Ratings and Scheduling: Hail to the Gods

[LeighAn]

I'm pretty sure almost ALL scripted tv series not just CW DCTV dropped in the ratings this season. In fact wasn't there a week where none of the scripted tv shows achieved 1.0+ 

So if if live veiwership is declining across the board I think the argument is that perhaps that's indicative of change in how people are watching television rather then the quality of television.

And like the original poster was pointing out on Twitter if you are going to use one model of proof of how good or bad a tv show is then you need to acknowledge the fact that it's an incredibly incomplete model and doesn't tell you the entire picture.

Or more eloquently summed up by these tweets:

https://mobile.twitter.com/jbuffyangel/status/868229914486603776

Neilsens what we've got because they haven't come up with anything more comprehensive yet but the CW has said in the past that they don't base their decisions on Neilsen, that they don't care on what platforms people are watching their shows or when as long as they do. Julie Plec said that she spoke to the CW expressing concerns about cancellation when Vampire Diaries ratings dropped and she was told by them that it was more important to them that they have a complete series for their partnership with Netflix. 

That could be spin I don't know but I think it's naive and obstinate to deny the fact that the way television is being watched has changed and that live veiwership on TV sets and watching week by week has become less of a norm. 

And ultimately even with a drop in veiwership Arrow was likely always going to get a 6th season, will more then likely get a 7th season and from there potentially more if Stephen is keen to keep the show running.

Myself even though I'm enjoying the show Id prefer 6 or 7 just because I feel the writers don't have enough to keep it freash longer but hey look at Supernatural and Smallville? Even Vampire Diaries was one season shy of 10.

And again even without the changes in how people watch television ratings still don't tell us why people watch or don't watch or their feelings on the quality of what they are watching. 

Edited May 27, 2017 by LeighAn

[Midnight Lullaby]

12 minutes ago, BkWurm1 said:

 

Personally, I think the quality did dip in the first half and the ratings very well might have reflected that.  Or maybe that ratings dip will get made up for in binge watching since IMO the quality increased in the back half and there might be buzz.  But we really don't know, so using the ratings data isn't a great way of proving anything.  

I think live numers can give an idea..then of course they don't offer the complete picture.

I don't think to make an example that numbers went down after 4x15 because a group of people randomly decided to start streaming the show. Now to say what they didn't like is impossibile to tell.

Edited May 27, 2017 by Midnight Lullaby

[LeighAn]

15 minutes ago, Midnight Lullaby said:

The only problem with what that guy is saying is that he ends his argument saying that the show does succeed after making a thread saying people are ridiculous for saying the show doesn’t when they don't have the complete datas. He is doing exactly what he blames people for and the only difference is his is a positive spin, LOL

Here's his/her tweet thread: 

https://mobile.twitter.com/TheFliteCast/status/868156130022895616

He/she never says the show succeeds from how I read it ?. I'm not sure if you are thinking of somebody else. 

He/she does say that it's stupid to think that television shows don't make money simply because of ratings when they make a lot of money through other avenues which is true.

He/she then ends the thread saying that if people have complaints or dislike a show they should stop watching/watch something else rather then use ratings to legitimise their complaints/reasons they hate a show.

I think he's argument was simply you can't measure a success of a show through one set of incomplete data.

[lemotomato]

22 minutes ago, Midnight Lullaby said:

The only problem with what that guy is saying is that he ends his argument saying that the show does succeed after making a thread saying people are ridiculous for saying the show doesn’t when they don't have the complete datas. He is doing exactly what he blames people for and the only difference is his is a positive spin, LOL

I read through all his replies, and his definition of "success" is the fact that the show is still on the air. IMO, yes, that's a quantifiable measure of success.

[Midnight Lullaby]

1 hour ago, LeighAn said:

Here's his/her tweet thread: 

https://mobile.twitter.com/TheFliteCast/status/868156130022895616

He/she never says the show succeeds from how I read it ?. I'm not sure if you are thinking of somebody else. 

He/she does say that it's stupid to think that television shows don't make money simply because of ratings when they make a lot of money through other avenues which is true.

He/she then ends the thread saying that if people have complaints or dislike a show they should stop watching/watch something else rather then use ratings to legitimise their complaints/reasons they hate a show.

I think he's argument was simply you can't measure a success of a show through one set of incomplete data.

I agree with the rest of what he is saying though, as I said.

[Midnight Lullaby]

2 hours ago, lemotomato said:

I read through all his replies, and his definition of "success" is the fact that the show is still on the air. IMO, yes, that's a quantifiable measure of success.

Yes but he links that to the fact that the show compensated the loss of live viewers in other ways. It's like saying people that say a restaurant sucks because there aren't many people going there to dinner anymore don't have an argument because they don't have the full picture. People generally go more out to lunch these days and the restaurant is still open so even if the detractors don't want to admit it it's a success. But to make that argument you need to prove not just that people go out to lunch more in general but that people go to lunch to that restaurant specifically and in such a number to compensate for the losses. The CW also keeps on air shows like Jane the virgin or crazy ex girlfriend for different reasons. Now if they qualify as successful shows I guess it's up to a person's definition of success.

I think if you make an argument you have to prove correlation or it's pointless.

Either way I agree with him that using live numbers or any kind of numbers to say that a show sucks makes no sense. "Sucks" is a subjective judgment. 

Edited May 27, 2017 by Midnight Lullaby

[LeighAn]

I don't get your point? Streaming services will probably NEVER release data on viewership because they don't have to. Because they don't care how or when people watch a show as long as they are getting membership/monthly payments. Netflix has said numerous times that ratings are meaningless to them.

But does Netflix lack of sharing their data publicly mean they are therefore unsuccessful company?

The only reason why Neilsen is shared publicly is because it's what broadcast networks use to sell ads to ad buyers. Streaming sites sell subscriptions. 

If the CW is making enough money from streaming deals and their app to justify the show remaining on the air and to continue to make new content but they don't share every detail of their business model how is that an argument that they aren't successful?

The fact is the CW haven't cancelled Arrow they continue to make and promote Arrow so if the show wasnt important to their interests it wouldn't be on the air therefore it must acheive some level of "success" for them to justify the fact it's still on the air whether that be due to Netflix/streaming, merchandise, international sales, home dvd sales, downloads etc. Live ratings are just one part of the pie and the basis of the guys argument is it shouldn't be the ONLY measurement for success.

Edited May 27, 2017 by LeighAn

[Midnight Lullaby]

The point is if you want to school people bragging about all the things you know if you aren't careful about what you say you end up looking exactly like them, making claims out of thin air. To define success you need to know expectations and does any of us know about the network/WB's expectations for the show?

All of this imo. Everyone else is free to think this person is a genius that knows everything. It really makes no difference to me,

[Velocity23]

I would say all of the show underperformed from what the network/WB expected. Especially Supergirl. Arrow manage to stay stable with minor drops. 

[tv echo]

I wonder what people would be saying if S5's live ratings had increased back up to 1.0.

[SmallScreenDiva]

I agree with TheFliteCast's original point that you can't equate ratings with quality. You just can't. Quality is too subjective. It's when he tried to expand on that by mentioning the other platforms and other revenue streams that things got muddled.

One of things I see that was pointed out by other people and that I agreed with is that aside from Live, L+3,L+7 ratings, there's really no other data out there for regular viewers regarding ratings. Guggenheim claims Arrow is doing well in streaming and other platforms, but we don't know that for sure because CW is not going to release those numbers. Neither is Netflix. 

[statsgirl]

MG telling the Paley panel that The Flash cast gets free soda because their ratings are 1.0 suggests that those ratings do matter to them in some way at least.

[theOAfc]

Quote

The only problem with what that guy is saying is that he ends his argument saying that the show does succeed after making a thread saying people are ridiculous for saying the show doesn’t when they don't have the complete datas. He is doing exactly what he blames people for and the only difference is his is a positive spin, LOL

^^^ exactly

Edited May 27, 2017 by theOAfc

[theOAfc]

7 hours ago, Midnight Lullaby said:

The point is if you want to school people bragging about all the things you know if you aren't careful about what you say you end up looking exactly like them, making claims out of thin air. To define success you need to know expectations and does any of us know about the network/WB's expectations for the show?

All of this imo. Everyone else is free to think this person is a genius that knows everything. It really makes no difference to me,

He is no genius. More like a very biased comic fanboy that pretends to know stuff and end ups sharing a similar mindset with those he is criticizing. 

p.s can someone tell me how i can delete a post of mine? I mean is there a way? 

Edited May 27, 2017 by theOAfc

[LeighAn]

1 minute ago, theOAfc said:

He is no genius. More like a very biased comic fanboy that pretends to know stuff and end ups sharing a similar mindset with those he is criticizing. 

That's funny because he was getting stuck in to comic fan boys telling them to stop expecting the show and comics to be the same thing.

2 hours ago, SmallScreenDiva said:

One of things I see that was pointed out by other people and that I agreed with is that aside from Live, L+3,L+7 ratings, there's really no other data out there for regular viewers regarding ratings. Guggenheim claims Arrow is doing well in streaming and other platforms, but we don't know that for sure because CW is not going to release those numbers. Neither is Netflix. 

Netflix and CW would have data on veiwership, but it would be share it with its invested parties not publicly. Netflix have said the data they have is actually more detailed then what Neilsen has as they can pin point people's watching habits and interests. 

Neilsens ratings is shared publicly not because the public need to know or for bragging rights (even though networks will use data for bragging rights in press releases) but because that information is used to help ad buyers make decisions where their money is going to go.

Its just that the public take an interest in that data even though it's not really for their benefit.

It would be good if streaming sites did release their numbers just to bring more scope to the argument but since there is no incentive for them to do so and there is essentially no ratings for streaming sites since they don't care or need people to be watching programs collectively at specific times like television and people don't watch streaming sites like they do television I don't see them sharing their data anytime soon. 

[theOAfc]

2 minutes ago, LeighAn said:

That's funny because he was getting stuck in to comic fan boys telling them to stop expecting the show and comics to be the same thing.

Well,that doesnt make him less of a biased comic fanboy. He will defend his fave dc shows no matter what. 

Edited May 27, 2017 by theOAfc

[BkWurm1]

Quote

Julie Plec said that she spoke to the CW expressing concerns about cancellation when Vampire Diaries ratings dropped and she was told by them that it was more important to them that they have a complete series for their partnership with Netflix. 

This is comforting to remember.  So even if the ratings for Arrow drop drastically to the point where they can't be ignored at renewal time, the network is likely to make sure the show gets wrapped up decently.  

Edited May 28, 2017 by BkWurm1

[Starfish35]

That's interesting.  Maybe that's why they filmed short "epilogues" for Frequency and No Tomorrow?

[LeighAn]

I looked up the Netflix CW deal and in article I read it reportedly could make the CW up to $1 billion based on the volume and longevity of their series'. So in that sense I get from a business stand point prioritising Netflix since I'd be mighty surprised if they will get that kind of money from traditional advertising.

[BkWurm1]

48 minutes ago, Starfish35 said:

That's interesting.  Maybe that's why they filmed short "epilogues" for Frequency and No Tomorrow?

What?  Were these part of the final episodes or are they online somewhere else?  

[Morrigan2575]

2 hours ago, BkWurm1 said:

This is comforting to remember.  So even if the ratings for Arrow drop drastically to the point where they can't be ignored at renewal time, the network is likely to make sure the show gets wrapped up decently.  

That's been known forever. Netflix wants complete series and will pay more for them. It's why almost all CW shows get final seasons even if they are abbreviated (Nikita, TVD, etc).

[Starfish35]

5 hours ago, BkWurm1 said:

What?  Were these part of the final episodes or are they online somewhere else?  

They're online on cwtv.com.  Or through the app.  http://tvline.com/2017/05/13/watch-frequency-no-tomorrow-epilogue-released-cancelled-the-cw/   I'm wondering if they'll eventually be added to the Netflix seasons though.

[strikera0]

Live+7 ratings for episode 5x21: 2.635 million total viewers and a 1.0 in A18-49. That's a big jump in total viewership compared to previous episodes. 

[BkWurm1]

10 hours ago, Morrigan2575 said:

That's been known forever. Netflix wants complete series and will pay more for them. It's why almost all CW shows get final seasons even if they are abbreviated (Nikita, TVD, etc).

Well I didn't know it, lol.

1 hour ago, strikera0 said:

Live+7 ratings for episode 5x21: 2.635 million total viewers and a 1.0 in A18-49. That's a big jump in total viewership compared to previous episodes. 

And the trend continues, a bump in the episode following positive Olicity.  That's always interesting to me.

[Morrigan2575]

Just now, BkWurm1 said:

Well I didn't know it, lol.

And the trend continues, a bump in the episode following positive Olicity.  That's always interesting to me.

Sorry, I didn't mean to sound so obnoxious it was just part of their original Netflix deal and has been discussed on other boards.

[Velocity23]

The same week Flash had its Savitar reveal. 

[LeighAn]

17 minutes ago, Velocity23 said:

The same week Flash had its Savitar reveal. 

Impressive considering Twitter is excluded from this measurement.

[statsgirl]

You mean an episode that was centred on Oliver and Felicity's relationship did that???

[strikera0]

Live+7 ratings for 5x22 are back to the usual levels: 2.384 million viewers and a 0.9 in A18-49. We'll probably see another spike for the season finale, though. 

[strikera0]

Live+7 ratings for the season finale: 2.673 million viewers and a 1.1 in A18-49. 

 

And here's the full season overview:

5x01: 1.3 and 3.069 million viewers

5x02: 1.3 and 3.166 million viewers

5x03: 1.2 and 2.941 million viewers

5x04: 1.2 and 2.958 million viewers

5x05: 1.1 and 2.646 million viewers

5x06: 2.952 million viewers (no demo data available, but it was probably a 1.1 based on the top 25 in %-gains that week)

5x07: 1.2 (no total viewer numbers available)

5x08: 2.0 and 5.344 million viewers

5x09: 1.2 and 3.073 million viewers

5x10: 1.1 and 2.815 million viewers

5x11: 1.1 and 2.990 million viewers

5x12: 1.1 and 2.731 million viewers

5x13: 2.563 million viewers (no demo data available)

5x14: 0.9 and 2.457 million viewers

5x15: Data not available

5x16: 0.9 and 2.387 million total viewers

5x17: 0.9 and 2.328 million viewers

5x18: 0.9 (no total viewer numbers available)

5x19: Data not available

5x20: 0.9 and 2.243 million viewers

5x21: 1.0 and 2.635 million total viewers

5x22: 0.9 and 2.384 million viewers

5x23: 1.1 and 2.673 million viewers

Edited June 9, 2017 by strikera0

[leopardprint]

Is it significant that the season finale was the 11th most viewed episode? Or does that hold with previous back half drops? 

@strikera0, thanks for posting the ratings!

Edited June 9, 2017 by leopardprint

[lemotomato]

22 minutes ago, leopardprint said:

 

Is it significant that the season finale was the 11th most viewed episode? Or does that hold with previous back half drops? 

It's hard to draw conclusions/comparisons because +7 data isn't publicly available for every episode. FWIW, there was total viewers +7 data for 18 episodes in both season 5 and 4. 523 was the 11th (2.673 mil) most watched out of 18, 423 was 15th (3.31 mil) out of 18.

[LeighAn]

I know we've discussed this before in the ratings vs streaming content argument but I just read an article that The CW asks for upwards of $650,000 per episode from Netflix. This was an article dated from 2013 and was the purchase cost of both Vampire Diaries and Gossip Girl episodes- the article also notes that The CW chose to renew Gossip Girl for a final season despite low ratings because the Netflix money made it a no brainer. I can only imagine how much The CW is commanding Netflix for far more popular DC content on a per episode basis today.

 

But just say its $650,000 for an episode of Arrow (although I dare say it goes for a higher rate) at 23 episodes that's $14.9 million dollars per season which would arguably cover a fair portion of their budget. 

 

Anyway the the article is an interesting read on how TV networks make money outside of traditional advertising through international licensing deals, streaming content deals etc:

http://www.vulture.com/2013/06/under-the-dome-tv-revenue-when-ads-fail.html

[tv echo]

Critic's Notebook: Revenge of the Broadcast Networks?
AUGUST 04, 2017 1:48pm PT by Tim Goodman
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/bastard-machine/will-be-a-revenge-broadcast-networks-1026912

Quote

And then something not very considerable (or so it seemed at the time) happened Tuesday night. I had drinks with Mark Pedowitz, who runs The CW (which is, yes, a broadcast network, though one assembled slightly differently than the others). That casual meeting was set up before my column appeared, and Pedowitz joked that, contrary to my point, he quite liked his job and felt very confident about the state of the industry. Pedowitz has worked at other networks and has a business background. I asked him to — in so many words — explain how networks can make money. You know, low ratings, etc. And yes, I know enough about international sales and OTT deals and some other things to realize there are ways, in 2017, to offset some of the hurt.

Conveniently, The CW had been forced, ahead of its more successful network counterparts, to learn now to monetize digital. So Pedowitz explained some things. I can't say I understood it all — words, not numbers, for me. But he was unshakable in his belief that broadcast networks were in a better place than most cable channels. His confidence was high. And on Wednesday, as the first network president to meet the assembled TCA masses, he reiterated it publicly:

"Well, all I can tell you is, for many years since I've been in the industry, from a broadcasting point of view, they've been saying broadcasting is dead. It's far from dead. … The one thing I am confident of is that, the way The CW is situated today as a multiplatform player, it's going to be around for a hell of a long time."

Edited August 5, 2017 by tv echo

[Morrigan2575]

Bringing this here for the non spoiled people. Arrow will apparently air a new episode in Thanksgiving this year.

[Starfish35]

Here's something people might find interesting, from TV Grim Reaper:

What Premiere Ratings For Each Returning Broadcast TV Show Should “Surprise” You?

Quote

When the 2017-18 broadcast TV season kicks off on September 25, the TV media will inevitably compare premiere ratings to last season’s ratings for returning shows. The most innumerate chuckleheads among them will be “surprised” when 2017 premiere ratings are below 2016 premiere ratings.

You shouldn’t be.

Given the 35+ year decline in broadcast TV ratings, it should be expected that each season’s premiere ratings are below the previous season’s premieres.

What should surprise you?

In recent memory, it’s been typical for shows to premiere close to their final episodes ratings from the previous season.

To assist you in figuring out what premiere ratings are truly surprising, the table below contains the average adults 18-49 Live+Same Day ratings for the last 4 new episodes of each returning show. Most of those 4 episodes were in the last 5 weeks of the season, but a noticeable fraction of the shows ended earlier in the year.

9/15 Edit: Added each network’s overall ratings average for the four last new episodes of all returning shows.

If a show’s premiere ratings are within 0.1 ratings point of the numbers in the table it’s not “surprising”, it was to be expected.

If a show’s premiere ratings are more than 0.1 below or (particularly) above the ratings in the table, it could reasonably be called “surprising”, the further away, the more surprising.

The table didn't copy well so screenshot of the CW portion is below:

Edited September 20, 2017 by Starfish35
Fixing screenshot

[Mellowyellow]

I don't understand why Supergirl seems to be so promoted when it rates just like Arrow. I can understand the favouritism towards the Flash but Supergirl is no better than the rest of the other CW superhero shows. 

[Starfish35]

I think Supergirl was supposed to do a lot better than it's done.  

[Starfish35]

Using the TVSeriesFinale numbers, here are the unrounded averages for the last four episodes (because I'm bored):

1. The Flash - 1.0250
2. Supergirl/Supernatural - 0.5475
3. Legends - 0.5325
4. Arrow - 0.5300
5. Riverdale - 0.3550
6. The Originals - 0.3250
7. The 100 - 0.3000
8. Jane the Virgin - 0.2925
9. iZombie - 0.2750
10. Crazy Ex-Girlfriend - 0.2150

Edited September 20, 2017 by Starfish35

[ComicFan777]

At SDCC, I saw a lot of advertising Supergirl alongside Flash for merchandising for kids like book series and toys.  It's possible that the merchandising with Supergirl does better than Arrow.

[lemotomato]

Supergirl, like Flash, is meant to draw more families and kids to watch, so they're possibly blasting the ads to as broad an audience as possible. It's also only starting its third season; the CW probably hopes there's still a chance at attracting new viewers.

[quarks]

8 hours ago, Mellowyellow said:

I don't understand why Supergirl seems to be so promoted when it rates just like Arrow. I can understand the favouritism towards the Flash but Supergirl is no better than the rest of the other CW superhero shows. 

I don't think it has anything to do with quality. I think it has to do with finances:

1. SAG rules limit how much a production studio can cut an actor's salary, even if the show switches networks. That means that the actor salaries on Supergirl are only somewhat below CBS salaries.

I don't know what exactly the Supergirl cast makes, but Newsweek reported that after her Golden Globe win, Gina Rodriguez, the lead of Jane the Virgin, currently earns $60,000 per episode, more than the majority of regulars on the CW. That's exactly what the three leads of The Big Bang Theory were earning back in 2007 per episode when that show started up, for a half hour show, not an hour show, when no one knew they would be a hit, and when Jim Parsons, at least, was a relative unknown.  Once the show became a hit, their salaries climbed up to where they are now earning $900,000 an episode.  

But even focusing on just their starting salaries gives you an idea of the problem here: Supergirl was a more high profile, hour long show that debuted in 2015, when CBS starting salaries were up from 2007.  Benoist came in after a stint on a regular on Glee; Chyler Leigh as regular on Private Practice; Jeremy Jordan with a Tony nomination; and David Harewood after Homeland - all factors taken into consideration when actor salaries are negotiated.  Berlanti would have been able to lower these amounts somewhat after the network shift, but not that much.

2. Production costs: yes, Supergirl occasionally borrows the sets from Flash and Arrow, but they also have five large standing sets - the Catco set is larger than the QC/PT/Oliver's mayoral office set over on Arrow, and the main DEO set is larger than the equivalent Star Labs and Arrow Cave sets. They also still occasionally do flying effects, which are much more expensive than Arrow's CGI arrows, and most of their aliens are created through CGI, not makeup - and they have more of them than Flash does. It's a very safe bet that their CGI costs are higher than those of the three other Arrowverse shows.  They also hired far more day players and extras than any of the other three Arrowverse shows last season, even after Arrow and Flash to finally start hiring a few extras.

3. Expectations: Supergirl debuted with about 12 million viewers. Arrow with about 4 million, Flash with close to 5 million, and Legends of Tomorrow with about 3 million.  Even at the end of its first season on CBS, after viewers had dropped by about 50%, Supergirl was still pulling in at least 6 million viewers per episode - far more than any of the other Arrowverse shows ever have.

That's just live viewing. Arrow and Flash by all accounts are doing well on streaming services - both Netflix (where they are two of the most popular shows streamed on Netflix in the U.S.) and iTunes and Amazon.  I think it's entirely possible that Berlanti and the WB have hopes that Supergirl can catch up with that.

4. Merchandise: the Supergirl character, unlike Green Arrow or any of the Legends of Tomorrow characters, moved merchandise prior to her television debut. In my own opinion, DC is really not doing as much with the merchandising as they could/should (I've said the same thing about Arrow) but despite this, on a purely anecdotal note, at both Megacon and Worldcon this year I spotted more people wearing Supergirl or DEO T-shirts than Flash or Arrow shirts. 

So, yeah, a more expensive show, coupled with higher expectations, a hope of increasing streaming numbers, and potential merchandise sales = extra marketing.

[tv echo]

The CW Agrees To Offer Live And On-Demand Streaming Via Hulu With Live TV
by David Lieberman   August 28, 2017 
http://deadline.com/2017/08/cw-offer-live-on-demand-streaming-hulu-1202157236/

[BkWurm1]

On 9/20/2017 at 8:52 AM, quarks said:

I don't think it has anything to do with quality. I think it has to do with finances:

1. SAG rules limit how much a production studio can cut an actor's salary, even if the show switches networks. That means that the actor salaries on Supergirl are only somewhat below CBS salaries.

I don't know what exactly the Supergirl cast makes, but Newsweek reported that after her Golden Globe win, Gina Rodriguez, the lead of Jane the Virgin, currently earns $60,000 per episode, more than the majority of regulars on the CW. That's exactly what the three leads of The Big Bang Theory were earning back in 2007 per episode when that show started up, for a half hour show, not an hour show, when no one knew they would be a hit, and when Jim Parsons, at least, was a relative unknown.  Once the show became a hit, their salaries climbed up to where they are now earning $900,000 an episode.  

But even focusing on just their starting salaries gives you an idea of the problem here: Supergirl was a more high profile, hour long show that debuted in 2015, when CBS starting salaries were up from 2007.  Benoist came in after a stint on a regular on Glee; Chyler Leigh as regular on Private Practice; Jeremy Jordan with a Tony nomination; and David Harewood after Homeland - all factors taken into consideration when actor salaries are negotiated.  Berlanti would have been able to lower these amounts somewhat after the network shift, but not that much.

2. Production costs: yes, Supergirl occasionally borrows the sets from Flash and Arrow, but they also have five large standing sets - the Catco set is larger than the QC/PT/Oliver's mayoral office set over on Arrow, and the main DEO set is larger than the equivalent Star Labs and Arrow Cave sets. They also still occasionally do flying effects, which are much more expensive than Arrow's CGI arrows, and most of their aliens are created through CGI, not makeup - and they have more of them than Flash does. It's a very safe bet that their CGI costs are higher than those of the three other Arrowverse shows.  They also hired far more day players and extras than any of the other three Arrowverse shows last season, even after Arrow and Flash to finally start hiring a few extras.

3. Expectations: Supergirl debuted with about 12 million viewers. Arrow with about 4 million, Flash with close to 5 million, and Legends of Tomorrow with about 3 million.  Even at the end of its first season on CBS, after viewers had dropped by about 50%, Supergirl was still pulling in at least 6 million viewers per episode - far more than any of the other Arrowverse shows ever have.

That's just live viewing. Arrow and Flash by all accounts are doing well on streaming services - both Netflix (where they are two of the most popular shows streamed on Netflix in the U.S.) and iTunes and Amazon.  I think it's entirely possible that Berlanti and the WB have hopes that Supergirl can catch up with that.

4. Merchandise: the Supergirl character, unlike Green Arrow or any of the Legends of Tomorrow characters, moved merchandise prior to her television debut. In my own opinion, DC is really not doing as much with the merchandising as they could/should (I've said the same thing about Arrow) but despite this, on a purely anecdotal note, at both Megacon and Worldcon this year I spotted more people wearing Supergirl or DEO T-shirts than Flash or Arrow shirts. 

So, yeah, a more expensive show, coupled with higher expectations, a hope of increasing streaming numbers, and potential merchandise sales = extra marketing.

The costs makes for a good argument why the show might be the first in the Arrowverse to be wrapped up.  Not right away but it wouldn't shock me if Supergirl gets a planned end season in 4 or 5.  

[Starfish35]

17 minutes ago, BkWurm1 said:

The costs makes for a good argument why the show might be the first in the Arrowverse to be wrapped up.  Not right away but it wouldn't shock me if Supergirl gets a planned end season in 4 or 5.  

I could certainly see them being the first to end, especially if the ratings keep sliding like they did last year.  I'm curious to see whether their ratings stabilize this season or not.  

[statsgirl]

It's the most prestigious of the shows so I could see them keeping it on for that reason.  I wonder how long the contracts the cast signed are for; it may help with costs if they could pay them less.

[quarks]

A discussion over on the Supergirl forum made me check out the Amazon ratings for the various Arrowverse shows.

Amazon currently ranks Supergirl: The Complete Second Season at 1,097 in Movies & TV, well below the more popular Flash: The Complete Third Season at 436, and Arrow: The Complete Fifth Season at 211, but above Legends of Tomorrow: The Complete Second Season at 1645.  

Amazon generally updates these every two hours, so you may see different numbers when you check, and of course release dates and overall prices for the Blu-Ray/DVD sets play a factor. but this gives you a general idea. It's consistent with last year, when Flash and Arrow were both mostly ahead of the other two shows.

[tv echo]

According to my TV Guide, on October 12 (when Arrow returns), Thursday Night Football will feature a match-up between the Philadelphia Eagles and the Carolina Panthers. Considering how fanatic the sports fans are in those two cities (Philadelphia, PA, and Charlotte, NC), I think those markets will affect ratings for all other competing shows.

[statsgirl]

In Canada CTV was going to run Arrow at the old time slot on Wednesday but six days later than the CW was running in the new timeslot of Thursday at 9.  I guess there was reaction to getting the program 6 days late because they've added it to the sister channel Space running the new episodes at the same time that the CW does.

[BkWurm1]

So is Space one you will be able to watch?