'

Thursday Final Ratings: 'Saving Hope', 'Rock Center', 'Rookie Blue', 'Big Brother' & 'Time Machine Chefs' all Adjusted Down + Final NFL Preseason Numbers on FOX

Categories: '

Written By

August 17th, 2012

 

Saving Hope was adjusted down three tenths, Rock Center and Rookie Blue were adjusted down two tenths and Big Brother and Time Machine Chefs were adjusted down a single tenth among adults 18-49 versus the preliminary Thursday broadcast ratings. The Final numbers for FOX's NFL Preseason Football coverage is also below. The large volume of adjustments to CBS and NBC programming is likely due to a large volume of local market football pre-emptions.

Final broadcast primetime ratings for Thursday, August 16, 2012:

Time Net Show 18-49 rating 18-49 Share Viewers Live+SD (million)
8:00PM CBS The Big Bang Theory  -R 2.1 8 8.030
FOX NFL Preseason Football -Live 1.7 6 4.750
ABC Wipeout 1.6 6 5.220
NBC The Office -R 0.7 2 2.400
CW Oh Sit 0.3 1 0.850
tvbythenumbers.com
8:30PM CBS Two and a Half Men -R 1.8 6 6.650
NBC Parks and Recreation -R 0.7 2 1.900
tvbythenumbers.com
9:00PM CBS Big Brother -Live 2.2 7 6.130
ABC Time Machine Chefs -P 1.1 3 3.170
NBC Saving Hope 0.6 2 3.300
CW The Next -P 0.3 1 0.840
tvbythenumbers.com
10:00 PM ABC Rookie Blue 1.1 3 4.790
NBC Rock Center with Brian Williams 1.0 4 4.200
CBS Person Of Interest -R 1.0 3 4.710

-
Nielsen TV Ratings: ©2012 The Nielsen Company. All Rights Reserved.

 
  • Shelly

    So, two small markets that make up possibly 3% of all households cause ratings to drop 30% when the football game is factored out of the regularly scheduled programming that aired everywhere else in the country? Sorry, but that just doesn’t add up. I’m no conspiracy theorist, but this is exactly why I don’t trust Nielsen’s data one bit. And the fact that large corporations make advertising budget decisions based on such a small sample of data is something I find mind-boggling. But it is what it is and isn’t going to change any time soon.

  • Ash

    CW seems to create such a big buzz and download spree on the internet, but has the worst ratings ever. I don’t understand.

  • omar

    @Amanda,

    Of the 115 million US TV households, the big 4 (Fox, NBC, CBS, ABC) are available in substantially all of them. The CW is available in nearly all of them. I think the last time I asked it was 90%+ of the total US TV HHs, so at most they’re at a 10% “disadvantage” to the big 4.

    And even the most available cable networks (TNT, TBS) are in about 100 million households, so the CW is in no way “disadvantaged” towards them.

    Then why the hell doess The CW have such weak numbers? I don’t believe they are really that bad at promoting their shows. There must be something else taking their shine. Right?

  • Firass Dirani

    Poor Rookie Blue… Deserves better numbers than this.

  • justin

    @ash & omar,

    I don’t get it either. Their shows are kinda nice (not GG or Ringer) and every actor is good looking. Here where I live we see promos of their shows all the time. I don’t get these poor numbers, even for summer period.

  • Samara

    No, Rookie Blue!! :(

  • Daniel

    Guys, do Rookie Blue’s ratings here influence its lifespan on Canada?

  • omar

    @Daniel,

    I believe it doesn’t since it is an export.

  • Daniel

    Thanks, man.

  • http://tvbythenumbers.com Amanda Kondolojy

    @Omar,

    My opinion is…aliens. Though if you want a real answer I think Bill responded to your question in the morning post. :-)

  • http://tvbythenumbers.com Bill Gorman

    “So, two small markets that make up possibly 3% of all households cause ratings to drop 30% when the football game is factored out of the regularly scheduled programming that aired everywhere else in the country? Sorry, but that just doesn’t add up. I’m no conspiracy theorist, but this is exactly why I don’t trust Nielsen’s data one bit. And the fact that large corporations make advertising budget decisions based on such a small sample of data is something I find mind-boggling. But it is what it is and isn’t going to change any time soon.”

    Ah, I love the smell of ratings conspiracy theories in the morning (or afternoon). It smells like pageviews!

  • http://tvbythenumbers.com Bill Gorman

    “Guys, do Rookie Blue’s ratings here influence its lifespan on Canada?”

    Certainly it influences the price ABC is willing to pay for the episodes it airs.

    Whether the amount ABC pays is critical to the show’s renewal in Canada is anybody’s guess.

  • Oliver

    I believe Canadian networks use US network license fees to subsidise their shows. ABC and Global co-announced the renewal of Rookie Blue, while some drama (whose name I can’t remember) got axed with the lack of US licensing fees cited.

    NBC back to Earth with a bump in finals after pre-emptions, around even with the last pre-Olympic Thursday.

    TaaHM is really benefiting from the huge TBBT lead-in. That said, seems rather silly to waste such a big lead-in on such an old show. I bet Up All Night is going to get crushed.

  • Julie

    @Daniel,

    I’m in Canada and to be honest I don’t have a clue about that, lol. Ratings and the like discussed as vociferously here as they are in the States, possibly because the majority of our prime-time programming comes from the US…either purchased and usually simulcast by Canadian stations, or simply viewed on the available US stations. That’s not to say ratings aren’t important, but it’s a very different animal.

    However I would certainly think that if the Canadian show owners are getting a decent financial return from selling Rookie Blue to the US (or anywhere else), and if that country is interested in keeping the deal going, then it would have to have a postive impact on decisions about making more.

  • Julie

    I meant to say above “Ratings and the like AREN’T discussed….”
    Ooops.

  • http://tvbythenumbers.com Bill Gorman

    “I don’t get it either. Their shows are kinda nice (not GG or Ringer) and every actor is good looking. Here where I live we see promos of their shows all the time. I don’t get these poor numbers, even for summer period.”

    The fact that CW shows overall appeal does not match your expectations of their appeal surprises you?

    Do your personal preferences otherwise always match those of the general public at large?

    Or without objective data to show you otherwise, are you simply assured that they do anyway?

  • JC

    I firmly believe that CW is so late to the party (face it other networks have been around eons longer) that people forget they exist. In my city I dont even know what channel they are. It’s sad too. In my family we have gone back and found Gossip Girl and 90201 and the wife and daughter love them. (I can even sit through and half enjoy them) I think the wife even watched Ringer until it was cancelled.

    Between no exposure and the fact that the dial is so dilluted, I think some channels are forgotten about.

  • omar

    @Amanda,

    Thanks! I’ll look for it :)

  • Ultima

    @Shelly
    So, two small markets that make up possibly 3% of all households cause ratings to drop 30% when the football game is factored out of the regularly scheduled programming that aired everywhere else in the country? Sorry, but that just doesn’t add up.

    It does add up for those of us who are actually capable of applying basic math and problem solving skills.

    First, you make it sound like the drop was massive, 30%!?!?!, but if you look at the actual adjustment, it was only 0.3.

    Next, let’s assume your estimation that the Cleveland, Milwaukee and Green Bay markets make up 3% of households. That would mean that if the NFL game in those markets achieved a 10 share in 18-49, the overall national rating would be ~0.3.

    There’s the downward adjustment!

    Is a 10 share locally for an NFL preseason game unrealistic? I don’t think so. Especially considering that it’s possible those markets make up more than 3% of households, that the actual downward adjustment was closer to 0.2 (but rounded up), and that there may have been factors in other markets that contributed to a downward adjustment.

    I’m no conspiracy theorist, but this is exactly why I don’t trust Nielsen’s data one bit.

    Ignorance usually breeds mistrust.

  • Shelly

    @Ultima Wow.. was your condescending reply absolutely necessary? I don’t consider myself an ignorant person. Crunching numbers and qualitative analysis are part of the job I get paid to do, just in a different industry. I’m new to this site and trying to understand how ratings work so I commented on something that looked odd to me. Granted, I know very little about sports so perhaps I underestimated the popularity of a pre-season football game. What I do know something about is digital media and I’m fairly certain that a traffic spike in a couple of small markets would have minimal impact on our overall numbers. But perhaps TV is different. Regardless, thank you for the warm welcome to this newbie. If you’re a regular around here, you’ve pretty much ensured I won’t be back.

© 2014 Tribune Digital Ventures