We Created the Future of TV (and Movies)

Imagine an automobile race from Los Angeles to New York. No matter how well someone can drive, if he or she is on the wrong path, meaning heading north to Seattle, they won’t win the race. That is a perfect analogy for the television industry. No matter how smart a series creator might be, it’s extremely easy to prove that the 1950s-era model still used in the 21st century to develop, pitch and promote a TV show, the only change is how some are delivered, is as wrong as racing to New York from Los Angeles through Seattle and expecting to be the winner of the race.

Today, a TV series must compete against, literally, millions of series and other types of content. But, since TV began, producers have created series appealing to them, not the market, and none can explain how to create a successful one. TV promotion is so ineffective that we proved it minimizes viewers, even for hits. Buying decisions are made by guessing. And no viable research indicates if a show will be a winner. So media and streaming companies hope they’ll be, which is why TV fits the “insanity” definition, doing the same thing over and over hoping for a different result.

We’ve upgraded the 70-year-old TV model still used today that, with slight adaptations, applies to movies. With Wall Street expecting better results from media and streaming companies, layoffs the norm and a coming shake-out all magnify the value in what we are offering. Our model has no weaknesses since every element is an existing TV truth, with a “secret sauce” impossible to copy, and works with human nature, not against it like TV’s does. It’s why we’ve been told we deserve an eight-figure model-licensing fee, a huge development deal and profits from multiple series.

In 12 minutes you’ll agree our tiny company identified the real viewer-and-revenue-minimizing flaws in the ineffective TV series Development-Pitch that is seven decades old. Then we explain the corrections no one has challenged that especially apply to streaming, but not the “secret sauce” found in Nielsen research. This site also has validating emails from an NBC SVP Development and confirming research. We were also told we should be running a network and understand the industry in the 21st century better than the people running it who all operate under a very obsolete model.

ModernModel TV is the first and only company to correctly identify the flaws in the 1950s-era TV series development-pitch-promotion model still used today, a model last relevant when three networks ruled media. It’s a model rendered obsolete by not being upgraded to account for, in the 21st century, people having millions of broadcast, cable, digital, streaming and other choices. Executives met with and research confirmed we made the necessary adjustments. No other company, including production companies run by TV veterans and those not in TV, have done or can do this.

“You understand the industry in the 21st century better than the people in charge.”

The blunt reality is, by perpetuating a decades-old model, the people running the industry don’t understand how to operate effectively today.

Because our background is with ad agencies we weren’t married to the decades-old TV model and, ironically, realized after finalizing ours that it is almost an exact match to how ad agencies develop advertising, just with an added “secret sauce” that is impossible to copy.

We found that the ad agency model, with the advertising platform equal to the premise, added to the 100% Nielsen correlation, makes more sense than TV’s model if successful series are the goal.

Supporting that is in meetings with TV executives we were told, besides confirmation in many emails, our model is the future of TV. Also, that “you understand the industry in the 21st century better than the people in charge” and “you should be running a network.”

That model enabled ModernModel TV to have the only correct response to the industry’s key, billion-dollar question about how to create a successful TV series. It’s part of our “secret sauce” we don’t reveal, since it’s secret. That’s how, with our non-disruptive, easily integrated model, we can justify helping to create a dozen hits a year. Some will come from the 24 we’ve developed, produced by production companies, some from producers applying our model and some we only promote

Yet they hope they will get one hit from people in and out of TV given eight-and-nine-figure development deals and will spend millions buying shows from “producers,” and almost everyone in TV can be one, who cannot correctly answer that question. The common responses are “luck,” “I don’t know” or “great writers and producers,” but the latter rarely works and, besides, “great” is subjective.

So how much would a company that Nielsen confirms can cause a dozen series a year to be successful and has the only correct answer to TV’s key query about creating a successful TV series be worth?

We were told media and streaming companies, and companies seeking to buy what we prove is an undervalued media and streaming company, will compete to offer us an eight-figure model-licensing fee for those dozen successful series a year and the development deal. That would cause the company we create a relationship with to be perceived as the industry leader, although it can initially be with an ad agency, VC, production company, management company or talent agency, then we team with the media, streaming or other company. Or we can just sell multiple series a year as co-productions. After all, Prince Harry was given eight or nine figures, and in February of 2023 announced he’ll be creating sitcoms, and he can’t correctly answer that key question.

Also, in contracts many years ago was a clause that, if a series increased ratings in its time slot from the previous season, its production company would receive a percentage of the advertising revenue from that gain. But it was removed due to those increases rarely, if ever, happening. We were told, added to normal fees and equity, results-based compensation from each delivery system would be put in for us for the series we would be involved with.

One reason for that is no one in TV could find a weakness in our problem analysis and solutions, and some TV executives saw examples. A few tried, but quickly gave up because every element in our model is an existing TV truth emerging from a 100% correlation with success found in Nielsen research, then validated by more research. Also, our upgraded model works with human nature, the model the industry uses works against it.

“I am a believer (in your model).”

A tangible reaction was an NBC VP was so impressed that he arranged a meeting with its SVP Development. In many emails, and verbally, he made it clear he wanted to buy two series from us to be produced by NBC production companies, writing in one “I want to do business with you.” But, before he could, he was terminated. He also agreed he was shown the real reason TV series fail, how to eliminate it and the only correct reply to the “successful TV series” question.

That’s because we did what no one else can: Proved during the pitch how our series will outperform all others being considered. That’s why the SVP wrote about the model that “I am a believer.”

What follows is an analysis of the three TV series elements: Development, pitch and promotion. We’ll easily prove operating under the existing model places every series on the road to failure or underperforming, with a true, non-spun hit the rare exception. Also, that the billions of stockholder’s funds the industry spends on promotion are, to be accurate, wasted, while the return on the many billions each spends funding TV series is seriously diminished, and that is an understatement.

When meeting with TV executives for feedback, some tried to find a flaw in the model, but quickly gave up. In one meeting with two executives, one presented a challenge and, before we could knock it out of the park, it’s something purposely left out knowing it will be brought up, the other executive did it for us. But be aware there are a few executives loyal to what they know is a failed, stockholder-damaging model who will resist positive change to protect their egos, jobs and huge incomes.

Again, to that car race from L. A. to New York, after being exposed to the upgraded model you will agree we, and other “drivers” using our model, will win every time.

Also validating our content-and-promotion model, which also applies to branded content, are senior executives at P&G (EVP-Marketing), Chevrolet (SVP), Gillette (President and brand managers), McDonald’s (VP), all in writing, and others. And we were asked to present the model for TV and branded content to the entire Association of National Advertisers (ANA) membership, the major advertisers who ultimately fund much of TV, by its then-Chairman, and it’s in writing.

So let’s examine each element, without the “secret sauce.” Then you’ll see emails from NBC’s SVP plus some of the research proving why our premises and promotion were overwhelmingly preferred, which is one reason for being told by that top executive that media and streaming companies “will be lining up at your door.”

Of development, pitch and promotion, we begin with promotion, the most under-appreciated element although it’s the key monetizer since it’s how people are exposed to a show. It’s also the easiest to prove is fatally flawed and corrected. (We alerted Comcast Ventures to this site since emails you will see from that NBC SVP confirmed our model is the future of TV, but they never responded)

People have, literally, millions of broadcast, cable, digital, streaming and other options to choose from. But they can only view a very-tiny percentage of them. What determines which few they do is the promotion. So media and streaming companies spend up-to-$2 billion a year on promotion to motivate people to watch their shows. That figure is derived from adding what is spent in cash – on outdoor, radio, digital, print, etc. – to the cost of time on their delivery systems used to promote a series if sold to advertisers.

What follows proves what exists only in the entertainment industry: The media and streaming companies’ huge promotional budgets for TV are, literally, wasted on what is the least-effective promotion in business history, that is not hyperbole. And I can reverse that. After reading this section, 100 out of 100 producers, ad agency executives, Wall Street analysts, Board members, stockholders and anyone else will agree. (This also applies to motion pictures.)

It’s very simple. If not enough people watch a TV show it will be cancelled, some very quickly, including some that should have succeeded. The reality is ineffective promotion is the main reason TV series fail, many before their time, and it applies to TV advertising and publicity. But the latter is not discussed here.

Note that the number of people who can deliver word of mouth, the other method to add viewers, is determined by how many the promotion causes to watch the show, but the ineffective promotion minimizes it.

To understand the problem, there are two types of promotion: Before a series debuts and from the second episode until the show ends. To prove the claim, we’ll use the latter since, even before “I Love Lucy” to today, it explains the upcoming plot line through the characters – and that’s the problem.

Here are examples of post-premiere promotion from the past to now, only missing are clips that do the same thing. Imagine these shows debuted last week with, no matter the delivery system or genre, be it a sitcom, drama or reality show, the equivalent of a common, but low, rating of two, so they’re on the road to cancellation.

“Which sister will become a surrogate mother to Frankie?” – Sisters

“A college reporter prints the mistaken story that Jerry and George are longtime gay companions.” – Seinfeld

“Kate is cast out of the group; Abe finds out that Rebecca is not being honest.” – Breaking Amish

“Axe has to step in when a tip from Dollar Bill goes south quickly. Wendy and Axe develop a plan to derail Taylor’s business.” – Billions

“JD temporarily takes in Fiona and the kids; Garrett changes strategies in his attempt to stop Kamdar.” – The Cleaning Lady

“Is Eric seeing another woman? Tonight, Annie’s faith gets put to the test.” – 7th Heaven

“Benson and Rollins must contend with the FBI and the Organized Crime bureau when a rape victim identifies a dangerous mobster as her assailant.” – Law & Order SVU

“When a ship malfunction threatens the voyage before it’s barely begun, Emma works with a wary Mishra on a high-risk repair operation.” – Away

“Rachel gives a handsome man her phone number, but worries he might call when Ross is there.” – Friends

“Julia is forced to make a drastic decision when she finds out that Isaac has been secretly working with Leon for advice on his current patients.” – Almost Family

“Who will win the power of the veto, and will it be used to save Tommy or Cliff from eviction?” – Big Brother

Which ones did you understand, relate to or “get” why it will be an episode worth watching?

As you can see, that requires that you “know” the characters. But the only way to “know” the characters…is to have seen the show! That means only the 2% are being positively impacted. For shows you haven’t watched, so you don’t “know” the characters, the promotion is meaningless, yet some of those 98% are needed to make it successful. The truth is TV promotion might as well be in Bulgarian for all the good it does.

Strange as it seems, the industry’s promotional “strategy” from the second episode until its last is to only remind the tiny percentage of people who’ve seen the show to tune in again. That’s because, to repeat, the only way to appreciate why it is worth watching is to “know” the characters, which requires seeing the show.

By definition, TV promotion is not designed to generate viewing from the huge percentage of people not seeing a show who don’t “know” the characters, and it minimizes word of mouth. So the 98%, in the example, are not included in their strategy. This “strategy” would work if 50% or more of all people had watched a show in year one and “knew” the characters, but that never happens since very few series even earn the equivalent of a four rating.

Compounding the problem is TV promotion goes against human nature since we care about people, and TV characters, we know, not those we don’t; and when you go against human nature, you lose. When only 2% care about or “know” the characters, and 98% don’t, it’s a recipe for failure. And the industry believes that name awareness will add viewers; they don’t understand that name awareness is the first step in a process, that to motivate sampling people need a concrete reason to do so, something only we can deliver.

No other industry only promotes its products to its very-small “customer base.” And only in TV must you have “bought” the product, meaning seen the show, to understand or relate to the promotion.

Another way to appreciate this is imagine these two series debuted with ratings of two, one is real, one made up to ensure no one has seen it. Here’s the promotion:

“On the next ‘Seinfeld,’ Elaine falls in love with Kramer, and George is mistakenly named New York’s Bachelor of the Month.”

And

“On the next ‘Bocelli,’ Elly falls in love with Kelly, and Greg is mistakenly named New York’s Bachelor of the Month.”

The 2% having seen “Seinfeld” would know that would be a great episode because they “know” the characters. Why? They’ve seen the show and can relate to the promotion. But, with the same plot lines, the “Bocelli” promotion would be meaningless to the 98% not seeing it since you and they don’t “know” the characters. For those never seeing “Seinfeld,” both are meaningless, thus also proving the point.

For more validation, and it’s easiest to appreciate with sitcoms, just notice promotion for shows you watch and those you don’t. Or note on your on-screen guide’s description of upcoming episodes’ plot lines, like with Hulu, for shows you know and don’t. They’re the same as promotion for the episodes after the premiere.

As for promotion before a series debuts, no one “knows” the characters, making it even less effective, plus few people relate to the premise, which is an entirely other issue. That’s why there are many “NCIS” and “Law & Order” spin-offs, each is basically the same show, and they recycle old ones like “Murphy Brown,” hoping its name awareness will attract viewers since promotion for a totally new show doesn’t work.

Promotion was always ineffective but wasn’t a problem when people only had three options. But, today, its importance is magnified since it’s the major determinant of which relatively few a person will choose from the millions being offered. That’s why without effective promotion causing high numbers of people to view a show, especially during the first few episodes, everything else is a waste of time, money and effort.

How the industry promotes TV series is like eating noodles with only one chopstick. With millions of choices, effective promotion is the missing one. As a result, with promotion being totally ineffective is how media and streaming companies sabotage their own products.

And by being the critical first step in the process to watch a TV show means promotion, not content, just might be “king.” Which leads to the first of three key questions:

How can any media or streaming company justify spending millions of dollars on a TV series, and billions in total, when the mechanism that monetizes them and every company in the industry, meaning the promotion billions are spent on to generate viewers, is broken?

They can’t, but we can.

Just seeing promotion developed under our approach proves its superiority, and creating it is easy to do since each episode practically writes it. The reality is our simple billboards and banner ads will easily outperform the TV industry’s “best” 30-second spots. And with success being the goal, more-effective promotion, and more word of mouth, is obviously better than less-effective promotion.

That’s due to our “secret sauce” causing 60-to-80% of people exposed to a show’s promotion to become emotionally connected to it, thus making them potential viewers, as opposed to none before the debut and, in the common example, 2% after it, and that connection is the key to success. As for the remaining 20-to-40%, ours will still be more effective than TV’s since they’ll “get” it, just on a different level that will motivate some viewership. The reason for this is explained in the “Development” section that follows.

With loyalty to most series weak, they don’t cost extra money and trying a new show is so easy, just hitting a remote, mouse or touchpad, out of the additional 58-to-78% now impacted can come the two, four, six, eight or more percent of viewers that will make the show a hit. That can’t happen when only 2% relate to it. But, with our promotion, each series should debut with number much higher than two in every delivery system. The issue is not if our promotion will earn the highest ratings and streaming viewers; rather, it’s how high will they be?

Another problem is TV and motion pictures are the only industries whereby the company creating the product, the production company, doesn’t also develop the promotion, that’s done by the distribution system. In every other industry the “manufacturer” creates the advertising. That’s because they build into the product the basis for effective advertising. There’s a reason for that; it makes sense. Not operating that way is a key reason why TV promotion is totally ineffective.

Also, the industry’s promotional research is worthless since it just identifies the “best” of all-bad options, the best “F.” But, based upon our results, and analyzing Nielsen research, it is not difficult to generate large numbers of viewers…with effective promotion. Surprisingly, it also helps maintain viewer loyalty, which is discussed in the “Development” section.

In a Survey Monkey research study, results are near the end, when promotion for our series was compared with real series promotion with the characters’ names changed, keeping them would invalidate the results since no one has seen our series, ours were overwhelmingly preferred. It wasn’t close; it’s like ours earned “A”s, TV’s earned “D”s. That’s because seeing the show and “knowing” the characters is not a prerequisite to “getting” the promotion and being placed in the pool of potential viewers. Even though we are not copywriters, the results were clear, and working with a high-level creative team will make our promotion even more effective.

Keep in mind that every executive met with agreed that delivery systems will want us to create the promotion, or they’ll look very foolish using what they’ll know doesn’t work. Especially since SVP Developments will realize it will make their jobs safer. And, it’s the key to our more-effective pitch and why the show will be bought. But delivery systems will produce it like they always do.

Once the industry’s leaders and Wall Street learn the billions spent on promotion are ineffective and, as a result, drive down viewership, revenue, profit and market value/stock price, and only we have the solution, just correcting this flaw will be extremely valuable, and worth millions. The same is true for motion pictures since 90% of their promotion is also ineffective, except in the case of the few high-profile movies, like “Barbie,” or the involvement of a high-priced star, like Tom Cruise, or with brand extensions, such as the “Mission Impossible” series, become the promotion.

Effective promotion is also the fastest way for ABC, CBS, Fox or NBC to regain lost market share or a streaming company to be strengthened to survive a shake-out. And, with people having millions of options and time to view very few, it makes no sense for studios and delivery systems to fund a series if it lacks effective promotion that can break through and impact a huge percentage of the population.

Then there’s this that should interest series creators: Now you know that some, or many, failed series didn’t fail; instead, their promotion failed. Which is why the billions spent on promotion by Disney, Netflix, et. al. would have a greater return to stockholders if those assets were donated to charity for the tax deduction.

If we can make a dozen successful series year after year – be they developed by us and other producers or just promoted – it’s certainly worth a substantial model-licensing fee and development deal.

After all, they give eight-or-nine-figure deals to people in TV and those who’ve never created a series, like Barack Obama, Prince Harry and a former Black Lives Matter leader, buy shows from Monica Lewinsky of Bill Clinton-Oval Office fame, actors who are not writers, producers with track records of 13 of the first 14 series failing or seven and eight series on the air that all failed, political consultants, YouTubers, basketball players, those with one hit and many failures, etc., and anyone who cannot correctly answer that question about creating a successful TV series.

Maybe some series that well-known people create about them will attract some viewers. But once they stray from that and create other shows developed under the outdated model means the odds that they’ll be successful are like all others, extremely small. Which leads to key question number two:

Why are media and streaming companies investing millions in a product, and a TV series is a product, when no one in or out of TV developing them can explain how to make a successful one since they can’t correctly answer the industry’s most-basic question: How do you create a successful TV series?

We can answer it to anyone’s satisfaction. And should we reveal it the reaction will be that it makes perfect sense, and it can’t be copied.

Further sabotaging success is two of the many problems with the TV development approach that companies spend around $10 billion a year, or more, on funding existing and new series are it goes against human nature and is the opposite of effective product development.

While a small percentage of the hundreds of new shows produced each year break through, even with ineffective promotion, a TV show must be created to appeal to the maximum number of people. But they aren’t. Instead, they appeal to their creator, and that is why so few are true hits. While that worked decades ago when the only choices were ABC, CBS and NBC, with people having millions of viewing and other options today a TV series must appeal to a very large percentage of the marketplace.

To achieve that, Nielsen research reveals that when a series is developed in a certain manner, 100% of the time its ratings to a very small demographic group are huge, up to 10 times higher than those not in that group. The correlation is not 98 or 99%, it’s 100%. That is a rating spike, and it applies to all delivery systems, current and future.

For example, analyzing “Mad Men” viewers by industry reveals a huge spike with those working in ad agencies, Ad Age even ran summaries of every episode. But they constitute less-than-1% of all people so it had no impact on its ratings. If it was about accountants, they would be the spike. Shows with a black cast spike to blacks, while a series years ago called “Providence” debuted with a 13.1 rating, but had a huge 40.3 rating in that Rhode Island city, but it has a tiny percentage of the U.S. population, and so on.

We found that rating spikes from a demographic group exist to an average of about 5% of the households so, even with a very-high rating, they have minimal impact on the total rating. And there are cases where the spiked group can actually reduce viewers in the much-larger non-spiked group.

We also identified the common thread accounting for every rating spike, and we can duplicate it to a much-larger group.

Meaning: What if the spiked group was not 5% of households, or population for streaming shows, but 60-to-80%? And received a rating three, five, seven or more times greater than what the now much-smaller non-spiked group earned. For example, we know the spiked group for “Providence” received a rating three times higher than the non-spiked group. That means a series earning a three rating to the non-spiked group on a broadcast network and a nine to a spiked group having 70% of the population would have a total rating of 7.2. That makes it a huge hit, the number-one non-sports series and number one on cable, digital and streaming. A spike just four times larger translates into a rating of 9.3. The math is accurate, and the Nielsen correlation doesn’t lie, it occurs 100% of the time.

That’s why, automatically, our ratings or streaming viewers would be off the charts, and we build in a connection much stronger than demographics: An emotional bond between the 60-to-80% to the premise, characters and promotion so powerful that they’ll perceive the many series we can be involved with are not just about the characters, they are also about the viewer, another way our model works with human nature. How that is done is the “secret sauce,” and most in the 20-to-40% not in the spiked group will also be impacted, just on a different level.

Since the small demographic groups found in the Nielsen research earned huge ratings, the same principle and result will apply to the much larger emotionally connecting group, especially since an emotional connection trumps simple demographics and analytics. That was agreed by TV executives, including the only decision maker met with, NBC’s SVP Development, who wanted to buy two series. And the common thread for every spiked group, which is also our “secret sauce,” is so unusual that we know it is virtually impossible to identify, much less copy.

This makes more sense than developing what the creator likes since, with people having millions of options, when they emotionally connect with the premise there is concrete evidence that it enables writers to write more-successful and funnier comedies, more intriguing dramas and more real reality shows, which is one of the two ways our model will maintain viewer loyalty.

The TV industry believes they can develop any premise, no matter how absurd it is, and the execution, meaning the writing, will overcome it. That might have worked when people had three choices 70 years ago, but for 90% or more of all series it is a recipe for low viewing levels or a quick cancellation today.

The other is something no one else can do that the model automatically builds into every series we’re involved with. By knowing specifically what in our more-effective promotion attracted the viewers means we can ensure the expectation it established within an episode is met; meeting expectations leads to satisfaction; satisfaction leads to loyalty.

This is why Nielsen ensures, and we are comfortable predicting, that series we are involved with will earn broadcast ratings of six, eight, 10 or more, making them hits, with equally strong numbers in cable, streaming and future delivery systems. They will be maintained by causing existing viewers to remain loyal and the promotion adding new ones weekly, and that is how many more people can deliver word of mouth.

We said we use the ad agency model. One advantage is ad agencies develop content appealing to the marketplace, TV series creators develop what appeals to them. Which approach makes more sense?

Making the model even stronger is, while the industry is focused on scripts, premises are relegated to being basically the setting, where the show takes place. But under the Nielsen-validated model, the premise is the key. That’s because it determines the percent of people who’ll relate to the show, how effective writers will be and the promotion’s effectiveness. Under our model, just the title can attract huge numbers of viewers to watch our shows, like with “Providence,” and we can maintain their loyalty.

Not focusing on the premise, and relying on execution, meaning the writing, etc., although it’s important, is why most comedies aren’t very funny, dramas very intriguing or reality shows very real.

As for the “Seinfeld” lie, that it was “a show about nothing.” No, it was exactly like every other sitcom since TV began. All – repeat, all – are about a wacky group of friends or family members living in (name of city), which is “Seinfeld,” or crazy coworkers working at (company name). That describes every sitcom since TV began.

The typical pitch is a creator, and many have a poor or no track record, presenting the premise, causing buyers to guess if it will be successful. And it is easy to prove the research the industry uses to determine which series to buy is outdated and meaningless. This is the third way the decades-old model sabotages success.

Under the Nielsen-validated model, the promotion is presented first, so buyers are exposed to the show the same way the public will be, cold, making them confident, via seeing it or research, it will earn very-high viewing levels. Then we explain how their loyalty will be maintained. No one in TV can match this.

It can be applied to three or four ModernModel TV series a year, produced by production companies working with the media or streaming company teamed with or a production company with us, plus more created by others and those we just promote. All should be included in the list of the most-successful shows.

With millions of viewing options, our 21st century model creates the only logical pitch since, if substantial numbers of people cannot be made to watch a show and be motivated to remain loyal, there is really no rationale to fund it.

Because the industry exists in today’s ultra-competitive environment, it’s not the three-network 1950s anymore, to determine which of the many series being pitched deserve to be bought, and since the failure rate is high plus it involves stockholder’s millions, studios and delivery systems should be asking this very fair key question number three to everyone seeking funding. The response will remove guessing from the buying decision and reveal which shows can be successful, and which cannot.

“Before you tell me how ‘great’ your show is, since people have millions of options and promotion is ineffective, how will it be successful, meaning generate high viewing levels and, hopefully, maintain viewer loyalty, which is the responsibility of each episode? (For motion pictures, substitute ‘high opening-weekend gross’ for the first part and ‘create positive word of mouth’ for the last.)

Follow-up: We want to reduce our risk since many series are quickly cancelled or fall short of expectations due to low viewing levels, which is due to ineffective promotion also causing low word of mouth. While we are starting with promotion, we get to the show soon.

Being that you’re asking for millions of dollars, and people have millions of viewing options but time to only view a tiny percentage of them, it’s only prudent and reasonable that you show me how your series will generate high viewing levels before we invest in it. That means present its promotion, so I can respond to it like a potential viewer and research it against others.

And don’t tell me that’s not your responsibility or “that’s not how we do things.” In today’s ultra-competitive environment, and since you want my stockholder’s money, it’s incumbent on you to make me confident your show is effectively promoted. And while I am sure you believe it will be “great,” claiming that doesn’t translate into success.

The bottom line, one I am sure you agree with, is: What good is investing in a TV series if people cannot be motivated to watch it? After all, without high viewing levels, the odds are it will fail.

Then I want to know how your show will cause viewers to remain loyal after the initial viewing, which is its role. Meaning why they will connect with and relate to it so it’s not cancelled after a few weeks.”

We can answer that logical question to anyone’s satisfaction. But no one else can. That’s due to from the ad agency model and “secret sauce” emerges the premise and series, and from the premise and series emerges the promotion and pitch.

One more reason the ad agency model makes more sense is agencies must convince the client exactly why the creative will be successful; in TV, no one does or can.

Besides validation by Nielsen and research published by Facebook on TV viewership, Survey Monkey asked 100 people 18+ which series were more appealing or intriguing through their promotion – ModernModel TVs or TV’s highest rated. Testing like this would deliver results on the promotion and premises.

Note: Since no one has seen our shows, but some had seen the real ones used, such as “Seinfeld,” “The Big Bang Theory” and “I Love Lucy,” to ensure an even playing field so all were perceived as new, meaning no one has seen them, the titles and characters’ names in those series were changed since an ad with, for example, “Seinfeld” characters like “Kramer” and “Elaine” would invalidate the research.

Here are the results all in our favor and consistent: 65-35, 66-34, 60-40, 62-38 and 59-41, an average of 62.4-37.6. Sitcoms were used, but they’d be the same with dramas, reality shows and totally new ones. But this is a much-greater victory than it appears.

A 25-point spread is a strong indication of the model’s superiority in developing and promoting TV shows. Especially since we are not copywriters, so a creative team will develop even more-effective promotion. And when all five were combined in one question, the spread was 36% in our favor.

But, to make an apples-to-apples comparison, we did not include any of our A-level creative. Instead, to give the industry’s TV promotion a fighting chance, we used the same outdated, viewer-minimizing creative strategy it uses, which we would never use in the real world. An approach in meetings with industry executives they all agreed is totally ineffective.

The results proved our series, and premises, are so appealing that even our C-level or second-string ads, which looked like the industry’s, easily beat what media and streaming companies spend billions on.

TV executives seeing our real advertising would tell you that 25-point gap would be much larger with our “A”s. When it was predicted results would be more like 95 to 5 no one disagreed. As mentioned, even ModernModel TV’s simple billboards and banner ads will easily outperform the TV industry’s “best” 30-second spots.

But the statistical advantage is only one of our competitive advantages. Built into each series is an intensity advantage since people watching shows created under our model automatically have a powerful emotional connection to them by realizing, to repeat, they’re not just about the characters, they’re also about the viewer.

That’s one reason why the difference between how ModernModel TV’s and the industry’s series connect is like night and day; like how you care about your family and friends vs. strangers. So it’s the best of all worlds, the optimum scenario: Due to how they’re developed, the promotion will cause a huge percentage of people to have a powerful emotional connection with the show and characters, before and after the first time they watch it, then each episode will retain their loyalty.

The bottom line is research proved that, even using the same outdated promotional model the industry uses, series developed under the upgraded model are far-more appealing than those developed under the decades-old model. With our promotion, and this is not hyperbole since seeing our promotion confirms this, our advantage would be like comparing the Super Bowl champs to a high school football team.

Feedback from all TV executives met with was 100% positive; the NBC SVP was the only decision maker met with.

The one-hour meeting with the SVP occurred a few years ago and was set up by another NBC executive. Since we did not have an agent or worked in TV a meeting like this is never made for legal reasons, but the first executive realized our model is the future of TV. (Note that he had us meet with the SVP, not a VP or Manager.) And with much more competition now than when we met means the ModernModel TV approach is even stronger on a relative basis because more options require more-effective promotion to break through the clutter, which our model automatically creates.

Below are many emails whereby the SVP explains if not for bad timing, we met at the end of buying season when he was out of money, he would have bought two series because we did what no one in TV can: Prove how they will outperform all others being considered. The key word is “prove.”

Prior to presenting the two series three things were explained:

1. The serious flaws in the development-pitch-promotion model with corrections. He realized the promotional flaw was why series he bought failed.

2. The only correct response to the industry’s key question: How do you create a successful TV series?

3. How ModernModel TV model’s “secret sauce” was found buried in Nielsen research, supported by Survey Monkey and Facebook.

After being pitched the promotion, he knew both series would earn extremely-high ratings, then he said there was no need to explain how they will maintain viewer loyalty since it came through in the promotion.

He also agreed that those series can double or triple ratings in their time slots. That’s because, once you upgrade the outdated model and create TV series a great deal of people emotionally connect with, being successful is not that difficult.

The Emails: The first one came after thanking him for his time. Note that he placed his reputation on the line with a referral to meet with the Comedy SVP, which he would not do for someone never spending a day in the industry unless he knew we were on to something. We chose not to set the meeting: (All bold added)

From: Conti, Chris (NBC Universal)
To: ‘Ken’
Subject: RE: Meeting follow up

Ken, I enjoyed the meeting as well – have told Cheryl Dollins – head of Comedy to expect your call

Next he realized that “Desperate Housewives,” one year’s top-rated show we were talking about, was successful because, by accident, it came close to our model. Keep in mind it had ratings twice the average NBC series:

From: Conti, Chris (NBC Universal)
To: ‘Ken’
Subject: RE: How we can work together

But I will tell you then when HOUSEWIVES hit I turned to Michael Thorn (Note: VP-Development) and said – (Expletive deleted) that was Ken’s model – so I am a believer – Just a poor one at the moment

These three are self-explanatory, some are continuations of email streams:

From: Conti, Chris (NBC Universal)
To: ‘Ken’
Subject: RE: How we can work together

I want to do business with you, but I have a full slate of 40 including: REAL ESTATE, RELIGION, SUBURBIA and a cop show with Ray Liotta – our guess is at least one or two hit your model – whether they work or not: GE WILL ALSO FIRE ME FOR GOING OVER BUDGET. So there is nothing I can do till after January

From: Conti, Chris (NBC Universal)
To: ‘Ken’
Subject: A calmer e-mail

Ken, sorry i didn’t respond yesterday – I’m out of the office this week. In true network fashion our deal is not closed yet (as you’ve discovered networks don’t do anything fast) – I am eager to talk with you, however until I know the parameters of our deal there is no reason to talk – deal should be done by the end of the week, and then I’ll have new offices and i would love to sit with you. Frankly I’m taking a well desrved vacation – after 15 years without one – and there is nothing to do till the networks finish thier upfronts in MAY and begin focusing on the next year. I want to keep in touch – our deal will close soon

From: Conti, Chris (NBC Universal)
To: ‘Ken’
Subject: RE: Meeting follow-up

Ken, I would love to meet again – but we are out of money – our development for the year is done and we are in the thick of making it. WE will slow down again after the enw year and will get our new budget in the spring – There’s not much I can do until then. But certainly think we should sit and talk again

If you were at this meeting and saw his reaction you would know those emails are understated. He knew we proved how series we are involved with will be successful, before one dime is invested. But before we could “sit and talk again” when he received his new budget he was removed as SVP and left the network. We can’t control that, but his reaction is the key.

Note: After he left NBC and received a development deal he wanted me to join him, but why that did not happen is a story revealing how the TV industry operates.

Media and streaming companies are public companies operating under a 70-year-old model with legal and moral obligations to maximize shareholder value from the many billions management is trusted with. But those billions range from underperforming, for the programming, to wasted, for the promotion, and they decide which series to buy by guessing. That is why, in the era of smart phones, Amazon and laptops, the industry is creating the equivalent of rotary phones, Sears and typewriters.

By eliminating the model’s flaws and helping to make a dozen series successful year after year, the media or streaming company we team with will become the leader in TV and, very likely, motion pictures as well. While we can create a direct relationship with one for the model-licensing fee, development deal and more, prior to that we can team with a production company, management company, talent agency, ad agency or VC to also end up with that arrangement or develop and sell many series with one of them. Or we can join with a company wanting to buy all or part of an undervalued media or streaming company.

With people having millions of options but time to view very few in the ultra-competitive 21st century, there is a tremendous difference between knowing how to create a TV show and knowing how to create a successful TV show. But no one in TV can match the latter; TV executives agreed we can. And no one could find a weakness in our model, although some tried, while the only decision maker wanted to buy two series. Just upgrading TV promotion for one company should result in a fee in the millions since, without effective promotion, the financial risk in funding TV shows is magnified.

The challenge we receive is we haven’t created a TV series. But so have many others given huge development deals, be they politicians or members of “royalty,” and they buy shows from soccer and basketball players, supporting actors, presidential interns, YouTubers, lawyers, police officers, etc., or anyone else who cannot correctly answer the key question, how do you create a successful TV series? If the NBC SVP wasn’t let go, this non-issue would not be an issue.

But since every element in our upgraded model is an existing TV truth or works with human nature added to how: (1) research proves our promotion will generate much higher viewing levels, (2) Nielsen validates that we dramatically increase the number of people emotionally connecting with our series, thus making our premises relatable to 60-to-80% of them, as opposed to very few, (3) writers will turn out far-more-appealing episodes since maintaining loyalty is built in, and (3) we replace guessing with proving why series created under our model will outperform all others being considered, they will agree we created the future of TV. We were also told we can expect producers and writers will want to work with us since series we develop will have the greatest chances to be successful.

While creating one successful series is very difficult for those operating under the obsolete model, especially with the ineffective promotion, we can create or help make a dozen hit shows every year, something no one else would even claim. All it takes is one media, streaming or production company, management company, talent agency, ad agency, VC or other company.

Finally, while many series creators are “passionate” about their shows, and that includes people who haven’t worked in TV, the reality is they will fail whether they are “passionate” or not. We will make viewers “passionate” about the series, and motion pictures, developed under our model. That, along with our powerful promotion, maintaining their loyalty, strong word of mouth and proving during the pitch why they’ll succeed is why we were told that media and streaming companies “will be lining up at your door.”

And with Wall Street expecting increased earnings from undervalued media and streaming companies and the long-awaited shake-out getting closer, the media or streaming company we ultimately team with for TV series and motion pictures, perhaps with a partner company, will become the higher-profit leader and, for content we are involved with, won’t be sabotaging success.