• 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?

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by gkarfan:
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

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Wasn't that some number from one cable system? Does that actually represent the whole West Coast Feed?

------------------
 
I know the Farscape ratings pretty well from having checked the top ten rated SFC programs for the last 2 years. The show usually scores anywhere between a 1.2 and a 1.5. There is the occasional hiccup though. For example last season one episode actually got a 1.9. However the ratings seem to dwindle as the season progesses. For example, their big season finale last year was only getting 1.2 and 1.3. These are still good ratings but Farscape does not seem capable of growing an audience. This was made clear when SFC tried to air Farscape reruns in strip format (every day at 8 PM). The show tanked and was quickly removed from its timeslot.

------------------
 
The Sci-Fi top ten list is a pretty poor source for doing any kind of "analysis." It only contains the top-rated single episode of a given series, for instance. So if Farscape reruns scored a 1.9 every night for a week, it would only appear in the top ten list once. If it scored consistent 1.8s or 1.9s during weeks when high-rated movies and mini-series aired, it might not make the list at all. And "ties" may not count, so two movies with a 1.9 might make the list, and a Farscape episode with the same rating might be left off.

As Alyson has pointed out (and Savant may have mentioned as well) the Sci-Fi top ten is a public relations item, and cannot be relied on to really figure out what is going on. Too much stuff is left out.

Regards,

Joe

------------------
Joseph DeMartino
Sigh Corps
Pat Tallman Division

joseph-demartino@att.net
 
Joe-
We're talking about the weekly first run episodes (save the last two sentences of westtim's post). It wasn't until last fall that they started showing them daily.


------------------
 
When Farscape started airing after B5, I stuck around a few times to watch it, just for the hell of it.

I am now an avid, avid Scaper.

I am the person Sci-Fi hoped to get. (Although, I'm not sure if I'm their target audience...)

------------------
channe@[url="http://cryoterrace.tripod.com"]cryoterrace[/url] | "I wonder," said Frodo, "but I don't know. And that's the way of a real tale."
 
I like Farscape. I don't think I'll ever like it as much as B5, but it has a good cast. And Lani Tupu is very good-looking!
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>This was made clear when SFC tried to air Farscape reruns in strip format (every day at 8 PM). The show tanked and was quickly removed from its timeslot.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

what the frell... you're kidding, right? farscape didnt tank in the 8pm weekday slot... they ran through the entierty of the series from the first ep to the last ep... i watched most of them whenever i wasnt busy... it completed its run, so they took it out of the time slot... with only 2 and 4/5 seasons of the show reruning it again after the run was over would have been silly

if you want to talk about tanking look at when scifi tried to put first wave in that slot a few weeks back... it lasted, what, 2 days?

------------------
### Hi, I'm a sig virus. Please add me to the end of your signature so I can take over the world.### - caught from Saps @ B5MG
 
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, arial">quote:</font><HR>We're talking about the weekly first run episodes <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I was referring to both and using the daily strip as one example. Either way, the nature of the Sci-Fi Top Ten is such that a high rated Farscape episode wouldn't make the list if 10 movies, specials and/or episodes of other shows out-scored it. The weeks it turned up with a 1.2 or 1.5 may have been weeks that it was airing reruns, but when viewership was also generally down, so not too many other things outscored it.

The whole nature of the list makes it pretty much worthless for tracking how well a given show is doing. (Just as B5's appearing on it with 1.7s didn't tell us anything. That could indicate that all five nights scored a 1.7 or that one of them did, and the rest got 0.5s. There simply isn't enough information to make a definite statement about anything.)

cyberquiff:

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, arial">quote:</font><HR>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>

As noted by someone above, I think he said the show got more viewers per capita, not in absolute terms. And if he related that to the VHS sales, he was just plain wrong. The show wasn't even available on VHS here when it was in production and running new episodes, as it in the U.K.

Also the difference in the VHS sales had nothing to do with relative audience size, and everything to do with the different buying habits of Brits and Yanks when it comes to TV shows on VHS. Many TV shows sell well on tape in the U.K., only a very few cult shows (like Twilight Zone and the various Treks ever sold well in the U.S. (Even X-Files was only offered in "Best of" sets. Fox never even tried to release all the episodes, because their market research indicated they wouldn't sell.)

The ready availability of reruns, the relative expense and the storage requirements all worked against TV shows ever becoming a viable product on VHS on this side of The Pond. DVDs are another matter entirely, because DVD is a very different market than VHS.

Regards,

Joe

------------------
Joseph DeMartino
Sigh Corps
Pat Tallman Division

joseph-demartino@att.net

[This message has been edited by Joseph DeMartino (edited February 02, 2002).]
 
(3.2 + x)/2 = 1.7

x = 1.7 * 2 - 3.2 = 0.2


How low were the ratings in New York?
Or does New York have ten times the population of L.A. ?
crazy.gif


------------------
Andrew Swallow
 
Andrew:

Your formula only works if the number of households receiving the west coast feed is equal to the number of households receiving the east coast feed. We don't know that, so you're actually missing a variable.

Since there are only two feeds to chose from, regardless of where you live, the relative population to consider is the one served by each feed, not those of New York and L.A. (Since the ratings aren't limited to those two cities.)

The entire Eastern Time Zone obviously gets the east coast feed. So does most or all of the Central Time Zone, since the off-set is only an hour earlier vs. Eastern time, rather than two hours later vs. Pacific time. The Mountain time zone may be something of a mixed bag, or may skew heavily towards one or the other. And I've recently learned that satellite services like DirecTV only take one feed or the other. So even a DirecTV subscriber in Los Angeles would have received the East Coast feed.

Depending on the relative proportions of the two feeds, the 3.4 "average" West Coast feed might contribute proportionally less to the national average. Meaning the East Coast ratings would have to be higher, the fewer West Coast viewers you assume in order for the average to remain the same. You're also assuming that 3.2 is a correct average for the West Coast, based on very few reports. If the actual average is a 3.0 or even a 2.8, the East Coast rating would be higher still.

By the way, if you assume a 3.4 rating for the West Coast your formula "proves" that nobody watched the East Coast feed at all.
smile.gif
The East Coast rating would have to be zero for the national average to come out right.
laugh.gif


It is almost certainly the case that the East Coast feed went to many more viewers than the West Coast feed, though any estimate of how many more got it would be a guess pure and simple.

Regards,

Joe

------------------
Joseph DeMartino
Sigh Corps
Pat Tallman Division

joseph-demartino@att.net
 
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by westtim:
This was made clear when SFC tried to air Farscape reruns in strip format (every day at 8 PM). The show tanked and was quickly removed from its timeslot.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

As someone else pointed out, they showed all three seasons.

You should see the poor ratings for the show's that have replaced it in the 8PM slot. One got taken off after two weeks.

8PM is a difficult slot when the networks are running original programming. Buffy. Enterprise. Survivor. Friends. JAG.

------------------
 
they did that with E:FC... which stunk, cause i watned to watch the first season over. and now its back on in a time slot i cant watch
frown.gif


------------------
### Hi, I'm a sig virus. Please add me to the end of your signature so I can take over the world.### - caught from Saps @ B5MG
 
I wonder if Scifi has given much thought to the fact that if they make a series, it won't be going up against an NFL playoff game every time it's on. I should think that would count for something in their decision on whether or not to make a series.

------------------
Dulann: You don't solve your problems by hitting them.
David Martel: Yeah, well, it made me feel better.
 
I was just thinking: If the West Coast received on an average of lets say 3. I wonder what the East Coast received? I dont know much about T.V. markets, but I assumed (maybe incorrectly) that the East Coast covers 2/3 of Scifi's viewing: East Coast, Central, and I think someone said that certain areas of the West Coast still receive the East Coast feed. (Maybe Direct TV). That leaves 1/3 for the West Coast. Using a little math, I came up with the East Coast getting 1.05 in the Ratings. If that is true or close to true, I can see where Scifi will have a very hard time justifying an expensive series.
crazy.gif


------------------
 
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, arial">quote:</font><HR>That leaves 1/3 for the West Coast. Using a little math, I came up with the East Coast getting 1.05 in the Ratings. If that is true or close to true, I can see where Scifi will have a very hard time justifying an expensive series<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Why? That is certainly better than virtually no one in 2/3 of the country watching it, which is what assuming a 50/50 split would lead you to.

If your numbers were right (and don't forget, we've only heard about a couple of west coast markets) that would mean the movie did better than Sci-Fi expected where only the first quarter to half-hour overlapped with the football game. (Which, let us remember, went into overtime.) The final rating for any show in a given market is always an average of the number of viewers who watched each measure "segment"

On the east coast feed, where the entire film was up against the powerhouse football game, the movie still managed to pull a better than 1.0 rating - about what some Sci-Fi prime time shows get, and almost certainly higher than what the reruns have been getting lately.

Combine those two items and the movie did respectably well, holding much of the hardcore B5 rating against football, and more than doubling it competing against "ordinary" programming. If you assume a slightly lower average west coast rating, like a 2.8, the east coast rating would be even higher, while the west would still exceed Sci-Fi's goal for the movie. If more than 2/3 or Sci-Fi viewers got the east coast feed, the east coast rating would be even higher.

This is a much less bleak picture than that painted by Andrew's formula.

Regards,

Joe

------------------
Joseph DeMartino
Sigh Corps
Pat Tallman Division

joseph-demartino@att.net
 
I just wish there was some way for the ratings folks (Nielsen I presume) to account for the number of people who taped or TIVO'ed the movie while watching the game. Just from the pre-showing posts here, I know there was a LOT of B5 fans who planned on doing just that. That doesn't mean that they didn't watch the movie, they just didn't do it live. There is a significant portion of folks that do that for many of their favorite shows. We do that weekly for shows such as 24, CSI, Alias, Enterprise, The District, etc.

I mean what's the point? I would think it would be to track TOTAL viewership, which should include those who chose not to watch it live. Although I will admit, part of the reason we do this is to skip the commercials, so perhaps that would skew it from the perspective of advertisers. I just think that when taping is included, the ratings would be much higher.

------------------
Wipster

"Live Long in Prosser"
 
Does 2/3 sound right for the East Coast(EC)Feed. SavantB5 may have better numbers or be able to tell if this is even in the ball park. I had not read Andrews post prior to this. Sorry..

Here is the formula I used:

2/3x + 3.0 = 1.7 (3.0 is WC avg. 2/3 is EC)

2/3x + 1/3(3.0) = 1.7
2/3x + 1 = 1.7
2/3x = .7
x = .7(3/2)
x = 2.1/2
x = 1.05 East Coast Average.

After looking at these numbers and reading Joe's and Andrews post and factoring in the Football game, using Joes logic, the Rangers did pretty good.

Cerberus

------------------
 
Somehow I dont think crunching numbers and formulas here is going to sway things one way or another. People have pretty much said that all we can do here are these two things:

1) Write letters to sci-fi and the sponsors.
2) Wait

Anything aside from that and you are just spinning your wheels.

------------------
'I don't believe in the no-win scenario' - JTK
 
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, arial">quote:</font><HR>Somehow I dont think crunching numbers and formulas here is going to sway things one way or another.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Of course not, that isn't the point of doing it.

A) It gives us something to do while we're waiting.

B) It gives us some basis for guessing whether things look horribly bad or at least slightly hopeful for a Rangers series.

The initial reports looked pretty damned ugly, with that 1.7. Then the couple of "spot listings" from the west coast feed actually made things look a little worse. If twices as many people on the west coast watched as the national average, how big a bomb was the movie in the east? If you assumed a 50/50 split it looked like the east coast ratings would have to be much lower than the football game alone could account for, like nobody wanted to watch Rangers.

Now it looks the rating might have been closer to a 1.0, using some fairly reasonable assumptions and understanding that all of this is a rough estimate. But anything would be better than the calculated value of 0.01 that a 50/50 spilt would leave you with.

More important than the raw ratings, of course, would be the demographics and the share, and we have no access to that data.

Still, look how much nervous energy everybody's burnt off in this one thread alone. Since it is likely to be awhile before we know anything further, this can only be a good thing.
smile.gif


BTW, has everyone written their letters? That's another good way to kill some time and doing something that at least may be helpful.

laugh.gif


Joe

[edited to add]

P.S.

I rather doubt that anyone from Sci-Fi reads this board, although you never know. But even if they do, posting here isn't going to influence their decision. Posting at their own website probably won't, either. This board was named for the movie for Pete's sake, of course most of the people who post here are going to want a sereis. Same with their board. And it is too easy in both cases to create a lot of bogus IDs and stuff the ballot box.

Their decision is going to be based mostly on the numbers, to a degree on the fan reaction, (which they've mostly seen by now), a bit on reviews and on various things that have nothing directly to do with the movie. (What other shows are they considering? What is their total series budget? Will Bonnie Hammer have a fight with her husband over breakfast the morning the final decision gets made?
smile.gif
Lots of intangibles.)

The only thing we can do that might have any slight effect, more of a nudge than a push, is writing letters to the network and the sponsors. If it comes down to a coin-toss between Rangers and another potential series - cost, demos, audience appeal and everything else being equal - that might tip the balance. But if everything in the world tells them, "Don't do this show" a million letters won't get it made - and if everything says, "Make this show" a million letters are redundant.

All we can do is add our mite to the scales, and then wait patiently for a decision.


------------------
Joseph DeMartino
Sigh Corps
Pat Tallman Division

joseph-demartino@att.net

[This message has been edited by Joseph DeMartino (edited February 05, 2002).]
 

Latest posts

Members online

No members online now.
Back
Top