Originally posted by the128boy: DOND isn't sucking as bad as what a lot of people make it seem (and also, I don't think being on twice a week is too much), but yeah, it's definately weakening.
If anything hurts DoND's lifespan, I think it is the 'gimmick' episodes with multiple million dollar suitcases. That, like Millionaires 'celebrity' shows, hurts the viewer's ability to return for a 'normal' show's enjoyment level.
I feel like they don't know how to promote their shows at all. It's kind of like "Welcome to the cbs network... hope you can make a go of it."
NBC on the other hand does a fantastic job of promoting shows. Their problem seems to be keeping the viewers after the first few episodes (Bionic Woman? American Gladiators anyone?)
Originally posted by wenart25: Huh, well ANTM gained about 500,000 viewers from last week. Not a lot I know, but that is somthing, considering it has not hit the 4 million mark since it premiered.
I bet it drops to about 2 million viewers next week.
And the following week, on Wednesday April 16th, when Mr. Flavor Flav's "Under One Roof" sitcom debuts on MyNetworkTV at 8:00 pm Eastern, I expect that "America's Next Top Model" could end up in sixth place amongst the English-language broadcast networks.
The CW should reduce it to one cycle per year, and move it out of the way of Mr. Flav...perhaps Tuesdays at 8 pm?
Always good to see your blind optimism, dumont. I'm sure that the next MNTV show will soar equally as well as all their past shows you have claimed will soar.
Realistically, the In Living Color reruns have better long term prospects than the Flav show.
Originally posted by the128boy: DOND isn't sucking as bad as what a lot of people make it seem (and also, I don't think being on twice a week is too much), but yeah, it's definately weakening.
If anything hurts DoND's lifespan, I think it is the 'gimmick' episodes with multiple million dollar suitcases. That, like Millionaires 'celebrity' shows, hurts the viewer's ability to return for a 'normal' show's enjoyment level.
Agreed. I think the key to a successful game show is built-in quality. Otherwise the ratings will go down sooner or later. That's when all the 'gimmick' eps start.
The problem is, the networks are too earger to gimmick-up these types of shows. A slight dip in ratings (which might be the show simply settling to its normal ratings levels) and all of a sudden the nets feel they must hype it up.
Honestly, doesn't DOND feel like it's been on forever?? It premiered on December 19th 2005. That's less than 2 and a half years ago!
Originally posted by the128boy: DOND isn't sucking as bad as what a lot of people make it seem (and also, I don't think being on twice a week is too much), but yeah, it's definately weakening.
If anything hurts DoND's lifespan, I think it is the 'gimmick' episodes with multiple million dollar suitcases. That, like Millionaires 'celebrity' shows, hurts the viewer's ability to return for a 'normal' show's enjoyment level.
Agreed. I think the key to a successful game show is built-in quality. Otherwise the ratings will go down sooner or later. That's when all the 'gimmick' eps start.
The problem is, the networks are too earger to gimmick-up these types of shows. A slight dip in ratings (which might be the show simply settling to its normal ratings levels) and all of a sudden the nets feel they must hype it up.
Honestly, doesn't DOND feel like it's been on forever?? It premiered on December 19th 2005. That's less than 2 and a half years ago!
I really do think that unless they decide not to put it in syndication it will be gone by May of 2009.
Originally posted by filmkr27: I'm sorry but this post really angers me. Men in trees was given the so called prime slot after Grey's but it was given it when Grey's was in repeats -- it was supposed to return Post Greys== but then October road did well and it never returned. From February to September I believe, it was not heard from again and then expected to perform great back on Fridays where it didn't do well at all. This is the kind of show, given it's serialized nature that needs a stable solid lead in for it to succeed. It will show it on one time slot then yank it for a few weeks. It could have used the love that brothers and sisters gets. But time and time again, when there is a good time slot, abc chooses to use something else. So please don't tell me that it is not a victim of bad scheduling and from the sounds of it, since you are obviously not a fan, why does it really matter? It's probably gonna get cancelled anyways. And the reason it matters to us fans, is that it is a good show, otherwise it wouldn't matter to any of us.
quote:
Originally posted by AL:
quote:
Originally posted by Marc Berman: Sadly, Men in Trees is a goner. A victim of bad scheduling.
quote:
Originally posted by Holly: Was Supernanny a repeat again? Because if not, it took a bit of a hit. I really can't see Men in Trees coming back next year.
Ratings for CM and CSI: NY aren't impressive, but CSI: NY is just a little under it's season average and right around where it was last year at this time. CM took a bigger hit compared to it's season ratings, but up against Idol, that's not a surprise.
It will be interesting to see what happens when both CSI: NY and L&O are showing originals.
Please explain Marc why this show was "a victim of bad schedling". This show was given more of a chance than most horribly rated shows get. It started last years on Friday nights, got weak ratings. ABC could or should have canceled it then. But next they give it the premium post Grey's slot on Thursdays. Once again the ratings suck. At which point again ABC could have just thrown in the towel and cancled it. But they decided to bring it back for the new season. It goes back to Fridays, and once again, the ratings suck. Again, ABC could have just canceled it again after 4 tries. But again they decided to give it another shot, in a better time slot on Wednesdays at 10. And once again the ratings suck. This show was arguably given more chances to succeed then almost any show in the history of TV. Yet people complain that it was a victim of bad scheduling.
Hear, hear filmkr27.
Inconsistent scheduling has hampered "Men in Trees" ability to grow, for sure. But fortunately, someone at the Alphabet has a passion for this show, otherwise it never would have gotten two seasons and such an early greenlight last season to go ahead with season two...I do believe the writers, actors and producers of Men in Trees broke the drama record this year for the most episodes filmed before the strike stopped production, and that is a good thing.
If Marc's prognostication proves true (and it usually does), and there is no future home for Men in Trees at the Disney family of networks, then I do hope there is an affection for the program within the executive suite of Warner Television, producers of the series, and that creative minds are trying to figure out where they might be able to place a third season of the show within the WB group of cablers and broadcasting outlets.
Originally posted by xwiseguyx: Not being a fan of the show, even I would have to admit that perhaps it was a combination of poor scheduling and promotion. The show always seemed to be on hiatus since it's inception. The numbers for Fridays the first year were OK from what I recall and then it disappeared for awhile and then suddenly was aired for a few weeks and then disappeared and each time came back with little fan fare and little promotion.
I think that this show should have been given a shot last summer to see if it could catch an audience. (Say early August to beat the glut of new offerings).
But whatever, it's dead now.
quote:
Originally posted by AL: Please explain Marc why this show was "a victim of bad schedling". This show was given more of a chance than most horribly rated shows get. It started last years on Friday nights, got weak ratings. ABC could or should have canceled it then. But next they give it the premium post Grey's slot on Thursdays. Once again the ratings suck. At which point again ABC could have just thrown in the towel and cancled it. But they decided to bring it back for the new season. It goes back to Fridays, and once again, the ratings suck. Again, ABC could have just canceled it again after 4 tries. But again they decided to give it another shot, in a better time slot on Wednesdays at 10. And once again the ratings suck. This show was arguably given more chances to succeed then almost any show in the history of TV. Yet people complain that it was a victim of bad scheduling.
As a fan of the show, it's sad knowing that this show will, in all likelyhood, be cancelled. But I don't believe the show was given much of a chance to succeed; though others disagree.
Yes, ABC did air it after GA, but how many new episodes of GA aired prior to new episodes of MIT? MIT is currently airing in it's 5th different time period. It's only aired 32 original episodes during all those time period switches. How does anyone expect this show to do well with that many changes and for a sophmore show? How can anyone find the show. A more seasoned show may be able to handle these constant time period changes. In fact, if you count the special preview of the pilot episode, MIT has aired in six different time slots and on four different nights. What other shows have been flipped around so much and still succeeded after each change.
If ABC had stopped playing hot potato with the show, it might have actually succeed.
What I find strange is the fact the show did air last summer from June 28 to September 20, pre-empted just once during that period, and yet know one seems to remember that. So I guess ABC did give it a shot. (Because it aired after GA repeats, which meant no one bothered checking it out).
Originally posted by filmkr27: I'm sorry but this post really angers me. Men in trees was given the so called prime slot after Grey's but it was given it when Grey's was in repeats -- it was supposed to return Post Greys== but then October road did well and it never returned. From February to September I believe, it was not heard from again and then expected to perform great back on Fridays where it didn't do well at all. This is the kind of show, given it's serialized nature that needs a stable solid lead in for it to succeed. It will show it on one time slot then yank it for a few weeks. It could have used the love that brothers and sisters gets. But time and time again, when there is a good time slot, abc chooses to use something else. So please don't tell me that it is not a victim of bad scheduling and from the sounds of it, since you are obviously not a fan, why does it really matter? It's probably gonna get cancelled anyways. And the reason it matters to us fans, is that it is a good show, otherwise it wouldn't matter to any of us.
I'm in complete agreement, however it must be noted that ABC did air MIT in the summer from June 28 to Sept 20/07 with only one pre-emption. I doubt anyone noticed because it aired after GA repeats, something it did on a regular basis, airing after GA repeats, during the regular season of 2006-07.
SHOW/NET HH A18-49 Viewers A18-34
ABC 3.8/6 2.0/5 5,679,000
CBS 6.8/11 3.1/8 10,534,000
NBC 4.7/8 1.8/5 7,042,000
FOX 10.6/17 6.8/18 17,500,000
CW 1.9/3 1.3/3 2,668,000 1.5/4
WIFE SWAP 3.8/6 2.1/6 5,692,000
SUPERNANNY 3.8/6 2.3/6 5,889,000
MEN IN TREES 3.7/6 1.5/4 5,455,000
BIG BROTHER 3.9/6 2.3/7 5,937,000
CRIMINAL MINDS 8.2/12 3.4/8 12,811,000
CSI: NY 8.2/14 3.6/10 12,853,000
DEAL OR NO DEAL 6.1/10 2.0/6 9,527,000
MOMENT OF TRUTH 6.4/11 4.1/12 10,162,000
AMERICAN IDOL 14.8/22 9.4/23 24,839,000
AMERICA'S NEXT TOP MODEL 2.7/4 1.9/6 3,870,000 2.2/7
TOP CHEF 1.6/3 1.2/3 2,297,000
SOUTH PARK 1.9/3 1.6/4 2,804,000
Originally posted by uncamark: Syndication aside, isn't Fox not technically a "network" by FCC rules, so theoretically they could start "Idol Gives Back" in access at 7:30?
Even then, couldn't they claim "special event" as a reason to start in access, much as NBC does the Olympics or CBS the NCAA tourney?
I believe Idol Gives back does start at 7:30pm. I don't believe it's a very big deal when nets step out of the prime time look, even if be a minute (7:59).
Posts: 2650 | Location: Los Angeles, CA | Registered: 27 January 2007
Originally posted by the128boy: One other note about CBS...
I feel like they don't know how to promote their shows at all. It's kind of like "Welcome to the cbs network... hope you can make a go of it."
NBC on the other hand does a fantastic job of promoting shows. Their problem seems to be keeping the viewers after the first few episodes (Bionic Woman? American Gladiators anyone?)
Anyone have any thoughts on this?
Exactly. CBS used to be excellent at promoting, IMO. But now, it's less and less, and frankly, the promos suck.
That CSI: Miami promo with the sunglasses crap in it, is not going to get anyone to want to watch, if anything, it will steer away viewers. I think people are finally getting fed up with Miami.
Speaking of which, is it just me, or have the last episodes of CSI: Miami been very dull and well, stupid? The show is not what it was a few years ago, and the decline of 20 million viewers to only 14 million shows.
Posts: 2650 | Location: Los Angeles, CA | Registered: 27 January 2007
Originally posted by yankeesrj12: I would say, Criminal Minds did better then CSI: NY. It was up against American Idol, what was CSI: NY up against, Men in Trees?
ANTM did better then last week. Back into the 4 million viewers territory.
Yep it did much better to be up against the deathstar annd get 13 million is very good
