Hollywood is forever cyclical, which means it was broadcast’s turn to experience a bit of a glow-up this season. While cable continues to struggle and streaming experiences some growing pains, the broadcast networks have been the beneficiary of a recent narrative that they still matter. And that was borne out by the success of new series like “High Potential” at ABC and “Matlock” at CBS, as well as the amusing fact that streamers are essentially trying to remake themselves as modern-day broadcast networks as they look for staples like live sports, awards shows and procedural dramas.
Craig Erwich, who’s in the unique position of programming both a broadcast network and a streamer — and who grew up in the broadcast biz — is quick to chuckle at the notion. The Disney Television Group president, whose domain includes ABC Entertainment and Hulu Originals (in addition to Disney Branded Television and Freeform), has been using both outlets to fuel each other’s viewership — ABC’s “High Potential” on Hulu and Hulu’s “Only Murders in the Building” on ABC, for example.
“Broadcast never went away for us,” he tells Variety. “Anecdotally, I keep having people come up to me telling me their kids are watching ‘The Rookie’ and ‘The Rookie’ is in Season 7. They’re starting on Episode 1.”
Earlier Thursday, ABC revealed most of its remaining pickups for fall: Besides previously announced returns of “Abbott Elementary” and “High Potential” (along with newbie “9-1-1: Nashville”), back will be “9-1-1,” “Grey’s Anatomy,” “The Rookie,” “Shifting Gears” and “Will Trent.” ABC still needs to make a decision on “Doctor Odyssey,” as well as several unscripted entries.
Prior to the announcement, Variety spoke to Erwich about the pickups (including the fate of “Doctor Odyssey”), and what he makes of all this talk of broadcast’s resurgence. Does he think it might have an impact on the Emmy race, where broadcast has been mostly shut out on recent years? How does the ABC/Hulu ecosystem now work? What ratings does he gravitate toward in making decisions? Is there truth to the conventional wisdom that Hollywood is more interested in so-called “middle America” fare? What’s next for “The Kardashians”? That and more in the interview below — edited, of course, for space and brevity.
Broadcast’s back, baby! I’m being cheeky, but going into upfront, that’s definitely a trend everyone’s talking about. What do you make of this narrative?
Quite frankly, I don’t think there’s enough recognition of the kind of pound-for-pound quality that is being done at broadcast. In particular at ABC, I look at “High Potential,” “Will Trent” and “Abbott Elementary,” and those are three of the best shows that are being done across anything that I’m involved with. And I would say, as well as anything on television. With each of these shows now getting into years two, three and four, they’re just getting richer. I just saw an episode of ‘Will Trent’ that was essentially a musical episode, that just blew me away.
We’ve always been enthusiastically in the broadcast business. The way I think about it is that the broadcast windows have just expanded. There’s the broadcast experience and the kind of shows that thrive there, but now there’s another window — and a very important and vibrant one for those shows — on Hulu. That’s a window that is the preferred avenue for watching for many people. When we look at the data, we’re seeing probably two thirds of the viewing of “The Rookie” since it’s been on, has been in the last two years. So new generations are discovering shows like that and “Grey’s Anatomy.” We need our next generation of 100-, 200-, 300-episode libraries of television shows.
Is it OK that viewers might not necessarily see those as ABC shows? Maybe they see them as Hulu shows, or, in some cases, Netflix shows.
What’s important is that people love those shows regardless of where they’re watching them. A lot of people are tuning into their ABC station on a nightly basis to still watch those shows. That is [still] a time-honored tradition for a very large group of people, and we embrace that. Then there are some people where the brand is slightly more disaggregated that they attribute the quality of those shows to Hulu, which we benefit from mightily. And that’s OK.
Streamers seem to be taking pages from the broadcast playbook in doing live events, more procedurals, longer orders. The joke in recent days is that streamers have rediscovered broadcast TV. What’s your take on that?
I’m amused by it, just because broadcast TV never went out of vogue at our company. We’ve always known the power of it. I mean, think about how Ellen Pompeo has been in people’s homes for 20-some odd years. They’ve grown up with her. That’s an incredible bond that a show can have with its audience. We’ve been the beneficiaries of it. We’ve been the architect of it. So I’m not surprised that others see what we’ve been able to accomplish and are setting their sights on that.
You talk about how building a library is still very important for that, and broadcast is still the only place doing 22 episodes. Do you think Hulu would ever do a 22-episode series, or does that not make sense economically in the streaming universe?
We absolutely could do that. The way I think about it is, we are a streaming company. We have the very distinct advantage of bringing to market certain types of shows to ABC first, and that is a great way to market them. So in a weird way, “The Rookie” and “High Potential” are Hulu shows. We’re just premiering them three hours earlier on ABC.
Do you think the creative community thinks that way now? For a while there was this stigma that some people didn’t want to do a broadcast show. “I’m an artist, I want to do a streaming show.”
I think the creative community recognizes the opportunity that exists on broadcast to do incredible work. Look at “Abbott Elementary,” look at “Will Trent,” look at “High Potential.” Those are certainly shows that get writers off the sidelines to say, “Wow, you can do still do really interesting creative work at ABC,” and our door is open to those people. And then secondly, you look at just the numbers. In multiplatform+7, which includes streaming, we have five of the top shows. So success is a huge motivator.
So, where you see the utility of a broadcast network is in this ecosystem?
There are certain types of shows that people look to broadcast for and that thrive on broadcast: long-running procedurals, family-friendly comedies, live events and big tent, aspirational unscripted shows like “The Bachelor,” “Dancing with the Stars,” “American Idol.” That kind of viewing experience of “it’s on tonight, and I want to watch it with my friends or my family.” From a business perspective. it’s the best marketing way to create awareness for those shows when they go on to Hulu. We have a very vibrant, very virtuous ecosystem of circulating word of mouth and engagement between ABC and Hulu. We’ve really figured it out. I actually think we’re the best at it.
You’ve been experimenting with putting “Only Murders in the Building” and “Paradise” on ABC. Will we continue to see more of that? What’s the strategy in cross pollinating shows between Hulu and ABC?
The key is to be very intentional about it. We only put on ABC, the shows that we think are the best of the best that can resonate with the ABC audience. The way I look at it is “Paradise,” which is one of the best shows of the year, is a gift to our ABC viewers. Some of them don’t have Hulu, or they haven’t watched it yet. We’re giving them the ability to discover it and consume it. Given the excellence of the show, it’s really celebrating our viewer and putting our viewer first.
Although you do have to make some edits for it to be broadcast friendly, right? How difficult is it to move a show like that over to ABC?
It’s really mostly about the length and the format. I would not put a show on ABC that required tremendous creative compromises. There are certain types of shows through the tone or the way they’re produced that lend themselves to this. I wouldn’t do it with every single show. We’re not just kind of throwing everything up there.
I’ll be curious to see if Emmy voters treat “High Potential” and “Paradise” differently since one is a broadcast show, one is a streaming show. Do you think that’s going to play a role in how both shows are considered by Academy voters?
I think one of the best ways to get the voters or the critics to support or laud your shows, is to get them to watch it. And so hopefully being on ABC but also on Hulu, will play to a “High Potential” advantage. I’ll be disappointed if Kaitlin Olson is not nominated.
Is there still a little bit of a bias against shows that are branded as broadcast network shows?
There may be a bias. But I’d like to think that the best work gets recognized. I mean, the critics and the awards organizations have been so incredibly supportive of “Abbott Elementary.” I’m hoping that they do the same thing for “High Potential” and “Will Trent.” I’d like to not be cynical about it.
But this is a cynical business! It’s been really tough for broadcast to break into those scripted categories in recent years.
And that’s one of the reasons I’m excited to talk to you today. Hopefully this re-embracing of broadcast will open the aperture when it comes time for awards consideration.
When you’re looking at all this data from Hulu, from ABC — the L+35, the multi-platform data — is there something that you look at the most to really measure a success of a show?
We’re very focused on multi-platform+7, because that captures most of where we can capture our viewers between what’s measurable on broadcast, as well as our own platforms. I always look at how much of a show is watched. If we have 10 episodes, do people watch all ten of them? If we have 20 episodes, do people watch almost all 20 of them? Are they coming back week to week? The repeat business is a really important metric, because that speaks towards the quality of the show and its ability to inspire and retain an audience.
Let’s talk about some of the pickups. “Shifting Gears” was on the bubble, having opened big but then it slid down after that. How did it score the renewal and what were you looking for?
If you look at the history of ABC comedy, we’ve consistently reinvented or breathed new life into the family sitcom through new voices. I think the pairing of Kat Dennings and Tim Allen, and seeing Tim in a different way is a new take on this. Tim is a massive television star, so, yes, the show opened big. There’s always a drop off most of the time after some type of premiere. But we’re very happy, not just with where the show settled, but creatively with it. Those two, I could watch them all day,
This still only gives you two sitcoms on ABC. What’s the goal for comedy on the network?
Family comedy is ingrained in the DNA of ABC. We’re very bullish on it, and we’ll continue to develop new shows.
Anything in the hopper that’s close to any pickup?
We have an active and exciting development slate, but I don’t have anything to share right now.
You haven’t made a decision yet on the fate of “Doctor Odyssey.” What are you going to be looking for in the coming weeks?
We love “Doctor Odyssey.” We’re still having creative conversations about the show with Ryan and evaluating. Ryan is very busy. He is working on a ton with us right now: “9-1-1,” which continues to be one of the No. 1 shows on television. We just gave an expanded order to “9-1-1: Nashville.” We have Chris O’Donnell in that. I think it’s a really unique setting for our flagship franchise. We just launched “Mid-Century Modern.” So, as he should be, he’s quite busy doing excellent work for us. Ultimately, we’re going to take our lead from Ryan about what that next chapter of “Doctor Odyssey” looks like. But we’re having creative conversations about it right now. He’s an amazing partner.
What else are you looking at priority-wise with Ryan?
It’s been announced, but [from] Ryan Murphy, Kim Kardashian, Glenn Close, Naomi Watts, Niecy Nash in a law show — the likes of which you’ve never seen — coming to Hulu, is something that has the focus of our entire organization. I think people are going to be blown away when they see it.
ABC has no pilots in contention this season. That means so far, “9-1-1: Nashville” is your only new show for fall. Will there be more? What are you looking at now strategically for how many new shows to announce for ABC?
For many years we have been in a year-round cycle of development. We’ve had tremendous success launching shows in January and midseason, and we’ll continue to look at that as an opportunity. This notion that we have to have every single pilot ready for fall launch is not something that we pay a ton of heat to. We have some things that I am excited about, but it’s too early to discuss.
Do you think you’ll be announcing more come May? Or is that not a deadline like it once was?
It’s not a deadline like it once was, but it’s really not even about the deadline. All of our focus between now and September is going to be on shows that launch in fall. We’ve had a lot of success with picking one or two things to get behind each fall and each midseason. You and I go a long way back, to the days when every network would do 20 pilots, launch four or five shows all against each other, and then you hope that one sticks, and you carry one forward a year. Well, we’ve been making fewer pilots, launching fewer new shows, and that’s a strategy that has been very successful. We’re returning shows year in and year out, based on our focus on the creative and on marketing. “High Potential” is coming back this year; the year before, it was “Will Trent,” and the year before that was “Abbott Elementary.”
As we’re talking about development, there’s been a lot of conversation that the industry is looking for more “middle America” fare given the state of the nation and this new administration.
I haven’t observed that. What I will say is that’s it’s no surprise that people always chase success — whether it’s “Yellowstone” or “The Handmaid’s Tale.” Some of that is to be expected. Our biggest hits on ABC, I would say, are neither “middle America” or “west coast” shows. They’re shows for everyone. When you think about it, regardless of the administration, “Idol” and “Grey’s,” to name two, have spanned multiple political and cultural chapters for our country. What we’re trying to do are things that are timeless. So hopefully in ten years, someone will sit down and watch “Will Trent,” regardless of what the political climate is, and go, “Oh, my God, I love this guy, and I love his story, and I’m so surprised by these cases, and it’s so unique.” That’s the goal, not trying to put your finger on the pulse of where we are on Wednesday
Does it impact when you’re renewing a show like “Shifting Gears,” where the star is known for being a little more of a conservative figure? Do you look at that differently now?
No, only because Tim Allen has been on television and in movies for the last 40 years. He’s always had an incredibly unique point of view that’s been really entertaining, but also really funny and welcoming. He and Kat Dennings have an incredible magical chemistry together. That’s what we talk about, that’s what we look at. And I think that’s what people like about the show. Tim Allen is just a best-in-class talent, and “Shifting Gears” is a best-in-class show. Regardless of who’s president, we would be renewing “Shifting Gears.”
We’ve been waiting on renewal information on “The Bachelor.” There’s been a shakeup behind the scenes with the production team. What’s the status of “The Bachelor” universe?
I don’t have any news to share right now. I was very happy with the finale. It was one of the highest rated episodes of that chapter. I thought Grant generated a lot of conversation. We’ll continue to be really careful about which iterations of “The Bachelor” we bring forward and how we do it. We have “Bachelor in Paradise” this summer with a pretty unique twist [mixing multi-generational personalities from both the original recipe and “Golden” universes].
“Dancing with the Stars,” also hasn’t been renewed yet, but I assume that’s set for next season as well.
We’ll have news to share soon. You think about how the broadcast shows have found new windows and are being introduced to new audiences, but what the producers of “Dancing with the Stars” did with TikTok this year has brought a whole new audience to the show.
Fox just renewed its lineup of Disney-owned animated series in big four year deal, and those shows have a secondary home on Hulu. There had been scuttlebutt that maybe ABC or Hulu would bring those shows in-house for first run. Was that ever a possibility?
I think we’re really happy with the arrangement that we have. Hulu is the home to adult animation. We have the best offering by a mile. “The Simpsons,” “Family Guy,” past and now new seasons of “Futurama,” and past and now new seasons of “King of the Hill.” I think people are going to love the new “King of the Hill.” It is so perfect for our times without trying too hard. You see Hank Hill in a whole new way.
Let’s talk late night, as CBS downsizes in the space. You’ve still got Kimmel for a while, but what is, what is your long-term take on late night? What do you think ABC might do once Kimmel does step down? Are we seeing the slow end to these franchises?
We’re in a very unique position, because Jimmy is the king of late night. He’s the longest running host of any of these franchises. He’s still coming out every night, and doing some of his best work. And we have him here, and that’s what we’re focused on.
Talk has been a tougher nut for the streamers to crack. Do you think Hulu might try again?
I would never preclude anything. It’s always about the right time and right talent.
Speaking of Hulu initiatives, what’s your report card on “Hularious” so far. It doesn’t feel like anything has necessarily broken through yet. Are you thinking of changing things up?
We’re early days, but I do think some of them have broken through. Bill Burr, which is the most recent one, has garnered a tremendous reaction, both in terms of people really enjoying it and watching a lot of it. We had a really successful kickoff with Jim Gaffigan. And we’ve got some big ones coming up, like Sebastian Maniscalco.
In Hulu unscripted, “The Secret Lives of Mormon Wives” did quite well. It feels like it overshadowed “The Kardashians” a bit. Do you see “The Kardashians” going on for forever there? What might their long term status be at Hulu?
“The Kardashians” continue to remain at the center of the conversation, day in and day out, and they have been able to stay relevant and reinvent themselves at every single turn, on and off the camera. So I see them as being in the family for a long time. I love working with them. They’re as engaged and savvy and smart as anyone I’ve ever worked with. I think having “Secret Lives” is just a great complement and demonstrates that we’re a great home for those kinds of shows. I was thrilled with the reaction to “Secret Lives.” It struck a nerve. People were just ravenous for it.
Read the full article here
