You Asked for It: It's Not TV, But We Still Cancel Stuff

I'm surprised you wrote this whole post without mentioning the one term I always hear when it comes to HBO series: Buzz. I take it to mean the number of times that any given show is mentioned in the news media and in general public discourse. Of course ratings are part of buzz -- the more people that watch a show, the more that can talk about it -- and HBO can factor in replays, DVR and OnDemand viewings.. And there's critical responses and awards, too. But how else can you measure buzz? Put one of those surveillance mics from The Wire in every office's water cooler?

I know it includes only print and internet media, but I did Google News searches for each of HBO's summer series to see how the results stacked up:

"john from cincinnati" + hbo = 393 results
"entourage" + hbo = 438 results
"flight of the conchords" + hbo = 237 results

I imagine Showtime works with a similar business model. I know they were disappointed that Weeds didn't create a bigger controversy (any publicity is good publicity, I guess). But their new show isn't getting as much hype as HBO's:

"meadowlands" + showtime = 141 results

And one more, just for kicks:

"the sopranos" + hbo = 4,696 results

Wow. It will be really tough to replace The Sopranos, because it's the only HBO show that seems to generate the level of buzz of network shows like American Idol or Lost.

P.S. Those Google News results are for the past month, only.

BeerBaron, good point, and buzz was part of what I was getting at in the nebulous term "branding." How does the show vaguely redound to the greater glory of HBO? However, it's a tricky thing measuring "buzz" early in a season. JFC has a lot of buzz. Why? Because it's from a big-name producer, and it's on HBO. That's sort of self-ratifying buzz, but not buzz that will last you more than a couple of weeks. (Not to pick on JFC, which I admire in some ways, but if in a month you can get a lot of hits on "John from Cincinnati" + HBO + "disaster"... that'll mean a lot of attention, but not necessarily the kind you want.)

Also, you mention Showtime: "Fat Actress" had hella buzz when it debuted.

That said, buzz is very important in the sense that it makes you feel you need to have HBO in order to get what "everyone" is talking about.

You bring up a very important point here, James - the impact alternate revenue streams (i.e. DVD sales) as well as critical acclaim (buzz or "branding") has on HBO retaining a large subscriber base. To a certain degree, the fact that HBO shows are produced "in-house" under the HBO productions header must help in both respects.

I guess, then, my question is why other networks (and I'm looking right at CW here) don't employ this model more often. In other words, why wouldn't CW, ABC, FOX, what have you seek to air shows on its network that are "owned" by the network studio. For example, House is made by NBC/Universal - couldn't it have found a place on NBC, and why didn't it? Or, to use my favorite cancelled crime solver, Veronica Mars - if that show was produced in-house for the CW, doesn't it make business sense to keep the show on (ratings be damned to an extent) based on a) the buzz the show is receiving, b) potential growth in both audience and revenue from DVD sales, and c) the possibility of hitting the jackpot down the road with syndication (which VM had to be close to since it just wrapped its third season)?

In other words, ignoring subscription fees (and I realize that is a big "ignore"), why don't other networks operate like HBO?

(Of course, I could also ask why all stations on any cable system aren't available a la carte like HBO is, I suppose....I know I would pay a dollar or two a month for the CW, just to see Veronica Mars again...)

@chaddogg: short answer, this is exactly what networks do, to some extent. For the past several years, ABC has been more likely to put on shows from Touchstone, NBC from NBCU, CBS from Paramount... and it has been at least suspected that they have sometimes been slower to cancel shows from the company's own studio. At one point people were starting to wonder if all shows would be "vertically integrated." (NBC did pass on House, I don't recall why, but asses have been kicked in retrospect I am sure.)

But there's a counter school of thought that this led to some lame, unsuccessful shows getting on the air that would not have, had they not been "in the family." This school of thought says it's best for the network (and, not that individual networks care, for TV in general) for networks to try to get the best shows they can, from any studio. And as in any big company, like the one I work for, people in one division do not necessarily always agree with people in the other division as to what will be a hit. So the vertical-integration trend has not been absolute, and in the past couple of years has (I think) rolled back a little.

As for VM in particular, DVD sales do matter in TV now--somewhat--but VM is not Lost. And while serials sometimes do well on DVD, as a rule they do not do so well in syndication compared with sitcoms and procedurals.

The bottom line for HBO, is that since the premiere of the Sopranos, subscriptions have gone up and continue to go up. So they think they are still doing things right.

However, they seem to be taking weird gambles. John From Cincinnati might have looked good on paper, but I think I'm the only person who loves this show. This show has been cited as the reason for shutting down a critical hit, and moderately high rated show (on HBO terms), Deadwood.

Doing so in exchange for a much-riskier show defies all above reason (I can't imagine that it seemed like sure-fire hit on paper). Deadwood was an expensive show, but it garnered the right kind of buzz on an equal or possibly greater level than the Wire (which isn't the Wire ending after it's next season?). Deadwood inspired a drinking game, for christ's sake. The Wire from what I can gather is a show that everyone says they should put on their Netflix list, but no one actually watches.

I love that HBO exists, but I mean their actions don't really follow the logic that viewers and pundits are trying to come up with. But they're going to need a good health plan if we're going to see Mitch Yost again.