"SMASH" blindness.... — Page 3

It's one of the things we all love about him.

Well, look who's putting words in everyone's mouth! Rude!

The fact that I don't disagree is entirely irrelevant.

---

From the way I understood it, GCB is the name, but if asked, they're to say Good Christian Belles and not Good Christian Bitches, even though the book it's based on is called Good Christian Bitches. Or something? I saw KChen talking about it on Chelsea Handler and she said something like that. I think what they are trying to imply (most likely to mitigate an brouhaha) that the show itself never had the words Christian Bitches in title, as improbable as that might seem.

But I haven't seen a single commercial for that. Full disclosure, though, I time-shift almost everything that I watch.

I think (and I could very well be wrong), it's now actually "Don't Trust the B in Apartment 23." Not that that's any better.

Yeah in the case of GCB it's ABC being scared (granted, as any network station would be) by the name. It was originally Good Christian Bitches, then Good Christian Belles, then they decided to avoid Christian anything and went with the date rape drug sounding name. I'm willing to give it a chance because Darren Star was in charge of the only watchable episodes of Sex and the City before King took over (his recent defensive attacks when people mentioned how racist characters in his otherwise promising 2 Broke Girls show were with "I'm gay and I always have gay stereotypes so I'm allowed" at the media up fronts was ridiculous). And because a show from the playwright of Steel magnolias and the writer of Soap Dish could be fun--or awful.

And yes Bitch was dropped from Don't Trust as well...

Even the awful sitcom based on Chelsea Handler (who I actually like in her books) was changed from first Are You There Vodka, It's Me Chelsea, to Are You There Vodka?, to now the nonsensical Are you there Chelsea?

As for Best's remarks--I kinda agree. I found so much of the pilot overly cliche, but I did enjoy it (probably more than he did) and hope the show well.

As for overexposure in advertising--network TV no longer knows how to sell a high concept, expensive show. I'm not sure if they ever really did (do people forget the infamous lost advertising at airports? talk about tacky), but they aren't happy to try to let people discover a show anymore. Cable is probably not that much better--I have no idea why HBO thought have literal Game of Thrones at various events across N America that people could pose with would make the show a hit, though at least the show stood on its own. But network tv shows now in their understandable drive to compete with cable want these niche-y shows, and yet being network tv they need MUCH larger ratings and wider demos than cable can, to survive. And it doesn't really mesh.

NBC is desperate right now with Smash because they're the fourth lowest rated network, and because Greenblatt was hired last Spring to head them but came in too late to approve any of his own pilots. He has a good track record on cable (six Feet Under at HBO, a lot of good, and bad, at Showtime when he oversaw it) and when the show wen into turnaround at Showtime he snatched it up as his first major "coup" for NBC, so he basically has ONE show of his own till the Fall season and obviously wants to prove himself.

Addy, they may have a "right" to advertise it heavily, but there definitely is such a thing as overkill in advertising. And consumers have a similar "right" to complain about too many ads and an over-saturation of the market. Even a good campaign can have a negative effect on a new product if its grossly oversold.

And yes, from a business sense, the amount of ad dollars and overall effort spent to promote a show (or any product) will need to be justified in the end by the people who spent the money. Justified is the correct word. That kind of "big money" ad budget is spent in anticipation of an achieved result, otherwise it's just reckless spending.

Ads can also be credited for hurting OR helping a show's success, not just the latter. I have seen "good" product hurt by bad ads, and "bad" product helped by good ads. Ads are never in a "no fault" situation.

So I disagree with what you said.

EDIT: Just to clarify further, if you're saying an advertising effort (just in general and in theory) doesn't need to be justified, I agree with you on that. Advertising, on some level, is necessary to create awareness. But "how much" and "how often" and the quality and effectiveness of ads can all be called into question. I can't even agree that in the end it's the product that counts. I have seen terrible, ordinary, or well-established products suddenly "sold" to great success by ingenious campaigns. I have also seen terrific products buried and forgotten by bad marketing campaigns and a total lack of understanding for the product itself and its potential consumers.

---

Updated On: 1/27/12 at 06:11 AM

Besty, we'll agree to disagree.

And I greatly disagree.

---

I have never seen an ad for GCB. And I watch TV live- no DVR or anything. Smash? I can recite that ad verbatim.

I am certain the Glee in NYC episode cost slightly more and I am pretty sure Boardwalk Empire has the record, around $20 million.

Updated On: 1/27/12 at 04:15 PM

strummergirl---I think you mean to say eight figures, not ten, right?

6 figures being 100,000s
7 figures being 1,000,000s
8 figures being 10,000,000+

I don't think Boardwalk Empire costs a billion dollars per episode.

---

Updated On: 1/28/12 at 05:50 PM

Still, that sounds like a giant leap beyond other hourlong drama budgets today. Wow.

That's the budget for a small feature film.

It sure helps a lot to have a paid subscriber base.

---

Updated On: 1/27/12 at 05:56 PM

Lost was reported to cost 18 million (for the pilot) we've been now told--at the time I believe they claimed it was 11 million.

The ads must have worked.
NBC delivered a strong rating for the debut of SMASH. (Especially given the ability to watch online prior to the premiere!)


Highlights:

NBC's series premiere of Smash performed well, out-delivering ABC's and FOX's Monday night lineup.

NBC's Smash was the #2 program for the night among Women 18-34, 18-49 and 25-54, just behind its lead-in The Voice

Smash delivered more viewers than ABC's original lineup of The Bachelor and Castle. Smash also out-performed FOX's original airings of House and Alcatraz.

Smash appealed to more Adults, Women and Men, especially among younger viewers, than its previous time period holder Rock Center w/ Brian Williams


Now, whether the product (Smash) can deliver successful ratings week after week remains to be seen. But, clearly, the advertising and PR to raise awareness and garner sampling/viewing for the premiere worked.

---

Updated On: 2/7/12 at 04:48 PM