This site will work and look better in a browser that supports web standards, but it is accessible to any browser or Internet device.

Whedonesque - a community weblog about Joss Whedon
"Welcome to the nancy tribe."
11981 members | you are not logged in | 27 May 2018


February 26 2004

Overnight Ratings for Angel from mediaweek.... Angel (3.7/5) adults 18-49 (2.0/5).

From fast national reporting
The futon critic "Angel" (households: 2.7/4, #15; adults 18-49: 2.0, #T14)

and then we add ...

zap2it "Angel," 2.7/4, kept The WB in fifth.

One can see why people say the Nielsen rating system is flawed.

As always, the pecking order was considerably different in the hour among adults 18-49 with The Bachelorette first (5.7/14) followed by The O.C. (4.7/12), King of Queens (4.5/11)/Everybody Loves Raymond (3.7/9), Angel (2.0/5) and the Top Model repeat (1.5/4).

Elsewhere news of interest ....

Feb. 2004 Sweep-to-Date Ratings:
CBS and NBC Rule; CBS and UPN on the Rise

What follows are the ratings from Thursday, Feb. 5 through Tuesday, Feb. 24, 2004 (with change versus the comparable year-ago period in parentheses):

UPN: 2.7/ 4 (+17), WB: 2.7/ 4 (- 7)

-Total Viewers:
UPN: 4.01 (+13), WB: 3.98 (-14)

-Adults 18-49:
UPN: 1.7/ 4 (+13), WB: 1.6/ 4 (-24)

-Adults 25-54:
UPN: 1.7/ 4 (+13), WB: 1.7/ 4 (-11)

[ edited by RavenU on 2004-02-26 18:21 ]
This is just too depressing... 2.0???? I'm going to stop looking at the ratings and just enjoy what I have left of Angel. Can't believe next year at this time there will be no Joss Whedon show on the air.... Too depressing :(
2.0? Ouch!!! This is hard for me to believe with all the campaigning going on; are we sure there's no sabotage here with the numbers? Is it possible, or am I in denial and paranoid?
That is in Adults - I corrected it it was 3.7 or 3.0 depending, I accidently deleted the correct number before hitting submit :(
Why does each site have different numbers or am I reading wrong? What a mess!
Futoncritic reuse the same page for reporting each days ratings (the url for Wednesday fast national is always the same), i'd imagine the page wasnt actually updated from last week when you visited RavenU, since Smile Time got a 3.0 in the fast Nats. It's been updated now as a 2.7, giving it 87% retention off of Smallvilles 3.1, and 100% retention in 18-49. Which is the highest retention rate Angel has scored all season (assuming these fast nationals translate into final nationals). Smallville is having a terrible year at the minute, to think this was the WB's second highest rated show and certainly their flag ship last year. Smallville (unlike Gillmore Girls, 7th Heaven, Charmed and Everwood) has not yet been renewed for next season. In all liklyhood it will be renewed (WB produce it for one, and its a season off syndication and has world wide rights to consider). But one has to wonder why renewal has yet to be announced.

As for Angel, this is a ok(ish) rating for the show (given that ratings have never been brillient). Assuming the Fast Nat translates to a final national of 2.7, there was no episode of Angel on the same week in season 4 (Sweeps were largly premepted), two years ago Loyalty (3x15) recieved a 2.5. Angel's ratings continue to be slightly better than season 3.

spikeangellover The Final National is the only one that counts (which can be in either households, audiance, or demo specific), however it takes a day or so for the result to be confirmed (not that anyone reports it online when it is, we normally have to wait till the next wednesday for it to reach print), in the interim pubications publish either Metered Market (AKA Overnights) or Fast National results. Metered Markets are the rating a show recieved in the urban areas of the country (the top 69%). Typically it is out by a large margin, it has traditionally been the way interim results were published, and perhaps it is this tradition that has seen it persist despite the fact that Fast Nationals are actually more accurate and more informative (though more likely it is a speed/cost consideration). Fast Nats cover 100% of the country, but they measure the timeslot not the program (which is important to consider because shows do get prempted for sporting events in specific markets).

The other numbers are the 18-49 Fast National demographic rating, which is the percentage of people aged 18 to 49 who watched (as measured by the fast nats). This demo is regarded by most publications as the most important demo, but it is not regarded by the WB. Networks tend to argue what the best demo is based purly on what they are doing well in. The aim is to convince advetisers that their programs are the best to advetise with, driving up the revenue they recieve. For the WB it tends to be teens, which nobody cared about teens as a demo unto itself until Buffy broke out with very good teen demos.
It is a mess and it is flawed. And considering these are all
overnights' and in the long rung are not even the numbers they look at, (or so I'm told) it's an even bigger mess.

But thanks Ocipital, for claring up a lot.

[ edited by EdDantes on 2004-02-26 21:00 ]
Something else to consider is that WB isn't one of the most watched networks anyway. Angel still remains a good ratings grabber for them. I believe.
Or rather that the WB doesn't have has many affiliate stations as ABC, CBS, NBC, and Fox. The WB, along with UPN, is considered a netlet. Outside of the major urban areas, there are quite a few parts of the U.S. with no local WB or UPN affiliate.
Both UPN and the WB only cover about 27% (+/-3%) each of the households in the US. Compared to the top 3 NBC, ABC, and CBS which have a 70% market reach each and FOX that has around a 65% market reach. As you can see from my first post that UPN and the WB this week seem to be dead even in household viewership and that is up 17% over last year while the WB drop 7%.
Really, are you sure thats not the reach. Ive seen some much much higher numbers. at the Futoncritic

For those interested here's the coverage rates (again, based on primary affiliates) of all seven major broadcast networks:

1. NBC: 103,624,370 households (97.17% of the U.S.)
2. CBS: 103,421,270 households (96.98% of the U.S.)
3. ABC: 103,179,600 households (96.75% of the U.S.)
4. FOX: 102,565,710 households (96.18% of the U.S.)
5. UPN: 91,689,290 households (85.98% of the U.S.)
6. WB: 90,282,480 households (84.66% of the U.S.)
7. PAX: 79,185,730 households (74.25% of the U.S.)

The Big four do best, because more people tune into them in search of something to watch, not because of the number of affiliates. Think about how you watch TV, theres normally one or two specific networks you try first, for most people these are the big four. This creates greater viewer awarness (they see more ads for these shows, there casual viewing tends towards loyal viewing over time, etc)
The numbers I quoted were from broadcating & cable magazine article from Dec last year which talked about how cable had beaten broadcast TV in the ratings race, concidering that cable like the netlet's reach only 30%+ of households. According to the article 60% combined for UPN, WB, and PAX - 68% for FOX - and 70%+ for NBC, ABC, and CBS. The futon critic pulled numbers from affilliates not from the overall households. So the numbers from B&C are from the overall not from the top markets. I'm sure you are aware that there is not always an affiliate for each network due to FCC regulations there maybe either a UPN or WB there is not necessarily both in one area.

[ edited by RavenU on 2004-02-27 08:54 ]
No the futoncritic pulled numbers from both the number of primary affiliates (primary are the only ones that count for ratings), and the number of households these covered. I really have trouble believing that The WB covers only 27% of the country. New York, Chicago and LA cover more than half of that percentage.

Those statistics sound more like the percentage of Affiliates, I really would like to see the artical before i commented further

This thread has been closed for new comments.

You need to log in to be able to post comments.
About membership.

joss speaks back home back home back home back home back home