posted
I just saw an innane little blurb on the corner of TV Guide (while waiting to pay for groceries). It read: "Enterprise: back from the brink." as though the show was as good as dead or some crap.
Yet, they laud such reality TV shows as The Batchelor.
Idiots.
-------------------- Justice inclines her scales so that wisdom comes at the price of suffering. -Aeschylus, Agamemnon
Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
quote:Originally posted by Futurama Guy: It might help, too, if they actually were in every market like their competition is...and those stations that have UPN shows contracted out to them air them Friday nights anyway. There is also the fact that the 2 stations I can watch Enterprise on rerun the show on Saturday and Sunday, do they take those viewings into account for the ratings as well? I doubt it. It really doesn't seem Enterprise can truely get the fair ratings it may or maynot have when its not aired on a "real" station like TNG and DS9 used to be...
The ratings aren't for how watched the show is, they're for determining how many viewers are watching in a given hour and thus how far the sponsor's advertising buck is going.
If 1.5 million people watch on Wednesday and .5 million people watch on Sunday, that's still just 1.5 million for that hour the show is on the air Wednesday. The goal is to get the most people watching a given hour so you can raise your ad rates. The rating for the repeat broadcast on another night are judged entirely on the rating for that hour versus what the competition is showing during the same hour.
In which case, wouldnt the show be doing better if it was aired more consistantly on only one network at one time like everything else they are competing against that is run in all of the other markets consistantly?
-------------------- Hey, it only took 13 years for me to figure out my password...
Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
posted
I don't know what would happen to the ratings on for the show's main broadcast if rebroadcasts. If they though it would boost their ratings, I bet they'd have done that.
-------------------- "Well, I mean, it's generally understood that, of all of the people in the world, Mike Nelson is the best." -- ULTRA MAGNUS, steadfast in curmudgeon
Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged
posted
Maybe a lower budget and the removal of Brannon Braga from writing duties will mean they begin to focus on more character driven episodes - a la season 3 and DS9 and less on the T&A&Action of Voyager/Enterprise Season 1?
-------------------- "Bears. Beets. Battlestar Galactica." - Jim Halpert. (The Office)
quote:Originally posted by MrNeutron: I don't know what would happen to the ratings on for the show's main broadcast if rebroadcasts. If they though it would boost their ratings, I bet they'd have done that.
That's weird...part of what I wrote didn't make it into that post. It was supposed to read:
I don't know what would happen to the ratings for the show's main broadcast if rebroadcasts were discontinued. If they though it would boost their ratings, I bet they'd have done it, or at least discouraged it.
-------------------- "Well, I mean, it's generally understood that, of all of the people in the world, Mike Nelson is the best." -- ULTRA MAGNUS, steadfast in curmudgeon
Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged
quote:Originally posted by J: Season 3's arc was to lead to higher ratings but the downward tread has continued.
quote:Originally posted by J: Now come the end of season 3, the season of promised return, and it's lost nearly 1 million more viewers.
I'm confused. We are talking about Enterprise, right? From the last episode of Season 2 to the first of Season 3, viewership went up (not a lot, but it did!).
And (more fairly) "Zero Hour" had more people watching than "The Expanse". And (even more fairly), "Zero Hour" and "The Xindi" had nearly identical ratings. How exactly did they lose a million viewers over Season 3, then?
Sure, the show "bled" viewers early on, but this season, they seemed to bleed and get transfusions too. In the end, they were no worse off than a year ago. The ratings have stabilised. They are lower than their respective episodes last year, but the Season 3 average is no lower than the episodes near the end of Season 2. There has been no "downward trend" for the last 24+ episodes. http://moviescorecard.com/tv/Enterprise/ratings-graph.htm
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
Season average in 2nd season was a 4.4 million, 3rd was 3.8. The beginning of season two had more viewers than the end of season three by 1 million. Pay attention to the numbers... they said season three would bring back lost viewers, it didn't they lost more compared with season 1 and the beginning of 2.
-------------------- Later, J _ _ _ _ _ ___ _ _ _ _ _ The Last Person to post in the late Voyager Forum. Bashing both Voyager, Enterprise, and "The Bun" in one glorious post.
posted
I'm still confused by your "ratings = show goodness". When was this magical point in time where DS9 was the most watched show on television?
-------------------- Yes, you're despicable, and... and picable... and... and you're definitely, definitely despicable. How a person can get so despicable in one lifetime is beyond me. It isn't as though I haven't met a lot of people. Goodness knows it isn't that. It isn't just that... it isn't... it's... it's despicable.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
I don't think I said anything about ratings = goodness... I think I said that ratings were promised and that didn't happen. But at the same time, I also believe that if the show was worth anything it would have better ratings because it wouldn't have lost 75% of it's original viewership.
-------------------- Later, J _ _ _ _ _ ___ _ _ _ _ _ The Last Person to post in the late Voyager Forum. Bashing both Voyager, Enterprise, and "The Bun" in one glorious post.
Season average in 2nd season was a 4.4 million, 3rd was 3.8. The beginning of season two had more viewers than the end of season three by 1 million. Pay attention to the numbers... they said season three would bring back lost viewers, it didn't they lost more compared with season 1 and the beginning of 2.
Uh... call me silly if you want, but I'd say the averages are useless here. In order to see how good a season was, I'd expect to see instead how many viewers were there at the beginning of a season and how many were there at the end. That way, you see that:
Season 1 plummeted from an original 12,5 million viewers to ~5,3 million.
Season 2 had a slow start with a little less than the end of the previous season (~4,9 million), quickly recovered, but in the end had gone down to ~3,9 million.
Season 3 started with more viewers than there were at the end of the previous one (4 million) and with some small ups and downs remained almost stable reaching ~3,9 million by the end of the season.
So, Season 3 indeed managed to recover a bit of the audience lost along the way during the previous seasons and also managed to more or less stabilize it. Overall, it's clear it's better because it hasn't lost so much audience as the previous did. Now, if Season 4 manages to actually *increase* its audience by the end...
Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
posted
Fact is, even if the ratings did go up slightly from season 2, other shows get better ratings or they believe will get better ratings, and THAT is the reason it's been booted from it's Wednesday slot.
-------------------- "Well, I mean, it's generally understood that, of all of the people in the world, Mike Nelson is the best." -- ULTRA MAGNUS, steadfast in curmudgeon
Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged
quote:Originally posted by J: Season average in 2nd season was a 4.4 million, 3rd was 3.8. The beginning of season two had more viewers than the end of season three by 1 million. Pay attention to the numbers... they said season three would bring back lost viewers, it didn't they lost more compared with season 1 and the beginning of 2.
I feel half rude and half like an idiot for saying this, but... You can't just look at the average if you're going to say "the downward trend continued in Season 3." A single point is not a trend.
Like machf and I pointed out: From the end of Season 2 to the start (and end) of Season 3, the ratings went up, marginally. Therefore, the ratings did go up and they got back a small fraction of viewers. They haven’t "lost nearly 1 million more viewers" (your words) in Season 3. That happened in Season 2. Season 3 showed no further bleeding. Your own numbers show this is not in dispute.
If you're going to try to "regain viewers," you are obviously referring to increasing the number of viewers you have at the time -- not the number you had year, two years, ten years ago. Nor even the average of what you have at the time and what you had a year ago. At least I've never heard anyone talk like that.
But even assuming your method is valid... even going by averages (which is a very unscientific method), they dropped from 4.4M to 3.8M. Math: 4.4M - 3.8M = 0.6M = "nearly 1 million"? Eh? A 67% round-up? That's a little tricky.
quote:Originally posted by J: Pay attention to the numbers... they said season three would bring back lost viewers, it didn't they lost more compared with season 1 and the beginning of 2.
But nobody said anything about the beginning of Season 2. We have a dispute with this "Season 3 downward trend" philosophy of yours, which is unsupported by all numbers. Season 3 showed either (a) a stabilising or (b) a slight increase over end-of-Season-2 ratings.
[ June 22, 2004, 05:17 AM: Message edited by: Elim Garak ]
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
Topic Closed
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic