Strong Ratings For BSG Premiere [Archive]

DangerWillRobinson

12-09-2003, 09:51 PM

Strong Ratings For BSG Premiere

Author: Michael Hinman
Date: 12-09-2003
Source: MediaWeek

While it's not clear what the overnight ratings are for the actual two-hour movie of "Battlestar Galactica," which aired its first part Monday night, Sci-Fi Channel was the top cable network last night.

According to MediaWeek, Sci-Fi Channel scored a 3.5 rating Monday night during the primetime hours, which covered the hours of 7 p.m. to 11 p.m. During that time, half of it was devoted to "Battlestar Galactica" and the other two hours was yet another repeat of the Arnold Schwarzenegger film "Terminator 2: Judgment Day" that has been aired all weekend on the cable channel.

The ratings were 21 percent better than the cable channel did a year ago. It topped TNT (2.8), Spike TV (2.8), USA (2.3) and Lifetime (1.5).

Reports are that Sci-Fi Channel told advertisers that they expected the show to maintain a 3.3 rating during its run. If that's the case, it looks clear that "Battlestar Galactica" earned well above that, possibly in the 3.9 to 4.3 range. That means around 4 million people tuned in to see the reimagination.

Sci-Fi Channel's overnight ratings were similar to that of the Fox Network, The WB and UPN -- all of which aired reruns.

It is unclear what the ratings threshold is needed for the Sci-Fi Channel to pick up "Battlestar Galactica" as a series for the Fall 2004 schedule. However, some indication from SyFy Portal sources within the cable channel indicates that barring a huge dropoff for tonight's second part, there is a good chance that the miniseries will in fact be picked up as a series

bouyantman

12-09-2003, 10:08 PM

glad to hear about the ratings...but i think the rating's were because all us horney guy's were watching!:shocked: :lech:

DZ_Crasher

12-10-2003, 12:14 AM

I will look on the bright side. I will look on the bright side...

OK...

If this four hour mini-series is picked up for a series then it means another four hour mini-series can be picked up for a series...

Ok... bright side found.

LiLOrion

12-10-2003, 04:43 AM

Originally posted by DZ_Crasher

If this four hour mini-series is picked up for a series then it means another four hour mini-series can be picked up for a series...

Ok... bright side found.

:D Love the rationale! :aok:

As for the 3.9 to 4.3 range, that surprises the hell outta me. I didnt think it would do the same as TAKEN, I thought it would do more along the lines of Children of Dune.

MediaSavant

12-10-2003, 04:44 AM

It should be pointed out that the ratings Mediaweek posted are the "major market overnights". They are a preliminary set of ratings that reflect only the top 40-something (have to double-check the current number of markets) in the country.

The real overnights that reflect the entire country are released later in the day.

LiLOrion

12-10-2003, 04:51 AM

Originally posted by MediaSavant
It should be pointed out that the ratings Mediaweek posted are the "major market overnights". They are a preliminary set of ratings that reflect only the top 40-something (have to double-check the current number of markets) in the country.

The real overnights that reflect the entire country are released later in the day.

Ah, the major market overnights the ones that are usually higher (but usually not by that much) arent they? If I remember my crash course in ratings from about a year or so ago. :)

Still, that range is pretty good, considering the advertising. I didnt seen BSG adverts anywhere near as much as TAKEN.

Ammit

12-10-2003, 06:31 AM

I'll be interested to see how many people tune back for the next segment...

SabaceanBabe

12-10-2003, 06:50 AM

I really think a lot of this high rating can be attributed to the controversy over the show and curiosity. In all honesty, I expect the run of the mini will do very well for Skiffy, but whether it can be sustained as a weekly series remains to be seen. After all, the original BSG was a strong mini that got extended into a weekly and tanked.

BillFrugge

12-10-2003, 08:24 AM

Originally posted by SabaceanBabe
I really think a lot of this high rating can be attributed to the controversy over the show and curiosity. In all honesty, I expect the run of the mini will do very well for Skiffy, but whether it can be sustained as a weekly series remains to be seen. After all, the original BSG was a strong mini that got extended into a weekly and tanked.

Hmmmm... IIRC, it was just a 3-hour movie on television.

We need to learn how the show did on Tuesday. It will be interesting to see if all of those people tuned back in to see how it ended. Also, some people have told others at work what they've seen, so there may be more that joined in.

In Indiana, the show aired from 9PM to 11PM. I don't believe that there are that many people who would stay up to watch, so I think they've more than likely recorded it for viewing on the weekend. Taping counts to the Nielsens. I wonder if this is what Skiffy has in mind...

SabaceanBabe

12-10-2003, 08:49 AM

Originally posted by BillFrugge
Hmmmm... IIRC, it was just a 3-hour movie on television.

We need to learn how the show did on Tuesday. It will be interesting to see if all of those people tuned back in to see how it ended. Also, some people have told others at work what they've seen, so there may be more that joined in.

In Indiana, the show aired from 9PM to 11PM. I don't believe that there are that many people who would stay up to watch, so I think they've more than likely recorded it for viewing on the weekend. Taping counts to the Nielsens. I wonder if this is what Skiffy has in mind...

Actually, it was a 3-hour movie and 4 one-hour episodes following. The rest was scrabbled together to make a more-or-less full season.

vhsiv

12-10-2003, 09:02 AM

Marc Berman reports as follows:Cable Overnights:

What follows are ratings for the key competing cable networks in primetime (with change versus the comparable year-ago week in parentheses):

Sci Fi: 3.8 (+27), TNT: 2.9 (+26), TBS: 1.7 (+21), Bravo: 1.7 (+467), USA: 1.6 (- 6), MTV: 1.5 (-29), Discovery: 1.4 (-13), Lifetime: 1.4 (- 7), A&E: 1.1 (-27), History: 1.0 (+43), TLC: 0.7 (-22), Comedy Central: 0.7 (+17), Spike TV: 0.5 (-29), FX: 0.2 (-71)

Source: Nielsen Media ResearchSource: MediaWeek.com
http://www.mediaweek.com/mediaweek/columns/column_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=2048559

It's official - the Cylons have landed.

Selena

12-10-2003, 09:03 AM

I wonder how many of that 3.5 were as bored as I was with part 1 of BSG: MS and decided not to tune in last night?

Scaper989

12-10-2003, 09:08 AM

Another note on the positive side, this shows skiffy isn't opposed
to "space-based" shows.

Digger

12-10-2003, 09:21 AM

I guess after seeing it and how well it did on the first night I am not too surprised that it did as well on the second night, which I thought was the better of the two. As I said in my review, it wasn't bad, but wasn't anything to write home about (although I guess I did write home about it didn't I - this board has become like a second home to me). There was some potential there, even though there were some parts that I really didn't like at all. But I guess this all just goes to show that mediocre television does better than the truly creative. Sad, but true.

I'm wondering how MS felt about it. She was really looking forward to it as I recall.

I feel bad for the fans of the original, as these ratings seem to give skiffy the ammunition to make a series. It will be very interesting to see if it does well the second time they show it. Taken has not done well at all in reruns, and I wonder how much of the audience for this BSG was just curiosity. That's why I watched it.

Davesnothome

12-10-2003, 09:45 AM

The fans of the original Battlestar Gallacitca may use the success of new BG to support Glen Larson and Richard Hatch in going forward with the rights to create a BG theatrical movie, based on the original series. They will use the evidence that this miniseries's success shows there are many BG fans out there to pay for and watch a new BG movie.

Whether a studio will be interested, will be the question.

Dave

DangerWillRobinson

12-10-2003, 08:49 PM

Another Strong Night For Sci-Fi Channel

Author: Michael Hinman
Date: 12-10-2003
Source: MediaWeek

Will "Battlestar Galactica" be picked up as a series? If 4 million viewers isn't enough, then it's hard to tell what would be?

According to the Boston Globe, the first part of the miniseries drew in 3.9 million viewers Monday night, according to overnights, making it second only to wrestling on TNT. The Globe said that this premiere is less than the premieres for "Frank Herbert's Dune" and "Steven Spielberg's Taken," but that was to be expected considering there was no starpower being used to promote the miniseries.

According to MediaWeek, there was another strong night for Sci-Fi Channel during the primetime hours, which included a rebroadcast of the first part and the premiere of the second and final part of "Battlestar Galactica."

Sci-Fi Channel finished with an overnight rating of 3.8, up 27 percent over the same time last year. It also made it the top cable channel once again, beating out TNT (2.9), TBS (1.7) and Bravo (1.7).

The overnight ratings for the primetime of Sci-Fi did better than rerun schedules of both The WB and UPN (which finished with 2.8 and 2.3 shares respectively).

It is unclear when Sci-Fi Channel will make the announcement on whether or not the miniseries will be made into a series. However, the success of the series (coming within already established projections by the cable channel to advertisers) could make the possibility of it being picked up highly likely.

If a series were to be made, it likely would premiere in Fall 2004.

waltersgirl

12-10-2003, 08:54 PM

if SciFi is showing scifi then that's a good thing. if it stands on its own merits, then groovy.

Vampgrrl

12-10-2003, 09:13 PM

I watched both nights. It wasn't perfect but it was actually pretty good, and it was SCIFI on SCIFI (who woulda thought). I'm not going to slam SciFi for getting good ratings with BSG because they will sooner or later get good ratings and I'd rather them get it with a SPACE SCIENCE FICTION movie/series than with crap like TAKEN or worse yet some SCARE TATICS crap.

TOo bad they didnt keep Farscape though, had there been FS on Scifi plus BSG series, I would heart SciFi. TOo bad for them I guess.

Da-Met

12-11-2003, 12:32 AM

^ yeah. I was kinda shocked at that too... sci-fi on sci-fi, who woulda thought? I'd rather have this than Scare Tactics (bleach) or Tremors (bleeeaacchh) or Crossing Oover (vomits)

Farsight

12-11-2003, 08:03 AM

Of course, there's not much point in watching it as a series, since we already know how SciFi treats their series... they'd probably just cancel it as the ship is about to be destroyed, while at the same time a group of fembot cylons were about to engage in an all-girl orgy... crushing the hopes of fans and people too young or stupid to track down actual pornography... :)

BillFrugge

12-11-2003, 08:05 AM

SciFi was in a position where they could only win on this one. If the ratings were high, they've got a hit. If the ratings were low, they could say that this is proof that people don't like these kinds of shows.

To the Nielsens, videotaping is the same as watching. I believe a large portion of the ratings were due to people recording it. (I'm not convinced that they can actually rate it that quick... How could they?)

The ads that were run all ran along the lines of "See Battlestar Galactica return on Sci-Fi!" None of the advertising actually informed the victim, (oops! I mean viewer) that this was a re-imagining. I think most of the audience were people who remembered the original series and they didn't see what they expected to see.

These minis are critical for SciFi. They are designed to bring people over to the channel and introduce them to what else they can see on the channel. (Now, I wonder why they kept airing that Mad Mad House ad...) The true test of BSG is whether Skiffy's ratings improve overall.

Farsight

12-11-2003, 02:10 PM

The second half got significantly higher ratings than the first, which is the first time EVER that a SciFi miniseries has not had a drop-off. That all-but-gaurantees a series will spawn from it.

I hereby send my condolences in advance to the people who produce the show, and the people who watch it... for they are now doomed, at some point in the not-so-distant future, to be "Sci-Fi'd"... :)

CosmicTheorist

12-12-2003, 01:30 PM

Scifiwire posted this article yesterday about the mini-series' ratings:

"SCI FI Channel's original miniseries Battlestar Galactica averaged a 3.5 rating (2.9 million households) in its Dec. 8 and 9 premiere, the biggest audience for any original miniseries on cable for the year. The four-hour miniseries also achieved SCI FI's best ratings for 2003, the network reported.

"The prime-time premiere of part two of Battlestar Galactica outperformed part one, with 3.8 rating (3.16 million households). The miniseries ranked third among the highest-rated original programs in the channel's history, behind only Steven Spielberg Presents Taken and Frank Herbert's Dune."

You can read this blurb for yourselves at this link:

http://www.scifi.com/scifiwire/art-main.html?2003-12/11/12.00.sfc

grapeshot

12-22-2003, 08:47 PM

Okay, I guess I don't understand.

On most Mondays, the NY Times publishes an info-graphic that includes a number of Top Ten Lists for the week. In today's issue the cable channel top ten shows list looked like this:

http://my.execpc.com/~brigitta/031222graphic.JPG

As you can see, it does indeed look like Tuesday night's broadcast of the BSG miniseries beat out Monday nights' broadcast. But this is a different number than any that's been reported in this thread. Can anyone explain this?

Stargate2077

12-22-2003, 09:18 PM

Grapeshot, I think I have an explanation for this. Whenever the Sci-Fi Channel gives ratings for its shows, they adjust the rating to the number of households that receive the Sci-Fi Channel. The N.Y. Times rating is most likely the official Neilsen National rating.

If I am completely wrong someone please tell me, but I think I got it correct on this one.

MediaSavant

12-22-2003, 09:28 PM

Originally posted by Stargate2077
Whenever the Sci-Fi Channel gives ratings for its shows, they adjust the rating to the number of households that receive the Sci-Fi Channel. The N.Y. Times rating is most likely the official Neilsen National rating.

If I am completely wrong someone please tell me, but I think I got it correct on this one.

This is correct. The NY Times list is the national "Total U.S." rating. The ratings SciFi uses--and the rating we are accustomed to having Farscape are expressed in--are "coverage area" rating

As the Times chart says, the base is 108 million homes. That's the total U.S. universe. SciFi' current universe is 82 million homes.

It's the same number of households that actually viewed it, but the denominator changes.

The use of nationalized ratings makes the cable and network charts directly comparable to one another.

grapeshot

12-23-2003, 12:28 PM

Well, perhaps it's my calculator, (or perhaps it's the operator) but it doesn't multiply out to the same number of households that SciFi reports.

MediaSavant

12-23-2003, 03:15 PM

Originally posted by grapeshot
Well, perhaps it's my calculator, (or perhaps it's the operator) but it doesn't multiply out to the same number of households that SciFi reports.

Sure it does. 3.5% of coverage area households X 82.9 million households getting SciFi = 2.9 million households.

That's what's in their report.

grapeshot

12-23-2003, 05:51 PM

You're talking about their reported AVERAGE over the two nights. I'm talking about what the Times' chart shows for TUESDAY night, vs. what SciFi says here:
"The prime-time premiere of part two of Battlestar Galactica outperformed part one, with 3.8 rating (3.16 million households).

2.9% of 108MM on my calculator is 3.13. Perhaps my calculator is frelled??

vhsiv

12-23-2003, 05:58 PM

Maybe it's the *adjusted* Skiffy rating - adjusted for the number of HH that actually get the SciFi Channel, instead of the whole country weighted against the the final count...

MediaSavant

12-24-2003, 05:49 AM

Originally posted by grapeshot
You're talking about their reported AVERAGE over the two nights. I'm talking about what the Times' chart shows for TUESDAY night, vs. what SciFi says here:

2.9% of 108MM on my calculator is 3.13. Perhaps my calculator is frelled??

No, there's rounding going on. The core number that is estimated is the absolute number of people viewing--in this case 3.16 million estimate. All the other numbers are calculated from that and often rounded to the nearest hundredth. It's possible to express the rating in even more decimal points, but most people don't.

There's a lot of rounding going on.

The "3.16" million households viewing is actually 3.159

The "3.8" coverage rating is 3.81

The "2.9" national rating is a 2.91

...if you take each to the next decimal point. And you could take them even further. (2.91=2.914)

In fact, the "1.08" household universe estimate is rounded. It's 1.084 at the next decimal point level. The Nielsen household universe is 108,400,000.

I have an independent ratings report from Skiffy's and they didn't make any mistakes in their report. I have the same numbers. It's just that everyone is rounding--including the NY Times with their universe estimate.

vhsiv

12-29-2003, 09:53 AM

Galactica not green-lit
Source IGN Filmforce (http://filmforce.ign.com) 26 December 2003
By Ian M. Cullen
http://scifipulse.net/battlestarnews/BSG/Galactica_Has_No_Greenlight.html

In spite of a few websites jumping the gun and claiming that Galactica has been green-lighted IGN Filmforce is reporting that a spokesperson for the Sci Fi Channel has rebuffed claims that the mini series had been green lit for a full blown series.

Although the show did very well ratings wise, no immediate plans have been laid out for a full blown series. Although we are likely to see a series at some future date, no announcements are planned for the immediate future.

According to a report at the Galactica2003.net (http://www.galactica2003.net) Sci Fi has extended the actors contract options til January 31 2004. This statement has also been confirmed by Sandy over at Cylon Alliance (http://www.cylon.org).

According to several inside sources, Bonnie Hammer is really pushing for a series, and is allegedly looking for ways to take funds from other projects in order to try and get a Battlestar Galactica series on the air for 2004. According to another report on the Cylon Alliance (http://www.cylon.org) message board the series will be made on a shoestring if indeed it does go ahead. Rumours claim that the series will be based heavily on Hammers original idea of having the show run in a soap opera format in order to keep costs down. It is also been reported that should this be the way that a series goes, the limited finances would prevent there being to many Space Battle scenes with Vipers and Cylon Raiders.

Please note that other than the Sci Fi Representatives announcement that all the rest of this information is rumour. So please take it with a piece of salt until more official information is available.

Gastrof of Cylon.org (http://www.cylon.org/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=2803) comments (http://www.cylon.org/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?p=25231#25231) as follows:"What's so SICK about this is that Hammer's creating EXACTLY the same situation ABC's executives caused with the REAL Galactica 25 years ago. Trying to do a full blown scifi series when there isn't enough time or money to do it right."

SabaceanBabe

12-29-2003, 09:58 AM

Um, soap opera format? As in ... cliff hangers and continuing story lines?? :thud:

Shipscat

12-29-2003, 10:22 AM

I think they mean soap opera format as in lots of talking heads, interior shots, and no latex. Cheap.

CosmicTheorist

12-29-2003, 10:38 AM

How come other shows get IGN stories with network names and actions? Bonnie is doing such and such which was the first such and such and this that and the other. Boy, I would have LOVED that kind of detail included in the Farscape cancelation rumors. I had to dig through old news stories and wait months for Vivendi's financial meltdown to get covered BEFORE I could start putting that kind of detail into my own speculations on "who killed Farscape" way back when.

Of course that was before Farscape's rebirth which has rendered most Skiffy related stuff irrelevent.

Still. Where did they get those details? Do they have a mole at the executive meetings?

;)

Digger

12-29-2003, 11:09 AM

Rumours claim that the series will be based heavily on Hammers original idea of having the show run in a soap opera format in order to keep costs down. This sounds like a way that Bonnie could have her cake and eat it too (or is that eat her cake and have it too? :D ) Anyway, if this came to pass then she could say to her detractors "Look! A space-based sci-fi show! We're not abandoning the genre!" But then she could also say to her bosses "Look! It's cheap! No aliens! No latex! We'll have 6 of 12 having sex with some random guy every week! Starbuck and Apollo will look longingly at each other and Mr. Goodwrench will boff Boomer in a closet! Baltus will start to go crazy becuase of the neuro-clone in his head! Adama will make a big speech! The president will wax philosophical about her battle with breast cancer! The XO will get drunk! It'sll be like the real world in space! Everyone will love it!" :hork:

RydraWong

12-29-2003, 11:25 AM

According to another report on the Cylon Alliance message board the series will be made on a shoestring if indeed it does go ahead.

That's fascinating if true.

Nothing seems to shake SciFi's ironclad determination to find a weekly series which will get high ratings and press attention but which can be churned out on a shoestring.

I seem to remember Rockne O'Bannon commented somewhere that SciFi's thought process re: Farscape had basically been "for this money, we could make two series that'd do just as well!" - and that, funnily enough, it didn't seem to be happening ....

It didn't happen with "Tremors", and I'd guess it won't happen with "Battlestar Shoestring" either.

SciFi have proved that they can be very successful with miniseries if they put real money into the budget and promote them heavily.

But they seem terrified of doing the same with a weekly series. And it's interesting that the article on their programming seemed to think that it's precisely in the "ongoing scripted series" area that they're weak.

It seems to me that they promoted "Battlestar" very much on the basis that it was big-budget, glossy and spectacular. Do they seriously imagine that they won't lose much of that audience if it suddenly becomes cheap-and-cheerful?

vhsiv

12-29-2003, 01:44 PM

Originally posted by CosmicTheorist
Where did they get those details? Do they have a mole at the executive meetings?
I think that's pretty much the case - the guy who runs Cylon.org - Two-Brained Cylon - apparently has an informer inside Skiffy, and many other 'sources' have come to the fore to back up his info.

Sadly, it seems that Cylon.org has had a painful attack of the trolls or something, as they've had to go private with their bulletin-boards - I think it was a fluke that I was able to get the info that I got off their board, as no one has yet returned my request-for-membership...