An Enterprise Hater On Why Enterprise Will Last

[T'lara]

Ok anyone who has seen my posts know, I hate this show. I really do, but I thought I would post this anyway.

Why I think Enterpise will Stay

The facts are this: Ratings are not everything. Arguing if you like the show or not will not change what the ratings of the show are. Look at the Neilsons and see how poor the ratings the show has. It sucks period.

If the rumor is true (this being a rumor that has been around since Star Trek: Voyager {[i]this was a rumor when the show was on, sorry had to mention it, Voyager fans[i/]} then passed to Enterprise) if ratings this year are not good it is gone. Personally, I think regardless of the what I think of the series and its ratings it will be on for at least a few more seasons. So why are they keeping it on?

Why? Simple: Oh and the merchadising, merchadising oh yeah the merchadising.
$$ in toys, games, posters, books etc i.e. merchadising do very well for Enterprise regardless of the ratings and popularity of the show among the fans. That is why it will remain on. Look at how fast the toys sell. Books and so forth. Enterprise is just a show to sell merchadising like the old TV shows of the 80's created around a toy or product. Sad to say that is what the powers that be see now adays. Why make a show in the past if not to make more product we have never seen? Two decades of the same material in design from TNG, DS9 and Voyager they basically are all the same design. Setting the series in the past we have new stuff we have never seen including "retro" Trek stuff.

You can argue that point and that is fine, but all the powers that be of Star Trek now adays care about what new things they can make products for so we the fans will buy it. And you know what? We are. Look at the Conventions and the like. How many of us go to them? How many of us buy Star Trek stuff? How many because it is the latest collectable? As long as we are doing this, why should they care about the quality of a series? They are making their $$ off of us. Do not think that just because you are not an Enterpise fan you are not contributing to this either. How many times have you bought your favorite shows stuff recently? Enterprise sucks but I just bought the new Anniversay Edition of the DS9 Space Station! Think about it.

[black campbellq]

That's what the show is for in the first place, T'Lara -- advertising bucks. Selling stuff. There's nothing wrong with that.

Besdies, save for the last ep, season 4's actually been pretty damn good.

[T'lara]

That's what the show is for in the first place, T'Lara -- advertising bucks. Selling stuff. There's nothing wrong with that.

Besdies, save for the last ep, season 4's actually been pretty damn good.

Then where are the ratings if the show is good?

I never said it was wrong I said that is why the show is on. Merchandising only. All I am saying

[Ezri's Toy]

The facts are this: Ratings are not everything. Arguing if you like the show or not will not change what the ratings of the show are. Look at the Neilsons and see how poor the ratings the show has. It sucks period. . . .

Um, the original Star Trek failed in the Nielsens. Star Trek: The Next Generation, being syndicated, used demographics, and not Nielsen ratings, to determine its popularity; It was either the number one or number two show depending on whether Jeopardy or Wheel Of Fortune was competing against it in the same time slot. When ST:TNG was doing well, Paramount went back and applied demographics to the original Star Trek's viewing data and found it would have been a smash hit as well had the Nielsen system not been used.

The Nielsen system is broken. As you say, ratings aren't everything.

[REG]

Then where are the ratings if the show is good?

I never said it was wrong I said that is why the show is on. Merchandising only. All I am saying

But UPN is not capitalizing on Trek merchandising. Only the franchise and the show's production is profiting from Trek merchandising, and they have to, since they dropped their ordering price down to half; an offer UPN could not refuse.

I also did not notice a decrease in airtime to increase more timeslots for sponsors' commercials. UPN simply do not have any midseason replacement shows, unless they want to air the Rachel Leigh Cook's Fearless (originally scheduled to air last season).

Mmm ... Rachel Leigh Cook.

[black campbellq]

Then where are the ratings if the show is good?

I never said it was wrong I said that is why the show is on. Merchandising only. All I am saying

Ratings aren't as important as the demographic system. Greg the Bunny , Firefly , and other shows were excellent, but the networks didn't push them, nor give them time to gather viewership.

In the case of Enterprise, it has been toddling along alright, but UPN is a crap network and the time slots have been equally weak -- Friday night at 7pm MST? Head to head with SG-1 (and now Atlantis )...scifi's strongest shows; shows that consistently do better than most of the networks...good plan.

Enterprise, as with Voyager, would have done better had it been syndicated.

As for merchanidsing -- I've only seen the card games and the Art Asylum NX-1 and phaser kits...not exactly a booming merchandise market.

[T'lara]

I love it when people miss the point. The fact you think UPN is not capitalizing on Star Trek Merchandise.

Who owns UPN? Who owns Paramount? Who owns the Star Trek Licenses?

One company owns all the above and getting all the profits.

For Enterprise fans that is why it is still on. Not ratings not anything. You get your show enjoy it. I see it this way and I can walk into most stores and find exactly what I need to prove my point. Can any of you?

[REG]

I love it when people miss the point. The fact you think UPN is not capitalizing on Star Trek Merchandise.

Who owns UPN? Who owns Paramount? Who owns the Star Trek Licenses?

The parent company, Paramount Pictures Corporation. (Or is it Viacom?) They profit from the subsidiaries they own.

UPN is just a subsidiary. They don't take money from another subsidiary.

Duh.

[Captain Blake]

While Viacom, the owner of UPN and Paramount, and a whole bunch of other things (MTV which is where I get my info from), gets all the profits of the sales of merchandise, most corporations wish each division to make a profit, not just the company as a whole.

So, UPN has to make a profit, as does Paramount. The Managers of each division have to make the best decisions for that division, to maximize the profits of their division.

Sometimes they remember to take into account the corporate bottom line, but in some cases, you have the managers, or their staff, competing for slots higher up the Viacom food chain.

So, if it were more profitable for the UPN guy to shitcan Enterprise, he'd do it in a heartbeat. (just look at all the Fox produced series Fox network has killed) Corporate parent or not. What the UPN guy gets out of Enterprise is the revenue from Ads, which are based on Ratings and Demographics. Of cource, he's still got to have programming. Even if it's a net loss, he might keep it. Mister Corporate Manager's got to find find something that will make more, or lose less money. Maximization of profits sometimes mean minimization of loss and making it up someplace else.

The Paramount division may apply pressure to the Viacom people to keep UPN from killing Enterprise. But, based on past behavior, they cut the price per episode. That increases the profit of the UPN arm (they pay less, and so make more money). But, price per episode cuts into their division profit. They've got to sell the show, and hope that marketing money (Games and the like) get the profit up. They're trying to maximize their profit, again by the minimization of loss.

The Viacom upper brass could get involved, and say, "Trek gives us a net profit, UPN take it in the shorts, and show it anyways". But, then some Viacom's guy head rolls off when he takes the fall for lower net profits in the shareholder report. If all sides can some to something both can agree with, then Enterprise will be renewed.

Gut feeling, that's a yes. Ratings are pretty good for Friday night. Show's not very expensive anymore. The merchandise/computer games/CCG/books still make money.

I've got nothing concrete/official to go on, though.

Alex

[Ezri's Toy]

While Viacom, the owner of UPN and Paramount, and a whole bunch of other things (MTV which is where I get my info from), gets all the profits of the sales of merchandise, most corporations wish each division to make a profit, not just the company as a whole.

So, UPN has to make a profit, as does Paramount. The Managers of each division have to make the best decisions for that division, to maximize the profits of their division.

Sometimes they remember to take into account the corporate bottom line, but in some cases, you have the managers, or their staff, competing for slots higher up the Viacom food chain.

So, if it were more profitable for the UPN guy to shitcan Enterprise, he'd do it in a heartbeat. (just look at all the Fox produced series Fox network has killed) Corporate parent or not. What the UPN guy gets out of Enterprise is the revenue from Ads, which are based on Ratings and Demographics. Of cource, he's still got to have programming. Even if it's a net loss, he might keep it. Mister Corporate Manager's got to find find something that will make more, or lose less money. Maximization of profits sometimes mean minimization of loss and making it up someplace else.

The Paramount division may apply pressure to the Viacom people to keep UPN from killing Enterprise. But, based on past behavior, they cut the price per episode. That increases the profit of the UPN arm (they pay less, and so make more money). But, price per episode cuts into their division profit. They've got to sell the show, and hope that marketing money (Games and the like) get the profit up. They're trying to maximize their profit, again by the minimization of loss.

The Viacom upper brass could get involved, and say, "Trek gives us a net profit, UPN take it in the shorts, and show it anyways". But, then some Viacom's guy head rolls off when he takes the fall for lower net profits in the shareholder report. If all sides can some to something both can agree with, then Enterprise will be renewed.

Gut feeling, that's a yes. Ratings are pretty good for Friday night. Show's not very expensive anymore. The merchandise/computer games/CCG/books still make money.

I've got nothing concrete/official to go on, though.

Alex

Although speculative, that's a pretty good analysis.

[Snake_Plissken]

I've watched a couple of eps from the current season: the Augment arc plus the one with the man who invented the transporter- and I found them OK but very forgetable, like one of those weak TNG or DS9 episodes. You know, the kind of episode you would skip on when you go through a DVD seasonal box set. I admit I yet have to finish the 'Xindi' season and the other S4 arcs. I've seen the new Galactica episode and it blows to shreds anything Enterprise did in the last 4 years.
I'll admit however that the term 'canon' is no longer a dirty word with TPTB. Coto and co have done a fantastic job at showing the proper respect for the ST mythos. It is just that they have to improve their storytelling skills to achieve TNG and DS9 levels. I feel that their heart is in it but they just need some more time (and maybe some more latitude) to hone their skills.

I agree with whoever said the Nielsen system is broken. I took a class on television in '96 in college and we saw how ratings were foundamentally flawed. Merchandising is a strong selling point but you still have to maintain decent ratings. I still say that the biggest factor impacting the poor results of Enterprise is the fact that they're tied with UPN. I will (again) use the local situation as an exemple: I live in urban area of more than 2.5 million people; we don't get UPN unless we subscibe to SPECIALIZED cable channels -ditto for the Space channel (that carries Enterprise). Many people have cable, but very few want to subscribe to UPN or Space. In the TNG/DS9 and even VOY days we could easily watch those on syndication on a couple of local channels. One of the largest English-language channel in Montreal (CFCF) used to carry TNG, later DS9 and later VOY at 7PMs on Saturdays... not a bad timeslot! I remember also huge advertising pannels for TNG and later VOY in MTL. You see none of that for Enterprise. That is why many of my clients (I own a cult video stores... of all places!) have no idea that ENT exists !!!

[T'lara]

While Viacom, the owner of UPN and Paramount, and a whole bunch of other things (MTV which is where I get my info from), gets all the profits of the sales of merchandise, most corporations wish each division to make a profit, not just the company as a whole.

So, UPN has to make a profit, as does Paramount. The Managers of each division have to make the best decisions for that division, to maximize the profits of their division.

Sometimes they remember to take into account the corporate bottom line, but in some cases, you have the managers, or their staff, competing for slots higher up the Viacom food chain.

So, if it were more profitable for the UPN guy to shitcan Enterprise, he'd do it in a heartbeat. (just look at all the Fox produced series Fox network has killed) Corporate parent or not. What the UPN guy gets out of Enterprise is the revenue from Ads, which are based on Ratings and Demographics. Of cource, he's still got to have programming. Even if it's a net loss, he might keep it. Mister Corporate Manager's got to find find something that will make more, or lose less money. Maximization of profits sometimes mean minimization of loss and making it up someplace else.

The Paramount division may apply pressure to the Viacom people to keep UPN from killing Enterprise. But, based on past behavior, they cut the price per episode. That increases the profit of the UPN arm (they pay less, and so make more money). But, price per episode cuts into their division profit. They've got to sell the show, and hope that marketing money (Games and the like) get the profit up. They're trying to maximize their profit, again by the minimization of loss.

The Viacom upper brass could get involved, and say, "Trek gives us a net profit, UPN take it in the shorts, and show it anyways". But, then some Viacom's guy head rolls off when he takes the fall for lower net profits in the shareholder report. If all sides can some to something both can agree with, then Enterprise will be renewed.

Gut feeling, that's a yes. Ratings are pretty good for Friday night. Show's not very expensive anymore. The merchandise/computer games/CCG/books still make money.

I've got nothing concrete/official to go on, though.

Alex

Nice Analyst but according to this article here from Sci Fi Network last Friday's Episode was beaten by Battlestar Galactica see quote below:

Galactica delivered 2.2 million viewers aged 25-54 and 1.9 million among those aged 18-49. The show won a decisive victory over UPN's Star Trek: Enterprise, outperforming its new episode in total viewers, among adults 25-54 (2.2 million vs. 1.7 million) and 18-49 (1.9 million vs. 1.5 million). Among men 25-54, Galactica delivered 1.5 million viewers, beating 16 of the top 20 programs on the six broadcast networks, including CSI: Miami, JAG and Fox's premiere of Jonny Zero.

Check out the rest of the article on this URL below:

http://www.scifi.com/scifiwire2005/i...ory=0&id=30212

According to Leslie Moonves—co-president and co-chief operating officer of Viacom, the parent company of CBS, UPN and Paramount, this could be the last season of Enterprise as the ratings are not there and it might be time to give Trek a break.

Leslie Moonves—co-president and co-chief operating officer of Viacom, the parent company of CBS, UPN and Paramount—told SCI FI Wire that it may be time for Star Trek to take a break, though he added that no decision has been made on the future of UPN's ratings-challenged Star Trek: Enterprise. Speaking in an interview at the CBS/UPN winter press tour in West Hollywood, Calif., Moonves said: "It's hard to say right now. The ratings aren't great. It may be a franchise that should be rested a year or two. I know the diehards are not in favor of that, but I think if we rested a year or two, it might be a better thing. But we'll see what happens the rest of the year."

Check out the rest of the article on this URL below:

http://www.scifi.com/scifiwire2005/i...ory=0&id=30218

I guess the merchandising is not working as well as they hoped. Since this is B&B's boss saying this... I could be wrong this could be the last season of
Enterprise.

[Captain Blake]

Well, that puts us back to the Ratings vis-a-vis Demographics.

Sometimes crappier ratings make you more advertiser money, depending on the actual viewership details. For example, back in the day, when WWE was still the WWF, they had RAW on USA. Every year, RAW was pre-empted by the Westminster kennel club dog show. Which earned about half the ratings, on average, that RAW did.

But, the demographics of the WKCDS was much higher (more affluent viewers), and made USA much more money. It was cheaper to get (WWE charged a boatload for the product), cheaper to produce (set hasn't changed in 30 years), and gave more advertising revenue (sponsors wanted to reach the more affluent viewers). It was a no brainer for USA to get the WKCDS.

Now, with all that said, your data does look pretty bad. Enterprise got it's lunch ate by Battlestar Galactica, and I would assume that the demographic info is pretty similar.

On the other hand, we are looking at one data point, comparing a reasonably crappy Enterprise episode vs the premier of a new series, so I don't know that you can use it as a trend. Give it a month, then see.

As for Les, well, they've got the end of year shareholder stuff to get out. I think it's code for "Hey guys, our profit margin isn't as high as y'all would like."

I tend to agree with him, though. I think it'd be better for the franchise to sit for a couple of years. Kill off Enterprise at the end of the season. Finish kicking Berman and Braga to the curb. Get a brand new premise, and start a brand new series. New show, new ship, new stuff.

I think the kicker might be "What would UPN replace Enterprise with?" The replacement series has to make more money, or lose less money, than Enterprise.

But, yeah, Enterprise might be doomed. Depends on what backdoor maneuverings the UPN and Paramount people come up with. Les is the boss, but he's not likely to micromanage that much. Unless he's a fan, and pissed off at what's gone down.

Alex

[REG]

I tend to agree with him, though. I think it'd be better for the franchise to sit for a couple of years. Kill off Enterprise at the end of the season. Finish kicking Berman and Braga to the curb. Get a brand new premise, and start a brand new series. New show, new ship, new stuff.

Gee. Just when I am starting to like the show after three seasons' worth of my ranting.

I'd rather they keep the show for one more season to round off a total of five seasons' worth. If the rating still fail despite my liking it, then so be it. I'll just add Les Moonves to the list of "shoulda been sodomozed and kicked to the curb" list (so far I only have two: Rick Berman and Brannon Braga).