Ratings report (aka: how long will the new shows survive?)

[JasonEvans]

I'm watching Cane right now. I expected to hate it, but it's not so bad so far.

Cane must DIE!!!! So Nestor Carbonnell can return to Lost. He did a radio interview the other day where he said he thinks his Richard Alpert character is 400 years old and has not aged at all in that time. We MUST learn more about him!!!!

--Jason "the folks behind Cane better let him do Lost once Cane is done shooting for the year" Evans

[Bluedawg]

One more interesting development-- NBC's Life, which critics had skewered, actually beat the more highly touted Dirty, Sexy Money at 10pm. Life did a good job of holding onto its bionic leadin audience... better than DSM did, that's for sure. Then again, neither series may be long-lived as they both saw their audiences dip significantly in the 2nd half-hour meaning people sampled them and then moved on.

--Jason "Thursday numbers as soon as I get em" Evans

Could it be that the old notion that "sex sells" doesn't hold true anymore...that people actually want more? They actually want a story?

[billybreen]

Could it be that the old notion that "sex sells" doesn't hold true anymore...that people actually want more? They actually want a story?

In its defense, DSM appears to have a lot of room to expand stories in interesting places. What may be more likely is that the viewing public doesn't love dysfunctional rich families (I'm looking at you, Arrested Development).

Also, the viewing public likes the silly cop procedurals, so Life fits into a comfortable niche. I don't understand that at all because I hate those shows (CSI*, L&O, etc), but they must be doing something right.

[BlueDiablo]

speaking of bad signs, Kid Nation may already be in trouble. After getting more than 9 million viewers in its first week, it slumped more than 20% in week two.

Oh, one more thing-- Kelsey Grammer's attempt to be on a third hit sitcom is off to a shaky start. His Back to You fell like 25% from its first week. Gaaack!!!

But Jason, wouldn't it be expected for these two shows to have ratings drops, since the debuted a week ahead of the fall schedule? During their premiers, they didn't have any real competition.

The Kelsey Grammer show looks way behind it's time (I mean, seriously, who makes 4-camera laugh-track sit-coms anymore?), but I'm still into Kid Nation. The killing of the chickens on this week's show was awesome.

[Bluedawg]

In its defense, DSM appears to have a lot of room to expand stories in interesting places. What may be more likely is that the viewing public doesn't love dysfunctional rich families (I'm looking at you, Arrested Development).

Also, the viewing public likes the silly cop procedurals, so Life fits into a comfortable niche. I don't understand that at all because I hate those shows (CSI*, L&O, etc), but they must be doing something right.

Cop shows just sell. I actually like L&O and all but CSI:NY only because it is a direct copy of Miami and the actors don’t seem to fit the characters to me.

I hope you are correct, that it does have "room to expand stories in interesting places." I like the actors on it and I'd like for it to do well. However, so many producers think they can copy the "Dallas" mold by just pulling out the "Dirty Sexy Money" aspect of it and ignore the fact that it had intertwining storylines.

[colchar]

Just last year they started adding in viewers who watch shows within 3 days of their original airing on TIVOs and other DVRs. It is called +3 and is typically considered the same as watching a show the night it first airs.

--Jason "there are also +7 (one week) ratings, but those are pretty much ignored for some reason" Evans

My apologies if this has been asked elsewhere in this thread (too lazy to read through the whole thing right now) but how do the networks deal with the DVR numbers when it comes to ratings? Do they take them seriously? I seem to remember Studio 60 having less than stellar ratings but hearing that, when DVR numbers were added in, the ratings were quite respectable. And yet is was cancelled. So, do the networks take DVR numbers seriously?

[TillyGalore]

My apologies if this has been asked elsewhere in this thread (too lazy to read through the whole thing right now) but how do the networks deal with the DVR numbers when it comes to ratings? Do they take them seriously? I seem to remember Studio 60 having less than stellar ratings but hearing that, when DVR numbers were added in, the ratings were quite respectable. And yet is was cancelled. So, do the networks take DVR numbers seriously?

Here are your answers, they were posted, though completely understand the desire to ask the question versus looking to see if it's already been asked. Had I not asked I wouldn't be able to help you this one.

Just last year they started adding in viewers who watch shows within 3 days of their original airing on TIVOs and other DVRs. It is called +3 and is typically considered the same as watching a show the night it first airs.

--Jason "there are also +7 (one week) ratings, but those are pretty much ignored for some reason" Evans

They know what people watch on their DVRs because the DVRs send all the information back to the companies. I know for a fact that Tivo does this (which is a large part of why I don't plug my Tivo in) and I have to assume that the cable DVRs do the same thing, given that they have the pipeline. It is possible that Tivo views the data mining as a better asset than the actual revenue stream for subscribing.

Thanks to the data mining, they can figure out whether people watched within 3 or 7 days.

Nielsen has just started measuring minute-by-minute ratings and will now be able to tell advertisers what the ratings are WITHIN THE COMMERICAL BREAK. This is a major data point for advertisers and all the folks in TV land are furiously working on new ways of making sure that people watch through the commerical break. It used to be that if ytou watched for a bit adn then changed the channel at the commercial it was not that huge deal to the TV network. Not anymore. You can expect more cliffahngers and other tricks to get you to watch all the way through the commercial in the future.

--Jason "I have been to like 5 different classes on teasing over the past 6 months at CNN... it is insane!!" Evans

[alteran]

Jason,

Thanks for posting this stuff-- I find it very interesting but it's kind of hard to track it all down consistently, and frequently when I do, I find it lacks meaningful context (which shares are "good enough" for which network, for example) for Joe Remote.

Big thanks.

[riverside6]

I'm curious how The Office did. I thought the episode last night was really funny.

[billybreen]

I'm curious how The Office did. I thought the episode last night was really funny.

Yeah, that was great. I'm looking forward to the Dwight / Angela / Andy love triangle.

[JasonEvans]

Ok, the story of the night was probably The Office. It posted its biggest night EVER with 9.7 million viewers for the hour-long episode. Great numbers for that show, which has fabulous demographics as a show that skews younger and richer.

The other big news was that CSI is still a powerhouse. It crushed Grey's Anatomy by more than 4 million viewers (24.8 million vs. 20.5 million). However, that margin was all in the undesireable older demographic as Grey's beat CSI in the key 18-49 demo. I guess both sides get to claim victory.

Survivor: China fell more than a million viewers from last week to 14.2 million viewers, though it had much stronger competition this time around with all the new shows in place. Significantly, it still won the 8pm timeslot though over My Name is Earl and Ugly Betty (which posted a big 20% decline from last year-- yikes!).

In its 14th season, ER's came in third place at 10pm with 9.9 million viewers. That's its worse number ever for a season premiere. The show is clearly on its last legs. Without a Trace easily won the 10pm hour. ABC's new show Big Shots beat ER, but had a huge decline of almost 50% from its leadin Grey's and it shed 3 million viewers from the first half hour to the second... which is obviously a really bad sign.

-Jason "next week is what really matters-- to see hos shows hold up after viewers have initially sampled them" Evans

[YmoBeThere]

Now being in that undesirable older demographic(36) but still single with no kids and lots of free cash flow to spend, I am curious why advertisers still use such large buckets to characterize their audience. I work in insurance and we have found significant data to justify smaller age groupings.

[JasonEvans]

Now being in that undesirable older demographic(36) but still single with no kids and lots of free cash flow to spend, I am curious why advertisers still use such large buckets to characterize their audience. I work in insurance and we have found significant data to justify smaller age groupings.

Oh trust me, those of us in the TV world get smaller age and demographic breakdowns. But, for the purpose of reporting the "story" to the public, everyone uses larger groups because it is just easier and more informative.

Also, at 36 you are still very much in the desireable demographic. In fact, 25-49 is generally the most desireable demographic from an age standpoint.

--Jason "obviously, the most desireable demographic of all is income" Evans

[dukemomLA]

Well, I watched 5 minutes of CHUCK and turned it off. Awful. I watched BACK TO YOU, and was horrified. YUCK. Then again most of the shows I enjoy get cancelled so...what do I know. I think the best writing and performing of a comedy is "Til Death" -- and I am amazed to say that, since I was never a fan of Brad's previous show. For drama, I can't wait for another episode of "Brothers and Sisters"...and again it's on the brink of being cancelled. The original CSI holds strong. Thank God for "Deadliest Catch" and "Dirty Jobs."

[YmoBeThere]

Also, at 36 you are still very much in the desireable demographic. In fact, 25-49 is generally the most desireable demographic from an age standpoint.

--Jason "obviously, the most desireable demographic of all is income" Evans

Ahhh(sigh of relief), I suddenly feel relevant again!

[Exiled_Devil]

I find Chuck watchable after HIMYM. Certainly more watchable than 'Big Bang theory" That show wants to be smart -it's about smart people - but feels obliged to laughtrack every possibly smart joke. It's as if the studio feels the need to tell the audience that they are watching 'smart' humor. How I miss Arrested Development.

Anyway, Chuck gets some of my time just becuase it supports a former 'Firefly' cast member.

[Dukerati]

Thanks for the updates Jason. I am personally pulling for Journeyman to turn it around. I thought the pilot was solid with two to three intriguing storylines to carry the show forward through the season.

[Bluedawg]

Thanks for the updates Jason. I am personally pulling for Journeyman to turn it around. I thought the pilot was solid with two to three intriguing storylines to carry the show forward through the season.

Agreed...I think it could have a chance. Plus I love the actress who plays his old girlfriend [moon something, can't recall].

[billybreen]

Agreed...I think it could have a chance. Plus I love the actress who plays his old girlfriend [moon something, can't recall].

Moon Bloodgood. That's the fakest name since Wolf Blitzer.

I really like this show. Vorenus is the man.

[oso diablo]

why do the networks still put so many debuts on around the same time? who has time to sample all these new shows, or even know when to find them to DVR? I thought they were learning a lesson from the film world, to stagger debuts throughout the year. I don't mind trying out a new show, but i can't try out 10-15 of them at one time.