Internet Petitions (& Angel)
Feb. 18th, 2004 02:12 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
shannon_aWith the demise of Joss Whedon's Angel, fans have predictably turned to online petitions to try and save the show. Sadly, I'm fairly certain this is a tactic that's doomed to failure.
Five years ago, maybe even three, I suspect that networks still actually paid attention to petitions. When the networks saw the unbridled enthusiasm for a show they were cancelling, they thought it might translate into a growing viewership that could make the show a real success in future seasons. And so the networks saved Roswell (for a little bit) and My So-Called Life (though that one died anyways thanks to Claire Danes' abandonment) and others.
Today, an online petition is pretty much de facto for any cancelled show, and as a result the networks don't care any more. After all, the two or three or four million viewers weren't enough to keep the show going in the first place, so who cares if some fair percentage of them can sign their names? And so went Firefly and Farscape ... and Angel.
In some ways, however, I think Angel is a bit of a unique case. As far as I can tell the network didn't cancel it because of the viewership numbers. In fact, the WB was saying just weeks ago how pleased they were with the viewership and demographic numbers which were up nicely this year.
What happened with Angel is, I suspect, a bit more of a Machievellan manipulation. The WB got an offer to do another vampire show by a well-known producer. That'd be Dark Shadows by John Wells (exec producer of The West Wing). If you're WB, and you figure that your "vampire" audience is going to stay steady, doesn't it make a lot of sense to dump Angel for Dark Shadows, in the hope of adding to that audience through the Dark Shadows brand, the newness of the show, and the reputation of the producer?
The ultimate question is, will fans of Joss Whedon's shows accept this manipulation?
Clearly the WB thinks the answer is yes.
I suspect it's too late to save Angel, and that in a few months you'll be seeing its last episode ever. However, there's still an opportunity to express to the WB that this type of behavior isn't acceptable, nor appreciated, and that viewing audiences don't want to be manipulated.
How to express this? Simply, through an online petition.
Let's presume that Dark Shadows gets green-lighted for a season in 2004-2005. Then, let's presume that an online petition went up in August or September, with signators saying that they weren't going to watch Dark Shadows because Angel had been cancelled to make room for it.
If a million people signed that petition, and really abided by their promise, and if, as a result, the Dark Shadows ratings were ... anemic ... that might cause the WB to sit up and listen in a way that a petition just to save Angel wouldn't.
For a petition to be successful, you need to marry a demand with action. "Please don't cancel Angel" comes from a position of weakness. "We're not going to watch the new show, Dark Shadows, that you expected us to" comes from a position of strength.
And that's my rabble-rousing for the day.
Five years ago, maybe even three, I suspect that networks still actually paid attention to petitions. When the networks saw the unbridled enthusiasm for a show they were cancelling, they thought it might translate into a growing viewership that could make the show a real success in future seasons. And so the networks saved Roswell (for a little bit) and My So-Called Life (though that one died anyways thanks to Claire Danes' abandonment) and others.
Today, an online petition is pretty much de facto for any cancelled show, and as a result the networks don't care any more. After all, the two or three or four million viewers weren't enough to keep the show going in the first place, so who cares if some fair percentage of them can sign their names? And so went Firefly and Farscape ... and Angel.
In some ways, however, I think Angel is a bit of a unique case. As far as I can tell the network didn't cancel it because of the viewership numbers. In fact, the WB was saying just weeks ago how pleased they were with the viewership and demographic numbers which were up nicely this year.
What happened with Angel is, I suspect, a bit more of a Machievellan manipulation. The WB got an offer to do another vampire show by a well-known producer. That'd be Dark Shadows by John Wells (exec producer of The West Wing). If you're WB, and you figure that your "vampire" audience is going to stay steady, doesn't it make a lot of sense to dump Angel for Dark Shadows, in the hope of adding to that audience through the Dark Shadows brand, the newness of the show, and the reputation of the producer?
The ultimate question is, will fans of Joss Whedon's shows accept this manipulation?
Clearly the WB thinks the answer is yes.
I suspect it's too late to save Angel, and that in a few months you'll be seeing its last episode ever. However, there's still an opportunity to express to the WB that this type of behavior isn't acceptable, nor appreciated, and that viewing audiences don't want to be manipulated.
How to express this? Simply, through an online petition.
Let's presume that Dark Shadows gets green-lighted for a season in 2004-2005. Then, let's presume that an online petition went up in August or September, with signators saying that they weren't going to watch Dark Shadows because Angel had been cancelled to make room for it.
If a million people signed that petition, and really abided by their promise, and if, as a result, the Dark Shadows ratings were ... anemic ... that might cause the WB to sit up and listen in a way that a petition just to save Angel wouldn't.
For a petition to be successful, you need to marry a demand with action. "Please don't cancel Angel" comes from a position of weakness. "We're not going to watch the new show, Dark Shadows, that you expected us to" comes from a position of strength.
And that's my rabble-rousing for the day.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2004-02-18 03:34 pm (UTC)I also don't like your boycott idea. What if "Dark Shadows" turns out to be a great show? Shouldn't it live or die based on its own merits? Boycotting it just out of spite seems to defeat the purpose, which is to improve (or at least maintain) the quality of shows on TV.
Re:
Date: 2004-02-18 06:04 pm (UTC)As for the rest of your comment: I think it comes down to a question of whether you're trying to improve the quality of the shows or the networks. I personally believe that many execs in the current networks are trying to improve their viewership numbers by manipulating the general public rather than presenting quality television. I believe that's what WB is doing here, and I'm absolutely certain that's what NBC is doing with their 45-minute Friends episodes, their putting 15 minutes of The Apprentice up against Survivor, and all the rest.
It's also my belief that convincing a network to start embracing more ethical practices will generally improve their programming, because they'll have to purchase good shows rather than engage in stunts. And so it'll ultimately result in improved quality.
Of course, if Dark Shadows is a great show, that'd mean that WB made the right choice in cancelling Angel to free up the space. Given that the pilot hasn't even been made, however, that's probably not the reason.
no subject
Date: 2004-02-19 01:29 pm (UTC)Obviously, I'm not the target of the on-line petitions, because I personally think Angel sucks & dont watch it. My husband was the Buffy fan, but at least that one I could stand to watch with him. Angel is way worse - way less characterization (not to mention the lame monsters).
On the other hand I grew up on Dark Shadows and it they can do a new version with some style, the viewers for that show would likely include people who never watched Angel at all. And the director of West Wing ought to be able to find the pulse of the potential audience, if anybody can.