Season Two: Ratings Predictions/Discussion

[Atlantis Rocks]

ROFL maybe you could drop the selective spin and get some real stats to back up your claims. Comparing a single high point to a guesstimated average isn't quite the same.

Resurgence is the ONLY time SGU made it to the Top 10 this season.

Ratings are not down across the board as you claim. I did a quick comparison of BARB figures for Sky1 in October 2008, 2009, 2010 using SGU start airing dates.

2008 w/e 12-Oct-08; 2009 w/e 11-Oct-09; 2010 10-Oct-10
rank 1 - 811,000; 1,165,000; 1,850,000
rank 10 - 383,000; 466,000; 525,000

2008 w/e 19-Oct-08; 2009 w/e 18-Oct-09; 2010 w/e 17-Oct-10
rank 1 - 822,000; 1,004,000; 1,645,000
rank 10 - 344,000; 532,000; 559,000

2008 w/e 26-Oct-08; 2009 w/e 25-Oct-09; 2010 w/e 24-Oct-10
rank 1 - 797,000; 1,050,000; 1,620,000
rank 10 - 356,000; 483,000; 565,000

I’m not sure that this relevant but I saw this on Digital Spy the other day and I was surprised at how "relatively low" the actual subscription rate that Sky has only 10 million. I don’t know why BUT I thought they had a much bigger share of the market. In addition, this channel they going for IS DOING nothing to impress me, it’s just seems like it’s gonna be another boring filled drama based channel IMO anyways. The shows they seem to be promoting DO absolutely nothing for me, not piqued my interest at all and certainly wouldnt make me tune in, to check them out. Barley go anywhere need Sky 1,2 or 3( actually I never watch Sky 3 at all) as it is and literally only watch the SGA/SG1 reuns and Bones/ NCIC LA. This new channel I'll pass I think.

http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/broadcas...ext-month.html

Sky Atlantic to launch next month
Wednesday, January 5 2011, 11:45 GMT
By Andrew Laughlin, Technology ReporterTweet this Digg this Send to friend More options
BroadcastingTVSky has today confirmed that new channel Sky Atlantic will become available next month, offering hit US shows such as Boardwalk Empire, Treme and Blue Bloods.

On February 1, the channel will launch in standard and high definition in the UK and Ireland, available exclusively to all Sky's 10 million subscribers.Sky Atlantic will come to position 108 on Sky's electronic programming guide, forming a new entertainment trio with Sky1 (position 106) and Sky Living (107), formerly the Living channel.

Last night, Sky secured Blue Bloods and The Borgias for Sky Atlantic in a deal with CBS Studios International. The programmes will run in addition to the channel's exclusive deal for new HBO shows and agreement with Lionsgate Television for series five of Mad Men.

Hit US cop series Blue Bloods will premiere on Sky Atlantic in February, along with the Martin Scorsese-directed epic Boardwalk Empire and Treme, a New Orleans-set drama created by The Wire's David Simon.

Sky has also secured a series of video on-demand rights as part of the HBO deal, meaning Sky Atlantic will be able to offer Red Button access throughout the year to boxsets of popular shows. For example, one month might see the entire back catalogue of Flight of the Conchords become available to watch on demand.

The Anytime VOD service will offer 30 day catch-up on all Sky Atlantic shows, along with on-demand access to HBO programmes such as The Wire, Six Feet Under and Curb Your Enthusiasm. The VOD service will also be used to run seven-day previews of upcoming Sky Atlantic programmes.

At an event today in London, Sky Atlantic director of programmes Stuart Murphy claimed that the channel will "fundamentally change the way people feel about Sky entertainment".

He said that Sky Atlantic is aimed at "increasing value for Sky subscribers", but also pulling in the pay-TV abstainers who have so far been happy to stick with Freeview or Freesat.

Murphy said that the channel will provide "cinematic, iconic television", aimed at older and more "upmarket" viewers. However, he joked that it is not designed as a competitor to BBC Four, predominantly because viewers "won't be required to have a degree or insomnia to watch it".

Sky Atlantic will also utilise the new HD bouquet swap system developed by Sky, which switches SD channels with HD in Sky+ HD households, meaning anyone clicking on Sky Atlantic at channel 108 will automatically get the HD version

I have NO Idea what the VOD thing is all about and I have never used the on demand service in all the time I have had Sky. I be buggered if I'm gonna watch TV on a small screen via the computor. Sitting at a desk on a hard chair or sitting comfortable in my arm chair YEAH , I know which one wins hands down and as I dont have a HD TV couldnt care less about that either but I guess its a selling point to some.

[Beka]

Here is an article about SGU's ratings in Canada:

http://www.channelcanada.com/Article4649.html

When it comes to genre programming, SPACE continues to reign supreme. DOCTOR WHO joins a long list of viewer hits including SANCTUARY, EUREKA, Saturday Night Movie and STARGATE UNIVERSE, which draws in an average of 420,000 viewers.**

Source: BBM Canada; P2+ audience;
*Sat 9p-10p 6/5/10; BYTD: 4/17/10-6/5/10
**Fri 10p-11p 10/2/09-6/4/10

420,000 viewers is the average for episode 1x01 - 1x19.

[MrMann101]

Okay, I mean for the full package (most channels) it's around £45 per-month (I think), £55 if you have multi room . I know, because up until a few months ago that's what my family were paying. You have to pay £19 per month for the basic, one package service, then an extra £1 for other normal packs. I think it's like an extra £10-£15 for movies and/or sports, which are sky's expensive packages. So, unless you have something like Virgin media with sky1, the only way to watch is something like iTunes or waiting for DVD's. However, for people who have sky+, it's much more convenient for most people to record and watch whenever they want, which is encouraged greatly by sky. If Resurgence numbers were up near Modern Family's, at least they were increasing. I'm not saying the numbers were brilliant, but they were okay for a subscription based channel that's never going to have millions upon millions of viewers live.
IMO, the ratings over-here, while still important, are a lot less important than in the US, for channels like sky1. Really, it seems to me that Britain has actuallly embraced the on-demand Market more than America. That's why all of our major channels have widely advertised and widely used on-demand services. Not sure about US channels, if someone wishes to fill me in, I'd appreciate it.

[MediaSavant]

Repeating my post for those who don't go back a few pages:

I'm a Chuck fan and I've been inspired by this blogger who answers fans questionsspoiler warning) http://www.chuckgasmic.com/

Whereas his topic is spoilers/teasers, my topic is Nielsen ratings.

So, I'd like to do a "Dear MS..." in which I will answer questions about the ratings.

Here are the rules:

1. I reserve the right to answer which questions I want based on my own criteria. My ability to answer the question is one of those criteria. Another is whether the question is a good question and if it is interesting. Try not to ask "What was the live rating of episode 209?" Won't answer that.
2. Questions can be about SGU ratings or general Nielsen stuff. In my answer I may reference other shows because its hard to judge ratings without context. (Example: Like with the median age above, if you don't know what median age other TV shows have you don't know whether 43 is low or high)
3. You can ask questions about other SG shows and other Syfy shows, but, if the moderators have a problem with that--and I don't know if they will or won't--it is out of my control. The reason I think such questions are valid is "context."

I don't know how this will work out or if you are even interested in participating. But, let's give it a shot.

I'm looking forward to sitting down Saturday afternoon and working on this.

I saw someone mention Caprica above. I'll be getting those ratings and including them in my response.

[jmoz]

Dear MS,

What is the Neilsen sampling error? And does it vary from show to show?

How significant is the change of viewership from two years ago?

Is the excuse that viewership of tv all across the board is down valid anymore with the recent news that Americans watched the most tv this year? Does that reflect in syfy?

[kitkat3ny]

Not to derail, but I was hoping one of you could drop by the Caprica forum and either direct us to the ratings for Tuesdays final 5 or at least let us know where to find them. We know they were probably horrible, but the curiosity is killing some of us.

I've also been searching for these figures and can't find them anywhere.

[RealmOfX]

jmoz,
I have the figures for Top 25 Ad Supported Cable Primetime viewership for 2008 & 2010 :

2010..........Primetime 2008..........Primetime.....Change
Rank..Network..Viewers..Rank..Network..Viewers..Viewers..%
...............(000's).................(000's)..(000's)
1.....USA......3157.....1.....USA......2859.....298.....10.42
2.....DSNY.....2576
3.....ESPN.....2400.....3.....ESPN.....2122.....278.....13.10
4.....TNT......2251.....2.....TNT......2208......43......1.95
5.....FOXN.....2032.....4.....FOXN.....2059.....-27.....-1.31
6.....TBSC.....1800.....5.....TBSC.....1986....-186.....-9.37
7.....NAN......1724.....6.....NAN......1700......24......1.41
8.....HIST.....1642.....17....HIST.....1175.....467.....39.74
9.....AEN......1463.....8.....AEN......1355.....108......7.97
10....FAM......1441.....11....FAM......1305.....136.....10.42
11....TOON.....1359.....9.....TOON.....1343......16......1.19
12....FX.......1271.....15....FX.......1254......17......1.36
13....DISC.....1258.....16....DISC.....1210......48......3.97
14....HGTV.....1226.....20....HGTV.....1095.....131.....11.96
15....SYFY.....1202.....13....SCIF.....1280.....-78.....-6.09
16....LIF......1158.....7.....LIF......1486....-328....-22.07
17....FOOD.....1144.....25....FOOD......888.....256.....28.83
18....TRU......1127.....21....TRU......1089......38......3.49
19....TLC......1105.....23....TLC.......909.....196.....21.56
20....AMC......1092.....18....AMC......1103.....-11.....-1.00
21....CMDY......979.....19....CMDY.....1097....-118....-10.76
22....MTV.......979.....24....MTV.......897......82......9.14
23....SPK.......922.....14....SPK......1277....-355....-27.80
24....BRAV......874
25....HALL......858.....10....HALL.....1342....-484....-36.07

As you can see only 8 networks recorded viewer losses (including Syfy), it is only recently that cable has started to show signs of falling off from years of continual growth. Unfortunately for SGU it would have been recording less than average numbers for Syfy both in 2010 and 2008.


Dear MS,
How does the above figures compare to the rest of the TV landscape?
Also is it common for a network expanding it's primetime schedule to incur decreases in average viewership?

[hercthx]

@realm, and beka thanks guys!

[Beka]

jmoz,
I have the figures for Top 25 Ad Supported Cable Primetime viewership for 2008 & 2010 :

2010..........Primetime 2008..........Primetime.....Change
Rank..Network..Viewers..Rank..Network..Viewers..Viewers..%
...............(000's).................(000's)..(000's)

15....SYFY.....1202.....13....SCIF.....1280.....-78.....-6.09


As you can see only 8 networks recorded viewer losses (including Syfy), it is only recently that cable has started to show signs of falling off from years of continual growth. Unfortunately for SGU it would have been recording less than average numbers for Syfy both in 2010 and 2008.

The difference isn't very big for the Syfy channel. That they lost a few viewers can probably be explained (at least in part) with the bad performance of Caprica and SGU. Syfy aired 15 Caprica episodes and 20 SGU episodes in 2010. I think they expected better ratings of all of them.

[Beka]

Here's the only ratings I have been able to get for Canada -
...............Viewers
1&2..Air 1&2...557,000
3....Air 3
4....Darkness..334,000
5....Light.....389,000
6....Water.....309,000
7....Earth.....313,000
8....Time
9....Life......308,000
10...Justice...304,000

http://www.channelcanada.com/Article3627.html

This article says, that SGU's premiere got 565,000 viewers.

I wondered why the premiere numbers were different so I looked myself on the blog "TV feeds my family". You made a slight mistake.

Air, Part 1 and 2 really got 565,000 viewers. There is an article on the blog, which said this, too.
Tuesday, October 6, 2009: http://tvfeedsmyfamily.blogspot.com/...&max-results=7

Air, Part 3 got 557,000 viewers.
Tuesday, October 13, 2009: http://tvfeedsmyfamily.blogspot.com/...-paginate=true

[RealmOfX]

http://www.channelcanada.com/Article3627.html

This article says, that SGU's premiere got 565,000 viewers.

I wondered why the premiere numbers were different so I looked myself on the blog "TV feeds my family". You made a slight mistake.

Air, Part 1 and 2 really got 565,000 viewers. There is an article on the blog, which said this, too.
Tuesday, October 6, 2009: http://tvfeedsmyfamily.blogspot.com/...&max-results=7

Air, Part 3 got 557,000 viewers.
Tuesday, October 13, 2009: http://tvfeedsmyfamily.blogspot.com/...-paginate=true

Thanks for catching that Updating the previous post now.

[MediaSavant]

Dear MS,
How does the above figures compare to the rest of the TV landscape?
Also is it common for a network expanding it's primetime schedule to incur decreases in average viewership?

A couple of things are happening in the media landscape, particularly this past 4th quarter.

First, there has been a slight slippage of overall TV viewing in Primetime of a few percentage points in the 4th quarter. The drop varies slightly by demographic.

The other thing is a longterm trend of audience fragmentation. The more and more channels people receive, the smaller each slice of the pie become. Generally, ratings growth comes at the lower end where really small niche networks grow at a greater rate than larger networks. This growth usually comes at the expense of the larger networks.

Here's a decent article about what happened in cable last year:

Cable ratings have been growing for so many years that it was a shock when the medium ended 2010 with a 2 percent decline among adults 18-49. Four of the top 10 networks among total viewers saw year-to-year decreases in primetime as well. But in some ways this decline actually speaks to the success of the medium. More networks than ever before were measured in 2010, and many of the smaller ones continue to see double-digit increases, such as NFL Network, Science Channel and ID.

http://www.medialifemagazine.com/art...-an-eye-on.asp

The broadcast networks (ABC, NBC, CBS, Fox) generally show declines year-to-year as well, with only some exceptions.
http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/201...-ratings/77351

Audience fragmentation means that the likelihood of ratings for an individual show going down is higher than the likelihood of them going up.

[MediaSavant]

Caprica fans asked:

What were the ratings for Caprica's marathon?

Total U.S. HH ratings and Total # of viewers:
6:00 PM .33, 528,000
7:00 PM .36, 671,000
8:00 PM .35, 703,000
9:00 PM .34, 618,000
10:00 PM .42, 782,000

The median age was around 45. The highest demographic group was Men 25-54.

[MediaSavant]

Dear MS,

What is the Neilsen sampling error? And does it vary from show to show?

I can't tell you the Nielsen sampling error. It actually varies by the number of households "in-tab" in a given day. When someone becomes a Nielsen household, they can be one for up to two years. But, households can quit. Households can be uncooperative and not use the equipment properly on a given day. So, there is constant churn in the sample. The sample count on one day is not the same as the sample count the next day.

While I can't tell you the sample error, Nielsen customers do have access to it. Raw Nielsen reports also include a tag if an ratings estimate's relative error is 25% or more or if the sample size was insufficient. So, while the general public does not see this information, Nielsen's customers do.

How significant is the change of viewership from two years ago?


As I said above, 4th quarter was down a few percentage points from last year. At the moment, I don't have access to the 2-year stuff. The year overall was up a few percentage points.

The 10-year trend in TV viewing is an upwards slope. Some events can drive viewing up further. Olympics years usually have higher overall viewing. The last election year was good for increased viewing. Years following these increases, sometimes show a slippage.

Is the excuse that viewership of tv all across the board is down valid anymore with the recent news that Americans watched the most tv this year? Does that reflect in syfy?

It depends on why the viewing was up. If the increased viewing can be tied into something specific like people watching the Olympics or watching election coverage, it's not going to lift all boats.

Fourth quarter '10 had slightly decreased ratings from the previous year, but some football ratings were really, really good. So, decreased viewing doesn't sink all boats just like increased viewing doesn't necessarily lift all boats.

Also keep in mind that increases and decreases are often a few percentage points.

[MediaSavant]

Dear MS...

Given that the Nielsen ratings are estimating a population by a sample, any proper reporting of the numbers must include figures like a margin of error, or a confidence interval, etc. I'm not a real statistician, but I know enough to question whether comparing numbers has any statistical significance.

Nielsen is not the U.S. Census service where the taxpayer pays the bill and they owe it to the public to be transparent with their statistics. They are a private company that is contracted by businesses to give them statistics. A small number of their estimates make the public domain, but they don't owe the public domain anything.

So, the only people they owe the statistical margins of error to are their customers. Their customers get this information.

Has Nielsen ever stated their MoE or whatever publicly? We, and others like TVBTN, often seem to regard a 0.1 difference in the A18-49 as significant. The question is: is it?

They don't make any of that public.

They leave it up to their customers to decide what is significant or insignificant to them.

I can't tell you what the exact significance of a 0.1 difference is.

The people who buy the data know that there is some statistical float in the data, but they are dealing with big schedules and they have to conduct business.

So, there is a tacit agreement between the networks and the advertisers that the data is currency and whatever it says is going to drive prices. So, even a difference in two ratings that is not "statistically significant" changes the values of the show. As you can imagine, the networks have a huge financial stake in Nielsen doing its job as accurately as possible. They monitor Nielsen like hawks.

Before someone criticizes such an agreement, it is necessary. When you say you are willing to pay X to advertise in a show if it gets a Y rating, you can't say, "I'll pay X plus or minus 10%". Since most advertisers are buying huge schedules, the statistical issues for a schedule are less extreme than the statistical float of one single telecast.