Can Genre-bending and Misfit Characters Get You Cancelled?

            Few things present as much horror and disappointment to me than the unjust cancellation of tv shows. For years, Chuck, Pushing Daisies, and Community faced the chopping block, resulting in the eventual cancellation of the first two; Community is still holding on…for now. In my humble opinion, and in the opinion of an overwhelming majority of people I flash-polled on this issue, all three of these shows were quality shows. They were inventive, they were interesting, they were heartwarming and funny. But perhaps they were too great. Maybe they pushed the envelope into uncharted territories that scared executives and advertisers with the great unknown. You can blame these shows’ fates on poor ratings, high production costs, and executive attitudes; these would not be unfounded claims. However, when comparing these shows, a theme emerges that indicates an uneasy balance of genre-bending and an ensemble cast of misfits. These elements, together, are not indicative of a singular, identifiable audience; therefore it would seem difficult to sell this ill-defined audience to advertisers. Maybe we can theorize that shows without easily identifiable audiences, however great they might be, are doomed to fail in the current network tv system.

            For those unfamiliar with these three shows, let me fill you in a bit. Chuck features a nerd-turned-superspy via a computer database of government secrets downloaded into his brain. The main cast of characters includes Chuck, his spy team, his family, and his coworkers at a generic version of Best Buy. Hijinks ensue that combine work antics, spy missions (often gone awry), family drama, and a more than a few elaborate video game competitions. What is the genre of this show, you ask? Well, a little action/adventure, a little workplace sitcom, a little comedy, a little drama. 

Image courtesy of: http://www.fanpop.com/clubs/chuck/images/3437145/title/chuck-cast-wallpaper

            Pushing Daisies features a pie maker who wakes the dead, a freelance detective, a multi-talented pie shop worker, and an alive-again childhood sweetheart. You know, your average stuff. Add heavy postmodern stylings and an affinity for the ridiculous, and you’ve found the show.

Image courtesy of: http://www.nj.com/entertainment/tv/index.ssf/2009/06/pushing_daisies_kerplunk_thoug.html

            Community features seven community college students who just want to belong somewhere. Perhaps the most genre-bending of the three, Community often takes a genre-of-the-week approach, spoofing Law and Order, Die Hard, Lord of the Rings, spaghetti westerns, and even Doctor Who (which receives its own diegetic counterpart, Inspector Spacetime, that recurs throughout the series).

Image courtesy of: http://unhindered.com/blog/2012/07/monomyth-nbcs-community/

            Admittedly, it’s hard to nail down the genres of these shows, but is that such a bad thing? Mittell tries to explain that genres can be categorized by narrative structure, setting and iconography, or even intended audience reaction (Mittell 234-235). These are quite varied approaches, and ultimately, genre determination tends to be a “you’ll know it when you see it” situation. However, genre is quite important in predicting what kind of audience will be attracted. Presumably, someone trying out a new show, like, say, Alias, will check it out because they’re a fan of spy thrillers. Not so with these shows.

This lack of specific genre makes it difficult to pinpoint what sort of viewer will be attracted. And, since network tv is fueled by advertising, it’s important for a show to be able to sell advertisers its audience. Getting advertisers on board is already hard enough, as Mittell says, “When placing their commercials onto television programs, sponsors are purchasing a somewhat unknown asset, as it is hard definitively to predict the audience composition and size for a program before it airs, especially with new shows” (Mittell 60). Advertisers want something cut and dry: “These [audience] segments are typically defined by demographics: age, race, gender, economic status, religion, ethnicity, and region are all valuable determinants for advertisers wishing to target a slice of the American public” (Mittell 61).

Even more important than cut and dry, advertisers want a desirable audience. Mittell says, “Typically the industry aims at audiences that advertisers believe to be more valued consumers, targeting those with more money, more consumerist tendencies, and less hardened consumption habits – a group deemed the commodity audience.”(Mittell 76). So, even if the genres of these shows could be nailed down, the audiences of these shows might not be desirable. This is where the second characteristic of these shows comes in. These shows feature casts of misfits: community college students thrown together as an unlikely study group, pie-makers and alive-again sweethearts working to solve murders, and undercover nerd spies with socially awkward coworkers. With all this genre-bending, identification with the main cast can be a good indicator of a show’s appeal. However, these fictional characters (think Lester from Chuck or Aunt Vivian from Pushing Daisies) don’t really provide a desirable template for the commodity audience. Therefore, casts of misfit characters only make it harder to sell the audience to advertisers.

Now, flawed as this system may be, it is the system that we live with. It is a system that condemns quality programming like Chuck, Community, and Pushing Daisies to shortened seasons, obnoxious product placement, and ultimate cancellation. Even more upsetting is the fact that some network executives display a fundamental misunderstanding of the real world into which they release their shows. An NBC executive commented, “Have you seen the ratings of Chuck? Unfortunately that rabid fan base that was going crazy on the net, didn’t come to the show. Maybe it didn’t come to the show because it was Friday, but you think they would find the show. The show is doing a 1 rating. I think Chuck’s time has come” (chucktv.net). Good sir, the fans of Chuck enthusiastically supported a season-long product placement campaign, rallied the internet in support of your show, and participated in a Subway sandwiches incentive program. If that’s not indicative of a desirable audience, then I don’t know what is. A system that values ratings over enthusiasm, especially in the age of online streaming that still earns ad revenue, is out of touch and sacrifices quality for marketability. Hard as it may be to accept, quirky, genre-bending shows with casts of misfits may just be doomed to fail in the current advertising-driven system of network tv.

Works Cited:

"NBC President Says “Chuck Is Over”." ChuckTVnet. N.p., 6 Jan. 2012. Web. 21 Nov. 2013.

<http://chucktv.net/2012/01/06/nbc-president-says-chuck-is-over/>.

Mittell, Jason. "Exchanging Audiences." Television and American Culture. New York, NY:

Oxford UP, 2010. 60-76. Print.

Mittell, Jason. "Telling Television Stories." Television and American Culture. New York, NY:

Oxford UP, 2010. 213-34. Print.