Predicting New Season’s Winners Is a Shot in Dark

Journalists don’t always make great prognosticators regarding the fate of new TV series. In fact, back in 1990 a younger, thinner TV critic with my name gave high marks to Steven Bochco’s musical drama “Cop Rock,” which lasted 11 episodes, and had the audacity to speculate viewers would probably reject “Law & Order,” which just finished its 11th season.

Still, anyone who has watched “The McLaughlin Group” or a similar talking-head shout-a-thon understands that while making predictions can be risky business, there appears to be an insatiable appetite for doing so these days--forecasting who will win the game before the players have suited up, much less taken the field.

The challenge, then, becomes finding people with impressive-sounding titles and credentials to express such opinions--people, in this particular case, paid to watch television.

Since that’s a relatively small group, reporters consistently turn to a small cadre of always quotable media buyers, who, as last month’s prime-time scheduling announcements for the coming TV season wrapped up, immediately began venturing guesses as to how it will all play out in the fall.

Unfortunately, the key word is “guess,” which, in the frenzy to provide instant analysis, doesn’t necessarily even fall into the “educated” category.

It’s hard to tell much, after all, from watching a two-minute clip of a new program, frequently leaving would-be seers at this stage reviewing time slots instead of shows. As a result, we see plenty of bold assertions that the series anointed to follow “Friends,” “Inside Schwartz,” will be among the season’s highest-rated new offerings.

Well, duh. So would a test pattern or bar mitzvah video, which hasn’t spared the last several occupants of that hallowed half-hour from cancellation.

By contrast, such seat-of-the-slacks punditry couldn’t possibly have identified “Everybody Loves Raymond” (which CBS initially scheduled Friday nights) or “The Practice,” (a 1997 midseason replacement that languished when ABC brought it back Saturdays at 10 p.m.) as the durable hits they have become.

Nor, for that matter, did many recognize “Judging Amy,” “Providence” and “Touched by an Angel” as instant successes, though given their common theme--a pretty brunet in a soft-edged drama who gets advice from a trusted family elder (in order, Mom, Dad and God)--there were certainly clues.

To see just how specious such predictions can be, one need only look back to the recently concluded season to find ample evidence that when it comes to television, nobody really knows anything.

Consider ad agency Universal McCann, whose glossy “2000-01 Insider’s Report” placed CBS’ “Yes, Dear,” the season’s biggest new sitcom hit, in the “probable cancellation” bin.

“The new series inherits a desirable time period,” the agency noted, “but we are more enthusiastic about two other new CBS sitcoms, ‘Bette’ and ‘Welcome to New York.’ ” Both were canceled, as was the soap “Titans,” which the report said “should complement NBC’s strong returning dramas.”

Actually, that drama turned out to be “Ed”--which ultimately inherited “Titans’ ” time slot--which Universal McCann tossed in its “probable cancellation” basket, while filing the Wall Street drama “The $treet” (a stock Fox dumped after seven episodes) under “probable renewal.”

Last September, USA Today solicited ad buyers for their full-color assessment of the season’s new shows. Among other things, they determined “The Geena Davis Show” and “The Fugitive”--which, to borrow from “The Godfather,” now sleep with the fishes--were two of the year’s most promising candidates.

“A good show with a really likable star that I think will wear well,” Robert Igiel of Media Edge said of “Geena.”

“The cliffhangers should work again, and they’ve been updated beautifully,” Paul Schulman of Advanswers PHD stated regarding “The Fugitive.”

Underscoring the pressure to get in on the act, even reporters who remember history can still find themselves doomed to repeat it.

A recent article posted on the Web site Inside.com, for example, included this passage: “Last year, the ad community picked CBS for having the strongest new schedule on the strength of ‘Bette’ and ‘The Fugitive,’ both colossal failures.” Undaunted by this point, the story proceeded to quote members of the ad community about what they thought of new networkfare for the next 10 para-graphs.

While USA Today’s panel did correctly identify several series that failed, the odds always favor a prognosticator on that score, since at least three-quarters of programs usually do. So while tagging “The Michael Richards Show” and John Goodman’s “Normal, Ohio” as being unlikely to survive proved accurate, “Yes, Dear” made that list as well.

Even wishy-washy statements can turn out to be dead wrong, such as advertising firm TN Media contention that “Titans” would be “either an instant hit or an instant flop.” Actually, it was neither: The show premiered to strong ratings before viewers drifted away, unmoved by Yasmine Bleeth’s ability to chew scenery as fast as she shed clothing.

In similar fashion, Mike Greco of Optimum Media Decisions seemed to be on safe terrain saying, “Nothing looks like a breakout hit this season”--breakout hits are inevitably rare--until the explosive popularity of “CSI: Crime Scene Investigation” caught pretty much everyone napping.

Such misdiagnoses weren’t confined to new series, either. “ ‘Survivor’ is certainly going to be a hit,” Steve Sternberg, a senior partner at TN Media, said before that contest began. “But when ‘Friends’ has original episodes, I think it’s certainly going to beat ‘Survivor.’ ”

As it turned out, eight new “Friends” installments broadcast opposite “Survivor” averaged 18.5 million viewers, trailing CBS by a margin of 11 million people per week.

Sternberg also took a swing at last year’s subway series between the Mets and Yankees, concluding the all-New York matchup wouldn’t hurt viewership. The quote didn’t do much for his prediction batting average, as World Series ratings slumped to a record low.

The intent here is not to embarrass anyone (consider that a collateral bonus) but simply demonstrate how such guessing games generally amount to little more than that--the sort of exchanges best confined to bars and barber shops, where they can be quickly forgotten.

Perhaps that’s one reason, when asked to gauge the prospects of a TV show, a true sage will fall back on the safest possible response--something like, “I’ll tell you one thing: It’ll be in color.”

*

* Brian Lowry’s column appears on Wednesdays. He can be reached at brian.lowry@latimes.com.