Bubble Watch: Why 'Last Man Standing' Is Still On The Bubble & 'Beauty and the Beast' Is Likely to Be Canceled + Format Change

Categories: Bubble Watch

Written By

March 17th, 2013

last-man-standing-jonathan-taylor-thomas

When it comes to bubble status, like the Renew/Cancel Index we're focusing on the likelihood that a show will be renewed **for next season** (2013-14).  Certain shows are toss-ups where based on the ratings, the renewal decisions could go either way and not be surprising.

Here, “canceled” is used interchangeably with “won’t be renewed for next season” and is not meant to imply a show will be yanked off the schedule in the current season though obviously the two outcomes are not mutually exclusive. The semantics police and lawyers should feel free to break out the handcuffs and plead their cases in the comments. 

This Isn't The Renew/Cancel Index

Though the basic methodology is the same (intra-network relative ranking of shows by adults 18-49 ),unlike the Renew/Cancel Index which predicts what would happen if the season ended now, Bubble Watch prognosticates about what will happen by May. The two are still usually closely aligned, and almost certainly very closely aligned towards the end of the season.

Beauty And The Beast & The Carrie Diaries

I’ve downgraded Beauty And The Beast to likely cancellation. I’ve left The Carrie Diaries on the bubble, but it’s by the slimmest of margins and I was tempted to downgrade it too. I understand Bill’s and others' thinking that if you’re not sure the CW would cancel both of those shows (or even either of them) due to need for shows on next season’s schedule, that relative to each other which one stays and which one goes definitely seems like a tossup. But while lead-in and retention are rarely a predictive factor in renewals, I think they matter in this case and in ways that aren't favorable at all for Beauty And The Beast.

It's true that The Carrie Diaries gets the lead-in from CW affiliates syndicated programming, but that's not been nearly as good as the cover The Vampire Diaries provides Beauty And The Beast. And while with the better lead-in Beauty And The Beast has recently outperformed The Carrie Diaries with adults 18-49, with the women 18-34 both shows presumably target, The Carrie Diaries is ahead in recent episodes.

I’m pretty sure CW will cancel one of the two. I’m not as certain that they will cancel both, but I still don't love the chances for either show, I just like The Carrie Diaries a teeny tiny bit more. Even with the lament "but The Carrie Diaries doesn't have to Face Off against Grey's Anatomy and Beauty and the Beast does!" I still like Carrie's prospects just a bit better.

At this point it doesn't seem likely that I'll upgrade Beauty and the Beast before the season ends, but the chances I'll downgrade The Carrie Diaries to likely cancellation remain high.

Last Man Standing & Malibu Country

Along with many readers, Bill made a compelling case for upgrading Last Man Standing to likely renewal. I won’t be surprised by that outcome, but in a world where success possibly equals doing worse than reruns of Shark Tank, and no recent history on ABC to use as a guideline (or recent history* with any Friday 30 minute sitcoms being renewed on  any broadcast network) I still shrug my shoulders and think “I don’t know.” So I went the other way on this one, I left Last Man Standing on the bubble and downgraded the noticeably worse performer Malibu Country to likely cancellation.

*If you think “Family Matters, Boy Meets World and others thrived on Friday!” counts as  recent history I am defining “recent” much differently than you!

New Format

Shortly after posting last week’s Bubble Watch, I changed the table format to get rid of the distinction between likely and certain. For now, I’m sticking with the approach, though I have (hopefully) improved some of the terminology to be less confusing than what I used last week.  Gone are the “likely” and “certain” distinctions. All that remains are “renewed” and “canceled” predictions.  I still have grouped the shows that have already been canceled or renewed separately and have attempted to label things in such a way that it’s quite clear what’s already been decided and what are predictions. Update: I have changed the table to improve readability further based on a suggestion from commenter JulieDawn.

The new presentation format doesn't mean all the renewal predictions are as likely as each other, or all the cancellation predictions. Of course I don't think The Neighbors' chances* are as good as Modern Family's. Same for Red Widow (a certain cancellation) and Malibu Country (a likely cancellation). Both appear the same on the table with a "canceled" prediction, but I don't view their prospects the same. But I still think Modern Family & The Neighbors will be renewed and that Red Widow and Malibu Country will be canceled so despite levels of likelihood, I don't think the distinctions matter much as far as the table goes. We'll see.

*"The Neighbors barely did better on a Wednesday than Last Man Standing did on Friday, how can you not upgrade Last Man Standing!? At least you should downgrade The Neighbors!!!" If you're one of those people, let's just say that when ABC airs 5 programs on a Wednesday and four of them are repeats with THE NEIGHBORS being the only one that isn't, I don't make too much of the ratings.

Note: only scripted shows that have aired at least one episode this season are in the table below.

Show Network Status
666 Park Avenue ABC Canceled
Don't Trust The B---- in Apartment 23 ABC Canceled
Last Resort ABC Canceled
Private Practice ABC Final Season Finished
Zero Hour ABC Canceled
Made In Jersey CBS Canceled
Partners CBS Canceled
90210 CW Canceled/Final Season
Emily Owens, M.D. CW Canceled
Gossip Girl CW Final Season Finished
Ben And Kate Fox Canceled
Fringe Fox Final Season Finished
The Mob Doctor Fox Canceled
30 Rock NBC Final Season Finished
Animal Practice NBC Canceled
Do No Harm NBC Canceled
Office, The NBC Final Season
tvbythenumbers.com
Big Bang Theory, The CBS Renewed
How I Met Your Mother CBS Renewed
NCIS CBS Renewed
Arrow CW Renewed
Supernatural CW Renewed
Vampire Diaries, The CW Renewed
American Dad Fox Renewed
Bob's Burgers Fox Renewed
Bones Fox Renewed
Family Guy Fox Renewed
Following, The Fox Renewed
Mindy Project, The Fox Renewed
New Girl Fox Renewed
Raising Hope Fox Renewed
The Simpsons Fox Renewed
tvbythenumbers.com
Malibu Country ABC Cancellation Predicted
Red Widow ABC Cancellation Predicted
Body Of Proof ABC Cancellation Predicted
Happy Endings ABC Cancellation Predicted
CSI: NY CBS Cancellation Predicted
Golden Boy CBS Cancellation Predicted
Vegas CBS Cancellation Predicted
Beauty and the Beast CW Cancellation Predicted
Cult CW Cancellation Predicted
Touch Fox Cancellation Predicted
Cleveland Show, The Fox Cancellation Predicted
1600 Penn NBC Cancellation Predicted
Guys With Kids NBC Cancellation Predicted
Up All Night NBC Cancellation Predicted
Deception NBC Cancellation Predicted
The New Normal NBC Cancellation Predicted
Smash NBC Whoops, should've been moved to canceled
tvbythenumbers.com
Last Man Standing ABC On The Bubble
Good Wife, The CBS On The Bubble
Mentalist, The CBS On The Bubble
Rules of Engagement CBS On The Bubble
Carrie Diaries, The CW On The Bubble
Community NBC On The Bubble
Go On NBC On The Bubble
Whitney NBC On The Bubble
tvbythenumbers.com
Castle ABC Renewal Predicted
Neighbors, The ABC Renewal Predicted
Revenge ABC Renewal Predicted
Suburgatory ABC Renewal Predicted
Grey's Anatomy ABC Renewal Predicted
Middle, The ABC Renewal Predicted
Modern Family ABC Renewal Predicted
Nashville ABC Renewal Predicted
Once Upon A Time ABC Renewal Predicted
Scandal ABC Renewal Predicted
Elementary CBS Renewal Predicted
Hawaii Five-0 CBS Renewal Predicted
2 Broke Girls CBS Renewal Predicted
Blue Bloods CBS Renewal Predicted
Criminal Minds CBS Renewal Predicted
CSI CBS Renewal Predicted
Mike & Molly CBS Renewal Predicted
NCIS: Los Angeles CBS Renewal Predicted
Person Of Interest CBS Renewal Predicted
Two and a Half Men CBS Renewal Predicted
Hart Of Dixie CW Renewal Predicted
Nikita CW Renewal Predicted
Glee Fox Renewal Predicted
Law & Order: SVU NBC Renewal Predicted
Parks & Recreation NBC Renewal Predicted
Chicago Fire NBC Renewal Predicted
Grimm NBC Renewal Predicted
Parenthood NBC Renewal Predicted
Revolution NBC Renewal Predicted

--

 
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
  • Adrian Havill

    To Holly: Except TGW has been “on the bubble” I believe, for three years running and each year it is renewed. My first and last name is revealed for real and that is my real name. Google it or look up my Wikipedia entry. I have actually hosted CBS shows (48 Hours), have friends there, and, yes, I do know what I’m commenting on.

  • Immaculate

    In other words, nothing has changed, but you’ve simply reinforced the lame retentionist argument of last week and simply downgraded it for the heck of it. Forget ratings differences between TCD and BatB, possible thematic shifts in network programming (to more sci-fi based drama), considerable differences in overseas sales which is understandable since you don’t have access to the numbers, and other debatable factors, but only focus on the retention of the lead in which has done nothing for the past three shows that preceded it on this network. Excuse me if I roll my eyes.

  • Ultima

    @Richard Steven Hack
    Assume a show gets a 1.0 rating one week and a 1.1 rating the next week.

    The total number of viewers for this season is 126,540,000.

    A 1.0 equal 1,265,000 viewers.
    A 1.1 rating equals 1,392,000 viewers

    Add those two numbers of viewers and you get 2,657,000 viewers.

    Divide by 2 – the number of sample points – and you get 1,328,500.

    Do you understand the concept of ROUNDED NUMBERS?

    A 1.0 rating is not exactly 1.265 million A18-49 viewers.

    Any value between 1.202 million and 1.328 million A18-49 viewers will result in a 1.0 rating.

    ~~~

    Because you obviously have no idea, I will explain to you how ratings are calculated. Last week, based on the “Broadcast Top 25,” Two and a Half Men averaged 4.954 million A18-49 viewers. There are 126.5 million A18-49 viewers total.

    4.954 / 126.5 = 0.03916

    Ratings are represented as a percentage value, rounded to the nearest tenth, so 0.03916 becomes a 3.9 rating.

    Using your logic from before, you could just multiple 3.9 by 1.265 to get the number of viewers in the demo… 4.9335 million. Wait, that number is different than the actual value of 4.954 million. Why? Because the extra detail was rounded away when it was converted to a rating.

    This guy actually ASKED the network execs what they thought the margin of error was and whether it was important.

    Completely different. That was about the margin of error in Nielsen ratings as a result of imperfect sampling, etc. I was talking about margin of error as a result of rounding numbers.

  • Ultima

    @Adrian Havell
    Except TGW has been “on the bubble” I believe, for three years running and each year it is renewed.

    First off, I don’t think you even know what “on the bubble” means. It doesn’t mean canceled. It means it could go either way. Approximately 50% of bubble shows are renewed every season…

    Second, The Good Wife hasn’t always been a bubble show. In its first season, it was a lock for renewal. It was around 90% of the network’s scripted average and it was significnatly outperforming the next highest rated drama.

    I think if The Good Wife had been a perennial “likely cancellation” and kept getting renewed, you might have a point. However, The Good Wife has never been a likely cancellation.

  • Grey

    Hey, all the shows I care about are in the “renewed” or “renewal predicted” groups so if the networks are on the same page as this, I’m a happy camper. :D

  • Richard Steven Hack

    Ultima: “Because you obviously have no idea, I will explain to you how ratings are calculated.”

    Oh, really…

    “Last week, based on the “Broadcast Top 25,””

    Which in turn is based on the Nielsen reports which count REPEATS! Might THAT have something to do with your little exercise below?

    “Two and a Half Men averaged 4.954 million A18-49 viewers. There are 126.5 million A18-49 viewers total.”

    Which I note you’ve rounded off, rather than use the ACTUAL number which is 126,540,000 (which itself is presumably rounded off to the fifth place.) Nice way to manipulate your figures to back up your argument – by not using the same degree of precision for both numbers. That alone makes you a fool who shouldn’t be lecturing people on math.

    “4.954 / 126.5 = 0.03916″

    And 4.954 / 126,540,000 = 0.39149 which rounds to .03915. Also a “difference that makes no difference” – like the rest of your argument.

    “Ratings are represented as a percentage value, rounded to the nearest tenth, so 0.03916 becomes a 3.9 rating.”

    Sigh…obviously…

    “Using your logic from before, you could just multiple 3.9 by 1.265 to get the number of viewers in the demo… 4.9335 million. Wait, that number is different than the actual value of 4.954 million. Why? Because the extra detail was rounded away when it was converted to a rating.”

    Sigh…obviously…

    Which changes nothing… The difference between those two numbers is 20,000 viewers. Oh, wait, a HORRENDOUS DIFFERENCE! 4%! I’m shocked, SHOCKED to be off by so MUCH! :-)

    Since we’re supposed to be talking about taking the average of the RATINGS PERCENTAGES, which we all know are already rounded off, that difference isn’t even relevant.

    In reality, my point was that the ratings percentages come out the same whether you go by actual viewer numbers or ratings percentages. The rounding error is insignificant. What matters is that the season average can be calculated by taking the average of the ratings percentages. The season average is a valid – if not precise – measurement of two shows relative performance. Which is exactly what the industry says and which you seem to be trying to deny.

    “I was talking about margin of error as a result of rounding numbers.”

    Everyone KNOWS a degree of error is introduced by rounding. Your math 101 lesson is completely irrelevant. The end result of the average, as I proved, is the SAME NUMBER; whether you take number of viewers – the “raw data” as you kept harping on in your previous post – or the ratings themselves, season average STILL is a valid number.

    YOU are the one who doesn’t have a clue. You’re babbling about rounding errors as if the industry could care – which it clearly doesn’t. And neither does anyone else here.

    Give it up. I don’t why you’re harping on this nonsense to try to prove a season average doesn’t exist, but you’re completely wrong.

    If you’re trying to prove that there’s no distinction between a .49 and .64 due to rounding errors – which I believe was your initial point – once again the industry has said it doesn’t care. “The number is the number.”

    And the same applies here. A .64 is higher than a .49 regardless of how it’s computed.

    Even if it were mathematically PROVEN that the numbers are essentially the same due to rounding errors, that’s not how the NETWORK is going to see it.

    So the entire issue is moot.

  • SecretShame

    At this point I find it difficult to see reasons why TCD would be renewed. It’s been getting .4s for weeks now, and it’s less than half way through a season. To put it in stark terms, that means that it barely has an edge in demo terms on simply running repeats.

    The CW could get those numbers with an unscripted filler hour. They will probably get at least that for even an unsuccessful new scripted show in its first half season. They could very slightly less dismal numbers for BATB.

    Syndication is simply not going to happen. It might or might not be cheaper than BATB, but it’s not going to be significantly so. It’s certainly not cheaper than unscripted fare or repeats.

    There’s a strong case that announcing a starting schedule with an hour of repeats would be unpalatable. There’s also a case that immediately launching four new shows would be a big risk, given the stark examples of Cult and EOMD. There’s a possibility that it has a cost edge on BATB, although I’m skeptical. But what advantage does it have over an unscripted show? An awful lot of unclear things would have to fall in its favour for it even to be a real option.

    BATB’s slight rating advantage gives it a shot, albeit a rather slight one. It’s just about conceivable that the CW might think that it’s a safer bet than a fourth new scripted hour. It’s problem on that score is the existence of HoD, which is perhaps the most predictable ratings performer on network TV: It gets .5 to .7, always. HoD is as safe a bet as you could find for a low rated show and it has the syndication advantage.

  • Karen Pac

    No no no I don’t like that at all!!! I want to see Malibu Country renewed!!!! I love that show!! I still think for a Friday night, little publicity, and some pre emptions on the east coast for storms and Sandy Hook, it still did well. Plus it has a great cast and is a fun show! Malibu Country must stay! I really hope ABC doesn’t let me down!

  • SecretShame

    To put it another way:

    Notorious syndication zombie Nikita got the same ratings this week as TCD. On Friday.

  • Ultima

    @RSH
    In reality, my point was that the ratings percentages come out the same whether you go by actual viewer numbers or ratings percentages.

    That’s becasue you started off with an incorrect assumption to try and prove your point.

    Here’s what you used as an example.

    A 1.0 equal 1,265,000 viewers.
    A 1.1 rating equals 1,392,000 viewers

    That is NOT correct. A 1.0 rating represents all viewrship totals in the range (1.202 million, 1.328 million). A 1.1 rating represents all viewership totals in the range (1.328 million, 1.455 million).

    Add those two numbers of viewers and you get 2,657,000 viewers

    No, you get the range (2.530 million, 2.783 million).

    Divide by 2 – the number of sample points – and you get 1,328,500.

    No, you get the range (1.265 million, 1.391 million).

    Divide that number by the total number of viewers for the season, and you get 1.05 percent of the total.

    No, you get a rating somewhere between 1.00 and 1.10.

    Now add the ratings percentages together – 1.0 and 1.1 – and divide by 2.

    You get the same result: 1.05 – which is the average percentage of the ratings.

    No, you don’t. The average of 1.00 and 1.10 is 1.05, but those are not the numbers that you have – you cannot just make up significant figures. The average of 1.0 and 1.1 is either 1.0 or 1.1 (with equal probability).

    And yes, in the case of Two and a Half Men, which has a relatively high rating, the error is very small. In fact, the error is +/- ~1.3%. Insignificnat. However, for a show with a 0.5 rating, the error is 10%. That’s not insignificant.

    Which in turn is based on the Nielsen reports which count REPEATS!

    What are you talking about? The “Broadcast Top 25″ is the top 25 single airings for the week…

    If you’re trying to prove that there’s no distinction between a .49 and .64 due to rounding errors

    No, I’m saying that you are making those numbers up. The actual values are the ranges (0.44, 0.54) and (0.59, 0.69). Yes, one is greater than the other, but you said one was WAY above the other. The actual difference is anywhere between 9% and 57%. Surely, you can see the difference there.

    Even if it were mathematically PROVEN that the numbers are essentially the same due to rounding errors, that’s not how the NETWORK is going to see it.

    No, the network sees the actual C+3 values. That’s the point.

    They might be the same, or one might be WAY bigger than the other. You don’t know. The numbers are close enough that you should simply assume that they are virtually the same without additional information to the contrary.

  • Ultima

    @RSH
    And I don’t even know WHY you’re still talking about VIEWERS

    Because the A18-49 viewership number is much more precise than the A18-49 rating.

    A 1.0 A18-49 rating has a rounding error of 5%.

    An A18-49 viewership value of 1.265 has a rounding error of 0.04%.

  • Ultima

    * 1.265 million (or 1265 thousands as it is typically represented)

  • Ultima

    @RSH
    except your lame notion that because the ratings come from “raw data”, i.e., viewers, a season average doesn’t mean anything. Which is obviously not true or no one would bother to compute them.

    No, I’m saying that the way you are calculating them is very error prone with small numbers.

    The correct way to calculate a season average is to take the average of the A18-49 viewership totals (in thousands would suffice), and then convert that value into a rating. That would give you an accurate value with a very small amount of error.

    If you simply try to average a bunch of numbers that already have a significant amount of error, then you’ll still have a significant amount of error in the final result and you have to take that into consideration.

  • Rebecca

    I like the table, especially with the “predicted” words added – and I see that it’s alphabetical by network but maybe the shows could also be listed alphabetically within their networks? It would make it easier for us to find our shows listed, once finding their networks in column B. Thanks in advance if you try that next time.

  • Nick

    @Ultima

    First off, I don’t think you even know what “on the bubble” means. It doesn’t mean canceled. It means it could go either way. Approximately 50% of bubble shows are renewed every season…

    Actually, looking at it precisely, the rate of renewal vs. cancellation for bubble shows is actually higher than 50%. Here are the bubble shows from this time last year:

    Cougar Town: Renewed
    Missing: Cancelled
    Private Practice: Renewed
    CSI: Miami: Cancelled
    CSI: NY: Renewed
    Rob: Cancelled
    Rules of Engagement: Renewed
    Gossip Girl: Renewed
    Nikita: Renewed
    Supernatural: Renewed
    The Secret Circle: Cancelled
    Bob’s Burgers: Renewed
    Napoleon Dynamite: Cancelled
    Touch: Renewed
    Awake: Cancelled
    Whitney: Renewed

    Using this data, the rate is 62.5%. This even includes “too soon to tell” shows, such as Missing, which usually go straight to the bottom of the cancellation heap (or the bear’s plate).

    I’m not trying to single you out or undermine your point, which I agree with.
    This is just something most people don’t catch. It makes you wonder… why? Are networks simply too cautious? Are Robert and Bill too cautious? Do “Save Our Show” campaigns work 12.5% of the time? I’m guessing it’s not the latter.

  • Kyle

    I love this format.

    Thanks

  • Richard Steven Hack

    Ultima: “The average of 1.0 and 1.1 is either 1.0 or 1.1 (with equal probability).”

    That is nonsense. I don’t know what you’re calling “average” but an average (as opposed to “weighted average” or “median”) is just a number falling between two other numbers. The fact that a range of raw numbers might equate to a given percentage is not relevant. It’s only relevant in terms of the VIEWERS, not the RATING. Which is probably why the industry doesn’t CARE about VIEWERS.

    My point still stands: You use the same viewer numbers measuring the same things and the end result is a ratings percentage that measures the same things. And the average of those ratings percentages measures the same things and are thus valid.

    “However, for a show with a 0.5 rating, the error is 10%. That’s not insignificant.”

    Yes, it is. Because that error could go either way and in the end it washes out. Which is what the network people have been saying. They don’t care. “The number is the number.”

    “What are you talking about? The “Broadcast Top 25? is the top 25 single airings for the week…”

    Citation please. That page uses the Nielsen reports which include repeats AFAIK.

    “No, I’m saying that you are making those numbers up. The actual values are the ranges (0.44, 0.54) and (0.59, 0.69). Yes, one is greater than the other, but you said one was WAY above the other. The actual difference is anywhere between 9% and 57%. Surely, you can see the difference there.”

    No, I can’t and neither can the industry. The “actual values” are IRRELEVANT, as I – and the industry – have been telling you all along.

    NO ONE CARES WHAT THE “RANGES” ARE! THE NUMBER IS THE NUMBER!

    “No, the network sees the actual C+3 values. That’s the point.”

    No, it is NOT the point. If all the industry cared about was the raw viewer numbers, they WOULDN’T BOTHER COMPUTING THE AVERAGE! It’s an ESTIMATE! What part of that don’t you understand?

    “The numbers are close enough that you should simply assume that they are virtually the same without additional information to the contrary.”

    Utter nonsense. Tell it to the industry. Tell it to Robert and Bill. I’m tired of going around and around with you on an utterly moot point.

    “Because the A18-49 viewership number is much more precise than the A18-49 rating.”

    And yet the industry publishes the RATINGS and the networks only look at the RATINGS, NOT the VIEWERS, raw numbers or NOT. “The number is the number.”

    I’m done with this. The ratings percentages are what they are. The season average is what it is. It’s not wrong sufficiently to make it unusable for prediction.

    I will grant that the season average is not so useful for prediction as observing the trend up or down over the season. But it’s still useful in comparing shows. A season average of .65 remains better than a .49 if one allows that any imprecision is likely to be on either side of the ranges you cite. Which is what the industry does.

  • Ultima

    @Nick
    It makes you wonder… why?

    It’s a moving target.

    For example, look at CBS in 2011. The Good Wife was a bubble show that ended up being renewed. However, had it been known in advance that CBS was going to hold Undercover Boss for midseason, then The Good Wife would have probably been classified as a likely renewal.

    I don’t think it matters if 40%, 50% or 60% of bubble shows get renewed over any arbitrary time frame. The whole point is that they are shows in which additional information (either ratings, network scheduling moves, production costs, etc.) are needed in order to predict the outcome. I don’t think overshooting 50% necessarily represents the predictors being overly cautious.

    My original point is that I see a lot of comments where people just don’t understand the concept of the bubble. Many seem to think it means a prediction of cancellation or that a show that’s repeatedly on the bubble but keeps getting renewed is super lucky and so on.

  • Ultima

    @RSH
    It’s only relevant in terms of the VIEWERS, not the RATING. Which is probably why the industry doesn’t CARE about VIEWERS.

    I’M NOT TALKING ABOUT TOTAL VIEWERS, I’M TALKING ABOUT ADULTS 18-49 VIEWERS!

    How dense can you be?! :roll:

    Here’s an example…

    Last week, The Big Bang Theory had 17.627 million TOTAL viewers. Of them, 6.965 million were of the Adults 18-49.

    The 18-49 rating is caculated by taking the number of 18-49 viwers and dividing it by the total number of viewers aged 18-49 for the season.

    6.965 / 126.5 = 0.05506; this results in a 5.5 rating.

    Citation please. That page uses the Nielsen reports which include repeats AFAIK.

    It’s under Weekly -> Broadcast Top 25. It’s the top 25 shows for the WEEK. If it’s a repeat, they identify it as such. It is not season averages.

  • Ultima

    @RSH
    I’m done with this.

    It was my fault for assuming that you actually knew what a rating was. You know its important, but you have no idea what the actual number represents.

© 2014 Tribune Digital Ventures