My Opinion/Feeling on S4 Ratings. Will there be S5?

[Skydiver]

I did not see that one coming, but now I understand you don't want to turn Gateworld into a "Save this show ..." site. However, for an art form that often promotes tolerance and imagination, you'd think there are creative ways to fund a show, that do not involve the studios (looking for ratings) or finding large investors. Companies set up shell companies to defer taxes, so there's probably an oblique way to retain ownership, but accept small contributions (i.e. via selling memberships to a website, purchase of a souvenir): where it's clear the proceeds go to producing a show.

I meant no disrespect with my comments. I just think (in a naive way, perhaps) studios can be more open about their funding options.

Regards,

Dean

We, as a site, are not opening ourselves up to any liability with some fan setting up a scheme and then running with the money.

So fans can do what they want to do, but without the express permission of the site owner there will be no money raising scheme here.

[Mandysg1]

We, as a site, are not opening ourselves up to any liability with some fan setting up a scheme and then running with the money.

So fans can do what they want to do, but without the express permission of the site owner there will be no money raising scheme here.

Hear, Hear!

[Dean Grr]

We, as a site, are not opening ourselves up to any liability with some fan setting up a scheme and then running with the money.

Skydiver, I'm relatively new to the forum, so I was not thinking in those terms. I would not advocate Gateworld to do anything that opens it up to liability. My thoughts were more like "If the owners of Sanctuary did not have to rely on studios or big investors, how could that work ..." But even this small discussion has hit on the big issue of ownership and legal obligations - I'd probably be amazed at the hurdles tv has to go through to get produced. Even if a private studio could arrange for small wallet funding, how do you trust the studio to use the money wisely? Or that the final season produced would be exceptional? (The 2nd season of Dollhouse that provided closure to the audience is an example: Fox paid for it, but as a viewer I thought the finale fell short).

I think what I'm trying to get at in my roundabout way, is that as part of the audience, I'd like to have more control over whether, say, the last season of a favorite program is produced. Or perhaps, like rotten tomatoes, there were a way to communicate an audience consensus on a show, that could impact the next season.

There's a lot I like about Sanctuary, but I'm okay with the closure that "Sanctuary for None" provided, with Helen showing Will her "New Praxis" - Dean

[Deevil]

Skydiver, I'm relatively new to the forum, so I was not thinking in those terms. I would not advocate Gateworld to do anything that opens it up to liability. My thoughts were more like "If the owners of Sanctuary did not have to rely on studios or big investors, how could that work ..." But even this small discussion has hit on the big issue of ownership and legal obligations - I'd probably be amazed at the hurdles tv has to go through to get produced. Even if a private studio could arrange for small wallet funding, how do you trust the studio to use the money wisely? Or that the final season produced would be exceptional? (The 2nd season of Dollhouse that provided closure to the audience is an example: Fox paid for it, but as a viewer I thought the finale fell short).

I think what I'm trying to get at in my roundabout way, is that as part of the audience, I'd like to have more control over whether, say, the last season of a favorite program is produced. Or perhaps, like rotten tomatoes, there were a way to communicate an audience consensus on a show, that could impact the next season.

There's a lot I like about Sanctuary, but I'm okay with the closure that "Sanctuary for None" provided, with Helen showing Will her "New Praxis" - Dean

You hit the nail on the head though, if fans were to give money to the venture they would believe they are entitled to creative control. Now, let's see how the 'fans' would demand this...

"I want Will and Helen together"
"I want Helen and Druitt together"
"Kill Will I Hate Him"
"Big Guy Should Eat Kate"
"Kate, I love here. Hook her up with Helen"
"Abby is annoying, kill her"
"I love Abby and Will together"
"Bring back Ashley"

etc etc etc. Talk about mutually exclusive possibilities.

Now many productions do take small contributions, but these still have to be handled legally. Remember that these guys are a business, and therefore they pay tax. They have to account for where their money comes and goes to and from. Also remember the people that give the money need to account for it too.

This is why it's an investment. Investments come with legal contracts outlying what the investing party is likely to receive back.

Now, a lot of what you are suggesting Dean is done of kickstarter. It's a website used for strictly independent productions that give an investing party something in return for their dollars. It's a contract that has been set up so it's a legal investment which is clear that there is no creative stake (usually). This works for extremely small budgets, but big budget requirements it will not work.

I cannot see it even being remotely possible that fans could raise 1mil for the show even if it were possible for them to accept donations from fans.

[Dean Grr]

if fans were to give money to the venture they would believe they are entitled to creative control.

I suppose as part of the audience, I think I can see flaws that the producers can't. Perhaps that's true at times, but on the whole producing tv by consensus (especially audience consensus) wouldn't work well, as you showed, Deevil, From what I've read, writers and producers need to keep all the criticsim or "help" at arms length for legal and sanity reasons.

After I wrote this, I realized, isn't that what DVDs and Itunes downloads are for? Has the cast or producers of a show ever been able to say "hey, if you guys buy X DVDs and Itunes downloads, we can greenlight a new season"? Buying DVDs or Itunes eps is like voting with your dollars, and giving the studios funds, but I've never seen it used with a progress bar showing a renewal threshold ...

[Snowman37]

We, as a site, are not opening ourselves up to any liability with some fan setting up a scheme and then running with the money.

Isn't that what happened with TrekUnited and the fundraising to save Star Trek: Enterprise?

[unknown_k]

Buying DVD's is just extra money to the show producers (they might even assume X income from it to offset production costs for that season), it doesn't contribute anything to a new season. People buying tons of Farscape DVD sets will not get us a new season for example.

[Skydiver]

Isn't that what happened with TrekUnited and the fundraising to save Star Trek: Enterprise?

No idea. Not in the fandom. however, I personally view stuff like that as no better than a scam and spam and will be treated accordingly. No different than giving your bank account info to help that Nigerian prince or winning that UK e-mail lotto or giving the FBI your bank account number so they can transfer those millions they found that they owe you

[Dean Grr]

My original thinking was that such a fund would come from the producers (owners) of a show, not a privately (fan) run campaign. I was also thinking of the special case where a show is cancelled early and as an audience, we'd like some closure. After seeing a lot of scifi disappear off the air, and the end of Stargate Universe, I was hoping the producers would find a way to complete that story.

I think there probably is a way to have small wallets contribute to completing a cancelled show, but it would take some creative thinking on the part of the producers (and their lawyers). So it's the producers I was targeting, not the fans. However, there have been some creative fan campaigns, as I understand for "Chuck" or "Jericho": I think for Chuck they managed to get a corporate sponsor, Subway, and for Jericho, it was just - nuts .

It just puzzles me that the audience (fans) go to such lengths, but the producers themselves do not see it. I suspect it's because they look to the next project (i.e. Primeval), and are used to relying on the studios and big investors. It took George Lucas to herald a new age for sci fi, and new funding models will be discovered for tv, too.

[Deevil]

And Jericho was canceled 6, or 8 episodes into the 'saved' season because no one was watching.
Chuck wasn't so much saved by fans as it was saved by sponsor AND having WB pretty much hand over licensing rights. If NBC wasnt getting to show so cheaply, it'd have been canceled years ago.

The truth is, producers can't personally afford to spend so long trying to save a canceled show. They NEED to work too. And when a show is canceled, it really is canceled for a reason. For example, Firefly fans managed to scare up a movie which was essentially a box office flop.

Fans are such a fractional percentage of overall viewership that it isn't worth saving any show for 'the fans'. There's no breaking even to be had there let alone profit.

*** Producers are unlikely to waste their time, and money, trying to field people who are going to pay $30 to help keep a show on the air. With legal costs it'll actually be more expensive. Not to mention to greater the investment base, the more work it is... It just isn't practical. If you want something like that, look to webseries. It works because it is so small in those cases. It's not, in any way, a coporate venture.

[Snowman37]

And Jericho was canceled 6, or 8 episodes into the 'saved' season because no one was watching.

The show was renewed for a second season thanks to the "nuts" campaign. It was a trial seven-episode season, a mid-season show replacement. There was the possibility of the episode order being extended beyond seven as well as the possibility of a third season. The ratings were in the toilet, so the show ended. Regardless, I like to think of those seven episodes as closure than a failed second wind.

[Deevil]

The show was renewed for a second season thanks to the "nuts" campaign. It was a trial seven-episode season, a mid-season show replacement. There was the possibility of the episode order being extended beyond seven as well as the possibility of a third season. The ratings were in the toilet, so the show ended. Regardless, I like to think of those seven episodes as closure than a failed second wind.

But it was a failed second chance, thus making it a shining beacon of how fan campaigns don't translate to bums on seats watching the show. If I remember correctly the first episode that it returned rated worse than any episode in the first season.

Chuck fans didn't wait till a show was canceled and worked to get the sponsorship, but without that sponsor being willing to bet on the production it wouldn't have gotten anywhere and the ratings haven't gotten any better. Chuck, to this date, is the only truly successful fan campaign because of that. Mind you, most shows don't have the luxury of such real timeliness in order to save them.

Like for Sanctuary, I wonder if there is any concievable sponsor that could save the show.

[Skydiver]

A sponsor or investor is the way to go. fans.....you know for every fan there has to be 1000+ viewers to keep the show on the air.

[Julian]

Sponsors as in just extra investors, or as in product placement a la Telephone MV by Lady Gaga?

'Cause if Magnus started drinking Lipton, Biggie started drinking diet coke and Henry swapped over to macs then I wouldn't mind, lol.

I guess the whole thing really comes down to - can they make money? That's obviously what's taking them so long to work out, how to bring the show back in some way or form that is profitable.

[Dean Grr]

Sanctuary's renewal depends on ratings/advertising, right? But, as a viewer, I don't watch much TV: I'd probably DVR it if I paid for a tv subscription, but generally I just wait until Sanctuary is posted on the web. I do buy Itunes downloads and DVDs, so that's why I asked about their impact on a season renewal. Until producers find a way to create shows that depend less on ratings/advertising, shows like SGU and sci-fi in general will suffer.

When you think about the premise of the show, protecting abnormals, and the quality of the storytelling, can this show ever be a ratings hit? Compared to Brad Wright's SG-1 or Atlantis, I don't think the stories are as well constructed, even with the producers coming from those shows. The cast has good chemistry, but not as much as say, Stargate SG-1.

Wikipedia had a donation bar at the top of their site, and made appeals to keep the site advertising free: for me, that was a concrete way as a "viewer" to understand how I could help, and how much support was needed. Wikipedia raised close to $20million that year.

Lastly, Syfy is just for the US, and it's unfortunate they have the kill switch on some shows that
are watched around the world. -Dean