Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

Monday 10/22/07 ratings

3 views
Skip to first unread message

David

unread,
Oct 23, 2007, 1:39:05 PM10/23/07
to
from Marc Berman at mediaweek

Monday 10/22/07

The following results are based on the fast affiliate ratings (Live
Plus Same Day data)

-Total Viewers:
ABC: 16.04 million, CBS: 12.14, NBC: 8.04, Fox: 6.79, CW: 2.39

-Adults 18-49:
ABC: 4.6 rating/11 share, CBS: 4.1/10, NBC: 3.4/ 8, Fox: 2.5/ 6, CW:
1.0/ 2

----------

-Yesterday’s Winners:
Dancing With the Stars (ABC), Samantha Who? (ABC), Two and a Half Men
(CBS), Heroes (NBC), CSI: Miami (CBS)

-Fading Fast:
Prison Break (Fox)

-Yesterday’s Losers (excluding repeats):
Chuck (NBC), Everybody Hates Chris (CW), Aliens in America (CW),
Girlfriends (CW), K-Ville (Fox), Journeyman (NBC)

----------

-Ratings Breakdown:
ABC kicked-off week No. 5 of the 2007-08 season with a first-place
Monday finish in both total viewers and adults 18-49. Blockbuster
Dancing With the Stars dominated, of course, from 8-9:30 p.m., with a
hefty 19.96 million viewers and a 5.3 rating/13 share among adults
18-49. If you were watching like I was last night, you must have been
shocked to see Marie Osmond drop to the floor like she did. Dancing
With the Stars led into week two of sitcom Samantha Who?, which ranked
first in the 9:30 p.m. half hour in total viewers (14.35 million) and
second among adults 18-49 (4.6/10) behind NBC’s Heroes. Comparably,
that was right on par from its week-ago debut (Viewers: 14.42 million;
A18-49: 4.5/10 on Oct. 15), with retention out of the last half-hour
of lead-in Dancing With the Stars (Viewers: 21.81 million; A18-49:
5.7/13 at 9 p.m.) of 66 percent in viewers and 79 percent in the demo.
As positive as this is, Samantha Who? is what you would refer to as a
time period hit.

Capping off the evening for ABC was The Bachelor at a second-place
finish in both total viewers (9.20 million) and adults 18-49 (3.4/ 8)
at 10 p.m.

CBS finished second overall as a result of How I Met Your Mother
(Viewers: #2, 8.60 million; A18-49: #2, 3.4/ 9), The Big Bang Theory
(Viewers: #2, 8.72 million; A18-49: #2, 3.5/ 9), Two and a Half Men
(Viewers: #2, 13.74 million; A18-49: #2, 4.8/11), Rules of Engagement
(Viewers: #3, 10.82 million; A18-49: #3, 3.9/ 9), and CSI: Miami
(Viewers: #1, 15.48 million; A18-49: #1, 4.5/11). Retention for Rules
of Engagement out of Two and a Half Men this week was 79 percent in
viewers and 81 percent among adults 18-49.

NBC’s Chuck opened the evening fourth in both total viewers (7.14
million) and adults 18-49 (2.8/ 7), with a series-low in both
categories. One year earlier in the time period was Deal or No Deal at
13.16 million viewers and a 3.7/10 in the demo. It’s official...Chuck
is a loser this week. That led into Heroes, at 10.70 million viewers
(#3) and 4.9/12 among adults 18-49 (#2) at 9 p.m., followed by fading
Journeyman third in both total viewers (6.28 million) and adults 18-49
(2.5/ 6) at 10 p.m.

Fox remained out of the competitive loop, finishing fourth overall for
the evening with its combination of the fading Prison Break (Viewers:
7.45 million; A18-49: 3.0/ 8) and K-Ville (Viewers: 6.12 million;
A18-49: 2.1/ 5). One year earlier, Prison Break averaged 8.99 million
viewers and a 3.8/10 in the demo from 8-9 p.m.

The CW comedies, meanwhile, continue to disappoint, with Everybody
Hates Chris at 2.53 million viewers and a 1.0/ 3 among adults 18-49 at
8 p.m., followed by Aliens in America (Viewers: 2.35 million, A18-49:
0.9/ 2), Girlfriends (Viewers: 2.14 million; A18-49: 0.9/ 2) and The
Game (Viewers: 2.54 million; A18-49: 1.2/ 3) from 8:30-10 p.m. As
usual, the growth for The Game out of Girlfriends keeps it off the
loser’s listing.

Source: Nielsen Media Research data

Lord Vader III

unread,
Oct 23, 2007, 1:43:16 PM10/23/07
to
On Oct 23, 12:39 pm, David <dimla...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> NBC's Chuck opened the evening fourth in both total viewers (7.14
> million) and adults 18-49 (2.8/ 7), with a series-low in both
> categories. One year earlier in the time period was Deal or No Deal at
> 13.16 million viewers and a 3.7/10 in the demo. It's official...Chuck
> is a loser this week. That led into Heroes, at 10.70 million viewers
> (#3) and 4.9/12 among adults 18-49 (#2) at 9 p.m., followed by fading
> Journeyman third in both total viewers (6.28 million) and adults 18-49
> (2.5/ 6) at 10 p.m.

This is not good news for Chuck. I'm beginning to think that Chuck is
the first new show I am watching that will get canned. :(

LVIII

windowwasher

unread,
Oct 23, 2007, 2:02:13 PM10/23/07
to

"Lord Vader III" <lord.va...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1193161396....@e34g2000pro.googlegroups.com...

Yeh, unfortunately that may turn out to be the case. It's one of my
favorites and one of the few I actually look forward to. It's in a tough
time slot. DWTS and the CBS comedies are formidable to be sure.


Sean Walsh

unread,
Oct 23, 2007, 3:14:05 PM10/23/07
to

Wow, that's a big increase for HIMYM vs. prior weeks (it's been at
almost 1mil fewer viewers than this since the season began).

Big Bang Theory had been capitalizing on it rather well, but now the
increase is much much smaller. Wonder what the reason is.......perhaps
all this extra advertising and the online bonuses have finally caught
on?

--
Sean

Obveeus

unread,
Oct 23, 2007, 3:54:48 PM10/23/07
to

"Sean Walsh" <sean...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Wow, that's a big increase for HIMYM vs. prior weeks (it's been at
> almost 1mil fewer viewers than this since the season began).
>
> Big Bang Theory had been capitalizing on it rather well, but now the
> increase is much much smaller. Wonder what the reason is.......perhaps
> all this extra advertising and the online bonuses have finally caught
> on?

My theory on the closing of the ratings gap is that HIMYM is a better show
than BBT.
Last night's episode of BBT had Sarah Gilbert upstaging every member of the
cast.


David

unread,
Oct 23, 2007, 6:00:49 PM10/23/07
to

"Chuck"s ratings pattern makes no sense to me

9/24: 9.28 million, 3.6 18-49s
10/1: 8.22 million, 3.1 18-49s
10/8: 7.12 million, 2.6 18-49s
10/15: 8.23 million, 3.2 18-49s
10/22: 7.14 million, 2.8 18-49s

Okay the first few weeks it was getting sampled, but what's making it
jump around after that? The one difference in competition was baseball
instead of "Prison Break" on 10/15.

But I'm more worried about "Journeyman" since it's produced by FOX and
there's been a rumor that NBC wants to move "Friday Night Lights" to
its slot. It's not breaking new ground with "doing good to change the
future" storylines but I like the way troubles from the past have bled
into the future for Dan and vice versa and I think it's building an
interesting mythology.

Brian Thorn

unread,
Oct 23, 2007, 6:27:28 PM10/23/07
to
On Tue, 23 Oct 2007 15:54:48 -0400, "Obveeus" <Obv...@aol.com> wrote:


>My theory on the closing of the ratings gap is that HIMYM is a better show
>than BBT.
>Last night's episode of BBT had Sarah Gilbert upstaging every member of the
>cast.

And that was the funniest HIMYM so far this season, too. The
"Hot/Crazy Scale" was hillarious!

Brian

Obveeus

unread,
Oct 23, 2007, 7:45:48 PM10/23/07
to

"David" <diml...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> "Chuck"s ratings pattern makes no sense to me
>
> 9/24: 9.28 million, 3.6 18-49s
> 10/1: 8.22 million, 3.1 18-49s
> 10/8: 7.12 million, 2.6 18-49s
> 10/15: 8.23 million, 3.2 18-49s
> 10/22: 7.14 million, 2.8 18-49s
>
> Okay the first few weeks it was getting sampled, but what's making it
> jump around after that? The one difference in competition was baseball
> instead of "Prison Break" on 10/15.

I think baseball is the answer. beyond that, Chuck seems to be 'stable' at
just over 7 million viewers.

> But I'm more worried about "Journeyman" since it's produced by FOX and
> there's been a rumor that NBC wants to move "Friday Night Lights" to
> its slot.

Journeyman and K-Ville should both be cancelled. Neither one is performing
well.


David

unread,
Oct 23, 2007, 1:51:08 PM10/23/07
to
On Tue, 23 Oct 2007 10:43:16 -0700, Lord Vader III
<lord.va...@gmail.com> wrote:

"Chuck"s ratings pattern makes no sense to me

0 new messages