Jay Leno to stay with NBC; New 10 PM show

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

I bet this is an attempt to keep his older demographic audience and transition The Tonight Show to a younger audience. Just my guess.

Eh, mostly just a cost-cutting move. What the network might lose in ratings (which won't be that much considering how weak their lineup has already been) and subsequent ad revenue will be made up for the cost savings of Leno vs scripted shows.

As several articles have taken to phrasing it lately, NBC is all about margin right now and this will be profitable (even if fairly small profit) as opposed to taking an outright loss which many of their shows have become. The cost of Leno is estimated at $2m per week for 46 weeks of originals, versus at least $15 million a week for just 22 weeks of originals.

The difference is the selling price of ads in Leno now vs their 10pm lineup has been roughly 3x to 4x ($40k-$45k for Leno vs somewhere in the $130k's for average 10p dramas).

The alternative was, as affiliates had already begun asking for, just to cut out 10pm altogether. NBC is finished as a full fledged broadcast network in the sense that we think of those, they've just been smart enough to figure it out before they end up asking Congress for a bail out.

The other benefit to this attempt is that, if it fails, they've tainted Leno before losing him to ABC.

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

The other benefit to this attempt is that, if it fails, they've tainted Leno before losing him to ABC.

I think this is really what theyre after, and it's a cost efficient way to do it.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by DeToxRox

I think what this does is help a station like FX, which has shows airing at 10 like Rescue Me, Sons of Anarchy, Damages, etc. I wouldn't be shocked if they, along with USA who has a decent hour long show lineup, and other cable stations start producing more scripted dramas because the market is there.

I hope that happens too. The nice thing about those cable networks is that they don't need to bring in the type of audiences NBC needs to in order to be succesful. It allows them to explore some unique niches and create some great programming.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

I hope that happens too. The nice thing about those cable networks is that they don't need to bring in the type of audiences NBC needs to in order to be succesful. It allows them to explore some unique niches and create some great programming.

But as the head of FX pointed out recently, there's a big difference between a quantitative success and a critical success. Unless you're ready to pay higher cable bills and/or avoid online subscription services (such as the models ready to roll out from at least two cable companies) then the cable networks are already eyeing their cutoff point as well, something that is accelerated every time someone watches online or DVR's the shows. And with every successful season of a show the cost of production goes up (just like CBS looking at canceling at least one show next season that would otherwise have a few more years in it, because the success leads to increased salary demands from the actors)

Eventually we may very well end up with the major "networks" being TimeWarner.com & Comcast.com, with viewers dropping a few bucks every time they watch a show.

[kcchief19]

Originally Posted by DeToxRox

I think what this does is help a station like FX, which has shows airing at 10 like Rescue Me, Sons of Anarchy, Damages, etc. I wouldn't be shocked if they, along with USA who has a decent hour long show lineup, and other cable stations start producing more scripted dramas because the market is there.

I think the networks are continuing to give the cable networks an opening with their programming choices. I still don't understand why NBC, which owns USA, Bravo, Sci-Fi and others doesn't develop shows on the cable nets and "promote" them to the networks once they've established themselves. Giving a show a primetime spot based on a pilot is like the Yankees starting their first-round draft pick day after the draft in center field. NBC at least gets partial credit for giving Monk, Psych, Project Runway, Top Chef and Battlestar Galactica on the network but they never once did it with a first-run episode. I think some of those shows could thrive with a larger platform.

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

The other benefit to this attempt is that, if it fails, they've tainted Leno before losing him to ABC.

Don't forget the other big benefit to this -- if Conan fails at 11:30, Leno is still working for NBC and not at ABC. If Conan's a ratings disaster, NBC will bring back Leno.

I'll give NBC credit -- they learned their lesson from the Leno/Letterman saga. They tried to give Letterman the same type of deal they have given Conan -- we'll give you 11:30 and if it works you keep it. If not, we've still got Leno. But by that time the relationship was so frayed and Letterman distrusting of NBC that his agents were able to convince him to turn it down.

Worst case scenario for NBC, Conan fails, Leno's experiment fails and Leno is damaged goods limping back to 11:30. I think that still works for them, they'll be able to sell Leno's return as a triumph. But if Conan works, doesn't matter what happens with Leno -- if 10 pm works great, fine; if not, he's going to ABC in a maybe a year going against both Conan and Letterman.

I think the Leno move to primetime is drowning out the Letterman vs. Conan battle at 11:30. There are a lot of people who think that Letterman has lost his spark losing to Leno for so long but is relishing the chance to regain No.1. The conventional wisdom is that Leno beat Letterman due to demographics and the perception that Letterman is "edgier" than Leno. But Letterman is much more conventional than Conan is.

I think Conan may do well at first with a look-in audience but it's not going to be the numbers Letterman put up when he first went to CBS and set the world on fire. I think there's a reasonable chance that by the fall Letterman is winning late night again.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by kcchief19

I think the networks are continuing to give the cable networks an opening with their programming choices. I still don't understand why NBC, which owns USA, Bravo, Sci-Fi and others doesn't develop shows on the cable nets and "promote" them to the networks once they've established themselves. Giving a show a primetime spot based on a pilot is like the Yankees starting their first-round draft pick day after the draft in center field. NBC at least gets partial credit for giving Monk, Psych, Project Runway, Top Chef and Battlestar Galactica on the network but they never once did it with a first-run episode. I think some of those shows could thrive with a larger platform.

Pretty much all the history & research says otherwise. I can't see any of them other than Monk and Runway doing network standard ratings at all, and I'm not really sure about Runway either unless you tone down the contestants & make them more mainstream. I do think they might have missed the boat with In Plain Sight a little bit, it's the most conventional of the lot & I think it would have translated to a broader audience fairly well (heck, I could see it on CBS with relatively few changes). But the truth is there just aren't all that many shows that can capture an audience of traditional broadcast size any more, the viewers have become too fragmented in their wants.

[Logan]

Originally Posted by kcchief19

I think Conan may do well at first with a look-in audience but it's not going to be the numbers Letterman put up when he first went to CBS and set the world on fire. I think there's a reasonable chance that by the fall Letterman is winning late night again.

I could be very wrong, but isn't that pretty much guaranteed to be the case, given the high number of cable channels, internet, competition for entertainment, etc? I thought ratings in general were down from years ago for these reasons.

[Maple Leafs]

Originally Posted by kcchief19

I think Conan may do well at first with a look-in audience but it's not going to be the numbers Letterman put up when he first went to CBS and set the world on fire. I think there's a reasonable chance that by the fall Letterman is winning late night again.

What's Letterman's contract status?

[BishopMVP]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Pretty much all the history & research says otherwise. I can't see any of them other than Monk and Runway doing network standard ratings at all, and I'm not really sure about Runway either unless you tone down the contestants & make them more mainstream. I do think they might have missed the boat with In Plain Sight a little bit, it's the most conventional of the lot & I think it would have translated to a broader audience fairly well (heck, I could see it on CBS with relatively few changes). But the truth is there just aren't all that many shows that can capture an audience of traditional broadcast size any more, the viewers have become too fragmented in their wants.

Didn't CBS remove everything funny about Psych and air it as The Mentalist already?

[kcchief19]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Pretty much all the history & research says otherwise.

There is no history -- can you name a show that started on cable and move to network? As for research, I seriously doubt any of them have looked into it because conventional wisdom says it doesn't work. NBC is the only one to give it a try and they did it with stale reruns during the summer when no one is watching. In desperation in March 2008 NBC air year-old reruns of Monk and Psych on Sunday nights but that didn't prove anything.

10 million viewers and you have a top 20 hit on your hands. A couple of USA shows like Monk typically hit around 5 on a first-time airing and pick up more with repeats -- it's not unusual for a new episode of a USA show to get close to 10 million viewers in its first week. If you air it only once in a network slot, you already have a built-in audience for a top 20 show. Any audience you pick up is gravy.

Then there are shows like Top Chef and Runway (moving to Lifetime obviously) that skew incredibly well. Based on its ratings, Top Chef would routinely beat network shows in it's time slot in key demos. Plus, some of these shows have devoted fan base that rank them high on iTunes after airings. That's even more revenue, and broadening the base couldn't hurt.

Originally Posted by BishopMVP

Didn't CBS remove everything funny about Psych and air it as The Mentalist already?

And it's a top 10 hit, proving that cable-quality shows can make it. It's snobbery keeping shows like In Plain Sight and Burn Notice on USA. That's ironic because the networks had to do away with their snobbery to start airing reality programs, which I think is largely responsible for making basic cable a haven for scripted shows. TNT, USA, Bravo and Sci-Fi all air original programming better than shows on the networks.

[kcchief19]

Originally Posted by Logan

I could be very wrong, but isn't that pretty much guaranteed to be the case, given the high number of cable channels, internet, competition for entertainment, etc? I thought ratings in general were down from years ago for these reasons.

I'm speaking more in terms of the margin and share. Letterman's first three months or so at CBS were phenomenal. He was routinely drawing prime-time size audiences and was drawing 3 times as many viewers as Leno and breaking a 25 or more share. At Leno's peak, he would beat Letterman by about 2 million viewers where as Letterman was beating him by 6-10 million. Conan will get a look-in audience, but I don't think it will be much higher than Leno's audience. I think it's a bad omen that Fallon is actually beating Conan's late night numbers and I don't think Fallon has much of a look-in draw. It's also telling that Craig Ferguson is pretty much pulling even in total viewers and is still winning in key demos.

Originally Posted by Maple Leafs

What's Letterman's contract status?

He's signed through the fall of 2010 but I've read rumors he's negotiating an extension. I think he'd like to make it at least 30 years in late night, which would mean extending to 2012.

[DaddyTorgo]

craig ferguson is funnier than conan - might be why he's pulling better audiences

[larnott]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

craig ferguson is funnier than conan - might be why he's pulling better audiences

to say the least?

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Eventually we may very well end up with the major "networks" being TimeWarner.com & Comcast.com, with viewers dropping a few bucks every time they watch a show.

I actually think we are heading down that path (and it actually might not be that bad).

DVR is getting much more popular and there will come a day in the next few years where most households will have one. This makes commercials less valuable and live viewers fewer and far between. Shows need to make their money from somewhere and that might be the best solution. You buy a season pass (iTunes and XBox already do this) for whatever shows you want.

A unique way of doing it would be to offer the season pass for viewers. Would cost lets say $20 for a season of House. You'd get to watch those episodes weeks before they went on free television (with commercials). Direct TV sort of did this with Friday Night Lights last year and it was rather succesful.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Would cost lets say $20 for a season of House.

You wish. Assuming the networks are still involved here, you just devalued all of their owned & operated TV stations and they're going to want to make up that money. A dollar per household just lets them break even on the production cost, try $40 a season and I'd say you're closer to the ballpark.

[Logan]

Fine by me. By then, 24 will probably be finished and I'll be watching nothing from network TV.

[spleen1015]

Man, when it gets to the days where I have to shell out $40 for a season for a show, I just might have to stop watching tv.

[Ksyrup]

Just wait for the season DVD. They can't go back and up prices on those, so they are fixed. Why spend more for a season pass than a hard copy of the season? I rarely watch TV shows anymore, but for Curb Your Enthusiasm, for instance, I just ignore the season and buy it afterwards. Better than spending money for HBO just to watch 1 show. If all of the shows I watch went that route, that's probably what I'd do.

[spleen1015]

But, but, you can't take part in the show discussion threads if you wait to watch the shows!

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

Why spend more for a season pass than a hard copy of the season?

Because we're an instant gratification society.

[Ksyrup]

Actually, I would. I usually find out as much as I can about the shows I watch before I watch them. Then again, I don't watch any scripted shows, so I guess it's a bit different.

[Ksyrup]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Because we're an instant gratification society.

This couldn't work because they've gotten the internet too involved with TV for people to not just turn to stealing TV shows like they do music.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

This couldn't work because they've gotten the internet too involved with TV for people to not just turn to stealing TV shows like they do music.

Yeah- that was my thought. People are ok with ads as they're passive, but if they have to start actively paying- you're just creating another black market. It's not right, but that's how a lot of people think these days.

SI

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

This couldn't work because they've gotten the internet too involved with TV for people to not just turn to stealing TV shows like they do music.

And so the battle between rights holders & thieves continues. What else is new?

[Ksyrup]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

And so the battle between rights holders & thieves continues. What else is new?

I'm just saying, setting up a profit model based on a system we've already seen doesn't work would be pretty stupid of them.

[Logan]

I think the networks might be stuck a bit if they went to this sort of model. Of course I'm only speaking for myself and what I know about friends and such, but being that I'm a 25 year old single guy who lives in the biggest market there is, I have to be more important to the networks and advertisers than others right?

Anyway, like I said, I wouldn't pay for a season pass to any TV show out there at this point. Thinking of my friends, the only show I think any would is for Lost...and my buddies who watch that all end up watching together thanks to our close living locations. So they get $40 from 6 guys (this part probably isn't representative). But that's it as far as what we watch on network TV when it comes to scripted/reality shows. A few of us watch The Office, but that's definitely not something I'd rush/pay to see.

Now on the other side, you have older people like my parents and their friends (50s and 60s). My mom watches a decent amount of network stuff, but I get the sense it's just because she needs something to watch now that the kids are out of the house. But I'm sure the thought of having to go on the computer and sit there and watch TV shows, paying for each one, not only terrifies her but is something she couldn't even imagine given how TV has always worked. Let's not even consider the thought of hooking up the computer to the HDTV. They'd have a nervous breakdown.

[Fidatelo]

Here is how TV should work on the internet:

- Someone creates a media player (or embeds in an existing media player) a full-on TV Access interface that allows you to browse available shows from any carrier.

- The first episode of a season for any series should be free to download.

- All other episodes of a series, or any 'episode' of a show that is a 1-time event, should play openly on your TV Access media player for free, with perhaps an ad at the start or part way through, until say the halfway mark of the episode.

- At the halfway mark, if you have paid for the episode (either pre-purchased or you have some kind of subscription... pay model would be up to the specific content provider), it just continues. If you haven't paid yet, it brings up a "you must pay to continue" dialog. If you say "yes", it should be a 1-step process like iTunes (enter your password and you're good).

- Prices can be freely determined by the content holder. If HBO wants to charge $5 an episode for Sopranos but CBS only wants to charge 50 cents an episode for Gary Unmarried, that's up to them.

- Once you have paid for something, you are free to download it as many times as you want, play it anywhere, save it to your hard drive, etc. DRM free.

Obviously people will still be able to pirate this stuff, but the key is a system like the above makes it very easy to buy stuff you feel is worth watching. It almost becomes like the iTunes App Store, really, where you can usually get a free "Lite" version of a game or app and then buy the full thing if you like it, plus its all crazy easy to do.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by Fidatelo

- Once you have paid for something, you are free to download it as many times as you want, play it anywhere, save it to your hard drive, etc. DRM free.

Yeah, that last step is never ever going to work or happen. The moment you get a DRM free copy out there, no one will buy because it's going to be up on bit torrent a minute later for free. So, no, any solution where "you are free to download it as many times as you want, play it anyways, save it to your hard drive, etc"- that step doesn't work at all. The "etc" would kill any usefulness it has.

SI

[JonInMiddleGA]

Thing is, there's already tension between the networks (cable and broadcast) and their affiliates/cable systems about content being on the web at all. The networks have to make sure they can support the majority of their costs from the web before they piss off the bulk of their revenue generation much more, otherwise they'll end up cutting their own throats. Ask newspaper how well depending upon the internet for revenue is going.

I can still go into many of the top 100 markets and get internet ads bonused for free as part of a traditional print (or TV or radio) buy and all although it doesn't seem to get much coverage at the local level at least the major media forms are still shifting money to make their online segment appear more profitable than it actually is (i.e. I buy $10,000 worth of TV spots with 10,000 online impressions thrown in as a value added but the local affiliate says "would you mind if we billed this as $9000 worth of spot TV and $1000 worth of online?" I'm sure the same thing is happening at the network level, just to a different extent.

[Fidatelo]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

Yeah, that last step is never ever going to work or happen. The moment you get a DRM free copy out there, no one will buy because it's going to be up on bit torrent a minute later for free. So, no, any solution where "you are free to download it as many times as you want, play it anyways, save it to your hard drive, etc"- that step doesn't work at all. The "etc" would kill any usefulness it has.

SI

I disagree. I can currently get any song I want for free, but I use iTunes because it's EASIER. I can preview the song, and if I want it, just click "buy". I'm not then going to head to a torrent site, search for it again, make sure the copy is legit by scanning the comments and analyzing the file list, download it, then copy it into iTunes, all just to save 99 cent or even 10 bucks.

Yes, people will still pirate, but your average consumer will not.

[dervack]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

Yeah, that last step is never ever going to work or happen. The moment you get a DRM free copy out there, no one will buy because it's going to be up on bit torrent a minute later for free. So, no, any solution where "you are free to download it as many times as you want, play it anyways, save it to your hard drive, etc"- that step doesn't work at all. The "etc" would kill any usefulness it has.

SI

But that's already the case. I have shows that I enjoy watching and almost always watch it through DVR. If I forget? I'll try to watch it through Hulu or whatever network I can. If the stream is poor or the website only has the lastest episode, I have no problem grabbing the torrent.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

You wish. Assuming the networks are still involved here, you just devalued all of their owned & operated TV stations and they're going to want to make up that money. A dollar per household just lets them break even on the production cost, try $40 a season and I'd say you're closer to the ballpark.

Their own TV stations are being devalued everyday as DVRs get to be more popular. Take a show like House that gets at least 15 million viewers. If even a third of those people pay for a subscription, that's $100 million.

Maybe it won't be the case for network TV, but I could definitely see companies like HBO and Showtime offering a pay-per-season for some of their programming.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

This couldn't work because they've gotten the internet too involved with TV for people to not just turn to stealing TV shows like they do music.

Eventually the government is going to have to update their archaic copyright laws. DMCA is a joke.

[Ksyrup]

That might be, but given where things are now, streaming free episodes on the internet just plays right into the idea that we can continue to expect to not have to pay for TV shows.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Their own TV stations are being devalued everyday as DVRs get to be more popular. Take a show like House that gets at least 15 million viewers. If even a third of those people pay for a subscription, that's $100 million.

That's if they paid per person, not per household. How are you planning to keep other people from watching the same feed, beam it down on special glasses?

Interestingly, yet another study out last week showed that DVR is not hurting commercial viewing as much as originally feared. The rate of people who channel surf/go to the bathroom during commercials was 10-15 points higher (64%) than those who skip past commercials.

[cuervo72]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Interestingly, yet another study out last week showed that DVR is not hurting commercial viewing as much as originally feared. The rate of people who channel surf/go to the bathroom during commercials was 10-15 points higher (64%) than those who skip past commercials.

I forget half the time. I'll be on the computer playing repeats of Poker After Dark/High Stakes Poker/World Poker Tour and just neglect to stop what I'm doing to skip through the commercials. This is a good thing for SpadeClub.com, ShamWow, Todd Davis, Progressive/eSurance...

One thing I *will* skip through is a specific Wal-Mart commercial. Yes, I'm sure it's lovely to be a woman and that the wait is well worthwhile. But I HATE THAT EFFING SONG AND CAN'T STAND THAT SINGER'S VOICE.

[kcchief19]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Their own TV stations are being devalued everyday as DVRs get to be more popular. Take a show like House that gets at least 15 million viewers. If even a third of those people pay for a subscription, that's $100 million.

I'm with Jon -- I don't think you'd get a third to pay. I haven't seen TV sales numbers for DVD or iTunes but I'd be willing to get wager that for the typical TV season set a show like House right now is lucky to get a million sales.

Plus this model would never work on new shows -- you have to get them hooked in somehow. I'm not aware of any online-exclusive programming that has been a financial success yet.

It's not that we're not watching TV -- we're watching just as much as always if not more. It's just that the audience is fragmented 400 different ways. DVRs haven't really devalued local TV stations because local stations make their money on local news and nobody DVRs the local news. It's the networks that make the money in primetime.

[kcchief19]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Interestingly, yet another study out last week showed that DVR is not hurting commercial viewing as much as originally feared. The rate of people who channel surf/go to the bathroom during commercials was 10-15 points higher (64%) than those who skip past commercials.

I'm waiting for the study to be done on the subliminal effect of advertising on people who fast forward through commercials. There has to be an impact, and I wouldn't be surprised if advertisers were already creating ads designed to create subliminal effect when being fast forwarded.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by kcchief19

I'm waiting for the study to be done on the subliminal effect of advertising on people who fast forward through commercials. There has to be an impact, and I wouldn't be surprised if advertisers were already creating ads designed to create subliminal effect when being fast forwarded.

It already influences creative design to some degree. The current school of thought calls for increased use of larger, bolder logos on screen for as much of the spot as possible. It's not as good as the full message of course but at least that way you're getting a branding impression out of the spot if it's scanned through at high speed.

edit: Not everyone does it of course, I don't think it's even a majority that do it. But the larger & savvier ones do, and have been since not long after TiVo rolled out.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Figured I might as well just throw this tidbit into this thread.
My Way News - CW network shutting down on Sunday nights

NEW YORK (AP) - The CW television network is shutting down on Sunday nights.

The network is negotiating to turn over the time to its affiliates. Viewers will see programming picked by their local stations instead of the reruns the CW is now airing.

It's a sign of the economy and the young network's consistent failure on Sundays. Last year the CW leased time on Sundays to an independent production company, but their shows lasted only a couple of months.

Network spokesman Paul McGuire says this will enable the CW to concentrate on its stronger Monday through Friday schedule, and see its weekly ratings increase because a weak link is removed. The affiliates will have more time to sell their own advertising.

[Schmidty]

If you have to pay for a "season pass" to watch a show, how in the hell would new shows be aired, since no one's going to buy a show that they don't even know is good or bad?

The whole idea is asinine, and if it happened, I'd just stop watching TV (other than sports).

[Schmidty]

Dola.

And I think it's funny how everyone is using "House" as an example, since I just removed it from my season pass last night. It's just a stale, predictable show at this point. The character of House that I used to really like, has become a caricature of himself at this point (if that even makes sense). Of course, that's just my opinion.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by Schmidty

Dola.

And I think it's funny how everyone is using "House" as an example, since I just removed it from my season pass last night. It's just a stale, predictable show at this point. The character of House that I used to really like, has become a caricature of himself at this point (if that even makes sense). Of course, that's just my opinion.

I think House is getting close to that territory, but isn't quite there yet.

I think that happens to almost every show that goes past 4 or 5 season- the caricature part. The original writers who "knew" the characters as they originally wrote and defined them have attritioned out in some way, either by getting their own show, writing for another show, getting another task on the show, etc. So, then you bring in newer and newer "generations" of writers to work on the characters who become further and further removed from who they originally are and instead or just based on second and third hand interpretation.

Homer Simpson isn't the same Homer Simpson from season 1 which is different than "the good years" (~3~8) which is different than the "going downhill years" (9~11?) which is different than "the suck years" (12~current). The original Homer was flat until they developed him out in the good seasons. At that point, there were a range of things his character could do without it being "out of character". However, that got lost as you started losing writers who could work with the nuances of the character. And instead you had writers who were either not as good, lazy ("I can make Homer do dumb things- that's what he does!", or just unable to work as well within the confines of a character that isn't their creation.

I've used that exact word- caricature- before to describe it as I think it sums it up perfectly. Writers become divorced from the character so all they have to go on is the stereotype of said character.

Anyways, we're way off track here...

SI

[ISiddiqui]

And I think one of the reasons they use House is its very high ratings year after year. I still love the show, think they've had some absolutely brilliant episodes this season... but fear they may have just jumped the shark BIG TIME.

[JonInMiddleGA]

The funny part will be when the industry shifts to a pay-as-you-watch model & the only shows that are profitable (and therefore the only ones produced) are reality shows.

Some folks will absolutely lose their freakin minds, it'll be a hoot to watch.
Hmm, I think I just came up with an idea for a new reality show ...

[sterlingice]

It's why I've always been against a la carte pricing. You can't put an easy to calculate dollar amount on things like actual lead-in (as opposed to the silly games they try to play now with the numbers) or prestige gained by having more hit shows on your network (i.e. "Oh, that shows on the CW. It must be crap" vs "Hm.. it's on CBS. I'll give it a look"). Everything will be cut bare to the bone as those value added things can't be counted easily on a ledger so they will just fall by the wayside.

SI

[Schmidty]

But, again, how would they introduce new shows to make people even know if they want to buy it?

[molson]

We'll always have Law & Order reruns

[Passacaglia]

The answer to both of the last posts is packaging. Take a successful show, and it's only available if you buy some crappy new show. The choice is yours whether you want to look at the crappy new show as a freebie, or that you're buying two shows for one price.

[molson]

I would think one of the best hedges against piracy/dvr would be massive product placement and and permanant corporate logos on the screen

Though I have no idea how much money such things bring in, in relative terms. But it seems like reality shows have been penetrated more quickly than scripted shows, for some reason.