I was holding out hope that when the ratings came out, it'd get 10-15 million viewers and the WB would be so thrilled they'd renew it. Ah well.

[ edited by +Faith+ on 2004-04-15 17:16 ]

faith1984 | April 15, 19:15 CET

Gee, I wonder why - could it be after a six week hiatus that some people (who aren't us, obviously) FORGET about a show's timeslot?!

cubiclesatan | April 15, 19:16 CET

What do you want? It'd been off the air for 6 weeks. Smallville's ratings looked fairly anemic too, I guess running the "Best" of Smallville didn't do it any favors.

ringworm | April 15, 19:18 CET

Hey, at least the WB was thoughtful enough to constantly remind us this was a FRESH EPISODE during the show.

I found that so annoying I actually had to put my hand partially in front of my eyes to block that out.

prufrock | April 15, 19:20 CET

The WB doesn't exactly advertise the return of its shows too well. Harm's Way premiered to less than fantastic ratings after a several week break so of course Underneath would continue that pattern. Even for Gilmore Girls: I don't know the ratings for it, but I only realized it was back by looking online.

faith1984 | April 15, 19:22 CET

profrock: So I'm not the only one completely irritated by the "Fresh Episode" tagline? That'd be good to know.

faith1984 | April 15, 19:24 CET

I was annoyed by the comments about it being "Angel's final episodes". And yes, I'm not surprised the numbers were low this time considering how long it's been since there has been a new episode. I guarantee this happens with all the shows they do this too. I watch Alias and they are constantly doing breaks like this as well and there's been a couple of times I almost missed it not realizing it was a new episode going to air (of course this wouldn't happen to me with Angel because I'm too into it to accidentally miss an episode).

Firefly Flanatic | April 15, 19:30 CET

profrock: So I'm not the only one completely irritated by the "Fresh Episode" tagline? That'd be good to know.

No, not at all the only one :) Talk about abusing a tag line...and are we talking about laundry or television here? However, I *would* like to open up a nice "fresh" can of whup-ass on them for cancelling our show.

chasa | April 15, 19:33 CET

So at least I'm among the equally annoyed here. They must say it twice every commercial break, but I admit I was disappointed they didn't have James do the voice-over after Smallville advertising Angel. He would have said fresh sexily...

faith1984 | April 15, 19:43 CET

Yeah, but what bugs me about his voice over is he's talking in his normal voice, but says "This is Spike". Why not either have him say "This is James Marsters" or say the voice over in Spike's accent.
Ok, I know it doesn't really matter, it just one of those little things that bugs me :-)

WilliamTheBloody | April 15, 19:45 CET

Heh, honestly I don't care if he says This is Amy Acker, I just want to hear him speak.

faith1984 | April 15, 19:50 CET

One thing I will give credit to the WB for: They stopped doing those stupid voiceover ads for Charmed when the monster says "Grr...Argh..." at the end.

I would say that I almost teared up when I heard that after not hearing it in a long time, but I'm a big tough guy so I won't.

prufrock | April 15, 19:54 CET

hmm not to good. most shows that are not on for a while, build up some excitement for the new episodes and draw in a fair crowd. so i think the rest of the shows will pretty much be like this. well, im sure the series finale will be good, but most are. oh well.

[ edited by norman on 2004-04-15 18:23 ]

norman | April 15, 20:22 CET

Big tough guy - - riiiiight!

I wasn't overly annoyed by "fresh" until those stupid Charmed previews kept appearing and being labeled as "fresh". Yeah, fresh boobs, more like it.

cubiclesatan | April 15, 20:24 CET

The lower ratings were inevitable, I think, when you consider that The O.C. had the pushed-back American Idol as its lead-in along with the popular newest The Bachelor on ABC, and both were up against a show that hadn't been on in what, over a month? People forgot about the show some, and it had mad competition.

brother_grady | April 15, 20:38 CET

Yeah, I always noticed James said he was 'Spike' yet had no hint of an accent.....weird

Rogue Slayer | April 15, 20:54 CET

One of my friends and i were having a conversation about television, and we got into the WB. He's not a Joss fan and he said that Charmed was ten times better then Angel could ever be.... i'm happy i didn't have a weapon... closed minded people, well cuz those girls are open shirted...

tvmoobunny | April 15, 21:05 CET

WTF? Charmed's entertaining, but SO not quality.

Invisible Green | April 15, 21:26 CET

maybe he just likes Charmed..........as much as you like Angel.........oh well.

norman | April 15, 21:27 CET

Don't forget. Neilson is also sending out revised ratings once the TIVO data comes back as well. I think the number should be a little better. Plus, lets not forget it still did very well with the targetd demographics. WB never thought this should would compete with the likes of the big 3.

DarenG | April 15, 21:41 CET

Uh, no, sorry, the Angel vs. Charmed thing cannot just be reduced to a matter of subjective taste. tvmoobunny's friend may like Charmed more than Angel, but that in no way bears on Charmed being an objectively better show. Please!

I very rarely say this, but in this case I'll go out on a limb and argue that Angel is just plain objectively better than Charmed, no matter what anyone's particular personal taste might be. Angel is much, much better. Infinitely better.

phlebotinin | April 15, 21:44 CET

Kinda OT here, but apparently JAR posted on the Angel's Soul Spoiler Board today. No one sure if it is him or not.

Simon | April 15, 22:22 CET

I agree, and i guess this is where my friend and i agree to disagree, because he is a guy. I started telling him about some of the deeper points of the buffy/angelverse, and he didn't believe me. I think it's time to lend some of my dvd's over. And i'll admit it, i watched charmed until Shannen Doherty left. I just lost interest and i see the previews now... wow. And Angel is an objectively better show, way better. (and yes i know i sound like some teeny bopper with the way better comment, it's for lack of a better term :P)

But in all seriousness, it's hard when alot of people make fun of me for liking the Buffy/Angelverse, because they just don't understand and i come across alot of ignorant people who won't even give the show a chance. And i'll scream it here... Angel rocks and anyone who says otherwise has never seen an episode. coughcoughJordanLevincoughcough

tvmoobunny | April 15, 22:26 CET

See! This is why I hate not having the WB on campus. Ratings would boost so much. Everyone in my hall complains every Wednesday about not being able to watch Angel.

Rogue | April 15, 22:36 CET

Personally, I have been unable to watch any episode of Charmed for any period of time longer than two minutes - and that's from someone who likes to watch Tru Calling because of how horrible it is.

prufrock | April 15, 23:19 CET

The TIVO ratings are not going to be offically part of the Nielsen report until Jan 2005,way to late for Angel. However, some networks do look at the TIVO ratings in an unoffcial capacity but more ad agency look at the TIVO ratings to see what commericals are being watched so it is very important for all those using TIVO to watch Angel not to fast forward during the comericals upon the first viewing, since that counts against the show when it comes to advertisers, it's those numbers the ad agencies are most interested in - that way they know their commericals are being viewed and not skipped over and they are more likely to place ads with that particular show.

RavenU | April 15, 23:52 CET

sorry, but there is no way to say one show is better than another.........it all has to do with taste no matter what.

norman | April 16, 00:30 CET

Not true about TIVO and commercials. For the extra paranoid, Nielsen says they won't track things like whether or not people fast forward through commercials, but only whether or not the show was watched at a different time than it was originally broadcast. Even though it won't be officially in until 2005, they studios have been using TIVO data since TIVO started offering it up.

DarenG | April 16, 00:38 CET

We'll just have to differ on that, norman. Just how no-one can convince me that "Hamlet" isn't somehow objectively better than a Harlequin romance. Nope, can't convince me that that's just a matter of taste. Ah well, differing opinions are the stuff of life.

phlebotinin | April 16, 00:40 CET

"sorry, but there is no way to say one show is better than another" - norman

That is true to a point. I would like to completely agree with that, but I am not naive enough to ignore that there is actually objectivity to subjectivity. I know that "Sheena: Queen of the Jungle" does not approach any level of quality as, say, "Everwood." I know that Tiffany Thiessen will never beat out Nicole Kidman for an Oscar (disregarding whether or not the Oscars actually serve their purpose).

Likewise, I know that "Charmed," while not a terrible show, cannot be considered by any sane person to be a "great show."

Invisible Green | April 16, 00:42 CET

I'm not surprised the ratings were lower. Most casual viewers probably weren't aware a new episode of Angel was airing, and after substituting O.C. or another show in its place for over a month it would be easy to forget. Not that this has ever happened to me. I'm the nerd who marks all the episode airdates on my kitchen calendar in bold red ink. ;)

Another reason the numbers could be lower is that the WB is pretty inept at advertising their shows. It's possible to be watching the WB and not even know that Angel is still on the air at all. For example, I surfed between WB and FOX for 30 minutes last night, before Angel came on, and at any given commercial break on FOX I saw commercials for all their shows for the entire week. By contrast, all the WB did was scatter-shotedly advertise One Tree Hill, Charmed and Everwood. (Spots for Angel, at least on my local affiliate, are rare, and usually pop up only once during the hour before the actual show airs, as was the case last night when one showed up right before "Underneath" aired.)

The WB's on-air marketing isn't executed as a clearly organized campaign designed to make people remember it, like FOX's; it's just abrupt and repetitious, appearing at random here or there. I've been trained by FOX to know when their spots will appear. On the WB, I have no idea. I've also noticed they make almost no attempt to cross-market Angel during other shows with similar or possibly interested demos. Call it 'cluelessness in advertising'.

I got watery when the 'grrr ... argh' guy made his appearance, too. Any thoughts on what ME might have him say for the very last episode? 'Bite me, Froggy' is obvious, granted, but hey. 'Destroy Levin' probably wouldn't make it past the censors.

Wiseblood | April 16, 01:11 CET

Simon, that post looks bogus to me. Usually if it's not a fake, they don't put so much effort into saying, 'this isn't fake, really!'

Just my opinion.

Rogue Slayer | April 16, 01:19 CET

Not only that but filming ended today. That post says that filming ends tomorrow.

DarenG | April 16, 01:33 CET

Angel/Charmed.

All I have to say is I can't live without them both. TNT is my friend for showing them back to back everyday.

Now only if they would show the new Angel episodes every Tuesday after they air the episode of Charmed (played the week before on the WB).

Rogue | April 16, 02:30 CET

Word of advice, Rogue: Watch out for Rogue Slayer. : )

prufrock | April 16, 02:54 CET

Not surprised. Like most people here, I too think that casual viewers have lost track of when the show is on or perhaps they didn't know that it is still even on. At work today, a friend and I were discussing last night's episode and a few co-workers said "I thought that show has been cancelled". Many people translate 'cancelled' to mean a show is taken off the air right away. I hate to imagine if that were the case with Angel. Yikes!

Silent Night | April 16, 03:02 CET

Um, just thought I'd put my two cents in, I watch some other shows on the WB, such as Everwood and Gilmore Girls, and this week, it advertised it alot. I saw at least four advertisments in each show.
Also, I kind of like Charmed. I don't watch it for the clevage, and am actually appalled at some of the things Rose McGowan's character Paige wears, much more than Alyssa Milano's Pheobe. Pheobe has worn some revealing things, but Paige has the clevage and the absence of a bra, so I would pin the clevage thing on her. But the story line isn't that bad though, though previous years were better, and honestly, though it doesn't compare to Wonderfalls and Angel, it is better than most programming such as One Tree Hill and all the reality shows.

toxiceuphoria | April 16, 03:15 CET

DarenG - the following info is from a trade paper regarding how Nielsen will handle reporting TIVO ratings and how they are and will be used.

8/12/2002 - "TiVo and Nielsen's new tests instead start with a test bed of 10 homes that have been given TiVos and 10 current TiVo owners so that Nielsen can see how viewing habits change with the devices in the home. The two companies began working on the project in August 2000.

The other challenge for Nielsen is to integrate the information needed into existing data, and that requires creating new systems. Right now, the emphasis will be on learning the viewing habits of homes with TiVo, not gathering ratings."

3/8/2004 - "Overnight ratings will include only shows watched live. Viewing network sitcoms and dramas played back on DVRs will count in national ratings beginning July 2005. And only shows screened within a week of broadcast will qualify.

A bigger challenge is how to treat viewers who fast-forward shows. One network research executive says the agency expects only to count the actual viewing time. Skip through the ads in Friends, and Nielsen will record 23 minutes or so, not 30."

And Advertisers are already paying attentiion and getting nervous ....

3/5/2004 - "According to an internal poll of a couple dozen or so A-list clients of the nation’s largest direct response company, only 20% "strongly agreed" with the statement that DVRs would "threaten the viability of television advertising in the next three to five years." That’s the good news. The bad news is that 56% said they "somewhat agreed" with that statement.

ID Media’s clients represent hundreds of millions of TV ad dollars. CEO Lynn Fantom points out DVRs have been on everybody’s radar screen."

[ edited by RavenU on 2004-04-16 01:56 ]

RavenU | April 16, 03:42 CET

I already read that info. The above info you posted states "A bigger challenge is how to treat viewers who fast-forward shows. One network research executive says the agency expects only to count the actual viewing time. Skip through the ads in Friends, and Nielsen will record 23 minutes or so, not 30."

All that means they are recording viewer time for ad agencies. My point was around how many households would be viewing the show. Just because you skip commercial using TIVO does not mean that the ratings will not count. It might PO advertisers but I was speaking from a ratings stand point (how many people watched). Yes add agencies will take into consideration watched commercials but when the ratings are released they will still count households that watched the show even if they skipped commercials.

DarenG | April 16, 04:35 CET

Yes but if people are fast forwarding through commericals the ad agencies will be less like to pay the network asking price for that show compared to shows where people do not fast forward through the commericals. It cost benefit, if a viewer watches the commercials it will be easier to sell time for that program compared to programs where people are fast forwarding. Yes the households numbers will always have an effect but as DVR's become more prominent feature in households advertisers will be looking more closely at the ratio between household viewership and the number of households that use the skip feature. And if we have learned anything about networks it is this, they are all about the money. If a show has 10 million viewers but 5 million skip then you have another show that has 7 million viewers but only 1 million skip who are the advertisers more likely to place their advertising dollars on, not only that the price of ads will be more subject to negosiations. That is how this will ultimately impact the network reaction on what shows to keep and which to cancel and Nielsen number popularity will no longer be the ultimate desciding factor, it will be where the advertisers see is the best chance of getting their products viewed. Within the next few years we'll see a new demo emerge (if Nielsen is still around), a demo in which shows are also measured by commerical viewership.

RavenU | April 16, 05:06 CET

I agree that a new model is coming. TIVO has been talking about ways to get people to watch commercials in other ways. However, until that model arrives I say Skip away because it won't have a short term impact on the ratings.

DarenG | April 16, 06:42 CET

I'm thinking that a blending of integrative product placements within the shows advertisers find most attractive to their desired audience is the next step. We can already see the initial exploration of this concept on TV (American Idol with its Ford[?] music video/spots), and in some major films where certain sponsoring brands are deliberately placed for audience exposure and association. Insidious, but it makes a certain sense. And it gets around the problem of the viewer removing their attention from the show in question.

Currently, you can FF through a Vanilla Coke ad. But what if Tru was drinking a Vanilla Coke (or snacking on a Milky Way Dark) while she's discussing a major plot point with Davis? Would you, as a Tru Calling viewer, be more or less inclined to stick around if the show actually ran a full hour, but was periodically interwoven with integrated product placements such as these?

[ edited by Wiseblood on 2004-04-16 05:07 ]

Wiseblood | April 16, 07:05 CET

Advertisers are not keen on product placement in shows, it has no real way of telling them if they are getting their money's worth and there are more things involved including cost.

Also the FCC has now authorized the placement of code within digital signals that would basically making skipping commericals a moot point cause you wouldn't be able too. They could tag a line of code that would block DVR's such as Tivo from fast forwarding through the commericals. In essence they would put a block skip tag code in the commercial signal carried over digital television.

RavenU | April 16, 07:44 CET

Ok, so the only way we'll be able to skip commercials is if the advertisers buy ad space on the BOX of the TiVo, then at least when you open it up, you'll get the effects of the ads. And the TiVo remote will be sponsored by Nike, and every time you push a button on the TiVo, you will hear a sound that sounds oddly like, "Drink Pepsi".....

I'm probably being naive, but there are VERY few times I can think of(ok, none at the moment) where a commercial made me want to buy a product. Mostly, I find them annoying. And the MORE annoying they are, the less likely I am to want the product. I'll remember the product sure, but when I see it in the store, I remember the annoying commercial and don't want to buy it.

And besides, I'm poor and can't afford name brands. And I see very few commercials for Equate and Kroger/Ralph's brand foods! hehe

I'm not into high fashion or gourmet foods, rarely drink soda or go out to eat, so ads are more or less always a nuisance to me. Why should companies be able to tell me that I HAVE to watch ads? Hell, I even tape Angel by pausing through the ads just so I don't have to fastforward through them when I re-watch.

Rogue Slayer | April 16, 10:00 CET

Agree about the nuisance factor, Rogue Slayer, but it comes with the territory. Nothing is free--and somebody has to pay ME, actors, et. al.

I pulled this paragraph from a site that discussed TV as an advertising medium:

CBS’s William S. Paley defended the commercialization of broadcast programming, by pointing out the aligned interests of broadcasters and advertisers. "First, we have an obligation to give most of the people what they want most of the time. Second, our clients, as advertisers, need to reach most of the people most of the time. This is not perverted or inverted cause and effect, as our attackers claim. It is one of the great strengths of our kind of broadcasting that the advertiser’s desire to sell his product to the largest cross section of the public coincides with our obligation to serve the largest cross section of our audience."

Chris in Virginia | April 16, 17:29 CET

Maybe I am being optimitic but preventing you from having control over what you can and cannot skip will never happen. Every time issues like this come up they always go back to the ruling that covered VCR's.

Adverstisers will just reinvent the way we see commercials but I doubt that they will ever control something as fundabmental as FF through commercials. People would rather go back to VCR's if that happened.

DarenG | April 16, 18:52 CET

Well, I'd rather have to live with the commercials than have it start to be like those already super annoying pop up ads for coming shows that seem to be on every cable channel now. It's so distracting to be watching a super important moment on Angel and then seeing some stupid thing creeping up along the bottom of the screen for some other show. If we find a way to skip the commercials completely we'll start to see the Energizer Bunny hopping across the screen in the middle of what is supposed to be a very emotional scene so the advertisers can make sure their product is seen.

As for buying name brand stuff - I'm with Rogue Slayer, I mostly buy store brand and only buy a name brand product if there is no alternative.

While commercials are on, I usually ignore them anyway.

[ edited by blwessels on 2004-04-16 17:14 ]

Firefly Flanatic | April 16, 19:13 CET