Castle By The Numbers: The Ratings Thread!

[westwingfan]

4 minutes ago, break21 said:

I think before they fired SK,  ABC did a lot of focus groups to see what would happen with the ratings.

Well according to a friend, who is a member, they didn't seem to take much notice of their own Advisory Panel, which as been consistently critical throughout S8, especially towards the Loksat storyline, which triggered the bizarre Caskett seperation, and the roles of Alexis and Hayley.

[break21]

That's the public forum - they do private ones.

[TWP]

17 minutes ago, westwingfan said:

Well according to a friend, who is a member, they didn't seem to take much notice of their own Advisory Panel, which as been consistently critical throughout S8, especially towards the Loksat storyline, which triggered the bizarre Caskett separation, and the roles of Alexis and Hayley.

ABC probably knows that the Advisory Panel consists mostly of superfans, those who would feel a personal investment in a show.  I doubt that they represent the majority of viewers and I suspect ABC knows this.  I think the purpose of Advisory Panels is to quell complaints from superfans by making them feel they have an outlet for input.

Focus groups would be a more random selection of viewers, a mix of those who may and may not have a strong opinion about a particular show.

I got nabbed for a focus group once, while shopping at a mall.  The group was super random, young, old, male, female.  Our task was to decide on an ending of a movie.  It was kind of fun and I got movie tickets or something for the effort.  But the focus group was far more random than the ABC advisory board might be, and thus, theoretically more scientific.  Our group was selected from "those who like shopping on Saturday" and thus they may have considered us likely movie goers, oh, and those who think it would be interesting to do a focus group on something. But that was the only non-randomness about our selection.

[westwingfan]

9 minutes ago, TWP said:

ABC probably knows that the Advisory Panel consists mostly of superfans, those who would feel a personal investment in a show.  I doubt that they represent the majority of viewers and I suspect ABC knows this.  I think the purpose of Advisory Panels is to quell complaints from superfans by making them feel they have an outlet for input.

Focus groups would be a more random selection of viewers, a mix of those who may and may not have a strong opinion about a particular show.

I got nabbed for a focus group once, while shopping at a mall.  The group was super random, young, old, male, female.  Our task was to decide on an ending of a movie.  It was kind of fun and I got movie tickets or something for the effort.  But the focus group was far more random than the ABC advisory board might be, and thus, theoretically more scientific.  Our group was selected from "those who like shopping on Saturday" and thus they may have considered us likely movie goers, oh, and those who think it would be interesting to do a focus group on something. But that was the only non-randomness about our selection.

Given how that the show was built around the working and romantic relationship between Castle and Beckett I would still find it odd that that wasn't what kept the majority of people watching week in week out, I know some loved the boyz, Alexis, just the COTW, weren't bothered if Caskett got together, and some even like Hayley but Castle and Beckett are what made the show a bit special for a lot of people so I would be a bit surprised if ABC found a majority were happy to watch another season without Beckett, unless the strategy to make her unlikeable in S8 has worked better than some of us would like to believe.

Did they choose your ending for the film?

Edited May 10, 2016 by westwingfan

[break21]

IMO - ABC does a lot of internal focus groups.  I'll just leave it there.

[westwingfan]

22 minutes ago, TWP said:

ABC probably knows that the Advisory Panel consists mostly of superfans, those who would feel a personal investment in a show.  I doubt that they represent the majority of viewers and I suspect ABC knows this.  I think the purpose of Advisory Panels is to quell complaints from superfans by making them feel they have an outlet for input.

Focus groups would be a more random selection of viewers, a mix of those who may and may not have a strong opinion about a particular show.

I got nabbed for a focus group once, while shopping at a mall.  The group was super random, young, old, male, female.  Our task was to decide on an ending of a movie.  It was kind of fun and I got movie tickets or something for the effort.  But the focus group was far more random than the ABC advisory board might be, and thus, theoretically more scientific.  Our group was selected from "those who like shopping on Saturday" and thus they may have considered us likely movie goers, oh, and those who think it would be interesting to do a focus group on something. But that was the only non-randomness about our selection.

So does that mean that the focus groups wouldn't consist of current Castle fans, but they would pitch the idea of Castle P.I. with his daughter and sidekick to a random group as if it was a new show?

[FlickerToAFlame]

I don't get who these focus group people are that say they would watch without Beckett. Unless they don't watch the show and are being questioned about a one-off episode. I can see how Beckett isn't immediately likeable, especially in early episodes. 

Everyone on my Facebook who casually watches and commented when I shared the Stana leaving link all said they wouldn't watch anymore. 

[Chado]

3 minutes ago, FlickerToAFlame said:

I don't get who these focus group people are that say they would watch without Beckett. Unless they don't watch the show and are being questioned about a one-off episode. I can see how Beckett isn't immediately likeable, especially in early episodes. 

Everyone on my Facebook who casually watches and commented when I shared the Stana leaving link all said they wouldn't watch anymore. 

Let's see if the 'thousands' of people who say they only watch for Beckett impact the ratings next season, shall we? ;)

[TWP]

38 minutes ago, westwingfan said:

So does that mean that the focus groups wouldn't consist of current Castle fans, but they would pitch the idea of Castle P.I. with his daughter and sidekick to a random group as if it was a new show?

The advisory panel doesn't consist of "current Castle fans" either.  I doubt that the majority of Castle fans have ever heard of the advisory panel.  The advisory panel consists of Castle megafans.  Who else would spend the time and energy on something like that?

I think for Castle, yes, they would likely take a general public audience, some that watch and some that don't, and maybe a superfan or so in the mix and ask them questions to determine how they would shape their show.

Quote

Everyone on my Facebook who casually watches and commented when I shared the Stana leaving link all said they wouldn't watch anymore. 

Everyone on your Facebook is not a random selection either.  These are non-anonymous people who know you, and some who might fear offending you if they said how they really feel.  It is also likely that people who figured they'd watch didn't reply at the risk of not offending you.  Your Facebook friends are neither random nor free to say what they think.  Not a scientific sample AT ALL.

Edited May 10, 2016 by TWP

[WendyCR72]

Maybe it is different for the type of show - and I have never done one personally - but I had read that, for soaps, often the people chosen for focus groups were folks who did not necessarily watch the show but were shown episodes or something and asked opinions about their perceptions of characters and stories.

Oddly, if this was true, it sort of makes sense to me, actually: People who don't watch but who might be enticed have no strong leanings, no ardent attachments to any characters and are willing to watch for entertainment or maybe any given story idea. A way to try to cast a wider net.

Assuming focus groups are even how ABC is shaping this show...

[westwingfan]

1 minute ago, WendyCR72 said:

Maybe it is different for the type of show - and I have never done one personally - but I had read that, for soaps, often the people chosen for focus groups were folks who did not necessarily watch the show but were shown episodes or something and asked opinions about their perceptions of characters and stories.

Oddly, if this was true, it sort of makes sense to me, actually: People who don't watch but who might be enticed have no strong leanings, no ardent attachments to any characters and are willing to watch for entertainment or maybe any given story idea. A way to try to cast a wider net.

Assuming focus groups are even how ABC is shaping this show...

I still reckon they read tea leaves. LOL

[MaryM47]

Well, they're certainly not using good writers ;)

[FlickerToAFlame]

21 minutes ago, TWP said:

The advisory panel doesn't consist of "current Castle fans" either.  I doubt that the majority of Castle fans have ever heard of the advisory panel.  The advisory panel consists of Castle megafans.  Who else would spend the time and energy on something like that?

I think for Castle, yes, they would likely take a general public audience, some that watch and some that don't, and maybe a superfan or so in the mix and ask them questions to determine how they would shape their show.

Everyone on your Facebook is not a random selection either.  These are non-anonymous people who know you, and some who might fear offending you if they said how they really feel.  It is also likely that people who figured they'd watch didn't reply at the risk of not offending you.  Your Facebook friends are neither random nor free to say what they think.  Not a scientific sample AT ALL.

I never called my Facebook scientific. You're getting more and more condescending with your posts by the day. We get it, you love playing Devil's Advocate. We all have different views. 

[KAOS Agent]

The point is that Castle PI would be a "new" show. It would not be what regular viewers have been watching for years. Just like any new show that airs, they have focus groups and ask people what they think. A positive response does not necessarily mean the show will have great ratings which is why so many new shows are cancelled every year. The general audience will be in a wait and see mode. Some may quit when they discover that Beckett will be gone, some may watch the first few episodes of S9 and decide it's not really something they want to watch and some may think the show is a whole lot better. Focus groups will give you an idea if something is universally hated, but it's not going to tell ABC much about how successful the reboot will be. ABC will have to wait for the ratings to come in and then they'll find out where they stand.

Edited May 10, 2016 by KAOS Agent

[break21]

It did a 1.1 - that's the best ratings ABC has gotten in the 10 p.m  time-slot in a long time, despite bad publicity,  It's hard to argue with numbers.  I'm amazed it hasn't' gotten a full;-season order yet. 

[westwingfan]

5 minutes ago, break21 said:

It did a 1.1 - that's the best ratings ABC has gotten in the 10 p.m  time-slot in a long time, despite bad publicity,  It's hard to argue with numbers.  I'm amazed it hasn't' gotten a full;-season order yet. 

I can't see how you think the current ratings have any bearing on what a S9 might get, the comments from people talking about ABC basing their decision on focus groups feedback makes more sense. ABC probably don't want the current audience that may be largely fixated on Beckett, so they'll try and nurture a new one.

[break21]

I think the last 4 episodes have been solid.  Before that, it was a mess.  My opinion - they've delivered good episodes the last 4 and it's showing up in the ratings.

[westwingfan]

7 minutes ago, break21 said:

I think the last 4 episodes have been solid.  Before that, it was a mess.  My opinion - they've delivered good episodes the last 4 and it's showing up in the ratings.

If you check the numbers the first three episodes after the return of DWTS had an average of 1.1/6.4M and the next three after the news broke had an average of 1.0/6.0M, indicating a loss of 400K, the latest episode recovered somewhat but that may have been helped by the fact that NCIS LA was replaced by POI, which had 0.2/2m less than NCIS LA so it is more than likely that some waifs and strays switched channels for the night. The ratings for the rest of the season are irrelevant now, and probably haven't featured in ABC's thinking for some time since they decided to dump Stana and Tamala, TV Line's blind item about  the break up said that TPTB weren't bothered by a backlash then so it would seem that ABC have been preparing for this new show for some time. When you've sat through 150 episodes of a show you don't necessarily give up after a few less than enjoyable episodes, and so it is not too surprising that the ratings didn't dive after Apr 18 as people decided to keep watching Stana's last few episodes despite their unhappiness at the news. S9 is a totally new ballgame and probably depends on ABC being able to attract some new viewers. I think identifying too closely with the original show just by retaining the name could prove its undoing but I'm sure those who won't mourn the death of Beckett will be gloating, at least for a few episodes.

[tljgator]

ABC does focus groups. They don't do them properly (from a research standpoint), and they certainly aren't random (as they should be).  Wendy, back in the day, their soap focus groups were notoriously crap, which led to many of their more confounding choices -- sadly, from what I know, I doubt they do much better with prime time, lol.

[TWP]

29 minutes ago, tljgator said:

ABC does focus groups. They don't do them properly (from a research standpoint), and they certainly aren't random (as they should be).  Wendy, back in the day, their soap focus groups were notoriously crap, which led to many of their more confounding choices -- sadly, from what I know, I doubt they do much better with prime time, lol.

They're certainly more random than the ABC  advisory panel or "friends on Facebook".  

[tljgator]

Didn't say they weren't. I said they aren't random and they should be. (As an aside, I do research for a living; I teach graduate students how to do research; I have friends who work for ABC -- I'm not conflating the Advisory Panel with the focus groups ABC uses for "research.")

[TWP]

17 hours ago, FlickerToAFlame said:

I never called my Facebook scientific. You're getting more and more condescending with your posts by the day. We get it, you love playing Devil's Advocate. We all have different views. 

I wasn't being condescending, just stating a fact.  You had definitely implied that your FB friends were a valid measure of the climate of viewers. I was just saying why they're not. I think you were reading something into my post that isn't there, based on your own emotions about the current state of Castle.

I have no investment at all in Stata Katic. In fact I can see why they might cut her if they want to go a comedic direction. Comedy is not her strong suit. I would be fine if they replaced Beckett and went on as if nothing happened. I think the charge of sexism dilutes the real issues of sexism people face and that makes me angry. Like racism, people take sexism less seriously when it's applied inconsistently, which I feel is how it's applied when it comes to Stana. Thus instead of showing my anger all the time, I laugh about it. That might make me seem condescending. It's how I cope.

I will use Previouslytv ignore feature and won't respond to any more of your posts.

[WendyCR72]

1 hour ago, tljgator said:

ABC does focus groups. They don't do them properly (from a research standpoint), and they certainly aren't random (as they should be).  Wendy, back in the day, their soap focus groups were notoriously crap, which led to many of their more confounding choices -- sadly, from what I know, I doubt they do much better with prime time, lol.

Somehow, your description doesn't surprise me one bit, @tljgator. But thanks for confirming such idiocy to me.  :-)

[tljgator]

Quote

Somehow, your description doesn't surprise me one bit, @tljgator. But thanks for confirming such idiocy to me.  :-)

<side note to Wendy> Not to get too far off topic (hey, most of the GH cast list of the 90s and 00s have appeared on Castle, so, kinda on-point), but I had a particularly vexing conversation with the guy who was head of ABC Daytime in the early 00s about these "great" storylines and couples they were pushing based on "research reports" and having read a few of those reports and how they were compiled I knew all I needed to know about how they made decisions around those parts ... not well.  Not well at all.

[westwingfan]

15 minutes ago, WendyCR72 said:

Somehow, your description doesn't surprise me one bit, @tljgator. But thanks for confirming such idiocy to me.  :-)

Why does that not give me a warm fuzzy feeling, sounds like they might have been better off reading the tea leaves after all. LOL

[westwingfan]

8 minutes ago, tljgator said:

<side note to Wendy> Not to get too far off topic (hey, most of the GH cast list of the 90s and 00s have appeared on Castle, so, kinda on-point), but I had a particularly vexing conversation with the guy who was head of ABC Daytime in the early 00s about these "great" storylines and couples they were pushing based on "research reports" and having read a few of those reports and how they were compiled I knew all I needed to know about how they made decisions around those parts ... not well.  Not well at all.

Perhaps that explains why ABC doesn't do too well against the other networks with the choice of pilots they've picked up in recent years, so that they have to retain Castle, which is a pale shadow of its former self, to have something to fill out their schedule.

[tljgator]

1 minute ago, westwingfan said:

Perhaps that explains why ABC doesn't do too well against the other networks with the choice of pilots they've picked up in recent years, so that they have to retain Castle, which is a pale shadow of its former self, to have something to fill out their schedule.

Yeah, I profess that most of my primetime knowledge is from friends who work on the production/writing side of things, whereas my soap knowledge was much more direct, but how choices are made in the entertainment world always surprises me, knowledge and information-wise, compared to how we might go about these major choices in "the real world." *sigh*

[WendyCR72]

3 hours ago, westwingfan said:

<side note to Wendy> Not to get too far off topic (hey, most of the GH cast list of the 90s and 00s have appeared on Castle, so, kinda on-point), but I had a particularly vexing conversation with the guy who was head of ABC Daytime in the early 00s about these "great" storylines and couples they were pushing based on "research reports" and having read a few of those reports and how they were compiled I knew all I needed to know about how they made decisions around those parts ... not well.  Not well at all.

 

Well played, @tljgator, as I am also one of the GH mods. :-)  And yeah, the '00s and GH couples? Not good, to put it charitably. Soooo...if a similar way was used ti gauge a 9th season of this show? Be afraid. Be very afraid.

[Mystery]

I've seen every episode but I'd already decided not to watch next year. I wouldn't have bothered with the Castle and Alexis Show, if it had actually been made. 

[turnitwayup]

Series finale got a s8 high/avg s7 rating of 7.8/1.3