Lethal Weapon in the Media: "Well, I got news for you, Rog: I'm not crazy."

[Marci]

 I understand ratings numbers are supposed to be hard, cold numbers.  Doesn’t mean they are, as presented to the public.  It’s a mad, mad, mad, mad world.

Y’know what they say about statistics?  Torture numbers long enough and they’ll admit to anything.

Edited October 27, 2018 by Marci

[Happy Harpy]

8 hours ago, Marci said:

 I understand ratings numbers are supposed to be hard, cold numbers.  Doesn’t mean they are, as presented to the public.

Except the numbers are presented the same way they were last year. No change in method, measurement, or anything. Same treatment for every show on every network.

[Marci]

And how do you know that?

These numbers are not absolute, they are samples.  And those samples are extrapolated.  

So, if the sample changes, and I would imagine it does from year to year, and the extrapolation does not, it’s different.

 And if they somehow keep the exact same sample from last year and the extrapolation changes, as they should do as time and culture changes, it’s different.

So, they can choose to use different samples from year to year.  They can change the extrapolation from year to year.  

All of it not only reasonable, but I would even agree recommended from year to year, as the culture changes.

And therein lies the rub.

Edited October 28, 2018 by Marci

[Happy Harpy]

1 hour ago, Marci said:

And how do you know that?

These numbers are not absolute, they are samples.  And those samples are extrapolated.  

So, if the sample changes, and I would imagine it does from year to year, and the extrapolation does not, it’s different.

 And if they somehow keep the exact same sample from last year and the extrapolation changes, as they should do as time and culture changes, it’s different.

So, they can choose to use different samples from year to year.  They can change the extrapolation from year to year.  

All of it not only reasonable, but I would even agree recommended from year to year, as the culture changes.

And therein lies the rub.

 

I know it because again, Nielsen families are chosen according to the rules of statistical science, the "extrapolation" is made according to the rules of statistical science and they don't change every year.

Lethal Weapon doesn't have a special sample, it has the same as every other show and some dropped or went up, so "maintaining" isn't a pattern this season -far from it.

Advertisers (meaning the whole US industry & commerce) and all the networks base the TV trade, billions of dollars, upon Nielsen ratings. Nielsen will not alter its data, sample or methods in order to accommodate the agenda of a couple of people in the industry. If it was possible, networks wouldn't spend so much money and energy trying to PR spin their horrible ratings.

I'm going to point just one flaw in your theory. If people had so universally decided to drop Lethal Weapon because Crawford was fired/Riggs was gone, that "vast majority" would reflect universally in every sample. 

So let's stop here :) Just enjoy when the show is cancelled, while I enjoy this extremely fun and imo quality-wise improved season 3 while it lasts.

Edited October 28, 2018 by Happy Harpy
Not "of" or "ot", "or".

[Marci]

And again, statistical science is...statistics.  And they can be easily manipulated.  Throwing in the word science doesn’t elevate TV ratings to some higher level.

And, no way is this show better now.  No way.  So let’s just leave it here.  :)   To each his own, or as my grandma said,  sizeechizone. 

Edited October 28, 2018 by Marci

[Irlandesa]

5 hours ago, Marci said:

And again, statistical science is...statistics.  And they can be easily manipulated.

Unless Nielsen is involved in some kind of mass conspiracy theory to protect the decision to fire Crawford, there's no reason for them to manipulate the data. What CBS did with 2 1/2 Men was related to scheduling (although I wouldn't be surprised if cost were a factor in that show's cancellation--it was old) which they have control over.  They don't control how Nielsen accumulates their data.  Networks can certainly try to spin the data/highlight what they'd like to highlight but Nielsen is a separate thing.

[Anela]

On 10/26/2018 at 10:03 AM, Marci said:

I don’t buy that for a second.  I am a believer that they play with the ratings after firing key players on a show.  Take Two and a Half Men, for example.  They were posting high ratings after Sheen, yet they moved it to Thursday, sandwiched between their 2 highest rated shows.  Why?  It was cancelled shortly thereafter.  

After reading so many Internet posts from people who said they would no longer watch without Crawford, there is no effect on ratings?  I’m not buying that.  The vast majority of posts were pro-Crawford.  

There were people who were just as firm that they wanted the show to succeed without him - they have been as outspoken as people who said they wouldn't watch without Crawford. I don't remember how long it was before the end of the season, that all of the drama erupted, but they may have attracted new viewers, because of it all. I don't know. If there are specific Nielsen families, and they aren't taking the rest of us into account re: viewing habits, then I don't see the point of tuning in, or boycotting, depending on how you feel about the whole thing.