PDA

View Full Version : How should Sci-Fi decide on Season Five or not?



Blistna
October 19th, 2007, 02:10 PM
First off, I don't think this should be under "Should their be a season 5..." because it's not just about season five, and it's not about whether they should continue its about how they should decide...but if its wrong, sorry!!

Anyway, I think they should change the way they decide to cancel shows. Because people watch tv with DVR all the time, my parents do it, and I am sure there are more to follow. I will do so too, soon, when I buy a EyeTV for my Mac. But how should they decide to cancel a show, like Atlantis?

I mean, lets say the actual ratings are out the roof -- people watch it like crazy. But they cancel it because of low ratings...why, you ask? Because no one watches it live! I can't catch it live until about midnight....and when I get my eyetv, I will watch it at my connivence. My parents watch at whenever they have time -- as with most DVR/TiVo fans....so how should this change?

If your customers change their policies, then the company should follow suite. But how can networks like Sci-Fi change this?

PG15
October 19th, 2007, 03:11 PM
How?

Get their heads out of their asses, that's how!

Caldwell's 2IC
October 19th, 2007, 03:25 PM
Toss a coin for Head or Tails ??? :D

Usually they base that kind of stuff on ratings, but since so many people tape or download the show, they should take more things in consideration, such as DVD sales and syndication success.

Wraith_Boy
October 19th, 2007, 03:39 PM
Toss a coin for Head or Tails ??? :D

Usually they base that kind of stuff on ratings, but since so many people tape or download the show, they should take more things in consideration, such as DVD sales and syndication success.

Why exactly should they care how successful it is via other forms of distribution. It's MGM who gets the revenue from them. Sci-Fi only get advertiser fees from companies which advertise during the Stargate ad-breaks. Lower vieweing figures...less money to them!

Look at it another way:

You own a business, you decide to advertise on a billboard. Your only going to get new customers based on those who see it first hand. You don't care how the billboard company is doing or if it also advertises online etc. You will only get customers/work from those who get to see the specific billboard that you paid for. They don't see it = nothing new for you!

Sci-Fi have good reason not to care how it's doing everywhere else. They pay good money to help make Atlantis, so they only care about how it does on their channel. It's MGM who care about everything else becausae they are the only ones who make money from it. Say it does brilliant in China. Gets 100m viewers every week. Why would Skiffy care if it isn't being watched on their channel. It's MGM who would be making all the money from broadcasting rights.

Mitchell82
October 19th, 2007, 04:08 PM
Why exactly should they care how successful it is via other forms of distribution. It's MGM who gets the revenue from them. Sci-Fi only get advertiser fees from companies which advertise during the Stargate ad-breaks. Lower vieweing figures...less money to them!

Look at it another way:

You own a business, you decide to advertise on a billboard. Your only going to get new customers based on those who see it first hand. You don't care how the billboard company is doing or if it also advertises online etc. You will only get customers/work from those who get to see the specific billboard that you paid for. They don't see it = nothing new for you!

Sci-Fi have good reason not to care how it's doing everywhere else. They pay good money to help make Atlantis, so they only care about how it does on their channel. It's MGM who care about everything else becausae they are the only ones who make money from it. Say it does brilliant in China. Gets 100m viewers every week. Why would Skiffy care if it isn't being watched on their channel. It's MGM who would be making all the money from broadcasting rights.

Mabey so, but they should consider other things like dvr whcih they are. But most likely they'll flip a coin.:mckay:

rpmguitar
October 19th, 2007, 05:39 PM
i think the easiest answer is for MGM and SciFi to make a financial arrangement. If the show is very profitable for MGM, but not as profitable for SciFi, then MGM could take over more of the production costs or add in some sort of compensation to scifi. It's worth it to MGM to keep the series in the public spotlight and still make a profit, and scifi would get to keep one of their top 3 ratings producing shows at a lower cost.

Ltcolshepjumper
October 19th, 2007, 07:04 PM
They don't really care who actually watches the show itself. Its all about the advertises paying them for commercial time.

nekoi
October 20th, 2007, 12:30 AM
How?

Get their heads out of their asses, that's how!

I agree with this statement.

Reefgirl
October 20th, 2007, 01:09 AM
They should come here and take a look at the fans feelings

SGFerrit
October 20th, 2007, 04:54 AM
That would be a bit silly considering we in no way represent the American general viewing audience. Yeah, it would probably secure us a season 5, but it would never happen lol.

Briangate78
October 20th, 2007, 06:31 AM
They should come here and take a look at the fans feelings


That would be a bit silly considering we in no way represent the American general viewing audience. Yeah, it would probably secure us a season 5, but it would never happen lol.

They could care less how the fans feel. It's a business to them. So here is a perfect example...

Personal Decision..

Will Sci-fi renew SGA out of the goodness of their hearts and to make the fans happy?

Hell No!

Business Decision

Will Sci-fi renew SGA knowing they will lost 2 million viewers in key demographics that attract advertisers and could very well effect the entire network's ratings causing a loss in revenue if they don't?

Youbetcha!

Wraith_Boy
October 20th, 2007, 08:28 AM
Mabey so, but they should consider other things like dvr whcih they are. But most likely they'll flip a coin.:mckay:

Which is exactly what they will do!

As long as it's on their channel, then they'll count it. If it's on another form of distribution, they won't give a toss because they get no revenue from it!

ReganX
October 20th, 2007, 08:34 AM
Mabey so, but they should consider other things like dvr whcih they are. But most likely they'll flip a coin.:mckay:

They'll consider whichever factors benefit them.

Wraith_Boy
October 20th, 2007, 08:42 AM
i think the easiest answer is for MGM and SciFi to make a financial arrangement. If the show is very profitable for MGM, but not as profitable for SciFi, then MGM could take over more of the production costs or add in some sort of compensation to scifi. It's worth it to MGM to keep the series in the public spotlight and still make a profit, and scifi would get to keep one of their top 3 ratings producing shows at a lower cost.

That's exactly it. The show is more profitable to MGM than it is to Sci-Fi. It's in their best interests to keep it going for as long as possible.

MGM could have done some sort of deal with Sci-Fi to say guarantee 2/3 seasons. They then go & sign deals with the cast & crew. Keeping the production costs at the same level for those 3 seasons. Making the show cheaper to make.

They could have even cut it back from 20 to 18, 16 shows per year. That would save a few million off the budget. Meaning less for Sci-Fi to pay MGM. SG-1 was shown to something like 150-200 countries worldwide. MGM could have cut a few mil off the budget, especially since they were asking Sci-Fi to pay the largest part of the production budget every year. Yet all they were getting was advertsising money. While MGM were selling broadcasting rights to just under 200 networks around the world. DVD box sales, merchandising costs etc, etc. MGM were idiots & they will lose millions each year SG-1 is off the air. All because they were too greedy to come to some sort of arrangement with Sci-Fi to keep the show going on their channel.

Even look at Bridge Studios. It's the same bunch of guys & each one has multiple jobs in any given ep.

However the best solution is to give it to a brand new studio away from 'BS'. Let them take a new fresh approach to the franchise. Make a better show that fans want to see. Meaning more fans watching the show regularly. So no reason for Sci-Fi to even contemplate canning it.

As much as I want to see SG-1 & Atlantis regularly. The fault doesn't lie with Sci-Fi. It lies squarely at the feet of MGM. 1) They're too greedy with the money issues. 2) They stick with the same studio regardless despite them losing viewers every seasons. While production costs continue to rise!

MGM are the real villans in this whole piece!

Avenger
October 20th, 2007, 10:07 AM
It's one of SciFi's top three rated shows. Not picking up another season would be stupid.

Briangate78
October 20th, 2007, 10:31 AM
It's one of SciFi's top three rated shows. Not picking up another season would be stupid.

That's without DVR factored into the equation.

Avenger
October 20th, 2007, 01:56 PM
True, but DVR viewings don't hold as much weight as first run because the commercials aren't watched. It's the advertising that pays the bills. Downloads from services like iTunes and Amazon should be factored in though because people pay for those.

ToasterOnFire
October 20th, 2007, 02:11 PM
They'll decide based on whether or not SGA is profitable for the network. If it's too expensive then it doesn't matter how dedicated of a fanbase it has.

Wraith_Boy
October 20th, 2007, 02:11 PM
True, but DVR viewings don't hold as much weight as first run because the commercials aren't watched. It's the advertising that pays the bills. Downloads from services like iTunes and Amazon should be factored in though because people pay for those.

Lmao, as has already been pointed out. Sci-Fi only make money from advertisers. It's MGM who will get all the other revenue.

Let me ask you this: You are the president of Skiffy. You find Stargate is losing viewers on your network. Advertisers are offering less & less for advertisements during Stargate when it airs. Meaning yiou lose money.

Then you find out it's doing great on the internet. It's the top bought show all around the world. Only problem is MGM is getting all the money. So you look yourself in the mirror. One of 2 things pop into your head. 1) Great I'm so happy that Stargate is doing sh1tty on our network because it's popular from being downloaded on the internet. Isn't it great that MGM is making all that money! 2) Who gives a flying fek because the internet money isn't going into our pockets!

If Sci-Fi are making money from it, then they'll factor these additional methods into their decision for renewal. If they aren't making a cent from it, then they won't care less! It's MGM who make all the big bucks & the ones that cares about every little thing. Sci-Fi only cares about who watches it live when it airs on their channel. Nothing more & nothing less!

Avenger
October 20th, 2007, 03:33 PM
It depends in the contract and who has the right to the digital distribution of the show.

Briangate78
October 20th, 2007, 03:38 PM
If you watch the commercials during Stargate they cover a wide amount of age groups. That is something advertisers like to see. A show that can hit the key demographics. SGA is scoring very well in that. It's great I can now say Adrift got a 1.4! That number will help in other departments.

Blistna
October 20th, 2007, 08:54 PM
Honestly, when I am watching TiVo, is I see a product I like...I watch the TV ad...lol....but most ppl don't.

Anyway, I think Sci-Fi needs a new way to get money, then. MGM could give them a portion of the sales...or just let them have the iTunes sells....or a portion....who knows.

I know one good way Sci-Fi could get more money from it. Have it free online, at any time...oh, and another way...YOU PAY FOR SCI-FI!!! HAHAHAHA!!! lol j/k. That would suck..considering I only watch Sci-Fi on friday...lol

the fifth man
October 20th, 2007, 09:05 PM
Really, it's advertisers that need to change the way they do things. Times have changed, and there is nothing they can do about it. They just have to accept that at least half of people (probably more) will skip through commercials if they can. Until the way they perceive things really changes, we may see a lot of quality shows canceled due to low "live" ratings. I just hope they change things soon enough.

SoulReaver
October 20th, 2007, 09:37 PM
Toss a coin for Head or Tails ??? :Dexcellent idea

heads : season 5
tails : season 5

http://img.infos-du-net.com/forum/images/perso/oth.gif

Briangate78
October 21st, 2007, 07:17 AM
Really, it's advertisers that need to change the way they do things. Times have changed, and there is nothing they can do about it. They just have to accept that at least half of people (probably more) will skip through commercials if they can. Until the way they perceive things really changes, we may see a lot of quality shows canceled due to low "live" ratings. I just hope they change things soon enough.

Well I read on mediaweek, the link to the article is on the Season 4 ratings thread in the SG news forum. Anyway, said that one of the main advertising groups are going to pay about 8% more for the timeslots, which is called CPM, Costs Per thousand viewers on NBCU cable networks(This includes Sci-fi). As per the FF, the system is very flawed, because not everybody FF a commercial and those that do are likely not to do it all the time, imo. So it looks like they are also changing their ways due to the major impact on DVR. But now it's official SGA is being impacted by DVR by a decent amount. It's good enough to raise a lot of eyebrows, not just Teal'c's! lol! :p

Mitchell82
October 21st, 2007, 08:02 PM
Really, it's advertisers that need to change the way they do things. Times have changed, and there is nothing they can do about it. They just have to accept that at least half of people (probably more) will skip through commercials if they can. Until the way they perceive things really changes, we may see a lot of quality shows canceled due to low "live" ratings. I just hope they change things soon enough.

Yeah and one thing they need to do is make better comercials instead onf ones I want to throw my hammer at.

Caldwell's 2IC
October 22nd, 2007, 09:28 AM
The commercials people actualy look forward to are the ones shown during the Superbowl. The rest are just a break from the show so you can go raiding the fridge. :D

MediaSavant
October 22nd, 2007, 09:52 AM
This is how they will decide.

Anticipated advertising revenue from a Season 5 minus the cost of Season 5. That will either equal a profit or a loss. Sure Profit = certain renew. Sure Loss = cancel.

To determine anticipated advertising revenue, they'll look at the whether the ratings are trending down (which they are) and have someone predict what they will be in Season 5 if such a trend continues. Then, they'll have someone predict what type of advertising revenue they will get from those ratings. The accountants will then subtract the cost of the show.

Briangate78
October 22nd, 2007, 10:36 AM
This is how they will decide.

Anticipated advertising revenue from a Season 5 minus the cost of Season 5. That will either equal a profit or a loss. Sure Profit = certain renew. Sure Loss = cancel.

To determine anticipated advertising revenue, they'll look at the whether the ratings are trending down (which they are) and have someone predict what they will be in Season 5 if such a trend continues. Then, they'll have someone predict what type of advertising revenue they will get from those ratings. The accountants will then subtract the cost of the show.

That is why when people see a 1.1 or 1.2 they assume the worst. There are more numbers involved. Also the 1.4 bump for Adrift is going to add to those more important numbers. Joe m said there is good news within those numbers. I know you will throw the C3 report out at me, but that report really is flawed, especially when all the networks are suffering around a 20% bleed off from DVR. Now if SGA had a 0.2 difference, it could of well had a 15% to 20% difference.

Mitchell82
October 22nd, 2007, 04:05 PM
That is why when people see a 1.1 or 1.2 they assume the worst. There are more numbers involved. Also the 1.4 bump for Adrift is going to add to those more important numbers. Joe m said there is good news within those numbers. I know you will throw the C3 report out at me, but that report really is flawed, especially when all the networks are suffering around a 20% bleed off from DVR. Now if SGA had a 0.2 difference, it could of well had a 15% to 20% difference.

A 0.1 difference isn't that bad and they will add the numbers together from the "C3" ratings. So in any essence they will be higher and the ratings are staying prety close so far so as long as that trend continues and SGA still remains in the top 5 or 10 (unlike Flash) then hopefully it will get renewed though any more than a 0.3 drop and we should be worried.

Briangate78
October 22nd, 2007, 07:00 PM
A 0.1 difference isn't that bad and they will add the numbers together from the "C3" ratings. So in any essence they will be higher and the ratings are staying prety close so far so as long as that trend continues and SGA still remains in the top 5 or 10 (unlike Flash) then hopefully it will get renewed though any more than a 0.3 drop and we should be worried.

Well according to Joe the C3 number was a 1.4, so I think "Lifeline" could very well hit a 1.3, heck might even get up to a 1.4 also if SGA is lucky.

I really want to know if GH had any DVR difference. GH was not on the top 100 Tivo'd shows. But still, could have some impact or none at all.

the fifth man
October 22nd, 2007, 07:53 PM
Yeah and one thing they need to do is make better comercials instead onf ones I want to throw my hammer at.

I'll certainly second that.:)