Fixed.

It only counts if you are a Neilson family where your viewing of the show actually counts. Other than that do you really think you are affecting the ratings by watching it?

I agree with JamesD that the networks have locked themselves into a vicious cycle. Each show's cancellation might make complete sense when viewed individually but the cumulative effect means that viewers are growing less inclined to invest in new shows, particularly serials.

I'm not sure if we're lamenting the Nielson system or the early cancellation of serial series.

I take my last post back after re-reading the initial post.

If we're talking about networks ticking off viewers by leaving stories incomplete, then the one-episode cancellations won't matter... the viewer ship only invests 30 minutes to an hour on the show in question. I think it's when a series runs a bit longer, then gets canceled, that ticks off the public, because they've invested more time into the show and feel cheated that there's no resolution. If the storyline is plotted out, the writers should have an "out" to get out of an arc quickly, in the case of impending cancellation... they may not need to close every dangling thread, but at least give the viewers a sense of closure. Unfortunately, a lot of the time it seems like shows aren't plotted out to this level... and if the writers have little idea how plots are going to develop, there's no way they're going to be able to wrap it up.

Veronica Mars is a great example of a self-contained, excellent first season. They wrapped pretty much everything up in that first season perfectly. Subsequent seasons were a little weaker in comparison, but the show did everything it could to stay on the air, including a move to shorter, more self contained story arcs in the last season.

The problem with serials that have storylines that are intimately intertwined is that they need to be watched in order. This means that episodes need to come pretty regularly for the viewers to be able to keep up, but also that as time goes on, it becomes harder and harder for a new viewer to jump aboard. What I see happening now is that because of the proliferation of DVD sets, people will skip tv shows altogether if they don't get in on the ground floor, and go to the DVD set... hopefully, the set comes out before the next season airs, so they can jump back on board (this is how I got into Friday Night Lights). There's also no wait with the DVD set... you can watch one episode a week, or marathon the set. Before the advent of TV on DVD, online (legal) streaming of recent episodes, and (illegal) torrents being widely available, you'd have to watch the show as it unveils if you wanted to keep up with it. Now it's no longer the case.

You're gonna see a pissed off Gizmo if October Road and Moonlight don't get picked up.

I often wonder if a network would gain any level of success with their shows if they declared at the start of the season, "We aren't going to move any shows to crappy timeslots and we aren't gonna cancel any shows before their initial commitment is up." It would seem like a money losing situation the first season because of the obvious skepticism we all have towards the networks, but if they stuck with the model, I'd think it could pay off for them after a year or two.

I think whomever named that show doomed it to the seventh level of TV hell.

In this age of the DVR, I don't get the time slot complaint at all. If a network will air all the episodes in its initial order, they're welcome to ship the show off to Friday/Saturday or against AI. If you actually care enough about the show to be pissed off, you care enough to make arrangements to see it. If you don't, you need to shut up about the fate of the show already.

Bad news... CBS hasn't made their decision quite yet, but it's on the ropes.

Not cancelled, but locked in to finish in May 2010. When ABC renewed the show for this year, it was for a 48 Episode order to finish off the show. Fortunately it was a mutual decision between the show producers and ABC.

Originally it was supposed to be 16 episodes each season, run in order, needless to say the WGA strike messed up that theory. 8 were in the can, those which just finished running, and 5 more will be shot for this year.

The three episodes cut from this year will be added to the 2008/2009 schedule, giving them 19 episodes that season. 2009/2010 will have 16 episodes.

fitprod

If they can The Unit this year after keeping it each of the last two, it will look a lot like payback for Ryan's leadership position on one of the WGA committees and his hard line stance against working until the strike was resolved. From a creative perspective, The Unit was stronger this year than ever, and I think the ratings are in the same zone they have been for a while now. In fact, they might have been slightly stronger.

I don't have a problem with the way Lost is scheduled to end, and I don't know of anyone else that does either. The problem is when shows suddenly end inconclusively before the creators didn't know they were getting cancelled, or when they get canned early in the first season before they ever even get started good.

Oh, I don't have a problem with the end date... What will be interesting is if everything will actually be resolved when the show ends.

I wouldn't put it past Cuse and Lindelof leave some loose strings at the end.

fitprod

If Moonlight gets canned, just pick up the complete series of Angel - since Moonlight is a pale imitation of it, it'll work out much better for you.

Actually, I think it apes Forever Knight a little bit more than Angel.

What the network is stuck with is guaranteeing an estimated amount of viewers to advertisers, when they cannot fulfill that guarantee and are forced to give back ad revenue, that's when they pull the plug because they cannot afford to sustain a show, IMHO.

So when a big new Aaron Sorkin "Studio 60 from the Sunset Strip" comes along with so much buzz and hype, and the network feeling big about bringing in viewers, I'm sure that made for a huge draw from advertisers to spend money on every week. But when that market share/viewship tanked started to plummet, well.. out of some contractual obligations, I think a lot of people forced it to stay as long as it did.

I'm surprised nobody else has jumped on this point. I'm fond of an old saying that goes something like: "There's three kinds of falsehoods: lies, damn lies, and statistics."


Somebody did mention comparing the Nielson ratings to things like DVD sales and iTunes downloads, which makes for some really interesting reading. Like the first season of The Office (US), did poorly in the ratings, but it has always sold like gangbusters on iTunes. Battlestar Galactica gets horrid ratings, but the DVDs (overpriced as they are) sell like crazy, so crazy that they commissioned the Razor TV movie just to have something to sell last Christmas. The 4th and final season of BSG was pretty much agreed to simply because the DVDs will sell.

I also agree that they should start making shorter, more self contained seasons, and commit to showing the whole run.

I don't think you can really get an accurate reading from itunes downloads, or even tivo recordings, as that demographic most likely skews younger, and at the very least the more tech savvy crowd. DVD sets, similarly, probably aren't a great representation... I'm pretty sure DVD sales, even for the most popular series, are a fraction of the viewership needed for a network show to be successful. They're probably good indicators of a die hard fan base, though. Nielson ratings are supposed to factor in a more diverse sampling of America... though I'm not even sure the Nielson boxes are now equipped to be attached to the high end HD televisions and tivos of the world, which basically excludes that demographic...

I did do my part and watched Studio 60 every week, usually live. That was one of the very few recent news shows I was liking quite a bit.

When a network pulls a show early, I will not give them my money for the eventual dvd package to see the rest of the shows/story. I will, however, get those dvd's.

As an example, when Daybreak was axed, the remaining shows were available online. I didn't spend $800. on an HDTV to then have to see choppy audio and video of these last episodes on a tiny screen or wait and pay for the dvd's. No, thanks. I'll find a way to see the discs elsewhere, ABC.

I'd like to put a spin on your post. You are basically saying the Nielson's aren't accurate because they neglect the tech demographic as well as the younger set and only focus on Joe Public who doesn't have HD. Actually that sounds about right. Doesn't sound very accurate to me.

The problem lies within the reason the Nielson's exist. It isn't there for simply stat tracking. That would be nice, but it simply isn't. It is there so a network can show marketers how many viewers each show gets and how to gauge what to charge for those ad minutes. That's why iTunes, DVR recordings and websites aren't included. People skipping the ads don't bring in the ad revenue.

This is true, and something I hadn't considered. I wonder at what point does it makes sense for a network to continue a tv series in order to get the DVD/itunes sales, even if won't bring in the huge ad dollars? Don't they pull something similar with long running shows, keep it going so that they can reach the magic number of episodes needed for syndication?

About the whole canceling shows thing, I will say this: there is a tremendous amount of crap (and a lot of mediocre stuff) that comes out on tv, and while some of it will stick, most of it won't. I'm sure if we look back at all the shows that got canceled midway through a run, there's more crap than there are sorely missed shows, even though we remember the latter much longer. Sometimes, they networks even try to keep quality shows on despite the lack of an audience. So I don't think the networks need to commit to all of these different series...

Networks could not care less about syndication. The same goes for DVD and iTunes sales. It's the production company that cares about that stuff. Of course, the two entities are quite often kissing cousins within the same conglomerate in this day and age. Back before that was the normal case, the network would actually demand compensation (like taking an ownership interest in the show) for a renewal. This happened with Newsradio if I remember right.

I think it depends on what you mean by commit. I think the networks want to be choosier about their programming these days, thus the focus on fewer pilots. I think they need to choose the shows they believe will work best for them and the level of commitment they are willing to make based on projected demographics and viewership as well as projected show budget. I'd expect most shows to get a 6 or 13 episode order. I don't think it's too much to ask for a network to show all 6 or 13 episodes within a relatively compact amount of time, shifting shows that are just burning off episodes to Saturday night or whatever.

I would say that cancelling shows the "wrong way" is hurting the networks, but it's their own fault for being stupid.
Take Las Vegas as an example, 5 seasons and good/decent ratings from the beginning to the end, which of course was a cliffhanger...
Both the show and the viewers deserve a real ending, but NBC doesn't seem to care one bit.

As a result of this I'll scratch NBC of my list of viewable networks, if they won't support their products or their customers why should we support them?
Seeing things from an international view I also have to wonder, does the many millions of dollars in revenue from overseas airings come without any strings attached?
Do they give a rebate when they in essence deliver a semi-finished show, I can't see any reasonable channel paying full price for an atleast partially "defective" product.

But I'll never understand the minds of a network executive, cancelling one show due to "bad ratings" (though good for it's time slot) while saving another with worse.
Flat out refusing a 1-2 episode wrap up off one show, but the lower rated show is deserving of another season to wrap their story up...
I guess I'll just have to gloat at the negative effects caused by their decisions, the replacement shows getting slaughtered in the ratings where the canned show did decent is perfect in my book.

Oh well, enough of my ranting.

Yeah, that's why there's 3 L&O shows and 3 CSI shows amid 10 - 12 reality shows on network television.

The only networks that are selective are cable/premium channels because they're not so much tied into ad revenue and strive to make original content. They seem more tied into the after market in dvd sales and syndication because they own the show or have bought the show with the production taking the brunt of the budget. They still watch the ratings tho to make sure of what they invested in is justified to stay on the air. For every Monk, Dexter, Sopranos, Shield, Nip/Tuck.. you have a Huff, John from Cincinatti

Major networks try to throw shows at the wall and see what sticks.