In this morning’s HBO roundup, Tuned In habitue Chaddogg posts a question too good not to milk a whole blog post out of:
How does HBO measure the success of its shows? Is it just ratings, and if so, how does it factor in the decrease due to the number of people who don’t subscribe?
The reading of poultry entrails is involved, I think. Seriously, it seems to be a decision that involves much more than looking at ratings, and includes a measure of market research and gut instinct. Essentially, the bottom line consideration is not, How many people watch this show? but In what way does this show help people decide to subscribe to HBO who might not otherwise?
Chris Albrecht often used to talk about why HBO kept Arli$$ on for so long even though ratings were not great and critics hated it; there were, nonetheless, a lot of people who watched Arli$$ and nothing else on HBO. Conversely, The Wire gets low ratings but there was obviously the feeling that it contributes enough goodwill and enhances HBO branding, in some intangible sense, that it was worth keeping on. There are ancillary revenues, like DVD sales. There’s also a cumulative halo effect from having more than one good, niche show too, in the sense that someone might not get HBO solely for The Flight of the Conchords, but might keep it for that plus Entourage plus Big Love plus the faith that something else good will be coming soon.
On the other hand, if you have a show that is low-rated, is not getting the critical love and is expensive to produce, like Carnivale, it’s only going to last so long. (Or, if it’s as expensive as Rome, even the critical love alone won’t help.) I have no special knowledge about John from Cincinnati, but unless things turn around for it on one end or the other–or unless HBO is seeing things it really, really likes in the future episodes–even Zippy the Parrot may not keep it alive for long.