Brit TV vs. US TV, Volume II

What's unique about the British television model

and why it (probably) wouldn't work in an American market.

I've written before about some of the key differences between British and American television. "Quality" (and by this I mean quality of production and not quality of content) is one of the great dividers. British television has only recently achieved the production quality of American television, due in large part to their reliance on naturalistic (vs. flawless) footage. You can read more about that HERE, but my basic point was that American television looks a certain way...perfect. Scenes that are shot outside are no less vibrant and clear than scenes that are shot on a sound-stage. There is a seamlessness that viewers have come to expect.

Obviously there are numerous other distinctions between British television and American television. The differences are so vast that recounting them here would not only be ridiculous, it would be nearly impossible. However, one clear cut distinction between shows in the two countries is the length of a season.* In the
US we are accustomed to 24 episode runs, meaning that in every "television year" (typically September until May) we will see 24 new episodes of each show. Occasionally shows will run in 13 episodes loops instead. In the UK 24 episodes would be scoffed at, and this type of vast production is left to the soap operas. These shows include 'Coronation Street', 'Emmerdale', and 'EastEnders'. Much like American soap operas, these shows air more than one new episode a week. Unlike American soap operas they also rely on the more naturalistic-look, making their characters look like real people and utilizing videotape to shoot outdoor scenes to create a more life-like image. But the cycle of British soap operas is the exception, not the rule. Other than these soap operas, the UK tends to rely on a vastly different model from the US television industry. They create their shows in 6-8 episode cycles.

If you are a fan of British television you may notice that they utilize the same actors in many different shows, often simultaneously. The 6 episode cycle not only allows for this, it encourages it. This makes a great deal of sense when you consider the amount of attention created when a popular actor joins a new show. In the US we also see this occur, a case in point being Nathan Fillion, who garnered an intense fan-base during his runs on 'Buffy the Vampire Slayer' and 'Firefly'. When he was cast on 'Castle' much of the show's initial publicity utilized his name. The show may well have succeeded on its on merits, but the number of original viewers it achieved is largely based on Fillion's preexisting appeal. Now, think about how successful a show might be if this formula was utilized multiple times a year with multiple different characters, while still maintaining the original characters. In other words, imagine if 'Firefly' and 'Castle' continued to release episodes within the same calendar year, both utilizing Fillion, and both playing off each other's success. This is a formula that has worked remarkably well in the UK. It is also why when someone looks at a British actress and says, "it feels like she's in everything", they're not wrong.

You may think that a 6-episode cycle is frustrating for the British viewer, but it actually holds some advantages that US television can't offer. For one thing, it offers the potential for shows to have longer series runs. A critically-acclaimed show, popular with a small niche of viewers, is not going to last long in the United States. The networks and cable companies can't afford it. A 24 episode run that will not do enough in terms of revenue just can't happen. In the UK, it's easier to accept that revenue may be lacking during the 6 episode run but that the critical acclaim that could be garnered for the channel outweighs the brief financial loss. That can't be said of the lengthy American run.

Ryan McGee posits that "long-form narrative" (a story which builds upon itself again and again) can garner a great deal of critical acclaim, mainly because there is more potential for analysis. However, these shows often fall flat because this build-up is impossible to maintain. McGee refers to this type of show as "high-concept" and contrasts it to character-driven narratives. In many ways his commentary is examining the distinctions between character-driven and plot-driven stories. When examining the potential for a show's longevity, I'd argue that a character-driven story has more potential. "High concept" shows will often flounder, because the very concept that once made the show appear to hold so much potential begins to feel at best comfortable and at worst repetitive. Presumably this can be avoided if the show has a shorter run, provided that the show actually has some inherent quality.

Another advantage that the British show has lies in it's writers. The American television system revolves around a writer's room, and writers are hired on as staff. British shows don't have writers rooms (the exception again being soap operas and a few choice programs who desperately wanted the ability to have an American-style showrunner). A writer is paid for his or her script. What this actually means is that there is a much smaller pool of writers contributing to a show. Because there are only 6 episodes you can easily have just two writers (or even one writer!) constructing all the episodes. This leads to a potential for the creation of a purer character-driven story, because there are fewer writers contributing to that character's voice. Of course, the American television industry has worked hard to perfect their system, insuring that they only hire writers who are able to echo the tone of each series. Despite this, there is an inherent purity in having one writer construct each episode of a series. In a 24 episode run this purity would probably be lost anyway, because one writer would collapse in exhaustion after writing such a magnitude of scripts. Six, on the other hand, is completely reasonable.

 Adding on to this, it means that if a show is cancelled the British writers are often at an advantage. Already accustomed to wrapping up a season's worth of storylines in a mere 6 episodes, they can easily conclude a show to the satisfaction of most viewers. Also, because of the cyclical nature of all shows, production is often planned in advance. For instance, the fifth season of 'Doc Martin' finished airing in October of 2011, but it was not announced until March of 2012 that a sixth season would be filmed...to air in late 2013. Plenty of time to sort out how the series will air.

Cost also contributes to the necessity of a 6 episode run. In Great Britain each household that owns a television pays a licensing fee. This money in turn goes to the networks who then use it to fund their shows. A television show in the United Kingdom does not have the budget that a US show may have. Now that they are shying away from their prior preference for "naturalistic" footage, and no longer utilizing videotape to the same extent, production costs have automatically increased. However, they are able to produce shows of the same caliber as American television by utilizing their shorter series runs.

So, if the British system is so great, why won't it work in an America? For one thing, now that television has established that shows typically air in 24 episode cycles, even 13 episodes seems short. I cannot imagine the outrage if a popular show suddenly started airing only 6 episodes. Of course, the UK has worked around this by allowing multiple 6 episode cycles to be released within a calendar year, provided the show is popular enough. Still, viewers in the US are accustomed to consistency and a 6 episode cycle with the potential for more episodes at some unestablished later date would not be readily accepted. Still, I'd argue that for 'high-concept' shows a 6 episode cycle may not be a bad thing. For shows that rely on slow and steady character development? You could argue that a 6 episode cycle doesn't offer that. However, there are several successful British shows that have managed a progressive character development while still maintaining their shorter runs. Two of these shows are 'Doc Martin' and 'Downton Abbey'.

In part due to their large success, both 'Doc Martin' and 'Downton Abbey' have between 7 and 8 episodes in each of their seasons. While this is higher than the typical six, it is clearly still far fewer episodes than a typical American show would air. Although the seasons of both of these shows feel short in the sense that viewers are left wanting more, the same can be said of high-caliber American shows. Each season still manages to develop characters, offer varied plots, and provide a highly enjoyable enjoyable viewing experience.

'Downton Abbey' also appeared in the United States with much critical and popular acclaim. However, I would caution about using it's success as a precursor for acceptance of shorter season runs. I believe that one reason why the seven and eight episode runs of 'Downton Abbey's' first two seasons was so widely accepted was because it was foreign. Viewers recognized that they were getting something from a foreign country and that was part of the inherent charm. I strongly believe that if the show had been produced in the United States far more viewers would have expressed outrage at the limited number of episodes in each season.

  *To further confuse the issue, what American viewers call a season  British viewers actually call a series. To clarify: In America 'Show X' would have a first season, then a second season, and so on. In the U.K. 'Show X' would have series one, series two, etc. For the sake of this article I'll use the American terminology: a series is a collection of seasons.