Ratings And Scheduling: I Can't Do This Alone

[Lastcall]

1 hour ago, gonzosgirrl said:

In the age of digital tv, Nielsen boxes and paper diaries are kind of ridiculous. My cable company knows exactly what channels I'm watching and when - the data is all there for *everybody*, whether it's their home system, their phones and tablets, or any other way they are accessing entertainment. I don't know if we'll ever see consistent 8-10-12 episode shows on American broadcast tv though. Too expensive. We may yet see the day though, when broadcast tv will only be news and 'reality', with the cable networks making all the scripted entertainment.

On topic - I think Dabb's bait & switch on Michael!Dean and his insistence on Wayward and Nickifer and a cast of thousands nobody cares about is going to come home to roost. I think it's already happening.

Finals arent aren’t in yet but currently this ep lost about 70,000 viewers and .1 ratings in the second half hour due to everything they shoved down our throats in the first half. No matter the ratings structure today, those that are watching live are turning the show off.

[Ninamags]

The first half was super boring. It only picked up in the last 20 minutes, but I guess everybody had left by then. 

[Pondlass1]

Network execs can’t be very happy with dabb and michaels. They got some ‘splaining to do  ??

[Lastcall]

Just now, Pondlass1 said:

Network execs can’t be very happy with dabb and michaels. They got some ‘splaining to do  ??

I pray to Chuck you are right. This is the first real .3 the show has gotten (I don’t count the thanksgiving episode). They were smart enough to realize Legacies was the better choice so it’s going to come down to if they think the current show is salvageable and that would require a writing staff change.

[Casseiopeia]

14 minutes ago, Lastcall said:

I pray to Chuck you are right. This is the first real .3 the show has gotten (I don’t count the thanksgiving episode). They were smart enough to realize Legacies was the better choice so it’s going to come down to if they think the current show is salvageable and that would require a writing staff change.

We'll see what happens when the Live+3 and +7 numbers come in.  The show was preempted in major markets (two due to the destructive fires in both Northern and Southern Calif.) If those numbers increase significantly then SPN will be okay.  Supernatural aired after the Nielsen ratings window closed so viewers didn't count.   Still for a week that had mostly reruns we should have won the week.

[BlueSapphire]

Didn’t Mark Pedowicz say that the show will be on as long as J2 want to keep it going?

[Lastcall]

1 minute ago, Casseiopeia said:

We'll see what happens when the Live+3 and +7 numbers come in.  The show was preempted in major markets (two due to the destructive fires in both Northern and Southern Calif.) If those numbers increase significantly then SPN will be okay.  Supernatural aired after the Nielsen ratings window closed so viewers didn't count.   Still for a week that had mostly reruns we should have won the week.

I’ve been more interested in the half hour drops but generally Supernatural seems to be trending downward. I think there should be a rebound next week for the reasons you mentioned and Charlie is supposed to be back. I expect the show will be back to .4 next week. Regardless, if the season finale dropped to a .1, I believe we are guaranteed a season 15 just to close things out.

[Lastcall]

8 minutes ago, BlueSapphire said:

Didn’t Mark Pedowicz say that the show will be on as long as J2 want to keep it going?

He hedged it. He said if the ratings held and J2 wanted to, the show would continue.

[Casseiopeia]

8 minutes ago, Lastcall said:

I’ve been more interested in the half hour drops but generally Supernatural seems to be trending downward. I think there should be a rebound next week for the reasons you mentioned and Charlie is supposed to be back. I expect the show will be back to .4 next week. Regardless, if the season finale dropped to a .1, I believe we are guaranteed a season 15 just to close things out.

None of the CW shows are doing very well.  Flash can only pull a .7 and even though we will rate behind Riverdale, SPN ended up 2nd for the week in viewers....at least so far.  I think the CW is in just as much trouble as SPN.

[Lastcall]

7 minutes ago, Casseiopeia said:

None of the CW shows are doing very well.  Flash can only pull a .7 and even though we will rate behind Riverdale, SPN ended up 2nd for the week in viewers....at least so far.  I think the CW is in just as much trouble as SPN.

I think that is because 90% of their shows can be summed up as “super-team fights big bad”. Which also unfortunately now applies to Supernatural as well.

[BoxManLocke]

I doubt the CW will attempt anything to revive the ratings, like firing half the writing staff. Unfortunately.

 

Looks like freedom will be coming after season 15. I always wanted the show to go out with a bang but it looks like it'll end just like most shows who went on for too long ; in mediocre indifference.

 

So much time invested as a fan just to get to a point where the show fades away into irrelevancy. That's a horrible thought.

[SueB]

I have to say, .3 in mid-November is bad.  .4 was bad enough but Supernatural has taken a noticeable hit.  Usually Supernatural is fairly immune to the rest of the network trends.

I suspect the changing demographic is partly invovled.  There are a lot of young people picking up SPN after binge watching.

And there IS a definite gamble Dabb took with introducing the AU Hunters/Sam plotline as a separate plot from Dean/Michael.  They may be on screen together for the hunts, but Sam has a whole other thing going now.  Again, I hate to admit it*, but the boys being together, fighting the same good fight, appears to be pretty fundamental to Supernatural feeling like Supernatural.  I'm enjoying the stories and am happy for the slow-burn buildup to whatever is happening to Michael.  And I also think there is a natural evolution for the boys to become a new American version of MoL with a greater focus on hunting and networking.  But this is handled as a side show and mostly Sam-only.  

There are a variety of options for what WBTV and CW will "learn" from this and I can't say which one they will favor.  They, like us, have their own biases. Some possible options for "lessons learned":

- Separating Sam and Dean storylines won't work - even if they are physically together on the screen
- The AU MoL gang is not a draw
- The story is more reliant on Sam than Dean and that's not working
- The Michael possession was a mistake
- Too much emphasis on characters who are not TFW 2.0.

Personally, I'm thinking it's more the first item than anything else.  But individual biases could have different members of TPTB spouting different theories.  What I DO feel confident it about -- they are busy trying to rationalize it as we speak. 

 

*hate to admit it: because BiBros would erroneously think this is a BiBro thing and that's not it IMO.  It story construct.  

Edited November 10, 2018 by SueB

[Pondlass1]

21 minutes ago, SueB said:

they are busy trying to rationalize it as we speak.

I really hope Mr. Dabb has been called up in front of network execs. Supernatural needs to be put back on track and fast.  Good or bad episodes aside - we want the brothers, TFW, hunting and getting themselves into pickles like they've done for 13 yrs.  It's the MO for this series.  

This isn't and will never be an ensemble series. Don't force outside storylines down our throats.

[Myrelle]

1 hour ago, SueB said:

- The Michael possession was a mistake

I disagree.

The mistake was in making LeaderSam the focus of the premiere when the Michael possession sl should have gotten the most focus, IMO. LeaderSam should have been the B plot AND it should have been connected to the Michael!Dean possession sl, first and foremost, again IMO.

That's giving them separate storylines, while still keeping them connected, IMO; and it would have worked better that way, if they were so hell bent on giving JP the OTT and overt LeaderSam stuff-which I feel was a mistake, in and of itself-it being so OTT and much too overt, that is.

The Nick storyline was their biggest faux pas, IMO.

I'm not as against the AU hunters staying-just not in the bunker. That's the brothers' home, too, now-not just their workplace.

The soap element has got to go. That's their second biggest mistake, IMO-especially where it's connected to Jack and MotherMary and AUBobby-who need to go and stay gone for a very, VERY! long time(if not for good), IMO.

ETA: I put this comment in the writers thread, too, because I think it might fit better there.

Edited November 10, 2018 by Myrelle

[catrox14]

1 hour ago, SueB said:

The Michael possession was a mistake

I don't think it was a mistake to do the possession. The mistake IMO was ending it too soon for Dean and not showing Sam, Cas, Jack, and Mary pulling out ALL the stops to save Dean.  The show vs the tell was lacking. They had generated a lot of buzz over the summer with fans IMO really wanting to see it play out and they screwed that up.  They weren't willing to take that risk. 

[PAForrest]

7 hours ago, catrox14 said:

I don't think it was a mistake to do the possession. The mistake IMO was ending it too soon for Dean and not showing Sam, Cas, Jack, and Mary pulling out ALL the stops to save Dean.  The show vs the tell was lacking. They had generated a lot of buzz over the summer with fans IMO really wanting to see it play out and they screwed that up.  They weren't willing to take that risk. 

Yahtzee. Literally they had one story, one job, and they ditched it almost immediately. Without that, what's the story? I have no clue. I just FF'd through Thursday's episode, and I can tell you there is simply very little of interest to me, a fan who has been here since day one. Actually before day one when I snagged a bootleg copy of the pilot the summer before it premiered. And last week's episode, which wasn't perfect by any stretch of the imagination, is literally the only one I watched from beginning to end so far this year. Everything else this season has been FF fodder, trying to find a scene here, a scene there that I care to watch at all.  And all the Dean!Michael scenes - the very very VERY few that we got - were among the scenes I cared to watch. And it goes without saying that the show is not getting watched live on Thursday nights by this viewer. There's other stuff on opposite the series that I care to watch first and live at this point.

So I understand the plummet in ratings. People are bored. I mean, I don't flatter myself that I speak for all the viewing audience, but I'm sorry, I don't believe for a hot second that the Mommy/AU Bobby romance is what the viewers are chomping at the bit to see. Give me a break.

Edited November 10, 2018 by PAForrest

[Aeryn13]

They are too chicken to change up the status quo on the show. Always have been. Even procedurals and sitcoms are bolder. 

The ratings are still okay for the network, though, so I doubt anyone is taken any notes from it. Maybe if they go super-fractional. Has any show pulled a below 0,1 yet?   

[Res]

3 hours ago, PAForrest said:

Yahtzee. Literally they had one story, one job, and they ditched it almost immediately. Without that, what's the story? I have no clue. I just FF'd through Thursday's episode, and I can tell you there is simply very little of interest to me, a fan who has been here since day one. Actually before day one when I snagged a bootleg copy of the pilot the summer before it premiered. And last week's episode, which wasn't perfect by any stretch of the imagination, is literally the only one I watched from beginning to end so far this year. Everything else this season has been FF fodder, trying to find a scene here, a scene there that I care to watch at all.  And all the Dean!Michael scenes - the very very VERY few that we got - were among the scenes I cared to watch. And it goes without saying that the show is not getting watched live on Thursday nights by this viewer. There's other stuff on opposite the series that I care to watch first and live at this point.

So I understand the plummet in ratings. People are bored. I mean, I don't flatter myself that I speak for all the viewing audience, but I'm sorry, I don't believe for a hot second that the Mommy/AU Bobby romance is what the viewers are chomping at the bit to see. Give me a break.

I'm honestly not even thinking about buy any DVD set from Dabb's reign as showrunner and I have all of them. Instead, I'm recording the Dean scenes I like from them and storing that. Much better investment. Dabb and his writers' writing for their pets instead of the basis of the show have done this to the ratings. It's more of a soap than a supernatural show. Hunters are a joke anymore instead of living a hard dangerous life. They've ruined and overwrote everything that kept most of us interested, IMHO.

[SueB]

9 hours ago, Myrelle said:

I disagree.

The mistake was in making LeaderSam the focus of the premiere when the Michael possession sl should have gotten the most focus, IMO. LeaderSam should have been the B plot AND it should have been connected to the Michael!Dean possession sl, first and foremost, again IMO.

That's giving them separate storylines, while still keeping them connected, IMO; and it would have worked better that way, if they were so hell bent on giving JP the OTT and overt LeaderSam stuff-which I feel was a mistake, in and of itself-it being so OTT and much too overt, that is.

The Nick storyline was their biggest faux pas, IMO.

I'm not as against the AU hunters staying-just not in the bunker. That's the brothers' home, too, now-not just their workplace.

The soap element has got to go. That's their second biggest mistake, IMO-especially where it's connected to Jack and MotherMary and AUBobby-who need to go and stay gone for a very, VERY! long time(if not for good), IMO.

ETA: I put this comment in the writers thread, too, because I think it might fit better there.

Just to be clear, I'm not saying it was a mistake.  I'm saying that when they narrow down "what went wrong" THIS is one of the things they'll chew on.  

I have no issue with the Michael possession and I'm excited to see how it plays out this season.  My list was simply the obvious discussion points, not an endorsement of them. 

[Myrelle]

14 hours ago, SueB said:

Just to be clear, I'm not saying it was a mistake.  I'm saying that when they narrow down "what went wrong" THIS is one of the things they'll chew on.  

I have no issue with the Michael possession and I'm excited to see how it plays out this season.  My list was simply the obvious discussion points, not an endorsement of them. 

Ah, I see.

Well in that case, I'd have to add the Leader!Sam storyline on to that list because, IMO, that should be an obvious one that they'd have to reconsider also.

[AwesomO4000]

On 11/10/2018 at 9:58 AM, SueB said:

- The story is more reliant on Sam than Dean and that's not working

For me the reason this more likely is the case is because the "story" in my opinion is not organic. There have been times when the story has been more reliant on Sam in the past and it has worked fine for me: season 2, 6, and the beginning of season 10 for example. Maybe season 4 as well, though for me there were some missing elements that didn't make it work so much.*** However when the story is not organic - and I give season 8 and the second half of season 9 as an example - it doesn't work for me at all.

I get that for others, that the storyline is focusing on Sam is the problem, but for me the reason this storyline isn't working isn't that it is focusing on Sam, but that the story that is focusing on Sam doesn't fit his character in my opinion. And weirdly, the writers themselves seem almost to be I don't know maybe unconsciously (?) sensing this, because the writing almost seems to be undermining the "plot"... And by that I mean the insistence that Sam is somehow this natural leader seems to be undermined by the writers not being able to help themselves in writing Sam making bad leadership decisions that I don't think it even makes sense for him to make - And this isn't surprising, because I predicted that that would happen a few weeks ago.

For me that is more the problem than the fact that the plot is focusing on Sam. I think the plot could focus on Sam fine if it was a plot that actually made sense for his character, in my opinion anyway. A similar example would be the beginning of season 10... despite Dean being a demon being a main concern, the way it was set up - with demon Dean not being written as a bad guy, but as just doing what he wanted the focus was on Sam looking for Dean, and this worked for me just fine, because the things Sam was doing while looking for Dean, though while questionable and uncomfortable, made sense for his character to do and was connected to Dean, so I was actually invested in his story. Since Sam wanting to be leader makes no sense to me based on his character previously, I am not connecting so much to this storyline for Sam. I keep waiting for him to be Sam again. And I miss that Sam.

*** I think that the reason season 4 didn't work as well for me was because it didn't focus on Sam enough. The attempt to keep it a surprise and to focus on Dean's reactions to the plot even though the plot was focused on Sam were for me a mistake. I think that with how big the story was, the point of view should have focused more on Sam, and I actually think that the story would have worked better if it had focused more on Sam in terms of point of view, not less.

[DeeDee79]

4 minutes ago, AwesomO4000 said:

but that the story that is focusing on Sam doesn't fit his character in my opinion.

Which is odd since apparently even Jared thinks that it's out of character for Sam to want to lead the hunters. 

[SueB]

5 hours ago, AwesomO4000 said:

For me the reason this more likely is the case is because the "story" in my opinion is not organic. There have been times when the story has been more reliant on Sam in the past and it has worked fine for me: season 2, 6, and the beginning of season 10 for example. Maybe season 4 as well, though for me there were some missing elements that didn't make it work so much.*** However when the story is not organic - and I give season 8 and the second half of season 9 as an example - it doesn't work for me at all.

I get that for others, that the storyline is focusing on Sam is the problem, but for me the reason this storyline isn't working isn't that it is focusing on Sam, but that the story that is focusing on Sam doesn't fit his character in my opinion. And weirdly, the writers themselves seem almost to be I don't know maybe unconsciously (?) sensing this, because the writing almost seems to be undermining the "plot"... And by that I mean the insistence that Sam is somehow this natural leader seems to be undermined by the writers not being able to help themselves in writing Sam making bad leadership decisions that I don't think it even makes sense for him to make - And this isn't surprising, because I predicted that that would happen a few weeks ago.

For me that is more the problem than the fact that the plot is focusing on Sam. I think the plot could focus on Sam fine if it was a plot that actually made sense for his character, in my opinion anyway. A similar example would be the beginning of season 10... despite Dean being a demon being a main concern, the way it was set up - with demon Dean not being written as a bad guy, but as just doing what he wanted the focus was on Sam looking for Dean, and this worked for me just fine, because the things Sam was doing while looking for Dean, though while questionable and uncomfortable, made sense for his character to do and was connected to Dean, so I was actually invested in his story. Since Sam wanting to be leader makes no sense to me based on his character previously, I am not connecting so much to this storyline for Sam. I keep waiting for him to be Sam again. And I miss that Sam.

*** I think that the reason season 4 didn't work as well for me was because it didn't focus on Sam enough. The attempt to keep it a surprise and to focus on Dean's reactions to the plot even though the plot was focused on Sam were for me a mistake. I think that with how big the story was, the point of view should have focused more on Sam, and I actually think that the story would have worked better if it had focused more on Sam in terms of point of view, not less.

IA.  The issue is less the focus on Sam but on how they’ve crafted the leadership focus.  Example: Sending Maggie in alone is never going to sit right with me.  My concern?  TPTB won’t distinguish.  When the people who are culpable are the ones assessing?  That’s not a good answer.  OTOH, maybe WBTV and CW will see it.  

Regardless of who they decide ‘shot JR’ on this one, I have to believe even the normally immune Supernatural is going to get an examination with last weeks performance. 

Personally I put it on the ‘long game’ Dabb is running. I think it supports binge viewers but is not as sustainable for weekly numbers. Now he may have been told by upper management that their focus is the binge viewer. But I suspect he’s going to find out management will back away from that sentiment with a .3 hanging over their heads during a critical sweeps week.  

[OtterMommy]

Hey folks, the conversation here is drifting into areas that are better suited for different threads.  Please move non-ratings and scheduling discussions to the appropriate places.  Thanks!

[Ninamags]

It's also interesting  that the guys haven't bothered to live tweet the show. This usually gets more eyeballs to watch live!

[gonzosgirrl]

6 hours ago, Ninamags said:

It's also interesting  that the guys haven't bothered to live tweet the show. This usually gets more eyeballs to watch live!

They barely even mention the show on social media the last few years, unless it's to praise a guest star. IMO,  silence speaks volumes.

[ILoveReading]

The last time Jensen live tweeted was that horrible 11.17.  I think Jared might have tweeted a couple of times since then but I can't remember how many or which ones.

[Jonesy]

SuperGirl 0.3 1.16, Charmed 0.3 .95.  So as low as Supernatural sunk this week--so has the whole CW!  Only 2 shows above .3--Flash and Riverdale(which only has a 0.4).  So Supernatural is still safe!  It's 3rd out of 12 shows.  So nothing specific to SPN going lower, it's following the whole trend of the CW and all networks for that matter.  Don't think the show focus is causing lower ratings, it happening on almost all shows nowadays.  SPN still has enough steam for season 15 or even 16 right now--we are getting 15 for sure, don't know if J's want to go beyond that but they probably could if they want.

About focus less on the boys and more on others--this is because the J's want less work and who could blame them with getting older and having a bunch of kids.  If they didn't get less work, they would be stopping doing the show...just the way it is.  That said I say fine use more Cas, Jack and maybe Nick but can drop the other hunters, Mary and even Bobby...they can go back to AU after this year.

Edited November 12, 2018 by Jakes

[Casseiopeia]

2 hours ago, Jakes said:

SuperGirl 0.3 1.16, Charmed 0.3 .95.  So as low as Supernatural sunk this week--so has the whole CW!  Only 2 shows above .3--Flash and Riverdale(which only has a 0.4).  So Supernatural is still safe!  It's 3rd out of 12 shows.  So nothing specific to SPN going lower, it's following the whole trend of the CW and all networks for that matter.  Don't think the show focus is causing lower ratings, it happening on almost all shows nowadays.  SPN still has enough steam for season 15 or even 16 right now--we are getting 15 for sure, don't know if J's want to go beyond that but they probably could if they want.

About focus less on the boys and more on others--this is because the J's want less work and who could blame them with getting older and having a bunch of kids.  If they didn't get less work, they would be stopping doing the show...just the way it is.  That said I say fine use more Cas, Jack and maybe Nick but can drop the other hunters, Mary and even Bobby...they can go back to AU after this year.

Do you remember how many viewers Flash and Riverdale got this week?  SPN had 1425 in total viewers.  I think that is the most for the week regardless of demo rating.

 

Jared and Jensen have been trying to negotiate shorter seasons.  I think they want to get down to 10-13.  If that happens I believe they would be on board with going back to the old format of the story being focused on the Winchesters.  And they both have said they could go on indefinitely if that was the case.

[Trini]

Flash was a rerun last week.

[ILoveReading]

I think a bigger problem than ratings would be production costs.  Jared and Jensen's salaries alone are probably higher than some of casts on other shows.  Last I heard they made 175,000K an episode.  That was before their last contract negotiations so its probably higher.     Comparing that with salaries of 40K an episode for Riverdale. 

There was an article on ad revenue and despite having the 2/3 highest ratings they make the 2nd lowest about of money for the CW in terms of add prices.  Demo is far more important than number of viewers. 

I wonder what the unrounded ratings were?

Jensen talked about how they had to find a compromise with the CW.  He said that the number of episodes that would allow them more time off but still made it financially worth it for the CW was 20.  Costs will only go up.

So unless  its the last season in which they get 13 eps to wrap up the story, I don't see the CW being willing to do that many eps.

[Casseiopeia]

26 minutes ago, Trini said:

Flash was a rerun last week.

Riverdale was too.  I can't find the numbers but I think SPN might have won the week 

 

11 minutes ago, ILoveReading said:

I think a bigger problem than ratings would be production costs.  Jared and Jensen's salaries alone are probably higher than some of casts on other shows.  Last I heard they made 175,000K an episode.  That was before their last contract negotiations so its probably higher.     Comparing that with salaries of 40K an episode for Riverdale. 

There was an article on ad revenue and despite having the 2/3 highest ratings they make the 2nd lowest about of money for the CW in terms of add prices.  Demo is far more important than number of viewers. 

I wonder what the unrounded ratings were?

Jensen talked about how they had to find a compromise with the CW.  He said that the number of episodes that would allow them more time off but still made it financially worth it for the CW was 20.  Costs will only go up.

So unless  its the last season in which they get 13 eps to wrap up the story, I don't see the CW being willing to do that many eps.

Supernatural makes money outside the show.  Syndication, Netflix etc. plus worldwide marketing brings in more revenue.  It's also owned by Warner Brothers.  I imagine if Peter Roth wanted SPN to continue on the CW they might cover the cost of shorter seasons. I know that advertising dollars depend a lot on the demo and number of episodes, I don't think the lower ratings are going to affect the show going forward.  They still bring in more viewers than most CW shows and unless that really changes I think the show is safe for as long as the J's want to go.  The CW has stuck with a lot of shows for years with 13 ep seasons   when they had less than a million viewers.  SPN may be moved to a different night but I think that is all that will happen to it.

Honestly it is the network I'm most concerned about.  All of it's shows are plummeting 

Edited November 12, 2018 by Casseiopeia

[Jonesy]

40 minutes ago, Casseiopeia said:

Do you remember how many viewers Flash and Riverdale got this week?  SPN had 1425 in total viewers.  I think that is the most for the week regardless of demo rating.

 

Jared and Jensen have been trying to negotiate shorter seasons.  I think they want to get down to 10-13.  If that happens I believe they would be on board with going back to the old format of the story being focused on the Winchesters.  And they both have said they could go on indefinitely if that was the case.

Yeah but they also said they understood the CW might need a certain amount of episodes to make a year for it to make financial sense...I doubt they want to go below 20 episodes--this new number seemed already to be a compromise.   About total numbers--SPN had more than Riverdale and was only behind Flash. 

Concerning production costs as brought up elsewhere even though the J's salary are high, don't think SPN is too high as the other CW shows have bigger starring casts and often more special effects and big production.  Other than the J's and Misha(sort of), the rest of the cast is pretty cheap.

Edited November 12, 2018 by Jakes

[Casseiopeia]

1 minute ago, Jakes said:

Yeah but they also said they understood the CW might need a certain amount of episodes to make a year for it to make financial sense...I doubt they want to go below 20 episodes--this new number seemed already to be a compromise.   About total numbers--SPN had more than Riverdale and was only behind Flash.  Concerning production costs as brought up elsewhere even though the J's salary are high, don't think SPN is too high as the other CW shows have bigger starring casts and often more special effects and big production.  Other than the J's and Misha(sort of), the rest of the cast is pretty cheap.

Jensen also said they would have to see at the end of this season how they felt.  If they wanted to negotiate even shorter seasons and the CW didn't go for it I think next season would be the last.

Thanks for the numbers I thought SPN was only behind Flash this week.

[Jonesy]

Just now, Casseiopeia said:

Jensen also said they would have to see at the end of this season how they felt.  If they wanted to negotiate even shorter seasons and the CW didn't go for it I think next season would be the last.

Thanks for the numbers I thought SPN was only behind Flash this week.

I double checked--yes Flash wasn't on but Riverdale was first run...Riverdale had the top demo at 0.4 whereas SPN had the biggest numbers for total viewers on the CW this week.  With the J's and number of episodes--they did say they were flexible in keeping it the same possibly.

[ILoveReading]

10 minutes ago, Casseiopeia said:

Supernatural makes money outside the show.  Syndication, Netflix etc. plus worldwide marketing brings in more revenue.

I know ad revenue isn't the only source.  It doesn't even make enough during one episode to even cover Jared and Jensen's salaries.  But nostglia will only go so far. The CW/Warner brothers might be willing to pocket losses for one 13episode season to wrap the series properly but they arent' going to do it for multiple seasons.  They network bleeds too much money as it is.

Jensen said 20 is the magic number for the CW to make filming a season worth it for the net work in terms of finances.   I figured that included all sources not just ads.  

This is sweeps month.  Used to establish ad rates for next year.  Its not a good time to be getting ,3 no matter what way its spun.

I don't think the show is in danger, unless ratings start dropping to .2 or .1

Edited November 12, 2018 by ILoveReading

[Jonesy]

9 minutes ago, ILoveReading said:

I know ad revenue isn't the only source.  It doesn't even make enough during one episode to even cover Jared and Jensen's salaries.  But nostglia will only go so far. The CW/Warner brothers might be willing to pocket losses for one 13episode season to wrap the series properly but they arent' going to do it for multiple seasons.  They network bleeds too much money as it is.

Jensen said 20 is the magic number for the CW to make filming a season worth it for the net work in terms of finances.   I figured that included all sources not just ads.  

I think still SPN with its outside money gains and SPN's overall still fairly modest costs AND relatively high ratings CW-wise still makes SPN one of its more profitable shows--which makes it desirable for the CW beyond mere nostalgia.  That said I expect the J's themselves to end the show in 15 or 16.

It gets lost what SPN has done is beyond amazing--it will get at least 15 seasons...not including cartoon shows, that will put SPN in the top 10 in history of long running TV shows.  So that it ends in a year or two is no one's fault, it already lasted beyond almost every show in TV history.

Edited November 12, 2018 by Jakes

[SueB]

MidSeason return dates:

https://www.thetvaddict.com/2018/11/12/the-cw-announces-midseason-premiere-dates-roswell-to-debut-in-january-other-shows-on-the-move/

[Casseiopeia]

1 hour ago, ILoveReading said:

I know ad revenue isn't the only source.  It doesn't even make enough during one episode to even cover Jared and Jensen's salaries.  But nostglia will only go so far. The CW/Warner brothers might be willing to pocket losses for one 13episode season to wrap the series properly but they arent' going to do it for multiple seasons.  They network bleeds too much money as it is.

Jensen said 20 is the magic number for the CW to make filming a season worth it for the net work in terms of finances.   I figured that included all sources not just ads.  

This is sweeps month.  Used to establish ad rates for next year.  Its not a good time to be getting ,3 no matter what way its spun.

I don't think the show is in danger, unless ratings start dropping to .2 or .1

I agree that .2 or lower would probably be too much for even Peter Roth.  He's a huge Jensen fan though so who knows.

20 minutes ago, SueB said:

MidSeason return dates:

https://www.thetvaddict.com/2018/11/12/the-cw-announces-midseason-premiere-dates-roswell-to-debut-in-january-other-shows-on-the-move/

When do they break?

[Jonesy]

Regarding a .3--you don't have to spin it to make it good for the CW...with Flash not on this week, SPN's .3 and it's number puts it only behind Riverdale this week.  That is good and SPN is super safe being the second on the whole network without need for spin.   Its Ad rates will be very solid for a CW show.   If it dropped further then maybe it would be in danger but if other shows dropped as much then it wouldn't hurt SPN.  That said there is no evidence SPN is falling out of the top part of CW ratings.

Edited November 12, 2018 by Jakes

[Pondlass1]

Reality TV is quite popular and extremely cheap.  Sit-coms are expensive because of the high salaries of the actors (I choke calling these people actors - they say a line and wait for the laugh).  But I think reality and sit-coms will be the fodder for network TV and options such as Netflix will stream series such as Supernatural.  The landscape of TV is changing.  

Supernatural will go down in the history books.  It's not an ensemble with revolving main characters or actors.  The Js have carried the weight on their broad shoulders and congrats to them. And it's STILL Dean and Sam that we want to see (not a cast of thousands, Dabb!) even after all these years.

Quite an achievement I'd say.

But 0.3.... ouch! How could the demo be high but rating low? And it wasn't even a particularly bad episode.  I don't get Nielsen.

[BoxManLocke]

2 hours ago, SueB said:

MidSeason return dates:

https://www.thetvaddict.com/2018/11/12/the-cw-announces-midseason-premiere-dates-roswell-to-debut-in-january-other-shows-on-the-move/

 

So like 20 weeks from January 17th until the end of May, with 11 or 12 episodes remaining to air ?

 

That means tons of hiatuses, exactly what the show doesn't need with Dabb's "pacing". Spring ratings should be... interesting.

Edited November 13, 2018 by BoxManLocke

[FlickChick]

22 hours ago, BoxManLocke said:

 

So like 20 weeks from January 17th until the end of May, with 11 or 12 episodes remaining to air ?

 

That means tons of hiatuses, exactly what the show doesn't need with Dabb's "pacing". Spring ratings should be... interesting.

Not only the hiatuses, but anyone who follows the show knows that nothing happens until the last two or three episodes of the season. Ratings usually fall in the spring, so this coming year, if the .3 is happening now, we could see a .2 .

[Morrigan2575]

[Morrigan2575]

On 11/12/2018 at 6:00 PM, Pondlass1 said:

But 0.3.... ouch! How could the demo be high but rating low? And it wasn't even a particularly bad episode.  I don't get Nielsen.

The bulk of CW shows are in the 0.3 range, only Flash/Riverdale are above and Dynasty/Crazy Ex fall below, in the 0.2 area.

As for last week, most of the 8PM shows on The CW were impacted by the time change, which is normal for ratings.

Edited November 16, 2018 by Morrigan2575

[Bobcatkitten]

Rating and viewers up. Excellent.

[Morrigan2575]

22 minutes ago, Bobcatkitten said:

Rating and viewers up. Excellent.

What's really interesting is it looks like only Arrow and SPN recovered, post Time Change. Flash (0.6), Riverdale (0.4) and Supergirl (0.3) remained down or came back down.

Both Arrow and SPN got 0.4 (unless SPN adjusts down in finals), which is up from last week and back to normal range.

Looking at past charts that 25-54 demo is the key factor in the 18-49 rating. I guess it makes sense, SPN has been on for 14 years, if the bulk of it's viewership are long time views they'd (me) aged with the show.

IMO SPN and Arrow are both safe for renewal (especially with CW adding the 6th night this season). We may get a Final Season Announcement at Upfronts for S15 being the last but, at this point I expect a S16, SPN is super profitable for the WB.

Edited November 16, 2018 by Morrigan2575

[Pondlass1]

Last year we got 0.8 and 180+ at this time.  Oh well, times are changing.  People don't watch live anymore.

Under Dabb the show seems to be targetting the younger generation - Dean is called 'old' , features love-struck teen girl , teen Jack all pretty and suffering from consumption.  A young girls' dream.  A teenage story.

Yet I think the viewing age is probably older than Dabb's target audience.  I enjoyed the episode, but I really want some grown up stuff now.  (Not Mobby or Messed Up Nick).  Why aren't we getting more Michael mentions?  It's supposed to be the season 14 focus isn't it?  Maybe not?

[Casseiopeia]

18 minutes ago, Pondlass1 said:

Last year we got 0.8 and 180+ at this time.  Oh well, times are changing.  People don't watch live anymore.

Under Dabb the show seems to be targeting the younger generation - Dean is called 'old' , features love-struck teen girl , teen Jack all pretty and suffering from consumption.  A young girls' dream.  A teenage story.

Yet I think the viewing age is probably older than Dabb's target audience.  I enjoyed the episode, but I really want some grown up stuff now.  (Not Mobby or Messed Up Nick).  Why aren't we getting more Michael mentions?  It's supposed to be the season 14 focus isn't it?  Maybe not?

I think Dabb needs to give up on the 18-34 demo.  It just isn't going to happen.  That rating was a .2 last night.  He needs to play to the show's strengths.  The fans that have been there from the Pilot.  That is a more mature audience that is in it for the long haul.

[Jonesy]

34 minutes ago, Morrigan2575 said:

What's really interesting is it looks like only Arrow and SPN recovered, post Time Change. Flash (0.6), Riverdale (0.4) and Supergirl (0.3) remained down or came back down.

Both Arrow and SPN got 0.4 (unless SPN adjusts down in finals), which is up from last week and back to normal range.

Looking at past charts that 25-54 demo is the key factor in the 18-49 rating. I guess it makes sense, SPN has been on for 14 years, if the bulk of it's viewership are long time views they'd (me) aged with the show.

IMO SPN and Arrow are both safe for renewal (especially with CW adding the 6th night this season). We may get a Final Season Announcement at Upfronts for S15 being the last but, at this point I expect a S16, SPN is super profitable for the WB.

Yeah nice SPN went up--it just edges Riverdale for second place on the CW this week.  I agree SPN has the juice to get season 15 or 16--I expect either 15 or 16 to be the end, whichever one the J's decide on.  Don't really see them wanting to go past 16.