Posted in:

ABC’s ‘Notorious’ and Fox’s ‘Pitch’ Decline from Already Disappointing Openers

ABC Wins Football-less Thursday

[socialpoll id=”2390901″]

What follows are the metered market (overnight) results in households by network and by half-hour for Thursday, September 29:

Household Rating/Share
ABC: 4.2/ 7, NBC: 3.8/ 6, CBS: 3.3/ 6, Fox: 2.6/ 4, CW: 0.7/ 1

-Percent Change from the Year-Ago Week:
CW: no change, NBC: – 5, Fox: -10, ABC: -33, CBS: -65
Note: CBS aired Thursday Night Football on the year-ago evening

“Grey’s Anatomy” (ABC), “Chicago Med” (NBC)

“Superstore” (NBC), “The Good Place” (NBC)

-Fading Fast:
“How to Get Away With Murder” (ABC)

“Rosewood” (Fox), “Notorious” (ABC), “Pitch” (Fox)


Ratings Breakdown:
It was an atypical fall Thursday minus football on CBS, which was replaced last night by encore telecasts of “The Big Bang Theory” (8 p.m.: #2: 4.6 rating/8 share; 9 p.m.: #2: 3.7/ 6), “Kevin Can Wait” (8:30 p.m.: #2, 3.4/ 6; 9:30 p.m.: #3, 2.9/ 5) and a 10 p.m. installment of freshman drama “Bull” (#3: 2.7/ 5). Despite being a repeat, “The Big Bang Theory” at 8 p.m. still managed to beat NBC’s competing “Superstore” (#3: 2.9/ 5) by 59 percent in the household overnight.

Combined with freshman sitcom lead-out “The Good Place” (#3: 3.1/ 5 at 8:30 p.m.) and the combination of NBC’s “Superstore” and “The Good Place” trailed year-ago time period occupant “Heroes Reborn” (3.6/ 6 on 10/01/15) by 17 percent. Additionally, “The Good Place” dipped by 11 percent from its week-ago time period debut (3.5/ 6 on Sept. 22).

Continuing with NBC, relocated “Chicago Med” perked up to a dominant 4.4/ 7 in the 9 p.m. hour, which increased from “The Good Place” in the household overnights by a hefty 42 percent. “The Blacklist,” also relocated, finished first in the 10 p.m. hour with a similar 4.1/ 7. But, comparably, this was 23 percent below the 5.3/ 8 for the year-ago season premiere at 9 p.m.

On ABC, veteran “Grey’s Anatomy” topped the 8 p.m. hour, with a 6.0/10. But the alphabet net has sprung a Thursday leak as a result of new drama “Notorious,” which slipped to a 3.4/ 5 (#2) in the 9 p.m. hour. Comparably, this was 17 percent below the already disappointing week-ago opener (4.1/ 6 on Sept. 22), which translated into just 5.39 million viewers and a 1.1 rating/4 share in adults 18-49, based on the Live + Same Day data. And “Notorious” was 49 percent below year-ago time period occupant “Scandal” in the overnights.

With diluted lead-in support, season three of “How to Get Away With Murder” at 10 p.m. dipped by 39 percent in the household overnights from the year-ago week, with a 3.4/ 6 (#2).

Fox, meanwhile, had nothing positive to report with its combination of sophomore “Rosewood” (#4: 2.6/ 4) and week two of drama “Pitch” (#4: 2.6/ 4), which decreased by 19 percent in the household overnights from its already depressed series-opener (3.2/ 5 on Sept. 22). That 3.2 overnight rating translated into just 4.23 million viewers and a 1.1/ 4 in adults 18-49, based on the Live + Same Day data.

Capping off the night were encore telecasts of “The Flash” (#5: 0.7/ 1) and “Supernatural” (#5: 0.6/ 1) on The CW.

What follows are the results for Thursday, September 29 by half-hour:

8:00 p.m.
ABC – “Grey’s Anatomy”: 6.1/10 (#1)
CBS – “The Big Bang Theory” (R): 4.6/ 8 (#2)
NBC – “Superstore” (R): 2.9/ 5 (#3)
Fox – “Rosewood”: 2.6/ 4 (#4)
CW – “The Flash” (R): 0.7/ 1 (#5)

8:30 p.m.
ABC – “Grey’s Anatomy”: 5.9/10 (#1)
CBS – “Kevin Can Wait” (R): 3.4/ 6 (#2)
NBC – “The Good Place”: 3.1/ 5 (#3)
Fox – “Rosewood”: 2.7/ 4 (#4)
CW – “The Flash” (R): 0.7/ 1 (#5)

9:00 p.m.
ABC – “Notorious”: 3.5/ 6 (#3)
CBS – “The Big Bang Theory” (R): 3.7/ 6 (#2)
NBC – “Chicago Med”: 4.3/ 7 (#1)
Fox – “Pitch”: 2.6/ 4 (#4)
CW – “Supernatural” (R): 0.6/ 1 (#5)

9:30 p.m.
ABC – “Notorious”: 3.2/ 5 (#3)
CBS – “Kevin Can Wait” (R): 2.9/ 5 (#3)
NBC – “Chicago Med”: 4.6/ 7 (#1)
Fox – “Pitch”: 2.6/ 4 (#4)
CW – “Supernatural” (R): 0.6/ 1 (#5)

10:00 p.m.
ABC – “How to Get Away With Murder”: 3.4/ 6 (#2)
CBS – “Bull” (R): 2.7/ 5 (#3)
NBC – “The Blacklist”: 4.2/ 7 (#1)

10:30 p.m.
ABC – “How to Get Away With Murder”: 3.4/ 6 (#2)
CBS – “Bull” (R): 2.7/ 5 (#3)
NBC – “The Blacklist”: 4.0/ 7 (#1)

Source: Nielsen Media Research


Leave a Reply
  1. Keeping my fingers crossed for Superstore. It did worse than a Big Bang RERUN, so if they switch the originals to Thursday (as they have done in past years), it’s doomed.

    • I also like the show, which it will never get much in the traditional ratings department. I was generous not to label it a loser.

      • I know. Hopefully, NBC has learned its lesson about cancelling their sit-coms too early. If you go to the NBC store in NYC, it’s all still merchandise from shows like Parks and Rec and 30 Rock, which they didn’t appreciate when they had them, but which were cult shows that have made $$ in syndication. Superstore could develop a following like that if they let it. Less confident in The Good Place.

        • I’d say P&R & 30 Rock both had long runs. I wouldn’t consider them cnaceled “too early”. Also, BBT is moving to Thursday after NFL. Not “if”

            • To me 30Rock showed what a good actor (in this case Alec Baldwin) can do. When he was on, te show was watchable. As soon as he wasn’t in the scene, it became shocking how bad the writing and the rest of the cast (especially Tina Fey) were.

          • Of course not. They should both had been gone after the first 13.
            It would have saved NBC a lot of money (and maybe they could afford to still program Fridays now!)

          • Considering they haven’t had a successful sit-com since, no. They thought they could do better, and they haven’t. They treated Parks and Rec especially shabbily in its final season, ordering a half-season, then running 2 episodes a night to burn it off. Smart shows like that, particularly in this day and age, aren’t going to get the type of numbers Friends got in the 90s (Cable and streaming shows are the same, but they are held to a lower standard — for example Veep is considered a success if it has a million viewers total for an episode), but they have a loyal following. In this environment, it’s hard to do better than that. ABC has found their niche with the family-centric shows (families being the main audience that isn’t going to watch TV on their phone). NBC needs to do that too, and probably their best bet is sticking with the kind of non-stupid comedies that were their hallmark in the past.

            • But 30Rock and Parks and Recreation were not successful.

              The fact NBC renewed them in spite of being failures only speaks to GE’s failure to run NBC properly.

              They also weren’t “smart”. The writing was of the fake-edgy kind and not clever in the least. They were nowhere near the writing level of Friends (and I’m saying that even though it’s not a favorite of mine but it was leagues above those shows).

              Veep is also not a success. It is only “considered a success” in the Hollywood press because they copy-and-paste the PR releases.

        • Are you trying to get me going? 😉

          Parks and Recreation was an unmitigated disaster throughout its low-rated run.

          Similarly 30Rock stayed a flop throughout its run.

          Both those shows had HUGE network backing. They got renewed and relaunched year after year without anything to show for it.

          They are not making money in syndication because to make money you need ratings, which none of those shows have.

          “Cult” in Hollywood-ese means “flop”.

    • I think that that is indeed the plan (to move BBT back to Thursdays). I do wonder if Superstore’s audience will stick with it even against original BBTs. I am guessing that it will be like many NBC sitcoms for the past few years…a quite loyal audience.

      • I hope so. And presumably they also KNOW they’re going to get lower ratings opposite Big Bang, and they have to put something there. Also, a lot of women HATE Big Bang (I’m not one of them — I’m female, and I think it’s funny and has been unfairly maligned), so perhaps they’ll watch Superstore.

  2. Huge respect to Grey’s for still getting it done in 12 years and Marc had it down perfect on the winners today with Chicago Med next to it which could be the next Grey’s or ER maybe not on a ratings level but as far as interest level. So far Chicago Med and The Blacklist are working well with each other.

    Not a good sign for the NBC comedies as losing to repeats on CBS is bad and the erosion from last week is even worse. I thought they would take full advantage of Thursday Night Football being on cable this week apparently not. NBC might want to scrap the comedy hour in favor of moving a drama here or a reality show.


    Updated Thursday Primetime Ratings (key updates in red):

    “Superstore” (1.3/5 in 18-49, 4.4 million viewers overall from 8-8:30 p.m. ET):
    · Ties for #2 in the time period among the Big 4 nets in adults 18-49 and adults 18-34 and ranks #2 outright among those nets in women 18-34.

    · Ties as the #2 telecast of the night on the Big 4 networks in adults 18-49 with “The Good Place,” “Chicago Med,” “How to Get Away with Murder” and encores of “Big Bang Theory.”

    · Is up +30% versus NBC’s average in the slot last season in 18-49 (1.3 vs. 1.0, L+SD non-sports).

    “The Good Place” (1.3/5 in 18-49, 4.4 million viewers overall from 8:30-9 p.m. ET):
    · Ranks #2 in the time period among the Big 4 nets in adults 18-49.

    · Ties as the #2 show of the night on ABC, CBS, NBC and Fox in adults 18-49.

    · Retains 100% of its “Superstore” lead-in in both adults 18-49 and total viewers.

    · Finishes within 0.1 of last week’s 1.4 in 18-49 for the show’s season premiere.

    · Grows +30% versus NBC’s average in the slot last season in 18-49 (1.3 vs. 1.0, L+SD non-sports).

    “Chicago Med” (1.3/5 in 18-49, 6.8 million viewers overall from 9-10 p.m. ET):
    · Wins the time period among the Big 4 nets in adults 18-49.

    · Wins the time period among ABC, CBS, NBC and Fox in total viewers.

    · Ties as the #2 program of the night on the Big 4 in adults 18-49.

    · Finishes within 0.1 of a point of last week’s season premiere in 18-49 (1.3 vs. 1.4) and within 3% in total viewers (6.788 million vs. 7.022 million).

    “The Blacklist” (1.1/4 in 18-49, 6.0 million viewers overall from 10-11 p.m. ET):
    · Dominates the time period among ABC, CBS and NBC, including a win by +1.7 million viewers over ABC’s #2 “How to Get Away With Murder” (6.0 million vs. 4.3 million).

    · Ties for #1 among those nets in the time period in adults 25-54, men 25-54 and men 18-49.

    In Late-Night Metered Markets Thursday Night:

    · In Nielsen’s 56 metered markets, household averages were: “The Tonight Show Starring Jimmy Fallon,” 2.5/7; “Late Show with Stephen Colbert,” 2.1/6; and ABC’s “Jimmy Kimmel Live,” 1.6/4.

    · In the 25 markets with Local People Meters, adult 18-49 ratings were: “The Tonight Show Starring Jimmy Fallon,” 0.7/4; “Late Show,” 0.4/2; and “Jimmy Kimmel Live,” 0.4/2.

    · From 12:35-1:05 a.m. ET, ABC’s “Nightline” averaged a 1.1/4 in metered-market households and a 0.3/2 in 18-49 in the Local People Meters.

    · From 12:35-1:35 a.m. ET, ratings were: “Late Night with Seth Meyers,” 1.2/4 in metered-market households; CBS’s “Late Late Show,” 1.1/4. In the 25 markets with Local People Meters, averages were: “Late Night,” 0.4/3 in 18-49; “Late Late Show,” 0.2/2.

    · At 1:35 a.m., “Last Call with Carson Daly” averaged a 0.7/3 in metered-market households and a 0.2/2 in adults 18-49 in the 25 markets with local people meters.

    NOTE: Primetime results are based on “fast affiliate time period” data from Nielsen Media Research. All ratings are “live plus same day” unless otherwise indicated.

  4. I wouldn’t say that “How to Get Away with Murder” is necessarily fading, it just has a lesser lead-in (as you indicated) and as a 10pm show, it tends to make up a lot of shortfall in L+3 and L+7 DVR lift.

    Last week it rose 75% in the demo (to a 2.5) and 56% in viewers (to 8 million) in L+3 alone.

    • The Notorious series premiere got about a 40% lift in each figure category in L+3. Yet, that series is on very shaky ground which is too bad because it’s entertaining.

      The Pitch series debut got a 55% L+3 bounce in adults 18-49 and continues to build out of Rosewood. Hope more viewers continue to find this new gem.

        • That’s where those numbers are very misleading because it leads people like you to compare them to live+sd even though the other shows also go up.

          Also reaching Scandal-levels is not exactly great…

          • first off, i know how to read numbers. so i’m not misled by anything. secondly, i’m very well aware that other numbers go up to. third, there is nothing wrong with “scandal”-levels when factoring in DVR lift where it and “murder” draw their strength — which is why i’m factoring those numbers into my initial point.

            and to my point, other shows may go up but not necessarily at the same level and to the same level as other shows.

            • Pardon me, but the way you wrote your post sounded like you were comparing apples and oranges (ie. live+sd and Live+3 numbers). 🙂

              Glad you’re not fooled. 🙂

              The problem with using percentage increases in Live+3 is that since flops have lower starting levels, their increases are always bigger as a percentage even as they fall further back from the hits.

              ie., as show with 1 million live viewers going to 2 million gets an impressive sounding 100% increase while a show with 20 million viewers going to 22 million gets a measly-sounding 10%.

              In reality however, the hit is 1 more million further in front than before.

              On Scandal I disagree. It never was a hit and now is not even solid. Neither is HTGAWM.

              • trust me. i get all that.

                but i disagree about you disagreeing with me about “scandal”.

                your benchmarks for “solid” are very different than mine.

                • My benchmarks are based on many years of observing ratings. 🙂

                  In the last few years, the word “hit” has lost all its meaning in the media, thanks to constant PR repeating that any show on the air is a “hit”. I can’t remember which show it was but about 15 years ago was the first on-air ad for a new show that hadn’t aired yet and yet was described as a “hit” (before it aired… seriously!!)

                  A solid show is one that gets around 10 million viewers.

                  Accounting for audience fragmentation and what real hits get, that where you should be.

                  Sadly the schedules are littered with flops, which made the spin-meisters try to sell the idea that a show with 5 million is doing great (and preferably they don’t mention actual audience preferring he ageist demo numbers which please their propensity for prejudice).

                  • What constitutes a hit these days has changed. Granted, I will agree with you that the promo departments throw the word “hit” around way too much.

                    But if 10 million viewers is the benchmark for a solid show or even a hit — then that leaves us with only 12 shows if you’re only considering live or Live+SD viewers.

                    So a 10 million viewer hit has to factor in L+3 and maybe even L+7.

                    And we are finally agreeing on something else! I have been saying for years that the demo numbers are outdated and shouldn’t be the basis for anything in TV these days — especially since the age of the average TV viewer is well outside of it and the numbers that are generated within it are laughable. Nothing outside of sports and special events are generating even a 4 in the demo (in live viewers). That does change when factoring in delayed viewing.

                    • Glad we can agree on something. 🙂

                      The devaluation of what “hit” means has been stunning.

                      If you look at old articles, you’ll see Top 10 shows (which had stunning ratings compared to today) referred to as merely “popular”.

                      On the tiny demo numbers, I am glad to see you mention this issue. It’s always stunning to me to see people compare shows with a demo rating of 1.2 or 1.4, when all of them are just awful (and well within the mathematical error range).

                      People are talking about a 2 ratings as great as if they were not aware that it means 2% of the potential audience.

                      Another factor that is never mentioned (because it contradicts the usual spin) is that the population keeps increasing, so even as fragmentation and different options is certainly more than it used to be, the population is also vastly higher than it was even 20 years ago!

                      You are right there are very few solid shows left, and even fewer hits.

                      The prevalent idea in ratings analysis is that he quality of shows has remained constant and thus there must be at least as many hits as there used to be, so the bar gets lowered as needed.

                      But the quality hasn’t been constant and the schedule, once filled with hits and solid shows, is not littered with flops.

                    • We did it!! We’re finally on the same page!! ha!! Pigs must be flying. 🙂

                      I feel the exact same way. How is it that no one but us seems to realize that even if you’re #1 with barely a 2.0, it’s still a 2.0 and there’s nothing to really crow about?

                      And you are so right. The quality of shows is not the same as it was 20 years ago when they cared just as much about actual viewership as they do the demo numbers (or so it seemed at the time). Now it’s so much more about the rapidly dwindling demo numbers. (Even “Empire”, is falling below a 4.0 in L+SD in the demo — and is still #1 in that metric.)

                      I’ve been saying for years that the industry has to shift to A35+ if they want an appreciable L+SD number to work with. And shift demo focus to L3 and L7 — which is the only place they’re going to find an appreciable number in that metric.

                      Fingers crossed that we still agree here. 🙂

                    • Glad to see it too. 🙂

                      It’s hard to fathom how nobody seems to want to point this out, isn’t it?

                      In the “old days”, which really aren’t so old 20 years ago or so, you needed a 10 ratings to even be considered for a renewal.

                      Then they moved to millions of viewers and the bar was lowered to 10 million viewers (I still think they did that to hide the level to which the ratings were dropping and to take advantage of population growth).

                      Now they renew shows with 2 million viewers and what has to be a 0.1-0.2 rating…

                      Hollywood loves the demo numbers because they’re ageist and Hollywood is proudly ageist. It can’t be openly sexist or racist any longer (and nowadays goes to great lengths to not appear either) but ageism is still not only politically correct in Hollywood but encouraged.

                      That gave them a second metric they could try to use to spin their flops into “demo hits”.

                      I think part of it (and I may be reverse-ageist on that) is that as people get older they lose their patience for shows that aren’t too good. I know I did. When I was younger, it would take a few episodes for me to lose interest in a show. Now I have trouble getting interested in the first place.

                      Of course, all is not equal as I still watch many older shows with the same pleasure I had then.

                      Glad we do agree on that too. 🙂

                      Discussions of the quality of the shows seems entirely absent of any debate in Hollywood. The assumption is always that “all our shows are masterpieces” and thus the conclusion is “if people don’t watch them it’s because of [insert excuse]”.

                      Overall, viewers still get sold (not every buyer has a product that caters to younger people after all) but as we discussed many times with Hello Larry, if the networks stopped spending their energy trying to appeal to small parts of the audience and tried to BROADcast instead they’d likely do better.

                      My analogy was with CW which is aiming at a smaller and smaller (demo) target (a few years back they decided they didn’t need any men) and of course missing it entirely.

    • It started with close to 15 million viewers and now is below 5.

      I call that fading (a lot!!!)

      The DVR lift is interesting in that it’s a great predictor of future lower ratings. When people lose interest, the show stays on the DVR longer and longer (and then it ends up being erased and then not recorded any longer). It’s what’s happening to HTGAWM.

      • and that nearly 15 million viewers is for the initial tune-in of the first episode. so that is not a fair starting point for what you consider to be fading.

        and it has little to do with my initial point. when factoring in DVR lift, which is what I was and am doing, the “fade” isn’t as great as with live viewership. and i’m pretty certain that DVR lift doesn’t factor in shows that just stay on a DVR without being viewed.

        so while I can concede your point that the show isn’t as buzzy as it was in its first season, the “fade” in L7 viewers (the metric I am talking about) was all of 10% between the first two seasons. so i don’t call that a fade. and my point about this season’s “fade” is that there are other factors this season that weren’t in play last season.

        so trash the show all you want to, but what your basis for what constitutes a “fade” are clearly very different than mine.

        • The problem with L+7 numbers is that it’s as relevant as L+30. Advertisers don’t pay for it and it’s just used to give higher numbers that people will unconsciously compare with live numbers.

          The ratings a show used to have is VERY relevant when you are talking about sliding. HTGAWM has been sliding almost continuously since its first episode.

          You misunderstood me on shows that stay on the DVR. I was describing why higher DVR numbers are a harbinger of lower future ratings, even as the networks spin them as being great.

          Also no hit ever became a flop with DVR numbers and no flop ever became a hit.

          While I wish L3 numbers were more readily available (it’s a shame in our instant-analysis society we’re not even publishing them for the most part), they don’t change the picture you get from the live numbers.

          I’m not sure I understand what you call a “fade” since continuously losing viewership doesn’t seem to count.

          A show that doesn’t fade isn’t going from 15 to 10 to 5…

          • because i don’t find it possible to just look at live numbers — the advertisers be damned for the purposes of my argument about what to consider fading. DVR lift is a reality and can’t be discounted even if the industry and the advertiser driving it haven’t fully adjusted to it.

            some of them can still operate on an L3 and even L7 basis. others, not so much.

            and there is a big different between L7 and L30. but i wouldn’t completely discount the latter if any learnings about trends can be taken from it. would i make it an industry standard? nope.

            to your point about HTGAWM, it has been sliding in live viewership, but my point from the beginning was its DVR lift — which, if you find it irrelevant, makes our entire discussion similarly irrelevant.

            • I never said anywhere that DVR lift didn’t exist. What I said is that it is irrelevant as far as changing the picture of how well or poorly a show does.

              To the contrary, it is a predictor of further erosion, and that’s where it could be helpful to observers and executives, but instead it’s generally used to justify absurd renewals or to try and pass a flop for a solid show.

              Last year a network (can’t remember which one off-hand) said that one agency had started buying Live+7 (or really C7) but it wasn’t followed by any rush to adopt it (and also they didn’t mention how it affected the overall price).

              My point on HTGAWM is that it had DVR lit the whole time. Maybe in Live+3 or Live+7 it lost a slightly lesser percentage, but it lost a huge chunk of its premiere audience and now has bad ratings.

              • Oh I have to disagree (of course). DVR lift is very relevant. And it can be the difference between hit and miss — particularly if we’re talking about 10 million viewers as the benchmark for a solid show.

                And yes, there are some ridiculous renewals behind DVR lift (among other eye-rolling factors), but that’s on the executives –not the show.

                We will never agree on HTGAWM. You can’t judge a show on its premiere ratings when there is a typical 10-20% dropoff before it levels out. So comparing its hyped premiere with last week is terribly unfair. And yes, it’s live ratings are way down — but it still tops in DVR as it always has. And some of that has to do with the fact that it is a 10pm show.

                But that does not make its ratings BAD when it hit that 10 million viewer benchmark in L7 for last season.

                • It’s quite all right to disagree.

                  I appreciate being able to have a civil and interesting discussion with you. 🙂

                  The 10 million threshold (for me) is of course live (you could even talk me down to mid-9s!!) For L+3 and L+7, the bar would be higher of course.

                  On 10pm shows, I’ll point out that Blue Bloods is the highest-rated show on its night and hasn’t ebbed in 6 years the way HTGAWM has…

                  I saw that 10 million figure on Wikipedia and I question it.

                  They more than halved their ratings in season 2 compared to season 1 and that figure shows barely a drop. It’s clearly been spun to pretend it was still doing well.

                  Generally-speaking most journalists (except Marc) and especially the guy at Deadline just print whatever spun numbers they are given without checking them for consistency or relevancy (my guess is that ABC added “online viewers” or whatever other unaudited numbers to inflate the numbers they gave Deadline – kind of like what FOX used to do for New Girl!)

                  • I use a number of sources to get around the spin.

                    My benchmark is more charitable than yours. If a show can hit 10 million in L7, L3 and L+SD, then I consider that a success — especially in an era where 10pm shows are so much more time-shifted than those in other time periods (“Big Bang” notwithstanding).

                    So in the case of HTGAWM, I can’t just look at its live viewership — which is admittedly far below where it was in season one. Because it is a heavily time-shifted 10pm show, that has to be a factor in its ratings analysis. So in L7, it’s still doing well. But based on premiere week, there will be further declines even in that regard — which saddens me because I really like the show.

                    But its decline between its first seasons was really just 10% in L7 to just above 10 million. So that figure isn’t all that far off.

                    • The problem in looking at many bad sources that ape the PR is that you’re still just getting different wordings of the PR (if you’re lucky and they change the wording!)

                      It’s like those Poll-of-Polls political shows love to use which aggregate dozen of bad polls resulting in another bad poll you can’t rely on.

                      I try to keep the levels logical and to take into account the loss of quality which is turning people off (talk to non-Hollywood people and they’ll tell you how very little they watch that was premiered in the past 5-6 years!)

                      You are indeed more charitable than me. 🙂 Just like Marc is kinder. 🙂

                      I have to say I don’t quite have the time to research those year-over-year aggregate numbers, but they do seem very, very wrong and heavily doused in spin.

                    • then you’ll just have to trust me. 🙂

                      that said, i’m much better at looking at the numbers and reading through the spin than you’re giving me credit for.

                    • I looked at the wiki page and the numbers still feel wrong to me. They may be outliers. I’d love to see Nielsen’s actual ratings book. 🙂

                      You do have much better spin handling ability than most people and that I was giving you credit for, as exemplified by your noticing those under-2 demo rating shows acting like this was impressive. 🙂

                    • You’re welcome. It’s great to have here a few people who can discuss ratings at a deeper level than “I like this show so it’s a hit”. 🙂

                    • we should do this more often. 🙂

                      then marc can feature us in a “he said, the other person said” segment on his site. 🙂

Leave a Reply (You may login using your social media account to comment)