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

[BoPeeps]

My guess would be that a faction of the Disneyesque audience with young children in the viewing audience are still considered when setting the censorship/tone of a "before 9" drama.  Mother Co Disney still would have a lot to say in the production of the show even though topics have been somewhat relaxed over the years.

Those parents put out a crapload of cash for tie-ins, etc.  If you want that cash-based, series support from the head honchos... you cater to that audience.

But all that considered...yeah, A&E haven't been mature about much of anything. They have fallen short in every regard.  It is continued wishful thinking to think the "show that COULD have been" ever WOULD be in any schedule.

Hell, the fans could (and do) come up with better script ideas consistently. 

[AshhyOut]

I don't know if this is a family show and I don't think ABC does either since S2, and not counting the Frozen detour.  I'd say it was more of a CW or Freeform show, demos wise. The tweens, teens, and the bulk of it the young adults crowd which is why the HH numbers are so low but they're held up in the demos. Their HH numbers wouldn't be so low if they were getting families. They would've also gotten a big hit from NBC's Little Big Shots but they didn't. And oh yeah, they can't keep the AFHV crowd.

I also don't think the execs are keeping close tabs on this show, again, aside from Frozen and the initial concept. I think I remember Channing, or one of the other ABC execs talking about how they specifically wanted lighter shows this development season and that they realize the edgy stuff works better on cable than network. And I think it shows with their "dramadies." Nothing about this show screams light. A&E are the epitome of trying too hard to be "edgy" that its just farcical.

I think I just saw about the most joyless proposal on TV ever on Once. The show itself looks like they cut the lighting budget and have a crew of 2 standing around with flashlights. Does that sound like execs are hovering over A&E's shoulders? I think A&E throw out the "this show is about hope" for the execs and they take it at face value. I don't think Disney with its revival of live action movies raking in billions of dollars take more than a glance at a dinky show watched by 2 million people and ABC Studios have other priorities. I think Channing with this show was more like, "make the math work," not "make the stories work." Because if anybody was paying attention, they'd know what was wrong with this show in a second. Hollywood star power and production aside, if anybody cared, you don't think they'd ask, hey why are our fairy tale movies breaking all sorts of box office records but nobody wants to watch fairy tales on tv?

[RulerofallIsurvey]

10 hours ago, BoPeeps said:

Just a random thought, but IF a revamp is in the cards would moving the show to 9 give them more leeway to detach from the Family hour PG/Disney barriers and offer more adult scripting?

Well, I was about to ask if moving to 9 or 10 nowadays would really make that much difference (Yes, I am that naive and this still isn't cable), then @Shanna Marie wrote:

8 hours ago, Shanna Marie said:

Is the Family Hour even a thing anymore?

I've got to agree.  I don't see that much difference in content between shows that are aired later versus earlier now.  Plus, I think as someone else acknowledged, it's really the writers/showrunners, not the time slot or lack of adult content.  Heck, they showed Snow and Charming in bed together post-coital Once Upon A Time.  This ain't I Love Lucy where they had to have twin beds.  

8 hours ago, KingOfHearts said:

They should be giving us unadulterated fan service at this point. 

You do realize that "unadulterated fan service at this point" would mean All Swan Queen All the Time base on their Twitter feedback, right?  

[Shanna Marie]

I'm rather surprised the network didn't intervene after the Frozen bump crashed. They did some retooling after the 2B crash when they went to that half-season arc format, but I don't know if that was network initiated or something the writing team came up with. At any rate, it didn't fix the real problem that drove away a lot of the viewers in 2B (at least, what I've heard in anecdotal evidence). You'd think that with a show that started as highly rated as this one did and that has shown itself to be capable of ratings highs, and that's so entwined with the corporate identity and a lot of their properties, they'd have paid more attention. When even Frozen hype couldn't sustain the ratings, they should have focus grouped it, and not just in LA but in places throughout the country (since this show has oddly good ratings in flyover country). If they did do this, then either they took the results the wrong way or their results were wrong, given the ongoing ratings slide. There just seems, based on the ratings, to be a massive disconnect between what the viewers who watched the first season and initially bought into the premise of the show were looking for and what the writers delivered, and no one on the staff or at the network seems to have the slightest idea what drew those viewers and then lost them, and they haven't really made any attempts to fix it.

[Free]

16 minutes ago, Shanna Marie said:

I'm rather surprised the network didn't intervene after the Frozen bump crashed. They did some retooling after the 2B crash when they went to that half-season arc format, but I don't know if that was network initiated or something the writing team came up with. At any rate, it didn't fix the real problem that drove away a lot of the viewers in 2B (at least, what I've heard in anecdotal evidence). You'd think that with a show that started as highly rated as this one did and that has shown itself to be capable of ratings highs, and that's so entwined with the corporate identity and a lot of their properties, they'd have paid more attention. When even Frozen hype couldn't sustain the ratings, they should have focus grouped it, and not just in LA but in places throughout the country (since this show has oddly good ratings in flyover country). If they did do this, then either they took the results the wrong way or their results were wrong, given the ongoing ratings slide. There just seems, based on the ratings, to be a massive disconnect between what the viewers who watched the first season and initially bought into the premise of the show were looking for and what the writers delivered, and no one on the staff or at the network seems to have the slightest idea what drew those viewers and then lost them, and they haven't really made any attempts to fix it.

I think they sort of let A&E do their thing no matter what it did to the series and rode what they had left after the Frozen bump gave them in the short term.  It wasn't until later on when Channing Dungey took over for Paul Lee as head of ABC and the last 2 or so seasons of declines took its toll along with the costs that they didn't try to keep down and then coming around the contract negotiations that came up this season.

[Camera One]

36 minutes ago, Shanna Marie said:

I'm rather surprised the network didn't intervene after the Frozen bump crashed. 

Surprisingly, they do seem to monitor.  I was reading the audio commentary for "Poor Unfortunate Souls" and the network asked the Writers to add in a scene so people would know Robin was coming back.  That's why they wrote the scene with Regina dreaming about Robin.   Maybe the network people were just as clueless about the actual problems with the show.

[Free]

10 hours ago, Camera One said:

Surprisingly, they do seem to monitor.  I was reading the audio commentary for "Poor Unfortunate Souls" and the network asked the Writers to add in a scene so people would know Robin was coming back.  That's why they wrote the scene with Regina dreaming about Robin.   Maybe the network people were just as clueless about the actual problems with the show.

They don't seem to care, for the most part, they've let A&E do their thing since S2 onwards, occasionally there's some studio mandated things like overseeing the Frozen arc, that felt very careful considering the writers' track record.

[Shanna Marie]

On 3/22/2017 at 11:17 PM, Camera One said:

Surprisingly, they do seem to monitor.  I was reading the audio commentary for "Poor Unfortunate Souls" and the network asked the Writers to add in a scene so people would know Robin was coming back.  That's why they wrote the scene with Regina dreaming about Robin.   Maybe the network people were just as clueless about the actual problems with the show.

They do give notes on the scripts, which is common in TV. They just don't seem to have said, "Gee, this show that got good ratings suddenly tanked. Maybe we should find out why." And then when they got the big boost from Frozen and almost immediately lost it, again, that would be the time to say, "Hmm, those new Frozen viewers didn't stick around, and then we lost even more viewers. Maybe we should look into why." If they were thinking along those lines, instead of giving the note that we needed to be reminded of Robin (not a bad idea, in and of itself), it might have been more like "Our ratings really dropped when Regina started sleeping with Robin, so is bringing him back as a regular such a good idea? And will Zelena really make it any better? Aren't there better uses of the budget than hiring two new regular actors to play out an unpopular storyline?"

[Camera One]

If that were the case, they mandated it way too late, or A&E were unwilling to give up their original conceptions.  It doesn't take a rocket scientist to know that the Land of Ambiguous Stories wasn't going to draw in audiences, and neither was The Evil Queen redux.  An even more idiotic move was to suggest they change to a full-season story instead of half-season arcs. 

[Tiger]

On 3/23/2017 at 0:17 AM, Camera One said:

Surprisingly, they do seem to monitor.  I was reading the audio commentary for "Poor Unfortunate Souls" and the network asked the Writers to add in a scene so people would know Robin was coming back.  That's why they wrote the scene with Regina dreaming about Robin.   Maybe the network people were just as clueless about the actual problems with the show.

 

On 3/24/2017 at 10:59 PM, Camera One said:

If that were the case, they mandated it way too late, or A&E were unwilling to give up their original conceptions.  It doesn't take a rocket scientist to know that the Land of Ambiguous Stories wasn't going to draw in audiences, and neither was The Evil Queen redux.  An even more idiotic move was to suggest they change to a full-season story instead of half-season arcs. 

It's my personal belief that ABC execs, possibly even Paul Lee himself, heavily interferred in 5A.  Because as non-sensical as 4B was, i will never ever believe that A&E for all their faults either planned or intended what we saw on screen for 5A. 

Edited March 26, 2017 by Tiger

[Mathius]

On 3/24/2017 at 10:59 PM, Camera One said:

An even more idiotic move was to suggest they change to a full-season story instead of half-season arcs. 

Actually, a lot of people were complaining about the half-season arcs at the time, so it probably seemed like a smart move.

It ended up being a case of how you don't know what you've got until it's gone.

[Souris]

FWIW, the set supervisor apparently kept talking on the set tour yesterday about set buildings that would be different for the set tour next year. So he seemed to be operating on the idea that the show is coming back. Assumption or he knows something?

[Mathius]

12 minutes ago, Souris said:

FWIW, the set supervisor apparently kept talking on the set tour yesterday about set buildings that would be different for the set tour next year. So he seemed to be operating on the idea that the show is coming back. Assumption or he knows something?

Assumption.  Jennifer Morrison said just yesterday that there's still no word on a renewal.  It's pretty much the Castle situation all over again.

Edited March 26, 2017 by Mathius

[Tiger]

16 minutes ago, Souris said:

FWIW, the set supervisor apparently kept talking on the set tour yesterday about set buildings that would be different for the set tour next year. So he seemed to be operating on the idea that the show is coming back. Assumption or he knows something?

And in related news, the CEO of Sears told employees about his exiciting new plan for stores (in which they were chains on the door, no customers, no employees, and no merchandise)!

4 minutes ago, Mathius said:

Assumption.  Jennifer Morrison said just yesterday that there's still no word on a renewal.  It's pretty much the Castle situation all over again.

That was a totally different situation.  There, the studio never even approached Stana to renew her contract and was instead making preparations for a season 9 without her, meanwhile the network (and TNT) was explicit that they werent interested in the show without Nathan AND Stana.

Here, neither the network nor studio is taking any action towards even a possible renewal/reboot/whatever.  A&E had a meeting with Dungey months ago about a possible season 7 and jack squat has been said or done since.

Edited March 26, 2017 by Tiger

[Mathius]

17 minutes ago, Tiger said:

Here, neither the network nor studio is taking any action towards even a possible renewal/reboot/whatever.  A&E had a meeting with Dungey months ago about a possible season 7 and jack squat has been said or done since.

Not quite, A&E delivered their pitch for a S7, with the finale currently being filmed being a part of said pitch.

ABC's silence, however, indicates to me that they aren't very big on the idea, and more likely than not to reject it.

[Free]

1 hour ago, Mathius said:

Actually, a lot of people were complaining about the half-season arcs at the time, so it probably seemed like a smart move.

It ended up being a case of how you don't know what you've got until it's gone.

Another thing is how they came up with this storyline to last the whole season.

As for Castle, I remember Stana getting fired and then throwing out the possibility of a reboot which didn't materialize at the end but the writers managed to wrap it all up.

[Souris]

This sounded very much like Lee saying goodbye to Jen. "It's been an honor."

59 minutes ago, Mathius said:

Assumption.  Jennifer Morrison said just yesterday that there's still no word on a renewal.  It's pretty much the Castle situation all over again.

I don't take anything the actors or writers say on this seriously. They simply CAN'T say anything concrete until ABC announces it. So they can't say "Yes, we've heard what's happening."

Edited March 26, 2017 by Souris

[jhlipton]

On 3/17/2017 at 9:51 PM, sharky said:

You can't turn the entire network over to comedies and Shonda,

Why not?  HTGAWM is only technically a Shonda show and is renewed for a 4th season.  With Shonda as the "name", they could pull a Greg Berlanti like the CW (he'll have 5 shows once Black Lightning starts; Shonda only has 4, 3 at a time).  The Catch doesn't have to do well to be renewed since ABC will cater to Shonda -- any new show would be the same.

Edited March 27, 2017 by jhlipton

[Souris]

Once ticked up to a 0.9.

I think it's renewed.

[Curio]

If ABC totally pimps out this Jasmine/Ariel adventure next Sunday, it has potential to tick up again. The Cinderella episode is the highest rated episode this season; I think it mostly has to do with the Disney Princess name recognition.

Edited March 27, 2017 by Curio

[Mathius]

6 minutes ago, Souris said:

Once ticked up to a 0.9.

I think it's renewed.

1. 0.9 is the average they canned OUATIW on, so you can't presume a renewal.

2. Let's say it again: ratings are not the only factor at play here.  They're a big one, sure, but not the only one.

Quote

If ABC totally pimps out this Jasmine/Ariel adventure next Sunday, it has potential to tick up again. The Cinderella episode is the highest rated episode this season; I think it mostly has to do with the Disney Princess name recognition.

If that's the case, explain why 6x05 - the Aladdin and Jasmine debut - flopped.

Edited March 27, 2017 by Mathius

[Curio]

9 minutes ago, Mathius said:

If that's the case, explain why 6x05 - the Aladdin and Jasmine debut - flopped.

I honestly expected Jasmine to be a bigger draw, but she also isn't as popular as Ariel or Cinderella in general. I guess Belle being a regular on the show should also be a draw, but most of the audience knows by now that she's not really Belle. I mean, I could totally be wrong about next week's ratings and they could flop too, but I'm just speculating.

Edited March 27, 2017 by Curio

[Free]

27 minutes ago, Curio said:

If ABC totally pimps out this Jasmine/Ariel adventure next Sunday, it has potential to tick up again. The Cinderella episode is the highest rated episode this season; I think it mostly has to do with the Disney Princess name recognition.

Cinderalla is more popular overall.

[Mathius]

According to Tvbythenumbers, the audience number was 2.95.  So much less of a dramatic rise than the demo number there.

Edited March 27, 2017 by Mathius

[Souris]

40 minutes ago, Mathius said:

1. 0.9 is the average they canned OUATIW on, so you can't presume a renewal.

2. Let's say it again: ratings are not the only factor at play here.  They're a big one, sure, but not the only one.

1. We can't go by the same ratings threshold for renewal/cancellation as even a few years ago. The ratings landscape has changed a huge amount since then. Overall ratings are down a lot across the board.

2. That is very true. So if ABC were doing better, I'd say Once would almost assuredly be cancelled. But ABC is a ratings dumpster fire.

[Mathius]

10 minutes ago, Souris said:

2. That is very true. So if ABC were doing better, I'd say Once would almost assuredly be cancelled. But ABC is a ratings dumpster fire.

The problem is the whole "it's doing better than other shows" doesn't really work anymore when not only is it just barely doing better, but it is failing as a lead-in to other shows on Sunday night and the show before it (AFHV) does better.  And why would they renew the show when they KNOW that it's going to just get even worse ratings in a S7?  It makes much more sense for them to cancel it along with most of their other dramas and re-align the network, especially Sunday night's line-up, as more comedy-oriented.  OUAT just doesn't really fit their ideal future vision for the network. 

Whoever made the football analogy is correct: ABC doing a "safe play" in retaining OUAT sounds less potential rewarding than taking more of a risk by completely shaking up the Sunday line-up.  With a new line-up, there is the potential for better ratings, whereas a S7 of OUAT is guaranteed lower ratings given how much of the audience has left the show.  After all the negative buzz around 6x13, I don't think a slight uptick for 6x14 is enough.

Edited March 27, 2017 by Mathius

[sharky]

Time After Time got a 0.4 and American Crime got a 0.3. Holy crap, those are low. Yeah, a 0.9 isn't a great lead-in, but if you're bleeding more than half that lead-in, that's not the lead-in's fault. Also, Once could get adjusted upward -- 60 Minutes ran into their time slot last night.

If Once can maintain that level next week, I would push it into likely renewed for a final season.

Edited March 27, 2017 by sharky

[TheGreenKnight]

Yes, the reason none of the shows following OUAT (or shows that have followed it in the past) have been successful is because ABC's shows suck in general the past few years. Quantico, 666 Park Avenue, Time After Time, Pan Am, G.C.B., etc. all ended being godawful. Even American Crime is only worth watching (and has only lived this long) because of the level of talent in the cast.

[Shanna Marie]

I wonder how the ratings are affected by the fact that half the hour in the Dallas/Fort Worth market (a top-ten market) was weather coverage rather than OUAT, and apparently that was the only local station that went full-on in tracking a tornado and hailstorm. That could be a plus or minus. The core metro area wasn't affected by the storms, so people in the cities might have switched over to something else once it was obvious ABC wasn't going back to OUAT, but people in the affected areas might have switched to follow all the radar tracking. Does OUAT get the credit/demerit for the weather coverage in that timeslot in that market, or do they have to just eliminate that entire media market from the ratings?

[jjjmoss]

47 minutes ago, sharky said:

Time After Time got a 0.4 and American Crime got a 0.3. Holy crap, those are low. Yeah, a 0.9 isn't a great lead-in, but if you're bleeding more than half that lead-in, that's not the lead-in's fault. Also, Once could get adjusted upward -- 60 Minutes ran into their time slot last night.

How does 60 Minutes have anything to do with Once Upon a Time though?

Anyway, it was a decent night for pretty much everyone in consistency; the one and only show to go down is AC.

Edited March 27, 2017 by jjjmoss

[sharky]

Because of basketball overrun last night, 60 Minutes ran until 8:30. So Once's numbers could get adjusted because of that. 

[Free]

1 hour ago, Mathius said:

The problem is the whole "it's doing better than other shows" doesn't really work anymore when not only is it just barely doing better, but it is failing as a lead-in to other shows on Sunday night and the show before it (AFHV) does better.  And why would they renew the show when they KNOW that it's going to just get even worse ratings in a S7?  It makes much more sense for them to cancel it along with most of their other dramas and re-align the network, especially Sunday night's line-up, as more comedy-oriented.  OUAT just doesn't really fit their ideal future vision for the network. 

Whoever made the football analogy is correct: ABC doing a "safe play" in retaining OUAT sounds less potential rewarding than taking more of a risk by completely shaking up the Sunday line-up.  With a new line-up, there is the potential for better ratings, whereas a S7 of OUAT is guaranteed lower ratings given how much of the audience has left the show.  After all the negative buzz around 6x13, I don't think a slight uptick for 6x14 is enough.

ABC allowed the night to rot and let their entire lineup collapse to this point, they have no one but themselves to blame.

[jjjmoss]

2 hours ago, sharky said:

Because of basketball overrun last night, 60 Minutes ran until 8:30. So Once's numbers could get adjusted because of that. 

What relationship does 60 Minutes have with Once Upon a Time though?

[orza]

12 minutes ago, jjjmoss said:

What relationship does 60 Minutes have with Once Upon a Time though?

Like sports, 60 Minutes is a show people tend to watch live. It is appointment TV for a lot of very loyal viewers so if it does not end on time at 8:00 people continue watching instead of turning the channel to watch a scripted drama that they can always watch later at the abc web site.

[sharky]

Exactly. So they're different networks but the 60 Minutes ratings juggernaut can affect the Once ratings if 60 Minutes runs over and becomes direct competition for Once. Nielsen will adjust ratings for run over like this. 

[Souris]

28 minutes ago, sharky said:

Exactly. So they're different networks but the 60 Minutes ratings juggernaut can affect the Once ratings if 60 Minutes runs over and becomes direct competition for Once. Nielsen will adjust ratings for run over like this. 

Isn't it just the runover show that they adjust ratings for though? A show on network A running over doesn't affect the measured ratings on network B (because those shows start and end on time), just the measured ratings on network A.

Edited March 27, 2017 by Souris

[sharky]

Hm....could be. I feel like we've had adjustments before with football running over. Could be wrong. Sunday is weird too because they consider 7pm the start of prime time. Who knows anymore. 

[Tiger]

5 hours ago, Souris said:

Isn't it just the runover show that they adjust ratings for though? A show on network A running over doesn't affect the measured ratings on network B (because those shows start and end on time), just the measured ratings on network A.

Right, CBS running off-time wont have any affect on the other nets as far as adjustments.  The only affect would he if say someone watches Once and 60M, and when given a choice would go with 60M over Once.  That said, I highly doubt there is any audiance crossover between them.  60M skews very rich, extremely old, and super liberal.  Once skews really young because its parents in their 30s watching with their kids and tweens.

[jjjmoss]

The demo unrounded stayed the same, but the audience went down a bit in finals: 2.946 mil to 2.847 mil.

As a comparison, Nashville's last ABC season had a low of 3.71 mil.

Edited March 28, 2017 by jjjmoss

[sharky]

Actual viewers don't matter that much though. Nashville aired on a week night, which typically gets more viewers. The actual rating is how you can compete against other shows in that time slot. If you go back and look at those ratings, that 3.7 million equaled about a 0.9-1.0, which is where Once is right now with their rating.  

[Souris]

I honestly don't think the ratings matter much at this point. I think the decisions have already been made.

[AshhyOut]

On 3/26/2017 at 2:01 PM, Souris said:

I don't take anything the actors or writers say on this seriously.

Yeah me too. I also side eye JM's comment about not deciding until ABC does because actors sign contracts all the time without knowing the fate of their show. Speaking of the Castle situation, Nathan renewed his contract without an official renewal of Castle. Because what if the network is like, well we're not renewing a show until we get the actors on a favorable contract and nail down the numbers? See the problem?

On 3/28/2017 at 10:58 AM, sharky said:

on a week night, which typically gets more viewers.

No. Sunday is the most watched night of the week. It has the biggest viewing levels by far even during the the non-NFL season. That's why all the big special events are always on Sundays.

Edited March 29, 2017 by AshhyOut

[Mathius]

On 3/28/2017 at 0:52 PM, Souris said:

I honestly don't think the ratings matter much at this point. I think the decisions have already been made.

Indeed.  Now it's just a matter of when they make the announcement.  I suspect some time within the next month.

Edited March 29, 2017 by Mathius

[sharky]

Well that was inevitable but I'm surprised they didn't let it run in full -- sounds like they have episodes left.

American Crime is still alive but I doubt that will be for long. I guess the awards prestige is the only thing saving that one.

So does this help or hurt Once? Is this the first move in ABC chucking the whole night and starting from scratch? Or is this a sign that ABC dramas are that bad and a veteran show that can sustain a 0.9-1.0 will get renewed considering how many failures there have been? The next few weeks will be really interesting.

Also this makes me think they haven't made up their minds on Once. If they're willing to pull a show this quick, it seems like they're just trying to throw a Match Game band aid on a hole that they have no idea how to fill long term. 

Edited March 29, 2017 by sharky

[Mathius]

46 minutes ago, sharky said:

Or is this a sign that ABC dramas are that bad and a veteran show that can sustain a 0.9-1.0 will get renewed considering how many failures there have been?

But it's not sustaining a 0.9-1.0.  It will probably drop back down to 0.8 soon, and possibly end the season at 0.7.

Why renew the show when they know that a S7 would only get lower number?  The widespread audience numbers just ain't there anymore.

And if the Sunday schedule is completely changed to a comedy / game-show night, then there's no reason to keep OUAT going.

Edited March 29, 2017 by Mathius

[sharky]

25 minutes ago, Souris said:

And the lead actress found out via Twitter. Ouch, ABC.

Holy crap, ABC is a mess.

I don't know. I'm starting to bounce from renewed to cancelled to renewed to cancelled. It's just getting annoying as all fuck. ABC has no problem telling TAT fans to take a hike -- even before telling the actress in the show. But we still don't know what's going on with Once? It's sounding more and more like ABC might know what they're doing with Once either way. It would be nice to let the fans in on it.

Here's my list so far.

Renewed: It's the best rated non-Shonda drama on ABC
Cancelled: The Shonda dramas have already been renewed but no announcement about Once

Renewed: TAT gets cut. With dramas that bad, ABC is desperate for one non-Shonda drama to carry over
Cancelled: TAT gets cut from Sunday because game shows all the time!

Renewed: Josh Horowitz's questions about Once's future to Colin (why would he ask questions about the show's future if he knows it's getting canned?)
Cancelled: Colin's wishy washy answer to the questions

Renewed: Writer Brigitte's tweets about leaving her desk for the hiatus. Why post something like that if you're not coming back? If you're not coming back, wouldn't you just stay quiet about the stuff on your desk?
Cancelled: Bex and Lana Twitter/FB games with their locations and their job descriptions and whatever

Renewed: Set photos of new cast -- why get new cast if you're getting cancelled?
Cancelled: Set photos of old cast -- why would the show get all sentimental if it's sticking around?

Renewed: There isn't any buzz about crew members looking for jobs in Vancouver, which would happen if it's been cancelled
Cancelled: One pap says he's heard the show is done

Renewed: ABC is a mess
Cancelled: ABC is a mess

I'm still sticking with my prediction that it's getting renewed for a final season. But at this point, I wouldn't be surprised either way. It would just be nice to know rather than dragging the fans along like this.

Edited March 29, 2017 by sharky

[jjjmoss]

Well if Match Game manages to get numbers close to AFHV/Once, ABC would probably like a zero-drama night. 

[Tiger]

The 'Hook killed Grandpa Charming' ep which hit a series low in live+same day with a 0.8, has gone up to a 1.3 in live+7. It's pretty remarkable because the show has been getting absolutely no lift in C+3, live+3, or live+7 since near the end of 5A.  

Before, during, and after the Frozen bump, this show was a dvr darling then at some in 5A people just stopped dvr'ing it.  

[Mathius]

That's not a big deal.  0.8 to 1.3 isn't a huge increase, earlier episodes in this very season have had bigger.

But yeah, the Dark Hook twist killed the DVR audience, apparently.  When you look at the numbers, the drop-off is obvious.

Edited March 31, 2017 by Mathius

[coppersin]

Maybe they're waiting to see how Agents of Shield does when it returns next week? Based on ratings, I would imagine either show would only last one more season, so they might be trying to decide which is a better stop-gap while they're seeing which new shows will stick around.