Ratings and Scheduling: Hail to the Gods

[Midnight Lullaby]

Yup. OTA is the best thing on the show ;) I have no time for two dimensional characters that are nothing beyond a mask.

And by the way saying the content of the episode is the reason for the numbers that same episode scores is the most hilarious argument ever. If casual viewers predict the future I need one of them to give me the numbers of the lottery.

Edited May 6, 2016 by Midnight Lullaby

[SonofaBiscuit]

The "boo hoo Laurel is dead and OTA sucks and is killing Arrow" argument does not work for me since ratings were just fine in the earlier seasons when things were very Diggle/Oliver/Felicity heavy.  And I'm not a mind reader, but I imagine ratings are going to bounce back to normal eventually, as they always do.  Something tells me, though, that even with perfectly consistent ratings, we will hear all about how Laurel's death made the ratings plummet, blah, blah, blah, boo hoo hoo.  Don't care, it's still one of the highest rated shows on the network. 

[Angel12d]

I'm just glad we can all agree that OTA is awesome and the heart of the show. :D

[tv echo]

Comparison of superhero tv show ratings this week...

Gotham (FOX) - 1.2 and 3.59 (final)
Flash (CW) - 1.3 and 3.34 (final)
Agents of SHIELD (ABC) - 0.9 and 2.92 (final)
Arrow (CW) - 0.7 and 2.07 (final)
LoT (CW) - 0.6 and 1.63 (final)

Edited May 8, 2016 by tv echo

[AyChihuahua]

HA at LoT. (I would also like to state for the record that I predicted before it even premiered that it would SUUUUUUUUUCCCCKKKK. Too many terrible actors on one show.)

[nksarmi]

LoT isn't that far behind Arrow and it's very much a spin-off show with no really well known comic book characters to draw people to it. It's the kind of show that has to build an audience not come with one like Flash - which is still doing the best in all the ratings no matter how stupid I think the writing for it is getting. Even if LoT only gets one more season - I will be happy I got to enjoy Sara/Caity in this venue for as long as I get - because we were never going to get that character on Arrow and she's a joy to watch (as are Heatwave and Cold).

[NumberCruncher]

57 minutes ago, tv echo said:

Comparison of superhero tv show ratings this week...

Gotham (FOX) - 1.2 and 3.59 (final)
Flash (CW) - 1.3 and 3.34 (final)
Agents of SHIELD (ABC) - 0.9 and 2.92 (final)
Arrow (CW) - 0.7 and 2.07 (final)
LoT (CW) - 0.6 and 1.65 (preliminary)

I guess now isn't the time to point out that these are lower-than-usual ratings for all these shows since it pretty much negates the current narrative that Arrow is dying because of [insert chosen reason].

Edited May 6, 2016 by NumberCruncher

[Velocity23]

I think the problem for LOT is the drop in just one season. It premiered to the same demo Arrow had in s1. So from 1.3 to 0.6 in one season.

[AyChihuahua]

31 minutes ago, Velocity23 said:

I think the problem for LOT is the drop in just one season. It premiered to the same demo Arrow had in s1. So from 1.3 to 0.6 in one season.

Way down in viewers, too. I know the demo is the main thing, but the audience has also dropped like half.

I know some people here like it, but I think it's absolutely terrible. Every time I've tried to watch I've only been able to tolerate a couple minutes. Sara's great, sure, Heatwave's okay. I can't stand Cold's weird speech thing, most of the rest are meh at best. The writing is so nonsensical it makes S3 of Arrow look smart, and that's really saying something. Kendra's IMO the worst regular actress on network television.

I understand individual opinions differ, but obviously the tv-viewing audience at large pretty much agrees that it stinks, too, bc that's really a big drop in ratings over less than one season.

[Midnight Lullaby]

I agree. The problem is how much it dropped in one season and not even a complete one. Still being on the CW it isn't a big deal just yet but it sure isn't a positive sign.

What I'm annoyed about is the time spent on Arrow to prop the spin off and the money spent on promotion when after a few episodes it started to do worse than a show in its fourth season.

[Sakura12]

While LoT does more things wrong than they do right, I'm just happy that I got to see Sara be more of a badass than she was ever allowed to be on Arrow. I got to see the Black Canary in live action. 

Once LoT ends I'll be done watching any CW super hero shows. Arrow lost my interest in season 3 and Flash lost my interest this season. 

Edited May 6, 2016 by Sakura12

[CabotCove]

Quote

LoT isn't that far behind Arrow and it's very much a spin-off show with no really well known comic book characters to draw people to it.

Its a spin off(Arrow) then a spin off of a spin off(The Flash). Then obscure heroes, and then one of the biggest factors; its midseason show on CW.  Personally, I think LOT has been rocking it , and I hate Doctor Who. Sci fi is a dead genre, sigh, thanks Syfy. 2-3 season will be a sucess, sometimes you dont need to be Supernatural to leave a legacy.

Quote

OTA is the best thing on the show ;)

OK. We all all have our opinions.

Edited May 6, 2016 by WildcardC

[nksarmi]

3 hours ago, Sakura12 said:

While LoT does more things wrong than they do right, I'm just happy that I got to see Sara be more of a badass than she was ever allowed to be on Arrow. I got to see the Black Canary in live action. 

Once LoT ends I'll be done watching any CW super hero shows. Arrow lost my interest in season 3 and Flash lost my interest this season. 

Flash is definitely losing me this season - I honestly don't know how it ranks the highest among all the super hero shows. Of course, I don't watch Gothem or AoS so maybe it is the best?

But to me, I don't think there is much difference between Arrow, Flash, and LoT in terms of writing, plot holes, and acting. My SO says that Arrow should have ended last season with Oliver and Felicity riding off into the sunset - game, set, match, we're done. From what I've seen this season - I'm having a hard time arguing that he's wrong. And Flash! My word, GG is the only thing making me like Barry because on paper - Barry is the worst!

I think Flash, Arrow, and Legends all have good actors and poor ones, things they do well and things they do poorly, and plot holes you can drive a mack truck through. I think people's enjoyment - or lack thereof - must come from which characters they enjoy enough to overlook all of that stuff. At this point in time, for me that's Legends 1, Arrow 2, and Flash 3. I'm clearly the opposite of the general consensus though.

Of course in terms of which shows can improve the most - I think Legends comes out on top, then Arrow, and yea I don't see much hope for Flash. It seems like Legends is going to get rid of most people's biggest complaints already. Arrow has room to improve if they drop the relationship drama and concentrate on making Oliver look like a competent fighter again. Flash? I'm not seeing how it gets better. They seem fully committed to my two/three dads and they routinely find a way to make Barry look dumb or selfish without - I think - meaning to. I hope I'm wrong though - would love to see all the shows get better and thrive. 

Edited May 6, 2016 by nksarmi

[AyChihuahua]

Moved to Mind Your Surroundings.

Edited May 7, 2016 by AyChihuahua

[CabotCove]

Quote

Arrow has room to improve if they drop the relationship drama and concentrate on making Oliver look like a competent fighter again. 

I dont see much relationship drama, seems like a scapegoat to me, they just lost  their focus. 

Unless you mean "relationship drama" as in too much romance fouc then yeah I agree.

Edited May 8, 2016 by WildcardC

[wonderwall]

taking this to the hopes and fears thread...

[nksarmi]

26 minutes ago, WildcardC said:

I dont see much relationship drama, seems like a scapegoat to me, they just lost  their focus. 

Unless you mean "relationship drama" as in too much romance fouc then yeah I agree.

What I mean as relationship drama is coming up with contrived ways to not put the couple they clearly intend to be together - together - and keep them together. I hate when shows do that. Not much makes me lose interest faster than that. And I think it weakens the writing because instead of just saying - what cool stories can we tell? It becomes how can we break so and so up and get them back together and tear them apart - oh yea and let's tell some cool crime fighting stories on the side.

[tv echo]

Flashback to this January 2016 interview with Mark Pedowitz (re CW show ratings)...

The CW's Chief Doesn’t Care When or Where Audiences Watch His Shows Mark Pedowitz reexamines network's streaming strategy
By Jason Lynch January 10, 2016, 1:34 PM EST
http://www.adweek.com/news/television/cw-s-chief-doesn-t-care-when-or-where-audiences-watch-his-shows-168937

Quote

Most network heads are pulling their hair out over the decline of linear ratings, but not The CW president Mark Pedowitz. He doesn't care when or how audiences watch his network's content, as long as they do watch.

"The CW has always been: great, watch us on linear, watch us on live plus same day, but just watch us. Our point of view is, if you missed it, come see it on [video on demand], come see it on DVR, come see it on digital. Just come see it and talk about it," Pedowitz said at the Television Critics Association's winter press tour. "I just want the consumer and the audience to feel that they can find the show wherever they can find it."

That's partially because Pedowitz has seen a "Netflix effect" help prop up later seasons of his shows like The 100.

But despite the ratings bump that The CW sometimes receives from its streaming video on demand (SVOD) partners like Netflix and Hulu, Pedowitz says the network is reconsidering its streaming strategy as those output deals, which were made four years ago, begin to expire later this year.

"We're now at this great place, thanks to the strength of the schedule and the strength of the shows, that we're now [are] exploring many, many many of our options, and there are many entities that are quite interested in the CW product. So we're going to continue to explore where that plays out, and it could play out in many different forms," said Pedowitz. "Probably within the next 6 to 9 months, we will have a new strategy to go forward with."

Edited May 9, 2016 by tv echo

[CabotCove]

Quote

What I mean as relationship drama is coming up with contrived ways to not put the couple they clearly intend to be together - together - and keep them together. I hate when shows do that. Not much makes me lose interest faster than that. 

Yeah that can be frustrating, when its overdone. But its TV there will (likely) always be some conflict each season. IMO Arrow hasnt over done it yet, unless they do it next year too.

Quote

The CW's Chief Doesn’t Care When or Where Audiences Watch His Shows Mark Pedowitz reexamines network's streaming strategy 

I think most networks are moving towards this strategy, CW being likely faster than others to adopt while CBS is likely the most reluctant to do so, its just seems smarter to consider all revenue streams, since TV ratings are getting lower and lower. But I hope taking this strategy to the extreme doesnt blow up in his face one day, he is renewing so much trash on the network & barely investing in ambitious new pilots. 

Edited May 9, 2016 by WildcardC

[dtissagirl]

There was a quote from Pedowitz last year [from Summer TCAs, I think? I can't find it now] in which he mentioned The Flash live ratings only counted for something like 25% of total viewers. That's probably going on with every single show on the CW.

[quarks]

To be fair to Pedowitz, he probably isn't getting first crack at ambitious new pilots - "ambitious" usually means either "high budget" or "things still not allowed on U.S broadcast television." So those producers are almost certainly pitching to HBO and/or Showtime first, the big four networks second, and possibly even Netflix/Hulu (which can save money through some SAG contract things) before they come to the CW. 

Regarding renewing "trash" - well, to be also fair to Pedowitz, he inherited Supernatural and The Vampire Diaries, and with Supernatural, at least, as long as the actors don't revolt and that core audience continues to follow it around everywhere, that makes a certain business sense. And yes, ok, he renewed Reign, but he also ordered and renewed Crazy Ex-Girlfriend and Jane the Virgin, neither one of which can be considered standard network fare.  Legends of Tomorrow was definitely a major financial investment, and ambitious in its own way - there's a reason most of the other superhero shows have chosen NOT to have characters who can fly. And according to everyone, he's the one who told The 100 to give up the standard teen drama and just embrace the darkness, though we can certainly question how well that worked for them this season. He's definitely had his failures, but so have other networks. 

[Chaser]

I feel like the early ratings are taking a long time.

[apinknightmare]

1 minute ago, Chaser said:

I feel like the early ratings are taking a long time.

They're delayed until 2PM Eastern, for "quality checks" I think.

Edited May 12, 2016 by apinknightmare

[catrox14]

4 minutes ago, apinknightmare said:

They're delayed until 2PM Eastern, for "quality checks" I think.

Huh. I wonder if there is some peculiar movement on shows that they don't expect to get high ratings so it's a "quality check". That's odd.

[apinknightmare]

[tarotx]

Supernatural did really well. I think they will be the third rated CW series this week. 

[Morrigan2575]

Here's hoping it's a strong 0.8 maybe it'll adjustup to a 0.8

Quote

Supernatural did really well. I think they will be the third rated CW series this week. 

Fingers crossed 

Edited May 12, 2016 by Morrigan2575

[NumberCruncher]

Just for reference since I'm sure people may panic:

2x21: 0.8/2.3M

3x21: 0.9/2.4M

Edited May 12, 2016 by NumberCruncher
Corrected for final S3 demo

[AyChihuahua]

So, ratings edged back up. There ya go.

[Morrigan2575]

1 minute ago, NumberCruncher said:

Just for reference since I'm sure people may panic:

2x21: 0.8/2.3M

3x21: 0.8/2.4M

According to my sheet, 321 had a 0.9 and 2.4 million viewers

[NumberCruncher]

1 minute ago, Morrigan2575 said:

According to my sheet, 321 had a 0.9 and 2.4 million viewers

You're right.  I was looking at the prelim. demo and the final demo did adjust up to 0.9.  Viewers were the same.

[Midnight Lullaby]

2x21 had 0.8 in the demo and 2.3 mil viewers..people wanted S2 back...LOL

[tv echo]

Better up than down. ;)

Remember, after Sara was killed at the end of 3x01, the ratings dropped for the next episode (from 1.0 in 3x01 to 0.8 in 3x02) (there was no funeral episode), but then slowly crept back up. (source)

Edited May 12, 2016 by tv echo

[nksarmi]

On ‎5‎/‎9‎/‎2016 at 3:08 PM, dtissagirl said:

There was a quote from Pedowitz last year [from Summer TCAs, I think? I can't find it now] in which he mentioned The Flash live ratings only counted for something like 25% of total viewers. That's probably going on with every single show on the CW.

How do shows account for people watching On Demand? I mean you guys talk about the ratings adjusting up or down, but do shows benefit if someone binge watches three or four episodes at a time? And do they have any sense for how much Netflix downloads a show gets? I would think things like that and DVD sales would help keep a show with only so/so ratings on the air but I really have no clue.

[NumberCruncher]

1 minute ago, nksarmi said:

How do shows account for people watching On Demand? I mean you guys talk about the ratings adjusting up or down, but do shows benefit if someone binge watches three or four episodes at a time? And do they have any sense for how much Netflix downloads a show gets? I would think things like that and DVD sales would help keep a show with only so/so ratings on the air but I really have no clue.

Cable/satellite providers can track how often shows are watched on demand.  Netflix also has pretty sophisticated means of tracking viewership habits.  We're only seeing a small sliver of what Arrow's true viewership is looking at the live ratings.

[dtissagirl]

10 minutes ago, nksarmi said:

How do shows account for people watching On Demand? I mean you guys talk about the ratings adjusting up or down, but do shows benefit if someone binge watches three or four episodes at a time? And do they have any sense for how much Netflix downloads a show gets? I would think things like that and DVD sales would help keep a show with only so/so ratings on the air but I really have no clue.

None of that affect ratings as measured by Nielsen. ALL OF THAT matters to the producing studios and the broadcast networks a whole lot, and yes, digital viewing of all kinds are tracked pretty closely, and the content makers have access to all of that info. Netflix [and the like] even tracks which scenes you're replaying, and each scenes you're skipping. It's just that we don't have access to any of that info, so all we [and the professional media] can go by is what Nielsen divulges.

[tv echo]

Final adjusted ratings are 0.8 and 2.16...
http://www.spoilertv.com/2016/05/final-adjusted-tv-ratings-for-wednesday_12.html

[quarks]

17 hours ago, nksarmi said:

How do shows account for people watching On Demand? I mean you guys talk about the ratings adjusting up or down, but do shows benefit if someone binge watches three or four episodes at a time? And do they have any sense for how much Netflix downloads a show gets? I would think things like that and DVD sales would help keep a show with only so/so ratings on the air but I really have no clue.

According to multiple reports, this is pretty much how all CW shows earn the majority of their revenue - not through live broadcast, but post-views.

Nielsen adds the DVR views to their estimates for plus 3 and plus 7 ratings, which networks look at since those can be indicators of later post view revenue (DVD sales, etc.) The studio/network gets a direct cut of all iTunes, Amazon and other online streaming subscriptions. Those are one time payments, but studios can generally get added information about which episodes get rewatched, and can get information about what scenes are rewatched. With Hulu, the studio/network is paid a tiny amount for each view. Netflix is sometimes a one time licensing payment, sometimes a per episode payment, depending, but Netflix tracks everything - not just how many times something is watched, but where viewers stop watching, what scenes are rewatched, how many episodes of a show people tend to marathon through, that sort of thing, and networks can request/pay for that information.

[tv echo]

http://www.nielsensocial.com/nielsentwittertvratings/daily/

[Genki]

13 hours ago, quarks said:

According to multiple reports, this is pretty much how all CW shows earn the majority of their revenue - not through live broadcast, but post-views.

Nielsen adds the DVR views to their estimates for plus 3 and plus 7 ratings, which networks look at since those can be indicators of later post view revenue (DVD sales, etc.) The studio/network gets a direct cut of all iTunes, Amazon and other online streaming subscriptions. Those are one time payments, but studios can generally get added information about which episodes get rewatched, and can get information about what scenes are rewatched. With Hulu, the studio/network is paid a tiny amount for each view. Netflix is sometimes a one time licensing payment, sometimes a per episode payment, depending, but Netflix tracks everything - not just how many times something is watched, but where viewers stop watching, what scenes are rewatched, how many episodes of a show people tend to marathon through, that sort of thing, and networks can request/pay for that information.

@quarksYou've inspired me to do a carefully planned netflix rewatched of S3 >).

I actually wonder if limited VOD actually hurt Supergirl. I forget to catch up on things if I can't find it on hulu and even though I liked Supergirl's first 2 episodes I kept forgetting to catch up and once I missed more than 5 episodes, I decided to wait for Netflix. (this also happened with Limitless)

[EmilyBettFan]

Live +7 ratings are really helping Arrow. 

[quarks]

10 hours ago, Genki said:

@quarksYou've inspired me to do a carefully planned netflix rewatched of S3 >).

I actually wonder if limited VOD actually hurt Supergirl. I forget to catch up on things if I can't find it on hulu and even though I liked Supergirl's first 2 episodes I kept forgetting to catch up and once I missed more than 5 episodes, I decided to wait for Netflix. (this also happened with Limitless)

Supergirl was still available on iTunes and Amazon season passes, and presumably other streaming services, and episodes could be bought individually as well. But the CBS app/web streaming is really awful - I was trying to catch up on a missed ep, and it kept freezing up on me and skipping frames. I'm not having that issue with other networks or Hulu, so I'm pretty sure it's CBS. So that probably didn't help.  Especially since Supergirl wasn't available on Hulu, which always streams without a problem for me. 

But honestly, I think the main problem was just that Supergirl wasn't a great fit for CBS, with the added minor issue (for Supergirl) that the parent company, CBS Corporation, is dealing with some weirdness over the Sumner Redstone drama, though the actual transition seems to be going pretty smoothly.

[tv echo]

Comparison of superhero tv show ratings this week:

Gotham (FOX) - 1.2 and 4.67 (final)
Flash (CW) - 1.3 and 3.52 (final)
Agents of SHIELD (ABC) - 0.9 and 2.93 (final)
Arrow (CW) - 0.8 and 2.16 (final)
LoT (CW) - 0.7 and 1.89 (final)

Last week:

Gotham (FOX) - 1.2 and 3.59 (final)
Flash (CW) - 1.3 and 3.34 (final)
Agents of SHIELD (ABC) - 0.9 and 2.92 (final)
Arrow (CW) - 0.7 and 2.07 (final)
LoT (CW) - 0.6 and 1.63 (final)

[Starfish35]

Interesting article on ratings:

http://adage.com/article/media/alphabet-soup/304009/

[Ceylon5]

Am I understanding that correctly - that aside from tracking the total number of viewers who watch shows within 3 days or 7 days (i.e. the 7 day figures we normally see), there are C3 and C7 numbers that are tracking only the numbers of viewers who watching the adverts on playback within 3 and 7 days (and these are, understandably, the only numbers the advertisers are interested in)?  Why on earth does anybody watch an advert on playback?  Too lazy to press the fast forward button?

Edited May 16, 2016 by Ceylon5

[Starfish35]

2 minutes ago, Ceylon5 said:

Am I understanding that correctly - that aside from tracking the total number of viewers who watch shows within 3 days or 7 days (i.e. the 7 day figures we normally see), there are C3 and C7 numbers that are actually only the numbers of viewers who watching the adverts on playback within 3 and 7 days (and these are, understandably, the only numbers the advertisers are interested in)? 

Can't speak to the why.  But yes, your understanding is correct.  

[apinknightmare]

Are on demand views counted in the 3 and 7 numbers? Because I don't have a DVR, but there are a couple of shows that I catch a day or so later on on demand, and you actually can't fast forward through adverts there. At least not through my provider. 

[dtissagirl]

1 minute ago, Ceylon5 said:

Am I understanding that correctly - that aside from tracking the total number of viewers who watch shows within 3 days or 7 days (i.e. the 7 day figures we normally see), there are C3 and C7 numbers that are actually only the numbers of viewers who watching the adverts on playback within 3 and 7 days (and these are, understandably, the only numbers the advertisers are interested in)?  Why on earth does anybody watch an advert on playback?  Too lazy to press the fast forward button?

I have one answer to this. A whole lot of people catching up with their DVRs end up watching the commercials because of the new wonderful world of the Second Screen Device: you put up the DVR'd episode on your big screen TV, and during commercials you're on your phone/tablet checking your social media, and boom. You're watching ads while at it.

[Starfish35]

Quote

Are on demand views counted in the 3 and 7 numbers? Because I don't have a DVR, but there are a couple of shows that I catch a day or so later on on demand, and you actually can't fast forward through adverts there. At least not through my provider. 

I'm sure there's someone who knows more about this here than me, but my understanding is that if you are a Nielsen home, then yes it would be counted.  Otherwise no.

Edited May 16, 2016 by Starfish35

[Sakura12]

When I'm watching on my DVR, I'll sometimes leave the adverts on and go to the bathroom or get or snack or something. I'm not actually watching it. I don't see how that helps the advertisers.