Testing...testing...

If you can’t already tell from my various Pilot Previews, or my obsession with upfronts…I’m excited for the upcoming TV season.

Deadline just released an article yesterday on the early pilot buzz (what’s testing well and what’s not).

Testing is a funny thing though.  I heard Bill Lawrence (creator of Scrubs and now Cougar Town) speak once about how poorly Scrubs had initially tested.  While the show didn’t test poorly enough to get axed from the get go, he implied that the audience thought the show was strange (probably because it was a little strange).  The show was a single camera comedy before single cam became the norm for every network besides CBS and it had characters narrating, breaking the 4th wall, and having all sorts of unusual out of body fantasy like experiences.  People hadn’t really seen a show like this before, so they reacted…negatively.

On the other hand, he said one show that tested incredibly well around the same time for NBC was Emeril…you know, that sitcom about the chef Emeril Lagasse.  Emeril was a straightforward sitcom with a well known celebrity chef/star...it was what you might call "safe," and apparently when it tested, people really liked it.  But why?  Well, I guess when you're turning those little dial thingies that measure your positive to negative response, what is weird and unknown equals negative and what is comfortable and known equals positive.  Oh, and you might doubt Emeril actually tested well, but I did find some proof.

In the end, Emeril was highly promoted by NBC but it died a quick death.  Meanwhile, Scrubs got tossed around a lot, changed time slots and even networks, but it lasted 9 years and arguably made Zach Braff a star.

So, check out what’s testing well, but take it with a grain of salt.  Testing well might equal “has a good chance of getting picked up” but it doesn’t necessarily equal “the show will be good” or “successful.”