| Scoreboard |  |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Total Viewers (million) | 14.65 | 11.29 | 11.00 | 7.98 | 4.06 | 1.41 |
| Rating/Share: Adults 18-49 | 3.2/9 | 2.7/7 | 4.8/13 | 3.1/8 | 1.6/4 | 0.7/2 |
| Rating/Share: Adults 18-34 | 1.8/5 | 1.9/5 | 4.5/13 | 2.6/8 | 1.9/5 | 0.8/3 |
Another Tuesday night of mixed leadership, with CBS winning the most total viewers. ABC was second in total viewers, with the Dancing With the Stars recap show at 8pm doing much better than the cancelled Opportunity Knocks. But while Fox was third place in terms of total viewers it dominated the field in both the 18-49 and 18-34 demos on the strength of House and Fringe. Fringe had the second best 18-49 and 18-34 results for the night trailing only House.
Fringe’s benefit from the House lead-in is apparent in the half hourly data though. Fringe had 9.532 million in the first half hour, but dropped to 8.694 million in the second half hour where it tied in the 18-49 demo with the DWTS results show — both had 3.8/9 ratings for the second half hour. Fringe still won the 18-34 demo outright in the second half hour though, so while House definitely helps, Fringe is still strong in the demos the second half hour.
Things don’t look so bright for Privileged, though it’s the female 18-34 viewers who count. Eli Stone’s numbers are actually worse than they look in the table below, because it benefited greatly from DWTS overrun which will be stripped out of the final numbers. In Eli’s first half hour it shows 9.654 million viewers and a 2.5/7 among 18-49 year olds. The second half hour, it dropped to 7.373 million and a 1.9/6. Ouch.
Full details:
| Time | Net | Show | Viewers (Millons) | 18-49 Rating/Share | 18-34 Rating/Share |
| 8:00 | CBS | NCIS | 17.06 | 3.6/10 | 2.1/6 |
| FOX | House | 12.88 | 5.6/15 | 5.5/17 | |
| ABC | Dancing With the Stars (Recap) | 9.35 | 2.1/6 | 1.5/4 | |
| NBC | Biggest Loser: Families | 6.98 | 2.6/7 | 2.1/6 | |
| UNI | Cuidada con el Angel | 4.52 | 1.8/5 | 2.2/7 | |
| CW | 90210 (R) | 1.35 | 0.6/2 | 0.7/2 | |
| 9:00 | ABC | Dancing With the Stars Results | 16.02 | 3.8/9 | 2.5/7 |
| CBS | The Mentalist | 15.29 | 3.5/9 | 2.0/6 | |
| FOX | Fringe | 9.11 | 4.0/10 | 3.6/10 | |
| NBC | Biggest Loser: Families | 7.70 | 3.2/8 | 2.7/7 | |
| UNI | Fuego en la Sangre | 4.67 | 1.9/5 | 2.1/5 | |
| CW | Privileged | 1.47 | 0.7/2 | 1.0/3 | |
| 10:00 | CBS | Without a Trace | 11.60 | 2.7/7 | 1.4/4 |
| NBC | Law & Order: SVU | 9.35 | 3.5/10 | 3.1/9 | |
| ABC | Eli Stone | 8.51 | 2.2/6 | 1.7/5 | |
| UNI | Aqui y Ahora | 2.97 | 1.2/3 | 1.2/3 |
Shows are sorted by viewers in each time slot. Timeslot demo winners are in bold.
Nielsen TV Ratings: ©2008 The Nielsen Company. All Rights Reserved. Source Marc Berman/Mediaweek.
Definitions:
Fast Affiliate Ratings: These first national ratings, including demographics, are available at approximately 11 AM (ET) the day after telecast, and are released to subscribing customers daily. These data, from the National People Meter sample, are strictly time-period information, based on the normal broadcast network feed, and include all programming on the affiliated stations, sometimes including network programming, sometimes not. The figures may include stations that did not air the entire network feed, as well as local news breaks or cutaways for local coverage or other programming. Fast Affiliate ratings are not as useful for live programs and are likely to differ significantly from the final results, because the data reflect normal broadcast feed patterns. For example, with a World Series game, Fast Affiliate Ratings would include whatever aired from 8-11PM on affiliates in the Pacific Time Zone, following the live football game, but not game coverage that begins at 5PM PT. The same would be true of Presidential debates as well as live award shows and breaking news reports.
Rating: Estimated percentage of the universe of TV households (or other specified group) tuned to a program in the average minute. Ratings are expressed as a percent.
Share (of Audience): The percent of households (or persons) using television who are tuned to a specific program, station or network in a specific area at a specific time. (See also, Rating, which represents tuning or viewing as a percent of the entire population being measured.)
Time Shifted Viewing – Program ratings for national sources are produced in three streams of data – Live, Live+Same Day (Live+SD) and Live+7 Day. Time shifted figures account for incremental viewing that takes place with DVRs which are currently in approximately 24.4% of all U.S. TV households. Live+Same Day (Live+SD) include viewing during the same broadcast day as the original telecast, with a cut-off of 3:00AM local time when meters transmit daily viewing to Nielsen for processing. Live+7 Day ratings include incremental viewing that takes place during the 7 days following a telecast.
For more information see Numbers 101.
Who is the clock ticking faster for? Privileged or Eli Stone? Pity, neither are that bad!
the answer may be “neither”, last week’s Eli Stone was its season premiere so I haven’t seen how it will fare in our Renew or Cancel Index yet. But, if I had to pick one, despite whatever the RoC Index may indicate based on last night’s numbers I’d predict Privileged having at least a slightly longer leash. But I don’t view either in a good way ratings-wise. Last week a rerun of Privileged had 1.22 million, and last night wasn’t that much more really if those numbers don’t change much in the finals. Privileged was hurt a little last night by having a rerun of 90210 as a lead-in.
I am very surprised that eli stone didn’t gain more viewers despite a big name like Katie Holmes being in the episode.
Ia Fringe lower than last week?
Eli Stone is a great show with lots of potential for growth. I really do see this show eventually catching on with viewers. ABC should be patient…maybe even move it to after ‘Grey’s’ on Thursdays if ‘Life on Mars’ fails (which, by the week two numbers, the axe is coming).
Anthony, yes, Fringe was lower in the overnights than last week — across the board, actually. Last week’s overnight results are here:
http://tvbythenumbers.com/2008/10/15/tuesday-ratings-ncis-and-the-mentalist-have-more-viewers-but-house-and-fringe-rock-demos/6251
There is no way they will renew Priviledged for next year. That’s bad even by CW standards. And 90210 is not performing much better. If I had a gun to my head and had to watch any of the tooty fruity teeny bopper shows on the CW, I’d pick OTH. And the ratings show other people would, too.
Wow. At least it is keeping most of its audience.
It puts in around 2m in DVR numbers Fringe dont it?
I don’t know, aren’t Eli Stone’s numbers better than last season’s average? With so many shows in the sub 6.00 area across all the networks, I don’t see ABC being in such a rush to cancel a show that can average 7-to-8.5 right now. I would think the next few airings would be crucial, because if it stabalizes right there, then it would be worth it to leave it on all season and see if it can build.
Let’s face it, don’t you think networks are going to have to start trying to build shows over time again? Right now only 1 or 2 shows are hits each year, and sometimes no shows are hits. You can’t just keep revamping the entire schedule year after and think it’s going to go back to the old days ratings-wise, can you?
This is a new world, and ratings are going to have to be earned. People have more options and are more discerning. If you want to keep throwing on shows and only keeping the ones that hit right out of the gate, that’s going to be a business model disaster going forward. Eli Stone seems the perfect example for a new model, which is really a throwback to the old, old model. It’s a good show, and it’s numbers are at least decent. There are other good shows getting just awful ratings (Chuck, Life, etc.), so you can’t save them all, but Stone’s ratings seem to justify using it as a new model to experiment upon. Otherwise, nets can expect their share to just erode and erode and erode until their average numbers are no different than those of your average cable network.
Thank you, Schmokey. I can’t believe the people who still believe that if a show isn’t averaging 10 million, there’s no point in keeping it on the air. Out-of-the-gate hits simply aren’t going to happen anymore, and networks can’t redo an entire schedule each year.
Once all the current big hits (CSI, Grey’s, etc.) are gone, there will be few, if any, shows that will ever match them again. A first-year hit like “The Mentalist” is going to be a once in a blue moon type show. Times change, and the networks (and people who follow ratings) are going to have to be satisfied with smaller audiences.
Based on DVR+7 numbers. Privileged is ranked in the Top 10 from week to week. Probably why The CW ordered more scripts of it. That or they just have nothing else on their plate
I am not opining on cancellation, but rather renewals. I don’t think either Eli Stone or Privileged will be on the air *next* year with the current numbers. Particularly Eli Stones second half hour data must be disconcerting for ABC (under a 2.0 in the demo). Regardless of viewer counts, ABC has to think it can get a show on that can do better than a 2.0 in the demo from 10:30p-11p.
Anthony, our DVR data for primetime is here:
http://tvbythenumbers.com/category/ratings/top-timeshifted
Liz, it’s not a question of 10 million viewers. It’s a question of 2.2 in the demo. That’s not good at all, and probably dooms it to cancellation, just like Pushing Daisies and Dirty Sexy Money.
CW_Chick, most likely nothing else on their plate. DVR doesn’t count for very much.
CW_Chick, sadly, while Privileged gets in the top 10 with the % increase over live numbers when Live+7 numbers are counted in, those increases (and all our data suggests the Live+7 numbers are completely meaningless other than PR) don’t put it into any top 10 relative to other broadcast networks. The only other top 10 list Privileged makes is that it’s one of CW’s top 10 primetime shows, but the CW only has 14 shows in primetime!
So 9 million people watched “CIRCUS WITH THE Pre-tend STARS” of the events they already watched————-?????????
Ohhh I SEE – you poor people only have one channel that comes in – - – -
ABC – okay -GOT IT!
Julia, I wasn’t referring to any particular show when I said 10 million, just in general. If you thought I was referring to “Eli Stone,” I wasn’t (couldn’t make it past the second episode, so it’s not because I’m a fan). I just know so many people at other ratings-focused sites who still insist that 10 million should be the benchmark for renewal, which is just not the case anymore.
As far as the demos go, their time will come as well. With so many people 18-49 being more tech-savvy, they watch online, use DVRs, and look for alternative outlets for watching TV. Pretty soon, the only people left watching TV traditionally will be those outside the demo.
This may not be the case right now, but it will be soon. Networks should look to the future and look to help new shows grow rather than constantly placing faith in what they hope will be “the next big thing.”
Schmokey, Keep in mind that Eli Stones numbers are inflated because they include 2 minutes of DWTS. It will probably end up with under 8 million and a 2.0 or 2.1 once the DWTS overrun is factored out. On the other hand, Chuck got a 2.6 in the demo with no lead-in and has grown for the last three weeks. So I think Chuck has a much better case for patience than ES.
Eli Stone was one of the two sophomore shows on ABC that I thought actually merited a second season, and I thought it had a chance to grow. However, if it can’t get more than a 2.0 in the demo with that lead-in, it deserves to be canceled. It may last for a while simply because ABC hasn’t figured out how to air 6 hours of DWTS every week yet.
Bob, I agree with you that ABC thinks it can do better than Eli in the demo, but I disagree with ABC that it actually can do better. There are so few shows averaging solid demo numbers right now that nets strike me as sort of blindly naive to think they can automatically do better with any show. I wasn’t a fan of Moonlight or Journeyman in the least, but the nets thought they could easily do better than those two shows, only to find out this season that they could not. And while I wasn’t a part of it, Moonlight had a devoted following that could have been built upon.
Heck, isn’t even Kville’s timeslot doing poorer than that lame show did last year right now?
Don’t you think that going forward the nets will need to take all of this into account. Right now if I were running a net, I’d be looking for shows that showed stable ratings as much as anything, seeing if I could then build them up. Think of Cheers, MASH, Seinfeld, Raymond, and all the other shows over the years that took a season or two or three before they actually become powerhouses. And those shows all started with comparitively worse ratings than many of the shows we are talking about today.
More recent examples of shows that have blossomed from marginal to powerhouse over the course of years include NCIS, House, Criminal Minds, and Without a Trace. Yes, they had better ratings in the beginning than the shows we are talking about now, but ratings in general were better back then. The overall rating dropoff the past five years for nets has been tremendous, and it just screams for a new model for creating hit shows. This throwing everything at the wall and see what stick mentality that took hold about 10-15 years ago is for the birds. It will be the death of networks long term.
Networks are going to have to learn to do a job for a change. They can’t just hire talent and hope their product gets noticed. They are going to have to actually work shows they believe are good over the course of multiple seasons before they give up on them. This may also require the talent to reduce the financial commitment made to them in the short term in exchange for a longer term commitment from the nets.
From A to Z, everyone is going to have to rethink how television is made. Otherwise, in five years you won’t be able to tell NBC from CBS from TBS from Lifetime. Bet on it.
Liz, I think you will ultimately be right about the demos, but that seems pretty far off into the future right now. Look at the demo results for House, or the Sunday night Fox animations. the tech saavy youth may be watching those shows somewhat through other venues, but for now, most of them are watching on TV.
Eli’s third place finish in the 18-49 demo out of the big three English speaking broadcast networks means that relatively speaking Eli’s numbers were worse. Regardless of what is happening in the overall landscape, shows will always be judged relative to their competition. Once stripped of the DWTS overrun, will be an even more distant 3rd place.
While I agree with some of your thoughts on what will happen as things change, I disagree completely that ABC should take it on the chin with a distant 3rd place performer because “hey, in this market, that’s the best we can do!” That’s BS.
I have to disagree with the comment that people 18-49 will eventually be using alternate outlets for watching tv shows. I just love my 42″ flat panel HDTV and everyone I know who has a flat panel HDTV really enjoys it too.
Right, Robert, but what were “House” and the Fox animated comedies doing in the demo just a few years ago? I don’t have the numbers, but I’m willing to bet that there’s definitely a drop. When you say “far off into the future,” I say five years.
David, it’s not really relevant that you and everyone you know watches TV (and seriously, they all watch on a 42″ flat-panel HDTV?). The amount of people that we know amounts for the tiniest fraction of the actual viewing audience. Everyone I know watches “Pushing Daisies,” but that’s clearly not doing a thing for the ratings. On the flip side, I don’t know a single person who is a viewer of “CSI,” but I’m not naive enough to believe that it means anything.
David, there’s no doubt that most people enjoy watching TV most of all on their TVs (especially if it’s a big screen HDTV). But an HD-DVR hooked up to your big screen still ultimately can spell problems for the network. Also, you’ll be able to stream HD of tv shows from the Internet directly to your TV — this is already do-able, it’s just not as easy as it needs to be. Someday that will be easy and transparent.
Right now, most people are still slaves to the broadcasting schedule. This is already changing and over time this is bound to change more and more.
Liz, I’ll bet you a $10 itunes gift certificate that the demo still matters for the 2013-2014 viewing season. Whether a 2.0 will be the new 5.5, I’m not ready to commit on yet
I realize I was a little vague in my forecasts of doom for the demo. Of course the Nielsens and other media outlets will still be tracking the 18-49 demo in the year 2013-2014 season. After all, someone, somewhere, probably still tracks how many VHS tapes are sold each week. But 2.0 will indeed be the new 5.5. In fact, I think you’re being a little generous. Which will make the demo practically irrelevant when compared to total viewers, or even viewers of TV through alternative outlets. Therefore, I will take that bet, Robert.
Someone needs to find a way to track users through iTunes, Hulu, etc., if they haven’t already. Seriously, we sent a man to the moon, but can’t count the number of views on Hulu?
Liz, the problem is they can and do measure them.
but when they measure them on an engagement basis (total viewing minutes divided by show duration) as Nielsen does, the numbers are anemic compared to TV viewing numbers. This is why you rarely see engagement numbers reported and instead see “streams” (which are meaningless without the minutes viewed).
When that changes, you will see more releases and reporting of these numbers.
Ok, Bob, I’ll drop it after this, but I do think ABC made a huge mistake putting Eli Stone behind DWTSR. For a show that averages so many viewers overall, Dancing isn’t the greatest in the demos either. Certainly not in comparison to its overall numbers. It’s a very old skewing show and seems completely incompatible with Eli Stone. To think its audience is going to relate to Eli Stone simply because both feature music is more of that old school moronic network thinking.
Also, Stone is up against two Top 20 hits that have been on for years and years, and they are two shows that are compatible with most of the DWTS audience. Most of the people who watch DWTS probably have been watching either Law and Order or Without a Trace for years. They finish DWTS and they turn the channel.
I think if ABC doesn’t try and work this show by pairing it with a better leadin, they are making a big mistake. Of all the shows that are struggling right now, while Eli Stone isn’t close to my favorite, it’s the one I think has the best chance of finding a bigger audience if ABC pulls its head out of it’s pants. You can’t just stick a show in a bad time slot with the wrong leadin, have it get bad ratings, then say, “Screw it.” That’s a self fufilling prophecy.
It’s like NBC sticking Life on Fridays and thinking it would have any chance at all to survive there. Probably Life had no chance anywhere, but that show is definitely not aimed at a Friday audience. Life was DOA the moment the schedule was released. The shows that thrive on Fridays are either fluffy or procedural oriented, and they are all aimed at older audiences who stay home on Fridays. So they stuck Life there, made them make the show more procedural in nature, added a wacky captain, and basically doomed it to cancellation before a single ep aired.
If networks don’t program smarter and with more patience, then they are dead men walking.
So, just to clarify, online broadcasts are only measured by the amount of time that people actually spend watching them? I think this gives an unfair edge to the broadcast viewings. How many people have a show on in the background while they clean, make their lunch for work the next day, fold laundry, etc., but don’t really ENGAGE with the show? It’s a huge assumption that everyone who has the TV on is actually watching the show. I know it’s not always the case with me.
If I’ve misunderstood what you mean, please correct me.
i will say it till the preverbial cows come home… re: abc and dancing… dwts as a lead in sucks. mooooo
and in the moot portion of this post… boston legal did better than that last year. bl (a week prior) did a 10.22 and 2.8 with a 17 mil lead in. (including overrun) and up against boston playoff baseball on fox. and a 20/20 special the next week did 10.92 and a 2.8 with an 18 mill lead in.
point is shows don’t do well after dwts. but bl and 20/20 do better than eli. and i like eli so it’s too bad.
also interesting to see the dancing repeat as a lead in gave the results show a 1.5 million boost this week.
Liz, no — the online streaming numbers are typically only reported in terms of streams. But without the minutes of viewing data, it’s apples to oranges to try compare to the Nielsen TV viewing numbers. Number of streams by itself is fairly meaningless data.
While what you say is true about TV viewing being counted when there was not real engagement, in more than one (or even 15) cases I have walked away from my computer while TV show content was streaming from Hulu or a network web site and not actually watched. I’m not saying it happens as much or more than with television, only that I do not know.
But from an advertising perspective, streams, minutes AND demographic data (which is harder to get online) still matter even online, and it will be ages before we see data like that.
To Schmokey:
The “wacky captain” makes me want to gouge my eyes out. You’re right, it wasn’t a Friday show to begin with, but now, they are absolutely killing it. I’d rather see a show go out for being low-ratings but high-quality than try to change in order to grab more viewers (which “Life” isn’t doing anyway).
“Let’s face it, don’t you think networks are going to have to start trying to build shows over time again? Right now only 1 or 2 shows are hits each year, and sometimes no shows are hits. You can’t just keep revamping the entire schedule year after and think it’s going to go back to the old days ratings-wise, can you?”
I would direct everyone who questions network choices to read “The 10 Things You Need to Know about the New Television Season” at Futoncritic.com. Based on shows launched since 1999, only 1/3 of them make it to season two.
He doesn’t have the percentage for shows lasting more than one season. How many last more than two? How many more than three? What shows on now (besides the FOX cartoons, COPS and America’s Most Wanted) are on or beyond their fifth season? Off the top of my head, those shows are House, American Idol, CSI, CSI:Miami, L&O (all three versions), The Bachelor, Without A Trace, Cold Case and ER. It seems that only shows that are hits out-of-the-gate have a long shelf life–everything else comes and goes.
And regarding holding onto shows, the networks seem to be more lenient: look at T:SCC, Chuck and Knight Rider, all which were picked up though with so-so demos.
Hey, Mr. S., speaking of ratings, do you think that eventually the Nielsens will go the way of the dodo? It seems to me that the more splintered viewing becomes, the more important it is to measure a larger percentage of nation so as to get true numbers. We see this right now even in more accurate statistical research. The polls done for political elections are much more rigorous than than the Nielsens, yet they have been getting further and further off base over the past ten years. Statistical research is right now undergoing a huge crisis of confidence in general. It seems to me that networks are going to have to come up with a completely new way to measure viewers, or they are just fooling themselves.
I’m not sure how you can do it, but it seems odd that a billion dollar business is that the mercy of such antiquated statistical research. And I’m not even talking about online viewing. I’m just talking about good old fashioned television viewing.
One of things they teach you in statistiscal research is that polls are automatically skewed immeadiately by only including people who have a telephone. They are further skewed by including people who are only willing to answer the questions. This wasn’t such a huge problem in years past, but it is getting bigger and bigger thanks to Do Not Call lists and the increasing number of people who only have cell phones or who screen all incoming calls. Nielsen ratings are similarly skewed by only including people who are willing to particpate.
I think this is why older skewing shows do so much better in the Nielsens. Of course, this all speculation on my part, but I think it’s informed speculation. And this is a problem that will just accelerate as time goes by. I find it hard to believe Nielsen numbers are really all that accurate now. In 5-10 years, or probably less, they may be completely meaningless.
I still think that it’s completely unfair to not count a stream of a show online (whether or not the person is watching it), but count a viewer who has the television tuned to a certain station (whether or not the person is watching it).
That is such a blatant anti-Internet bias (not coming from you, but from the networks), and it will not help them in the long run.
Also, this is my first time here. Is it Robert or Bob?
Peter as long as the model is “free” content subsidized by advertising, there will be something like Nielsen around.
Liz, I’m pretty sure that it’s not an anti-internet bias, it’s a pro-making money bias. Today, almost all of the revenue is coming from television, so its hard to fault the networks for their bias.
I prefer Robert, thanks for asking
Schmokey:
Just to correct something: NCIS, Criminal Minds, and Without a Trace were hits out of the box. House wasn’t, but it was paired with AI and became huge–something that doesn’t seem to be happening with ES.
Also, I don’t think that the networks were looking at the demos for MASH, Cheers, Seinfeld when they were on. I do know that CBS has skewed even older than it does now. 60 Minutes was the No. 1 show for a long time. I believed Raymond skewed old as well.
I don’t know if the look of the tv audience has substantially changed in the past years. The demos are lower because the whole viewership has splintered. Yet, I don’t think that proportionally less younger people watching than before. Maybe I’m wrong?
I think the new “safe” demo will be around 2.5–and anything lower should be considered a disappointment.
Peter:
You weren’t addressing me, but yes, yes, yes to everything you wrote. By only measuring a small amount of what the population is watching, the Nielsens are no longer as accurate as they once were, mostly because viewing habits are so “splintered” (as you perfectly put it).
It’s not out of any particular loyalty towards low-rated shows, but out of informed research in the field of statistics that I say the Nielsens, as they are, do not work.
looks like only grandparents watch NCIS. it gets 17 million viewers and it only gets a 3.6 in the demo?
is CBS considering NCIS a hit like CSI or greys anatomy?
Hi Robert, I watch NCIS and watch House tonight at 7pm which I’m sure alot of viewers do having satellite and being in Canada the shows air all over the place. I love FRINGE, I just wish they had picked a better actress than Anna Torv, I like her but she is too dull and that one note whisper voice of hers nearly puts me to sleep. They should have picked a Jodie Foster like actress instead, the character needs more OMPH! I was one of those people that turned ELI STONE off at 10:30 I found it dull and boring and uninteresting. This isn’t the show that I fell in love with last season.
Peter,
Funny, I think the Nielsens do a pretty darn good job. It’s funny, but I can look on an IMDB message board of any show just after it aired and predict pretty well what the Nielsen count will be.
Eli Stone suffers from the same thing Dirty Sexy Money and Brothers and Sisters suffer from, uninspired scripts. The promos always appear to be interesting but they just can’t deliver a solid buzzworthy hour of tv. Dirty Sexy Money doesn’t have the juice to become another Dynasty, yet. Brothers and Sisters doesn’t have the intrigue to become a powerhouse companion to Desperate Housewives. To make matters worse on that network, ABC has gone into idiot programming mode. They cancel one of the highest rated Friday night shows, Women’s Murder Club, to replace it with SuperNanny. They move a solid ratings winner, Boston Legal, from Tuesday in favor of a solidly lackluster program. For a network that looked really strong headed into the fall season, they are quickly becoming “The Biggest Loser.” Granted, they are still loaded with ratings juggernauts Dancing With The Stars, LOST, The Bachelor, and an impeccable lineup of dramedies that the 18-34 yr olds eat up every week along with the rest of America. Still, CBS is walking the dog all the way to the bank as they close out another decade as the network America keeps it eye on.
Liz, NBC recently put out a report on how many downloads their iTunes shows get. I’m sure someone here can link you to it. The numbers were pathetic. And that was for the free shows that they made available.
Julia,
Yes, but at one point, people were seeing cars, talking pictures, and even television as money-losers, insisting that the horseless carriage, silent films, and radio would always be the preferred way to do things.
What television needs are some truly innovative thinkers. People who are willing to find ways to harness new forms of technology for their benefit, reach out to the Internet and DVR generation, and revolutionize television.
Duh, I actually meant “horse-drawn carriage.” My bad.
But, Liz, you are arguing that RIGHT NOW there are people that aren’t being counted. That’s just not the case.
Matt:
DSM is going through an identity crises–it’s on its 3rd showrunner. I know that it’s not supposed to be an outlandish “Dynasty” soap–it’s trying to straddle between straight drama and soap.
I’ve enjoyed it although I felt something was missing in the first season. Maybe Lucy Liu has brought this–but I haven’t watched beyond the first airing (not because I don’t like it, but because I’m watching too many shows!)
Andrea,
All three shows I mentioned built significantly over their first season ratings, none more so than NCIS. NCIS has gone through the roof, and that really started in season four. It’s ratings have increased and increased and increased every year. It’s growth has been tremendous.
People who are willing to find ways to harness new forms of technology for their benefit, reach out to the Internet and DVR generation, and revolutionize television.
Liz, this is already happening, but it will take time to be fully realized. Just like the process of converting the nation to HDTV has taken over 10 years.
Schmokey:
NCIS is also probably the oldest skewing show on network tv. It even makes DWTS look young.
Julia, it needs no pointing out that, as far as broadcast television, as long as Nielsen uses a tiny percentage of the population as a “sample” for the entire nation, there will always be viewers who are not counted.
As far as the Internet, you read what Robert wrote. The networks do a rather specious job of counting Internet broadcasts, especially this nonsense about people who are truly “engaged.”
Andrea, you are right in that we are slowly moving toward that direction, but I just don’t see anyone out there right now with the know-how and drive to truly move forward. I’d love to see how Brandon Tartikoff would operate in today’s market. NBC sure could use him.
Liz, take a statistics class. Sample size works. If not, during sweeps months, when Nielsen collects data from a great deal more people, the numbers would be radically different. They aren’t.
In any case, this is the system we have and the only system you and other Nielsen detractors seem to be willing to accept as accurate would be monitoring every person’s home. Do you honestly think that would be a wise decision? The cost would be ridiculous, people would have no choice about whether they were being monitored or not, and it would likely have to be a government program, so REALLY Big Brother-esque.
Sampling works, and works well, so why continue to disparage it?
sampling definitely works. This doesn’t mean Nielsen’s sampling isn’t flawed, but all current arguments that suggest it is seem pretty weak (Gossip Girl has so much buzz, its numbers must be wrong!) Like it or not, it is the major currency that television advertising is bought and sold based on.
this sort of sampling seems to be the best way to get the variety of demographic data the advertisers crave(by building a panel that mirrors the big picture). I do not believe the TNS set top box data and services like TiVo stop watch are capable of the sort of age/gender demographic analysis Nielsen provides.
Julia, believe me, I understand the idea of sample size. But, as Peter posted above, statistical research is undergoing huge changes right now in all areas, and even the experts are questioning where to go from here.
Of course, people are always talking about how European countries are more advanced than the United States, so it’s funny that what you described is EXACTLY how it is done in Europe, and in fact, in many other countries around the world. People may not like it (I’m not sure I do), but you can’t say that we would be the first.
Europe has a lot of Socialist ideas that I agree with. Monitoring TV watching is not one.
But the point is, as discussed here the last time some people decided to claim that Nielsen is completely wrong, the normal sample size is something like 25k, I believe. During sweeps, that goes up to over 1 mil. And yet the numbers don’t change significantly. If you know so much about statistics, what does this tell you?
last year when we kicked off the site’s launch with a discussion on Internet Video Measurement, we asked the participants what some of the biggest challenges were. According to Nielsen’s Dave Thomas, one of them was this:
From a single panel perspective (where we measure both Internet and television in the same home) a major hurdle is simply getting people to allow us to measure their Internet usage. From a privacy standpoint, people see PC’s as dramatically different from TV’s, and, at this point, they are much less willing to allow us to measure their online activities.
If Eli Stone stabilizes remotely in this region of ratings, I would be very surprised if ABC was to cut it. When ABC renewed it last year with relatively poor ratings, they knew what they were getting into.
It almost seems like they are in with eli for the long haul (giving it a strong lead-in, multitudes of guest stars etc.)
The Mentalist is really killing it! I enjoy watching the series it’s really fun but somehow I doubt that it’s going to last that long / be popular …
here i am — I don’t think so. I think last year, due to a crazy year with the writers strike, it seems the thinking was “this wasn’t a normal year, so we can’t really judge these shows as we normally would” — and they gave shows that would not have otherwise been renewed renewals. This seems to be the case several shows on ABC and NBC in particular.
I don’t think it was a deal where they knew what they were getting into. it’s not like they said “yeah, we’re sure this show is going to suffer, but let’s bring it back anyway!” rather more “the strike may have really screwed this show up, let’s give it another chance.”
Matej,
The Mentalist was renewed for the whole season
I hate all of the demo talk. I had to find out about why it is so popular and found this.
http://www.aliciapatterson.org/APF0103/Levine/Levine.html
Cameron, I didn’t read that entire linked article, but it was written in 1978.
I didn’t want to post it before there actually was some talk about Eli Stone, but I might as well now. I’ve no idea how reliable TVrage information is, though I saw the same news some place else too, but…
http://tvrage.com/Eli_Stone/news/?read_news=4769
Personally (Eli was one of my favorite new shows from last season) I hope it’s true, however, given the time the news came out and what has happened meanwhile, one can only hope to god this wouldn’t change.
That’s true Bill but it was interesting to see why and how the 18-49 demographic became so important. It was all down to ABC not getting the huge number of viewers that CBS was getting, so promoted themselves as the network of the young to get the advertising dollars. It was an act of desperation basically, then NBC jumped on the bandwagon. Had either of those networks been in first place would they have used such a tactic?
Robert Seidman, I have a question about Eli Stone. Do you think it will get at least 22 episodes this season?
I compared it’s numbers for the past two weeks to the other ABC sophomore shows. Right now, Eli Stone is averaging more than 8 million(close to 9) for its first two episodes while Pushing Daisies and Dirty Sexy Money are averaging around 6 million for each episode, sometimes lower. Even Private Practice is averaging around 7 million. Opportunity Knocks had already been canceled for ABC. I just don’t think that ABC can expect for the viewers who watch Dancing with the Stars to completely stick around for Eli Stone. After all, one show is a reality tv show about dancing. While the other show is a drama about a lawyer that has basically nothing to do with reality tv or even dancing.
Private Practice had already been renewed for a full season even with an average of 7 million viewers. I know the demos are higher for this show than for Eli Stone. But what are the chances that Eli Stone at least gets to have a 22 episode season? It seems like both Pushing Daisies and Dirty Sexy Money are not having high averages either.
If you compare Eli Stone to the other network tv shows, especially those that also premiered during strike…Chuck is getting around 6 million viewers. Yet, it will have a full season. Life is also getting around 8 million. Prison Break is getting around 6 million. Sarah Chronicles had just been renewed for a full season with an average of about 5 million. Even Knight Rider had recently been given a full season pick up. TV ratings are a bit strange at the moment.
With Eli Stone, it gained more than 2 million viewers compared to its season one finale. The demo ratings are okay. Not that good. But not horrible. Also, the drop off in the second half hour is to be expected since I still don’t see what the viewers who watch Dancing with the Stars would have in common with the viewers who watch a law show. Plus, it is competing against Without a Trace and Law and Order. Both shows are established shows.
I guess my question is whether you think Eli Stone will get a 22 episode order?
Julia, my guess is that its about 50/50 that Eli Stone gets a full 22 show order this season. It’s not doing much better than Pushing Daisies, and it has a much better timeslot following the DWTS results show. Also since our Renew/Cancel Index has tracked it for only one week, it could easily slip further after last night’s results.
Julia, I’m not as optimistic as Bill. With the above numbers, coupled with last week’s numbers, without improvement, particularly in the demos I give it only a 49% chance of getting its full 22 show run.
Private Practice is getting the full season run because it performs much better in the 18-34 and 18-49 demographics (particularly with young women). Pushing Daisies and Dirty Sexy Money are in similar shape to Eli from where I sit.
Does anyone else agree that both Privileged and 90210 would benefit by switching their time slots? Primetime broadcast television has traditionally put the “lighter faire” in the 8:00 slot, with the more serious drama at 9:00 – these two shows are flipped arpound. Most 90201 viewers are not going to sit around for a less serious drama later at night. On the other hand, after watching Privileged, you might stay up later for the greater dramatic intensity of 90210. This has never made sense to me, and Privileged is getting burned by this misplacement by CW. Despite the commercial insignificance, the DVR+7 percentages do show strong viewer loyalty for 90210 and privileged, and this eventually leads to better ratings, and thus greater live “commercial” viewing. I simply don’t believe that networks and advertisers are too short sighted to realize this.
it looks like THE MENTALIST is this season’s hottest new show.
9.l1 million viewers for fringe. That’s sad when HOUSE is geting Almost 12 million. It goes down almost 4 million viewers. Does anyone know why a good show like that is geting low ratings?
cesarrr, in terms of total viewers, yes it is. Its demos however are not very impressive, particularly in the 18-34 category. Fringe is faring much better in both demos, although it could be argued that House is probably doing it a huge favor. It will be interesting to see if Fringe can hold on to these demos if either it or House gets moved. Its retention does appear to be slipping.
Thanks for the input, Robert and Bill. I appreciate it. So I guess if Eli Stone, Pushing Daisies, and Dirty Sexy Money are all in a similar shape, then what do you guys think ABC will do with them? Would they honestly cancel all three shows after their 13 episode orders? Add that up with Opportunity Knocks, that would be a cancellation of four ABC shows.
Let me put it this way, out of the three above shows, which one show has a higher chance of getting at least a 22 episode season? Personally, I only watch Eli Stone. I haven’t watched Pushing Daisies or Dirty Sexy Money. I just know that the ratings for these shows are lower than the ratings for Eli Stone. I think their demos are also lower than Eli Stone’s demos. I’m guessing that Eli Stone would at least get the 13 episode order, right? Anyway, out of the three shows, which one do you think has a chance to stick around for a full season?
Julia, this is just my personal opinion, but I think ABC has a very nice midseason stock piled and I’m not sure that they wouldn’t be willing to dump all three. At the moment, while Pushing Daisies is definitely in the worst shape, DSM and ES look to be doing about the same in the demo. I think that between the two of them, if ABC absolutely were going to dump one of those two, ABC would be more likely to dump ES, simply because it’s wasting a big lead-in. If you put a new show at 10pm on Wednesdays, it doesn’t have a nice plush lead-in to help find an audience. But stick something after DWTS and there’s a better chance that more people will at least sample it a few times.
Thanks for you input, Julia, as well. I had no idea that ABC had a midseason stock of shows piled up. Do you at least think that Eli Stone will get their 13 episode order, though?
I also just read that ABC had ordered four more scripts for Eli Stone. Typically, after how many episodes, does a network decide on whether to give the 22 episode order to a show or not?
I think Eli Stone’s number of viewers is fine, its much higher than the 10 episodes from season 1. That is something Pushing Daisies, Private Practice and Dirty Sexy Money failed to achieved this season.
Wow, quite a bit of traffic on this post. I am late in surfing this week, but still I will add two cents to Liz, Peter, and the Nielsen doubters. With continued audience fragmentation, as non-broadcast stations develop original programming, there may be increasing pressure from advertisers to provide some comparative metrics along with Nielsen ratings. DirecTV and TNS are already providing set-top box data, DirecTView, to advertisers who are willing to purchase it; Starcom MediaVest was the first major ad conglomerate to sign on to the data. The DirecTView system includes 100,000 DTV subscribers. That’s already a much larger sample than Nielsen uses. The primary issues with DirecTView are (1) still working out how to figure demographics and (2)it only counts DirecTV subscribers. Time will tell if the DirecTView model is worth continuing at other cable/satellite outlets.
I have no evidence at hand to back this up, but I do recall reading that Nielsen’s sample audience is skewed toward non-cable, non-satellite viewers. That could be affecting then numbers. It will be interesting to watch Nielsen ratings “glitches” as the analog-to-digital switch takes place in February 2009.
For all the negative comments about NCIS here is the logic behind it. And by the way you don’t need to be a scientist to get it, just a bit smart like CBS schedulers
It might get 17 million viewers and only a 3.6 in the 18-49 demo, but come American Idol season, that is the only show that sees no side effects or viewer erosion. Older people tend to stick with it and not switch over to see AI.
Additionally, a great lead in to start the Tuesday line up on CBS is giving the rest of the shows a great lead in.
To be fair I was expecting to see Without a Trace do a lot better due to the huge lead in, but being moved around for the past 3 years running, probably took some of the steam away.
Oh and by the way, for everyone saying NBC shows skew younger, CBS leads the season in 18-49. Now go figure.
The older end of the 18-49 demo is known for more show loyalty. ER did below 2.5 in the demo and stayed on forever. The 18-25’s are bored it would seem with DH and Grey’s and don’t like Lipstick, Dirty Sexy and PP that much. Why? I’m 50 but I think I have a clue. I’ve watched all the above-mentioned shows and I think for a young demo they fall in a trap: they have to be moralistic and can’t be sarcastic or nihilistic, ie, implying the only values are material values. But they have to be sexy enough to remind older viewers of daytime soaps. From what I’ve seen of popular reality shows and other shows with very young appeal, like South Park, Sarah, the defunct Chappelle, Surreal Life, etc, as well as the popular new comedies, they flirt with what Pynchon called cheap nihilism. I realize this is a subjective categopry and not quantifiable like the Renew or Cancel index, but it is a good rule of thumb for the buzz and eventually the ratings of these shows. By the way, I recommend watching a movie making the rounfds on Showtime now called The TV Set for a bitingly accurate view of what happens to TV pilots between conception and birth on the air.
CBS normally has at least half of the top 20 shows which is the same as the other networks combined. They are doing fairly well. And I suspect they will do even better since FOX, ABC and NBC have been keeping ratings bombs like TSCC, Prison Break, Knight Rider, Friday Night Lights, ect on the air. TSCC is a good show by its ratings stink. The rest I dont watch. Neither, apparently, are most other people. CBS seems to have learned its lesson with the 2 time failure of Jericho – something the other network havent. Which is why it has so many top 20 shows these days.