the  sixth  episode  or  so  And  it  all  depends  [on]  the  personality  of  the  man  or  woman  at  the  top  as  to  how  they 
 supervise  those  shows  and  how  much  they  trust  the  writer/  producer  We  had  fairly  light  input  as  far  as  criticism,  as  far  as  Dont  do  that  story,    and  when  we 
 did  hear  Dont  do  that  story,    it  was  usually  because  another  series  was  doing  a  similar  story  that  week  and  so  they  didnt  want  two  stories  about  abortion.  One 
 on  our  show  on  Monday  and  one  on  Judging  Amy  on  Tuesday,  or  any  of  the  other  of  their  shows.  And  then  we  would  argue  and  if  we  got  into  a  really  touchy  area 
 and  we  did  three  or  four  times  on  Family  Law,  wed  argue  it  out.  It  would  be  either  myself  and  the  head  of  current  programming,  or  myself  and  the  president  of 
 the  network,  would  sit  down  and  they  would  say,  No,  we  dont  think  this  is  appropriate.    And  usually  that  was  an  intelligent  sort  of  passionate  meeting  in 
 which  we  were  discussing  is  this  responsible  television  or  is  this  not. 
 Rob  Burnett  explained  it  this  way: 
 T]  he  network  has  the  control,  they  in  the  most  classic  sense  are  the  client,  and  we  are  the  producers,  the  sellers.  The  client  has  to  be  satisfied...  The  brightest 
 and  best  network  executives  are  ones  that  understand  at  its  core,  the  writers  and  producers  of  a  show  will  have  to  guide  the  show  and  they  stay  back  and  can  make 
 helpful  suggestions  if  you  think  of  a  doctor  and  a  patient,  I  think  the  writers  are  the  doctors  and  the  networks  are  the  patients.  And  the  patients  can  say,  I  feel  this 
 way,  I  feel  that  way,  but  they  dont  really  know  how  to  be  doctors.  So,  they  can  be  very  useful  in  sort  of  suggesting  things  to  the  doctor  but  they  havent  been  to 
 medical  school...  What  makes  it  very  complicated  and  where  I  am  very  sympathetic  to  the  network  is  most  of  the  doctors  out  there  are  pretty  bad,  and 
 they  are  key  in  this  analogy,  so  I  think  that  they  are  well  within  their  rights  to  be  very  hands  on  and  panicky  sometimes,  because  I  have  seen  first  hand  a  lot  of  the 
 people  that  are  in  charge  of  these  massive  productions  and  they  are  not  very  qualified  to  do  it,  so  its  a  very  difficult  dance  honestly,  but  the  most  successful 
 shows  on  television,  I  believe,  are  ones  where  you  get  the  right  writer,  the  right  casting,  and  it  happens. 
83
 42 
 It  is  rare,  however,  that  a  network  will  ask  someone  to  pull  a  show  or  drastically 
 change  a  script  concept,  although  it  does  happen.  Tom  Fontana  had  the  following 
 experience  while  working  on  Homicide: 
 The  only  time  I  can  think  of  where  I  pulled  a  script  that  we  were  going  to  shoot  was  we  had  done  a  story  about  a  SIDS  death:  it  was  based  on  a  true 
 story  about  a  woman  who  had  had  a  number  of  her  children  die,  and  they  were  supposedly  SIDS  deaths,  but  the  truth  was  she  had  murdered  them. 
 Roz  Weinman,  who  is  the  head  of  broadcast  standards,  called  me  and  she  said,  Lis  ten,  Im  asking  you  not  to  do  this  story,  not  because  I  think 
 youve  done  it  badly,  but  because,  for  parents  whose  children  have  actually  died  of  SIDS,  its  such  a  painful  thing  to  have  gone  through,  that 
 to  then  have  a  show  with  the  kind  of  clout  that  Homicide  has,  implying  that  they  might  have  killed  their  child.  She  said,  I  dont  think  you  really 
 want  to  do  that  to  these  parents.  And  when  she  said  that,  I  said,  Youre  absolutely  right.  And  I  pulled  the  story.  But  that  was  the  only  reason  I 
 did  it.  What  was  great  about  it  was  that  Roz  and  I  fight  all  the  time  about  everything,  and  I  mean  everything!  And  it  was  the  only  time  she  called 
 me  not  out  of  a  concern  for  the  advertisers  or  the  lobbyists  or  anything  like  that.  She  was  coming  at  it  from  the  same  place  that  I  like  to  think  that  I 
 come  at  my  writing  from,  which  is  the  human  heart.  And  I  couldnt  not  do  it.  (Longworth,  2000,  p.  48) 


 Paul  Haggis  had  a  similar  story  from  an  episode  of  Family  Law: 
 There  was,  I  remember  we  wanted  to  do  an  episode  about  a  woman  who  was  alleging  discrimination  because  shed  had  a  double  mastectomy  and  was  suing  her 
 employers  because  of  that.  And  this  woman  had  been  sort  of  pushed  to  the  edge  and  there  was  a  scene  in  which  she  stands  and  she  rips  her  blouse  open,  because 
 theyre  accusing  her  of  doing  this  for  cosmetic  reasons.  She  rips  her  blouse  open  and  she  says,  Do  you  think  I  would  do  this  for  cosmetic  reasons?    Now,  so  we 
 went  back  and  forth  on  that.  It  was  a  very  powerful  scene  and  wed  had  this  prosthe  tic  chest  made  for  the  actress  which  was  exactly  accurate  as  to  what  this 
 would  be.  Do  we  show  it?  Do  we  not  show  it?  So  we  ended  up  not  showing  it.  I  felt  very  passionately  that  we  should.  The  president  of  the  network  felt  very 
 passionately  that  we  shouldnt.  Not  because  of  the  reasons  that  you  think.  But  because  she  didnt  think  it  was  responsible.  She  thought  it  might  scare  other 
 women  off  from  getting  life  saving  operation  It  wasnt  Oh  dont  do  that  because  of  some  salacious  reason  or  Do  something  because  its  going  to  get  us 
 ratings.    They  werent  coming  to  me  for  those  reasons.  They  were  coming  for  good  solid  reasons  and  you  have  to  respect  that  input. 
84
 43 
 Even  ER  gets  notes  from  the  network: 
 Sure,  [the  network  may  ask  us  to  change]  language,  says  John  Wells,  the  shows  producer.  Not  so  much  with  story  line,  occasionally,  but  that  usually  has  to  do 
 with  health  care  issues.  On  ER  its  because  theyre  concerned  that  we  in  some  odd  way  provide  a  lot  of  health  care  information  to  the  viewing  audience  more 
 than  anybody  else  does.  So  theyll  get  concerned  if  they  think  were  not  being  balanced  in  a  portrayal  of  a  health  care  situation.  But,  sure,  on  language  The 
 network,  theyre  genuinely  concerned  about  how  far  can  they  push  it  and  not  lose  advertising.  And,  at  the  same  time,  knowing  that  you  could  get  beat  to  death  on 
 the  other  side  by  cable  and  by  what  other  people  are  putting  on  the  air.  So  theyre  very  conscious  of  it.  Its  not  just  Oh,  we  wont  let  you  do  this  because  were 
 prudish;  its  How  far  can  we  push  it  to  compete  with  cable,  and  at  the  same  time  not  alienate  advertisers  and  some  audiences?    (Longworth,  2000,  p.  134-  5) 


 In  all  of  these  cases,  the  network  input  was  from  a  point  of  sensitivity  to  the  audience 
 rather  than  advertiser  or  ratings  concerns. 
 From  the  producers  perspective,  similar  to  that  of  the  network  executives, 
 network  participation  is  different  depending  on  how  well  established  the  producer  is  in 
 the  business  and  how  well  the  show  is  doing.  It  depends  on  how  successful  the  show 
 is,  according  to  Matt  Williams.  Ill  give  you  an  example.  When  I  was  a 
 writer/  producer  on  the  Cosby  show,  no  one  said  a  word.  In  fact,  I  think  we  saw  the 
 network  show  up  once,  maybe,  and  that  was  usually  for  a  party,  so  there  was  no 
 involvement.  With  Roseanne,  the  same  thing.  There  was  some  minor  involvement  early 
 hon,  saying  shouldnt  the  stories  be  a  little  stronger  so  at  the  beginning  and  this  was  not 
 imposed,  it  was  suggested,  a  little  bit  more  traditional  story  plotting  and  ok,  we  listened, 
 but  little  involvement...  If  a  shows  working,  theyre  all  smart  enough  to  keep  their 
 mouths  shut  and  just  stand  back  and  let  it  go...  Ironically,  on  our  series  that  failed,  there 
 was  much  more  involvement.  Cant  you  emphasize  this  more?  Can  you  bend  the  story 
 lines  more  in  this  direction?    And  I  think  that  usually  happens,  and  this  is  where  Ill  take 
 some  of  the  blame,  it  usually  happens  if  you  dont  have  a  really  clear,  specific  premise 
85
 44 
 for  your  series.  If  you  dont  know  exactly  what  the  show  is  about  and  what  its  going  to 
 do  for  200  episodes,  thats  when  the  network  will  come  in 
 As  Littlefield  explained  earlier,  the  networks  do  have  final  say  on  a  lot  of  areas 
 including  selection  of  directors,  script  review  and  casting.  However,  the  network  input  is 
 dependent  on  the  relationship  with  the  producer  and  most  things  are  negotiable.  Suarez 
 says,  The  answer  is  its  a  marriage.  You  dont  always  do  everything  they  want.  They 
 dont  always  do  everything  we  want.  Good  network  executives  dont  try  and  dictate. 
 They  understand  its  a  process,  an  evolution  its  not  cut  and  dry  do  you  get  a  note 
 from  a  network  saying  kill  off  this  character?  No,  no  network  is  going  to  be  that 
 invasive 
 Many  producers  I  spoke  with  and  several  that  have  been  quoted  in  other  sources 
 have  touted  the  advantages  of  producing  for  cable  or  one  of  the  newer  networks  because 
 of  the  freedom  that  these  entities  afford  a  producer.  However,  Steven  Bochco, 
 producer  of  NYPD  Blue  and  Hill  Street  Blues  among  others,  explains  how  this  is  not  a 
 panacea  either,  Anytime  youre  in  business  with  an  entity  that  has  above  the  line 
 creative  controls,  it  means,  in  theory  at  least,  you  cannot  hire  an  actor  without  their 
 approval.  You  cannot  hire  a  director  without  their  approval.  You  cannot  hire  a  writer 
 without  their  approval.  They  have  control  over  final  cuts  of  all  your  product.  So,  on  the 
 one  hand  youre  gaining  tremendous  latitude  on  the  page,  but  youre  giving  up  a 
 tremendous  amount  of  creative  control  on  the  other  side  of  it.  So,  you  know,  Im  not  sure 
 thats  such  a  great  bargain,  quite  honestly  (Longworth,  2000,  p.  201). 
 It  is  inevitable  that  the  networks  will  be  involved  in  the  creative  process  at  some 
 level.  They  are  paying  for  the  show.  They  are  promoting  the  show.  However,  as  many 
86
 45 
 of  the  producers  said,  they  are  also  working  to  put  on  the  best  show  they  can    their  jobs 
 depend  on  it.  They  hire  the  best  people  to  do  the  job  that  they  can  and  let  them  do  it. 
 There  are,  however,  different  levels  of  competence  among  producers.  Both  the  network 
 executives  and  independent  producers  concur  that  the  level  of  network  involvement 
 seems  to  correlate  with  the  level  of  experience  that  the  producer  has.  The  more 
 experience,  the  less  network  involvement. 


 Blanding  the  landscape 
 The  real  issue  is  what  appears  on  our  television  screens.  Many  have  accused  the 
 networks  of  putting  on  bland,  uninteresting  and  uninspired  programming.  While  some 
 suggest  that  the  new  verticalization  of  networks  and  program  production  is  at  fault,  there 
 are  other  aspects  of  the  network  television  business  that  contribute  to  what  some  see  as 
 suboptimal  quality  programming.  These  factors  include:  (1)  a  class  of  middle  managers 
 at  television  networks  whose  incentives  steer  them  toward  less  risky,  more  formulaic 
 programming;  (2)  a  greater  reliance  on  decisionmaking-  by-  committee;  and  (3)  the 
 introduction  of  marketing  and  advertising  concepts,  specifically  the  need  to  create  new 
 shows  for  an  advertiser-  friendly  demographic,  into  the  program  selection  process. 
 Persons  interviewed  for  this  report  indicate  that  these  factors  also  play  a  meaningful  role 
 in  the  programming  that  networks  decide  to  air. 
 With  respect  to  the  role  of  middle  managers  at  television  networks,  some  critics 
 say  that  the  changing  structure  of  the  television  industry  has  led  to  network  downsizing 
 and  therefore  fewer  middle-  level  executives  with  more  at  stake.  The  remaining  middle 
 managers  are  more  afraid  of  losing  their  jobs  and  also  continue  to  face  the  increased 
87
 46 
 financial  pressure  discussed  earlier.  17  Neither  network  executives  nor  producers  had 
 anything  particularly  positive  to  say  about  this  group  of  middle  managers,  though  this  is 
 nothing  new.  In  the  eighties  when  the  network  hierarchy  was  more  bureaucratic,  these 
 executives  had  the  same  sort  of  mentality. 
 More  layers  in  the  hierarchy  means  more  executives  with  the  power  to  say  no,  and  the  proliferation  of  that  power  means  more  executive  involvement  at 
 every  stage  of  decision-  making  and  program  production.  There  is  a  curious  corporate  principle,    according  to  Len  Hill,  that  says  a  person  with  a  vice-presidents 
 title  will  find  enough  work  to  fill  the  day.  Theres  a  producers  axiom:  Beware  of  networks  that  have  too  many  vice-  presidents.  Many 
 producers  share  this  lament  (Gitlin,  1983,  p.  129). 
 Most  participants  felt  that  programming  executives,  while  not  necessarily  uncreative, 
 were  too  afraid  of  losing  their  jobs  to  make  any  type  of  risky  decision.  As  in  the  past, 
 they  considered  this  a  contributing  factor  to  the  blanding  of  the  TV  landscape.  Harbert 
 talks  about  it  this  way,  [  T]  here  are  also  a  lot  of  shows  that  have  too  much  oversight  that 
 dont  need  it,  so  that  the  idea  of  the  network  and  studio  bureaucracies  growing  to  the 
 point  where  there  are  just  so  many  people  involved  in  the  process  thats  just 
 counterproductive.  its  very  difficult  when  theres  a  lot  of  pressure  on  their  jobs  to 
 turn  the  profitability  around,  so  unfortunately  a  lot  of  people  interpret  that  as  meaning 
 they  have  to  go  increase  their  involvement.  They  have  to  stay  on  top  of  it  more  and  give 
 more  notes.  Well,  that  will  just  have  an  inverse  relationship  to  what  theyre  trying  to 
 achieve  [good  programming]. 
 Paul  Haggis  explained  the  mentality  of  network  programming  executives  this  way: 


 I  think  as  long  as  you  have  smart  people  running  the  networks  youre  always,  theyre  always  going  to  try  and  do  great  programming.  Nobody  sits  down  to  do 
 bad  programming,  or  create  a  bad  show  and  you  always  try  to  get  the  best  writers,  the  best  actors.  Its  just  the  decisions.  You  know  when  you  actually  decide,  sit 


 17  Of  the  four  major  broadcast  networks,  only  NBC  and  CBS  turned  a  profit  last  year. 
88
 47 
 down  behind  closed  doors  and  say  this  one  goes,  this  one  doesnt  The  business  is  shrinking,  and  people  are  working  more  out  of  fear.  There  are  fewer  daring 
 network  executives.  Thats  not  true.  There  are,  Moonves  [Leslie  Moonves,  chairman  of  CBS],  theres  no  man  I  admire  more  than  Moonves.  Great  guy.  Hes 
 a  straight  talker  and  he  really  loves  taking  chances.  Whether  he  can  or  not,  something  like  EZ  Street  he  says  he  loves  the  show,  Ill  program  nothing  but  this. 
 Theyre  not  watching  what  do  I  do?  The  answer  would  be  keep  it  on  anyway  and  theyll  come  to  you.  You  hope  that  theyll  still  do  that.  They  certainly  did  it  with 
 Homicide  and  a  few  other  shows.  Thats  becoming,  thats  a  story  you  dont  hear  as  often. 


 It  is  not  just  middle  managers  that  are  the  issue.  More  and  more  programming 
 selection  is  done  by  committee.  A  television  program  is  selected  to  go  on  a  network 
 schedule  through  a  committee  process,  says  Ted  Harbert,  A  low  level  executive  buys 
 the  idea  and  tells  them  to  go  write  a  script.  A  script  is  written.  The  president  of  the 
 entertainment  division  and  their  staff  read  all  the  scripts  and  decide  which  pilots  to  make. 
 The  pilots  are  produced,  the  pilots  are  screened  for  all  levels  of  management  at  the 
 network  including  Los  Angeles  management  and  New  York  management.  This  includes 
 the  sales  department,  the  research  department,  affiliate  relations  department  and  overall 
 network  and  corporate  management.  Then,  depending  on  the  network,  a  committee  gets 
 together  and  decides  which  pilots  are  chosen  to  become  series  and  announced  for  a  fall 
 schedule.  It  is  no  longer  creative  people  that  have  input  into  the  decision,  but  also  sales, 
 marketing  and  other  network  departments. 
 Marketing  came  up  as  an  issue  with  a  number  of  people  that  I  spoke  with.  While 
 producers  used  the  word  marketing,  what  they  meant  was  advertising    that  is  creating  a 
 show  with  a  particular,  advertiser-  friendly  audience  in  mind.  Some  producers  said  they 
 would  not  produce  a  show  for  a  demographic  or  a  time  slot  and  that  the  networks  did  not 
 ask  them  to.  Your  agents  or  your  people  or  your  people  or  your  advisors  are  always 
 saying  theyre  looking  for  an  8  oclock  show  or  theyre  looking  for  a  10  oclock  show  or 
89
 48 
 whatever  Ive  never,  they  never  come  to  me  and  say  that,  but  thats  what  I  hear  from 
 other  writers,  says  Haggis.  No,  its  hard  enough  finding  a  good  idea.  And,  if  you 
 happen  to  find  one  that  fits  a  teen  audience  or  you  happen  to  find  one  that  fits  geriatrics  if 
 it  works,  you  pitch  whats  in  your  soul  and  then  you  hope  its  going  to  fit. 
 Others,  however,  admitted  to  trying  to  create  shows  for  a  particular  time  slot  or  a 
 particular  audience  and  most  of  them  failed  miserably.  Matt  Williams  commented  on  his 
 attempts  to  do  this,  Thunder  Alley.  Buddies.  And  these  were  short-  lived  series.  Not 
 that  we  didnt  make  some  creative  mistakes.  Im  not  passing  any  blame  here.  But  it  truly 
 was,  OK,  this  is  the  approximate  time  slot,  this  is  the  kind  of  demographics  theyre 
 looking  for.  Lets  create  a  show  for  that.    And  I  learned  pretty  quickly    at  least  from  my 
 perspective,  Im  not  talking  as  a  marketing  expert  or  advertising  or  any  of  that  part  of  the 
 industry,  Im  talking  purely  as  a  creative  individual,  it  never  worked.  The  advertising 
 structure  does  affect  the  content  in  so  far  as  it  promotes  lesser  quality  programs  to  fit  a 
 preconceived  idea. 
 Overall,  however,  there  does  not  appear  to  be  any  consensus  about  the  state  of  the 
 television  landscape    some  of  it  is  very  good  and  some  of  it  is  not.  Rob  Burnett 
 described  it  best  when  he  called  it  polarized.  I  think  some  of  the  shows,  particularly  the 
 one-  hour  shows  are  frightfully  good.  You  look  at  shows  like  The  West  Wing,  Law  & 
 Order.  I  think  those  shows  in  quality  you  can  put  up  against  a  lot  of  feature  films...  I 
 think  on  the  comedy  side  some  of  them,  like  Raymond  and  some  others,  are  also  very, 
 very  impressive.  And  then  there  is  a  lot  of  stuff  that  is  horrible,  just  really,  really 
 horrible.  Stephen  McPherson  had  a  similar  sentiment,  though  he  was  more  positive 
 about  the  landscape  overall: 
90
 49 
 I  think  its  really  underrated.  If  you  look  at  the  quality  of  both  comedy  and  drama  work  that  is  done  week  in  week  out  on  television  between  West  Wing  and  Law 
 &  Order  and  The  Practice  and  ER  and  Alias  Theres  really  good  drama  work  Comedy  wise,  Will  &  Grace  is  as  funny  as  any  movie  that  Ive  seen  lately 
 and  great  romantic  comedy.  I  think  in  the  family  genre,  My  Wife  and  Kids  and  Raymond  are  doing  as  good  funny  work  as  is  out  there.  The  thing  is,  television 
 constantly  gets  berated  for  its  quality,  and  its  such  a  vast  market  that  by  the  nature  of  that  theres  just  going  to  be  crap  out  there.  What  happens  is  that  things 
 succeed  and  then  people  try  to  imitate  them  and  those  usually  fail.  But  the  new  stuff,  the  stuff  that  sets  new  kind  of  boundaries,  those  things  succeed.  People  are 
 bitching  now  about  reality.  Do  we  have  too  much?  Well,  yeah,  we  do  have  too  much  because  we  have  reincarnations  or  copycats  of  two  things  in  Millionaire  and 
 Survivor  that  were  fresh  and  new  and  interesting  and  incredibly  entertaining  and  then  everyone  tried  to  do  their  version  of  it.  And  that  doesnt  work. 


 It  is  this  repackaging  of  successes  that  some  say  leads  to  the  blanding  of  the 
 landscape.  It  is  a  risk  averse  strategy  the  film  industry  uses  as  well,  for  example,  Rocky  4 
 and  5.  That,  however,  does  not  mean  there  is  not  good  television  out  there.  Its  just  not 
 all  great.  I  think  its  not  as  good  as  it  was  a  few  years  ago,  but  not  as  bad  as  it  was  many 
 years  ago,  says  Paul  Haggis.  I  think  we  really  had  some  wonderful  shows  appear  over 
 the  last  20-  30  years  and  this  was  the  second  Golden  Age  of  television  for  a  while.  It  was 
 some  really  great,  great  shows  and  I  couldnt  wait  to  watch.  I  dont  see  as  many  of  them 
 as  I  used  to  Theres  still  some  great  shows  on,  but  they  tend  to  be  shows  that  have  been 
 on  --  NYPD  Blue,  Law  &  Order,  shows  that  have  been  on  for  some  time  I  couldnt  give 
 you  1  to  10  [rating],  because  I  dont  know  what  1  is  or  10  is,  but  I  think  it  could  be  better. 
 It  doesnt  stink. 


 Conclusion 
91
 50 
 While  the  program  development  process    creating  a  needs  assessment, 
 communicating  to  the  Hollywood  community  what  the  networks  needs  are,  committing 
 to  scripts  and  pilots    has  not  changed,  the  program  selection  process  has.  This  process 
 has  been  most  affected  by  the  change  in  the  structure  of  the  television  industry,  which  has 
 changed  the  economics  of  the  industry.  With  increased  consolidation  has  come 
 increased  alignment  of  producers  with  large  studios  or  with  the  networks  themselves. 
 With  changes  in  regulation,  there  has  been  the  corresponding  increase  in  network 
 participation  in  the  programming  on  their  air,  either  through  in-  house  production  or  their 
 profit  participation  with  outside  suppliers. 
 No  one  seems  particularly  pleased  with  the  current  system  and  several 
 participants  expressed  concerned  about  the  effect  of  the  current  system  on  program 
 content.  Producers  are  concerned  about  their  ability  to  produce  the  kind  of  shows  they 
 would  like  to  produce.  Some,  like  Matt  Williams,  are  leaving  television  and  are  working 
 in  film  instead.  Others,  such  as  Paul  Haggis,  are  frustrated  with  the  system  and  are 
 working  in  both  television  and  film.  Haggis  explains  why  he  is  working  in  multiple 
 arenas: 
 The  landscape  has  changed  a  lot  and  Im  still  pitching  television  shows.  I  still  have  multiple  13  commitments.  I  still  love  television.  I  still  want  to  do  it,  but  the 
 landscape  has  radically  changed[  with]  the  market  share  dropping  the  networks  seem  to  be  more  conservative  in  what  kind  of  programming  they  want  to 
 choose  You  want  to  sell  to  the  widest  possible  audience  and  my  stuff  tends  to  be,  when  Im  doing  my  best,  work  that  can  upset  some  people,  or  at  least 
 challenge  some  people...  A  long,  long  time  ago,  television  was  where  you  could  do  the  brave  work,  the  cutting  edge  stuff  and  films  were  where  you  did 
 megahits  Things  have  sort  of  shifted  in  Hollywood  where  things  are  happening  in  films,  the  independent  films  have  really  come  into  their  own  in  the  last  15  years 
 and  theyre  doing  more  and  more  interesting  films  out  there  and  less  and  less  interesting  television.  Not  that  great  television  isnt  still  being  done.  Theres 
 terrific  television  being  done,  but  its  much  harder  to  get  it  on  the  air.  Where  it  used  to  be  Id  pitch  one  idea  over  the  phone  and  sell  it,  now  Im  pitching  four  or 
92
 51 
 five  ideas  before  they  find  something  that  Im  happy  with  that  theyre  happy  with,  so  we  can  go  ahead  on  a  series. 


 Independent  producers  desire  to  produce  programming  that  is  different  or  risky 
 or  in  any  way  out  of  the  ordinary  is  not  new.  One  producer  in  the  1960s  said,    they 
 wanted  the  series  to  go  a  certain  way  and  I  another,  so  they  let  me  out  of  my  contract 
 because  I  like  to  do  things  my  way  (Cantor,  1988,  p.  128).  Established  producers  were 
 often  shut  out  in  the  1980s  as  well.  Herb  Brodkin,  a  producer  of  both  series  and 
 miniseries,  claimed  that  only  about  ten  percent  of  his  ideas  ever  got  on  air  (Gitlin,  1983, 
 p.  122). 
 Network  executives  are  concerned,  however,  about  the  product  becoming 
 homogenized  because  of  program  selection  by  committee.  Ted  Harbert  offers  a  simple 
 formula  for  networks  to  improve  their  programming: 
 I  would  just  throw  everybody  else  out  of  the  room.  I  think  it  should  be  the  head  of  the  company,  the  head  of  the  entertainment  division  and  one  or  two  of  his  or 
 her  trusted  executives  and  not  a  gang  I  would  let  the  research  department  do  their  research,  but  I  wouldnt  let  them  participate  in  the  process,  because  they  all 
 too  often  say  a  show  will  never  work  That  also  goes  for  the  sales  department,  the  affiliate  relations  department,  all  these  departments  and  that  say  oh,  no  my 
 constituency  wont  like  that  or  will  like  that.  What  that  ends  up  doing  is  bringing  in  so  many  voices  into  the  system  that  it  takes  all  the,  it  rounds  out  the  selection 
 process  so  that  you  have  homogenization.  Anything  with  extremes  ends  up  being  eliminated  and  mostly  safe  shows  what  I  call  nice  shows,  nothing  wrong  with 
 them,  but  also  nothing  right  with  them  and  to  me  thats  the  other,  besides  technology  the  other  contributing  factor  to  the  erosion[  O]  nly  when  a 
 programming  chief  stands  up  and  says  this  is  what  were  doing  do  shows  that  end  up  really  mattering,  doing  well  get  on  the  air.  And  often  when  the  head  of 
 programming  will  take  the  chance  and  say  thank  you  all  very  much  for  your  input,  forget  it  this  is  what  I  want  to  do,  those  are  the  decisions  that  have  led  to  the  most 
 successful  programs. 
 Suarez  agreed,  [  T]  he  problem  becomes  when  theyre  letting  the  marketing 
 department  or  the  sales  department  have  an  equal  say  in  the  decision  when  theyre  not, 
 when  theyre  not  the  ones  who  were  involved  in  the  process.  Anyone  who  worked  on 
93
 52 
 Mr.  Rhodes  [a  show  NBC  owned]  could  tell  you  O.  K,  that  shows  never  going  to  make  it. 
 We  dont  have  the  writing  staff,  we  dont  have  a  lead  actor,  I  dont  care  how  it  tests, 
 theres  no  show  there.  Its  all  smoke  and  mirrors  we  tricked  you,  but  we  knew  we 
 tricked  you  and  we  cant  do  that  22  weeks  and  thats  where  the  system  fails  We  fixed 
 the  pilot.  You  cant  do  that  every  week.  And  so  it  went  on,  and  it  stayed  on  for  I  think 
 18  episodes  and  was  a  failure.  And  cost  the  company  a  lot  of  money. 
 Harbert  continued  by  summing  up  the  state  of  the  business  as  he  saw  it  ,  The 
 history  of  broadcasting,  and  film  for  that  matter,  has  always  rested  on  the  idea  that  you 
 need  a  diverse  source  of  ideas  to  come  up  with  a  good  schedule.  And  only  being  rather 
 focused  on  picking  the  best  and  not  letting  anything  else  get  in  the  way  is  whats  led  to 
 successful,  profitable  schedules.  Because  of  the  change  in  the  share  levels,  because  of  all 
 the  erosion  and  therefore  the  loss  of  profitability  and  costs  continuing  to  rise  theyre 
 searching  around  for  ways  to  get  back  profitability.  Im  not  a  big  fan  of  vertical 
 integration,  but  frankly  no  one  cares  what  I  think  anymore  about  that  and  theyre  going  to 
 do  it  anyway,  so  I  might  as  well  go  join  them.  Theres  not  a  lot  of  choices. 
 From  the  perspective  of  the  FCC  and  the  repeal  of  fin-  syn,  the  issue  is  what  are 
 the  networks  doing  in  terms  of  their  relationships  with  producers  vis-  -  vis  their  powerful 
 position  as  gatekeeper  to  the  American  viewing  audience.  Are  they  demanding  financial 
 interest  in  the  programs  that  appear  on  their  air?  The  answer  is  yes.  Are  they  giving 
 preference  to  shows  that  are  produced  in  house?  Again,  the  answer  is  yes.  Are  the 
 networks  involved  in  the  creation  of  the  shows  once  they  are  accepted  for  air?  Here  the 
 answer  is  a  qualified  yes.  They  are  involved,  but  not  to  the  point  of  telling  producers 
 what  to  write  and  not  write.  As  shown  in  our  companion  paper  analyzing  historical 
94
 53 
 changes  in  diversity  over  time,  there  is  no  evidence  that  changes  in  the  fin-  syn  rules  have 
 affected  program  diversity  on  broadcast  network  television.  Whether  increased  network 
 involvement  in  the  production  and  ownership  of  television  programming  has  affected  the 
 quality  or  other  attributes  of  network  programming  is  less  clear.  This  paper  is  intended 
 to  advance  the  debate  on  program  diversity,  and  perhaps  even  program  quality,  by 
 explaining  the  network  program  selection  process  by  relying  on  the  insights  of 
 experienced  network  executives  and  independent  producers. 
95
 54 
 References 
 Adalian,  J.  (2002,  June  26).  Tubes  Tied:  Flagging  Fortunes  Force  Nets  to  Throw  Out  Their  Old  Script.  Variety,  p.  1,  8. 


 Bielby,  W.  T.,  &  Bielby,  D.  D.  (1994).  All  Hits  Are  Flukes.  American  Journal  of  Sociology,  99  (5)  1287-  1313. 
 Cantor,  M.  G.  (1988).  The  Hollywood  TV  Producer:  His  Work  and  His  Audience.  New  York:  Basic  Books. 
 Gitlin,  T.  (1983).  Inside  Prime-  Time.  New  York:  Pantheon. 
 Head,  S.  W.  (1989).  A  Framework  for  Programming  Strategies.  In  S.  T.  Eastman,  S.  W.  Head,  &  L.  Klein  (Eds.)  Broadcast/  Cable  Programming:  Strategies  and 
 Practices.  Belmont,  CA:  Wadsworth  Publishing  Company. 
 Lewine,  R.  F.,  Eastman,  S.  T.  and  Adams  W.  J.  (1989).  Prime  Time  Network  Television  Programming.  In  S.  T.  Eastman,  S.  W.,  Head,  &  L.  Klein  (Eds.). 
 Broadcast/  Cable  Programming:  Strategies  and  Practices.  Belmont,  CA:  Wadsworth  Publishing  Company. 


 Longworth,  J.  L.,  Jr.  (2000).  TV  Creators:  Conversations  with  Americas  Top  Producers  of  Television  Drama.  Syracuse,  NY:  Syracuse  University  Press. 
 Mermigas,  D.  (2002,  June  3).  Fin-  Syn  Repeal  Has  Yet  to  Pay  Off.  Electronic  Media,  p.  30. 
 Stroud,  M.  (1998,  June  8).  Muscling  In  On  The  Money.  Broadcasting  &  Cable,  p.  26. 
 TV  Season  Preview  (1999,  August  31).  Variety,  pp.  A1-  A42. 
 Wild,  D.  (1999).  The  Showrunners:  A  Season  Inside  the  Billion-  Dollar,  Death-Defying,  Madcap  World  of  Televisions  Real  Stars.  New  York:  HarperCollins. 
96