Peep Show is coming back soon. It was saved from being axed by channel 4 because of its critical success, Pulling has been recommissioned because of good reviews. I was wondering whether people think shows should be recommissioned based on the critics' view rather than the publics. Is either opinion more valid than the other? A show can be both a critical and public success, just look at the office, should all shows be like this? Any views?
It's one of those things that is really so individual to each case that we can't really say whether one should be better than or equal to the other. For the purposes of argument though, and from a commissioning editor's perspective, I'd probably say that ultimately the public are far more important. The critics' views would then be a decider if the public were unclear; no matter how good a critic thinks that a show is, it's the public who'll be watching it, the public who'll be buying the DVDs, and ultimately the public who will make the channel some money.
I might be wrong but I'm sure the Office first time round was critically successful, but didn't pull in the viewers. It got there in the end though. (It might have been the other way round)
I think generally, if the critics like something it will eventually become a success, because the public like to be told what to like.
Hmmm..tough question.
I don't agree with the argument that the public like to be told what to like (sorry my red-headed mesiah, just my opinion), I think the general public are more influenced by their friends and family - if their mates like it, they will start watching etc - more than listening to someone who 'knows' what makes people laugh. And if it is indeed funny it will become a success. Take the example given, I only started watching the Office because some work colleagues were raving about it and after giving it 2 - 3 episodes (which I think it needed to appreciate what Ricky and Stephen were doing) I was hooked.
Back to Adam's question though! - I do think the public should ultimately be the influence behind recommisions - and it effects both types of broadcasting:
(1) BBC: we pay for the bloody things so if we aint watching it don't waste our money.
(2) COMMERCIAL TV: Why would advertisers want to pay good money in the breaks of programmes that are not 'pulling them in' (apart from a few critics of course)?
In short, we the public should be heard above all!
Andy
So where does that leaves us with programmes like the abysmal 'After You've Gone'? It appears that it's coming back no matter what the general consensus is. At the end of the day it doesn't matter what the public wants because the viewers are a side issue. Personally speaking, the current state of tv is running very much along the same lines as apartheid was when it was fashionable in South Africa. As PW Botha himself once said, "Democracy is fine as long as the blacks don't keep screwing it up" only in this case it’s the viewers who seem to be the oppressed majority.
Baumski makes a good point about the worthlessness of public opinion.
Greater than critical acclaim and public desire in the minds of commissioners is one motivation: money. One factor would be cost per episode. A cheap show is more likely to get commissioned and recommissioned than an expensive but equally matched show.
I think they'd prefer passing off pap for 2 or three series 'to test the water' and give the show 'room to develop' before replacing it with another cheap piece of tat that can run for a few series while they proclaim that they are hot-bedding new talent and pumping more money into new shows. In actuality, little real development seems to be occurring. Tried and tested names and ideas are being fobbed off until we and the critics realise the truth and demand another charade.
If the commissioners actually gave us another classic (as oppossed to cult) they may find themselves in the awkward position of being seen to be the executioners of a truly great show, rather than being percieved as the great listeners to public demand in the constant cry to find them a good show.
The truth is probably that quality programming has been secretly coshed on the back of the head and its corpse now occupies that hard-to-explain lump in the middle of the Blue Peter garden.
I am only a cynic when it comes to government and the TV industry. And it is the people inside the organisations that are responsible for my cynicism in the first instance. 
Personally, as a writer I'd chose commercial success first, followed by years of critical acclaim (but that's just me :-) A little of option A and a little of option B is what I want.)
Quote: Baumski @ April 12, 2007, 8:59 AMSo where does that leaves us with programmes like the abysmal 'After You've Gone'? It appears that it's coming back no matter what the general consensus is.
But what IS the general consensus? It seems that within the realms of sitcom.co.uk it's fairly unpopular, but otherwise? I can easily believe that the true "general consensus" across the country is positive.
I think it's great Channel 4 Has supported Peep Show in this way. It will probably pay off. As already pointed out The Office had very low viewing figures for the first series (in fact it's never had huge viewing figures) because it was aired during the summer. Only Fools also didn't do 'well' (in terms of viewers) for a few series - but the BBC stuck by it.
Just comparing critical acclaim to popularity seems to suggest that if a show doesn't have half the country watching it then nobody likes it. Peep Show has over a million viewers. That's over a million people who do like it. Probably a lot.
Whereas something like My Family gets lots of viewers because it's on BBC1 at a peak time and it's inoffensive, can be watched by all the family and uses characters and situations nearly everyone can identify. It's not great and I doubt if anyone would say it was their favourite programme, but many people don't mind having it on in the background on a Friday night. In comparison Peep Show is tucked away late on Channel Four dealing with subjects that would probably scare many many viewers.
ITV had a habit recently of dropping new shows (mostly drama), or putting them on much later, after a couple of episodes of a series if the viewing figures weren't what they expected. As a result I think many viewers lost confidence in any new series and didn't invest any interest in them if there was a possibility they may become engaged in a show's story that may disappear after a few episodes. After all there were several million people watching these shows that were cancelled halfway through a run!
It seems TV channels need both sorts of programmes to support themselves. Just I know which ones I prefer to watch...
We all love Green Wing but was it commercially successful?
I'm not sure really. The 1st series had good ratings but the 2nd series wasn't that well recieved by the audience. Did shed a f**k load of DVD's though.
I think that was meant to be "sell a f**king shed load". But yes, quite. If they made a second series, and a special, and the numerous DVD sets, AND the script books (and whatever else that they may have made), and are now apparently working on a spin-off... Well it can't really have been a financial drain now, can it?
Interesting thread, and unanswerable question I think. As others have said, "it depends". I think SlagA's point about the mighty god of money is most pertinent. Take Peep Show, for example - why would C4 let it be known/rumoured that the axe hung over it because of low ratings, yet now they have commissioned series 4 AND 5 before the former has even aired? Easy. Mitchell and Webb have gained such levels of exposure since series 3 that C4 would have been dumb not to cash in on them while they can. But when it comes to recomissioning new series like After You've Gone, Benidorm and Not Going Out, I suspect it has something to do with the ego of commissioners and the level of public acclaim. If the figures don't prove that the public *hate* it, then it's a good time to be on the box because they are commissioners of a certain age who can still remember Only Fools... and think they might just hit the Holy Grail.
Excellent thread this - really enjoyed reading everyone's intelligent and well-reasoned responses.
I'm not sure there is an answer. Each case is different.
As has been pointed out above, if critical reaction was the decision making tool then My Family would be long gone. That clearly still exists due to the huge audience figures (7m last week!).
Then again if it was down to critical reaction series like Green Wing would probably still be here. In case of that programme it just didn't get enough viewers to justify a third series (direct quote from C4: "we cancelled it because the numbers did not stack up.")
The reality is the decisions are a mix of everything from audience figures, budgets, personal agendas, opinions, scheduling, hunches etc etc.
I think I agree with Badge actually - the decision to greenlight more series is often based, not on something as big as audience figures or critical reaction, but just the whim of an executive. They have a lot of power and, whether they personally like / dislike a programme, can have a lot of influence (bit different, but famously Michael Grade established the afternoon repeats of Neighbours just because his daughter wanted to watch the soap when she got home from school... good decision as it happens. He's now looking to bring it to ITV).
Audience definitely has power though - Family Guy being the prime example - that got axed but was brought back as soon as Fox saw the DVD sales.
Quote: Mark @ April 13, 2007, 12:10 AMHe's now looking to bring it to ITV.
And if he does, then I know where the next suicide bomber will strike.
Quote: Mark @ April 13, 2007, 12:10 AMAudience definitely has power though - Family Guy being the prime example - that got axed but was brought back as soon as Fox saw the DVD sales.
Ditto Futurama.
I think Michael Grade will bring the standard of ITV programmes up, it's just a matter of time and patience.