Ratings and Scheduling: Who's the fairest of them all?

[Camera One]

ABC also knew that on Sunday nights in Jan-Feb, they have to pre-empt every year for certain award shows.

I guess they could've aired the 2-hour "Once Upon a Merida" in January instead.

Edited December 30, 2015 by Camera One

[KingOfHearts]

Does anyone else feel this show is just fan service now? A&E basically said "screw it" to drawing in new viewers after 4A. They've brought nothing appealing and have only focused on storylines only loyal fans could get attached to. Dark One mythology, Zarian and now the Underworld are all callbacks to what we've already seen and don't really stand on their own.

[Serena]

I don't mind that the show is only for fans - I think it SHOULD be. I just hate when tge "for fans" storylines are as stupid as Zarian.

[Featherhat]

I think it's inevitable once a show goes into a certain number of seasons. The "mythology" often becomes so dense it's difficult for new viewers to pick it up. This even applies to a certain extent to shows like "Castle" which are supposedly serialised but have a lot of background plots.

OUaT did a huge effort to bring in new/returning viewers with Frozen last year, it was a big campaign and succeeded for a small handful of episodes before those who came only for Frozen got bored (or those that came for everything else got bored of Frozen) and ratings headed south.

Now they're pretty much writing for their regular viewers (not just internet fans note) and any popular storyline or character that attracts people is a great boost but yeah their last mad dashes for viewers and visibility including the three Big Iconic Villains have had decidedly mixed to not great results.

The Merida promo stuff (and storyline) was surprisingly subdued considering that she is such a recent and fairly popular Princess, although I wouldn't actually want to see much more of her in this incarnation. Emma as "Dark Swan" made a half hearted attempt to be interesting and turned out to be a convoluted damp squib, so yeah it's an aging show that currently still works in its slot and the writers are doing what they want.

That won't stop ABC/Disney going all out if there is another ICONIC CHARACTER that comes along but they've done a lot of them right now. Unless there is some kind of "All Star Prince/Princess Final Battle" Final Season.

Edited January 3, 2016 by Featherhat

[jaytee1812]

Unless there is some kind of "All Star Prince/Princess Final Battle" Final Season.

Not gonna lie, I'd watch the shit out of that.

[KingOfHearts]

 

I don't mind that the show is only for fans - I think it SHOULD be. I just hate when tge "for fans" storylines are as stupid as Zarian.

I don't mind fan service either, but like you said we get crap like Zarian. Not to mention forced Swan Queen baiting, Rumpbelle never permanently breaking up because of promises to their shippers, naming babies after douchebags, all praising Saint Regina, etc. The S4 finale was pretty clear about how A&E feel about it. The problem for me is that in order to please certain groups fans, the show breaks character logic and delves into storylines that don't make any sense. Operation Mongoose and Dark Hook are both examples.

Edited January 3, 2016 by KingOfHearts

[scenicbyway]

I think the 2 1/2 month break is ridiculous. It's like the show just gets going after a 4.5 month break and it stops again. The half seasons aren't working either. It was fine for Neverland (because how much longer could they walk in circles in the woods without coats) but this season is a prime example of a very rushed and haphazard plot that could've been interesting if given the time. I mean why go to Camelot if you're not going to explore it beyond a ball and a marital dispute?

I'm not sure it's fair to judge the finale numbers with it being preempted. I know my DVR missed the last 15 minutes because I wasn't home to reset it.

[sharky]

I actually like the break. The fact that the storylines don't work well in chunks isn't because of the scheduled breaks, it's because of the writers. They could've -- and should've -- done an entire Underworld season with a midseason cliffhanger. And plenty of shows, especially cable, do a good job with shortened seasons that are only 10-12 episodes. Last year, you had shows like Mr. Robot, Mad Men and Better Call Saul that had real success with the storylines only being 12 episodes long.

 

But the breaks are something that are especially needed for a Sunday show like Once. You think ratings are bad now, imagine if the show came back before the March premiere. Between now and the premiere, you have major ratings events on Sundays: the Golden Globes, Oscars, football playoffs and the Super Bowl. So either you show repeats or specials or those weeks, which would break up the flow of the storytelling, or you have original programming going up against those shows. The Super Bowl is airing on CBS this year and I can guarantee you that NONE of the other networks will be showing any original programming that night. It's ratings suicide.

 

A show like Castle can handle a week off here or there -- it's just cases each week -- but a show like Once doesn't have that luxury.

[scenicbyway]

I get that people like to binge watch or not have any reruns. But to me watching every episode of a show in two days and then having to wait a year for new episodes wrecks the suspense factor. I feel like that's what we're seeing with Once. I had to pay to see the last 15 minutes of the finale because I was on vacation and couldn't reset the DVR. I didn't want to wait till March to see it but had it been any other episode, it wouldn't have been re run anyway.

[Camera One]

You couldn't watch it on the ABC website?  I thought they used to leave it streaming for a week?

 

Yeah, I do feel with shows I marathon, I don't get to "savor" it as much.  I know with this show, it's like what's there to savor, but this message board provides a lot of value added in the week between.

[KingOfHearts]

 

Yeah, I do feel with shows I marathon, I don't get to "savor" it as much.  I know with this show, it's like what's there to savor, but this message board provides a lot of value added in the week between

Replying in All Seasons.

[Eolivet]

Now they're pretty much writing for their regular viewers (not just internet fans note) and any popular storyline or character that attracts people is a great boost but yeah their last mad dashes for viewers and visibility including the three Big Iconic Villains have had decidedly mixed to not great results.

 

This is my feeling as well -- that the steep viewership decline has already happened. Looking at A18-49 ratings from the last three seasons, there's only an 11% decline in live + same-day viewing from 4B to 5A, whereas the decline from 3B to 4B is sharper (-18%), and 4B lost more than a quarter of 4A's ratings. Granted, 4A is an anomaly, but I'm just not seeing this steep decline in ratings that others have. I think it already happened in 4B -- 5A was just a leveling off of what they already had (with normal veteran drama viewership erosion of ~10%). I suppose we'll know more when 5B premieres, but that would be my best guess. That their viewers now are their viewers going forward -- not picking up any new ones, but maintaining the core audience. Series-lows are always alarming, but the show already started hitting series lows. That's what veteran dramas do.

 

If 5B starts shedding A18-49 to the tune of -25% vs. 5A, perhaps one can say that is a result of viewers not liking 5A. But if it's smaller declines, in the 10%-15% range -- to me, that's nothing special or serious. With very few exceptions, veteran drama ratings tend to decline in small amounts, year after year. If that's the case, it's just the show feeling its age.

[sharky]

Last episode for Once in December got a 1.3. Galavant debuted last night with a 0.9 -- and that was after they barely survived the Cancellation Bear last year. It seems like it's just a small difference between the two but in this day and age, four tenths can be a big deal -- especially if Galavant loses viewers next week.

[YaddaYadda]

I think it's interesting that Galavant in Once's time slot doesn't do so great, and the show that follows Once (in this case Blood and Oil) has/had about the same ratings as Galavant in the 9pm time slot. For me, it just means that Once is doing that good. 

 

And beggars can't be choosers in ABC's case.

[sharky]

And it gets ugly after Galavant. Last night was two reruns of Quantico, which got a 0.4 for both the 9pm and 10pm repeats. Yikes. And football playoffs and Golden Globes are next week.

[KingOfHearts]

From a spoilery article (no spoilers): 

"If you go back and look, we were the No. 1 show to be canceled, according to critics,” Kitsis says. “We got accused of being too hopeful."

When was this? I'm not sure what they're talking about. As a side note, love how A&E take the opportunity to pat themselves on the back in an article about something completely different.

Edited February 4, 2016 by KingOfHearts

[orza]

Back in 2011 before and right after the show premiered it was on several people's lists of first shows to be cancelled. These were TV critics and industry insiders. The show was not expected to last more than a few weeks and abc knew it was taking a huge gamble.A & E should pat themselves on the back. They have accomplished something that not many people can do - they created a successful show in its fifth season out of nothing,

[Serena]

Yeah, people were really weird about the show failing. I feel like these days even more than in 2011, people think saying "This will get cancelled after 3 episodes!" makes them sound cool? I feel like I see people predicting every single show will be cancelled, expect fro, the ones based on huge books like GOT or similar.

[Curio]

I feel like these days even more than in 2011, people think saying "This will get cancelled after 3 episodes!" makes them sound cool?

 

I think the unfortunate reality is that most shows do get cancelled fairly easily these days, so unless it's a TV show premiering on a cable network, there's a good chance it'll get cancelled.

[sharky]

My name is snarky and I have become a ratings snob.

Once posted on their FB page that the show is coming back in a month and all these people were bitching about the hiatus. "They need to get rid of the long hiatus. Don't they know this is how they lose viewers? They need to go back to the old way of showing episodes with little breaks of a week or two between them sometimes. These hiatuses are why shows get cancelled." Ugh. Morons. I'm so glad I have you people around.

[HoodlumSheep]

^ i'd rather have hiatuses than them taking a week break, coming back with a new episode, going on a break for a month, then 2 new episodes, then another break. Or something along those lines (my most recent experience of this is with the Gotham s1 back-half). if it wasn't for twitter I would have flat out forgotten about the remaining episodes, and I can guarantee the same thing would happen if Once went back to that sort of schedule. Not worth my time. I need steadiness.

[orza]

That is exactly the reason that many shows are moving to the split season schedule. It demonstrably supports viewer retention and stable ratings.

[BoPeeps]

Older chrone rant follows:

 

I'm not sure of when or specifically why it happened over time (though $, as in everything, is ALWAYS the real reason behind everything, especially in the U.S.) but the very stable and consistent Sept through May season with re-runs running all summer seemed to work pretty fine when I was a kid. You were never without your favorite show because of summer re-runs and the actors got their own time off to pursue their craft elsewhere. Shows didn't disappear after three weeks, they had a whole season to end for the most part.

 

(Summer was the time to be physically active outside, doing, you know...fun kid/human person stuff instead of being addictively/submissively attached to technology. The creation of the user friendly Internet, reality TV, social media blah blah blah, while a modern marvel of communication, also has lead to some outrageously vile and ugly culture and has created what I see as a total lack of personal accountability, deteriorating civility and grace all around.)

 

There is just too much on TV via cable, networks, streaming, online viewing and the constant need to barrage people with *entertainment*. Ratings are geared towards the *youth* viewers and often leave the (yeah I am going to say it) more experienced, intelligent, higher disposable income viewers with nothing but drek to watch, and hardly any voice in what stays on the air. Probably, in large part because they don't use the social media, don't give much of a shit about Twitter punks, and are constantly de-valued by ADHD producers of shows who  are the so-called creative part of the chaotic, frenetic entertainment cycle. Older audiences still enjoy a damn good book in their hands, and moments that aren't filled with constant NOISE. They are the enemy of profit driven ratings gamers. So they are ignored. Younger, more thoughtful viewers get swept in with the older demographics and are pretty much considered useless as well. So we all have to deal with the preponderance of ignorance.

 

The rush to ratings and online polling idiocy has destroyed a lot of intelligent creativity. Numbers games have squelched thoughtful talent. But the monster is too huge and ferocious to be caged now. Viewers of entertainment are the victims of the frenetic ratings and scheduling beast. But it is very good to read that people are craving steadiness and stability again.

 

Sad commentary aside...What I have noticed about my general generation and peers is that binge watching is amazingly popular. It gets rid of a lot of the noise and mini- breaks and incessant ads/drama/games of hiatus, massive profit driven seasons. We don't have to wait a week. We can watch feature length continuing drama and entertainment on fairly large screens without being assaulted by fourteen year old mentality films in all the mainstream theaters. We don't have to be bombarded with shit-for-brains Tweets and anonymous, cowardly bully behavior of narcissist driven texting sites.  We can just watch enjoyable tales play out in relative peace.

 

While there is a great deal of satisfaction in having a platform to actually HAVE input...the mindless moronic whiney me me me me crap that has exploded around that is so f'ing distasteful it ruins a lot of what entertainment is supposed to do...make you feel good and think beyond your own imagination/existence.

[Camera One]

The whole ratings system / Sept-May / sweeps season, etc. concept is outdated and it's the establishment that wants to keep it going even though it makes no sense anymore.  Having said that, it's the system we have to live with.

 

I think having 1-2 weeks off, intermittently, is psychologically more "difficult" to endure.  One week is the perfect amount of time to beat an episode to fairy dust before moving onto the next one.  A longer hiatus allows one's mind to get used to not having the show back.

 

So I'm okay right now with not having "Once", though I can't wait for the hiatus to end.  I don't see the point of people complaining about it when it's not going to change anything and there is an actual reason why they decided on a longer hiatus.

Edited February 6, 2016 by Camera One

[RulerofallIsurvey]

Older chrone rant follows:

 

Good God, Thank You for this.  ALL of this.  

[KingOfHearts]

 

So I'm okay right now with not having "Once", though I can't wait for the hiatus to end.  I don't see the point of people complaining about it when it's not going to change anything and there is an actual reason why they decided on a longer hiatus.

Yeah, I don't blame production more than I do the outdated system, as you explained. I already dislike the one-week break we get now in the middle of the arc. If I have to wait longer during a hiatus, it's worth it to me if we don't get the middle hiccups. Watching every week and binge-watching are better because the momentum keeps your interest going. 2B can be looked at if the winter hiatus formula needs to be pleaded. 

[LizaD]

When was this? I'm not sure what they're talking about. As a side note, love how A&E take the opportunity to pat themselves on the back in an article about something completely different.

They are absolutely full of shit as usual. They were not #1 picked show to be cancelled by critics. Even the critics that hated the pilot and called it DOA had other shows worse than Once. That doesn't make them top dog. Maybe they're talking about a random angry twitter. That's probably the only "critics" they read. Seriously here's a sample compilation of all the pilots reviewed for that season. They were middling at worst.

http://www.metacritic.com/feature/pilot-reviews-for-2011-tv-season?page=1

Look at Rottentomaotes for the pilot. It's got a 78% fresh rating from critics. That really spells #1 show to be canceled? And by the time the ratings for the pilot came around, it was game over for the prediction game.

At the upfronts, the pilot was well received, relatively. It was not a huge gamble by ABC. It got them the 2nd highest ad rate of their new shows that season. Yeah such a huge risk that. It was picked to be the #1 show canceled yet advertisers were willing to pay top dollar of the new ABC shows? ABC saw it as such a huge gamble they priced it the highest of the new bunch and were willing to risk having to deliver make-goods later on? Please. They can go peddle that crap to the people buying bridges. Maybe if Lost never happened, it would've been a huge gamble for them.

And I love their sly pat on the back with their in your face "hopeful" show. Coming from the bozos that wanted to kill off Prince Charming 2 mins into the pilot? The ones that had to be reined in by network executives with how is killing Charming hopeful and enticing to women?

Edited February 10, 2016 by LizaD

[Eolivet]

The whole ratings system / Sept-May / sweeps season, etc. concept is outdated and it's the establishment that wants to keep it going even though it makes no sense anymore.

 

No, it makes perfect sense to local affiliates. The airwaves were created as a public service (which is why indecency standards are different on TV than in print). As part of using the airwaves, local affiliates provide viewers with entertainment, but also local news. Without local affiliates, one wouldn't have a broadcast network. I know the cool thing is to sneer at the broadcast networks these days, but they do provide television for free. Not everyone can afford cable or god forbid, Netflix. Not everyone has the Internet. Local TV provides a public service to its viewership: news, weather and sports (another reason why even the money-grubbing NFL is forced to grudgingly air a home team's game on a broadcast network, even if it originally airs on a cable channel).

 

And November, February, May and July is when local stations set their ad rates, so yes: sweeps are important. They are a vital cog in the wheel of television. Everybody going online or to Netflix to watch their favorite show tells local TV stations nothing. They need ratings to survive, and broadcast networks need local affiliates to broadcast their content. Local businesses still reach local consumers by advertising on television. TV is advertiser-driven, even at the local level.

 

I'm sure local affiliates will go the way of the dinosaur, just as newspapers and magazines will, but for now, they employ lots of people and they ostensibly provide television for free to those who cannot afford it. Without ratings, there is no local TV. So, long live local TV, long live the broadcast networks and long live the September-May schedule.

[KAOS Agent]

I'm curious about how networks not airing shows in February affects their sweeps stuff. I'm not knocking the idea of sweeps here, I'm genuinely confused about how advertisers perceive shows that don't have ratings during that sweeps period. Is there any question about how a network may be hiding shows so that they only have to cover two sweeps periods? The way the current system basically works is that November episodes are the big climax for the mid season break as everyone generally stops showing new episodes during the holidays and May sweeps covers the big season finale. February usually ends up with big moments, but it's more about the actual show with fewer stunt moments that occur during finales. So what does it say about shows that don't air at all during this period? As more and more network shows play around with something beyond the traditional September - May scheduling as ABC does with Once, how does that affect the meaning of the sweeps for those shows? 

Edited February 12, 2016 by KAOS Agent

[Eolivet]

I think the bottom line is that from what I recall, local advertisers buy dayparts, not shows. So, they're not buying "Once Upon a Time," they're buying WABC Primetime in New York or WLS Primetime in Chicago and then from what I recall, the station places the ads and tells the advertisers where their ads aired. They can't pick the show they want (unless it's the Super Bowl or the Oscars or a big event where they're going to pay a premium price).

 

So, what it says to me about shows that don't air during this period (like "Once Upon a Time") is that the networks, and thus the local affiliates, don't really feel like their inclusion or omission makes that big a difference in their overall February Primetime average. They feel like they have enough programming to satisfy advertisers during February Primetime without "Once Upon a Time." As we saw, TGIT (ABC's Thursday lineup) came back, because the network feels it does make a difference in Primetime ratings (and I think they're right).

 

To me, that's what's so funny about the new schedule -- it isn't new at all, it's just a twist on the old schedule. Despite this "split season" schedule, it's still structured so the highest-rated shows are always airing new episodes in February, May, and November. The more things change...

[Serena]

I don't get it. How can advertisers not know what shows they're buying ad time for? Ad time for Scandal and ad time for Galavant has a BIG price (and audience) difference. The company buying the ad should know in advance what they're paying and getting, shouldn't they? Plus, for example, a toy company could choose to advertise with Once because more kids watch it, but won't want to air their ads during Scandal because it's more adult.

[sharky]

The difference is the local advertisers vs. the national advertisers. Nationals buy ads based on the show, I believe -- we've even had charts somewhere around here about what each show commands. But local advertisers also buy ads for primetime on the local level, which is what I'm assuming eolivet means. So a local car dealership buys ABC Sunday primetime for their ads.

 

And remember that upfronts are in May. That's not for the networks to show off their new shows to potential viewers. It's the networks showing off their new shows to advertisers -- and the advertisers usually buy quite a bit before the season even starts based on what they see at upfronts. So the network may tell them, "Listen, we don't have X show on our schedule in February, but if you buy ad time for X show at 8pm on Sunday when it runs, we'll give you a deal on that time slot when X show isn't on."

[Eolivet]

Nationals buy ads based on the show, I believe -- we've even had charts somewhere around here about what each show commands

 

Well...sort of. Advertisers can't really pick and choose what shows they want (other than, yes, content-related requests, as mentioned above) when they're buying in bulk, or else everybody would just load up the schedule with TGIT and demand that none of their ads aired on Saturday. An advertiser's deal with the network is for the network to guarantee their ad is seen by a set number of viewers. So, if they're buying upfront, they'll get a package that has five spots on Scandal, but nine on Galavant. Obviously, the advertiser is going to be mad if the network tries to put them in 15 Galavants, so there's generally a mix of high and low rated shows, all adding up to the amount of viewers that was previously negotiated.

 

From what I can recall, the advertiser negotiates what they want to spend on a certain network to deliver a certain amount of viewers, but it's the network that makes the schedule and sends it back to the advertisers. So, obviously, if you have a $100 million budget, the network is going to put you in highly rated shows, because you've probably negotiated for a huge amount of viewers to be delivered and it's just easier. But it's not going to be all highly rated shows, because they'd lose a lot of customers if all that was available after the big money advertisers were done was Galavant (sorry, Galavant -- I love you, but you're easy pickings).

 

So the network may tell them, "Listen, we don't have X show on our schedule in February, but if you buy ad time for X show at 8pm on Sunday when it runs, we'll give you a deal on that time slot when X show isn't on."

 

Advertisers buy a broadcast year, so they've got the schedule from September through May when they negotiate with the network in the summer (same with cable, actually). They make adjustments throughout the year as shows get cancelled, but the basic outline of your schedule in the summer is what you're working off until next May. There are hundreds of ads running throughout the year -- there is no way advertisers can keep track of how every show is doing (nor do they care, really, as long as their numbers add up).

 

To me, it's sort of a comforting feeling -- that as long as your show remains stable (and isn't wildly expensive to produce), a few blips in the ratings ultimately don't matter. No advertiser is going to demand to be pulled from "Once Upon a Time" because it was down 0.3 points, week-to-week, because there's a chance that the Fresh off the Boat you were in was up by 0.2 and the Bachelor was up by 0.1 in that same week. As long as the numbers add up, advertisers are happy (well, advertisers are never happy, but the network at least delivered on what they promised).

[LizaD]

Actually ad buyers can and do pick what "show" they want to buy a 30 second spot for, for their clients needs. It's not quite as simple as "I want a 30 second spot at 9:45 during Scandal on 2/18 and only this spot" but they are buying airtime during certain show's airings.

It's complicated and far too involved to really get into. Basics are for what I think this forum is interested in, agencies buy in bulk at the upfronts for multiple clients all with different needs, targets and budgets. Say an agency has a client that wants to launch a new product with the campaign planned for February with a certain budget and certain targets. They look at the data and it is a crap load of data that is far more detailed than, here's the 1.5, for 18-49 Sunday at 8:30, and decide the best fit. So one client's needs might be ad time during Scandal while another's clients needs could be better met with time during Galavant. The time that they bought comes with certain CPM guarantees by the network. If they're not met, the network has deliver make goods which comes in the form of additional airtime elsewhere to make up the difference or other recompense.

Also buying at upfronts is really just a commitment. They can cancel a certain portion of their commitments at various times throughout the season.

And none of this involves the sports advertising which is a different beast.

Edited February 14, 2016 by LizaD

[Eolivet]

Thanks, LizaD. I was in television research at an agency and my knowledge came from creating estimates for buyers for the upfront schedule and their schedule once the upfront moved and they had their specific spots. You sound like you were/are a media buyer. I always assumed the agency gave their choices, but the network gave the schedule -- otherwise wouldn't everyone want to be in Scandal or Grey's Anatomy and the Saturday shows would never get sold?

 

Anyway, I defer to a network buyer's superior knowledge on the subject.

[Souris]

Adam tweeted they're filming past April 1. Added, til April 2.

Edited February 16, 2016 by Souris

[Souris]

Paul Lee has been replaced as the head of ABC Entertainment by Channing Dungey -- who happens to be the sister of Merrin Dungey (Ursula).

[sharky]

Whoa, what? Well that's going to be interesting come upfronts in May. Wonder how will affect fall schedule.

[Serena]

Vulture has an article that mentions that Dungey helped develop Once. So, I guess that's good news for the show, since she'll probably be invested in its success?

[sharky]

Yea, I think the show is also successful enough on its own that it's OK. My question is what is going to be picked up in the fall or moved around to share Sundays with Once. Although I'm not too sure of her past credentials to know what her style will be.

[Serena]

I think with Lee out, Galavant is kaput, so they'll have to develop a new "bridge" show too. But they'll keep Quantico on Sunday if they're smart.

[Souris]

Very interesting read on how tough that job is & some background.

[LizaD]

I always assumed the agency gave their choices, but the network gave the schedule -- otherwise wouldn't everyone want to be in Scandal or Grey's Anatomy and the Saturday shows would never get sold?

The agency more or less chooses. Not everyone can afford or want to pay for a Scandal spot. There's also been a push for more targeted advertising recently and believe it or not Scandal viewers might not best fit some targeted demos they're looking for and other spots would be better. Also remember that there are other major networks and other time spots to work with in any number of combinations. Most ad campaigns don't just run on Thursdays at 9pm on ABC as an example.

On the network side it makes sense for them, because if there's competition for that spot, it drives up the rates. That's why all the hype is geared towards presenting the shows specifically and individually at upfront. Well besides Shonda's Thursday.

Could you be thinking of local ads? I don't know a lot about that side but I think those are sold through the local affiliates and the local affiliates determine the schedule. My money is on those times, like Saturday, getting more local spots than what you would see for Scandal prime time.

[Serena]

People found this article from 2013, it's an interview with the new president. She says "Once Upon a Time benefitted after Captain Hook was added as a character in Season 2." I know some people are gonna lose their mind at that, LOL.

[Camera One]

She also said ""You are hoping the promise of the show you saw in Season 1 will really blossom in Season 2", and "Once Upon a Time" threw out the promise of Season 1 in Season 2, irrespective of Captain Hook.  A network executive believing just adding Captain Hook was a magical solution to keeping "Once" good is kinda delusional.

Edited February 18, 2016 by Camera One

[Shanna Marie]

A network executive believing just adding Captain Hook was a magical solution to keeping "Once" good is kinda delusional.

I don't know ... I was on the verge of quitting in season two after all the dark heart from killing a villain nonsense. I wasn't aware that Hook was out of the picture during that phase because the actor was sidelined with a badly broken leg, so I thought Hook was just gone after being left behind in New York and failing in his revenge mission. When he was back for the finale and it looked like he was going to be a regular and was turning himself around, I decided to stick around for the next season. So, maybe not a magical solution to keeping the show good (for that, we'd have to have different writers), but perhaps it helped stop some of the ratings freefall from season 2. Like it or not, the building up of the relationship between Emma and Hook gave a bit of a publicity boost and did seem to either hook or keep hooked (no pun intended) a fair number of viewers who might have bailed around that time. The ratings stabilized somewhat.

[Curio]

Well, it certainly reeled me back in. I quit the show after Graham's death wasn't properly dealt with, later that summer saw a casting announcement for Captain Hook in Season 2, then decided to binge-watch the second half of Season 1 to catch up in time to watch Season 2 live.

[YaddaYadda]

I was ready to give up on the show by 2x19, I think. I'd reached my breaking point when Regina pulled out MM's heart and showed her the smudge of evil. There wasn't enough Emma for my taste. I can very honestly say that Hook kept me in.

[Rumsy4]

Saying Once Upon a Time benefited after Captain Hook is not the same as calling it a magical solution to make bad show good. I certainly thought the Show benefited from casting Colin as Hook, and I wasn't a CS shipper in Season 2. He was one of the reasons I tuned in for Season 3. 

[KingOfHearts]

Hook definitely adds a lot of appeal now. No one really knew what to think of him in S2 since he was a recurring character with ambiguous intentions and went absent several times. (Mostly in 2B with Colin's broken leg.) He was solidified in S3 when he received a better place in the character line-up, imo. Becoming a love interest for Emma and gaining redeemable qualities helped his case considerably. Plus, he was allowed to interact with more of the mains as well.

Edited February 18, 2016 by KingOfHearts