Nope; they log when they turn a channel on, and when they turn a channel off. Nielsen (separately) records which commercials are shown on a particular show, and at what time.
Thus, they can surmise that, if you were watching “Big Bang Theory” during the time of a particular commercial break, you would have seen an ad for Subway, an ad for Honda, etc.
Recently, Nielsen launched a separate (but related) testing service called IAG. They maintain a panel of people who go online every day, and report which TV shows they watched the prior evening. Based on which shows they report having seen, the panelists are then asked questions which get at which ads they remember seeing in those programs, and whether they remember the advertiser or message from those ads.
You’re expected to list what program you’re watching and who is in the room. If that changes you’re supposed to note that, but I don’t know how many people bother.
I was once part of a radio listening dairy. But the only time I listen to the radio is when I’m in my car. And then I listen only until a commercial starts. I then use my presets to move through 12 stations. Never figured out how to put the stations listened to and the times listened in the diary in any way at all. It’s a lot easier in offices that leave the radio tuned to one station all day.
My major beef is scheduling and unpredictable breaks in broadcasting of original shows. Like, right now most of my must-see shows are on hiatus (or whatever is preventing the broadcast of original episodes). I hadn’t been watching Harry’s Law, but with everything else in re-runs, I started watching it today. It’s not a must-see for me at this point, but if that’s my only option, I may decide to continue with it and exclude something else. So, my question is: do the tv execs consider how re-runs, Tivo and DVR’s, and scheduling affect viewership? While I can record two shows at once (DVR & two t.v.'s), there are still conflicts; I don’t watch any prime-time show unless it’s been recorded because I can watch it when I want to and don’t have to sit through the commercials.
When it comes to gauging popularity, rating’s don’t lie. And whether you like it or not, TV shows live and die based on their popularity (for the most part, there are always exceptions to any rule like this), not their critical appeal. So what if a handful of people (i.e. the critics) just loved Firefly? The majority of the TV viewing public did NOT like it enough to watch it. Those are just facts.
TV is a business that is supposed to make money. The criteria for making money is advertisers being willing to pay enough to advertise on a show so that the network makes a profit. the criteria for advertisers paying money is the popularity of the show, as gauged by the ratings. If a show doesn’t get high enough ratings for the advertisers to be willing to pay enough to get the network a profit, you honestly believe that the network should say, “Yeah, but the critics love this show, so we’ll keep losing money on it.”? Remind me to not go to work for any company that you run.
Ratings DO lie, when unscrupulous executives manipulate the environment in which the ratings are derived. Witness Enron or Worldcom, for example. Another example is Lee Iacocca at Ford, trying to introduce a concept called a Mini-van. As both Ford and Chrysler show, it’s not a matter of product popularity, but how an executive places that product TO be popular. Executives in broadcasting can and do affect ratings.
Fox was a radically different network playing in very different field in 1993 than it was in 2002. If you don’t recognize that, then there’s no real reason to have this conversation.
I liked Firefly. I wish it had an audience, but I can well recognize why it didn’t and the Friday night timeslot makes sense for Fox at that time. Here’s the schedule grid for fall 2002. There’s not really a good place for the show, especially when considering what was working for FOX and what was working for the other networks (and kind of silly to program against).
Bull. Monday at 9 (againt Raymond and football) or Wednesday at 9 (against The Bachelor and West Wing) both would have been better places for it.
And besides that, Fox gave a full season order to Firefly’s companion, John Doe, even though their ratings were identical. That’s the baffling part to me, why didn’t it get a full season? Fox’s track record at the time should point towards that being the case, but they didn’t. And why is a real question.
Monday at 9, it was trying a David E Kelley block, trying to use “Boston Public” to lead into “girls club.” Those two show kind of appealed to the same demographic so there was a kind of lead in. Boston Public does not make sense as a lead-in to Firefly. It also makes more sense to put “girls club” (about women lawyers trying to make their way in the world!) into what had been the Ally McBeal time slot (about a woman lawyer trying to make her way in the world!) than it did to try to stuff Firefly there. And the conventional wisdom at the time is that nothing unseated football, so putting anything that targeted a male audience (say, science fiction) up against football was pretty much setting it up to fail. As far as Wednesday, I think a lot of the people who ended up liking Firefly were already watching The West Wing which was still at the time, an advertisers’ darling.
Counter-programming sports with nerd programming has a long and storied history.
And again, why would John Doe be given a full season order and Firefly dumped after half a season when they had nearly identical ratings? And besides that, as someone else pointed out, why dump a show by a proven showrunner who’s previous show was a slowburner?
Maybe I’m being whooshed, or maybe my google skills have seriously eroded, but from what I can tell the Sopranos season-average ratings (in its final season, at least, when the articles I found were asking why the ratings had slid so far down) dwarfed Days of Our Lives’ high water mark.
Within the context of the thread, the Sopranos got about double the ratings of any Joss Whedon show, which in turn got about double the ratings of Days of Our Lives.
This one seems pretty obvious to me. From an executive’s perspective, you have two middling shows and want to cut one loose. Since they perform about the same and are targeted to the same dempgraphic, what’s the only question you need to ask? “Which one costs more to produce?”
Fox paid for Dollhouse before Whedon ever wrote it. His contract for Firefly was a two-series contract.
But anyone that followed along with the weekly threads here is well aware that Whedon didn’t put his full effort into Dollhouse. The show limped to a horrid resolution and the second it was over he decalred “No mas!” Yet, Firefly is still pumping out an RPG, comic books and syndication money.
Also, I said alienating talent isn’t something you want to do as an executive. That person is likely no longer employed by Fox for being a moron.
I think Greatest American Hero was on Wednesdays for part of its run. But I will grant that at NBC at a couple of points had Friday evening as weird action/fantasy night, & Fox has now decided to revive that idea.
I think the point that I was trying to make earlier in the thread is that it seems like putting a show like “Firefly” on Friday nights at 7 o’clock wouldn’t be very conducive to it’s audience.
I’m guessing that Firefly would be most popular among teenagers through say… 35 year old people.
That group tends to go out on Fridays- happy hour, dinner, etc… would all conspire to lower viewership in that demographic on that day at that time in a way that it wouldn’t in any other spot, save the ones after it.
Hell, that’s why I never saw Firefly in the first run; I almost always had a happy hour or went to dinner, or had a date on Fridays in 2002, and by the time I was aware of the show, it had come and gone.
It seems to me that only blue-hairs and families watched Friday night TV first-run during that era.
Had they put it on say… Thursday evening at 8 instead of the Fox Thursday Movie, I bet it would have done significantly better, if only because the target demographic would have been at home.
That’s what I was talking about when I said that shows aren’t really nurtured in a way that would maximize their success. Even with the tadpole style TV show reproduction model (how many shows fail in their first seasons?), a little bit of consideration might be really beneficial to shows like Firefly.
Even if Fox was being consistent with Firefly, it’s still pretty clear that they didn’t give the show its best chance by airing it out of order.
Oh, and BTW, I only missed Firefly because I had no idea it was on. Who stays home on Friday nights in their target demographic? When people haven’t even heard about your show, you are not doing it justice in advertising alone. I watched enough Fox that I should have seen advertisements.
And, as for the OP: The answer is that execs are always behind, referring to old tactics rather than trying new ones. There was a time when putting a Sci-fi show on Friday made more sense, before nerdiness went mainstream, and so your audience was most likely at home.
Also, if Sunday is the best day for shows, why is there almost never anything on?
My wife and I have a good way to know if a show will make it. We tend to like the more fringe (small f) shows and if we really, really like them, they will be canceled.
It’s worked pretty often! Lost and Castle are the notable exceptions for us recently. Of course, it can get pretty semantic for a few shows, depending on how a “good run” is defined. (I’m thinking of Joan of Arcadia, which we liked and we thought was renewed and then wasn’t.)
On Thursday at 8, the target demographic was watching Friends and Survivor which were the number 1 and number 7 show respectively in 2002. Putting Firefly up against them would have been instant death. The reason Fox showed the weekly movie at the time was because there was no way for them to be competitive in that time slot.
That sounds like my wife; she’s realized that she’s the kiss of death for TV series.
Somehow, she’s managed to not get Supernatural killed yet (it’s in its sixth season), though she complains that the show jumped the shark several years ago.
What relevance do Enron or Worldcom have to do with Nielsen ratings? Or, Ford and Chrysler? I hate to ask, but…cite?