Ratings

I don’t know what to think about it anymore. “Heroes” ratings go from bad to worse (and I believe that the second season is better than the first). It now has fewer than 9 mil viewers, while last year it was steady at around 12-14 mil. And then, you have crap like the medical dramas or “CSI:Miami” riding the ratings train with 16-18 min viewers (did you see the last episode where a ghost helped the detectives? how laughable was that?).

This means two things:
1. Either the vast majority of humans are boring idiots who prefer old style dramas, or…
2. Most young viewers are getting their episodes from Bittorrent/DVR and so the Nielsen ratings are inaccurate.

I think the truth is somewhere in between. I have noticed that dramas that get high ratings and many millions of viewers (e.g. medical dramas, CSI, Desperate Housewives etc), they have very few comments on IMDb — compared to shows like “Lost” or “Heroes”. It is my understanding that the people who view these shows are just older people, who are used to a specific style. Young people, are more active online and more fanatic about their favorite series, but they don’t necessarily view the episodes on TV when they air. And this hurts their favorite series ultimately, like it happened with “Jericho”. Now, it’s “Heroes” time to get hurt… Possibly “Lost” is next.

9 Comments »

mikesum32 wrote on October 30th, 2007 at 7:25 PM PST:

*Season 2 Spoiler*

I don’t like the whole “Peter losing his memory” storyline, and Sylar losing his powers.

It was somewhat slow watching Peter learn how to use his powers, but it was good because the old Dr. Who guy, Christopher Eccleston, was around. Then the big fight with Sylar that was quick and anticlimactic. Now Sylar has no powers, and Peter forgot who he is and is on another quest to find out who his is and his the extent of his powers.

The writers are the equivalent of cock-teases. I wouldn’t mind another Sylar/Peter fight to a draw, as long as there is actual fighting that time.


Kevin wrote on October 30th, 2007 at 8:32 PM PST:

Well, I think both are true. While I will disagree that old style dramas, and people who watch them are boring idiots, I do think that a lot of people still enjoy that style. It’s something that they are used to and is effortless to watch. Some people want to relax when they watch TV, not have to figure out a puzzle that seems to be made up as the writers go along (aka season 2 of LOST), or have to think about the show too much.

Also, Nielsen ratings have always been known to be extremley inaccurate. Even more so now that everyone has access to bittorent and college students have underground p2p networks running on the ultra fast campus network (…not that I would know…). Some of the factors that throw off the Nielsen system include: not being able to sample alternative view enviroments (college dorms, sports bars, etc), inaccurate or incomlete written logs (not all Nielson ratings are gathered electronicly, some homes still use ye olde pen and paper), the over representaion of minorities, no measuremnt of online viewing of shows (you tube, tv-links.co.uk, offical websites, etc) or downloaded shows, inaccurate sampling, timeshifting & dvrs, etc.

Basicly, everyone in the industy knows that the ratings system is a joke… but the industy needs some system that seems somewhat beliveable. Advertisers aren’t going to buy a slot on a network becuase “well, we know people like our show better and it gets more views” or “oh we have a stronger following on the web fourms”. Even if thoese claims are true, they aren’t going to sell the ad space.


This is the admin speaking...
Eugenia wrote on October 30th, 2007 at 9:09 PM PST:

> I will disagree that people who watch them are boring idiots […] It’s something that they are used to and is effortless to watch.

That’s the definition of an idiot. Or at least “slow”.

> Some people want to relax when they watch TV, not have to figure out a puzzle

Slow. 🙂

>that seems to be made up as the writers go along (aka season 2 of LOST)

It wasn’t.


Kevin wrote on October 30th, 2007 at 10:00 PM PST:

> “That’s the definition of an idiot. Or at least “slow”.”
> “Slow.”

Not always. Sometimes mindless tv watching is just what people want to do, maybe to destress after a long day at work or whatever. It doesn’t necessiarly mean that they are “slow”. Just becuase some one doesn’t want to think very much at that point in time doesn’t mean they aren’t capable of thinking

> “It wasn’t.”
That’s why I said it seemed like it was. I know it wasn’t, but it seemed a lot less well planned than the first season (which I loved) and it seemed like it started to drag on with no point. I stopped watching sometime in the middle of season 2… I heard it got a lot better.


Thom Holwerda wrote on October 31st, 2007 at 7:03 AM PST:

That’s the definition of an idiot. Or at least “slow”.

Your ability to render everyone who doesn’t do exactly as you do an “idiot” never ceases to amaze me.

I really cannot understand how people can not like Dead Like Me. However, that doesn’t mean they’re idiots. It just means they don’t like it.

In any case, here’s the real definition of idiot: a person of subnormal intelligence. It has absolutely nothing to do with TV watching habits.


This is the admin speaking...
Eugenia wrote on October 31st, 2007 at 11:56 AM PST:

Most people are idiots Thom. You can’t shake this out of me. Call me snob, but that’s how I see the world.


Thom Holwerda wrote on October 31st, 2007 at 1:01 PM PST:

Of course the world consists of idiots. It’s just that you can’t use TV to define who’s the idiot.


This is the admin speaking...
Eugenia wrote on October 31st, 2007 at 1:25 PM PST:

People who watch “Grey’s Anatomy”, they are. Trust me on this.


Thom Holwerda wrote on October 31st, 2007 at 2:38 PM PST:

As I always say, the people are stupid. And I’m part of the people.

When you really break it down, everyone’s an idiot.


Comments are closed as this blog post is now archived.

Lines, paragraphs break automatically. HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

The URI to TrackBack this blog entry is this. And here is the RSS 2.0 for comments on this post.