• The new B5TV.COM is here. We've replaced our 16 year old software with flashy new XenForo install. Registration is open again. Password resets will work again. More info here.

telemovie ratings - the real story behind the figures?

C

cyberquiff

Member
Okay. this is controversial to some.
But let me qualify.

I am a BIG B5 fan.
I liked LOTR too.

So I'm not coming at this negativly.

I believe that the ratings were poor for the telemovie because there simply are not the viewers there.

I'm based in the UK and JMS always said that relatively speaking we got more viewers than the US (hence all the VHS copies of the series)

Even so. the ratings were still way below Farscape, Stargate or the nasty ST word.

I seem to remeber what a struggle it was for JMS to persuade Warners to bankroll the series every year and how he put a positive spin on the figures.


Am I being harsh here, or do the viweing figures acurately reflect the audience perhaps?

Dan

------------------
 
Well, that would imply that there was a strong regional bias with West coast areas having a much larger interest / market for Rangers than the rest of the country.

That happens for sporting events (which always get much better ratings in the areas that the teams come from) and some other live events where the time difference makes a big difference in TV's in use (East coast asleep or West coast still at work). Other than those, I think that this kind of split according to time zone / satellite feed is pretty rare. I could, however, just not be well enough informed about the regional breakdowns of other shows.

------------------
 
Those of us who post on this board are pretty rabid fans of Babylon 5. It's three years since the series ended and we still talk (write) about it every day. I don't know how many fans post here and at the SCIFI BB but I'm sure at best it is in the low thousands. To get a good rating a tv program needs an audience in the millions.

I understand why football took precedence over a science fiction movie. Fans want to see it as it happens, I know because I've been a football fan in the past. A tv movie of any kind is a fictional story that can be shown again at any time. It was pure bad luck that TLaDiS ran against one of the biggest games of the year and I'm sure it skewed the ratings. If there had been no game a percentage of those viewers would have watched the movie. However if they had been true fans they would have taped it.
smile.gif


------------------
I always seem to be diagonally parked in a parallel universe.
 
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, arial">quote:</font><HR> I believe that the ratings were poor for the telemovie because there simply are not the viewers there.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think the position that KoshN was taking and, to a lesser extent myself, was that a damn good telemovie -- one that made you go WOW -- might have sparked a resurgence into the B5 fan base. But I definitely think the audience is out there, you just have to capture their imagination.

------------------
"Dawn's in trouble? Must be Tuesday." -- Buffy Summers, "Once More With Feeling."
 
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by PsionTen:
I think the position that KoshN was taking and, to a lesser extent myself, was that a damn good telemovie -- one that made you go WOW -- might have sparked a resurgence into the B5 fan base. But I definitely think the audience is out there, you just have to capture their imagination.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think that even a "damn good telemovie" would have gotten smashed in the east by that football game. A lot of B5 fans would have missed it because of that.

The difference is that a damn good telemovie would be stirring more word-of-mouth buzz among people who'd never seen B5 before, and it would be provoking lots of "unqualified" praise (i.e. praise without the qualifiers) and word-of-mouth buzz from the B5 faithful.

------------------
KoshN
-------------
Vorlon Empire

http://www.scifi.com/b5rangers/
 
Since the topic is about the Rangers movie ratings, I'm going to send it over to the Rangers forum.

You might want to check out the other threads dealing with ratings as well, since there have been plenty of possible explanations given and discussed there.

------------------
"Isn't the universe an amazing place? I wouldn't live anywhere else." - G'Kar, B5: Rangers
Kribu's Lounge | kribu@ranger.b5lr.com | Kribu.net
 
Well, my assessment of the *ratings* information posted courtesy of "JMS" which is factual based...is that it is safe to assume that the final rating grade (1.7) would have definitely doubled (3.4), had the "NFL Playoffs" been scheduled on a different date!

It is very evident, based on the information provided by "JMS", that the "NFL Playoffs" was the biggest factor in the low (not poor) rating that came in for "Legend of the Rangers"...

Cheers! -Warren-
laugh.gif


------------------
 
Just a point of information

Farscape usually gets around a 1.4 or 1.5 rating. It is considered a major hit.

Stargate usually gets in the high twos. However one can't compare to Stargate because unlike Farscape or Rangers, it is a syndicated show.

If Rangers got a 1.7 with every episode it would be considered a Major Hit. However this was a premier that was accompanied by promotion so the 1.7 is looked at disappointingly.

------------------
 
A number of people have pointed out that those high ratings on the West Coast were for "some" or "a couple" of markets. Does anyone have more info on this? If not, we know less than we think. Those numbers might mean nothing. We could judge more reasonably if we could see and average ratings for the West Coast.

------------------
"You do not make history. You can only hope to survive it."
 
The original JMS quote:

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, arial">quote:</font><HR>By contrast, on the west coast, where the show aired *after* the game had finished, we not only met but *exceeded* SFC's expectations, getting a 3.2 or 3.6 in many markets, which is actually pretty unheard of for a basic cable network.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

In *many* markets. That would be more than just some, yes? Sounds like even if it wasn't a 3.2 or more in all of West Coast, the general trend was still good.

------------------
"Isn't the universe an amazing place? I wouldn't live anywhere else." - G'Kar, B5: Rangers
Kribu's Lounge | kribu@ranger.b5lr.com | Kribu.net
 
My guess would be an average of 2.8-3.0 overall rating in the Westcoast.

The rating exceeded SCI FI's expectation on the West...so, that is an indication...if the 3.2 was far above...

Cheers! -Warren-
laugh.gif


------------------
 
Here in San Diego, it got a 3.2. If that doesn't matter to the SFC execs., I will be pretty upset. That is an excellent number by cable-standards. When I heard about it, I practically wanted to go out & thank every San Diegan personally!
smile.gif


Tammy

------------------
Tirk: Citizen G'Kar, Captain Martell would like to speak to you.
G'Kar: Of course. Love to stay. Can't. Have to go. Kiss-kiss. Love-love. Bye.

Tammy's Station
http://community.webtv.net/gkarfan/TammysStation
 
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Recoil:
Ok folks,

Im not sure I buy the concept that 'if it was a GREAT telemovie' that it would have captured better ratings numbers. Think about this for a second people and see if what you are really saying makes sense.

How do people know it is either a below average pilot, or the best telemovie ever made without actually SEEING it?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I agree with what you are saying.... partially. It is true that folks can't tell that a telemovie is below average until they see it... for sure. So the question comes down to how people choose a program? Part of how people choose is by what they see in the media. Therefore, a telemovie that didn't give the advertisers much to work with to build a media campaign around might affect the ratings. Additionally, a telemovie is sent out for review. A good review creates buzz. A telemovie that is panned or not reviewed because it is below average either doesn't generate viewers or turns them away. Additionally, a telemovie that doesn't look interesting when one is channel flipping can not drive viewers to it.

Therefore, I agree partly with what you are saying Recoil. I do believe there is a significant component where a movie's content can and will affect ratings.




------------------
 
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by cyberquiff:
I'm based in the UK and JMS always said that relatively speaking we got more viewers than the US (hence all the VHS copies of the series)
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think that last point has more to do with the different kind of market for VHS in the UK. I've heard people make the statement that B5 is more popular in the UK, but I've never seen that backed up with numbers. The survey that used to be on this site, "Where are you from?", had about 4 or 5 times as many Americans responding as Brits, which means that per capita this site about equally popular in both countries (the US has about 4 or 5 times the population of the UK). Obviously, this is not a random sample so take it with a huge grain of salt, but it's the only number of any kind that I've seen that addresses this point.


<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, arial">quote:</font><HR> Even so. the ratings were still way below Farscape, Stargate or the nasty ST word.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Actually, they were not way below Farscape. Farscape usually gets around a 1.5.

I think that most (all?) of the TNT TV movies got ratings of 2.5-4, so the audience is there. The question is how many of them have access to SFC. How many people had TNT in 1998 vs. how many people have SFC in 2002? I don't know what the answer is, but maybe somebody else here does.


------------------
 
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Chris Springob:
Actually, they were not way below Farscape. Farscape usually gets around a 1.5.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Can you reference the dates from which you are taking this rating?

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, arial">quote:</font><HR>I think that most (all?) of the TNT TV movies got ratings of 2.5-4, so the audience is there. The question is how many of them have access to SFC. How many people had TNT in 1998 vs. how many people have SFC in 2002? I don't know what the answer is, but maybe somebody else here does.[/B]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

SCIFI has increased its coverage over the last few years and is now available pretty widely. Coverage isn't the problem any more. Attracting eyes is a different issue.



------------------
 
It really does seem very obvious that the NFL game was the 'culprit' in this case.

I mean, if the Rangers movie had premiered in Britain - opposite, say, an FA cup semifinal or some important national game (World Cup qualifier or the like) - wouldn't many potential viewers have watched the game live as well, taping the movie or just figuring that they can always catch it at a later showing?

I consider myself quite a big B5 fan, but if Rangers aired opposite some important sporting event that I'd be interested in, I'd definitely tape the movie (since I'd be doing that anyway) and watch the sports live.

------------------
"Isn't the universe an amazing place? I wouldn't live anywhere else." - G'Kar, B5: Rangers
Kribu's Lounge | kribu@ranger.b5lr.com | Kribu.net
 
I don't for one second think that, one day, every B5 fan in the eastern half of the US got up and moved west.

The purpose of ratings is to predict the future. The B5LR ratings rose during the program (as ratings for successful shows tend to do during their pilots) and the ratings on the west coast were evidently excellent by Sci-Fi Channel standards. There could be any number of reasons for SFC to not pick up the show (disagreement with WB on contractual terms, a budget that's stretched too thin, a shift in SFC business strategy, whatever), but SFC execs probably aren't dumb enough to look at an average rating and ignore other signals with better predictive value. If they don't pick B5LR up, it won't be because the national average for the telemovie was a 1.7.

It's sort of like baseball. The fans look at batting averages, but the professionals whose job it is to win prefer to focus on on-base percentage and slugging average because they translate more directly into wins and losses.
smile.gif


------------------
 
Ok folks,

Im not sure I buy the concept that 'if it was a GREAT telemovie' that it would have captured better ratings numbers. Think about this for a second people and see if what you are really saying makes sense.

How do people know it is either a below average pilot, or the best telemovie ever made without actually SEEING it?

Was the ratings an actual measure of the actual viewing audience? Well in a manner of speaking, yes. If LoTR was to be a series slotted to go up against Monday Night Football or the World Series or something, then yea, maybe thats the ratings they would pull in.
wink.gif
However I think the West coast, where the game wasn't a factor, is a more accurate assessment.

------------------
'I don't believe in the no-win scenario' - JTK
 
Hear, hear Recoil...

I agree that the West coast ratings is the more accurate assessment in terms of judging the market demand for "Bablyon 5:The Legend of the Rangers"...

Very simply...there was no significant competition during the West coast feed broadcast! It (B5LR) was clear to go...and boy did it go!

Any televison program (ie:sitcoms,dramas, movie of the week, etc) would have had their ratings affected by the "NFL Playoffs" had they aired the same time...and for that matter...many probably were, not just "Rangers"...

Cheers! -W-


laugh.gif


------------------
 
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Greg Miller:
I don't for one second think that, one day, every B5 fan in the eastern half of the US got up and moved west.

The purpose of ratings is to predict the future. The B5LR ratings rose during the program (as ratings for successful shows tend to do during their pilots) and the ratings on the west coast were evidently excellent by Sci-Fi Channel standards. There could be any number of reasons for SFC to not pick up the show (disagreement with WB on contractual terms, a budget that's stretched too thin, a shift in SFC business strategy, whatever), but SFC execs probably aren't dumb enough to look at an average rating and ignore other signals with better predictive value. If they don't pick B5LR up, it won't be because the national average for the telemovie was a 1.7.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm curious to know how many analyses of half-hour by half-hour movie ratings you've actually personally analyzed.

I've looked at a few and so have the researchers who are employed by Sci-Fi. Would you like to guess how common it is for a movie's ratings go up in the last half hour? Or do you actually know based on the experience of analyzing such things yourself.



------------------
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Members online

No members online now.
Total: 100 (members: 0, guests: 100)

Share this page

Back
Top