So who really knows how much of an impact a focus group may have on the DS pilot
Apparently none
![[clap]](http://www.dsboards.com/SMF/Smileys/classic/clap.gif "Clapping")
I just received this article in my e-mail (and I particularly love the parts I've highlighted):
MEDIA & MARKETINGTrusting Gut Instincts, WB Network Stops Testing TV PilotsBy BROOKS BARNES
Staff Reporter of THE WALL STREET JOURNAL
May 3, 2004; Page B1
The WB Network is firing its guinea pigs.
Bucking decades of industry tradition, the Time Warner Inc. television network has quietly decided to stop using test audiences to gauge which fall pilots look like hits, and hence which shows it should buy.
Rather than rely on a few dozen viewers to dictate the fate of everything from characters to story lines, WB executives say they will now go with their own gut instincts. "What 60 random people in Las Vegas think about a show can be a huge distraction," says Jordan Levin, the network's co-chief executive officer.
The move is a major departure for the risk-averse broadcast industry, in which big decisions usually are made by consensus or committee. Ever since the black-and-white days of "The Dick Van Dyke Show," audience testing has played a crucial role in what shows make it to the air. When sample viewers cheer a pilot, executives feel confident to spend millions to buy the show and millions more to promote it. If a show doesn't do well, executives can use test results to explain why they didn't pick it up.
By abandoning the practice, the WB -- king of the teen drama -- acknowledges a fact that is well documented, but largely ignored: Testing often doesn't work. Mr. Levin notes that more than 80% of all shows fail whether they receive high marks in audience previews or not.
This time last year, for example, the WB won focus-group raves for its much-hyped "Tarzan," only to watch the show implode after five episodes. Going back further, a WB test of "7th Heaven" in 1996 was knocked by teenage girls for its wholesome premise. The show, about a minister and his family, is now in its eighth season.
"We could have panicked and changed the direction of the show based on those results," Mr. Levin says. "The lesson is that the objectification" of research "can be very dangerous."
And not just at the WB. In 1981, sample audiences gave NBC's genre-defining "Hill Street Blues" dismal reviews, saying the plot was "too murky," says creator Steven Bochco. Other successful shows, such as "All in the Family" and "The Beverly Hillbillies," also tested poorly. Even "Seinfeld" flunked. According to Warren Littlefield, former president of NBC Entertainment, the show was one of the worst-testing shows of all time. (A report of the damning results, signed by the cast, now hangs on Mr. Littlefield's office wall.)It's no surprise that most producers abhor testing as intrusive to the creative process. "The networks always tell you it's simply a 'tool,' but testing has an enormous amount of influence," says Mr. Bochco, who has a drama under consideration at ABC called "Blind Justice." Still, some producers note that testing also has saved shows from the network ax. One example: The 1993 western "Dr. Quinn, Medicine Woman" had few supporters at CBS until sample audiences cheered. It ran for six seasons.
The nine-year-old WB has its reasons for straying from the industry's entrenched testing methods. The network is coming off one of its worst fall seasons ever, with total viewership down 11% from the prior year, according to Nielsen Media Research. When networks face such losses -- Walt Disney Co.'s ABC is in a similar slump -- they are more willing to shake things up.
Of course, eliminating the tests also saves money. Depending on the scope of the research, a network can pay more than $100,000 to test a single show.
But some industry experts also view the WB's decision as an attempt to boost creativity. With less outside feedback, shows are more likely to retain their original DNA and avoid major revamps. That could pay big dividends, since generic, watered-down material is often blamed for viewer flight to cable channels. "This is a gutsy move," says Laura Caraccioli-Davis, a senior vice president at Starcom Entertainment, which buys ad time and is part of Publicis Groupe SA. In a business that is changing rapidly, she says, "you can't keep doing everything the way it has always been done."The bigger, more established networks aren't racing to follow the WB's lead. They say audience tests still add value, and that viewer reaction can yield helpful clues about how to tweak and improve a script. "Research is an important component in the decision-making process," says Mitch Metcalf, NBC's senior vice president of program planning. "It helps us understand the strengths and weaknesses of a show."
In fact, now is the height of testing time in Hollywood. With filming completed on this year's crop of 122 pilots, TV executives must soon decide which new shows to present to advertisers later this month. Between all the networks, fewer than three dozen new shows will make it onto the air.
Another technique involves recruiting volunteers around the country to watch a new show on an "empty" cable channel. Staffers conduct phone interviews soon afterward. ABC, in particular, favors this kind of testing, which is considered the most realistic method because people view the pilots the way they would normally watch TV -- on the sofa, with the phone ringing. Convening traditional focus groups of as many as 200 people is another style.
Viacom Inc.'s CBS is regarded by producers as the most rigorous. Three years ago, the network built a 5,000-square-foot testing facility inside the MGM Grand Hotel and Casino in Las Vegas, a popular city for marketing research due to the wide array of visitors it attracts. General Electric Co.'s NBC uses an independent testing firm located inside Las Vegas's Venetian Resort, though not as extensively.
As the WB bows out of traditional testing, some industry players warn that the move could backfire. Specifically, they say that network executives will no longer be able to cite lackluster testing results as a reason for walking away from a project. Mr. Levin dismisses the notion: "I think the people we're dealing with are grown-ups and they realize there's subjective decision-making going on here." Plus, the executive has a tiny escape hatch: He says he doesn't rule out "limited testing" of shows once they join the WB's prime-time lineup.
Write to Brooks Barnes at
brooks.barnes@wsj.com1
