AMC's "Preacher" Debuts to Modest Ratings

[CBR News]

Last Sunday evening, AMC's "Preacher" pulled in 2.4 million total viewers with 1.1 million in the key 18-49 demographic.


Full article here.

[solletaire]

Can we please stop focusing on ratings so much? Seriously, ratings are killing the TV industry. Just look at what they've done to broadcast TV...

Not to mention that none has established what these ratings really tell you. Is it how popular a show is? Or how many people have seen the commercials attached to said show?

[Cloudman]

I thought the show was pretty great compared to most other stuff on TV. I doubt they'll be able to cover all that much of the books in one season, so hopefully it'll get renewed one way or another. I could see Netflix picking it up for further seasons if its ratings aren't up to scratch.

[DayoftheHero]

Noooo come on people, watch this show, you won't be disappointed! The pilot was fantastic! As soon as it was over, my girlfriend and I looked at each other and wished we had another 2-3 episodes to binge watch. I'm a huge fan of the comic and I'm completely hooked on the show.

[DayoftheHero]

I thought the show was pretty great compared to most other stuff on TV. I doubt they'll be able to cover all that much of the books in one season, so hopefully it'll get renewed one way or another. I could see Netflix picking it up for further seasons if its ratings aren't up to scratch.

People keep thinking Netflix will save every show that has low ratings, but (honest question) how many shows has Netflix saved so far? Off the top of my head, Arrested Development... What else?

[CrimsonRain666]

I thought the show was pretty great compared to most other stuff on TV. I doubt they'll be able to cover all that much of the books in one season, so hopefully it'll get renewed one way or another. I could see Netflix picking it up for further seasons if its ratings aren't up to scratch.

With the Netflix/Disney thing going down...I'd think Warner Brothers would want to work a deal with Amazon or someone other than Netflix.

[AJBopp]

Can we please stop focusing on ratings so much? Seriously, ratings are killing the TV industry. Just look at what they've done to broadcast TV...

Not to mention that none has established what these ratings really tell you. Is it how popular a show is? Or how many people have seen the commercials attached to said show?

They tell the network how much money they can charge for a thirty seconds spot. That combined with how much it costs to make an episode determine whether the network can afford to continue to put it on the air.

[solletaire]

They tell the network how much money they can charge for a thirty seconds spot. That combined with how much it costs to make an episode determine whether the network can afford to continue to put it on the air.

You have a very good understanding of the current business model I think. Here is why I think the model is becoming outdated.

People don't watch TV like they used to 10 years ago. And if the ratings and how much you charge per commercial spot is all that determines the viability of a show? You end up with quite the subpar programming, face a loss of audience, and dilution of a network's brand. When was the last time someone said: "This show is an ABC show, of course it will be great". Also, shows like Breaking Bad (that took a while to find a really wide audience) would have been cancelled well before they hit their stride.

Most importantly, I'm not sure if the metrics this business model uses is actually valid. I personally have not found anything that attempts to determine the validity of the Neilson ratings in today's market.

And that's not really getting into the fact that different demographics probably watch TV differently.

If anything, the media should at least wait until the LIVE+7 ratings are released before making any snap judgements.

[AndrewCrossett]

I am a big fan of the Preacher comic. I was excited when I heard it was going to be turned into a TV show.

Then I was told that the TV show would not be the story that I liked in the comics, or even very close to it. So... why should I watch it, again? It was the story I liked, not the title.

I should probably at least watch the first episode. Honestly I didn't know it was on yet, and Sunday nights are Game of Thrones nights for me. Now that I have no more network shows to watch maybe I'll watch the first episode online.

[TOTALITY]

Can we please stop focusing on ratings so much? Seriously, ratings are killing the TV industry. Just look at what they've done to broadcast TV...

Not to mention that none has established what these ratings really tell you. Is it how popular a show is? Or how many people have seen the commercials attached to said show?

It's not like this is some big secret or mystery. Nielsen has volunteers whose viewing activity is monitored electronically, and who they estimate to comprise a representative cross section of America from which they can extrapolate statistics for the country as a whole. More here: http://www.nielsen.com/us/en/solutio...elevision.html

When the ratings show that 2.4 million people watched Preacher, that's all they show. You can make some pretty direct inferences about how many people were interested in it from there, and how many people saw the commercials attached to it. (And yes, Nielsen does monitor if people change channels during commercials.) But all attempts to quantify "popularity" and how successful a show is and how valuable ad space is would all involve more in depth looks at a wider variety of statistics, and you can rest assured that everyone who is affected by those things is looking at whatever relevant statistics are available. "2.4 million people watched Preacher" is useful because it fits the standard of how ratings are conveyed to laymen, but that doesn't mean shows are actually living or dying by those numbers alone.

[solletaire]

It's not like this is some big secret or mystery. Nielsen has volunteers whose viewing activity is monitored electronically, and who they estimate to comprise a representative cross section of America from which they can extrapolate statistics for the country as a whole. More here: http://www.nielsen.com/us/en/solutio...elevision.html

When the ratings show that 2.4 million people watched Preacher, that's all they show. You can make some pretty direct inferences about how many people were interested in it from there, and how many people saw the commercials attached to it. (And yes, Nielsen does monitor if people change channels during commercials.) But all attempts to quantify "popularity" and how successful a show is and how valuable ad space is would all involve more in depth looks at a wider variety of statistics, and you can rest assured that everyone who is affected by those things is looking at whatever relevant statistics are available. "2.4 million people watched Preacher" is useful because it fits the standard of how ratings are conveyed to laymen, but that doesn't mean shows are actually living or dying by those numbers alone.

Unfortunately I think that many shows do live and die by the numbers. It depends which network we are talking about of course, but that is the main currency used to purchase ad space. How dependent on adds you channel is, determines how long you can push a show perceived as underperforming. For example, HBO or Netflix can push a show they believe in. ABC and CBS will cancel a show as soon as the ratings drop. So, no, I don't think your statement "ratings are just for laymen: is entirely accurate.

[AJBopp]

Here is why I think the model is becoming outdated.

People don't watch TV like they used to 10 years ago. And if the ratings and how much you charge per commercial spot is all that determines the viability of a show? You end up with quite the subpar programming, face a loss of audience, and dilution of a network's brand.

People have been making these sorts criticisms of TV programming for 70 years. Yes, even the part about "not watching like they did 10 years ago." Commercial television only has one viable model - ratings/advertising revenue. If they want to change, they need to become a subscription service. Many are trying to straddle that fence, but it's not exactly overwhelmingly successful yet.

When was the last time someone said: "This show is an ABC show, of course it will be great". Also, shows like Breaking Bad (that took a while to find a really wide audience) would have been cancelled well before they hit their stride.

No one's ever said that, as far as I can remember. There was a time when NBC successfully cast its Thursday night lineup as "must see TV" but quality has never been associated with a brand, in either the commercial or subscription space. There are many documented cases of shows being given a chance beyond what their ratings justified. Cheers comes immediately to mind. A long time ago, sure, but there are recent examples too.

Most importantly, I'm not sure if the metrics this business model uses is actually valid. I personally have not found anything that attempts to determine the validity of the Neilson ratings in today's market.

It is certainly true that the networks - both commercial and subscription - are sure of it. And advertisers as well, for that matter.

And that's not really getting into the fact that different demographics probably watch TV differently.

That is absolutely taken into very careful consideration when ratings are measured. Networks don't just throw some time slots into the air and wait for someone to pick them them up. They target their ad space to advertisers who want to reach very specific demographics.

If anything, the media should at least wait until the LIVE+7 ratings are released before making any snap judgements.

The networks do. Media watchdog sites (like this one) report on immediate results (because the information is there and urgency of breaking news is important to them - for advertising reasons). Most of them also report on delayed ratings, though often the readership doesn't gravitate as easily to those stories because "they're old news - that show was a week ago!" Which is on the readers, not the reporters.

[Sammael]

I did not even know it was on, and I was looking out for that title.

[CrimsonRain666]

Honestly, for me personally, if one or two advertisers would buy up all the Advertising for a program and have an ad at the beginning of a show or the ending of a show...or if anyone that wants to advertise would go for product placement instead of an actual commercial I might be more interested. If I'm watching a show on TV when it first airs I'll skip over most of the commercials and just flip around the dial...or I'll pick up the show the next day on line...minus the commercials. The advertisers are wasting their money on me.

[solletaire]

People have been making these sorts criticisms of TV programming for 70 years. Yes, even the part about "not watching like they did 10 years ago." Commercial television only has one viable model - ratings/advertising revenue. If they want to change, they need to become a subscription service. Many are trying to straddle that fence, but it's not exactly overwhelmingly successful yet.

70 years ago? No, I'm talking about recent developments in the viewing experience and rise of new technologies: DVRs, On Demans, watching TV on other devices... That is new. And significant. http://www.foxbusiness.com/features/...-changing.html... Maybe networks should consider some sort of subscription based platform... no ads if you pay; ads if you don't.

This article shed some light https://adexchanger.com/tv-and-video...ot-vice-versa/... To quote this article "As the pioneering computer scientist and admiral Grace Murray Hopper reportedly once said, “The most damaging phrase in the language is ‘We’ve always done it this way.’”

No one's ever said that, as far as I can remember. There was a time when NBC successfully cast its Thursday night lineup as "must see TV" but quality has never been associated with a brand, in either the commercial or subscription space. There are many documented cases of shows being given a chance beyond what their ratings justified. Cheers comes immediately to mind. A long time ago, sure, but there are recent examples too.

If Cheers is your example, I'm not sure I can take that as meaningful. That show ended more than 30 years ago. The fact that nothing more recent comes to mind for you is a bit indicative for me.

It is certainly true that the networks - both commercial and subscription - are sure of it. And advertisers as well, for that matter.

But are they sure of it because they've checked. Maybe. Are they sure of it because they rather go along with this model than kick the hornet's nest? Probably not, but how can a person who is not on the inside tell. When the only people saying the ratings are valid is basically the compony producing the ratings.

That is absolutely taken into very careful consideration when ratings are measured. Networks don't just throw some time slots into the air and wait for someone to pick them them up. They target their ad space to advertisers who want to reach very specific demographics.

Yes, they do. But on the other hand what? ~20% of shows get picked up for a second season on broadcast TV? Not to mention that there are shows that get cancelled after 2-3 episodes on broadcast TV. So are the networks not doing a very good job then? And the very specific audience is not that specific apart from being in the target demographic of 18-49? At least that's what's always being reported. Again, the second article I cited makes some interesting points in regards to this.

The networks do. Media watchdog sites (like this one) report on immediate results (because the information is there and urgency of breaking news is important to them - for advertising reasons). Most of them also report on delayed ratings, though often the readership doesn't gravitate as easily to those stories because "they're old news - that show was a week ago!" Which is on the readers, not the reporters.

That they do. I agree. However, C3 currency (where if you skip the commercials you don't count as a viewer) is still the most prevalent when dealing with ad agencies from what I gather.

P.S. I'm really enjoying our conversation. It's definitely interesting to hear from someone who has a very different perspective