Ratings News!
POSTED BY: Novagrass
UPDATED: Wednesday, September 25, 2002 22:21
VIEWED: 13789
PAGE 1 of 5
http://tv.zap2it.com/news/dailynielsenrankings.html?28117
The good news: Fox topped the oft sought after 18-49 age demographic last night.
Unfortunately, this was due to the ratings for John Doe. Firefly only pulled in a 4.1/9 rating. This is approximately how well Dark Angel did last season. It was beaten in the 8:00 period by 48 Hours (CBS), American's Funniest Home Videos(ABC), and it tied with a rerun of Providence(NBC). Not so good news. Though, the critics may have found something to like in Firefly... and the ratings may rise once the show gains more exposure.
My hope is that FOX will view Firefly and John Doe as a valuable Friday night team. They topped the "important" age demographic, so I have at least a little hope for at least this season to finish entirly.
EDIT: Oops, Firefly recieved a 4.1/8 rating...
--Dylan Palmer, aka NoVaGrAsS--
"Oh, shoot" - Mal
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I'm not kidding myself about this. Unless the ratings pick up, the show is doomed. Right now, I'm not praying for 22 eps or a next season pickup, I'm praying that we'll get the 13 eps promised.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
That's going to be pretty hard to do.
Trying to beat the Friday night lineup...
Besides, lots of people ran out for
happy hour and the Friday night
premiere of Ecks and Sever (or whatever
other thing is out next Friday night)...
Not even Trek would dare to come up against
that schedule. It's on Wednesday and Sunday
nights. You can't beat that demographic
that watches 
"America's funnies *****"
At least, you can count on the fact that
it will be on SciFI...
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I made a mistake. It was a 4.1/8 rating. Which I believe is much better.
EDITED TO ADD: I am so very confused. I have no idea how these rating work and the Neilson Media website is confusing me further. Someone please explain!
EDITED AGAIN: So, does this rating mean that Firefly got a 51 share? But then, since this is a percentage, how can 48 Hours get a 54 share and AFV get a 53? That's 158%! Could it mean that people were flipping back and forth? I'm very confused
--Dylan Palmer, aka NoVaGrAsS--
"Oh, shoot" - Mal
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I believe the first number is the percentage of sets in use, and the second is the percentage of total sets. And these are overnights, which cannot be directly compared to final ratings. So a lot of people who are writing about how the rating compared to, say, Dark Angel's are likely comparing apples and oranges.
No matter how you slice it, I would think the show will need to draw better than a 4.1 overnight on a regular basis to survive. That's about what Buffy and Angel ususally draw, but not good enough for Fox. From what I saw of the show, I suspect it can build an audience if Fox is patient with it, but history indicates that Fox usually is not.
Edit: I got it backwards. Obviously the higher number is the percentage of sets in use, not the percentage of total sets.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I'm confused as to why people use the single number. A 4.1 out of 10 is much different than a 4.1 out of 9 is much different than a 4.1 out of 8.
If you were to put it on a scale of 10, Firefly then got a 5.1 rating. On a scale of 8, it got a 4.1 rating.
Are the rating scales of 10 the common ones? If so, Firefly did much better than a 4.1, instead getting a 5.1?
--Dylan Palmer, aka NoVaGrAsS--
"Oh, shoot" - Mal
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
As I understand it, Firefly was watched by 4.1 percent of all households, and 8 percent of those watching TV at the time. It's not a 4.1 out of a possible 8.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Jerry:
As I understand it, Firefly was watched by 4.1 percent of all households, and 8 percent of those watching TV at the time. It's not a 4.1 out of a possible 8.
That's not how they explain it here... http://www.nielsenmedia.com/terms.htm
--Dylan Palmer, aka NoVaGrAsS--
"Oh, shoot" - Mal
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
One thing that hurt Firefly in the Silicon Valley area: baseball. Both Fox affiliates were still on the final 2 innings of a Giants-Brewers when 8 PM rolled around. Was another 45 minutes before the show started. Wasn't even a good game -- pity there's no Mercy Rule in pro baseball. I'm sure a lot of people just changed the channel and never came back. Given the high geek quotient in the central California market, that had to hurt!
I think it's a little early to be worrying about ratings. Sure Dark Angel was canceled with similar ratings -- after two full seasons! I'd worry more about network meddling with the show. Some of the characters seem to have forgotten the dialect they spoke in the pilot. And I thought I saw the usual Creeping Niceness.
And of course, the show won't succeed if Whedon spreads himself too thin and can't maintain the quality of the stories. But if that happens, well, it's not something to cry about.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Jerry:
As I understand it, Firefly was watched by 4.1 percent of all households, and 8 percent of those watching TV at the time. It's not a 4.1 out of a possible 8.
You're understanding is correct. Not a great overall ratings start, but Fox is more concerned about the 18-49 demo which it won for the night. We see what the ultimate FF#s look like in the 18-49 demo on Monday.
Damn! I was hoping for at least a 10 share.
-MTS
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME