Jump to content

Type keyword(s) to search

Castle By The Numbers: The Ratings Thread!

verdana

By verdana
in Castle [V]

Recommended Posts

verdana

verdana

  • Author

Interesting review and analysis done by CastleChronicles about the ratings last season and what to expect for season 8.

 

Ratings: A look at season seven and the future

Predicting the season eight

Not taking any sort of possible storyline “predicted, projected, hammered into the stone by fans” into account, it’s very likely Castle will hit a 1.0 and sub-six million viewers this season. It will hover around the 1.2 to 1.5 range in demo with about 7.0 to just over 8 million viewers for Same Day viewing. As for DVR, it will probably see growth in the 0.7 to 0.9 in demo with about 3.5 to 4 million viewers.

 

  • Love 1
  • Replies 479
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

WendyCR72
WendyCR72

I get your sentiment and admire it, but the crew of any given TV series losing jobs does go with the territory in the line of work they are in. Eventually, it will be reality regardless.

westwingfan
westwingfan

I understand your sentiment but I'm not a charity, a show is meant to be entertaining, and if the entertainment doesn't outweigh the negatives it won't hold my interest and I'll try and find something

pepper
pepper

The reason live viewership counts more is that nobody watches the commercials on their DVR. And advertising revenue is the goal of television. Money talks.Nothing old-fashioned about that - it's a per

Sonik Tooth

Sonik Tooth

Ratings and Alexis continue as such hot button issues. When Castle ratings are down;ratings mean nothing. When Castle ratings are up and steady in the demo; ratings are everything. Ratings aside, the failure of the PI arc and episodes like “Child’s Play” make it clear that separating the two work-wise is a mistake. The less Castle and Beckett are together, the lower the ratings are in both demo and viewership.

If you want to establish a cause and effect connection (x equals low/high ratings/viewership), you need a suitable pattern where you can carefully build your hypothesis on. Nielsen ratings are the only thing available for us outsiders, so yes, they matter. But there are a lot of other variables that are unknown and might interfere or falsify an assumption.

 

Last words on the PI arc : That would mean you're blaming the PI arc for the live viewers/ratings loss, despite the fact that said loss evidently happened before said event. And despite the ratings numbers that indicate that the arc was a kind of a turning point (more live viewers higher ratings after the first episode).

 

Your other hypothesis (Alexis) is build on a single episode in season 7. That would mean part of the audience made the informed decision not to watch that episode based on too much Alexis. Which may well be true. But if you look at the ratings and live viewers of the episodes before and after, it's a rather tiny and insignificant part. It could be (and probably is) attributed to normal fluctuations between episodes.

 

That doesn't mean that I dispute the hypothesis that most viewers watch for Castle and Beckett. That would be ludicrous! But that also doesn't mean that all viewers want them joined at the hip. Or that Castle PI or Alexis equals ratings poison which - up to this point and based on the statistical evidence from the ratings- is also ludicrous. What happens in Season 8, and if it is possible to make any cause-effect connection in the future based on the meager information basis, I can't predict.

 

Sorry, that was kind of long. That's why I moved your response to the ratings thread.

  • Love 1
verdana

verdana

  • Author

Ratings Predictions - Fall TV Preview - Monday at SpoilerTV

Pros:
- The lead-ins should continue to be rather excellent
- Maybe it underachieved too much last year given the extent of the in-season collapse?
- The writers appear to be trying to shake up the show somehow. Maybe that helps?

Cons:
- It had an absolutely lousy in-season trend last year! That won’t suddenly just stop.
- The competition won’t get any easier with NBC becoming visible in the hour

Bottom Line : I really cannot see it suddenly reversing the horrible trend it started last year, especially because the conditions won’t get more favorable and I doubt the creative stuff makes any meaningful difference. Most of the damage is done already though so I don't think it accelerates either, it just replicates it for the most part 1.3 (-18%)

 

Brit Babe

Brit Babe

(edited)

Formerly The Cancel Bear:

@TVGrimReaper: Among veteran shows, #Castle’s 1.2 rating (series low?) should worry fans.

@TVGrimReaper: At this point, #Castle is a very expensive show. Unless ABC has big declilnes across the week that 1.2 spells trouble.

Ouch, especially as it says these figures are likely inflated due to a football game. I'm not surprised though.

 

EDITED: http://www.showbuzzdaily.com/articles/the-sked-monday-ratings-9-21-2015.html

7million viewers. Is that a series low?

Edited by Brit Babe
  • Love 1
verdana

verdana

  • Author
(edited)

TV Ratings Monday: 'Castle' & 'NCIS: LA' Premiere to Series Lows + 'Blindspot' Opens Big While 'Minority Report' Disappoints

 

Castle 1.2/4 7.09

 

Okay wow I have to say I'm genuinely surprised by that. 

 

I wonder if the ratings dip further they'll change the show to another day? 

Edited by verdana
McManda

McManda

I said the same as in the episode thread, but the fatalistic TVGrimReaper makes me scratch my head.

Castle's closest, most similar show (aka: Bones) ... similar in age, type, demo, and most likely, cost ... actually pulled under a 1.0 toward the end of last season. I get that it's a race to outrun other network shows, but I don't think all is lost.

 

That said, DWTS also had a steep drop off from their first episode, and markets were preempted. The ratings are lower than I would have guessed, but we'll see if they rebound without preemptions (and maybe good word of mouth? I don't know how the general public that watched liked the episode).

WendyCR72

WendyCR72

I said the same as in the episode thread, but the fatalistic TVGrimReaper makes me scratch my head.

Castle's closest, most similar show (aka: Bones) ... similar in age, type, demo, and most likely, cost ... actually pulled under a 1.0 toward the end of last season. I get that it's a race to outrun other network shows, but I don't think all is lost.

 

That said, DWTS also had a steep drop off from their first episode, and markets were preempted. The ratings are lower than I would have guessed, but we'll see if they rebound without preemptions (and maybe good word of mouth? I don't know how the general public that watched liked the episode).

 

While that is all true, Castle also struggled most of the prior season, and few aging shows ever surge upward once the rolling of the boulder starts. Now this week may well be an abnormality with the novelty of new shows and football, but history also says that for most shows of such advanced age, it really is all downhill.

 

Not trying to be fatalistic, just honest.

 

And the lead-in thing - for me alone here, to emphasize - just doesn't hold water to me. I could see if Castle was like Bones and bounced over three or four nights over its run, but it has been in the same slot for its entire tenure. So people should know where it is if they want to watch it.

 

I just think simple age is catching up to it.

  • Love 1
femmefan1946

femmefan1946

I don't understand the 'lead in' thing.

Even an old biddy like me knows how to use a remote.

I'm so old I even know how to get off the chesterfield and manually change the channel.

 

My lead in to Castle was Life on an Edwardian Farm on some quasi-PBS channel and Significant Mother on CW because I still can't believe how awful it is. Plus bits of a biography of Peter Paul Rubens on PBS-ish, when the awfulness of SM got overwhelming.

McManda

McManda

I buy into the lead in thing somewhat, mostly because that's how I found Castle. (I started watching DWTS and then never turned the channel.) I'm sure I'm not the only one, even if it's not a great predictor, especially with older shows.

 

I'm not trying to make it all sunshine and rainbows because it's definitely not, but I don't think it's necessarily as gloomy as the media might like to make it out to be.

Badsamaritan

Badsamaritan

I wonder how many viewers like me heard about the spoilers of what's to come and just decided, 'you know what? It's an 8 year old show, I don't feel like being dicked around by new ep's so I'm out'.

The one thing that AWM taught me was not to expect any kind of happy ending or a closer look at Caskett's home life. That same thing is what is allowing me to drop the show with no regrets.

verdana

verdana

  • Author
(edited)

ABC's 'Castle' Premiere is Monday's Biggest L+3 Gainer in Adults 18-49 on the Major Networks at TVBTN

via press release:

Live + 3 Day data for Monday, 9/21/15

The season premiere of ABC’s Castle shot up +58% over its L+SD Adult 18-49 rating, making it Monday’s biggest percentage gainer in TV playback on the major networks, tied with CBS’ NCIS: Los Angeles. The L+3 lift for Castle was larger than Fox’s Gotham premiere (+56%) and Minority Report debut (+55%), NBC’s Blindspot debut (+42%) and CBS’ The Big Bang Theory premiere (+36%).

 

In fact, Castle scored its biggest-ever L+3 premiere lift in Adults 18-49 (+58%).

 

Castle grew to a 1.9 rating among Adults 18-49 (from a 1.2 in L+SD) and 10.0 million Total Viewers (from 6.8 million in L+SD) after 3 days of TV playback.

 

Edited by verdana
McManda

McManda

I don't know if it's spin. It doesn't really say much.

Fact is, a lot of people don't watch TV live anymore. What that means for renewals and how the networks take the ratings numbers is a different story, but it does look like people are watching Castle, just not live. I'm honestly not surprised that the 10PM slot is hard ... especially on a Monday. Most people have to work the next day, and with DVR it's easy enough to record for later, especially because DVRs are the norm, not the exception.

WendyCR72

WendyCR72

I don't know if it's spin. It doesn't really say much.

Fact is, a lot of people don't watch TV live anymore. What that means for renewals and how the networks take the ratings numbers is a different story, but it does look like people are watching Castle, just not live. I'm honestly not surprised that the 10PM slot is hard ... especially on a Monday. Most people have to work the next day, and with DVR it's easy enough to record for later, especially because DVRs are the norm, not the exception.

 

Agree with this, but press releases are just about putting a happy face on things. And, right or wrong, whether people don't watch live or not, it appears that the Nielsen ratings for same day are what networks still predominantly look at.

 

Time will tell if this week was an anomaly. With that said, I do wonder if this week will do any better since it is a part 2 and the same story just from another angle.

 

I guess we'll see!

McManda

McManda

I'm most interested to see if the +3 ratings mean they'll get a ratings bump in the live this coming week. Like, first episode, people thought "eh ... we'll see", set their DVRs, and watched when they could. But from what I've heard, people were generally positive about the episode, so I wonder if any of those people that waited to watch had their interest raised enough to watch live this week.

KaveDweller

KaveDweller

Also, every show gains after 3 days. So there's that to keep in mind. 

 

Exactly.  And any show that was rated very low is going to have a higher percentage gain then shows that were rated highly

 

Going from a 1.2 to a 1.9 is a gain of 58%, but it is only a gain of .7  Going from a 3.2 to a 3.9 is also a gain of .7, but is only 22%.  So the first one sounds better, even though the gains were equal.

BellyLaughter

BellyLaughter

That's not true at all. ABC cares very much about +3 and +7.

Nashville gets renewed every year because of the DVR numbers.

CBS no longer cares about overnights. I can't speak to NBC and FOX.

ABC also cares about social media buzz (not to be confused with fan opinion)

I am actually glad that these new ways of counting viewers are taken into consideration cause we operate in a different universe these days!

Just out of curiosity - how do u differentiate between social media buzz and fan opinion?? I think online fandoms are a skewed sample of the audience but at the same time they are the most likely gonna be the people exalting or condemning the shows using social media?? Does that make sense??

  • Love 1
westwingfan

westwingfan

That's not true at all. ABC cares very much about +3 and +7.

Nashville gets renewed every year because of the DVR numbers.

CBS no longer cares about overnights. I can't speak to NBC and FOX.

ABC also cares about social media buzz (not to be confused with fan opinion)

So they care about the buzz, just not the tone of that buzz? LOL

madmaverick

madmaverick

For those who are interested in what network chiefs think, you might find this article interesting.  ABC declined to participate though.

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/tv-chiefs-answer-falls-burning-826488

 

This review of new shows by an anonymous showrunner was also entertaining.

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/an-anonymous-showrunner-reviews-tvs-826335

 

His review of Blindspot made me laugh.

Dumb. Silly. Overwrought. A not-unwatchable show about an amnesiac with a bunch of tattoos that may be clues to upcoming crimes. Perhaps watchable if you have a very stressful job and really need to turn your brain almost completely off.

 

 

And yet it's still not unwatchable!  What a compliment, heh.  Perhaps we should be relieved that professional critics don't review new seasons of Castle any more. 

westwingfan

westwingfan

Makes perfect sense. They measure buzz by seeing if a show trends or if a character trends.

How many retweets, things like that. How many new people click like on the Facebook page.

Sometimes fan opinion can matter, like with Haley, they will check if people are enjoying her.

But I wanted to be clear that tweeting "don't break up Caskett" will just show that people are paying attention...it won't change the story.

So are you saying that if there is enough negativity towards the Hayley character they will tone down her screen time but they won't consider changing a story line if it attracts the same sort of reaction. I'm not sure I see the difference. So the only thing that will really make them sit up if people switch off.

westwingfan

westwingfan

Well no I'm not saying tweets will make Hayley go away. It's more complicated than that.

But something like a new character can easily be changed if it doesn't work.

It's much harder to rewrite your entire plot for the season.

I did say "tone down her screen time", not eradicate her altogether, but I get your drift about the story line.

verdana

verdana

  • Author
(edited)

They made PI go away precisely because of the very negative reaction they were getting but it was fairly easy to get rid of him. 

Well, even in TV show terms, the old adage is true: The opposite of love is not hate but indifference. Indifference is the true killer. One can rant, rave, and scream that they hate X or Y, but it is still seen as interest.

Yeah, I see a fair amount of fans ranting and raving about stuff on tumblr and twitter etc but those same people each week I see tweeting and making comments when it airs so they're still watching even though they seem furious about something lol.  

Edited by verdana
KaveDweller

KaveDweller

Well no I'm not saying tweets will make Hayley go away. It's more complicated than that.

But something like a new character can easily be changed if it doesn't work.

It's much harder to rewrite your entire plot for the season.

 

I'm guessing for new characters they pay attention to feedback because it is shiny and new and they want to test their thinking.  But there's no reason to research what people think about things that have been around forever.  That makes sense to me.

 

There have been shows where showrunners have complained that the network made them change a plotline that they wanted to go on all season, so it must happen sometimes.  But I doubt the network would insist on something like that for Castle that is nearing the end of its life cycle anyway.

TWP

TWP

Not good. I cannot imagine how it doesn't keep going down with Castle and Beckett broken up.

Honestly, I'd rather they killed one of them off, rather than go back to the tedious will they/won't they. They made a mistake in carrying that on too long at the beginning, followed by the ridiculous blocking once they got together. Now it's almost annoyingly unbearable to even consider. I'm on to less irritating shows. They've lost me completely.

  • Love 1
BellyLaughter

BellyLaughter

I think the best we can hope for is that if cancellation is on the cards that the amount of time from when they get notice of it gives them a chance to wrap it up well and an added bonus would be we won't have to endure another round of the renewed, contract negotiations Olympics.

That being said Castle's numbers, whilst not great, are not terrible ....relatively speaking.

Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...