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

[KingOfHearts]

I would prefer a 22-episode arc, but I'm probably reminiscing S1. At least it seems Dunghey is proactively trying to make good changes. A&E have really needed someone to step in. I have a sliver of hope she'll make S6 a little different.

[Rumsy4]

A&E are too unfocused and ADD right now to have a season-long arc like the did for S1. There is a chance of S6 ending up a clusterf*ck like S2, with multiples storylines going all over the place. We'll see...

[BoPeeps]

Either scenario, 2 separate arcs or one long one, is a moot point until A&E raise the quality of their writing.  With their new shiny toy, I doubt that will happen. Two new writers won't mean squat if they are A&E clones.  I am a creature of habit, but watching another season ( already relegated to day after Hulu viewing) of re-hash. abused characters, directionless, reverse and go again plot and lingering, no growth PG stunted lip locks for CS will send me to a good, juicy book.

Even luscious eye candy can go stale sitting on a shelf forever. I am not fond of losing, ever, but this show is as close to a lost cause as it has ever been.

They've had rating potential in their hands before and have sadly and horribly disappointed.  But by the time viewers watch the episode, the numbers are already registered and they rely on disingenuous media *teases* to further promise something of substance.for the next episode, where perpetual hope, once again, gets eyes on the screen.  But, then they fall flat.

Only part of their problem is being relegated to the Disney Hour on Sunday Nights. It is a double edged sword. Kids that are still allowed to watch don't give a fig for plot development, nuances or character growth.  I would dare to say, their parents don't either as long as the kids are starstruck Disney Princess entertained. The biggest problem is their consistently mediocre writing and them counting on their ratings numbers being fueled by, in part, an easily manipulated viewing audience.

(Rumsy, my guess is that your guess of a clusterfuck is a pretty solid speculation.)

[sharky]

Well again, remember the ratings for the Frozen arc when there were rumors that Disney was actively shaping that storyline. I don't know where they came in though, and I'm assuming they took less care with the Snow Queen stuff, which is where that whole thing went off the rails. I'm hoping that this is ABC getting more actively involved again, and I hope this means they may decide to take some control from A&E as they work on their new show. In most cases, I would hate that. In most cases, I would say let the creators have control and don't mess with their vision because you'll only make it worse. But this isn't most cases. They'll never get Frozen numbers again, but they can get some bigger ratings. And let's remember that Channing Dungey has taken control of this show in a profound way before. Maybe it's false hope, but it is hope that I cling on to.

ETA: Just found an interesting article from February when Channing took over with this quote: "What may have been a surprise is that it happened on a Wednesday of [that] week," Once Upon a Time co-creator Edward Kitsis tells THR. "But nobody is surprised that Channing eventually got the job." I'm hoping this means he knows and respects Channing enough to go along with her ideas for helping the show. I mean, she was at the 100th episode party. I think she's close enough with them to tell them how to fix things and have them respect her for it.

ETA2: And ha! From the article: a chart at the bottom says ABC is being pulled down by its shows on Sundays and Tuesdays. The only bright spot on Sundays is Once, but they're going to have to pull a bit more to help the night, which again makes me think Channing is going to take a little more control than the former guy in her spot.

Edited May 21, 2016 by sharky

[TheGreenKnight]

2 hours ago, sharky said:

And let's remember that Channing Dungey has taken control of this show in a profound way before.

When was that?

I don't trust that executives know what they're doing. I guess I find it stupid for new management to insert themselves on a show that's been going for 5 years, but then I don't agree with most posters here about much of anything. The only times I've really been disappointed by this show were season 2 and the second half of 4. I wouldn't say the show has outstanding writing by any means, but I consider the writing equal to or better than several shows that have been on the basic channels the past few years, like Nashville, Empire, Scandal (season 3 onwards), Castle, Glee, HtGAwM, etc. The reason the show has half-arcs is because season 2 fell apart completely midway through the second half. They can't come up with enough material to sustain one arc for 22 episodes. Even season 1 had to prolong the adultery-murder drama longer than it was useful or interesting to fit the episode count.

[Camera One]

Channing told A&E they can't kill off Prince Charming in the pilot.

[Mathius]

Called it.  I called that there'd be no more half-season arcs, and that it was Dungey's decision and not A&E's.

Quote

I don't know where they came in though, and I'm assuming they took less care with the Snow Queen stuff, which is where that whole thing went off the rails.

Disney came in to manage how the actual Frozen characters were used, since that is a VERY important property for them.

This is why we didn't get any forced Elsa/Regina bonding, because they didn't want Elsa associated with the Evil Queen.

Quote

Even season 1 had to prolong the adultery-murder drama longer than it was useful or interesting to fit the episode count.

I actually liked that stuff, mainly because there was a lot of character moments in it, including some great Emma/Mary Margaret ones.

I think 3A and 4A were fine as half-seasons, but the material in 3B, 4B, 5A and 5B would have worked better as full seasons.

Edited May 21, 2016 by Mathius

[Camera One]

Anyone make sense of what this television commenter is saying about "Once Upon a Time"?

"Grading the Broadcast Networks" based on their upfront presentations
http://www.campaignlive.com/article/upfront-report-grading-broadcast-networks/1395789

But what ABC fails to see, or at least believe, is how far "Once Upon a Time" has slipped. Had the network addressed that, its grade might have been elevated to a B+.

How should ABC have "addressed" that?

[daxx]

By acknowledging the ratings slip and discuss changes planned to improve the show and regain audience.

[Camera One]

They did that for other shows?

[ParadoxLost]

1 hour ago, Camera One said:

Anyone make sense of what this television commenter is saying about "Once Upon a Time"?

"Grading the Broadcast Networks" based on their upfront presentations
http://www.campaignlive.com/article/upfront-report-grading-broadcast-networks/1395789

 

 

How should ABC have "addressed" that?

In context of the article, I think they were saying it should have been cancelled.

[sharky]

Hm...I'm kind of confused by that too. They did say that they are changing the half-and-half formats for seasons, which directly affects how Once will tell their stories so that is covered. Was he expecting a showrunner change? Or someone else helping out now that A&E have a summer job so to speak? That would be the only other logical move I would consider being a possibility that he's disappointed ABC didn't move on.

[daxx]

I suspect they would have liked to see a show runner change. That doesn't always solve the problem. Sleepy Hollow did get better in season two when they changed show runner at midseason, but then this season happened...

[ParadoxLost]

5 minutes ago, sharky said:

Hm...I'm kind of confused by that too. They did say that they are changing the half-and-half formats for seasons, which directly affects how Once will tell their stories so that is covered. Was he expecting a showrunner change? Or someone else helping out now that A&E have a summer job so to speak? That would be the only other logical move I would consider being a possibility that he's disappointed ABC didn't move on.

I'm not sure that changing the half and half seasons will actually change OUAT structure.  I think that was more about their Winter gap strategy not working. This year, their midseason shows were going up against first run episodes of regular shows for a couple weeks.  And the networks that have a more diverse Winter strategy with limited series, reality, and events were clobbering ABC in the Winter.

The comment that some will be short and some will be longer, makes me think that Sunday shows will still be longer, although not long enough for a scripted mid season show, because of Awards season.

[Eolivet]

On 5/23/2016 at 8:10 PM, ParadoxLost said:

In context of the article, I think they were saying it should have been cancelled.

I disagree -- I think he's saying it should've been moved. It anchors the night at 8PM and it no longer has the cache to do that. When you start out weak, your whole night is weak (ABC's night starts at 7, but their scripted programming starts at 8). I think he's saying at this point, the show isn't gaining any more viewers, so move it out of a prime spot and let another new show have a turn at trying to fix the night. "The best rated show of the night" means nothing when your whole night is bad. If ABC had acknowledged their whole night was bad, and moved Once to try and actively fix it, their grade would've been better.

Marc Berman is a ratings guy -- so he cares about the audience composition and the audience flow/retention levels. He cares little (in my experience) about the creative or behind-the-scenes stuff.

[ParadoxLost]

3 minutes ago, Eolivet said:

Marc Berman is a ratings guy -- so he cares about the audience composition and the audience flow/retention levels. He cares little (in my experience) about the creative or behind-the-scenes stuff.

I didn't think he does care about anything creative or BTS. 

By the context, I meant that the moves made by ABC that he credited as being good where fixing 10PM by cancelling Nashville and Castle and replacing with new shows that he sees as having potential.  And he praised upping the sitcom blocks.  That leaves nowhere OUAT could move other than later on Sunday or dumped on Friday.   I think he wanted a third scripted drama with potential to replace OUAT as a lead in to fix the night. 

[Eolivet]

Yes -- 100% agree with this. I was responding to the idea that he wanted different showrunners.

And I think he's right: when you start weak, you stay weak. ABC is treating Once like it's still capable of anchoring an important night of programming, when it's really not. It should've been moved to 9 or Fridays at 8.

It's so egregious, it makes you wonder whether Disney had a say in it staying put.

[sharky]

On the other hand, here's a good round up of the past season's overall Nielsen ratings. Among the things that I thought were interesting.... NBC claimed the top-rated program of the season with Sunday Night Football. So Once is competing against sports, giving it some counter-programming ground, and against football, which is just a complete juggernaut on television. A new show would have to be realllllly good to be put in that lead-off spot or have a proven track record.

And by the way, when it comes to Sundays, that hasn't happened. Remember that Once is really competing against other shows on its own network. But how has that been? ABC picked up Quantico for another season but that's it for new dramas. And how many dramas have we seen die on ABC Sundays because they're bad. 666 Park Avenue, Revenge, Blood and Oil, and The Family. All gone, and not simply because Once was a bad lead-in. Hell, Resurrection was pulling in better numbers than Once when it debuted and where is that show now? But Once is one of the few bright spots in ABC's recent drama record.

The other thing that's interesting in the article is the viewers for the top 18-49 shows. Lucifer was fifth on the list. It's finale had 3.9 million overall viewers while Once's finale got around 4.1 million viewers (got those numbers from TVbytheNumbers so adjust as needed). But that means Once is outperforming shows that are considered the best new shows on television.

So it's not super great or stellar or anything, but it's doing a pretty good job considering.

[Shanna Marie]

Part of the scheduling problem is that none of the Sunday shows that follow Once are anywhere near in the same vein, so someone who tunes in for Once is probably less likely to keep watching ABC. The following shows tend to be serious action dramas or psychological dramas. Maybe what they need is more fantasy-type shows, something that would interest the people tuning in for the fairy tale and fantasy of Once. I've had absolutely zero interest in their other Sunday-night shows. If you look at the Sunday lineup over the past few years, it's very much a case of "one of these things is not like the other."

[Serena]

But then you have ABC trying to put a compatible, very well reviewed, good show like Galavant in Once's spot the last two years... and that ended in a disaster. So, even putting a "better" show at 8PM means nothing, because you need to convince an audience - of the Netflix and bingewatching generation - to actually tune in at 8PM for something totally new. Even when they tune in for new shows (Quantico, Resurrection) they tune right out very soon.

[Curio]

I happened to stumble upon a Hollywood Reporter article discussing the new 2013 TV pilots, and it amazes how many shows fail, or even if they do make it one season, they get cancelled quickly. Reading over all of those failures makes me appreciate how long OUAT has been able to stick around.

[Shanna Marie]

Back in the early 90s, I worked with a guy whose wife was a TV critic. When she went to LA for the press junket to launch the fall season, she brought me a t-shirt from the NBC launch event (I'd done some kind of favor for their family while she was out of town). It listed all their new fall shows for that season on the back. I found that shirt when I was cleaning out my closet last year, and there was only one show on the list that I even remembered -- and these were the shows that made it to the schedule. I was tangentially involved with a potential series that was being pitched a couple of years ago, and it's amazing how long the odds are. There are a lot of ideas that get considered, and only a few of those get some kind of production backing with any kind of team in place. The one I was dealing with had a showrunner (who had worked on and launched other shows) and head writer, and they got pitch meetings with production companies and networks, which they considered a real achievement, but didn't get an order for a pilot script. There are a lot of pilot scripts written that never get produced, and a lot of pilots produced that don't get picked up for series. So getting a series on the air and lasting for more than one season is beating a lot of odds.

I think some of the issue with Galavant is that it was instead of Once when it might have made a good partner for Once. They don't have a block of programming with a similar theme or tone. Every show on their Sunday night schedule seems to be something entirely different, so it's hard to imagine the same audience sticking around all night. It's not "quirky fantasy dramedy" night or even "quirky fantasy that escalates into something slightly darker as the night goes on." It's quirky fairy tale fantasy, then FBI action drama, then psychological family crime drama. It's hard to imagine something like Once being a good lead-in to something like Quantico. There's probably not a huge amount of audience overlap.

[TheGreenKnight]

2 hours ago, Curio said:

I happened to stumble upon a Hollywood Reporter article discussing the new 2013 TV pilots, and it amazes how many shows fail, or even if they do make it one season, they get cancelled quickly. Reading over all of those failures makes me appreciate how long OUAT has been able to stick around.

Looking at the list for next season, I'd be shocked if any of ABC's new shows take off. I'm guessing it'll be another bad year for them.

[Curio]

Agreed, @TheGreenKnight. ABC seems to have found its groove when it comes to 30-minute sitcoms, but it's really struggling to find some new good 60-minute dramas. I could confidently see OUAT getting a seventh season.

[sharky]

I do think ABC has some interesting dramas for this upcoming season. I'm looking forward to Conviction and Designated Survivor. And I'm not sure where Still Star-Crossed is going to land on schedule yet, but that kind of costume drama seems like it could be a good companion to Once. And it's a Shonda show so there is hope for it. But yea, ABC had a miserable season. Once is a star in a dull sky so it will be interesting to see how it shakes out with the rest of the fall schedule. 

[TheGreenKnight]

I think Still Star-Crossed looks like a dud, just like The Catch. But I could see them pairing it with OUAT.

[KingOfHearts]

It's kind of sad that OUAT is out-performing most of the dramas, yet it doesn't really deserve to. (Though relatively speaking, it does I suppose.)

[Curio]

If you've watched Quantico or The Catch, OUAT actually looks amazing in comparison. Those shows are bad.

[KingOfHearts]

58 minutes ago, Curio said:

If you've watched Quantico or The Catch, OUAT actually looks amazing in comparison. Those shows are bad.

That's... very difficult to imagine. (But not impossible.)

And this is the same network that brought us Lost...

Edited May 26, 2016 by KingOfHearts

[Eolivet]

9 hours ago, sharky said:

So Once is competing against sports, giving it some counter-programming ground, and against football, which is just a complete juggernaut on television. A new show would have to be realllllly good to be put in that lead-off spot or have a proven track record.

Not necessarily a new show -- a moved show. I think Scandal could probably pull higher numbers than Once on Sunday (they'd have to tone it down for 8PM). Same with How to Get Away with Murder. And who's to say a new show wouldn't give ABC a lift -- Desperate Housewives came out of nowhere 10+ years ago (after an abysmal previous year for ABC) and did just that. I think that's what Berman is saying -- just acknowledge there is a problem. Networks used to be much bolder about moving shows, but have become so skittish with all the erosion because they don't want to lose the viewers they already have (see: CW renewing everything).

I think Once would've been a fine fit for Fridays at 8, leading into Shark Tank. Or move Shark Tank to 8 and put Once at 9 (though I bet if you asked ABC, it would classify Once as a "family" drama, not a "fantasy" drama). But both family and fantasy programming have previously done well on Friday nights -- Ghost Whisperer for CBS and of course, X-Files for Fox. NBC's Grimm is doing OK, too.

To put it in its strongest competition's terms, Once moves the chains. It doesn't score touchdowns, it just gets first downs. It plays it safe for ABC, numbers-wise. Berman wanted them to chuck it down the field -- to go for the win, not just keep the ball. ABC has settled for just keeping the ball, which means they'll probably do fine-to-OK this year on Sunday. But not as well as they might've done if they'd taken a chance.

[TheGreenKnight]

The risk of moving the show is that 1. They could possibly kill OUAT faster, and 2. They could spin their wheels for years trying to get a hit to fill Sunday nights in its place and bombing in the meantime. I could see moving Scandal to Sundays possibly working, but HtGAwM is already falling pretty fast and it likely benefits heavily from the TGIT marketing. Scandal has also been faltering, but the drops aren't nearly as steep.

[Eolivet]

I agree it could fail. That's why it's a risk. The TV landscape is littered with risks that didn't pay off, but also risks that did.

ABC is settling for Once. Once is the non-flying monkey Walsh of TV programming. It's safe, nice, unassuming. But there's no spark, no risk, and thus no potential for something truly exciting. I don't believe it will do anything for ABC other than not lose them ratings (or lose ratings at a lesser pace). Maybe that's the state of TV networks today -- playing not to lose. I personally find that depressing. Some of the biggest ratings successes on TV started off as huge risks. The landscape would be dramatically altered if networks had played it safe.

It's done, so it's a moot point -- all I wanted to say is I personally agree with Berman. ABC is pretending like Once can still anchor a night, and I agree that the ratings have shown that it can't. Berman knows you can't hope to launch a night of hit programming when your anchor show is drawing a 1.1. That doesn't mean (nor do I believe Berman was implying) that Once should've been cancelled and is a terrible show. Just that ABC should've been more realistic about where the show is now, ratings-wise, and programmed accordingly. And yes, taken a risk and moved it out of a spot it doesn't really belong anymore and given another show a chance. That's why he's a ratings guy, not a network exec. It's not his money, nor is it mine. I'm just saying I think the numbers agree with him.

[LizaD]

Quantico gets enough lift on C3/C7 that it ends up beating Once. It's also cheaper than an oldie like Once. All the Shonda shows, except the newest one, get significant C3/C7 increases. When all is said and done, Once ends up losing ground relative to the other shows and is near the bottom of the heap of the shows left. When Once goes fractional next season, I don't know if the math is going to work out for them.

This development season was Lee's so Dungey is going to get a pass if most of them bombs. She can clear the deck somewhat for her development season. But there is A LOT of excitement and betting on Kiefer's show. Kerry and Viola also got development deals with ABC so it'll be interesting to see if they produce anything for 17-18 and where it'll go.

[sharky]

But what do you put in its place on Sundays? Remember it can't be a male dominated show because of football on NBC so Designated Survivor is out. And 8pm on Sunday is not a time for a woman who does drugs and deals with criminals so no Conviction. And this list goes on.

They are bringing in two fantasy type shows at midseason -- Time After Time and Still Star Crossed. If they do it right, either of those will be good for a fantasy block. 

[Serena]

I think both those shows would be a good fit with Once. TAT has the magic/time travel aspect, while SSC has the costumes and romance.

[Souris]

On 5/26/2016 at 11:44 AM, TheGreenKnight said:

Looking at the list for next season, I'd be shocked if any of ABC's new shows take off. I'm guessing it'll be another bad year for them.

I have high hopes for Designated Survivor. Supposedly it did AMAZINGLY well with test audiences. That of course is no guarantee of success, but it's a good sign for sure.

But yeah, ABC has been struggling with launching dramas lately.

[jjjmoss]

Outside of summer filler, dramas that had 4+ seasons in the last 10 years:

Grey’s wrapped up its 12th, Once/Scandal its 5th. Revenge/Nashville got 4, Brothers and Sisters 5, Private Practice 6, Castle 8.

Given that Scandal started mid-season, and how Private Practice had two short seasons, Once will be 3rd in longevity. That's really quite impressive already. Mmm, and looking back a bit more, looks like Once will be just the 3rd 21stc drama with 6 full seasons. 

[KingOfHearts]

I don't know why, but the summer break always seems shorter than the winter break, even though technically it's longer. 

[Curio]

2 minutes ago, KingOfHearts said:

I don't know why, but the summer break always seems shorter than the winter break, even though technically it's longer. 

Nicer weather always helps, too.

This hiatus will go quickly for me just because I don't care at all about the cliffhanger. I'm sure it'll go slow again once San Diego Comic Con arrives.

[YaddaYadda]

Not for nothing, but everyone is back on set in 4 weeks which usually means news, press, and spinning. SDCC is the 3rd week of July if I'm not mistaken. Plus usually, it's the last month before the end of hiatus that drags on and on. 

[RadioGirl27]

A&E are doing some pannel for Dead of Summer and they said this about season 6:

Quote

Plan for #OnceUponATime S6 is 22 ep based

[Writing Wrongs]

From EW:

Quote

The upcoming sixth season of Once Upon a Time is set to look very different from what fans have become accustomed to over the last few years.

During a panel for their upcoming Freeform show Dead of Summer, moderated by this reporter, executive producers Adam Horowitz and Edward Kitsis revealed that the storyline for season 6 won’t be split into two halves, with the story of villain Hyde (Sam Witwer) not necessarily set to be wrapped up in the first 11 episodes.

“This season is going to be different from past because it’s not going to be Hyde comes to town, we fight with him for 10 episodes, and then in the winter finale, he dies and we move on,” Kitsis said. “We are changing around what we’re doing this year and going back to that season 1 mentality of small town stories and smaller arcs.”

[Shanna Marie]

9 minutes ago, Writing Wrongs said:

This season is going to be different from past because it’s not going to be Hyde comes to town, we fight with him for 10 episodes, and then in the winter finale, he dies and we move on

So, he watches his own show!

10 minutes ago, Writing Wrongs said:

We are changing around what we’re doing this year and going back to that season 1 mentality of small town stories and smaller arcs.

That shows promise, if they can pull it off. I won't hold my breath, but it sounds good.

[TheGreenKnight]

So the show will go out with a plunk instead of a slow sink. Hopefully, Dungey gets the ax in a couple of years just like Sherwood.

[maryle]

Just for the fun of it  I am predicting 1. 5 for the premiere and I do believe it could be anywhere between 1.4 and 1.5

[sharky]

Season finale wax 1.1 and I don't see it moving much above that for the premiere. This thread is going to be interesting this season. I honestly think the show could go fractional at some point so fingers crossed we do ok.

And just a reminder that the season preview is on at 7pm. 

[Curio]

If the marketing was promoting the Aladdin/Jasmine story line more than the Evil Queen repetition, I think the premiere would do a lot better. I guess we'll see what happens.

[maryle]

The season final was 1.3 and 1.2 I think?

The 1.1 was for a Holliday were all the show had a bad week so I think a little up for the premiere will be 1.4 if I am conservative and 1.6 if I am really positive.

But, it could be flat in that scenario the premiere will be 1.3  but I still consider 1.2 to be the ground of the die hard fans. The question is if the this plancher will hold.

Yes, this year the rating will be really interestin. To be continued tomorrow mornin!.

[maryle]

Well, it looks to be 1.2 if it stay like that it will be the worst scenari without any  number from the average last final.

  Not looking good for s7  but 1.2 can still be the floor and they still there for most of the season

   PS last year it was cs fault for everything this year it most be because of a certain Queen. No?

[maryle]

I do not want to sound too negative I am still rooting for this silly show so maybe it should be mention that Oncee still the highest for Sunday for ABC.