| Dancing with the Stars Recent Premieres |
| 3.5 (3/19/12, vs. The Voice) (2.98 season avg) 2.5 (9/24/12, vs. The Voice) (2.26 season avg) 3.2 (3/18/13, NOT vs. The Voice) (2.29 season avg) 3.1 (9/16/13, NOT vs. The Voice) (2.16 season avg) |
It's quite clear that The Voice's absence had a major impact on the show's last two premieres. Both seasons dropped roughly 25% (to a respective 2.4/2.3) the next week when The Voice arrived, and ended up averaging about the same number as the much lower-premiering fall 2012 season. And the franchise is much weaker in general than back when DWTS scored a 3.5 against The Voice in spring 2012. Since it's 18 months later, it's hard to see it exceeding that 2.5 from when it last premiered against The Voice in fall 2012.
Over/Under: 2.35.
No entries accepted after 6:00am ET the morning after the date in the headline. If editing your pick, please leave a separate comment.
30 comments:
With viewing levels down overall and a cast that's not exciting on paper, I'm predicting it does slightly UNDER. I project perhaps a 2.2 or 2.3 but not higher.
Under (2.2)
Under
Maybe the cast are more well known in America but I only recognise two names this time (it was six in the Fall) and neither seem like draws. Not that it matters. Under
Under. It doesnt have the buzz to go over 2.3. It should be relatively steady for the rest of the season, though.
Going under. Sometimes forget the show's still airing.
UNDER, as others have said, the cast is pretty bad.
I actually like their twist with the switching partners bit (even though I don't watch the show). I think it will get a 2.5
OVer
Under at 2.0.
Over.
OK, they avoided The Voice for the first episode of fall season. But let's look at 2nd episode of that pretty positive cycle. 2.3 against extremely strong competition. DST and all, but today is premiere, and competition won't be nowhere near the one from 9/23/2013:
5.58 Monday Night Football
5.05 The Voice
3.68 How I Met Your Mother (60 Minutes)
2.84 2 Broke Girls
3.13 Sleepy Hollow
2.52 Mom
Sooner or later, I've got to go over on one of these. An against-Voice, post-DST DWTS with a bad cast is sure as heck not the time. Under, and I wish the line was lower so I wasn't in a large majority on this, as I can even see it going sub-2.
I'm guessing marginally under. 2.25 would have been a figurative coin flip for me.
I think this is the first time I'm doing this but under. Awful awful cast.
Under at 2.2
The Voice is sounding just a tad bit hoarse to me and I think the celebrity mix on DWTS has a little less impact on its ratings now than it used to, so I will go with "Over" somewhere around 2.7, just to be the outlier.
Slighty UNDER with a 2.3
To help make up some ground, my vote is solely based on going against the grain.
Over.
Now, my unofficial question for the room: what kind of ratings will The Tomorrow People wake up to tomorrow? It's going from its most compatible lead-in possible (Arrow) to one that's skewing slightly older and is much weaker to boot (Star-Crossed). And heading into a midseason timeslot move with a series low rating isn't good. The CW Monday is still their Surrender Night, so I think Star-Crossed & TTP will pull identical numbers as Hart of Dixie & Beauty and the Beast.
TTP: 0.3 or The Field.
I'm not gonna give it the BOTD. (is that out?) Under.
I'd take field. 0.4. Real 0.4, 0.40 to 0.42, not 0.35 or 0.36.
I agree it's very compatible with Arrow. But strangely enough, its w2w ratings trajectory often deviated form Arrow's one. So perhaps its less lead-in dependent than one would expect.
Aha, the classic Smashurday Question! I love this.
0.3.
under
Yes, you're correct. Network would never renew ratings loser over money making show.
But what happens when network is in a bad shape (like NBC was until this season, Fox is from this season, and CW is constantly), so they don't "have enough" money making shows? Then they renew some money losing show(s). That's because they cannot launch zillion new shows next fall, their resources are big, but not infinite. People usually call those "pity renewal", and for that networks tend to pick critically acclaimed shows. Perhaps they're hoping it would pick up steam next season, like some critics darlings among cable shows do. They never do, but that way execs get some good PR, and postpone dealing with problematic timeslot for another year.
BTW, let's not forgot Body of Proof was in California state tax credit program, so cost was at something like 80% of average drama cost. I mean, bar for BoP was set some 20% lower.
Body of Proof was in California state tax credit program, so bar for it was set some 20% lower.
Gossip Girl target demo was W18-34, so its Season 4 paltry A18-49 ratings are irrelevant.
2011/2012 season approximate W18-34 ratings (source is The Futon Critic preliminaries, they don't publish final W18-34, so there's some error for sure)
1.19 Hart of Dixie (with 1.07 in year 2012)
1.13 Gossip Girl (1.04 in 2012)
1.11 90210 (0.97 in 2012)
1.09 The Secret Circle (but only 0.90 in 2012)
Well, I never go as far as saying that the A18-49 demos are irrelevant. And my point is that the A18-49 were good enough to justify Gossip Girl's renewal and not consider it a reach renewal. With Body of Proof, even though the tax credit probably helped, the A18-49 were also good enough on their own to justify a renewal that wasn't reach.
Then A18-49 is relevant for Teen Wolf? Or for Pretty Little Liars? Of course not. A18-49 is irrelevant for shows not targetting A18-49. Period.
As for the other thing. It doesn't matter what relative average ratings are. It matters only where drama is on ABC network dramas totem pole.
For example, if ABC plans to air 10 dramas in fall, they'll renew 6 dramas and premiere 4 newbies. It doesn't matter if 6th or 7th drama are at 60% or 75% or 90%.
Yes, if 7th drama is good rated, they'll be inclined to either change plans and do it 7 veterans + 3 rookies, either renew 7th rated drama as 13-episodes spackle.
And if situation is so shiny that even 8th drama is good rated (it never is), they'd probably do both.
What they would never do is: renew money losing show just because it's at some imaginary percentage of their scripted average. Unless they're in so bad situation, they need pity renewal(s).
It's the basic idea. The 18-34 and 35-49 audiences are of different sizes (A18-34 is 67.63 million vs. 35-49 at 59.33 million), so that is a bit oversimplified. But it's a good general way of looking at it.
Yes, that's what I meant with the denominators changing, yes, but the principle is the same! Thanks!
I was merely restating the obvious point that it is not enough to base renewal decisions solely on ratings alone (at least not on the data available to us), especially as it applies to most or all of those dismal performers I cited above. There are other outside forces at work here. Yes, of course, none of the renewals of these shows surprised many of us who know something about the respective show history, network culture and recent developments. Can anyone accurately predict when CBS will put The Good Wife out of her misery? I assume it's becoming increasingly expensive to produce and it doesn't necessarily lend itself to lucrative syndication deals. CBS hasn't had much luck of late with new dramas. It's becoming increasingly harder to develop new hits as large numbers of key demo viewers are shunning live television viewing. I can't help but wonder if moving forward, some low-rated show renewal decisions won't be based on at least a little bit of acceptance or downright capitulation that "this is as good as it gets" or "it could always be worse."
Probably on Twitter talking about how underrated their local cut-rate burger joint is compared to Burger King.
Intriguing introduction (and yes, I know I'm late, but life has been in the way to varying degrees lately). Looking forward to parts two and three.
Post a Comment