'

TV Ratings Tuesday: 'NCIS: Los Angeles' & 'Trophy Wife' Rise, 'The Voice' & 'Person of Interest' Hit Lows, 'NCIS', 'Supernatural' & 'The Goldbergs' Steady

Categories: '

Written By

October 30th, 2013

The Goldbergs October 29

Scoreboard NBC CBS FOX UNI ABC CW
Adults 18-49: Rating/Share 3.0/8 2.5/7 1.5/4 1.3/3 1.2/3 1.0/3
Adults 18-34: Rating/Share 2.2/7 1.4/4 1.4/4 1.1/3 1.0/3 1.0/3
Total Viewers (million) 9.597 15.213 4.762 3.230 4.109 2.092

NBC was the number one network in adults 18-49  while CBS was on top with total viewers.

On NBC, The Biggest Loser earned a season low 1.8 down 10 percent from last week's 2.0 adults 18-49 rating. A two hour episode of The Voice scored a season low 3.5 down 18 percent from last week's 4.1 adults 18-49 rating. 

On CBS NCIS matched last week's 3.0 adults 18-49 rating.  NCIS: Los Angeles garnered a 2.6 up 4 percent from last week's 2.5 adults 18-49 rating. Person Of Interest earned a series low 1.8 down 18 percent from last week's 2.2 adults 18-49 rating.

On ABC, The Goldbergs earned as 1.7 adults 18-49 rating, matching last week's performance when it had a new episode of Marvel’s Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. as a lead-in. Trophy Wife garnered a 1.4 up 17 percent from last week's series low 1.2 adults 18-49 rating.

On FOX, a special Tuesday episode of  The X Factor scored a 1.5 down 25 percent from a 2.0 for its most recent episode on Thursday, October 10.

On the CW, The Originals matched last week's 0.9 adults 18-49 rating. Supernatural garnered a 1.1 adults 18-49 rating, even with last week.

Broadcast primetime ratings for Tuesday, October 29, 2013:

Time Net Show 18-49 Rating/Sh Viewers (Millions)
8:00 CBS NCIS 3.0/9 18.98
FOX The X Factor (8-10PM) 1.5/4 4.76
NBC The Biggest Loser 1.8/5 5.95
ABC Marvel's Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. - R 1.2/4 4.26
CW The Originals 0.9/3 2.02
9:00 NBC The Voice (9-11PM) 3.5/10 11.42
CBS NCIS: Los Angeles 2.6/7 14.76
ABC The Goldbergs 1.7/4 5.37
CW Supernatural 1.1/3 2.16
9:30PM ABC Trophy Wife 1.4/4 4.28
10:00 CBS Person Of Interest 1.8/5 11.90
ABC Shark Tank - R 1.0/3 3.25

-

via NBC press note:

In Late-Night Metered Markets Tuesday night:

 

  • In Nielsen's 56 metered markets, household results were: "The Tonight Show with Jay Leno," 2.9/8; CBS's "Late Show with David Letterman," 2.7/7; and ABC's "Jimmy Kimmel Live," 1.8/5.
 
  • In the 25 markets with Local People Meters, adult 18-49 results were: “The Tonight Show with Jay Leno,” 0.8/4; "Late Show," 0.6/3; and "Jimmy Kimmel Live," 0.5/3.
 
  • From 12:35-1:05 a.m. ET, ABC's "Nightline" averaged a 1.1/4 in metered-market households and a 0.3/2 in 18-49 in the Local People Meters.
 
  • From 12:35-1:35 a.m. ET, "Late Night with Jimmy Fallon" (1.5/6 in metered-market households) beat CBS's "Late Late Show with Craig Ferguson" (1.4/5).  In the 25 markets with Local People Meters, "Late Night" (0.5/4 in 18-49) topped "Late Late Show" (0.3/2).
 
  • At 1:35 a.m., "Last Call with Carson Daly" averaged a 1.0/4 in metered-market households and a 0.4/3 in adults 18-49 in the 25 markets with local people meters.
 

 

-

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 football 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.

 
  • Dlt847

    Good for SPN! Comcast in parts of MD went down from 7:30-10-20pm. Had to catch the show today.

  • iHeartJoss

    @Dorothy

    When it comes to the cast changes, A LOT of people think the same thing theissuesarenow alludes to. You don’t, and that’s you. And no, it’s not a double standard because Shaw is NOTHING like Reese. Want a few examples? Reese doesn’t have a “personality disorder” that almost makes him a sociopath. Someone mentioned that Shaw’s evil coldness might change, but if this happens then the show truly will have jumped the shark. You can’t “change” what’s genetic.

    Reese deep down wants love and feels guilt for how he lost Jessica and what he did for the CIA. I don’t think Shaw connect enough on that level to be able to feel anything like being in love or guilt. She pretty much said it herself in that “Carter” episode many of us were lured into watching that actually turned out to be Shaw heavy. Reese isn’t trigger happy… I could keep going. I’m sorry but if you think they are the same you are deluding yourself.

    I still hope Carter and Fusco can get better focus and that the main 4 of Reese/Carter/Finch/Fusco can come back. The fact that the demo has gone down like it has (and I’m well within the demo) shows that the people they want watching their show are the very ones they are losing.

  • Bored Now

    @iHeartJoss

    “You can’t “change” what’s genetic.”

    Erm, where do I even start with that? Such a sweeping statement with absolutely no basis in fact. Very much like your ‘Shaw is destroying POI’ theory then…

  • iHeartJoss

    @Bored Now

    It’s called “context,” but I understand you have a problem with that. Can you show me any clinical evidence that sociopaths can and have been reformed into kind, loving, and well-balanced individuals. Please, take your time… ;)

  • iHeartJoss

    Oh, and 11-12 million with a 1.9 demo is not a “theory;” it’s a fact. ;) And to think, before Shaw showed up this show had well over 14 million people watching with a much better demo… Oh, but that’s just a “theory.” lol.

  • LisaV

    is this site owned or controlled by FOX? Every time I post something even remotely critical of the geniuses running the network profits down, it gets deleted. The ding dongs running FOX killed Idol and X Factor with the asinine decision to have two tired old singing competitions. Although still profitable, the margins are getting lower and lower because of horrific programming decisions. The TV business is like selling ice in hell… You’re always gonna make money, but to maximize profits, you have possess good taste and good business sense. Both completely lacking at FOX.

  • Edward

    The Shaw hate posts here are bordering on obsessive. I don’t watch that show. I just enjoy general ratings discussions. Not relentless, coordinated character attacks.

  • iHeartJoss

    @Edward

    No one is coordinating or being relentless. Right now you are bordering on being overly dramatic. Please calm down.

  • Igwell

    LisaV, you can say just about whatever dumb thing you want aboot FOX. But you should know that, regardless of these idiotic decisions, it’s going to end up #1 in the demo this season.

    Posts with links don’t get posted, so maybe that was it.

  • gigi

    shaw is absolutely a huge factor in the ratings decline of POI. she sucks as a character. the show lost 1 million viewers from the 1st half hour to the second. that’s because people realized it was another craptastic shaw episode and tuned out by the thousands. get rid of her.

  • Bored Now

    @iHeartJoss

    “It’s called “context,” but I understand you have a problem with that. Can you show me any clinical evidence that sociopaths can and have been reformed into kind, loving, and well-balanced individuals. Please, take your time…”

    Slightly ironic you speak of context and then attempt to switch the nature of the statement you made, but I’ll go with it.

    Your assumption that sociopathy is genetic is flawed. Certain genes can make an individual more prone to sociopathic behavior but it not simply something one is born with. The actual cause of the condition is generally attributed to stressors in life, such as difficult childhood experiences, that lead an individual to find coping mechanisms in order to deal with them. In certain cases that leads to sociopathic behavior.

    As such, the treatment for the condition is very much a case by case situation. For some therapy may be effective, others might better benefit from certain courses of drug treatment. Is it always effective? Not at all. Can sociopathy be treated successfully? Absolutely. How do I know all this? I’ve been dealing with the condition ever since I was a teenager.

    Want to question me more on something I live with every day? Go right ahead.

  • iHeartJoss

    @ Bored Now

    “Want to question me more on something I live with every day? Go right ahead.”

    Now, I understand why you defend Shaw. And no, I didn’t change the nature of my statement, but right now that’s beside the point.

    Since you actually are a sociopath, out of politeness, I will leave you and your condition be. I would reply to the rest of your post, but I see no need now.

  • Carl

    @SueP, November 2010 would be early season 6, which I would say had worse writing than anything on the show now (although I didn’t really like most of season 5 either so what do I know). Last night’s episode was flat and somewhat forgettable, and even Charlie (I’m one of the few outside of tumblr who likes Charlie) was somewhat flat. The best part was Dorothy. I do wonder if the ratings may fall next week if people thought this one was dull, and with the weird preview.

    I wonder when FOX will finally realize Simon Cowell is well past his prime.

  • Bored Now

    @iHeartJoss

    You actually did change the nature of your statement. You implied that as (you believed) sociopathy was entirely genetic that it could not be changed. Full stop. When I pointed out your error, in that the condition comes from a combination of factors, you turned the question into one of treatment and its effectiveness, or lack thereof. Again, you were mistaken in your belief that it could not be treated, but I digress.

    Also, my defense of Shaw is in no way connected to my own situation. I’m not even specifically defending Shaw, nor do I think the character needs defending. My point from the start was that a single character’s popularity does not make a significant difference to a show’s ratings, either positively or negatively. Your assumption that such a large number of people would willingly give up on a television show they enjoyed because of one character is ludicrous. Some, such as yourself, might make that decision, but you are in the minority. Far more likely is that a lot of people who found it convenient to sit and watch the show live at 9pm on a Thursday do not find it as convenient to do so at 10pm on a Tuesday. That would be far more logical, don’t you think?

  • AllOfHerTw!st

    LisaV
    is this site owned or controlled by FOX? Every time I post something even remotely critical of the geniuses running the network profits down, it gets deleted. The ding dongs running FOX killed Idol and X Factor with the asinine decision to have two tired old singing competitions. Although still profitable, the margins are getting lower and lower because of horrific programming decisions. The TV business is like selling ice in hell… You’re always gonna make money, but to maximize profits, you have possess good taste and good business sense. Both completely lacking at FOX.

    Evidently not?

  • iHeartJoss

    I never said that sociopathy couldn’t be treated. What I was saying is that it can’t be cured. So again, I didn’t change what I said. That’s what I was saying then, and I’m still saying it. Tough situations or trauma may trigger it, but (outside of severe and calculated conditioning) a person has to be genetically predisposed to that already, meaning there always already was something a little off. There are a number of responses a person can have to trauma/tough situations. Turning into a sociopath isn’t at the top of the list of likelihoods.

    In other words, “environmental factors” can influence the development of sociopathy, but the genetic predisposition for it is key and cannot be erased. Kind, loving, well-adjusted kids don’t typically become sociopaths. People such as yourself that are sociopaths have had a predisposition for it from the start. That’s not something anyone can change.

    You can tell me I’m wrong if you want to, but considering the traits of your condition, I’m not going to believe you. I’ll believe what I’ve read from credible sources like the Mayo Clinic, etc. Literally, your brain is different, and that starts at birth (technically in the womb). They’ve done studies on this.

    And now I’m done with this conversation. We’ve veered way off topic.

  • iHeartJoss

    And with Regard to Shaw (just to clarify), what I was saying is that after creating her as a sociopath who’s always been that way (according to the character in Razgovor), they can’t then turn around and change her into this kind, well-adjusted individual. That kind of implausible back-peddling and its ripple effects would just hurt the show more. They can’t “change” her personality at whim and it be believable because her personality disorder is rooted in genetics. Period.

  • iHeartJoss

    @ Bored Now

    “Far more likely is that a lot of people who found it convenient to sit and watch the show live at 9pm on a Thursday do not find it as convenient to do so at 10pm on a Tuesday. That would be far more logical, don’t you think?”

    Perhaps if the drop in ratings started with the move, but it didn’t. The drop showed up as soon as Shaw showed up. So, looking at Shaw would be more logical, don’t you think?

  • Theisssuesarenow

    Lots were blaming spring for POI ratings downturn last season and shaw could’ve been a reason too. Spring seemed more likely because all shows were declining on CBS but rarely is there such an audience /fan repeller as shaw.

  • Bored Now

    @iHeartJoss

    Do you make a habit of attempting to win arguments by changing the goal posts? You get that anyone can read back and see exactly what you originally wrote, right?

    There is no cure of sociopathy but then never once did you say ‘cured’ in the comments I responded to. You did say at one point…

    “…reformed into kind, loving, and well-balanced individuals.”

    Now that is a very different thing to being cured. Living as a sociopath means constantly having to reform yourself just to get along in the world. I have to do it every day because it’s part of living a somewhat normal life with family and friends. Isn’t easy but it’s perfectly doable. For a sociopath 99% of the battle is simply wanting to, because it’s hard to care what other people think of you in the first place.

    Shaw’s life, up until recently, has been such that she has had no real reason to want to change. No family. Work colleagues rather than true friends. A dangerous life that is served better by giving in to her sociopathic tendencies. Now though, her life is different. She’s not doing whatever she is ordered for the good of some unknown command structure. She’s working toward helping people for the sake of doing the right thing, with a group of people who actually care about her and want to be her friends. Does this mean she will change? Not necessarily. But it gives her every reason to want to at least try. And for people like that, having a good reason is the best ‘cure’ of all.

    Besides, who gets to judge what being well-adjusted really means anyway? I know my condition and I consider myself a hell of a lot more well-adjusted than half of the so called ‘normal’ people that make the news every night. Dismiss my opinion again as deluded and self serving if it helps you feel like you’ve won the argument, but I dare say that I’m in a much better position than you are to comment on whether a sociopath can change.

© 2014 Tribune Digital Ventures