Ratings/Timeslot Analysis + Speculation by millernate

GENERAL DISCUSSIONS

Ratings/Timeslot Analysis + Speculation

POSTED BY: MILLERNATE
UPDATED: Monday, July 1, 2002 09:46
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 3614
PAGE 1 of 1

Tuesday, June 25, 2002 11:52 AM

Hello all,

In a continued example of the fact that I have no life I thought that I'd take a look at speculation and ratings in regard to Firefly being in the "Time Slot of Death" (TM whoever :) ). Please note that any ratings information come from thefutoncritic.com and is thus only as accurate as that site.

Now to begin with I think it would be a good idea to look at the ratings for Firefly's predescessor in the timeslot the late, occassionally lamented Dark Angel. Now contrary to popular belief Dark Angel did *not* get horrible ratings at the beginning of the Friday move (they weren't great ratings but they were not horrible) as between 9/28/01 and 11/9/01 its ratings were 4.7, 4.4, 4.4, 3.7 (this was after its preemption by the baseball playoffs and thus the decline can be layed on that), 4.4, and 4.5 (this is the ratings number and not share or average number of viewers, just to be perfectly clear). After this was when the falling ratings began (and never really stopped) as well as several negative comments about the show (even from some fans).

Now this is only speculation on my part but I do believe that if Dark Angel had maintained those early numbers (4.4 to 4.7) it would have been renewed. Though it should be pointed out that this is banking on the fact that network executive would be taking into account the timeslot that its in which would be more likely for a debuting show (though I presume we all know about the intelligence of network executives, though if you don't the following emoticon should give you an idea:

). What follows is some speculation/assumption heavy analysis on whether Firefly is capable of getting 4.7 or higher ratings.

What ratings that Firefly will get remains to be seen, as is true with any new shows (I mean Baby Bob got good ratings right off the bat so *anything* is capable of succeeding in the short term). WHile this is a given I think we can make some assumptions one of which is that Firefly will likely get most of Buffy regular audience, at least for the first week. The average season rating for Buffy is a 2.76. From what I understand though this number also includes reruns (which never score highly for Buffy). The average number for first-run BUffy episodes is, according to my calculations, a 3.39 (with several episodes hanging around 3.5). This is a fairly high core (this is a notch higher than D.A.'s ratings at the end if you exclude the finale), especially when you factor in UPN's much lower affliate numbers.

This is still not enough to get numbers worthy of renewal, however, so more speculation is required. Buffy's heavily promoted season 6 premiere earned a 4.3, despite UPN's lower affliate count. So there may well be interest in a Joss WHedon project if it is heavily promoted. Now UPN has approximately 75% or so of the affliates that Fox has (something like 130 for UPN compared to 170-180 for Fox I believe). I don't think it requires a leap in logic to increase the 4.3 (last rating for a heavily promoted Whedon project) somewhat, given the increased number of affliates. Now given the core audience, as well as Fox's usual ratings I don't think it would be out of line to suggest a 5.0 to a 5.2 for the debut episode (especially since this show is getting some decent promotion). Now given the normal course of decline (a season average is usually about 20% lower than the premiere) that should leave Firefly with a season average of approximately 4.16 for first run episodes. At the very least I think this would be enough to get the show picked up for the whole season. Though of course, given the sheer number of assumptions I've had to make in regard to data it will be interesting to note how closely my numbers conform to reality (anyone care to guess just *how wrong* I'm going to be :)? ).

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, June 25, 2002 12:36 PM

ZICSOFT

It's worth mentioning that Firefly will also appear on SciFi -- and they'll probably give it a much better slot. But now that I think about it, SciFi seems to consider Friday prime time its best slot!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, June 25, 2002 1:11 PM

SHUGGIE

Firstly I know nothing about US TV ratings. But well done in putting together a rationale for Firefly getting renewed

Shug

Her lips were saying 'No' but then I looked into her eyes
... and her eyes were saying 'read my lips'
- Niles Crane

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, June 27, 2002 2:12 AM

HAKEN

Likes to mess with stuffs.

I'm not much of a numbers person, but I do know what I like, and I liked the first season of Dark Angel. It was great the way it was, but someone over at FOX decided to mess with it so that they could target younger demographics for season 2.

The first rule of thumb for anything is if it ain't broke, don't fix it. Unfortunately, it seems, many network execs don't follow this rule.

The other thing that drove me nuts about Dark Angel season 2 was all the preemptions. If I can't find it, I'm not gonna watch it. Simple case of out of sight, out of mind. And with all the retooling, even when I found it, the series was nearly unrecognizable with all the disjointed biopunk stories that simply went nowhere for most of the season.

Having said that, I'm guessing that Firefly will start off with a bang simply because people are curious about the new series from Joss Whedon. After all, the Western in space concept hasn't been done for a while. The last, in my opinion, was probably Battlestar Galactica and...I'm reaching a bit...Space Ranger.

Subsequent rating points will depend entirely on how good Firefly actually is and whether the stories are compelling enough to keep viewers tuned in week after week. At that point, I'm sure the argument of stand-alone episodes versus arc-driven episodes will become very heated. I personally prefer series with great arcs like Farscape (imho, the best SciFi series on TV right now) over something like Voyager.

For some years now, the SCIFI network has owned me Friday nights with Farscape, so Firefly will definately face competition, especially now that Stargate SG-1 is also on the same night.

With only 13 episodes (6 of which are stand-alone episodes) for Firefly to do its magic and build an audience, it's gonna be hard. In comparison, Witchblade used all 13 episodes to its advantage and showed the series like a miniseries to build a loyal following. Firely should have done something similar.

But, I haven't seen a single frame of Firefly yet, so I really can't guess at what may happen when the series does finally air. We'll just have to wait and see.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, June 27, 2002 3:10 AM

JERRY

I think the most important thing (other than whether the show is actually any good) will be whether FOX is willing to let it air in its timeslot a whole bunch of weeks in a row. If they show it three times and then pull it for sweeps to show "When Good Pets Go Bad 3" or some such, it's got no chance. FOX's track record in this regard is not promising.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, June 27, 2002 6:02 AM

ZICSOFT

Quote:
Originally posted by Haken:

The first rule of thumb for anything is if it ain't broke, don't fix it. Unfortunately, it seems, many network execs don't follow this rule.

To the best of my knowledge, none of them do. They're a neurotic lot, and aren't satisfied unless a show is a blockbuster right off the bat. That's why so many promising shows get tweaked into mediocrity, or cancelled before they've had a chance to establish an audience.

Whedon seems to be already in the midst of the usual battle to keep his show from turning into a boring batch of cliches. Fortunately, he seems to enjoy that sort of thing.

Quote:

The other thing that drove me nuts about Dark Angel season 2 was all the preemptions. If I can't find it, I'm not gonna watch it. Simple case of out of sight, out of mind.

It boggles the mind that networks don't get this. People are creatures of habit. They don't obsessively read TV Guide to find out when everything's on. Pre-emptions and schedule fiddling are only part of the problem. Look at Farscape. First SciFi stakes their hole future on making it a success, ordering two whole seasons in advance. Then they get nervous about competing with the broadcast networks and put it on hiatus for 8 months! And if that's not bad enough they decide to hold back the final episodes of the 2001 season so they can "start with a bang" -- totally disrupting a complicated story arc.

I think the basic problem is that nobody who runs a TV network has time to actually watch TV. If they actually consumed their own product, they'd have a clue as to how stupid these decisions are.

Quote:
I personally prefer series with great arcs like Farscape (imho, the best SciFi series on TV right now) over something like Voyager.

Well yes, you're right about Farscape. But it's not like they have any competition -- for now. Voyager was a joke from the beginning. We should have realized that when the original Captain Janeway bailed.

Quote:
With only 13 episodes (6 of which are stand-alone episodes) for Firefly to do its magic and build an audience, it's gonna be hard.

Actually, most shows start with 13 episodes. More network neurosis -- it makes it easier for them to bail. If the first half-dozen eps are at all successful, Fox will order another 13 to fill out the season. It's not as if they have a lot of alternatives lined up.

And remember, Buffy started out with 13, and had no hope of a full season, 'cause they were a mid-season replacement. Yet it still generated enough buzz to get renewed, despite the bigotry against teenage shows and horror. I'm taking it as given that Firefly will do the same thing, only more so. Plus this kind of "future history" show has a potential to turn into a long term -- meaning lucrative -- franchise. So the suits will probably cut it even more slack than they did for Buffy.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, June 27, 2002 7:38 AM

MILLERNATE

Quote:

I'm not much of a numbers person, but I do know what I like, and I liked the first season of Dark Angel. It was great the way it was, but someone over at FOX decided to mess with it so that they could target younger demographics for season 2.

The first rule of thumb for anything is if it ain't broke, don't fix it. Unfortunately, it seems, many network execs don't follow this rule.

Well yeah this seems obvious but you'd be surprised...

Quote:

The other thing that drove me nuts about Dark Angel season 2 was all the preemptions. If I can't find it, I'm not gonna watch it.

I'd agree with you on this except for one thing. For the most part the preemptions received higher ratings than the show (and this was true even in the early going before the preemptions starting really effecting it). STill you do have a very valid point (weren't the constant preemptions and schedule changes part of what led to Twin Peaks dying ratings wise?).

Quote:

Subsequent rating points will depend entirely on how good Firefly actually is and whether the stories are compelling enough to keep viewers tuned in week after week. At that point, I'm sure the argument of stand-alone episodes versus arc-driven episodes will become very heated. I personally prefer series with great arcs like Farscape (imho, the best SciFi series on TV right now) over something like Voyager.

For some years now, the SCIFI network has owned me Friday nights with Farscape, so Firefly will definately face competition, especially now that Stargate SG-1 is also on the same night.

Well some Farscape people I know are already complaining about the current direction Farscape is in so perhaps Firefly can swing their alligiance :).

Quote:

With only 13 episodes (6 of which are stand-alone episodes) for Firefly to do its magic and build an audience, it's gonna be hard. In comparison, Witchblade used all 13 episodes to its advantage and showed the series like a miniseries to build a loyal following. Firely should have done something similar.

Now here is were I have the single biggest gripe with your post. First, the Witchblade comparison is not really valid, most importantly because cable work on a *much* lower ratings standard than network. This is important because using a supreme arc based approach has been shown to *limit* how well a series does (as a matter of fact this reason is often credited as to why 24 did such mediocre numbers and why Murder One failed to catch on). Secondly, this approach was what was often used in the early days of Buffy with a lot of stand alones *and* just enough of an arc to give the series direction.

As to the number of episodes? 13 episodes is the standard (unless you are a Don Bellisario or a Glen Larson) so I wouldn't worry overly much that fact. The thing to worry about is the fact that a decision on picking up the series for a full season usually comes within the first 5 episodes. So in that you are right, it will come down to the quality of the beginning episodes.

Nathan

P.S. Any chance of me doing an occassional episode review for the site?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, June 27, 2002 6:19 PM

HAKEN

Likes to mess with stuffs.

Quote:
Originally posted by millernate:
P.S. Any chance of me doing an occassional episode review for the site?

Definately! In fact, it's not limited to reviews. I'm in the process of building an entire infrastructure to handle content created by the fans. For a rough layout, take a look at the Blue Sun Room.

http://www.fireflyfans.net/bluesunroom.asp

And the episode reviews will get its own section within the episode guide. I'll probably have a rough layout of that in a couple of weeks.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, June 28, 2002 6:40 AM

ZICSOFT

The big negative I see is the network itself. As usual, Fox seems determined to meddle the show to death.

But here's a positive thought: even if Fox cancels it, SciFi will still want it. Of course, they can't pay as much. So Mutant Enemy may have to cut costs by moving to Australia...

As for this "timeslot of death" nonsense. That's what it is, nonsense. As I said before, SciFi considers Friday the most important night in their channel. As for all the other Fox SF shows that bombed in that slot -- apologies to their valiant fans, but they were crap.

Well, except for Strange Luck. And I'm pretty sure I'm the only person in the world who liked it.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, June 30, 2002 11:15 AM

TABITHA

Quote:
Originally posted by Zicsoft:

But here's a positive thought: even if Fox cancels it, SciFi will still want it. Of course, they can't pay as much. So Mutant Enemy may have to cut costs by moving to Australia...

Or perhaps just up the coast to Vancouver, where SciFi's SG1 is also shot?
Although I know Fox has it's own studios in Sydney, I would imagine getting an entire production to move halfway across the world might be difficult. Logistic difficulties would also arise if Whedon has to keep running Buffy and Angel back in the US, too.
Still, as you say a positive thought

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, June 30, 2002 12:26 PM

ZICSOFT

I was trying to be funny actually. Lame joke, based on the fact that Anzacland seems to be turning into a refuge for SF and Fantasy productions.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but Buffy doesn't seem to do as much location shooting as other TV shoes. Given a choice, Whedon seems to like to shoot on a set, where he can control all the details. I think the main appeal of Vancouver is that the locations are cheaper to use than SoCal, not the production facilities -- of which there are not that many. This goes double for FireFly, were they've gone and built the entire spaceship in their sound stages.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, June 30, 2002 1:33 PM

MOJOECA

I'm sure there will be a lot of location shooting for FIREFLY, judging by the screen caps, and basic gist of the series. Rainy Vancouver doesn't have old west style locales.

--- Joe

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, June 30, 2002 1:54 PM

TABITHA

Quote:
Originally posted by mojoeca:
I'm sure there will be a lot of location shooting for FIREFLY, judging by the screen caps, and basic gist of the series. Rainy Vancouver doesn't have old west style locales.

--- Joe

Actually - there is a desert up here somewheres - all the sg1 desert scenes are shot there.
Andromeda is also filmed in Vancouver, and (not that I watch it much) they don't ever seem to do any location shooting. So there must be more to it that simple on-location production costs.

Oh, and d'uh me, not get joke

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, July 1, 2002 3:08 AM

ZICSOFT

Quote:
Originally posted by Tabitha:

Oh, and d'uh me, not get joke

I said it was lame. Obviously you're not stupid enough!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, July 1, 2002 4:16 AM

TLSMITH1963

Twin Peaks died because they didn't seem to know what to do after Laura's murder was solved (also, solving the murder seemed to take forever). It was a decline in story--not just ratings.

As for Firefly, also airing it on Sci-Fi could only help, since it opens the series up to more viewers.

Tammy

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, July 1, 2002 7:03 AM

PANDORA

Quote:
Originally posted by Tabitha:

Andromeda is also filmed in Vancouver, and (not that I watch it much) they don't ever seem to do any location shooting. So there must be more to it that simple on-location production costs.

Well, I'm not sure about other series, but I'm pretty sure that Andromeda's production company, Tribune Entertainment, is Canadian in origin, which is why their production is done in Canada. I think it's also cheaper, but I'm not sure what the correlation is there.

Pandora
no wonder their heads are so flappy...

"Mrs. Krabappel and Principal Skinner were in the closet making babies and I saw one of the babies
and the baby looked at me." -Ralph Wiggum

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, July 1, 2002 7:21 AM

MILLERNATE

Quote:

Twin Peaks died because they didn't seem to know what to do after Laura's murder was solved (also, solving the murder seemed to take forever). It was a decline in story--not just ratings.

I remember that right after TP was cancelled one commentator said it was "moved to death", that all the timeslot changes killed the ratings. I don't know that this is entirely accurate but I thought I'd add it anyway.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, July 1, 2002 9:46 AM

INARASNEWTOY

Quote:
Originally posted by Pandora:

Well, I'm not sure about other series, but I'm pretty sure that Andromeda's production company, Tribune Entertainment, is Canadian in origin, which is why their production is done in Canada. I think it's also cheaper, but I'm not sure what the correlation is there.

Pandora

Close....

Tribune is a US company that distributes the show but Andromeda's production comapany, Fireworks is a Candian company.

My local TV station WB56 that shows Andromeda is a Tribune owned TV station.

INT

One evil at a time, that's the best i can do - Farscape

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

YOUR OPTIONS

SHARE THREAD

NEW POSTS TODAY

USER	POST DATE

USER

POST DATE