Re: To Live and Die in Starlight on Sci-Fi (US) Ju
SavantB5:
Didn't know that about Sci-Fi's scheduling (though I noticed the
Chronicle marathon when I looked for
B5 this afternoon.) Makes sense. Between work and a general lack of interest, I haven't been watching Sci-Fi much in recent months, so I haven't paid much attention to how they do things.
solaris5:
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr>Hey, gang, isn't 1.0 really shit?<hr></blockquote>
B5 drew better ratings in broadcast syndication than it did on any cable run, too. (I think "Severed Dreams" drew something like a 4.3 the first time it aired, a number which only the most heavily-promoted
B5 TV movies have even approached.) In the broadcast world, there are fewer channels competing in each local market. Even when you add in cable, the local broadcast channels (which are generally given their - low - channel numbers by cable systems) have an edge over cable-only channels.
In the most recent ratings period, cable channels
as a whole out-scored broadcast channels in prime time for the first time ever. But in most markets that means fifteen or twenty channels collectively outscored four or five. Individually, the cable-only "networks" are not pulling NBC/CBS/ABC numbers, or even matching local independent broadcast channels.
Here's something from an industry publication. The article is about why cable channels continue to buy off-network shows (like the Sci-Fi/TNT
X-Files acquisition) while touting original series:
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr>Off-network programming has enhanced the ratings for Court TV's original fare, according to executive vice president of programming Art Bell.
NYPD Blue — which cuffed an average Nielsen Media Research household rating of 0.7 in the first quarter during its 8 p.m. weeknight time slot — leads into
Forensic Files and
The System, two shows about investigation.
Forensic Files has emerged as Court TV's highest-rated original, averaging a 0.9 household rating in the first quarter.<hr></blockquote>
So 0.7 is good for a rerun, and 0.9 is a hit on Court TV. That alone should give you an idea of the kind of ratings that cable channels get.
I'd have to say that Savant's estimate of a 1.0 is probably in the ballpark. Not that I think the ratings for this airing matter particularly. Short of the movie's doing a 5.0, a huge share and hitting the perfect demographic, I don't think Sci-Fi is going to reconsider its
Rangers decision. Their original deal with Warner Bros. probably called for multiple showing in exchange for the three-plus million dollars they put up to produce the film, so of course they'll show it from time to time. It fills airtime and probably won't do any worse in the ratings than anything else they've got on hand. If it matches the demographics of something else they're promoting, as Savant indicated, so much the better.
As for why they aren't likely to reconsider, and why they decided to spend 1/5th the money an episode of
Rangers would cost on an old war-horse like
X-Files, here's another quotation from the same article:
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr>Virtually every cable network touts its original programming as the Holy Grail for sampling, branding, promotion and repeat viewing. So why do so many programmers still fill their lineups with off-network fare?
"In a perfect world there would be all sorts of brilliant, original programming airing all of the time on cable," said TV Guide senior editor J. Max Robins. "But the economic model for basic cable doesn't permit that."
Major cable programmers like Court TV, TBS Superstation, Sci Fi Channel and Turner Network Television couldn't agree more. They firmly believe that established, off-network programming is far cheaper and less risky than developing and marketing unproven original fare.
The right off-net series, they said, can draw viewers in key demos and serve as a strategic gateway for original shows.<hr></blockquote>
F/X has said that established off-net shows like
X-Files helped it build it audience to the point where it could
afford to take a chance on something as risky as
The Shield, which has turned into an unexpected hit, even though they probably paid too much for the Fox series purely in terms of the ratings it got them.
Regards,
Joe
