How can anything with Smallville's #s be considered doing really good. In the end though we are talking about a 1.1 in c3. 23% sounds impressive, but the raw # increase isn't. I mean seriously, how is that really impressive, maybe other shows go down, but they likely have far better ratings to begin with. In the end we are talking about a show with a bottom barrel rating on a terrible network.

Some other posters were saying that Smallville's DVR numbers were useless. I simply supplied facts that they are actually relevant. They add revenue to the CW because it raises the demo, unlike other shows, where C3 numbers bring the demo down. When people watch on DVR they actually watch the Ad's and aren't fast forwarding to get to certain parts of the show.

Also, at this time when the majority of the shows are down from last year, any increase, in any form should be recognized and applauded.


Smallville is doing well because its on the CW on Friday night and it is beating shows on the big networks. You may not like Smallivlle, but when a show on the CW doesn't come in last place for the night, that is time for praise.

But why did the CW stick SV on a Friday when they know it could score better ratings on another day? They're burying it. It's not a sign of faith in the show, it's a sign of indifference. And when the numbers dip below 2 million, it'll be the excuse for ending the show this year.

I'm not a huge cheerleader for S9 but I think Ostroff has treated the show badly. SV kept her network afloat for years, now she's letting it languish.

In the context of the quote that was being referenced, no, she kind of isn't. Here's what was said on the Mediaweek thread:

Quote: did you factor in any increased DVR usage year to year?
Answer: No, and neither would ABC, since DVR don't pay the bills. *Wink* When fewer people watch a show 'live', that means it's become less important to them. If they record it for later viewing, they may not watch at all, or they may fast-forward through to the few scenes that interest them. For relatively new shows with low audiences, networks may see large Live+7 increases as an indication that there's a potential 'live' audience there waiting to be won over, but when a well-established show with a large audience loses 'live' viewers to DVR, that means it's in decline, and probably nothing's going to bring those people back.

Further, that Nielsen-provided service you mentioned has a key point- what is being counted are the particular commercials, not people, that are actually watched at normal-speed during a DVR replay. So there's no way of knowing how Smallville is doing in that area, because more people on DVR does not necessarily equate to all of them patiently sitting through all the ads on the show.



I would love to see some evidence for this statement. The entire reason that advertisers have never cared about DVR numbers is because people fast-forward through the commercials. And in Smallville's case, I know of a few people that fast-forward through parts of the show, too.

Saying that Smallville has great numbers because it's doing well in DVR, or that it's pulling higher numbers for Fridays than last year's Friday show, or that it achieved its highest rating of the season (while scraping the barrel for Series ratings) is, IMO, kind of like saying someone's hair has a great windswept look, when the reason for it is that they're in the process of falling off a building.

Yes, Nielsen tracks which commercials are being fast forwarded and which aren't. Those are the C3 numbers, so the advertisers can see how their commercials are doing on DVR. More people watch the ads on Smallville than most shows, actually they are 3rd overall. More people watch Smallville in normal speed then most shows there is no denying that.

C3 numbers DO pay the bills. TV ads are bought and sold based on a metric called C3 (live commercial viewing, plus 3 days worth of DVR viewing)

I say Smallville is doing well because the last airing of the show beat Fox and tied ABC in the demos for the night. Name another show on the CW that has done that this year.

never mind

It's hard to FF when you're fucking snoring.


That's backwards, no? Why would one sit through commercials when he doesn't have to? When I DVR I blow through 80% of the show myself.

And I don't see any evidence whatsoever that SV is "doing well." It's barely got its head above water based on the consistently shitty ratings, and they're only going to drop off later in the season to boot. Seems as if the network has a few decent projects on the horizon, so I don't see why they'd hang onto this aging series for yet another season of embarrassing ratings.

http://www.mediaweek.com/mw/photos/stylus/110057-C3chart.pdf


Better shut the whole Network down.

Here's to hoping they do, once Kripke's finished with the only worthwhile project it has.


Thanks, but you consistently compare the premiere episode of SV to other series that are in the their third week of airings. That's not an accurate comparison, IMO.

It takes three weeks to get these numbers, so that's all we have right now. If these numbers hold steady like the Live+7 I can see no reason to believe they won't stay the same.

I ff when I use the dvr. If I let the commercials play it's because I'm using that time to go to the bathroom or get snacks.

I don't know anything about ratings and all that, and this has nothing to do with SV S9, but I personally think that DO did a good thing moving it to Friday. New shows have the ability to take off and surprise you. If SV was moved to Friday in it's second season, I'd say it was a stupid move, but since it's the oldest show on the CW (not reality show), and has been losing viewers every season, moreso last season that any other season, I think DO knew that it was time to take a risk on a new show. Who knows, VD might surprise her and do well on the network (so far the show's been doing great), and that would have been a good move on DO's part.

Also new shows have the capability to retain viewers or even attract new viewers than a show in its 9th season. CEO's and Execs have to make the hard calls and take risks and if DO decided to launch a new show on a Friday? That would be stupid if she has any hopes of getting it off the air. Some shows will fail yes, but once in a while, a new show might be the next SV for DO and I think that is what she was trying to do. The fact that she has not yet cancelled SV (most other networks would have canceled it by now I am sure), to me shows that DO is still giving the show a chance to redeem itself. I never believed that SV would go to a season 9. But DO keeps renewing it and renewing it. To me, that is testament that although she is still trying to launch a new show that may become a big success, she still realizes that SV has being CW's gold for a while, and is therefore still keeping it on air without even caring so much about the ratings (being ok with 2M).

JMHO. YMMV.

Was moving Smallville a good decision for Smallville? No.

But was moving the show to Friday and taking a chance on The Vampire Diaries good for the network? Yes.

Whether you like it or not, it was a good business decision.

I was looking at Friday's finals and noticed UB only got a 1.2. I thought it used to kick SV's ass in demos so I looked it up. And once upon a time UB did kick SV's ass.

10/23/2008vs 10/23/2009SV is down about 35% in the A18-49 demo which is pretty bad. But UB is down almost 60%!

Year to year:
SV: Viewers -40%/HH -38%/A18-49 -35%/A18-34 -41%

UB: Viewers -49%/HH -47%/A18-49 -57%

I knew SV was going to have a tough time on Fridays but WTH happened to UB? I can't imagine its previous season could have ended on a worse note than Failsday.

Ugly Betty was hemoraging viewers, to the point that the network yanked the show, put it on an extended hiatus and then moved it to Friday with a delayed Fall start date. In other words they pretty much would have/should have canceled the show last season but didn't (not sure their reasons) and have since put it on Friday nights to die.

UB is not (IMO) getting another season...some suspect that it only got this season so it could make it's 100 episode mark and go into syndication. However, it's already started a syndication run on The TV Guide Network, so I'm not sure.

I'd be willing to be, that like L&O and SV the show was moved to fill a whole in the lineup, while the networks work on developing new shows. I'd also be willing to bet that all 3 shows (L&O, UB and SV) will not be back next season.

LOL, heaven help us but I don't know that I'd rule another season of SV out yet. Unless the CW gives up on Fridays entirely they already have to come up with one new show and I'm sorry but I don't see HL reviving MP. DO's target demo was in diapers when "Amanda" last graced us with her presence on the small screen. IF the CW can manage three freshman series (and they really need to) unless they give up on Fridays completely they can only replace two shows. If MP doesn't make it into its second year IDK that SV will necessarily be getting the axe. If SV goes away IMO SPN is next in line for the death slot. As it is SPN is only doing marginally better on Thursdays with the CW's strongest lead in than SV is doing on Fridays all by itself. SPN isn't going to do as well as SV on Fridays. I don't know who at SPN signed for another season and who isn't but considering the original plan was to end this year I'm guessing some contracts will be running out and they would be looking at cost increases. OTOH with AM's contract expiring and AFAIK everyone else already signed up SV's cost next year could actually go down.

Basically I see it this way: If DO feels like she only needs to eek out one more year carrying male skewed programming I see her keeping SV and dropping SPN. 2011 will be all women's shows all the time. If OTOH she thinks it'll actually take two or three years to accomplish it she'll hold on to SPN.

It did a 1.0 in adults and a .7 in the demo, ouch. Didn't TBL do better in those catagories?

Funny that after a summer of Clois and Nois pimpage and the ratings fell to a 2.2. Then with some Ollie/GA and Chloe and the ratings go back up again.(Roullette was pimped as GA and Chloe, with a small right up in USA Today). A .7 in the demo and a 2.2 for the Nois Lane and Clark Can't show is not a good sign for a season ten.

They have Life Unexpected lined up for mid-season replacement. If that does well you have your Wednesday block locked up for the Fall. If MP is saved, you have Tuesday night locked up, if not they need a pilot for Tuesdays at 9PM. The CW has developed 3 pilots Fall schedule (not including Reality TV) so there's still 1/2 pilot(s) left.

My guess is that next season SPN (sadly) will get the SV treatment and moved to Friday night (possibly paired with reruns or reality TV) and you will see a new pilot on Tuesday/Wednesday/Thursday at 9PM. All will be girl friendly which will give Dawn O. her Lifetime-Lite network.

If Life or MP make it to the 2010-2011 season then my guess is that they might actually try to launch a new scripted show on Friday nights...and if both Life and MP make it...it's possible that SPN will be gone next year as well.

Right now The CW has about 5 shows in development for next season and may add more as the year goes on.

Now my guess is that if SPN gets a 6th season, then in 2011-2012, SPN, OTH will be gone both have their actors contracts up so it would make sense to dump the shows at that point.

Little snippet from Bill Gorman:

The link to the above quote is here.

It should be noted that the Renew/Cancel Index is the show’s Season To Date A18-49 rating divided by its network’s Season to Date average A18-49 rating. The CW target market is W18-34 not A18-34 so this may not be applicable.

The person that said this:

Smallville fans wary of the motives of CW Chief Dawn Ostroff should be sleeping easily. With the relatively good ratings its getting on Friday (relatively better for its network than any other Friday scripted show on any network), she’s not going to be able to cancel it. Of course, if the producers or stars don’t want to continue that’s another story.


Is the same person who developed the Renew/ Cancel index, is the same person with a top 50 internet site devoted to ratings. I think he knows what he's talking about.

I'm sure Dawn wouldn't agree that she's "not able to cancel" any show. She'll cancel, or keep, whatever she wants. It's the perk of being in charge.

She may be in charge of the CW but there are much bigger people above her over the WB.

Oh if only the people in charge of the show didn't want to continue. If only.

Tom will most likely continue.

Tom is working on producing a new show. The CW can have his name attached to a new, much cheaper show.

Whether Tom wants to continue or not is irrelevant at this point. He's signed for season 10. So if they want him, he has to do it.

I think canceling may be harder to do, but renewing with a season 10 when historically the show loses viewers and surely will land at less than 2 million if not before the spring certainly will do for a S10 premiere, I think that is the part that will break the camels back. DO can try cheaper shows on that time slot if she calls this the last year...for good, YMMV.

Whether or not they cancel the show will depend on ONE thing and one thing only...Will the show be profitable, or even more profitable then what they could replace it with...And, IMO..judging from the fact that they make the 2nd lowest ad rates but probably have one of the highest budgets, the answer is no. If they were getting last years rates then I think they would give it one more year..But, they lost 20k in ad money per 30 second spot.

That's huge for a show on a network like the CW. If TW's reality show can come in and make them more money (which, with a lower overhead would be practically guaranteed )then Smallville may be a goner.

The ads rate for a Friday show is always going to be lower for a show on another night. So maybe the more interesting comparison is how do the current SV rates compare to the rates for past Friday shows on the CW. If SV brings them more money from its spot than past shows have done it may yet make economic sense to keep it - especially if the studio is willing to keep costs down to the network in order to continue.

IIRC they were making more on Chris but around the same for Game so over the full hour they'd probably end up down a smidge from ECH/Game which were both less expensive to produce.

ETA - Went back and pulled the data.

$44,533 Everyone Hates Chris - Canceled
$29,583 The Game – Canceled

2009
Smallville $33,090

I had a few ratings-based questions I was hoping some smart person could answer.

1) Do the networks sell ad time at a set price for the entire year, or can the price vary based on ratings? I saw that TVD, for instance, had a relatively low commercial price, relative to its ratings (total and W 18-34). I know that if ratings drop below a certain level, the network has to give sponsors "make-up" time to cover their loss. Does that make the reverse also true?

2) If a show is cancelled, what is the network required to do for commerical time already sold for that time slot? Does the altrnative programming need to stay at the levels agreed upon for the cancelled show? Shifting repeats of TVD rather than MP to fill the hole on Wednesdays makes me think this may be the case, but I could certainly be wrong.

3) How do November and February sweeps period influence ad rates?

4) If networks sell ad time based on each specific show, why do they change their programing schedule during sweeps? Fox is notorious for showing lots of House repeats during sweeps, and they have basically anounced they plan to do it again this year on Fridays.

I suspect that TW's reality show is part of a not so sneaky quid pro quo deal struck when he signed on for another two seasons. It's there to keep the cost of SV in check by spreading TW's overall compensation around a bit.
It's my understanding they sell as much as possible up front. They would have to keep a certain amount of commercial time in reserve so to speak in case as you mentioned lower than expected ratings require "make-up" time. OTOH if ratings are higher than expected the reserved time could be sold at a higher rate on an ad-hoc basis.
Don't know that one. But I think you're right.
I think they're primarily for affiliates trying to sell local/regional ads since the majority of national ads are committed up front. Though I'm sure they're often used as leverage when rates for national ads purchased after the up fronts are negotiated.
Like with #3 I think the sweeps are mostly for affiliates where advertising isn't so much tied to a certain show as it is tied to a certain station and that's why they are able to get away with switching their programming around. Not only would I expect that local advertisers aren't as savvy as the the national ones they likely have a lot less leverage when it comes to negotiating rates.

Possibly, it's not unheard of, I suspect that BAG ending up on SV this season was a good will gesture over The CW not picking up Body Politic...which they so should have...much better than TBL.

I didn't realize TW's show was a reality show about cheerleaders, guess I didn't read the announcement close enough, thought it was going to be a teen drama.

I don't believe TW's show about cheerleaders is a reality show. All the shows they mentioned recently are scripted, I think. There are a couple of reality shows under development by the CW, but they're midseason replacements. Tom's show is called "Cheer," and it's a "drama about the world of competitive cheerleading," according to BuddyTV. It's an adaptation of the book "Cheer: Inside the Secret World of College Cheerleaders."



Wow. They were making more money on Everyone Hates Chris? I'm a little surprised by that...

Keep in mind that it was only a half hour show. Less commercials at that price. So, in reality it more or less breaks even, since Smallville can sell more spots.

28,000 about for The Game + 44,000 for EHC = 72,00

72,000/2 = 36,000 ABOUT per 30 second slot for Fridays at 8 last season = 3,000 more than SV or about 9% more.

Yeah, about even..Not much of a difference..But, the big thing is that Smallville probably has double the budgets of those shows combined.

This is where they are going to run into a problem..I think if they could have stayed at last years numbers then they could squeeze out a 10th season financially. At this point, I just don't think it's cost effective. Plus, at this point they should just man up and end it respectfully. Do what LOST and Battlestar did and go out with a bang KNOWING that they are going out.

That's what I thought when the premier numbers came in but the way P&S talk about season 10 makes it seem to me they're under the impression they're just a couple ticks below the renewal threshold. The vibe I get from KS's comments is that DO has more or less promised them that if by some miracle they can get their numbers up to say 3.0 mil/1.5 A18-49 by the end of the fall run they'll get another year. That I don't think is going to happen. What I fear could happen is rather than take a typical winter ratings plunge the show somehow hangs tough at or near its current 2.5 mil/1.1 A18-49 range. If that happens I can see DO deciding at the last minute to renew. S&P would have to rework a series finale and come back with a season finale worse than even Doomsday.

That's not at all the impression I get. They are talking way too much about ratings and season ten, in every single interview, for me to believe that they think they're close to getting it. They sound desperate. I have a feeling they are uncomfortably aware that unless they do well in sweeps, they're toast. How good "well" is I don't know, but I don't think they're as close to the renewal threshold as they'd like to be.

I agree..I think that the reason they are saying things like breaking a season finale instead of a series finale is because they don't want to raise the white flag.

So, after reading the latest round of "we're great, S10 is yay!" from the delusional producers (who are EPIC FAIL in their lame attempt to bring Chloe fans back with unbelievably weak answers), I was thinking of the following options:

1) They get no S10 and are told by the end of November -- I think they really are pressing for an answer early -- Clois luvin' continues. I could live with this because our long national nightmare would eventually be over.
2) They get told "maybe" S10 and decide to roll the dice -- stretchout occurs, Clois luvin stalled, Chloe has more storyline and everyone blames her for bad ratings. S10 is then not picked up. I could live with this.
3) They get told "maybe" S10 and decide to stretch out, Clois luvin' stalled, Chloe gets blamed, but S10 picked up anyway because CW has nothing to replace it with. S10 comes around sans AM and tanks under 2M. I could live with this because even if they get a S10, it's going out such an utter failure with AM.
4) They get told S10 is a go, they stretch out, they give AM a wheel-barrel of cash for 2 mins per episode and they limp thru near 2M for their final year. This, I could not be happy with. Continued Chloe abuse and another year of this nightmare - no, this I do not want.

There are variations, but you get my drift. In short, unless AM comes back for S10 - I can live with it because I really truly believe if she's off the show completely, it doesn't hit 2M.

I agree as well, I've seen this before in other shows, especially genre shows which have a loyal and active fanbase.

Yeah. That's kind of my point actually. Desperate people haven't lost hope. I figured when Savior came it at 2.5 mil/1.0 it would be a "Huh, another season just isn't going to happen" moment and talk about S10 would go out the window. But it didn't

They're just answering a question posed to them. Don't see any desperation in that.

Showrunners actually wanting another season..........simply unheard of!




They are being asked a ratings question every single interview. Just answering the question. Don't know how anyone can fault them for that or pick some random number out of the air that they have to hit to be saved from cancellation. When Dawn has come out with the 2million barrier, now all of a sudden it has jumped up to 3 million because it seems as though Smallville will stay above the 2 million barrier.

I can still smell the stench of "Savior" and all I'm hearing about it S10. We're a fucking handful of episodes into the season and it's nothing but ratings chatter and a push for S10 from the producers with a little bit of CLOISCLOISOMGCLOIS and some vague talk about Chloe having a crush on someone.

This is just stupid. And it's been the same shit since S6--interviews that hint at some cool episodes with fun DC characters, a lot of shippy stuff, and little focus on the major seasonal conflict, which is always resolved crappily because THERE IS NO PLAN except to get the next season locked in.

In his most recent interview, Peterson says re ratings:


The thing is though, doesn't the show always start to take a ratings dip after ep 6 or so? Even when it had a much larger audience, dosen't the audience start to slip in late fall? The Geoff Johns eps might be enough for a boost to 3 million in January but the Legion effect didn't sustain for the rest of S8.

It sounds to me like they're doing some pre-emptive pleading. I would rather they make the choice to take the show out with a bang this season, instead of aiming for S10 and failing.

I believe that Geoff Johns episodes will go up in ratings from the episode prior but I don't think they'll get to 3 million. His episodes start in January, in my experience with other shows (not speaking for SV) they take a hit after the winter hiatus, come back a bit for Feb Sweeps and then start to drop again as the weather gets warmer. Now, this might not apply to SV but it just seems that after 2 months of repeats people tend to forget about the show for a bit.


That's exactly what they're doing and I agree with you, they should just man up.

Mmm I feel a joke about a river on Africa that I can't really remember.

Smallville Grows Again



It should be noted that these are preliminary numbers and do not yet take into account the Chicago area preemption.

ETA: From Matt M's twitter: