| Scoreboard |  |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Total Viewers (million) | 14.65 | 11.29 | 11.00 | 7.98 | 4.06 | 1.41 |
| Rating/Share: Adults 18-49 | 3.2/9 | 2.7/7 | 4.8/13 | 3.1/8 | 1.6/4 | 0.7/2 |
| Rating/Share: Adults 18-34 | 1.8/5 | 1.9/5 | 4.5/13 | 2.6/8 | 1.9/5 | 0.8/3 |
Another Tuesday night of mixed leadership, with CBS winning the most total viewers. ABC was second in total viewers, with the Dancing with the Stars recap show at 8pm doing much better than the cancelled Opportunity Knocks. But while Fox was third place in terms of total viewers it dominated the field in both the 18-49 and 18-34 demos on the strength of House and Fringe. Fringe had the second best 18-49 and 18-34 results for the night trailing only House.
Fringe's benefit from the House lead-in is apparent in the half hourly data though. Fringe had 9.532 million in the first half hour, but dropped to 8.694 million in the second half hour where it tied in the 18-49 demo with the DWTS results show -- both had 3.8/9 ratings for the second half hour. Fringe still won the 18-34 demo outright in the second half hour though, so while House definitely helps, Fringe is still strong in the demos the second half hour.
Things don't look so bright for Privileged, though it's the female 18-34 viewers who count. Eli Stone's numbers are actually worse than they look in the table below, because it benefited greatly from DWTS overrun which will be stripped out of the final numbers. In Eli's first half hour it shows 9.654 million viewers and a 2.5/7 among 18-49 year olds. The second half hour, it dropped to 7.373 million and a 1.9/6. Ouch.
Full details:
| Time | Net | Show | Viewers (Millons) | 18-49 Rating/Share | 18-34 Rating/Share |
| 8:00 | CBS | NCIS | 17.06 | 3.6/10 | 2.1/6 |
| FOX | House | 12.88 | 5.6/15 | 5.5/17 | |
| ABC | Dancing with the Stars (Recap) | 9.35 | 2.1/6 | 1.5/4 | |
| NBC | Biggest Loser: Families | 6.98 | 2.6/7 | 2.1/6 | |
| UNI | Cuidada con el Angel | 4.52 | 1.8/5 | 2.2/7 | |
| CW | 90210 (R) | 1.35 | 0.6/2 | 0.7/2 | |
| 9:00 | ABC | Dancing with the Stars Results | 16.02 | 3.8/9 | 2.5/7 |
| CBS | The Mentalist | 15.29 | 3.5/9 | 2.0/6 | |
| FOX | Fringe | 9.11 | 4.0/10 | 3.6/10 | |
| NBC | Biggest Loser: Families | 7.70 | 3.2/8 | 2.7/7 | |
| UNI | Fuego en la Sangre | 4.67 | 1.9/5 | 2.1/5 | |
| CW | Privileged | 1.47 | 0.7/2 | 1.0/3 | |
| 10:00 | CBS | Without a Trace | 11.60 | 2.7/7 | 1.4/4 |
| NBC | Law & Order: SVU | 9.35 | 3.5/10 | 3.1/9 | |
| ABC | Eli Stone | 8.51 | 2.2/6 | 1.7/5 | |
| UNI | Aqui y Ahora | 2.97 | 1.2/3 | 1.2/3 |
Shows are sorted by viewers in each time slot. Timeslot demo winners are in bold.
Nielsen TV Ratings: ©2008 The Nielsen Company. All Rights Reserved. Source Marc Berman/Mediaweek.
Definitions:
Fast Affiliate Ratings: These first national ratings, including demographics, are available at approximately 11 AM (ET) the day after telecast, and are released to subscribing customers daily. These data, from the National People Meter sample, are strictly time-period information, based on the normal broadcast network feed, and include all programming on the affiliated stations, sometimes including network programming, sometimes not. The figures may include stations that did not air the entire network feed, as well as local news breaks or cutaways for local coverage or other programming. Fast Affiliate ratings are not as useful for live programs and are likely to differ significantly from the final results, because the data reflect normal broadcast feed patterns. For example, with a World Series game, Fast Affiliate Ratings would include whatever aired from 8-11PM on affiliates in the Pacific Time Zone, following the live football game, but not game coverage that begins at 5PM PT. The same would be true of Presidential debates as well as live award shows and breaking news reports.
Rating: Estimated percentage of the universe of TV households (or other specified group) tuned to a program in the average minute. Ratings are expressed as a percent.
Share (of Audience): The percent of households (or persons) using television who are tuned to a specific program, station or network in a specific area at a specific time. (See also, Rating, which represents tuning or viewing as a percent of the entire population being measured.)
Time Shifted Viewing – Program ratings for national sources are produced in three streams of data – Live, Live+Same Day (Live+SD) and Live+7 Day. Time shifted figures account for incremental viewing that takes place with DVRs which are currently in approximately 24.4% of all U.S. TV households. Live+Same Day (Live+SD) include viewing during the same broadcast day as the original telecast, with a cut-off of 3:00AM local time when meters transmit daily viewing to Nielsen for processing. Live+7 Day ratings include incremental viewing that takes place during the 7 days following a telecast.
For more information see Numbers 101.
Who is the clock ticking faster for? Privileged or Eli Stone? Pity, neither are that bad!
the answer may be “neither”, last week’s Eli Stone was its season premiere so I haven’t seen how it will fare in our Renew or Cancel Index yet. But, if I had to pick one, despite whatever the RoC Index may indicate based on last night’s numbers I’d predict Privileged having at least a slightly longer leash. But I don’t view either in a good way ratings-wise. Last week a rerun of Privileged had 1.22 million, and last night wasn’t that much more really if those numbers don’t change much in the finals. Privileged was hurt a little last night by having a rerun of 90210 as a lead-in.
I am very surprised that eli stone didn’t gain more viewers despite a big name like Katie Holmes being in the episode.
Ia Fringe lower than last week?
Eli Stone is a great show with lots of potential for growth. I really do see this show eventually catching on with viewers. ABC should be patient…maybe even move it to after ‘Grey’s’ on Thursdays if ‘Life on Mars’ fails (which, by the week two numbers, the axe is coming).
Anthony, yes, Fringe was lower in the overnights than last week — across the board, actually. Last week’s overnight results are here:
http://tvbythenumbers.com/2008/10/15/tuesday-ratings-ncis-and-the-mentalist-have-more-viewers-but-house-and-fringe-rock-demos/6251
There is no way they will renew Priviledged for next year. That’s bad even by CW standards. And 90210 is not performing much better. If I had a gun to my head and had to watch any of the tooty fruity teeny bopper shows on the CW, I’d pick OTH. And the ratings show other people would, too.
Wow. At least it is keeping most of its audience.
It puts in around 2m in DVR numbers Fringe dont it?
I don’t know, aren’t Eli Stone’s numbers better than last season’s average? With so many shows in the sub 6.00 area across all the networks, I don’t see ABC being in such a rush to cancel a show that can average 7-to-8.5 right now. I would think the next few airings would be crucial, because if it stabalizes right there, then it would be worth it to leave it on all season and see if it can build.
Let’s face it, don’t you think networks are going to have to start trying to build shows over time again? Right now only 1 or 2 shows are hits each year, and sometimes no shows are hits. You can’t just keep revamping the entire schedule year after and think it’s going to go back to the old days ratings-wise, can you?
This is a new world, and ratings are going to have to be earned. People have more options and are more discerning. If you want to keep throwing on shows and only keeping the ones that hit right out of the gate, that’s going to be a business model disaster going forward. Eli Stone seems the perfect example for a new model, which is really a throwback to the old, old model. It’s a good show, and it’s numbers are at least decent. There are other good shows getting just awful ratings (Chuck, Life, etc.), so you can’t save them all, but Stone’s ratings seem to justify using it as a new model to experiment upon. Otherwise, nets can expect their share to just erode and erode and erode until their average numbers are no different than those of your average cable network.
Thank you, Schmokey. I can’t believe the people who still believe that if a show isn’t averaging 10 million, there’s no point in keeping it on the air. Out-of-the-gate hits simply aren’t going to happen anymore, and networks can’t redo an entire schedule each year.
Once all the current big hits (CSI, Grey’s, etc.) are gone, there will be few, if any, shows that will ever match them again. A first-year hit like “The Mentalist” is going to be a once in a blue moon type show. Times change, and the networks (and people who follow ratings) are going to have to be satisfied with smaller audiences.
Based on DVR+7 numbers. Privileged is ranked in the Top 10 from week to week. Probably why The CW ordered more scripts of it. That or they just have nothing else on their plate
I am not opining on cancellation, but rather renewals. I don’t think either Eli Stone or Privileged will be on the air *next* year with the current numbers. Particularly Eli Stones second half hour data must be disconcerting for ABC (under a 2.0 in the demo). Regardless of viewer counts, ABC has to think it can get a show on that can do better than a 2.0 in the demo from 10:30p-11p.
Anthony, our DVR data for primetime is here:
http://tvbythenumbers.com/category/ratings/top-timeshifted
Liz, it’s not a question of 10 million viewers. It’s a question of 2.2 in the demo. That’s not good at all, and probably dooms it to cancellation, just like Pushing Daisies and Dirty Sexy Money.
CW_Chick, most likely nothing else on their plate. DVR doesn’t count for very much.
CW_Chick, sadly, while Privileged gets in the top 10 with the % increase over live numbers when Live+7 numbers are counted in, those increases (and all our data suggests the Live+7 numbers are completely meaningless other than PR) don’t put it into any top 10 relative to other broadcast networks. The only other top 10 list Privileged makes is that it’s one of CW’s top 10 primetime shows, but the CW only has 14 shows in primetime!
So 9 million people watched “CIRCUS WITH THE Pre-tend STARS” of the events they already watched————-?????????
Ohhh I SEE – you poor people only have one channel that comes in – - – -
ABC – okay -GOT IT!
Julia, I wasn’t referring to any particular show when I said 10 million, just in general. If you thought I was referring to “Eli Stone,” I wasn’t (couldn’t make it past the second episode, so it’s not because I’m a fan). I just know so many people at other ratings-focused sites who still insist that 10 million should be the benchmark for renewal, which is just not the case anymore.
As far as the demos go, their time will come as well. With so many people 18-49 being more tech-savvy, they watch online, use DVRs, and look for alternative outlets for watching TV. Pretty soon, the only people left watching TV traditionally will be those outside the demo.
This may not be the case right now, but it will be soon. Networks should look to the future and look to help new shows grow rather than constantly placing faith in what they hope will be “the next big thing.”
Schmokey, Keep in mind that Eli Stones numbers are inflated because they include 2 minutes of DWTS. It will probably end up with under 8 million and a 2.0 or 2.1 once the DWTS overrun is factored out. On the other hand, Chuck got a 2.6 in the demo with no lead-in and has grown for the last three weeks. So I think Chuck has a much better case for patience than ES.
Eli Stone was one of the two sophomore shows on ABC that I thought actually merited a second season, and I thought it had a chance to grow. However, if it can’t get more than a 2.0 in the demo with that lead-in, it deserves to be canceled. It may last for a while simply because ABC hasn’t figured out how to air 6 hours of DWTS every week yet.
Bob, I agree with you that ABC thinks it can do better than Eli in the demo, but I disagree with ABC that it actually can do better. There are so few shows averaging solid demo numbers right now that nets strike me as sort of blindly naive to think they can automatically do better with any show. I wasn’t a fan of Moonlight or Journeyman in the least, but the nets thought they could easily do better than those two shows, only to find out this season that they could not. And while I wasn’t a part of it, Moonlight had a devoted following that could have been built upon.
Heck, isn’t even Kville’s timeslot doing poorer than that lame show did last year right now?
Don’t you think that going forward the nets will need to take all of this into account. Right now if I were running a net, I’d be looking for shows that showed stable ratings as much as anything, seeing if I could then build them up. Think of Cheers, MASH, Seinfeld, Raymond, and all the other shows over the years that took a season or two or three before they actually become powerhouses. And those shows all started with comparitively worse ratings than many of the shows we are talking about today.
More recent examples of shows that have blossomed from marginal to powerhouse over the course of years include NCIS, House, Criminal Minds, and Without a Trace. Yes, they had better ratings in the beginning than the shows we are talking about now, but ratings in general were better back then. The overall rating dropoff the past five years for nets has been tremendous, and it just screams for a new model for creating hit shows. This throwing everything at the wall and see what stick mentality that took hold about 10-15 years ago is for the birds. It will be the death of networks long term.
Networks are going to have to learn to do a job for a change. They can’t just hire talent and hope their product gets noticed. They are going to have to actually work shows they believe are good over the course of multiple seasons before they give up on them. This may also require the talent to reduce the financial commitment made to them in the short term in exchange for a longer term commitment from the nets.
From A to Z, everyone is going to have to rethink how television is made. Otherwise, in five years you won’t be able to tell NBC from CBS from TBS from Lifetime. Bet on it.
Liz, I think you will ultimately be right about the demos, but that seems pretty far off into the future right now. Look at the demo results for House, or the Sunday night Fox animations. the tech saavy youth may be watching those shows somewhat through other venues, but for now, most of them are watching on TV.