|
By mod request it's back everyone thank Deadpool for unearthing this poo poo from the archives. --------------------- 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. A "leadout" is the same idea but in reverse- programming a show that gets large numbers so people who want to watch that show whether intentionally or not tune in early and catch the tail end of, and therefore might become interested in, the show that aired previously. Leadouts are also important because generally speaking a network loses viewers on an hour-by-hour basis as the night proceeds, so to maintain viewership networks put a strong performing, but not tentpole, show in the 10pm slot to try and keep the audience tuned in, usually an hourlong drama. Generally speaking the worst performing shows for a network are wedged in the middle of the night, between high-performing lead-ins and leadouts. 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 shows 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. Sleepy Hollow also premiered out of nowhere, got huge ratings, and is also capturing public zeitgeist so FOX might have the next Glee on their hands. Here's hoping they don't gently caress it up. 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 did last 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. Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. premiered well and has stayed relatively afloat so maybe that'll change? I really doubt it, that show is already starting to bleed viewers and I don't think many will stick around. The next LOST this ain't. 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, Scandal 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. And it just got worse for them. NBC now is doing so poorly they lost a recent Thursday night completely- their night's averages ratings were lower than every other broadcast network's, including the CW. This has never happened before. Ever. In the history of broadcast television. Incidentally Thursday night is the most profitable night for networks being that the most people watch TV on that night. So losing to the CW on it- that's very, very significant. Also that 1.5 rating threshold is now like a 1.2 ratings threshold. It's so bad for NBC. So, so bad. 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. Edit: ahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahaha Both of these shows got cancelled by the end of the 2012-2013 season. The only good premiere NBC had was The Blacklist, really, unless I'm forgetting something else but I'm almost absolutely sure I'm not. Tentpoles: The Office, Revolution, The Voice Golden Boys: Dick Wolf, Lorne Michaels Someone link me a picture of the cws logo itt I'm editing this loving op on my phone CW Brand Identity: Teenagers mostly. It's the teenager channel. Made from the merger of the WB and UPN networks, the former of which was family-branded and the latter black-skewing. They quickly jettisoned all of the respective former networks' old fare and became the teenage, specifically the teenage girl, channel with hits such as Gossip Girl and rebooted 90210. More recently they've been changing brands again, to more genre fare with shows like Supernatural, The Vampire Diaries, and Arrow, which premiered last year, performing spectacularly for the network. If this brand switch is successful this would be the second brand switch in a decade, which is extremely unusual. Ratings Guidelines: The CW kind of has no real ratings guidelines. Being co-owned by CBS and WB, both of whom are content to throw their money at the network nigh-indefinitely, the CW exists in this weird state where a single tenth of a ratings point can be the difference between a show that must be renewed and must be cancelled. Like Nikita got renewed for a third, and therefore fourth season because the CW's president really liked the show. No, seriously. That was the given reason. Generally I guess, but by no means are these ratings definitive, if a show gets over a 0.5 ratings average the show is generally considered safe. But that has so many exceptions it mine as well not even exist as a rule. Usual Place in the Ratings: Fifth. They're always fifth... For now, at least. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 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. NOPE gently caress YOU THIS AINT FINAL Recent Patterns That Have Emerged in the TV Ratings Landscape:
Also suck it SHUPS FOR DEATH
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2013 22:40
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 23, 2024 17:56 |
|
|
gently caress the Nielsen Company.
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2013 00:06
|
|
|
I love it when Nielsen sends me 2 crisp $1 bills and I toss the diary in the garbage. Thanks Nielsen! I wonder how much money they blow that way.
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2013 00:46
|
|
|
This thread is probably better served showing up after the debacle that was the month of September.
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2013 01:56
|
|
|
SHUPS 4 DETH posted:This thread is probably better served showing up after the debacle that was the month of September. How do you mean, I wasn't following ratings too closely then.
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2013 02:32
|
|
|
Occupation posted:How do you mean, I wasn't following ratings too closely then. Well you mentioned NBC's 7th Place Thursdays, and Fox comedy Tuesdays are a mess (New Girl's a bright spot at <2.0). The four cancelled shows were a total given but shockingly low-rated all the same. I'm not used to seeing so many sub-1.0 ratings on networks that aren't the CW. ABC's OUAT spinoff tanked horribly (1.7 debut, 1.2 week 2) and should get yanked after tonight's prelims come through. As usual ABC's comedy freshmen are a disaster with nary a show over 2.0 and none likely to survive. Their reality franchises aren't serving them anymore either. ABC now is NBC 2-4 years ago basically. Agents of SHIELD has lost about half of its demo audience since it's incredible debut, and I don't think it's stable yet but others seem to think so. NBC's such a mess that I can't really get into it. Like even worse than last year. The Voice is still pulling 4s which I think is pretty remarkable, which is giving a good rub to Chicago Fire which is actually building its audience week-to-week (!) which I didn't think was possible on NBC anymore. With everything else so low-rated it's hard to know what NBC's going to do with regards to Thursday nights. Dracula debuts tomorrow following Grimm and by all accounts it's horrible so that should be a fun number to see Saturday. CBS is doing fine, obviously. They have some new shows headed towards cancellation but a few moderate comedy hits. Hostages is the only outright embarrassing failure and it was a limited series to begin with. Fox hosed up Sleepy Hollow already, though not completely. It's a huge hit for them, and instead of giving it a back 9 they just renewed it for next season, probably because they have a bunch of expensive shows slotted where SH's full order would have gone. Bones was doing decent business with SH, so of course it's being moved to Fridays.  You might want to rethink The X Factor as a tentpole because its season debut scored a 2.2 - a new series low. It's leveled off at about 2.0 while it takes time off for baseball. I don't see any way it makes it another season, and the first live show's rating will tell for sure. Glee's 2-season renewal is looking mighty dumb, as it debuted over a full point lower than last season. The Monteith tribute ep popped them a full point and change, but as with XFUSA the real story starts when baseball's over.So yeah. It's been busy. SHVPS4DETH fucked around with this message at 03:39 on Oct 25, 2013 |
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2013 03:33
|
|
|
Was wondering if this thread would come back!  Unironically love following ratings drama and your posts are always very informative!
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2013 03:34
|
|
|
Well after the Michael J Fox Show being an expensive disaster they'll have all sorts of new comedies to launch midseason which'll inevitably fail! Like that about a boy show or whatever. Also SHUPS i think our dumb toxx clause over HE's fate was one of the most enjoyable parts of the old thread since it put a real sense of competitive drama to weekly ratings, want to go to a random  with me over Community? I'll take the hard bet of betting that yes, Community WILL be renewed for season six if you take the easier one of it not. Or we could switch if you're really confident that Community comes back and gets renewed. Same rules as before, I'll change my username to OccupyGreendale and get whatever community av of your choosing if it doesn't happen. Let's make it more interesting though- I know Deadpool has wanted to start issuing TVIV specific mod challenges so if he's down the loser has to complete a mod challenge of his choosing. Neither of us will know what it is until the toxx ends. Deal?
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2013 04:17
|
|
|
I'm a 30 year old male, and I consume about 99% of my television "not live." That is, via Hulu, DVR, Netflix, or ... other means. Am I a really small minority? You make it seem like Neilson doesn't give a poo poo about that kind of stuff, but most people my age that I know seem to consume media mostly without watching it live. As the boomers die off will they ever switch to caring about it?
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2013 04:20
|
|
|
I have a major soft spot for MJFox so the poor performance of his show bums me out hardcore.
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2013 04:20
|
|
|
SHUPS 4 DETH posted:Fox hosed up Sleepy Hollow already, though not completely. It's a huge hit for them, and instead of giving it a back 9 they just renewed it for next season, probably because they have a bunch of expensive shows slotted where SH's full order would have gone. Sleepy Hollow was designed to be a 13 episode season from the start. As for the bet. If you want to make a bet where I decide what the loser has to do that's just fine with me.
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2013 04:28
|
|
|
the posted:I'm a 30 year old male, and I consume about 99% of my television "not live." That is, via Hulu, DVR, Netflix, or ... other means. Am I a really small minority? You make it seem like Neilson doesn't give a poo poo about that kind of stuff, but most people my age that I know seem to consume media mostly without watching it live. As the boomers die off will they ever switch to caring about it? Look at it this way: The Neilsens don't measure people watching TV, they measure people watching ADS. They could give two fucks if you're watching Survivor or Revolution, except one has ads that are watched by roughly double the people aged 18-49 as the other. Hence that show's ad time is more valuable. Hence it is higher rated. Hence affiliates can charge more for local ad buys there. Hulu? Online, views aren't as valuable because there's not a full set of ads and not as many people are watching them. DVR? You're skipping the ads. Netflix? No ads. Other means? Well come on, you can figure this out.
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2013 04:29
|
|
|
SHUPS 4 DETH posted:Fox hosed up Sleepy Hollow already, though not completely. It's a huge hit for them, and instead of giving it a back 9 they just renewed it for next season, probably because they have a bunch of expensive shows slotted where SH's full order would have gone. I think it's actually better in the long-run that they didn't give it a back 9 order, since it lets the writers not have to worry about 'extending' their current S1 plans out to what'd effectively be a second season finale. I've seen shows (like Lost Girl S2, I think is an example) end up dragging tail for a season when they got extended after the writers had already planned out the season for 13 episodes, and it can kind of kill season momentum if they aren't careful. As long as they don't jam S2 onto Fridays at 9 or something without any advertising over the summer, the show'll be fine.
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2013 04:45
|
|
|
Whoever's in charge of NBC being brutally murdered would be a huge hypothetical boon for them
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2013 05:21
|
|
|
Occupation posted:Deal? This sounds super-fun but I was unemployed for most of the spring and summer so I'm broke as a joke. Even if I wasn't I'm actually really excited about where Community's going creatively so I already want S6 to happen. It's also going back to BBT's timeslot where P&R got savaged recently (as in put on hiatus for Voice reruns until November) which is dumb dumb dumb. Until numbers for the S5 premiere come in and I see what the show's like ca. 2014 I'm not committing to anything. Deadpool posted:Sleepy Hollow was designed to be a 13 episode season from the start. They could have extended the episode order or started S2's arcs earlier. It's still a missed opportunity in my book. The fact that Fox more or less already has next season's schedule booked and it's only October is puzzling to say the least. BIG CITY LAWYER posted:I have a major soft spot for MJFox so the poor performance of his show bums me out hardcore. To be fair it's not a very good show and they put it on a night and time where it had no chance to succeed.
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2013 05:21
|
|
|
It's crazy how much broadcast ratings have dipped in a decade. In 2001, Survivor (the highest rated show that year) scored an 18.5/41 demo rating at its non-Superbowl peak. The highest non-football show last year, NCIS, scored a 3.9/10 at its peak. And NCIS is one of the few shows on broadcast television that even hit upper 3.0s anymore. To put it in perspective, Buffy had a 3.9/10 for its season 6 premiere on a niche, fifth-place network whose successor now has a 1.2 as its demo upper limit. Due to market segmentation, I'm not sure if even a perfect storm show/event can ever get close to the numbers Idol/Survivor/Millionaire was hitting in the past. And there really isn't a landmark drama/comedy around anymore, either. ER's finale was probably the last one we'll see for a long while. Then again, Idol's sharp ratings decline is literally only a year detached, so maybe a buzzworthy 2014 season will bring it back to its season 10/11 highs. Alternately: maybe if the cast of Duck Dynasty does a Walking Dead-themed episode?
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2013 06:27
|
|
|
My favorite recent Nielsen kerfuffle was when they reported that literally nobody watched an MLB game. More recently, the president of MSNBC pushing for investigations into Fox News' "impossible" ratings.
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2013 07:09
|
|
|
...of SCIENCE! posted:My favorite recent Nielsen kerfuffle was when they reported that literally nobody watched an MLB game. The person who wrote the first article has absolutely no idea how ratings work. The second article is just plain confusing and explains itself in the last paragraph. It's all bafflingly sensational which should be expected given the parties involved.
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2013 07:35
|
|
|
...of SCIENCE! posted:My favorite recent Nielsen kerfuffle was when they reported that literally nobody watched an MLB game. NBC is already getting screwed because their Thursday night "revamped" comedy lineup is already down one show with All in the Family being canceled. There are lots of ads in NYC on buses, subway trains, and the like that have been advertising it before the TV season began, and seeing one of the shows on them that's been canned brings a smile to my face every time. get that OUT of my face fucked around with this message at 17:35 on Oct 25, 2013 |
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2013 17:32
|
|
|
SHUPS 4 DETH posted:Dracula debuts tomorrow following Grimm and by all accounts it's horrible so that should be a fun number to see Saturday. It's a fun number for much different reasons than I expected! It pulled a 1.8 matching its Grimm lead-in and topping its timeslot, and if not for Shark Tank's 2.0 they would have won the night together. Grimm had about a million more viewers so Dracula is even richer in the key demo. NBC's really got their poo poo together for Fridays, defying all conventional wisdom. The show's pretty horrible, but it has ridiculously gory visuals and lots of stylized violence so I doubt it will drop much. I still admire Grimm for performing as well as it has over the years. eta: The Carrie Diaries got a 0.3 down half from last season's premiere and down 0.1 from last week's debut. I thought this was an inexplicable renewal last season but it's toast for sure now. SHVPS4DETH fucked around with this message at 20:17 on Oct 26, 2013 |
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2013 20:12
|
|
|
Is Grimm the best overperformer relative to its timeslot? It really is amazing that it does so well without much buzz. The CW always has really odd renewal choices. (Yet they didn't renew Veronica Mars for a fourth season.  ) I can't see The Carrie Diaries or Beauty and the Beast lasting past this season. The CW has a decent lineup of supernatural/sci-fi/adventure shows going on right now, so I wouldn't be surprised if they only keep one or two token teen dramadies (Hart of Dixie) on the schedule for next year -- they really should order a show like Pretty Little Liars that combines the teen drama with a little more of a mystery aspect.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2013 20:57
|
|
|
Wizardryo posted:Is Grimm the best overperformer relative to its timeslot? It really is amazing that it does so well without much buzz. At this point I wonder if NBC is wasting the show on Friday night. When they moved it to Tuesdays for a while last Spring it was getting demo numbers in the 2's. Surely it could do better than what's currently in the Thursday and Wednesday lineups.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2013 21:06
|
|
|
hcreight posted:At this point I wonder if NBC is wasting the show on Friday night. When they moved it to Tuesdays for a while last Spring it was getting demo numbers in the 2's. Surely it could do better than what's currently in the Thursday and Wednesday lineups. Exactly the opposite is true and it's what kept Fringe and Chuck on the air way past their expiration dates. Over the past few years, Fridays have become a sort of safety zone for low-rated sci-fi/horror fare. Grimm's been hosed around with quite a bit over its 2 seasons. It was on Friday in its first season and did okay, so they moved it to Monday for S2 (probably thinking the same thing you are) but quickly pulled back to Friday when it sunk a bit, and then finished out the last month of its season following The Voice on Tuesday. Remarkably all of this fuckery didn't hurt its ratings much but it didn't goose a bigger number either (it actually ticked down with Voice's lead-in), so NBC got the hint that it was just fine on Friday and programmed it with Dracula to make a solid night of weird poo poo (following Dateline at 8 PM, obviously). It was the right move, especially if these numbers hold. With nothing else like their block competing against them it seems likely they will. Also programming niche stuff against CBS's blockbusters and Grey's Anatomy would be a really bad idea. SHVPS4DETH fucked around with this message at 21:39 on Oct 26, 2013 |
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2013 21:37
|
|
|
I"m not sure if anyone in this thread has heard this but Bell Media in Canada is starting data mining all it's internet traffic, cable box traffic and will know everything it's subscribers watch on a daily bases for ads. According to a friend who has seen the stuff they have built to measure it get ready for some real dead on ratings to start flowing from various places soon.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2013 05:13
|
|
|
Back in the Hannibal thread earlier this year, someone mentioned that what saved its neck was excellent ratings in the highest income brackets. Is there any way to get more detailed demographic information like that? Also, I'm guessing money from stuff like product placement pales in comparison to ad minutes?
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2013 06:01
|
|
|
sbaldrick posted:I"m not sure if anyone in this thread has heard this but Bell Media in Canada is starting data mining all it's internet traffic, cable box traffic and will know everything it's subscribers watch on a daily bases for ads. Canadian ratings don't matter at all. And that kind of stuff will almost never happen with American service providers.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2013 06:03
|
|
|
Why wouldn't it happen, American providers have access to the same technology and are even more evil then the ones in Canada?
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2013 06:21
|
|
|
coffeetable posted:Back in the Hannibal thread earlier this year, someone mentioned that what saved its neck was excellent ratings in the highest income brackets. Is there any way to get more detailed demographic information like that? That's all theoretical at best, Nielsen does track that info but that's a client-specific function that no network would be stupid enough to release because, one, they're paying hundreds of thousands of dollars for the privilege of knowing that information, and two, it would give the other networks leverage when counter programming. Also if Hannibal was getting amazing ratings in the highest income brackets, it probably would've gotten better ratings because the current ratings system is weighted towards high income consumers with a lot of liquid cash who'd be willing to buy the new Lexus. Yes, product placement generally doesn't work and sometimes is a massive pr fiasco so it can backfire horribly for the company in question. Most companies when pursuing product placement do some sort of co-branding/ offshoot deal like some sort of co-branded webseries/ etc and most companies are realizing product placement is used best when the content creators have control over how the product placement is implemented within the show. Also product placement is sometimes indicative that the company itself made a huge or significant ad buy for the show.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2013 16:54
|
|
|
Deadpool posted:Sleepy Hollow was designed to be a 13 episode season from the start. I'm pretty sure the creators stated that they turned down an extra nine episodes for this season. They have the first few seasons plotted out as 13 episode arcs and don't want to mess with the pacing.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2013 17:41
|
|
|
Mokinokaro posted:I'm pretty sure the creators stated that they turned down an extra nine episodes for this season. They have the first few seasons plotted out as 13 episode arcs and don't want to mess with the pacing.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2013 18:15
|
|
|
Isn't Fox the network that's trying to most to run new stuff all year long. Three 13 episode series would work pretty well for them if true, plus another 3 or 4 weeks of baseball, at least three holiday weeks and you can run new stuff pretty much non-stop.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2013 18:24
|
|
|
Hey SHUPS if you don't mind could you post the r/c index in the future? I don't have a PC any more so it's difficult to cut and paste links now.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2013 17:57
|
|
|
Yeah for sure. I'll put it up on Sundays going forward and put up the current one tonight.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2013 21:14
|
|
|
SHUPS 4 DETH posted:To be fair it's not a very good show and they put it on a night and time where it had no chance to succeed.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2013 21:32
|
|
|
SHUPS 4 DETH posted:Yeah for sure. I'll put it up on Sundays going forward and put up the current one tonight. aren't r/c indices posted on Tuesdays?
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2013 21:44
|
|
|
Occupation posted:aren't r/c indices posted on Tuesdays? Yup, I think SHUPS might have got the r/c mixed up with the Bubblewatch reports they do on a Sunday.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2013 21:54
|
|
|
I did yeah. Incidentally Bubble Watch has a new writer this year and they're really lovely but I'm happy to post R/CI on Tuesdays.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2013 23:44
|
|
|
It's still crazy to me that the top rated show on TV with a whopping 6.8 / 20 million viewers is a basic cable show about zombies. That show is doing staggering numbers. I'm not a huge TWD fan, but I'm glad too see cable kicking network's asses in both awards and viewers.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2013 01:49
|
|
|
And it just got its S5 renewal, to the surprise of literally no one.   IT'S THE RETURN OF THE RENEW/CANCEL INDEX CBS - No big changes here from last week, though the doomed Hostages has officially slid to the bottom of the chart, which has Gorman wondering if it gets to finish its limited run. I say yes because they haven't already axed it like they did We Are Men. Mom, The Mentalist, and The Good Wife are still on the bubble. Mom got a back nine order recently though this means nothing about its chances of renewal (especially if you consider that Dads did too). CBS's veteran lineup remains a solid institution. ABC - Same 4 certain cancellations, different headline; this time The Trophy Wife gets picked on. Look for OUAT in Wonderland next week, since if it's still on the air it's going to be noteworthy. The Neighbors and (especially) Betrayal are dead shows airing. Back In The Game got moved down to the bubble where it joins Nashville, The Goldbergs, and Last Man Standing. Gorman has Super Fun Night as Likely Renewed but I'd put it on the bubble. Agents of SHIELD is their only real success story from their freshman class but the rest of the lineup is doing just fine on their way to another season. NBC - Dracula joins the R/CI as a likely renewal, but there are otherwise no changes. I think Gorman's being bearish about Dracula until he sees another week of ratings, though it's worth noting that Dracula did a relatively better percentage in the key demo than Grimm so barring a disaster next week I think it's a lock. Sean Saves The World is still certain to be cancelled. Parks & Rec, Parenthood, The Michael J Fox Show, and Revolution remain on the bubble, which I think is being pretty charitable towards Revolution. Fox - Brooklyn Nine-Nine got a back nine order and a big show of confidence from Fox in moving it behind New Girl for the cushy post-Super Bowl spot, which pushed it up from likely cancellation to the bubble. The Mindy Project remains on the bubble despite that its R/CI is now at the bottom of the pile, even below Dads (which is certain to be cancelled) whose back nine order is spackle and nothing else. This is Fox - their midseason comedy freshmen tend to underperform and they must not have any confidence in what's to come. Bones is still Likely To Be Renewed, which is probably a "wait-and-see" since it's getting shipped off to Fridays. New Girl and Family Guy are certain renewals. CW - The Carrie Diaries joins the Index tied for last place with Beauty and the Beast. They're both Likely To Be Cancelled, but they're barely above 1/3rd of the CW's scripted average which suggests a little more certainty to me, but then again it's the CW so who knows. No other changes, though I guess Reign's on a two-week ratings decline. It's difficult for me to predict how the CW makes its decisions because they're so wildly different from the other major nets in that regard. Then again it's 10 hours of programming a week so maybe I'm trying too hard to overthink it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2013 03:11
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 23, 2024 17:56 |
|
|
There's no way Mindy gets renewed, Gorman is a crazy person. The season three renewal is both the most difficult and the most important and anyone who thinks the lowest-rated comedy on the network gets an effective two-season renewal is insane.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2013 05:48
|
|