PDA

View Full Version : Ratings slip in wake of '200' promotion



Cameron Mitchel
August 28th, 2006, 03:41 PM
Taken from http://gateworld.net/news/2006/08/ratings_slip_in_wake_of_200_prom.shtml


Rating for the August 25 episodes of Stargate SG-1 and Stargate Atlantis slipped in the wake of the highly promoted two-hundredth episode the week before, but still managed to hold enough of their audiences to beat this summer's averages.

SG-1 premiered "Counterstrike" (http://gateworld.net/sg1/s10/1007.shtml) at 9 p.m. Eastern/Pacific on SCI FI Channel. The episode earned a 1.5 average household rating, down four-tenths of a point from the previous week's heavily promoted episode.

In typical form, Atlantis built slightly on its lead-in, with a 1.6 rating for "Common Ground" (http://gateworld.net/atlantis/s3/307.shtml) at 10 p.m. This is a drop of two-tenths of a point from the previous week.



Now I believe that SciFi is controlling the ratings. It's a big coincidence that after the 200th episode rating of 1.9, it just sinks back down to 1.5. The episode was really good, and I would expect that the ratings would at least stay around 1.7, 1.8ish, as people would at least check out the next episode from 200 (Counterstrike). But I do believe now that SciFi is controlling the ratings and is pushing them back down to back up their selfish plan to get rid of Stargate SG-1 to make room for Eureka and ECW and to get rid of the competition.

Please post your ideas.

Guys, please do NOT report articles in thier entirity, even if they're from GW

Konijn
August 28th, 2006, 03:46 PM
Why would the purposely cut down the ratings?

Surely they're just interested in the most ratings they can get in whatever way they can?

Cameron Mitchel
August 28th, 2006, 03:51 PM
It's a weird coincidence, that's all, and that Eureka is still holding a 2.0 average. No offense to any Eureka fans, but

1) Eureka isn't nearly as good as Stargate and IMHO won't have good ratings in it's second season (unless SciFi over advertises it)
2) It's NBC's/USA's/SciFi's show so it'll get what ever ratings SciFi wants it to get, and is the reason it's promoted, i mean, over promoted, and Stargate is not (In my opinion Stargate still is competition with Eureka and ECW [popularity of the shows] and the only way to stop the competition is for SciFi to push Stargate out the way, cuz if you looked at the news, SciFi didn't have a real reason to cancel the show other than,"We felt like it was time for Stargate SG-1 to end.").

ToasterOnFire
August 28th, 2006, 03:52 PM
Networks can't control the ratings. As I guessed, people tuned in just for the 200th ep and didn't stick around for the following week.

smurf
August 28th, 2006, 03:54 PM
1) Why would Sci Fi want to make less money? (Low ratings cause a knock on effect over how much they can charge for the time in future)
2) They've canned the show anyway, why would they care? - seeing as they've already covered their butt with a "it's not a ratings issue".
3) The 200th episode got a 1.9 because it was a special episode. It probably pulled in a fair few old fans (who don't like the current direction) who watched only that episode for the curiousity value.
4) 1.5 is pretty good for season 10.

Konijn
August 28th, 2006, 03:54 PM
I'm not american, don't have Sci-Fi so i've never seen Eureka, never even heard of it :P.

But I think there's something more going on here than Sci-Fi / MGM let on.

Seems very out of the blue that they announced it, and the timing they announced it was horrible aswell.

full.infinity
August 28th, 2006, 03:56 PM
Networks can't control the ratings.
No, but they can influence them.

And there is a motive. Stargate isn't owned by NBC. NBC wants its channels to air as much stuff from NBC as possible.

Cameron Mitchel
August 28th, 2006, 03:57 PM
I'm not american, don't have Sci-Fi so i've never seen Eureka, never even heard of it :P.

But I think there's something more going on here than Sci-Fi / MGM let on.

Seems very out of the blue that they announced it, and the timing they announced it was horrible aswell.
MGM wants Stargate to continue. I say that SciFi wants Eureka and ECW in there with no competition so there kicking Stargate out. Regardless of ratings, which only pickup 5% of the US, Stargate is a very popular show. Ther would be no reason to cancel it until the producers or actors are ready to do so.

And if you wan to know what Eureka is, then check out SciFi.com and youll see all the advertisements it has.

Cameron Mitchel
August 28th, 2006, 03:57 PM
No, but they can influence them.

And there is a motive. Stargate isn't owned by NBC. NBC wants its channels to air as much stuff from NBC as possible.
I agree, which is why I believe SciFi/ NBC is up to something, stated above.

ShadowMaat
August 28th, 2006, 03:58 PM
The ratings slipped back down because fans were only tuning in to see RDA. Or because it was a "milestone" ep. Or because it was funny. Or maybe they hated 200 so much that they stopped watching. Or maybe there was a good movie playing at the mall this past week. *shrug* Even assuming that SCIFI had any way of controlling the numbers- which they don't since it's an independent source that monitors these things- they would no reason to fake the ratings because the show is already cancelled.

sueKay
August 28th, 2006, 03:59 PM
I've had another thought about the lower ratings...

Didn't a lot of cable TV packages get changed a few months back...cos I remember someone on LJ saying they had to upgrade their TV package to keep Sci Fi.

Ltcolshepjumper
August 28th, 2006, 03:59 PM
I do agree that Scifi is doing everything in their power to make Eureka seem like a better show- more Eureka ads, less SG-1, cancellation of SG1 for no reason, ECW, pushing back the time slot, etc. It seems as though they think they can get more money if they put one of their own shows up to the spotlight. If you haven't noticed, SG-1, SGA, and BSG are not and will not be promoted nearly as much as Eureka has been and will be promoted. They just want their show to be in the spotlight. Which show do you think will fill the SG-1 time slot? It won't be SGA or BSG. It will either be Eureka, Doctor Who, or ECW, three shows that in reality aren't nearly as good.:sheppard:

Cameron Mitchel
August 28th, 2006, 04:00 PM
I've had another thought about the lower ratings...

Didn't a lot of cable TV packages get changed a few months back...cos I remember someone on LJ saying they had to upgrade their TV package to keep Sci Fi.
That wouldnt have anything to do with it. Sorry. And they could still affect the ratings. Either way, I still believe that SciFi just want Eureka in the spotlight.

smurf
August 28th, 2006, 04:00 PM
I've had another thought about the lower ratings...

Didn't a lot of cable TV packages get changed a few months back...cos I remember someone on LJ saying they had to upgrade their TV package to keep Sci Fi.
Yes, but the ratings have been adjusted to compensate for the loss of viewers.

Cameron Mitchel
August 28th, 2006, 04:01 PM
I do agree that Scifi is doing everything in their power to make Eureka seem like a better show- more Eureka ads, less SG-1, cancellation of SG1 for no reason, ECW, pushing back the time slot, etc. It seems as though they think they can get more money if they put one of their own shows up to the spotlight. If you haven't noticed, SG-1, SGA, and BSG are not and will not be promoted nearly as much as Eureka has been and will be promoted. They just want their show to be in the spotlight. Which show do you think will fill the SG-1 time slot? It won't be SGA or BSG. It will either be Eureka, Doctor Who, or ECw, three shows that in reality aren't nearly as good.:sheppard:
I agree, but even Doctor Who wont get alot of attention anymore.

ShadowMaat
August 28th, 2006, 04:02 PM
The numbers were low BEFORE 200 and they're dropping back down after. Why does this surprise everyone?

Cameron Mitchel
August 28th, 2006, 04:02 PM
Yes, but the ratings have been adjusted to compensate for the loss of viewers.
I cant believe you cuz it doesnt make since. Ratings has nothing to do with people dissatisfied with the show.

Cameron Mitchel
August 28th, 2006, 04:04 PM
The numbers were low BEFORE 200 and they're dropping back down after. Why does this surprise everyone?
Because Counterstrike was a good episode for one, and number two, regardless, I'm still questioning SciFi's reason for canceling the show, because they never stated that they cancelled it because of ratings. They mentioned that the ratings were low, but never said it was the reason they cancelled the show. They said they felt like it was time to cancel it.

Ltcolshepjumper
August 28th, 2006, 04:10 PM
Because Counterstrike was a good episode for one, and number two, regardless, I'm still questioning SciFi's reason for canceling the show, because they never stated that they cancelled it because of ratings. They mentioned that the ratings were low, but never said it was the reason they cancelled the show. They said they felt like it was time to cancel it.

And saying that you felt like it was time is a pathetic excuse for a reason.:mckay:

smurf
August 28th, 2006, 04:10 PM
I cant believe you cuz it doesnt make since. Ratings has nothing to do with people dissatisfied with the show.
Eh? How can ratings have nothing to do with people dissatisfied with the show?
People are unhappy with the show, they stop watching, ratings go down.
Seems fairly simple to me. *shrug*


And in regards to the Neilsen adjustments. Simplified; The ratings are a percentage of the available audience for that channel. If Sci Fi has an available audience of 300 and 4 people watch then it gets a rating of 1.5(%). If the number of people who can get the channel goes down to 200, but 3 people watch it still gets a rating of 1.5(%).

Cameron Mitchel
August 28th, 2006, 04:13 PM
Eh? How can ratings have nothing to do with people dissatisfied with the show?
People are unhappy with the show, they stop watching, ratings go down.
Seems fairly simple to me. *shrug*


And in regards to the Neilsen adjustments. Simplified; The ratings are a percentage of the available audience for that channel. If Sci Fi has an available audience of 300 and 4 people watch then it gets a rating of 1.5(%). If the number of people who can get the channel goes down to 200, but 2 people watch it still gets a rating of 1.5(%).
Uh, not EVERYBODY has this Nielsen thing. So its not a fair rating system.

prion
August 28th, 2006, 04:13 PM
Taken from http://gateworld.net/news/2006/08/ratings_slip_in_wake_of_200_prom.shtml



Now I believe that SciFi is controlling the ratings. It's a big coincidence that after the 200th episode rating of 1.9, it just sinks back down to 1.5. The episode was really good, and I would expect that the ratings would at least stay around 1.7, 1.8ish, as people would at least check out the next episode from 200 (Counterstrike). But I do believe now that SciFi is controlling the ratings and is pushing them back down to back up their selfish plan to get rid of Stargate SG-1 to make room for Eureka and ECW and to get rid of the competition.

Please post your ideas.


No network can influence hte Nielsen ratings. They're indepedent. The ratings after "200" went down because the studios pushed and pushed advertising for ONE episode and well, folks who wanted to see a 'historic' episode did, then didn't bother watching more.

ToasterOnFire
August 28th, 2006, 04:14 PM
No, but they can influence them.

And there is a motive. Stargate isn't owned by NBC. NBC wants its channels to air as much stuff from NBC as possible.
Yes, well until someone can provide proof of this it gets thrown into the "cancellation conspiracy" pile. Keeps growing every day. :mckay:


They mentioned that the ratings were low, but never said it was the reason they cancelled the show. They said they felt like it was time to cancel it.
Maybe because they didn't want to wait around to see the ratings get even lower?

ShadowMaat
August 28th, 2006, 04:14 PM
Because Counterstrike was a good episode for one, and number two, regardless, I'm still questioning SciFi's reason for canceling the show, because they never stated that they cancelled it because of ratings. They mentioned that the ratings were low, but never said it was the reason they cancelled the show. They said they felt like it was time to cancel it.
The episode was good in your opinion. That doesn't make it FACT, nor does everything that happens in the world have to make sense to YOU (or any other random individual in the world) in order to be true. There are a lot of senseless, terrible things that happen- people gunned down in the streets, children dying, diseases ravaging the populace... There are even random wonderful things that happen- falling in love, winning the lottery, meeting your long-lost twin... they may be utterly inexplicable, but they still happen.

You don't have to understand why SCIFI cancelled Stargate, but you should at least try to accept it. Not everything is a conspiracy. The ratings for the show are dropping again because not as many people are watching the show. It's that simple.

It's like Gray's Anatomy. They got HUGE ratings for their post-Super Bowl ep, but the ratings dropped after that back to more "normal" (for that point in the show/season) ratings. Same here. Ratings are dropping back to what's now normal.

Cameron Mitchel
August 28th, 2006, 04:14 PM
And saying that you felt like it was time is a pathetic excuse for a reason.:mckay:
At least someone agrees with me that it's not fair for Stargate.

Ltcolshepjumper
August 28th, 2006, 04:14 PM
Which ain't right because I'm sure there are at least 3 times more people that do tune in to stargate and if what I know about it is true then it won't matter if we watch it or not.:sheppard:

Sci-Fi
August 28th, 2006, 04:15 PM
That doesn't make sense. Why would the SFC even want to "control the numbers"? They probably have a minimum rating they guarenteed the advertisers. That would mean the SFC would lose money if they have to give away makeup spots on other shows because the weekly ratings missed the mark. If they try to inflate or deflate the numbers, everybody would know and they would get a black eye for doing so.

How would the SFC manipulate the numbers anyways? The Nielsen ratings is an independent service and they want to protect their integrity and report the data they collect.

Why would the SFC have to make room? Eureka and ECW are on a different night. It's not like one of those shows is replacing SG1 on SciFi Friday. Now that would be a different story. Doubt the SFC would move either show from Tuesday. They have been trying to create a new night of original programming for years. Besides WWE Friday Night SmackDown is on UPN Friday night at 8pm and WWE doesn't want any of their sister wrestling programs on the same night and/or airing at the same time.

smurf
August 28th, 2006, 04:17 PM
Uh, not EVERYBODY has this Nielsen thing. So its not a fair rating system.
Is it only fair when it's in your favor?
You know, it's just as likely if the Neilsens counted everyone that the numbers could be lower.

Cameron Mitchel
August 28th, 2006, 04:17 PM
The episode was good in your opinion. That doesn't make it FACT, nor does everything that happens in the world have to make sense to YOU (or any other random individual in the world) in order to be true. There are a lot of senseless, terrible things that happen- people gunned down in the streets, children dying, diseases ravaging the populace... There are even random wonderful things that happen- falling in love, winning the lottery, meeting your long-lost twin... they may be utterly inexplicable, but they still happen.

You don't have to understand why SCIFI cancelled Stargate, but you should at least try to accept it. Not everything is a conspiracy. The ratings for the show are dropping again because not as many people are watching the show. It's that simple.

It's like Gray's Anatomy. They got HUGE ratings for their post-Super Bowl ep, but the ratings dropped after that back to more "normal" (for that point in the show/season) ratings. Same here. Ratings are dropping back to what's now normal.
But YOU dont know why the ratings are dropping EITHER. just because YOU may not like the direction of the show, doesnt mean that the low ratings are because people dont like it. And I never said that everything in the world has to make sense to me, and dying children, etc, has nothing to do with this thread, so please stick to the topic.

Ltcolshepjumper
August 28th, 2006, 04:19 PM
That doesn't make sense. Why would the SFC even want to "control the numbers"? They probably have a minimum rating they guarenteed the advertisers. That would mean the SFC would lose money if they have to give away makeup spots on other shows because the weekly ratings missed the mark. If they try to inflate or deflate the numbers, everybody would know and they would get a black eye for doing so.

How would the SFC manipulate the numbers anyways? The Nielsen ratings is an independent service and they want to protect their integrity and report the data they collect.

Why would the SFC have to make room? Eureka and ECW are on a different night. It's not like one of those shows is replacing SG1 on SciFi Friday. Now that would be a different story. Doubt the SFC would move either show from Tuesday. They have been trying to create a new night of original programming for years. Besides WWE Friday Night SmackDown is on UPN Friday night at 8pm and WWE doesn't want any of their sister wrestling programs on the same night and/or airing at the same time.

Eureka airs on Fridays at 7pm. Doctor Who will probably fill the SG-1 spot, that is if they air it when they air SGA.


The episode was good in your opinion. That doesn't make it FACT, nor does everything that happens in the world have to make sense to YOU (or any other random individual in the world) in order to be true. There are a lot of senseless, terrible things that happen- people gunned down in the streets, children dying, diseases ravaging the populace... There are even random wonderful things that happen- falling in love, winning the lottery, meeting your long-lost twin... they may be utterly inexplicable, but they still happen.

You don't have to understand why SCIFI cancelled Stargate, but you should at least try to accept it. Not everything is a conspiracy. The ratings for the show are dropping again because not as many people are watching the show. It's that simple.It's like Gray's Anatomy. They got HUGE ratings for their post-Super Bowl ep, but the ratings dropped after that back to more "normal" (for that point in the show/season) ratings. Same here. Ratings are dropping back to what's now normal.
Uh, first hint that there is something they aren't telling us is that they never said the cancellation was because of ratings. In fact, they didn't give a factual reason as to why they chose to cancel it. You NEVER do anything, especially when it comes to business issues, without a reason. That was Scifi's first mistake. Second, why cancel it before the 200th episode? Why not 1 or two weeks before? Why not after the 200th episode? Mistake # 3: why the lack of promotion? :sheppard:

Cameron Mitchel
August 28th, 2006, 04:19 PM
That doesn't make sense. Why would the SFC even want to "control the numbers"? They probably have a minimum rating they guarenteed the advertisers. That would mean the SFC would lose money if they have to give away makeup spots on other shows because the weekly ratings missed the mark. If they try to inflate or deflate the numbers, everybody would know and they would get a black eye for doing so.

How would the SFC manipulate the numbers anyways? The Nielsen ratings is an independent service and they want to protect their integrity and report the data they collect.

Why would the SFC have to make room? Eureka and ECW are on a different night. It's not like one of those shows is replacing SG1 on SciFi Friday. Now that would be a different story. Doubt the SFC would move either show from Tuesday. They have been trying to create a new night of original programming for years. Besides WWE Friday Night SmackDown is on UPN Friday night at 8pm and WWE doesn't want any of their sister wrestling programs on the same night and/or airing at the same time.
Ratings. Popularity. Stated already. And for what Smurf said about the Nielsen thing in response to what I said: It still doesn't make it fair. Doesnt have to be in my favor. But it still isnt fair. And It seems to me that youre (smurf) one of the ones who doesnt like the new seasons.

full.infinity
August 28th, 2006, 04:25 PM
Is it only fair when it's in your favor?
You know, it's just as likely if the Neilsens counted everyone that the numbers could be lower.
No, it was unfair even when Stargate was getting good ratings. It's been unfair at least since the first year that American Idol topped the ratings.

ShadowMaat
August 28th, 2006, 04:26 PM
And I never said that everything in the world has to make sense to me...



Yes, but the ratings have been adjusted to compensate for the loss of viewers.

Originally posted by Cameron Mitchell
I cant believe you cuz it doesnt make since. Ratings has nothing to do with people dissatisfied with the show.
You're saying you can't believe smurf because it doesn't make sense to you. My point is that things don't have to make sense in order to be true.

I was also attempting to put things in perspective. Compared to all the troubles in the world, the cancellation of a cable TV show falls kinda short on the list of "This is important."

And if I don't know why the show was cancelled, neither do you.

Agent_Dark
August 28th, 2006, 04:27 PM
Uh, not EVERYBODY has this Nielsen thing. So its not a fair rating system.
There's this mathematical thing called 'Statistics'. Maybe you've heard of it. Anyway, it lets you predict fairly accurately statistics across a large population based off a much smaller sample size. Take a Statistics course (High school level maths maybe?) and you'll find out.

kirmit
August 28th, 2006, 04:28 PM
something doesn't seem right to me. No offence to any Atlantis fans but 'Counterstrike' looked like and was the better episode, you could tell from the previews. So it's a bit strange how the show they're keeping is always that 0.1% ahead of the one they're cancelling, it seems too iffy to me that Atlantis is always only that 0.1% ahead, surely if it was the better show (which i personally dont think it is) it would get more than that ahead of sg-1. I really think scifi are trying to kill stargate all together to bring their crappy wrestling shows in, with Atlantis only bein that tiny percent ahead of sg-1 it won't be long til it's cancelled aswell, which is exactly what scifi want.

Ltcolshepjumper
August 28th, 2006, 04:29 PM
My main issue with Scifi is the fact that they didn't give a reason to why they cancelled the show.:sheppardanime23:

ShadowMaat
August 28th, 2006, 04:30 PM
Uh, first hint that there is something they aren't telling us is that they never said the cancellation was because of ratings.
Statement: Stargate has been cancelled.
Statement: The ratings are dropping because not as many people are watching.

Whether the two are "connected" is kinda beside the point. They're two separate statements.

But you know what? I give up. Y'all go on being hysterical and spouting your comforting little conspiracy theories. If that's what helps you make sense of the big, bad world, fine.

I'll go back to some of the more rational (or at least more fun) parts of the board and leave you all to your spouting.

Ltcolshepjumper
August 28th, 2006, 04:33 PM
I just want an official reason besides " We felt like it." Until then I will assume that 1. They are tired of the show, 2. They want to put other shows in the spotlight, or 3. NBC wants more room for more of their none scifi shows ( hence ECW).:sheppardanime23:

Cameron Mitchel
August 28th, 2006, 04:33 PM
Statement: Stargate has been cancelled.
Statement: The ratings are dropping because not as many people are watching.

Whether the two are "connected" is kinda beside the point. They're two separate statements.

But you know what? I give up. Y'all go on being hysterical and spouting your comforting little conspiracy theories. If that's what helps you make sense of the big, bad world, fine.

I'll go back to some of the more rational (or at least more fun) parts of the board and leave you all to your spouting.
Listen, before we drop it, we still dont know the exact reason, and even every reason, that ratings are low, so you cant make a statement like that. Ok, the fact is, we ALL dont know, we just have speculations, Im not criticizing you for what you believe, but what others said earlier was correct: We dont know for sure what the reasoning is for anything, ratings, cancellation, etc. Forgive me if anything I said was offensive.

Cameron Mitchel
August 28th, 2006, 04:35 PM
something doesn't seem right to me. No offence to any Atlantis fans but 'Counterstrike' looked like and was the better episode, you could tell from the previews. So it's a bit strange how the show they're keeping is always that 0.1% ahead of the one they're cancelling, it seems too iffy to me that Atlantis is always only that 0.1% ahead, surely if it was the better show (which i personally dont think it is) it would get more than that ahead of sg-1. I really think scifi are trying to kill stargate all together to bring their crappy wrestling shows in, with Atlantis only bein that tiny percent ahead of sg-1 it won't be long til it's cancelled aswell, which is exactly what scifi want.
I agree.

Cameron Mitchel
August 28th, 2006, 04:37 PM
There's this mathematical thing called 'Statistics'. Maybe you've heard of it. Anyway, it lets you predict fairly accurately statistics across a large population based off a much smaller sample size. Take a Statistics course (High school level maths maybe?) and you'll find out.
Well, I know Carter fans/Mitchell haters dont like the show the way it is because of one character-Mitchell.

Konijn
August 28th, 2006, 04:38 PM
Yeah, I know MGM doesn't want SG-1 cancelled, they appear to be doing everything they can to keep it on TV.

Has anyone thought what would happen to SGA in season 4 if MGM doesn't get a new host for SG-1 or get into an even bigger feude with Sci-Fi ?

Asin, purposely making the script/show bad because they want Sci-Fi to loose even more ratings and couldn't care less if SGA was cancelled aswell?

In any event, i'm 100% sure there will more SG-1 in some form, most likely a Movie.

smurf
August 28th, 2006, 04:38 PM
No, it was unfair even when Stargate was getting good ratings. It's been unfair at least since the first year that American Idol topped the ratings.
Well, I must have had my ear plugs in, because I'm pretty sure I didn't hear anyone here moaning about it then.

Jonzey
August 28th, 2006, 04:40 PM
It's simple really, though not many antis would be willing to accept it because it would mean it's not about the quality of the show...

Fact 1: Monk, USA Network's most popular show, now airs opposite SG-1.
Fact 2: SG-1's ratings have slipped this year.
Fact 3: ''200'' recorded the highest ratings this season for SG-1.
Fact 4: Monk's usually stable ratings dipped significantly opposite 200.
Fact 5: This week was Monk's season finale, traditionally the episode with the highest ratings.
Fact 6: SG-1's ratings dipped again opposite this episode.

Conclusion: The next 3 episodes of this half of the season do not air against any significant competition (that I'm aware of), so it's likely that the ratings will go back up.

Callista
August 28th, 2006, 04:52 PM
This is just a question regarding ratings: Someone earlier said "Counterstrike" was a really good episode and so it didn't seem right that the rating were lower.
My question is: Does it matter if an individual episode is good or not as far as ratings are concerned?
I know they have the ability to measure if people are watching the teaser and then changing the channel or watching the first 15 minutes and then getting bored and changing the channel, but how does that translate into the ratings? If that's what is happening, then the quality of the individual episode would matter in the ratings. However, if it's a matter of people not tuning in in the first place, then it would seem it's more a matter of publicity/advertising (of which the 200th episode got tons more and therefore would naturally get higher ratings) or it might have more to do with how much people liked the previous episode (which I suppose would imply people didn't like the 200th episode that much or only watched it out of curiosity due to all the hype). Or, as Jonzey stated above, the competition could be different from week to week.
I would think the ratings reflect the overall quality or popularity of a show rather than individual episodes (with the exception of a special one like "200"). The casual viewer doesn't come on-line and won't know if something special is happening in advance of an episode unless it is heavily advertised in other media so the ratings wouldn't be affected much. I would assume that most of the viewers fall into either the casual grouping or people who watch faithfully but never come on-line to check up on the show. (Please correct me if I'm wrong about that.)
Sorry, my question kind of turned into an exposition.:o

Cameron Mitchel
August 28th, 2006, 04:52 PM
It's simple really, though not many antis would be willing to accept it because it would mean it's not about the quality of the show...

Fact 1: Monk, USA Network's most popular show, now airs opposite SG-1.
Fact 2: SG-1's ratings have slipped this year.
Fact 3: ''200'' recorded the highest ratings this season for SG-1.
Fact 4: Monk's usually stable ratings dipped significantly opposite 200.
Fact 5: This week was Monk's season finale, traditionally the episode with the highest ratings.
Fact 6: SG-1's ratings dipped again opposite this episode.

Conclusion: The next 3 episodes of this half of the season do not air against any significant competition (that I'm aware of), so it's likely that the ratings will go back up.
They SHOULD, but if they dip, then what? Itll prove that it has nothing to do with competition.

Cameron Mitchel
August 28th, 2006, 04:54 PM
This is just a question regarding ratings: Someone earlier said "Counterstrike" was a really good episode and so it didn't seem right that the rating were lower.
My question is: Does it matter if an individual episode is good or not as far as ratings are concerned?
I know they have the ability to measure if people are watching the teaser and then changing the channel or watching the first 15 minutes and then getting bored and changing the channel, but how does that translate into the ratings? If that's what is happening, then the quality of the individual episode would matter in the ratings. However, if it's a matter of people not tuning in in the first place, then it would seem it's more a matter of publicity/advertising (of which the 200th episode got tons more and therefore would naturally get higher ratings) or it might have more to do with how much people liked the previous episode (which I suppose would imply people didn't like the 200th episode that much or only watched it out of curiosity due to all the hype). Or, as Jonzey stated above, the competition could be different from week to week.
I would think the ratings reflect the overall quality or popularity of a show rather than individual episodes (with the exception of a special one like "200"). The casual viewer doesn't come on-line and won't know if something special is happening in advance of an episode unless it is heavily advertised in other media so the ratings wouldn't be affected much. I would assume that most of the viewers fall into either the casual grouping or people who watch faithfully but never come on-line to check up on the show.
Sorry, my question kind of turned into an exposition.:o
yeah, and Stargate doesnt get alot and Eureka does. Why? cuz its SciFi's show, so I dont see how it being cancelled would have anything to do with who likes it or not, or the quality of the episodes, which are still good IMHO. Maybe not as good as past seasons, but still good. Its all about the ratings, which Ive said on different threads.

LaCroix
August 28th, 2006, 04:59 PM
I don't pretend to know how the ratings system works here in the States. But there's one thing I do know and that's retail. If somone who in the past bought one particular in the past, kept on buying it for a few years.

Then suddenly out of the blue for whatever reasons bought maybe a few items of that brand one year, then down to a couple then next the buyer of that brand may decide to stop all orders from that vendor. And at times not give them a reason why.

To me this maybe one reason why Sci-fi stopped the orders and we'll never know the reason why. IMHO.

Cameron Mitchel
August 28th, 2006, 05:01 PM
I don't pretend to know how the ratings system works here in the States. But there's one thing I do know and that's retail. If somone who in the past bought one particular in the past, kept on buying it for a few years.

Then suddenly out of the blue for whatever reasons bought maybe a few items of that brand one year, then down to a couple then next the buyer of that brand may decide to stop all orders from that vendor. And at times not give them a reason why.

To me this maybe one reason why Sci-fi stopped the orders and we'll never know the reason why. IMHO.
I respect your answer even though some parts of it I dont understand.

smurf
August 28th, 2006, 05:01 PM
It's simple really, though not many antis would be willing to accept it because it would mean it's not about the quality of the show...

Fact 1: Monk, USA Network's most popular show, now airs opposite SG-1.
Fact 2: SG-1's ratings have slipped this year.
Fact 3: ''200'' recorded the highest ratings this season for SG-1.
Fact 4: Monk's usually stable ratings dipped significantly opposite 200.
Fact 5: This week was Monk's season finale, traditionally the episode with the highest ratings.
Fact 6: SG-1's ratings dipped again opposite this episode.

Conclusion: The next 3 episodes of this half of the season do not air against any significant competition (that I'm aware of), so it's likely that the ratings will go back up.
Of course, that rather happily ignores the massive fall during season 9 when it wasn't up against Monk, and the technicality that SG-1 didn't dip so much as return to its season average - which it was getting before the big finale.

People do know that there are more than the people who watch Monk who could be available to watch Stargate don't they? There seems to be a lot of hooking in to Monk when there are a possible 86 million other cable households to choose from.
Having seen both Monk and AllNew!Stargate I'm having some trouble matching up the idea that many of Monk's viewers would be interested in watching AllNew!Stargate.

Agent_Dark
August 28th, 2006, 05:10 PM
Well, I know Carter fans/Mitchell haters dont like the show the way it is because of one character-Mitchell.
wtf................ What that has to do with the topic or my post I have nfi (unless you're trying to say that everyone who hates Mitchell/is a Carter fan, which is a very silly generalisation anyway, is not watching and thus ratings are down.... but you were arguing on the last page that people who are dissatisfied with the show had no effect on the ratings. Still doesn't have anything to do with post though :S)

And for the record, I am a Carter fan and I don't mind S10.

Ltcolshepjumper
August 28th, 2006, 05:16 PM
I think what he was trying to say was that most Carter fans( which make up the majority of the anti-Mitchells, as far as I know) don't really care why( or if) the show was cancelled. I just want an explanation to why it was cancelled mid-season that's all.:sheppardanime23:

Cameron Mitchel
August 28th, 2006, 05:16 PM
wtf................ What that has to do with the topic or my post I have nfi (unless you're trying to say that everyone who hates Mitchell/is a Carter fan, which is a very silly generalisation anyway, is not watching and thus ratings are down.... but you were arguing on the last page that people who are dissatisfied with the show had no effect on the ratings. Still doesn't have anything to do with post though :S)

And for the record, I am a Carter fan and I don't mind S10.
Yeah, well, let clarify what I meant: Carter fans who are also Mitchell haters, the ones who feel that seasons 9 and 10 have bad ratings because of Mitchell and Vala.

AGateFan
August 28th, 2006, 05:18 PM
I cant believe you cuz it doesnt make since. Ratings has nothing to do with people dissatisfied with the show.
How can you say this like its a fact? Maybe the ratings have something to with people being dissatisfied. Maybe it doesnt. But you act like it is inconcievable, its not. Lots of people stopped watching because they are dissatisfied some of those could have been Neilsons people.

Ltcolshepjumper
August 28th, 2006, 05:22 PM
How can you say this like its a fact? Maybe the ratings have something to with people being dissatisfied. Maybe it doesnt. But you act like it is inconcievable, its not. Lots of people stopped watching because they are dissatisfied some of those could have been Neilsons people.

Well, obviously ratings has nothing to do with Scifi's decision, since, IIRC, they said it didn't.:sheppardanime23:

AGateFan
August 28th, 2006, 05:29 PM
Well, obviously ratings has nothing to do with Scifi's decision, since, IIRC, they said it didn't.:sheppardanime23:
Im sorry, I didnt know we were talking about cancellation. I thought we were talking about ratings. The show was obviously cancelled due to a furling plot. They are peed that TPTB made them look like goofballs. NEVER tick off a furling.

Agent_Dark
August 28th, 2006, 05:29 PM
I think what he was trying to say was that most Carter fans( which make up the majority of the anti-Mitchells, as far as I know) don't really care why( or if) the show was cancelled. I just want an explanation to why it was cancelled mid-season that's all.
Well I don't like the generalisation that Carter fan = Mitchell hater. I'm sure there are many people who dont hate Mitchell and are also fans of Carter (like myself), as I'm sure there are people who are not big fans of Carter and are also not fans of Mitchell.


Yeah, well, let clarify what I meant: Carter fans who are also Mitchell haters, the ones who feel that seasons 9 and 10 have bad ratings because of Mitchell and Vala.
And I'm still in the dark as to what it has to do with my post about how the ratings system worked.

Callista
August 28th, 2006, 05:30 PM
How can you say this like its a fact? Maybe the ratings have something to with people being dissatisfied. Maybe it doesnt. But you act like it is inconcievable, its not. Lots of people stopped watching because they are dissatisfied some of those could have been Neilsons people.
People also just get tired of watching the same show for years. I used to watch West Wing and Law and Order religiously and then I just sort of watched them off and on and now I don't watch them at all (or in the case of West Wing, I quit before it did). It's not that the quality went down much (Law and Order in particular hasn't changed at all as far as I can see, other than changing cast members every so often), it's just that I moved on to other things. I'm sure that's the case with some Stargate viewers.
As far as picking up new viewers, this is kind of a tricky show because you can't just watch occasionally and still know what's going on. If you happened to start at the beginning of S9 and watched pretty much everything between now and then, you'd have some idea, but there's still a lot you wouldn't get. My brother is watching them all in order and is up through S5, but when I was visiting him he watched "Pegasus Project" with me and his comment was "I haven't got a clue what's going on". Most viewers aren't going to bother coming to GW and reading all the history...they just won't watch.
I'm not saying that's what's going on with the majority of the problem, I just think it may be another contributing factor in lower ratings and that would be a valid reason for Sci-Fi to cancel.
That being said, I still love and watch the show.

AGateFan
August 28th, 2006, 05:45 PM
something doesn't seem right to me. No offence to any Atlantis fans but 'Counterstrike' looked like and was the better episode, you could tell from the previews. So it's a bit strange how the show they're keeping is always that 0.1% ahead of the one they're cancelling, it seems too iffy to me that Atlantis is always only that 0.1% ahead, surely if it was the better show (which i personally dont think it is) it would get more than that ahead of sg-1. I really think scifi are trying to kill stargate all together to bring their crappy wrestling shows in, with Atlantis only bein that tiny percent ahead of sg-1 it won't be long til it's cancelled aswell, which is exactly what scifi want.
Atlantis is cheaper. For Scifi maybe 1.5 is good but not when its cost more money then they can get in revenue at 1.5.

Willow'sCat
August 28th, 2006, 05:47 PM
It's simple really, though not many antis would be willing to accept it because it would mean it's not about the quality of the show...

Fact 1: Monk, USA Network's most popular show, now airs opposite SG-1.
Fact 2: SG-1's ratings have slipped this year.
Fact 3: ''200'' recorded the highest ratings this season for SG-1.
Fact 4: Monk's usually stable ratings dipped significantly opposite 200.
Fact 5: This week was Monk's season finale, traditionally the episode with the highest ratings.
Fact 6: SG-1's ratings dipped again opposite this episode.

Conclusion: The next 3 episodes of this half of the season do not air against any significant competition (that I'm aware of), so it's likely that the ratings will go back up.Sorry :S your basic argument is (forgive me if I am wrong).

As long as SG-1 has no competition it might rate well... how does that help? It will for the most part have competition and any show that can't hold it's own against that competition... well it shouldn't really survive.

I still think some are missing the point... SGA is a go not because is has massive ratings in comparison to SG-1, it is a go because as far as SciFi is concerned for the amount of money it takes to make it, it pays off enough to continue it....

SG-1 has made it's self too expensive for one or more reason's and there seems to be little pay off for SciFi... the only pay off seemed to be the 200th episode, as soon as that was over...remember the decision to axe it was made before the 200th even screened, SciFi is not stupid it is a business. :cool:

Cameron Mitchel
August 28th, 2006, 05:49 PM
Sorry :S your basic argument is (forgive me if I am wrong).

As long as SG-1 has no competition it might rate well... how does that help? It will for the most part have competition and any show that can't hold it's own against that competition... well it shouldn't really survive.

I still think some are missing the point... SGA is a go not because is has massive ratings in comparison to SG-1, it is a go because as far as SciFi is concerned for the amount of money it takes to make it, it pays off enough to continue it....

SG-1 has made it's self too expensive for one or more reason's and there seems to be little pay off for SciFi... the only pay off seemed to be the 200th episode, as soon as that was over...remember the decision to axe it was made before the 200th even screened, SciFi is not stupid it is a business. :cool:
SciFi doesnt make it, for one. So it shouldnt cost SciFi anything to make it. THey got enough money for shows like Eureka, why not SG-1?

Callista
August 28th, 2006, 05:52 PM
SciFi doesnt make it, for one. So it shouldnt cost SciFi anything to make it. THey got enough money for shows like Eureka, why not SG-1?
They do have to pay MGM for it though and MGM is going to pass their costs along.

Jonzey
August 28th, 2006, 05:53 PM
They SHOULD, but if they dip, then what? Itll prove that it has nothing to do with competition.
Well until then you can't just go about claiming it's because of ''declining quality... orignal characters sidelined... boring enemy... cambo... sex whore vala... no jack... plot holes... bad writing'' and so on. What people don't realise is that most people who make up the ratings are casual viewers, and casual viewers are not as picky about what they want in a show. I'm a casual viewer of a lot of shows (X Files when it was on, Scrubs, 24, Lost...) and I occasionally go online and see people saying how the shows have really gone downhill. And my first thought it ''have they? I hadn't noticed''.

Yes, if the ratings remain down for the next 3 episodes, there is a real problem somewhere. But the ratings for 200 and Monk suggest that the competition is a major factor.

Jackie
August 28th, 2006, 05:55 PM
there are a few reasons for the rating slip. One was the lack of advertising for SG-1. The only real advertising I saw for SG-1 this year was for 200. The timing of the cancelletion PO a number of veiwers. The ratings also don't account for second showing which was a solid 1.0 and people on satallite (increasing in number everyday)

There has also been a number of loyal fans that left the series whn RDA left. I blame that on sci-fi because they failed to advertise the new General. Bridges should have been a main draw for SG-1. Black and Bowder should have brought fans in too.

Those mistakes made in season 9 are still being felt now. If the show was retooled and advertised properly, it would have done far better. The story is solid; yet they took to long to bring in Adria, first ori episode I liked was with her. Of course we have only seen six episodes now and the show is IMHO a brand new show that should be advertised as such.

People remember the green Gecko for what's it name because it's always there. SG-1 and SGA should have far more advertising.

Instead there has been a ton of commercials for Eureka, I watched it once. It's okay, but not as good as SGA and the new SG-1.

Of course if they had placed Eurika on TV say--five years ago--oppisite SG-1. SG-1 would have blown Eurika out of the water.

Ltcolshepjumper
August 28th, 2006, 05:58 PM
Yes, the majority of the casual viewers don't watch Stargate, but it would seem that those that do, or did, have found other interests. But I will agree that Monk currently beats stargate in viewership. My question is, how does Eureka beat out Stargate? In your opinions, which has more quality? Eureka, SGA,SG1, or BSG?:sheppardanime23:

Cameron Mitchel
August 28th, 2006, 05:59 PM
there are a few reasons for the rating slip. One was the lack of advertising for SG-1. The only real advertising I saw for SG-1 this year was for 200. The timing of the cancelletion PO a number of veiwers. The ratings also don't account for second showing which was a solid 1.0 and people on satallite (increasing in number everyday)

There has also been a number of loyal fans that left the series whn RDA left. I blame that on sci-fi because they failed to advertise the new General. Bridges should have been a main draw for SG-1. Black and Bowder should have brought fans in too.

Those mistakes made in season 9 are still being felt now. If the show was retooled and advertised properly, it would have done far better. The story is solid; yet they took to long to bring in Adria, first ori episode I liked was with her. Of course we have only seen six episodes now and the show is IMHO a brand new show that should be advertised as such.

People remember the green Gecko for what's it name because it's always there. SG-1 and SGA should have far more advertising.

Instead there has been a ton of commercials for Eureka, I watched it once. It's okay, but not as good as SGA and the new SG-1.

Of course if they had placed Eurika on TV say--five years ago--oppisite SG-1. SG-1 would have blown Eurika out of the water.
Again, I agree. Advertising is THE problem.

Cameron Mitchel
August 28th, 2006, 06:00 PM
Well until then you can't just go about claiming it's because of ''declining quality... orignal characters sidelined... boring enemy... cambo... sex whore vala... no jack... plot holes... bad writing'' and so on. What people don't realise is that most people who make up the ratings are casual viewers, and casual viewers are not as picky about what they want in a show. I'm a casual viewer of a lot of shows (X Files when it was on, Scrubs, 24, Lost...) and I occasionally go online and see people saying how the shows have really gone downhill. And my first thought it ''have they? I hadn't noticed''.

Yes, if the ratings remain down for the next 3 episodes, there is a real problem somewhere. But the ratings for 200 and Monk suggest that the competition is a major factor.
I honestly believe it has nothing to do with quality, characters, storyline, etc. I say Advertising.

Ltcolshepjumper
August 28th, 2006, 06:00 PM
there are a few reasons for the rating slip. One was the lack of advertising for SG-1. The only real advertising I saw for SG-1 this year was for 200. The timing of the cancelletion PO a number of veiwers. The ratings also don't account for second showing which was a solid 1.0 and people on satallite (increasing in number everyday)

There has also been a number of loyal fans that left the series whn RDA left. I blame that on sci-fi because they failed to advertise the new General. Bridges should have been a main draw for SG-1. Black and Bowder should have brought fans in too.

Those mistakes made in season 9 are still being felt now. If the show was retooled and advertised properly, it would have done far better. The story is solid; yet they took to long to bring in Adria, first ori episode I liked was with her. Of course we have only seen six episodes now and the show is IMHO a brand new show that should be advertised as such.

People remember the green Gecko for what's it name because it's always there. SG-1 and SGA should have far more advertising.

Instead there has been a ton of commercials for Eureka, I watched it once. It's okay, but not as good as SGA and the new SG-1.

Of course if they had placed Eurika on TV say--five years ago--oppisite SG-1. SG-1 would have blown Eurika out of the water.

And the only reason it isn't labeled as one, and that it is judged by the former SG-1's standards, is that Scifi wanted it to stay the same show.:sheppardanime23:

Cameron Mitchel
August 28th, 2006, 06:03 PM
And the only reason it isn't labeled as one, and that it is judged by the former SG-1's standards, is that Scifi wanted it to stay the same show.:sheppardanime23:
Hmmm, I wonder why? Maybe it was because they just wanted to wait until SG-1 got to 200 episodes to cancel the show, so they didnt want it to be a different cuz then there wouldnt have been a 10th season and a 200th episode.

Ltcolshepjumper
August 28th, 2006, 06:07 PM
They just wanted to be known as the channel that aired the longest running consecutive cable drama in the US. They just wanted the record, that's all. That's why they didn't cancel it in Season nine.:sheppardanime23:

Cameron Mitchel
August 28th, 2006, 06:08 PM
You know what I just saw, on the Save SG-1 petition, someone put Cancel the show. It's a save SG-1 petition! Not a cancel it! one.

Descent
August 28th, 2006, 06:16 PM
Recently I watched a two hour movie (non-Stargate related) on Sci-Fi and guess what I saw in those two hours:

About 5 commercials for the new Eureka episode
5-6 promos for Wrestling programs
6, thats right, SIX promos for "Who Wants to be a Superhero"

And how many promos for Stargate you say?: ZERO as far as I saw

Really ticks me off the way Sci-Fi's treating the franchise these days.

Cameron Mitchel
August 28th, 2006, 06:19 PM
Recently I watched a two hour movie (non-Stargate related) on Sci-Fi and guess what I saw in those two hours:

About 5 commercials for the new Eureka episode
5-6 promos for Wrestling programs
6, thats right, SIX promos for "Who Wants to be a Superhero"

And how many promos for Stargate you say?: ZERO as far as I saw

Really ticks me off the way Sci-Fi's treating the franchise these days.
Exactly why the ratings are down. I dont really understand why advertisements should affect the ratings but it obviously does. The ratings of Eureka compared with the advertisements (same with Stargate, ECW, Who Wants to Be a Super Hero) really add up.

I say 90% is SciFi's Fault. Based on the ratings and ads alone!

Hubble
August 28th, 2006, 06:54 PM
Exactly why the ratings are down. I dont really understand why advertisements should affect the ratings but it obviously does. The ratings of Eureka compared with the advertisements (same with Stargate, ECW, Who Wants to Be a Super Hero) really add up.

I say 90% is SciFi's Fault. Based on the ratings and ads alone!

I disagree with just about everything you've said on this subject. Stations tend NOT to advertise the heck out of their old programs — they do advertise the heck out of new programs. You can advertise a show up the kazoo, but if a viewer doesn't like the show, he/she is not going to continue to watch it. The writing certainly is an important part; clearly not everyone thinks like you do in terms of the quality of the show.

SG1Fan10023
August 28th, 2006, 06:58 PM
Some if not most of the so called "casual" fans are like sheep. They sit in front of TV and let the advertisers decide for them what to watch. Oh look an advertising for a show called BLABLA ok I will watch that. If they don't see an advertisement they don't even remember the show exists.

Yeah it is just TV you say? Guess what, the same is done in politics also with the "political campaign" ads and the publicity which defines who people will most likely vote for, the so called electability. They just sit like IDIOTS in front of the TV and take whatever is given hook line and sinker. Can't bother them to put some effort to find quality or truth etc.

Back to SG-1, it could have maintained it's 2.0 ratings this season easily, a bit more advertising to get to the sheeple casual viewers also make sure not to pit it against heavy hitter shows like Monk and Psych (who watches those anyways?) Maybe they are witty and all but meh DVR/Tivo them, as if they need more ratings than they already have.

But no, Sci-Fi put Eureka at a time where it could get better ratings since nothing is going against it for that timeslot to build up ratings for it so they can stick it to SG-1 / SGA since they are not original programming and are not in-house.

The ratings drop due to hardcore RDA fans and antis was not that significant to warrant a 2.0 to 1.4 drop. If you argue that these folks actually caused the huge drop then blame them all you want for the demise of the show. I personally don't know if they caused that drop, for all I know they could just be posting complains about the direction of the show here but still watch it and contribute to the ratings. Who knows, but if you ask me, blame lies with Sci-Fi, if they cared about the Stargate universe they would not forced a rushed ending and no posibility for a 3rd spinoff. They simply wanted to kill it to make space for original programming like all NBC owned stations.

Finally, we will see how the ratings do for the rest of the episodes where we have no Monk airing opposite SG-1. If they bounce back to the 1.9-2.0 then oh well.

Oh a disclaimer, what constitues a casual viewer from my view is one who has no active interest in it, in other words, by being here on this forum lurking or posting means you are not a casual viewer. So don't get offended, if you can read this you are not a casual viewer :D

Poseidon
August 28th, 2006, 07:05 PM
There has also been a number of loyal fans that left the series when RDA left.

Ive held off speculation that RDA was the reason for S10's declining ratings, but this does add more speculation. Id be highly interested to see the ratings for the Return Part 1 and 2 for Atlantis - and his later appearances on S10 SG1's final episodes.

Being a Pro season 10 person im biased, but maybe theyre is a connection to RDA's appearances and the ratings. And if so - theyre isn't a lot any network SG-1 ends up on - can do about it.

majorsal
August 28th, 2006, 07:11 PM
The numbers were low BEFORE 200 and they're dropping back down after. Why does this surprise everyone?

the show's not as popular as it used to be. *that's* what the ratings are saying, which started declining last season.

and no, i'm not happy this is happening. I WANT MY SG1 OF SEASONS 1-8 BACK! :(






sally :)

Willow'sCat
August 28th, 2006, 07:14 PM
They do have to pay MGM for it though and MGM is going to pass their costs along.Of course they are; this is the business side of Show Business...;) SciFi don't get it for free! :S

SG1Fan10023
August 28th, 2006, 07:15 PM
I WANT MY SG1 OF SEASONS 1-8 BACK! :(

I want SG-1 back be it seasons 1-8 style or seasons 9-10. I always held the belief that EVEN if s9 was not that good due to the new transition it was going to settle down and get back to its old self if given time to adjust. Which I believe happened or was in the process of it. Proof, many (not all) of the hardcore fans who did not like s9 are now feeling s10 is getting better and is improving. As for me I liked all seasons of SG1 and SGA.

smurf
August 28th, 2006, 07:20 PM
SG-1 was always going to move back to the original spot it only vacated to give space for BSG, because the 9pm slot is a good solid money making slot. (After dinner, before bed).

Sci Fi didn't move Stargate: SG-1 to a position in competition with Monk, Monk moved to a position in competition with SG-1. To have moved SG-1 from the spot it ruled for years just because it gets a bit of competition this year is as good as Sci Fi saying; we know the show is a dud, and it isn't good enough to hold its own.

HirogenGater
August 28th, 2006, 07:20 PM
I disagree with just about everything you've said on this subject. Stations tend NOT to advertise the heck out of their old programs — they do advertise the heck out of new programs. You can advertise a show up the kazoo, but if a viewer doesn't like the show, he/she is not going to continue to watch it. The writing certainly is an important part; clearly not everyone thinks like you do in terms of the quality of the show.

I'm trying to think back to the days of Must See TV Thursdays. Anyone else remember that? Didn't NBC advertise Friends, Mad About You, and Seinfeld, heavily? Those were older shows at that point.

majorsal
August 28th, 2006, 07:21 PM
They mentioned that the ratings were low, but never said it was the reason they cancelled the show. They said they felt like it was time to cancel it.



Maybe because they didn't want to wait around to see the ratings get even lower?

it actually makes (business) sense to cancel the show. since it arrived on the scifi network, the ratings steadily increased. expept for season nine. and then season 10 went down. but, the cost of doing this show's went up steadily too. scifi's not making *enough* money on it anymore.

maybe ptb will have to let someone(s) go, but knowing the way things go now, boris and natasha will keep their jobs, but the 10 year veterans will lose it. :rolleyes:






sally :)

Pharaoh Atem
August 28th, 2006, 07:24 PM
D'oh

AGateFan
August 28th, 2006, 07:27 PM
I'm trying to think back to the days of Must See TV Thursdays. Anyone else remember that? Didn't NBC advertise Friends, Mad About You, and Seinfeld, heavily? Those were older shows at that point.
The only Friends commercials I remember are those before and during the first season. I dont think I ever saw a Cheers commercial or a Night Court. Cant recall a Mad about you one either... maybe a Sienfeld.

Admittedly I have a bad memory, odd that I clearly remember the friends commercial before it was on. But thats because based on the commercial I would not have watched the show and didnt watch it until I accidently caught an ep in season 2. Odd.

SG1Fan10023
August 28th, 2006, 07:29 PM
maybe ptb will have to let someone(s) go, but knowing the way things go now, boris and natasha will keep their jobs, but the 10 year veterans will lose it.

Not necessarily, well if they rename the series then all old contracts are off and they start anew as if it is a different series. That means all actors will get a pay cut, going down to the same production costs as Atlantis.

Erm who is boris and natasha, BB and CB?

I wonder if we all here agree on one thing, do we all agree that an Earth based Stargate series needs to be on the air?

Sure some would want it to be in the form of an 11th season SG-1 as is, others would want to see the story continued in a new series, etc. but do we all agree the stargate universe needs TWO series one in Earth the other in Atlantis? That is one thing I wish to know.

ParadoxRealities
August 28th, 2006, 07:32 PM
Yeah, well, let clarify what I meant: Carter fans who are also Mitchell haters, the ones who feel that seasons 9 and 10 have bad ratings because of Mitchell and Vala.really? i don't like season 9/10 because IMO it was badly written for all the characters, horrible plot lines, boring villains, no realistic interaction. i like vala, though i do dislike mitchell. huh. i must not be a sam fan...

...:universe implodes:
I'm a casual viewer of a lot of shows (X Files when it was on, Scrubs, 24, Lost...) and I occasionally go online and see people saying how the shows have really gone downhill. And my first thought it ''have they? I hadn't noticed''i have many a show like this. but (in some cases at least) it works the other way. i enjoy the shows, but i'm not overly critical, i don't go online, etc. but if they start making changes i don't like and "screwing up" the attitude and direction of the show, i'll just stop watching. with stargate, as screwed as it gets, i don't stop watching.

ReganX
August 28th, 2006, 07:34 PM
But YOU dont know why the ratings are dropping EITHER. just because YOU may not like the direction of the show, doesnt mean that the low ratings are because people dont like it. And I never said that everything in the world has to make sense to me, and dying children, etc, has nothing to do with this thread, so please stick to the topic.

I don't think that there is any one cause for the ratings drop. So far, Season Ten is averaging ratings of 1.514 compared to Season Eight's average of 2.065 for the full season (2.114 for the first seven episodes). This translates to a loss of over seven hundred thousand viewers, even more if you want to compare the averages for eps 10.01-10.07 with the averages for 8.01-8.07.

With so many people no longer watching, it is unlikely that there is any single cause. Some may have taken an interest in another show, some may have trouble remembering when the show is on without advertising. Some may simply no longer be free to watch the show live when it is shown.

Others, however, may have stopped watching the show because of the changes made to the show. It might be that the show has lost something they once liked (RDA/Jack, the Goa'uld, the Replicators), that it has gained something they do not like (Ben Browder/Mitchell, Beau Bridges/Landry, Claudia Black/Vala, the Ori), a combination of both or another change entirely.

We know that according to the ratings fewer people are watching the show, but short of tracking down everyone who has stopped watching and taking a poll, we can't know why.

I don't think that the changes made in Seasons Nine and Ten, in terms of characters, storylines or writing, bear all the blame for the ratings drop but I do think that they are responsible for some of it.

ToasterOnFire
August 28th, 2006, 07:46 PM
Not necessarily, well if they rename the series then all old contracts are off and they start anew as if it is a different series. That means all actors will get a pay cut, going down to the same production costs as Atlantis.
But would all the actors be okay with a pay cut? Maybe, maybe not. :S

MediaSavant
August 28th, 2006, 07:46 PM
Now I believe that SciFi is controlling the ratings.

If they had that much control, wouldn't they make all their ratings higher?

After all, High ratings = high ad revenue. Ad revenue is more important that anything.

MediaSavant
August 28th, 2006, 07:51 PM
Recently I watched a two hour movie (non-Stargate related) on Sci-Fi and guess what I saw in those two hours:

About 5 commercials for the new Eureka episode
5-6 promos for Wrestling programs
6, thats right, SIX promos for "Who Wants to be a Superhero"

And how many promos for Stargate you say?: ZERO as far as I saw

Really ticks me off the way Sci-Fi's treating the franchise these days.

What night of the week was this movie on?

If it was the Saturday movie, it would makes sense that they advertise the programming that comes on soonest. Eureka and wrestling--Tuesday. Superhero--Thursday.

MediaSavant
August 28th, 2006, 07:55 PM
I've had another thought about the lower ratings...

Didn't a lot of cable TV packages get changed a few months back...cos I remember someone on LJ saying they had to upgrade their TV package to keep Sci Fi.

This has been discussed before and dismissed. The number of households that receive the SciFi Channel has not decreased. Even if it had, the ratings are calculated as the number of viewing households divided into the number of households that receive it. Thus, it wouldn't matter.

the fifth man
August 28th, 2006, 07:57 PM
But would all the actors be okay with a pay cut? Maybe, maybe not. :S

IMO, a slight pay cut would be better than possibly not working anymore. How many shows in the past have been on the air for years, and then when they're over, the actors, for the most part, seem to vanish altogether? Quite often in my experience.

But still, some think that next gig will always be there.

the fifth man
August 28th, 2006, 07:59 PM
What night of the week was this movie on?

If it was the Saturday movie, it would makes sense that they advertise the programming that comes on soonest. Eureka and wrestling--Tuesday. Superhero--Thursday.

Even with this being the case, Stargate promos are few and far between. Almost any day of the week.

Volvagiarice
August 28th, 2006, 08:00 PM
The episode was good in your opinion. That doesn't make it FACT, nor does everything that happens in the world have to make sense to YOU (or any other random individual in the world) in order to be true. There are a lot of senseless, terrible things that happen- people gunned down in the streets, children dying, diseases ravaging the populace... There are even random wonderful things that happen- falling in love, winning the lottery, meeting your long-lost twin... they may be utterly inexplicable, but they still happen.

You don't have to understand why SCIFI cancelled Stargate, but you should at least try to accept it. Not everything is a conspiracy. The ratings for the show are dropping again because not as many people are watching the show. It's that simple.

It's like Gray's Anatomy. They got HUGE ratings for their post-Super Bowl ep, but the ratings dropped after that back to more "normal" (for that point in the show/season) ratings. Same here. Ratings are dropping back to what's now normal.

That has got to be one of the most moronic rants I have ever heard in my life. I seriously started to cry when I read this.

Let's start from the top.


The episode was good in your opinion. That doesn't make it FACT, nor does everything that happens in the world have to make sense to YOU (or any other random individual in the world) in order to be true.

Assumptions, blah blah blah.


There are a lot of senseless, terrible things that happen- people gunned down in the streets, children dying, diseases ravaging the populace... There are even random wonderful things that happen- falling in love, winning the lottery, meeting your long-lost twin... they may be utterly inexplicable, but they still happen.

Besides being completely irrelevent, this statement made me lose faith in humanity for about the 17,684th time since I started using Internet forums.

So what you're saying is that if I get laid off, it's not a bad thing because, hey, it's not as bad as the Holocaust? Or if I find another job, I shouldn't be happy because I didn't achieve world peace? What a load of crap. There's something called RELATIVITY, which all Stargate fans should be familiar with by now. The way to judge the significance of an event is by comparing them to other events in YOUR life, not the world of "what if?"


You don't have to understand why SCIFI cancelled Stargate, but you should at least try to accept it. Not everything is a conspiracy.

Ironic that you're accusing everyone of being a conspiracy theorist, when it's all just in your head. Nobody is saying there's a conspiracy (at least not on this forum), all people are saying is that there's more going on than we are being told, which is true no matter how you look at it.


The ratings for the show are dropping again because not as many people are watching the show. It's that simple.

Again with the assumptions. For the first time I do not watch the shows live, but I do not have a choice, because I have commitments every Friday night until November, but I still set my VCR and watch the show late that night or the next day. There are many people with the same problem who either record the episodes or download them off of iTunes. Just because not as many people watch the show live doesn't mean they don't watch it at all.

In conclusion: please think before you type.

Seshat
August 28th, 2006, 08:12 PM
IMO, a slight pay cut would be better than possibly not working anymore. How many shows in the past have been on the air for years, and then when they're over, the actors, for the most part, seem to vanish altogether? Quite often in my experience.

But still, some think that next gig will always be there.
If my boss came to me and wanted me to do the same job for less money next year I would go look for another job! I don't expect actors to work for less money than they deserve/have worked hard for, either. Why does anyone think they are going to disappear just because SG-1 no longer exists? They are working actors. They do have other things on their resumés besides SG-1 and I do expect that they will have more later on.

As to the topic of the thread, I think the ratings went up for 200 due to 2 reasons:
1) Unusual satire format, and 2) Jack

That's why I tuned in and watched 200 instead of watching Monk two Fridays ago. And the lack of both, or the show going back to its usual format, is why I went back to taping SG-1 and watching Monk live last Friday.

ToasterOnFire
August 28th, 2006, 08:24 PM
Ironic that you're accusing everyone of being a conspiracy theorist, when it's all just in your head. Nobody is saying there's a conspiracy (at least not on this forum)
Um...have you actually read through the forum? Because I've seen people here state that:

-SciFi is messing with the ratings to make Stargate look bad.
-SciFi didn't advertise SG1 this season, resulting in lower ratings, make it easier to cancel the show.
-SciFi is only interested in NBC-owned shows now, so they are working against non-NBC owned shows like the Stargates.
-SciFi only wanted to have the longest-running scifi show award, hence the reason why they didn't give the green for Stargate Command and why they were so quick to cancel this season.
-SciFi is pissed that Stargate is now available on iTunes, and they cancelled SG1 for "revenge".

Those all look like conspiracy theories to me. (Until I get proof that any of these theories are correct, then yes, they are only theories.) So I don't really know where you're coming up with such statements. :S

the fifth man
August 28th, 2006, 08:24 PM
If my boss came to me and wanted me to do the same job for less money next year I would go look for another job! I don't expect actors to work for less money than they deserve/have worked hard for, either. Why does anyone think they are going to disappear just because SG-1 no longer exists? They are working actors. They do have other things on their resumés besides SG-1 and I do expect that they will have more later on.


I'm not saying they will disappear. All I'm saying is that it does happen all the time. There are countless shows I've watched over the years, and once they were done, I didn't see some of the actors for years. A successful, long-term show gig is hard to land sometimes. That's all I was getting at.

majorsal
August 28th, 2006, 08:52 PM
Recently I watched a two hour movie (non-Stargate related) on Sci-Fi and guess what I saw in those two hours:

About 5 commercials for the new Eureka episode
5-6 promos for Wrestling programs
6, thats right, SIX promos for "Who Wants to be a Superhero"

And how many promos for Stargate you say?: ZERO as far as I saw

Really ticks me off the way Sci-Fi's treating the franchise these days.

i only watch the scifi channel when a new sg1 ep airs, so someone will have to answer this question for me. in season 9, was there advertising for sg1?




sally :)

Descent
August 28th, 2006, 08:52 PM
Um...have you actually read through the forum? Because I've seen people here state that:

-SciFi only wanted to have the longest-running scifi show award, hence the reason why they didn't give the green for Stargate Command and why they were so quick to cancel this season.

Those all look like conspiracy theories to me.

A theory, yes. But its a pretty sound one to me.

majorsal
August 28th, 2006, 09:04 PM
Erm who is boris and natasha, BB and CB?



boris and natasha are characters from the cartoon Rocky & Bullwinkle. and i was referring to mitchell and vala, not the actors. ;)




sally :)

tryxy
August 28th, 2006, 09:45 PM
They just wanted to be known as the channel that aired the longest running consecutive cable drama in the US. They just wanted the record, that's all. That's why they didn't cancel it in Season nine.:sheppardanime23:



this is the reason they will do all they can to enforce that little clause in the contract about no new eps on another network. They will loose there precious record and all the kudos that came with it.

N8ball88
August 28th, 2006, 10:06 PM
It seems to me that with a 1.5 for the first showing and a 1.0 for the second it means a lot of people are still watching. They might consider a 1.5 too low, but a 1.0 for the second showing of the episode on the same night seems really good to me.

Voir Dire
August 28th, 2006, 10:07 PM
Anyone else find it odd that Sci-fi hasn't posted on their website, any news regarding the cancellation? The latest news was a summary on the last episode aired.

takinspace
August 28th, 2006, 10:27 PM
Anyone else find it odd that Sci-fi hasn't posted on their website, any news regarding the cancellation? The latest news was a summary on the last episode aired.

Yeah I noticed that too. It's one of a few things that *isn't* happening that suggests "it ain't over just yet," if one takes the time to look at least.

o-0
August 28th, 2006, 10:43 PM
Anyone else find it odd that Sci-fi hasn't posted on their website, any news regarding the cancellation? The latest news was a summary on the last episode aired.
http://www.scifi.com/scifiwire/index.php?category=2&id=37607

takinspace
August 28th, 2006, 10:54 PM
Sorry, I was thinking of the Stargate page on the Sci-Fi website. My bad. Still a little odd to me but who knows.

PG15
August 29th, 2006, 12:11 AM
http://www.scifi.com/scifiwire/index.php?category=2&id=37607

Oh yeah sure, there's that.

But go to Sci-fi right now, and even Sci-fi wire, and you don't see a single mention of the cancellation. That's definately something.

Oreo
August 29th, 2006, 12:22 AM
Ads had nothing to do with it. People tuned in for the 200th episode and that's it. If it were the ads then those same people would have seen the ads for Counterstrike and watched. They didn't do that, thus ads have nothing to do with it.

Pitry
August 29th, 2006, 03:57 AM
It's simple really, though not many antis would be willing to accept it because it would mean it's not about the quality of the show...

Fact 1: Monk, USA Network's most popular show, now airs opposite SG-1.
Fact 2: SG-1's ratings have slipped this year.
Fact 3: ''200'' recorded the highest ratings this season for SG-1.
Fact 4: Monk's usually stable ratings dipped significantly opposite 200.
Fact 5: This week was Monk's season finale, traditionally the episode with the highest ratings.
Fact 6: SG-1's ratings dipped again opposite this episode.

Conclusion: The next 3 episodes of this half of the season do not air against any significant competition (that I'm aware of), so it's likely that the ratings will go back up.

Thankee, I was gonna comment on this. :)

The real proof to whether SG1's ratigns dipped due to competition or not is going to be, indeed, the last 3 episodes before the hiatus. Could be prudent to wait for Memento Mori ratings to come out before making this another thread of arguing about the quality of SG1. ;)


Anyone else find it odd that Sci-fi hasn't posted on their website, any news regarding the cancellation? The latest news was a summary on the last episode aired.


TBH it wasn't just the lack of reference on their Stargate website but the compelte and utter ignoring of the issue in Alex Levine's Blog that got my eyebrow raised. Teal's style, of course, but there was no "indeed".

rafy
August 29th, 2006, 05:30 AM
Anyone else find it odd that Sci-fi hasn't posted on their website, any news regarding the cancellation? The latest news was a summary on the last episode aired.

Actually quite the opposite. On the day the cancellation was announced the notice appeared on Sci-fi's main page ( http://www.scifi.com/ )

cmuty
August 29th, 2006, 05:33 AM
Uh, not EVERYBODY has this Nielsen thing. So its not a fair rating system.

First, let me say that I watch SG-1 live almost every Friday, reruns at least 2-3 times a week, usually have the whole 4 hour block on Monday on. So I watch SG-1 ALL THE TIME!! That being said, it doesn't make one difference in the ratings for the show, I don't have a Nielsen box. I wish I did.

Nielsen ratings, and how many "Nielsen Families" there are, are based upon statistical sampling. Despite what many people want to believe it is a valid method for using a small percentage of a population to project results for the population as a whole. They are not 100% without a doubt able to say the "exact" number of people who would watch, but within a very small and acceptable variance they are correct.

People who want to believe in conspiracy theories (and I wager among Scifi fans there are many) will believe in manipulated figures. All the networks who choose to belong to this service sign off on how the numbers are calculated. If all the people showing so much outrage at the cancellation were successful in getting ratings families to change their viewing habits, it would not be covered up. The ratings and shares for a timeslot actually have to equal the entire population of viewers available. So to manipulate the results for one show, you'd have to change the results in the other direction for one or more other shows. People...this does not happen.

No one from the production team has said that they think the numbers are rigged, at least not that I have read. Don't you think if there was something funny going on they would be the first to question it?

The problem is people who want to believe in made up theories, that can't be verified won't want to give any of the above a second thought, it doesn't help their cause.

prion
August 29th, 2006, 06:04 AM
Ads had nothing to do with it. People tuned in for the 200th episode and that's it. If it were the ads then those same people would have seen the ads for Counterstrike and watched. They didn't do that, thus ads have nothing to do with it.

Uh, you really underestimate the power of advertising. They were advertising the SPECIAL "200th EPISODE"!! Yes, that drew in more people. Hello? TV Guide did a huge spread. Of course people will check it out and then go 'okay, seen it, back to the normal viewing habits.'

jackattack
August 29th, 2006, 06:38 AM
yeah I balme ratings drops on competition and bad marketing.

Seshat
August 29th, 2006, 07:49 AM
I'm not saying they will disappear. All I'm saying is that it does happen all the time. There are countless shows I've watched over the years, and once they were done, I didn't see some of the actors for years. A successful, long-term show gig is hard to land sometimes. That's all I was getting at.
True, a 10-year gig on a TV show is quite rare. I don't really expect any of the actors to strike gold twice and find another comparable long-term acting job. But I wouldn't want them to fade away either. :) My guess would be that the ones that stay in Vancouver will probably find guest spots on the many existing series being shot there (Don Davis an David Nykl have already guest-starred on Psych, so there's plenty of room for more! :D ), and maybe even a co-star spot on something new. But I doubt that any who go to LA will find fame, that's a really tough town.

Despite being our favorite, I don't think that SG-1 has the broad audience appeal necessary for the actors to become household names in the US. I wish them all the best, however. :)

FireCat
August 29th, 2006, 08:15 AM
I haven't read every post in this thread, but wasn't Counterstrike on up against the season finale of Monk? A 1.5 would be pretty good if that happened.

Why did USA move Monk against SG1 when both USA and SciFi are run by Bonnie Hammer?

Ltcolshepjumper
August 29th, 2006, 06:22 PM
Easy. She don't like SG-1.:sheppardanime23:

Oreo
August 29th, 2006, 09:45 PM
Easy. She don't like SG-1.:sheppardanime23:

Yeah it's a plot to kill SG-1!!!!


:rolleyes:

Konman72
August 30th, 2006, 12:22 AM
Yeah it's a plot to kill SG-1!!!!


:rolleyes:
Not saying he is right, but do you have a better reason? Two of the most important shows in their company and they place them head-to-head on an already crowded and tough night. Channels would kill to be able to say to the competition, "hey, your show is taking away some of our viewers, could you change its time?" They not only can do that, but the same person makes the decision for both, so it is as easy as one phone call. I see very little reason for that at all (again, not saying I agree with the "to kill SG-1" theory, but before you give somebody the rolley eyes you might want to show why they are so wrong as to deserve them).

EDIT: See the post below mine, that is how to give a polite, well-informed response. It also prevents you from looking like a jacka$$.

Sci-Fi
August 30th, 2006, 12:51 AM
I haven't read every post in this thread, but wasn't Counterstrike on up against the season finale of Monk? A 1.5 would be pretty good if that happened.

Why did USA move Monk against SG1 when both USA and SciFi are run by Bonnie Hammer?

Monk was moved to an earlier timeslot because it was starting to show weakness in the ratings. Monk used to avg weekly in the high 4's to 5 range, but had steadily dropped to the low-to-mid 3's. Heavyweight competition is airing on Friday's at 10 pm now...just look at the Friday night schedules from national and cable networks. Monk's move to the 9pm slot is just what that show needed to increase/stabilize it's ratings. Plus Monk acts as a lead-in to the new USA series "Psych" which has been averaging about the same numbers as Monk.

Although sister networks, each one makes up their own broadcast schedule. The target demographics is a bit different. Monk audience is mainly the 25-54 age group (and women of all ages) but also pulls in a sizable amount of the 18-49 age group, while the SFC has the most success with attracting the 18-49 age group. That being said, both the USA and SFC "in the past" have ranked either #1 or #2 in both adults 18-49 and adults 25-54 on every Friday night until the other networks started to counter program that night with their original programming: ...(depending on the time of the year and time slots) WWE, Ghost Whisperer, Close to Home, Num3ers, Masters of Horror, Sexual Healing, etc etc.

Hannah Montana, The Suite Life of Zack and Cody, and That's So Raven (all on the Disney Channel on Friday), although not in primetime, have the highest ratings for Friday's (3.6-4.5 and as high as 5.3).

As you can see, the competition is a lot tougher on Friday nights and viewers have a lot more entertainment choices. Friday and Saturday night used to be known as the graveyard nights...new and older shows about to be cancelled were routinely moved there in the past to squeeze out any ratings they could. Plus cheaper to produce programming (like news shows) had tended to produce acceptable ratings on Fri for the national networks. That's not the case anymore..for Friday's at least...although the SFC has made inroads in the ratings game on Saturday nights with their "B" movies. Unlikely there will be counter programming on Sat since many people tend go out.

prion
August 30th, 2006, 04:55 AM
Just some tidbits...

Broadcasting & Cable
Breaking News
WWE, Monk Carry USA to Victory
By Anne Becker -- Broadcasting & Cable, 8/29/2006 3:42:00 PM

Reliably solid showings of WWE wrestling and Monk helped USA draw the most
viewers of any ad-supported cable network during prime in August with 2.92
million, according to Nielsen Media Research. The network was followed by TNT with 2.68 million, Lifetime with 1.84 million and ESPN with 1.82 million.

Cameron Mitchel
August 31st, 2006, 01:46 PM
I haven't read every post in this thread, but wasn't Counterstrike on up against the season finale of Monk? A 1.5 would be pretty good if that happened.

Why did USA move Monk against SG1 when both USA and SciFi are run by Bonnie Hammer?
Cuz Stargate isnt a USA or SciFi original series even though they say it is.

ParadoxRealities
September 1st, 2006, 07:05 AM
Assumptions, blah blah blah.sorry...how's that an assumption?

Besides being completely irrelevent, this statement made me lose faith in humanity for about the 17,684th time since I started using Internet forums.i think you missed the point here. i think it was supposed to be "things happen even if you don't understand them".
Ironic that you're accusing everyone of being a conspiracy theorist, when it's all just in your head. Nobody is saying there's a conspiracy (at least not on this forum), all people are saying is that there's more going on than we are being told, which is true no matter how you look at it.actually, there are quite a few. in fact, since this thread is about "Now I believe that SciFi is controlling the ratings."/"questioning SciFi's reason for canceling the show", and with the definition of conspiracy being "an evil, unlawful, treacherous, or surreptitious plan formulated in secret by two or more persons; plot." this seems to be one of them.
Again with the assumptions. For the first time I do not watch the shows live, but I do not have a choice, because I have commitments every Friday night until November, but I still set my VCR and watch the show late that night or the next day. There are many people with the same problem who either record the episodes or download them off of iTunes. Just because not as many people watch the show live doesn't mean they don't watch it at all.i think the original statement was meant to counter the "Scifi is controlling the ratings" accusation. add the word "live", if you are so inclinded. though i think the TiVoed number is going down as well.

MediaSavant
September 1st, 2006, 07:29 AM
I don't think the declines in ratings compared to last year are just because of Monk. I've been looking very carefully at the schedules the Stargates faced last year vs. the schedules it's up against this year.

A lot of the ratings drop started in the winter.

There are three major differences compared to last summer:

UPN replace what used to be a low-rated movie with high-rated WWE wrestling. That started last winter. And there are some casual viewers who will choose wrestling over a scifi show.

Last winter, CBS's schedule improved greatly in the ratings compared to what it used to run. This Summer, they put The Unit in at 9PM. The Unit is a male-appeal, military-heavy show. It has been performing better than what CBS ran last year. You have to believe that if some guys are looking for a military-flavored show, they will choose a show about the military fighting terrorists(a real life threat) vs. one about the military fighting funny looking aliens.

The third change. of course, is Monk. I certainly think Monk is a factor, but it isn't the only factor.

The real problem isn't that SG-1 got competition, it's that it didn't hold up well against competition. It makes one wonder if it would have always had lower ratings if the other networks had put anything more popular against it.

Cameron Mitchel
September 2nd, 2006, 07:50 AM
I don't think the declines in ratings compared to last year are just because of Monk. I've been looking very carefully at the schedules the Stargates faced last year vs. the schedules it's up against this year.

A lot of the ratings drop started in the winter.

There are three major differences compared to last summer:

UPN replace what used to be a low-rated movie with high-rated WWE wrestling. That started last winter. And there are some casual viewers who will choose wrestling over a scifi show.

Last winter, CBS's schedule improved greatly in the ratings compared to what it used to run. This Summer, they put The Unit in at 9PM. The Unit is a male-appeal, military-heavy show. It has been performing better than what CBS ran last year. You have to believe that if some guys are looking for a military-flavored show, they will choose a show about the military fighting terrorists(a real life threat) vs. one about the military fighting funny looking aliens.

The third change. of course, is Monk. I certainly think Monk is a factor, but it isn't the only factor.

The real problem isn't that SG-1 got competition, it's that it didn't hold up well against competition. It makes one wonder if it would have always had lower ratings if the other networks had put anything more popular against it.
Yes, that and advertisements. I believe that the loosing fans was one of the factors but I believe that is very small compared to the other factors.

Cameron Mitchel
September 2nd, 2006, 07:54 AM
sorry...how's that an assumption?
i think you missed the point here. i think it was supposed to be "things happen even if you don't understand them".actually, there are quite a few. in fact, since this thread is about "Now I believe that SciFi is controlling the ratings."/"questioning SciFi's reason for canceling the show", and with the definition of conspiracy being "an evil, unlawful, treacherous, or surreptitious plan formulated in secret by two or more persons; plot." this seems to be one of them.i think the original statement was meant to counter the "Scifi is controlling the ratings" accusation. add the word "live", if you are so inclinded. though i think the TiVoed number is going down as well.
I realize that mistake. Why keep bringing it up. This thread is to discuss what we believe about what affected the cancellation and ratings. But when it comes to cancellation, it was SciFi's decision alone that cancelled the show. And from the reports they never said it was because of the ratings. They said they felt like it was the right time. Not a real good reason to me. that's why I think they want their shows in there. And they might, if the show stays cancelled, move Eureka or ECW to Stargate SG-1's time slot. And just realize that it's only a matter of time before they try to kick Stargate Atlantis out. And another thing: I dont understand why SciFi didnt want MGM to have it on another channel. I dont understand. Why form the contract on that agreement in the first place? Did they think that Stargate could live on forever on SciFi? That was MGM's big mistake.

MediaSavant
September 2nd, 2006, 08:13 AM
I dont understand why SciFi didnt want MGM to have it on another channel. I dont understand. Why form the contract on that agreement in the first place? Did they think that Stargate could live on forever on SciFi? That was MGM's big mistake.

I do understand why SciFi would want that in the contract. What I don't understand is why MGM agreed to it.

Unless this is all standard stuff.

ToasterOnFire
September 2nd, 2006, 09:05 AM
Agreed, especially considering how MGM is well aware that SG1 has already moved networks once.

I'm curious now whether there was such a clause in the original Showtime/MGM agreement and it just got bought out/waived or whether there wasn't and such exclusivity clauses are newer or rarer.

smurf
September 2nd, 2006, 09:21 AM
I have a feeling that it is probably now a standard clause in contracts.
Looking at how television has evolved in the last few years with the increase in the take up of cable, what differentiates your channel from the rest is the shows you air. Smaller broadcasters, such as Sci Fi, become heavily linked to it's biggest shows so the last thing you need is to have the "brand" you've built up stolen/undercutted by a rival network.
Why MGM would have signed it, I would say, is because they look at the bigger picture. Stargate is a franchise as far as they are concerned, and SG-1 is old, so I doubt it matters greatly to them if SG-1 is put to bed as long as they can still milk the Stargate idea.

Pitry
September 2nd, 2006, 10:10 AM
Also, let's be realistic. How likely is another network to buy such an old show, even if the clause is there since like, season 6? MGM must have figured that out, too.

I wonder, tho, with the quite early cancellation, when was this clause netered.