madcougar

You obviously don't have any idea what the law of diminishing returns is. Basically the longer the show goes, the weaker it's ratings. At the same time the production costs of the show continue to go up. If you were to graph this, the line that shows the benefit of keeping the show (which is going down from the left) will intersect with the line that shows the cost of the show (which is going up from the left). At this point keeping the show on the air no longer makes fiscal sense.

You're comparing apples to oranges, puppies and a glass of lemonade as far as I can tell. The show is NOT on NBC. It's on CBS. To compare it's ratings to The Office is silly. NBC will continue to air The Office partly because it owns the show and sees profit on the backend in syndication and also because it's one of the few shows on its schedule that does OK. That's the difference between the No. 1 network and the No. 4 network.

There are just a handful of shows that have not shown serious viewer erosion after the host/star leaves. No amount of name recognition is going to change the fact that the only real constant on the show is Jeff Probst. The day he leaves, the show will see major viewer erosion. It's inevitable.

If you want a perfect example of this, read up on "Without a Trace." The show was in the top 20 when CBS canceled it. Why? Because it's viewership was eroding and it got the the point it was going to cost too much money to keep the cast together. WAT was averaging about 13 million viewers during its last season in 2009. That's a few million more than Survivor has gotten the last four seasons. Suvivor is different because it doesn't have a cast, but it will still reach this point.

And the "father" of reality shows is "An American Family," which aired on PBS in 1973. Not the Real World.

Howie2000

The cost do not necessarily go up at all for a Reality Show. The winners purse is the same now in 2012 that it was when the show started in 2000. You add to the fact the show has cut costs by filming seasons in the same location back to back and the show has a ton of product placement I would say the only reason the show would be more expensive to produce now is a few Producer salaries. And in adjusted for inflation dollars from 2000-2012 I would be really shocked if this shows budget is at most more then 10%-20% higher.

And I am not familiar with specifics for Without A Trace however that seems like an entirely different case because a scripted show you have to increase the salaries to keep on the actors,writers and directors each year even if ratings go stagnant or decrease.

If something like American Idol could chug along with the loss of Simon Cowell where the personalities of the judges are a much bigger part of the show or at least should be, then Survivor should be fine if Jeff decided to quit at some point.

madcougar

Fine. Survivor will last until the end of days!!!!

Happy?

Mr. Flix

That's not true. Several shows have fluctuated in the ratings as time has gone by. "Friends" re-entered the top 10 in its 8th season. That's just one example.

I already agreed with this point. But you're ignoring the fact that while production costs are going up, so is the price of commercial air time. As long as "Survivor" is a top-20 hit, it can continue to demand top-20 prices for commercials. And, as other posters have pointed out, not only does "Survivor" not have writers or actors to pay for, they've also found other ways of cutting costs (like shooting back-to-back seasons in one location).

I know they're not on the same network; never said they were. I'm simply saying that "Survivor," which you're so sure is on it's last legs, gets better ratings than another network's #1 rated show. And if you want to argue comparing apples to oranges, you compared a reality show to a scripted show ("Without a Trace"), which puts holes in your argument, too.

I can't argue with you there. Definitely one thing working against the longevity of "Survivor" is the fact that it doesn't syndicate well (or sell well on DVD, for that matter) at all. I'm a die-hard fan of the show, but don't ever want to watch repeats.

Maybe. I'll be curious to see if you're right. I think a lot of people underestimate Probst's importance to the show, for sure. I remember those cringe-worthy days when they let Rosie O'Donnell host the reunion shows. What a mess. Once Probst took them over, they improved dramatically. He's not afraid to ask some tough questions. (Although he is guilty of throwing softballs at times as well.)

But as much as I appreciate Probst, I'll keep watching the show (as I have been since season 1) even if he leaves, and will continue to do so unless the quality of the show suffers.

I get your point and I agree with it, mostly. I just strongly disagree that "Survivor" is on its last legs. It's guaranteed for two more seasons (one year). While I think Probst may not return after that, I expect the show to continue four seasons/two years past this one, at least. I don't think four seasons = last legs.

Sure, it was first, but most people site "Real World" as the first (rightly or wrongly), and "Survivor" as the show that single-handedly popularized the concept.

arminius

Jeez, I guess old women don't mellow after menopause.

I think if they get the right host Jeff is not that critical.

Josh-da-man

I wonder if they would cancel Survivor if a contestant got killed?

dolphinboy

Well, had Jeff knifed Colton in the back after tribal, I, for one, would have been for extending the show for a decade and give Probst a tripling of his current salary.

TomOpus

They would have to up the ante elsewhere on the show to compensate for Jeff's departure. He'd be a tough one to replace.

Whether Jeff will come back or not will depend a lot on what happens this year outside of Survivor. He's directing a movie and he has a syndicated talk show that's airing later this year. If those go fairly well, he may hang up his cargo shorts.

I think it would be cool to have Jeff come back as a contestant in another all-star Survivor. That could be ratings gold

dolphinboy

I have no idea why everyone thinks we need more talk shows. Anderson Cooper is barely hanging on and has had all sorts of problems and he seems like they kind of guy who'd be good at it. To me, it only makes him less credible as a "journalist".

I can't see what Jeff Probst could bring to the world of talk shows and I actually like him.

GuessWho

He'll finish every guest into with "Come on in, guys!"

windom

I'm looking forward to seeing if the thread for tomorrow night's episode (post Colton) generates nearly as many posts as this one.

Wolf359

I'm surprised there hasn't been a B-list celebrity Survivor. Make it a 5 million prize, maybe for charity.

TomOpus

I dunno either. The only thing I can think of is since the talk show will be syndicated, it's being produced by CBS. Maybe he stipulated in his last contract that he'll sign if he gets a shot at a talk show.

Double_Oh_7

If the movie makes any money, or his show lasts more than one season, I will be VERY surprised.

davidh777

It would truly suck if any kind of viewer/traffic dip compels CBS to bring him back

Howie2000

There was it was called I'm A Celebrity Get Me Out Of Here and it was boring and unwatchable once Heidi and Spencer quit.


If people think the celebs for a dancing show or celeb apprentice are d-list imagine the quality of celeb for a harsher show where you have to stay one month on an island.

brainee

Well, barring anyone spamming the thread ... it'll most certainly have fewer posts. But I wouldn't take that to mean that Colton was a positive for the show. If anything, Colton's act was so vile that some long-time fans were close to bailing on the season.

This season's ratings have been awfully consistent: in the 2.8 to 3.2 range. I'd be surprised if that changes. There will certainly be fewer message board postings (at all Survivor-related sites). But like I mentioned above, that shouldn't be taken to mean that Colton's absence is a negative.

Yeah, Celebrity Survivor would be awful (and that show you mentioned was awful). If that ever happens, it'll be the true death knell for the show. It'll either be half-assed in the competition/survivor aspects (a couple of weeks at most) or populated with lowest dregs of "celebrities". I don't even like when they do the occasional celebrity stunt casting ... like Jimmy Johnson, Ashley (WWE wrestler), or Taj (though she fared and came across well).

DRG

Now I'm picturing Jeff pulling out this big hunting knife with "THE TRIBE" etched on the side... STAB... followed by Jeff looking down at the body while menacingly reciting his popular catchphrase...

dolphinboy

I'll give him one more chance. If he stabs him at the reunion, where he will predictably talk like he's the victim, I'll watch Jeff's totally unnecessary talk show.