Darlings, The New York Observer has a little article out examining the Lifetime move and what it means when the network that proclaims itself "Television for Women" takes over a show with a huge gay audience. Because they are wise, they turned to a loudmouthed expert:
"But nearly everyone else, it seemed, was not thrilled. The network better known for showing Golden Girls reruns and made-for-TV movies that usually involved some combination of a woman being stalked, a serial killer and/or a cheating/abusive husband was, not to put too fine a point on it, simply too Middle America for Project Runway fans.
“The thing that concerns us is that they talk about the show in terms of it being a women’s show,” said Tom Fitzgerald, 41, one-half of the blogging team behind the popular Project Rungay blog, which obsessively chronicles every episode as well as any and all behind-the-scenes gossip. “And we’re living proof that that’s not entirely the case. It has a very large gay viewership. It has a very large straight viewership that likes the fact that it’s an urban, intelligent, creative reality show. Our hope is that they don’t forget that.”
And we still hope that. Writer Doree Shafrir (shoutout, girl!) does a good job of laying out the case that Lifetime is in the middle of a rebranding strategy and that they already HAVE gay programming in the form of Carson Kressley's How to Look Good Naked. Respectfully, we have to disagree on the latter. How to Look Good Naked is COMPLETELY a woman's show. That it has a flamboyant gay host doesn't really negate that. We love a good makeover show as much as the next gays, but Kressley's show is built entirely around making woman with body issues feel better about themselves. There's nothing wrong with that but it's not about to make us give up our Stacey and Clinton, who, while only 50% homosexual, nonetheless make for a VERY gay viewing experience.And then there's this:
“We would love for them to watch [Project Runway ] on Lifetime, too!” said Meredith Wagner, Lifetime’s executive vice president of public affairs and corporate communications. “Our door is open. As I said, we’re inclusive. And we want them. We hope they’ll come! The show’s not going to change.” That being said, it’s hard not to feel like gay men are being treated like fag hags—they’re an accessory in the new Lifetime, around for camp value and being able to tell you if your butt looks big, but with no programming revolving around them.
“We really love women,” said Ms. Wagner. “And we care about women. We put them first.”
Hey, we love women too. It's just that we're getting a distinct "Oh, you gays can sit over here and watch" vibe from that last quote. We hope we're wrong on that.
61 comments:
ew. ew. ew. I can't believe this move is happening. I'm a woman, but I don't want to have to admit to watching lifetime. To be honest, it took me awhile to out myself as a reality TV show watcher. Project Runway is too smart and fun and New York to be on lifetime.
Still hate it. I don't have high hopes that it will be the same.... but of course will give it a try.
However, I won't be so vocal now to say I watch PR unless I can avoid mentioning Lifetime. And I'm a woman. Who in their right minds would want to watch endless movies about women in ridiculous situations? Rebranding strategy is much needed at Lifetime!!!
"Tlo said: Hey, we love women too. It's just that we're getting a distinct "Oh, you gays can sit over here and watch" vibe from that last quote. We hope we're wrong on that."
I hope you're wrong too, but I'm getting the same vibe. And I agree about the Carson Kressley show as well. It's rather pathetic and a perfect example of suburban drek.
On the plus side, one of the other people quoted in the article was Kelly Preston, and she is certainly 'Gay friendly' (if you know what I mean). Hmmm...just promise us this move won't make you two shun pharmaceuticals and marry starlets.
--GothamTomato
god i hate that last quotation!
it reeks of tokenism!
If I'm statying overnight at my mom's house and we have the TV on, we always have the exact same conservation.
Me: What do you want to watch?
Mom: Oh, I don't know, see what's on Lifetime.
Me: Wouldn't you rather watch something else?
This is truly going to mess up my psyche. I am already in fear of turning into my mother, now I will have to utter those dreaded words to my mom: "Can you put Lifetime on". Even thinking about that makes a gray hair or two sprout out of my head. I wonder how much therapy is going to cost me.
How patronizing. First of all, I cannot imagine for a minute that Lifetime actually believes the mindless comments of Ms. Wagner. They simply need to fire her and hire a good gay man who understands the issues surrounding this move. For a network whereby sheer exposure causes ovary growth stimulation, would it hurt Lifetime to be 'about women' and still embrace a new audience? Project Runway is more about the fashion design than the woman who wears it. It's creativity spawns unique and interesting challenges amongst it contests...it's not about some middle-American woman recently wiping her eyes over the latest stalker/victim drama who turns to her husband and says, "Why would anyone wear a dress made of cornhusks? Why that's just stupid." Yes, Lifetime, that's just stupid.
I'm a woman, but I'm not a Lifetime woman. I'm not quite sure what their demographic actually is, but I am positive it's not me. I'm verrrry suspicious about all of this. I'll be tivo'ing the show, but guess that even the commercials will not be selling stuff to me.
But way cool that you guys were questioned and quoted by Doree. I hope you all don't marry starlets and end up in a Lifetime Very Special Movie. I hope none of us do.
OK...that's it. Now, as a gay man, I am placated by Lifetime programming because it has shows with gay hosts (Kressley)? Sorry, Lifetime, it doesn't work like that. After all, you don't see me running to see Jai Rodriguez in his latest breeder (literally) groomer fiasco.
Wait, do I not know the meaning of the term "fag hag" (as much as I dislike it) or was it misused?
I don't know about you, but I take issue with the part describing Tom as "obsessively blogging" about the show....
NO NO NO!!! how dare saying anything related to Project Rungay is obsessive!!!! :-))
and where is Lorenzo's quote????
T Lo said...Hey, we love women too. It's just that we're getting a distinct "Oh, you gays can sit over here and watch" vibe from that last quote. We hope we're wrong on that
You're right. I can't stand shows that "women" are supposed to love. Anything that is aimmed to "balance" your life, help with "closure", or "find your true self", usually makes me want to puke.
I have an unbalanced, unclosed, lost life, and I kind of love it.
First: are you two on every reporter's speed dial when it comes to all things PR? :)
Second: ICK! The talking heads at Lifetime need to stop with the "women first" BS. I agree that PR is and always should be about fashion design, with the cattyness of the workroom thrown in. However, you KNOW that Lifetime is going to have some dumb-ass tie-in every season that they air the show. "We won't change a thing..." Eh, don't insult my intelligence...
Third: That Kressley show was SCHMALTZ, and more about Carson showing off that any sort of breakthrough in fabulousity. And TLo are right: Clinton & Stacey may only be "50% gay", but make for better viewing than Carson & Tim's shows combined. However, any makeover show is geared more towards the suburban hausfrau than anybody else.
I'm a woman, I don't like schmaltz, and I don't like people who just buy properties like PR for the bragging rights rather than understanding it's core audience.
"Tlo said: Hey, we love women too. It's just that we're getting a distinct "Oh, you gays can sit over here and watch" vibe from that last quote. We hope we're wrong on that."
You're not.
So sad to see one underrepresented group treat another underrepresented group w/ the same disdain they themselves have received.
See it a lot in the TV biz.
Also sad to see the Suits still see their viewing audience as idiots. Did they not think we could see right through their little "strategy"?
Kudos on your interview, Tom darling! Extremely intelligent.
Emma P.
"Some Cluelessly Pandering TV Exec Said: “We really love women,” said Ms. Wagner. “And we care about women. We put them first.”"
You know, now that I think about it, maybe this move has been in the cards longer than we thought. Maaybe this Lifetime move is the explanation for the inexplicable: That being, why the hapless SweetP got so far along in the competition.
She did appeal to Lifetime's target audience. Maybe the producers kept pushing her through, over more talented designers, as a type of audition for Lifetime. That is the most logical explanation yet.
--GothamTomato
They put STRAIGHT women first. I hate this move. (Although Golden Girls totally rocked harder than Real Housewives of Whereverthefuck.)
"sewing siren said: I can't stand shows that "women" are supposed to love."
That's because those shows that 'women' are supposed to love are always aimed at/pander too stupid women who exist only as an appendage of a man.
--GothamTomato
Interesting observation about SweetP, gothamtomato. I think you're definitely on to something re: PR's move to Lifetime having been in the cards for quite some time though. It has to have been. There's an awful lot of $$$ on the line.
That said, I, too, got a sick feeling after reading Ms. Wagner's quote. Talk about patronizing, condescending and polarizing. A few more promises like that and PR's Lifetime expectancy (bad pun intended) is a short one for sure.
I've gotta go shower after reading that one.
- edina -
First of all, back a few postings, I was of the opinion that Tim Gunn's show wasn't workng because it was just unimaginative, reality-tv redo, a bit like takin the "Overhaulin" car-makeover show and realigning it, from one chassis show to another.
And in a certain way, that's also why it doesn't quite fit yet, because it's not built from the ground up to match something "Tim", but built to match something existing in "reality tv" and then fit Tim to it.
Something similar could be said about this ongoing Lifetime gesture of having PRunway. Nothing is fitting so far, and I wonder which is being shifted to fit which really.
Why is the whole gay angle suddenly the recessive gene - and just like it was with Tim's show, vs PRunway.
Lifetime spokesperson reps the channel like a presidential candidate: acknowledge different audiences but keep it clear that in the end, the sponsors money is on one - "women" - and in a very unimaginative idea of what that term signifies, because it is the corporate sponsors version of it.
I just wonder what some of those in charge think the "life" is in "Lifetime"?
sewing siren said :"I have an unbalanced, unclosed, lost life, and I kind of love it."
EXACTLY! WHY must women be made to be feel that we have to "have it all" - who cares??? I'm happy being the barely pulled together gal I've ALWAYS been =) Doing and living my life the way I like it =)
The more I read Ms Wagners comments, the more annoyingly INSINCERE it gets.
First off, congrats for the quotes. More and more it seems that you boys are the ones to go to regarding all things PR.
Secondly, MS. Wagner needs to take a diversity training refresher course from her local HR office.
Ditto on what everyone else said, i.e. I'm a woman and I wouldn't be caught dead watching Lifetime.
The exec's remarks about reaching out to a gay audience were pandering, but I also object to her remarks about women as Lifetime's target audience. Women are half the population; do you really think that ALL women have the same tastes and interests? They need to be more specific in order to be accurate. Lifetime: Television for Older, Culturally Conservative Women Who Favor Polyester Cruisewear.
I am still trying to take a "wait and see" attitude about the move, but reading the exec's comments here, it seems pretty hopeless. If nothing else, the Lifetime ladies need to start keeping their mouths closed because they just sound worse and worse the more they speak.
I suppose they'll be phasing the models out completely and just have designs for so-called "real women" - god knows that's a trend on the show.
screw that! I want to see the contestants create and make fab clothes, and stab each other in the back, preferably while wrapped only in a towel.
sigh
Can I just say that I'm having nightmares about that Madness mannequin? She's a mixture of Scarlett Johannsen and one of the plastic surgery victims in "Brazil."
OK, back to our regularly scheduled programming, I agree with TLo. It really does feel as if the tastes and needs of the PR/Bravo demographic -- be it gay, straight, male, female -- are being underestimated and undervalued. And if Lifetime sells its PR ad slots to its usual advertisers (I'm looking at you, Tampax and Motrin), then we'll KNOW that Lifetime just doesn't get us as an audience.
I never thought of PR as a "women's show." I always thought of it as a design show, and since the field is so male dominated, I viewed it as having more of a male bias.
So the move to Lifetime, as I've said before, does make me shake my head.
We'll have to see about Lifetime's experimentation with remaking itself. But frankly, if they put Melissa Gilbert of Sally Field on as host, I'm so outta there.
TV networks as comic strips
Lifetime:For Better or For Worse
Bravo:Life in Hell
THAT, my friends, is the problem.
sewing siren said:
You're right. I can't stand shows that "women" are supposed to love. Anything that is aimmed to "balance" your life, help with "closure", or "find your true self", usually makes me want to puke.
I have an unbalanced, unclosed, lost life, and I kind of love it.
amen to that!
I just don't see the PR that we all know and love and obsess over
remaining the same once it's on Lifetime.
Perhaps the question could be asked of La Klum as to why Lifetime is going to be a better fit for PR? Or, is it in the end all about the Benjamins?
Ugh. I predict the first challenge will be to design a housedress with snaps, big pockets and coffee stains. The second challenge will be to design a wash-n-wear duster and pants ensemble; guest judge will surely be Bea Arthur.
Show of hands:
Are there ANY regular Lifetime viewers reading or commenting on this blog?
I won't be holding my breath...
Interesting post...Great quote from one of my favorite experts! (That would be TOM, of course!)
Great post! You've articulated what's been at the back of my mind since this shenanigan was first announced.
It reeks of "Television for Women. Oh, and we'll let the gays in too"
Pfeh.
Here's my thinking about the move: it could be seen that gays are being relegated to the seats back by the bathrooms, OR it could be that this is a great opportunity for Lifetime to be infused with a more well-rounded audience and one which will be the catalyst, the sea change the channel needs.
I watch Lifetime very little, but what I do watch (guilty as charged regarding Army Wives, Side Order of Life -- sadly cancelled, State of Mind, and Starter Wife...not to mention Golden Girls) has always only taken up an hour or two of my time. I don't watch their movies. I won't watch their movies. But I will watch PR and I will watch the series I've come to enjoy.
If Lifetime does this right, there's a whole new audience that will translate into a loyal fanbase and bigger $$$ for the network. If they're smart, they'll see the potential for broader programming and capitalize on it. They'll develop that potential into a great new hybrid and reap the benefits, as will we. If they fail to treat this new audience properly, THEY'LL lose, not the audience. It is, after all, their game to lose.
Forget the talking heads who don't know shit. Give the audience a chance to wield its power and show the network what's possible. It wouldn't be the first time a network has been reworked by audience demand, but it could be the best one yet.
The unfortunate thing is that PR will be slightly retooled to appeal to the normal Lifetime audience, that network (from what I understand) is broadcast to a larger number of subscribers than Bravo, and Lifetime and the PR producers will use those figures to applaud the move as a success.
Meanwhile the show's gay viewers will be ignored as inconsequential and irrelevant, a fate our community experiences far too much.
Frankly I hope Bravo and NBC win their legal action and none of this comes to pass.
P.S. Frankly I'd love the see the cast of the Golden Girls judging a challenge - sure they wouldn't know a thing about fashion, but they're still fab!
But Joan (5:19pm) here's the thing - the "talking heads" are the ones that run the network - and they've just stated publicly that they will continue to put women audiences first. What a fantastic message that sends to them, and the world at large, if gay men choose to support a network that states its purpose as being for and about women.
Ugh- I wish people would stop referring to Middle America as though it were filled with entirely gun-totin', gay-hatin', Bush-votin' rednecks. Being in New York or LA does not automatically make something cool. There are plenty of open-minded people in the midwest (ever check out the % gay population in Madison, WI?) and plenty of closed-minded people on the coasts.
As a gay man, I can say that I don't watch anything on Lifetime. Ever. I don't even know what channel it is on. I'm sure there is nothing in Lifetime's lineup that Bravo is remotely interested in bidding on. When it comes down to it, however, I think we are disappointed (read - hurt) to see part of smart Bravo family leave the network. We are as married to the network as we are to PR. We love our Shear Genius, Top Design, and even those goofy Housewives (who are much more suited to go to Lifetime). We love the commercials and promos. I have it on all day long. And watch repeat after repeat much to my friends' harrassment. I think we are hurt because the COLLECTION of shows on Bravo is special. It has grown and adapted to a special audience, and now it is being dismantled without any regard for its audience. Even if PR was going to Logo or A&E I wouldn't be happy. I'd be equally sad because I like all of my shows, with their shameless self and cross promotions, all on the same channel. It's been a very comfortable place to hang. And I'm mad about this change.
Wait a minute, here. This could be Lifetime's entry into the dark side.
Look, the whole Weinstein Company arrangement was for a network to purchase their made-for-TV ouvre.
What could the company who brought the world Transamerica, Sicko and Grindhouse have up its sleeve for Lifetime?
:Tlo blogged:
There's nothing wrong with that but it's not about to make us give up our Stacey and Clinton, who, while only 50% homosexual, nonetheless make for a VERY gay viewing experience."
Forget the viewing experience, and focus on fantasy . . .
Is it the bottom half of Stacey and the top half of Clinton that's homosexual, or the bottom half of Clinton and the top half of Stacey?
It's just that we're getting a distinct "Oh, you gays can sit over here and watch" vibe from that last quote.
Yeah, ew. Has a "some of my best friends are ---" vibe, doesn't it?
And on top of the ick factor, there's the sheer inanity of saying, "Our doors are open." It's a TV network, for God sake. How could their doors possibly be closed?
AWWWWW...
My sweet angel babies...((((HUGS))))
I am not thrilled about the Lifetime thing either.
I love me some Golden Girls re-runs or like my mom calls them " El programa de las viejitas" though.
Hey... there is nothing wrong with being a fag hag.
We are much better than accesories and we are an important part of the GLBT community?
Whose shoulder do you cry on when the BF dumps you?
Who eats Ben and Jerry's with you on nights when you don't feel hot?
Who brings you chicken soup when you have the flu? Not the hottie you met at " Tom ( not you though), Dick and Harry's" but your always faithful fag hag. We are the ones marching side by side with you on the Pride parades and stitching the patches on the quilt and holding hands and crying along when the HIV diagnoses happen....
Show us some love already :-)
Love ,
Milla
Proud and loud fag hag.
While I seem to be smack in the middle of Lifetime's demographic, 46 year old, college educated suburban housefrau, the only show that I have watched on that channel in recent memory is Carson's. Hmmm...so they're not reaching their own demographic either.
I'm a Bravo addict...Runway, Supermodel, TopChef...refuse to watch the Housewife shows because their reality is just not mine.
Glad you mentioned Stacy and Clinton. The show is actually on the TV behind me as I type (commericial time). I am addicted to them and would love them to come to my Temple and redress the whole place (ugh).
And I definitely am looking for my own personal gays...
Love y'all!
Since Blood Ties isn't on, I don't watch anything on Lifetime, and I'm the target demographic. Bravo OTOH is, along with USA, pretty much my default television network.
DebbyT said...
"And I definitely am looking for my own personal gays..."
Did you check around your surburban neighborhood Debby? One of your fellow Hausfraus might be harboring one - we do need food and shelter you know. :)
The fact that Lifetime thinks gay host = gay friendly show is a BAD sign. That's like Fox Network saying "The host of our new golf show is Tiger Woods. That makes us the new BET."
How is showing PR on Lifetime tackier than shilling on HSN or QVC? I find that far more offensive. If everyone is so worried about the gays, show reruns on Logo, or just be a little open minded about so called niche networks.
Anon, you missed my point entirely. Just because the talking heads have stated one thing doesn't mean that's what's going to happen. Don't you see the potential here? They have EVERYTHING to lose by keeping their focus narrow. However, if PR's viewers maintain their loyalty to the show and skew the demographics for the network (big jump in ratings share for PR hour and then nothing after), the smart talking heads will have to see the light. If they don't, I imagine the Weinsteins will have an option to leave the Lifetime.
You can look at the glass half empty if you want, but I choose to see it half full -- leaving lots of room for a great big gay audience and us straight kids to splash around together.
I'll echo the comments above that we love Bravo for their collection of shows. I know I can turn to that channel on a weekend and catch an addictive marathon of some show I enjoy. If I turn on Lifetime and PR isn't on, I guess I could always catch a Greys Anatomy rerun (more rebranding?) but I'm not sticking around for the movies.
Bravo is the better brand. Period.
Using PR as kindling to make Lifetime "Hot" is not going to make Lifetime anything more than...
Lifetime.
Let's hope NBCUniversal wins their lawsuit.
Okay I am a woman and Lifetime does not speak to/for me. It seems like the 'women' they are referring to are those that like seeing the women victim movies of the week.
If I am feeling like that I will watch the Jane Austin specials on PBS- be still my heart Colin Firth!!
At least it's real literature and high brow.
Go NBC/Universal!!! Bleed them dry...
TLo, you could not possibly over blog anything about PR-- we love it and we only want more!
When are the smart tv people going to give your own show??? I have previously mentioned podcasting as a potential forum for you two--
just sayin' we "just can't get enough"!
As another member of Lifetime's coveted demographic, (mid 30's, two kids, college and all that crap) I can't remember the last time I had Lifetime on.
I am hoping they just let the Magical Elves do their thing.
Also, I think they were using the term 'fag hag' in the wrong context.
I am smelling doom here, but I will try to keep an open mind.
Don't piss off the gays. Big mistake, honey.
Lifetime's claim that it's inclusive of and aimed towards women is almost as ridiculous as its claim that it will be inclusive of gays. Lifetime may be 'Television for Women,' but its definition of women is pretty narrow - really, most of their programming is directed toward white, middle-class, straight women. I'm a woman, and I'm also gay, and between Lifetime and Bravo, the latter offers far more programming that caters to my interests and the interests of much of the Project Runway viewing public. I don't think Lifetime realizes what it's gotten itself into. It will now have to meet the demands of a diverse, multi-gender, savvy, intelligent audience - something it's never had to contend with before. I'm eagerly counting down to PR's inevitable return to Bravo or, at the very least, to a network that can handle all the fabulousness.
A couple people need to take some deep breaths. You guys are sounding like you are in a Microsoft/Apple showdown.
In my gay circle, we've always held a special place for the intrinsically camp programming offered on Lifetime throughout the years. Golden Girls, Will & Grace, Murphy Brown. While not currently groundbreaking, they were at their time showing positive progressive values to the general public.
What can be more camp than watching Spelling stalked by some psycho-ex and bad writing? (Not my cup of tea, but some like it.)
I'm taking a wait and see attitude. The move has as much potential to broaden the audience as it has to water down the brand. Certainly, Bravo is on the pulse of gay-friendly programming, but the more outlets for such programming the better.
Such blather!
They don't love women. They
love the purchasing power of
that particular demographic of
women. That's what they pitch
to their advertisers.
ugh.
This whole thing has made me lose a little PR love.
-- desertwind
What a horrendous mess. I'm going to have to mute the commercials at every break. Lifetime had better not tinker with PR's content, but I fear they will. Crap.
On another note, great to read you guys adore Stacy and Clinton, I do too!
Yesterday I looked at the tv listings for Lifetime and what do you think the movie was about? "A surgeon suspects his wife has been kidnapped by a group of witches". Now that screams for a response like "Dude, she went of her own free will, and brought her gays with her". How is this network supposed to be a place for PR???
I am sooo confused. I always thought of Project Runway as a show aimed primarily to a gay audience that also let women watch (cause theoretically the clothes are made for women).
From the looks of that quote, however, it seems to me like they're going to turn the show upside down.
Why is this happening? Who let this happen?? This is awful. The show is going to be ruined.
The quotes from the Lifetime woman obviously has no clue about this show at all and neither does Lifetime.
Carson Kressley and the other QEftSG folks who are still in the public eye have been de-gayed for public viewing. Ted less so because he's on a Bravo show.
I watch The Nanny, Golden Girls, and occasionally a movie just because they're so bad, but rarely.
Just want to add my voice to the "This Can't Be Good" chorus. I also love the Bravo brand and identify myself as a loyal Bravo viewer. I do not ever watch Lifetime. I'm hoping that the network doesn't ruin the show, but I just can't see Lifetime letting the show go on as is without making some "improvements". OH, well, I'll just have to watch the Season 2 marathon to take my mind off of this!
In our suburban household, my husband watches the Lifetime movies. My daughters, my fluffy white dog and I don't understand this phenomenon at all, since the XX chromosomed in this house tend to watch dance shows, old movies,Gossip Girl, anything with Colin Firth and, of course, PR. We shun victim of the week and schmaltz movies.
So, if Lifetime picks up PR and leaves the format alone, we will join the straight male in the house in watching Lifetime. We'll have to stop relentlessly teasing him about his viewing habits first.
Post a Comment