CW Programs - Season Ratings through 10/29/2006
William George Ferguson
New Rtg/Sh/Vwrs Rpt Rtg/Sh/Vwrs
America's Next Top Model 7 3.5/ 6/5.22 7 1.6/ 3/2.27
Smallville 5 2.9/ 5/4.77 1 1.3/ 2/1.83
Gilmore Girls 5 3.2/ 5/4.67 -- ---/--/----
Friday Night Smackdown 6 2.5/ 4/4.08 -- ---/--/----
Supernatural 5 2.1/ 3/3.60 1 1.1/ 2/1.57
Seventh Heaven 5 2.4/ 4/3.59 -- ---/--/----
One Tree Hill 5 2.2/ 3/3.28 -- ---/--/----
Veronica Mars 4 2.1/ 3/3.19 -- ---/--/----
Girlfriends 4 1.9/ 3/2.87 1 1.6/ 2/2.47
Everybody Hates Chris 4 1.8/ 3/2.75 1 1.6/ 3/3.03
All of Us 4 1.8/ 3/2.62 1 1.6/ 2/2.51
The Game 4 1.7/ 3/2.61 1 1.4/ 2/2.14
Runaway 3 1.3/ 2/1.94 1 1,2/ 2/1.65
A more complete breakdown by time slot
Day Time New Rtg/Sh/Vwrs Rpt Rtg/Sh/Vwrs
Seventh Heaven Mon 800 2 2.8/ 4/4.18 -- ---/--/----
Sun 800 3 2.1/ 3/3.19 -- ---/--/----
Total 5 2.4/ 4/3.59 -- ---/--/----
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Runaway Mon 900 2 1.3/ 2/2.02 -- ---/--/----
Tue 900 -- --/---/---- 1 1.2/ 2/1.65
Sun 900 1 1.1/ 2/1,79 -- ---/--/----
Total 3 1.3/ 2/1.94 1 1,2/ 2/1.65
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Everybody Hates Chris Sun 700 2 1.6/ 3/2.40 -- ---/--/----
Mon 800 2 2.1/ 3/3.10 1 1.6/ 3/3.03
Total 4 1.8/ 3/2.75 1 1.6/ 3/3.03
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
All of Us Sun 730 2 1.5/ 3/2.35 -- ---/--/----
Mon 830 2 2.0/ 3/2.88 1 1.6/ 2/2.51
Total 4 1.8/ 3/2.62 1 1.6/ 2/2.51
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Girlfriends Sun 800 2 1.8/ 3/2.80 -- ---/--/----
Mon 900 2 2.0/ 3/2.94 1 1.6/ 2/2.47
Total 4 1.9/ 3/2.87 1 1.6/ 2/2.47
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
The Game Sun 830 2 1.7/ 3/2.65 -- ---/--/----
Mon 930 2 1.7/ 3/2.56 1 1.4/ 2/2.14
Total 4 1.7/ 3/2.61 1 1.4/ 2/2.14
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Gilmore Girls Tue 800 5 3.2/ 5/4.67 -- ---/--/----
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Veronica Mars Tue 900 4 2.1/ 3/3.19 -- ---/--/----
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
America's Next Top Model Wed 800 6 3.5/ 6/5.22 -- ---/--/----
Wed 900 1 3.6/ 5/5.26 -- ---/--/----
Sun 900 -- ---/--/---- 5 1.6/ 3/2.26
Sun 700 -- ---/--/---- 1 1.4/ 2/2.01
Sun 800 -- ---/--/---- 1 1.7/ 3/2.56
Total 7 3.5/ 6/5.22 7 1.6/ 3/2.27
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
One Tree Hill Wed 900 5 2.2/ 3/3.28 -- ---/--/----
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Smallville Thu 800 5 2.9/ 5/4.77 -- ---/--/----
Sun 700 -- ---/--/---- 1 1.3/ 2/1.83
Total 5 2.9/ 5/4.77 1 1.3/ 2/1.83
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Supernatural Thu 900 5 2.1/ 3/3.60 -- ---/--/----
Sun 700 -- ---/--/---- 1 1.1/ 2/1.57
Total 5 2.1/ 3/3.60 1 1.1/ 2/1.57
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Friday Night Smackdown Fri 800 6 2.5/ 4/4.08 -- ---/--/----
--
I have a theory, it could be bunnies
Stacia
>So, the top CW shows so far
> New Rtg/Sh/Vwrs Rpt Rtg/Sh/Vwrs
>America's Next Top Model 7 3.5/ 6/5.22 7 1.6/ 3/2.27
>Smallville 5 2.9/ 5/4.77 1 1.3/ 2/1.83
>Gilmore Girls 5 3.2/ 5/4.67 -- ---/--/----
Does this go in order? I don't understand why Gg isn't #2... is it
because Smallville had a smaller rating but more viewers?
Overall, Gg is the 2nd or 3rd highest rated show on CW right now,
correct? Gah. We may be in for an 8th season after all. Panic!
Stacia
Rob Jensen
wrote:
>William George Ferguson <wmgf...@newsguy.com> writes:
>
>>So, the top CW shows so far
>
>> New Rtg/Sh/Vwrs Rpt Rtg/Sh/Vwrs
>>America's Next Top Model 7 3.5/ 6/5.22 7 1.6/ 3/2.27
>>Smallville 5 2.9/ 5/4.77 1 1.3/ 2/1.83
>>Gilmore Girls 5 3.2/ 5/4.67 -- ---/--/----
>
> Does this go in order? I don't understand why Gg isn't #2... is it
>because Smallville had a smaller rating but more viewers?
That appears so, but the difference is negligible. Just 100K viewers.
IMO, it's essentially a tie.
> Overall, Gg is the 2nd or 3rd highest rated show on CW right now,
>correct?
As it's pretty much always been since it was moved into Buffy's old
timeslot years ago.
> Gah. We may be in for an 8th season after all.
What have I been telling you all for months? I mean, geez, since the
middle of s6, I've been predicting that barring Graham really having
enough, there'll be an s8, and likely an s9 even. And even then, it's
better-than-even odds that the net will give Graham enough financial
incentive to keep doing the show. There are just waaaay too many
other holes that the network keeps struggling and failing to fill for
it to lose its #3 show overall and #2 (or tied for first) scripted
one-hour. Also, the DVDs sell like crazy.
>Panic!
[HHGttG] Don't Panic. And remember to bring a towel along. [/HHGttG]
I predict s8 will be a weepie.
-- Rob
--
LORELAI: I am so done with plans. I am never, ever making one again.
It never works. I spend the day obsessing over why it didn't work
and what I could've done differently. I'm analyzing all my shortcomings
when all I really need to be doing is vowing to never, ever make a plan
ever again, which I'm doing now, having once again been the innocent
victim of my own stupid plans. God, I need some coffee.
Obveeus
"Rob Jensen" <Shut...@aol.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 4 Nov 2006 04:55:53 +0000 (UTC), sta...@xmission.com (Stacia)
> wrote:
>
>>William George Ferguson <wmgf...@newsguy.com> writes:
>>
>>>So, the top CW shows so far
>>
>>> New Rtg/Sh/Vwrs Rpt Rtg/Sh/Vwrs
>>>America's Next Top Model 7 3.5/ 6/5.22 7 1.6/ 3/2.27
>>>Smallville 5 2.9/ 5/4.77 1 1.3/ 2/1.83
>>>Gilmore Girls 5 3.2/ 5/4.67 -- ---/--/----
>>
>> Does this go in order? I don't understand why Gg isn't #2... is it
>>because Smallville had a smaller rating but more viewers?
>
> That appears so, but the difference is negligible. Just 100K viewers.
> IMO, it's essentially a tie.
It isn't a tie. It is a race 'won by a nose'. GG is on the podium, but
sucking bronze.
>> Gah. We may be in for an 8th season after all.
>
> What have I been telling you all for months? I mean, geez, since the
> middle of s6, I've been predicting that barring Graham really having
> enough, there'll be an s8, and likely an s9 even.
Wishful thinking.
Barnabas Collins
wrote:
>What have I been telling you all for months? I mean, geez, since the
>middle of s6, I've been predicting that barring Graham really having
>enough, there'll be an s8, and likely an s9 even. And even then, it's
>better-than-even odds that the net will give Graham enough financial
>incentive to keep doing the show. There are just waaaay too many
>other holes that the network keeps struggling and failing to fill for
>it to lose its #3 show overall and #2 (or tied for first) scripted
>one-hour. Also, the DVDs sell like crazy.
of 7th Heaven i'm wondering how many more seasons GG can
run. I don't want to be saying in a few years that GG is
like 7th Heaven.....it should have ended earlier.
I'll wait until the end of next season to say whether
the show should continue.
Rob Jensen
Keep in mind, 7th Heaven has been that shitty since the very first
episode a decade ago. There was a period when it was entertaining
unintentional camp, up 'til about s7 or so, but nevertheless, it's
*always* been bad. A problem that Gg has never had.
>I'll wait until the end of next season to say whether
>the show should continue.
IMO, there's no creative reason that Gg couldn't go for even 12 or
more years assuming that ratings remain solid enough for renewal each
year and the actors keep wanting to do the show. Amy stated years ago
that regardless of her having a final scene in mind for the end of
Rory's school years at Yale, she nevertheless designed the show to be
open-ended. Just depends on how well the creative team(s) that run
the show at any given time/any given season or run of seasons makes
stories that continue to appeal to the target audience and get those
solid ratings.
Obveeus
"Rob Jensen" <Shut...@aol.com> wrote:
> IMO, there's no creative reason that Gg couldn't go for even 12 or
> more years
Thus having the opportunity to ride two networks down in flames?
>Amy stated years ago
> that regardless of her having a final scene in mind for the end of
> Rory's school years at Yale,
Every time you type 'Rory' I want to start chanting 'Roary, Roary, Roary'
from the movie 'Inside Moves'. That first step is a doozy.
> Just depends on how well the creative team(s) that run
> the show at any given time/any given season or run of seasons makes
> stories that continue to appeal to the target audience and get those
> solid ratings.
You have your desires set in a very tight spot.
If CW sucks, the network goes under and GG is gone.
If CW takes off, GG's 'solid ratings' will not look so good and it will be
cancelled.
So, you basically have to hope that the CW just limps along forever.
Barnabas Collins
wrote:
>Keep in mind, 7th Heaven has been that shitty since the very first
>episode a decade ago. There was a period when it was entertaining
>unintentional camp, up 'til about s7 or so, but nevertheless, it's
>*always* been bad. A problem that Gg has never had.
>IMO, there's no creative reason that Gg couldn't go for even 12 or
>more years assuming that ratings remain solid enough for renewal each
>year and the actors keep wanting to do the show. Amy stated years ago
>that regardless of her having a final scene in mind for the end of
>Rory's school years at Yale, she nevertheless designed the show to be
>open-ended. Just depends on how well the creative team(s) that run
>the show at any given time/any given season or run of seasons makes
>stories that continue to appeal to the target audience and get those
>solid ratings.
years if GG should have ended when Rory graduated from Yale.
After all if it goes on for years I could see this show turn into
Roda as the editor of the New York Times.
I could also see the show die when Lauren Graham itches to move on
in her career. Maybe Studio 60/Evan Almighty will light a fire under
her to get David Duchovney disease.
Rob Jensen
<BarnabasC...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>I could also see the show die when Lauren Graham itches to move on
>in her career. Maybe Studio 60/Evan Almighty will light a fire under
>her to get David Duchovney disease.
Evan Almighty appears to be turning into a debacle, so I doubt it.
Studio 60? Uh, well, I'm willing to be that she's probably
appreciating be under far less pressure at the CW now, given the
microscope that S60 has IMO been unfairly subjected to given the mere
fact that it's on a big-three network.
Rob Jensen
>> Just depends on how well the creative team(s) that run
>> the show at any given time/any given season or run of seasons makes
>> stories that continue to appeal to the target audience and get those
>> solid ratings.
>
>You have your desires set in a very tight spot.
>If CW sucks, the network goes under and GG is gone.
>If CW takes off, GG's 'solid ratings' will not look so good and it will be
>cancelled.
>
>So, you basically have to hope that the CW just limps along forever.
The CW is already making $300 Million more in advertiser dollars than
UPN made last year and just $35 million less than the WB. As a
start-up with the WB's programming and UPN's inferior
affilate-coverage (percentage-wise). So financially, the new net is
on par with the stronger of the two networks it was birthed from. It's
a great starting point that only increases in profits whenever they
get to the stronger analog affilate coverage that the WB had. And
they're even in a stronger position if one or another of the four
competing networks further collapses (Fox ain't nothin' without Idol
and Jack Bauer, for instance).
The CW ain't going away anytime soon -- it's making money. At the
same time, it doesn't have a good new-show development slate, so it
needs to keep its veteran shows around. It is a *major* mistake on
your part to fail to take these two facts about the CW into
consideration when trying to estimate the likelihood of the renewal of
their third-highest-rated show.
Obveeus
"Rob Jensen" <Shut...@aol.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 4 Nov 2006 19:40:41 -0500, "Obveeus" <Obv...@aol.com> wrote:
>>You have your desires set in a very tight spot.
>>If CW sucks, the network goes under and GG is gone.
>>If CW takes off, GG's 'solid ratings' will not look so good and it will be
>>cancelled.
>>
>>So, you basically have to hope that the CW just limps along forever.
>
> The CW is already making $300 Million more in advertiser dollars than
> UPN made last year and just $35 million less than the WB.
Ratings...as long as the ratings stay in 'limp along mode' your mediocre
show will be safe.
> As a start-up with the WB's programming and UPN's inferior
> affilate-coverage (percentage-wise).
'WB programming'? How many WB shows and how many UPN shows are on the new
network? All I noticed is that a UPN show is at the very top. ;-)
>So financially, the new net is
> on par with the stronger of the two networks it was birthed from.
The WB...the network that went under, right?
> It's
> a great starting point that only increases in profits whenever they
> get to the stronger analog affilate coverage that the WB had. And
> they're even in a stronger position if one or another of the four
> competing networks further collapses (Fox ain't nothin' without Idol
> and Jack Bauer, for instance).
Sure, FOX is paper thin, but even without those two shows it is still far
above CW.
> The CW ain't going away anytime soon -- it's making money. At the
> same time, it doesn't have a good new-show development slate, so it
> needs to keep its veteran shows around. It is a *major* mistake on
> your part to fail to take these two facts about the CW into
> consideration when trying to estimate the likelihood of the renewal of
> their third-highest-rated show.
I just take into account that the actresses would likely have goals beyond
3rd highest rated show on lowest rated tv network. If they don't weant to
come back, the show is done.
Plus, until they sign new contracts, I can continue to point out that the
show is done just to ruffle your feathers. ;-)
Barnabas Collins
<videono...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>That's not why Studio 60 is under scrutiny.
Apparently there are rumors that Studio 60 is about the get the axe.
Rob Jensen
<videono...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>Rob Jensen wrote:
>> Evan Almighty appears to be turning into a debacle, so I doubt it.
>> Studio 60? Uh, well, I'm willing to be that she's probably
>> appreciating be under far less pressure at the CW now, given the
>> microscope that S60 has IMO been unfairly subjected to given the mere
>> fact that it's on a big-three network.
>.
>
>That's not why Studio 60 is under scrutiny.
>
>It's because NBC hyped it so heavily as the best new show of the year
>(ditto the critics). When something is hyped like that, even if it was
>on the small CW network, it would attract attention.
You're making a straw-man argument here, Troy. EHC wasn't subjected
to even *half* the scrutiny that S60 has been subjected to, Veronica
Mars, either, despite critical and viewer acclaim and all the hype
that UPN and successor network the CW have ever been able to muster.
Your denial that the scrutiny that S60 has been under has to anything
to do with it being on a big-three network is amusingly obtuse.
Obveeus
"videonovels" <videono...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> I guess it depends on what channels you watch. I didn't see any hype
> for EHC (whatever that is) or Veronica. Or ads for CW for that matter.
> If I wasn't a news-reader, I wouldn't even know CW exists.
Everybody Hates Chris got a ton of hype. The show isn't particularly funny
at all...kind of a poor attempt to copy Wonder Years if you ask me. Still,
it was being touted as the funniest show on TV, just like The Office (which
also doesn't deserve such hype).
> On the other hand, I couldn't get get through a single episode of Law &
> Order without hearing "Studio 60 is the best new show critics acclaim"
> yelling from the screen.
That seems very strange. I can't think of any reason why Studio 60 would be
advertised during L&O while Everybody Hates Chris wouldn't be. Maybe it was
just something strange that happened with your local TV station?