Well, in no way does Marc labelling "offend" me. I am stating my point of view.
You were, however, incorrect when you stated that Shark won this week in 18-49. Copying from Marc's column on Thursday: ------------------------------------------ Thursday 10 p.m. Shark (CBS) Viewers: 12.43 million (#1), A18-49: 3.0/ 8 (#3)
October Road (ABC) Viewers: 9.94 million (#2), A18-49: 4.2/12 (#1)
ER (NBC) Viewers: 9.11 million (#3), A18-49: 3.7/10 (#2) ------------------------------------------------
So it looks to me like Shark came in a distant 3rd in 18-49. Hence the reason why I believe it should not be labeled a winner.
quote:
Originally posted by Fred Farrar: I have no idea why the idea of Marc labeling Shark a winner seems to offend you so much. But, let's be honest, Marc has a really good record and history of dealings with ratings.
There may be an occasional hiccup, but I will happily stick with Marc's labels.
And in this case I just don't understand the argument you are trying to advance. Or why, for that matter, you try so passionately to advance that argument.
Here are the facts:
Shark wins its time period.
Shark (this week at least) wins its time period in the 18-49 demo.
If a PGA pro wins a tournament when Tiger takes the week off, it is still a win.
It is not a myth. Shark is a winner for CBS.
quote:
Originally posted by AL: If you look closer at the 18-49 numbers on Thursday you will see how weak Shark was.
Shark 18-49 rating was 3.0. Which was a drop from 3.3 from its lead in. Its lead in, however, was a repeat, while Shark was new.
Scrubs, which generally is referred to as a loser by media like Marc, had a 2.9, just a smidge behind Shark. Scrubs, though, had a just a 2.4 from its lead in, 30 Rock. So in my book Scrubs is a winner, not a loser.
Ugly Betty, which gave a Down But Not Out, had a 3.0 rating, equal to Shark. And that was at the lower HUT hour of 8PM. Even 5th Grader had a higher rating, 3.2 than Shark. Also in the 8PM lower HUT lever hour, Earl and Office had 3.0 ratings. And Office was a repeat. So a repeat of the Office at an early hour gets an equal rating to a new Shark. And Shark is a winner?
So from what I could see, for the entire night on the big 4 networks, the only shows that got a lower 18-49 rating than a new episode of Shark were 30 Rock, a repeat of Trading Spouses, and by .01 of a rating point Scrubs.
Yet Shark is a winner?
quote:
Originally posted by tvfan300: ER and Grey's lead out is not weak competition. What CSI: Miami has faced all season is weak competition. And the retention for Shark out of CSI is better than anything ABC has put out of Grey's Anatomy, better than anything NBC has put out of Heroes, and fairly close to slightly better than what Brothers and Sisters does out of Desperate Housewives.
quote:
Originally posted by AL: I don't really think the reasons you state are reasons why Raines did not catch on.
The common viewer does not know that NBC delayed the premire. The common viewer does not know that NBC cut the episode order.
I believe a couple of years ago Grey's Anatomy had its premiere delayed and episode order cut. Yet it caught on big time.
Raines did not catch on because NBC does not have the mass viewership elsewhere on its schedule to promote and let people know about it. And it did not have any lead in its either of its time periods to gain a sampling.
And you speak of Shark as a success. Yet this is really a myth, as Shark has really been a loser if you look deeper into the numbers. For example, this week I believe it had it lowest 18-49 number for the season, yet Marc lists it as a winner. I don't get that. It typically loses a huge portion of the CSI audience against weak competition. But somehow it is a winner.
Originally posted by AL: I don't really think the reasons you state are reasons why Raines did not catch on.
The common viewer does not know that NBC delayed the premire. The common viewer does not know that NBC cut the episode order.
I believe a couple of years ago Grey's Anatomy had its premiere delayed and episode order cut. Yet it caught on big time.
"Grey's Monotony" has never had its order cut.
Yes, an episode cutback doesn't necessarily mean the show is finished -- "Law & Order," "What About Brian," "Las Vegas," "Crossing Jordan," "The Loop" and "Arrested Development" have all had cutbacks and gone on to see another year -- but most of the time, it's the end of the line.
And NBC clearly had no use for "Raines." The reason why it didn't catch on is because it's on Friday after a show that nobody watches. To the point where it stands to reason the common viewer does not know the show exists at all.
-- "Better Off Ted," Wednesdays at some time or another at some point or another in the near future. Because we can't all live in mansions and not ever work like the people on "Modern Family."
Much has been said of possibly airing MEDIUM out of HEROES. Loving MEDIUM, I was all ears. But I said the other day I didn't expect it to happen.
Last night I took the chance to watch the shows in sequence - HEROES encore at 10pm NBC, and MEDIUM at 11pm on Lifetime. Since HEROES is ongoing, it's somewhat hard to rate an individual ep. The MEDIUM ep was average for it, but still good.
Conclusion - these are very different types of entertainment. The biggest different is the pace - HEROES going at warp speed, MEDIUM gradually unfolding. HEROES, content spread out evenly the whole ep, MEDIUM, laying out tidbits for 3/4 of ep and then closing strong. The difference is striking when you watch them together. It is a serious wind- down.
But, there is also a compatibility that comes through as well.
Would this change of pace be welcome, or would it invite negative comparisons?
For now, I'm sticking with idea that they will try to build a new hit out of HEROES. And all this assumes that MEDIUM will be renewed and would be considered anyway for this slot.
While I see your logic, completely, I would argue that after the warp-speediness of Heroes, viewers want something that's going to be a little bit more slow. Medium is already established. It has no real ongoing storyline. You can jump in at anytime. That's why I think Studio 60 and The Black Donnellys didn't work. You need much more of a commitment from them.
Posts: 1487 | Location: Brookline, MA | Registered: 25 September 2006
Well, I wouldn't have listed it as a winner. But it certainly was not a loser, either.
quote:
Originally posted by AL: If you look closer at the 18-49 numbers on Thursday you will see how weak Shark was.
Shark 18-49 rating was 3.0. Which was a drop from 3.3 from its lead in. Its lead in, however, was a repeat, while Shark was new.
Scrubs, which generally is referred to as a loser by media like Marc, had a 2.9, just a smidge behind Shark. Scrubs, though, had a just a 2.4 from its lead in, 30 Rock. So in my book Scrubs is a winner, not a loser.
Ugly Betty, which gave a Down But Not Out, had a 3.0 rating, equal to Shark. And that was at the lower HUT hour of 8PM. Even 5th Grader had a higher rating, 3.2 than Shark. Also in the 8PM lower HUT lever hour, Earl and Office had 3.0 ratings. And Office was a repeat. So a repeat of the Office at an early hour gets an equal rating to a new Shark. And Shark is a winner?
So from what I could see, for the entire night on the big 4 networks, the only shows that got a lower 18-49 rating than a new episode of Shark were 30 Rock, a repeat of Trading Spouses, and by .01 of a rating point Scrubs.
Yet Shark is a winner?
quote:
Originally posted by tvfan300: ER and Grey's lead out is not weak competition. What CSI: Miami has faced all season is weak competition. And the retention for Shark out of CSI is better than anything ABC has put out of Grey's Anatomy, better than anything NBC has put out of Heroes, and fairly close to slightly better than what Brothers and Sisters does out of Desperate Housewives.
quote:
Originally posted by AL: I don't really think the reasons you state are reasons why Raines did not catch on.
The common viewer does not know that NBC delayed the premire. The common viewer does not know that NBC cut the episode order.
I believe a couple of years ago Grey's Anatomy had its premiere delayed and episode order cut. Yet it caught on big time.
Raines did not catch on because NBC does not have the mass viewership elsewhere on its schedule to promote and let people know about it. And it did not have any lead in its either of its time periods to gain a sampling.
And you speak of Shark as a success. Yet this is really a myth, as Shark has really been a loser if you look deeper into the numbers. For example, this week I believe it had it lowest 18-49 number for the season, yet Marc lists it as a winner. I don't get that. It typically loses a huge portion of the CSI audience against weak competition. But somehow it is a winner.
Much has been said of possibly airing MEDIUM out of HEROES. Loving MEDIUM, I was all ears. But I said the other day I didn't expect it to happen.
Last night I took the chance to watch the shows in sequence - HEROES encore at 10pm NBC, and MEDIUM at 11pm on Lifetime. Since HEROES is ongoing, it's somewhat hard to rate an individual ep. The MEDIUM ep was average for it, but still good.
Conclusion - these are very different types of entertainment. The biggest different is the pace - HEROES going at warp speed, MEDIUM gradually unfolding. HEROES, content spread out evenly the whole ep, MEDIUM, laying out tidbits for 3/4 of ep and then closing strong. The difference is striking when you watch them together. It is a serious wind- down.
But, there is also a compatibility that comes through as well.
Would this change of pace be welcome, or would it invite negative comparisons?
For now, I'm sticking with idea that they will try to build a new hit out of HEROES. And all this assumes that MEDIUM will be renewed and would be considered anyway for this slot.
While I see your logic, completely, I would argue that after the warp-speediness of Heroes, viewers want something that's going to be a little bit more slow. Medium is already established. It has no real ongoing storyline. You can jump in at anytime. That's why I think Studio 60 and The Black Donnellys didn't work. You need much more of a commitment from them.
Fair enough, and that's why I posed the question I did in next to last paragraph. I don't know. You make a good point about MEDIUM airing closed ended eps and that making things easier.
Posts: 2833 | Location: Western Pennsylvania | Registered: 13 December 2006
Painkiller Jane - 1.028 million viewers - 0.8/1 HH - 0.4/1 A18-49
Thanks Travis!
I expected it to go down, but that's a big drop for SG-1 from last week's 2.028 million. Sci Fi lost at least half a million viewers every hour. Travis, did you stop watching?
Painkiller Jane - 1.028 million viewers - 0.8/1 HH - 0.4/1 A18-49
Oh my, that is a ginormous drop!
Travis, do you by chance see ratings for other Sci Fi shows? In particular the four-hour block of "Enterprise" episodes that air on Monday nights from 7-11 p.m. ET.
Posts: 533 | Location: Ohio | Registered: 22 September 2006
