Terra Firma Ratings

[cofax]

Sci-Fi's national numbers for last Friday:

7 pm, Dead Zone - 0.52
8 pm, Farscape - 1.06
9 pm, Stargate - 1.57
10 pm, Tracker - 1.24
11 pm, Stargate - 0.96
12 midnight, Farscape - 0.81

Yes, the ratings went down from last week. But as others have commented already, ratings were down across the board on Sci-Fi, not just for Farscape. Both Stargate and Tracker lost significant numbers of viewers as compared to last week, as well.

Context to consider:

Farscape doubled its lead-in at 8pm, and held much of its lead in
at midnight (0.81 vs. 0.96).

This was a three-day weekend and that may have factored into the numbers. Given that the rest of the Sci-Fi lineup went down about the same amount as Farscape, we've suffered less of a loss from last week than it appears on the surface. We expect the numbers next week to come back up.

Among the competition was a heavily-promoted western (starring Tom Selleck) on TNT that pulled an impressive 5.68.

The airing of a strong episode can also translate into stronger ratings the following week; in other words, Terra Firma was good enough to draw more people back next Friday for Twice Shy.

Additionally, the DIY Media project hasn't hit the airwaves yet. This project is going to gain us a lot of attention, which could translate into more viewers for the show.


We understand the disappointment, we feel it too. However, the most important thing is that Farscape held its own proportionately despite the holiday weekend. Next week holds another chance, and the week after, another, and so on. The radio spots are airing now, and the tv ads start on Monday. We've all worked much too hard to give up this soon.


cofax
SaveFarscape.com
"Impossible is not in our vocabulary."

[GeekedOut]

Oh well, that's pretty disheartening.

[waltersgirl]

Among the competition was a heavily-promoted western (starring Tom Selleck) on TNT that pulled an impressive 5.68.

well that certainly explains a lot

[Xenajules2]

looking at the numbers, we did NOT hold our own. :(

Farscape at 8pm LOST -.28 over last week.
Stargate at 9pm LOST -.18 over last week and
Tracker at 10pm LOST -.21 over last week.

on repeats...
Stargate at 11pm gained +.07
Farscape at 12am gained +.03

So, we had the larger loss and a smaller gain, which doesn't look good. Of course, the 8pm slot may be softer, since it's early. 9pm just seems like the better time to me, but Stargate did okay at 8, so I guess I'm wrong.

Help me out here, folks. What (if anything) are we doing wrong? What MORE (if possible) can we be doing? This was the week of the USA Today ad after all. Kansas ended on a cliff-hanger... a perfect lead-in. The ratings were way up for TF in the UK... so why not here??

Don't get me wrong... I'm not giving up. I just think perhaps we're beating our heads against the wall with trying to raise the Nielsen ratings. Maybe our "Big Push" should be to try to get them scrapped. Anyone have a better alternative that we can push to have take their place???

Jules

[Red]

Stargate did okay at 8
Well except it was on at 9. Its time hasn't changed.

[waltersgirl]

XenaJules...

read cofax's post again. TNT's western, starring Tom Selleck, got a 5.86 for the night.

those are "Taken" ratings. i'd say we should be damn proud we got the rating we did.

[Xenajules2]

with Tom Sellak, was on opposite Stargate TOO. I just did the math. No one is going to care what was on TNT, I'm afraid. It's what's on SciFi that they're going to be looking at, and Stargate simply didn't take the same hit Farscape did.

Just reading the numbers.
Jules

[waltersgirl]

No one is going to care what was on TNT

everyone is going to care what was on TNT, since, clearly, everyone was watching TNT.

and as far as beating our heads against the wall about the Nielsens.....there exist no other alternatives to the Nielsens. we can only do what we can. we have the radio and tv promotions upcoming. we continue to spread the word.

[Tokeya]

Ok, but didn't Mr. Sterling get like a 9.9 for its premiere last week? Kansas managed to pull a 1.3 out of that. I fail to see what is soooo appealing about Monte Walsh? It was aired upteen times over the weekend, people had plenty of opportunity to see it. Augghhh.!!!!

[kechara]

I did a little research about the Neilson Ratings and unless I read their information page incorrectly, there are ONLY 5100 "Neilson Families" nation-wide.

And THIS is what Sci-fi is basing supposed 'viewership / fanbase' of Farscape upon?

To my way of thinking, that's rediculous.

Kech.

[Xenajules2]

Stargate was on at 8 LAST year, wasn't it? Or was it on at 9 and the Farscape at 10. When you get old, your memory goes, believe me.

Anyhow, my point is... we keep doing the same thing and expecting different results. Everyone knows what THAT is the definition of.

I'm just suggesting maybe we need to PUSH harder to get the Nielsens scrapped and DOES ANYONE have a reasonable alternative that we can suggest to people???

PLEASE!

Jules

[Hmpf]

Originally posted by Xenajules2
Help me out here, folks. What (if anything) are we doing wrong? What MORE (if possible) can we be doing? This was the week of the USA Today ad after all. Kansas ended on a cliff-hanger... a perfect lead-in. The ratings were way up for TF in the UK... so why not here??

Don't get me wrong... I'm not giving up. I just think perhaps we're beating our heads against the wall with trying to raise the Nielsen ratings. Maybe our "Big Push" should be to try to get them scrapped. Anyone have a better alternative that we can push to have take their place???

Jules

Getting the Nielsen ratings scrapped - good idea, but how? (No, seriously, I'm all for scrapping the Nielsen ratings. They've been heavily criticised for *years* now. We're not the only ones who think they're at the very least wildly inaccurate.

As for beating our heads against the wall. But of course we're beating our heads against the wall. But if we stop doing it, we'll never know if the wall would have collapsed eventually. ;-)

We don't have much choice but to keep on doing what we're doing. The only other choice we have is giving up, and that, I hope everyone agrees, is not an option.

[GeekedOut]

Last year it was The Dead Zone at 8, SG1 at 9, and FS at 10. So, no, SG1 has never been at 8.

[Xenajules2]

Originally posted by Hmpf


We don't have much choice but to keep on doing what we're doing. The only other choice we have is giving up, and that, I hope everyone agrees, is not an option.

Absolutely - I agree - giving up is NOT an option. I'm not suggesting it is. And, you're right about the wall eventually collapsing... it COULD happen. Frell, it WILL happen. Just ask Tiriel. But, I'd like it to happen in my lifetime, yah know?

Jules

[Eve11]

Kechara, the debate rages on in the "Questions about Ratings" thread. Scientifically speaking, it's not ridiculous.

Xenajules, I think someone mentioned somewhere that the hundredth's place on these ratings is not reliable. So SG1 got a 1.8 last week and a 1.5 this week. Farscape got a 1.3 last week and a 1.0 this week.

What else can I say about Terra Firma? If we're going to hell in a handbasket, at least we're enjoying the ride.

[Red]

I thought it was on at 9 and Farscape at 10. Honestly though that feels like a lifetime ago. :lol

Well you can go to variety.com and get the trial registration and then do a search for the Arbitron ratings test, the People Meter, in Philadelphia and Boston. That looks like it'll be the next alternative for the Nielsens. In those two markets it was showing that cable was being underreported hugely. Since the people meter is a portible device, the size of a pager, that recorded what you watched, wherever you were, it was easier to use and wasn't limited by a single location or tv. Something like 90% of people in non-cable houses, watch cable programming, but a Nielsen box in the household wouldn't register those viewings, obviously. Well, at any rate, the trials were interesting and Nielsen is studying the Arbitron data as well.

[JA_Shipper]

I have to ask the same question, what else can we do?? I don't mean that in a "throw-my-hands-up-in-despair" kind of way, I mean what can we do that we haven't been doing? What is the UK doing right that the US (and apparently, Canada, since though our ratings went up they could be better) is doing wrong??

None of this makes any sense. Everything I hear is "I've gotten X number of new viewers to watch and they love it" or "hey, I'm new to the board, I've just discovered Farscape & love it" yet every time I look at the FRELLING ratings, they're going down.

DOES. NOT. COMPUTE!!!!!!!!!!! :headbang: :headbang: :headbang:

Help me out guys. It just doesn't make any sense.

Suse

[Tiriel]

Jules,

I had a post a couple of days ago called "EUREKA....". I know what's wrong with the Nielsen's or rather why quality TV-programming always seems to fall short and I might have way of proving it mathematically.
The problem here is that it won't do Farscape any good, because all we have is arguments. Until a new method is accepted across the board it's not likely going to help us...

Check out the thread. My only suggestions would be to confront advertisers with these consideration through a letter-campaign. But short of that I don't know how this could help...

Hey! I give you a :bounce: if you gimme a :D :)

Love andPeace and Hope :)

Tiriel :eek:

[JA_Shipper]

Eve 11, not to nitpick, but if Farscape got a 1.06, wouldn't that average out to a 1.1, not a 1.0?

(Just trying for every percentage of a ratings point we can get!!)

Suse

[Xenajules2]

Originally posted by JA_Shipper
I have to ask the same question, what else can we do?? I don't mean that in a "throw-my-hands-up-in-despair" kind of way, Help me out guys. It just doesn't make any sense.

Suse

I have to agree with Suse. I cannot stand to think of this show going away. I was sitting here earlier writing out the first scene of Act Four of Terra Firma and watching Aeryn and the emotions on her face and it broke my heart. Then, to think of not seeing this story through to its fruition... this is insanity! It can't happen! SO... what ELSE (more/ different/ better) can we DO?? Or, will this be enough? ARE we holding our own? What the FRELL is going on???

Jules

[Xenajules2]

Originally posted by Tiriel
Jules,


Hey! I give you a :bounce: if you gimme a :D :)

Love andPeace and Hope :)

Tiriel :eek:

Alright, just for YOU, T...

:angelgrin: :angelgrin: :angelgrin: :angelgrin: :ewink: :angelgrin:

[Eve11]

Heh, then, yeah, a 1.1. Me and my mathematical mind....

The same kind of drop happened from "Lava" to "Promises". And they were the same kinds of episodes -- Lava/Kansas were lighter, followed by Promises/Terra Firma which were darker.

I think Terra Firma was a stronger episode than Promises, though.

[waltersgirl]

we will never be able to argue the Nielsens. and, should the ratings increase, the network could always point out that the ratings aren't high enough...no matter how high they are.

our point is that the show is quality. that Skiffy failed to promote the show enough, and that the non-promotion hampered the ratings. that we are intelligent viewers and that we demand intelligent programming. Stargate's ratings prove the point. Skiffy ran its reruns all during the hiatus. Tracker gets independent advertising. Stargate gets independent advertising. all of their other shows get independent advertising and promotion, yet, *still*, Farscape can pull a 1.0 at least.

[JA_Shipper]

This is the first time in awhile in this campaign that I feel like I'm going to cry. :cry2: Maybe I just need to sleep on it, and tomorrow I will wake up twice as determined, write twice as many letters (should I still send Toronto postcards, do ya think? ;) ) ... but man, this took the wind out of my sails.

I'd suggest we all skip watching next week's ep in the hopes that the numbers went up (hey, it would make perfect sense, the way things are going!) if I thought it would do any good. Then we'd probably get our 4.2 ... :rolleyes:

Suse
not giving up yet, but DAMN!

[Harmony]

Jules... I agree, it feels like we're butting our heads against a wall. We can campaign against the Nielsen system, but I don't think it would have any direct impact on Farscape's future. The Nielsen system is so well established... replacing it would take time.

I'm writing letters to Sci-Fi each week stating that although I'm not Nielsen, I'm watching. I know these letters don't mean anything to Sci-Fi (the ratings are the bottom line)... but I feel better for at least making a statement.

As far as alternatives go... I don't know. Perhaps we could put more effort into exploring direct to dvd, and such? Or frell...maybe we could convince DK to write a book. It wouldn't be the same, but I'd be happy with that.

-Harmony

[Eve11]

Sorry to nitpick, but what independent advertising is Tracker getting? (and what do you mean by 'independent advertising'? advertising on scifi?)

[Hmpf]

Originally posted by Xenajules2
Absolutely - I agree - giving up is NOT an option. I'm not suggesting it is. And, you're right about the wall eventually collapsing... it COULD happen. Frell, it WILL happen. Just ask Tiriel. But, I'd like it to happen in my lifetime, yah know?

Jules

I understand that. We'd all like to see that. Frell, 'like' is the understatement of the year. I'm still as obsessed with FS as I was two years ago. I hate to think that one day soon, I won't get my fix anymore! ;-(

However, right from the beginning of the campaign I've been saying that we should - despite all our optimism - always keep on our minds that we might be in it for a long, long time. Remember Star Trek. Took them more than a decade to get their show back in some form.

I think the best thing we can do is heed David Kemper's advice from the second cancellation chat: 'Stay a community. Maintain your Farscape friends.' For me, that means keep seeing the people you met through fandom, keep watching Farscape with them, and keep spreading word of the show. Even when it's over. Introduce new viewers to it, have regular FS watching parties at your house, write fanfiction, discuss on message boards - stay active. Keep the fandom alive and keep it growing.

It's pretty obvious now that FS at the moment does not have much appeal to 'the masses'. So maybe we'll have to be a bit 'sneakier' and adopt a real long-term strategy. Make this an 'underground' phenomenon and let it grow... We'll need a lot of dedication, but I, for one, am not ready to let go of Farscape, even if the ratings should drop to zero! And I certainly will be re-watching all the eps, and keep trying to introduce friends to the show. Quality may not grip the casual viewer, but if we 'recruit' people one by one... well, who knows, maybe the word will spread then. :-)

[fialka]

My honest opinion? It's disappointing yes, but the holiday weekend has a lot to do with it. I'd like to see the broadcast ratings, because I'd imagine they're down as well.

No matter how hard we try, there are certain factors that are completely out of our control -- holidays and alternate programming being the top two. The networks are not unaware of this, and that does factor into the way they look at the ratings for each ep, as do the quarterlies (which show whether people turned to or away during the hour) and the demographics. These are also compared to the channel's overall average.

I think at this point it would be good to remind everyone that 2.0 was always the high bar. Not the necessity, but a number which would be impossible to ignore. To remain within "negotiable" is all we need and we don't really know where those parameters lie.

There are nine eps to go, and I believe ultimately trend will matter more than the ratings for individual eps. I also feel certain we'll do better next week.

As for changing the system, well, we're not going to accomplish that in the next nine weeks. The best we can do is show our faces via letters.

Actually, the best we can do is simply not give up this early in the game. I know we were all primed for success, and these numbers are something of a comedown. Maybe the mistake we made was setting the bar for ourselves so high, but hell -- of what value are the stars if you can't reach for them?

[Xenajules2]

Originally posted by waltersgirl
we will never be able to argue the Nielsens. and, should the ratings increase, the network could always point out that the ratings aren't high enough...no matter how high they are.

our point is that the show is quality. that Skiffy failed to promote the show enough, and that the non-promotion hampered the ratings. that we are intelligent viewers and that we demand intelligent programming. Stargate's ratings prove the point. Skiffy ran its reruns all during the hiatus. Tracker gets independent advertising. Stargate gets independent advertising. all of their other shows get independent advertising and promotion, yet, *still*, Farscape can pull a 1.0 at least.

I can't fault your argument, I just can't see that it's been convincing anybody. And, I think we CAN argue that the Nielsens are flawed. Hell, this has been a bone of contention as far back as I can remember (the Dark Ages, I seem to recall - Black and White TV! LOL!) We NEED to try to get the Nielsens scrapped, in my opinion, NOW. After all, the advertisers PAY for ads based on these ratings... so Skiffy's income rises and falls based on these flawed numbers. These are facts too. If we can convince enough advertisers (like HP and Burger King and KFC) to stick with Farscape because it's QUALITY, not because of the numbers, we might be able to get somewhere.

I know this has all been said before, in other threads, but looking at those numbers just screams at me to look for positives. Quick, before Tiriel bombs my house with chocolate!

Jules
:angelgrin :angelgrin :angelgrin :angelgrin :ewink: :angelgrin

[kaadaq]

I'm usually content to lurk, but I've been watching the ratings with interest. It's sadly amusing to listen to the "well, compared to this and this and this, we did ok" rationalizations.

The fact is, Skiffy doesn't care what the competition was on a particular Friday. They don't care who's advertising more. They've already canceled the show. What they need now, to quote the NFL, is "overwhelming evidence" that they made the wrong decision. And a 1.0 does not reverse that call. Even though we know that half the other crap they come up with can't pull a 0.6.

So, the question remains: What else can we do to get people to watch this wonderful show??

The emails help. The media exposure helps. Bonnie Hammer getting pummeled by reporters everytime she steps before a microphone, believe it or not, helps. But unless we get those ratings up, we're sunk.

Just my .02

[Tokeya]

I don't know, maybe we're not pitching the sale from the right angle. The only think I can see at this point is that we're not looking at it through the new veiwer's eyes. Not only that, we need to reel in the one's who have slacked off or fell away.

We need to put ourselves in their shoes, then present in that way. We know Farscape is a good story, but the bottom line is we have to sell to those outside our loop.

[Kithlyara]

February is when the ratings really matter because it's sweeps right? Maybe we should be concentrating more on getting the numbers up in February.

What can we do in the next two weeks that will get people to watch then? I know we have the Guerilla Ad campaign, and the second round of commercials, but what else can we be doing to get more viewers? I would like to try to get some organized college campaign going, if possible. Anybody else have any ideas?

[GeekedOut]

I can't see doing anything further. Everyone has been working their arses off, being have been converting left and right, there's so much media coverage...we're doing all we can and it doesn't seem to work on ratings. We've got critcs on our side. Its just the masses and SciFi we don't. I'll keep watching, keep writing letters, and just hope SciFi wakes up.

[waltersgirl]

Eve,
i meant that those shows don't "share" advertising on Skiffy with other shows, as Farscape does. Farscape doesn't get it's own commercials, only in conjunction with Stargate.

another point to keep in mind. all those other shows that got cancelled and then back on the air...the big campaigns that we've been compared to...none of those shows had any eps left to air, but those campaigns still worked.

[kaadaq]

The key demographics, unfortunately, are the six people with Nielsen boxes who, apparently, don't watch Farscape regularly. I think we have to focus our attention on attracting those who might not otherwise watch scifi genre television.

Targeting college kids will help increase viewership, but is unlikely to affect the ratings much, IMO. I think the mainstream media ads have the best chance of success. We should focus on how to expand those to the other major markets.

Does anyone have access to historical regional ratings data for the 10 major markets? How has Science Fiction fare fared in those places?

The question then becomes, do we focus on SciFi-friendly areas and risk preaching to the choir, or do we try to pull up ratings in areas that are less receptive?

[JA_Shipper]

From what I heard around these bb's and others, we managed to find six new Nielson boxes. Apparently, some of our "old" Nielson boxes dropped out. Or something like that. :rolleyes:

Suse

[Greenbug]

Funny, but this rating does not trouble me as much as the "Kansas" did. Maybe I was hoping for to much striaght out of the gate. But I still see hope here. I for one have long kept my biggest hope with "The Viewers Consortium, Inc." Another thread in the Save Farscape forum. I truly believe that if all else fails that we will be able to at the very least get help thru the TVC to get movies of Farscape and we are talking with the people not cartoons.

Even if we run thru all of these and Farscape is gone for a while. I will not give up hope that the TVC can't help. I believe that even DK really thinks something else is going to come out. It's just a matter of the deal coming thru and the timing being right.

And that's my 2 cents worth.

[Shipscat]

You know, Kaadaq, i think that depends on how the ratings fall out...if it's a 3.3 like San Diego, we can safely assume it's maxed out.

[Kithlyara]

The idea behind the college campaign is you never know who has a Neilson's box. Getting the word out to as many people as possible is the only way to get one of those blasted boxes.

In San Diego alone there are four community colleges, with a ton of students in varying age ranges (we're talking 18 to 45 at least). That does not include the local universities and tech schools, who's ages ranges also vary.

I'm 24yrs old and going back to college full time next week. There are a lot of people my age and older at the community college I'm going to.

It's quite possible that there's at least ONE Neilson family with a member either in college, or a member who has a friend in college, in San Diego. I'm sure the situation is the same elsewhere.

I'm just of the mindset that we need to be doing everything possible to get the word out. We have tv and radio spots, newspaper ads and articles, and online articles, in our favor and they are not enough. We need to figure what else we can do in addition to the tv, radio, and print campaigns to get the word out.

Anybody else have any ideas?

[IWantToBelieve]

Just to make you guys feel better, your efforts have not been in vain. I didn't give Farscape a second glance after tuning into Taking the Stone a couple of years ago. Then all the flurry from fans got me curious about the show and what I may be missing (I'm a huge sci-fi fan), so I decided to watch the episodes on Jan. 3rd. I was hooked! I've since bought all S1 and S2 on DVD and can't wait for S2 2.5 to come out on DVD. (I still think Taking the Stone is a bit bizarre LOL!)

It is depressing to realize that this show got cancelled. It's won numerous awards, is truly original and unique, and was given a go for S5 only to get wrenched off. I can understand now why the fans were so devastated last September.

I sincerely hope that this isn't the end for this show, but if it is, you guys can rest assured that your efforts were not in vain. Unfortuneately I am not a Neilson family, but because of you guys I am a fan of Farscape, and I am watching every Friday!

Melissa

[Eve11]

someone mentioned in a thread somewhere to "fish where the fish are". Maybe we should start looking, not simply at the population sizes in the DMAs, but at the media breakdown and demographics in general in the market areas.

[Kithlyara]

Originally posted by Eve11
someone mentioned in a thread somewhere to "fish where the fish are". Maybe we should start looking, not simply at the population sizes in the DMAs, but at the media breakdown and demographics in general in the market areas.

Does anyone know where we can get this info? :)

[Shipscat]

yeah, well I'm alwasy skeptical of fishing where the fish are because those areas might be fished out.

[Eve11]

There was a link in the thread that someone posted on the San Diego ratings to an online media magazine that had market breakdowns. But I can't find it.


Edited to say: Thanks so much for the note, IWantToBelieve (and it's nice to see somebody else around here with an X-files handle... ;) ). Hope you're writing that stuff to SciFi, too.

[Shipscat]

Welcome Melissa!

I take it you're also an X-files fan?

[IWantToBelieve]

I wanted to add I just sent an email to scifi in support of the show (ie I'm not a neilson family but I'm watching now because of Farscape, etc.) I hope it helps!

Melissa

[Kithlyara]

Originally posted by Shipscat
yeah, well I'm alwasy skeptical of fishing where the fish are because those areas might be fished out.

If we had the breakdown info, we could also use it to find out which areas need help. At any rate, it can't hurt to look at the demographics breakdown per market.

[waltersgirl]

but because of you guys I am a fan of Farscape, and I am watching every Friday!

thanks Melissa.

one fan at a time.

[Shipscat]

I would love to have the breakdown info- I mean, one of the problems (possibly) with the campaign is that a lot more is being done in areas that have more Scapers to do them...and you can see how that might be not getting us to new potential viewers...

[jfranka]

...is that Stargate and Tracker is STILL getting better ratings! What the frell is that? No offense to Stargate and Tracker fans, but with all the publicity we've been dealing out, they STILL beat Farscape!!???? :headbang:

[Wolli World]

Does anyone know how Fastlane did last week, and if it's ratings went up? It's on at the same time, and it was promoted like dren. Plus, they kept showing two women kissing in the promos which I'm sure got more than just a few casual viewers. :grr: I really hate that Fox moved that show to the Farscape timeslot. I think it's hurting our ratings. Oh well, I'm down, but I'm not out.

[Kithlyara]

Originally posted by Shipscat
I would love to have the breakdown info- I mean, one of the problems (possibly) with the campaign is that a lot more is being done in areas that have more Scapers to do them...and you can see how that might be not getting us to new potential viewers...

I can definitely agree with that! Now, other than print and tv spots, how do we reach those areas that need help, especially if we don't have at least one friendly local Scaper? Hmmm....

[angie]

There was the battle of the centers----I am sure the basketball game did well.

angie

[Tiriel]

((((Melissa))))

and thanks for making my point before I even started typing :D

OK, I'm as frustrated about this as the next person and I know Eve11 and others have defended the statistical validity of the Nielsen Numbers from a statistical point of view, but as someone who has fought her entire career with classical statistic falling to pieces in certain areas of skewed data, lemme tell you I'm not buying it. Particularly given that you DO get the huge deviations if you apply an absolute measure. The theory of statistics and it's application to real world data are two very different things.

Simple truth is, everything we see and experience around ourselves tells us the numbers should be rising, but instead the Nielsen's are falling. Maybe randomly fluctuating is more like it. So from where I stand: If it looks like a trout and it smells like a trout and it tastes like a trout, HELL it probably IS a frelling trout! As little Bonnie said: "If all those wonderful fans who wrote letters and sent flowers had actually watched the show we could have had another 22." It's not us NOT SUCCEEDING, it us NOT BEING COUNTED.

You know what? I don't bloody care if the Nielsen Data tell me I do not exist! I KNOW I BLOODY DO! HELL, I'm paying way too much rent not to exist! :D :D :D :D :D

So let me sum this up to the one conclusion I can draw from this: SCREW the Nielsen's! If we concentrate on getting more Nielsen Boxes we WILL LOOSE, because the entire system there is skewed against us! Our only chance is to SHOW our real numbers. Write letters. Make sure they KNOW how many we really are! Make sure they KNOW we are not being counted properly! Money talks and the Nielsen's aren't the only way to let advertisers know we're watching! We've shown that much!

OK, now y'all go and whip out pan and paper and let us show them who we are! :D :D :D :D

We can't make the numbers match because the numbers are faulty! If you can't fix a system find a work-around or be stuck forever! Ms Hammer told us in no incertain terms what we need to do. Let's do it :D :D :D

:bounce: :bounce: Hell I'm already feeling better :D :D :D :D

Love and Peace and True Numbers!

Tiriel :eek:

[Tokeya]

Stargate and Tracker is STILL getting better ratings! What the frell is that?

It's those 14 yeard old boys. I ran into a slew of them at McKays Used Book & CD Store last week (Ok so they were 16, but they were acting like 10). They were crusing the aisle looking for SG-1 DVDs and about dropped dead on when the got a load of the secon-hand pricetag. I asked if they watched Farscape. The reply: "That Star Trek what to be??? Nooo." :mad: Frelling young ones, could of kicked them from here to the UT's, but I smiled and said 'Really? I don't see the connection? How's that?" Come to find out he never even seen Farscape, he heard it from a friend who heard it from this other friend & blah, blah blah....you get the picture. Well I tried to sell it, Chiana and all but it just wasn't happening. Anyone know how to get into the mind of teen-age boys these days??? :(

[GeekedOut]

They didn't want Chiana yet the only female regular, I think, in SG1 is always buttoned up? Wow.

Welcome Melissa. You're post made me feel a lot better.

[Eve11]

Whoa, if they called Farscape a "Star Trek wannabe", then they definitely hadn't seen an episode. Sheesh.

I've gotten a faculty member hooked on Farscape here, but he won't watch the new ones until he's caught up. He wants to see it all from the beginning. He's on "Through the Looking Glass" at the moment. Today he came up to me with ... "So, are you good at counting? One Mippipippi, Two Mippipippi..". He's a medical doctor with a PhD in statistics to boot, and a HUGE star trek fan. His take? Farscape doesn't really do the "science thing" too much, but he still really enjoys it. I said, look out, it gets worse... in the next few eps they've somehow got a "nerve" that regulates toxin removal. Can't figure out how that would work.

Hmmm... 14-year-old boys. Somehow market it as "Jackass" in space?

[Tokeya]

I with Tiriel, pile the letters up to their eyeballs!! The only thing is I have no doubt Skiffy will lie about the number of letters rolling in. Maybe we need to flood everything connected to Skiffy, the Neilsen's, etc.

[Elrenno]

Has everyone checked out Time Warner's web site?

Time Warner Weekend Ratings (http://www.timewarnersd.com/weekend.htm)

I like their numbers a lot better. Granted, it's just for their family of channels, but...

For 10 January (Kansas), their numbers indicate that Farscape had HIGHER ratings than SG-1 (3.3 vs 2.8) And did I mention it came in #8 of 25 shows? SG-1 was 17th.

Now, if they're the parent company, doesn't that say something? Their own numbers vindicate us. So we took a hit last week. Big deal! We'll recover.

Although I'm :( , I'm still optimistic.

:finger: :wb: :boom: :headbang: Frell you, Sci-Fi!

[Eve11]

Sadly, Elrenno, these are numbers solely for the San Diego market, not national numbers :(

But yes, San Diego kicks eema.

[LadyCrais]

Wow! First, welcome Melissa! And all the other newbies who seem to be coming out of the woodwork on this site! We are THRILLED to have you join our obsession.

So, given the statement last week by TedBragg?? was it, that they got 12 people to watch and all 12 were offended, I'm wondering if that's what happened. We got folks to watch Kansas, they got offended, and didn't come back. The UK is fuzzing out the bird. What' happening in Canada guys? Are you getting it censored or uncensored?? Personally I could have done without Chiana carrying it over to Terra Firma because it might just offend them all over again. So, I'm floating the possibility that the lack of censorship in the US may have something to do with us going down while other countries are going up. Stupid I know, but it is a difference in the broadcasts themselves.

Tiriel, I'm with you all the way on the ratings issue. I find it interesting that there are at least three of us who are working scientists (I'm a molecular biologist/ecologist) who have to determine the right sample sizes in order for our research to be valid and to be able to detect SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCES, and we all maintain it's not possible for these cable companies at the low end of viewership with the current sampling procedures. The business and statistics majors consistently disagree quoting premises we hold as invalid in the scientific world. What a frelling surprise is that? ;)

[Tiriel]

(((LadyCrais)))

Statisticians are brought up as pure Mathematicians most of the time, I've seen lots of them get big eyes once they had a real close look at the data you have to deal with in Scientific research!!! :D :D :D
Nature (and by extention all processes that result from nature) is messy! :D :D

Another thing that just raises my hackles is this: The way the current system works someone with no job and 12 hours of TV-time a day counts over 20 times as much as I do, working a full-time job and barely being able to put in just around half an hour of TV a day! I think the dying out of "smart" TV is a logical result of the way the rating system works: The higher your education, the more hours you work, the less likely you are to watch TV, so the less to you count and the less there is for you on TV. (And don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to knock on some educational divide here! I think one of the greates problems in the US is that it can be so incredibly difficult for smart people to get the education they should have gotten! But what I say hold true for that part of the population, too, because they usually do their dradest to make something out of their lifes, so they work even longer hours to get half of what they deserve!!)

Maybe someone should point out to the advertisers that over 50% of the Dollars are only being accounted for with 1% of ratings! (Unless they split by age-group, income and viewing-habits at which point 5,000 data-points are not even laughable).

Anyways, my blood-pressue is slwoly sinking back to nomral now :D :D :D :D

Love and Peace and REAL Numbers ;)

Tiriel :eek:

[Eve11]

I find it interesting that there are at least three of us who are working scientists (I'm a molecular biologist/ecologist) who have to determine the right sample sizes in order for our research to be valid and to be able to detect SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCES, and we all maintain it's not possible for these cable companies at the low end of viewership with the current sampling procedures. The business and statistics majors consistently disagree quoting premises we hold as invalid in the scientific world. What a frelling surprise is that?

LadyCrais, if you give me the model and the methodology that Neilsen uses, I can tell you what the standard errors are. I figure, they are what is reported, but I don't know the model. Could be somehow some gross assumption in there that invalidates low ratings. But I'm not a survey sample expert. Nor is anyone else on this board, I don't think. I'm simplifying things, I'm sure, It's most likely very complicated and that is why Neilsen hires PhDs to deal with it.

I'm a statistician. I've dedicated my life to the study of this science. I'm telling you what I know, what I've studied, what I've employed in research. I'm also telling you what I DON'T know, and that PhD statisticians and survey sampling EXPERTS -- like those hired at Neilsen -- know a hell of a lot more than I do. I don't think they would screw up something as relatively simple as a standard error calculation based on a model.

Any sampling method that undercounts 'cable programs' in general undercounts ALL cable programs. Fine, fix the Neilsen's. First give me a reason why they are flawed and why this overarching flaw is somehow only affecting Farscape viewers.

Edited to say: Tiriel, I started out as a pure mathematician, but measure theory isn't my thing. Data analysis is. Applied statisticians and mathematicians more often give each other wide berths -- the two fields are as different as apples and oranges.

[Shipscat]

Tokeya, tell them their parents would not approve.

All I know about statistics is that the coin does have a fifty-fifty chance of heads or tails, no matter what has happened before. It is statistically possible that there are two million Farscape fans out there and none of them have Nielsen boxes.

[LadyCrais]

I don't think Nielson is willing to share their model with us Eve11. ;) So none of us knows that. The basic assumption that the poor sampling method is affecting all the cable channels equally is what the scientists are disagreeing with. The standard error and/or deviation is highly dependent on the range of the numbers relative to the number that are counted for that one measurement. If you have a very large range but count 20 (shows in the 1-2 range) people, it has an entirely different standard error than if you count 200 people (shows with high ratings). I'm totally fabricating the 20 and the 200 here. Someone with more time than I have today should be able to figure that out with what we do know about the ratings and the sample size.

The greater your range on your individual samples (eg. boxes per ?? is cell the word you used?) then the higher the number of samples that are required for the mean to have any validity. The total population sample that you use must be large enough so that the thing you are counting the least of has been counted at least frequently enough so that the standard errors are low enough for the measurement to have any validity. And as the number of channels to choose from has multiplied dramatically in the last ten years, those shows being counted the least are becoming counted fewer and fewer times. That is why we do not believe that enough people are being counted for shows below a 2, for instance. Now I gather we aren't talking means here, but if the mean for an area has too much error, then the sum of the means will have too much error, and the extrapolation to the entire population will also have too much error. Which means it's invalid. Not an emotion. A scientific principle.

Roper polls by employees every bit as educated as those at Nielson use roughly the same number of people in their samples (4000-5000) for a supposed plus or minus 3-4 percent. That is spread over no more than about 10 - 15 candidates, say, during primaries for national elections. The polls for the actual election are generally spread over 3-5 candidates. Yet virtually never are they even remotely close to the final numbers after an election. They usually have the rankings right for the first couple of candidates, those counted the most times. The low end candidates in the 1-5% range fluctuate all over the map. It's more than good enough to predict the outcome of an election. It is not even remotely adequate when expanding the number of candidates (shows) to 100 or more and basing advertising rates for the bottom 20, just to choose a random number.

What was it DK said, 3 boxes = 0.1 Nielson points? Whatever the equality was, it seemed suspiciously low to us scientists. And we already know that there is a reasonably large range. Below 1 in West Palm. Over 3 in San Diego. It's possible that the standard error is good enough to claim 1 significant digit, but I seriously doubt if the one tenth digit is even remotely reliable on the low numbers. For networks yes. For hit cable shows yes. For Farscape, no. My suspicion is that they can say reasonably that something is a 1 or 2 or 3, but that in no way can they validly claim 0.8 versus 1.3 versus 2.1.

Now I'm half dead after a 12 hour day at work, so scientists out there please proof and correct as needed. I'm prone to spitting forth complete fabrications of my deluded mind when I'm this tired. :)

[T'railmixx]

Where the fish are? I'm in West Virginia, and early in the Neilson debate a post mentioned all of the cities with neilson boxes. West Virginia had FIVE cities where neilson had boxes. I don't think our whole state has the population of San Francisco-- ok, exaggerating, but not by much. Anyway, I'm not getting a very encouraging response from everyone that I've tried to get interested in the show. If you mention TV shows, their eyes light up, and they ask if you saw last nights Survivor:hork:

As far as our campaign goes, nothing has reached this area other than the USA Today ad, the Foxtrot clip, and my piddly efforts. I have yet to find another Scaper in this town either; two casual viewers. Even the few people that I think would love the show seem to reject it before they watch it...sci-fi geek stigma/water supply or something.

What does this mean, besides tha fact that I need to move?
Before you mention it, I know that I shouldn't take up a salesman position, but I have tried all of the angles that I think would work with each person, and I downplay the whole sci-fi thing as much as possible.

????

[trubador]

I'm a bit confused about the "we need 6 boxes" comment that keeps getting bantered about. It's been said that there are 280 million people in the US. Broken down into approx 110 million households. And a "1.0" rating is approx. 1 million viewers. And Nielsons used 5000 boxes. Therefore, a 1.0 rating equals approx. 45 or 46 boxes (because 1 box equals 22,000 households). And Terra Firma got us a 1.06. So, in order to get a 2.0 rating, we need to DOUBLE the number of boxes to equal 90 or 91 boxes watching FS.

Someone PLEASE correct me if I'm wrong in my basic math skills, here.

[Maximum^]

Everyone keeps asking "what else we can do?" We could try to fund the 5th season ourselves. I figure it would take about 500,000 people giving between $20 and $40 each

To accomplish this we need to somehow get an ad on Sci Fi during Farscape. see my other posts

http://www.watchfarscape.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=6303

and

http://www.watchfarscape.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&postid=90293#post90293

[LadyCrais]

That orignal 6 boxes is from a DK quote about how the market softened over the summer by one or two tenths of a point. I don't think it relates to the 2.0. At least that's how I'm remembering it 4 months later. :) You'll have to look at the chat transcript when DK and Ben announced the cancellation. I THINK that's when he said it.

[Zen Blade]

This is horrible......

Terra Firma was such a good episode... and all the advertizing.... Frelling bastards...

How the hell did it DROP TO ALMOST 1???

That makes no sense... all the scifi numbers are horrible too...

Where are all those late season 2/ early 3 viewers?

What the Frell are they watching now?

And after seeing... SD vs Florida...... oh my..... that's horrible.... less than a 1... I fear much of the country is like that...

my guess: LA, SD, SF, NYC, and Boston are the main centers... And the rest of the country is weak... Maybe also a big following in Houston or somewhere... but we are being frelled over... doesn't compute...

I don't see what else we can do... getting more people to watch seems pointless... especially when we have no means of making our numbers counted... maybe Photos of us watching Farscape??? that could work perhaps??

sigh... we won't even get a mini series with sub 1.5 numbers....

I wonder if a downturn in the economy and people cancelling their "cable" could shoulder some of the blame???

Or maybe we just got lucky a couple years back with the Nielson's?

sigh...... so depressing....

so good... so... unwatched.
:confused:

-Zen Blade

[Jul]

Guys.... Really, I understand the need to deconstruct the situation to it's itty-bitty little pieces, but doing it won't change what the reality of the situation is. The reality of the situation is that no matter what we say about the Nielsens, no matter how much the method of measurement sucks, that's what measures the ratings for most all the shows on television, and that for this week the ratings on the network on the whole for Friday night were down - lots of reasons for it, but nothing we can do about it NOW...

What we can do at this point is to stop speculating and bemoaning, and get on with the business at hand, which at this moment is getting people to watch, advertising, and writing letters letting Sci-Fi, USA Cable, and everybody else letting them know that you were watching... Nobody said this campaign was going to be easy, nor did anybody say that it wouldn't come with steps back. It's the ability to step forward from that that ultimately defines us..... and to quote John Crichton and the title of the website article "IMPOSSIBLE IS NOT IN OUR VOCABULARY"

[atomicblue]

We aren't doing anything wrong. Scifi is.........they are HARDLY promoting Farscape. I watched the Tom Selleck movie on Sunday. I love Tom, he's good when there's a good script. The Monte Walsh movie was a total bore, which wasa dissapointment. I didn't watch the ending........just goes to show that a brilliant ad campaign makes for brilliant ratings.

I also caught part of the Dreamteam show the other night BORING! (also the hosts are whiny, tinny loud) It's by the same people that bring us Loveline with Adam Corrolla and Dr. Drew. That should tell us something.

Had to add this, my husband said "you have to realize that for a show that's being drop kicked in the promotion department to pull those kinds of ratings, is well great". Interesting.........

[Farsight]

5000 households is wholly inadequate to properly measure the ratings of hundreds of channels. The way it can adversely impact specific shows is simple:

Those 5000 households do not change every week. There is some turnover (how often are Nielsen households changed anyway?), but it means that if the 5000 picked don't include many people that like a specific show, the numbers are HIGHLY UNLIKELY to change. So if, for example, Farscape has bad luck and Nielsen randomly picks households who aren't going to watch it, that bad luck will tend to hold every week.

The smaller the number of households you use, the more likely your results reflect only the preferences of your sample, and not the preferences of the population as a whole.

I'm adding the ratings for "Tracker" to my list of evidence that the Nielsen system is broken. That show is "Black Scorpion" bad. Stargate must be putting dozens of Nielsen people into a deep sleep. :)

Unfortunately, no matter how screwed up the ratings system is (and it is), we're stuck with it in this situation. If you're going to watch TV, you have to accept that what you watch and what you like is totally unimportant. It sucks, but it's true. Unless you're one of the magical few, it makes no difference.

What we're trying to do here is to find a few specific needles in a stack of needles. :) All we can do is continue to try our hardest, and hope that a combination of our work, and the quality of the show itself, will gradually ramp the ratings up as we go along. If these 11 eps average higher than the first 11, we're in great shape, especially since the comeptition is so much tougher right now.

The only bad result of all this would be to give up, and never know what might have been possible...

[trubador]

One good thing may come of all this, and that is that SCI-FI may soon end up having to help FS. Follow my logic (such as it is...).

SCI-FI is dumping FS for SG1 (and other future shows). They're airing the remaining FS eps on Friday @ 8pm, as a lead-in to SG1. BOTH shows (as well as Tracker @ 10pm) have tumbled in ratings from a week ago. February sweeps are REEEEEALLLLY important to ALL networks. SCI-FI has been pairing FS with SG1 in it's promos. In order to get it's entire Friday night line-up to boost it's ratings, they will HAVE to do more self-promotion than they had anticipated (for ALL their shows on Friday night, including that stupid "Dream Team" if it tanks at it's late slot). Otherwise EVERYTHING on Friday nigth (not just FS) would have to be scrapped.

I'm not saying that we can or should rely on that (I'm not THAT stupid). I'm just saying that if SCI-FI's entire Friday night lineup continues to slip, it may signal a trend that points directly at the heads of the bigshots in programming (and above). They will either need to push harder to get the entire Friday #'s up themselves, or heads will roll (because low #'s for all the shows means a LOT fewer adv $$$s). Having SG1 and Tracker tank (and Tremors, too) will not be good for the health of an executive's career.

This is all just an observation on my part. Following the ratings trends for ALL the SCI-FI programming helps to keep things in perspective. It also helps gadge our success/failure as well as the success/failure of SCI-FI as a whole. It also helps us to determine what our next step would or should be from week to week.

But, WE still NEED to continue the fight for FS as if we are the ONLY ones who can get the word out to people.

[Eve11]

LadyC, I've actually mentioned most of your points before (minus the Roper polls thing). And I agree with you up to a point, after which I have to stop arguing because I don't know the methodology. I am simply giving Nielsen the benefit of the doubt, in that since they have all the aggregate data and all of the models, they should know better than we do what their standards are for acceptable reportable numbers. I mean, hell, they could be using time series models with underlying General Estimating Equations as measures of covariance for all I know.

I actually did calculate a naive confidence interval for those small ratings, based on the usual proportion estimators. I got +/- 0.3 ratings points for 95% confidence. This is a simplification and is based on a method that is widely used throughout science, but nonetheless lately has come under fire because the approximations are not good for small samples, and true convergence rates fluctuate wildly with minor fluctuation in true means.

I haven't promoted principles which are untrue. I mentioned that the sample size relative to the population size is not a factor in computing standard errors. That is true. I also mentioned that spreading out the probabilities over more choices requires a larger sample size for the same level of confidence in parameter estimates where there are few observations. True.

I just figured that Neilsen was taking this into account when it did the error calculations, and any discrepancies I saw could be due as much to a method I am unaware of or a model simplification based on extensive research as they could be to due to an antiquated, outdated system. After Neilsen was criticized in 1994 by those other guys, I think they worked at re-vamping their system and trying to account for things like that. Last I heard, this past year was the first in which cable did better than the networks.

It doesn't help to dwell on flaws in the Neilsens, though, and in this universe of gray hats, there is no way that it is the sole culprit anyway.

[ranger1]

hey y'all. ranger1 here. i'm concerned as the rest of the group here about the ratings, but we still are fightin' the good fight! just to give a snippet of what we in chicago are doing, check out this post to our yahoo group today (supporting the guerilla radio campaign) by Matttt - the "Voice of the Chicago Farscape Resistance!": ((FYI: for those who don't know, WLS is a MAJOR AM radio station in chicago))
__________________________________________________ __
Folks:

The news from the Nielsen front was a little grim, and some of
us are worried that hope is running short. (...See? I CAN spell
"Nielsen" correctly! Now why couldn't I do that for the Fever Pitch
article?!) But let me tell you about what happened at the recording session today. Michael Wolfgang, the marketing guy/fleet-fingered engineer who recorded our session at WLS today, provided an amazing amount of encouragement--just by being there. To be straight, the man did his homework, plucking at least three versions of the FS theme (including everyone's favorite, the Shriek Symphony from seasons 1 & 2) and splicing them into a very pleasing background mix. (...I know, I know, no using copyrighted material. Well, I don't care in this instance, 'cos 1} it was WLS's choice to use that music, NOT ours; and
2} Mr. Wolfgang said that the most Skiffy could really do would be to ask WLS to stop playing the ad--which they could only do AFTER hearing it, which means after greater Chicagoland hears it too. Shoot first, apologize later.) Mr. Wolfgang also mentioned that he'd seen the show on a few occasions, but due largely to his erratic work hours, wasn't able to follow it. He did say that, being a big SF fan, he really liked what he saw--"This is space anarchy! I LOVE it!" (I'm paraphrasing here.) He was also curious about the campaign, so we were able to fill him in. And, best of all, he reminded us that campaigns such as ours had in fact succeeded in the past.... (Mac, could you remember to send
him some campaign Web addy's to check out when he emails you that MP3 of our spot? Thanks.) All in all, today's experiences made me feel very good about our chances. And not just because of the thrill of getting our message broadcast over a huge, wide-ranging AM station--I'm excited because of the potential for reaching not just newer ears, but the RIGHT ears. There are people out there--individual people, but some of whom hold positions at major entertainment and broadcasting outlets--who have heard of the show, the campaign, the hubbub. And these people are, by and large, intelligent and curious--they want to
know more. What is it about this particular show that has so many people jumping? Why try so hard to save this show?
Jim and I found one such person today. With any luck at all,
we can find more. And if we can convert some of them, they can spread the message within their outlets, in ways we likely couldn't have done last October 5th. We need more Matt Roushes and Renay San Miguels and Caitlin Kiernans on our side, trumpeting our battle cry. That's an (admittedly half-crazed) idea. I still think we should continue getting our letters (and receipts) out, getting ourselves counted by Sci Fi, and getting newbies to watch. But a few other "checks" in the press--people ready to vocally support the show, even debunk Skiffy's interpretation of the Nielsen ratings--couldn't hurt. So if anyone does know someone at, say, WGN who might be open to this (and I'm NOT joking here...), please take the initiative. Win them over if you can. It can only help our cause.
__________________________________________________ __

well, there you have it. keep fighting, and just doing what you can! :) as i posted to our yahoo group to maybe those who were getting a bit miffed, committment to following through on a goal shouldn't ever be based on outside opinion. it is what we have tried and done in our own convictions is what shows the worthiness of the cause. this is not the "courage of fools", but rather evidence of people willing to give something worthy a chance in this frelled-up world.

and remember to not only support the radio campaign, but also the TV spots that FOX NEWS affiliates may pick up (see wfs.com's post by Tiriel for contact info for your local area in "latest news") which feature interviews w/some cast & Ricky Manning! frelling cool!

:joy: :flee: :bravo: :thumbs: :goof:

[waltersgirl]

http://www.watchfarscape.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&postid=92010#post92010

Farscape makes the COVER of Variety.

how's that for "good enough"

[MediaSavant]

Originally posted by LadyCrais
Tiriel, I'm with you all the way on the ratings issue. I find it interesting that there are at least three of us who are working scientists (I'm a molecular biologist/ecologist) who have to determine the right sample sizes in order for our research to be valid and to be able to detect SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCES, and we all maintain it's not possible for these cable companies at the low end of viewership with the current sampling procedures. The business and statistics majors consistently disagree quoting premises we hold as invalid in the scientific world. What a frelling surprise is that? ;)

I think you said the magic phrase. You use statistics for the purpose of scientific research. I suspect the purpose of the study dictates what standard error is tolerable to the users.

Nielsen research, to me, falls under consumer/marketing research. It wouldn't surprise me that the tolerance for standard error is.

Therein, lies the rub.

We all acknowledge that some level of standard error exists within any research. If given the right information, many of the statisticians could calculate what it is if given the data for Nielsen. (I have calculated it)

But, when it is all said and done and you scream something like "aha, it's a relative error of 15%!" and hold it up to the people who actually work with Nielsen and buy the study, the result would be a "we knew that" shrug.

You can calculate a standard error. That's science.

What you can't calculate is the level of tolerance a particular field or researcher has for it. That's judgment. That's opinion. That lies in the habits and acceptible practices of the field/business in question.

And that's why this argument is just going around in circles.

[Farsight]

Agreed. If you watch TV, you're stuck at the mercy of the Nielsen system, regardless of any other facts. Your only recourse is to either live with it, or cancel your cable subscription and stop watching TV entirely. In about 8 weeks, I'll probably have to think real hard about that one... If not for HBO and ESPN, the decision would be an easy one... :)

Back to the topic at hand... what was the topic? Oh, yeah, Farscape... :) Our goal now is simple: help make the ratings chart for these last 11 episodes look like an upswing.

I also think it becomes important to take a proactive stance. I intend to include mention of SciFi's lack of promotion (and active counter-promotion) in my letters. Whether through incompetance or malice, SciFi has done more to harm the ratings for these episodes than help, and IMO that deserves to be known.

I find it quite bizarre that I have come to absolutely loathe a channel that should represent my favorite genre. I'm actually shaking my head as I type this. :)

[Oberst Kilhmar]

Guys, stop beating yourselfs over this. NOTHING has changed! We watch the show, promote the show the best we can, and try to get as many non-Scapers hooked. If we don't get the number we need we'll just have to BUY the damn show!!! That's why the Consortium was set up so long ago; in the very real eventuality that the Campaign fails. It is quite simple realy! Win - GREAT! ... Lose - PAY UP! ... Either way we ARE getting our show back ... sooner or later.

[pilot_lethina]

It's not the 1.06 that bothers me so much as Trackers 1.24.
Considering it's just filler for Tremmors, it just makes for salt in the wound. The scary part is considering how awful Tracker is (I did watch the first ep- never again) I have to consider that Tremmors will do as well for SciFi becasue it is going to be equally moronic fodder for those with the IQ of a Turnip.

I can safely say that when the digital box goes in April I will not miss it. Heck the only reason I got it was FS and HBO and now that Sex in the City is not coming back till June (wtf? for half a season?) that makes for two channels I see no good reason to blow the money on.

P.L.

[pilot_lethina]

Quick Crazy tought.

DVD's - since Disney seems to be making a killing on releasing animated films straight to DVD, and Henson/AVD must be doing well on its DVD sales.

What if the Farscape movie went straight to DVD? I'd buy it!

I'm grasping at staws here...

P.L.

[JA_Shipper]

ranger1 and waltersgirl, those are two pieces of great news!!

I think things are looking up already. :aok:

Suse

[Vampgrrl]

Well Neilsonwise-- what is a 1.06 to a 1.24, 1 or 2 boxes? THis is where it's all frelled up...
The difference between the number of people watching a show that gets a 1 or 2 rating is so frelled up by the sample size.
I'll bet this has been covered already..but wouldnt statistically it be possible that Farscape is getting around say a 1.8 or 1.9 overall but due to the amount of options, sample size...
sigh..I dunno I need to go to work. I will say this though if Farscape is gone...outside of 24 my TV is too. I dont mean to be overly dramatic but TV mostly just sucks...really...

[Pavlov's Fish]

Originally posted by pilot_lethina
Quick Crazy tought.

DVD's - since Disney seems to be making a killing on releasing animated films straight to DVD, and Henson/AVD must be doing well on its DVD sales.

What if the Farscape movie went straight to DVD? I'd buy it!

I'm grasping at staws here...

P.L.

This has come up before, and the problem with it is that it couldn't really work unless Henson suddenly made a lot more money off the DVD sales than they already do. The money they make from those sales now is already going towards covering the $750k per episode they've been financing while Sci-Fi covers the other half. To successfully replace Sci-Fi's contribution with revenue from direct-to-DVD they'd have to double what they're charging ADV for the video distribution rights. In turn, ADV would have to double the MSRP on the videos to make their money back, and at that point sales would probably drop off pretty heavily because people may not be too keen on paying between $50 and $80 for each batch of 4 or 5 episodes.

IMHO, viewer financing stands a much better chance of working if we can just throw some money at Henson to help cover the part of production Sci-Fi is supposed to be paying for so that they can continue airing the show without having to put up so much money per episode. Someone please correct me if I'm wrong, but I think this is exactly what the Viewer Financing Consortium is investigating now.

[MediaSavant]

What's interesting is how little volatility Farscape's ratings have had.

In Season 4, 7 out of the 12 episodes had a 1.1 or 1.2 coverage area rating. Nine out of 12 were in the 1.1-1.3 range

If you include the final episodes of Season 3, which ran in April, 9 out of 16 were a 1.1 or 1.2 rating. Twelve out of 16 were in the 1.1-1.3 range.

Of the higher "outliers", most were "premieres or finales" of some sort. And one episode got a 1.0 rating.

[pilot_lethina]

Originally posted by MediaSavant
What's interesting is how little volatility Farscape's ratings have had.

In Season 4, 7 out of the 12 episodes had a 1.1 or 1.2 coverage area rating. Nine out of 12 were in the 1.1-1.3 range

If you include the final episodes of Season 3, which ran in April, 9 out of 16 were a 1.1 or 1.2 rating. Twelve out of 16 were in the 1.1-1.3 range.

Of the higher "outliers", most were "premieres or finales" of some sort. And one episode got a 1.0 rating.

What's depressing about that is it infers that regardless of promotional efforts FS will get what it gets in ratings (we make no difference).


I'm going to go sulk now.

P.L. :( :( :( :(

[Pilot's babe]

I think the problem is that Farscape is a cult hit, and will never have mainstream success. I thought the whole point of the Sci Fi network was they weren't interested in appealing to the masses, but wished to have intelligent audiences. Guess I was wrong!

How did other people get into Farscape? Over here in the UK I watched other science fiction like Buffy. I brought science fiction mags who constantly raved about Farscape, it topped viewers polls etc, letters were written supporting it so I gave Season of Death a try. I was hooked and brought the season 1 and 2 DVDs within the week.

I'd say therefore that Farscape has a specialised appeal. You wouldn't even know Farscape was shown in England if it was up to the BBC. I have never seen one ad for it, they dump it at a terrible timeslot which clashes with very popular soaps, and they edit out all the juicy stuff. The reason Farscape gets ratings in UK is in my mind based solely on word of mouth and by mags fans of the science fiction genre read. Perhaps the fans you are trying to find are all just worried of being labled geeks and Trekkies who need a life? It's not like science fiction has mainstream credibility. Once people watch it they will usually get into it, it's convincing them to watch science fiction that's the problem.

BTW how much are letters from abroad valued? I have written some letters but I just don't know if it means anything to the network. I am sending postcards at the moment as it's cheaper.

Perhaps when the episodes have all aired we should have campaigns to all e-mail, fax, call at similiar times. That got us noticed when the campaign first began and we were crashing Sci Fi's system. Even if we never find any more new viewers and the ratings stay the same we still have hope. We can get noticed just based on the strong support the existing fans have for the show.

[Tiriel]

Hey Eve11,

just wanted to make sure you're not getting me wrong :D Nothing of what I said was meant as any kind of criticism towards you or Statistics in general! I grew up with the Applied and Numerical Mathematicians, so yeah, I know all about those "in-fights" ;) I was more of a "pure" Mathematician than was good for me, when I got into all of this, that's where my comment came from, personal experience, experienced and observed in others. No criticism intended :)
I think what LadyCrais and I are both trying to point out (and I didn't make myself clear there rereading my post) is that biological data are inherently messy. Terribly so. And that's something that we only started to realize over the last few decades, long after the Nielsen's were established.
The problem with biological data is that the assumption of independence is never true. Most of the time it's not even anywhere near to true even as an approximation. If you're looking at a normally distributed population 5,000 out of however many will do just fine. But that's a bad model. They're trying to observe viewing patterns. Will they depend on age? Yes. Gender? Yes. Educational background? Yes. Income braket? Yes. Cultural background? Yes. Size of the family? Yes. And those are only the ones I can come up with.
And that's where you run into sparse sampling problems. You suddenly have 50 or 60 "independent" subgroups. If you got your 5,000 datapoints by using demographics data you will end up with 5 people who have a college education, an income in excess of $250k in the age-range of 35-64 without kids, of caucasian origin (let's not even start talking about whether they are in research, management, law or politics). These 5 people, given who they are will have to choose between 200 different channels at any given time...
Simply by drawing the crowd it does Farscape is in a niche position, not as bad as some, but bad enough that I believe the data are hopelessly overfitted. So all I'm saying is: Any which way you turn it, the Nielsen's are useless for us. Either their model sucks, or their overfitting their data like mad, both will screw up the fringes.
As for the Statistic PhDs working for them: That's a simple problem of the corporate world (thankfully something I can only report through experiences made by close friends, as I have stuck to Academia because of this as one of many reasons). If your boss tells you the model that has been used for decades is good, then the model is good. Even if scientifically speaking it sucks. If you can't live with that go get another job. But when you do, you'll still not going to be able to tell anybody just how badly it sucks, because you had to sign that non-disclosure agreement before you even found out what the model is.
I've even seen this in Academia and have steered clear as soon as I could, although the first time was the hardest thing ever for me. I simply could not believe people would do it! Keep using something that's bad and wrong just so they wouldn't have to go back on everthing they've been saying for years! And with as much money involved as in this business, I doubt they're open to the suggestions that they need at least 40 times as many data...
But of course we're not discussion the Nielsen ethics either ;) So let me stress my bottom-line one more time: Screw the Nielsen's! They don't give us a good gauge of what's happening, they don't give the advertisers or SFC a good gauge of what's happening! WE have to give them that gauge in a different way.
Don't be disheartened by the Nielsen ratings, they don't tell us much. For us they are like predicting the weather from the flight of the birds! Yes, there are correlations, but they're not anywhere good enough to be of any use to us. The new users we find will be in our demographics and consequently (unless we doulbe or triple the viewership) it will make small dents if any! Unless we want to work on shifting the demographics to something that's more center-field we're screwed with the Nielsen's.
Just think about the fact that the 5th or 6th largest metropolitan in the US (San Diego) is the what? 23rd or even 29th ranked Nielsen market... and things like Farscape do very well there...

My advice is: Let go of the Nielsen's. Get more viewers, get them to write letters. Let us show them we DO EXIST, no matter what those numbers say. They're listening because they KNOW those numbers are wrong, but they need us to give them ammunition to use. Letters. Well, I'm ready to reload :D :D :D :D

And please, nothing of what I said was meant to dis anyone! Well, OK, the Nielsen's, yeah ;)

Love and Peace and Strength in Numbers :)

Tiriel :eek:

[pilot_lethina]

Back on the DVD thing.

Most theatrical release DVD's are between 15 and 20 American dollars. Now that represents between 90 to 120 minutes of viewing time. Right now a 4 episode Farscape DVD costs between 24 to 29 dollars.

That's is about 180 minutes, right?

If Farscape was released to DVD as 90 to 120 minute long DVD movies they could still retail at the comparabe rate of about 20 bucks! Thus making up the other half that SciFI is not paying.

They'd just have to change from thinking in terms of a one hour less commercials time format to a theatrical release time format - only it would go straight to DVD.

Yeah it's a gamble, but a much smaller gamble than trying to make it to the big screen, and no more a gamble that trying to recover the 750,000 in prodcution costs by selling the 4 ep DVDs.

P.L.

[MediaSavant]

Originally posted by pilot_lethina
What's depressing about that is it infers that regardless of promotional efforts FS will get what it gets in ratings (we make no difference).


Having worked in advertising/marketing for many years, it is harder to "move the needle" on any product that has been out for a while than a new product. Consumers form their opinion on a product and compartmentalize them as "in my consideration list" or not. Marketers sometimes fight this by reconfiguring the product or advertising it as "new & improved" or other strategies.

Though I'm talking about ANY product, one could also apply that to TV shows.

I was talking to a friend the other day who stopped watching Farscape in Season 2. She didn't like the eyeball scene in "Clockwork Nebari". Since then, she refuses to watch the show and nothing can change her mind. Just this week, there was a message on scifi.com/farscape from a fan who was fed up with something they didn't like in "TF" and isn't watching anymore.

You have your trier/rejectors, lapsed viewers, switchers (people who like two shows at the same time and can switch back and forth), people turned off by the concept and won't even try it, etc. etc. etc.

The longer a show has been on, the higher the accumulation of these people who's minds can't be changed and harder it is to move the rating. Welcome to what TV networks have to deal with themselves.

[pilot_lethina]

More DVD rationale

I just hit the Best Buy web site

Farscape DVD 2.1: viewing time 210 minutes - retail 22.99 (apx 11 cents a min.)

Now compare that to the Mel Gibson's movie DVD "Signs" running time 106 minutes - retail 19.99. (apx 18 cents a min.)

Now wouldn't you pay 19.99 for a 120 minute (2 hours) Farscape movie? That's roughly 17 cents a minute. Of course I am not accounting for DVD extras since I don't know how that is reflected in each of these two DVD's.

P.L.

[Harmony]

Originally posted by Tiriel

My advice is: Let go of the Nielsen's. Get more viewers, get them to write letters. Let us show them we DO EXIST, no matter what those numbers say. They're listening because they KNOW those numbers are wrong, but they need us to give them ammunition to use. Letters. Well, I'm ready to reload :D :D :D :D

Tiriel :eek:

I'm with you Tiriel...

I think our efforts *have* been making a difference... we've gotten media attention and we've gotten some new viewers interested. But unfortunately, it just doesn't seem to be making an impact on the Nielsen ratings at all. The people we've reached probably don't have Nielsen boxes. Most of us don't... So we're simply not getting counted and there's nothing we can do about it.

I don't know how much of an impression our letters are making on Sci-Fi, but it seems this is the only way to show them that the audience for this show does indeed exist.

I want to suggest an idea, in light of Tireils advice:

I got this idea after we sent that petition to the advertisers. In addition to sending our individual letters, perhaps we could set up another petition -- one that could be printed out on actual paper and sent as a package to Sci-Fi, USA, UPN, Viacom, etc. -- stating that we were watching Farscape each week. We'll collect as many signatures as we can (both online and off... since not everyone has access to the internet) and mail them off after the final episode of Farscape airs. Maybe we could include some photos of Scapers having viewing parties, etc., or something... I don't know.

What do you all think? I know only the Nielson numbers matter, but at this point, I don't know what more we can do to change those... We need to show our faces and show how much support the show actually has... and hope that somebody somewhere will notice, ultimately deciding that with proper adverstising, it would be worth the chance.


-Harmony

[atlantagirl]

Although completely uninformed and ignorant, I am an American, so I feel the need to wade in with my own opinions, regardless of whether or not they are actually valid. :D

Personally, I don't think the problem is that Farscape is a cult show. I believe it has enormous appeal to a vast cross section of the viewing public.

AND I don't think the problem with "moving the needle" is that most people have made up their minds about Farscape.

I THINK the problem is that the VAST majority of Americans have NEVER HEARD of Farscape. No one I have spoken to in RL has ever heard of Farscape, although I know that many of them would enjoy it (and yes, I'm trying to suck them in with BOS1 sets).

We have all been doing all we can, but we have to recognize that our sweet little grassroots effort is a tiny, tiny, miniscule drop in the bucket as far as promoting a television show. SciFi spent $25 million on Taken to get their ratings in the 4s. $25,000,000!!! AT MOST, we've spent $100,000 -- even including the Clarvey ads the radio spots the tv commercials -- on advertising that potential viewers have actually seen (postage for letters don't count in this figure).

There are reasons that people spend big bucks on advertising agencies to promote TV shows and movies -- it's hard! And there are lots of things vying for our attention.

As much as I hoped it was possible, I always thought it unlikely that our passionate but small campaign could make a really significant difference in the ratings.

BUT I don't think that means that we have no hope of succeeding in the broader campaign. We have proved that we are here. That we are committed (and sometimes commitable :D). We are a big chunk of dedicated viewers. I believe that an intelligent network (assuming that's not an oxymoron) will recognize that a show that generates this much passion could pull in much higher numbers if it was adequately promoted (by them, not us).

I am disappointed with the ratings, but I never thought this was going to be something quick and easy. I believe that our biggest goal is to prove our committment. We represent the core of the potential audience -- not the limit of it.

Okay, back to work. . . :D

[Pavlov's Fish]

Originally posted by pilot_lethina
Back on the DVD thing...Yeah it's a gamble, but a much smaller gamble than trying to make it to the big screen, and no more a gamble that trying to recover the 750,000 in prodcution costs by selling the 4 ep DVDs.

I should preface this by saying that abstractly, I think direct-to-video is a great idea. I'm most certainly one of the people who would buy new Farscape on DVD at any remotely reasonable price if it were to happen. I just don't think it will happen because it's impractical from a business standpoint.

The DVDs aren't the only thing they're depending on to make back their part of the production costs, just part of it. The point is, if they try to go direct-to-DVD, those discs would need to not only continue covering the portion of the production costs they do now, they would also have to cover the part Sci-Fi backed out of.

It's also worth noting that a 90 minute direct-to-video movie would be more expensive to produce than one might think if you just imagine it as two episodes wedged together. Thinking of it as two episodes, it should "only" cost $3 million. But the only reason the per-episode cost is as "low" as $1.5 mil. is because they do an entire season at a time and thus spread the massive preproduction costs out across 22 episodes; this is likely why Sci-Fi's proposed "13 episodes for sure and maybe the back 9" plan didn't work. The show is too expensive if you don't spread out those costs.

Abandoning the episodic format at this point could also hurt future syndication possibilites. Yeah, Sci-Fi has the rerun rights now, but they won't have them forever, not unless they decide to put some more money into it. Getting other channels to syndicate the show in the future is also on the short list of things that's supposed to offset Henson's contribution to the production costs, but they probably won't have a lot of takers if the entire run of the show isn't available as standard, ready-to-air episodes.

If they're going to keep making the show, they either need Sci-Fi to un-back out of (back back into?) their contract or a new source of revenue to cover the other half of the production. DVD sales are not new revenue. Yes, more people would probably be buying them if it became the only way to see the show, but would it be enough of a sales increase to compensate for more than half of the production costs? In the spirit of Terra Firma, I'm trying to keep "impossible" out of my vocabulary, but "unlikely" definitely comes to mind.

And now I'm going to try to shut up about direct-to-video, lest this thread should go completely off the rails. ;)

[Vampgrrl]

Well just remember there is no try...only do. =)
I just know that this is the most impressive save a show camp. EVER, and also if we didn't try Farscape would fall off the map anyhow. I think we are still doing well, the difference between Stargate and Farscape is what 1-2 boxes? that's not significant at ALL. Contacting advertisers is a good thing too, if they percieve us as smart and well off even in the 1.x's, if the corps pay for ads for Farscape they will fund the show.

And ATLgirl you are right, many people I've talked to dont even know what Farscape IS. They've never heard of it much less been turned off by it (that's been my experience)

[Da-Met]

another thing is that people can't catch up. A show is in its fourth season, about to be cancelled, and they can't even watch reruns? I probably wouldn't want to get into a show either. As a matter of fact, it wasn't until I knew of a steady source of reruns (FX) that I started getting into Buffy (and buffy was in its 5th year i believe)

Skiffy needs set aside a decent timeslot (7 pm or something) and air Farscape from the beginning again and keep it there (let it run through the whoel series at least 3 times).

[Kithlyara]

Originally posted by Harmony
I got this idea after we sent that petition to the advertisers. In addition to sending our individual letters, perhaps we could set up another petition -- one that could be printed out on actual paper and sent as a package to Sci-Fi, USA, UPN, Viacom, etc. -- stating that we were watching Farscape each week. We'll collect as many signatures as we can (both online and off... since not everyone has access to the internet) and mail them off after the final episode of Farscape airs.

From personal experience of being involved in a local organization, it makes MUCH more of an impact to send 100 individual letters than it does to send a petition with a 100 signatures. It's harder to ignore all of the letters than it is to ignore a single petition.

Maybe we can come up with different typed letters that people can sign and mail out? Anyway, it's just a thought :)

[Harmony]

Originally posted by Kithlyara
From personal experience of being involved in a local organization, it makes MUCH more of an impact to send 100 individual letters than it does to send a petition with a 100 signatures. It's harder to ignore all of the letters than it is to ignore a single petition.

Maybe we can come up with different typed letters that people can sign and mail out? Anyway, it's just a thought :)

I see your point. You're right.

I was thinking in addition to the letters... not in place of them. I heard the Roswell fan campaign did something similar with a petition of theirs. I thought it might show cohesiveness -- that we're a loyal community of fans, and not just random fluke viewers or whatnot. Plus, I thought it would be cool to have a heavy package delivered on somebody's desk... a big stack of paper with pages and pages of names.

But anyway, I agree with you -- we should keep the individual letters coming. I've been handwriting mine on Farscape stationary that I printed out.

Just tossing ideas out!

-Harmony

[Harmony]

I agree Da-Met. I think the fact that there were no reruns, several time slot changes, little adverstising, and long gaps with no new episodes right in the middle of seasons, all hurt Farscape's ratings. People forgot about it, lost interest, etc.

Whereas Stargate... First it was a movie, then it found an audience on Showtime for several seasons... Sci-Fi adverstised it a lot, gave it their highest rated series time slot (Farscape's), and then ran tons of reruns... Plus, you can still see reruns of Stargate on other stations, can't you? Of course it gets higher ratings.

-Harmony

[Stargate2077]

I can tell you for a fact that I became a viewer of Farscape by accident. I was at my relatives and they had this Sci-Fi Channel. I saw what was on and I was lucky to see an episode of Farscape entitled "PK Tech Girl." I liked the show but forgot about it for two years until I was at my relatives and saw Farscape Undressed and "Season of Death." I was hooked. A month or two later, Sci-Fi was available in Memphis. Now as for advertisements for Farscape in my town, unless you watched the channel, you would have no clue what "Farscape" was. This is because the only off-channel advertising that I saw in my area was on UPN and it was a generic ad that had no times for when Farscape was on. (They expected the person to be willing to look it up.)

[MediaSavant]

Originally posted by atlantagirl
SciFi spent $25 million on Taken to get their ratings in the 4s. $25,000,000!!! AT MOST, we've spent $100,000 -- even including the Clarvey ads the radio spots the tv commercials -- on advertising that potential viewers have actually seen (postage for letters don't count in this figure).



They didn't spend $25 million.

It may have been $25 million IN VALUE, if you include on-air promotion. But on-air promotion doesn't really cost them anything. A set amount of time is set aside for it, but it is a constant.

Farscape gets on-air promotion too and that has a dollar value also. If you included it in Farscape's total, Farscape's ad value is higher.

In terms of "moving the needle", I believe that applies to awareness of the show also. There's a lot out there competing for share of mind.

I think Farscape is a cult show. It isn't for everybody. It often does things that are edgier than safer shows like Stargate do. Edgy can turn many people off. It doesn't even appeal to all SFTV fans or SF film fans that I know.

[Vampgrrl]

Media: but like I said people dont even know it exists at ALL, and really that's not just Farscape mindshare, it's SciFi mind share.
I know people who dig the kind of stuff that Farscape is...but I tell them and they are like I've never heard of it...Farwhat again?

[Kithlyara]

Maybe we can get signatures on a petition, and hand out typed letters of varying formats for people to sign, and then mail out? That way, we are getting double the effect?

[Eric Satan]

do we have ratings in yet? I'm at work so I don't have time to check all seven pages.

[Farsight]

I agree with atlantagirl... Farscape's problem isn't that people have made up their minds about it, it's that people aren't even aware it exists, or barely know of it "It's a TV show, right?"...

That is SciFi's fault. For four years, they have done a shamefully poor job of promoting their best program. Recall the ads for season 4, which made Farscape look like a soft-core porn show... THAT is how they chose to market a show that has proven appeal to women and is a critical success? Just shameful. Luckily, with how little money SciFi has spent on ads for Farscape, that series of ads probably wasn't seen by anyone... :)

I've shown Farscape to friends and relatives, of many ages and both genders. Every one of them loved it. The only show I've gotten a similar reaction from was the Sopranos (yes, there was a time when most people didn't know what THAT show was either)

Farscape is definitely edgy, so it will never appeal to everyone, or every demographic. But it is also creative, intelligent, funny, and exciting. I firmly believe that it would easily appeal to a far greater audience, if it is ever given the chance to do so. SciFi never gave it that chance. So now we're trying to do what they should have done more than three years ago: get people to take their first look at the best show they've never heard of.

[Eric Satan]

I've never seen a show like farscape before! It's a breath of fresh air after seeing the other crap out there

[Dominar of Action]

Hey Farsight, I think you've just written your next letter to UPN :D I agree with you 100%, and my experience with new viewers has been the same as yours. Every single person has at least *liked* the show, and most loved it. That's not to take away from the more negative experience others may have had in recruiting new viewers, but just to say that I believe Farscape is more than just a maybe-you'll-like-it-maybe-you-won't kind a show. I would be willing to bet that its success rate with new viewers is substantially higher than most other shows.

[MediaSavant]

Originally posted by Vampgrrl
Media: but like I said people dont even know it exists at ALL, and really that's not just Farscape mindshare, it's SciFi mind share.
I know people who dig the kind of stuff that Farscape is...but I tell them and they are like I've never heard of it...Farwhat again?

I don't disagree with that awareness is not 100%. But, few things do have 100% awareness. I once got familiarity scores from the People Popmonitor on several celebrities and I was shocked at the names of people who most people have never heard of.

A lot of people in this country couldn't name the Secretary of State if you asked them.

There are shows on major networks that people have never heard of if you asked them.

People in this country have an average of 80 channels on their TV set. I don't want to meet the person who knows every show.

But, if Farscape's awareness is only--say-35% at this point after all the press its gotten over the last four years, the ads, the TV Guides, etc., the amount of advertising that it would take to raise it to even 40% is significant.

I've always thought our key task is to work on the casual viewers--people who are aware of the show, but need reminding to watch it every week. Reminding a casual, but infrequent, viewer to watch is a much easier task than gaining a newbie.

About 70 to 75% of a rating on a TV show are people who don't watch every week. Increase their frequency and the ratings go up.

Anyway, that's my two cents. Everyone is welcome to disagree. We're all just speculating here.

[Hmpf]

Originally posted by Eve11
in the next few eps they've somehow got a "nerve" that regulates toxin removal. Can't figure out how that would work.


Hey, it could be a translator microbe frell-up. Maybe 'nerve' in that context does not really mean 'nerve' but is really an untranslatable Sebacean word like frell, dren etc.... Hehe, I can rationalize just about *anything* ;-)
SCNR

[RustySlinky]

People were asking 'bout Fastlane:
Final Nationals for other Fri. 8pm shows:
http://www.sfgate.com/tvradio/nielsens/

Jan 17th:
7.2 NBC Mr Sterling
5.9 ABC Am. Funn. Home Videos
4.7 CBS Presidio Med
4.0 FOX Fastlane (Kissing episode)
2.1 WB For both Sabrina and What I Like About You
1.4 UPN Movie Special "Species"

Jan 10th:
8.0 NBC Mr Sterling
6.4 CBS 48 Hours Investigates?
5.6 ABC Am. Funn. Home Videos
3.3 FOX Fastlane
2.0 WB For both Sabrina and What I Like About You
1.8 UPN Movie Special "Love and Basketball"

Coming-up for Jan 24th:
NBC----Mr Sterling
ABC----Am. Funn. Home Videos
CBS----Presidio Med
FOX----Fastlane
WB-----1/2hr. Sabrina and What I Like About You
UPN----Movie Special "Ace Ventura, When Nature Calls ('95)"
ESPN2-New Jersey Nets v L.A. Lakers
FX------Movie "The Specialist ('94)"
TNT----Movie "Assassins ('95)"
NICK---1/2hr. SpongeBob and Jimmy
USA----Movie "The Jackal ('97)"

[ranger1]

well, based on the scheduling for fridays @ 8, i'd say that there is no slouch time! :) some of the upcoming movies are pretty popular (not necessarily 'good'). but i couldn't call myself a Scaper if i chose anything but Farscape! :)

-ranger1

[Scaper989]

Originally posted by Hmpf
Hey, it could be a translator microbe frell-up. Maybe 'nerve' in that context does not really mean 'nerve' but is really an untranslatable Sebacean word like frell, dren etc.... Hehe, I can rationalize just about *anything* ;-)
SCNR

It's obviously the Froonium nerve.

[Scapekid]

These ratings bother me less than last week's. Maybe just because I was sort of expecting a dip. Not that much of a dip, but still a dip.

When they're finally released, these ratings will be 1.1, which looks less bad.

That said, some points.

1. Who knows what the ratings would have been like *without* our promotions? Maybe we *have* raised the ratings. Maybe we've counterspun the negativity of the cancellation news enough to at least keep the ratings stable. Maybe. I hope.

2. While we dipped *slightly* more than other programmes, ALL programmes dipped. Stargate went from a 1.8 to a 1.6. We went from a 1.3 to a 1.1. When dealing with the rounded numbers, we keep our own ground. If SG-1 continues to drop off in its ratings, Skiffy might find itself in dire straights, since they keep it as their ratings champion and continually tote its numbers to the masses. Possibly. I hope.

3. We don't know what other networks would be looking for in the ratings. We've heard rumours that UPN *might* be looking. But who knows what ratings they're looking *for*. As long as the ratings don't *dip* significantly, they may stay interested. Might. I hope.

4. Wasn't there an article on the board recently about new tax cuts for shows made in Australia? If that's the case, then Farscape would be significantly cheaper to produce. Possibly cheaper enough to get Skiffy or someone else's attention? Maybe. I hope.

5. Yes. Skiffy can and probably will dismiss all of this, pointing only to the poor numbers, and the fact that we did not manage to raise them. But hey, so we launch a counterspin campaign. Press releases. Whatever. Hypothetically, if Skiffy were to slam us for losing .2 points this week, we tell *everyone* that SG-1, their ratings baby, did too. Not the most polite of strategies, but at least some damage control.

It's all well and good telling *each* *other* that we've succeeded in holding our own. But we need to tell that to SciFi, to UPN and to Showtime. We need to let them know that we're not going to buy that our ratings drop was significant when the ratings drop for each other programme was identical.

Affirmative action. We know that the Neilsen's are not accurate. Perhaps the idea of actually reaching those six extra boxes is even ludicrous. Maybe (although I will NOT give up) we will fail to raise the ratings more than this, and, like Tiriel says, need to show our numbers through writing.

But, we can't *ignore* the ratings. Because they're the weapon that Skiffy will use against us. So the next time I write to them, I am going to make darned sure they know that I know all the ratings dropped the same way. I will be polite, and nice, and will kindly point out to them that despite the negative press surrounding the cancellation, Farscape has not only managed to maintain a fairly average rating for the season, it did so when SG-1 dropped below its average (I believe, I will check before writing this), and it only dropped in proportion to SG-1's drop.

I have no idea if this will work. Because, we've already seen that Skiffy doesn't really care about the technicalities and math behind the show, but I'm going to *try* anyway.

Because it might work. I hope.

Cariad,
Scape'

:jedi:

[pilot_lethina]

Media Savant,

I'm hoping you can answer a question for me. Now bear with me becuase this may have been asked and answered before, but as I am still hopelessly clueless sometimes I am hoping you can clear this up for me.

Please correct me if I am wrong but when the ratings figures for cable shows are calculated it is based on households available (or something like that) meaning they take into account the fact that not all houslehols get the SciFi channel, or HBO (insert cable network here), etc.

This is a two parter question really so now for that part where I really need help. You mentioned (and SciFi has mentioned, and we all sort of knew) that Farscapes ratings have remained fairly consistent of the years of its run. For the sake of argument let's hypothesize that it all averaged out to somewhere in the neighborhood of a 1.2.

Bearing that in mind and the fact that the SciFi channel is now available in more homes now than it was four years ago does that mean that statistically its ratings have really gone up or down or does this availability change not affect the 1.2 figure?

Thanks,

P.L.

[Twich]

I have a question..that may seem kind of weird..but what are the REST of Sci Fi's shows doing? How are their ratings during the week? That might help bring a little perspective instead of just Friday night ratings.

[Farsight]

I think I can answer your question, pilot_lethina... The ratings are what they are. The total number of households that Farscape's ratings represent has gone up over time as SciFi becomes available to more households. So the same rating now equates to more viewers than it would have 3 years ago.

[pilot_lethina]

Thanks Farsight -

I guess I'm crystal on this issue now. It's not that less is more it's that more is exactly the same.

P.L.

[Dakk]

An interesting point was made.

While Stargate's raitings have been dropping, Farscape's ratings have remained close to average (compared to the previous episodes).. so we ARE making a difference, it's just not as noticable as we'd like.

Think of it this way, Farscape has been averaging a 1.1 or so for Season 4, maybe higher (I think that's close enough).. even though Stargate was getting 2.0-2.2 for their season, they've been dropping quite a bit. I think someone mentioned that they were a 1.6 last week?

My point is that Stargate is dropping below it's normal average raiting, while Farscape is staying near it's average. Even after the show has been cancelled, and not promoted by Sci-Fi, and moved to another timeslot, we've still got approximately the same amount of people watching. I consider this a good start, maybe not the best we could have, but still good.

Also, Stargate's raitings dropped by approximately 40% for the late showing, while Farscape only dropped 25% (and was on later too).

[MediaSavant]

Originally posted by Dakk
Think of it this way, Farscape has been averaging a 1.1 or so for Season 4, maybe higher (I think that's close enough).. even though Stargate was getting 2.0-2.2 for their season, they've been dropping quite a bit. I think someone mentioned that they were a 1.6 last week?


Data check:
Stargate got a 2.0 only once last summer. Their other ratings were:

1.8
1.7
1.4
1.7
1.7
1.5
1.5
1.8
1.9
1.9
2.0

[MediaSavant]

Originally posted by pilot_lethina
Please correct me if I am wrong but when the ratings figures for cable shows are calculated it is based on households available (or something like that) meaning they take into account the fact that not all houslehols get the SciFi channel, or HBO (insert cable network here), etc.

You mentioned (and SciFi has mentioned, and we all sort of knew) that Farscapes ratings have remained fairly consistent of the years of its run. For the sake of argument let's hypothesize that it all averaged out to somewhere in the neighborhood of a 1.2.

Bearing that in mind and the fact that the SciFi channel is now available in more homes now than it was four years ago does that mean that statistically its ratings have really gone up or down or does this availability change not affect the 1.2 figure?


1.) Cable ratings can be shown either as a "coverage area" rating or a "total U.S." rating. "Coverage area" rating is the percent of the households that get the network. It is the choice of the entity using the data which one they use. Cable networks like to use the former. Ad agencies use the latter (because it puts all the networks they can buy on the same scale). We all are more familiar with the "coverage area" rating because that is what SciFi normally publishes.

2.) As a networks "coverage area" grows, the actual household its coverage area ratings represent grows. You would see this growth more if you saw Farscape's Total U.S. ratings over time. For instance, Farscape debuted with a 1.3 Coverage area rating in 1999, which was really a 0.7 Total U.S. rating. The 1.3 rating it got a few weeks ago translates to a 1.0 Total U.S. rating now.

Nielsen adjusts the estimates of what a cable network's coverage area is on a monthly basis.

When reading trade articles about cable ratings, it is very important to determine what definition the article is using.

[MediaSavant]

Originally posted by Twich
I have a question..that may seem kind of weird..but what are the REST of Sci Fi's shows doing? How are their ratings during the week? That might help bring a little perspective instead of just Friday night ratings.

You can get a feel for that when SciFi publishes their ratings on SciFiwire on Mondays.

Generally, the Monday night Stargate block kicks butt and the Saturday night movies rank high.

[Mivonks]

What a naughty thing to suggest in my very first post! :D

Why don't we offer a bounty to Nielsen families to watch Farscape?

That's right, bribe them!

Or, not. :D :P

--
Matt
Another Oz Scaper

[ranger1]

Hey there Mivonks -

Bribing might work (provided you could reach the families), but if the Neilsen assoc. ever found out, all ratings for the show would be frelled and we would be up a Budong's butt w/out a paddle.....

-ranger1