Death of the Television Star: Reality Shows Deliver High Ratings for Less Money, Smaller Egos

by Brian Cherry

Back during its highly successful run, I loved the show “Friends.”  If I had the opportunity, I would have moved heaven, earth or (God forbid) my gaming night to meet the cast (except for Ross).  Today, I wouldn’t reschedule the sort of dentist appointment that involves sharp implements, hemorrhaging, and crying to be in the same room as the cast from “Jersey Shore.”  The reason for this is simple; the folks from Friends were stars.  The cast of Jersey Shore is rampaging herd of schmucks.  So why are we seeing more of the “Snooki” types on television and fewer Jennifer Anistons?  The answer is simple.  It’s all about money. 

1-magnum-pi

Back in the good old days of television, there were really only three networks that provided most of the news and entertainment.  This meant that “Magnum P.I.” Tom Selleck only had to drive his Ferrari over James Naughton of “Trauma Center” and “Gimme a Break’s” Nell Carter to win his time slot.  Granted even the powerful car may have had problems getting over the, well, um…ample form of Ms. Carter, but Mr. Selleck managed to do it and charm his way to a ratings number of 22.4.  The success of the show, which had a lot to do with Tom’s massive appeal to the television audience, justified his $50,000 per episode price tag.  In today’s money that translates into over $100,000 per episode.  It is no longer 1983 though, and the times have dramatically changed. 

If Magnum P.I. were being produced today, it would not be competing against two other networks, but rather there would be over a dozen legitimate contenders for just about any time slot.  A diversified audience means that each show gets less than they did a couple of decades ago.  This is important when you consider that a ratings number is not just an ego booster that tells a producer they are winning a time slot.  A ratings number is a legitimate commodity that is converted to cash when advertising time is sold.  The bigger the number, the more money it is worth.  Ratings numbers are smaller today, but this connection between ratings and money seem lost on high profile stars.  Many still insist on premium salaries.  

Hugh Laurie makes about  $400,000 per episode for the show “House.”  That show usually pulls in a rating of about 8.5.  Charlie Sheen makes nearly $2 million per episode.  This is probably enough to support his ex-wife, his ex-wife to be, any future ex-wives, a sizable legal team to sort the whole thing out, and a new liver somewhere down the road.  Despite this huge salary, the best ratings number that Mr. Sheen delivered this year was a 10.5.  That is a lot of money for a comparatively small number and there is still the rest of the cast to pay. 

Dancing with the Stars, on average, scores a Nielson rating of 13.2 or higher.  This thumps the best rating that Two and a Half Men can deliver, but it is a much cheaper show to produce.  It was revealed that Kate Gosselin was receiving $100,000 per episode of DWTS that she appeared on.  If this was true of the rest of the cast and hosts, the entire show combined is paid less per episode than Charlie Sheen.  Seeing as every week a star, and their salary is eliminated from DWTS, the costs per episode go down.  Also, as the number of contestants goes down and the drama goes up, and the ratings get higher.  By the time the finale rolls around the show is costing less to produce, but raking in more money. 

The appeal of talent contest shows, reality television, and the like is the fact that you can be successful for less investment.  It also means that the director and producer don’t become servants to a high paid feature star.  Tom Wopat and John Schneider held the ratings of the classic show, the “Dukes of Hazzard,” hostage during some very ugly contract negotiations.  Replacing Tom and John with low-budget copies didn’t work, and in the end the producers gave in and paid the stars what they wanted.  This doesn’t happen with many of the reality shows. MTV offered the cast of “Jersey Shore” $10,000 per episode for the second season.  Had they not taken it, the producers would have just shrugged and found a group that looked just like them.  They could do this content in the knowledge that “The Situation’s” own mother probably doesn’t want him, and that a change in the cast would have almost no effect on the long term ratings.  

Finally, there are those producers who have an eye toward quality.  A big salary for an established television star just doesn’t work with an ambitious concept.  Estimates for what it cost to produce Battlestar Galactica range from $1.2 million to $1.5 million per episode.  While information on the budget for this program is hard to come by, it is pretty clear that the actors and actresses were not receiving the bulk of that money.  The guy sitting behind a Mac and creating CGI Cylons was probably on the same salary plateau with Edward James Olmos.  The producers assembled an ensemble cast of near unknowns (and in many cases absolute unknowns) and created something special.  Time Magazine, The National Review, Rolling Stone and New York Newsday agreed that this was the best show on television.  They did this for the cost of 1.5 “Friends” or approximately ¾ of Charlie Sheen.  Other shows like lost have also adopted this concept, and have not only been rewarded with ratings, but with lasting prestige as well. 

Money is the driving force behind television.  When a producer can get ratings without having to redirect the bulk of their budget to one or two feature stars, they are going to do it.  There will always be television stars, but as reality shows, talent contests, and high concept shows with ensemble casts take up more and more time slots, there will be fewer Jennifer Anistons taking up screen time.


Email this to a friend | Print | Share on Facebook | | Bookmark and Share

Tags: , , , , ,
Posted Jul 27th 2010 at 5:01 am in Culture, Featured Story, Television | 113 Comments