It might get 17 million viewers and only a 3.6 in the 18-49 demo, but come American Idol season, that is the only show that sees no side effects or viewer erosion. Older people tend to stick with it and not switch over to see AI.

Additionally, a great lead in to start the Tuesday line up on CBS is giving the rest of the shows a great lead in.

To be fair I was expecting to see Without a Trace do a lot better due to the huge lead in, but being moved around for the past 3 years running, probably took some of the steam away.

Oh and by the way, for everyone saying NBC shows skew younger, CBS leads the season in 18-49. Now go figure.

I have no evidence at hand to back this up, but I do recall reading that Nielsen’s sample audience is skewed toward non-cable, non-satellite viewers. That could be affecting then numbers. It will be interesting to watch Nielsen ratings “glitches” as the analog-to-digital switch takes place in February 2009.

I also just read that ABC had ordered four more scripts for Eli Stone. Typically, after how many episodes, does a network decide on whether to give the 22 episode order to a show or not?

Let me put it this way, out of the three above shows, which one show has a higher chance of getting at least a 22 episode season? Personally, I only watch Eli Stone. I haven’t watched Pushing Daisies or Dirty Sexy Money. I just know that the ratings for these shows are lower than the ratings for Eli Stone. I think their demos are also lower than Eli Stone’s demos. I’m guessing that Eli Stone would at least get the 13 episode order, right? Anyway, out of the three shows, which one do you think has a chance to stick around for a full season?

Private Practice is getting the full season run because it performs much better in the 18-34 and 18-49 demographics (particularly with young women). Pushing Daisies and Dirty Sexy Money are in similar shape to Eli from where I sit.

I compared it’s numbers for the past two weeks to the other ABC sophomore shows. Right now, Eli Stone is averaging more than 8 million(close to 9) for its first two episodes while Pushing Daisies and Dirty Sexy Money are averaging around 6 million for each episode, sometimes lower. Even Private Practice is averaging around 7 million. Opportunity Knocks had already been canceled for ABC. I just don’t think that ABC can expect for the viewers who watch Dancing with the Stars to completely stick around for Eli Stone. After all, one show is a reality tv show about dancing. While the other show is a drama about a lawyer that has basically nothing to do with reality tv or even dancing.

Private Practice had already been renewed for a full season even with an average of 7 million viewers. I know the demos are higher for this show than for Eli Stone. But what are the chances that Eli Stone at least gets to have a 22 episode season? It seems like both Pushing Daisies and Dirty Sexy Money are not having high averages either.

If you compare Eli Stone to the other network tv shows, especially those that also premiered during strike…Chuck is getting around 6 million viewers. Yet, it will have a full season. Life is also getting around 8 million. Prison Break is getting around 6 million. Sarah Chronicles had just been renewed for a full season with an average of about 5 million. Even Knight Rider had recently been given a full season pick up. TV ratings are a bit strange at the moment.

With Eli Stone, it gained more than 2 million viewers compared to its season one finale. The demo ratings are okay. Not that good. But not horrible. Also, the drop off in the second half hour is to be expected since I still don’t see what the viewers who watch Dancing with the Stars would have in common with the viewers who watch a law show. Plus, it is competing against Without a Trace and Law and Order. Both shows are established shows.

I guess my question is whether you think Eli Stone will get a 22 episode order?

http://tvrage.com/Eli_Stone/news/?read_news=4769

Personally (Eli was one of my favorite new shows from last season) I hope it’s true, however, given the time the news came out and what has happened meanwhile, one can only hope to god this wouldn’t change.

http://www.aliciapatterson.org/APF0103/Levine/Levine.html

The Mentalist was renewed for the whole season

I don’t think it was a deal where they knew what they were getting into. it’s not like they said “yeah, we’re sure this show is going to suffer, but let’s bring it back anyway!” rather more “the strike may have really screwed this show up, let’s give it another chance.”

It almost seems like they are in with eli for the long haul (giving it a strong lead-in, multitudes of guest stars etc.)

From a single panel perspective (where we measure both Internet and television in the same home) a major hurdle is simply getting people to allow us to measure their Internet usage. From a privacy standpoint, people see PC’s as dramatically different from TV’s, and, at this point, they are much less willing to allow us to measure their online activities.

But the point is, as discussed here the last time some people decided to claim that Nielsen is completely wrong, the normal sample size is something like 25k, I believe. During sweeps, that goes up to over 1 mil. And yet the numbers don’t change significantly. If you know so much about statistics, what does this tell you?

Of course, people are always talking about how European countries are more advanced than the United States, so it’s funny that what you described is EXACTLY how it is done in Europe, and in fact, in many other countries around the world. People may not like it (I’m not sure I do), but you can’t say that we would be the first.

this sort of sampling seems to be the best way to get the variety of demographic data the advertisers crave(by building a panel that mirrors the big picture). I do not believe the TNS set top box data and services like TiVo stop watch are capable of the sort of age/gender demographic analysis Nielsen provides.

In any case, this is the system we have and the only system you and other Nielsen detractors seem to be willing to accept as accurate would be monitoring every person’s home. Do you honestly think that would be a wise decision? The cost would be ridiculous, people would have no choice about whether they were being monitored or not, and it would likely have to be a government program, so REALLY Big Brother-esque.

Sampling works, and works well, so why continue to disparage it?

As far as the Internet, you read what Robert wrote. The networks do a rather specious job of counting Internet broadcasts, especially this nonsense about people who are truly “engaged.”

Andrea, you are right in that we are slowly moving toward that direction, but I just don’t see anyone out there right now with the know-how and drive to truly move forward. I’d love to see how Brandon Tartikoff would operate in today’s market. NBC sure could use him.

NCIS is also probably the oldest skewing show on network tv. It even makes DWTS look young.

Liz, this is already happening, but it will take time to be fully realized. Just like the process of converting the nation to HDTV has taken over 10 years.

All three shows I mentioned built significantly over their first season ratings, none more so than NCIS. NCIS has gone through the roof, and that really started in season four. It’s ratings have increased and increased and increased every year. It’s growth has been tremendous.

DSM is going through an identity crises–it’s on its 3rd showrunner. I know that it’s not supposed to be an outlandish “Dynasty” soap–it’s trying to straddle between straight drama and soap.

I’ve enjoyed it although I felt something was missing in the first season. Maybe Lucy Liu has brought this–but I haven’t watched beyond the first airing (not because I don’t like it, but because I’m watching too many shows!)

Yes, but at one point, people were seeing cars, talking pictures, and even television as money-losers, insisting that the horseless carriage, silent films, and radio would always be the preferred way to do things.

What television needs are some truly innovative thinkers. People who are willing to find ways to harness new forms of technology for their benefit, reach out to the Internet and DVR generation, and revolutionize television.

Funny, I think the Nielsens do a pretty darn good job. It’s funny, but I can look on an IMDB message board of any show just after it aired and predict pretty well what the Nielsen count will be.

is CBS considering NCIS a hit like CSI or greys anatomy?

You weren’t addressing me, but yes, yes, yes to everything you wrote. By only measuring a small amount of what the population is watching, the Nielsens are no longer as accurate as they once were, mostly because viewing habits are so “splintered” (as you perfectly put it).

It’s not out of any particular loyalty towards low-rated shows, but out of informed research in the field of statistics that I say the Nielsens, as they are, do not work.

Just to correct something: NCIS, Criminal Minds, and Without a Trace were hits out of the box. House wasn’t, but it was paired with AI and became huge–something that doesn’t seem to be happening with ES.

Also, I don’t think that the networks were looking at the demos for MASH, Cheers, Seinfeld when they were on. I do know that CBS has skewed even older than it does now. 60 Minutes was the No. 1 show for a long time. I believed Raymond skewed old as well.

I don’t know if the look of the tv audience has substantially changed in the past years. The demos are lower because the whole viewership has splintered. Yet, I don’t think that proportionally less younger people watching than before. Maybe I’m wrong?

I think the new “safe” demo will be around 2.5–and anything lower should be considered a disappointment.

Liz, I’m pretty sure that it’s not an anti-internet bias, it’s a pro-making money bias. Today, almost all of the revenue is coming from television, so its hard to fault the networks for their bias.

I prefer Robert, thanks for asking

That is such a blatant anti-Internet bias (not coming from you, but from the networks), and it will not help them in the long run.

Also, this is my first time here. Is it Robert or Bob?

I’m not sure how you can do it, but it seems odd that a billion dollar business is that the mercy of such antiquated statistical research. And I’m not even talking about online viewing. I’m just talking about good old fashioned television viewing.

One of things they teach you in statistiscal research is that polls are automatically skewed immeadiately by only including people who have a telephone. They are further skewed by including people who are only willing to answer the questions. This wasn’t such a huge problem in years past, but it is getting bigger and bigger thanks to Do Not Call lists and the increasing number of people who only have cell phones or who screen all incoming calls. Nielsen ratings are similarly skewed by only including people who are willing to particpate.

I think this is why older skewing shows do so much better in the Nielsens. Of course, this all speculation on my part, but I think it’s informed speculation. And this is a problem that will just accelerate as time goes by. I find it hard to believe Nielsen numbers are really all that accurate now. In 5-10 years, or probably less, they may be completely meaningless.

I would direct everyone who questions network choices to read “The 10 Things You Need to Know about the New Television Season” at Futoncritic.com. Based on shows launched since 1999, only 1/3 of them make it to season two.

He doesn’t have the percentage for shows lasting more than one season. How many last more than two? How many more than three? What shows on now (besides the FOX cartoons, COPS and America’s Most Wanted) are on or beyond their fifth season? Off the top of my head, those shows are House, American Idol, CSI, CSI:Miami, L&O (all three versions), The Bachelor, Without A Trace, Cold Case and ER. It seems that only shows that are hits out-of-the-gate have a long shelf life–everything else comes and goes.

And regarding holding onto shows, the networks seem to be more lenient: look at T:SCC, Chuck and Knight Rider, all which were picked up though with so-so demos.

The “wacky captain” makes me want to gouge my eyes out. You’re right, it wasn’t a Friday show to begin with, but now, they are absolutely killing it. I’d rather see a show go out for being low-ratings but high-quality than try to change in order to grab more viewers (which “Life” isn’t doing anyway).

While what you say is true about TV viewing being counted when there was not real engagement, in more than one (or even 15) cases I have walked away from my computer while TV show content was streaming from Hulu or a network web site and not actually watched. I’m not saying it happens as much or more than with television, only that I do not know.

But from an advertising perspective, streams, minutes AND demographic data (which is harder to get online) still matter even online, and it will be ages before we see data like that.

and in the moot portion of this post… boston legal did better than that last year. bl (a week prior) did a 10.22 and 2.8 with a 17 mil lead in. (including overrun) and up against boston playoff baseball on fox. and a 20/20 special the next week did 10.92 and a 2.8 with an 18 mill lead in.

point is shows don’t do well after dwts. but bl and 20/20 do better than eli. and i like eli so it’s too bad.

also interesting to see the dancing repeat as a lead in gave the results show a 1.5 million boost this week.