By ADAM BUCKMAN
It will go down as one of the biggest debacles in the history of television — a hugely expensive flop that NBC hoped would trigger a turnaround in its low-rated prime-time lineup.
That hasn’t happened so far with “Smash,” but even more importantly, it’s not ever going to happen. Three weeks into its run, it’s tanking.
Here’s the rundown:
In its premiere (Monday nights at 10) the night after the Super Bowl when it got promoted like crazy (see story below), it drew 11.44 million total viewers, and scored a 3.8 rating in the “young” demo, 18-49.
In Week Two (Feb. 13): 8.06 million viewers, 2.8 in the demo.
In Week Three (Feb. 20): 6.47 million, 2.3.
Here’s the thing about ratings: The trends are just as important as the numbers. And downward trends don’t usually reverse themselves. In fact, to be even more blunt, they almost never do.
Instead, they just indicate the obvious: Viewers are abandoning “Smash.” They’re simply not finding it enjoyable enough to return the following week to see what happens. And that means the show is toast. It will probably stay on until its season ends in May, but don’t hold your breath waiting for Season Two next fall because you’ll suffocate.
Why did it fail?
Here are a few reasons:
The show was one big cliche: They should have just named it “TV Show: The Musical” — that’s how generic this thing was. Here’s a litany of some of the cliches this tired show trafficked in: The dream of Broadway stardom (more on this below), a musical about Marilyn Monroe (c’mon, really?), and the macho, authoritarian director who tries to seduce the young female contestants for the lead role in his show by laying some line on them about how they must free themselves from their inhibitions. Excuse me for bluntly leveling an accusation here with no real proof but that one came straight out of “Black Swan” (which did it a whole lot better).
Nobody cares about Broadway: At least not in numbers sufficient to support a TV series that is supposed to draw the kind of viewership that is supposed to save an entire network. Sure, the tourists flock to the shows in and around Times Square, but that’s because they’re in New York — it’s one of the things you do when you come here.
It’s a lot of fun too, and Broadway, generally speaking, is very profitable these days. But that’s because of the peculiar characteristics of Broadway and its shows — they’re live, they’re in theaters, and they’re something you do so that when you go back home, you can tell your friends and neighbors that you saw a Broadway show while you were in New York.
A TV show about Broadway is just not the same thing at all.
It’s almost a certainty that the decision-makers who said yes to “Smash” went through a thought process that went something like this: They observed the crowds in Times Square just before curtain time and noted what they read about box-office receipts. Then they considered how many aspirational talent shows are on TV nowadays, from “American Idol” and “The Voice” to “Glee.” So they decided they would make a drama series combining all these elements (in the hope that high ratings would become their version of robust ticket sales).
That didn’t happen, for the simple reason that Broadway shows are for viewing once or twice in a lifetime on a rare trip to New York City, not for watching every Monday night at home.
Of course, I could have told them this, but nobody asked me. On the other hand, what do I know? Before it premiered, I predicted that “Smash” would be an 8 million-viewer show. I was correct where the series’ second episode was concerned, but in Week Three, “Smash” proved me wrong. How wrong? That all depends on how low it goes next week.
# # #






















