Why HBO Leads the Emmy Nomination Field
Katie and I have both long lamented the state of network television. The only high-quality shows on the big 4 seem to be canceled before they finish their first seasons (a few notable exceptions include Chuck, which struggles each year and is now entering its final season; Supernatural; and Glee.)
Cable is a bright spot, with shows that feature smart writing and interesting characters. And pay cable leads the pack, with envelope-pushing genre shows such as True Blood, interesting period pieces such as The Borgias, and character-driven comedies such as Entourage.
Why can the cable networks succeed where the big boys fail? Pure economics.
The networks sell content that consumers watch, but they aren’t selling to the consumer. Instead, they are selling to the businesses that will advertise on the shows. The investment these businesses make in the shows is big. Not only do they pay the networks to use their airtime to speak to consumers, but they also pay the production costs of the shows and the residuals to the creative personnel each time those commercials run.
For these commercial slots, pure numbers speak. The highest audience numbers command the highest value to these advertisers looking to speak to us. Because the content is being sold to the businesses instead of directly to the consumers, the shows need to be appealing to a wide audience, not offensive to some group who might boycott the business, and likely speak to older clients than the actual viewers will be.
And, each show is a single commodity. Yes, ad slots can be packaged to run over multiple shows, but each show must appeal to these advertisers or else its production costs can’t be justified.
The cable networks are still selling to businesses rather than consumers, but the costs to the businesses are lower, so they can handle a smaller audience. Businesses buy these slots to play commercials they have already produced for the major broadcast networks, and they are not required to pay residuals for commercials that run on cable. In addition, cable networks make a portion of their revenue from subscription fees, so ad rates can be even lower.
Pay cable is the only group that sells its content directly to the consumer. They have to create content that keeps people subscribing month after month, rather than satisfying advertisers first. They can take greater risks because they sell a slate of content, from original series and movies to reality shows and studio and independent films. One risky show may fail, and many on the pay cable nets have. But it is not likely that one show will cause a subscriber to cancel the network. They will just choose to watch something else during that time slot.
As far as HBO’s continued success, I think it is mainly that they are the most established of the pay nets as far as creating original programming. The others are getting better, and their Emmy nominations will continue to increase as they continue to increase their quality and viewer appeal.
What do you think? Are the economics I have outlined enough to explain HBO’s domination of the Emmy field? Or is something else at play?
Related Posts:
Tags: awards, Chuck, emmys, enoutrage, glee, hbo, supernatural, television, the borgias, true blood
Uncategorized | Jennifer Roland | 
July 20, 2011 6:31 am | 
Comments (1)
