A dumb ratings question...
UnltdLife
ratings system.
Think about it...
It seems to me that good ratings on a pilot episode don't really indicate that
the pilot episode was popular or even very good necessarily... but instead that
it was sucessfully ADVERTISED.
The fact that TNT did not really PUSH Crusade on their networks should be more
of an indication concerning the ratings than whether or not people liked the
show.
Not enough people watched the show. Most of the B5 fans we encounter on the
web often didn't get into B5 until at LEAST the latter half of Season 1, if not
Season 2. Crusade didn't stand a snowball's chance in hell...
(Unless they're planning on installing air conditioning...)
Anyway. Oftentimes, you'll hear "them" say, "The most popular episodes were
the ones with X or Y." But how did people know that X or Y was going to be in
that episode unless the info was hammered into our thick skulls with ADS. And
that doesn't necessarily mean the ep. was any good.
Rant. rant. rant.
I forgot my point.
Jason
Diane K De
>It seems to me that good ratings on a pilot episode don't really indicate
>that
>the pilot episode was popular or even very good necessarily... but instead
>that
>it was sucessfully ADVERTISED.
>
...And that the people who saw the advertisement were interested enough to
sample the show. We've seen examples of things that get advertised heavily
which still don't get good ratings. Remember last year how TNT's Houdini movie
(heavily advertised) got the same rating as A Call to Arms (not heavily
advertised).
But advertising that makes the show look worth a shot is a prerequisite.
>The fact that TNT did not really PUSH Crusade on their networks should be
>more
>of an indication concerning the ratings than whether or not people liked the
>show.
>
For most TV series, the networks look more closely at the ratings for the
second or third episodes to make their decisions. How many of the people who
saw the first episode liked it enough to see the second and third? They see
that as an indication of how people like the show.
>Not enough people watched the show. Most of the B5 fans we encounter on the
>web often didn't get into B5 until at LEAST the latter half of Season 1, if
>not
>Season 2. Crusade didn't stand a snowball's chance in hell...
>
But it had decent ratings in Season 1, which means someone was watching it.
DD
Mark Maher
>From: unlt...@aol.com
<SNIP>
>
>For most TV series, the networks look more closely at the ratings for the
>second or third episodes to make their decisions. How many of the people who
>saw the first episode liked it enough to see the second and third? They see
>that as an indication of how people like the show.
>
Just confirms my suspicions that TNT deliberately *torpedoed* Crusade by showing
the more cerebral, less action-oriented episodes up front (like "The Well of
Forever" and "The Path of Sorrows"). They were wonderful stories from a science
fiction point of view but were far less appealing (IMHO) to TNT's mainstream
audience than the last five episodes released. By the time the pace did pick up,
a lot of folks were tuning out. the lower ratings guaranteed that nobody else
would make a concerted effort to try and acquire the rights to the show.
__!_!__
Gizmo
rom...@my-deja.com
>Just confirms my suspicions that TNT deliberately "torpedoed"
Crusade by showing the more cerebral, less action-oriented episodes up
front (like "The Well of Forever" and "The Path of Sorrows"). They were
wonderful stories from a science fiction point of view but were far less
appealing (IMHO) to TNT's mainstream audience than the last five
episodes released. By the time the pace did pick up, a lot of folks were
tuning out. the lower ratings guaranteed that nobody else would make a
concerted effort to try and acquire the rights to the show.
This is a spur of the moment idea. Shouldn't we as fans treat B5 as
public radio or something. Start a pledge drive or fund raising
campaign to get the money to bring "Crusade" back - or at least get the
episodes filmed. I know NPR, Public TV, and other listener supported
stations raise money every so often. If there are enough fans out
there who would pledge, the cost would be minimal. I know this may not
be possible, yet, IMHO it would stick in TNT's craw if a show they
"deliberately torpedoed" suddenly reappearred with a fan base that was
using its money to support the show. TNT would kick themselves at the
lost revenues they could have had from that fan base.
As I stated, it is just a spur of the moment idea. Greater minds than I
would have to work out the details. Give JMS total creative control yet
we own "stock" in each episode (look, that pen Gideon is writing with -
I bought that), or something like that. Any ideas? Or is this just
fancy dreaming?
Dan S.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Ryan Nock
<rom...@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:7vl1va$mi8$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
This is a spur of the moment idea. Shouldn't we as fans treat B5 as
public radio or something. Start a pledge drive or fund raising
campaign to get the money to bring "Crusade" back - or at least get the
episodes filmed. I know NPR, Public TV, and other listener supported
stations raise money every so often. If there are enough fans out
there who would pledge, the cost would be minimal. I know this may not
be possible, yet, IMHO it would stick in TNT's craw if a show they
"deliberately torpedoed" suddenly reappearred with a fan base that was
using its money to support the show. TNT would kick themselves at the
lost revenues they could have had from that fan base.
As I stated, it is just a spur of the moment idea. Greater minds than I
would have to work out the details. Give JMS total creative control yet
we own "stock" in each episode (look, that pen Gideon is writing with--
Alyson L. Abramowitz
UnltdLife wrote:
>
> All this talk about cancelled shows makes me think a little about the whole
> ratings system.
>
> Think about it...
>
> It seems to me that good ratings on a pilot episode don't really indicate that
> the pilot episode was popular or even very good necessarily... but instead that
> it was sucessfully ADVERTISED.
You can generalize this far more. Many fair (or even bad) products are
successful because the company which owns them markets and sells them
successfully. Microsoft versus Apple, Beta versus VHS. The good product
has little to do with market success.
By the way, this isn't to say that I like this approach. It is, however,
reality.
Best,
Alyson
Gerard J. Keating
> It seems to me that good ratings on a pilot episode don't really indicate
that
> the pilot episode was popular or even very good necessarily... but instead
that
> it was sucessfully ADVERTISED.
In one of the Alien Nation TV movies, "Millennium", two of the charactors
sit down to watch the pilot of some new show, about five minutes into the
show, the announcer come on, the show is cancelled "due to poor rating"....
our charactors complain about network not giving a show a chance...
gerard
* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com * The Internet's Discussion Network *
* The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free! *
ImRastro
> public radio or something. Start a pledge drive or fund raising
> campaign to get the money to bring "Crusade" back - or at least get the
> episodes filmed.
Been there, done that. (In a variety of forms......none successful).
Rom...@bigfoot.com
imra...@aol.com (ImRastro) wrote:
> Been there, done that. (In a variety of forms......none successful).
My memory is short. Could you give a few examples?
As far as successful, depends on your definition. To me, successful
would be getting the shows taped - possibly aired. I wouldn't expect to
see my money back (never do from public radio/tv). Therefore, it
wouldn't be successful in the since of making a profit.
raa
UnltdLife wrote in message <19991030164616...@ng-bj1.aol.com>...
>It seems to me that good ratings on a pilot episode don't really indicate
that
>the pilot episode was popular or even very good necessarily... but instead
that
>it was sucessfully ADVERTISED.
>The fact that TNT did not really PUSH Crusade on their networks
Wrong.
Wrong. Wrong. Wrong.
As someone who does nothing BUT watch TNT's air, I can tell you without a
doubt that Crusade was promoted TO DEATH on TNT, and to a lesser extent on
all the other Turner networks. Although I have forgotten the exact figure
now, I know that the ad campaign even before the first episode aired was
well into the millions. Lack of advertising was NOT the problem.
>Not enough people watched the show.
This is very true.
Rick
Shane D. Killian
>
> As someone who does nothing BUT watch TNT's air, I can tell you without
> a doubt that Crusade was promoted TO DEATH on TNT, and to a lesser
> extent on all the other Turner networks. Although I have forgotten the
> exact figure now, I know that the ad campaign even before the first
> episode aired was well into the millions. Lack of advertising was NOT
> the problem.
>
saw a Crusade advertisement was just before Crusade aired.
--
Shane D. Killian -- sha...@vnet.net -- http://users.vnet.net/shanek
"uuunnn k mmmmmmk hhhhhhhh khbbbbbbbbbbbh
gnhjjjjjjjjjjj rrrrrrrrrddddfc gvb uyyyyyyyhubbbbbbb"
--Sinclair Mitchell Killian, born 1/29/98
Diane K De
>>
>> As someone who does nothing BUT watch TNT's air, I can tell you without
>> a doubt that Crusade was promoted TO DEATH on TNT, and to a lesser
>> extent on all the other Turner networks. Although I have forgotten the
>> exact figure now, I know that the ad campaign even before the first
>> episode aired was well into the millions. Lack of advertising was NOT
>> the problem.
>>
>I was a more-than-regular TNT viewer at the time, and the *ONLY* time I
>saw a Crusade advertisement was just before Crusade aired.
>
>--
>Shane D. Killian
Crusade ads started appearing on TNT about four weeks prior to airdate. It was
during the NBA playoffs that I first saw the ads.
DD
Jms at B5
>> a doubt that Crusade was promoted TO DEATH on TNT, and to a lesser
>> extent on all the other Turner networks. Although I have forgotten the
>> exact figure now, I know that the ad campaign even before the first
>> episode aired was well into the millions. Lack of advertising was NOT
>> the problem.
That's simply not true. For one thing, the few ads they had on TNT were comps,
meaning they don't cost much of anything, and only appeal to viewers watching
TNT to begin with. For the B5 launch, they bought ads on other cable networks,
bus ads, billboards, you name it...they did none of that for Crusade. Zero.
Reviewers and journalists were constantly calling me to ask if they could get
material for the show because TNT wouldn't give it to them. I saw their ad
campaign before they launched it, and even they admitted that it was only a
small part of what they'd done for B5 and were doing for other shows.
Your perception is your perception, but it doesn't jibe with the facts.
jms
(jms...@aol.com)
B5 Official Fan Club at:
http://www.thestation.com
Dan S.
dian...@aol.com (Diane K De) wrote:
> >raa wrote:
> >> As someone who does nothing BUT watch TNT's air, I can tell you
without a doubt that Crusade was promoted TO DEATH on TNT, and to a
lesser extent on all the other Turner networks. Although I have
forgotten the exact figure now, I know that the ad campaign even before
the first episode aired was well into the millions. Lack of advertising
was NOT the problem.
> >I was a more-than-regular TNT viewer at the time, and the *ONLY* time
I saw a Crusade advertisement was just before Crusade aired.
--
> >Shane D. Killian
> Crusade ads started appearing on TNT about four weeks prior to
airdate. It was during the NBA playoffs that I first saw the ads.
> DD
Could it be that TNT stuck the advertising at times when most sci-fi
fans aren't watching? I'd have to agree with Shane and say there was no
advertising for "Crusade," at least not at the times I was watching.
Granted, I was not an avid TNT watcher but I was watching for ads
telling me when "Crusade" started. I never saw advertising during
"ER" or "Due South." I kept seeing ads for "Pirates of Silicon Valley"
and any other TNT movie that was coming out. It wasn't until I read in
some magazine that "Crusade" was starting that I "knew" when it was
airing. TNT did not inform me.
On the Monday night replays of "Crusade" they didn't advertise the
upcoming episode on Wednesday night. I would consider that a LACK of
advertising when they don't even announce when the next show is airing
after the replay. TNT advertised for B5 when it aired on it's replay
night. Then again, B5 they couldn't hinder and Crusade they could.
Dan S.
--
"They're coming to take me away Ha-Ha!"
Napoleon XIV
Mac Breck
effective in luring the average person into watching Crusade. I still
remember the bus and billboard ads that Fox did for The X-Files and
Millennium. Ads you see outside of "TV", in your regular life have a
lasting effect.
Crusade was nor promoted to death on TNT. It was barely promoted at all,
and then only for the first few shows.
Mac
Jms at B5 <jms...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:19991109184306...@ng-bd1.aol.com...
> >> As someone who does nothing BUT watch TNT's air, I can tell you without
> >> a doubt that Crusade was promoted TO DEATH on TNT, and to a lesser
> >> extent on all the other Turner networks. Although I have forgotten the
> >> exact figure now, I know that the ad campaign even before the first
> >> episode aired was well into the millions. Lack of advertising was NOT
> >> the problem.
>
Shane D. Killian
>
> >I was a more-than-regular TNT viewer at the time, and the *ONLY* time I
> >saw a Crusade advertisement was just before Crusade aired.
> >
>
> Crusade ads started appearing on TNT about four weeks prior to airdate.
> It was during the NBA playoffs that I first saw the ads.
>
missed them.
raa
Jms at B5 wrote in message <19991109184306...@ng-bd1.aol.com>...
>>> As someone who does nothing BUT watch TNT's air, I can tell you without
>>> a doubt that Crusade was promoted TO DEATH on TNT, and to a lesser
>>> extent on all the other Turner networks. Although I have forgotten the
>>> exact figure now, I know that the ad campaign even before the first
>>> episode aired was well into the millions. Lack of advertising was NOT
>>> the problem.
>
>That's simply not true. For one thing, the few ads they had on TNT were
comps,
>meaning they don't cost much of anything,
A comp is still not free. I remember many ads during the NBA playoffs
(granted, probably not a good target audience). While TNT didn't have to
pay outright for this time, those spots still had a lot of value. That was
all time that could have been sold to advertisers but wasn't. And there
were some issues (that I can't get into, God is watching) that made that
time even more valuble. Time is a commodity in television. If a network
foregoes selling it's time to advertisers to promote its own programming,
that is money they are not making.
Crusade was getting at least one hit per hour on TNT as much as two or three
months before the show started. In recent memory only Pirates of Silicon
Valley and Animal Farm got more time than that.
The major flaw with Crusade's ad campaign was that it was being specifically
promoted as a "limited series." Now really, who wants to get involved in a
show when you know ahead of time it's not going to be around very long?
>For the B5 launch, they bought ads on other cable networks,
>bus ads, billboards, you name it...they did none of that for Crusade.
Zero.
There was at least one TVGuide ad so it wasn't zero.
>I saw their ad
>campaign before they launched it, and even they admitted that it was only a
>small part of what they'd done for B5 and were doing for other shows.
B5 was a little before my time so I can't compare the two. But I did see a
breakdown of several ad campaigns around the time of Crusade and the only
one I can recall being better was Pirates.
Pelzo63
rbai...@mindspring.com wrote:
>B5 was a little before my time so I can't compare the two. But I did see >a
>breakdown of several ad campaigns around the time of Crusade and the >only
>one I can recall being better was Pirates.
last may/june, i was frequently watching TNT to see WCW, and i also watched
Pirates at least 4 times. however, i didn't watch much else on TNT. i saw
several crusade ads on TNT, during that time, at least one every showing of
Pirates, and at least one every 2 hrs of wrestling(both during the original
showing, and the repeat in the middle of the night). i don't recall whether
there were any ads during WCW's thursday show in TBS, the 2 wcw shows tend to
blend together in my memory, like they got his by a steel chair and smashed
into one. ;-) i also vividly recall seeing several TV guide ads, and ads in
the San Bernardino Sun(san bernardino CA) tv magazine.
however, to contrast this with B5, i was watching TNT abous as often back then
as i did before the crusade premier(IE. wrestling + a movie once in a while),
and despite only seeing TNT occasionally, i got drilled with B5 Ads. i was
only a moderate fan of the show at that time, i had just gotten back into the
story after IiRT(not because of the "action shoot-em-up style eps that
followed, because i was too busy with school up till then), and i was much more
interested in DS9. after seeing a ton of ads for "Babylon 5, on TNT", i said
to myself "hey i guess the show finally made it big". i tuned into the
re-edit of The gathering, thinking it would be a new Movie, and after a few
minutes i said "hey, i already saw this" and tuned out(at the time i was also
very anti-re-run, now B5 is the only show whose reruns i watch regularly). a
few days later, i tuned back to tnt and caught one of the repeats of "In The
beginning", and mistakenly thought it also was "the gathering", so i missed it,
and didn't see it till the weekend before crusade. after this, i only rarely
caught any B5 episodes, it was always conflicting with new eps of DS9. then,
summer hit, and DS9 went away, so i started watching again, just in tome for
the huge break between "Movements of Fire and Shadow" and "the Fall of centauri
Prime". that cliffhangar got me hooked for good(along with being ticked at
jadzia being killed), in a desperate attempt to find any resolution to that
cliffhangar, i scoured the net, found this group, foiund the B5 AOL site,
caught as many reruns as i could, and even sat through the highly advertised
Thirdspace, thinking "maybe this is the resolution" oops.
ok, i seem to have drifted far from the "advertisement" point, but the point is
up there, as someone who wasn't looking for B5 ads, i found a ton, as someone
who searched long and hard for crusade ads, i found an average #, not a small
#, and not a large #. of course, the crusade ads were not very inspiring,
there's just something about seeing g'kar standing there shouting "for
freedom!". :-) maybe they shoulda had a Galen ad "for new batteries!"
---Chris AOL/AIM--pelzo63
http://members.aol.com/pelzo63/welcome.html
wow! i found an old tape with the original airings of EoVP, and FotE, from the
PTEN days
Shane D. Killian
>
> Jms at B5 wrote in message
>
> >that it was only a small part of what they'd done for B5 and were doing
> >for other shows.
>
> see a breakdown of several ad campaigns around the time of Crusade and
> the only one I can recall being better was Pirates.
>
channels without seeing an ad for it--and not just on TNT!
And the ads were *GOOD*! Not like this "renegade rangers" crap..."Where
war and hate is constantly fought by love and faith." Or G'Kar saying,
"For freedom! For peace! And to guard against those who would see such
liberty stolen from my people!"
Man...I *still* get chills when I recall those ads. Nothing in the
Crusade ads made me want to watch it; if it hadn't been a JMS
production, and just been some other show, I probably wouldn't have even
given it a first watch. The B5 ads constantly said, You *WANT* to watch
this show--it is *GOOD*!!!
Diane K De
>Date: Tue, 09 November 1999 10:44 PM EST
>Message-id: <19991109184306...@ng-bd1.aol.com>
>
>>> As someone who does nothing BUT watch TNT's air, I can tell you without
>>> a doubt that Crusade was promoted TO DEATH on TNT, and to a lesser
>>> extent on all the other Turner networks. Although I have forgotten the
>>> exact figure now, I know that the ad campaign even before the first
>>> episode aired was well into the millions. Lack of advertising was NOT
>>> the problem.
>
>That's simply not true. For one thing, the few ads they had on TNT were
>comps,
>networks,
>bus ads, billboards, you name it...they did none of that for Crusade. Zero.
>campaign before they launched it, and even they admitted that it was only a
>small part of what they'd done for B5 and were doing for other shows.
>
>
>jms
When you say "zero", are you including print and radio?
There were several magazine and newspaper ads and a radio campaign during the
last week leading up to broadcast.
I usually aren't exposed to radio because I don't drive a lot, but I happened
to be in LA for business and heard it while driving around. I think I was
listening to K-Rock.
DD
JK
Ryan Nock wrote:
> ...yet, IMHO it would stick in TNT's craw if a show they
> "deliberately torpedoed" suddenly reappearred with a fan base that was
> using its money to support the show. TNT would kick themselves at the
> lost revenues they could have had from that fan base.
This may be a cynical sentiment, but I doubt TNT would really recognize it.
Frankly, from all I can glean, TNT is a fairly pedestrian network; run by pedestrian minds for pedestrian viewers.
And about all this talk regarding ratings... they are over-rated (pun intended). Not ultimately, but for some time after a launch of any show. I find myself constantly amazed that media executives should realize the power of not only the amount of promotion but the nature thereof, yet constantly fall back into apparently simplistic ratings analysis? They should be experts at understanding how promotion and other factors can influence the public and in which ways. That the most feeble tripe can be extolled and bring in ratings for a time, and the greatest works of genius can falter or take time to be accepted. Anyone with such understandings should consider immediate ratings as no greater than a tertiary concern; and realize that their OWN judgment of the material as well as the reactions (readily available via internet) of their intended market are far more important.
I guess it all comes down to the fact that too often the great minds are not the ones pulling the strings.
-JK
Diane K De
>And about all this talk regarding ratings... they are over-rated (pun
>intended). Not ultimately, but for some time after a launch of any show. I
>find myself constantly amazed that media executives should realize the power
>of not only the amount of promotion but the nature thereof, yet constantly
>fall back into apparently simplistic ratings analysis? They should be
>experts at understanding how promotion and other factors can influence the
>public and in which ways. That the most feeble tripe can be extolled and
>bring in ratings for a time, and the greatest works of genius can falter or
>take time to be accepted. Anyone with such understandings should consider
>immediate ratings as no greater than a tertiary concern; and realize that
>their OWN judgment of the material as well as the reactions (readily
>available via internet) of their intended market are far more important.
>
How do you know what they are aware of and not aware of and types of analyses
they do and don't do? Do you work at the research department of one of the
networks?
You appear to be unaware of the many instances when networks have used their
own judgment and kept things on air because they believed in the project,
regardless of low initial ratings.
Some of television's biggest success stories fall into this category: Seinfeld
and Hill Street Blues being some of the most prominent examples. Even "The
Practice" falls into this category. There are often a few "favorites" for the
executives that fall into this every year.
An example is on Fox. They canceled "Harsh Realm" after three outings, but are
still sticking with a show called "Get Real", whose ratings history is just as
bad.
NBC is sticking with "Freaks and Geeks", despite low ratings, because they like
the show themselves and it got good reviews.
But does this mean in either case that there is no limit to their patience?
Probably not.
Is their judgment 100%? No. Is anyone's? Not anyone I've ever met.
Of course, if you know anyone who can predict with absolute accuracy what shows
will work and which won't based only on their own instincts, that person could
make a fortune working either at the networks or an ad agency. They are
squandering a big job opportunity.
DD
JK
Diane K De wrote:
> How do you know what they are aware of and not aware of and types of analyses they do and don't do? Do you work at the research department of one of the networks?
One doesn't need to do so to be aware of many instances where ratings are bowed to as god. Whether or not the networks are aware of these analyses is less important than what they ultimately tout as their ultimate reason for keeping or dropping a show. It doesn't even take any great deal of research in some cases. Just listen to the networks PR ppl.
Anyway; which is the worse fault; to be naive of the existence of something, or aware on some level and to ignore its significance?
> You appear to be unaware of the many instances when networks have used their own judgment and kept things on air because they believed in the project, regardless of low initial ratings.
I'm aware... it's just that we weren't talking about those instances in particular. The conversation was about instances where networks were placing undo importance on ratings, especially for the first episodes. Just because I didn't mention those instances doesn't mean I'm trying to make a statement that they don't exist. Rather, I was making a statement of how amazing it is when networks DO extol ratings unduly. In this case, the contrapositive doesn't apply.
Crusade was, in a way, the converse of your statement above. It was a case where the series was canceled because of a lack of belief in the project, before rating one ever came in. Then they merely used comparatively low ratings as a means of supporting their past decision.
> But does this mean in either case that there is no limit to their patience?
> Probably not.
Agreed. No show could survive indefinitely without good ratings. It's just that, with luck, certain shows will be "given a chance".
> Is their judgment 100%? No. Is anyone's? Not anyone I've ever met.
Again, agreed.
> Of course, if you know anyone who can predict with absolute accuracy what shows
> will work and which won't based only on their own instincts, that person could
> make a fortune working either at the networks or an ad agency. They are
> squandering a big job opportunity.
Heck - if I knew someone like that, I wouldn't have them for a network agent or an ad exec... I'd hire them as a stockbroker!