Category Archives: Sweeps 2013

How I Met Your Mother

When How I Met Your Mother (HIMYM) premiered in 2005 on CBS, television critics scrambled to contextualise the new sitcom. Its premise- a group of 20-something-year-old friends living in Manhattan- was not new to television.  In fact, to these critics, HIMYM was attempting to fill some very large shoes. The heavyweight prime-time sitcoms like Friends and Frasier had both ended in 2004 and from the word go HIMYM was predicted to deliver a derivative form of entertainment.  Entertainment Weekly, in its 2005 review of the pilot episode, described the central character Ted Mosby (Josh Radnor) as a ‘Schwimmer-ian man’ – a reference to David Schwimmer who played Ross on Friends. The L.A. Weekly was even more enthusiastic with its label maker, saying that the show’s ambition (other than producing ‘polished comedy’ each week) was “…[not] about originality but about trying to re-create what’s worked in the past. So it goes without saying that the breezily charming How I Met Your Mother would love to be the next Friends…”  While in this essay I intend to agree with these critics- that HIMYM does indeed draw not-so-subtly on its predecessors, I also intend to argue that the reasons it does this are more complex than mere creative laziness. HIMYM is an example of a television show which cleverly imbues elements of its own genre and other cultural references to create a complex, intertextualized cultural conversation with its audience.  In doing so it reflects the very medium it comes from, and the intertextual nature of the genre it is attached to.

Coming off the back end of the cancellation of the immensely popular sitcom Friends, HIMYM had a chance to potentially fill the void left by its discontinuation. By employing intertextual elements that reference that show, HIMYM did not need to explicitly define or explore its target audience- it merely had to connect to those who had grown up watching Friends, and because of that, would be predisposed to the humor and plot devices of a friend based situation comedy.  The characters of HIMYM all have similarities to the core characters of Friends- For example; the smooth talking womanizing Barney Stinson in HIMYM is a smart, well dressed twist on Joey Tribbiani of Friends. Both have their signature ways of seducing women- Barney with his elaborate and fanciful stories (“This is my last night before my three year shuttle expedition to the moon”) and Joey with his legendary pick up line, “How YOU doin’?”  Both are also portrayed as having a more sensitive side when it comes to the well-beings of their friends- Barney flies to San Francisco to save his friend Marshall’s marriage and Joey urinates on his friend Monica’s leg when she gets stung by a jellyfish (“That’s right, I stepped up! She’s my friend and she needed help! If I had to, I’d pee on any one of you!”). Arguably the character Lily Aldrin in HIMYM is a less extreme version of Phoebe Buffay with her odd habits and beliefs. And, as noted above by Entertainment Weekly, Ted the architecture professor has many similar qualities to Ross Gellar, the archaeology professor.  Although these character correlations may be present in other shows, the HIMYM character connections with the (already infamous in 2005) characters of Friends sets up the air of familiarity for its audiences. These new characters, while not replacements for the ones of Friends, embody the basic quirky, eccentric, womanizing, and neurotic natures of them. By employing familiar archetypes to surround their characters, the producers of HIMYM employ a sense of realism into their construction- so that in some sense, the audience has a basic idea of what to expect from their interactions and relationships with the other characters. In this sense, HIMYM can be seen as embodying the idea set forth by Jason Mittell, that “…texts come together through cultural practices of production and reception.” HIMYM is produced to utilize these preexisting character archetypes in order to ensure audience following and the audiences’ reception of HIMYM involves looking for these intertextual references to other shows. For, what expands a fictionalized world more authentically than the possibility that the characters from HIMYM, produced to operate within the same sphere of reception as the characters on Friends, couldn’t bump into one another on the streets of New York?  And even better- they could relate and connect to one another because of those similarities.

HIMYM also joins Friends in using tropes of television sitcoms in order to create wider cultural relevance and place the show in a frame outside of the traditional restrictions of genre. Lisa Williamson from the University of Glasgow surmises that Mittel’s approach to television genre theory “… refuses to view genres as historical and static, understanding them instead as cultural products that are ‘constituted by media practices and subjected to ongoing change and redefinition” (35). In this sense, the well used tropes of the television sit-com, which is traditionally used to pigeonhole a show to fit in with other shows that use the device, such as the ‘catch phrase’, can also be looked at in the frame of a ‘cultural product’. For example, while the television trope of the ‘catch phrase’ can be applied to multiple genres of television, such as the talk show, its use in the sitcom has a way of bringing the completely fictionalized characters and situations through which the said catch phrase originated into a place of cultural reality.  For the audiences of the sitcom, the initial use of the catch phrase can be seen as an identity marker for the show; fans of HIMYM can quote Barney’s “haaaaaave you met Ted?” to one another to reference and acknowledge the show’s humor. Over time however, a certain catch phrase can also enter the sphere of cultural language that is made up of references, quotes and parodies of popular culture- someone asking “Have I been Punk’d?” when finding themselves in an unusual or uncanny situation is an example of an aspect of cultural language that deviates away from the context of the program Punk’d and enters cultural language where it legitimately acts as a question relating to their own circumstances.  The use of a catch phrase can come to be recognized by not only fans of the show- who play close enough attention to reference it to the specific character or episodes in which it was used, but to the audience of the everyday- the users of this cultural language. An example from Friends is Joey’s famous pick up line: “How you doin’?” which can be used in the cultural language as a way of jokingly flirting with someone, or the equally famous expletive from Homer Simpson- “D’oh!” which functions as a noise of frustration at a error one has made. Though HIMYM, having not been around as long as Friends or The Simpsons has not yet produced catch phrases that can be used through cultural language in the same way, there are arguably several that have the potential to- such as Marshall’s use of the phrase “lawyered” when he disproves someone in an argument.  Phrases like “D’oh!” and “How you doin’?” exemplify the way that facets of the television genre have permeated into culture, gradually shedding specific reference to the television show from whence it originated and coming to relate more specifically to circumstances separate from the show’s narrative.

HIMYM frequent use of intertextual references outside of the frame of its own genre works to layer cultural texts upon one another in order to create a complex, culturally rich system of humor with its audience. In doing this, it exemplifies the way that the genre of the sitcom is built upon a multitude of facets, some not even having relevance inside their own genre by not being due to aspects of production- like the trope of ‘The Local’ hangout in which one set is used for a majority of the scenes as an expense saver.  Instead, some facets of the genre function as a way of humorously parodying or referencing culture in a way that reaches outside the narrative world of the program and into the real life world of the audience. This can be seen as blurring the line between the artificiality of the produced world of the sitcom and the real world inhabited by the audience.  Evidence that these intertextual references are culturally relevant can be seen in the way that they are acknowledged outside the world of television such as a slideshow that can be found on the official website of Oprah-, which shows a range of different television shows and their references to Oprah, including both HIMYM and Friends. The slideshow is titled ‘13 Oprah Show Shout-Outs’ with the subtitle; “The Oprah Show has permeated pop culture. Even fictional characters watch!”  A feature like this on Oprah’s website not only demonstrates the authenticity and relatability of the characters in these sitcoms- who are participating in the same cultural ideologies and practices as their audience- but it also shows the value of such intertextual references. Oprah’s stance as a cultural icon is legitimated by these intertextual reference of her within the world of the sitcom- acknowledging that she holds a place in cultural conscious where the aspects of her show- such as the gift-giving to her audience or her tendency to host guests with abnormally tragic lives- can be so familiar that they can be parodied by the show in order to forge a connection with their audiences.  The intertextual references in HIMYM are both frequent (with as many as 10 per episode) and varied. They include more demographically specific cultural intertextuality- such as the New York/New Jersey rivalry (“I Heart NJ”- the third episode in the fourth season) which New Yorkers are more likely to understand than audiences in New Zealand. They also include as well as specific references to web culture with parodies of websites such as (“Subway Wars”- the fourth episode of the sixth season) and Barney’s annoying forwarding of chain mail that the other characters complain about.  HIMYM even employs a somewhat self-reflexive intertextual parody in episode nine of season six titled “Glitter” where Barney (the most enthusiastic employer of catch phrases in the program) references a long list of catch phrases by reality television programs in order to encourage an annoying friend to leave New York:

“Punchy, the tribe has spoken. Please pack up your knives and go… I have to ask you to leave the mansion. You must leave the chateau. Your tour ends here…You’ve been evicted from the Big Brother house. Your desert just didn’t measure up…Give me your jacket and leave Hell’s kitchen! You did not get a rose. You have been eliminated from the race. You are no longer in the running to be America’s Next Top Model. You’re fired. Auf Wiedersehen.”

The comedic affect of this, while in part because to Neil Patrick Harris’s delivery of the lines (parodying the idiosyncratic deliveries of the phrases by the various reality television hosts) is also due to the way that these lines highlight a generic trope of television in general- which is employed by HIMYM itself. The show’s acknowledgement of its own genre formula serves again the purpose of locating its characters experience alongside that of the audience- simultaneously revealing its construction as a television show, and heightening its characters authenticity.

The intertextual construction of television genre, while being difficult to theorize, is demonstrated in television shows like HIMYM. It functions intertextually on several different levels- by reference to other shows which operate within the same frames, like Friends, referencing more generic television tropes- exemplified through its use of the ‘catch phrase’. Finally, it functions by way of referencing wider cultural themes that can operate outside of the medium of television all together- such as web culture.  As Williamson notes, “television analysis must examine the various cultural practices that inform our understanding of genre within a particular historical instance” (36). In creation of the television genre, the world a specific program is catering to has more of an impact upon the way it is crafted than the traditional labeling fixing notions of genre as would have one believe.

Works Cited

“13 Oprah Show Shout-Outs.” Harpo Productions, Inc., 16 May.2011. Web. 28, Sept. 2011

Abele, Robert. “CBS’s Sharper Image: Are our next Friends on the Tiffany network?” L.A. Weekly, LP, 15 Dec. 2005. Web. 24, Sept. 2011.

Goldblatt, Henry. “How I Met Your Mother.” Entertainment Weekly, 15 May. 2006. Web. 25, Sept. 2011.

Mittell, Jason, “A Cultural Approach to Television Genre Theory,” Cinema Journal 40.3 (2001): 3-24.

Williamson, Lisa E. “Contentious Comedy:  Negotiating Issues of Form, Content, and Representation in American Sitcoms of the Post-Network Era.” Thesis. The University of Glasgow, 2008. Print.

The Logic of Safety: A Look Into Television Programming

The logic of safety is the most important factor when programming television.

Television programs are not usually noted for their narrative complexity (Bellamy). The first time viewer could make faulty assumptions based on viewing only a single episode of a TV series. Television has the daunting task of having to put forth new episodes on a weekly basis. Thus, the television viewing experience is enhanced by the “memory of previous episodes” (Newcomb).

The “spin-off” has been a technique in television since the 1960s. Having familiar characters and/or situational aspects in a series gives a greater chance of success. In order to exploit and extend the popularity of a TV show, networks and producers take certain aspects of one series and transform it into another series (Bellamy). This method can be seen in three different forms: the spin-off, globalization, and thematic repetition.

“Familiarity breeds acceptability” (Hobson). In such a highly competitive business, success is seen few and far between. A “hit” series and its production team is valued to the point that every successful program is seen as a potential parent series (Bellamy).

Television remakes like 90210, feature past characters that have grown up and continued their story arcs (off screen) to have minor roles in the new spin offs. For instance, some of the original high school students in Beverly Hills 90210 now play teachers, parents, or guidance counselors. It’s an easy way to attract the original fans and still pull in a fresh, new audience. It’s an appropriate mix of the old and the new. While 90210 may not be as much of a success as the original, it did, however, make it to a 4th season (Internet Movie Database).

Because viewers invite characters into their homes every week, they become more intimately attached to the actors and style of a series. Television executive, Grant Tinker stated that such spin-off’s are created solely because of the “popularity of the characters” (Personal Communications, January 18, 1979). Unlike film, which has seen an abundant amount of current remakes, where an audience views it once, then leaves it at the door. A television audience cannot be tricked into believing new actors are the same or similar characters they once loved.

ABC’s “Charlie’s Angles was billed to be a modern day remake of the 1970s original. After airing only four episodes, ABC quickly cut the girls from prime time. The original Angles series, which also aired on ABC survived five seasons on the air. In 2000, Charlie’s Anglels hit the big screen. It, along with the sequel had phenomenal box office results grossing well over $500,000,000 according to the Internet Movie Database. Needless to say, Americans are familiar with the concept and are eager to invest. That being said, how is it then possible to fail? The concept has been around for half a century. Television critic, Ken Tucker noticed, “the show took more influence from the Angels movies, than it did from the 1970s TV series.”

However, the spin-off only contains some of the ingredients of it’s parent series, both internally (characters, situations, etc.) and externally. (time slot, network, etc.) This lack of “ingredients” can handicap a spin-off to the point of cancellation. The average run of a spin-off series is 2.39 seasons; some don’t even last a full season (Bellamy).

“No remake of a previous hit series has ever become a hit itself on network television” (Carter). Plenty have tried. In recent years there have been efforts to revive both Beverly Hills 90210 and Melrose Place on the CW network. Few would claim either approaches the success of their predecessors, or even passable hit status. Even though a concept is pre-sold, it doesn’t guarantee success.

In the article Invention/Re-invention, author Miguel Mera examines the relationship between texts that are re-invented for different media and/or contexts including film remakes, prequels and sequels, video games that become films and vice versa, and television series that move across geographical borders. Mera stresses the importance balance between re-invention and exploration within the guidelines you build for yourself. “There must first be a comforting or familiar framework that is then elaborated upon with ingenuity and skill. Successful re-inventions are both predictable and unpredictable. In order to be fully appreciated the audience must know the source” (Mera 12).  A TV show only gets one pilot. There, they can introduce the who, what, where, when and why; or the framework. After that, it’s their job to invent and explore within that world. For television remakes, it’s very easy to become dependent on the success of it’s preceder. In the case of Charlie’s Angels, two remakes were produced. Two separate mediums: film and television. One has success, the other, not so much. Flops will happen, but it’s important to examine the greater risk involved with remaking something on television.

Despite this premeditated success factored into spin-offs, shows like the now defunct Charlie’s Angels and Melrose Place failed quickly after airing. Television series like The Office may be the exception to this rule. However, a large majority of US audiences had not been exposed to the British version of The Office. This would explain the discrepancy.

Popular shows such as Dancing With The Stars and American Idol have roots in British television. It was the soar-away success of The Office that encouraged US networks to take the risk on remaking more expensive drama and comedy formats. Why take a risk while trying to get your show produced, when you know that somewhere else on this planet, a large group of people reacted positively to this show?

One dimension of the globalization of television is the remaking of fictional series in countries beyond their country of origin (Griffin). The remaking of television programs for viewers in another country is referred to as “the globalization of content” (Turner). The idea is that if a show is successful in one country, then there is a greater chance of success than if a network were to create a new show from scratch. If a show performs well in one country, it could do so in another.

What differentiates this method from typical spin-offs or remakes is that there is some level of adaptation. By adapting the original for local audiences, producers are able to make adjustments to better situate the show within the context of local culture (Griffin). In the 1970s, audiences responded positively to British remakes such as All in the Family (CBS, 1971–83), Sanford and Son (NBC, 1972–77), and Three’s Company (ABC, 1977–84).

Despite those successes, U.S. networks did not return to Britain for inspiration until the mid-1990s. Since then, more than a dozen remakes of British series have been aired by American broadcast and cable networks (Griffin 155). In 2004, the British version of The Office, came overseas and redefined what it meant to Globalize a television program.

Although format adaptations have inherent advantages, success is far from guaranteed. As Steemers points out, “Nor are formats a complete solution for overcoming cultural discount and the industrial and cultural barriers in national markets. In America, for example, the adaptation of scripted formats for the networks in the 1990s has yet to deliver a sustained hit in an intensely competitive market for network programmes” (Steemers 212). The Office, which is currently in its eighth season, defies that assessment (Internet Movie Database).

What made the American version of The Office such a success was that it didn’t rely solely on the original show for inspiration. NBC’s version has forged it’s own identity and has achieved notable success (Griffin 155). Cultural differences lessens the appeal of foreign programming – a phenomenon known as “cultural discount” (Hoskin). A show can find it’s inspiration from it’s parent series, but to find long-term success, it must find it’s cultural appeal. By adapting the original for local audiences, producers are able to make adjustments to better situate the show within the context of local culture (Griffin 156).

A good amount of “classic American television” has come from over seas. Sanford and Son, originally titled Steptoe And Son, was originally a UK sitcom before lasting 6 seasons on American television. Similarly, show such as The Office, Three’s Company, Whose Line is it Anyway, All in the Family, Who Wants to be a Millionaire, all share roots in English television and have all lasted at least eight seasons on American television. American Idol, which originated in England has lasted 11 seasons on American prime time (Internet Movie Database). The show pushed Fox to become the number one TV network amongst adult 18–49, the key demographic coveted by advertisers, for an unprecedented seven consecutive years by 2011 (Gorman).

Some shows have discovered a likeness or theme to popular television shows that can be exploited for viewers and popularity. Take for instance a brief comparison of Seinfeld and the newly popular FX comedy Louie. They both focus around stand-up comedians. The shows plots are inspired by their stand-up routine. At the beginning and end of both shows, we see the comedians performing their stand-up. Series which have general situational orientation of a previously existing series are situational spin-off (Bellamy).  By no means are the two shows similar in their story, but it’s an observation of a pattern in television between two popular shows in different eras of television.

The likeness in theme is cultural and is ever changing. Popular themes can be seen over the spectrum of television and has a huge influence on television programming. Since every scheduling move potentially is worth millions of dollars to the networks and affiliates, a conservative approach of relying on existing and successful characters, situations, and producers for a “new” product is a major feature of the modus operandi of programming executives (Bellamy).

Similarly, Seinfeld inspired the ever-popular HBO spin-off Curb Your Enthusiasm, where the entire plot is the life of the creator of Seinfeld, Larry David. In this, we can see that the character (Larry David) and the theme (Seinfeld producer) have already proven to be popular and thus, network executives are willing to invest in the production. I’m curious to see what response the new Sex in the City prequel will be. It won’t be the same cast, in fact, they’ll be younger and sexier which seems to sell as of recently.

There is a very intimate relationship between television and it’s viewers. Audiences return to watch week after week with certain expectations. In the world of film and television, remakes and spin-offs are very popular and important when analyzing television’s behavior. What’s the difference? Well a spin-off usually has the same characters and a different story. Whereas, a remake normally consists of the same characters and the same story. What’s the similarity? The logic of safety – in that networks and producers are more likely to take a chance on a pre-sold concept than an original idea.

The logic of safety can be seen through spin-offs, globalize programs, and thematic repetition. Although, success is not guaranteed, formatting a show around pre-sold concepts is the most important factor when programming television.

Works Cited

Bellamy, R. V., D. G. McDonald, and James R. Walker. “The Spin-off as Television Program Form and Strategy.” Communication & Mass Media Complete. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 1990. Web. 19 Nov. 2011. <>.

Björn, Schuller, Hage Clemens, Schuller Dagmar, and Rigoll Gerhard. “‘Mister D.J., Cheer Me Up!’: Musical and Textual Features for Automatic Mood Classification.” Journal of New Music Research 31.1 (2010): 13-34. Off-Campus Access. Routledge, Mar. 2010. Web. 24 Oct. 2011. <>.

Carter, Bill. “Why Studios Keep Cranking Out TV Remakes, Despite the Flops.” New York Times, 27 Dec. 2009. Web. 24 Oct. 2011. <>.

Fallon, Kevin. “TV’s History of Failed Remakes – Kevin Fallon – Entertainment – The Atlantic.” The Atlantic, 15 Aug. 2011. Web. 24 Oct. 2011. <>.

Griffin, Jeffry. “The Americanization of The Office: A Comparison of the Offbeat NBC Sitcom and Its British Predecessor.” International Bibliography of Theatre & Dance. Journal of Popular Film & Television, 2008. Web. 19 Nov. 2011.

Martin, Daniel. “Shameless Remake Set for US TV Debut | Television & Radio | The Guardian.” The Guardian, 7 Jan. 2011. Web. 24 Oct. 2011. <>.

Moeller, Kelly. “Same Character, Different Show; It’s a Spin-off! – ABC News.” ABC, 10 June 2008. Web. 24 Oct. 2011. <>.

Moran, Albert. “Television Formats in the World/the World of Television Formats.” Moran and Keane, Television 1–8.

Nellie, Andreeva. “Maria Bello To Star In NBC’s Prime Suspect.” Deadline. PMC, 16 Feb. 2011. Web. 24 Oct. 2011. <>.

For CHUCK’s Sake: How a Dedicated Fandom Saved its Show and Changed TV

by Lauren Piester

“…Satan decided this would be the last season of Chuck. I assume that was Satan, because who else would cancel Chuck?” – Jon Stewart (The Daily Show, 2/22/12)

A little less than a month after the NBC spy dramedy aired its final, two-part episode, political comedian Jon Stewart made a joke that resonated with millions of fans all over the world – after five seasons of threatening to cancel the low-rated Chuck, the evil overlords at NBC had finally succeeded, and sent the lovable nerd with a brain full of secrets on his final mission. The fact that the show even made it through five seasons is somewhat incredible. With the show practically living on the brink of cancellation, three of five season finales had to be written to also serve as possible series finales, and fans could do nothing but hope – or so it seemed, until the formation of an unlikely alliance. By establishing a direct relationship with the popular sandwich chain Subway, already one of the show’s primary sponsors, Chuck fans demonstrated that they were not a powerless group and essentially ushered in a new way of interacting with and controlling the content we see on TV.

Most fan efforts to keep shows on air have consisted of buying products and sending them to the networks “to prove how much they loved the show (Holmes),” but Chuck fans took their buying power a step further by recognizing who truly had the power to prevent the show from being cancelled. They not only took to social media to try and convince the masses to give the show the viewers it needed, but they also contacted sponsors directly. The “Finale & Footlong” campaign was launched by a blog post on the website Television Without Pity. Written by pharmaceutical sales rep and avid Chuck fan Wendy Farrington, the post urged viewers to buy footlong sandwiches at Subway on April 27th, 2009, and to, of course, watch the second season finale live that night (Bryson York). What seems like a simple idea quickly expanded into an organized partnership not only between Subway and Chuck, but between Subway and Chuck’s fans.

Fans began as something to be mocked by the general public, and even by those involved in the franchises themselves. William Shatner mocked Star Trek fans on national television, telling them to “get a life” (Downey “Saturday Night Live – William Shatner”).  They were, and occasionally still are, seen as nerds and outcasts in society. This view has changed over the years, but Chuck has taken it a step further.

Not only does everyone involved with the show publicly embrace the fandom, but they also embrace the term “nerd.” It’s a term used and celebrated regularly on the show, and incorporated into the semi-official name for diehard fans of the show (Nerdherders). The show has had a special relationship with its fans ever since the pilot premiered at the 2007 San Diego Comic Con and the show has remained a staple of the convention ever since, with Zachary Levi often referred to as the “king of Comic Con.” Comic Con is, essentially, a gathering of fans and is traditionally seen as “nerdy.” Chuck has interacted directly with fans (first, fans of the genre or just conventions in general, some of whom then became fans of the show) since before it was even shown on television.

The show’s support for and appreciation of its fans was demonstrated when Chuck writers, directors, creators, showrunners, and actors alike participated in the fan campaign. The show’s star, Zachary Levi, even led a crowd of hundreds of “Nerdherders” to a Subway in Birmingham, England, and helped make the sandwiches (Bryson York). By physically leading even a fraction of fans in their support of the show, Zachary Levi helped blur the line between those who watch the show and those who make it – both are equally important, and equally influential. Regardless of whether that truly applies in practice, it sends a new and important message to networks, advertisers, and viewers alike.
In a 2009 press release, NBC announced that despite its low ratings (an average of 2.8), Chuck would be renewed for a third season, stating that the “renewal represents triumph for fans and TV critics who waged [a] successful online and Twitter “Save Chuck” campaign supported by Subway.” Regardless of any other behind-the-scenes network decisions that went into it, NBC executives credited fans and Subway with the surprise renewal, fully acknowledging a real, albeit slight, shift in power. Of course, encouraging viewers to spend money can be nothing but beneficial to both advertisers and networks, but to the fans, this acknowledgement isn’t just about money. By giving them even partial credit for this programming decision, NBC is telling fans that they have at least marginal control over what they see on TV, and encouraging future and probably more elaborate campaigns focused on keeping certain shows on the air.

Ever since Friends went off the air in 2004 after ten long seasons, NBC has struggled to find a hit (Lowry). When the network finds a show that does well, it holds onto it for as long as possible (see: The Office). Aside from some recent successes with The Voice and Smash, NBC is home to a lot of shows that get very low ratings despite their critical acclaim. The network has become somewhat of a joke, notorious for its low ratings, odd treatment of shows, and cancellations. When NBC temporarily pulled Community from its spring schedule, fans and critics were outraged. They created and signed a petition, wrote hundreds of articles and blog posts, and put fake beards on their Twitter icons in honor of the show. A lot of discontent was expressed, but no specific advertising campaigns cropped up. When the second half of the season finally premiered, it featured Subway buying the café in the Greendale cafeteria, and half of the characters complaining about commercialism (Santamaria, Newacheck “Urban Matrimony and the Sandwich Arts”). In another episode, Britta falls briefly in love with a man called Subway, who has been hired by the company to be a constant spokesperson (McKenna, Eckman “Digital Exploration of Interior Design (Part 1)”). TV critic and Chuck fan Alan Sepinwall acknowledged the product placement and the nod to Chuck when he tweeted “Until January, if [fellow critic Daniel Feinberg] or I got Subway for lunch, we’d joke that we were going to ‘save Chuck.’ Now if I go, am I saving Community?”   While Community definitely has the support from Subway that could keep it financially alive, that support is not specifically backed by fan efforts, as Chuck’s was, and the future of the show is still unclear. Community’s spin on product placement might be intended as a joke, but instead it serves as a sad indication of what is necessary in order to keep a well-loved show on the air.

The fact of the matter, whether we like it or not, is that advertising is necessary in order to keep shows on the air, and that advertising has to actually be viewed by its target audience in order to be effective. As the cost of production rises, so too does the amount of advertising dollars needed, and therefore the amount of ads. As the ratio of ads to content has increased, broadcast ratings have decreased because of viewers attempting to escape commercials by watching on DVR or online, forcing advertisers to find new and more intrusive ways of reaching audiences, like aggressive product placement or graphics on the bottom third of the screen. Commercials now make up more than fifteen minutes of every hour of broadcast and non-premium cable television, essentially making it a waste of time to watch a show without the help of a DVR and a fast-forward button (Klopfenstein 4), or by going online. Even most online outlets, however, feature a large number of commercials. Buying a Hulu membership does not even provide commercial-free viewing, and many viewers have been driven to illegal, commercial-free sites for streaming and downloading. As a result, advertisers get more aggressive, and viewers get more resistant.

In this circular, essentially unproductive model, audiences recognize the social system, but try to resist or ignore it by stealing the content or skipping over the ads, or they complain every time they are forced to see an ad.

While the majority of TV viewers are putting in effort to resist the social system, Chuck fans recognized and embraced the system, understanding how to use it to support their own goals of keeping Chuck on the air. They reached out to advertisers and fully welcomed blatant product placement in order to help save the show. The Chuck fandom formed a direct, symbiotic relationship with Subway that not only opened up communication between viewer and advertiser, but also indicated an understanding and an acceptance of what is necessary in order to create and sustain a TV show. The bulk of the Finale & Footlong campaign did involve spending money and participating in the ultimately capitalistic system, but fans could justify that by saying that their money was both indirectly funding the show and providing them with a sandwich. While Subway was never the only sponsor for Chuck, it was the primary sponsor. In the earlier days of television, episodes were paid for by one advertiser in such a way that the show and the advertiser acted almost more as partners than as funder and funded in a similar way to how Chuck and Subway came to operate, with Subway being one of the only real-life brands used or mentioned in the show. In the end, within the narrative of the show, Subway even ended up buying the store Chuck had worked in for five seasons (Fedak, McNeill “Chuck Versus The Goodbye”).

This partnership between Subway and the Chuck fandom is significant in terms of the hegemony and shift in power that it represents. While a show could not exist without viewers, viewers are simply numbers in the eyes of network and advertising executives, whose main concern is always money. If a show is not bringing in the audience that an advertiser is looking for, that show is probably not worth the advertiser’s money. Without the advertiser’s money, a show cannot be made. The dominant group in this situation is the advertiser, who has both the money and the power to take away that money if a show is not performing well. Viewers and advertisers have always had a relationship, but the decisions of the advertisers have never depended on knowing whether or not the viewers of a specific show are buying their products. Advertisers determine what is and is not available to audiences, based on the numbers they know they will get in return.

Hegemony can be defined as the “process of convincing people to support the continued existence of a social system that does not support them in return” (Ott 131), and describes exactly how this system has come into being. Viewers may form emotional connections to shows and characters, but those connections are ignored in favor of making money for the advertisers and networks. If a show is not making money, it is useless to those in control, regardless of the fans it may have.

Chuck fans recognized that the advertisers were the dominant power and went to them directly. They did not send Subway sandwiches to NBC, but instead purchased sandwiches and indicated that they were doing so because of Chuck, essentially saying that Subway’s commercials and (at that point limited) product placement during the show had directly affected their purchasing decisions, and establishing themselves as more than just numbers and as a not entirely powerless group. In a similar fashion to how Chuck co-opted the word “nerd” to be a positive term of endearment, the Chuck fandom co-opted the system to support their own goals by figuring out a way to satisfy all the components of the television equation.

It is interesting to note the way that the Subway brand was incorporated into the narrative of the show. It was not Chuck, Sarah, Casey, or Morgan, the program’s main cast members, who were shown eating Subway sandwiches. Instead, the restaurant found its champion in Big Mike, the manager of the store in which Chuck worked when his spy services weren’t needed. Throughout the entire series, Big Mike never became aware of the CIA/NSA activities happening right under his nose. He never knew that a CIA base had been installed in the basement of his store, and was clueless when most of his employees were replaced with agents. He was out of the loop when Chuck eventually bought the store and secretly became Big Mike’s boss (Fedak, McNeill “Chuck Versus the Cliffhanger), although by that point, Morgan had risen to store manager and Big Mike had been named assistant manager (Wootton, Buckley “Chuck Versus the Cubic Z”).

Big Mike represented an illusion of power. He was powerful within his little world at the BuyMore, and occasionally used his power to design DVD displays or advertise his favorite Subway sandwiches to his employees, but he rarely affected any of the greater aspects of the show. In a blog post on NPR’s website, Linda Holmes says “The sponsor, who is normally seen as an intrusive, obnoxious presence in a television show, has managed to become part of the team that brings the show to the people who love it,” but it could be argued that Big Mike’s love of Subway goes deeper than that. By giving this character the job of executing product placement, Subway (along with the show’s writers) allowed itself to be a bit of a joke. As a primary sponsor, Subway had a lot of power and influence over the show, but ultimately took a backseat to the creators and main storylines.

To the fans who had rallied together to save the show, each time Big Mike proudly recited Subway’s various slogans (“Five dollar footlong,” “Eat Fresh”) before digging into his sandwich of the week represented their victory and small measure of control over their own entertainment, but the choices of the writers have been questioned by many. In a 2009 Gawker article entitled “NBC Sells Its Nonexistent Soul For a $5 Subway Sandwich,” writer Hamilton Nolan expressed his extreme disappointment with the Chuck/Subway partnership – “NBC has shockingly ruined the integrity of its dramatic show Chuck by allowing Subway what is perhaps the most blatant (and therefore laughable!) product placement in network TV history.” Looking at the product placement objectively, it could be hard to argue with that sentiment, but the nature of the way the brand is incorporated into the show is irrelevant to what its existence represents. The product placement is a symbol to fans of their victory, and of their momentary defeat of the evil, largely abstract television-cancelling gods. It ceases to matter what the fandom directly accomplished, if its efforts even truly were the cause of the series’ renewal, because the fandom got the credit for saving Chuck. Each time Subway appears on the show, it can be thought of as a little thank you note from the writers to the fans.

“And anyway, I’m having a nice time. They brought in Subway flatbread breakfast sandwiches.”
“The steak, egg, and cheese ones?”
“With chipotle southwest sauce…reminds me of your mama.”
(Katsnelson, Kroeker “Chuck vs. the Muuurder”)

In terms of the future of television and advertising, it has been three years since the Finale & Footlong campaign, and nothing much has changed. The current model is so ingrained into our society that one show saved by one blog post and a few million sandwiches isn’t really going to make a huge impact. What Chuck and Finale & Footlong shows, however, is that change is possible, and that fans and viewers can do more than sit back and watch whatever is put in front of them. They can have an effect on that content, but they have to be aware of how the system works in order to make it work for them. As television continues to evolve, the hegemonic structures in place behind the scenes also have the ability to evolve, even in the smallest of ways.

Works Cited

Bellman, Steven, Anika Schweda, and Duane Varan. “The Residual Impact of Avoided Television Advertising.” Journal of Advertising 39.1 (2010): 67-81. OmniFile Full Text Select (H.W. Wilson). Web. 12 Mar. 2012.

Bryson York, Emily. “Subway Caught Up in Fan Effort to Save NBC Series Chuck“ Advertising Age, 27 Apr. 2009. Web. 12 Mar. 2012.

Chuck Versus the Cliffhanger” Chuck. Writ. Chris Fedak and Nicholas Wootton. Dir. Robert Duncan McNeill. NBC. 16 May 2011. NBC Universal, 2011. Live Viewing.

“Chuck Versus the Cubic Z” Chuck. Writ. Nicholas Wootton. Dir. Norman Buckley. NBC. 04 October 2010. NBC Universal, 2010. Live Viewing.

“Chuck Versus the Goodbye” Chuck. Writ. Chris Fedak. Dir. Robert Duncan McNeill. NBC. 27 January 2012. NBC Universal, 2012. Live Viewing.

“Chuck Versus the Muuurder” Chuck. Writ. Alex Katsnelson, Kristin Newman. Dir. Allan Kroeker. NBC. 21 March 2011. NBC Universal, 2011. Live Viewing.

“Digital Exploration of Interior Design” Community. Writ. Chris McKenna. Dir. Dan Eckman. NBC. 29 March 2012. NBC Universal, 2012. Live Viewing.

Hills, Matt. “When Television Doesn’t Overflow ‘Beyond The Box’: The Invisibility Of ‘Momentary’ Fandom.” Critical Studies in Television 5.1 (2010): 97-110. OmniFile Full Text Select (H.W. Wilson). Web. 8 Feb 2012.

Holmes, Linda. “Farewell To An Unlikely Hero: Why Chuck Packed Such A Potent Punch.”NPR. NPR, 27 Jan. 2012. Web. 12 Mar. 2012.

Klopfenstein, Bruce C. “The Cunundrum of Emerging Media And Television Advertising Clutter.” Journal of Media Business Studies 8.1 (2011): 1-22. Business Source Complete. Web. 8 Feb 2012.

Lowry, Tom, Ronald Grover, and Diane Brady. “NBC: Now It’s Wait-And-See TV.” Businessweek 3932 (2005): 96-98. Business Source Complete. Web. 1 May 2012.

NBC. NBC Renew Popular Action-Comedy Chuck for the 2009-2010 Season with Subway as Major Sponsor. NBC, 19 May 2009. Web. 28 Feb. 2012.

Nolan, Hamilton. “NBC Sells Its Nonexistent Soul For a $5 Subway Sandwich.” Gawker, 17 Apr. 2009. Web. 29 Apr. 2012.

Ott, Brian L., and Robert L. Mack. Critical Media Studies: An Introduction. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell, 2010. Print.

Sepinwall, Alan (sepinwall). “Until January, if @hitfixdaniel or I got Subway for lunch, we’d joke that we were going to ‘save Chuck.’ Now if I go, am I saving Community?” 16 March 2012, 11:21 a.m. Tweet.

Sharp, Byron, Virginia Beal, and Martin Collins. “Television: Back To The Future.” Journal of Advertising Research 49.2 (2009): 211-219. Business Source Complete. Web. 13 Mar. 2012.
Steinberg, Brian. “Why the Subway-‘Chuck’ Deal Doesn’t Rewrite TV Formula.” Advertising Age, 08 Jan. 2010. Web. 29 Apr. 2012.

Saturday Night Live – William Shatner” Saturday Night Live. Writ. Jim Downey. NBC. 20 December 1986. NBC Universal, 1986. Web.

“Urban Matrimony and the Sandwich Arts” Community. Writ. Vera Santamaria. Dir. Kyle Newacheck. NBC. 15 March 2012. NBC Universal, 2012. Live Viewing.