The Game Show Forum
The Game Show Forum => The Big Board => Topic started by: brianhenke on September 11, 2007, 03:52:04 PM
-
Here were the first-day overnight ratings for the two new games, according to Mediaweek:
Merv Griffin's Crosswords
Sept. 2006 time period: 1.2 Lead in:1.0 Rating: 0.8
Down 20 percent from lead-in, 38 percent from last year.
Temptation
Sept. 2006 time period: 0.9 Lead in: 0.8 Rating: 0.6
Down 25 percent from lead-in, 33 percent from last year.
-
Since Brian does not know how to copy and paste, here (http://\"http://www.mediaweek.com/mw/news/recent_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003638177\") is a link to the original article.
-
I'm confused. How does a brand-new show get compared to Whatever Random Show Was In It's Time Slot On Affiliates That Carry The New Show? Particularly when we established that they are both running at all hours of the day?
Am I missing something, or is this the sort of thing Mediaweek needs to keep pumping out to stay in business?
-
[quote name=\'dzinkin\' post=\'163408\' date=\'Sep 11 2007, 03:58 PM\']
Since Brian does not know how to copy and paste, here (http://\"http://www.mediaweek.com/mw/news/recent_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003638177\") is a link to the original article.
[/quote]
I got it from a RATV post.
-
I'm just shocked that THAT many people watched TMZ. Have we sunk that low as a society?
-
[quote name=\'brianhenke\' post=\'163415\' date=\'Sep 11 2007, 04:23 PM\']
[quote name=\'dzinkin\' post=\'163408\' date=\'Sep 11 2007, 03:58 PM\']
Since Brian does not know how to copy and paste, here (http://\"http://www.mediaweek.com/mw/news/recent_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003638177\") is a link to the original article.
[/quote]
I got it from a RATV post.
[/quote]
A post which also should have provided a link to the original article; that doesn't excuse you.
At the very least, you should have provided a link to the RATV post (http://\"http://groups.google.com/group/rec.arts.tv/msg/a058255f1a4f996d\").
-
I have a few problems with the article, directed at Mediaweek, not Henke.
1. They only sampled a handful of markets, about 1/4 of the actual number of US markets (217 or 18). How does that indicate how the show is doing?
2. The shows have aired for approximately a day and a half. How the hell can that indicate whether a show is a flop or success? I mean, give viewers a chance to find out about the show, and see what's the deal.
-
[quote name=\'fostergray82\' post=\'163419\' date=\'Sep 11 2007, 04:39 PM\']
I have a few problems with the article, directed at Mediaweek, not Henke.
1. They only sampled a handful of markets, about 1/4 of the actual number of US markets (217 or 18). How does that indicate how the show is doing?
2. The shows have aired for approximately a day and a half. How the hell can that indicate whether a show is a flop or success? I mean, give viewers a chance to find out about the show, and see what's the deal.
[/quote]
Let me add: how about giving viewers a chance to find the shows? Look at how many of us didn't find them until shortly before air time or even afterward, and we actually were looking for them.
-
[quote name=\'clemon79\' post=\'163413\' date=\'Sep 11 2007, 04:18 PM\']
I'm confused. How does a brand-new show get compared to Whatever Random Show Was In It's Time Slot On Affiliates That Carry The New Show?
[/quote]
It happens more than you think. Some of the reasons why Mediaweek and specific networks will compare shows from this season in a specific timeframe to whatever was in that timeframe is moreso for tracking trends for example:
1) Does a game show fare better on station KZYX in the 4pm timeslot this year than the court show we aired last season?
2) Are more people watching primetime programming on Saturday Night this season overall than they did last season on the XYZ Network?
3) Dr. Phil blew us away last season in ratings, and we are still a distant 2nd in that hour's timeslot, but are we gaining more audience this year with our counterprogramming?
Speaking from a TV sales standpoint, year-to-year comparisons and trends help TV stations determine ad rates and rating point projections for upcoming broadcast periods when it comes time to work with businesses and agencies in charging rates and guaranteeing a minimum amount of viewers for long-term buys.
-
[quote name=\'dzinkin\' post=\'163408\' date=\'Sep 11 2007, 03:58 PM\']
Since Brian does not know how to copy and paste, here (http://\"http://www.mediaweek.com/mw/news/recent_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003638177\") is a link to the original article.
[/quote]
Well, maybe Brian should be taught, told to learn, or have posting priviledges removed.
Seriously.
-
[quote name=\'fostergray82\' post=\'163419\' date=\'Sep 11 2007, 04:39 PM\']
I have a few problems with the article, directed at Mediaweek, not Henke.
1. They only sampled a handful of markets, about 1/4 of the actual number of US markets (217 or 18). How does that indicate how the show is doing?
2. The shows have aired for approximately a day and a half. How the hell can that indicate whether a show is a flop or success? I mean, give viewers a chance to find out about the show, and see what's the deal.
[/quote]
The 1/4th they probably did are probably all Top 50, which will get you 90% of the country. Temptation's future will be based on it's NYC/LA ratings, not its Glendive/Fargo ratings. As far as "day-and-a-half", these are going to be Monday only ratings. If in the next few weeks they go up, the shows will have life. If they don't, they'll be gone soon. The uncertainty will be if they stay steady, meaning that they didn't attract any word-of-mouth.
As much as we bash the ratings systems used, they did not come by accident. The only thing that bothers me is that they never seem to take margin-of-error into account.
--Mike
-
[quote name=\'tvwxman\' post=\'163430\' date=\'Sep 11 2007, 05:10 PM\']
Well, maybe Brian should be taught, told to learn, or have posting priviledges removed.
Seriously.
[/quote]
Seconded. This isn't his first, second, or even his twelfth time. And since he still refuses to learn, maybe a nice stay in the Iso Booth would be appropriate.
Isn't there precedent for this kind of thing?
-
[quote name=\'tvwxman\' post=\'163430\' date=\'Sep 11 2007, 05:10 PM\']Well, maybe Brian should be taught, told to learn, or have posting priviledges removed.[/quote]
Brian's been on the internet and computers long enough to know how to copy and paste a URL. This isn't the first time Brian has been told about C/P links and to not post copyrighted material. Maybe if Brian wasn't oblivious to the constructive criticisms of his posts...
-
I'd wait to see how the November Sweeps ratings go before we start making headstones....
-
[quote name=\'MikeK\' post=\'163433\' date=\'Sep 11 2007, 02:25 PM\']
Maybe if Brian wasn't oblivious to the constructive criticisms of his posts...
[/quote]
Fixed that for you!
-
[quote name=\'MikeK\' post=\'163433\' date=\'Sep 11 2007, 05:25 PM\']
Maybe if Brian wasn't oblivious to the constructive criticisms of his posts...
[/quote]
I think Brian sees it...he just doesn't care. Like his "Stuart Scott said "Survey Says!" on 'SportsCenter', so it's game show related because I said so!" He even asked people to stop sniping when he made his references, so he knows people are criticizing, he just doesn't care.
I say throw him in the Iso Booth as well. Yeah, some might say I don't have to read it, but why should I not read because someone else isn't considerate enough to follow simple guidelines?
He's a borderline troll on his way to joining Horan.
-
[quote name=\'TimK2003\' post=\'163429\' date=\'Sep 11 2007, 02:05 PM\']
Speaking from a TV sales standpoint, year-to-year comparisons and trends help TV stations determine ad rates and rating point projections for upcoming broadcast periods when it comes time to work with businesses and agencies in charging rates and guaranteeing a minimum amount of viewers for long-term buys.
[/quote]
And that's great when you're in TV sales and cling desperately to these numbers as a method of selling your product, but as a practical measurement, it's really worthless.
-
[quote name=\'clemon79\' post=\'163437\' date=\'Sep 11 2007, 05:35 PM\']
[quote name=\'MikeK\' post=\'163433\' date=\'Sep 11 2007, 02:25 PM\']
Maybe if Brian wasn't oblivious to the constructive criticisms of his posts...
[/quote]
Fixed that for you!
[/quote]
Very nicely done.
-
[quote name=\'mmb5\' post=\'163431\' date=\'Sep 11 2007, 05:19 PM\']
As much as we bash the ratings systems used, they did not come by accident.
--Mike [/quote]
The perils of hard liquor....
-
[quote name=\'fostergray82\' post=\'163438\' date=\'Sep 11 2007, 05:35 PM\']
He's a borderline troll on his way to joining Horan.
[/quote]
No, Zach set out to annoy people. I'm not convinced that Brian has the intellectual capacity to form that intent.
That said, Brian doesn't post nearly as much as Zach did, and since Brian's already on permamod, it may be worth considering simply "losing" any posts of this nature that don't include links (or, if from printed sources, citations).
-
[quote name=\'clemon79\' post=\'163439\' date=\'Sep 11 2007, 05:37 PM\']
[quote name=\'TimK2003\' post=\'163429\' date=\'Sep 11 2007, 02:05 PM\']
Speaking from a TV sales standpoint, year-to-year comparisons and trends help TV stations determine ad rates and rating point projections for upcoming broadcast periods when it comes time to work with businesses and agencies in charging rates and guaranteeing a minimum amount of viewers for long-term buys.
[/quote]
And that's great when you're in TV sales and cling desperately to these numbers as a method of selling your product, but as a practical measurement, it's really worthless.
[/quote]
What metric would you propose?
For those reading the article, wherever they put "Sept. 2007", I think they meant "Sept. 2006". Otherwise it makes no sense.
--Mike
-
[quote name=\'mmb5\' post=\'163445\' date=\'Sep 11 2007, 03:26 PM\']
What metric would you propose?
[/quote]
Honestly? I don't know. But there has to be something a little more scientific available then asking people to write down what they watch or push a button on a box on top of their TV.
-
[quote name=\'dzinkin\' post=\'163442\' date=\'Sep 11 2007, 05:38 PM\']
[quote name=\'fostergray82\' post=\'163438\' date=\'Sep 11 2007, 05:35 PM\']
He's a borderline troll on his way to joining Horan.
[/quote]
No, Zach set out to annoy people. I'm not convinced that Brian has the intellectual capacity to form that intent.
That said, Brian doesn't post nearly as much as Zach did, and since Brian's already on permamod, it may be worth considering simply "losing" any posts of this nature that don't include links (or, if from printed sources, citations).
[/quote]
I counter that with this: the content of the email Zach sent me from a couple years back.
Subject: Zach won't get banned from the board. :)
Body: Just like Brian Henke won't.
You guys eventually banned Horan. That's all I'm saying.
-
[quote name=\'PYLdude\' post=\'163464\' date=\'Sep 11 2007, 10:49 PM\']
I counter that with this: the content of the email Zach sent me from a couple years back.
Subject: Zach won't get banned from the board. :)
Body: Just like Brian Henke won't.
You guys eventually banned Horan. That's all I'm saying.
[/quote]
You just countered your own attempt to counter; IMO the smiley is evidence of Zach's pride in being a jerk. In everything Brian's said both publicly and privately, I've never seen any evidence that Brian realizes he's doing anything wrong. As with Joe Mello, it doesn't mean he isn't wrong, but that and the wide gap in posting frequency (more than a year after Zach's ban, he's still more than five thousand posts ahead of Brian) are differences nonetheless. In all honesty, if Brian posted more often or showed some sign of setting out to cause trouble, we'd be more likely to consider a ban. He does neither, so permamod is more appropriate.
Moreover, Zach Horan's opinion on who's going to be banned deserves exactly the same weight as John Chartier's opinion on how to run a board, Harvey Daye's opinion on what constitutes a murderous totalitarian regime, or my opinion on what makes one professional wrestler better than another. Which is to say, none whatsoever. :-)
-
How does that "counter" David's post? Of all the opinions on whether Brian has been engaging in trollish behavior, I value Zach's the least.
-
[quote name=\'Robert Hutchinson\' post=\'163467\' date=\'Sep 11 2007, 08:23 PM\']
Of all the opinions on whether Brian has been engaging in trollish behavior, I value Zach's the least.
[/quote]
Fixed that for me? :)
-
I'm surprised but I'm not that surprised. Crosswords has a good format but may be suffering from the same problem as Jeopardy did back in '84; it may be too hard for the mass market even in this era. As for Temptation, it may be the fact that it was marketed too much as a home shopping show and that the show was severely discomboulated from what Sale was back in the day. Or I think it may be that a lot of station managers simply hated game shows enough to banish them to less popular time periods.
-
At least I don't watch TMZ let alone hear what goes on at TMZ.com. Seriously, if MediaWeek wants to count NYC/LA numbers more so than say, Allentown, that's fine by me. Here in Philly, the 9 AM slot for Crosswords on KYW & the dreadful 3 AM time slot for Temptation over at WTXF certainly don't make for sure-fire hits. It seems that ever since TV Guide drastically altered its publishing a couple years ago, it's harder to find the show you're looking for in standard print form. Even if you go online for their schedules, that too becomes a guessing game because you don't know how often they update the schedules on a regular basis. So, basically whether you see a print listing or an online listing, chances are they're not always set in stone. That's why I found out when the new shows on my affiliates debuted just a few days before the actual date cerainly doesn't help the average viewer find those shows let alone watch them.
-
The second day ratings are in from Nielsen (via Mediaweek). Each was down 0.1 from Monday, putting Crosswords at 0.8 and Temptation at 0.5.
Also, for everyone blaming Mediaweek, they are the messenger. They do not calculate the ratings. That's Nielsen's job. And if they calculate ratings as well as they handle web advertising, they're doing a [insert 18 1/2 minute gap here] job.
--Mike
-
And as Berman said in the article, it's early. Nothing's going to be decided this week or not until November. "Crossroads" and "Temptation" have the weakest lineups, but the beauty of syndication is that if you do well enough to cover your costs, you can stick around (see "Feud" revival, entering its ninth season under its third host, against all odds).
I noticed that Berman didn't include Mike and Juliet, who became an official national show this week (they have a [Keith Olbermann] broot to you by[KO] billboard and captioning and fee plugs now). I realize that the re-tooled with "Apprentice" contestants 'iVillage Live" starts next week (the national generic promos for that show feature Trump saying "If you don't watch, YOU'RE FIRED!"--that's yooge).
-
[quote name=\'BMaurice06\' post=\'163478\' date=\'Sep 12 2007, 03:34 AM\']As for Temptation, it may be the fact that it was marketed too much as a home shopping show and that the show was severely discomboulated from what Sale was back in the day.
[/quote]
You know, I'm really getting tired of you slamming the show, just because it's not your precious 1980s "Sale of the Century", and it's not "Sale" to a T. Two shopping segments do not mean they're marketing it as home shopping.
I know it gets a bad rap around here, and I'll admit it needs work, but you've dissed the show since the format was introduced, and you realized Todd Newton wouldn't host it.
Get over it already. Or how about they bring back "Card Sharks" with 2001 rules?
-
[quote name=\'Robert Hutchinson\' post=\'163467\' date=\'Sep 11 2007, 11:23 PM\']
How does that "counter" David's post? Of all the opinions on whether Brian has been engaging in trollish behavior, I value Zach's the least.
[/quote]
It counters because Henke knows damn well what he's doing, just like Horan did. Henke just isn't as arrogant about it as Horan was.
If I can see that Henke's doing it because he knows that our benevolent mods won't do anything about it, then why is it so hard for anyone else to see?
-
[quote name=\'PYLdude\' post=\'163507\' date=\'Sep 12 2007, 01:40 PM\']
It counters because Henke knows damn well what he's doing, just like Horan did. Henke just isn't as arrogant about it as Horan was.
[/quote]
No, it doesn't. Even if you assume that Brian knows that what he's doing is wrong, when it comes to the "no friggin' place commenting on anyone else's behavior" category you couldn't pick a better example than Zach. And based on what he's said both publicly and privately, I don't assume it.
Remember, Brian thought that it was vital for him to rewrite press releases from a lottery game show and post them here "for the record," whereas at least once Zach actually admitted that his "spoilers" were useless. Zach takes pride in ticking people off and, to use Mr. Lemon's imagery, bounces up and down in his little chair when he does; Brian, when he responds at all, gets indignant and sees no reason why anyone should be annoyed by what he does, which brings to mind the image of breaking a chair in frustration. (As opposed to the Kleistian method of denying that he did it at all and/or blaming the chair.)
If I can see that Henke's doing it because he knows that our benevolent mods won't do anything about it, then why is it so hard for anyone else to see?
Maybe because what you're providing is your opinion and not absolute truth, so others see it differently. (Granted, my opinion is just that as well, but it's based on both more experience and more evidence.) And as I said, we are going to do something about it — the moderation will be more strict.
-
[quote name=\'dzinkin\' post=\'163510\' date=\'Sep 12 2007, 02:02 PM\']
we are going to do something about it — the moderation will be more strict.
[/quote]
In other words, it's not really gonna be any different than it was before with Henke.
Fine...don't say I didn't warn you.
-
[quote name=\'PYLdude\' post=\'163511\' date=\'Sep 12 2007, 02:08 PM\']
[quote name=\'dzinkin\' post=\'163510\' date=\'Sep 12 2007, 02:02 PM\']
we are going to do something about it — the moderation will be more strict.
[/quote]
In other words, it's not really gonna be any different than it was before with Henke.
Fine...don't say I didn't warn you.
[/quote]
At this point, I give up. If you want to continue to ignore all evidence that contradicts your position, you're entitled, but that's not going to stop us from continuing to do what we think is best.
-
[quote name=\'clemon79\' post=\'163451\' date=\'Sep 11 2007, 06:04 PM\']
[quote name=\'mmb5\' post=\'163445\' date=\'Sep 11 2007, 03:26 PM\']
What metric would you propose?
[/quote]
Honestly? I don't know. But there has to be something a little more scientific available then asking people to write down what they watch or push a button on a box on top of their TV.
[/quote]
Isn't our channel watching habits tracked by the cable/satellite companies? If so, they could easily expand that data (if they haven't already) to include 1/2 hourly times of what we're actively watching.
-
[quote name=\'mparrish11\' post=\'163522\' date=\'Sep 12 2007, 04:25 PM\']
[quote name=\'clemon79\' post=\'163451\' date=\'Sep 11 2007, 06:04 PM\']
[quote name=\'mmb5\' post=\'163445\' date=\'Sep 11 2007, 03:26 PM\']
What metric would you propose?
[/quote]
Honestly? I don't know. But there has to be something a little more scientific available then asking people to write down what they watch or push a button on a box on top of their TV.
[/quote]
Isn't our channel watching habits tracked by the cable/satellite companies? If so, they could easily expand that data (if they haven't already) to include 1/2 hourly times of what we're actively watching.
[/quote]
Nielsen is slowly introducing ratings based on people using & watching DVRs/TiVos which track those watching the program live, those recording it and watching it within 24 hours, and those recording it and watching it within 7 days.
The only flaw with the DVRs is that, while the overall ratings are a more accurate (as far as total household ratings) and can produce more instant ratings for advertisers instead of waiting for diaries to come back, it cannot tell Nielsen nor advertisers what households or demos are sitting in front of the TV when it is watched or relplayed at any given time. So the Nielsen Metered families and diaries will continue to live on, at least for the near future.
-
[quote name=\'fostergray82\' post=\'163505\' date=\'Sep 12 2007, 01:19 PM\']
You know, I'm really getting tired of you slamming the show, just because it's not your precious 1980s "Sale of the Century", and it's not "Sale" to a T. Two shopping segments do not mean they're marketing it as home shopping.
[/quote]
So what if it's early in the run? I don't care! I am still adamant in my beliefs and I would appreciate a little more respect for my opinions, thankyouverymuch.
[quote name=\'fostergray82\' post=\'163505\' date=\'Sep 12 2007, 01:19 PM\']
I know it gets a bad rap around here, and I'll admit it needs work, but you've dissed the show since the format was introduced, and you realized Todd Newton wouldn't host it.
Get over it already. Or how about they bring back "Card Sharks" with 2001 rules?
[/quote]
And what can I do to convince you that I AM already over that already (other than stop slamming the show early in its run)?!
-
[quote name=\'PYLdude\' post=\'163511\' date=\'Sep 12 2007, 02:08 PM\'][quote name=\'dzinkin\' post=\'163510\' date=\'Sep 12 2007, 02:02 PM\']we are going to do something about it — the moderation will be more strict.
[/quote]In other words, it's not really gonna be any different than it was before with Henke.[/quote]
Man, that's just needlessly combative. Again, you have no idea how much of Brian's stuff doesn't get through. And again, if we decided who to banish based on requests, this would be a remarkably empty place.
-
And what can I do to convince you that I AM already over that already (other than stop slamming the show early in its run)?!
Quit kvetching about the show at every opportunity you get. That'd at least be a start.
[quote name=\'PYLDude\']It counters because Henke knows damn well what he's doing, just like Horan did. Henke just isn't as arrogant about it as Horan was.[/quote]
I'd love to know how you can prove this.
-
[quote name=\'BMaurice06\' post=\'163531\' date=\'Sep 12 2007, 05:55 PM\']
So what if it's early in the run? I don't care! I am still adamant in my beliefs and I would appreciate a little more respect for my opinions, thankyouverymuch.[/quote]
Whoa, squirt. Calm down. It's not that serious. If I didn't respect your opinions, I would've said something crass, and I prolly wouldn't be posting right now. You being so adamant in your beliefs tells me you don't think too highly of anyone else's opinions.
"Black kettle to the courtesy phone, please..."
[quote name=\'fostergray82\' post=\'163505\' date=\'Sep 12 2007, 01:19 PM\']
And what can I do to convince you that I AM already over that already (other than stop slamming the show early in its run)?!
[/quote]
You just answered your own question. The show hasn't even made it through it's first week. And from what you've posted, you aren't AT ALL over the fact that this show is a new version of "Sale of the Century".
-
[quote name=\'BMaurice06\' post=\'163531\' date=\'Sep 12 2007, 02:55 PM\']
I am still adamant in my beliefs and I would appreciate a little more respect for my opinions, thankyouverymuch.[/quote]
When you understand that "respect" and "agreement" are two distinctly different things, you might have a better shot at that.
/respect is earned.
-
[quote name=\'PYLdude\' post=\'163507\' date=\'Sep 12 2007, 01:40 PM\'][quote name=\'Robert Hutchinson\' post=\'163467\' date=\'Sep 11 2007, 11:23 PM\']How does that "counter" David's post? Of all the opinions on whether Brian has been engaging in trollish behavior, I value Zach's the least.[/quote]
It counters because Henke knows damn well what he's doing, just like Horan did. Henke just isn't as arrogant about it as Horan was.[/quote]
. . . everything you wrote after "it counters because" is not made any more true or reliable due to the content of Zach's e-mail. It makes as much sense as arguing that cigar manufacturers are about to go bankrupt because Zach is promoting their product.
Just to absurdly simplify this, imagine if Zach had sent you an e-mail that said "Two plus two is five . . . and the sky is blue"? The falsity of the first statement certainly establishes that Zach is not a reliable authority on fact or reality, but it is not proof that the second statement is either true or false.
-
[quote name=\'BMaurice06\' post=\'163531\' date=\'Sep 12 2007, 05:55 PM\']
So what if it's early in the run? I don't care! I am still adamant in my beliefs and I would appreciate a little more respect for my opinions, thankyouverymuch.
[/quote]
We have absolute, unconditional respect for your right to have an opinion. Respect for the opinion itself is something else, and when it amounts to "the show has to be exactly like the original, oh but it has to have more emphasis on Q&A even when the original show didn't and Todd Newton has to host" — and you've steadfastly ignored all information that might cause you to rethink that opinion — it's clear that you're not basing it on anything rational, and therefore it's not likely to gain you much respect.
[quote name=\'fostergray82\' post=\'163505\' date=\'Sep 12 2007, 01:19 PM\']
I know it gets a bad rap around here, and I'll admit it needs work, but you've dissed the show since the format was introduced, and you realized Todd Newton wouldn't host it.
Get over it already. Or how about they bring back "Card Sharks" with 2001 rules?
And what can I do to convince you that I AM already over that already (other than stop slamming the show early in its run)?!
[/quote]
The fact that you're still slamming it for the same reasons you've always offered — reasons that are based on absolutely nothing rational — proves that you're not over it. And if that hadn't been enough, this post (http://\"http://buzzerblog.flashgameshows.com/new-show-opinions/#comment-23212\") would prove it further — and on top of that, you've apparently decided that Crosswords also sucks because Todd isn't the host. Given that you've been on the "Todd Newton has to host or the show's gonna fail" kick since almost a year before we even knew that $ale was coming back (http://\"http://gameshow.ipbhost.com/index.php?s=&showtopic=10261&view=findpost&p=114314\"), I find it hard to believe that you've managed to get over it in the last two days.
You want to aspire to be Todd Newton's manservant for life? Feel free; every person is entitled to his dreams. But that's not an "opinion," that's an obsession. Complaining that the rest of us don't share it, while pretending that you're over it when you're nowhere close, is making you look more and more ridiculous every time you post.
-
You know what? I would LOVE it if more than half of the messages in this thread actually talked about the two new shows. I've wasted minutes of my life reading posts that really don't mean anything.
The MyNetworkTV affiliate here wasn't even around last year at this time, and the network that carries Crosswords is independently owned, thus less likely to drop something right away. It gets enough money from infomercials.
-
[quote name=\'Patrick S\' post=\'163567\' date=\'Sep 12 2007, 09:28 PM\']
You know what? I would LOVE it if more than half of the messages in this thread actually talked about the two new shows. I've wasted minutes of my life reading posts that really don't mean anything.
[/quote]
(allow me to keep this as civil as possible, because I'm about to address a serious Internet pet peeve of mine)
You know what? I would LOVE if people didn't get riled up and mess their diaper every time a conflict arose, or a topic gets off-tangent, as if the topic belongs to them?
Message boards aren't made just to suit your preferences, no matter how much we may like it. There are lots of message boards where the topics go on separate tangent, either for arguments or just because of a different path. Whining about the tangent makes you look like an self-centered crybaby, and is quite annoying.
If you want the thread back on topic, make your post, and keep the backhanded commentary unless it's necessary.
-
Hmm...yeah, I don't see any posts from you that make you look like a crybaby (oh, wait, maybe I should read the post you just wrote). And since you seem to like getting on your high horse too, I'll assume you're not insulting me, unless you're also insulting yourself. So thanks for the compliment.
-
[quote name=\'Patrick S\' post=\'163571\' date=\'Sep 12 2007, 09:38 PM\']
Hmm...yeah, I don't see any posts from you that make you look like a crybaby (oh, wait, maybe I should read the post you just wrote). And since you seem to like getting on your high horse too, I'll assume you're not insulting me, unless you're also insulting yourself. So thanks for the compliment.
[/quote]
Um...I don't know what kind of psychology you're trying to use, but it's not working. Don't get defensive with me because I had something to say about your little rant. You only make yourself look even more immature.
You come in here crying about the topic going off-tangent, then when someone brings it up, you try to turn the tables and take the focus off of you. Yeah, whatever, use as much sarcasm as you want to pass the buck.
-
I'm not getting defensive. In fact, by going off on a tangent I kind of already conceded to you and invalidated my earlier argument. I guess you were too busy writing out another whine to notice that. All I did was point out your gross hypocrisy in calling me a crybaby, when from what I've seen all of your posts are crying about something. And your needless slam on my original post is also very immature.
Also, stop editing your messages. It would be a good idea to actually think out all you want to say before hitting the "post" button.
-
I'm STILL trying to figure out when BFG's behavior has descended to that of the "fanboiz", I've never heard him whine because, say, Claudia Jordan wasn't asked to co-host Temptation...
Chuck Donegan (The Puzzled "Chuckie Baby")
-
[quote name=\'Patrick S\' post=\'163573\' date=\'Sep 12 2007, 09:52 PM\']
In fact, by going off on a tangent I kind of already conceded to you and invalidated my earlier argument. I guess you were too busy writing out another whine to notice that.
[/quote]
I'm not about to turn this into a pissing match, but being condescending isn't the same thing as conceding.
All I did was point out your gross hypocrisy in calling me a crybaby, when from what I've seen all of your posts are crying about something.
Yeah, I'm calling shenanigans, because I seriously doubt you went through even 1/20 of my posts, to see what I talk about here.
And your needless slam on my original post is also very immature.
Okay, perhaps I should've made that a more general statement instead of implying that I was singling you out. For that one, I will apologize.
Also, stop editing your messages. It would be a good idea to actually think out all you want to say before hitting the "post" button.
Again, don't condescend me, then try to consider that "conceding", esp. when I read your post before, and it appears you added a few more comments to look like you had the upper hand.
Yeah, who's the hypocrite now? And with that, I've said my peace. This debate is not going to have a good outcome at this point.
[quote name=\''ChuckNet'\']I'm STILL trying to figure out when BFG's behavior has descended to that of the "fanboiz", I've never heard him whine because, say, Claudia Jordan wasn't asked to co-host Temptation...
[/quote]
I cry myself to sleep over it very very quietly. ;-)
-
[quote name=\'Patrick S\' post=\'163573\' date=\'Sep 12 2007, 09:52 PM\']
In fact, by going off on a tangent I kind of already conceded to you and invalidated my earlier argument. [/quote]
Which is how I see it. You came into the thread not to talk about the shows, but to complain that nobody was talking about the shows. And when you were called on it, you added even more to the clutter. You really need to step back and ask yourself what you thought you were trying to accomplish by complaining in the first place, because almost by definition, you became a major part of what you were complaining about.
-
So what exactly was the reason for your post, Matt? To teach me a lesson that, by your own post, I already learned? Look, I noted that I was wrong, and now that fostergray has apologized for singling me out, I too will apologize for singling him out. So now we've both made our points and hopefully can kiss and make up. I already pointed out I was wrong, so I'm not sure what else you want me to do Matt.
Also, I very much came into this thread to talk about the games. How in the world would I have known that it went off tangent before coming in? You're saying I saw the thread title and just thought, "I have no idea what's in that thread, so why don't I just post a complaint about people going off tangent?" That makes no sense. (And yes, by the way, I edited this paragraph in after my original post, so it looks like I have a triple dosing of egg on my face right now).
-
<sigh>
So this is the way you want to play it, huh? I've watched as you've changed this post three times, I can only hope you're done now.
[quote name=\'Patrick S\' post=\'163583\' date=\'Sep 12 2007, 10:23 PM\']Also, I very much came into this thread to talk about the games. How in the world would I have known that it went off tangent before coming in? You're saying I saw the thread title and just thought, "I have no idea what's in that thread, so why don't I just post a complaint about people going off tangent?" That makes no sense. [/quote]
I'm going to go with the theory that you truly didn't understand me, and aren't deliberately being difficult. "Came into the thread" as in "posted to the thread". Naturally, I don't have a clue which threads you've read or haven't read. I can only go with what you post. And your first post to the thread, your first post in four months in fact, was a post that managed to criticize the thread while adding to the very thing you were criticizing. (And you want to say that I'M making no sense?) I take these criticisms seriously, and personally. As a moderator and co-founder, I'm entitled.
-
Matt, and everyone, let me apologize. I won't try to make excuses for my sour attitude. That's just the mood I was in at the time. I was rude and conceited. As a law student I have strong opinions about everything and I don't like being out-argued by someone else; however for the same reason I should know when to stop before I make a fool of myself (something I'm obviously still learning). Anyway, geez, that's a lot of talk just to say I'm sorry. I hope none of you will hold a grudge against me for this.
-
[quote name=\'Patrick S\' post=\'163595\' date=\'Sep 12 2007, 10:56 PM\']
Matt, and everyone, let me apologize. I won't try to make excuses for my sour attitude. That's just the mood I was in at the time. I was rude and conceited. As a law student I have strong opinions about everything and I don't like being out-argued by someone else; however for the same reason I should know when to stop before I make a fool of myself (something I'm obviously still learning). Anyway, geez, that's a lot of talk just to say I'm sorry. I hope none of you will hold a grudge against me for this.
[/quote]
It takes a big man to do that. (That's what she said!)
Seriously, it's all good here. :-)
-
[quote name=\'fostergray82\' post=\'163599\' date=\'Sep 12 2007, 10:59 PM\']
Seriously, it's all good here. :-)[/quote]
Absolutely. And if I stopped every time I was about to make a fool of myself, I'd probably
-
[quote name=\'Modor\' post=\'163541\' date=\'Sep 12 2007, 06:11 PM\']
[quote name=\'PYLDude\']It counters because Henke knows damn well what he's doing, just like Horan did. Henke just isn't as arrogant about it as Horan was.[/quote]
I'd love to know how you can prove this.
[/quote]
Simple. He's been yelled at before, right? He's been shown that he's done wrong, right? He keeps doing it anyway, right?
He knows what he's doing is wrong, and either is as mentally incapable of realizing it as Zink says he is, or just doesn't care (what I think). Maybe if he does it once or twice, up to maybe five times, I can see Zink's argument. But when it becomes a pattern that extends over a multi-year period, I believe that it's hard to argue that he doesn't have SOME idea that what he's doing is wrong and doesn't care.
[quote name=\'Zinkin\']If you want to continue to ignore all evidence that contradicts your position, you're entitled, but that's not going to stop us from continuing to do what we think is best.[/quote]
I understand there's a lot of contradictory evidence. What I think you don't understand is that as long as you keep giving him an opportunity to make posts that are either inflammatory or ridiculously off-topic (re: Charles Burlingame's daughter, Wheel of Fortune slot in Katrina coverage), eventually he will slip up and say something insensitive. And it doesn't matter how much you tighten your reigns on him. You're not going to change what he does. Only he can do that, and from what I can gather he has no plans to do that.
[quote name=\'Matt O.\']Man, that's just needlessly combative. Again, you have no idea how much of Brian's stuff doesn't get through. And again, if we decided who to banish based on requests, this would be a remarkably empty place. [/quote]
I apologize for coming off as unnecessarily combative, but my point is still the same. Yeah, I really don't know how much of Brian's stuff doesn't get through now that he's on permamod status- I could only imagine, considering what he's offered up in the past (hell, even in the present). I'm not requesting anything. All I'm saying is that no matter how tight you pull the reigns or whatever you don't let through, at least one of us (not me, just so you don't assume that) is going to have a problem with something he posts. Eventually, the problem will snowball, just like it always seems to do when Henke says something that someone is offended by.
I understand he's on modded status, and there's a lot that he posts that doesn't get through. I also understand that there's probably a lot more that we never see (good for it). But at the same time, how long can it be allowed to continue before he says something REALLY wrong?
-
G-d help me, I'm going to try one more time...
[quote name=\'PYLdude\' post=\'163609\' date=\'Sep 12 2007, 11:36 PM\']
Simple. He's been yelled at before, right? He's been shown that he's done wrong, right? He keeps doing it anyway, right?
He knows what he's doing is wrong, and either is as mentally incapable of realizing it as Zink says he is, or just doesn't care (what I think).
[/quote]
And you're making the same mistake yet again. "He's been shown" or "he's been told" does not necessarily equate to "he knows." He thinks he's following the rules and merely is being picked on because he's Brian. (We have had a few people who bashed Brian and, for that matter, Zach even when they made perfectly legitimate posts, just because they were Brian and Zach. And while I won't name names, I'm sure you know who they are.)
What I think you don't understand is that as long as you keep giving him an opportunity to make posts
If the posts don't go through, then effectively, he's not making them.
All I'm saying is that no matter how tight you pull the reigns or whatever you don't let through, at least one of us (not me, just so you don't assume that) is going to have a problem with something he posts. Eventually, the problem will snowball, just like it always seems to do when Henke says something that someone is offended by.
Matt just got through telling you this, and I know I've said it many times before as well, but I'm going to try yet again: if "at least one of us is going to have a problem with something he posts" is the standard, many more people than Brian would be denied posting privileges. And you would be among the first to go, not for what you've said about Brian but because of the ongoing feud you've been having with another member. (And yes, by the same standard, he'd be out the door with you.)
I understand he's on modded status, and there's a lot that he posts that doesn't get through. I also understand that there's probably a lot more that we never see (good for it). But at the same time, how long can it be allowed to continue before he says something REALLY wrong?
And again, if you don't see it, how will you even know? And what's to stop you from using the Ignore User function so that, even if we slip up, you don't see it?
The fact is, we are taking action, and as has always been the case, when it's not the action you want you proclaim that we're doing anything. You are, of course, entitled to your feelings, but we're doing the best we feel we can do.
EDIT: And I'll add this: no matter what we do, Brian Henke will continue to (try to) make comments that are inappropriate. Just as John Chartier will continue to proclaim that he knows everything about, and everyone in, the field of game shows; Zach Horan will continue to make irrelevant comments and hit on every woman he can find online; and Harvey Daye will compare everyone he doesn't like to a murderous dictator. All Matt, Chris and I can do is minimize their effect on our board. What you can do is face up to the fact that the less clueful will continue to exist on this planet, and not let it raise your blood pressure. Trust me on this.
-
I am going to attempt to get this thread back on track -- and if it doesn't, Matt or David I think it might be time to lock this topic just to stop this flamewar that seems to be burning out of control.
I must agree that Crosswords and Temptation are going to need some time to hit their stride before any kind of judgement should be attempted. I'm not going to be surprised to see one or both make adjustments as production continues. These things can only be changed by trial and error, so let's give 'em the benefit of the doubt for now.
Another thing to keep in mind regarding Crosswords is this is strictly a Merv Griffin Enterprises production in association with Program Partners. King World has nothing to do with it at this time, which I think is what accounts in the most part for the small prize budget. It also means Crosswords isn't connected to King World's promotions department. That said, I think they did a fairly good job of pre-promotion for the show with must have been a limited budget.
Just my pair of Lincolns -- YMMV
-
[quote name=\'Mr. Bill\' post=\'163791\' date=\'Sep 14 2007, 01:02 AM\']
I must agree that Crosswords and Temptation are going to need some time to hit their stride before any kind of judgement should be attempted. I'm not going to be surprised to see one or both make adjustments as production continues. These things can only be changed by trial and error, so let's give 'em the benefit of the doubt for now.
[/quote]I point out again what ConnectiMatt did in another thread: these guys have had a year and a half to tune this, and the "errors" they have made absolutely could have been fixed / avoided before they went to air.
So, no. They get no benefit from me. They get 65 episodes. And I'm betting they're wishing they didn't tape all 65 in a two-week spurt (assuming they did, but that sure seems to be the trend) right now.
-
[quote name=\'clemon79\' post=\'163829\' date=\'Sep 14 2007, 01:41 PM\']I point out again what ConnectiMatt did in another thread: these guys have had a year and a half to tune this, and the "errors" they have made absolutely could have been fixed / avoided before they went to air.[/quote]
FWIW, one of our members just posted to Sony's Jeopardy board that "later-taped shows will have certain rules differences from earlier-taped shows." Additional posts indicate that he knows this firsthand because he was a contestant. He has not yet elaborated on what those changes are.
-
For which program? Crosswords or Temptation?
-
[quote name=\'Joe Mello\' post=\'163842\' date=\'Sep 14 2007, 03:18 PM\']
For which program? Crosswords or Temptation?
[/quote]
I would think "Crosswords". "Crosswords" is broke..."Temptation" is just poorly executed.
-
Wholeheartedly agree with Temptation's poor execution (damn that 5-day rule).
I FINALLY saw Crosswords for the first time today, and I like the format. I don't want to say that it's exactly broken, but it needs some added punch. Ty Treadway is doing better than Rossi Moreale, and the theme song is addicting (the fact it's a Wheel of Fortune throwback helps things).
Merv Griffin...always making it work to the very end...
The Inquisitive One
-
[quote name=\'Joe Mello\' post=\'163842\' date=\'Sep 14 2007, 03:18 PM\']
For which program? Crosswords or Temptation?[/quote]
Sorry about that. Yes, he was on Crosswords.
-
[quote name=\'Matt Ottinger\' post=\'163847\' date=\'Sep 14 2007, 03:20 PM\']
[quote name=\'Joe Mello\' post=\'163842\' date=\'Sep 14 2007, 03:18 PM\']
For which program? Crosswords or Temptation?[/quote]
Sorry about that. Yes, he was on Crosswords.
[/quote]
Easy enough to infer--MGCW is a Sony production (as J! is), while T: TAN$otC isn't (Fremantle, if you're scoring at home, or even if you're all by yourself).
-
Then why post on the J! boards and not somewhere else? That was where I was uncertain. Besides, Temptation could benefit from some "certain rules differences," too.
Has there been a follow-up or is the columnist still observing the Jewish New Year period?
-
[quote name=\'Joe Mello\' post=\'163891\' date=\'Sep 14 2007, 11:32 PM\']
Then why post on the J! boards and not somewhere else? That was where I was uncertain. Besides, Temptation could benefit from some "certain rules differences," too.
[/quote]
Point taken on both counts. He hasn't posted here in a while--maybe he forgot that we're still around. :)
[quote name=\'Joe Mello\' post=\'163891\' date=\'Sep 14 2007, 11:32 PM\']
Has there been a follow-up or is the columnist still observing the Jewish New Year period?
[/quote]
I think he did elaborate a bit (not sure it's all that earth-shattering), but I wouldn't do it justice by trying to replicate it here. It is certainly accessible at the J! board, however.
-
[quote name=\'SRIV94\' post=\'163854\' date=\'Sep 14 2007, 04:34 PM\']
[quote name=\'Matt Ottinger\' post=\'163847\' date=\'Sep 14 2007, 03:20 PM\']
[quote name=\'Joe Mello\' post=\'163842\' date=\'Sep 14 2007, 03:18 PM\']
For which program? Crosswords or Temptation?[/quote]
Sorry about that. Yes, he was on Crosswords.
[/quote]
Easy enough to infer--MGCW is a Sony production (as J! is), while T: TAN$otC isn't (Fremantle, if you're scoring at home, or even if you're all by yourself).
[/quote]
Hey, when I make a mistake, I make a whopper. (Cue Homer Simpson Burger King commercial--even though those stopped running ages ago.)
MGCW is not a Sony production. I regret the error.
-
I meant on the ratings, sorry. That person said he was suspending the ratings report for the Jewish Holiday.
/Contagious ambiguity? Perhaps.
-
[quote name=\'Joe Mello\' post=\'163897\' date=\'Sep 15 2007, 12:11 AM\']
/Contagious ambiguity? Perhaps.
[/quote]
Nah, my brain's just not working right now. It's way past my bedtime.
And judging from my earlier brain cramp, 4:30PM is also way past my bedtime. :)
-
[quote name=\'SRIV94\' post=\'163898\' date=\'Sep 15 2007, 01:14 AM\']
And judging from my earlier brain cramp, 4:30PM is also way past my bedtime. :)
[/quote]
I lol'd.
/It's five o' clock somewhere.
-
FWIW, one of our members just posted to Sony's Jeopardy board that "later-taped shows will have certain rules differences from earlier-taped shows." Additional posts indicate that he knows this firsthand because he was a contestant. He has not yet elaborated on what those changes are.
Considering they're not airing these in taping order AFAWK, I wonder if they'll air all the "later-taped shows" in sequence, or start mixing them with the others...which would really create some confusion for the average viewers.
-
http://www.broadcastingcable.com/article/C...PP&nid=2228 (http://\"http://www.broadcastingcable.com/article/CA6479580.html?display=Breaking+News&referral=SUPP&nid=2228\")
B&C Sez: It's getting worse.
Crosswords is down to a 0.8, Temptation down to a 0.5.
-
Game shows are doomed :(.
-
[quote name=\'Scrabbleship\' post=\'164274\' date=\'Sep 19 2007, 11:34 AM\']
Game shows are doomed :(.
[/quote]
That's a brush so broad, you could paint the whole wall in one stroke. But yeah, you go ahead, you think that.
-
[quote name=\'Scrabbleship\' post=\'164274\' date=\'Sep 19 2007, 12:34 PM\'] Game shows are doomed :(. [/quote]
That's one of the more ridiculous things I've seen written around here. The poor performance of two shows whose production is mediocre on a GOOD day isn't a death knell for the genre, it's not the a sign that the public doesn't like game show anymore, it's not a sign I should sell Bed Bath & Beyond stock, and it isn't the end of the world,
In Temptation's case, this had to have been seen coming. The early episodes have been poorly produced messes either airing in decent timeslots on lower-tier stations, or poor timeslots on better stations, targeted towards a demographic that doesn't really care anymore, and whose budget almost makes Mo Money look like a GOOD THING. Rossi, though I've seen worse, is a subpar host at best. Supposedly the newer eps in the can are better, but in a market climate of "perform or get cancelled", Temptation will probably never be able to find an audience no matter how much they've fixed things. Crosswords suffers similar flaws. Mediocre-to-poor clearance outside of the NBC O&Os, a horrific prize budget, a format that rewards dumb luck despite being a more cerebral show, the very fact that it's a more cerebral show in 2007...the show is better than Temptation, but otherwise still poor.
-----
Everything said, it's context time. Syndication's experiencing across the board losses. WoF is down to 6.3 (still #1) and Jeopardy is about a point lower. while Millionaire's hovering around a 3 and Feud is at 1.5 It's not just games that are falling though: Oprah's at 4.5...pretty much EVERYTHING is down noticeably over just a few years ago.
-
[quote name=\'Seth Thrasher\' post=\'164278\' date=\'Sep 19 2007, 12:44 PM\']
Everything said, it's context time. Syndication's experiencing across the board losses. WoF is down to 6.3 (still #1) and Jeopardy is about a point lower. while Millionaire's hovering around a 3 and Feud is at 1.5 It's not just games that are falling though: Oprah's at 4.5...pretty much EVERYTHING is down noticeably over just a few years ago.
[/quote]
That's ratings in general, primetime as well. Idol, the #1 show of 06-07 (and seasons prior), finished with a 17.5 rating, where, 20-25 years ago, that probably wouldn't even make the Top 10.
A lot of it's prolly due to cable and DVR becoming popular.
Oh, and scrabbleship, two game shows with bad numbers don't spell out doom. It does, however, prove that Americans won't just watch any game show, if there's not a lot of game or excitement. And even though I watch both shows, to say they're exciting would be a lie.
I'm more disappointed that Temptation is not taking off. So much potential there.
-
[quote name=\'Scrabbleship\' post=\'164274\' date=\'Sep 19 2007, 12:34 PM\']
Game shows are doomed :(.
[/quote]
Well, then, I don't feel so bad anymore about the killing of game show legends then.
/2nd asinine statement this week.
-
[quote name=\'fostergray82\' post=\'164285\' date=\'Sep 19 2007, 01:17 PM\']
I'm more disappointed that Temptation is not taking off. So much potential there.
[/quote]
With the way Temptation was put together I'm surprised the show even got the clearance.
It's actually gotten worse for me. I decided to put Password Plus back on my mid-afternoon TV watching schedule permanently (or at least until the format is retooled, which I doubt will happen).
I do like Crosswords, but if it's only pulling in a 0.8 rating, that probably isn't a sign that we'll see new episodes past January.
-
[quote name=\'PYLdude\' post=\'164336\' date=\'Sep 19 2007, 11:11 PM\']
[quote name=\'fostergray82\' post=\'164285\' date=\'Sep 19 2007, 01:17 PM\']
I'm more disappointed that Temptation is not taking off. So much potential there.
[/quote]
With the way Temptation was put together I'm surprised the show even got the clearance.
It's actually gotten worse for me. I decided to put Password Plus back on my mid-afternoon TV watching schedule permanently (or at least until the format is retooled, which I doubt will happen).
I do like Crosswords, but if it's only pulling in a 0.8 rating, that probably isn't a sign that we'll see new episodes past January.
[/quote]
What type of ratings did daytime game shows get, say 20 or 30 years ago?
I was watching youtube clips of Sale of The Century. I'd forgotten what a great show that was.
My big beef with Temptation is the fact that they have to call the money "temptation dollars". If the host didn't say that constantly, they might actually be able to get more game play in.
-
[quote name=\'bellbm\' post=\'164356\' date=\'Sep 20 2007, 12:37 PM\']What type of ratings did daytime game shows get, say 20 or 30 years ago?[/quote]
Any new series today would love to get the ratings of even the most marginal show of 20 to 30 years ago. Throughout all of television, ratings today are much smaller than ratings back then.
-
[quote name=\'bellbm\' post=\'164356\' date=\'Sep 20 2007, 12:37 PM\']
What type of ratings did daytime game shows get, say 20 or 30 years ago?
I was watching youtube clips of Sale of The Century. I'd forgotten what a great show that was.
[/quote]
This thread (http://\"http://gameshow.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=4703&hl=1988++ratings\") mentions daytime ratings from 1988, and apparently $ale got about a 6, which was considered bad. Today, Price probably gets about a 3, and is the second-highest rated show in daytime, behind Young and the Restless.
Another one I remember from that same time period. In a late-80s World Almanac, they posted the syndication ratings, and Feud scored about a 6 rating, but barely rounded out the Top 20 or 25 list. Nowadays, your number one show (Wheel) gets a 6 or 7.
Michi-Matt also mentions something I was looking for the other night...The highest-rated primetime show of 2002 was CSI, and scored about a 16 rating. But 20 years ago, you'd barely crack the Top 30 with that.
-
Ah, the magic of cable.
I'm predicting minor gains for both shows since I still think part of the problem is lack of visibility. Still, if either gets to 2, I'll be pleasantly surprised.
-
[quote name=\'Joe Mello\' post=\'164394\' date=\'Sep 20 2007, 05:58 PM\']
Ah, the magic of cable.
I'm predicting minor gains for both shows since I still think part of the problem is lack of visibility. Still, if either gets to 2, I'll be pleasantly surprised.
[/quote]
At this point, getting a 1 would damn near be a miracle, esp. since that's double Temptation's audience. However, it's more feasible to expect Crosswords to do so.
-
One can hope that "Crosswords" will try to fix things if they're doing continuous production (and if Edd Hall's doing contestant plugs, they must be).
If "Temptation" is wrapping *all 170* episodes for the season next week, they're stuck.
At this point, the only thing Fremantle and 20th can hope for is great shopping revenues--after all, Bud Paxson used to boast that the great thing about the Home Shopping Network was that he could make a ton of money without having to worry about getting good ratings. Perhaps that's their hope here.
-
I have an acquaintance in another social internet setting who just taped an episode last Tuesday, so taping is still in progress.
-
[quote name=\'ChrisLambert!\' post=\'164468\' date=\'Sep 21 2007, 12:32 PM\']
I have an acquaintance in another social internet setting who just taped an episode last Tuesday, so taping is still in progress.
[/quote]
There's ANOTHER social internet setting? Besides this one? Wha?
-
Interesting TV Week article... (http://\"http://www.tvweek.com/news/2007/09/syndication_how_to_make_it_on.php\")it mentions how to make a 1.0 show a success. It also draws attention to Temptation's home shopping format and Crosswords's low-budget.
/Of course, both shows have yet to even reach a 1.0...
-
If "Temptation" is wrapping *all 170* episodes for the season next week, they're stuck.
Is Crosswords wrapping for the season soon too? With the season in the can for both shows, would they really cancel them in January without airing all episodes if the ratings didn't pick up - or would they get a full-season shot anyway?
-
[quote name=\'Joe Mello\' post=\'164394\' date=\'Sep 20 2007, 04:58 PM\']
Ah, the magic of cable.
I'm predicting minor gains for both shows since I still think part of the problem is lack of visibility. Still, if either gets to 2, I'll be pleasantly surprised.
[/quote]
Not to say that syndicated shows on The CW in the 100+ markets don't help with household penetration (i.e. Crosswords are on O/Os and can't pull a 1 yet), but Temptation is on in a late morning slot (11a E/10a C)... so your HUT levels are lower. It doesn't help.
-
[quote name=\'TeppanYaki\' post=\'164536\' date=\'Sep 21 2007, 08:46 PM\']
[quote name=\'Joe Mello\' post=\'164394\' date=\'Sep 20 2007, 04:58 PM\']
Ah, the magic of cable.
I'm predicting minor gains for both shows since I still think part of the problem is lack of visibility. Still, if either gets to 2, I'll be pleasantly surprised.
[/quote]
Not to say that syndicated shows on The CW in the 100+ markets don't help with household penetration (i.e. Crosswords are on O/Os and can't pull a 1 yet), but Temptation is on in a late morning slot (11a E/10a C)... so your HUT levels are lower. It doesn't help.
[/quote]
Crosswords is hard pressed to pull ANYONE when their leadin is TMZ...and TMZ's leadin is Craig Ferguson. Or maybe I'm still just a little better about that. Then again, I have Dish Network and have ZERO chance to watch Temptation, even if I wanted to.
Why, oh why, couldn't Crosswords get picked up by the network that airs three hours of infomercials and two hours of court shows every day here? Heck, even WTVO had a slot for it, if they could bear getting rid of the infomercial after Feud.