Do you have high definition television yet? If yes, do you love it? If no, what are you waiting for?

Why cable operators were so slow to embrace high def is beyond comprehension, except that CES manufacturers are the primary beneficiary and cable operators want the upside of ongoing programming sales, rather than small monthly upgrade fees. Cable operators don't want to import other companies' technologies and don't want to funnel anything but their own products and services through their pipes. It's this same philosophy that keeps broadcasters and cable operators at each others throats.

Have you spent any time watching your favorite programs on high def? Once seen, it's nearly impossible to go back to standard TV. It's not only sports; prime time dramas are awesome in high def. Even Iron Chef is better in high def. Within the next year, almost every program – from early morning news to late night talk shows – will be available in high definition.

3-D TV Is On the Horizon

Direct TV and Dish network are ahead of the curve, promoting 40 high def channels. In labs on the West Coast, South Korea, Japan and China, manufacturers are hard at work developing three dimensional TV screens to take the experience even further. Online virtual worlds are already 3-D, and younger consumers spending time in these worlds and video games are learning to expect a 3-D experience. Television is the inevitable next step.

Until recently, though, cable operators have perceived high def as an upgrade opportunity once the digital set-top is in the home. It's only in the past year that they've realized high def is driving set-top purchases, and once in the home subscribers are more inclined to make VOD purchases. The fact that more than one-third of high def set owners have yet to upgrade to high def cable or satellite service is testament to the incredibly naïve and poor job operators have done to market HD set-top functionality.

Advertisers Need to Step Up to High Def Production

The other world that is just beginning to wake up to the high def imperative is the advertising community. Again, if you're a fan of high def you already know what I'm talking about. When the high def picture suddenly shrinks to accommodate an analog standard 4x3 commercial, it looks absolutely amateur. It's especially egregious when auto manufacturers and companies seeking to present themselves as advanced fail to realize how out-of-sync they appear to consumers. Talk about engagement – we need new research that points to negative engagement when consumers consciously or sub-consciously note that a company is out-of-step with the times.

High definition TV set costs are dropping quickly and the vast majority of sets sold today are large screen and high def. Cable operators need to put a full court press on to market service subscriptions; advertisers need to produce commercials in high def. When all broadcast signals are required to convert to digital in February 2009, it will be high def that will make the conversion a no brainer for many, many consumers. So if you don't have high def yet, what's your reason?

Mary Kopco from Deadwood, South Dakota's Adams Museum & House says: "In my humble opinion, Deadwood is one of the greatest dramas ever. The writing, acting, set design, costuming, make-up, hair, etc. is brilliant. To pull the rug out from under the series before it has the opportunity to conclude would be like denying Shakespeare the opportunity to conclude Hamlet. Ever an optimist, I'm hoping that Mr. Milch's Deadwood muse will again speak and that HBO execs will listen. Please."

Michael F. Smith of Temple University, adds: "I loved Deadwood!!!!!!!! I watched nine episodes of John from Cincinnati and tried very hard to get into the program because I loved the actors and I was anticipating another out-of-the-ordinary TV experience. In short, I cannot suffer through another episode of John... At the very least, please provide us with some semblance of closure with Deadwood and hold the onion rings."

Appropriately, Arthur Miller of Miller Media Group argues: "Those C*** Suckers at HBO should bring back Deadwood. It was one of the best F***'in programs around. Plus as you can tell, I miss the language. :)"

Matthew Dundon of Miller Tabak Roberts Securities believes "Cast isn't a problem. If asked, McShane and Olyphant will be back. It's not like HBO will ask them to work for scale, and whatever discount they might have to take vs. their current quote won't signify. They certainly aren't in the very small club which is immune from the vast mismatch between the number of good actors and the quantity of good work. Below the line costs might be a problem. As posted above, Deadwood is light on resale and repurposing revenue potential, and HBO struggles to justify the financial commitment to originals. They probably think another season of the much cheaper-to-shoot The Wire more than fulfills their duty to lose money in the name of art... "

Rick Petty agrees, "Since everyone associated with this series seems to comment that it has been the most fulfilling creative experience of their careers, it would seem that reassembling this killer cast would be doable. I think the fan base has increased substantially since the beginning as evidenced by the fact that I can't get the third year discs I need at Blockbuster. Deadwood is one of a kind and should be revived."

"Did they really talk that way back then? Deadwood's prose and profanity provided for an hour of sometimes shocking but always stimulating entertainment. Each Sunday we met and watched Deadwood (on the TV in the garage away from the kids) and bet on how many times certain "colorful" words were going to be used before the episode would begin. What a hoot! WE MISS DEADWOOD. BRING AL BACK!", writes Nancy Starzynski from The Star-Ledger. And Mark Blei of Dynamic Logic adds, "More Deadwood! HBO should have been less price conscious and more fan base conscious. Many of us who watched Deadwood religiously felt cheated by the lack of follow through in at the very least concluding such a great drama as Deadwood properly and giving it the send off it deserves. I would still like to see the series brought back. But if not keep the promise and send it off right!"

Paul Kopco, who lives in the real Deadwood, SD, comments, "We who live in the real Deadwood were devastated when HBO canceled the Deadwood series. The worldwide exposure afforded by the show was a tremendous boost to our tourism efforts. David Milch and his production crew relied on the Adams Museum and House, where my wife is the director, for research and historic photographs as resources for story lines, set design, costumes, makeup, and general historical accuracy. Having met a number of the actors when they visited here, and having visited the set and met many crew members in Santa Clarita, CA, I decided to combine familiarity with both the show and the real town to launch a podcast, The Real Deadwood Podcast (http://www.realDeadwoodpodcast.com). It's a variety show for fans of the series combining news, interviews and entertainment from both Deadwoods. In addition to audio, there are video clips of the actors' visit and of events in the real Deadwood, as well as a number of photo albums. Episode 13 features interviews with a number of the actors speculating on the real reason for the cancellation of the show."

And Jerry Bryant, also of the Adams House, writes, "When HBO decided to cancel "Deadwood" I canceled HBO. At the time I knew that all the actors would be paid through the end of Season III. It was a really tough call on my part, because anytime HBO would call for research I would jump. I did minutia research for all three seasons, and for them to pull the carpet out from under Deadwood was just unthinkable. Naturally, when the boxed set became available I purchased it, so I could catch up, so to speak. That may have been my worst mistake, because as I watched season III, I realized how little HBO thought of the art. It is kinda like a pimp and his girls. He loves them till they don't make enough money, or they just get too damned expensive. HBO pimped Deadwood out to all us starving for a real American Frontier drama, and when there was not enough silver to cross their palms, HBO kicked Deadwood out into the gutter. It will take more than 2 movies for them to get my respect, as a matter of fact, a few "Swearingen" type words come to mind when I think of them. If they start the series again I might subscribe, but very frankly, I don't feel anything beyond Deadwood missing from my life."

If you yearn for the return of Deadwood, add your voice to the growing campaign to bring back Deadwood.

Click to post your thoughts or comments.

Now that HBO has cancelled the ill-fated John from Cincinnati, will David Milch return to work on Deadwood and deliver on the promise of two Deadwood movies? Cast your vote by commenting and voting at www.jackmyers.com.

But other than The Sopranos, no dramatic series in recent memory has generated such a passionate fan base as Deadwood. Showtime's cancelled Dead Like Me had similar audience loyalty but a considerably smaller base of fans. I'd like to hear from fans of Deadwood and launch a campaign to encourage HBO and Milch, at the very least, to deliver on their promise of giving Deadwood an appropriate finale, either with a film, two films, or a final fourth season of 12 one-hour episodes.

One of the uniquely creative techniques that Milch applied in both Deadwood and John from Cincinnati was each episode takes place in a single day. While the approach didn't really work in Cincinnati, the day-in-the-life-of-Deadwood made sense in chronicling the life of a small South Dakota gold rush town that gained notoriety for being the place where Wild Bill Hickok died holding the Dead Man's poker hand, aces up eights (brought to life shockingly in Deadwood's third episode). Deadwood thrived for many years as the home for pioneer gold prospectors before burning to the ground, an event series' fans could look forward to as a natural wind-up for the program. Milch discovered gold with Deadwood, creating characters unequaled anywhere on television. Although the series captured multiple EMMY nominations and honors, and generated more water cooler talk than just about any series other than The Sopranos and American Idol, HBO suddenly cancelled it when they gave the green light to Cincinnati. Considering Milch's history of quirky programs with limited audience appeal, in Deadwood he had a hit that promised to achieve the stature of his classic NYPD Blue, while Cincinnati from the beginning had the earmarks of Twin Peaks.

The fate of John from Cincinnati seemed inevitable from the beginning, but if HBO and Milch deliver on their promise, at least fans of Deadwood will not feel as dissed and alienated as they do today. HBO's co-president Richard Plepler advised TV critics last month that there is a "50-50 chance that Deadwood would have a final theatrical send-off, adding that the prospects for the film are 'complicated' given Milch's current work on HBO surfer series, John from Cincinnati," as reported by Multichannel News. That complication is no longer an issue, so the only questions remaining are the availability of actors, Milch's desire to revisit the past, HBO's willingness to fund a financially questionable project, and viewer enthusiasm.

Timothy Olyphant, Ian McShane, Brad Dourif, William Sanderson, Powers Boothe, Robin Weigert, Keone Young, Dayton Callie, Paula Malcomson and other series regulars would be available, so talent should not be an issue. Milch is free. The only real question is HBO's appetite to invest capital into a dead-end project instead of using it to fund new programming. It's time for HBO to speculate on its gold rush past and bite the bullet. After pulling the plug prematurely on Deadwood, Six Feet Under and Carnivale, HBO's new management needs to reward fan loyalty with loyalty to one of its best-ever series. HBO: BRING BACK DEADWOOD! Fans, voice your opinion and let HBO hear your voice. Vote at www.jackmyers.com and add your comment.

My colleague Ed Martin, in his commentaries this week, asked "Will ABC's delightful Pushing Daisies live up to its strong summer buzz? Is NBC's charming Chuck a keeper? Does CBS' daringly different Viva Laughlin stand a chance? Has Fox found a comedy winner in Back to You? And what about Reaper? Could this new supernatural comedy-thriller on The CW be the surprise hit of the fall season?"

Generously quoting and giving full credit to Ed Martin (www.mediavillage.com), following are the programs that have generated the most pre-season buzz.

NBC's Chuck (Monday, 9 PM), about a good-natured geek who becomes a reluctant secret agent after he unwittingly downloads the secrets of multiple government agencies into his brain, is already one of the most talked about new series of the fall season. It has a strong lead in young actor Zachary Levi, critics like it, and tens of thousands of genre fans were clamoring for it at the recent Comic-Con in San Diego. Most importantly, Chuck should prove a very compatible lead-in to Heroes.

The new ABC comedy Samantha Who? (ABC, Monday 9:30 PM), a sophisticated showcase for the talents of comic actress Christina Applegate, is also an early favorite with critics. Samantha will have a nice lead-in from Dancing with the Stars, because it is highly unlikely that the Dancing audience will click over to the second half of Heroes or to the male-oriented CBS comedy Rules of Engagement at 9:30 p.m.

The supernatural comedy-thriller Reaper, (CW Tuesday 9 PM) from director Kevin Smith, was universally praised by critics during the TCA tour and is poised to emerge as one of the biggest new hits of the fall season, especially in the demographic groups drawn to its lead-in.

Kid Nation, (CBS, Wednesday 8 PM) a study of children left alone to build their own society and create their own laws without adult influences, looks to be highly controversial, and for that reason alone it could draw a crowd. But it may also prove off-putting to parents (not to mention teachers).

The sublime Pushing Daisies (ABC, Wednesday 8 PM) is widely regarded by critics as the best new series of the fall season, but it is so unique and unusual that it may have trouble finding a mainstream audience.

Back to You (Fox, Wednesday, 8 PM) has star-power to spare, with Kelsey Grammer, Patricia Heaton and Fred Willard heading its cast, but its pilot script wasn't especially strong. It's not a sure bet, especially as paired with returning under-performer 'Til Death, starring Brad Garrett and Joely Fisher. Still, no other network has so many veteran sitcom superstars and multiple Emmy-winners clustered in one hour.

Three high profile new series will go head to head Wednesday at 9 p.m. -- NBC's Bionic Woman, ABC's Private Practice (a spin-off of Grey's Anatomy) and The CW's Gossip Girl. The Heroes audience (and other sci-fi fans) will likely embrace Bionic Woman, and teen girls are going to love (or love to hate) Gossip Girl (which is based on a series of best-selling teen-targeted novels). Private Practice has a strong cast, but the back-door pilot ABC ran last May (as an extended episode of Grey's Anatomy) was so disappointing that it turned critics off to this show. Viewers grumbled a bit, too. But ABC has designated Private a top priority. Perhaps executive producer Shonda Rhimes will turn it around and surprise us. Opposite scripted dramas on the other four networks, Fox should do okay with the reality series Kitchen Nightmares starring Gordon Ramsay, the mad chef of its summer success Hell's Kitchen.

On Friday night, Fox is going the reality route with the music competition show The Search for the Next Great American Band, which does not sound promising, and Nashville, which could be one of the significant unscripted success stories of the fall. Nashville follows young country music hopefuls as they struggle to make it in the title city, and it's from the producers of the red-hot MTV series Laguna Beach and The Hills.

CBS is trying a bold new programming experiment with Viva Laughlin (Sunday 8 PM), a drama with musical sequences that will occupy the prime 8-9 p.m. hour. It's an acquired taste at best, but if women like the show it may have a chance as an alternative to football on NBC and the aging Extreme Makeover: Home Edition on ABC. Still, if Laughlin stumbles it will hurt CBS on this crucial night, so don't expect the network to be patient if this strange show under-performs. Again, thanks to Ed Martin for these insights.

Thoughts - Comments?

YouTube, with millions of single-click unlinked video fragments, is not the future of broadband entertainment. iTunes, with a closed business model focused exclusively on selling iPods, also is not the future. The future, says PodShow CEO Ron Bloom and his partner, original MTV VJ Adam Curry, is "serialized episodic content that bridges the gap between TV networks and YouTube. On-demand content delivered fresh to audiences who are waiting for it is the new model."

Broadband audio and video is transitioning from single-clip to episodic content in response to audience interest, and advertisers will follow quickly, Bloom believes. "There are no 'legs' for brand marketers in single clip video and audio content," he points out. "People hated spam and instant messaging was the solution because it's by invitation only. They accept Google advertising because it's relevant to their needs. But the Internet enables anyone to sell and Google enables any seller to advertise. It's not a relevant model for major brand marketers. Now people hate pre-roll video advertising, but advertising can become a delight when it's relevant to content they've invited in."

Curry left MTV in 1994 after seven years, joining with Bloom to launch their first venture, On Ramp, an early online entertainment company that went public in 1996. They reconnected in 2004 and launched PodShow a year later, building one of the most heavily trafficked entertainment websites featuring nearly 200 professionally produced episodic video and audio programs.

"There's a revolution being created by a swell of creative people who can't get through the traditional distribution bottleneck," says Curry, "and there's an audience trying to connect with these people. There's an incredible wave coming of professional episodic content delivered on any platform audiences want." While Bloom believes mainstream networks will produce episodic broadband content, he expects they will run into rights conflicts with producers who realize they don't need the networks' traditional distribution model to gain access to audiences. Similarly, he anticipates single-click video sites like YouTube will create themed video content channels, but believes the content will not be well suited for building repeat audiences.

Broadband and VOD ventures like Ripe Media and Heavy target focused demographic groups, while Bloom boasts PodShow.com serves all demos with a wide array of content, although he applauds similar broadband audio and video ventures.

Audience demand for audio and video, says Curry, has forced the Internet to move more quickly to broadband. "The Internet was not created in response to audience demand. But now broadband is driving consumer demand for video and audio content and advertisers are following right behind. It's happening exponentially. Advertisers need to take notice that audiences are looking past single videos and attaching themselves to new media properties."

Programming today is competing with the desktop… with online chat, text messaging, social networks, and other new distractions. Traditional models of programming length and formats, promotion, channels, audience attention, screen size, and advertising integration all need to be completely rethought and configured for an audience that wants its content of choice delivered on-demand on multiple platforms. Content needs to be reformatted dynamically for each space it occupies in the media palate. Users need the ability to modify, manage and distribute their content of choice to any platform.

Bloom points out "the audience is driving the new model but not programming it. YouTube is an audience programmed website and it's hard to differentiate programming from noise. For brand marketers, it's about relevance and predictability." PodShow's approach is professionally produced episodic content enabled for delivery to any device. The home run, Bloom adds, is the integration of social context, enabling viewers and listeners to network with other fans and with program producers and talent through chat, SMS, IM and social communities.

With this model, PodShow now claims to be moving past 100 million download requests per quarter with 10 to 20 million downloads per month for its top shows. The company recently hired Andrew Budkofsky to expand its New York ad sales presence, and is focusing on custom program development in association with key marketers. "There's no engagement with pre-roll advertising," explains Bloom. "We believe programming needs to be episodic, invited in by audiences, and must provide a trusted environment for marketers. Messages can be integrated in a relevant and engaging way that audiences embrace."

In Curry's and Bloom's vision of the future, there is no channel changing and no commercial skipping. "Generations of audiences are already consuming media differently than the 50+ executives who are making decisions," Bloom says. "Broadband audio and video requires different programming models and different advertising models. It's not just about cost-per-thousand. It's about relationship building."

Post your thoughts and comments below.

Congratulations to Rupert Murdocha nd to News Corp on the acquisition of Dow Jones & Company and its flagship brand, The Wall Street Journal. And thank you, Rupert.

As Murdoch's News Corp. expanded, I continued to pay attention. When, in 1985, he was sworn in as a U.S. citizen after buying a small (6.7%) stake in Warner Communications and a 50% stake in 20th Century Fox Film Corp, many pundits wrote of Rupert's Folly. Changing citizenship in order to circumvent FCC regulations restricting foreign ownership of broadcast licenses did not endear Murdoch to other media owners.

Nonetheless, he successfully acquired John Kluge's Metromedia, including its six television stations that became the foundation for the Fox TV Network, also considered a folly by competitors who believed the network marketplace would shrink from three to two. I attended a presentation by the then-president of NBC-TV, who forecast not only the failure of Fox, but the inevitable collapse of ABC within a decade. In the late 1980s and early 1990s, with $7 billion in debt hanging over the company, financial analysts considered his U.S. holding company to be a house of cards, propped up through intricate international financial models and highly leveraged assets.

Yet, by 1993, he was acquiring a majority stake in Asia's Star TV satellite operation, 49.9% ownership in India's Hindi Zee Channel, and, in 1994, he acquired 20% of New World's 12 major market TV stations from Ron Perelman, which included a deal to switch their affiliations to Fox. It was a move that forever upended the TV business and common perceptions of what's possible no matter how improbable.

Murdoch continued to challenge common perceptions. He turned around the NY Post, which he reacquired in 1993 after originally buying it in 1976 and selling it in1988; successfully launched Fox News around a controversial emphasis on conservatively slanted journalism; acquired majority interest in DirecTV; bought MySpace out from under Viacom for $580 million; and now half-bullied and half sweet-talked his way to the acquisition of Dow Jones.

In my new book, Virtual Worlds: Rewiring Your Emotional Future (,a href=http://www.jackmyers.com>www.jackmyers.com

Murdoch's impressive success stems not only from his own excellent instincts, but because he empowers his management team to trust their gut feelings and their heartfelt beliefs, rather than demanding they justify their actions with facts and facts only.

This is the reality the editors and others at The Wall Street Journal missed in their opposition to the take-over. Those who can successfully make a strong case for editorial policies that will deliver audiences and relevance, will be empowered to manage independently. Those who expect Murdoch to follow an obvious course will inevitably be surprised. He will continue to upend industry expectations across all media. I expect his moves in the TV industry with the launch of Fox Business and additional video properties behind it will be the most surprising.

Rupert Murdoch is more fascinating today than he was when he first came to these shores, when I was a writer for his Star magazine, doing celebrity interviews. Those of us who love this business and who treasure the few remaining legendary executives who can build and maintain control of their companies without losing touch with their emotional connections to it, should be very thankful for Rupert Murdoch. Do you agree?

Post your thoughts and comments below.

Several emerging cable networks have dramatically increased their distribution in the past two to three years due to digital set-top expansion, giving advertisers more options. Cable networks like TNT, TBS, USA, FX, A&E, Hallmark, Sci Fi and others have introduced more competitive entertainment programming, achieving ratings that look more and more like broadcast-level ratings in key demographics.

Most importantly, advertisers are investing billions on online advertising and several forecasters (I wasn't among this group) believed these investments would be at the expense of network television. But somehow, these bullets all seem to have been successfully dodged through a collaboration of advertisers, media agencies and network sales organizations. Networks agreed to use commercial ratings, but marketers and agencies agreed to use live plus three day viewing data, so DVR activity would be incorporated into ratings data. Most importantly, marketers agreed that the value of network television is unequaled, and paying increased costs to sustain the economic model is an acceptable cost of doing business. According to network estimates (challenged by some agencies) overall broadcast costs increased in the seven to nine percent range and cable cost increases averaged three to five percent.

This represents a stunning turn-about for the industry. For the past several years, media agency executives have preached the mantra of cost reduction. Their raison d'être has been cost containment and reduction, but this year they appear to have reversed field and embraced the value equation of network television, convincing their clients to join them. For TV fans, this is cause for celebration and thanks.

For several others, however, it sends a confusing and conflicting message. For the past several years, the market perception has been that new forms of effectiveness research would become increasingly important. Commercial ratings and even new recall studies are, at their core, quantitative measures of performance rather than measures of sales effectiveness. Others have preached the gospel of multi-media platform extensions that provide exposure on network's websites, mobile platforms and video-on-demand channels. Still others touted the growing importance of integrated marketing campaigns that incorporate advertising with promotion, events, cause related marketing and other communications techniques.

While these incremental options had a place in this year's Upfront, they were far less instrumental in the network Upfront decision-making process than most observers expected. The networks and their agency colleagues can, it appears, take a collective deep breath and give thanks that America's marketers still believe network television - in its pure and basic form – is still a powerful marketing weapon.

Until next year.

In the next 12-months DVR penetration in multi-channel homes (cable and satellite) will surpass 30 percent. News Corp and NBC will launch their new online video service. CBS is actively syndicating their content on multiple platforms. Joost, Veoh, Revver and several other video content players will be delivering network content online. New products from TiVo, Slingbox, cable operators, satellite providers and others will provide easier access to time shifted viewing. Telescoping technology will move toward reality and video-on-demand will become far more compelling as content supply increases. Commercial ratings data will progress toward second-by-second rather than minute-by-minute average commercial ratings. New research suppliers will offer additional data that marketers will be compelled to analyze.

But we have learned a lesson. No matter how compelling the alternatives may be, network television remains the medium of choice for the largest national marketers.

The danger to the industry, however, is complacency. Networks, agencies and even marketers cannot scale back their commitment to developing advanced solutions for marketers. They cannot scale back their commitments to integrated marketing, accountability research or multi-platform extensions. They cannot fall into a trap of believing the future has been delayed. New economic models are still important.

Advertisers paid tribute this year to the value and importance of network television. They will probably continue to pay tribute, in the form of upward pricing adjustments, for a few more years. This gift to the networks should be returned through an acceleration of networks' and agencies' commitment to the development of improved marketing resources, tools, multi-platform extensions and research that marketers can turn to when the winds of change blow so strong that the perfect storm can no longer be ignored.

Post your comments and thoughts below.

Plus I Ask the Question: If it was a dog vs. dog world, would the fighting end?

What is the news during a week when there is no major news? What occupies the TV tabloids, the late night talk hosts, and the major news programs? Do you ever feel like we all sit on the edge of our lounge chairs just waiting for the next news shoe to drop? When the east side of Manhattan implodes, is there a collective sigh of relief in newsrooms? "Thank God! There's a story!" When it turns out to be a steam pipe explosion, can you almost sense shoulders slumping as news producers realize the story has no legs?

Perhaps the biggest news story of this week was a $100 million lawsuit filed against Dateline NBC by the sister of a Texas prosecutor who committed suicide when police approached his house as the result of a Dateline "To Catch a Predator" investigation into his alleged Internet recruitment of a 13 year old girl for sex. CNN Headline News featured a major segment on the lawsuit and all the tabloid news and entertainment shows paid attention.

Bottom line, the news machine was so desperate for news this week that how and why the news itself functions became the news. NBC says no further "To Catch a Predator" features are planned, but the coverage does raise the appropriate question about how far news networks and programs can go to create the news. Are programs that uncover and track crimes, even in cooperation with law enforcement, appropriate? NBC's Chris Hanson was present, with cameras rolling, when the police approached the accused prosecutor's house, resulting in his suicide. Was the presence of cameras responsible? Was he being judged guilty by the media before being given due process?

Of course, nothing has been bigger in the news this week than the release of the new Harry Potter book, with the illegal release of copied pages from the book on the Internet capturing several minutes on network newscasts. First of all, publishers and owners of intellectual property need to get past the idea that they can control anything. Secondly, Scholastic and Warner Bros can be very grateful it was such a slow news week, assuring the online release was elevated to the status of major breaking news. As a follower of conspiracy theories, I'm willing to believe Harry Potter content was released intentionally over the web to create news and draw attention to the book and its surprise ending.

One person who had to be very unhappy with the slow news week is Michael Vick, the Atlanta Falcons quarterback arrested for dog fighting, a federal crime. The story transcended the sports news to become a big story when it might have been otherwise ignored. How many of us knew dog fighting is a federal crime? I couldn't find one in-depth story about the hundreds of lives lost in Iraq this week, but dog fighting was a big story. I sure wish our president would send some American dogs to fight Iraqi dogs so we'd have a good solid case against him and maybe get Congress to take some responsibility for protecting our troops. It's comforting to know our federal government cares about protecting some living creatures, even if its dogs and not soldiers.

What are your thoughts? Post your comments below.

HBO's Big Love is my favorite series on television this summer. Tell me your favorite summer TV series and why you love it by adding your comment to this blog.

Although I love FX's Rescue Me, and there are excellent series on several other networks, including Monk on USA, The Closer on TNT and Army Wives on Lifetime, plus Entourage and Flight of the Conchords on HBO, Big Love has emerged from a shaky first season to become worthy of the HBO tradition.

Of course, Big Love challenges traditional standards of marital behavior and packs more family drama into each hour than most family dramas manage in a season. Only on its surface is Big Love about modern day polygamy in a suburb of Salt Lake City. There's murder mystery, conflicts between 'followers' and 'non-followers,' conflicts among the various family members, generational issues and emotional hormone-raging challenges, and the fascinating look behind the scenes into a fundamentalist sect that most of us don't realize still exists in America today.

Several performances in Big Love are EMMY nomination worthy, most notably Harry Dean Stanton as fundamentalist prophet Roman Grant; Bill Paxton as Bill Henrickson, a complex polygamist with three wives, a straying eye, and an increasingly challenging struggle to integrate his religious beliefs with his need to conform to society; Chloe Sevigny, as second wife Nicki, who is also the daughter of Roman Grant and unable to wean herself away from his Juniper Creek religious compound; and Jeanne Tripplehorn, as first wife Barb who is the family's anchor but also yearns to be perceived as a normal everyday suburban career-aspiring woman. In one of the largest ensemble casts on television, there's not one false note and several younger actors are likely to emerge as future stars, including Amanda Seyfried, Daveigh Chase and Douglas Smith. A favorite since Norman Lear's Mary Hartman, Mary Hartman, Mary Kay Place is always welcome and wonderful.

But the real anchor, who is likely to go unheralded during award season, is Goodwin. Her unexpected elevation by Big Love writers to a central role in multiple story lines has dramatically altered the series. Margene, the youngest wife in her early twenties, is a family link between generations, a wife who is closer in age to the family's older children than to her sister-wives. Her naïve innocence has been replaced by quiet awareness and insight into the characters and the situations they find themselves enmeshed in. Even more than solid-as-a-rock first sister-wife Barb, Margene is the intermediary, peace-maker, and in many ways, the thought leader in the family.

You can get into Big Love (Mondays 9 PM plus multiple airings) without having to watch all last season's episodes. Subscribe to HBO on-demand and just watch the first episodes from season 2. Seven episodes remain this season and HBO has not yet announced a third season renewal. However, with 5.5 million viewers a week, renewal is likely. Executive producers include Tom Hanks and Gary Goetzman.

After the finale of The Sopranos, a shaky start for the new David Milch series John from Cincinnati, and continued heat for the cancellation of Deadwood and Carnivale, the press has been justifiably critical of HBO. But credit the network for the best drama on television this summer, Big Love, and the most original comedy to come along in years, Flight of the Conchords. HBO is alive and well.

What's your favorite TV series this summer? Share your recommendations.

At a bar in downtown Havana, Cuba on a recent weekend, on a lone and outdated television set images of locally edited news updates flickered. Scattered among the locals were several Mexican businessmen, a few Canadian tourists, and a handful of Americans. One American in particular, hungry for baseball scores from home and curious about the presentation of news in Castro's Cuba, settled in for a local beer and an hour of dedicated viewing.

The sound was down and there were to be no baseball updates. Soccer was the big sports story with updates on the Cuba vs. Mexico match and player injuries. There was a story about Venezuela's Hugo Chavez, several stories of local interest only, but virtually nothing of international note except for one story that dominated the hour. It was constantly repeated, capturing a full 25 percent of the total news hour.

It was the story of Paris Hilton. Repeated scenes of Paris Hilton leaving prison, getting into a car, traveling through traffic and emerging again. Each time it came on, those gathered at the bar would glance at the television, watch transfixed for a few moments, and then return to their conversations and drinks. It was the same story, repeated over, and over, and over, and over again.

When Paris first emerged on the social scene in New York, her drunken escapades at Amy Sacco's Bungalow 8 and other hot spots were planned and choreographed, with well-paid publicists assuring the stories were picked up by Entertainment Tonight and Page Six. As her notoriety grew, her life became an open website, rife with rumor and truth. Fifteen minutes of fame stretched into 30, then sixty. Odds get better every day that Paris is this generation's Marilyn Monroe –- a beauty of some talent, endless sex appeal (who knows why), and potentially legendary fame.

Marilyn's body of work includes nude photo shoots for Playboy that at the time were scandalous. Paris' film credits are far less noteworthy, but it's not inconceivable that The Simple Life could live on in syndication for generations. Paris' stint in jail could have been an opportunity to enhance her career by handling it in the noble tradition of Martha Stewart. But it would have been out of character. Hardly a day went by that the paparazzi and tabloids didn't have a Paris story to tell. Perhaps not quite as choreographed as Bungalow 8, but effective nonetheless.

How hypocritical that the tabloid press would attack NBC for offering to pay $1 million for Paris' first out-of-jail interview? After all, the interview would likely become the most globally viewed television program of 2007. Why bury it on The Today Show? NBC should have made it a two-hour primetime special, with footage of Paris' greatest moments and a live interview with Matt Lauer and Meredith Viera. They could have held back footage for weeks of Today Show exposure that would have shot ratings through the roof.

How could the media have missed this opportunity to take the single most recognizable person in the world and have a captive audience during the summer ratings doldrums? Unfortunately for Paris, her handlers, and her fans, Larry King was an especially inappropriate option, but he was the only game left in town. You could almost hear the groans of CNN executives as the King of Non-Sequiturs failed to ask obvious follow-up questions, repeated irrelevant questions multiple times, pursued a line of questioning on the impact of Attention Deficit Disorder, and neglected issues that might have generated some actual emotion from Paris.

Early in the interview Paris commented that she had "a new outlook on life." Later she added that being in jail had "changed my life forever." King never asked what new outlook or how had it changed her life. When Paris said "I've been immature and made mistakes but I've learned from them," King's follow up question was about friends Paris had "gotten rid of." When she talked, several times, about her work, King never asked what her companies did and what her role is. When she complained "There's so much more to me than what people think," King asked "Did you write a lot [in prison]?" When Paris claimed to have never done drugs other than Adderall for her ADD, there was no pressure, no deeper inquiry. No pot? No cocaine? No "X"?

King did ask about future plans for marriage and children, but no inquiry into her parents' responses to her notoriety, her upbringing, her life of entitlement (even as she stressed she was like any other girl). No wonderment where her sister Nicky has been and what their relationship is like now. Where were the questions about her relationship with Nicole Ritchie? Why no simple follow-up questions about the movies Paris is appearing in, upcoming plot lines for the next season of A Simple Life, and what books she read while in jail (other than the Bible)?

Frankly, I'm disappointed a great opportunity has been missed. The opportunity to take the world's most visible and recognizable personality and subject her to a meaningful interview when she is at her most vulnerable. This was the moment for Barbara, Meredith, Katie or even Rosie to step up and do their job.

Let's face it, globally and in the U.S. the biggest story of the past month has been the jailing of Paris Hilton. This is our news reality. This is our culture. This is our society. The world sees us that way whether we like it or not. Why, suddenly, did our institutions, network executives and anchors become camera shy and above blatant commercialism? Did Paris Hilton, days after her jail term, suddenly become old news? What do you think?

Whether you're a dedicated fan of Studio 60 or not, if you're a fan of intellectually and emotionally charged TV drama and politically relevant narrative story telling, you need to let network programmers know they should not ignore the genre. The failure of Studio 60 should not freeze out future programming that demands intelligent participation. Your voice should be heard. Add your message. Cast your vote.

Fans of Studio 60 SoundOff:

I was one of the many involved in the campaign to save Jericho, and I am so thrilled that CBS listened, for whatever reasons they may have had. I am also a fan of the West Wing (best show ever IMO) and Studio 60 and was upset when they pulled it mid-season and then announced its cancellation after these final airings. But I do not think a grass-roots, send stuff to NBC move will save it. As you touched on in your post, there are not enough people interested in "intellegencia" programming, especially when it is so obviously tilted to one side of the political spectrum. By making it obvious it is written from the leftist point of view, the right will not even tune in to see how it is. It's unfortunate because even though there were issues with the show, it was well-written and I enjoyed Sorkin's style of "snappy patter" and the walk and talks he used both in the WW and Studio 60. You mentioned that the script could tone down its preachiness, but I think that would remove what makes Sorkin's work so fascinating. As much as I hate to say it, Studio 60 is done, and the television line-ups are less exciting and less intelligent as a result.

Posted by: Dennis at June 15, 2007 10:30 AM

It would be bad business to cancel this show. It is one of the most well written and acted shows I've seen. My husband and I use TiVo and this is one of the only shows we watch live. You really don't want to lose us because it is one of the few shows we watch on NBC and we'd watch NBC more if you had more shows like Studio 60.

We are also a terrific demographic (married couple, high income, 40-45) and the ones who buy all the new gadgets, upgrade regularly, spend lots of money, & tell all our friends about cool shows & gadgets. Trust me, you will be losing a fine demographic given the intelligent offerings of this show and the audience that can appreciate it. If you really need to make more money to keep the show profitable, then follow your own story line and do more product placement. I don't usually like blatant advertising, but if it will keep this show then do it.

Posted by: Dawn at June 15, 2007 01:07 PM

Jack, you are absolutely right about both what is/was right and wrong with Studio 60. I've already sent your column on to others I now want to see the show succeed. But here's my concern. After creating multiple riveting and realistic relationships on Sports Night, has Sorkin become totally tone deaf to how two people speak to one another? While watching S60 this year, I often felt that Matthew Perry and Sarah Paulson were given scripts to different shows, taped separately and digitally composited together on the
screen. Their chemistry was that bad. Yes, as you point out, characters and actors can be shuffled. But I'm concerned that if Sorkin can't get this basic element correct, then all the rest, the razor sharp cultural and political commentary, is lost.

Posted by: Scott Woelfel at June 15, 2007 01:11 PM

I found this entry via the Google alerts. Many fans are resigned to the fact that for whatever reasons (too numerous to mention here without going into a major rant), the network *isn't* renewing one of the more intelligent programmes next season. We signed the petitions, we voted in the E!Online poll, but despite S60 having better overall ratings than several other shows that have been granted a second season, it's not coming back. It's a damn shame, but we have to realize that illiterate programming is the future and if that's what the networks think they need to bring in the ad revenues, we're just going to have to turn off our TVs and console ourselves with West Wing and Studio 60 DVDs. Yes, we could send nuts, or Mars Bars, or whatever, but that's been done. Instead, a group of us have decided that the answer is not to fight the cancellation, but to celebrate the show and thank the cast and crew. While we're doing it, we want a positive outcome. See http://community.livejournal.com/thanks2studio60/873.html for details of how we are doing this.

Posted by: Hooloovoo_42 at June 15, 2007 01:38 PM

I agree completely! For weeks I've been wondering why there hasn't been any fan furor over such a smart show. This is one of the few television programs to deal honestly with the issues that all of us face in this country. I would love to save this show!

Posted by: Carol at June 15, 2007 03:08 PM

Dude…reach into your savings account and buy a clue…the show is dead and never coming back

Posted by: Carl LaFong at June 15, 2007 02:40 PM

It is too late to save the show, but there is a community working on a project thanking WB, cast and crew and showing support of Tipitina's Foundation in Studio 60's honor. It's a shame the show is gone, it was amazing. The facts NBC (nothing but crap) try to hide, because they should be ashamed.
Studio 60 - When it got labeled "poor ratings" you didn't know:

1. It would be in the top 30% for the season
   
2. The 2nd most dvr'd show of the season
   
3. Out number many of the shows being renewed
   
4. Blow AWAY the numbers of
   anything else tried in its time slot
   
5. They would let Roger Friedman dictate programming.

There is a group at Livejournal that is raising money for a "Thank You" ad for Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip. The ad will feature a thank you to the cast and crew, as well as encourage fans to donate to Tipitina's Foundation (the charity featured in The Christmas Show, which is rebuilding the cultural traditions of New Orleans and also aiding musicians displaced by Hurricane Katrina). They are working with Tipitina's to develop a special "Studio 60 Donations" site. Please encourage fans to check out http://community.livejournal.com/thanks2studio60/873.html for more information on this campaign.
Thank you for your time.

Posted by: Kayla at June 15, 2007 05:19 PM

I agree with Jack in his appreciation of Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip. It seems that broadcasters are so hungry for a show that targets the entire population that it overlooks shows that can attract a smaller, intelligent viewership. With that ideal it's no wonder that almost every show on is so watered down, politically correct and intent on being unoffending that they don't strongly appeal to anyone. I remember heated debates about Martin Sheen's Presidential decisions on West Wing as if he was really the President (I wish). I highly doubt that ,I>Deal or No Deal, America's Got Talent or 30 Rock inspire such thought. The fact that a show can attract an audience that rarely watches TV is amazing. Has NBC considered that they just tapped into a new revenue stream? Maybe they should take a lesson from their own show and load up on a few reality shows aimed at the masses to counter a couple of smart, contemporary dramas. I guess they could even play it safe and broadcast Law and Order: The TV Studio.

Posted by: Michael Durwin from FUSE/ideas at June 15, 2007 05:34 PM

We must save Studio 60! Nothing is like it out there, it would be horrible to let it die! It even had consistent DVR playback ratings too!

Come on NBC, bring it back!

Posted by: Amanda Dornish at June 15, 2007 05:21 PM

SAVE STUDIO 60!! Let's do whatever it takes to retain "SMART TV" wherever we can!!

Posted by: Randall McGuire from Advantage Media Services, Inc. at June 15, 2007 05:42 PM

To cast your vote for Studio 60 and intelligent TV, register your comment at Save Studio 60 and vote at www.MediaVillage.com.

While Studio 60 had its problems, it remained one of the last true politically relevant series on network television. Only ABC's Boston Legal surpasses it in quality narrative writing with historical relevance and perspective. These series rank among only a handful of legendary politically, socially and culturally relevant series. Edward R. Murrow; All in the Family; That Was the Week That Was; Rowan & Martin's Laugh In; Ed Sullivan; Jack Paar; Bob Hope. Hill St. Blues, Law & Order, West Wing. Each era has its few series that served as spokesmen for commentary on the state of the nation.

Sorkin's comeback effort, Studio 60, was found guilty of wearing politics - and a political point-of-view - on Sorkin's sleeve. The writers could never quite get the formula right; the fine line between political commentary and fictional narrative was crossed too many times. The story lines were muddled and uninspiring, the characters only marginally interesting and generally unsympathetic. But behind it all there was the making of high art. There was the potential of greatness. The message that Studio 60 was delivering is important. It offered perspective from opposing political points-of-view. It acknowledged, fairly but with tacit judgment, the arguments that define many of America's greatest issues and most important conflicts.

No other series on network television of the past several seasons has made as serious an effort to offer the public an honest and cogently written weekly commentary on the American political condition. But its failure to offer equally compelling story telling that would attract larger ratings forced Studio 60 off the air. Even though Studio 60 was outperforming several other series that NBC retained for another season, Studio 60 represented an enigma to the network programmers. It attracted an audience that was older, more male, more affluent, and who by definition were comparatively light viewers of other television programs. They were less likely to stay tuned for the show following Studio 60. There were few spots in the NBC schedule, or any network schedule, that would not be negatively impacted by having Studio 60 adjacent to it.

But narrative story telling can be fixed. New characters and actors can be hired and others fired. Scripts can be lightened up; Political "preachiness" toned down. Entertainment value can be enhanced. Audiences might remain older than advertisers' ideal, but there are certainly enough advertisers who pay premiums for association with an upscale intelligence drama that breaks through the clutter and attracts hard-to-reach audiences. Industry experts and network executives say Studio 60 is dead and there's no way it will be renewed. Aaron Sorkin and Studio 60 deserve another shot - at least they deserve some righteous indignation. But the fans of intelligent network series rarely stand up for those series. Where was the uproar against HBO for the cancellation of Deadwood? Because it wasn't selling internationally? So that David Milch could do John from Cincinnati?

I understand that many Studio 60 fans also gave up on the series. And I ask you. What do you have in its genre that's better? What series are you watching where you get the same intellectual stimulation?

The three episodes NBC is airing to run out the original order reminded me that I really enjoyed the series, was growing to like the characters and appreciated the quality of the ensemble cast. But mostly I miss the political insight, debate and contemporary relevance. No other television drama is delivering equivalent debate on important issues. There must be other fans like me. Is Studio 60 important enough to get behind it? It's late. The actors and show running team are scattered. It is an expensive series with high production costs. NBC, producer Warner Bros Television, and Sorkin should consider creative distribution deals that expose the series to audiences on multiple platforms, including cable rights to A&E, for little cost. At the very least, let's inform network programmers that relevant and intelligent programming has an audience.

The first step is up to the fans. Are you out there? Are you committed enough to fight the good fight? Can we find as creative a symbol as the nuts shipped to CBS in support of Jericho? Are there any forces to be mobilized? If you're a fan, send this column to at least two other fans you know (or you believe are fans) and ask them to send it to their friends. Ask them to register their vote to save Studio 60 at www.mediavillage.com. Respond to this commentary with your SoundOff.

I expect to receive very few actual responses. It doesn't mean supporters aren't out there. It's just that the intelligent TV audience is too intelligent to take part in political action to support a television series. Most would rather just bemoan the lack of quality television and do nothing about it. Or am I wrong about you? Please feel free to comment below.

This week, the US Second Circuit Court of Appeals overruled the Federal Communications Commission decision that Fox was guilty of indecency for the utterance of two expletives in live programming.

The Center for Creative Voices in Media applauded the ruling, commenting "these overly broad and arbitrary Commission decisions put creative, challenging, controversial, non-homogenized broadcast television programming at risk. In many cases, the very kinds of television programs that parents want their children to watch - high quality documentaries, histories, and dramas - were affected."

During the 2002 Billboard Music Awards, Cher made the following comment: "I've had unbelievable support in my life, and I've worked really hard. I've had great people to work with. Oh, yeah, you know what? I've also had critics for the last 40 years saying that I was on my way out every year. Right. So fuck 'em. I still have a job and they don't."

During the 2003 Billboard Music Awards, Paris Hilton and Nicole Richie took part in the following exchange:
Paris Hilton: "Now, Nicole, remember, this is a live show, watch the bad language."
Nicole Richie: "Okay, God."
Paris Hilton: "It feels so good to be standing here tonight."
Nicole Richie: "Yeah, instead of standing in mud and [audio blocked]. Why do they even call it 'The Simple Life?' Have you ever tried to get cow shit out of a Prada purse? It's not so fucking simple."
The Court's opinion stated: "The FCC's decision, however, is devoid of any evidence that suggests a fleeting expletive is harmful, let alone establishes that this harm is serious enough to warrant government regulation. Such evidence would seem to be particularly relevant today when children likely hear this language far more often from other sources than they did in the 1970s when the Commission first began sanctioning indecent speech."

The TV Watch Coalition added to the debate: "Today's decision by the Court increases the importance of Congress considering content-neutral solutions to give parents more tools and consumers generally more control and choice over programming coming into their homes. By allowing them to choose the channels that come into their homes, Congress could deliver real power to American families. Permitting parents to have more choice in the channels they receive may prove to be the best solution to content concerns. All of the potential versions of a la carte would avoid government regulation of content while enabling consumers, including parents, to receive only the programming they want and believe to be appropriate for their families. Providing consumers more choice would avoid the First Amendment concerns of content regulation, while providing real options for Americans."

Adding the issue of a la carte opens up a completely new can of worms - perhaps it's a solution to parents' needs, but is it economically viable?

Lots of food for thought here. What's your opinion on the issue of fleeting expletives uttered on live TV, and what solutions do you propose to better meet the need for parental controls. Post your comments below.

This week Bill Gates and Steve Jobs joined hands on stage at the Wall Street Journal's annual conference. The Bancroft family announced it was willing to at least meet with Rupert Murdoch, and most observers expect it to lead ultimately to a deal. The New York Post relegated the Bush administration's embrace of environmental policies to page eight while devoting the first three pages of today's issue to Alex Rodriguez' fling (a story with a good long tail). Ex-Wal-mart executive Julie Roehm is back in the news with tales of inappropriate behavior by senior Wal-mart executives, with the Post again out-in-front on the story. And speaking of the Yankees, New Yorkers are being forced to confront the pending demise of Joe Torre and the error of allowing Willie Randolph to move across town. It seems inevitable that Don Mattingly, Joe Girardi or Bucky Dent will soon be taking over the manager's role unless a winning streak materializes.

As American Idol, 24, Heroes, Friday Night Lights, Lost, CSI, Dancing With the Stars, The Riches, The Shield, The Sopranos and other favorites fade into fond memories, they're being replaced this coming week by Murder She Wrote on Hallmark Channel, Hex and Footballers Wive$ on BBC America, Marco Polo on Hallmark, Write or Wrong with Kirstie Alley and Army Wives on Lifetime (why isn't Lifetime promoting day and date in its advertising?), Make-over Train on TLC, Creature Comforts on CBS, Hell's Kitchen on Fox, NBC's America's Got Talent, ABC's American Inventor and Fast Cars & Superstars, Ghost Hunters on Sci Fi, Tyler Perry's House of Payne on TBS, and Top Chef on Bravo. Fox' So You Think You Can Dance on Fox selects the top 20 finalists.

This is just a handful of the offerings the cable and broadcast networks are scheduling this summer to keep America occupied and hopefully, to keep ratings robust. So I scanned through the television industry trade press in this week of premieres and major programming shifts, and visited the websites of Advertising Age, Television Week, Broadcasting and Cable, Multichannel News, Adweek and Media Week. At B&C and Multichannel News sites, I was devastated to learn Battlestar Galactica, which has had a creative resurgence this year, will only have one more season. Other than that, there's virtually no home page coverage of television programming. Even Variety virtually ignored TV content. This week's major news story in the TV community was NBC replacing programming exec Kevin Reilly with Ben Silverman. But by Friday, there was no follow-up insight and only MediaVillage.com's Ed Martin bothered to pay tribute editorially to Reilly's achievements.

To their credit, the industry trades do an extraordinary job of covering the industry news, and to be fair the news tends to be more deal driven while programming coverage is rarely front page news. But all of us in this business need to bring ourselves out of the technology and "deal-of-the-moment" haze and recognize the dramatic shift toward content that is about to occur. We are on the cusp of a significant refocusing of venture funds, executive demands, growth challenges and industry priorities away from invention and toward retention. In all media - online, print, television, even out-of-home - the focus for investment funding and development is shifting toward content. Barry Diller's IAC, CBS, Viacom, NBC are making aggressive moves to build their content portfolio.

The media industry – especially the video media – is inundated with digital technology companies, many of them redundant. Thousands of companies have received venture funding to build a technology foundation to facilitate enhanced content distribution. Going forward, the deals that will capture the attention of the industry and move onto the front pages and home pages of industry trade publications and websites will focus on content. With ubiquitous delivery available through multiple streams -- wired and wireless -- the competition comes down to who has the most compelling content packaged in the most compelling ways. The key to future growth is no longer technology, it's programming. And even more importantly, it's about branded programming that has "legs" across multiple distribution platforms, supports sponsors through non-traditional means, and brings audiences back day-after-day.

Marketers are slowly moving budgets away from cost-per-thousand driven metrics and toward sponsorships, alliances and promotional relationships measured by audiences' emotional connections – quality rather than quantity. Of course, the ceaseless focus on commercial ratings, DVR ratings and other quantitative behavioral measures suggest otherwise, but soon the trades and the industry will realize the subtle shifts of the past few years have become a tsunami of change.

The industry today is consumed with digital advances, financial deals, partnership deals, commercial ratings issues, technology, Upfront maneuverings… almost everything except content. Watch for it. The tide is turning and content is about –once again – to be king. So, what are you watching next week and when will the networks realize it's not about finding the new hits season after season? It's about building loyal audiences through branded content – audiences who return and who reward advertisers for their support.

Question of the Week: Should the broadcast network Upfront presentations offer more sizzling entertainment qualities to go along with the hard programming facts?

Almost anyone interested in primetime television has been hit over the head this week with daily coverage of the networks' plans for the Fall season. Industry insiders who attended the annual network "Upfront" events noted a few prominent themes: very few new sitcoms; procedural crime shows are on their way out; and the events themselves were notable for being shorter than ever and lacking any "show biz glitz" and entertainment power. (The exceptions were Univision and The CW. Read below for details.) ]]> The networks deserve thanks and credit for underwriting and hosting these events, but it seemed this year like a huge expense for little return. Network executives who plan the events all tell the same story: in their conversations with agency and advertiser executives, they were told "there's no need for show business" at the Upfront presentations. They're about business and imparting information, the networks were advised. Media buyers and marketers counseled networks to limit the number of stars who trot onto stage to deliver typically irrelevant comments about their new shows. They also advised networks to spend as little time as possible on returning shows since buyers are already familiar with them. Finally, they pointed out "we don't need to be entertained." The networks delivered on these requests, and most client and agency executives were grateful the networks "respected their time."

The end result, though, was that the network television industry's most important week of the year -- when an incredible depth and range of quality entertainment is showcased to the ad, financial and press communities -- was reduced to a montage of mass meetings that struggled to hold attendees' attention. Most Upfront events would have been equally effective via remote video conferencing, in small personal meetings or via a DVD. Programs and program schedules all blended into an amalgam of irrelevancy. Sure experienced media agency and advertiser executives have "been there, done that" when it comes to the Upfronts, but isn't there still a place for show biz in the television business?

NBC trooped the cast of Heroes onto the Radio City Music Hall stage but otherwise had no star power and no entertainment during its Upfront presentation, condensing it into a compact 90-minutes. ABC, ironically, transported the Rockettes to Lincoln Center for a chorus line tribute to Ugly Betty and they closed the event with a rousing marching band, also all accomplished in a short one hour 40 minutes.

CBS held to a traditional night-by-night format and scheduling explanations appreciated by media buyers, delivered in a compact 85 minutes. But CBS also opted out of incorporating any uplifting entertainment value, and limited cast introductions to a few new series, most prominently the new drama Cane, starring Jimmy Smits. CBS was clever in its integration of new technologies, with sales exec Jo Ann Ross appearing only as her Second Life avatar and new digital head Quincy Smith delivering a 20-minute talk in less than five minutes. Fox cleverly opened and closed the show with Jack Bauer, via video, commanding President Peter Liguori to keep the show to one-hour, responding to vitriolic complaints after last year's lengthy presentation in a hot downtown armory. This year's Fox event was tightly managed, stars from most series did a quick walk-on, and the after-party at Wollman Rink was the most comfortable.

Univision, with a dominant presence in the Hispanic/Latino community, was less concerned about showing program clips, and instead focused on the emotional connections audiences have with the network, bringing a thousand cheering young people to hear pop group RBD along with the 12-member Team Univision, a fan focus group recruited through an online contest who sat on stage throughout the event, interacting with a comedic host and network stars. Univision shared user-generated "fan videos," presented Ford, Allstate and Subway with awards for the most emotionally connected commercials as voted by viewers, and presented hard-selling stats validating the emotional connections of their audiences with both the network and with advertisers. Univision set the standard this year for delivering relevant insights, differentiated positioning, a cavalcade of stars, and entertainers who reflected the network's brand message. Univision's Upfront was as much a celebration of Latin culture and audience loyalty as a programming presentation. A mini-concert by Marc Anthony, a performance by RBD, plus an appearance by Jennifer Lopez, were Upfront Week highlights, even for jaded industry veterans. The Univision presentation had the audience on their feet cheering.

The CW Network opened with a short performance by Pussycat Dolls and featured Tyra Banks and American's Next Top Models, generating enthusiasm and positive excitement for the network. Here's the problem and the challenge networks face in planning next year's events. Network execs listened to a couple dozen senior hard-nosed industry veterans who want "just the facts." The facts can be delivered easily to these executives in personal meetings, e-mails, video conferences and DVDs. Upfront Week has historically been a celebration of network television. After a week of exhausting parties and presentations, buyers, clients and planners would convene to set strategy, still on a network-fed "high" of emotional enthusiasm. In the past few years, the networks made the mistake of overloading presentations with irrelevant entertainment value and parades of stars, resulting in this year's dearth of entertainment and star power.

Networks need to again rethink how they approach the Upfront, what audiences they are serving, and what their ultimate goals are. Is there even a need for these events and parties or have they become gratuitous and largely irrelevant? Should networks invest hundreds of thousands more in entertainment on top of the million dollars plus they already each invest? Credit them for their efforts and for their effort to be responsive to the stated needs of ad industry leaders. But is there continued reason to invite thousands to major events that fail to enliven, enthuse, define unique brands, entertain or otherwise excite audiences about each network individually or network television in general? What would you do next year?

Check out the Upfront Photo Gallery at MediaVillage.com!