Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

What Makes A Ratings Success?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • SmileOfTheShadow
    replied
    Originally posted by Garibaldi's Hair
    And that's why it had to be cancelled ...
    At least it got a movie! Firefly = MST3K? hmm...

    Leave a comment:


  • Garibaldi's Hair
    replied
    Originally posted by SmileOfTheShadow
    And it really was the best show ever.
    And that's why it had to be cancelled ...

    Leave a comment:


  • SmileOfTheShadow
    replied
    Originally posted by Der Mike
    Honestly, with TV, there is no concrete standards for what stays on-air and what does not.

    Nobody can REMOTELY argue that, say, Mystery Science Theater 3000 cost much of anything to produce. The sets were crude, the robots never changed, the rights to the movies used had to be virtually nil. It's ratings, while not amazing, were good enough to likely produce ad revenue to cover the costs and turn a profit.

    It was still cancelled.
    -=Mike
    And it really was the best show ever.

    Leave a comment:


  • Der Mike
    replied
    Honestly, with TV, there is no concrete standards for what stays on-air and what does not.

    Nobody can REMOTELY argue that, say, Mystery Science Theater 3000 cost much of anything to produce. The sets were crude, the robots never changed, the rights to the movies used had to be virtually nil. It's ratings, while not amazing, were good enough to likely produce ad revenue to cover the costs and turn a profit.

    It was still cancelled.
    -=Mike

    Leave a comment:


  • SmileOfTheShadow
    replied
    Originally posted by NotSoWize
    There was an advertisement for BSG during Heroes last night, so it looks like Sci-Fi is trying to drive more SF fans to BSG by taking that route. I believe that Heroes has been averaging over 15 million viewers so far, so it will be interesting to see if enough folks give BSG a try to measurably improve the ratings.

    In any case, it sure seems like BSG has gotten way more publicity than any other cable-based SF series. I'm surprised that its ratings aren't even higher based on how many mainstream media publications have been raving about it for the last year or so.
    Yeah, Heroes has huuuuuge ratings, and I think that it can translate to BSG viewers, as BSG has that serious and dark feel that make it more of that style of a drama. Unfortunately, there's a lot of catch-up for new viewers of BSG. I wish they'd market SG1 like that


    Jon

    Leave a comment:


  • Dr Maturin
    replied
    I got it all...now I just need to watch it.

    Leave a comment:


  • NotSoWize
    replied
    There was an advertisement for BSG during Heroes last night, so it looks like Sci-Fi is trying to drive more SF fans to BSG by taking that route. I believe that Heroes has been averaging over 15 million viewers so far, so it will be interesting to see if enough folks give BSG a try to measurably improve the ratings.

    In any case, it sure seems like BSG has gotten way more publicity than any other cable-based SF series. I'm surprised that its ratings aren't even higher based on how many mainstream media publications have been raving about it for the last year or so.

    Leave a comment:


  • Dr Maturin
    replied
    Looks like 03:00 Saturday morning. I need to DVR it, the new ep and maybe some old school BSG, which is on Friday.

    Also, Star Trek: First Contact is on tonight!

    Leave a comment:


  • Dr Maturin
    replied
    Originally posted by SmileOfTheShadow
    There was one monday and one yesterday during the day I believe. Or maybe it's today, I forget. on www.scifi.com if you click on schedule then click on "complete schedule" and type in battlestar galactica (season 3) it'll come up with results for ya

    But it's a two hour, so I don't see them playing it all that often after this week unless they split it up. I actually missed the las 20 minutes of it because i had to go to bed monday night.

    Jon
    Does twenty minutes really make that much of a difference?

    Leave a comment:


  • SmileOfTheShadow
    replied
    Originally posted by LessonInMachismo
    I don't want to enter the thread, but will there be any repeats of the season opener? I know that they had one on Monday, but I wasn't able to DVR it. I hate having to watch the crap on the computer when I have a 52" HDTV. I haven't even finished the last three eps of S2 yet.
    There was one monday and one yesterday during the day I believe. Or maybe it's today, I forget. on www.scifi.com if you click on schedule then click on "complete schedule" and type in battlestar galactica (season 3) it'll come up with results for ya

    But it's a two hour, so I don't see them playing it all that often after this week unless they split it up. I actually missed the las 20 minutes of it because i had to go to bed monday night.

    Jon

    Leave a comment:


  • Dr Maturin
    replied
    I don't want to enter the thread, but will there be any repeats of the season opener? I know that they had one on Monday, but I wasn't able to DVR it. I hate having to watch the crap on the computer when I have a 52" HDTV. I haven't even finished the last three eps of S2 yet.

    Leave a comment:


  • Joseph DeMartino
    replied
    Originally posted by Radhil
    As an aside, Battlestar is said to be doing very well in some circles (SciFi, critics), and not so well in other circles. 1.8 is still great, and I believe it's still the leading Friday night show, but they are supposed to have pulled better numbers in previous years.
    I think their all-time high was a 2.6 rating for the 2nd season premiere. But they dropped to 2.0 the following week and bounced between 1.8 and 1.9 (dipping to 1.7 for a single week) for the rest of that year. The average was a 1.95 or 1.93 rating depending on whether or not you counted the unsual first week. So if they're doing 1.8/1.9 this year the ratings are basically unchanged and still very good for a basic cable channel.

    Regards,

    Joe

    Leave a comment:


  • Dr Maturin
    replied
    JDM answered the question.

    WWE gets some of the highest ratings on cable TV (currently, they're pretty high, in the past, they've been ungodly high), but they get very little advertising revenue because advertisers have an idea about the crowd who's watching. This may be somewhat out-of-touch on their part and I think they're making a slight folly, as there is a base for certain types of advertising, such as automobiles (right now, teenagers are a large demographic and they're new drivers).

    Leave a comment:


  • Joseph DeMartino
    replied
    Jan's right, there's no way anyone would even consider bringing SG-1 back. It was on the air too long and was getting to expensive. It is not a coincidence that every Trek show from TNG through Voyager lasted exactly 7 years. That was the term of the contracts, not only for the actors but for the other unionized staff. Those contracts included automatic annual raises for all concerned, and then key personnel could always negotiate more than that. So every 7 years Paramount repackaged the Trek concept as a new series. This reset the salary odometer for staff who came over from one show to the other, and of course each series had a mostly-new cast. That's essentially what they've done with SG-1 and Atlantis.

    In addition, there are ownership and financing issues. The Stargate franchise is an MGM property. Sci-Fi is owned by Universal, as is Battlestar Galactica. The new series is being co-financed by USA Networks (Universal/NBC) and British Sky Broadcasting, so the risk on the production side is less and it is easier for each entity to cover its share of the cost out of the broadcast license fees. Finally the parent company, Universal/NBC, gets the revenue from eventual syndicated reruns and from the DVD releases, which it would not get with SG-1. Don't forget, the main reason that Sci-Fi turned down the Rangers pilot was ownership and ancillary revenue issues, not ratings. In effect BSG got them exactly what attracted them to B5 and Rangers - an epic politico-military, arc-drive adventure set in space. But in this case one that they also own (or own most of.)

    Ratings are not absolute. Demographics (the age, sex, location and ethnicity of viewers) can make a huge difference. A "low-rated" show that is reaching the people that an advertiser wants to sell products to is worth more to that advertiser than a higher-rated show that appeals to people who don't buy his products. (You'll notice that there is very little pantyhose sold during Monday Night Football, for instance, and hardly any beer advertised during All My Children. ) And, again, expense. One of the reasons that reality shows and prime time game shows have made such a huge comeback in recent years is that compared to scripted dramas they are much cheaper to produce, and can therefore cost less per ratings point or viewer than other types of programming.

    Regards,

    Joe
    Last edited by Joseph DeMartino; 10-12-2006, 07:02 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Radhil
    replied
    As an aside, Battlestar is said to be doing very well in some circles (SciFi, critics), and not so well in other circles. 1.8 is still great, and I believe it's still the leading Friday night show, but they are supposed to have pulled better numbers in previous years.

    Just more fodder for the ratings-are-all-perspective cannon.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X