Woo! This is the promo I saw during The Simpsons last night. Thanks for posting it!

kasadilla | February 16, 23:57 CET

Heh. Awesome new combo-trailer. Normally I despise when networks prematurely claim a show is a hit, but I'm kind of okay with it in this case. Yay, double standards!

XanMan | February 16, 23:59 CET

"Put it down or I put you down." Nuff said! (nuff = enough, just in case you're not familiar with slang)

ricetxpeaches | February 17, 00:01 CET

I'm glad they're promoting it as a "hit." Why the hell not? It was a hit of sorts with certain demographics. It's a real hit on iTunes and Hulu. The Hollywood Reporter "it's an unmitigated disaster!" meme is overblown and grown tiresome. Time to seize control of the discourse or at least try to temper it.

phlebotinin | February 17, 00:06 CET

Ummm... hoping this isn't a stooopid comment, but would you expect them to promote it as 'the new dud'? I'm not in marketing but even I know that if you build it (up) they will (be more likely to) come.

baxter | February 17, 00:15 CET

but would you expect them to promote it as 'the new dud'?

No, but there's always a risk in promoting something as a hit if the prospective audience turns out to be aware of the news reports saying it wasn't.

The One True b!X | February 17, 00:19 CET

Baxter, not sure if your comment was to me, but I'll go ahead and respond just in case. No, I would not expect them to promote it as a dud. What I meant was that I've literally seen billboards promoting shows that haven't even started airing yet, by calling it "The newest hit from the guys that brought you..." or "The new dramatic hit..." That sort of thing bothers me. I would say that, right now, it's probably still too soon to advertise Dollhouse as a hit, but I was genuine when I said that I'm okay with it in this case. That's all.

XanMan | February 17, 00:23 CET

"New hit" promotion is classic Marketing 101, but it is still awesome to see it attached with Dollhouse. :)

Wyndam_ | February 17, 00:29 CET

According to Variety "Fox's "Dollhouse" got off to a credible start in the ratings Friday". Although they did manage misspell Joss' name which I wouldn't expect from such a well respected industry publication.

Derf | February 17, 00:32 CET

"Get ready for 'Meh Fridays'! It's the ultimate so-so combo as we give you the new shows critics are calling 'confusing,' 'overhyped,' and 'strangely off-putting'! It's 'if you've got nothing better to do TV' that you won't want to miss--too often."

snot monster from outer space | February 17, 00:45 CET

Our UK equivalent is - "America's Number #1 Show" or something in that vein. Speaking of marketing terms, I hate it how movie trailers say "The Best Movie of 2009" on the 1st January.

I like this FOX Promo, anyway. Probably my favourite so far.

Jayme | February 17, 00:53 CET

"New hit" promotion is classic Marketing 101, but it is still awesome to see it attached with Dollhouse. :)
Thanks, Wyndam-Price. That is what I meant. After all it is promotion for a TV show for god's sake - no one is taking a truth-o-meter to this stuff.

baxter | February 17, 01:28 CET

Yeah, fox was promoting Dollhouse as the "most anticipated" new show of 2009.
So how many new shows have there been in the last month and a half, 1 or 2?

Jayne's Hat | February 17, 01:32 CET

Jaynes Hat: Actually, "Dollhouse" made it onto a lot of "most anticipated new shows of 2009" lists late last year. Just because it debuted in the second month of the year does not make it less anticipated for the year. Sure, Fox is hyping. But it's not pulling this stuff entirely out of thin air.

Hm. So Variety doesn't think Dollhouse was a ratings dud? Intriguing. But wait! Whatever will various unnamed blogs and their participating commenters make of Variety's "credible start" assessment of "Dollhouse?" Nothing, probably. Why factor in the good when it's so much more fun to wallow in the nasty and the bad?

Checking in on internet sites in the past week to read about Dollhouse makes me think that many sites serve as "Come to the Village Square to Watch An Execution With the Rest of the Public!" for the 21st century crowd. The old ways haven't died. You still get to bring your (metaphorical) picnic lunch and dine on the public destruction of someone else (not you, which is what it's all about). Good times. Not.

On a side note, it is rather bizarre that Variety misspelled Joss's name.

phlebotinin | February 17, 01:36 CET

A hit eh? Yet the trades say fox was disappointed. But the point is do people really believe this blather from the stations? EVERYTHING is an event, a sensation, a hit - does it work? I've stopped believing anything they say a long time ago. Or is that just me?

IceHunter | February 17, 01:44 CET

Isn't Variety one of the biggest trades? They don't say Fox was disappointed.

phlebotinin | February 17, 01:46 CET

What trades are saying Fox itself is disappointed? Only thing I recall seeing from Fox is what TV by the Numbers published, which was all Fox touting the demographic pluses. Mainly what I've seen is a lot of puffery from certain trades who believe they know what Fox OUGHT to be thinking.

[ edited by The One True b!X on 2009-02-17 01:49 ]

The One True b!X | February 17, 01:49 CET

FOX calls every new show, regardless of whether it sucks or doesn't suck, a "new hit", or that "critics agree" you have to see it, or some other poor excuse for advertising to morons who believe it.

tharpdevenport | February 17, 01:57 CET

Perhaps they truly believe this is the best thing since sliced bread - after all they have seen more of it than we or the critics have. However, they have also invested a considerable sum of money in it and there is every advantage to hyping the show if they hope to recoup some of that, even if they don't plan to renew for a 2nd season. Finally, they purportedly have a 'deal' with ED - that is what caused the show to be made in the first place. I am not an industry insider, so not sure what that means, but at the bare minimum probably means promoting the star of their 'new hit series'. With all that, I'm still anticipating becoming a fan (admittedly not there yet after the 1st episode) - I just think that it isn't reasonable to read too much into the hype produced by those who have a financial (or creative) interest in the product. That is the essence of an 'independent' analysis.

baxter | February 17, 02:06 CET

A deal with a star is usually a one year holding deal for the studio to place a star in one of the shows they are currently developing or to develop a starring vehicle for them. That is how Nathan ended up in Drive and how he is now in Castle. He had holding/developments deals with 20th and then ABC studios.

The studio (not the network)pays the star to do nothing and to stay away from their competition. 20th likely has already fulfilled their deal with Eliza at this point and probably wouldn't owe her a thing if FBC canceled the show tomorrow.

TamaraC | February 17, 02:26 CET

Stumbling around Google, I found a reference to her deal, signed in (August?) 2007, as being for a two-year term.

[ edited by The One True b!X on 2009-02-17 02:35 ]

The One True b!X | February 17, 02:34 CET

Cheers, b!x, I would think that the actual development deal on the show would also fulfill the expectations of the agreement. Could be wrong though.

TamaraC | February 17, 03:06 CET