Earlier that year, a much smaller sitcom premiered on BBC airwaves – The Office hovered around 2m viewers in its first season, and around 3.5m viewers in its second season, while at its height it managed 6.5m total viewers for the Christmas special in 2003. Given that The Office has been adapted successfully into a long-running sitcom for NBC, based on significantly lower ratings in the UK, how could a network go wrong with Only Fools & Horses? In fact, it seems remarkable that no US network has tried it in all these years. Well – that is, if one were to simply judge by the numbers.

Comedies unfortunately do not translate so literally.

The BBC series Coupling, which initially performed similarly to The Office, and aired on the same UK channel (BBC2) was a notorious failure when adapted for the same US channel (NBC). The Worst Week of My Life (BBC1) reduced down to Worst Week for CBS was a huge disappointment for the top-rated US network. Meanwhile some UK comedies have struggled so much with being adapted that the network in question has decided to drop them at the pilot stage. Fox reportedly tried shooting Absolutely Fabulous on two occasions while Peep Show went to pilot stage both with cable net Spike as well as with Fox.

It’s not just one-way traffic, either. Successful US comedies do not always work in the UK. The most famous example of this was Seinfeld, though many argue that poor scheduling in the UK led to a major lack of awareness. The same cannot, however, be said of current darling, New Girl, which Channel 4 has given plenty of promotion and a solid Friday night slot. I wrote in an earlier blog about how well the show opened for Fox in the US, consistently outperforming Glee and The X Factor in Adults 18-49. The show continues to hold up.

But on Channel 4, the opening episode was without doubt a disappointment, and the second episode dropped over 25% from the series premiere. The most recent transmission (28^th Jan) underperformed the channel’s timeslot average in both male and particularly female viewers.

New Girl Audience Share on Channel 4 (UK) 28^th Jan, 2012

Source: Attentional/BARB (Live + VOSDAL)

Part of the equation here is obviously the difference in the audience profile of Fox compared to Channel 4. Fox is mainstream Adult, whereas Channel 4 is Young Adult and slightly more niche. Many Channel 4 viewers most likely found the show cheesy and unrealistic, while the more mainstream audience on Fox probably found something touching and charming about how the roommates help Jess get over her ex.

So why do the ratings in one market for a comedy not necessarily correlate in the other market, given that both markets speak the same language? Clearly, comedy is a more cultural genre than drama, playing on familiar stereotypes and often reversing our expectations of them. For that to work successfully, the audience has to have a level of familiarity with the culture. Problems emerge when things get too locally specific (e.g. “Two Pints of Lager and a Packet of Crisps” is an embedded part of British pub culture, but the show of the same name would struggle to gain any familiarity within an American audience).

In many ways it’s no surprise that both audiences find different things funny. They are different cultures after all. So what about when the adaptation does work?

Many, many elements go into making an effective adaptation. From a lot of the content analysis we’ve done, I would say the three most important strands that emerge are:

1. Ensure the premise is universally identifiable.

In the case of Only Fools & Horses, the idea of two blue collar brothers trying to get rich quick is undoubtedly universal.

2. Localize the characters even if it means changing them.

Finding local versions of Del Boy and Rodney seems like it will be a challenge. What is the U.S. equivalent of cockney working class Londoners? A good example of this element being applied effectively is Michael Scott vs. David Brent in The Office. Once Michael Scott departed from being as unsympathetic as David Brent, and reflected the slightly more upbeat and positive nature of an American boss desperate for popularity, US viewers were able to have more empathy with him. In the UK version, we have empathy with Tim, whose eyes we see David Brent through.

3. It is generally better when the source of the humour comes from relationships between the characters, rather than snappy/witty dialogue.

When the comedy is reliant upon just the dialogue, there is a greater risk that it will be lost in translation. It is easier to replicate relationships than jokes. For instance, Del Boy and Rodney in Only Fools and Horses are constantly tired of Uncle Albert harping on about the War. This dynamic can be translated easily to the US, with the war being the Vietnam War rather than WW2.

Only Fools &Horses has an amazing archive of comedy scripts for the writing team to take advantage of, and seems a smart move for ABC. Now they just have to find the American equivalent of Del Boy bottling up tap water and calling it “Peckham Spring”!

For instance, a feature film in China makes on average 64.7% of its revenue from its domestic theatrical release, which makes cinemas the dominant mode of distribution. Contrast that with the U.S. where the domestic cinema release accrues roughly 21.4% of a film’s total revenue. Clearly ancillary markets like pay-TV, home video, and of course international theatrical releases are more mature for U.S. movies. But that’s just the basic picture.

The bigger issue in China is actually one of supply. There are a very limited number of theatrical screens which struggle to cope with high domestic demand. Chinese audiences love to attend the cinema, with its advanced audiovisual experience (compared to the lesser quality of TV or pirated content). But there are only 7.3 screens for every 10 million moviegoers in China. In the U.S., the same number of viewers share 129.8 screens.

The result is that a huge number of movies in China simply do not get the opportunity to be released in the cinemas. And there’s no way of making their money back through ancillary revenues.

In some ways, it could be argued that the purpose of making movies in China is basically to supply theatrical markets. This causes a huge lock on distribution and leaves so much of the industry control in the hands of the theater-owners.

The greatest threat to the current imbalance in the market is online distribution. Having just completed a report on potential changes to the Chinese Entertainment Industry, we discovered that there are surprisingly quite a few websites that are gaining prominence through legal online video distribution.

In China, the Internet has become one of the major video consumption platforms for younger viewers. Many sites such as tv.sohu.com and letv.com have established Hulu-like business models, incorporating paid and advertising-supported platforms. These websites circulate Chinese and foreign copyrighted TV drama series and movies.

Based on China’s market environment, these websites employ distinct operational practices. For example, tv sohu.com offered ‘Wu Xia’, a local blockbuster, for free streaming two months after its theatrical release. The period between theatrical and online releases is much shorter than the U.S. standard probably due to rampant video piracy.

LETV.com is an emerging player to watch out for. They are now regularly paying $1 million for online rights to popular Chinese films, while their revenues for the 1Q this year were $16.1m, a 1319% year-on-year increase according to the company’s financial report. Co-productions, TV dramas and comedies, and western content are now being distributed, or considered for distribution, via these platforms. Of course, they still have to overcome the Chinese censors, but they are private companies – and as their wealth and market dominance continues to grow, it would not be inconceivable to see these video sites turn into the Chinese equivalent of the US studio.

Just consider Tudou, perhaps the largest of the online distributors. They are fast becoming an all-round production and distribution hub, and a recent press release proudly states:

“In 2010, we launched Orange Box , our in-house original content production facility, and Warehouse No.6, a talent recruitment program designed for selecting and recruiting talents for our in-house content production, including actors, directors, screenwriters, editors and producers. These initiatives are aimed at developing and enhancing ‘made-for-Internet’ drama series and other independent ‘made-for-Internet’ content.”

These studio-like initiatives resulted in their first Internet dramas series, ‘That Love Comes’, which debuted in October 2010 – and generated approximately 40 million video views as of December 31, 2010.

Tudou’s website now has a large library of TV dramas and comedies, as well as movies and their own original content. This is where international producers could in the future take serious advantage.

After all, they even have a copyright policy on their website!

Download our complimentary report on the Chinese Entertainment Industry.

Ratings (18-49) for Opening Three Episodes

Source: Nielsen (Live + Same Day)

To fairly assess this freshman series, it is perhaps unfair to compare it to an established heavyweight brand like Idol. While the viewing public in the UK clearly are familiar with The X Factor, as are industry executives, the American public had never come across this format until this summer when it started getting heavily promoted. So a fairer comparison is with NBC’s The Voice, which also debuted this year.

Bearing in mind that NBC has generally been struggling in the ratings, and therefore had no natural series from which to launch The Voice from, the opening episode garnered a remarkable 5.1 in the coveted 18-49 demo. This is a number that The X Factor has still yet to reach, despite Fox being a stronger network in a) that particular demo, and b) with this particular genre of reality competition shows. The Voice stayed consistent throughout its 12 episode run, and even when it dipped, such as in episode 3, there were mitigating circumstances (it started at 10pm rather than its usual 9pm start).

Losing some of its 'X Factor'?

Some might argue that The Voice was launched in an easier environment (May/June 2011) rather than the highly competitive season that is Fall. There is merit to this. Nearly every single reality series that has succeeded on network television in the U.S. has initially been launched either in the Winter or the Summer.

Title                                       Launch

American Idol               –          June 2002

Dancing w/the Stars    –          June 2005

Survivor                         –          May 2000

America’s Got Talent   –          June 2006

The Apprentice             –          Jan 2004

The Voice                       –          May 2011

So Fox chiefs, while taking a gamble with the launch, clearly felt confident they could overcome this trend. The problem for The X Factor, however, is that it is no longer the flagship new show on the channel anymore. The sleeper hit, New Girl, has surprised everyone, by outperforming its illustrious rival in every original episode that has currently aired. For those unaware, New Girl is the single-camera sitcom starring Zooey Deschanel that follows a girl trying to get over the breakup with her boyfriend after he cheats on her, as she moves in with three guys she meets off Craigslist.

Comedies are notoriously slow starters. All the big established comedies (Big Bang Theory, Modern Family, Two and a Half Men, The Office) have seen their audience size grow from early episodes of their first season. New Girl is the first new sitcom on any network in 20 years to win its first 3 nights in Adults 18-49.

This has made the narrative for The X Factor more challenging. Forget about being the biggest new show in the country, it’s not even the biggest new show on its channel – a far cry from the heady days when Cowell was doing American Idol (which is set to return in January 2012).

From a content perspective, the biggest hurdle facing the show is its lack of Novelty. We often discuss how important Novelty is in attracting viewers from the outset. The X Factor was an evolution of the Idol format, but that was conceived nearly 8 years ago. The idea of judges competing against each other may have been novel back then, but The Voice has combined that with another unique element, which is the ‘blind audition’. Based on the Dutch series The Voice of Holland created by Jon de Mol, the show is in effect an evolution of The X Factor format. And importantly for the marketplace, The Voice was the first one to launch out of the two.

With the Tuesday’s (18^th Oct.) episode getting a 3.9 in A18-49, The X Factor is already looking like it is dropping rather than holding steady or gaining viewers. There’s no doubt that the show is still performing solidly, but it is arguably doing a lot worse than pre-launch expectations. The creatives behind the series must surely have been hoping for better ratings.

If I were a betting man – which I am – I know which one out of New Girl, The Voice and The X Factor, I’d be betting on to not be on the schedules in 3 years time.

Now when I refer to musical dramas, I mean solely scripted series where the characters break out into song, either naturally (e.g. a character sings on stage), or unnaturally (e.g. a character sings in a police precinct). What I’m not referring to are the spate of reality competition series, where music clearly is one of the most popular sub-genres. This piece isn’t about X-Factor, The Voice or Idol, it is purely about dramas and comedy-dramas that are musicals.

In the past year, I have been asked on a few occasions by US network and production company execs whether there are any decent international musical dramas for them to snap up the format rights to. This led me to think that there is clearly a growing demand among the creative community to develop hit musicals. However, there are very few examples of successful musical dramas, either in the US or internationally.

Over the last 20 or so years, Before Glee, (or as ‘Gleeks’ would call it, B.G.), there had been several attempts in the US to launch successful musicals. There was Stephen Bochco’s infamous Cop Rock, CBS’s Viva Laughlin (based on the UK musical drama Viva Blackpool), to name but two. Both were ratings disasters. Viva Laughlin was in fact canceled after just two episodes. Even the UK original, Blackpool, which aired on BBC1, had very ordinary audience figures, falling between four and five million viewers – well below the timeslot average for that channel. So why is it that musicals generally struggle on TV?

Television certainly requires a greater sense of realism than cinema. You don’t find the same levels of fantasy, adventure and other pure escapist fare on mainstream TV – most of the highly successful series are grounded in reality. One could argue that the reason the first season of Heroes compared better than subsequent seasons was that it stayed in a world that viewers recognized, whereas later seasons became more typical fantasy, which alienated non-fantasy viewers of that series.

When characters start singing, viewers instantly recognize this as a world that isn’t the one they inhabit. This lowers their suspension of disbelief, a key requirement for any drama to sustain itself – especially over multiple weeks and years. New original songs written for the series also reduce the level of familiarity, as do old Broadway numbers, because they aren’t songs most viewers instantly recognize. And then there’s creating a story archetype that satisfies the target demo’s preferences. A show about cops isn’t necessarily appealing to the core tastes of audiences that like musicals.

What Glee does so well is literally overcome all these problems. It uses modern songs that viewers do not feel are dated. (Some of them are in fact exceptionally current). They take a universal situation – the struggles of sexuality and popularity in high school – and ground it in a reality that is the glee club, something that actually exists in American high schools. The problems that the main ensemble of characters face are issues that are easily identifiable, especially to the types of viewers that are potentially attracted to musicals.

These may seem obvious elements to have in any musical drama, but you’ll be surprised how many have (and will) fall short.

We know from the reality competition shows that viewers love to see people sing, but in a drama they need the right context to care about these characters (as none are likely to be competing for a record contract!). If you dig into the library of musical dramas, you’ll notice the odd series that addresses this, e.g. Dennis Potter’s Lipstick on your Collar, which at its heart was about a bored foreign officer worker (played by Ewan McGregor) desperately wanting some fun and excitement to his life as the Brits had handed over global affairs to the Americans, and he had nothing to do at work. This was, however, still niche. Glee has turned the genre into a huge mainstream affair.

For US network execs, the goal it appears has been to find another gem in this arena. However, they will need to be aware of the pitfalls that this genre poses for mainstream audiences – as not all musicals have the characteristics of Glee.

Lipstick on your Collar is profiled in TheirTV, currently in beta phase, our free resource and blog covering trends in international content.

For those who don’t know, DirecTV is a satellite subscription service in the U.S. that has previously had little reputation for airing its own content, unlike say Sky in the U.K. However, as Comcast’s deal with NBC-Universal has shown, platform owners and content owners are merging. The 19.2 million subscribers to DirecTV have always had access to the ‘101’ channel, but DirecTV had previously done very little with it. Now that has changed.

However, rather than create and invest in brand new original dramas, DirecTV has noticed some canceled U.S. series retain a core, loyal audience base. Hence, they have taken on Damages and Friday Night Lights, which were initially on FX and NBC respectively, but didn’t secure enough viewing figures to justify those networks recommissioning the series. The Audience Network has also cleverly acquired second window rights to The Wire (which is otherwise only available to HBO subscribers). The diverse source of their dramas doesn’t stop there, though, as they have recently delved in to the international marketplace. They acquired U.S. rights to Australian critical darlings, Underbelly and Rake, as well as Canadian series Call Me Fitz and British series No Heroics and Mutual Friends.

Aussie sensation 'Underbelly'

Apart from UK series airing on BBC America and PBS, the U.S. is not known for showing non-US product. Yet DirecTV has seen this as an opportunity rather than a risk.

One of the major trends over the past few years in U.S. broadcasting has been how small cable channels are investing heavily in original content. The fact that AMC, the 27^th largest channel in terms of audience share in America, airs one of the most proclaimed series of recent times in Mad Men is testament to this. Yet DirecTV have decided with their Audience Network channel to buck that trend and invest in acquisitions.

It strikes me that other U.S. networks could follow suit here.

There are so many well produced dramas being commissioned all over the world (this will be the topic of a separate blog, but consider South Africa’s Zero Tolerance and Mexico’s El Equipo) that there is bound to be an audience for this type of content in the U.S. Of course, it is likely to be niche, but the majority of cable and premium cable channels have niche audiences – their aim isn’t breadth, rather it is to maximize the value out of their target audience by satisfying their specific viewing demands. Foreign content could easily do this.

Even though some may argue that television is primarily a domestic form, it is undeniable that for a particular segment of the viewing population, nationality is less relevant. It is why, for instance, non-English language films have performed better in the U.S. box office in the past decade. From Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon (which made $128.1m at the U.S. box office) down to the tiny Monsoon Wedding, which was shot on super 16mm and was made reportedly for $1.5m (and earned $13.9m just in U.S. cinemas), American audiences are increasingly appreciating non-US content.

We’ve started to see some signs of this in the U.K. where BBC4 have aired the Danish version of The Killing and back in 2008 also aired French crime drama Spiral. But in the U.S. this has yet to happen for anything other than English language content. (Obviously this doesn’t include Spanish-language series, which airs on channels aimed at the Hispanic diaspora). Given that the season finale of the U.S. version of The Killing garnered a decent 2.3m viewers last Sunday night on AMC, there must for instance be some demand for seeing Forbrydelsen (the Danish original).

So as channels try to find an extra edge in this highly competitive market, how long will it be before we start to see subtitled series on U.S. television?

Read David Graham’s blog on The Killing, and check out TheirTV (currently in beta phase), a free resource and blog covering trends in international content.

NBC and Fox both announced their respective schedules today. Two interesting things to emerge, particularly from a UK perspective, was how high Fox’s expectations seem to be of “The X Factor” and how a failed UK comedy, “Free Agents”, has managed to find its US adaptation on NBC’s much-vaulted new schedule.

An Unhappy Outing on C4

Let’s firstly look at Fox, who have slightly less time to fill than their competitors (as their 10pm slot goes to News). Whilst they have gone for some heavyweight titles in sci-fi epic “Terra Nova” (about a futuristic family who go back in time 150 million years to correct the damage done to Earth and save the world) and JJ Abrams’ action-drama “Alcatraz”, the centerpiece of Fox’s presentation was the much-hyped “The X Factor”.

On one level, this makes a lot of sense. The original UK format entered its seventh season in 2010 backed by a continuous rise in ratings every year. This culminated in the highest rated telecast of 2010, where “The X Factor” finale results edition attracted 17.7m viewers, beating even England’s World Cup game against Germany.

The UK has embraced the format for a long time, recognizing its more sophisticated nuances when compared to the “Idol” format, which does not have judges competing against each other. With “American Idol” ranked the number one show in the U.S. since 2005, it would seem only natural for its successor to take over the mantle.

However, “The X Factor” in the U.S. faces a number of challenges that may not seem obvious at first glance. Simon Cowell it has been proven was not the sole reason viewers were attracted to Idol. This season, the show has performed excellently without the judge who was once deemed irreplaceable. The brand of Idol it seems has usurped the brand of Cowell.

The other key element is NBC’s “The Voice”. In its freshman season, the show managed to rank number 3 in 18-49’s for the week ending 8^th May. This puts it ahead of “Glee” and “Modern Family”, and only behind the two editions of “American Idol”. “The Voice” may have a different hook to “The X Factor”, but it takes some of the best elements of that format and effectively evolves it. The consequence of all this could be that come September, Simon Cowell’s return may not roar as the ratings monster Fox are hoping. Of course, it is likely to get well sampled, but if it ends up as a middling performer, not nearing the levels of “American Idol”, will that be perceived as a failure?

Flop on C4

“Free Agents” originally aired in the UK on Channel 4 in February and March of 2009. Its final episode garnered a lackluster 0.7 million viewers, which was roughly 52% of the timeslot average. By any measure, this is a failure, as evidenced by no re-commission. This awkward romantic comedy, about a recently divorced and homeless talent agent who thinks his colleague is his soul mate, will be airing on Wednesdays at 8.30pm right before the Kathy Bates legal drama, “Harry’s Law”.

Like all US comedies, it will need to find a way to sustain itself beyond the six episodes it aired in the UK. Naturally, NBC recognizes what it requires to make such adaptations work – proven by the long-term success of “The Office”.

But given that this series failed to work in its home market, if it does succeed in the US, it could well be unprecedented. Very few reformatted dramas and comedies succeed in the U.S., and of the ones that do all had significant acclaim in their domestic market. Success for “Free Agents” could alter the way shows are sold into the U.S.

Take note international producers in possession of shows that have flopped: you can always have a second chance in America!

What’s even more interesting is how some of the lower-performing shows in the US do extremely well in Asia, leaving Asian broadcasters immensely frustrated at early cancelations.

Shows such as “Bionic Woman” and “The Cape” have done gangbusters in Asian markets, yet their poor performances in the US has forced those shows to be shelved. On the flipside, even with all the kudos that shows like “Modern Family” and “30 Rock” have, these series struggle in Asia. Obviously part of the issue is cultural. “Will and Grace” for instance is still banned in Singapore because of the gay protagonist.

Set to be popular in Asia, until they discover there is no season 2

American studios understand the growing value of their international markets – Asia has three of the four largest populations in the world (China, India, Indonesia) – and can’t continue to forget about them when content decisions are being made.

Indonesia for instance has 11 free-to-air channels that are fighting tooth and nail for every rating point. India meanwhile has the added benefit of a regional language market (e.g. Tamil, Gujurat, etc…) that licenses content on top of the Hindi and English language markets sold at the national level.

Surely it won’t be long before low-rated US shows keep getting commissioned, not because the network president has a good relationship with the show’s producer, but because they’re making too much licensing revenue on the show internationally.

So why is it that network execs are seeing an increasing need to cast established movie names such as Amanda Peet, Liz Hurley or even Kevin Spacey in the current crop of pilots?

The primary reason must be the hope that ratings will rise because of these household names. However, there is very little evidence to suggest that movie stars in TV series can consistently improve a show’s chances of success. Sure, it may help improve the sampling of the opening episode, as it piques viewers’ interest – but in the long run, over the course of an entire season, audiences return to their favorite dramas and comedies because of the characters that interest them – not the star involved.

The attachment we form is with the narrative and the characters we’re engaged with, which is why a group of unknowns in a well constructed drama have a better chance of succeeding than a movie star led ensemble in an averagely written series.

Another reason for star attachments is that it may help the series get ordered in a competitive pilot season where some high profile pilots won’t even make it to series. Producers it seems feel their shows have a better chance of getting the nod if they manage to secure a big name. But if that’s the case, why not simply get that movie star to be another producer on the project?

Often the problem with a big-name star driving a new series is that everything is rewritten and reconceived for that actor. This ends up with a show that was far from the original vision of the creators.

So when looking to find the new “Lost” or “Grey’s Anatomy”, network execs might do well to think about casting less well known actors. TV is not the new film.