Sammy Sofa wrote:Someone explain to me how re-launching LMS makes sense. Despite its ratings, it was cancelled because it was too expensive; the cast (namely Allen) were making too much and the ad revenue was not good because the audience was so old. That's not going to change simply by being on a different network (unless Allen and co. are willing to take big pay cuts). Roseanne's ratings are still good, but settled WAY down after the initial fervor of its relaunch.
I get that it technically has broader appeal than the shows that were cancelled, but if cancelling those shows is tied directly to being able to afford LMS, how is that a gain for Fox?
Networks are just super reactionary. They saw Roseanne get huge numbers, and it's a multicam with a conservative star, so everyone started tripping over their dicks to do more multicams with "red state" appeal.
It takes all of 3 seconds to figure out why Roseanne was a hit: because it was a huge hit before and thus had a built-in audience.
That said, there are also tons more variables. Twentieth Century Fox's TV arm took a bath last year, and the shows they just cancelled are extremely expensive, Last Man and Brooklyn in particular. They can save a ton of money on multicams and likely do similar same day ratings, though I doubt they'll come close in Live +3 and Live +7 (which are the metrics networks should really focus on.)