Snurched from Karlsweb via Kansas... ratings for 422

[saska]

From Karlsweb.com:

Give me a "hell yeah"!!! Scapers are Superior!!!!


RATINGS FOR 422

March 24, 2003: We've just received the ratings for Bad Timing and the rest of the Friday night programs from a very reliable source:

8:00 Farscape: 1.4
9:00 Stargate SG-1: 1.8
10:00 Tracker: 1.2
11:00 Stargate SG-1: 1.2

12:00 Farscape: 1.0

[trubador]

HELL YEAH!!!!

[buggabboo]

i'm glad they went up. thanks for posting.

buggs

[Xothas]

Yeah......Hammer's crying in her Wheaties.....bong....(probably not, but I wish). An average of 1.2 is excellant, especially considering timeslots of 8:00 and midnight. You know, that always bothered me....placing a show in timeslots that don't make sense considering your key demographics....Oh well, the wisdom of SCI-FI *snicker*

[Stargate2077]

If those ratings are correct for 422, then all of them seem low for the advertising of Farscape being a series finale and Stargate SG-1 as a season finale. Especially Stargate SG-1's ratings don't seem to reflect that it is the show's season finale.

Stargate 2077, pondering what this means...

[Zen Blade]

I would point out that everything but tracker saw a rise in ratings, if these numbers are correct.

We should see if deadzone had a similar raise or not.

Still, good to end on a higher note.

-Zen Blade

[Stargate2077]

Zen Blade, actually Stargate SG-1's rating sucks relatively speaking for it being a season finale. It has had 1.9s a few times this year and a 1.8 for a season finale doesn't say much for Stargate SG-1's future ratings. Then again, Farscape's ratings have not varied much even when it is a "series" finale.

sigh

I will never truly understand how neilsen does its ratings.

[SabaceanBabe]

Hey, guys, don't forget that a war started the day before. A lot of people were glued to CNN. These ratings are actually quite good, considering that.

[Farsight]

I will never truly understand how neilsen does its ratings.
Monkeys and darts. :)

[Kerlin]

And drunken games of pin-the-tail-on-the-donkey.

I think that the blame for the relatively low ratings can be places squarely on the war, as SabaceanBabe pointed out. Either way, I'm not worried. That was a good, strong way to go out for now.

[Tokeya]

1.4!! We ended the season on a good high.
I :bounce: on Skiffy's head!!!

[Mrelia]

Originally posted by Xothas
Yeah......Hammer's crying in her Wheaties.....bong....(probably not, but I wish).
I wish too! Unfortunately, those in charge of Skiffy's programming seem to be smoking crack!
Otherwise, we could just offer some really nice munchies & they'd give us our show back!

*Mrelia reads her post & shakes her head at the strangeness that comes from her brain first thing in the morning*

[saska]

I was shocked at the ratings, actually. I was prepared for a 0.9! Given the fact that fighting began in Iraq less than 72 hours previous, these ratings are astronomical.

I am in no position to officially analyze, but my layman's opinion is that people who watch Stargate might be more interested in watching war coverage, since it is a military-structure show. So their ratings really suffered, especialy with the return of whatshisname being on the bill.

To be fair, some network non-news shows got extremely high ratings last week when it was not expected. But the Oscars tanked even with Steve Martin hosting... All I can conclude is that the audience is fickle. :)

Saska

[CB2001]

To be honest, I think some of the nation still tuned in to watch fictional shows to get away from the idea of conflict that the war has caused. I know that's my excuse for not watching the news.

[deweytoo]

Excuse me if I am wrong, but

ever since a lot of us have stopped watching Stargate SG1,

their ratings have not been as high as the first half of season

four. Correct, Not correct? Just an observation.

[MediaSavant]

I believe the ratings were not as high as they might have been if there had not been a war underway.

On the other hand, it was fortunate that the war began nearly 48 hours prior to the airing of 422. That diminished the possible damage IMO. It coulda been worse than it was.

However, one will never be able to pin an exact number of lost viewers on the War. But, other programming--the NCAA's, the Oscars--are delivering lower ratings than last year.

Right now, the news channels are getting ratings that are 5 to 10 times what they normally get, depending on the demographic. While some of that viewing must be coming from additional TV usage (people watching TV that normally would not), it also may be siphoned from elsewhere.

[Shipscat]

They're saying the Oscars were down about 15 percent.

[Mike@Pilots Chamber]

Most of the people who watch the Oscars will make sure to tune in, even during war I'd imagine. Less Farscape viewers (or those who were going to be checking it out for the first time) would watch during war.

[shaith]

Don't forget the basketball...NCAA...another ratings draw.

So between wars and basketball, Farscape STILL managed to do exceptionally well.

[Zen Blade]

I'd argue that Farscape viewers are more committed than "Oscar" viewers...

people I know will definitely watch their fav shows more so than the oscar ceremonies...

reason: people who are into oscars are also into "war news".
people into Farscape are into "war news", but are much more into Farscape.

Oscars is a once/year thing... big deal if you miss the 3 hour show...

(personal view)

-Zen Blade

[jadeshand]

Actually, I think the ratings were pretty good, especially Stargate's. Let's remember that the highest they have ever received was a 1.999 that Sci-Fi rounded off for that big hoopla they did about getting a 2.0, so 1.8 isn't bad for Stargate.

Farscape, on the other hand, has received higher than 1.4. In fact, UR got a 1.5. However, I don't believe Farscape would have gotten the ratings it did for these last 11 episodes if it hadn't been for the advertising and word of mouth that the Save Farscape campaign has done. It's a sure fact that Sci-Fi didn't spend any extra money to advertise Farscape for these last 11.

[MediaSavant]

Originally posted by Zen Blade
I'd argue that Farscape viewers are more committed than "Oscar" viewers...

people I know will definitely watch their fav shows more so than the oscar ceremonies...


Keep in mind that ratings go up or down by what casual viewers do, not committed fans do. Committed fans are there every week. The bump you might expect during the finale would have come from people who don't watch every week and would have been curious to see what the ending was.

I snurched the following story from USA Today:

War coverage steals some of Academy Awards' thunder
By Gary Levin, USA TODAY

The Oscars earned record-low ratings Sunday, reflecting in part the skittishness of TV viewers as they surfed to news channels to keep up with the escalating war in Iraq.

The 75th annual Academy Awards telecast attracted only 20% of TV homes in the USA and an average audience of 33.1 million viewers, a 21% decline from last year.

The Oscars fared especially poorly in smaller towns, where many of the nominated films barely played. And though 62 million checked out the awards for at least six minutes, many didn't stay long.

"There was more dial switching going on, probably to news channels to get the latest update on the war," says ABC research vice president Larry Hyams.

The issue cropped up elsewhere over the weekend: Revamping plans to air wall-to-wall news coverage in the early days of the war, major networks instead mixed news specials with regular programming.

CBS aired barely any prime-time coverage, instead opting for its NCAA basketball tournament, where early games were down about 30% from last year.

The low turnout was no surprise to media analysts.

"There's an arc, a curve to the way that viewing moves back to regular patterns" after a major news event, says Stacey Lynn Koerner of Initiative Media. "We're not far enough from the beginning of war for people to say, 'I've had enough of this news coverage.' "

As the war began Wednesday and Thursday, overall TV viewership jumped as much as 22% compared with a week earlier, with ratings for the cable news channels increasing fivefold.

The news trend continued into the weekend, although some entertainment programming — Fox's Fastlane and ABC's Saturday movie, for example — matched normal levels. Final ratings for weekend programming are due today.

"Viewers want their regular schedule, but they also want to stay up to date on the news," NBC scheduling chief Mitch Metcalf says. "We need to figure out a way to deliver on both of those seemingly contradictory goals."

The Oscar result eclipsed a previous low set in 1987, when 37.2 million saw Platoon win best picture, and was far below 1998's record high of 55 million, when the smash hit Titanic was named the year's best picture.

Though easily besting other awards shows, including the Grammys (25 million), the Golden Globes and the Emmys (about 20 million apiece), this year's Oscars show was outshone by last month's Joe Millionaire finale, which snagged 40 million fans.

[Roland]

1.4, not bad at all! :aok:

[Ben]

Pardon my bringing this up, but are these ratings calculated the same as the national ratings numbers Maayan has mainly posted?

If we go by the same criteria that gave "Kansas" a 1.3, "La Bomba" actually got a 0.9

The 1.2 posted was actually "in-universe", which only takes households with access to the SciFi Channel into account.

I'd assume the rating for "Bad Timing" would be slightly higher than that.

But if we go by the same standards that have been used on this forum in the past, it probably wouldn't be 1.4

And I'm still surprised, because this finale was well publicized, and "Star Trek: Voyager"'s finale saw a massive upturn in the audience, as people who had tuned out over the years came back to see how things would be resolved.

[shaith]

Voyager's finale had advertising all over the place, including other networks.

[shaith]

Originally posted by Shipscat
They're saying the Oscars were down about 15 percent.

no fault of steve martin, who was brilliant, but the oscars were so subdued they were BORING. Made worse by the fact that because my wife just adores all that pomp, we got the pre-pre-oscars, the red carpet blather by joan and spawn, the pre-oscar interviews, then the oscars, and I finally put my foot down when she flipped to the post-oscar-wrapup and turned the TV off. 5 frelling hours of awful TV is enough. If I wanted more, I'd watch SciFi's new dren.

[trubador]

The Oscars got the LOWEST ratings since Nielsens started measuring ratings in 1974. It had 33 million viewers (it's high was the year Titanic won, when it got 56 million viewers).

Think about it. The Oscars, and everything else, tanks in the ratings due to the war. And YET... Farscape's ratings goes *UP* 0.2 points from it's season average on Friday night (up against the War and the heart of March Madness).


CAN I GET A "HELL YEAH," PEOPLE?!?!?

[Ben]

Hell NO. (g)

I don't know what you think the season average is, but trust me--"Bad Timing" didn't beat it. The reverse, actually.

It did slightly better than "La Bomba", which scored a 0.9--again, the 1.4 quoted on this thread is misleading. It's not calculated the same way as the ratings that have been posted by Maayan for most of this season. If she says otherwise, she's WRONG.

There are different sets of numbers, for different purposes. For example, if you took a poll of people on U.S. army bases about the Iraq war, it wouldn't look the same as a poll taken in Greenwich Village. Maybe that's a slight understatement. (g)

The 1.4 quoted here for "Bad Timing" is only for homes with the SciFi Channel, which was not the case for the ratings we've seen posted here, up until "La Bomba". Up until then, we were getting the national ratings, which included the homes that had cable, but not SciFi.

I know what the national rating for "Bad Timing" is, but I'm strictly forbidden from quoting it just yet. It's several points lower than 1.4, that's all I can say.

It's SLIGHTLY higher than the 0.9 for "La Bomba".

If you prefer the 1.4, that's fine--it's a legit "in-universe" number, but if you go by that criteria, you would have to adopt a whole new set of numbers for the earlier eps, and "Bad Timing" would still be one of the lowest rated eps of the season.

I'm still waiting for Maayan and Waltersgirl to correct this error. This site asks people for their time and their money, and the very least it owes them is accurate information.

[jadeshand]

Maayan has already told you that it's the national ratings. Sci-Fi Wire has confirmed...

You're the one who is saying you're forbidden to name your source.

[Stargate2077]

Ben, are you looking at the ratings for the second showing of Farscape on Friday?

That could account for the error.

[Copperblue]

I think we should be allowed to add the numbers for the 8:00 to the 12:00 numbers to get the rating. Cause there's been lots of times when I wasn't home and watched the late one instead of the early one, cause... yanno... had to go out and stuff. :-)(-:

So, two sets of numbers on the same day should be added together. That gives "Bad Timing" over 2.0.

*GRIN*

(If Neilsen can make up ratings, so can I!)

[scape_sister]

What about the person who found a neilsen family ( I remember reading it on another thread somewhere)? Did they end up watching "Bad Timing"? What if they watched and the ratings were brought up by them? Anyways, 1.4 is great!

:aok:

[shaith]

Originally posted by jadeshand
Maayan has already told you that it's the national ratings. Sci-Fi Wire has confirmed...

You're the one who is saying you're forbidden to name your source.

shh...don't feed the trolls.

;)

[CrazyChick]

Originally posted by Ben
Hell NO. (g)

I don't know what you think the season average is, but trust me--"Bad Timing" didn't beat it. The reverse, actually.

It did slightly better than "La Bomba", which scored a 0.9--again, the 1.4 quoted on this thread is misleading. It's not calculated the same way as the ratings that have been posted by Maayan for most of this season. If she says otherwise, she's WRONG.

There are different sets of numbers, for different purposes. For example, if you took a poll of people on U.S. army bases about the Iraq war, it wouldn't look the same as a poll taken in Greenwich Village. Maybe that's a slight understatement. (g)

The 1.4 quoted here for "Bad Timing" is only for homes with the SciFi Channel, which was not the case for the ratings we've seen posted here, up until "La Bomba". Up until then, we were getting the national ratings, which included the homes that had cable, but not SciFi.

I know what the national rating for "Bad Timing" is, but I'm strictly forbidden from quoting it just yet. It's several points lower than 1.4, that's all I can say.

It's SLIGHTLY higher than the 0.9 for "La Bomba".

If you prefer the 1.4, that's fine--it's a legit "in-universe" number, but if you go by that criteria, you would have to adopt a whole new set of numbers for the earlier eps, and "Bad Timing" would still be one of the lowest rated eps of the season.

I'm still waiting for Maayan and Waltersgirl to correct this error. This site asks people for their time and their money, and the very least it owes them is accurate information.


Haven't you given up yet, Pisher?
And you call us obsessed!

[Ben]

I've given up on Farscape, because it doesn't exist anymore, and hasn't since the second-to-last ep of season three.

However, I've not given up entirely on waking some of you up to the fact that you've been conned.

And no, I was not referring to the midnight showing. The 8pm showing of "La Bomba" got a 0.9, according to my source. That was figured out by somebody here, actually--before I heard it from her. But most of you missed that post.

See, the REAL numbers for the finale haven't been posted anywhere online yet, so my source says I can't be specific until they are. She bound me to secrecy, but said I was in the clear if I wanted to mention the fact that the last two ratings numbers you've seen here are not calculated according to the same criteria as all the others. Maayan WAS reporting national numbers--up until "La Bomba".

And btw, the "source" named here on this thread is Karlsweb--not an official ratings reporting organization, last I heard. And what's Karlsweb's source? Hmm?

Have you noticed there is still no "official" ratings report on this website?

This wouldn't even be an issue if it wasn't for the fact that Farscape's ratings are so low, it's hard to find them printed anywhere. You guys have one thing in common with me--we actually CARE. As opposed to 99.99999999999999999% of humanity.

And honestly--you're a fine one to tell ME to give up.

At least I'm not asking people for money.
:-D

[Dominar of Action]

Hmmmmm, wouldn't a fresh coat of paint work wonders for this room. Perhaps it's spring fever, but I'm thinking a pale yellow. It would offset the white curtains beautifully, don't you think?

[jadeshand]

Yes, and how about white wicker furniture to go with it? A nice gentle breeze through the room, blowing the white curtains and Farscape playing softly in the background.

Ahhhhh...what a happy place! :D

[quendi]

I see a Morrocan style room, royal blue walls and lots of rich fabrics. Perhaps a round mosaic coffee table for us to rest our coffee cups on?

[anomia]

I'm partial to a antique ceiling fan to help blow the hot air out of the room!

[Ben]

These are all lovely design schemes, to be sure.

So why don't you ask people to send you some money so you can realize your creative vision?

You know, like you're asking people to send you money to revive a show that is never going to be revived?

At least SOME good could come out of all this madness. You could start your own interior decorating firm.

Try not to go millions overbudget like Kemper did.

:-D

[Copperblue]

Well, I know I got some good out of Brascape - and theoretically if all went as planned (which we will prolly never know), some less fortunate folks got some bras.

That's a pretty potent equation for good:

Mailing Bras To SciFi + Charitable Donation = Happy Happy Good Good

(-2 points for shipping costs *GRIN*)

*HUGS* to the Ben. We're gonna keep on trying anyways.

Gotta go back to work now with Farscape CD blaring down the road...

[Crankygrrl]

I like teak myself.

Maybe with some soft greens?

I agree with you about Brascape, Copperblue, if nothing else, it was worth it for the big smile I get thinking of all those bras being delivered to Skiffy.

*hee*

Anyway, it keeps us from playing in the streets, right?

[anomia]

Oh, Ben! You are so entertaining! You remind me of my teenage son a few years ago! Pleasant memories!

I enjoyed Brascape...and if SciFi followed through, those bras went to a women's shelter! I'd say that was worth it!

Maybe we should decorate this room into a boudoir, but then we'd have to ask Ben to leave. I'm old-fashioned that way.

[Dominar of Action]

Well, I'm easy ... teak, yellow, green, Morrocan ... all good. I would like, however, to request floor-to-ceiling french doors.

[Ben]

Teenage son? I'm more like your cranky uncle, kid. The one who kept giving you the straight dope. But you just went right on acting like one. (g)

42 years old. And still arguing with addlepated addicts like you. ::sigh::

Let me briefly interrupt the color schemes, here.

A few months ago, before "Kansas" aired, if I'd told you you'd all be furiously DEFENDING the validity of a 1.4 national rating for Farscape's finale, after all your ads, and all those articles, and SciFi promoting it as the series finale--wouldn't you have said I was nuts?

And yet, here we are.

And somebody sure is nuts.

Don't look at me, kiddies.

TTFN
;-)

[uisceboo]

Originally posted by quendi
I see a Morrocan style room, royal blue walls and lots of rich fabrics. Perhaps a round mosaic coffee table for us to rest our coffee cups on?

Oh, quendi, I dig it. Some inscense wafting through, some cool mint tea and fresh figs to nibble on while reclining on bright, tasselled velvet pillows.

And a Benbrowder-a-like to peel some grapes for me.


(oooh, I just luvs being called a kiddie. I watched Star Trek first-run. I just LOOK young. thanks for the compliment!)


P'shaw.

[anomia]

Ben--42? You're a spring chicken! You were in diapers when Kennedy was shot, and I was watching the funeral on TV!

I guess everything boils down to: what are you doing here?

This is a site dedicated to saving Farscape! You stated you've given up on Farscape. Fine; that's your prerogative.

This is a forum dedicated to Campaign Strategizing! You don't have one.

This is a thread which reported the Nielsen ratings for an episode. You don't agree with them. Fine; you're entitled to your opinion. But if you would have read the threads for the last few months, you would have seen that a lot of us don't have much faith in the Nielsen ratings system, so it's really a moot point!

No one is compelling you to donate your time, energy, or finances to anything.

So that leaves one reason for you being here...to annoy us, because you're certainly not educating us!

Looks like its time for the whole room to be closed off.

[jadeshand]

originally posted by uisceboo
And a Ben-a-like to peel some grapes for me.

Now THAT sounds interesting! :thud:

[trubador]

Wasn't "Ben" the name of the pet rat in the horror movie of the same name? With the theme song by that other Michael Jackson?

[Ben]

Excuse me, but what the national ratings were for a given episode of a TV series is NOT an opinion. I agree that the Nielson system is probably in need of some overhauls, but I'm inclined to think that those overhauls will make it HARDER for shows like Farscape to stay on the air, because having a young demographic is going to be less important. But that's an opinion. What the national rating for "La Bomba" was is NOT. It was 0.9, and if you want to believe it was 1.2, that means you have to throw all the earlier ratings numbers that have been reported here into the toilet, assuming Chiana isn't using it for her facial this minute.

Yes, I do realize this forum exists to save Farscape, but you DO ask people for money, and you do so on the basis that it is, in fact, possible to resurrect this show. If you are giving out bogus information, intentionally or otherwise, you are deceiving people as to the odds of that happening, which affects their decision as to whether to invest in this campaign, both with time and money that they might find better use for elsewhere.

Obviously, any network considering Farscape (though I seriously doubt any network is), would be able to access the real numbers. They are not going to be swayed by your numbers in the slightest. They may be impressed by your passion, surely. But not by your numbers. Or your manners. Against all better advice, from many quarters, many of you have basically turned this campaign into a personal crusade against Bonnie Hammer, because you can't find anybody else in authority who even TALKS about the show.

Now why does some UPN executive want to let him or herself in for a world of abuse if UPN picks up Farscape, and then cancels it, after one season, with the storyline still unfinished, because obviously no network can afford to rebuild a show from the ground up just to give a few disappointed fans some closure. Hmmm? If they wanted the show, they'd want it to have the potential to run for years. But they'd also want it to perform well in the ratings. And when it didn't, and it got cancelled, they'd be in your sights, instead of SciFi. You can see the problem. Or no, I guess maybe you can't. (g)

You can say the Farscape budget was less than two million an ep, but any idiot can go on Lexis-Nexis and read that it was estimated in the two million an ep range, back in season ONE. I read this in several different articles published in Australian papers, back in May of 2000--and yes, they meant U.S. dollars. In Aussie dollars, the budget was estimated at well over the three million mark.

So take that 1.75 million figure you keep waving around, and throw it away. That's not what the show cost. And that's leaving out Kemper's many budget overruns in seasons two and three.

And take that 1.2 rating for "La Bomba" and toss it. It's not real. ZERO-POINT-NINE.

And no, you can't blame this evil stupid war Messrs' Bush and Cheney are shoving down our throats. Hadn't started yet. Wish it never had.

Now I'll go back to my other haunts and rant about that infinitely more depressing topic.

[jadeshand]

Yawn

[Roland]

falling asleep, jades?

[jadeshand]

desertations usually do me that way, Roland.

Want some raslak? :D

[Roland]

Some raslak, a bag of cop-porns and Letterman's D'argo episode in the VCR! Any time, jades!

[anomia]

I hate to disparage a possibly handsome countenance, but the term “troll” keeps intruding upon my thoughts...

[StarsGoBlue]

Now I'll go back to my other haunts and rant about that infinitely more depressing topic.

Don't let the door slam you in the butt on the way out, either...

Good riddance to the only "kiddie" around here who has to come back as a different identity every month.

******Stars :eh:

[shaith]

I normally avoid feeding the trolls. However, this message has me POBAR.

Originally posted by Ben
Excuse me, but what the national ratings were for a given episode of a TV series is NOT an opinion. I agree that the Nielson system is probably in need of some overhauls, but I'm inclined to think that those overhauls will make it HARDER for shows like Farscape to stay on the air, because having a young demographic is going to be less important. But that's an opinion. What the national rating for "La Bomba" was is NOT. It was 0.9, and if you want to believe it was 1.2, that means you have to throw all the earlier ratings numbers that have been reported here into the toilet, assuming Chiana isn't using it for her facial this minute.

No, we're assuming you aren't sitting on it. Swallowed the dentic, eh? Told you not to.

The nielson rating system is worthless. It's taking a random sampling of some 1,000 or so homes and utilizing that to indicate what 120 million+ homes are watching. It cannot take into account digital or TiVo broadcasts - and since the core audience of this show is technically inclined in most cases, TiVo and digital reception are two big factors in this instance, are they not? Granted, Nielson is "working on it" - but let's say that out of their 1,000 users, 10 farscape watchers weren't counted. Now where's your ratings? Completely skewed, obviously.

A more accurate system is to measure everyone who is 1) capable of measurement and 2) willing. Just about everyone who has cable boxes out there could easily be measured in most major markets - the boxes already return information, it's a matter of publishing the data.

So what this campaign aims to do is prove Nielson is WRONG. Because if we can prove that instead of 1.2 million homes, Farscape was actually in 2.4 million homes, the whole ballgame changes.


Yes, I do realize this forum exists to save Farscape, but you DO ask people for money, and you do so on the basis that it is, in fact, possible to resurrect this show. If you are giving out bogus information, intentionally or otherwise, you are deceiving people as to the odds of that happening, which affects their decision as to whether to invest in this campaign, both with time and money that they might find better use for elsewhere.

Do you have a magic crystal ball? Can you forsee the future? If so, I'd like the winning powerball lottery numbers for every drawing for the next say, 12 months. If not, help yourself to a heaping, steaming glass of shut the hell up. Who the frell are you to tell people where they can invest their time and money? I
thought as much - you're nobody.


Obviously, any network considering Farscape (though I seriously doubt any network is), would be able to access the real numbers. They are not going to be swayed by your numbers in the slightest. They may be impressed by your passion, surely. But not by your numbers. Or your manners. Against all better advice, from many quarters, many of you have basically turned this campaign into a personal crusade against Bonnie Hammer, because you can't find anybody else in authority who even TALKS about the show.

It's not a personal crusade against Bonnie Hammer, though she's the focus certainly because she's the responsible authority. It's a group effort to convince TPTB to change their minds.


Now why does some UPN executive want to let him or herself in for a world of abuse if UPN picks up Farscape, and then cancels it, after one season, with the storyline still unfinished, because obviously no network can afford to rebuild a show from the ground up just to give a few disappointed fans some closure. Hmmm? If they wanted the show, they'd want it to have the potential to run for years. But they'd also want it to perform well in the ratings. And when it didn't, and it got cancelled, they'd be in your sights, instead of SciFi. You can see the problem. Or no, I guess maybe you can't. (g)

You know, the SciFi network, for the past year, has hardly spent a fraction advertising Farscape when compared to the absolutely vomitous amount they've spent advertising Tremors: The Dreck Series. I cannot remember the last time I saw a Farscape ad on any channel other than Sci-Fi. I have seen ads for Tremors on three different channels today OTHER than scifi, including multiple times during their TOP-rated daytime programming, "Trading Spaces". They're spending money like WATER to get people to come watch their schlockfest - if they'd spent even a portion advertising what was supposed to be their SIGNATURE show, there's little doubt what would have happened to the audience. And it's reasonable to assume that any network serious about picking this series up and gaining the loyalty of viewers worldwide is going to spend some money letting people know it's out there. They're going to ADVERTISE. And unlike MJ and BH, they're doing it because they actually like and believe in the show.


You can say the Farscape budget was less than two million an ep, but any idiot can go on Lexis-Nexis and read that it was estimated in the two million an ep range, back in season ONE. I read this in several different articles published in Australian papers, back in May of 2000--and yes, they meant U.S. dollars. In Aussie dollars, the budget was estimated at well over the three million mark.

So take that 1.75 million figure you keep waving around, and throw it away. That's not what the show cost. And that's leaving out Kemper's many budget overruns in seasons two and three.

And take that 1.2 rating for "La Bomba" and toss it. It's not real. ZERO-POINT-NINE.


You keep saying it's not real and keep offering your own number without proof. Show me the reports or shut the hell up.


And no, you can't blame this evil stupid war Messrs' Bush and Cheney are shoving down our throats. Hadn't started yet. Wish it never had.

Now I'll go back to my other haunts and rant about that infinitely more depressing topic.

It's been the dominating news for more than 4 months - are you so deluded as to believe it's had no effect whatsoever? Frankly, I think I'd like two of whatever you're smoking.

Now, you feel free to run along back to your other haunts. Your fifteen minutes here are up.

[Stargate2077]

sigh

I guess Ben never heard when David Kemper said that he could put a twist at the end of Season 5 that would make it go for two more Seasons. Carry the one...that makes 3 Seasons for another network. Not bad if you ask me.

Anyone up for some Sorbet? I personally like Raspberry.

[shaith]

No, I'm too busy planning Barscape for tomorrow night.

[FarCat]

Bravo,Shaith

I am almost ashame to admit that I almost missed the 8:00 (7:00 my time) episode. I have been dwelling on this show for months and bemoaning the final ep all day on 3-21. I came home from work at 6:00, sat down and turned on CNN. At 7:32 I looked at the clock and said "Oh, Frell!" Quickly changed to SciFi and watched the entire 11:00 showing. That being said, I am sure if I got so involved in the breaking news that I almost missed the final ep then there were certainly others that couldn't turn off the news.

[shaith]

People have missed 4x22 for a multitude of reasons, including war watching, being on airplanes, and more. I've sent 4x22 to quite a few people because they didn't catch it when it aired, and I've talked to people where 4x22 was the first episode they'd ever seen and only saw it because a Scaper turned 'em on to the show.

I knew the ratings were going to be lower than hoped for when CNN announced at around 0230 CST Thursday that the first shots of the war had been fired. I was blown away to see what the show got despite the fact that the war was on almost every single channel EXCEPT scifi and a few others.

[MediaSavant]

Originally posted by Ben
Excuse me, but what the national ratings were for a given episode of a TV series is NOT an opinion.

It is an opinion in that there are two ways to look at a rating--

1. Coverage area--the number of households(or people) for the show divided into the number of households(or people) that can get the network.
2. Total U.S. (what you label national)--the number of households for the show divided into the total TV households figure.

Both ways are used within the industry. The SciFi Channel prefers the "coverage area" way. Most other cable networks prefer it that way also.

If you use Nielsen's Galaxy software for pulling ratings, both statistics are an option. (You know that, right?)

Advertising agencies use the total U.S. way exclusively because they have to put all the vehicles-network, syndication, cable--on the same scale for their accounting to their clients.

So, cable networks have the opinion that they prefer the coverage area way. Others have the opinion that they need/want it on a Total U.S. basis.

The people here use the coverage area ratings for several reasons:

1.) SciFi started it. In the early day's fans ONLY ratings source was SciFi's SciFiwire and they use coverage area ratings.
2.) If 80% of the ratings you have are done one way, you kinda continue it that way. Otherwise, it causes confusion and debates like this one.

[Ben]

Yes, yes, I get all this. But what I'm saying is that THIS website, until "La Bomba" was using one particular set of numbers, and now they're posting the "in universe" ratings, which are probably accurate, but when compared with the national ratings, give the impression that the audience was on the increase.

I see they've finally posted Maayan's report, but unless my friend is sorely mistaken, these are not national numbers, and 1.4 is misleading, because it makes it sound like "Bad Timing" did better than "Kansas" and several other eps that scored 1.3's in the national ratings.

And that does not seem to be the case. I can't prove it, but tell me something--can Maayan? How do we settle this? She may honestly believe these numbers are correct, but somebody's got to be wrong here. I'm not going to say it's my friend, until I see proof.

And neither should you, because this person really knows her stuff about ratings.

Maayan, if you're out there--are you SURE the ratings you posted for "Bad Timing" and "La Bomba" are calculated by EXACTLY the same criteria as the ratings you've been posting in the past? Did "Bad Timing" have a slightly larger audience than "Kansas"?

And let's just remember--you were all bitching about how bad the ratings for "Kansas" were.

;-)

[Maayan]

How do we settle this?

To put it in simple words? I don't care if you're settled. If you had any grasp on how much I don't care about this latest storm in a tea cup, you'd get a fair view of infinity.

M.

[Stargate2077]

Well...we'll know who is telling the truth anyway when the SciFi Wire ratings on Farscape for those weeks finally come out. So this is a moot point.

[Ben]

Maayan, you certainly give a very good impression of somebody who cares. You were the one posting the ratings the last few months. Should we get your ratings pal and mine into a steel cage match or something? NUMBERDOME!!! TWO RATINGS EXPERTS GO IN, ONE COMES OUT!!! :-D

Let me just take your response as an admission that you don't really know for sure if your numbers are misleading or not. You got them from a friend, same as me. We're both stumbling around in the dark. But I have a flashlight. (g)

Have the SciFiWire ratings always matched Maayan's numbers? Anybody remember?

[anomia]

Ben--

You get your ratings second hand.
Maayan gets her ratings second hand.

MediaSavant gets the ratings first hand.

If you would bother to read MediaSavant's posts since the beginning of the campaign, you would see how consistent she has been in giving us the straight dope about the cancellation, media industry, Nielsen ratings, etc. Sometimes we haven't liked what we heard, but I think she's always been honest, and sometimes blunt with us.

I have no doubt that if Maayan's ratings were out sync, MediaSavant would inform us immediately. (No offense, MediaSavant!)

To answer your last question: everytime I've seen SciFi Wire's ratings posted I've compared them to the chart I've kept of the ratings posted here, and they've been the same.

[shaith]

Originally posted by Ben
I can't prove it

You said a mouthful there, Trollboy.

Now once more: Get lost. Go on. Shoo. Scat.

Otherwise...


---
To: Department of Homeland Security

Dear Sirs:

I am writing to you for further instructions to what the next step is for me to take in protecting my family from possible attacks by terrorists.

I have my duck taped....now what?

[Copperblue]

*Offers Uncle Ben some tea and some long grain wild rice, fluffs up the pillows in the guest room and asks him to take his shoes off and stay awhile*

Great art is often times misunderstood, undervalued, and unappreciated.

But without it, this ol' globe would be so much more sad.

Everyone - have some ice cream!

[Stargate2077]

Copperblue: I am going to have to eat some Sorbet. (I am allergic to Ice Cream) Personally, I really love Raspberry Sorbet.

[trubador]

Originally posted by shaith
I have my duck taped....now what?
:rollin: :rollin: :rollin: :rollin: :rollin: :rollin: :rollin: :rollin: :rollin: :rollin:

[Ben]

Um--otherwise WHAT?

Are you under the impression that somebody who lives a few miles from Ground Zero is going to be afraid of you? Is this your way of saying you might ban me from this board? Like I've been banned about twenty times already? Should I be shocked and awed? (g)

I haven't actually seen Mediasavant stepping in to clarify this issue, so as far as I'm concerned, it remains unclarified.

If the national rating is 1.4, it's still bloody awful. Just not as awful as the number I heard.

It's not going to make an awful lot of difference either way, of course. I can just see the big programming exec meeting at UPN--"DAMN! Farscape's series finale got a 1.4! Get Henson on the phone! We don't have enough low-rated retreads on our network yet! And I can't wait to pay for all the sets being rebuilt!"

;-)

[Copperblue]

I am going to have to eat some Sorbet. (I am allergic to Ice Cream) Personally, I really love Raspberry Sorbet.

Well allrighty then. In the absence of ice cream, sorbet may be used as an acceptable substitute. ;)

Uncle Ben - over here in my own paralell universe I just feel like Farscape was done a great injustice. It wasn't promoted as it should have been, especially if the only way we get to keep a TV show is through ratings. From everything that went down, it looks like SciFi deliberately tried to kill the show. I can't understand why, but then again, I am not a TV exec. And that is probably a good thing.

Airing a show twice in one night begs for low ratings. Lazy folks like me just blow off watching it during the main time slot cause we know we can always watch it again later. Bad, bad me.

What really gets me though is that SciFi told all of us there would be a season 5 and they didn't do it. Maybe they should have just announced one year at a time if they didn't want to make everyone mad. Cause apparently there are a whole lot of people out there who are very passionate about Farscape.

It was the best TV show I have ever seen in my life. That has to count for something.

[Ben]

Henson also told us there would be a season five. Kemper told us there would be a season five. They knew quite well there might NOT be a season five. Henson controlled Farscape Magazine, and Kemper wrote for that magazine. I don't blame Henson and Kemper for not letting us know they were on the bubble. I don't blame SciFi either.

You can talk a good game about how much better you'd have run things, but the truth is, if online fans ran the networks, there wouldn't be any networks. I mean, even sooner than there eventually won't be any networks. (g)

SciFi did about the best it could with the limited resources it had--if it had spent more on promotion, it would have had to take some of that money out of Kemper's budget overruns.

Farscape is ONE of the best shows I've ever seen. And no, that doesn't count for a damn thing when it comes to cancellation. Almost every single show I loved got cancelled too soon.

But Farscape, IMO, got cancelled a year too late.

:-(

[Copperblue]

Oh heck no. I wasn't trying to say I could have run it any better. Nope nope nope. I'm lucky if I can find both shoes in the morning. *GIGGLE*
Just wish someone would have run it better cause it was a great show. Loved it. Course, I'm a lil partial to whacked out aliens and such.
:rollin:

[Stargate2077]

Originally posted by Ben
But Farscape, IMO, got cancelled a year too late.


If you are referring to the first 11 episodes of Season 4, they were influenced by Sci-Fi. Kemper talked about that problem in the recent SFX Magazine article.