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

[FabulousTater]

Eh, the Secretary numbers don't mean much. It's the demo that makes the network $$$$

If decisions were made in a vacuum with just the demo ratings, certainly. But they're not. If a show has a rating of 1.x and 5 million viewers versus demo rating 1.x and 11 million viewers, then the 11 million viewers matters a lot. My point is that OUAT isn't doing that great just because it scored a 1.8 demo. It's overall viewership numbers are also depressed and that's all together bad (but also deserved).

Edited March 16, 2015 by FabulousTater

[RadioGirl27]

Everytime they have Emma acting OOC and coddling Regina the ratings drop, and yet here we are. The sad thing it's that A&E love Regina so much and fear her fans and the SQ shippers so much that nothing is going to change.
If they don't make some changes (that doesn't involve more Regina), season 5 would the last for sure.

Edited March 16, 2015 by RadioGirl27

[Souris]

Sunday has been down across the board this year, so that's part of it. But the show certainly isn't helping itself.

Edited March 16, 2015 by Souris

[sharky]

In fact, the show is doing better than the other ones. I'm wishing and hoping they cancel Revenge. That show has been sucking it up like a Hoover lately and deserves its low ratings.

[orza]

OUAT does well in the live plus 7 ratings and does really well  in their main target demographic, namely, children. It is also doing well internationally. Overnight ratings are not as important to this show as other shows because it is not stand-alone product. It is being built out to be a Disney brand that can be leveraged to promote other Disney brands, such as they did with Frozen. The choice of villains for the current half season was probably influenced more by projected future brand revenue than current ratings. The way the show is shaping up suggests strongly that plans for a theme park attraction.similar to the Pirates of the Caribbean ride may already or soon will be in the works. That is a money-making potential that far exceeds any ad revenue an additional million or so viewers could bring today. This show is a success by industry standards and will continue to earn millions for Disney long after it finishes its run.

[stealinghome]

Ouch for the drop, but entirely deserved. I do foresee us setting series lows multiple times this season.

 

As everyone else has said, though, based on 4A's strong (Frozen) numbers, we'd have to get, like, 0.9s the rest of the way for ABC to even think about canceling the show. But I do wonder if next season might be the last, depending on how low the ratings go and what else ABC rolls out. It's really, really hard for me to imagine this show limping beyond 6 seasons. It's utterly running on fumes as it is, and if we assume that most of the actors are signed to 6-year contracts (which is the industry standard, as I understand it), well, I can't imagine Carlyle, Goodwin, and Dallas re-upping. Even Morrison would have to think hard about it, I think. And at that point, even as delusionally in love with Regina as A&E are, they have to know that they can't run this show without Snowing or Rumpel.

Edited March 16, 2015 by stealinghome

[LizaD]

 

OUAT does well in the live plus 7 ratings and does really well  in their main target demographic, namely, children.

Live plus 7 ratings doesn't mean much because it doesn't bring in any ad revenue. That's not a number they can take to upfronts and sell to advertisers yet. Their main target demo is not children because again primetime network tv relies on ad dollars and the 2-11 demos aren't going to give you that money in primetime network. Like every other primetime network tv show the main target demo is 18-49 and Once probably goes a bit more specific to females 18-49. They try to sell it as a "family-friendly" show to lure in the children as bait for their real targets, the parents or the moms. You know what's the real barometer? Watch the ads that air during Once vs. say SpongeBob. World of difference. I haven't watched Once live in a long long while so I don't know what kinds of ads are airing but dollars to donuts they're not ads directed to kiddies. They would not have put the spinoff Wonderland on Thursdays 8pm either if the Once brand was made for kids.

 

 

It is being built out to be a Disney brand that can be leveraged to promote other Disney brands,

I'm sorry but no. Once is a nanodrop in the bucket for the Disney brand. It means diddly squat for Disney. When the sequel for Frozen was announced or the Frozen short that was attached to Cinderella was Once Frozen edition ever mentioned? Nope. With all the advertising for Maleficent, Cinderella, upcoming live Beauty and the Beast was Once ever mentioned as a tie-in? Nope. With the DVD re-releases was Once ever mentioned? Again nope. Once is using Disney as leverage to promote itself, not the other way around. Once doesn't give the Disney brand any additional promotion that it can't get on its own. It never has.

 

Cinderella is nowhere to be found on Once now and never played a big role on Once and yet somehow Disney's live Cinderella earned a $70million box office opening weekend. I highly highly doubt some Disney exec is thinking "Gee if only we had used Once to promote Cinderella, maybe it would've garnered a $75 million opening. Or hey let's tell them to get Cinderella on Once so it could earn more money in the coming weeks." In fact seeing their vision for their product of Cinderella? If anything it makes me think the Disney execs would probably find anything on Once damaging to their brand.

 

Besides the way this show has blown through "Disney" tales and used them as throwaway characters mean they now have a very short supply of Disney material to work with.

[KingOfHearts]

 

Besides the way this show has blown through "Disney" tales and used them as throwaway characters mean they now have a very short supply of Disney material to work with.

Replying in All Seasons.

[Serena]

If decisions were made in a vacuum with just the demo ratings, certainly. But they're not. If a show has a rating of 1.x and 5 million viewers versus demo rating 1.x and 11 million viewers, then the 11 million viewers matters a lot. My point is that OUAT isn't doing that great just because it scored a 1.8 demo. It's overall viewership numbers are also depressed and that's all together bad (but also deserved).

I disagree. I think if the 1.x demos are equal, a network would look at 1. how much the show costs to produce 2. whether they produce it in-house or buy it from somewhere else 3. foreign sales 4. how close to sydincation 5. critical buzz 6. social media involvement before they even think to look at the millions of viewers, because even 10 millions of 70 year olds make them no money.

[FabulousTater]

I disagree. I think if the 1.x demos are equal, a network would look at 1. how much the show costs to produce 2. whether they produce it in-house or buy it from somewhere else 3. foreign sales 4. how close to sydincation 5. critical buzz 6. social media involvement before they even think to look at the millions of viewers, because even 10 millions of 70 year olds make them no money.

We'll have to agree to disagree then. While 18-49 is the most lucrative demographic, it's not the only demographic that makes a network money. You would need to know if  a program had enough viewers first to know if you should even bother looking at those other four points that you outlined. If a show has a 1.x demo and only 1 million viewers, that bodes poorly no matter what it's costing to produce, no matter the "critical acclaim", and really syndication is not what it used to be.

 

The 18-49 is looked at for ad revenue for sure, but it's a number that should be taken in conjunction with overall audience reach. If you only look at the demo number by itself, you're only looking at half the picture of what it means. 

[jjjmoss]

I agree with Serena.

 

If you look at two shows with similar 18-49 but different total viewerships, based on ad revenue estimates from Variety and such, it tends to be that the more viewed show tends to get LESS money. 

Generally in this situation the show with more viewers has more 35-49-year-olds, compared to the one with fewer viewers which has more 18-34-year-olds who are an even more valuable subset of a subset.

 

Or if you compare an NCIS to a Fox comedy like Simpsons or Family Guy. Obviously the former has way, way more viewers, yet it apparently gets markedly fewer ad dollars cuz most of its viewers have no value as they're too elderly...

Edited March 20, 2015 by jjjmoss

[Souris]

From Marc Berman:

 

8:00 p.m.

ABC – Once Upon a Time
Viewers: 5.66 million (#2), A18-49: 1.9/ 6 (#1)

———-

8:30 p.m.

ABC – Once Upon a Time
Viewers: 5.71 million (#2), A18-49: 1.8/ 5 (#1)

 

---

 

Slight drop in total viewers, slight uptick in 18-49.

Edited March 23, 2015 by Souris

[HoodlumSheep]

:( . Any chance of it adjusting up a tenth to a 1.9? The tv ratings system still confuses me. The second half of the ep gained more viewers but had less that are considered important. Honestly, how did they ever come up with 18-49 having he most consumer/buying power. I'd personally aim for rich old retirees that've got money to burn.

Well, at least it didn't go down any further in the ratings. And because it'll make me feel better, I blame March Madness. They've had better ratings than last year.

Let me dream people, let me dream.

[Dani-Ellie]

Honestly, how did they ever come up with 18-49 having he most consumer/buying power. I'd personally aim for rich old retirees that've got money to burn.

 

Don't quote me on this, but I believe the thinking is that the older viewers are more set in their ways. If they've been buying Ivory soap for the last 30 years, what are the odds they're going to switch to Dial? On the other hand, the younger viewers are just starting to get out on their own and making their own decisions as to what to buy for their own homes. (It may sound silly but I remember when I moved out on my own being psyched to be able to buy grated parmesan cheese as opposed to the romano my mom bought because I liked parmesan and she didn't.)

[stealinghome]

I would also say--as a member of the 18-49 demo!--that younger people are dumber with their money. We're more likely to spend money that we don't have if a product looks really cool. Whereas older folks (theoretically) aren't just more set in their ways, but are generally, I suspect, more frugal.

[HoodlumSheep]

I must be an odd one out then. I'm in the 18-49 range and I'm a complete penny pincher and I'm pretty much set in my ways. I probably know more older people who are looser spenders than I do young.

Anyways, I'm hoping for a miracle that makes it get adjusted up a tenth. It staying flat (which is a little disappointing) isn't necessarily bad when you remember it came off a pretty weak episode according to many. Hopefully it starts going back up!

[sharky]

Definitely. Most older people aren't rich. They have a fixed income and a fixed way of doing things.

 

And playing Ratings Excuse Bingo, you had the NCAA tournament, which meant Once was up against 60 Minutes for the first hour. Then you have the fact that last week's episode was shit. And of course, there's the always tried and true excuses like "It was the highest rated show that started at 8pm," and "The shows after it bled even more so it's still the strongest." Seriously, I'm a fan of Revenge, but I'm waiting for that show to die. It had a 1.1 share and 4.4 million viewers.

 

My only disappointment is that this happened to a Hook-centric episode. I want to say the same thing happened last year too -- The Jolly Roger came a week after some crapfest of an episode and it hurt the ratings. I hope that doesn't drive storylines but you never know.

[stealinghome]

If ratings drove storylines for this show, you would think that someone would have figured out that ratings tend to tank when the show pushes Woegina, and adjust accordingly. And yet.

Edited March 23, 2015 by stealinghome

[Emma]

http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/2015/03/23/empire-leads-adults-18-49-viewership-gains-glee-hart-of-dixie-top-percentage-increases-in-live-7-ratings-for-week-24-ending-march-8/378520/

DVR numbers.

[Curio]

Well, at least it didn't go down any further in the ratings. And because it'll make me feel better, I blame March Madness. They've had better ratings than last year.

 

March Madness was definitely a factor in my state. But ultimately, my devotion for Team Hook beat out my devotion for Team Badgers, so I just caught live game updates on my phone instead during the episode.

Edited March 23, 2015 by Curio

[Serena]

The episode is #10 on the iTunes chart - apparently, this is quite rare? I haven't seen this stat around before.

[Souris]

That's not a stat I've ever thought about or seen. Interesting. Something to keep an eye on from here on out, I guess.

[YaddaYadda]

Ratings adjusted up for Once to 1.9

[HoodlumSheep]

Yay! I'm happy. My only wish for this episode was to do better in ratings than last week's. It deserved better, but I'm satisfied. Hopefully with how positively this episode seems to have been received for the most part, it'll kick off a climb in the ratings again. The show needs to try recapturing 2.0s (of any sort).

[jjjmoss]

1.7/5.40 million viewers in the prelim.

[Curio]

If those numbers hold, that's a new series low. With the show taking off next week, I don't see the ratings climbing much higher than that for the rest of the 4B arc.

Edited March 30, 2015 by Curio

[YaddaYadda]

They might for the season finale, but in between and especially with what's coming down the pike, I don't know.  I know I have very little interest is watching 417 and would rather catch what I wanna see on YouTube instead.

[sharky]

Ratings bingo: Walking Dead finale was last night. With that out of the way....

It would be interesting to see the half hour ratings to see of viewers went up or down. I just didn't like last night's episode -- it was confusing at times to me and I watch the show live each week. I can't imagine how much it may have messed with a casual viewer. It doesn't kind of suck after last week's great episode.

Again though, this was the best show for ABC last night. Revenge is sinking to the point where I can't wait for them to cancel it.

[jjjmoss]

If it doesn't climb later this season, there's a chance that all the year-to-year gains from the Elsa half of the season will be wiped out and S4 as a whole will end up lower-rated than S3. 

[YaddaYadda]

Are there really any memorable episodes though?  That's the thing for me.  If you ask me about 4A, I'll go White Out and Rocky Road and some scenes here and there.  For me it was downhill after that.  4B, until Poor Unfortunate Soul, there was really nothing all that memorable about it.  

 

A&E know they're going to be renewed, they probably have that news already anyway and they've already moved on from season 4 and are thinking about what kind of infuriating thing they can come up with next.  I find there's a huge lack of effort in what they're doing.  It's like write it well or don't write it at all.  Thanks!

[FabulousTater]

Ratings breakdown for last night (3/29/2015) from tvmediainsights:

 

8:00 p.m.

ABC – Once Upon a Time
Viewers: 5.38 million, A18-49: 1.7

 

8:30 p.m.

ABC – Once Upon a Time
Viewers: 5.40 million, A18-49: 1.7

[Souris]

Breakdown:

 

8:00 p.m.

ABC – Once Upon a Time
Viewers: 5.38 million (#2), A18-49: 1.7/ 6 (#2)

———-

8:30 p.m.

ABC – Once Upon a Time
Viewers: 5.40 million (#3), A18-49: 1.7/ 5 (#1t)

 

Also, from ABC:

Sunday Night (03/29/15) – ABC Total Viewer and Adult 18-49 Projections
Once Upon a Time: Live + 3 = 7.7 million/2.3 rating and Live + 7 = 8.2 million/2.5 rating

 

Once Upon a Time (8-9pm – 5.4 million and 1.7/5 in AD18-49): Spiking 54% over its lead-in at 8pm, ABC’s Once Upon a Time ranked #1 in its hour for the 5th week in a row in Adults 18-49 (1.7/5-tie). The ABC drama was on par with its week-ago Fast Affiliate Adult 18-49 rating (1.7/5 vs. 1.8/6). In addition, the ABC drama was up for the 2nd week with Women 18-34 (+5%) and also grew with Teens 12-17 (+8%).

[Mathius]

Wow, is this half-season bombing like mad. Can't say it's undeserved, though!

[Souris]

To be fair, Sunday nights are tanking as a whole. But Once certainly isn't helping itself, that's for sure.

[HoodlumSheep]

Ouch! (>_<) always hoping for a bump up.

say what you will about season 3, but at least it was a pretty stable season overall in terms of ratings. Unlike this season, where it's just going down, down, down...

[Emma]

DVR numbers for the episode airing on 3-15.

http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/2015/03/30/empire-leads-adults-18-49-viewership-gains-the-originals-tops-percentage-increases-in-live-7-ratings-for-week-25-ending-march-15/381332/

1.8 to a 2.9 in the demo and 5.9 to 8.4 million viewers.

[Joanh23]

My fear is that the next episode gets better ratings so then A&E will think we all like Robin Hood!

[Mathius]

DVR numbers for the episode airing on 3-15.

http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/2015/03/30/empire-leads-adults-18-49-viewership-gains-the-originals-tops-percentage-increases-in-live-7-ratings-for-week-25-ending-march-15/381332/

1.8 to a 2.9 in the demo and 5.9 to 8.4 million viewers.

Once again I must note that the regular DVR numbers have gone from 9 million to 8 million.

Even that audience has shrunk during this half-season.

Edited March 31, 2015 by Mathius

[jjjmoss]

On a relative basis it looks better when you see that in prelims Grey's just got a 1.8 and Scandal a 2.1.

 

Possibly Easter weekend related...

[Writing Wrongs]

Have they said yet when the season finale is?

[KingOfHearts]

 

Wow, is this half-season bombing like mad. Can't say it's undeserved, though!

It's a new all-time low for the series. :(

[FabulousTater]

Have they said yet when the season finale is?

I don't think so, but if you figure that they have 6 episodes left in the season two of which will air the same night (the producers have said they are airing the last two episodes of the season back to back on the same night), and that after the Easter break the show should air as usual every sunday, then it looks to be that the season finale will air May 10. That's only my guess though.

[Souris]

FWIW, a couple of set regulars seem to think that Season 5 will be the last. They say that's just their opinion. Though katmtan says the actors have five-year contracts -- which we've debated about before without knowing for sure either way. If that is true, I'd think Season 5 would likely indeed be the last. If they're not on five-year contracts, then I think the show would last the length of their contracts. A large cast plus contract negotiations with raises -- that would make it financially difficult to extend.

[Serena]

Meh, I don't think the set regulars know anything. I would be worried OUAT won't get a S6 only if ABC finds some hit for Sunday - everything except Once there is bombing.

[RadioGirl27]

I think that, if the ratings keep going down (and, let's face it, with crappy storylines like Operation Mongoose, they are going to keep falling), season 5 would probably be the last.

But if the rating are acceptable, the actors contracts won't be a problem. They don't need to keep all of them. The problem would come when ABC says Hook and Emma and A&E say Regina.

[Serena]

Yup. Unpopular opinion, but this show can survive without Rumple. If there's no Rumple, Belle can get a HEA off screen as well. Will Scarlet is useless. That's three regulars less right there.

[Souris]

I also think the show could survive without Rumple. (Hell, The X-Files went another year without MULDER, for heaven's sake!) I do think they'd have to cut cast if there's a point where ABC wanted to extend contracts. I'm sure not all cast would be willing to commit to extra years, raise or no.

 

ABC has so little in the drama department pulling in decent ratings -- pretty much they have only Shonda Rhimes's shows and Once -- that Once is likely to hang on longer with dropping ratings than if it were on another network.

 

To me, it mostly depends on what the actors' contract length actually is.

Edited April 4, 2015 by Souris

[sharky]

Actually, XFiles lasted two seasons after Mulder's departure with occasional Fox Mulder sightings. And this is more of an ensemble show than that so it's totally possible to go on without Rumple.

ABC has easily renewed shows that had their actors renegotiate contracts with no problem -- Castle and Grey's are perfect examples. On the other hand, the network has seen shows that start out great and tank. Revenge was an awesome show when it started, but I can't wait for them to cancel it. The ratings for Once aren't what they used to be, but they're holding steady around 1.8 to 2.0, which is better than most shows. That being said, I don't know where ABC's threshold will be for whether it's worth it to renegotiate.

[Shanna Marie]

I think the show would actually improve without Rumple. Trying to keep him indefinitely as a villain who can't be totally reformed or permanently killed isn't working. He's only still around because he's a regular character, not because the story requires his presence. The cast could easily be pared, with some of the current regulars becoming "recurring." But after this season, I'm not sure I'd be too sad if they let it die. It's just getting too frustrating. The gap between what it could be and what it is keeps getting wider.

[YaddaYadda]

It might be just me, but I think Once would fare much better if they got it out of the whole "family hour" and was a bit racier.  They tied the hands of the "heroes" with the whole heroes don't kill mantra, the stories have been diluted to fit into a certain bracket.  Season 1 got the job done, I thought.  Season 1 had Jack half-naked in James' bed and August waking up with two women in Phucket and David cutting his way through Regina's knights to put baby Emma in the wardrobe and people actually fighting verbally and physically.  Is it weird to say that Once might be a much better show if it was a network like CW.