More media madness through the link. Nothing more on THIS story, but for some reason they appended the lucky idiot who got to interview the famous idiot with 14 kids, and the FCC looking into the Superbowl Porn.President Obama's desire to talk -- and talk, and talk -- to the American public could cost broadcast networks millions, and millions, and millions of prime-time TV dollars.
Broadcasters are bracing themselves for the likelihood of three prime-time interruptions in three weeks, totaling at least three hours of prime time -- and ad breaks -- yanked.
"His economic stimulus package apparently does not extend to the TV networks," one network exec noted.
Obama's reps have alerted broadcasters that the president will hold a news conference Monday, according to network execs. It's expected to eat up the first hour of prime time; that alone could cost broadcasters more than $9 million in lost ad revenue.
Obama's also mulling a shorter prime-time appearance Feb. 16 tied to the economic stimulus package. And White House officials have said that on Feb. 24, Obama will address a joint session of Congress to give the equivalent of a two-hour State of the Union speech. Traditionally, the address to the joint houses of Congress given by the newly elected president is not called the SOTU; that'll be next year's speech.
That one, the broadcast networks were expecting; they budget for a State of the Union/Whatev address to preempt two hours of prime time every year around this time.
The networks were awaiting more information about the two Monday prime-time appearances at press time. "They're playing very close to the vest," one network exec told the TV Column.
Monday preemptions are particularly problematic for broadcasters, what with it becoming one of the most competitive nights this season. This Monday at 8, for instance, to accommodate Obamavision, Fox would have to pull an original episode of its extremely popular "House." Price tag: about $3 million.
CBS would have to yank two of its successful sitcoms, "Big Bang Theory" and "How I Met Your Mother," though the network would probably swap its expected-to-be-low-rated "Worst Week" at 9:30 p.m. for the "Big Bang" episode. Final price tag: about $2 mil.
ABC would probably start "The Bachelor" at 9 instead of 8, and scrub its 10 p.m. reality series "True Beauty." Price tag: $1.5 million-ish.
And NBC might chose to preempt "Chuck." Price tag: $1.5 million to $2 million.
Of course, Obama has picked one of the biggest viewership nights of the week for his appearances.
"Notice they're not going on Friday or Saturday," one network exec complained. "They're . . . preempting our better shows. You're not happy to lose a 'House' if you are Fox, or two of the better comedies at CBS, or 'The Bachelor' at ABC -- we're all going to take a bath."
The next week, even if Obama speaks for only about 15 minutes, that's an ad break that the networks won't get back, adding to their losses.
Although the broadcast networks can opt out of carrying these presidential appearances, "you don't want to incur the wrath of the White House" because "if you're on the [poop] list, you are last in line for interviews and things like that," one network exec explained.
But besides the economic hit, broadcasters are worried that this kind of shock-and-awe approach to prime-time preempting might be part of an Obama strategy to charm his way to a new economic-rescue plan. "As we're meeting this guy, from a network perspective, it's like, 'Is this part of the plan for him?' " the network exec said. "Is this what it's going to be: Is he going to take to the airwaves every time he has something to say?"
Such a strategy, of course, could backfire.
"Do people really want to come home after looking for a job, or after being at a job they hate, sit down to veg out in front of their favorite show -- and he's on again?" said one TV suit, who suspects/hopes the Average Joe's reaction to too much Obamavision might be "nothing he's going to say is going to help me get a job, or put food on the table."
Said the TV suit: "He could lose a lot of goodwill doing this."
As to the story, allow me to Condense: 'Wah!' Or, as this editorial puts it..
And then he quotes the 'Do the people really want to come home and see this guy' bit. I'm gonna go out on a limb here, but with popularity ratings in the 80s, I'm gonna say.. YES!So is the Post's claim that the networks might "lose" money because of Obama. The Post writer makes the claim again and again and again. Does de Moraes really think every time the POTUS asks for primetime that networks just start writing checks to advertisers to cover the cost of missed ads? Has she never heard of make-goods? Combined, the networks control more than one hundred hours of primetime programming each week. Obviously, they can make-up a handful of lost ad slots because of Obama's primetime address, just as networks have done for decades.
And then there are the bitter, nameless TV execs quoted in the article. (Ungrateful suits whose networks have made billions using the public airwaves free of charge.) The unvarnished disdain for Obama and the contempt for public discourse expressed is just astounding:
In short, the suits are fine if they're able to make money off Obama through specials, political ads, DVDs, retrospectives, etc. But dare to not be a recluse like Bush, and cue up the tiniest violin.