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
"You people are so petty... and tiny."
11982 members | you are not logged in | 20 November 2017




Tweet













October 01 2014

Ratings are in for Agents of Shield S2x02. The new ABC series lead ins aren't helping much.

I'm really hoping that the ratings go up... I'm gonna be so sad if it gets cancelled...
I wish we could toss out these overnight ratings and skip right to the +3 ratings or whatever they're called. Despite having the highest ratings in the demo for the night on ABC some use the overnight ratings to bash the show. Whatever.
It will not be cancelled and is in no danger of that. These ratings are meaningless. It'll be adjusted up this afternoon (as happens every single episode). And the L+3 will have it around a 3.0. There is nothing to see here.
Not surprised the two comedies may be hurting the show because they're not that funny. Looks like it may be sent back to Tuesdays at eight because I can't see what else can fill that spot against NCIS.
I can't see it being moved anytime soon. The Voice goes away in iirc 2 weeks and things will pick up then if nothing else. But as
IrrationaliTV is saying on an absolute basis these ratings, especially, the adjusted and later C3 ones are adequate. Its just
slightly disappointing since we all want it to do really well and are frustrated that it isn't.
I'm genuinely hoping it gets canceled so all involved can move onto better things.
Up a tenth in the finals.
JDL, it is doing well. That is the thing. I think some folk expect it to get Big Bang Theory like ratings. And that isn't going to happen. Hell, BBT didn't get BBT ratings until it was in its 5th season maybe. In its second episode this season AoS improves what ABC had on in that timeslot last year by over 30%. The L+3 from the season premiere is a 3.2 which is the same as it's direct competitor NCIS: whatever. 8.9 million people watched it within the first 3 days. That is not the highest rated show on TV but it is very solid. A solid player that will get several more seasons (sorry The Dark Shape).

I bet the L+3 pickup this week will be even bigger than last week. People have it in their DVR. Just depends on when they get around to it. There is no reason to stress over these ratings. As I keep saying and will keep continuing to say over and over.

[ edited by IrrationaliTV on 2014-10-01 22:51 ]
IrrationaliTV For some reason I can not fathom there is an absolute conviction among many fans that the show is
1) expensive to make, and that therefore b) it needs medium-high (2.5-2.7ish) adjusted ovn ratings to survive. Not
true but hard to dispel with what little real data we have.

I can't prove it but I have a dim recollection of a hazy memory that 2.0 was the Mendoza line for the big 3 networks* back
before they started monetizing the C3 numbers. If I'm mostly right then people are simply obsessing over a number that used
to be meaningful and isn't anymore.

*Fox was always ready to take a little bit less it seemed to me.
The ratings were adjusted so I've changed the link.
IrrationaliTV - there you go again using facts and logic. Bless you. While I think ABC would desire a moderate bump up in ratings, on their list of immediate emergencies, SHIELD is not on the radar. I do think it'll be a long time before AoS is ever seen as achieving what it "should" from a ratings perspective by the media. I think the bad buzz and ratings plummet early on will linger, and there will always be angry fanboys willing to troll messages boards

That said - I was not familiar with the TV By The Numbers website prior to joining here. I was heartened / distressed to learn that people are just as willing to be incredibly insulting/passionate about the ratings of little known sitcoms or procedurals as they are the genre shows that are discussed here. Such is the way of the internet I guess ...
The Mendoza line for L+SD decreases every year because DVR adoption grows every year. It's over 50% of all network households in the US now (it's even higher for cable households). That is another reason why the L+SD numbers are meaningless. My personal experience is that genre fans have this weird need to feel like they are fighting The Man (and losing). So panic comes naturally even when completely unwarranted.

Of course, it isn't like the studio/network is going to lay out in plain view all the hurdles necessary for shows to overcome in order to guarantee a pick-up. Sometimes they may not know themselves at the beginning of a season. So in absence of real transparency of information, fans grasp at the one little bit if info they can get and try to make it meaningful. It isn't meaningful at all but for tvbythenumbers it is fabulous clickbait. :)
The Cancellation Bear on TV By the Numbers seems to feel good about AoS's chances of renewal, anyway.
Damn, the Mindy Project and New Girl are not doing well!
I'm with Zap2It on this one. They don't have beat the other networks in the ratings, just keep from being one of ABC's lowest rated scripted shows. As long as Revenge and Forever continue doing poorly (and with Selfie and Manhattan Love Story about to suffer the post-premiere drop off after already poor debut ratings) S.H.I.E.L.D. will be just fine. Poor Karen Gillan, though. I loved her on Doctor Who.
ok, as a non-American, can someone please explain to me what all those numbers mean? Apart from how many people watched. That one I think I understand.
@Ilana99

A 1.8 in the 18-49 demo means that 1.8% of Americans between 18 and 49 years old were watching that show.

[ edited by Ricardo L. on 2014-10-02 10:14 ]
18-49 rating share= percentage of 18-49 year-olds in America that watched
This is the main group that advertisers care about marketing towards.

L+SD= Live (those who watched while it actually aired on TV) + Same Day (those who used their DVR to record it and watch it the same day it actually aired)

+3/C3= when they later add in the people who watched it during the three days after it originally aired using their DVRs, Hulu.com, ABC.com or the
on-demand menu of their local cable provider

This is only the second TV season that the market research group Nielsen (that tracks American broadcast ratings) and the TV networks have kept track of the 18-49 year-olds watching shows later using DVRs, Hulu, etc. Needless to say, it's still a work-in-progress and there's a lot of confusion/excitement/concern out there as to how the heads of the various networks will use these new numbers when the time comes to renew and cancel our favorite shows.

[ edited by JesusSavedIn01 on 2014-10-02 10:27 ]

[ edited by JesusSavedIn01 on 2014-10-02 10:34 ]
thanks guys! That always confused me. and the number after the / is the ranking of all the shows on that day in that demographic?
Oh, you mean what does the "/5" in 1.8/5 stand for? You've got me there. I honestly have no idea what that number's supposed to represent.
>> genre fans have this weird need to feel like
>> they are fighting The Man (and losing).
>> -- @IrrationaliTV

They may have won the war,
but we had all the best folk songs.
The ratings numbers alone don't matter that much for renewals. It is the ratings in comparison to the other ABC-shows, that count. And with these numbers, Agents of SHIELD is lower than the average. Only these two new sitcoms and the dramas "Forever" and "Revenge" have lower ratings. All the other ABC shows perform better.
Usually, a show is safe if it is a little lower than the average or better.
Poor Karen Gillan, though. I loved her on Doctor Who.

And in Guardians of the Galaxy, even though she had to cut off all that beautiful hair.

Don't be too worried for her just yet, though... Selfie is the #1 rated sitcom on Tuesday nights so far.

(I'm not sure about the staying power of a show named after a trendy buzzword, though.)
I don't know AndrewCrossett about how safe Selfie is - given that the premiere garnered a pretty low 1.4 ... not likely to rise after the initial blush of "check out the new show" viewers and the generally awful reviews. More concerning as it relates to Tuesdays, and our Agents, that rating is down 55%(!) from The Goldbergs debut last year. I believe Manhattan had a similar drop off from last year's lineup.

Agents is really being asked to do yeoman's work in solidifying the night and I'm not optimistic it can do that. I'd expect changes on the front end at the very least if the sitcoms don't bounce back quickly
I'm not saying it's "safe" exactly... just not in immediate danger of cancellation. It bumped up to a 1.6 in the final ratings, will probably go higher in the +3 numbers, and actually had more total viewers than AoS did.

If people thought it was terrible it might drop off a cliff next week, but if it manages to maintain this week's ratings it won't be going anywhere in the immediate future. I'm sure ABC wasn't expecting any better results in that brutal timeslot.

And, as I said, it was the night's highest rated sitcom. Like the saying goes, you don't have to outrun the bear, you just have to outrun the other campers.
I love Karen Gillan and John Cho as much as the next geek. But even with the best shows there's almost always a significant drop-off in ratings between the series premiere and the second episode. Even when a show is critically acclaimed AND manages to capture viewers and become a hit right away, that drop-off still usually occurs.

Heroes (14.10-12.96)
Prison Break (10.51-8.49)

Sorry, I'm having trouble remembering more shows that were a hit right away to look up on Wikipedia and my brother wants to use the computer to watch Gotham.
JesusSavedIn01, your explanation is actually slightly off, and that's where the "5" in "1.8/5" comes from. You said that 1.8 was the "rating share" of the show, but they're actually two separate things: the rating and the share.

Rating is defined pretty much how you defined "rating share": It's the percentage of people (in this case, people age 18-49) who watched the show. So, 1.8% of all people age 18-49 watched Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D.

Share is defined as the percentage of people (again, in this case, people age 18-49) who were at home, watching TV, and tuned in to Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. So, 5% of all people age 18-49 who were at home, with the TV on, were tuned to ABC at 9:00.

But some people were eating dinner with the TV off, some people were out at the bar, and some people were asleep. So they don't get counted into the total population of the share, but they do get counted into the total population of the rating.

The share isn't really an important number, because the ABC ads are equally unseen whether you're watching NCIS or whether you're at the bar. But they're good to use as another comparison of popularity, I suppose.

EDIT: If you're wondering why the shares only add up to 16%-30% each hour, remember that cable exists, and TVbtN reports cable ratings separately.

[ edited by phisho on 2014-10-02 16:30 ]
Good job, phisho.

And once again, Aos' ratings are good. It is in no danger of cancellation. It will get more seasons. Another way it is providing benefit to ABC is Forever's ratings are decent in a timeslot where ABC hasn't had decent ratings for years. That is partially due to AoS as a simpatico lead in.
These ratings are not good. They are ok, I guess, but in no way good. They are distinctable below ABC's average. If they stay this way, they will get a renewal, I guess, because this is slightly above the renewal-border. And it is very likely, that some of the breeakout hits will falter and fall below Agents of SHIELD, but for all the data up until now, it is way below average.
roadi, no one except fans, clickbaity press and tvbythenumbers is paying attention to L/SD ratings. The networks certainly aren't. AOS L+3 day numbers are good. The show is completely paid for by international sales, any ad revenue is gravy to ABC/ABC Studios. The renewal of this show for more seasons has never been in question.
IrrationaliTV Thank you again for your intrusion of sanity. The bit about foreign sales covering the costs of the show was very interesting.

JesusSavedIn01 Hulu and the network streaming site numbers can't be added in. They don't have the same advertisers and I have never
seen anyone drop a hint of how big they are.

I knew that the C3/live+3 etc. numbers were sort of new but I did not know that this was year #2 of their having real clout. Thx .

Also there seems to be something odd going on with ABC's rating adjustments to the fast nationals. Its
being reported that during 8* of the first 9 days of the season 20 ABC shows were adjusted up, none down.
The other 3 networks combined totaled 15. Very odd.

*9/29 was excluded due to "local NFL pre-emptions" screwing things up. Not sure why but this is on a
reputable industry site.

[ edited by JDL on 2014-10-02 20:30 ]
L+3 numbers are the ones to watch, I know, but as these are only accessible, whenever a networks wants to spin the numbers - or top-lists some time later - there are usually not enough data points available for L+3 to conclude anything.
So the live + SD ratings are the closest thing to these numbers and they are always available.
I suspect that even with the +3 numbers, Agents of SHIELD is still not in the above-average area compared to the other ABC shows (Live+3). Taking a look at the live+3 numbers of episode 2.01, the show is additionally passing "The Middle", but that's it.
And as I stated, the numbers of episode 2.02 are ok and not in the cancellation-area, but calling them "good" is a stretch.

Of course, sales in other areas, syndication and for streaming play a part. And that part is getting bigger all the time, plus ABC being the network and the production studio as well is a plus.
My point is that when it comes to all the possible revenue streams of a show L/SD ratings is a ridiculously small percentage. And I do understand the need to analyze (obsess over) the only tidbit of public information but it is so small a portion that it is meaningless.
I'd like to push back against this idea that the live ratings don't matter. The Renew/Cancel index is pretty much always spot on, and although they consider syndication and other factors, their main point of reference is live ratings. Hard to argue with that. And a 1.8 (and the 1.6 that was reported earlier on Wednesday) is *not* good. Do I think AoS will be canceled? No, I think it will get four seasons (enough for syndication) and then be canceled. But still, a 1.8 is not *good*.
Phisho you evidently don't have access to the C3's. Neither so I for that matter. Some shows no doubt are heavily dvr'd and others
are not. So for some shows live+sd is pretty close to the money # (C3) and others like SHIELD are not. In this context a 1.8 for
SHIELD 2.02 isn't good, or bad, its meaningless. There may be absolutes for live+sd ratings but barring extreme cases they
aren't relevant here.
If these are so meaningless why do people keep posting them here?
Considering our history with keeping up the ratings from Whedon shows, these are always interesting to follow, even if Live ratings have decreased importance, from the evolution of what used to be the standards for The Mendoza Line 12 years ago, to what we have now, plus the added DVR and On Demand elements.

Agents of SHIELD also factors in other things that we didn't had before with either Firefly or Dollhouse:
- a different network with different expectations. AoS does bring significant Male demographic that the network want, that the rest of their primetime programming doesn't attract as much.
- different revenue streams, that pays for the show, making it less dependent on ads.
Phisho there are two reasons why people keep posting the live+SD numbers.

1) Until recently they were really meaningful for all shows. People are used to them and are haven't made the adjustment yet.

2) They come out the day after the show airs which is timely. The Live+3 numbers don't come out for another 4 days and the
C3's never come out which is less timely for the purposes of discussion.
It used to be said that the Live+3 numbers were virtually meaningless because time-shifters don't watch commercials and are therefore useless to sponsors. So what changed?
If I understand IrrationaliTV correctly a significant percentage of time shifters don't skip the commercials.
Now the Live+3 numbers don't separate out who skips and who doesn't but they are an indication of the potential
upside. And of course since the advertisers are paying for dvr watching that doesn't skip the commercials they are
relevant to a certain degree.

[ edited by JDL on 2014-10-03 22:43 ]
If the networks and advertisers were smart, they'd actually value their DVR audience *more* than their live audience.

Think about it... when you're watching a show live and commercials come on, you usually get up to do something or let your attention wander. Most people don't sit there raptly watching the commercials.

DVR watchers, though (unless they have a fancy DVR that automatically strips out commercials) have to sit there watching the screen while they fast-forward through the commercials, and have to pay attention so they know when to stop and turn the show back on. They therefore watch all of the commercials, albeit quickly and without sound.

If I were making commercials today, I'd consider it important that they get their message across visually, without the sound being a necessary element.

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