Could the 20th season of "The Simpsons" be the last?
Don't look now, but that's this morning's Holy &%$#& question.
And it's a valid one.
On Monday, Fox announced that the classic had been re-upped for an "historic" 20th season, which (of course) would make it prime-time's longest-running, and give it a dead tie with "Gunsmoke," the previous record holder. But it was only a ONE-year deal, when the cast was signed to a FOUR-year deal.
What gives ... and, why only one season, and why the emphasis on history being made? I'll give you the answers right now, born of a quarter century following this business: Because Fox is covering its bets. If ratings continue to fall, as they have precipitously in recent years, then let's get ready to say goodbye to one of the greatest treasures of our TV lives. (Maybe THE greatest ... let the debates rage.)
Here's why: With the 20th season, "The Simpsons" has perhaps become prohibitively expensive; it's sort of like that 15,000 pound Escalade collecting a mantle of dust in your garage because it costs $500 to fill up the tank...
Last week, following yet another protracted and bitter cast negotiation, Fox -- reluctantly, I assure you -- gave the core members a $50G per episode boost, with Dan Castellaneta, Julie Kavner, Nancy Cartwright, Yeardley Smith, Hank Azaria and Harry Shearer each now earning (over?) $400G per episode (possibly as high as $500G; details have been sparse.) That's $2.4 mil to 3 mil in top cast salaries ALONE and does not include OTHER cast members or OTHER above- or below-the-line production costs. My guess: "The Simpsons" now roughly costs around $5 million per episode to produce. Which means next season's 20-episode order will cost around $100 million.
Let those numbers sink in: five...million...dollars...one hundred...million...dollars
More numbers: "The Simpsons" was seen by an average 7.7 million viewers in the '08 season, and ranked 104th out of all prime-time shows. Viewership was 8.5 million the year before; 8.7 million the year before that; 9.6 million the year before that; and 11 million the year before. "The Simpsons" has shed more than HALF of its audience since the '98 season.
What does all this mean? That as the audience declines, the show costs are going up.
In television, that always spells one thing, and I'll spell it out for you now: Cancellation.
Please. Don't get excited. Fox could turn around and re-up for a 21st season, 22nd, and on and on. Until we're all old and gray.
When I e-mailed a top Fox public relations executive and warned that I was going to produce a blog post musing about the end of "The Simpsons," herewith the response: "We're not going to comment."
Comments (21)
The show hasn't been that great for the last 7 seasons or so anyway, so maybe it's time. As long as the clueless Al Jean is running the show, it will be craptastic. They just don't know how to bring back the magic of season 3-10 (with season 5 being the best), as the timing of the jokes and the voice characterizations are way off the mark now. The movie was pretty good, so hopefully they'll make some sequels, but the series itself needs to be put out of it's misery.
No, it's not as great as it once was, but then nothing is going to be after 20 years. However, most episodes will still make me laugh... often hard, and often often. Most half-hour comedies on TV don't have that effect on me.
As for the declining ratings, The Simpsons generally improve (often by a huge margin) upon the ratings of its lead-in on most nights.
Let me caution you. Those falling ratings are due to two factors. One is the fact that people are watching via DVR, and that Sunday Night Football has seriously bitten into the ratings the last few years. Of course another factor that can be debated all day is the status of the Mike Scully years which is close to the 1998 audience for the show.
it's true the simpsons will eventually end, and it will probably be because of salaries. but a few things... 1) ratings for all of network tv is going down (simpsons took a particular hit post strike this year... before that it was doing pretty well) 2) the simpsons is a world wide phenomenon. 5 million an episode for just a US show is high but considering what they must make from all the countries it's seen in... it's probably still a good deal.
i'm guessing though that this is that last contract they will do as a series.
3) if this was going to be the last year... why would the actors hold out? seems if it was probably going to be the last year, they would know that and sitting out would be pretty silly.
and 4) the show is still good. it was a great season.
Don't forget the show is an established phenomenon worldwide, and is probably making more money abroad than in the US.
I'm sure Fox are still guaranteed big, big profits in the long term from every episode they produce.
I don't think regular TV economics apply to The Simpsons. TV stations in nearly every market in the world compete with each other for the right to show it. It's not like other shows.
Just sit back enjoy a warm duff's beer and enjoy the show...
I feel compelled to respond to the very thoughtful comments from the readers (bless you all!) above, so here goes:
1.) The Real Mel: As no longer a regular watcher, Real Mel, I'm not sure I'm the best judge of the 19th season's quality; the middle years were Shakespearean and if the late years are mere Pinter (or whatever, I'm spitballing here) than so be it. But I suspect the stretch marks are showing. The movie? I wasn't a huge fan (Alaska...domes...whatever), but I'm in the minority.
2.) MidApplause: You make the most salient point. If "Simpsons" still makes you laugh then that's all that matters. Does - say - "How I Met Your Mother" make anyone "laugh hard and often?" I can't imagine...I don't know what its lead-in is - football? And you, sir (or madam) are correct: "Simpsons" was seen by more viewers than King of the Hill (averaged about 6.4 mill) BUT Hank's not getting half a mill per ep either. The hot Sunday night show is, of course, "Family Guy," and we all the kinda money Seth McFarlane just got.
3.) Jessy Scholl: Right you are! DVR has undercut everything; but it makes "Simpsons" even more onerous to Fox financially because commercials are zapped in playback.
4.) DVS - good point about international sales. And the point about the actors? I suspect they're getting what they can WHILE they can; they deserve whatever they can get, and probably deserve a lot more than they're getting (you know how Hollywood accounting works...) But escalation clauses in cast salary contracts have ended many a show that were even STILL in their prime, like "The Practice" (and soon, Boston Legal...) At the end of the day, networks wanna make money, and for them, going cheap is the way to go...
5.) Duff Beer? If I knew where to get it, I'd get a kegerator full.
The show has had unusually large expenses long before the cast got its raise. For example, the payments to Sam Simon, a writer who worked at the show for the first year and a half, copped a "created by" credit, and, as "60 Minutes" viewers may recall, has been spending his time, and money, since on the pro poker tour.
The $500,000 was a mythical figure leaked by Fox. And the international income for the show all belongs to Fox (and Gracie Films), since cast members have never received residuals for showings outside the U.S.
Thanks for the inside scoop, "Ira."
In the end, it doesn't matter whose salaries contribute most to making the show's up-front production costs top heavy.
What matters is that everyone who's a factor in that top-heaviness lacks the apparent foresignt to see the economics at hand and organize a little for the sake of assuring their collective job security.
The writing is on the wall. Viewership has halved itself. The economic climate is such that some people are now watching the show from department store windows - meaning big corporations are suffering in their own, albeit minuscule ways. And the Newscorp unit that perceives itself as bearing the show's full production expenses (FBC) also happens to be the unit holding the cancellation axe. (This one's the biggie. Especially since it's an axe that's been known to swing itself without consideration for the financial consequences to Newscorp as a whole - international and domestic syndication income, etc.)
At the moment, everyone is taking an every man for himself approach by battering Fox for more and more up-front cash on the barrel head. Maybe the wiser approach is committing to each other, as a group, that you'll seek pay raises through avenues that don't put screws to the executioner when your independent contract negotiations come up. Like residuals from those domestic and international syndication profits I mentioned.
And if that's not precedented, make it a precedent. Corporate suits listen when you propose helping *their* units' bottom lines. Besides, what difference does it make how many divisions cut you checks, as long as they sum up the same?
Frankly, if The Simpsons is axed after season 20 because FBC can't bear the costs anymore, you'll deserve whatever future income you've deprived yourselves of. Even Walmart drones have sense enough to (try to) organize. At $400K an episode, though, you'll never have to worry about being one of them.
Now. Back to my greeting post.
Bite your tonge, no Simpsons, no life for me, I blame it on the reality shows, they suck anyway, but they are cheaper to produce, please don¨t take away my family, please!!!!!
Anyone watch the episode titled "That's '90's Show" last January? After watching them re-write the backstory of the series, I knew "The Simpsons" jumped the shark. It was a slap in the face to longtime fans like myself. I don't see how anyone can overlook that...Season 19 was not that great, and the ratings reflect that - I don't care how many BS excuses people continue to dole out (DVRs, writer's strike, etc...) They should just fire the entire writing staff.
IIRC the same reason was given for both the cancellation of Star Trek the Next Generation and Full House - except both those shows were high rating.
With TNG they figured after 7 years local stations would not pay as high a price for the syndicated reruns as they already had over 150 eps to churn through. An additional consideration was the difficulty of keeping costs at a reasonable level when the cast demands more salary to stay on.
In Full House's case I remember it was almost entirely salary related, that and NBC successfully cut into it's Tuesday 8pm Aud with Wings!
The Simpsons remains really popular in syndication (around the world) but there has to be a point of diminishing returns (I reckon about season 9) I mean more than 400 episodes??? Who can even keep track anymore?
I don't understand why they'd want to stop at 20 seasons, since Gunsmoke has that number. I would push for another one or two and claim the title of "longest running show on primetime," since how many chances will a show have to make it that high again?
Honestly, I don't feel that The Simpsons is the only animations show with low viewership ratings this year! I mean some NEW episodes of Family Guy only got within 1-Million more viewers than the Simpsons did...
thank you
thank you
If you kill The Simpsons, you kill me, Rupert. So please let me enjoy my life and watch The Simpsons. Maybe more promos do the job or you can create a spinoff like The Moe Show but let The Simpsons live forever!
thanks
thanks
The show hasn't been that great for the last 7 seasons or so anyway, so maybe it's time. As long as the clueless Al Jean is running the show, it will be craptastic. They just don't know how to bring back the magic of season 3-10 (with season 5 being the best), as the timing of the jokes and the voice characterizations are way off the mark now. The movie was pretty good, so hopefully they'll make some sequels, but the series itself needs to be put out of it's misery.
thanks