|
Astro7x posted:How the hell are all the shows I like certain to be cancelled, but CBS is doing so good on a network that has Zero shows that I like. I don't get it. Broad appeal. Nerds are 'funny' because they're so smart but can't relate to real people and so are multi-cam sitcoms. I think someone here said something similar about 2 1/2 Men being very consistent, even though it was neither groundbreaking nor appealed to their tastes. Almost Human down another .2.  Please stabilize or grow next week. The show is so much fun, I want it to last.
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2013 20:22
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 16:00 |
|
|
"Shows that I like are good, shows that I do not like are bad. People are so dumb!" Keep on fighting the good fight I guess. The real answer is that these shows that you like probably would not be getting cancelled if they were on CBS instead of a network that is falling apart and vice versa.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2013 20:23
|
|
|
ToastyPotato posted:
Community would probably have been cancelled halfway through Season 1 if it were on CBS.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2013 20:39
|
|
|
computer parts posted:Community would probably have been cancelled halfway through Season 1 if it were on CBS. Probably. Or it might have enjoyed more success on basic cable. Or equal success/failure. Community is a really weird show though, so its harder to peg how it would have done elsewhere. I think a show like Parks and Rec might perform better on a different network, for example, but then the failure of Happy Endings calls many things into doubt. But was Happy Endings really a good fit for ABC to begin with?
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2013 20:57
|
|
|
The question is whether Happy Endings would have succeeded anywhere and the answer is, "probably not." If The Walking Dead's success has proven anything, its that people are willing to change channels to watch the shows they like. A good show will attract an audience regardless of what comes on before or after it. The only exception are shows that are cancelled before people have the chance to watch them, which wasn't the case for Happy Endings and isn't the case for Community. Unless Community picks up viewers in syndication (it won't), we can assume that everybody who might enjoy Community has already seen it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2013 21:24
|
|
|
ToastyPotato posted:Probably. Or it might have enjoyed more success on basic cable. Or equal success/failure. Community is a really weird show though, so its harder to peg how it would have done elsewhere. I think a show like Parks and Rec might perform better on a different network, for example, but then the failure of Happy Endings calls many things into doubt. But was Happy Endings really a good fit for ABC to begin with? Happy Endings was a show about a fairly well off group of friends. So it's basically New Girl with more money/older skewed characters. CBS though is not known(in recent years) for taking risks with programming*. Most of their shows are extremely safe procedurals or multi-cams, so a lot of shows wouldn't cut it on CBS. *This is specifically directed at the network proper, not outside ventures
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2013 21:25
|
|
|
Irish Joe posted:The question is whether Happy Endings would have succeeded anywhere and the answer is, "probably not." If The Walking Dead's success has proven anything, its that people are willing to change channels to watch the shows they like. A good show will attract an audience regardless of what comes on before or after it. The only exception are shows that are cancelled before people have the chance to watch them, which wasn't the case for Happy Endings and isn't the case for Community. Unless Community picks up viewers in syndication (it won't), we can assume that everybody who might enjoy Community has already seen it. The Walking Dead is this massive exception to everything TV critics and reviewers had assumed about viewers and audiences for the past 10 years. It's numbers are so strong that you have to go back to the late 90s to find a serial drama or sitcom that pulls the key demo numbers anywhere near close to TWD.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2013 11:46
|
|
|
I love watching tv and I will watch a show no matter what channel its on. I don't really have any preconceived notions about any network where I won't watch something because its on a certain channel. So I don't really get when people say they won't watch a show because its on X network. I might not like anything on CBS at the moment but I watched most of the pilots this years on CBS
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2013 17:44
|
|
|
Mindy Project is still a coinflip? God drat it Gorman you are bad at figuring this out, man. Also just fyi the current conversation is getting dangerously close to the exact sort of conversations I made this thread to avoid and clarify. Shittalking CBS because they make "bad" or "dumb" shows is ignoring the exact point that there's a fine art in making something mass appeal that people will actually like as opposed to mass appeal that everyone hates (see also: every attempt by NBC in the past couple of years at making a mass appeal sitcom, up to and including the MJF show). And even if you HAVE made a mass appeal show that is able to capture a massive audience (for example, let's use Parks and Rec, the closest thing to a modern-day Cheers currently airing), it doesn't matter worth a goddamn if you don't promote it correctly. NBC took one of their biggest chances to be able to steal everyone else's thunder in PnR with a hilarious, optimistic, wonderful show and doomed it to fail but refusing to give it a good timeslot (always after Community except for one season where it finally aired after The Office, but only one season) and promoting it terribly. Now we have Parks and Rec doing abysmal numbers and NBC has really only itself to blame for screwing over their one big chance to rebuild their Must See TV block. Compare to CBS which frequently refreshes its garden of programming, promotes the hell out of new programming, gives them nice lead-ins and outs, and does things like do schedule triage to fix their ailing comedies that could be tentpoles and it's a no-brainer why they're number one and have the number one rated sitcom. Why? Because they're smart and they adapt. That's why they're number one. Because they're not idiots when it comes to scheduling and promotion. For every other network, even FOX, one or both of these things is not true. NieR Occomata fucked around with this message at 18:15 on Dec 4, 2013 |
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2013 18:01
|
|
|
pentyne posted:The Walking Dead is this massive exception to everything TV critics and reviewers had assumed about viewers and audiences for the past 10 years. It's numbers are so strong that you have to go back to the late 90s to find a serial drama or sitcom that pulls the key demo numbers anywhere near close to TWD. There's few examples of exceptions, but Desperate Housewives was getting 10.0 demo ratings in 2005 and I'm fairly sure Grey's Anatomy was doing similarly even later on in its run. Big Bang Theory gets 6s every so often but manages solid 5s the rest of the time. And it's not a serial/sitcom, but The Voice's audition rounds do absurdly well (and Idol likewise before this year's disastrous season). With increasing marketing segmentation, I just don't think there have been many shows in recent years that really have captured the mass appeal zeitgeist of the times to command such strong ratings, but the potential to do so is still definitely there; Walking Dead is one of them. ABC has floundered for years trying to find replacements to their big mid-2000s hits and they found it in OUAT, but that experienced a very steep ratings drop after the first season.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2013 21:28
|
|
|
NBC got mid-2.0s with holiday specials last night. It isn't that there wasn't anything else to watch, either. Curious.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2013 18:26
|
|
|
Wizardryo posted:There's few examples of exceptions, but Desperate Housewives was getting 10.0 demo ratings in 2005 and I'm fairly sure Grey's Anatomy was doing similarly even later on in its run. Big Bang Theory gets 6s every so often but manages solid 5s the rest of the time. And it's not a serial/sitcom, but The Voice's audition rounds do absurdly well (and Idol likewise before this year's disastrous season). With increasing marketing segmentation, I just don't think there have been many shows in recent years that really have captured the mass appeal zeitgeist of the times to command such strong ratings, but the potential to do so is still definitely there; Walking Dead is one of them. ABC has floundered for years trying to find replacements to their big mid-2000s hits and they found it in OUAT, but that experienced a very steep ratings drop after the first season. I would say the Big Bang Theory given it's year to year rating growth is pretty much the only hit that would have lasted in the 80's/90's.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2013 19:14
|
|
|
sbaldrick posted:I would say the Big Bang Theory given it's year to year rating growth is pretty much the only hit that would have lasted in the 80's/90's. Surely just comparing the numbers gives completely misleading information. Honestly I don't even understand why people still go by these ratings anyway. Someone said earlier in the thread that these ratings companies have all the online viewing info, it just isn't reflected in the 2.5 etc numbers that people talk about. I mean, I watch a lot of television shows. However, I haven't watched an actual show on an aired broadcast for years. Almost everyone I know is the same. The claim essentially says that TV is less popular than it used to be in the 80s and 90s, and I just don't buy that. If the numbers are lower, it's just because less people watch live because of the convenience of watching though a networks website, hulu etc. Just saying "wow, all these shows use to get 8's and so nothing today would have survived then" is silly. The difference between the numbers today and the numbers from yesteryear are surely accounted for through online viewings etc.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2013 19:45
|
|
|
Shakugan posted:Surely just comparing the numbers gives completely misleading information. Honestly I don't even understand why people still go by these ratings anyway. Someone said earlier in the thread that these ratings companies have all the online viewing info, it just isn't reflected in the 2.5 etc numbers that people talk about. Just a slight correction, ratings are based of households with tvs, so and 8 back then might only rank a ~3 now due to spread of tvs.(Just a random example pulled from the rear end) Also, there's more choice in what to watch now thanks to cable/dish having over 900+ channels might change the skew. That said, ratings matter because of advertiser space. Sure, the show being well received and purchased by everyone is great, but advertiser revenue is what brings in the big bucks. It's why Nielsen ratings matter so much. It lets networks know how many people are watching and what they can charge the advertisers. Just an edit: I will agree that networks have been extremely slow in catching up with new media viewership and how that translates to ad sales and revenue.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2013 20:03
|
|
|
Shakugan posted:Surely just comparing the numbers gives completely misleading information. Honestly I don't even understand why people still go by these ratings anyway. Someone said earlier in the thread that these ratings companies have all the online viewing info, it just isn't reflected in the 2.5 etc numbers that people talk about. The fact that there has basically been a near outright refusal to match advertisements from live airings to online viewings is why online viewings mean so little in the end. It's about commercials in the end, but the networks and studios seem very resistant to new technology. Internet viewing has risen, as you said, due entirely to convenience, but instead of running with it and truly selling online viewing as a perfectly viable alternative to live viewing, they continue to treat it as secondary, despite the continued hemorrhaging of live viewers. They are purposefully devaluing it as a method of selling ads and it continues to bite them in the rear end.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2013 20:06
|
|
|
(This thread should really be merged with couch chat. They go hand in hand) Thursday Ratings NBC's live musical was a smash success, nearly matching TBBT's ratings and causing it to drop from the average 5s to a 4.6. It also held that audience for 3 straight hours. Fox's 'Glee' went up .2 points from last week's .9, but that was a "holiday special"  , so it's down from the 1.4 the week before that.Scandal also hit above a 3 again, so yay. Everything else mostly stayed the same. This is great news, as it shows NBC that all they need to boost ratings on thursday is a 3hr long woodenly acted but masterfully sung musical that is LIVE. Don't follow Glee's mistake of having pre-recorded musicals or else.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2013 19:18
|
|
|
Postal Parcel posted:Just a slight correction, ratings are based of households with tvs Wait, what?
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2013 19:59
|
|
|
pizzaman5000 posted:Wait, what? I assume it's this from the OP: quote:There are approximately 115.9 [million] 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. Back in the day, there were fewer television sets in the US (and the people watching TV were probably less diverse), so it was easier to grab a larger percentage of the market.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2013 20:04
|
|
|
computer parts posted:I assume it's this from the OP: And fewer channels competing for viewers. And fewer alternatives to watching TV. The market is so diluted now that it is kind of preposterous that they have been so slow on monetizing streams.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2013 20:07
|
|
|
Postal Parcel posted:(This thread should really be merged with couch chat. They go hand in hand) This is a ratings-specific thread whereas Couch Chat is a general topic thread that happens to discuss ratings a decent amount but usually doesn't go as in-depth. Both threads are fine as they are.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2013 20:10
|
|
|
pizzaman5000 posted:Wait, what? Sorry, that was worded a bit...stupidly. I meant that ratings are based of total numbers of tvs in all households in America. Computer Parts explained it. hcreight posted:This is a ratings-specific thread whereas Couch Chat is a general topic thread that happens to discuss ratings a decent amount but usually doesn't go as in-depth. Both threads are fine as they are. I really just say this to bring a bit more life to the thread. Although, I just need to accept, like Mindy Project and Happy Endings, some people just don't -get- this kind of discussion.* ToastyPotato posted:And fewer channels competing for viewers. And fewer alternatives to watching TV. The market is so diluted now that it is kind of preposterous that they have been so slow on monetizing streams. I think it's because executives are still extremely old and resistant to this technological change. Also because the internet brings with it a whole mess of other problems. Not to say I don't agree though, because how many good shows would be saved from the axe if stuff like this mattered. They're getting close to it with the whole Neilsen twitter stuff(where Scandal ranked #1), but that still isn't a really good metric. *Is there a smiley that is appropriately :hipster: enough? I know there's  , but I guess :human being: works better?
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2013 21:23
|
|
|
Those Sound of Music ratings are huge. A huge gamble for NBC that paid off -- and I don't think even NBC executives thought it would rate that highly. I've always been a little disappointed/confused why American programming doesn't air event specials like this more often (especially around the holidays), since they're one-off novelties or special episodes of popular TV shows that would attract a lot of casual viewer interest. I watched it last night and while it wasn't the most engrossing television ever, it was interesting and new enough to have kept on all 3 hours. It's amazing that the 10:30 half-hour still attracted a 4.2 demo.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2013 22:52
|
|
|
Wizardryo posted:Those Sound of Music ratings are huge. A huge gamble for NBC that paid off -- and I don't think even NBC executives thought it would rate that highly. I've always been a little disappointed/confused why American programming doesn't air event specials like this more often (especially around the holidays), since they're one-off novelties or special episodes of popular TV shows that would attract a lot of casual viewer interest. I watched it last night and while it wasn't the most engrossing television ever, it was interesting and new enough to have kept on all 3 hours. It's amazing that the 10:30 half-hour still attracted a 4.2 demo. I had a bunch of friends, half of whom were near 30 year old men, showing some moderate level of interest in Sound of Music before it aired. Actually they were all way more interested in musicals than I ever would have guessed and that whole conversation surprised the hell out of me.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2013 23:52
|
|
|
ToastyPotato posted:I had a bunch of friends, half of whom were near 30 year old men, showing some moderate level of interest in Sound of Music before it aired. Actually they were all way more interested in musicals than I ever would have guessed and that whole conversation surprised the hell out of me. Having it star Carrie Underwood helped. 
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2013 00:16
|
|
|
Scandal got its order cut by 4 episodes, probably due to Kerry Washington's pregnancy. Also, Dads got its order reduced by 3 episodes, probably due to being a steaming pile of poorly-rated poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2013 04:37
|
|
|
Wizardryo posted:Those Sound of Music ratings are huge. A huge gamble for NBC that paid off -- and I don't think even NBC executives thought it would rate that highly. Does it really matter, though? That was a one-time thing, and NBC charged its advertisers off what they estimated the ratings would be. They can't charge more in the future because The Sound of Music got high ratings, since they're not repeating it. Granted, they can estimate the ratings for future specials a little higher, but the circumstances around those will be so different I don't see how it can help.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2013 17:08
|
|
|
ToastyPotato posted:I had a bunch of friends, half of whom were near 30 year old men, showing some moderate level of interest in Sound of Music before it aired. Actually they were all way more interested in musicals than I ever would have guessed and that whole conversation surprised the hell out of me. My workplace was somewhat interested as well but only because it was filmed about 15 min. from where it is. Nobody thought the musical was necessary.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2013 18:13
|
|
|
They aired a lot of promotion for Sound of Music during The Voice too. A whole lot.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2013 17:07
|
|
|
RCI Tuesday is here, and with it the following changes: CBS - None. ABC - None. NBC - None. Fox - Almost Human was downgraded a toss-up, which it should have been since its tepid premiere. Fans can take heart knowing that it raised a tenth last night (pending final adjustments). Dads had its episode order reduced and isn't on the 2014 schedule after February so it is, of course, de facto cancelled. Gorman's tea leaves continue to foretell a miracle for The Mindy Project that will not happen, and as such it remains a toss-up. The fool! CW - None. We are now officially in Specialville, capitol city of Repeatssachusetts, so expect even less news next week. Stay tuned to see what direct competition from The Sing-Off does to all three hours of The X Factor on Wednesday and Thursday! Or don't, as TVIV has turned into a bit of a ghost town of late.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2013 18:21
|
|
|
Prediction: The Sing-Off has no effect on XFactor's ratings because the XFactor is already at the bottom of the reality show barrel. Re:Almost Human I hope next week it goes up a little bit more too. Fox's scheduling has messed with both it and Sleepy Hollow, so I hope they give it a bit of leeway since it has to against 2 heavy hitters(Voice and HIMYM) and it's a genre show, which means it's got a mark against it right off the bat.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2013 20:22
|
|
|
Postal Parcel posted:Prediction: The Sing-Off has no effect on XFactor's ratings because the XFactor is already at the bottom of the reality show barrel. Mostly correct! Their Monday 2.4 shrank to a 1.4 by Thursday but it was still enough to trounce XF's measly 1.2. The lesson here is that it is impossible to counter-program against BBT. RCI: On CBS, CSI and Elementary are now likely instead of certain to be renewed. On the CW, Beauty and the Beast is off the midseason schedule so naturally it is now certain to be cancelled. No one cares and this thread is dead. In petulant infant news, Simon Cowell declared that X Factor will definitely be back next season. Fox offered sweet gently caress all to support his claim. I'm not bumping this thread again until there are any real changes.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2013 18:30
|
|
|
SHUPS 4 DETH posted:Mostly correct! Their Monday 2.4 shrank to a 1.4 by Thursday but it was still enough to trounce XF's measly 1.2. The lesson here is that it is impossible to counter-program against BBT. I still like this thread  Also, Simon and X-Factor. Ughh, look you tried and failed. You had One Direction on and still couldn't pull above the 1s. Give it up Simon, your glory days are behind you. Also, Sunday night's rating for Fox were great. 3.5 for Simpsons, 3 for FG, and 2.4 for BB and AD. Also, AH dropped which didn't surprise me seeing as it didn't have a new SH tie-in and was on mid-season finale post week. Please stay stable AH 
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2013 18:45
|
|
|
I like this thread but given how little is new between now and January not a lot going on.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2013 15:34
|
|
|
Does anyone know why Almost Human is tanking a bit? It's pretty much the only broadcast tv show I'm watching at the moment and that's not just because I really like Karl Urban.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2013 16:37
|
|
|
Korak posted:Does anyone know why Almost Human is tanking a bit? It's pretty much the only broadcast tv show I'm watching at the moment and that's not just because I really like Karl Urban. It could be any number of reasons, but I'll list the ones I think affect it the most: Genre Show: Sci-fi Irregular Scheduling: While some shows were on repeats, this was new HIMYM and The Voice: 2 heavy hitters in the same slot Replaced Bones Timeslot Still in a somewhat procedural storytelling mode
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2013 16:46
|
|
|
SHUPS 4 DETH posted:No one cares and this thread is dead. There's already two suitable threads that could host all of this discussion so I wouldn't take it to heart, you should just roll this one into one of those next year and people will actually take note.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2013 23:57
|
|
|
Postal Parcel posted:It could be any number of reasons, but I'll list the ones I think affect it the most: Or maybe it's just no very good?
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2013 00:03
|
|
|
Rarity posted:Or maybe it's just no very good? This. It seems pretty much determined to be bland as gently caress, which given the talent involved and the money that's on display it pretty disappointing. It's basically on the same level as Agents of SHIELD for me.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2013 00:05
|
|
|
Shups, I just wanted to say that I found this thread fascinating. I am pretty much a TV IV tourist, but I've always been interested in ratings and this has been an exceptionally educational discusion - so thank you for making it!
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2013 00:18
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 16:00 |
|
|
They should retool Almost Human to 30min episodes of Kennex and Dorian riding in a car and talking poo poo. I'd watch that.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2013 00:22
|
|
