Welcome back to Buffering, where today’s special is tossed salad and scrambled eggs, served fresh with a piping hot side order of analysis (and tortured metaphors!). Our main topic this week, as you may have guessed, is the Paramount+ revival of Frasier. The third episode of the new show drops today on the streamer, and while I’ve liked what I’ve seen of it so far, I’m worried that the show won’t be able to live up to its potential without some tweaks to its current distribution and production models. Read on for my humble suggestions on how Paramount+ should pivot to keep the good doctor back in business for (another) long run. Meanwhile, yesterday was Netflix earnings day, and we’ve got some thoughts on why the streamer keeps defying the doomsayers. As always, thanks for reading, and with events in the real world absolutely awful right now, here’s a small dose of good news: Hallmark Channel begins rolling out the first first of forty holiday movies on Friday night (with all movies streaming next-day on Peacock). And simmer down, Scrooges: If you’re upset that Christmas movies are arriving before Halloween, just don’t watch! Some of us will be happily escaping reality this weekend with Chex mix, hot cocoa, and and endless parade of meet-cutes. –Joe Adalian

Reach Joe on Twitter @tvmojoe or email buffering@vulture.com.


Enjoying Buffering? Share this email with your friends, and click here to read previous editions.

Critical reaction to last week’s Paramount+ Frasier revival has been mixed, though slightly on the positive side: While there have been high-profile pans in the New York Times and USA Today, the Los Angeles Times labeled the new effort “really quite good,” TV Guide found it “comfortably amusing” and The Guardian argued it “feels like an organic progression rather than something flung together by a frightened committee.” Our own Jackson McHenry was somewhere in the middle, bemoaning the show’s creative cautiousness yet noting that “the elements are there” for something better to emerge. While audiences will have the final say in whether Frasier (2023) ends up a success, there are two big things Paramount Global could do to better the show’s odds of long-term survival: Double the length of a second season to twenty episodes, and premiere those episodes weekly on sibling network CBS.

This is not an argument that Frasier should have been a CBS show instead of a Paramount+ original. The whole reason Paramount Global decided to risk millions reviving one of its most revered library titles was because company execs believed such a show would be a good way to establish a comedy presence for its new flagship streamer, particularly since the original series had been such a strong performer on Paramount+ predecessor CBS All Access. Streaming is vital to the future of media companies such as Paramount Global, so developing Frasier for its flagship service rather than its network was an entirely logical decision. It was also consistent with the same industry trend lines which saw Disney shifting FX’s best programming to Hulu, the Sex and the City spin-off landing on Max (vs HBO proper), or the Yellowstone spinoffs living on Paramount+ vs. Paramount Network. It makes sense that something as valuable as a new Frasier would be developed for the most important platform in the Paramount Global portfolio.

Or at least it did, back when CBS Studios began working on the idea of a Frasier revival  in 2018, or even when the project’s official development greenlight was handed down in early 2021. But as regular readers of this space know, streaming economics have changed considerably within just the last 18 months. Burning piles of cash in the hope of generating more subscriber sign-ups — seemingly the guiding business principle of the industry since Netflix started making originals a decade ago — has been replaced by new fiscal discipline and a desire to actually make money (or, at the very least, stop throwing it away). Finding shows which get people to subscribe to your service is still incredibly important, particularly for comparatively smaller platforms like Paramount+, which are still battling to achieve the sort of broad distribution of Netflix or even a Disney+. But doing so without regard for whether a show is actually getting lots of eyeballs and turning a profit? By and large, that idea now belongs to a world where nobody knew the meanings of things like “COVID test” or “ChatGPT.”

Because things have changed so much so quickly, Paramount Global needs to be thinking about the best way of turning Frasier into a widely-seen show, and the fact is, that can’t happen if it’s only available in the United States via Paramount+. The streamer doesn’t break out domestic and international subscriber numbers, but based on where Paramount+ stood before it began aggressively rolling out around the world last year, it’s likely its U.S. customer base is somewhere in the 40 million range. That’s less than half the audience pool of CBS. The marketing for Frasier has been admirably omnipresent, but the fact remains that keeping the show exclusive to streaming means denying it the ability to reach the tens of millions who tune in to CBS every week for the NFL, 60 Minutes, Survivor, and — when production isn’t shut down by strikes — a slew of scripted hits whose audiences would be very compatible with Frasier, such as Ghosts and Young Sheldon.

To be sure, “CBS is bigger” is not, by itself, a reason to put a show on a network platform rather than Paramount+, and some series absolutely make sense as streaming exclusives. For example, even though The Good Fight was a spin-off of CBS’s The Good Wife, its creators wanted to make a program whose content wasn’t compatible with broadcast standards (think regular usage of four-letter words) and which aimed higher than the typical Eye procedural drama.

By contrast, the DNA of Frasier (2023) is 100 percent that of a broadcast TV show. The producers didn’t try to make the show edgier for streaming or turn it into a dramedy with 45-minute episodes, and other than the fact that episodes run a few minutes longer than the ridiculously-shortened 20-minute length of modern broadcast comedies, the Paramount+ show could air on CBS as is. In fact, earlier this week, it actually did: The Eye network dropped the first two episodes of Frasier behind an episode of Big Brother this past Tuesday. Despite the very incompatible lead-in and less-than-ideal scheduling — the show faced off against new episodes of The Voice and Dancing with the Stars — the Frasier revival still managed to attract a little more than 2 million same-day viewers, with ratings actually going up for the second episode.

What this week’s CBS sampling underscored is that there is no real reason to keep Frasier paywalled behind the digital gates of Paramount+. Debuting new episodes on CBS would wouldn’t deny the streamer anything, other than the dubious value associated with calling a show an “exclusive.” That’s because every Eye show automatically streams on Paramount+, too, either live (for premium tier subscribers) or on demand a couple of hours after its linear broadcast. So giving Frasier a weekly run on CBS would only be additive.

By the way, this isn’t some brilliant new idea on my part. Disney has already made a pivot similar to the one I’m suggesting: After a one-year experiment as a Disney+ streaming exclusive, Dancing With the Stars is now back airing live each week on its historic home of ABC. But the audience that watched on Disney+ last year probably hasn’t even noticed, because the reality competition continues to stream live each week on Disney+ (and for good measure, the episodes also stream next day on Hulu). By being platform agnostic, the Mouse House is thus ensuring the widest possible audience for DWTS while also opening up multiple revenue streams for the show (by selling ad time on ABC and Hulu, as well as on D+). What’s more, the move has given a big boost to ABC’s primetime ratings, allowing the network to more effectively compete with NBC’s dominant Tuesday player, The Voice.

In the case of Frasier, airing the show on CBS would provide a couple of important benefits, both for the show and for Paramount Global. As noted earlier, the Eye’s platform is far bigger than Paramount+ in the U.S., so the network run would let the series connect with the millions of potential viewers who are just never going to sign up for the streaming service. Abbott Elementary creator Quinta Brunson has talked often about this dynamic, last year telling Vulture she always wanted her show to be on ABC rather than confined to a streamer since the broader reach of the network would allow people like her mom — who still sits down in front of her set every night for primetime programing — to find a show which otherwise might be lost amid the endless rows of “content” on Hulu and Disney+. Disney was fine with that because it figured the younger audiences who’ve largely abandoned network TV would find Abbott on Hulu anyway, which is exactly what happened.

Beyond the direct impact on audience size, having Frasier air on CBS would also help drive overall awareness of the revival. We’re obviously light years away from the era when a Must-See TV Thursday or the CBS Monday comedy block would attract 20 million viewers every week. But network timeslots and schedules aren’t completely devoid of power. Right now CBS’s lineup is operating at half-strength because of the strikes, but assuming things are back to normal next fall, the Eye’s Thursday comedy lineup will once again be home to two very popular half-hour comedies: Ghosts and Young Sheldon. Putting new episodes of Frasier on in the middle of those two hits would give the show a massive marketing boost every single week. In essence, the Eye’s lineup would serve as a weekly billboard for Frasier, reminding audiences the show is churning out new episodes. There’s a reason Max wisely keeps adding its biggest HBO shows at the same time they premiere on Sunday nights on the linear cable network rather than dropping them on to the service in the middle of the night: Tentpoles and schedules actually can matter, even if their impact has been dramatically diminished in the streaming era.

A network run for Frasier would also make it easier to justify something else that needs to happen in order for Frasier to thrive: More episodes per season. Not every show is made better by producing more of it every year, and there are also good financial reasons for streamers to limit episode counts of shows so that they can afford to make more series overall.(I also don’t know if viewers could handle the intensity of 22 episodes of The Bear every year.) But once again, Frasier is at its heart a network sitcom. The original became an iconic show in no small part because the writers and actors were able to learn the characters and refine them week after week over the course of 24 episodes and 11 seasons. Similarly, audiences grew to love the show so much because they had so much exposure to it and it came into their homes most every week nine months of the year. And if you look at the history of so many beloved sitcoms — The Office, Parks and Rec, Seinfeld — they all got dramatically better after they had a few dozen episodes under their belt.

While Kelsey Grammer doesn’t need any more practice in his role, almost everyone else associated with Frasier (2023) would absolutely benefit from a longer runway. Even hit network sitcoms don’t make 24 episodes per season anymore, but 22-episode runs are still pretty common. With the extra revenue stream a CBS run would offer, making 18 or 20 episodes of Frasier would be financially feasible — and, I’d argue, creatively beneficial. It wouldn’t guarantee success, of course: If the writers can’t deliver the goods, then CBS and P+ would be left with more episodes of a so-so sitcom.

But multiple critics who liked the show have suggested the new Frasier improves notably between episodes one and five, and it wouldn’t surprise me to learn the show becomes even more refined by episode 10. A longer season two would allow writers room to flesh out the new characters who, in early episodes, still feel a bit generic. It would also let the writers take chances on storylines they might hesitate to explore when trying to produce a more “perfect” 10-episode run.  And assuming viewers actually embrace the new Frasier and the show turns into a success, longer seasons would also increase the long-term value of the series for Paramount Global by building a bigger library of episodes in a relatively short time. Those half-hours could then start quickly making more money for the company via digital syndication: With 20-episode seasons, it’s not hard to imagine the new Frasier powering a channel on the company’s ad-supported streamer Pluto TV by 2026.

I’m sure that if I talked to Paramount+ execs they would make the case that putting Frasier on CBS erases any chance of the show serving as a driver of new subscriptions to the service. But while that’s true in theory, I’m just not convinced there are that many consumers who’ve avoided Paramount+ the last two years who are going to sign up for the service just for Frasier and then stay subscribed after the show disappears in December. And I think that number would be even tinier for a second season of Frasier. What’s more, any short-term financial gain that might come from a few hundred thousand new sign-ups would be more than offset by the additional advertising revenue and promotional muscle a CBS run would add. Plus, by churning out more episodes of Frasier per season, the per-episode costs associated with the series would go down a bit (and, presumably, Paramount Global execs would find a way to fairly divide those costs between the CBS and Paramount+ content budgets).

I write all of this as someone who actually sees promise in the Paramount+ revival of Frasier. I’ve only watched the first two episodes, and while they didn’t offer anything close to the sort of sitcom perfection the original series reached at its zenith, Kelsey Grammer was sublime as ever in the role that made him a star. The series also works overtime to squeeze as many laughs per minute as possible into each half-hour, which is exactly what I want from something billing itself as a comedy. Most of all what I saw in the series was the potential to grow into something more. That could still happen even if Frasier remains a Paramount+ exclusive and sticks to the standard limited episode streaming playbook. But I think it’s far more likely to occur if Paramount Global starts treating the series like the (possibly very good) broadcast TV sitcom it is.

There’s a saying veterans of Las Vegas casinos know all too well: The house always wins. Individual gamblers might get lucky with a hot streak, but at the end of the day, gambling establishments always find a way to come out ahead. Over the past decade, that description has always seemed to fit Netflix, which time and again seems to have found a way to beat back the naysayers and defy projections of doom. Qwikster (remember that?) was supposed to spell the end of Netflix, as was the 2011 decision to hike prices by 60%, but both ended up barely being a blip on the platform’s corporate timeline. The loss of dozens of Disney movies and TV shows and then the departures of Friends and The Office were also certain to be disasters, as werethe decisions to keep the movie Cuties on the platform, yawn at Dave Chapelle’s transphobia, and cancel [insert your favorite show here]. But what really spelled doom for Netflix was Wall Street’s freakout in early 2022, when a temporary slowdown in subscriber growth prompted endless hand-wringing and serious soothsaying about how Netflix was now mortal and who knows, maybe the company will get sold!

Anyway, none of that stuff happened. And yesterday, just a few months after the latest wave of “this time Netflix has really stepped on it!” blather — this time over the company’s decision to crack down on password sharing scofflaws — the streamer was once again able to deliver a giant middle finger to its doubters. Netflix added nearly 9 million new subscribers over the summer, the most since the early days of the pandemic kept people inside and streaming Tiger King, and predicted it would add roughly as money during the last three months of the year. It also saw strong revenue growth (in no small part because it’s spending far less money making stuff because of the now-settled WGA and ongoing SAG strikes) and a solid (though hardly spectacular) growth in the number of subscribers choosing its ad-supported platform. As CNBC’s Alex Sherman succinctly put it immediately after yesterday’s earnings, “Netflix is correcting the Great Netflix Correction.”

It’s hard to take issue with the idea that Netflix has moved beyond the Troubles of ’22, or that the company’s critics were once again wishcasting when they started suggesting the streamer had been permanently hobbled by Wall Street’s pullback last year. While I would never be foolish enough to suggest that any entertainment company is indestructible, Netflix long ago transformed from a startup to a superpower, making it more like Warner Bros. or CBS than Blockbuster or Napster. Like those legacy companies, it is going to have bad years and possibly even bad eras. Even an executive as foundational to Netflix as Ted Sarandos won’t always be there and could easily find himself out of work if the corporate gods demand a sacrifice in the face of a future downturn. But the likelihood of Netflix collapsing altogether or being seriously hobbled by something like the 2022 stock market freakout now seems pretty small. As for the other major streamers, well…

Sign up to receive Vulture’s 10x10 crossword every weekday.