General Discussions

Firefly vs BSG Nielsen Ratings... What the FRAK?!

POSTED BY: Penthos
UPDATED: Wednesday, May 14, 2008 05:55
VIEWED: 8736
PAGE 1 of 2

Saturday, May 3, 2008 4:22 PM

AVG BSG Nielsen Rating By Season:
Season 1: 2.53
Season 2: 1.96
Season 3: 1.39
Season 4: 1.40 (through first 2 episodes)
-----------------------
Total Avg: 1.82
(Source: http://en.battlestarwiki.org/wiki/List_of_Nielsen_ratings_(RDM) )

Avg Firefly Nielsen Rating:
Season 1: 2.98
(Source: http://home.insightbb.com/~wahoskem/firefly1.html)

As you can see from the numbers above, in its BEST season, season 1, BSG hardly came close to Firefly's Nielsen ratings. Plus, considering that BSG has always had consistent viewing times, consistent marketing, never been pre-empted, and all episodes shown in the correct order; its even more astonishing that BSG got a 4 season run and Firefly got an 11 episode shaft!

THIS MAKES NO SENSE! Does SciFi even look at numbers? Why would they even consider making a BSG spin off?... Especially when they could revive FireFly instead?

Not only did FOX screw up, but so did SciFi. If they had picked up Firefly instead of BSG they would have an actual HIT on their hands instead of a 4 season flop with a whopping 1.82 Nielsen.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Zoe: Don't think its a good spot sir, she still has the advantage over us.
Mal: Everyone always does; that's what makes us special.

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Saturday, May 3, 2008 4:29 PM

You're comparing a specialty cable channel with a broadcast network. The comparison is completely meaningless.

NOTIFY: N  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Saturday, May 3, 2008 4:47 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Penthos:

THIS MAKES NO SENSE! Does SciFi even look at numbers? Why would they even consider making a BSG spin off?... Especially when they could revive FireFly instead?




Skiffy is owned by Universal (people who brought us Serenity)

So the fact that Skiffy can't see a gem staring them right in the face means there's even less hope for the channel. Prepare to see Scifi channel dominated by reruns of Ghosthunters etc

NOTIFY: N  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Saturday, May 3, 2008 4:52 PM

Battlestar was shown on a major network, broadcast on NBC but it got really bad ratings and it was relegated to scifi.

NOTIFY: N  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Saturday, May 3, 2008 4:58 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by jolly:
You're comparing a specialty cable channel with a broadcast network. The comparison is completely meaningless.



Really? Please explain because I believe the ratings are relative to whether they are broadcast or cable...

In 2002-2003 each broadcast point was worth 1,067,000 viewers which means that Firefly had and avg of 3,179,660 viewers per episode...

I dont' know what each point was worth for cable... But I don't think the comparison in "meaningless"


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Zoe: Don't think its a good spot sir, she still has the advantage over us.
Mal: Everyone always does; that's what makes us special.

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Saturday, May 3, 2008 6:17 PM

The comparison is meaningless because specialty channels always have lower ratings (and thus, lower cancellation thresholds) than the majors.

Jericho, for example, was a flop by CBS standards, but would've qualified as a hit for Sci-fi.

The downside is that specialties have less money to throw at things. As per my Jericho analogy, Sci-fi simply wouldn't have been able to afford a show like Jericho (much as they surely want to). Hits are expensive --especially when dealing with SF (a genre which tends to require bigger and better effects, custom-designed sets, costumes, and props, and generally appeals to only a small niche market).

What really matters is how much an "average" episode of BSG costs as opposed to Firefly (and that'd have to be net; after the licensing fees from all the other networks that carry it, the DVDs, the merchandising, the marketing, etc).

-----
We applied the cortical electrodes but were unable to get a neural reaction from either patient.

NOTIFY: N  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Saturday, May 3, 2008 8:33 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Cybersnark:
The comparison is meaningless because specialty channels always have lower ratings (and thus, lower cancellation thresholds) than the majors.



Actually, I "believe" that broadcast and cable ratings are calculated relative to their own markets.. If that's true then the comparison should be valid...

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Zoe: Don't think its a good spot sir, she still has the advantage over us.
Mal: Everyone always does; that's what makes us special.

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Saturday, May 3, 2008 9:08 PM

The Nielsen figures are actually made up of two different numbers. The "Rating" is only a partial judgement of a show's appeal, as it is just the estimated number of households tuned into that channel at a particular time. The other number is known as a "Share," which means the percentage of households who had access to that channel that tuned in. In the case of Fox, more households would have had access to that channel than they would have had access to the Sci-Fi Channel, so in comparison Firefly had less of a "Share" of its potential audience that BSG.

On average, Firefly had between 4-5 million viewers per week, which is a very low rating for a major network. Sci-Fi would kill for such a number for BSG, which averages less than 2 million.

To use another show as an example, The Closer is probably the highest rated scripted cable show ever produced, and it averages between 4-5 million viewers, roughly the same as Firefly got on Fox. It is considered a huge hit by cable standards, but those figures would be laughed at by the major networks, where shows that fall under 10 million are on shaky ground.




wo men ren ran zai fei xing.

NOTIFY: N  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Sunday, May 4, 2008 1:53 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by ecgordon:
On average, Firefly had between 4-5 million viewers per week, which is a very low rating for a major network. Sci-Fi would kill for such a number for BSG, which averages less than 2 million.



Blinkin' flip! Dr Who regularly gets between 6 and 9 million in the UK i.e. only 1/5 of the population of the US! (see: http://www.gallifreyone.com/news.php).

...but then it goes out on Saturday evening on a mainstream channel.

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Friday, May 9, 2008 9:58 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Cybersnark:

What really matters is how much an "average" episode of BSG costs as opposed to Firefly (and that'd have to be net; after the licensing fees from all the other networks that carry it, the DVDs, the merchandising, the marketing, etc).



How much did the average episode of Firefly cost ?

and as for the DVD argument we Browncoats are going to win that one, its been the best seller since 2003. No Contest !

then our movie Serenity broke even WW at the box office without counting profit from dvd sales.

I know Battlestar also did a movie, how much was Galactica: Razor's production budget ?

NOTIFY: N  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME