Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

So, I just found out that NBC has cancelled further seasons of Hannibal, based on "ratings" being low. We also know that shows like Almost Human, Firefly, Constantine, Enlisted and so many more, have been given the ax due to nebulous reasons like "ratings"But it always seems that as soon as these announcements are made, there is a flood of fan comments of "NOOOOOO!!!!!" and "That was the bestest show evar!" or "Why are they cancelling X, when they have reruns of crap like Grey's Anatomy!?" It seems apparent that there are a fairly large number of fans out there for many of these cancelled shows, it just seems that they are unable or unwilling to watch them precisely at initial airing.

With the profusion of services like Netflix, Amazon Prime, TiVo and other recording setups, do you think it's time that Networks look to that as more of a barometer of a show's success than merely "who has stayed home at 10pm on a Friday night and stayed tuned in to our channel"?

In NZ we have TV that can pause live TV and record it etc along with shows and so on. I don't use it in my place but I know most of my family does.

Do TV ratings account for this? My family hardly ever watches TV at the air time, rather they record it then replay when ready.

We all know internet viewing is the future right now, but for people over 30 TV is still huge, at least here anyway.

Yes and no.

From what I understand, they do measure DVR metrics but I don't think they are given the same weight as highly as "live" ratings... I could be wrong though so take it with a grain of salt.

In a World full of Internet and streaming? They probably should change how they operate.

There's definitely more to it than just viewing figures, or at least there should be, but so often isn't. They really should be trying to consider who their audience is, the value of the programme itself, and as you note, a whole host of other viewing method rather than just the numbers.

I always think of the BBC drama Ripper Street when this kind of subject comes up; if you're not familiar, it was a period crime drama that was pretty damn excellent. Superb attention to detail, a great cast, intelligent and compelling writing, all these things that make for great watching. And it gets cancelled because of 'low audience share' at the time of broadcast. On at the same time slot each week was a game/reality show of some kind (X Factor, I think), which while it did have a larger audience, probably wasn't actually pulling viewers away from RS (I'm generalising slightly, but I imagine there's not a huge crossover audience that are interested in both period drama and reality TV). But nonetheless, the BBC used that as an excuse to can it, despite the fact it got consistent figures, very good reviews, and was widely regarded as a very intelligent show in an age increasingly devoid of such things.

That story does have a happy ending, as Amazon part-funded a third and final series for their own service after a petition to the BBC/production company (and very good it was too), but I do think it's a shame that numbers seem to be the sole factor in determining a show's fate, even when it simply has a more niche target audience. It annoys me a hell of a lot when things like that get cancelled while no one would even dare not commission another series of [insert popular singing/dancing/cooking/knitting/baking competition show here].

There is an argument to be had that for the people running these corporations the viewing figures are directly tied to the revenue that keeps them afloat, but I'd like to think they spare at least some thought for the quality of the stuff they produce as well.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:
So, I just found out that NBC has cancelled further seasons of Hannibal, based on "ratings" being low.

Sad reality is that while the show was great in season 1, the idea wore thin by the end of season 2.

We also know that shows like Almost Human,

Same thing. Season one and the idea were nice, but the show just got stale.

Firefly

This show wasn't very good. Constantly complaints about how it was "screwed by the network" won't make it the writing less mediocre or the character's less childishly unlikeable. Serenity was pretty good tho

Constantine

Not very good.

Enlisted

Not very good.

Given the nature of how TV airs programs, expecting them to continue to make the shows you like when no one else is watching them is silly. They can't change without completely revamping how television is broadcast.

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:
Yes and no.

From what I understand, they do measure DVR metrics but I don't think they are given the same weight as highly as "live" ratings... I could be wrong though so take it with a grain of salt.

Here in Oz (from my experience... we had a ratings box connected to our TV for several years a while back) the ratings are ultimately all about eyes on advertising, so yes, people who record and watch it later aren't as 'valuable' as they are generally fast-forwarding the ads.


The big issue that I see with it is that the ratings for all of Australia came from 2000 houses that had the ratings boxes... and the accuracy of those ratings depended on how devoted people were to actually following the correct procedures for using the damn things. So the final figures are really questionable at best.



However, there's not really (currently, at least) any better way of judging how many people are actually watching a show. As much as I lament the loss of Firefly before it really even got going... the sad fact is that people just weren't watching it.

Having said that, the fact that it did so well once it hit the DVD shelves suggests that there is potentially a market for shows made specifically for that platform, rather than for commercial TV.

 LordofHats wrote:

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:
So, I just found out that NBC has cancelled further seasons of Hannibal, based on "ratings" being low.

Sad reality is that while the show was great in season 1, the idea wore thin by the end of season 2.

Enlisted

Not very good.

Given the nature of how TV airs programs, expecting them to continue to make the shows you like when no one else is watching them is silly. They can't change without completely revamping how television is broadcast.

IMO, Hannibal did sort of "slow down" in season 2, but season 3 is absolutely brilliant thus far (I think it's much more like season 1, than 2)

Also, IMHO, Enlisted's first couple episodes were definitely "bad", but I think that after that, the show found its rhythm (as short lived as it was) and I think it did manage to be funny. While it may have failed at it's original goal, which was to be a modern day version of Mash, it still picked up from a poor start and managed to be a relatively good sitcom, though as it sitcom, it may have been a bit more targeted to one audience. More so than say, Big Bang Theory.


I honestly don't think it'd be that big of a change really. IIRC, TV is funded more by advertising dollars than anything else. The various companies that make advertisements for TV (in America at least) are the ones who really pay attention to the ratings, as the higher rated time slots garner more money from the stations to run an ad. This is one reason why advertisements for local "Tech" schools are predominately on daytime TV, alongside JG Wentworth, ambulance chaser lawyer firms and general "get money" commercials. And why your beer, car, and big tech gadget (phones and the like) tend to be during the news, and after the news in "prime time".


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 insaniak wrote:

The big issue that I see with it is that the ratings for all of Australia came from 2000 houses that had the ratings boxes... and the accuracy of those ratings depended on how devoted people were to actually following the correct procedures for using the damn things. So the final figures are really questionable at best.


However, there's not really (currently, at least) any better way of judging how many people are actually watching a show. As much as I lament the loss of Firefly before it really even got going... the sad fact is that people just weren't watching it.

Having said that, the fact that it did so well once it hit the DVD shelves suggests that there is potentially a market for shows made specifically for that platform, rather than for commercial TV.

I actually had a couple job offers working as a sales/installation rep for Nielsen (one of the biggest "ratings" companies in the US)... Apparently Nielsen ratings are still so "highly prized" that they have people who's sole job is to sale and then properly install the devices

I think you may have been right a couple years ago... But with many media companies becoming more and more social media savvy, I think monitoring trends or hashtags or whatever is another good way of monitoring, unfortunately that means that shows that actually depend on fan interaction (those insipid singing shows like [X] Idol, [X] has got talent, The Voice, So you think you can dance, etc. etc.), where at the end of each episode they say "call this number, or text this number or use this hashtag" is basically going to give them an automatic boost/jump over other shows, unless they were to adjust their viewing to account for 24-48 hours after initial airing.

TV is where newspapers were 10 years ago. Everyone knows the current business model is running out of time, but the steps to address this have so far been side projects at best – under-resourced and designed to stay smaller than the traditional model of delivery. And it is likely that TV will continue to follow the example of newspapers and fail to make major reforms until revenue really starts to collapse. TV has already squandered enough time that it's ceded a major advantage in resources to Netflix, and their other two advantages in brand awareness and content production are being steadily eroded as well. By the time that TV finally commits to being primarily on-line then these once dominant networks will be just a couple more players in the game.

 insaniak wrote:
Here in Oz (from my experience... we had a ratings box connected to our TV for several years a while back) the ratings are ultimately all about eyes on advertising, so yes, people who record and watch it later aren't as 'valuable' as they are generally fast-forwarding the ads.

That’s the general industry assumption, but there’s been some work done to counter it. Studies have shown that viewers who fast forward the ads actually retain more memory of the ads. The fast forwards will sit there concentrating on the stopping the fast forward as soon as the show restarts and therefore actually watching the ad, even in fast forward. Meanwhile viewers who can’t fast forward will often mute the ads and take their attention entirely off the TV by getting up or talking or something else – and not see the ad at all.

I can’t speak for the how robust or even how honest any of these studies are, but it’s an interesting argument and one that makes a lot of sense to me.

 sebster wrote:
That’s the general industry assumption, but there’s been some work done to counter it. Studies have shown that viewers who fast forward the ads actually retain more memory of the ads. The fast forwards will sit there concentrating on the stopping the fast forward as soon as the show restarts and therefore actually watching the ad, even in fast forward. .

My set-top box has a 'skip' function that just skips to the end of the ad... It's a little glitchy sometimes, but still faster than just fast-forwarding.

 insaniak wrote:
My set-top box has a 'skip' function that just skips to the end of the ad... It's a little glitchy sometimes, but still faster than just fast-forwarding.

My mother in law does as well. Our Tivo doesn’t – the story is that Tivo developed a box that skipped ads, but then worried the networks would freak out if they deployed it.

But yeah, where there’s ad skipping it’s a whole other ball game.

Television should absolutely change how it operates, a lot of great stuff gets cancelled that really shouldn't and Hannibal is a perfect example. It's a brilliant show, I really hope it finds a home on Netflix cause it totally deserves it. in our day and age I really think a different metric needs to be used to judge how popular or not a show is, the way people consume entertainment is so different than it was 20 or even 10 years ago.