'

TV Ratings Saturday: Baseball Beats Burnoffs, '666 Park Avenue', 'Brooklyn DA' & 'Zero Hour' Flat, 'Do No Harm' Returns Down

Categories: '

Written By

June 30th, 2013

Do No Harm Episode 3

Scoreboard FOX CBS ABC NBC
Adults 18-49: rating/Share 0.9/4 0.6/2 0.5/2 0.3/1
Total Viewers (million) 3.608 3.204 2.162 2.068

Due to the nature of live  programming the ratings for FOX (MLB Baseball) are approximate and subject to more than the typical adjustments in the final numbers. See below for more information on these Fast Affiliate Ratings

Note: ABC 's line-up was preempted in Boston and NBC was preempted in Detroit.

FOX was number one with adults 18-49 and with total viewers.

On FOX, MLB Baseball scored a preliminary adults 0.9 18-49 rating up 50 percent  from last week’s preliminary 0.6.

On ABC, Zero Hour earned a 0.3 adults 18-49 rating even with last week. 666 Park Avenue scored a 0.5 among adults 18-49 also matching last week’s performance.

On CBS, Brooklyn DA garnered a 0.5 adults 18-49 rating even with last week.

On NBC Do No Harm returned to a 0.3 adults 18-49 rating down 57 percent from a 0.7 for its previous episode in February. The 41 percent of you who predicted it would be the lowest performing show of the night are half right. It tied with Zero Hour for that dubious honor.

Broadcast primetime ratings for June 29, 2013

Time Net Show 18-49 Rating/Sh Viewers (millions)
8:00 FOX MLB Baseball - Live (8-10PM) 0.9/4 3.61
CBS CSI - R 0.4/2 2.87
ABC Zero Hour 0.3/1 2.43
NBC Crossing Lines - R (8-10PM) 0.3/1 2.20
9:00 CBS Brooklyn DA 0.5/2 2.63
ABC 666 Park Avenue 0.5/2 2.14
10:00 CBS 48 Hours - R 0.8/3 4.11
ABC Whodunnit? - R 0.4/2 1.92
NBC Do No Harm 0.3/1 1.80

-
-Saturday's Ratings Via TV Media Insights
-
Nielsen TV Ratings: ©2013 The Nielsen Company. All Rights Reserved.

Definitions:

Fast Affiliate Ratings: These first national ratings, including demographics, are available at approximately 11 AM (ET) the day after telecast, and are released to subscribing customers daily. These data, from the National People Meter sample, are strictly time-period information, based on the normal broadcast network feed, and include all programming on the affiliated stations, sometimes including network programming, sometimes not. The figures may include stations that did not air the entire network feed, as well as local news breaks or cutaways for local coverage or other programming. Fast Affiliate ratings are not as useful for live programs and are likely to differ significantly from the final results, because the data reflect normal broadcast feed patterns. For example, with a World Series game, Fast Affiliate Ratings would include whatever aired from 8-11PM on affiliates in the Pacific Time Zone, following the live baseball game, but not game coverage that begins at 5PM PT. The same would be true of Presidential debates as well as live award shows and breaking news reports.

Rating: Estimated percentage of the universe of TV households (or other specified group) tuned to a program in the average minute. Ratings are expressed as a percent.

Share (of Audience): The percent of households (or persons) using television who are tuned to a specific program, station or network in a specific area at a specific time. (See also, Rating, which represents tuning or viewing as a percent of the entire population being measured.)

Time Shifted Viewing – Program ratings for national sources are produced in three streams of data – Live, Live+Same Day (Live+SD) and Live+7 Day. Time shifted figures account for incremental viewing that takes place with DVRs. Live+Same Day (Live+SD) include viewing during the same broadcast day as the original telecast, with a cut-off of 3:00AM local time when meters transmit daily viewing to Nielsen for processing. Live+7 Day ratings include incremental viewing that takes place during the 7 days following a telecast.

For more information see Numbers 101 and Numbers 102.

 
  • Jason

    Due to the nature of live programming the ratings for FOX (MLB Baseball) are approximate and subject to more than the typical adjustments in the final numbers. See below for more information on these Fast Affiliate Ratings

    That’s what zap2it has written and then wants you to go down the page to have ratings “explained” to you. Let me explain a little better than they do.

    There are ONLY 23,000, that’s twenty-three thousand, Nielsen families. Yes, when you hear “demos” and how they “adjusted” the ratings later it actually means they took more time to think about the final ratings number they made up or guessed watched a show. 23,000 plus a few more doing diaries are deciding what we 300 MILLION other TV watchers get to watch or what gets canceled after Nielsen adjusts their watching habits to include me, except there’s literally nobody like me on this planet.

    The Nielsen ratings have been since the beginning and always will be in the future a total Hollywood scam perpetrated on the viewing public. It has made Nielsen I don’t know how many MILLIONS for what you could do going door to door each week asking your neighbors if you lived in a large city.

    Now let the replies begin about the diverse and scientific way that Nielsen chooses those families like it’s a political poll, which have gotten more accurate because there are so many entities taking the polls so that a poll is being taken practically every day and are compared by almost all the news organizations and pollsters so they cut the margin for error WAY down and a guy like Nate Silver can predict every state in the Presidential election accurately. Polling several hundreds thousand people over a 6 month period IS NOT polling the same 23,000 people for a solid year or many years as Nielsen does. That small a sample makes the margin for error so large that any show on the hundreds of channels on TV could actually be number one or the absolute last place show. And saying you can accurately say how many of what age group, demos, are watching any show based on splitting up that mere 23,000 makes the margin for error, oh, about a million times larger. That’s a guess on my part similar to a Nielsen ratings guess cause all I know it’s an unbelievably huge error margin when you split an already minute sample.

    And what I’ve said so far isn’t even taking into account the ridiculousness of the diary system. Nielsen asks you how many TV’s you have, they send you that many diaries and they DON’T CARE if those TV’s are actually working or hooked up to cable, an antenna or satellite. They have asked me twice in my 43 years to do the diaries. The first time they called me I said I had 3 TV’s but only one was hooked up to cable and therefore the only one that would be watched. The guy said they had to send as many diaries as there are TV’s despite my telling him I lived alone. The second time I didn’t answer their call or respond to their letter but they sent me 2 diaries and the money anyway despite me only having one TV hooked up to a digital antenna so again more diaries than watchable TV’s in my apartment.

    I can’t be the only person that has thought a good way to boost the ratings of a show they like would be to say they have 5 TV’s then claim in 5 diaries that all 5 TV’s were on Don’t Trust the B—- in Apt. 23 or whatever. Just that small 5 TV lie is enough to make them change their made up ratings numbers with the small sample they’re taking for their guess on what the other 300 million are watching. Because they’re telling you the honor system diary numbers are accurate despite me, you and them knowing everybody in this country isn’t honest. I could just as easily go on vacation in Tahiti for a week, come back suntanned and fill out the diary with all my favorite shows that I didn’t actually watch and mail it back to them. These are just a couple of ways their joke of a system and claims of accuracy are blown to hell.

    Nielsen ratings are not factual or actual or scientific or in any way accurate numbers. Just a money-making scam that most people not working in Hollywood know nothing about or they do know but it’s in their interest to keep the myth going.

  • Jason

    Hilarious, I just spent an hour writing about the Nielsen scam, cause I’m anal about my writing even online, and wrote it with with gout and polyneuropthy making my arms and hands explode and zap2it puts their new comments at the end instead of the beginning. Now practically nobody is even going to read it. Just amazes me when chimps design and run a website.

  • alvar

    I don’t understand networks reluctance to screen these cancelled programs on Saturday nights during broadcast season. The ratings are comparable to the repeats/filler usually shown on Saturdays, and could potentially be better if shown sooner.

  • alvar

    @Jason – that may be true, but it is these ratings that determine the survival of broadcast programs, and that’s all that matters

  • Michael1

    Will Zero Hour end up with lower ratings than “King of the Nerds”? Is it too late for Anthony Edwards to re-unite Robert Carradine and Curtis Armstrong on that show? Maybe Michael J. Fox will throw a bone to his “High School USA” co-star.

  • POIFanatic

    @Jason: If you think you can go away for a week and write bs in the diary without watching your tv, then you have no idea how Nielsen works. It is definitely a highly flawed system anyway.

  • Ultima

    @Jason
    Due to the nature of live programming the ratings for FOX (MLB Baseball) are approximate and subject to more than the typical adjustments in the final numbers. See below for more information on these Fast Affiliate Ratings

    That’s what zap2it has written and then wants you to go down the page to have ratings “explained” to you. Let me explain a little better than they do.

    Hilarious, I just spent an hour writing about the Nielsen scam, cause I’m anal about my writing even online, and wrote it with with gout and polyneuropthy making my arms and hands explode

    No, what’s hilarious is that you spent an hour writing and never actually explained why live coast-to-coast programming is subject to more adjustments between preliminary and final ratings (much less explained it better than the article).

    zap2it puts their new comments at the end instead of the beginning. Now practically nobody is even going to read it. Just amazes me when chimps design and run a website.

    Seriously? Oldest first ordering of comments is extremely common throughout the internet.

  • Ultima

    @Jason

    Also, I don’t understand how that nonsense took you an hour to write. I can summarize the entire thing in under a minute…

    I’m really just guessing here, but I think that Nielsen ratings have massive margins of error, to the point that it’s impossible to actually measure the viewership of any show in any meaningful way.

    Just ignore the networks and advertisers who are confident enough in the ratings system to use it to price their products in a multi-billion dollar a year industry… :roll:

  • Baseball4Ever

    Jason has told The WHOLE Truth about Nielsen ratings ….IT’S ALL FOR THE LOVE OF MONEY….

  • MichaelChickless

    Jason, it looks like your thesis did [eventually] post.

  • Joseph

    David Howell:

    In Canada, CBC has televised hockey on Saturday nights between October and the end of the playoffs since the birth of TV broadcasting in that country in 1952. The weekly hockey series (“Hockey Night In Canada”) is one of the most-watched shows on Canadian TV and is by far the CBC’s most popular program.

  • Joseph

    I also wonder if the times themselves have changed too much for Saturday to as big a “TV night” as it used to.

    The first 25 years or so of widespread network TV broadcasting (1948-73) coincided with most of the “baby boom”, where there were millions of young families with young children.

    It’s possible that parents and children were “stuck” at home on Saturdays, especially in the 1950′s since there was likely a shortage of baby sitters given demographics (millions of pre-teen children and far fewer teenagers).

    With the baby boomers growing up, fewer people may have had to stay home on Saturday nights.

    (The “conspiracy theorist” in me believes that since most broadcast networks are under the same ownership as movie studios, the networks may be ignoring Saturdays and starting to ignore Fridays to steer people to movie theatres on those nights to see their sister movie companies’ films)

    But then again, I feel that despite the demographics that may have favored people staying home on Saturday nights in the 1950′s, 1960′s and early 1970′s; and more people going out on Saturday nights today, I am still of the opinion that a network could succeed on Saturday nights with the right entertainment show.

    It also would take extensive promotion. But I think it can be done.

    I just hope that some network will try it.

  • fakeem

    Anthony Parello (AP076)

    Saturday ratings in the 70′s and 80′s were large.

    In the 70′s, All In The Family was the #1 show in the country for 5 straight years, and was a Saturday show. Golden Girls was a major Saturday hit in the 80′s. You must be too young to remember those days.

  • L

    Not that a 0.5 is anything to call home about… But i still think that 666 Park Avenue was perhaps pulled initially before it’s time. Same with GCB.

  • Anthony Parello (AP076)

    @Fakeem

    I was not arguing that those ratings weren’t large in fact I was arguing that they WERE large.
    They were obviously large, they had no competition.
    Jeez
    Read, follow along.

  • Anthony Parello (AP076)

    @L
    Did you even look at the ratings trajectory of both shows?
    Serialized shows don’t suddenly pick up viewers when as many people checked out of both shows as did.

  • Anthony Parello (AP076)

    @Fakeem

    The expression “that MIGHT have been the case” must have confused you. I kind of can see how that could happen.

© 2014 Tribune Digital Ventures