First off, I believe “The Biggest Loser” was the lead in for “Quarterlife” which probably isn’t the best demographic/psycho graphic fit. This is inexplicable for a network that used to leverage “Seinfeld” and “Friends” as its tentpoles and lead ins.

Second, much like “My So Called Life”, “Freaks and Geeks”, “Family Guy”, “Quarterlife” has the opportunity to become a cult hit. “Family Guy” was pulled before being a mainstream hit, and “Freaks and Geeks” has gained more popularity on DVD (along with Apatow’s rise). The show already has a following and is halfway to being a cult phenomenon.

Finally, expectations were simply too high for a model that has yet to be proven. If anything, the show should have started on cable and then moved to broadcast, but whether it be due to the writers’ strike, maybe NBC felt its hands were forced.

What I am concerned about is how it will affect the future of webisodes moving to television, from both a business model perspective and story line
engagement.

I don’t think I implied your comment was negative. Thanks for stopping by and adding your thoughts.

Thanks,
Liz

Fine, except that what I knew in those first few seconds was actually something very different: I knew that “quarterlife” wasn’t television. Think what you will of my past work, but I’ve been at this a long time and I know the DNA of television, I know how it manifests itself in story, casting, direction, acting, lighting, photography, set design, costume design, editing, etc., etc. And in every one of those areas and more, “quarterlife” is just not a television show. It’s more ragged, more chaotic, more truthful, less sensationalistic, less presentational, a hundred things you might like or dislike, but trust me, I know just what I’d have to do to turn “quarterlife” into a television show — and it ain’t one now. And I knew in those seconds that a network audience wasn’t going to respond to it — not because it’s bad, though many I’m sure will disagree — but because it just isn’t….television.
Of course I hoped things would be different, all along I hoped that a large TV audience would be attracted to this other thing, I believed they’d be attracted to it — but in those first few seconds, thirty years of experience told me otherwise. I suddenly had no doubt about the outcome: we were dead. I even knew what the rating would be and said it out loud. Ask the people in the room.
Why bother to rehash this now? Because “quarterlife” has indeed succeeded on the Internet, by any measure, but especially by the measure Chris Albrecht himself suggested in September: 100K views in the first 24 hours. We are averaging slightly over that across 33 webisodes. And it’s worth rehashing because “quarterlife” would indeed be a success on a cable network, with the 3.1 million viewers we got on Tuesday.
So, yes, it’s been embarrassing to live this experiment in public, and to fail on television so spectacularly — trust me, you don’t want to experience that — but perhaps those who make their spiritual home in the digital world and distrust me or my motives, or my ability to understand people in their twenties, or any other sins I might be guilty of, including lack of talent — might pause for a moment and realize that the only place I’ve failed is on a big television network — and is this the place to judge me for that? Believe me, I feel really bad about it, in spite of Liz’s skepticism about my later statement. I have nothing but gratitude to NBC for giving us a shot. I caused them to lose a lot of money, which I also feel bad about; I let down Ben Silverman, whom I greatly respect and like. I got Jeff Zucker really mad at me. The whole situation sucks, not least because a two-year labor of love has very likely been dealt a mortal blow.
So forgive me if I insist — in the midst of all this blood-letting — on the one thing I know is true: like it or hate it, “quarterlife” really is an Internet show.