Ratings for Bad Timing

[Maayan]

Old news, I know. I wasn't going to post since Karlsweb had already released the ratings, but some of you expressed interest in the complete lineup.

07pm Dead Zone 0.7
08pm Farscape 1.4
09pm Stargate SG-1 1.8
10pm Tracker 1.2
11pm Stargate SG-1 1.2
12am Farscape 1.0

Maayan

PS: I've been asked for ratings of other SCI FI shows. I'm sorry, but I don't have access to that kind of information. I got the FS ratings as a favor from a friend.

[GeekedOut]

And these are the same as the Karlsweb's ones. So, is the recen hoopla from another poster unsubstantiated? Just a troll?

Thanks much Maayan.

[shaith]

Thanks for the ratings - are you going to be providing this information in the future with the re-runs as well?

[Talyn-John]

Not a 2.0, but we can still be proud.

[waltersgirl]

Talyn-John,

you're damned right we can be proud. any press and advertising and new viewers Farscape has gotten has been because of its fans. :aok:

[Maayan]

There's a hoopla? About what?

Sorry, shaith, that won't be possible. My friend just moved to another city. He's busy and so am I. But maybe someone else will provide the info.

Maayan

[shaith]

the hoopla calls these ratings bogus, makes statements saying that the REAL rating is only a 0.9, blah blah blah.

And no worries, I'm sure someone will get their hands on the info and share it. Thanks for providing them in the past.

[Stargate2077]

Ben has been saying the same thing as the hoopla.

Same person?

[GeekedOut]

Yes, the hoopla is that poster Stargate. I just didn't want to use the *name*. Teehee.

Hoopla was just my Virginia word for "I don't wanna use the real name"

[Ben]

Listen, let's clarify what this is all about.

I've been following the ratings posts here at your forum. I mentioned the ratings posted for "La Bomba" at a forum frequented by myself and a person whose job gives her access to the Nielson numbers, not just the stuff printed in the papers.

Now, this being her job, and Nielson being very proprietary about its numbers, she's kind of honor bound to not "break" the news--she'll happily talk about numbers, but not if they haven't been published or posted somewhere else first.

Anyway, she read the numbers Maayan got from her friend for "La Bomba", as she had read the numbers posted before--and she told me that these were "In Universe" numbers, only applicable to homes with access to the SciFi channel--whereas previously, Maayan had posted national numbers, which included homes that don't have SciFi. So they don't match. It looks like the ratings have gone up slightly, but in fact they've gone down. It's two entirely different sets of numbers, and it's misleading. If my friend is correct, "La Bomba" got a 0.9, not a 1.2--or rather, it got a 0.9 if you use the same criteria that gave "Kansas" a 1.3

And "Bad Timing", we must all surely realize, did only slightly better than "La Bomba", so it too must have a lower rating than "Kansas". And I know what the national number for "Bad Timing" is, but I can't tell you until my friend tells me it's okay.

Okay?

I like her more than you, so don't expect me to break a promise to her, just because you don't believe me. I'm used to not being believed. Believe me.

;-)


Get it?

[Dominar of Action]

I like her more than you, so don't expect me to break a promise to her, just because you don't believe me. I'm used to not being believed. Believe me.

;-)
Gee, pisher, we can agree on something. I like her more than you, too.

[atomicblue]

Gee, Ben take your ball and go home if you can't play nice. Everyone I know uses Tivo.....Nielsen's are anacronistic. They are a dated and old, but we knew that......right?

[Xothas]

I'm currently working on the situation about getting ratings for reruns, as well as Friday nights and SG1 reruns.....I talked to Stargate about this, and the things are advancing. Hope to post soon with some good news! Patience has always been a virtue that I lacked.

Also, a bit of a primer on how things go:
The universe is defined (in the case of overnights) as the entire group being measured, regardless of whether they have cable access or not (keep in mind that this is only approx. 25,000 households, for overnights). You can of course configure the universe to a specific demo, cable access (or lack thereof), etc., and the two universes would have different values. Typically what you see happening is the total universe being calculated, the cable access only universe calculated, and comparison of the two. To complicate things further, agencies project ratings different ways; Nielson just provides the data. If I am able to get the info., I will list the method by which the ratings are being calculated. Also, just to demonstrate how unreliable the Nielson system really is.....

5,000 People Meter
20,000 Local Tuning
Diaries not avail. for overnights, so not counted here....

104,705,000 U.S. Households (2002)
98% of Households have TV access (but we'll use 80%)
83,764,000 Households watching TV at one moment (MAX)
We'll take 1/4 of that to give us 20,941,000

0.12% of Households sampled (MAX)
0.03% of Households sampled (MIN)

So, think you can get accurate statistics from that type of sample size? Thought not....

QED

[Ben]

Uh-HUH.

So is this your way of admitting the ratings for "Bad Timing" were lower than the ratings for "Kansas"? (g)

[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.


(also posted on Snurched from Karls Web thread)

[DocCamille]

To move us onto a different argument, we really did deliver not only a 2.0, but a 2.4 on this episode. The problem is, it took two showings to do it.

I think part of the problem for Farscape ratings is that they show the episode twice, once at a really inappropriate hour if you've got kids in the house, and later when the kids are in bed, but not so late to make staying up rediculous for folks who don't tape. for tapers, either showing will do, because you can always time-shift to when it is convenient.

Stargate still does better in the ratings, but not as much better if you compute using both showings. And Stargate has the advantage of being age-appropriate for younger viewers (though not the real small fry)

I suspect that if Farscape showed only once a night, they'd have their higher rating, since mostly it is different audiences, not the same people watching twice.

The way they calculate the audience is so annoying on so many levels, not least that half the audience doesn't count at all.

Camille

[Sococlear]

Is that an 11.8 and an 11.2 for stargate, or is it a type error for 1.8 and 1.2.

If stargate is really at an 11.8, why the hell aren't the viewers hanging around for FARSCAPE, blows my mind......

[Hmpf]

Very good point, Doc Camille. Though I'm sure that a *few* of those second showing viewers are probably people who already watched the first showing. A few. Not all of them.

[Hmpf]

Originally posted by Sococlear
Is that an 11.8 and an 11.2 for stargate, or is it a type error for 1.8 and 1.2.

If stargate is really at an 11.8, why the hell aren't the viewers hanging around for FARSCAPE, blows my mind......

It's not a 11. the first 1 is part of the title of Stargate, it's called Stargate SG-1.

[Stargate2077]

Since no one has brought it up yet...We beat Tracker by .2 using the first broadcast.

Yahoo!

I wonder what Tracker's ratings will be with Stargate SG-1 and Farscape finished with their current seasons.

[MediaSavant]

Originally posted by Ben
I've been following the ratings posts here at your forum. I mentioned the ratings posted for "La Bomba" at a forum frequented by myself and a person whose job gives her access to the Nielson numbers, not just the stuff printed in the papers.

Now, this being her job, and Nielson being very proprietary about its numbers, she's kind of honor bound to not "break" the news--she'll happily talk about numbers, but not if they haven't been published or posted somewhere else first.

Anyway, she read the numbers Maayan got from her friend for "La Bomba", as she had read the numbers posted before--and she told me that these were "In Universe" numbers, only applicable to homes with access to the SciFi channel--whereas previously, Maayan had posted national numbers, which included homes that don't have SciFi. So they don't match. <snip>

And "Bad Timing", we must all surely realize, did only slightly better than "La Bomba", so it too must have a lower rating than "Kansas". And I know what the national number for "Bad Timing" is, but I can't tell you until my friend tells me it's okay.


Ben, as someone else said I have primary access to Nielsens, I'm in the same position as your friend regarding contractual obligations to not publish ratings. HOWEVER, if others publish them I can comment. I've been tracking not just Farscape's ratings, but the actual households estimate since the show debuted for my own information.

All of the ratings that have been published my Maayan have been the coverage area ratings. If there were any back-and-forth switching between 'total U.S.' and 'coverage area' I would have been able to spot it and correct it quickly.

I don't know what caused the confusion here, but every rating I've seen published by Maayan since January was the coverage area rating. In fact, she was getting the ratings in the hundredths of a decimal point in the beginning and they matched.

Maybe some other bb or person passed on the ratings incorrectly.

[GeekedOut]

And now we have the CORRECT ratings and we have backup from MediaSavant, a person with direct access to the numbers, so this case should be closed.

[LadyCrais]

Thank you MS. I have started to post my color-me-confused message a number of times because I thought ALL the numbers were coverage area ratings, but elected to stay out of the fray on this one. It's nice to know I actually wasn't as clueless as these arguments kept making me feel. :D

[Ben]

Okay, thanks for the clarification, Mediasavant. Now--color me confused. We were told by Waltersgirl that Maayan posts the national numbers, but it sounds like you're saying she's been posting "in-universe" numbers, if that's the same thing as "coverage area", which I'm assuming it is--perhaps incorrectly? I don't pretend to be any kind of ratings expert at all. Like most people here, I just try to use them in a rather endearingly befuddled and clueless manner, to win pointless arguments that never go anywhere or accomplish anything. (g)

I don't mind "in-universe" ratings--they do give an idea of the relative differences between SciFi's various Friday night shows, though honestly--that makes no difference at all to a prospective pick-up by another network. They're interested in how many people watch the show, period. They don't care that it occasionally gets higher ratings than "Tracker". They'd be more interested in the fact that it usually doesn't. (g)

My friend may well have been mistaken about Maayan posting national numbers earlier. Her access is as good as yours, but she's been paying a LOT less attention. (g)

However, if these are all in-universe ratings, that still makes them a bit misleading, in terms of comparing Farscape's ratings performance to any shows OTHER than SciFi's.

Fewer than two million people watched the last episode of Farscape, according to Ma Nielson. I don't think that's betraying any confidences.

I do think it betrays the underlying assumption of this campaign--that resurrecting Farscape is even a remote possibility.

Is there any possibility that at some point, we could see a complete rundown of season four's ratings--both national numbers AND in-universe?

Whatever flaws there are in the Nielson system, it's all the networks have now. Farscape is not going to benefit from some change that will come down the pike years from now, and I'm far from convinced it would have benefitted if the system had been revamped four years ago. I strongly suspect the current system helped keep Farscape alive, due to its strong emphasis on a youthful demographic, which can partly compensate for a small overall audience. As America's median age gets higher, that's bound to change--and not necessarily in a way that will favor shows like Farscape.

[Shipscat]

Thanks, MS.

Ben, or Pisher, Farscape is actually quite popular amongst us old fogies- and I don't think my opinion will change as I get older and fogier.

[Ben]

I'm no spring chicken myself, but let's be real. The demographic for this show was very young, and the fact that some of those young people may still like it when they are old fogies doesn't really matter all that much.

And if old people still like the same stuff they did when they were young, how do you explain that they grew up in the 40's watching film noir and spent their golden years watching "Matlock"?

I'm sure you're an exception, but advertisers don't give a flying frell about exceptions.

The show lost money, plain and simple. It also lost a lot of viewers. Young or old, rich or poor, I'd have loathed season four.

And you don't have to agree with me, but you do have to accept that a lot of people do. And with an audience this small, any defection is fatal.

[NebariNookiee]

My dad is almost 70 and he loves Farscape. And if you honestly think Farscape is for kids, you couldn't be more wrong. For one, my own kids could care less about it, and those adults I've personally turned on to Farscape who have kids say the same thing.

Just because it's produced by the production team behind the Muppets doesn't mean it's for kids.

And just because you want more than anything for Farscape to fail doesn't mean everyone should accept your way of thinking.

[GeekedOut]

I have to disagree with your case about the demographic being very young. It wasn't. Most of the fan base are female 21 and up.

Ratings went down, I agree. But SciFi's coverage area also went up and that means all shows had to compensate for that by attracting new viewers.

I'm through with this blame game and who's right or wrong and who's better than who. SciFi wasn't all at fault but neither was David Kemper.

[Shipscat]

We know from our own demographic surveys that the average Farscape viewer is not 'very young".

[Ben]

I didn't mean the viewers were all hormone-addled teenagers. Though season four was certain written as if they were. (g)

Anything under 49 is considered "young" in this parlance we are using, and I, for one, am very grateful that some people would consider me young. I'll take all the youth I can get. :-)

The audience did go down--and SciFi's coverage went UP. That means it went DOUBLY down. Just the fact that SciFi was in a lot more homes should have raised the numbers, but Farscape had had a very hard time even holding steady most of the time. Season two was the peak, and the decline began early in season three--after Zhaan died, and before the long hiatus that some blame for that decline. Personally, I blame Jool. Some people have an unusually high sensitivity to loud screeching noises, you know.

;-)

[Shipscat]

Very funny- not.

[Vampgrrl]

I didn't like Jool....I found her character annoying.
Plus alot of people who were/are casual viewers they said that Farscape was ruined when Zhann was killed off nevermind that Virgina still loves the show but couldn't continue with the makeup and the shaved head..it wasn't like Henson fired her, but alot of people don't know that.

[Stargate2077]

I might be wrong, if the ratings over Seasons 2, 3, and 4 have relatively remained the same and Sci-Fi's coverage area went up, then shouldn't the number of viewers watching the show also go up?

Here are the Season Averages

Season 1 Average: 1.2045...
Season 2 Average: 1.4136...
Season 3 Average: 1.345...
Season 4 Average: 1.2090...

Now, if you look at these averages at face value, then yes you can say that Farscape was at its peak in Season 2. However, during Season 3, the Sci-Fi Channel was added to many cable providers, including mine. The only way you can acturately interpret Farscape ratings over time is to know the amount of people who are able to each Sci-Fi for each and every time there was a new Farscape episode.

That's the problem with statistics. Depending on what you want to say, the numbers can be interpreted differently. The key is not knowing the rating, but rather the number of viewers for each episode.

Note: From the ratings posted at www.farscapeweekly.com (ratings copied from Sci-Fi Wire), it looks like people left the show in Season 3 more because of the two Crichtons not because of Zhann or Jool. The drastic drop occurs between episodes 7 and 8. Then again, it might have been because people went away for the summer. I don't think we'll ever truly know why the drop occurred in Season 3.

[jeffrabb]

Folks,

In another thread, we've pretty much determined that Ben is another alias for our favorite troll, Pisher. DO NOT FEED THE TROLLS!!!!!!!!!!

Jeff