Nick professes that Chuck is better than Heroes because it isn’t bleeding as much and has been consistent, and Alex says that Chuck hasn’t been bleeding as much but it has been mediocre at best.

Bottom line, I’m inclined to agree with Alex’s argument, mostly because the bottom line in ratings is still important. Consistently drawing a low rating doesn’t absolve the show from actually having that low rating and suffering the consequences that any other show with consistently low ratings would have.

Since returning in February Chuck has lost 30% of its 18-49. Heroes (as of this weeks numbers) has lost 33% of its 18-49 if however the show returns to where it was last week (and I’m not saying it will) the loss is 21% of its 18-49. Meanwhile the big 15% increase Nick touts coming out of the Super Bowl was followed by a 27% drop in Chuck’s 18-49 for the next episode.

But no Chuck is obviously doing well.

My ‘vendetta’ against the show amounts to the fact that I disagree that a show pulling 2.1 on a major network should be renewed and I find the spin that goes into renewing a 2.1 show slightly ridiculous. Any show getting Chuck’s numbers would get the same reaction from me.

If they kill a major character within 15 minutes without all the drama, just bang, then it would have my attention.

This is why Robert closed the comments on the Fedak story you know, because of *this* nonsense.

Once again you’re argument is that Chuck is doing well because Heroes is doing badly, whilst my argument is that Chuck is doing badly because Chuck is doing badly. The only way you’re able to spin Chuck’s numbers into anything close to a positive is by pointing at the sinking ship and saying ‘well at least it isn’t that’ as if somehow that makes Chuck’s performance better. It doesn’t.

The fact that Chuck is maintaining a number below what Heroes is scoring doesn’t make its performance any better. A 2.1 is still a 2.1 whether you maintain it for every episode you air or not and under no circumstance is scoring a 2.1 a cause for celebration or a pat on the back. As I said previously this is the kind of backwards logic (that was openly laughed at) that brought about the ‘consistency metre’ at another site, which was used to proclaim success for Dollhouse. Consistently scoring low numbers isn’t a good thing, its consistently doing a bad thing.

Obviously your retort for this will be what its been for half of this argument – but at least its not Heroes, which is irrational to the nth degree because I’m not claiming that Heroes is in a better position (beyond the fact that NBC have committed publicly to picking it up, which they haven’t done for Chuck). The people on the ship that’s sunk don’t point at a ship that’s sinking to make themselves feel better. It makes no sense.

More to the point you’re argument becomes even more muddled and confused because you can’t decide why it is that Chuck did well. Originally it did well because it maintained a 2.1 up against the NCAA. Then when it was pointed out that House grew against the NCAA your point changed to – well that doesn’t matter, the performance of another show in its timeslot on another network doesn’t matter and besides the majority of the country weren’t watching the NCAA when House was on the air. You can’t have this both ways Nick, you can’t argue that the majority of the country weren’t watching NCAA when Chuck was on the air but at the same time say it did well to hold up against NCAA. It doesn’t make sense. But that doesn’t matter now because your point has changed again. Now Chuck did well because Heroes did badly.

On the plus side I’m pleased to discover that Life is doing well because that’s maintained a consistent number below Heroes and apparently that’s a sign of success on NBC. Go Life! And now the deal to bring FNL back makes perfect sense, sure the numbers are low but they’ve been consistently low!

And once again on the subject of the ‘magical all conquering Super Bowl increase’ spin the number percentage wise all you want I really don’t care because when you look at the real numbers Chuck increase by four tenths in the demo. FOUR TENTHS. That’s that magical all powerful didn’t it do well Super Bowl increase you’re touting. House meanwhile increased House meanwhile increased by five tenths from half hour to half hour. Chuck’s Super Bowl increase is only impressive in percentage form because the numbers were so low to begin with and however you try and spin it I’m never going to jump aboard the ‘wow wasn’t that four tenths increase incredible’ train.

Also here’s something to look into – the traditional 8% rise for Super Bowl promotion, what kind of demo points has that translated to in the past? More or less than four tenths.

Oh and Nick please don’t tell me to get some ‘reading comprehension skills’ when you’ve consistently failed to address any of the points I’ve actually brought up, such as Chuck’s all conquering Super Bowl increase actually being four tenths. And don’t assume that because someone disagrees with you and points out the complete inconsistency of everything you’ve said here they just can’t comprehend the point you’re making. Not that I’m surprised you’d make it, its just more of the ‘I’ve always been proved right’, ‘you’re irrational’, ‘you have no understanding of the business’ and ‘you’re blind’ defences. Rather than actually discussing the numbers you just fire off insults.

I guess someone could get tired of the Chuck/Sarah thing continually stopping and starting.

But what is it? Do people see it as too repetitive? Too quirky? Maybe they think it is more comic booky than it really is? I am at a loss. With shows I have liked in the past that are low rated, I can see why they might not get super high ratings…but this one seems like a sure thing (to at least be a marginal hit).

Again you ignore facts to spin this in your favor.

The only difference between Chuck and Heroes is that Heroes has been dropping all season, and Chuck has only been dropping since February. So yeah if you compare season to date erosion Heroes looks worse… however that doesn’t mean that Chuck hasn’t dropped too…and it HAS.

Like I said, if you compare both of their performances since February, the amount of drop is a lot closer than if you look at all season long.

Not as much and not for as long. But Chuck has most certainly dropped.

Wishing it’s not true doesn’t make it so.

I could post the deficits for HEROES because I have seen them. I haven’t seen data on CHUCK though. I just know CHUCK is in the black, and HEROES is very much in the red, and DVD won’t save it.

HEROES will be back with probably a 50% budget cut and a shorter episode order. That or it won’t be brought back at all. That is still a possibility.

HEROES was a 5.0, now a 2.6 and it wasn’t instant. It has slowly eroded to the 2.6 number. CHUCK started at 2.6 and now is at 2.1, the drop was practically instant when HOUSE and DWTS aired opposite it.

Are you really so obtuse that you can’t see the difference?

And here I thought it was a game to try and keep fan favorites like Dollhouse and Chuck on the air.

Using your logic, The Bachelor is a better show than Chuck, or 30 Rock, or random other assorted critical darlings. Numbers don’t make a show “good” or “bad”, that’s pretty subjective. Just because people don’t watch a show doesn’t mean it’s not good. Using your logic, Beverly Hills Chihuahua was a good movie, simply because a lot of people went to see it.

You are quite entertaining sir, but your ability to spin numbers is beyond anything I’ve ever seen except for…

Wait, wait, wait… you don’t happen to write weekly press releases for nbc do you? Nevermind…

Anyway, your “definition” of bleeding viewers does not even fit Heroes because there are certain weeks where it is up a tad from the week before, thus destroying your “losing viewers on a week in week out non-stop constant” clause. (Side note: what is a “non-stop constant”? I’m fairly sure those words put together don’t mean anything. Sounds technical, though.)

Nice try at attempting to spin numbers and definitions to fit your exact example.

Do you spend a lot of time on Marc Berman’s website?

Whatever, its coming back. The order will be for 18-20 episodes. You also failed to mention that Chuck had a season high (3.0 demo) the day after the Super Bowl. Now its back to a 2.1 demo. Obviously people don’t like the show that watched it.

NICK C:
“RJ, actually I do. I’m not going to put that up on here. ”
I also have the data that Dollhouse, Do Not Disturb, and 13 Fear is Real are all coming back, but I’m not posting that.

Also, no HEROES has still yet to be renewed. No contract has been done yet. All that was said was they plan on bringing it back. In fact it has already been decided it WILL NOT BE BACK NEXT FALL. It’s coming back in the Winter or Spring with a smaller than normal episode order. That order is just going to get smaller and smaller.

From a business standpoint, I think it’s a bad choice. There is no evidence the show could rebound. Bryan Fuller is even trying hard to get out and do a show on the CW based on STAR TREK.

HEROES started off the season with a 5.0 in the demo. It’s now at 2.6.
CHUCK started off the season with a 2.6. It’s now at 2.1.

Which is bleeding viewers?

CHUCK is doing well for NBC not because it had mediocre numbers at the start of the season, but because it has mediocre numbers right now. NBC has seen a huge drop in the demo all around. 30 ROCK isn’t pulling the demo numbers it was earlier. MEDIUM and LAW & ORDER aren’t pulling the numbers they were. CHUCK has dropped but it has been consistent with the rest of the network.

NBC sucks. CHUCK however is one of it’s strongest candidates for possible success next season during another time slot. Plus the show is profitable.

This is a business.

First tell me how a Sweet 16 game is the NCAA Final. Please, enlighten me. The NCAA Final is a demo killer normally, it had an extremely weak performance last night due to lack of competition in the game. It was over before the first TV time out. That isn’t an exaggeration either. The Sweet 16 games generally only hurt male targeted demo shows. If you had experience in the industry you’d know that. The Final for what ever reason has a broader audience. Certainly you knew that already.

The only shows not hurt by the Final were aired on FOX. Even Uni saw a loss.

My final numbers on HOUSE say it got a 4.7, and last week it had a 4.7. Final numbers on CHUCK were a 2.1 and last week was a 2.1.

Your incredibly inane fascination with HOUSE has nothing to do with CHUCK and NBC. Did CHUCK retain its audience from last week? YES. Did the other Monday Night shows drop in the demo from last week? YES. Does that mean that CHUCK is likely to stay up in the renew/cancel index? YES.

All that matters is comparing CHUCK to NBC. Period. They aren’t going to cancel the show because it can’t beat HOUSE. They’re going to keep CHUCK based on how NBC is doing. NBC shows have been bleeding out, and CHUCK hasn’t. CHUCK saw a hit from facing HOUSE, but it has held steady. Meanwhile other shows continue to bleed out. It’s not rocket science.

I compare CHUCK to HEROES only because of 128boys’ fanboy fantasies. In my mind HEROES is death itself for the network. Renewing that dying show is incredibly dumb.

Lets talk about dumb. It’s dumb to talk about HOUSE last night in comparison to whether or not a SUPER BOWL promo worked. All that matters is DID IT WORK?!? You seem to not care about history. The fact that historically the boost is 8% and CHUCK did better seems to not mean anything to you. That is ALL that matters. The promo and 3D gimmick worked.

Is CHUCK bleeding viewers? I don’t see any statistical evidence to make me believe that. Has CHUCK lost viewers due to HOUSE? Yes. If HOUSE switched spots with TSCC would CHUCK likely pull back to its 2.6? I think so. If 24 switched with PRISON BREAK would HEROES jump back to a 4.0? I don’t think so.

You can try and twist the numbers, but it’s a FACT. CHUCK did well. It had its lowest promotional budget of the season and stayed firm. Other NBC shows dropped (thus likely dropping the demo averages for the network). There is solid statistical evidence that CHUCK could pull a 2.6 (well above average on the network) in the right time slot. So yeah, it’s doing good. It has a chance of renewal and being moved to another night.

If it had aired literally right after the superbowl, like the Office, then yeah, you would have to take it out. But the show was just promoted during the superbowl and aired the next day. Should we discount all heavily promoted episodes of all series? Should we take out premieres?

That’s another double standard I see a lot on here. People want to point to the 3D episode as what Chuck could do “if it was promoted right”, but when the shoe is on the other foot, they don’t want to compare Chuck’s current ratings to that episode.

Sorry people, you can’t have your cake and eat it too.

“Chuck is doing badly because Chuck is doing badly.”

Beautifully put.

I mean honestly, it is barely BARELY, doing ok for nbc. NBC for crying out loud! And the only reason that all hope is not lost, are the severely mediocre numbers it got in the fall, before the ratings went down..

Strawman argument Nick.

Firstly I wasn’t (and haven’t) commented on Chuck’s profitability neither were you – you’re arguing that Chuck scoring a 2.1 is a good thing and that Chuck bottoming out at a 2.1 is a good thing and neither of those is true. Do I have a hard time believing that Chuck brings home more bottom line than Heroes does right now? Not really. But am I advocating that Heroes is in a strong position? No.

You’re argument is that Chuck is doing well because Heroes is doing badly.

My argument is that Chuck is doing badly because Chuck is doing badly.

When you have to point to the sinking ship to make yourself feel better something is going wrong.

“In my world HEROES has already been canned for the Fall for a show called DAY ONE. In my world HEROES is being renewed for the Spring and for a less than full season order”

That’s weird because in my world the show that you say is ‘doing well’ Chuck hasn’t been renewed at all (yet). Has no episode orders for anywhere on the schedule (yet). And is being discussed as a show that’s possibly getting axed. If you want to measure success on a Chuck vs. Heroes scales Heroes is winning right now but again that’s not the argument anyone else has made.

I think you have discount that super bowl-fueled episode. Chuck averaged somewhere between a 2.4-2.5 in the 18-49 demos before its hiatus. In reality, Chuck lost more like 0.3 of its demo.

“In my world CHUCK hasn’t bled viewers”.

In my world, nick, Chuck has lost 0.9 demo (roughly one-third of it’s audience) since early February.

Sorry dude, you have lost credibility with a statement like that.

Although it’s dropping, next week now that the big game is out of the way Heroes can rise a little in viewers and in the 18-49 rating.
And by the way, Heroes & Chuck were awesome last night!! It’s good to see Heroes in a better place than it was in Villians. Lets hope they don’t screw it up.

Incorrect.

Last weeks House scored a 4.7 this weeks House scored a 5.0 that is quite clearly an increase upon its audience not a retention of it. More over this is also the best performance House has posted in sometime.

“Like CHUCK, HOUSE didn’t go up against the Final in the majority of the country.”

And yet earlier you were proclaiming how well Chuck performed because of the NCAA final – if the majority of the country weren’t watching the NCAA final when Chuck was on how exactly was its performance good? Some consistency on this point would be nice Nick, you can’t claim good because it retained its audience against the NCAA final and then write-off House’s numbers because the majority of the country weren’t watching the NCAA final when it was on.

“CHUCK went from a 2.6 to a 3.0 with the SUPER BOWL advertisement. A 15% increase. The AVERAGE over the last 20+ years of a show promoted during the SUPER BOWL is an 8% increase. So explain again how that wasn’t a success?”

As predicted you’ve rolled out the percentage spin of course I have already explained (and in this discussion) why Chuck’s Super Bowl increase wasn’t impressive however since you obviously skipped over that I’ll do it again.

The 15% increase you’re touting translates to four tenths of a demo point. Four tenths. To put that into perspective beyond the Heroes comparison I already posted let me point out that House during its 60 minute run time last night posted larger real term increases than Chuck did after the Super Bowl. It went up by more than a million viewers form half hour to half hour and produced bigger jumps in both demos than Chuck managed to produce for its Super Bowl promoted episode. That’s part of why Chuck’s Super Bowl increase isn’t impressive and didn‘t work. A show grew more during its run time last night without being promoted to more than 90 million people that Chuck did when it was promoted to more than 90 million people.

Part two would be that it went from a 3.0 to a 2.2 – a one week increase is meaningless. If you can’t hold onto the audience then how was it successful? You’ve made much of Hero bleeding viewers and yet glossed over the fact and excused the fact that Chuck went from a 3.0 to a 2.2. That isn’t bleeding viewers? That isn’t a drop to raise eyebrows at? No you’re right lets celebrate it bottoming out at a 2.1.

“The facts are that CHUCK did well last night under its circumstances. Any rational person with an understanding of the business would agree. Since you can’t see that, you’re either blind or irrational. I’m guessing you’re irrational.”

Why does this line of attack not surprise me? When ever anyone disagrees with something you post here Nick you roll this attack out – you’re irrational, blind, don’t understand the business and I’ve always been proven right.

The problem here Nick is that it is completely irrational to proclaim that Chuck bottoming out at a 2.1 is a good thing and that it somehow did well by retaining a 2.1 rating. The number wasn’t good last week, it isn’t good this week and it won’t be good next week the circumstances surrounding it really don’t matter at this point. And it is even more irrational to proclaim that Chuck is somehow doing well for maintaining a stable rating BELOW the ratings of another show. Where is the rational thought process there? That’s the same logic that brought about the ‘consistency metre’ someone used to proclaim that Dollhouse was doing well.

Your argument only becomes more irrational when you can’t decide whether the NCAA tournament really effects the 8PM hour or not.

“Your slide remark about Friday Nights on Fox is silly. It just shows what a poor irrational person you are. You must be upset for being called out for being irrational. Tough. Rational people would realize that some shows are targeted at the same demo, and that the NCAA Tourney may affect a show aimed at young men, where as a show aimed at old ladies wouldn’t be affected.”

So your ‘rational’ argument is that the NCAA tournament ‘steals’ young male viewers? So by extension your ‘rational’ argument is that 24 and House aren’t watched by young men but Dancing With The Stars is? That must be your argument since House and 24 both posted gains against NCAA last night but Dancing With The Stars dropped. And earlier on the NCAA was a ‘demo killer’ now it just steals young male viewers?

I love that you’re trying to paint me as the irrational one here Nick.

All things being considered, I still think Chuck will come back for 13 episodes on a new night.

As for the CBS comedies, they did just amazing with repeats. Both shows will be a huge syndication goldmine. I wonder if Chuck had come right back from the strike, would BBT and HIMYM be doing so well today? Chuck and the CBS comedies were neck and neck before the strike and HIMYM was preparing for a series finale.

HEROES is still bleeding viewers, and when it’s all said and done it could drop below CHUCK. CHUCK on the other hand is steady. HOUSE obviously hurt the show (just as 24 has hurt HEROES).

When you consider the two shows you have to remember that the show with a .5 lead in the demos costs over 3 times as much as the other show.

If you or Alex want to enter into my world of reality, I have no problem discussing the numbers. Alex keeps pouting that CHUCK is doing poorly, when in reality it’s holding up well for NBC. CHUCK still receives a 1.0 on the index here for renewal/cancel. Which means the show is holding up and doing well… just for NBC. Last night it had some rather special circumstances. It was up against the NCAA Final on the West Coast, and it had to deal with its lowest budget for promotion of the entire season. Under those circumstances CHUCK did extremely well. We’ll see how it does next week when it gets promoted this week during SOUTHLAND.

I think it’s safe to say CHUCK would likely be pulling its 2.6 number if HOUSE wasn’t up against it. I can’t safely say that for HEROES about 24 (pulling in its old numbers). Why? Because HEROES was bleeding viewers long before 24 went up against it. CHUCK on the other hand was steady.

Who cares if Alex likes the show, dislikes the show, watches the show, or has never seen one single minute of it.

Last time I checked, you don’t have to watch a show to see what it’s ratings are.

From the handful of episodes I’ve seen, I personally think Chuck is O.K. Not great, but ok.

I also can see that the numbers are not healthy. And you, me, Alex, or anyone can comment on it regardless of our watching the show or not, or loving the show or hating it.