Is Playing It Safe The Riskiest Option In Television Production?

Every production agency, distribution partner and broadcaster will have a goal in mind for every television show they do, and everything they shoot will hopefully contribute towards the overall success of each of these goals.

This makes risk management a major part of any decision-maker’s job, and most will stick to the types of productions that they feel most comfortable with. They will provide the biggest budgets to the shows that have the best chances of producing a return on investment, whatever shape that comes in.

This is why the instinct of many decision-makers is to play it safe, but could this be the riskiest option when significant budgets are at risk?

To illustrate when playing it safe can be counterproductive, here are some of the most notorious examples of television shows and projects that failed primarily by being too safe and derivative.

Why Did A Holiday Soap Opera Fail So Quickly?

In British TV production circles, there is a term known as an “Eldorado”, meaning any TV show which was unsuccessful relative to its promotion and hype.

The last new primetime soap opera the BBC ever broadcast, Eldorado is the perfect example of how putting money behind chasing existing trends does not always translate to success.

Unlike the infamous Triangle before it and the bizarre Night & Day after it, Eldorado did not fail due to its attempts to innovate but by straining to replicate what was already there.

Its attempts to compete with a wave of imported Australian soap operas such as Neighbours and especially Home and Away initially led to a show that struggled to find an audience. By the time it improved, it was swiftly cancelled.

Why Do Spin-Offs Of Successful TV Shows Often Fail?

One of the most popular proposals from broadcasters and television executives is to maximise the profitability of existing intellectual property. If they have a hit on their hands, it makes sense to do more of it and make spin-offs to keep it going.

Some of these spin-offs have been incredibly successful; Frasier, Happy Days, Xena Warrior Princess and even The Simpsons were spin-offs of existing TV shows that became far more popular than the original.

However, they are far more often like Joey than Better Call Saul.

A spin-off from Friends, one of the most successful sitcoms in history, Joey was heavily promoted as its successor, featuring Matt LeBlanc reprising his eponymous role as he moved to Los Angeles to pursue his acting career.

Whilst one can always question the wisdom of doing a spin-off series given that the main appeal of Friends was its ensemble cast, to the point that they negotiated together to secure $1m per episode each, Joey Tribbiani theoretically had a character arc that could sustain a television show.

Unfortunately, the show emphasised the missing five pieces, leading to a remarkably lonely and unappealing show despite playing it safe, ultimately wasting the brand association that had led to its creation.

Can A Game Show Be Too Derivative?

Many game shows adapt existing formulae and even existing games in order to create a successful chimaera of various ideas. However, there are some examples where a game show formula is ruined by trying to play it safe and ride the coattails of an existing trend.

Shafted

More infamous today for its laughable catchphrase and the bizarre behaviour of host Robert Kilroy-Silk, Shafted was an attempt to take the dystopian distrust of The Weakest Link further, utilising a prisoner’s dilemma endgame later used to much more successful effect in Jasper Carrott’s Golden Balls.

The problem is that whilst the sharp-witted Anne Robinson was the perfect foil to trip up struggling contestants, the former host of Kilroy was genuinely disliked but not talented enough as a host to turn that animosity into entertainment.

Red Or Black?

One of the most infamous game show flops ever, Red or Black? did not fail because it tried something new and failed, but because it spent a lot of money expensively ripping off a more popular format without understanding its appeal.

Whilst both shows are based almost entirely around luck rather than skill (as are similarly derivative shows such as Heads or Tails or The Colour Of Money), Deal or No Deal emphasises the psychological pressure of choosing when to walk away.

This is aided by the genuinely unsettling performance of host Noel Edmonds, who is equal parts affable mid-afternoon radio disc jockey and sinister cult leader, especially when consulting with the unseen Banker using the telephone.

Red Or Black lacked all of this, instead relying on spectacle and huge cash prizes for its drama and ultimately proving to be unsuccessful at providing a reason for viewers to tune in.