Originally posted by TravisYanan: Wow, House performed well below my expectations... then again, Fox spent much more time promoting Sarah Connor Chronicles than it did the post-game House. In addition, House didn't start until outside of primetime in New York City (because of the Giants' win, naturally)... and probably not until later in Boston, too. Those are two big markets.
I'm surprised you'd say it performed well below. Are you talking about ratings, or the quality of the episode?
We only have the first half-hour data, but the show was a full 10 points higher among households than Criminal Minds last year (25.1 vs. 15.1), had more than 6 million more viewers (32.78M vs. 26.31M), and was 44% stronger in the demo (10.0 vs. 14.4).
And Fox made the right choice in their advertising for Terminator. The show has lost a significant chunk of its premiere audience. They need to try to get a couple million more viewers back. I almost wish they would have premiered the show after the Super Bowl instead of a few weeks back.
Posts: 533 | Location: Ohio | Registered: 22 September 2006
Originally posted by TravisYanan: Wow, House performed well below my expectations... then again, Fox spent much more time promoting Sarah Connor Chronicles than it did the post-game House. In addition, House didn't start until outside of primetime in New York City (because of the Giants' win, naturally)... and probably not until later in Boston, too. Those are two big markets.
I'm surprised you'd say it performed well below. Are you talking about ratings, or the quality of the episode?
We only have the first half-hour data, but the show was a full 10 points higher among households than Criminal Minds last year (25.1 vs. 15.1), had more than 6 million more viewers (32.78M vs. 26.31M), and was 44% stronger in the demo (10.0 vs. 14.4).
And Fox made the right choice in their advertising for Terminator. The show has lost a significant chunk of its premiere audience. They need to try to get a couple million more viewers back. I almost wish they would have premiered the show after the Super Bowl instead of a few weeks back.
Wait for the finals in order to compare it with CM
Originally posted by spotupj: Looks like in addition to CBS, ABC also did the flipping with EM:HE at 7 and AFHV at 8. Just change the rule about in-timeslot repeats counting toward season avgs already.
I agree. Why penalize a show just because its fans don't feel the need to watch the same episodes over and over again?
You seem to think that the ratings are done for fan enjoyment (misguided bragging rights) rather than for the advertisers benefit. Clearly, the advertisers care about whether or not people are willing to watch an episode of scripted TV twice since that is how many times most scripted shows are aired.
Talking about the numbers. The episode was top-notch (and I especially loved the ending).
I was honestly expecting close to Grey's Anatomy level numbers for House (and wasn't even remotely comparing it to Criminal Minds in my head / projections / expectations), because it is just about as big a hit is Grey's was pre-Super Bowl. It's also broad-playing (many more men watch it than watch Grey's).
The fact is, this episode was not intended to be the post-Super Bowl episode of House, but the producers' intended episodes got derailed by the strike (there was going to be the start of a two-parter, which apparently would advance either the House/Cameron story or the House/Cuddy story). So, while the episode was definitely a slight change of pace from the normal episodes due to the "gimmick" of the patient being half a world away and had Mira Sorvino, it was a pretty standard, formulaic episode. Fox did not have the opportunity to advertise the special event as ABC advertised Grey's "Code Black"... because this wasn't supposed to be a special event.
And please don't misinterpret my noting that Fox spent more time advertising SCC as a criticism that they focused on a young-male skewing series with everything to gain. If was a completely appropriate decision and the promos were quite effective... and needed for the show after declines from its premiere (not to mention having a repeat in on off timeslot because of the State of the Union).
quote:
Originally posted by RussTC3:
quote:
Originally posted by TravisYanan: Wow, House performed well below my expectations... then again, Fox spent much more time promoting Sarah Connor Chronicles than it did the post-game House. In addition, House didn't start until outside of primetime in New York City (because of the Giants' win, naturally)... and probably not until later in Boston, too. Those are two big markets.
I'm surprised you'd say it performed well below. Are you talking about ratings, or the quality of the episode?
We only have the first half-hour data, but the show was a full 10 points higher among households than Criminal Minds last year (25.1 vs. 15.1), had more than 6 million more viewers (32.78M vs. 26.31M), and was 44% stronger in the demo (10.0 vs. 14.4).
And Fox made the right choice in their advertising for Terminator. The show has lost a significant chunk of its premiere audience. They need to try to get a couple million more viewers back. I almost wish they would have premiered the show after the Super Bowl instead of a few weeks back.
Originally posted by robert: Wait for the finals in order to compare it with CM
That actually might not be necessary to do though. Criminal Minds didn't change much in the finals and the time period it aired in was almost identically the same as House (Criminal Minds started at 10:27):
Fast Nationals vs. Final Nationals Households - 15.0 to 15.1 Viewers - 26.23M to 26.31M Adults 18-49 - 9.9 to 10.0
Posts: 533 | Location: Ohio | Registered: 22 September 2006
And fifth-place the CW aired CW Now (Viewers: 349,000; A18-49: 0.1/ 0), a repeat of Aliens in America (Viewers: 435,000; A18-49: 0.1/ 0), Life is Wild (Viewers: 749,000; A18-49: 0.2/ 0), and a repeat of Crowned: The Mother of all Pageants (Viewers: 727,000; A18-49: 0.2/ 0). Wasn’t it odd that the CW wasted an original episode of Life is Wild opposite The Super Bowl? And how do you like that 0 share in every half hour among adults 18-49? Personally, I have never seen that happen before.
I think you miscalculated the average # of viewers for The CW, Marc. None of the shows scored above 800,000 and by my calculations the average is 565000 (though, I was in a hurry when I calculated, too).
FOX Vaults Into Huge Lead After Four Nights of the 2008 February Sweep:
After four nights of the February Sweep, FOX siezed a huge lead in the young adult demo, households and viewership averages, by virtue of the enormous Super Bowl numbers last night. ABC continues to hold second place in the young adult demo and viewership, while CBS has a narrow hold on second place in households.
After four nights, FOX is off the charts in terms of year-over-year improvement. Of the remaining networks, ABC, NBC and The CW are showing the low double-digit year-over-year slippage while CBS (last year's Super Bowl broadcaster) is showing huge year-over-year fall-off.
Also of note: despite the WGA-strike addled line-ups of the six networks, after four days, there is actually a year-over-year growth in demo (up 4%), households using television (HUT up 1%), and viewership (up 4%). It's been a while since I've been able to report a year-over-year improvement in overall demo, household and viewership numbers.
nights nights
demo web demo demo % won won
Rank web 2008 2007 chg 2008 2007
1 FOX 14.04 1.85 659% 3 1
2 ABC 2.35 2.94 -20% 1 1
3 NBC 1.68 2.36 -29% 1
4 CBS 1.42 11.61 -88% 2
5 CW 0.90 1.16 -22%
6 MNT* 0.50 0.27 85%
total 20.89 20.18 4% 5 4
nights nights
HH web HH HH HH won won
rank web 2008 2007 chg 2008 2007
1 FOX 17.5 2.9 497% 3
2 CBS 4.3 16.5 -74% 1 3
3 ABC 4.2 5.2 -18% 1 1
4 NBC 3.3 4.6 -29% 1
5 CW 1.7 1.9 -15%
6 MNT* 0.8 0.5 50%
total 31.9 31.7 1% 6 4
nights nights
viewers web viewers viewers viewers won won
rank web 2008 2007 chg 2008 2007
1 FOX 36.475 4.659 683% 2
2 ABC 6.764 7.997 -15% 1 1
3 CBS 6.446 32.526 -80% 3
4 NBC 5.049 7.178 -30% 1
5 CW 2.649 3.147 -16%
6 MNT* 1.310 0.783 67%
total 58.69 56.29 4% 4 4
* MyNetworkTV is one night only.
This years and last years numbers are based upon final Nielsen numbers, except for Friday, Saturday and Sunday this year which are based upon the FAST Nationals.
===
Preliminary results for Week 19 (four nights final, 3 nights preliminary) and the preliminary season to dates show that ABC placed second last week in the advertiser-adored young adult demo, giving it enough to pull into third place in the season-to-dates behind NBC (separated by 0.01, a virtual tie):
I didn't think the CW could get any worse than it already was, but as it turns out, it can opposite the Super Bowl. What the hell, wasting a new episode of a scripted show? Even CBS didn't perform well. Kudos to ABC and NBC for airing four hours of repeats.
Posts: 406 | Location: Arkansas | Registered: 25 January 2008
Originally posted by Marc Berman: Life is Wild (Viewers: 749,000; A18-49: 0.2/ 0)
Is it possible that this could be the lowest rated original, scripted program on network television, ever?
Life is Wild scored only 770,000 viewers just a couple weeks ago. Pending finals, this episode still has a shot at beating that one. Even if it doesn't outrate it in the finals, it most likely will in the Live+7 data since any fans of the show likely DVR'ed it while watching the Superbowl.
As for lowest scripted ratings ever, that record likely goes to one of those MNTV telenovas.
Originally posted by TravisYanan: Talking about the numbers. The episode was top-notch (and I especially loved the ending).
I was honestly expecting close to Grey's Anatomy level numbers for House (and wasn't even remotely comparing it to Criminal Minds in my head / projections / expectations), because it is just about as big a hit is Grey's was pre-Super Bowl. It's also broad-playing (many more men watch it than watch Grey's).
The fact is, this episode was not intended to be the post-Super Bowl episode of House, but the producers' intended episodes got derailed by the strike (there was going to be the start of a two-parter, which apparently would advance either the House/Cameron story or the House/Cuddy story). So, while the episode was definitely a slight change of pace from the normal episodes due to the "gimmick" of the patient being half a world away and had Mira Sorvino, it was a pretty standard, formulaic episode. Fox did not have the opportunity to advertise the special event as ABC advertised Grey's "Code Black"... because this wasn't supposed to be a special event.
And please don't misinterpret my noting that Fox spent more time advertising SCC as a criticism that they focused on a young-male skewing series with everything to gain. If was a completely appropriate decision and the promos were quite effective... and needed for the show after declines from its premiere (not to mention having a repeat in on off timeslot because of the State of the Union).
quote:
Originally posted by RussTC3:
quote:
Originally posted by TravisYanan: Wow, House performed well below my expectations... then again, Fox spent much more time promoting Sarah Connor Chronicles than it did the post-game House. In addition, House didn't start until outside of primetime in New York City (because of the Giants' win, naturally)... and probably not until later in Boston, too. Those are two big markets.
I'm surprised you'd say it performed well below. Are you talking about ratings, or the quality of the episode?
We only have the first half-hour data, but the show was a full 10 points higher among households than Criminal Minds last year (25.1 vs. 15.1), had more than 6 million more viewers (32.78M vs. 26.31M), and was 44% stronger in the demo (10.0 vs. 14.4).
And Fox made the right choice in their advertising for Terminator. The show has lost a significant chunk of its premiere audience. They need to try to get a couple million more viewers back. I almost wish they would have premiered the show after the Super Bowl instead of a few weeks back.
I understand, and the SCC notes weren't necessarily against you. I've seen several people say they advertised it too much. While I think they did the right thing.
Wouldn't you agree though that ABC did a much finer job promoting the Grey's Anatomy Super Bowl episode than Fox did with House? ABC made it an event (that extended past the Super Bowl) and the episode had a very effective hook to keep audiences watching.
Posts: 533 | Location: Ohio | Registered: 22 September 2006
Originally posted by spotupj: Looks like in addition to CBS, ABC also did the flipping with EM:HE at 7 and AFHV at 8. Just change the rule about in-timeslot repeats counting toward season avgs already.
I agree. Why penalize a show just because its fans don't feel the need to watch the same episodes over and over again?
You seem to think that the ratings are done for fan enjoyment (misguided bragging rights) rather than for the advertisers benefit. Clearly, the advertisers care about whether or not people are willing to watch an episode of scripted TV twice since that is how many times most scripted shows are aired.
You are right Obveeus that advertisers care about the ratings for repeated episodes. But it does seem ridiculous that networks are forced to switch time slots for the sole way of the rating not counting towards seasonal averages. For special events (like the Super Down, Academy Awards, etc) networks should be allowed to be given a "bye" as far as a rating counting towards seasonal averages. This way CBS ABC would not have to flip flop shows just to work their way around Nielsen rules.
House started at 10:38pm. How long was the CBS post-game show? Fox's ran from 10:05-10:38pm. A little too long if you ask me.
quote:
Originally posted by RussTC3:
quote:
Originally posted by robert: Wait for the finals in order to compare it with CM
That actually might not be necessary to do though. Criminal Minds didn't change much in the finals and the time period it aired in was almost identically the same as House (Criminal Minds started at 10:27):
Fast Nationals vs. Final Nationals Households - 15.0 to 15.1 Viewers - 26.23M to 26.31M Adults 18-49 - 9.9 to 10.0
Originally posted by AL: You are right Obveeus that advertisers care about the ratings for repeated episodes. But it does seem ridiculous that networks are forced to switch time slots for the sole way of the rating not counting towards seasonal averages. For special events (like the Super Down, Academy Awards, etc) networks should be allowed to be given a "bye" as far as a rating counting towards seasonal averages. This way CBS ABC would not have to flip flop shows just to work their way around Nielsen rules.
Yes, this was my original point. I personally agree that repeats need to be counted in some way, but the current system is too easily manipulated.
STANDINGS | Congrats to week 11 winner Douglas! | Winter/Spring 2010 Top 5 (thru 3/17): 1. Douglas (3228) 2. spotupj (3032) 3. yankeesrj12 (2612) 4. Ammit (2480) 5. WlcmZ.Texas (2472)
Posts: 3654 | Location: twitter.com/spotupj | Registered: 08 May 2007
Originally posted by TravisYanan: House started at 10:38pm. How long was the CBS post-game show? Fox's ran from 10:05-10:38pm. A little too long if you ask me.
quote:
Originally posted by RussTC3:
quote:
Originally posted by robert: Wait for the finals in order to compare it with CM
That actually might not be necessary to do though. Criminal Minds didn't change much in the finals and the time period it aired in was almost identically the same as House (Criminal Minds started at 10:27):
Fast Nationals vs. Final Nationals Households - 15.0 to 15.1 Viewers - 26.23M to 26.31M Adults 18-49 - 9.9 to 10.0
I didn't realize House started that late (haven't watched the episode, that's for tonight ).
It is pretty interesting that while both games' post game shows started at around the same time (10:04 last year, 10:05 this year) Fox's analysis extended longer than CBS's (10:27 last year, 10:38 this year).
However, Fox attracted several more viewers during their post game than CBS did last year (57.34M vs. 68.32M).
Posts: 533 | Location: Ohio | Registered: 22 September 2006
).