<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Thursday Ratings: CBS Dominates With CSI; World Series and Life on Mars Drop</title>
	<atom:link href="http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/2008/10/24/ratings/6778/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/2008/10/24/ratings/6778/</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 15 Feb 2012 01:23:44 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: tim</title>
		<link>http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/2008/10/24/ratings/6778/comment-page-4/#comment-29448</link>
		<dc:creator>tim</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 26 Oct 2008 05:25:08 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://tvbythenumbers.com/?p=6778#comment-29448</guid>
		<description>hey, wat was the final  number of veiwers for greys and CSI? i heard they gained a few?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>hey, wat was the final  number of veiwers for greys and CSI? i heard they gained a few?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Viola</title>
		<link>http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/2008/10/24/ratings/6778/comment-page-4/#comment-29391</link>
		<dc:creator>Viola</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 26 Oct 2008 00:24:44 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://tvbythenumbers.com/?p=6778#comment-29391</guid>
		<description>Thanks Robert for the info!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Thanks Robert for the info!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Robert Seidman</title>
		<link>http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/2008/10/24/ratings/6778/comment-page-4/#comment-29390</link>
		<dc:creator>Robert Seidman</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 26 Oct 2008 00:14:05 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://tvbythenumbers.com/?p=6778#comment-29390</guid>
		<description>Viola, DVR viewing that happened the same night the show aired is included, but it takes Nielsen weeks to produce the live+7 DVR data and so we won&#039;t see that data for the premiere episode from 10/9 until this Monday (10/27).  We won&#039;t see it for the episode referenced above until 11/10. 

Unfortunately, our analysis overall is that DVR viewing that occurs after the night the program aired is meaningless in terms of ad revenue, and only valuable for press releases.  Though this is probably not quite as true for shows airing at 10pm, it&#039;s likely still mostly true anyway (because &lt;a href=&quot;http://tvbythenumbers.com/2008/10/24/more-evidence-nobody-watches-commercials-on-dvr-playback/6775 &quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;nobody watches commercials via DVR&lt;/a&gt;).</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Viola, DVR viewing that happened the same night the show aired is included, but it takes Nielsen weeks to produce the live+7 DVR data and so we won&#8217;t see that data for the premiere episode from 10/9 until this Monday (10/27).  We won&#8217;t see it for the episode referenced above until 11/10. </p>
<p>Unfortunately, our analysis overall is that DVR viewing that occurs after the night the program aired is meaningless in terms of ad revenue, and only valuable for press releases.  Though this is probably not quite as true for shows airing at 10pm, it&#8217;s likely still mostly true anyway (because <a href="http://tvbythenumbers.com/2008/10/24/more-evidence-nobody-watches-commercials-on-dvr-playback/6775 " rel="nofollow">nobody watches commercials via DVR</a>).</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Viola</title>
		<link>http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/2008/10/24/ratings/6778/comment-page-4/#comment-29389</link>
		<dc:creator>Viola</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 26 Oct 2008 00:07:13 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://tvbythenumbers.com/?p=6778#comment-29389</guid>
		<description>I&#039;ve been following Life on Mars and I love it!! I hope they keep it around.  8 million viewers is not chump change.  Do the numbers account for dvr viewings too?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I&#8217;ve been following Life on Mars and I love it!! I hope they keep it around.  8 million viewers is not chump change.  Do the numbers account for dvr viewings too?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Tyler</title>
		<link>http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/2008/10/24/ratings/6778/comment-page-4/#comment-29388</link>
		<dc:creator>Tyler</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 26 Oct 2008 00:03:14 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://tvbythenumbers.com/?p=6778#comment-29388</guid>
		<description>At this rate, Survivor will have more viewers than Grey&#039;s...</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>At this rate, Survivor will have more viewers than Grey&#8217;s&#8230;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Chris the TV Sage</title>
		<link>http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/2008/10/24/ratings/6778/comment-page-4/#comment-29291</link>
		<dc:creator>Chris the TV Sage</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 25 Oct 2008 15:56:24 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://tvbythenumbers.com/?p=6778#comment-29291</guid>
		<description>Alde is also committing the fallacy of assuming that we all have the same definition of &quot;quality&quot; television. I can think of 7 million former viewers of Pushing Daisies who have a differing opinion.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Alde is also committing the fallacy of assuming that we all have the same definition of &#8220;quality&#8221; television. I can think of 7 million former viewers of Pushing Daisies who have a differing opinion.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Johnthemon</title>
		<link>http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/2008/10/24/ratings/6778/comment-page-4/#comment-29288</link>
		<dc:creator>Johnthemon</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 25 Oct 2008 15:33:36 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://tvbythenumbers.com/?p=6778#comment-29288</guid>
		<description>It seems like everything on NBC is drooping this season. My Name is Earl, the Office, Heroes, Chuck...and there new shows are universally failing with the exception of Knight Rider, but it&#039;s still far from a hit.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>It seems like everything on NBC is drooping this season. My Name is Earl, the Office, Heroes, Chuck&#8230;and there new shows are universally failing with the exception of Knight Rider, but it&#8217;s still far from a hit.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: moonlightfan</title>
		<link>http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/2008/10/24/ratings/6778/comment-page-4/#comment-29274</link>
		<dc:creator>moonlightfan</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 25 Oct 2008 13:39:16 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://tvbythenumbers.com/?p=6778#comment-29274</guid>
		<description>And I&#039;ll have you know Bill &#039;ah doh&#039; drink. Catholic school has spoiled me for the real world  &gt;&lt;&#039;

But I get by unmeasurable volumes of bottled H2O. Which is really funny because whenever I go out my friends get free drinks cause I hit up the bartender for drinks, and pass it on to them. But the ironic thing is that I don&#039;t drive, so I can&#039;t be the designated driver, and they say it would be plus to hit two birds with one stone, free drinks and a designated driver in one.   ;)</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>And I&#8217;ll have you know Bill &#8216;ah doh&#8217; drink. Catholic school has spoiled me for the real world  &gt;&lt;&#8217;</p>
<p>But I get by unmeasurable volumes of bottled H2O. Which is really funny because whenever I go out my friends get free drinks cause I hit up the bartender for drinks, and pass it on to them. But the ironic thing is that I don&#8217;t drive, so I can&#8217;t be the designated driver, and they say it would be plus to hit two birds with one stone, free drinks and a designated driver in one.   <img src='http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/wp-includes/images/smilies/icon_wink.gif' alt=';)' class='wp-smiley' /> </p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: moonlightfan</title>
		<link>http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/2008/10/24/ratings/6778/comment-page-4/#comment-29272</link>
		<dc:creator>moonlightfan</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 25 Oct 2008 12:54:35 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://tvbythenumbers.com/?p=6778#comment-29272</guid>
		<description>I understand that Peterson WANTS to leave the show, but every time he picks up and outs a few episodes they haul in a recognizable actor to tend to the lead. Also, everything is relational, one point connects to another. But it is obvious that they are trying to portend to the Character driven format this year. 

And though awards are seemingly understated when it comes to ratings, it must urk some board members that they have the most viewed tv shows in TV land, yet are black balled when it comes to award season in the drama department.

Also, I know I am going to be labeled a conspiracy theorists when it comes to this generality, but did anyone realize that Jerry Bruckheimer eliminated one black actor from his show, as another black actor was coming on board. Maybe I am the only one breathing too much into this because I am black, but he did this once before with POTC 2 -&gt; 3, he dropped one black actress in favor of the lead which was also black. I noticed this because she was featured in the commercials for the 1st POTC. Once is excusable, but twice becomes suspect. What, 2 blacks can&#039;t share the same screen time at once? 

But I doubt anyone will really take this act seriously, they only sit up and take notice when spike lee addresses these issues.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I understand that Peterson WANTS to leave the show, but every time he picks up and outs a few episodes they haul in a recognizable actor to tend to the lead. Also, everything is relational, one point connects to another. But it is obvious that they are trying to portend to the Character driven format this year. </p>
<p>And though awards are seemingly understated when it comes to ratings, it must urk some board members that they have the most viewed tv shows in TV land, yet are black balled when it comes to award season in the drama department.</p>
<p>Also, I know I am going to be labeled a conspiracy theorists when it comes to this generality, but did anyone realize that Jerry Bruckheimer eliminated one black actor from his show, as another black actor was coming on board. Maybe I am the only one breathing too much into this because I am black, but he did this once before with POTC 2 -&gt; 3, he dropped one black actress in favor of the lead which was also black. I noticed this because she was featured in the commercials for the 1st POTC. Once is excusable, but twice becomes suspect. What, 2 blacks can&#8217;t share the same screen time at once? </p>
<p>But I doubt anyone will really take this act seriously, they only sit up and take notice when spike lee addresses these issues.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: cesarrr</title>
		<link>http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/2008/10/24/ratings/6778/comment-page-4/#comment-29257</link>
		<dc:creator>cesarrr</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 25 Oct 2008 06:28:24 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://tvbythenumbers.com/?p=6778#comment-29257</guid>
		<description>Grey&#039;s Anatomy is so anoying right now. It used to be a really good show, with likeable characters that you can fall in love with (season 1 and 2), BUT NOT ANYMORE
No wonder why its viewership is declining.

with that said, I think that Private Practice would do so much better if they put it after Grey&#039;s at 10pm</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Grey&#8217;s Anatomy is so anoying right now. It used to be a really good show, with likeable characters that you can fall in love with (season 1 and 2), BUT NOT ANYMORE<br />
No wonder why its viewership is declining.</p>
<p>with that said, I think that Private Practice would do so much better if they put it after Grey&#8217;s at 10pm</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Robert Seidman</title>
		<link>http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/2008/10/24/ratings/6778/comment-page-4/#comment-29243</link>
		<dc:creator>Robert Seidman</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 25 Oct 2008 03:41:19 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://tvbythenumbers.com/?p=6778#comment-29243</guid>
		<description>I don&#039;t see CBS dropping the show this year.  As for what happens if CBS doesn&#039;t renew it, I&#039;ll worry about in May :-)</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I don&#8217;t see CBS dropping the show this year.  As for what happens if CBS doesn&#8217;t renew it, I&#8217;ll worry about in May <img src='http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/wp-includes/images/smilies/icon_smile.gif' alt=':-)' class='wp-smiley' /> </p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Cool</title>
		<link>http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/2008/10/24/ratings/6778/comment-page-4/#comment-29236</link>
		<dc:creator>Cool</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 25 Oct 2008 02:54:38 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://tvbythenumbers.com/?p=6778#comment-29236</guid>
		<description>Robert, do you think ABC can pickup &#039;Old Christine&#039; if CBS drop the show?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Robert, do you think ABC can pickup &#8216;Old Christine&#8217; if CBS drop the show?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Robert Seidman</title>
		<link>http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/2008/10/24/ratings/6778/comment-page-4/#comment-29223</link>
		<dc:creator>Robert Seidman</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 25 Oct 2008 01:53:15 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://tvbythenumbers.com/?p=6778#comment-29223</guid>
		<description>Alde, and you spout such an opinion because it&#039;s not *your* money being invested.  If it was, I imagine you&#039;d care a lot more about making money than winning awards.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Alde, and you spout such an opinion because it&#8217;s not *your* money being invested.  If it was, I imagine you&#8217;d care a lot more about making money than winning awards.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Alde</title>
		<link>http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/2008/10/24/ratings/6778/comment-page-4/#comment-29220</link>
		<dc:creator>Alde</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 25 Oct 2008 01:44:29 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://tvbythenumbers.com/?p=6778#comment-29220</guid>
		<description>You know, it seems to be a matter of fact by now that quality shows tend to obtain less of a viewer numbers. It&#039;s always easier for a casual viewer to tune in and watch some random procedural with intentionally quirky characters than to spend time watching a continual story which, in most cases, tends to transcend one-dimensional perspectives. What I&#039;m trying to say, I suppose, is that I&#039;d take critical acclaim and awards over numbers based on casual viewers with an intelligence below a sledge hammer any day. I&#039;m really grateful at this point that cable networks let their shows to live in peace - that&#039;s maybe one of the biggest factors why they end up having way higher quality opposed to something random that wins &quot;its hour&quot; in broadcast TV.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>You know, it seems to be a matter of fact by now that quality shows tend to obtain less of a viewer numbers. It&#8217;s always easier for a casual viewer to tune in and watch some random procedural with intentionally quirky characters than to spend time watching a continual story which, in most cases, tends to transcend one-dimensional perspectives. What I&#8217;m trying to say, I suppose, is that I&#8217;d take critical acclaim and awards over numbers based on casual viewers with an intelligence below a sledge hammer any day. I&#8217;m really grateful at this point that cable networks let their shows to live in peace &#8211; that&#8217;s maybe one of the biggest factors why they end up having way higher quality opposed to something random that wins &#8220;its hour&#8221; in broadcast TV.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Andrea</title>
		<link>http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/2008/10/24/ratings/6778/comment-page-4/#comment-29217</link>
		<dc:creator>Andrea</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 25 Oct 2008 01:19:36 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://tvbythenumbers.com/?p=6778#comment-29217</guid>
		<description>STFU 


Tut tut. Be nice.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>STFU </p>
<p>Tut tut. Be nice.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Vader</title>
		<link>http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/2008/10/24/ratings/6778/comment-page-3/#comment-29212</link>
		<dc:creator>Vader</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 25 Oct 2008 01:03:51 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://tvbythenumbers.com/?p=6778#comment-29212</guid>
		<description>Peterson is still an executive producer on the show and has stated that he will return whenever the writers want him to make a guest appearance, so he&#039;s not exactly bailing on the show. Besides, after 8 and a half seasons, I can&#039;t blame him for wanting to try something different.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Peterson is still an executive producer on the show and has stated that he will return whenever the writers want him to make a guest appearance, so he&#8217;s not exactly bailing on the show. Besides, after 8 and a half seasons, I can&#8217;t blame him for wanting to try something different.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Robert Seidman</title>
		<link>http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/2008/10/24/ratings/6778/comment-page-3/#comment-29210</link>
		<dc:creator>Robert Seidman</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 25 Oct 2008 00:47:14 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://tvbythenumbers.com/?p=6778#comment-29210</guid>
		<description>Moonlight fan, perhaps you&#039;re drinking too much rum over there in Trinadad.  AWARDS ARE MEANINGLESS.  Unless you&#039;re the fourth place network like NBC, and then awards for 30 Rock (which I do love) are somewhat meaningful. 

Which would you rather be?  Mad Men (and I love this show) with ~1.5 million viewers and a best drama Emmy or Burn Notice (and I confess, I enjoy BN more) with over 4 million viewers?

PD isn&#039;t going *anywhere* but OUT after it&#039;s 13 episodes unless Jesus makes an appearance and says &quot;RESURRECT THIS SHOW&quot; (unlikely).  Otherwise, it&#039;s done like Moonlight.

CBS already *knows* how Christine does in the Monday 9:30 spot (better than Worst Week!). It needs something to ANCHOR its Wednesday comedy block, and so it will try to keep Christine there. I don&#039;t see that changing unless CBS gives up on a Wednesday comedy  block which does not seem likely for now.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Moonlight fan, perhaps you&#8217;re drinking too much rum over there in Trinadad.  AWARDS ARE MEANINGLESS.  Unless you&#8217;re the fourth place network like NBC, and then awards for 30 Rock (which I do love) are somewhat meaningful. </p>
<p>Which would you rather be?  Mad Men (and I love this show) with ~1.5 million viewers and a best drama Emmy or Burn Notice (and I confess, I enjoy BN more) with over 4 million viewers?</p>
<p>PD isn&#8217;t going *anywhere* but OUT after it&#8217;s 13 episodes unless Jesus makes an appearance and says &#8220;RESURRECT THIS SHOW&#8221; (unlikely).  Otherwise, it&#8217;s done like Moonlight.</p>
<p>CBS already *knows* how Christine does in the Monday 9:30 spot (better than Worst Week!). It needs something to ANCHOR its Wednesday comedy block, and so it will try to keep Christine there. I don&#8217;t see that changing unless CBS gives up on a Wednesday comedy  block which does not seem likely for now.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Holly</title>
		<link>http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/2008/10/24/ratings/6778/comment-page-3/#comment-29209</link>
		<dc:creator>Holly</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 25 Oct 2008 00:40:57 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://tvbythenumbers.com/?p=6778#comment-29209</guid>
		<description>Ummm...Peterson WANTS to leave. CBS would love to keep him, but he&#039;s been wanting to get back to theater work for a while and decided not to sign a new contract.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Ummm&#8230;Peterson WANTS to leave. CBS would love to keep him, but he&#8217;s been wanting to get back to theater work for a while and decided not to sign a new contract.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: moonlightfan</title>
		<link>http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/2008/10/24/ratings/6778/comment-page-3/#comment-29207</link>
		<dc:creator>moonlightfan</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 25 Oct 2008 00:36:57 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://tvbythenumbers.com/?p=6778#comment-29207</guid>
		<description>I think that the lack of nods in the emmy&#039;s &amp; globe dept really smacked CBS silly. They are getting rid of Peterson for the same reason they brought in Rufus Sewell as main lead for eleventh hr, they are trying to rebuild their shows around characters, like USA does. Peterson&#039;s departure takes viewers with him, Fishbourne would bring new ones, especially those looking for quality. 

Not only that but they are doing the right thing and trimming down the cast, letting character acting take center stage. 

I saw LOM last night, I enjoyed it, Harvey Keitel looks like he would be up for an award nod next year, regardless of LOM being on the R/C index. Though this show is getting pounded in the ratings, they should ditch Eli Stone and give LOM a lead in from DWTS. Either Mon Or Tues, LOM looks like it could have been a shoe in to take up with the NYPD audience, though considerably less nitty gritty. 

PD should go after DHH. Brothers and Sisters have been hanging onto their coat tails for far too long. 

FYI, CBS is going to place Garry Unmarried after Two and a Half Men next week, I feel as if Christine deserves that spot a whole lot more. But I think that overall CBS is doing the smart thing by restructuring their procedurals. It should work.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I think that the lack of nods in the emmy&#8217;s &amp; globe dept really smacked CBS silly. They are getting rid of Peterson for the same reason they brought in Rufus Sewell as main lead for eleventh hr, they are trying to rebuild their shows around characters, like USA does. Peterson&#8217;s departure takes viewers with him, Fishbourne would bring new ones, especially those looking for quality. </p>
<p>Not only that but they are doing the right thing and trimming down the cast, letting character acting take center stage. </p>
<p>I saw LOM last night, I enjoyed it, Harvey Keitel looks like he would be up for an award nod next year, regardless of LOM being on the R/C index. Though this show is getting pounded in the ratings, they should ditch Eli Stone and give LOM a lead in from DWTS. Either Mon Or Tues, LOM looks like it could have been a shoe in to take up with the NYPD audience, though considerably less nitty gritty. </p>
<p>PD should go after DHH. Brothers and Sisters have been hanging onto their coat tails for far too long. </p>
<p>FYI, CBS is going to place Garry Unmarried after Two and a Half Men next week, I feel as if Christine deserves that spot a whole lot more. But I think that overall CBS is doing the smart thing by restructuring their procedurals. It should work.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Robert Seidman</title>
		<link>http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/2008/10/24/ratings/6778/comment-page-3/#comment-29189</link>
		<dc:creator>Robert Seidman</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 24 Oct 2008 23:57:12 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://tvbythenumbers.com/?p=6778#comment-29189</guid>
		<description>Holly, I agree down the line...</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Holly, I agree down the line&#8230;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Holly</title>
		<link>http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/2008/10/24/ratings/6778/comment-page-3/#comment-29187</link>
		<dc:creator>Holly</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 24 Oct 2008 23:48:31 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://tvbythenumbers.com/?p=6778#comment-29187</guid>
		<description>Robert, I agree that Grey&#039;s 18-34 demo makes it more valuable, but the question centered around the 18-49 demo. If Andrea had argued that CSI&#039;s low 18-34 demo results made it less of a &quot;powerhouse&quot;, I might have agreed, but she didn&#039;t. She appeared to be arguing that CSI&#039;s high viewer numbers made its demo less important/valuable. The breakdown &lt;i&gt;within&lt;/i&gt; the 18-49 demo may hurt its value, but the extra viewers &lt;i&gt;outside&lt;/i&gt; the demos don&#039;t.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Robert, I agree that Grey&#8217;s 18-34 demo makes it more valuable, but the question centered around the 18-49 demo. If Andrea had argued that CSI&#8217;s low 18-34 demo results made it less of a &#8220;powerhouse&#8221;, I might have agreed, but she didn&#8217;t. She appeared to be arguing that CSI&#8217;s high viewer numbers made its demo less important/valuable. The breakdown <i>within</i> the 18-49 demo may hurt its value, but the extra viewers <i>outside</i> the demos don&#8217;t.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Julia</title>
		<link>http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/2008/10/24/ratings/6778/comment-page-3/#comment-29185</link>
		<dc:creator>Julia</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 24 Oct 2008 23:44:43 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://tvbythenumbers.com/?p=6778#comment-29185</guid>
		<description>Iggy, Grey&#039;s quality took a sharp dive in season 2. If the viewers didn&#039;t catch on then, I doubt they ever will.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Iggy, Grey&#8217;s quality took a sharp dive in season 2. If the viewers didn&#8217;t catch on then, I doubt they ever will.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Julia</title>
		<link>http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/2008/10/24/ratings/6778/comment-page-3/#comment-29184</link>
		<dc:creator>Julia</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 24 Oct 2008 23:44:01 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://tvbythenumbers.com/?p=6778#comment-29184</guid>
		<description>ER went through a lot of characters and lasted as a huge show for a long time. I don&#039;t think it will matter much, but it does, of course, depend on the new characters being likable, like you said, Holly.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>ER went through a lot of characters and lasted as a huge show for a long time. I don&#8217;t think it will matter much, but it does, of course, depend on the new characters being likable, like you said, Holly.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Iggy</title>
		<link>http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/2008/10/24/ratings/6778/comment-page-3/#comment-29182</link>
		<dc:creator>Iggy</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 24 Oct 2008 23:39:54 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://tvbythenumbers.com/?p=6778#comment-29182</guid>
		<description>Grey&#039;s numbers are still solid because it has a loyal viewership that&#039;s invested in the characters.  However, the show is just horrible now.  Just about everyone I know who watches the show agrees that the quality has seriously declined. I don&#039;t see this show improving, but I think will continue a steady decline.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Grey&#8217;s numbers are still solid because it has a loyal viewership that&#8217;s invested in the characters.  However, the show is just horrible now.  Just about everyone I know who watches the show agrees that the quality has seriously declined. I don&#8217;t see this show improving, but I think will continue a steady decline.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Holly</title>
		<link>http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/2008/10/24/ratings/6778/comment-page-3/#comment-29181</link>
		<dc:creator>Holly</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 24 Oct 2008 23:33:27 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://tvbythenumbers.com/?p=6778#comment-29181</guid>
		<description>I think CSI could go either way after Peterson&#039;s exit. On one hand, a lot of people are attached to the &lt;i&gt;show&lt;/i&gt; not just one character and the introduction of Laurence Fishburne could help significantly. On the other hand, CSI is loosing 3 characters in just over a year. That means a lot of changes and a different dynamic on the show. I think for the most part viewers will give the show a chance after Peterson leaves, but if the new characters don&#039;t grab people, the numbers could drop dramatically.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I think CSI could go either way after Peterson&#8217;s exit. On one hand, a lot of people are attached to the <i>show</i> not just one character and the introduction of Laurence Fishburne could help significantly. On the other hand, CSI is loosing 3 characters in just over a year. That means a lot of changes and a different dynamic on the show. I think for the most part viewers will give the show a chance after Peterson leaves, but if the new characters don&#8217;t grab people, the numbers could drop dramatically.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Robert Seidman</title>
		<link>http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/2008/10/24/ratings/6778/comment-page-3/#comment-29180</link>
		<dc:creator>Robert Seidman</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 24 Oct 2008 23:30:24 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://tvbythenumbers.com/?p=6778#comment-29180</guid>
		<description>Holly, I&#039;m with you for the most part. If it&#039;s true the demos pay the bills (and we&#039;ve seen nothing to suggest otherwise)the absolute numbers matter most.  But because $$ matter, the age skew does matter and is also probably relevant in the sense that say The Office has few viewers, but, skews very young, and at least for discussion purposes if Grey&#039;s has 5 million less viewers than CSI, but beats it in the demo.  Though that makes CSI&#039;s (in that example) absolute number still very valuable.

CSI still skews older than Grey&#039;s, even last night, and even within the 18-49 demo.  Although the aggregate demos were about the same, CSI had more 45-49 year old viewers and far fewer 18-34 year old females (Grey&#039;s won there by an 8.0 to a 4.0 in the fast nationals -- a 100% difference). So Grey&#039;s is the more valuable show in terms of advertising revenue, but CSI isn&#039;t shabby... As much as I was giving her a hard time, I think Andrea&#039;s real point is that CSI&#039;s absolute number doesn&#039;t matter -- which I actually agree with, though I still think CSI &lt;b&gt;is&lt;/b&gt; a &quot;powerhouse&quot; in this day and age.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Holly, I&#8217;m with you for the most part. If it&#8217;s true the demos pay the bills (and we&#8217;ve seen nothing to suggest otherwise)the absolute numbers matter most.  But because $$ matter, the age skew does matter and is also probably relevant in the sense that say The Office has few viewers, but, skews very young, and at least for discussion purposes if Grey&#8217;s has 5 million less viewers than CSI, but beats it in the demo.  Though that makes CSI&#8217;s (in that example) absolute number still very valuable.</p>
<p>CSI still skews older than Grey&#8217;s, even last night, and even within the 18-49 demo.  Although the aggregate demos were about the same, CSI had more 45-49 year old viewers and far fewer 18-34 year old females (Grey&#8217;s won there by an 8.0 to a 4.0 in the fast nationals &#8212; a 100% difference). So Grey&#8217;s is the more valuable show in terms of advertising revenue, but CSI isn&#8217;t shabby&#8230; As much as I was giving her a hard time, I think Andrea&#8217;s real point is that CSI&#8217;s absolute number doesn&#8217;t matter &#8212; which I actually agree with, though I still think CSI <b>is</b> a &#8220;powerhouse&#8221; in this day and age.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Vader</title>
		<link>http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/2008/10/24/ratings/6778/comment-page-3/#comment-29179</link>
		<dc:creator>Vader</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 24 Oct 2008 23:21:39 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://tvbythenumbers.com/?p=6778#comment-29179</guid>
		<description>JT, I think CSI might actually hold its current viewership. They went out and got Laurence Fishburne (which I still find surprising) and I think viewers will give him a shot (his character&#039;s description sounds great), but I do agree with you that people (myself included) think Peterson is one of the reasons the show is great. Anyway, we&#039;ll see what the numbers look like in the spring, Peterson still has a few episodes left.

ABC is heading downhill fast (I think you can judge how well their season&#039;s going by how many timeslots Dancing With the Stars has). They&#039;re megahits are all fading and LOST goes off the air after next season. They are in desparate need (no pun intended) to find some new shows that work. Life on Mars certainly isn&#039;t putting up the numbers it would like, but it&#039;s looking much more attractive than Eli Stone, Pushing Daises, or Dirty Sexy Money. I will make a bold prediction (the index seems to agree) that it gets the back nine. I don&#039;t see it falling much further. 

It wouldn&#039;t shock me if ABC tried to do a spinoff of Desperate Housewives or. After all, what do they have to lose? They do have Flash Forward coming up soon, which does sound promising...</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>JT, I think CSI might actually hold its current viewership. They went out and got Laurence Fishburne (which I still find surprising) and I think viewers will give him a shot (his character&#8217;s description sounds great), but I do agree with you that people (myself included) think Peterson is one of the reasons the show is great. Anyway, we&#8217;ll see what the numbers look like in the spring, Peterson still has a few episodes left.</p>
<p>ABC is heading downhill fast (I think you can judge how well their season&#8217;s going by how many timeslots Dancing With the Stars has). They&#8217;re megahits are all fading and LOST goes off the air after next season. They are in desparate need (no pun intended) to find some new shows that work. Life on Mars certainly isn&#8217;t putting up the numbers it would like, but it&#8217;s looking much more attractive than Eli Stone, Pushing Daises, or Dirty Sexy Money. I will make a bold prediction (the index seems to agree) that it gets the back nine. I don&#8217;t see it falling much further. </p>
<p>It wouldn&#8217;t shock me if ABC tried to do a spinoff of Desperate Housewives or. After all, what do they have to lose? They do have Flash Forward coming up soon, which does sound promising&#8230;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Holly</title>
		<link>http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/2008/10/24/ratings/6778/comment-page-3/#comment-29178</link>
		<dc:creator>Holly</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 24 Oct 2008 23:15:56 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://tvbythenumbers.com/?p=6778#comment-29178</guid>
		<description>I&#039;ve never understood why some people think the &quot;skew&quot; of a show is so important. It seems to me that the absolute numbers matter more. If a show has 18 million viewers and a 5.0 in the demo, why would it be less valuable than a show with 14 million viewers and a 5.0 in the demo? I understand that the demo number is important, so a show with a 4.0 is less valuable than a show with a 5.0, but if the demo is the same, why would more viewers be a negative thing? Demo viewers are more valuable (in the eyes of advertisers) than non-demo viewers, but that doesn&#039;t mean that non-demo viewers have a &lt;i&gt;negative&lt;/i&gt; value.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I&#8217;ve never understood why some people think the &#8220;skew&#8221; of a show is so important. It seems to me that the absolute numbers matter more. If a show has 18 million viewers and a 5.0 in the demo, why would it be less valuable than a show with 14 million viewers and a 5.0 in the demo? I understand that the demo number is important, so a show with a 4.0 is less valuable than a show with a 5.0, but if the demo is the same, why would more viewers be a negative thing? Demo viewers are more valuable (in the eyes of advertisers) than non-demo viewers, but that doesn&#8217;t mean that non-demo viewers have a <i>negative</i> value.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: R.J</title>
		<link>http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/2008/10/24/ratings/6778/comment-page-3/#comment-29177</link>
		<dc:creator>R.J</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 24 Oct 2008 23:13:39 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://tvbythenumbers.com/?p=6778#comment-29177</guid>
		<description>My Name Is Earl is doing crapy latley. How come. I know this week, it has the world series, but every season, ratings drop. WHY?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>My Name Is Earl is doing crapy latley. How come. I know this week, it has the world series, but every season, ratings drop. WHY?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Iggy</title>
		<link>http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/2008/10/24/ratings/6778/comment-page-3/#comment-29171</link>
		<dc:creator>Iggy</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 24 Oct 2008 23:02:36 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://tvbythenumbers.com/?p=6778#comment-29171</guid>
		<description>Eleventh Hour is very consistent.  I think it will end up in the same category as Without a Trace as a solid but not remarkable show for CBS.  I noticed that the third episode was better than the first 2, so its retention might improve in the coming months.  Also ER is going to lose the SNL lead-in shortly, that might benefit Eleventh Hour as well.

As for Life on Mars, that show is just too weird for a lot of people.  But it&#039;s numbers are decent enough that it should stick around a little longer.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Eleventh Hour is very consistent.  I think it will end up in the same category as Without a Trace as a solid but not remarkable show for CBS.  I noticed that the third episode was better than the first 2, so its retention might improve in the coming months.  Also ER is going to lose the SNL lead-in shortly, that might benefit Eleventh Hour as well.</p>
<p>As for Life on Mars, that show is just too weird for a lot of people.  But it&#8217;s numbers are decent enough that it should stick around a little longer.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Robert Seidman</title>
		<link>http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/2008/10/24/ratings/6778/comment-page-3/#comment-29164</link>
		<dc:creator>Robert Seidman</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 24 Oct 2008 22:46:28 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://tvbythenumbers.com/?p=6778#comment-29164</guid>
		<description>Indeed, I do scoff a lot. But I&#039;m not projecting. 

OK, if CSI isn&#039;t a demo powerhouse (in the 18-49 demo).  In primetime, besides NFL overrun, what is?

What&#039;s that you say?  Nothing?

Ok, thank you. Now STFU please :)</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Indeed, I do scoff a lot. But I&#8217;m not projecting. </p>
<p>OK, if CSI isn&#8217;t a demo powerhouse (in the 18-49 demo).  In primetime, besides NFL overrun, what is?</p>
<p>What&#8217;s that you say?  Nothing?</p>
<p>Ok, thank you. Now STFU please <img src='http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/wp-includes/images/smilies/icon_smile.gif' alt=':)' class='wp-smiley' /> </p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Andrea</title>
		<link>http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/2008/10/24/ratings/6778/comment-page-3/#comment-29163</link>
		<dc:creator>Andrea</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 24 Oct 2008 22:43:38 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://tvbythenumbers.com/?p=6778#comment-29163</guid>
		<description>Robert, who&#039;s says I&#039;m telling you what to do? People on this blog project a lot. 

I was saying, rightly, because it&#039;s TvbytheNUMBERS, that CSI at 17 million skews old and is NOT a demo powerhouse. CSI beating GA in the demo is still great, so I don&#039;t know what you think I&#039;m scoffing at? 

Anyway, if anyone scoffs a lot, it&#039;s you, Robert. But it is your board ;)</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Robert, who&#8217;s says I&#8217;m telling you what to do? People on this blog project a lot. </p>
<p>I was saying, rightly, because it&#8217;s TvbytheNUMBERS, that CSI at 17 million skews old and is NOT a demo powerhouse. CSI beating GA in the demo is still great, so I don&#8217;t know what you think I&#8217;m scoffing at? </p>
<p>Anyway, if anyone scoffs a lot, it&#8217;s you, Robert. But it is your board <img src='http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/wp-includes/images/smilies/icon_wink.gif' alt=';)' class='wp-smiley' /> </p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Robert Seidman</title>
		<link>http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/2008/10/24/ratings/6778/comment-page-3/#comment-29161</link>
		<dc:creator>Robert Seidman</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 24 Oct 2008 22:30:26 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://tvbythenumbers.com/?p=6778#comment-29161</guid>
		<description>Charles,

Smallville 4.030mm, 1.6/5,1.7/5, 4.412mm,1.8/5,2.0/6
Supernatural 3.370mm,1.4/,1.3/3, 3.131mm,1.2/3,1.1/3</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Charles,</p>
<p>Smallville 4.030mm, 1.6/5,1.7/5, 4.412mm,1.8/5,2.0/6<br />
Supernatural 3.370mm,1.4/,1.3/3, 3.131mm,1.2/3,1.1/3</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Robert Seidman</title>
		<link>http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/2008/10/24/ratings/6778/comment-page-3/#comment-29159</link>
		<dc:creator>Robert Seidman</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 24 Oct 2008 22:27:50 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://tvbythenumbers.com/?p=6778#comment-29159</guid>
		<description>Andrea, on your own blog, you can tell me what to do.  Here you can&#039;t, You *do* scoff a lot. It&#039;s not a circle jerk, it&#039;s merely an observation.

Things are down, and if House (or anything else) were still pulling 7.x&#039;s in the demo, it would be a valid comparison.  Things are down all over and that nobody can deny, but in terms of relative comparisons, CSI&#039;s performance is pretty robust.

If something needs a 7.0 to be a powerhouse, then there are no powerhouses at all anymore.   Relative to the current environment, CSI is a powerhouse...but then again, so is Grey&#039;s, or even House.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Andrea, on your own blog, you can tell me what to do.  Here you can&#8217;t, You *do* scoff a lot. It&#8217;s not a circle jerk, it&#8217;s merely an observation.</p>
<p>Things are down, and if House (or anything else) were still pulling 7.x&#8217;s in the demo, it would be a valid comparison.  Things are down all over and that nobody can deny, but in terms of relative comparisons, CSI&#8217;s performance is pretty robust.</p>
<p>If something needs a 7.0 to be a powerhouse, then there are no powerhouses at all anymore.   Relative to the current environment, CSI is a powerhouse&#8230;but then again, so is Grey&#8217;s, or even House.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Charles</title>
		<link>http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/2008/10/24/ratings/6778/comment-page-3/#comment-29158</link>
		<dc:creator>Charles</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 24 Oct 2008 22:25:29 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://tvbythenumbers.com/?p=6778#comment-29158</guid>
		<description>Do you guys have the half hour breakdowns for Smallville and/or Supernatural? I&#039;d really appreciate it. :)</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Do you guys have the half hour breakdowns for Smallville and/or Supernatural? I&#8217;d really appreciate it. <img src='http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/wp-includes/images/smilies/icon_smile.gif' alt=':)' class='wp-smiley' /> </p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Andrea</title>
		<link>http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/2008/10/24/ratings/6778/comment-page-2/#comment-29157</link>
		<dc:creator>Andrea</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 24 Oct 2008 22:20:31 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://tvbythenumbers.com/?p=6778#comment-29157</guid>
		<description>Robert,

I don&#039;t think that&#039;s what she meant. And, please,don&#039;t turn this into a circle jerk. That&#039;s annoying.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Robert,</p>
<p>I don&#8217;t think that&#8217;s what she meant. And, please,don&#8217;t turn this into a circle jerk. That&#8217;s annoying.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Andrea</title>
		<link>http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/2008/10/24/ratings/6778/comment-page-2/#comment-29156</link>
		<dc:creator>Andrea</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 24 Oct 2008 22:15:53 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://tvbythenumbers.com/?p=6778#comment-29156</guid>
		<description>Julia:

Who said I was taking anything from it? You need to take a chill pill.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Julia:</p>
<p>Who said I was taking anything from it? You need to take a chill pill.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Robert Seidman</title>
		<link>http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/2008/10/24/ratings/6778/comment-page-2/#comment-29154</link>
		<dc:creator>Robert Seidman</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 24 Oct 2008 22:08:15 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://tvbythenumbers.com/?p=6778#comment-29154</guid>
		<description>Andrea, her point is that you scoff a lot. Duh!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Andrea, her point is that you scoff a lot. Duh!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Robert Seidman</title>
		<link>http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/2008/10/24/ratings/6778/comment-page-2/#comment-29153</link>
		<dc:creator>Robert Seidman</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 24 Oct 2008 22:06:57 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://tvbythenumbers.com/?p=6778#comment-29153</guid>
		<description>Holly, the half hourly data I had for EH was 3.4 and 2.9, that comes out to 3.15.  I&#039;m guessing some sites round up, and some down.  In this case the hourly version we had rounded it up.   I was taught around fourth grade (circa 1971) that the proper way to round 3.15 is 3.2, so assuming the half hourly data is correct (and sadly I have no way to verify this) so was the 3.2. 

Via another source I saw a lot of half hourly gender/age based data (but not aggregat 18-49 to crosscheck w/the other source) and one thing is very clear. EH is *much* more popular with women than men.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Holly, the half hourly data I had for EH was 3.4 and 2.9, that comes out to 3.15.  I&#8217;m guessing some sites round up, and some down.  In this case the hourly version we had rounded it up.   I was taught around fourth grade (circa 1971) that the proper way to round 3.15 is 3.2, so assuming the half hourly data is correct (and sadly I have no way to verify this) so was the 3.2. </p>
<p>Via another source I saw a lot of half hourly gender/age based data (but not aggregat 18-49 to crosscheck w/the other source) and one thing is very clear. EH is *much* more popular with women than men.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Julia</title>
		<link>http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/2008/10/24/ratings/6778/comment-page-2/#comment-29152</link>
		<dc:creator>Julia</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 24 Oct 2008 22:05:57 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://tvbythenumbers.com/?p=6778#comment-29152</guid>
		<description>I thought my point was clear. CSI is a winner and you can&#039;t take anything away from it.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I thought my point was clear. CSI is a winner and you can&#8217;t take anything away from it.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Andrea</title>
		<link>http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/2008/10/24/ratings/6778/comment-page-2/#comment-29151</link>
		<dc:creator>Andrea</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 24 Oct 2008 22:02:13 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://tvbythenumbers.com/?p=6778#comment-29151</guid>
		<description>Julia,

And your point is?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Julia,</p>
<p>And your point is?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Holly</title>
		<link>http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/2008/10/24/ratings/6778/comment-page-2/#comment-29150</link>
		<dc:creator>Holly</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 24 Oct 2008 21:52:02 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://tvbythenumbers.com/?p=6778#comment-29150</guid>
		<description>Finals are out: Greys and CSI both gained a few viewers but remained steady in the demo. EH and LOM both lost 0.1 in the demo from these numbers (other places reported a 3.1 (not a 3.2) in the demo for EH this morning, so if they were correct, EH remained steady).</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Finals are out: Greys and CSI both gained a few viewers but remained steady in the demo. EH and LOM both lost 0.1 in the demo from these numbers (other places reported a 3.1 (not a 3.2) in the demo for EH this morning, so if they were correct, EH remained steady).</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Cool</title>
		<link>http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/2008/10/24/ratings/6778/comment-page-2/#comment-29144</link>
		<dc:creator>Cool</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 24 Oct 2008 21:06:21 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://tvbythenumbers.com/?p=6778#comment-29144</guid>
		<description>Grey&#039;s and CSI, both should go up in the finals. EH and LOM will go down because of the overruns (yes, CSI had a overrun)</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Grey&#8217;s and CSI, both should go up in the finals. EH and LOM will go down because of the overruns (yes, CSI had a overrun)</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: moonlightfan</title>
		<link>http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/2008/10/24/ratings/6778/comment-page-2/#comment-29143</link>
		<dc:creator>moonlightfan</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 24 Oct 2008 21:05:48 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://tvbythenumbers.com/?p=6778#comment-29143</guid>
		<description>Hey did anyone catch O&#039;Reily last night, apparently Nielsen is biased, filled with a set of Damn Dirty Liberals that a skewing the results in favor of MSNBC!!  :)

How do you like &#039;dem apples!

According to O&#039;Reily there is not way, no how MSNBC could be spiking soooooooo much in the ratings.

Gotta luv that man.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hey did anyone catch O&#8217;Reily last night, apparently Nielsen is biased, filled with a set of Damn Dirty Liberals that a skewing the results in favor of MSNBC!!  <img src='http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/wp-includes/images/smilies/icon_smile.gif' alt=':)' class='wp-smiley' /> </p>
<p>How do you like &#8216;dem apples!</p>
<p>According to O&#8217;Reily there is not way, no how MSNBC could be spiking soooooooo much in the ratings.</p>
<p>Gotta luv that man.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Robert Seidman</title>
		<link>http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/2008/10/24/ratings/6778/comment-page-2/#comment-29135</link>
		<dc:creator>Robert Seidman</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 24 Oct 2008 20:37:20 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://tvbythenumbers.com/?p=6778#comment-29135</guid>
		<description>LG, there&#039;s no chance of us just seeing the final two minutes of Supernatural, though I doubt it had *more* viewers than the two minutes before it (because people thought the show was over).  It was pure awesome though.

JT, I&#039;m not saying ABC didn&#039;t hurt Lost by moving it around, but best shows (subjective metric) and most viewers (objective metric) do not always correlate. There is *no* timeslot ABC could put Lost on where it would outperform the total viewers CSI is currently getting Thursdays at 9pm.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>LG, there&#8217;s no chance of us just seeing the final two minutes of Supernatural, though I doubt it had *more* viewers than the two minutes before it (because people thought the show was over).  It was pure awesome though.</p>
<p>JT, I&#8217;m not saying ABC didn&#8217;t hurt Lost by moving it around, but best shows (subjective metric) and most viewers (objective metric) do not always correlate. There is *no* timeslot ABC could put Lost on where it would outperform the total viewers CSI is currently getting Thursdays at 9pm.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: LG</title>
		<link>http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/2008/10/24/ratings/6778/comment-page-2/#comment-29134</link>
		<dc:creator>LG</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 24 Oct 2008 20:32:06 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://tvbythenumbers.com/?p=6778#comment-29134</guid>
		<description>Wow, Eleventh Hour seems to be doing well for CBS. That and the Mentalist make two freshman shows that are taking off. Can&#039;t wait til next season when CSI:Des Moines starts up. 

Anyway we could get numbers on the last 2 minutes of supernatural, cause I&#039;m thinkin Jensen might set some records with that performance. Pure Awesome.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Wow, Eleventh Hour seems to be doing well for CBS. That and the Mentalist make two freshman shows that are taking off. Can&#8217;t wait til next season when CSI:Des Moines starts up. </p>
<p>Anyway we could get numbers on the last 2 minutes of supernatural, cause I&#8217;m thinkin Jensen might set some records with that performance. Pure Awesome.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: JT</title>
		<link>http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/2008/10/24/ratings/6778/comment-page-2/#comment-29133</link>
		<dc:creator>JT</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 24 Oct 2008 20:29:03 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://tvbythenumbers.com/?p=6778#comment-29133</guid>
		<description>You all seem to have forgotten that William Peterson is leaving CSI sometime this season.  I bet that will cost it around 3 million or so viewers as it starts the final ER-esque phase of its life and becomes a revolving door for castmembers.  But I agree that Grey&#039;s will also continue to erode.  The problem with shows like Grey&#039;s in the springtime is there are just too many reruns.  If ABC were smart they&#039;d up the order to 30 episodes for their serialized shows like Grey&#039;s and Desperate Housewives.  But they won&#039;t cause they&#039;re too cheap and instead will see more viewer erosion.  Hell, it took them three years to get that right with Lost, but the compromise is it&#039;s only on half a season.  Speaking of that, when Lost returns, ABC should put it on Wednesdays at 8pm.  They never should have taken it out of the 8pm hour it had in its first season.  ABC has the best shows but they can&#039;t beat CBS.  Why?  Poor programming decisions.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>You all seem to have forgotten that William Peterson is leaving CSI sometime this season.  I bet that will cost it around 3 million or so viewers as it starts the final ER-esque phase of its life and becomes a revolving door for castmembers.  But I agree that Grey&#8217;s will also continue to erode.  The problem with shows like Grey&#8217;s in the springtime is there are just too many reruns.  If ABC were smart they&#8217;d up the order to 30 episodes for their serialized shows like Grey&#8217;s and Desperate Housewives.  But they won&#8217;t cause they&#8217;re too cheap and instead will see more viewer erosion.  Hell, it took them three years to get that right with Lost, but the compromise is it&#8217;s only on half a season.  Speaking of that, when Lost returns, ABC should put it on Wednesdays at 8pm.  They never should have taken it out of the 8pm hour it had in its first season.  ABC has the best shows but they can&#8217;t beat CBS.  Why?  Poor programming decisions.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Holly</title>
		<link>http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/2008/10/24/ratings/6778/comment-page-2/#comment-29132</link>
		<dc:creator>Holly</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 24 Oct 2008 20:28:48 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://tvbythenumbers.com/?p=6778#comment-29132</guid>
		<description>That said, CSI is still neck-and-neck for the top spot. It may have a broader appeal than House or Grey&#039;s Anatomy, but that doesn&#039;t negate its success in the demo.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>That said, CSI is still neck-and-neck for the top spot. It may have a broader appeal than House or Grey&#8217;s Anatomy, but that doesn&#8217;t negate its success in the demo.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Holly</title>
		<link>http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/2008/10/24/ratings/6778/comment-page-2/#comment-29131</link>
		<dc:creator>Holly</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 24 Oct 2008 20:26:52 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://tvbythenumbers.com/?p=6778#comment-29131</guid>
		<description>House got a 5.6 on Tuesday, so unless CSI goes up in the finals (possible), House will have the high demo. DH could meet or beat that as well (it was a 5.7 last week).</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>House got a 5.6 on Tuesday, so unless CSI goes up in the finals (possible), House will have the high demo. DH could meet or beat that as well (it was a 5.7 last week).</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Cool</title>
		<link>http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/2008/10/24/ratings/6778/comment-page-2/#comment-29129</link>
		<dc:creator>Cool</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 24 Oct 2008 20:19:35 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://tvbythenumbers.com/?p=6778#comment-29129</guid>
		<description>MMM no.. Desperate Housewives will beat CSI like it always do this Sunday.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>MMM no.. Desperate Housewives will beat CSI like it always do this Sunday.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

