|
Welcome to the TVIV Ratings and Discussion thread. But first, a primer: What are ratings? You've seen other people in TVIV bitch about the ratings for their super funny and subversive show that the rest of America Does Not Get (looking at you, Community thread). But what, exactly, are they? Simply put, "ratings" is a general term used to describe the Nielsen Ratings, which are a set of ratings collected by the Nielsen Company (natch) in an effort to quantify audience, and more importantly, demographic size during your TV shows. A shows There are approximately 115.9 television sets in America at this very moment. What the Nielsen Ratings- hereafter refered to as the "Nielsens" or just "ratings"- determine is what percentage of America is watching a given show- hence, the point system. Each "point" in the Nielsens reflects roughly one percent of the total number of television sets in America that are watching the show- so in other words, a show with a 1.0 rating has roughly 1.16 million people who watched it on the night in which that show aired. Ratings usually come in two sets of numbers, however: ratings/share. Ratings reflect total number of viewers for the night and share reflects what percentage of the tv sets that were actively watching that episode of that TV show. Let's give an example to make it clearer. Let's say an episode of Revolution airs and gets a...let's say 3.0/9 ratings/share. That means, that on Monday night from 10:01 pm to 11:00 pm, there were approximately 3.48 million tv sets tuned to Revolution. That doesn't mean there were 3.48 million people watching the show, however; people could've left their cable box on, they could've fallen asleep after watching The Voice...it doesn't matter. All that does matter is that there was 3.5 million, roughly, tv sets tuned to NBC during that time. A 9 share, however, means that 9 percent of the people that were actively watching tv at that time were tuned to that show. The share will always be higher than the rating, usually about 2 1/2 times as much. How are ratings determined? Ratings are determined one of two main ways: Either with Diaries or with Set Meters. Diaries are the traditional method, used since radio days: the Nielsen Company sends a household a diary (usually with a cash incentive as well) and asks the household to self-record all of their viewing and listening habits, for a seven-day period (eight if you have a DVR). Then the household sends the completed diary back to the Nielsen Company, who then aggregates the data and determines ratings. Set Meters are little devices a household installs to their television(s), which then monitors all tv watching usage on that television and broadcasts that info to a Home Unit, connected to the household's phone line. This allows an unprecedented degree of access to market researchers as to how people watch tv-on an exact minute to minute basis of when they change the channel, turn the volume up and down, and turn the television off. Further, the Nielsens now have People Meters, which allow further, more specific viewing information of how each person in a household watches TV. Now obviously, sending a diary and/or Set Meter to every household in the US is financially impossible, so instead the Nielsens uses the common statistical method of determining the actions of a huge group known as statistical sampling; they determine trends in the actions of a smaller "sample" size cross-section of America, accounting for variables such as race, age, earning power, and geographical location, then based on that sample size, can determine with good accuracy the trends of the American populace. Why are ratings important? Ratings are important because they allow the network and its local affiliates to determine what prices to set for ad buys. The more viewers you have, the higher ratings you have, and the higher ratings you have, the more you (you being the network) can charge for every 30 seconds of commercial time during your American Idols, your 2 1/2 Mens, your LOSTs, etc. However, ratings do not tell the whole story. Far more important to advertisers (and, by extension, networks) is demographics. What are demographics? Demographics, at least as far as ratings are concerned, answer the "who" part of the "Who's watching our show?" question. Demographics cover everything, from race to class to age to gender. Why is this important to advertisers? Because it's stupid for, say, Audi to buy a commercial during Spongebob Squarepants, because as it turns out, most people who watch that show are young children, who...don't buy cars. Demographics are usually listed in gender and age ranges, i.e. "Men aged 18-35" "Teenage boys aged 14-19", etc. For all networks, the "holy grail" demographic is "Adults aged 18-49". This has been determined to be where the majority of the buying power of America is located, so advertisers only really give a poo poo about this cross-section. Therefore, whenever ratings are announced, they are usually only announced as "within that demographic". So again, back to the Revolution example. Whenever NBC announces the show got, say, a 3.0 rating it is commonly accepted that what they mean is a 3.0 rating among men and women aged between 18 and 49. Everyone that falls out of that range is not significant to advertisers, so are not counted. Therefore... Number one rule of ratings discussion: "Total viewers" does not mean poo poo. "Total viewers" is a meaningless metric. When discussing ratings, the networks 99% of the time are only talking about adults aged 18-49, the advertisers are only discussing adults aged 18-49, and by extension we are only talking about adults aged 18-49. This is a common misconception that TVIV threads like to delude themselves into thinking so they can take comfort in thinking their totally-gonna-be-loving-cancelled show isn't going to be cancelled- "It gets HUGE numbers of viewers! That must mean something...right???" No. No it does not. It means loving nothing at all. Case in point: Harry's Law. This show was NBC's highest-rated show in the 2011-2012 season- their highest rated show- and they cancelled it. Because despite getting 12 million+ viewers, it was getting abysmal ratings in the demo- I think it was sub-1.0. The only people watching Harry's Law were old people, who don't drive cars, don't drink alcohol, and don't wear condoms, so advertisers didn't give a gently caress- there's only so many times you realistically can run a Metamucil ad. So, again, total viewers do not matter, and if we discuss viewership numbers ("this show had 5 million viewers", etc), assume that we're only talking specifically about adults aged 18-49. Sweeps- What are they? How are they important? Remember the whole "Diaries" thing I mentioned above- how the Nielsens send out diaries to households for them to record a week of tv-watching, and then ask for them back? Well, they don't do it year-round. The Nielsens only process the paper diaries- some 2 million of them, apparently- during the months of November, February, May, and July. In addition, local affiliate stations also set their ad rates based off the ratings for these months. These months are also known as "sweeps" periods, and are obviously the most crucial ratings periods for networks- usually you'll see the big "gimmick" episodes (Special Guest Star! Live episode! 3-D episode! Series/Season premiere mid/season finale!) during this time, to attract more viewers. It's also usually right after sweeps when networks make decisions on whether or not to cut shows that they're on the fence on, ratings-wise- usually the network will look at the sweeps ratings and make a renew/cancel decision then. How are the Nielsens flawed? In a number of ways. The Nielsens have, contrary to popular belief, actually been counting TiVo/OnDemand/DVR viewing of shows since as early as 2005, however advertisers are resistant to these measurements due to the obvious fact that if one is doing "time-shifted viewing", as it is technically called, they can simply fast-forward or skip through the commercials. Hence, the Nielsens do not cover DVR/TiVo viewings at this time. The Nielsens also do not count online viewings, for the same reason as stated above; advertisers get even less say in the online space, so at this current time every and all hulu/Network website (cbs.com, abc.com, nbc.com, etc) view is not counted. Period. The Nielsens are also not "random", because they only select a small sample of the population, and only the subset of that population that accept are included (obviously). This means the sampling is inherently skewed. In addition, ratings do not take into account outside-of-the-household viewings, such as in a bar, a college dorm room, a jail, etc. Finally, the main way the Nielsens are flawed is that their primary measurement, ratings, cannot accurately determine if a viewer is actually viewing the show or if a viewer has simply left the tv on. Now obviously, there's no way to accurately account for that (although share helps), but an inherent limitation of the Nielsens is, admittedly, that there's no way for an advertiser to tell if an average viewer is actually watching the program. However, they're the best we got, so...oh well. "Flow" "Flow" is the concept of placing two shows with alike audiences together, to increase ratings for both shows- the idea being that fans of the first show will stick around for the second, and fans of the second will tune in early to watch the first. In this way, a tv block with smooth "flow" will hopefully grab a viewer at 8 pm at night and will keep the viewer watching until 11 pm that night- so they watch 3 hours of programming and, more importantly, one hour of commercials. This is why, in case you were wondering, sitcoms are generally aired back-to-back in an hour block- the idea being that sitcoms have "flow" with other sitcoms. An old, old tv concept, with the advent of DVRs and the changing of the Millenials' attention spans to be much shorter than before- due to influences like Youtube and hulu- it's less important than it ever was but it's still a major influence on how networks set their programming. Included in the concept of "flow" is the concept of the "lead-in", wherein a network will program a major audience favorite- a "tentpole"- at the front of a block, like say The Office at 8 pm, to grab the biggest number of viewers from the start which, hopefully, stay to watch the rest of the shows in the block. Generally speaking a network wants to spread their tentpoles out amongst their week of programming- as a network you don't want just one night of all your best shows, you want to spread them out so you can hopefully build the audiences of your other show into tentpoles as well. Another concept included in the concept of "flow" is "hammocking", the idea of placing a struggling show between two successful ones, so the increased ratings of both the lead-in and the increased ratings of the lead-out will boost the ratings of the one in the middle. It might sound stupid, but it works. Branding Now obviously the "golden" demographic for advertisers- adults aged 18-49 -is a huge one, that covers a giant swath of America. Unless you're one specific network that is a massive juggernaut in the ratings- cough cough CBS -you're realistically not going to be able to market yourself as a network that is able to appeal to all of those demographics. Hence the idea of network branding. Instead of marketing to everyone, a network instead engineers its programming to market to a specific cross-section of that demo, which they then, in theory, get huge ratings from. In addition, such a targeted demographic appeal means that advertisers can laser-focus their advertising to that specific demographic. Somewhat of an outdated concept- network branding doesn't...really jive with the tastes of the modern tv viewer, a viewer will generally watch what they watch regardless of demographic appeal- two of the big four networks have strong brand identity now, and two don't. Brand Identity and Ratings Guidelines This section will now examine each network's brand identity (if it has one), their ratings guidelines, usual place in the ratings, tentpoles and people they like to stay in business with (generally, networks have "Golden Boys" which they like to stay in business with which means they'll sometimes, but not always, renew shittily-performing shows from them just to keep them happy).  FOX Brand Identity: None, really. They sorta-kinda market to teenagers to early twenties with programming like American Idol and X-Factor, and they sorta-kinda market to adult males with programming like 24, Prison Break, and Human Target, but they have no clear brand identity. This is to their benefit, because they are now the go-to network to take a chance on the weird or outlandish concepts, especially genre shows, which no other network really supports. Sci-fi classics like Firefly, Wonderfalls, and X-Files would never even get picked up on another network, but for all their hard work, FOX still gets bitched out frequently by nerds on the internet for not "supporting" these shows to the full extent- which the nerds always seem to conveniently ignore the fact that these shows were doomed to fail ratings-wise from the start and it's really only due to FOX's brazenness and willingness to take chances and go way off-brand that got these shows on at all. They're also the only network to support animated programming with their Sunday night Animation Domination block. Ratings Guidelines: FOX is quick to pick up shows, but they're also quick to cancel them- a FOX show usually has to be a quick performer or gets canned. Anything that performs less than a 1.8 or so on average usually gets canned pretty quickly on FOX. Although, ratings have been decreasing across-the-board for networks over the years so this number might change. Usual Place in the Ratings: FOX usually gets annihilated in the fall- usually all of their new premieres flop miserably, and hard. This is mainly due to two reasons: they have no fall tentpoles, and baseball season (Especially the playoffs) fucks with their programming hardcore and they're unable to build audience bases for their new shows. The first reason is no longer true as of right now, because of the relative success of New Girl and X-Factor gives them two tentpoles to start building around. However, this fall was the same song with a different tune as basically all of their new fall show premieres did miserably- only Mindy Project has been a relative success, and I'm using that term very, very loosely. However, their midseason is usually a lot better, as American Idol, their flagship show, comes back and almost single-handedly saves their season. It's also been a steady lead-in for their other premieres, so FOX will frequently hold back their most anticipated premieres until mid-season so they can take advantage of the AmIdol bump- which they seem to be doing this year with "The Following". Usually fights with CBS for first in the ratings, usually loses, usually is in second. Tentpoles: American Idol, X-Factor, New Girl, Glee, Animation Domination block Golden Boys: Gordon Ramsey, Simon Cowell, Seth McFarlane  CBS Brand Identity: Everyone. Every-loving-last one of us. Who cares about marketing to one demo when you can have ALL OF THEM? That's their brand identity. Some of the whiners will complain that CBS is "only watched by old people", but that's not true- they still get massive ratings in the demo. Ratings Guidelines: CBS rarely takes chances, and therefore rarely has anything surprising happen- which means they can shows that under-perform with a savagery. Anything below 1.9? Usually cancelled, and quickly. Usual Place in the Ratings: As above, usually first- they have their programming down to a science- pretty much stuffed to the brim with either Procedural Starring a Neurotic White Guy, Procedural Where Things Explode and Bad Science is Done, Multi-Cam Sitcom EP'd by Chuck Lorre, or Reality TV Competition. Hey-don't knock it, it works. Tentpoles: Too many to list. The NCIS's. Every Chuck Lorre sitcom. Survivor. TAR. The list could go on forever. They have a lot of very, very successful shows. Golden Boys: Chuck Lorre, Jerry Bruckheimer, Mark Burnett  ABC Brand Identity: The network with the by-far strongest brand of the big four, ABC markets to women. Usually, educated, moderately wealthy, single women ages 18-34. That is their demo. That is what all of their programming revolves around, hence all of the pseudo-soap dramas and/or family-life based sitcoms- as seen by Scandal, Grey's Anatomy, Private Practice, Modern Family, Suburgatory...the list goes on. Seriously, watch an ABC show and note how many tampon, feminine beauty care, and house cleaning product commercials you see. Yeah. Ratings Guidelines: ABC generally gives shows a chance to breathe (Happy Endings, DTTBIA23), but are quick to cut obvious failures. Generally anything below 1.6 is a quick cancellation. Usual Place in the Ratings: ABC has struggled to attract male viewers, to their detriment- see also, the massive ratings failure that is Last Resort. As a result they usually duke it out with NBC for third. Tentpoles: Modern Family, Grey's Anatomy Golden Boy: Shonda Rhimes  NBC Brand Identity: Us. The average TVIVer. Millenials, usually fairly well educated, who are into highly intellectual fare. Ratings Guidelines: NBC is in such a dismal place that they take anything that's not an utter flop out the gate as a success. Usually lets their shows, especially their comedies, find their footing before cutting them. Anything below 1.5 is usually danger zone for NBC programming, but they're in such a bad place right now they'll usually keep anything that has at least a somewhat solid audience. Usual Place in the Ratings: Usually fourth, and a solid fourth if it wasn't for their football package. However, this fall season has been an unprecedented success for NBC, as Revolution is a legitimate hit, the fall launch of The Voice wasn't the massive flop many were predicting it would be, and Go On and New Normal are pretty solid hits! So, good on them. Tentpoles: The Office, Revolution, The Voice Golden Boys: Dick Wolf, Lorne Michaels ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Hey, where's the CW? Here's the thing about the CW. Their brand identity- teenage girls aged, seemingly, 14-23- is so confusingly small and segmented, and they're such a confusingly unsuccessful network that making any sort of predictions on whether or not a CW show will be cancelled or renewed is pretty much a complete crapshoot. Not much of their internal renew/cancel reasoning makes much sense and it all seems to boil down to "we don't like this show as much". It's fine since they're partially owned by CBS, which seems to be fine throwing money into that black hole of a network. I also don't really watch CW shows so I can't really give any accurate sort of analysis of it- if anyone else wants to try I'll edit the OP. Standard Cable Networks Standard Cable is a whole 'nother bag of tricks, and one I don't feel confident adequately explaining- most of a cable network's renew/cancel methodologies is based off its own internal gauge of whether or not a show is successful; some networks emphasize Emmy or prestige-bait (FX, and AMC), others have a very specific niche that they never deviate from (USA and ABC Family), and still others operate to serve one and only one demographic (TLC, History Channel). It's really quite a mess and trying to predict renew/cancel methodologies for standard cable is very difficult and pretty much its own world. Premium Cable Networks This is a lot easier to predict, funnily enough. Premium Cable Networks don't have to worry about ad revenue in any way, shape, or form- they only have to worry about attaining subscribers, which means that ratings do not generally matter for premium cable. HBO and Showtime, the two biggest premium cable networks and the ones that goons will be most familiar with, market themselves to potential subscribers in different ways- HBO has been able to set itself up as the network for "prestige" programming, so the most important determinant over whether or not they'll renew or cancel or show is how many Emmy noms or how much critical acclaim the show in question receives. Showtime, on the other hand, likes to make either dramadies starring middle-aged women in difficult positions (Weeds, Big C, Nurse Jackie, United States of Tara) or "edgy" dramas that have very little changes on a season-to-season basis, so they can exploit the show for the maximum number of seasons possible- think Dexter. Probably a leftover from their CBS DNA (CBS owns Showtime). However, both enjoy tooting their own horns- HBO loves announcing how big of numbers True Blood pulled, and Showtime can't resist gloating about Homeland. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- gently caress. Okay, I'm done. Jesus loving Christ. This is the thread to discuss, formulate opinions on, and argue about which shows the networks will or will not cancel. This is not TV Couch Chat, so bring idle tv talk there. This is not "I really hate/love this show" talk, this is just to argue what the networks will do. Basically, it's a TV Industry thread. That's what this thread is about. That massive loving wall of words above me was, honestly, the cliffs-notes (yeah, I know) version of what someone needs to know to argue about TV ratings knowledgeably. TV ratings is a massively complex and deceptive field and arguing about them requires knowledge of how networks operate, their own internal renew/cancel indexes, and the jargon that comes with such a discussion- "NBC probably won't cancel this because it's on-brand" etc. RESOURCES Generally, a tv ratings discusser will use the website TVbythenumbers, which is a really good site for all TV ratings (they always have an article published the day after with preliminary ratings numbers) info you need. They also have a Renew/Cancel Index a very, very good rough estimate of how tv shows on a given network are likely to do (basically TVbythenumbers predicts the ratings average for the network and then ranks the shows based on how they perform compared to the average- 1.00 is "average for the network", and anything that or above is considered a certain renewal). A Note Finally (yes this is truly, finally finally), networks have been pushing for Live+3 ratings to be the general-use ratings standard over L+SD (Live + Same Day). See, Live + Same Day is calculated during the night it airs and then, I believe, up until 12:00 am PST. Live+3 is the Live airing plus up to 72 hours after the show airs for the first time. It's an attempt by networks to be able to quantify DVR airings, and they're pushing for it because network ratings have been down across the board. TVbythenumbers doesn't consider Live+3 ratings in their Renew/Cancel Index or Bubble Watch, but networks are definitely pushing for it so it's in my opinion a legitimate argument to use as to whether or not a show will be cancelled. Occupation fucked around with this message at Nov 15, 2012 around 03:56 |
| # ? Nov 15, 2012 03:15 |
|
|
|
| # ? May 21, 2013 22:22 |
|
|
Gonna watch this thread from the beginning, I hope it gets renewed 
|
| # ? Nov 15, 2012 03:41 |
|
|
One thing I've heard about anecdotally and always wanted more substantiation on- I've heard it said that even people who watch the shows on DVR and press FF during the commercials are influenced by the ads as much as people who watch normally, because they see the brand names and the basic identification. So theoretically, shouldn't DVR be treated with the same weight? Immaterial since I haven't been a Nielsen family since I was around 10, but I was curious.
|
| # ? Nov 15, 2012 03:45 |
|
|
I thought AMC was a basic cable channel. I don't think I've ever had to pay for an extra tier or anything to get that channel.
|
| # ? Nov 15, 2012 03:51 |
|
|
FetusSlapper posted:I thought AMC was a basic cable channel. I don't think I've ever had to pay for an extra tier or anything to get that channel. Yeah, it's always been basic cable for me too.
|
| # ? Nov 15, 2012 03:53 |
|
|
FetusSlapper posted:I thought AMC was a basic cable channel. I don't think I've ever had to pay for an extra tier or anything to get that channel. I'm almost absolutely sure AMC is a package included with shows like IFC and Sundance, hence the Dish dispute. But I'll edit it if it's not. Ed: Whoops looks like I hosed up, editing that poo poo out.
|
| # ? Nov 15, 2012 03:54 |
|
|
Occupation posted:I'm almost absolutely sure AMC is a package included with shows like IFC and Sundance, hence the Dish dispute. But I'll edit it if it's not. It's not. AMC is basic cable.
|
| # ? Nov 15, 2012 03:54 |
|
|
Nicely done! There's a couple things I didn't know in here.
|
| # ? Nov 15, 2012 04:08 |
|
|
Amazing first post, Occupation. TV ratings and the logic behind network renewals and cancellations has always been an interest of mine. Hopefully this thread will thrive.Occupation posted:The Nielsens also do not count online viewings, for the same reason as stated above; advertisers get even less say in the online space, so at this current time every and all hulu/Network website (cbs.com, abc.com, nbc.com, etc) view is not counted. Period. Occupation posted:The first reason is no longer true as of right now, because of the relative success of New Girl and X-Factor gives them two tentpoles to start building around. However, this fall was the same song with a different tune as basically all of their new fall show premieres did miserably- only Mindy Project has been a relative success, and I'm using that term very, very loosely. I'm curious to see how Fox fares this winter. Idol's ratings erode a bit every year, but with the X-Factor and two cycles of The Voice the audience has never been more saturated with singing competitions. I wouldn't be surprised to see a more significant drop than normal this year, which could be a huge plus for NBC.
|
| # ? Nov 15, 2012 04:09 |
|
|
Maxwell Lord posted:One thing I've heard about anecdotally and always wanted more substantiation on- I've heard it said that even people who watch the shows on DVR and press FF during the commercials are influenced by the ads as much as people who watch normally, because they see the brand names and the basic identification. So theoretically, shouldn't DVR be treated with the same weight? There's also the fact that a lot of TV spots look like this now (with a banner along the top the whole time so you'll still be able to read it on fast-forward):
|
| # ? Nov 15, 2012 04:11 |
|
|
J-Spot posted:Despite being an awesome show, New Girl's tentpole status is starting to look pretty shaky. The 2.2 it pulled Tuesday night is quite the drop from where it was this time last year. Putting it and Happy Endings up against each other was a bad idea. HE is suffering more, but really, it shouldn't take a genius to see there's some overlap in their audience demos, and it's not good for either show. Of course Fox is also having the shows before that get crushed by the combo of NCIS and The Voice. It's really hard to win there. I'm hoping there's at least some shake-up, though at least some of the good shows there will probably feel the axe anyways.
|
| # ? Nov 15, 2012 04:12 |
|
|
J-Spot posted:I'm curious about this, because it seems like online viewings would make Nielsen irrelevant. Wouldn't the networks have access to exactly how many viewers they're getting online and be in a better position to gauge a show's popularity? I realize they may not have certain demographic information that Nielsen is providing, but we're all dragging enough of our identities around with us online that it ought to count for something, particularly the opportunity for targeted ads. You kinda answered your own question here. The Nielsen Company has a financial interest in being used as a primary metric. I guess something I didn't emphasize enough in the OP is how important sweeps are, to networks. It would've made the OP even longer but it basically boils down to: sweeps are what local affiliates use, 100%, to determine their ad rates. That's all affiliates use. Without local affiliates, networks don't get to broadcast their shows. When affiliates act up you see the network will go through some amazing contortions to keep them happy- Tonight Show fiasco, it's a major reason why FOX doesn't run three hours of programming a night, etc. So yeah, the main reason why the Nielsens are still relevant? Great PR plus complete affiliate reliance = the networks are squeezed from both ends. They're sorta fighting back with the Live+3 thing, as stated above. quote:Despite being an awesome show, New Girl's tentpole status is starting to look pretty shaky. The 2.2 it pulled Tuesday night is quite the drop from where it was this time last year. From what I've understood, the 2.2 is roughly where it was at the end of last season- it's settled into a comfortable groove of moderate success. And again, pre-winter FOX is usually a loving wasteland so they're probably loving ecstatic, I'm really not seeing it go anywhere at any time. quote:I'm curious to see how Fox fares this winter. Idol's ratings erode a bit every year, but with the X-Factor and two cycles of The Voice the audience has never been more saturated with singing competitions. I wouldn't be surprised to see a more significant drop than normal this year, which could be a huge plus for NBC. Yeah, the downside to having a fall singing competition show be successful is that it's eating into AmIdol's ratings in the spring. If I were a betting man, though, I imagine it's the Voice that's gonna plummet hard this spring- the two new judges replacing Levine and Xtina combined with AmIdol coming back and destroying Voice in the ratings combined with too much, too fast exposure of this show is gonna really hurt The Voice's ratings. Yoshifan, whenever you get off probation come back and argue me on this since I know you're a big-time Voice fan and I'd like to hear your take.
|
| # ? Nov 15, 2012 04:38 |
|
|
The Voice's big problem seems to be that NBC is falling into the trap of putting it everywhere to shore up daily ratings, running the risk of overexposure.
|
| # ? Nov 15, 2012 04:40 |
|
|
Occupation posted:Yeah, the downside to having a fall singing competition show be successful is that it's eating into AmIdol's ratings in the spring. If I were a betting man, though, I imagine it's the Voice that's gonna plummet hard this spring- the two new judges replacing Levine and Xtina combined with AmIdol coming back and destroying Voice in the ratings combined with too much, too fast exposure of this show is gonna really hurt The Voice's ratings. Maxwell Lord posted:The Voice's big problem seems to be that NBC is falling into the trap of putting it everywhere to shore up daily ratings, running the risk of overexposure. J-Spot fucked around with this message at Nov 15, 2012 around 04:51 |
| # ? Nov 15, 2012 04:48 |
|
|
I'm honestly amazed that Idol still gets the ratings it does. I know it pioneered the modern singing competition but it's been on for 10 years now. And it's got serious competitors in the X-Factor and The Voice now. It hasn't really changed up its formula since it began and Seacrest is signed to host it through 2014. Any chance it really goes beyond then, even if Fox dumps another $50 million in Seacrest's lap?
|
| # ? Nov 15, 2012 16:30 |
|
|
Thwomp posted:I'm honestly amazed that Idol still gets the ratings it does. I know it pioneered the modern singing competition but it's been on for 10 years now. And it's got serious competitors in the X-Factor and The Voice now. As someone who has never seen a bare minute of American Idol, Xfactor, the Voice, etc, I'm always baffled by peoples' insatiable desire to watch karaoke on TV. Here's a question: What is the new model going to be? Does there even need to be a new model? Around here we often talk about how outdated and archaic the Nielsen's are, but is that just sour grapes because the system works against the types of shows we watch? The OP says that advertisers don't care about DVR and streaming video, but is that true, and if so, how does that change? I don't think you can argue that the landscape hasn't drastically changed, and will continue to do so, with more and more ways to get TV shows besides from watching them in your living room at the appointed hour and in real time. For instance, the likelihood that I will watch a show increases dramatically if it is offered through Hulu or Netflix WatchInstantly, because I greatly prefer to watch TV on my iPad if I can. I like being able to walk around with my show, or watch during lunch at work, or before I go to sleep while laying in bed. Are people like me ever going to be served by a ratings system?
|
| # ? Nov 15, 2012 16:37 |
|
|
zoux posted:Here's a question: What is the new model going to be? Does there even need to be a new model? Around here we often talk about how outdated and archaic the Nielsen's are, but is that just sour grapes because the system works against the types of shows we watch? The OP says that advertisers don't care about DVR and streaming video, but is that true, and if so, how does that change? My take is that the landscape is currently in a state of flux (for about 5-10 years now) brought about by growing prestige cable brands (HBO, Showtime, AMC, FX) along with internet video (YouTube, Hulu, Netflix) gobbling up eyeballs. There's also no easily seen alternative that doesn't require the destruction of the current model first (ala carte channels, more Hulu-style online services). Faced with dwindling audiences, the networks will continue limping on and audience ratings will continue their gradual decline until something breaks (Nielsen accepts Live+3/7/Hulu or networks just plain go belly up/merge back into a few huge network providers). Then there'll be some radical moves to get a stable model in-place again but by then we could all be watching TV through our brains or something.
|
| # ? Nov 15, 2012 16:47 |
|
|
zoux posted:Here's a question: What is the new model going to be? Does there even need to be a new model? Around here we often talk about how outdated and archaic the Nielsen's are, but is that just sour grapes because the system works against the types of shows we watch? The OP says that advertisers don't care about DVR and streaming video, but is that true, and if so, how does that change? If the affiliates still use Nielsens, the networks will still use Nielsens. As a matter of fact, many of the networks (NBC especially) don't even like the current ratings system, however they're totally boned due to affiliate reliance. So...yeah. The Nielsens are outdated, but a lot of that is advertiser pressure. Once advertisers get their collective heads out of their rear end and realize that more and more people are watching tv either digitally or without any advertising presence at all (iTunes etc), they'll have to do a complete top-to-bottom realignment of their advertising strategies. Basically, the entire advertising game will change, which is both scary and really, really expensive. Networks are kinda fighting back, though. In a rare display of teamwork every single network is overemphasizing Live+3 ratings this fall season, since ratings are down across-the-board. This means at least DVR ratings are counted somewhat, and if it sticks and the Nielsens start using it as a primary measurement due to network pressure we might be seeing a natural evolution to another ratings model. The number one thing that needs to be eliminated is loving sweeps. It's a stupid as poo poo model that was used back in loving radio days and makes no sense now. Sweeps is super loving dumb and the number one reason why the ratings are all hosed, especially when using such a dumb system as self-reporting, one of the most statistically imprecise ways to gather data ever. Ughhhhhhh sweeps is SO DUMB. quote:Are people like me ever going to be served by a ratings system? Unless and until hulu turns into literal internet TV, i.e. every hour of programming has 18 minutes of advertising, no. But, it's looking like it's getting to that point and when it does the internet makes demographic targeting and data collection into a literal goldmine, and also allowing advertisers to take advantage of things like viral and social marketing (like us on Facebook during the program etc to see deleted scenes) to turn people into marketing tools. Turning the internet into TV also allows networks to bypass affiliate reliance, which means the Nielsens will finally have to wake up and use more metrics over being left in the dust. Of course this literally means that your internet watching will be virtually identical to live TV watching, but...oh well. If you want your favorite underrated show to be a ratings success, this is what it's going to take.
|
| # ? Nov 15, 2012 17:31 |
|
|
Good write up Occupation. Ratings talk has always interested me and I like seeing how ratings are affected by how the networks change their scheduling. It's also cool to sometimes see shows get renewed when the ratings say otherwise, like Nikita getting renewed because the CW president likes the show. Lately I've been finding myself on the computer less and less so I don't really post much anymore, but I still lurk the couch chat thread on my phone regularly and I'll be keeping an eye on this one as well. Now to actually put my two cents in on this discussion, the one thing that worries me a bit about the declining network ratings is if they might try to make a quick buck by greatly increasing product placement on their shows.
|
| # ? Nov 15, 2012 17:51 |
|
|
Jingleheimer posted:Good write up Occupation. Ratings talk has always interested me and I like seeing how ratings are affected by how the networks change their scheduling. It's also cool to sometimes see shows get renewed when the ratings say otherwise, like Nikita getting renewed because the CW president likes the show. Lately I've been finding myself on the computer less and less so I don't really post much anymore, but I still lurk the couch chat thread on my phone regularly and I'll be keeping an eye on this one as well. Now to actually put my two cents in on this discussion, the one thing that worries me a bit about the declining network ratings is if they might try to make a quick buck by greatly increasing product placement on their shows. On the subject of product placement, I was watching Revenge on Hulu yesterday, and when it got to the first commercial break, it told me that my video would return in like 240 seconds. Usually Hulu commercial breaks are between 15-60 seconds, so I was not happy. Turns out the cast of Revenge shot some sort of Revenge-themed target ad that they ran during all the commercial breaks. It was very strange and I don't know how I feel about it. On one hand, it's like I'm getting a bonus mini-episode but on the other hand it's a lot more ad time. Anyone else come across something like this?
|
| # ? Nov 15, 2012 18:15 |
|
|
Outstanding post, Occupation. We TVIV'ers tend to bitch about ratings without really understanding what those same ratings indicate, or really mean. Occupation posted:The Nielsens are outdated, but a lot of that is advertiser pressure. Basically, the entire advertising game will change, which is both scary and really, really expensive. I'm cherrypicking here, but the obvious way advertisers get into the DVR game is with product placement. The really hilarious part is what they decide to do with animated content, because you can't indirectly put a Coke can/Heineken bottle/BMW in South Park or ATHF without everybody knowing exactly what that indicates. Also, sweeps suck rear end and are a giant relic of 1970's era television. Watching the advertising industry avoid the absolute gently caress out of the trend of ads getting more and more localized and less generalized is hilarious to me and should be to you as well. I know McDonalds is still making Big Macs, and I really don't care. What I care about is what my local businesses are doing. What is on sale at my local co-op? What deal is my local car care place offering? Those are the ads that I care about, not what garbage Chinese slave labor generated clothing a 1980's star has put their name on to make a buck. gently caress you Jacklyn Smith. Holy poo poo, I didn't mean for this to be a huge rant, but if it is, then here we go. Advertising and the money it creates drives content. Shows like Mad Men, Breaking Bad and to a lesser degree crap like NCIS and Two and a Half Men drive advertisements and drive that sweet sweet money. The fall of broadcast television that we are currently living through is changing the very field that these guys are playing on. How do you price ads on Hulu? poo poo, HBO is running into this even though ostensibly they're a pay service and they're trying as hard as hell to recoup some costs through DVD type sales. Rome was arguably the best series they ever produced, so why did they stop? Because they spent something in the range of two hundred and fifty million dollars on it, and couldn't see any way that they could get that back, let alone make a profit on it. I certainly don't know what lies in the future, but I'll bet you a million dollars that it has roots in the past. Product placement has it's roots in the '50s with cigarette ads in the middle of shows, why not cola ads or fast food ads? Or to a lesser degree, children's toy ads? Recursive fucked around with this message at Nov 15, 2012 around 18:24 |
| # ? Nov 15, 2012 18:22 |
|
|
Maybe if HBO's MSRP for a season of 13 episodes wasn't $60 DVD sales might go up.
|
| # ? Nov 15, 2012 18:40 |
|
|
zoux posted:On the subject of product placement, I was watching Revenge on Hulu yesterday, and when it got to the first commercial break, it told me that my video would return in like 240 seconds. Usually Hulu commercial breaks are between 15-60 seconds, so I was not happy. Turns out the cast of Revenge shot some sort of Revenge-themed target ad that they ran during all the commercial breaks. It was very strange and I don't know how I feel about it. On one hand, it's like I'm getting a bonus mini-episode but on the other hand it's a lot more ad time. Anyone else come across something like this?
|
| # ? Nov 16, 2012 02:03 |
|
|
Occupation posted:Yeah, the downside to having a fall singing competition show be successful is that it's eating into AmIdol's ratings in the spring. If I were a betting man, though, I imagine it's the Voice that's gonna plummet hard this spring- the two new judges replacing Levine and Xtina combined with AmIdol coming back and destroying Voice in the ratings combined with too much, too fast exposure of this show is gonna really hurt The Voice's ratings. Yoshifan, whenever you get off probation come back and argue me on this since I know you're a big-time Voice fan and I'd like to hear your take. I'll take this one on, if you don't mind. First, Voice and Idol are not going to run against each other if they can help it. Second, there are three new judges on Idol and I doubt anyone tunes in for Randy Jackson. Third, Idol was regularly losing to BBT on Thursdays, and I don't think it's out of line to suggest they'll be even lower this season. The Voice is newer, and fresher, and they're already having rotation in their wildly successful coaches' panel which will serve them well. If anything, the Voice is going to eat Idol's lunch. Also like no one is watching X Factor US compared to either show so don't worry about market saturation. There was a lot more of that during Idol's early seasons when it was legitimately The Death Star.
|
| # ? Nov 16, 2012 03:34 |
|
|
Recursive posted:I'm cherrypicking here, but the obvious way advertisers get into the DVR game is with product placement. The last episode of Apt 23 was all about People's sexiest man alive, and sure enough the new sexiest man alive was announced the next day. They did it in a blatant but well-written way that wasn't too out of place - unlike shows like Nikita where the badass super spies with unlimited money inexplicably drive a Kia, or TWD zombie apocalypse survivors choose to use a lime green Hyundai crossover of all things. I have been marathoning The Wire and there was a scene where people were drinking both Coke and Pepsi. That'd never happen anymore.
|
| # ? Nov 16, 2012 04:05 |
|
|
leidend posted:The last episode of Apt 23 was all about People's sexiest man alive, and sure enough the new sexiest man alive was announced the next day. They did it in a blatant but well-written way that wasn't too out of place - unlike shows like Nikita where the badass super spies with unlimited money inexplicably drive a Kia, or TWD zombie apocalypse survivors choose to use a lime green Hyundai crossover of all things.
|
| # ? Nov 16, 2012 04:12 |
|
|
Maxwell Lord posted:One thing I've heard about anecdotally and always wanted more substantiation on- I've heard it said that even people who watch the shows on DVR and press FF during the commercials are influenced by the ads as much as people who watch normally, because they see the brand names and the basic identification. So theoretically, shouldn't DVR be treated with the same weight? This is true, and came up during a job interview I had recently. Basically, there's two things at play: The first is that you've got to pay attention while you FF. Like, actually stare and concentrate on what's flipping past to see if it's what you need to hit play on. "So what?" you say! "I'm not really paying attention or getting the message." That may have been true except for... The second issue is that your brain can pick up images and information that your mind is unaware of instantly. This reality has been mostly researched for military application (pilots would be shown rapid flashes of images and were able to identify enemy planes in extensive detail). Try something like http://www.spreeder.com/ which focuses on speed reading, and you'll quickly see how deep comprehension for certain ads can be. Especially, from my own experience, pictures of food and logos being shown together, or images of cars and taglines. Ad companies and networks do need to somewhat adjust to this effect, and pay attention to which person in the home holds the remote, but this is certainly a real affect. On the topic of Live+3, TVBythenumbers had a great article before the Fall season calling bullshit on people promoting it, showing that the correlation between Live+SD and Live+3 is incredibly strong. Advertisers may be focusing on impact ratings instead of boosts in sales, but that would make them bad at their job under both systems, while advertisers who pay strong attention to their revenue increases will see very little difference in benefits between both systems.
|
| # ? Nov 16, 2012 04:45 |
|
|
Max22 posted:Gonna watch this thread from the beginning, I hope it gets renewed This is a good thread and TV makes so much more sense now, thanks OP 
|
| # ? Nov 16, 2012 04:48 |
|
|
Also the worst thing about product placement is the complaining about it. Products aren't inherently evil, and when done well what is attempting to be achieved is just some guy with some product they'll think you'll probably like and they're paying tens of thousands to millions of dollars to keep a show you like on tv for you and then trying to see if you'd like this thing. They just need to get better at doing it. Yeah there's branding to a large degree in placement (this guy is cool, and he drives our cool car!), but the best stuff that's done is less bludgeoning and more common sense (when people get real soft drinks instead of bizarro world poo poo). Yeah, Heroes Nissan Versas were horrible, but Heroes' Red Hulk placements weren't and they were dog whistled to hell because they basically had Marvel's big monthly titles for that month facing the camera in a only-slightly-horrible scene in a comic book store. Comic book fans would casually glance at those comics anyway, so it's a well targeted ad that gives realism to a cross section of the demo, lets them know about a product they would otherwise possibly not know about, and goes largely unnoticed to people who wouldn't pay attention to comics in a comic book store anyway. But if they stopped in the middle of a show and looked at the camera and plugged a product, I'm unsure whether that would be better or worse. I'm somewhat simultaneously impressed and annoyed when car companies pay a ton to have their cars featured in a major show and then buy ads before and during the show pointing out their car (Heroes and TWD both did this, but guess what fools? We all remember their loving cars and that they did this). But I guess I also haven't bought those cars and I'm probably not the target market for a car commercial anyway (the massive product reviewing I do to buy a loving toaster means the best ad for me is a quality product with decent reviews).
|
| # ? Nov 16, 2012 05:05 |
|
|
Christopher Irvine posted:The Voice is newer, and fresher, and they're already having rotation in their wildly successful coaches' panel which will serve them well. If anything, the Voice is going to eat Idol's lunch. Also like no one is watching X Factor US compared to either show so don't worry about market saturation. There was a lot more of that during Idol's early seasons when it was legitimately The Death Star. Fair enough, I obviously don't watch those types of show so I'm not very well-versed in them. That being said, didn't the last season of the Voice lose very, very hard to Idol in the ratings? So I'm still pretty sure that Voice is gonna fall to Idol, especially since Idol seems to have rebranded itself as Country Idol, complete with the massive ratings that the heartland/deep south provide. I dunno if the more urbanized, modern, poppy Voice can perform as well (although admittedly hitting slightly different region demographics could end up with both performing very well). And I dunno if I'd put X-Factor US as "nothing" ratings, 2.9 in comparison to 3.9 is admittedly a lot lower, but still very very good, and that much reality tv singing in the fall might have blowback. There's realistically only so much America can take, even with the fact that Idol appeals to a slightly different demo than Factor/Voice appeals to. But yeah, I didn't know about the three new judges thing. Man, post-Simon Idol's been a disaster for judges, huh.
|
| # ? Nov 16, 2012 05:20 |
|
|
Occupation posted:Fair enough, I obviously don't watch those types of show so I'm not very well-versed in them. I thought it was the opposite? That the Voice beat Idol or at least kept up. The Voice is much newer and fresher than Idol and is getting a ton of viewers because of it and it focuses far more on the singing and the contestants. Also, Adam Lavine isn't leaving, it's Cee-lo Green who is being replaced by Usher which is a pretty huge name. I don't think judge shifting is going to hurt them at all. Also, I think you've give the CW a bit of a shaft. It's got some really good shows that are pretty popular. CW is definitely a network that caters to a teens and twenties crowd and does very well at it. Vampire Diaries and Supernatural are huge. I also heard Arrow is doing pretty well too, that's a fantastic show and I know they were hoping to get more male viewers with it. Don't know if they are succeeding but from what I understand the show is doing well. It also had Veronica Mars and Gilmore Girls which were big shows. A lot of times CW gets poo poo on by people because they assume it's cheesy, teen drama TV with lots of pretty people but the shows are actually really well paced and written. I wouldn't call it a 'black hole' at all.
|
| # ? Nov 16, 2012 06:51 |
|
|
KilGrey posted:A lot of times CW gets poo poo on by people because they assume it's cheesy, teen drama TV with lots of pretty people but the shows are actually really well paced and written. I wouldn't call it a 'black hole' at all. Note: I make no comment as to the CW's, or any other network's, programming quality. This thread isn't a recommendation thread and is not meant to examine whether or not a show or network has "good" shows, merely be an examination of a network's overall health and level of success, and to with some accuracy make predictions on what upcoming network moves will be, whether they be renewals, cancellations, or movements. However, that being said the CW is, practically, a failure as a network. For instance, Arrow's season premiere, which was their highest-rated show in three years, got a 1.3 in the demo. A 1.3 rated series premiere on any other network, even NBC (which is in dire, dire straights as a network) would be instant cancellation numbers. And remember, Arrow is the CW's "big fall hit", their "tentpole". Usually their shows are pulling sub 1.0 in the demo. So yeah, the CW by every conventional metric is a black hole; they simply do not get viewers. Part of this is their branding, which seems to aim towards teenage girls, with many of them falling outside of the 18 minimum range- a lot of their programming such as Gossip Girl and TVD is aimed at 14- to 17- year-olds which aren't counted in the ratings. In addition, CBS and Warner Brothers, the co-owners of the CW, seem content with the fact that the network does not perform ratings-wise. Therefore, their (the CW's) renew/cancel methodologies don't seem as financially motivated as the other four networks and practically it makes a lot of predictions useless; the combination of the fact that their shows vastly underperform compared to the other networks (again, 1.3 is a massive success for them) and the fact that they're funded by two, much larger, companies who don't seem to be displeased with their lack of success means shows like Nikita, which is vastly off-brand for the CW and is a consistent underperformer in the ratings is kept around because the CW president loves the show. This is what makes them a difficult network to discuss, because for all intents and purposes they're a cable network pulling cable network show ratings that's somehow a network tv channel. Oh, and to answer your first question, American Idol 11 clearly beat The Voice season 2 in the ratings. American Idol 11 was the second-highest rated program in the 2011-2012 TV season (behind NBC Sunday Night Football). Ratings-wise Idol was averaging around a 5.0 or so for the season, whilst The Voice once live performances started was struggling to pull a 4.0 Idol Ratings, Voice Ratings. This also leads to another concern I have- audiences seem to stop caring about The Voice once audition phase ends, and the drop off being so steep and so massive ratings-wise has to be concerning. I mean, it's still a hit show even at its worst, but that has to be a worrying sign as to the show's permanence. I understand that season 1 was like that too, so they expanded the audition portion of the show going into season 2- since the spinning chairs really did add a lot of dramatic tension to the show -but I'm just wondering what they're gonna have to do moving forward if they consistently lose 2 points in the ratings once live performances start, with even further decay as the season progresses.
|
| # ? Nov 16, 2012 07:36 |
|
|
Occupation posted:This also leads to another concern I have- audiences seem to stop caring about The Voice once audition phase ends, and the drop off being so steep and so massive ratings-wise has to be concerning. I mean, it's still a hit show even at its worst, but that has to be a worrying sign as to the show's permanence. I understand that season 1 was like that too, so they expanded the audition portion of the show going into season 2- since the spinning chairs really did add a lot of dramatic tension to the show -but I'm just wondering what they're gonna have to do moving forward if they consistently lose 2 points in the ratings once live performances start, with even further decay as the season progresses. The exact same thing happened to Idol each of the last 5 seasons. People tune in for the trainwreck auditions and judge bickering, and the ratings erode until the finale which pops a huge number.
|
| # ? Nov 16, 2012 09:59 |
|
|
zoux posted:On the subject of product placement, I was watching Revenge on Hulu yesterday, and when it got to the first commercial break, it told me that my video would return in like 240 seconds. Usually Hulu commercial breaks are between 15-60 seconds, so I was not happy. Turns out the cast of Revenge shot some sort of Revenge-themed target ad that they ran during all the commercial breaks. It was very strange and I don't know how I feel about it. On one hand, it's like I'm getting a bonus mini-episode but on the other hand it's a lot more ad time. Anyone else come across something like this? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bfg-xGlypko
|
| # ? Nov 16, 2012 09:59 |
|
|
Occupation posted:Note: I make no comment as to the CW's, or any other network's, programming quality. This thread isn't a recommendation thread and is not meant to examine whether or not a show or network has "good" shows, merely be an examination of a network's overall health and level of success, and to with some accuracy make predictions on what upcoming network moves will be, whether they be renewals, cancellations, or movements. I bring up the fact it's good quality shows not as a recommendation, but to show that care and thought is put into what they are doing. Is it really a failure or is it just a failure in the 'golden' demographic? The shows they put out seem to have a large following and the network doesn't seem to want to nab the older demographic based on what it's putting out and the marketing, but it is putting out good, quality programming that a certain group watches so could that really be considered failure? Are the numbers any better if you look at the 18-25 market or whatever?
|
| # ? Nov 16, 2012 10:48 |
|
|
KilGrey posted:Are the numbers any better if you look at the 18-25 market or whatever? Nope. Their percentage of 14-25s is proportionately higher than other nets, but their overall numbers are so low that it's meaningless. The ratings CW gets would get a show cancelled on literally every other broadcast network, full stop. All of their ratings are called "good for CW" for a real reason, and that is that their ratings are very low. All of them.
|
| # ? Nov 16, 2012 11:52 |
|
|
Occupation posted:This also leads to another concern I have- audiences seem to stop caring about The Voice once audition phase ends, and the drop off being so steep and so massive ratings-wise has to be concerning. I mean, it's still a hit show even at its worst, but that has to be a worrying sign as to the show's permanence. I understand that season 1 was like that too, so they expanded the audition portion of the show going into season 2- since the spinning chairs really did add a lot of dramatic tension to the show -but I'm just wondering what they're gonna have to do moving forward if they consistently lose 2 points in the ratings once live performances start, with even further decay as the season progresses. KilGrey posted:I bring up the fact it's good quality shows not as a recommendation, but to show that care and thought is put into what they are doing. Is it really a failure or is it just a failure in the 'golden' demographic? The shows they put out seem to have a large following and the network doesn't seem to want to nab the older demographic based on what it's putting out and the marketing, but it is putting out good, quality programming that a certain group watches so could that really be considered failure? Are the numbers any better if you look at the 18-25 market or whatever?
|
| # ? Nov 16, 2012 12:33 |
|
|
The CW clearly has a lower average budget than the big 4, so it's probably still turning a profit on its shows.
|
| # ? Nov 16, 2012 13:37 |
|
|
Has itunes selling the shows changed how things are viewed? I've been seeing Arrows whole season in the top 100.
|
| # ? Nov 16, 2012 14:20 |
|
|
|
| # ? May 21, 2013 22:22 |
|
|
The thing about the CW is that it's basically a line on CBS's balance sheet (combined with the WB of course, but CBS is the one that matters more) so its tolerance for low ratings is so generous it almost doesn't matter what they are even before you factor in alternative viewing. It and CBS's target demos are so different that it's really just CBS covering an additional base. The real concern for them is that ABC Family is eating their lunch almost entirely in the demo they claimed to be shooting for, which is why you can see them rebranding right now to more fast-paced, action-oriented shows than primetime soaps. However, even without that I would bet that they are not throwing money down a black hole - the CW is likely profitable even as is. Love this thread, love numbers, love ratings, will be a participant. Edit: I will say that the OP seems to be uh, really biased against Nielsen. There are definitely problems with the platform but it's not as inaccurate as it hints. In particular, what some would perceive as "small" sample sizes can have very high credibility for extrapolating to a larger data set; that is not necessarily a limitation of any statistical method. Much more limiting is that it's self-reporting in a lot of cases. Sophia fucked around with this message at Nov 16, 2012 around 17:30 |
| # ? Nov 16, 2012 17:22 |
|
