Until May, television networks will be deciding which shows to renew for another season and which to cancel. Although popular shows that have become staples for their respective networks, like “Glee” and “Grey’s Anatomy,” have already been promised a slot on the 2011-2012 television schedule, lesser-known shows like “Fringe” and “Chuck” face the possibility of cancellation.
Television networks are obviously in business to make money and cannot afford to produce unpopular shows that fail to earn them enough money to justify keeping the shows on the air, no matter how original the plot lines or multi-faceted the characters.
With few exceptions, the main reason shows stay on the air is because of the Nielson ratings indicating the audience wants those shows to continue to be produced.
I learned the facts of the television business after “Pushing Daisies” was canceled several years ago. I could not understand how a show with such an original premise — a pie maker has the power to bring the dead back to life for 60 seconds and uses his ability to help solve crimes — and an extremely talented cast (Lee Pace, Anna Friel and Kristin Chenoweth) could have failed to secure a third season. Despite the well-crafted episodes, dedicated fans and the critical acclaim, ABC failed to renew the show because of the audience drop-off between seasons one and two.
“Fringe” and “Chuck” are two shows that currently air on FOX and NBC, respectively, facing the same fate as “Pushing Daises.” Both have unique plots, loyal fans and have been critically lauded.
However, their Nielson ratings have put them in the bottom 50 shows for the 2010-2011 season, which harms their chances of renewal.
“Fringe” is centered around the concepts of fringe science and parallel universes, which means viewers cannot simply jump into the current season without becoming confused.   Despite the third season (in my opinion) showcasing some of the best acting on television and moving the plot forward in exciting and unexpected ways, the fact it is a genre show will turn off viewers who hate science fiction or who do not feel like watching the first and second seasons to catch up.
“Chuck,” on the other hand, follows Chuck Bartowski (Zachary Levi), a likable everyman working a dead end job that is suddenly thrust into the spy world, and is more accessible to the average audience member. Even though the show has an overarching plot line, the episodes stand alone enough so those just tuning in can catch up fairly quickly. But because it is an action/comedy show, it only attracts a specific type of fan. So even though Levi and the supporting cast give solid performances each week and the scripts are clever, audience members continue to pass on NBC’s best show simply because they either do not like action or because they have not heard of it.
In the case of these types of shows, it is almost as if the networks have not campaigned for less popular shows and instead focus on their headliners. FOX has “House,” “Glee” and “American Idol” and promotes them so much previews can be seen for at least one of them every commercial break on the network. “Glee” was given the slot after the SuperBowl, even though it already has solid numbers on air and has sold so many singles that the cast has outsold The Beatles.
NBC, although struggling to win viewer ratings, has a successful Thursday night comedy block that includes “The Office,” and because this is Steve Carrell’s last season to appear on the show as a regular, the network has not failed to capitalize on its popularity.
Even the Emmys and other award shows, which grow more irrelevant every year, fail to recognize different shows. For years, “Mad Men,” “House,” “The Office,” “Breaking Bad” and “30 Rock” have dominated nominations and, in some cases, have taken home trophies year after year. It is not that these shows are not deserving of recognition, it is simply that there are other good shows being produced that have not been rewarded. Award shows can bring new viewers to deserving but underrated shows. Had “Fringe” or “Chuck” received nominations for even an acting or writing category (which they deserved) they would have received some recognition. Even shows that give their networks solid ratings like “Psych,” “How I Met Your Mother” and “Bones” do not get recognition from award shows, with few exceptions, because those who determine the nominations choose the same shows to reward each year.
The media also seems to cover the same shows over and over again. Entertainment Weekly, the only magazine I have bothered to subscribe to over the years, has given “Glee” at least two or three covers since season one but has only covered shows like “Parks and Recreation” once. Covers sell magazines but a little diversity would make the magazine both more interesting and seem less biased toward one particular show.
In most cases, the more obscure shows seem to be left on their own to gain an audience. The only reason I discovered both “Fringe” and “Chuck” was through word of mouth. Because of the increasingly large number of shows being broadcasted, watching every show is impossible. But when television networks and those covering the entertainment world act as if only several shows exist, the more obscure shows are pushed even further into obscurity.