This was not the case in the early years of U.S. network television, when the industry relied primarily on the “radio model” of program development. As in network radio, television programs were conceived and produced by advertising agencies on behalf of sponsors. The agencies also decided which network would air the program and in many cases the actual time slot on the network schedule. The radio model provided untenable in the burgeoning TV industry, however, for three principal reasons. First, the increasing cost and complexity of TV series production made it difficult for sponsors to underwrite shows and for ad agencies to produce them. Second, the heavy emphasis on ratings and on scheduling meant that the ad agency’s and sponsor’s notion of an appropriate program and time slot may not (and often did not) jibe with the network’s strategy for attracting and maintaining the largest possible audience during the crucial evening hours. And third, it was becoming ever more obvious that syndication (off-network reruns) would generate huge revenues for the companies that owned the programs and controlled their off-network afterlife. Thus, the networks gradually took control of programming and scheduling in the late 1950s, which had significant impact on TV program development.

Network control of programming was severely undercut in the early 1970s, however, which had a tremendous impact on the process—and the standardization—of program development. In the 1972-73 season, the network’s collective control of the television industry was challenged, primarily on antitrust grounds, by the Justice Department, the Federal Trade Commission, and the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). The most significant of these challenges in terms of programming (and development) were the FCC’s so-called fin-syn (financial interest and syndication) regulations, which restricted the networks’ right to finance and syndicate programs. As a direct result, program development quickly evolved from a haphazard, informal process to a standardized and heavily regulated set of procedures. With most prime-time dramatic series production now being farmed out, development became the primary focus of the industry—particularly the growing ranks of mid-management “development executives” at both the networks and the program suppliers.

Program development under fin-syn regulations was a rule-bound, pitch-to-pilot ritual. The pitch had to be verbal since anything in writing required a contract agreement. If the network-buyer was sufficiently interested in the pitch, the supplier was contracted to develop the concept into a story treatment (synopsis), then into one or more scripts, and then into an actual series pilot. Depending on the supplier’s track record and clout with the network, there might be guarantees with regard to airing the pilot or even picking up the series—a so-called play-or-pay deal. But for the most part, series development was a high-cost, high-risk venture, with the supplier sharing the risk because the costs for producing a pilot often exceeded what the network paid. In most cases, this investment was simply lost since even successful TV producers could expect only about 10 percent of the series they developed to actually be picked up by a network.

Suppliers were more willing than ever to take the risks since fin-syn assured them the ownership and syndication rights to the series. The potential syndication payoff also increased dramatically in the late 1970s because of cable, which created a surge in the number of independent television stations and thus a wider market for off-network reruns. The emergence of cable networks and superstations in the 1980s further complicated program development by increasing the number of program buyers and also by enhancing the off-network currency of even moderately successful series. Moreover, cable brought back the first-run syndicated dramatic series (most notably via Star Trek: The Next Generation in 1986), which had been phased out in the 1960s. These factors, along with the network penchant for “quick-yank” cancellation of weak series after only a few episodes, rendered development an even more crucial and pervasive aspect of the industry in the cable era. By the early 1990s, according to Broadcasting magazine, “70% to 80% of a network’s cost [were] tagged to program development.”

Program development persisted in the mid-1990s, although a number of trends in the television and cable industries, and in the “entertainment industry” at large, may very well increasingly affect the process in the new millennium. One trend has been the move by several studios (FOX, Warner Brothers, and Paramount) to create their own broadcast or cable networks, thereby serving not only as program suppliers but as buyers and distributors as well. A related trend involves the recent wave of mergers and acquisitions as media conglomerates move into every phase of production, distribution, and exhibition. Yet another related trend involves the deregulation of the television industry, most notably the 1995 scaling back of the FCC’s fin-syn regulations. Now that the networks again can finance and syndicate their own programs, merging with suppliers is not only logical but inevitable.

Nevertheless, program development persists for a number of reasons. First, development has been a part of the industry’s entrenched bureaucracy since the 1970s, and it will not be easily or readily dismantled. Second, although the networks clearly favor their in-house suppliers, the highly competitive nature of television programming necessarily will encourage the networks to look outside for fresh ideas or, even more likely, for top talent—especially proven writer-producers and established stars who wish to maintain a degree of independence. Finally, and perhaps most important, the networks have grown accustomed to developing far more programs than they actually can purchase or schedule. This enables them to keep their options open, to test-market potential series, and to share the risks of development. Program suppliers continue to accommodate the networks because the long-term syndication payoff is still much higher for a series that has aired on a major broadcast network. Thus, program development remains a buyer’s market and a routine industry practice even in the era of cable, deregulation, and media mergers, with the networks enjoying considerable industry power.