Is a TV show’s title important to the show’s success?
Alan Sepinwall writes:
I’ve been thinking about names a lot. Specifically, the names of TV shows — and more specifically, the names of NBC’s new shows.
Once the Olympics finish, NBC will unveil the following new series:
– A sitcom about Joey from “Friends” called… “Joey”;
– A drama set in the LAX airport called… “LAX”;
– A drama set in Hawaii called… “Hawaii”;
and
– A drama about medical investigation called… (wait for it)… “Medical Investigation.”
Not leaving anything to chance with those titles, are they?
…
So here’s the question: is a simplistic title more likely to help a new show succeed than something esoteric? If “Friends” had debuted with its original title, “Six of One,” would it still have exploded onto the national stage, or would David Schwimmer be a yoga instructor today?
This is a fun article, filled with lots of examples of TV show titles past and present.
But I’m surprised someone could write on this topic without mentioning “Buffy, the Vampire Slayer.”
The more generic a title is the safer the show is for the producers and the network. For example, LAX is being currently promoted as a vehicle for Heather Locklear and Blair Underwood, but if the show tanks initially or if either star proves a problem, changes can be made and news leads can be brought in to replace the old with minimal restructuring of the show and no change to the title.
It’s much cheaper to retoole a show currently on the air then to come up with a new show.
Now, if JOEY turns out to be awful, NBC is stuck with Matt LeBlanc unless they decide to cancel the whole enterprise and be done with it.