Monday

The bust-out
that is celeb reality

Does it entirely bite? No, but it's mostly ho-hum.

By Kevin Downey

   It seemed like such a good idea. Take the huge ratings of reality shows and mix in the equally enormous appeal of celebrities.
   A can’t-lose idea in the world of television programming, right?
   Wrong.
   As ABC’s “I’m a Celebrity ... Get Me Out of Here” is proving, and a handful of other shows proved before it, celebrity reality is a bust.
   Did anyone really care, for instance, when Alana Stewart was voted off "I'm a Celebrity" last Thursday?
   While more than 7 million people apparently did care about the fate of the former Mrs. Rod Stewart, ratings for “I’m a Celebrity” and previous shows like ABC’s “Celebrity Mole: Hawaii” and the WB’s “Surreal Life” have been sub-par.
   Since premiering to 11.3 million people during the February sweeps, the audience for “I’m a Celebrity” has hovered around 8 million, putting it somewhere south of No. 70 among all network primetime programs.
   Moreover, it has typically trailed in its time period and has barely nudged ABC’s ratings among younger viewers – the intended audience for all reality programs. ABC’s rating for teenagers is up 4 percent compared to the same time slots a year earlier, when ABC was deep into its worst broadcast season ever.
   Even though more celebrity shows are reportedly being developed, this sub-genre is proving to be a failed experiment, as 56 percent of Media Life readers predicted it would be in a December survey.
   That’s a sentiment shared by Roy Rothstein, vice president and director of national broadcast research for Zenith Media, who says, “I have firsthand information about these shows because I’ve seen ‘I’m a Celebrity.’
   “Its ratings might have to do with the show being on for 15 nights and in varying time periods, but it’s also a poor-quality show.”
   The idea of mixing celebrities with reality, the genre that propelled Fox last month to its first-ever young adults sweeps win, has obvious appeal.
   Even CBS president Les Moonves, perhaps at the time trying to stay one step ahead of what was predicted to be reality’s quick demise, talked about a celebrity “Survivor” two years ago.
   “You'd be amazed how many people have expressed interest in 'Celebrity Survivor' - Ray Romano, Steven Spielberg,” he was quoted as saying. “We're working on a lot of big stars.''
   That show never materialized and, perhaps most damning to all of celebrity reality, big names like Romano have steered clear.
   That has left faded stars like Emmanuel Lewis, who was on “Surreal Life,” to serve as the celebrities.
   “Bigger-name stars would definitely be a draw,” says Brian Hughes, senior research analyst at Initiative Media.
   “But then you’re talking about a lot more money and, of course, it’s a lot harder to schedule their time.”
   The relatively low cost of producing reality shows has been and will continue to be one of its biggest appeals to the broadcast networks.
   That the most successful reality shows have had no celebrities, like Fox’s top-rated “Joe Millionaire” and ABC’s successful “The Bachelorette,” suggests the networks are figuring out what works and what doesn’t in the genre.
   That will keep the reality shows coming; it’s just looking like celebrities won’t be part of the mix.
   “I think you’ll see a slew of reality shows come in and disappear,” says Rothstein.
   “But people like to watch real people hook up with somebody or win something. The true success in this genre is ‘Survivor,’ which continues to deliver.
   “That show is a game and a competition, so you could see why it works.”

-Kevin Downey is a staff writer for Media Life.

Printer-Friendly Version | Send to a Friend
Cover Page | Contact Us