Stargate's ratings woes just got more grave, with the fourth week of new summer episodes earning ratings of 1.3 (
Stargate SG-1) and 1.4 (
Stargate Atlantis). Just when we thought the shows might climb slowly out of the premiere ratings hole, it takes two steps forward and slides back down.
All TV shows live and die by the Nielsen ratings (antiquated and imprecise though it may be), and now fans of the shows are legitimately questioning whether the hit show that kept being renewed every time the writers tried to wrap it up ... may actually be cancelled. In bitter irony, the actors are already signed for another year and there is a new story in the Ori that still needs to be finished. Yet Season Eleven, with these ratings, is far from secured.
Who is to blame? As I've recently said, there is plenty to go around. Sony and SCI FI didn't advertise much at all, counting on their bread-and-butter to bring in its established base so that they could spend their money elsewhere.
And viewers, plain and simple, didn't tune in.
Atlantis is still a young show; but is it the axe for
Stargate SG-1? SCI FI's leadership may be weighing that right now, and where else would they turn for advice but to a dork with a Web site? So here is my advice to SCI FI Channel, upon whose word
Stargate (and its fans, and producers, and writers, and actors, and crew, and marketers and publicists, and studio executives) hangs.
1. Consider a different time slot. We thought you might be crazy bumping the
Stargates up an hour to give
Galactica the anchor spot last year, but it worked. Now that they are back to 9 p.m. and 10 p.m., they have
three things going against them:
- They have no lead-in. Eureka may appeal to that more casual viewer that you've lost. Shore up Friday before you try for a second night for drama.
- They have no lead-out. Yep, primetime gets started, people decide what station they are landing on at 8 p.m., and your two top shows are sitting alone out there at 9.
- Worst of all, they're now up against your sister network's top show. USA moved Monk from 10 p.m. to 9 p.m. in July, it premiered a week ahead of Stargate, and it appeals to that older, female audience that used to tune into SG-1. No one expects you to get Monk-sized ratings, but come on -- it's one of cable's top shows, and its on your own sister network of all places.
2. Get out of the summer. Try airing your top shows during a season when American citizens
watch more television. You started this "network counter-programming" strategy in the 1990s, when the major broadcast networks largely abandoned the summer months to reruns. It was a great plan, and you've come far. Now what is the state of summer television? Networks crank in weeks of original (mostly reality, but still draws a crowd) programming, while your cable brethren are putting out summer hits. You're already giving
Battlestar Galactica a go this fall.
The competition may be hotter in the fall, but your potential audience is much larger.
3. Spend some money. Guess what happens when you don't spend money advertising your top two (currently airing) shows? "Legions of loyal viewers will remember to return on July 14!" No, 1.3 happens. It isn't rocket science. Ratings are swayed week-to-week by casual viewers, not us hardcore fans. Casual viewers need reminding and enticing.
4. Push the heck out of RDA. The new direction of the show, and the new cast members, are fantastic. I love 'em. But you've lost a lot of what I am guessing is that older, female-skewing demographic to shows like
Monk. Richard Dean Anderson has always been a great draw to them, and your marketing efforts should emphasize his big return for the two-hundredth and a total of
FIVE episodes.
5. Quit diluting your brand. Just because low-brow professional wrestling is a ratings sure-thing and has some overlap with the stereotypical sci-fi audience (M18-25) doesn't mean you have to air it. Just because NBC bought you doesn't mean you have to show a daytime soap opera (... or does it?). And a late-night talk show about something that isn't really sci-fi? Fans outside that demographic can tolerate a bit of
Scare Tactics and ads (just the ads) for
Tripping the Rift. But now you're going out of your way to isolate them.
SCI FI, you may believe that you have plenty of other wonderful, network-sustaining hits on your hands.
Eureka is doing well after its first month (it's new and, hey, you
advertised it).
Battlestar Galactica slipped alongside
Stargate, but it has buzz and critical acclaim to bolster it when the new season premieres in the fall. And you have a
lot of new shows in development, of all shapes and sizes.
You also don't have a spectacular track record.
Tremors: The Series.
Dream Team.
Black Scorpion. Anyone remember
Welcome to Paradox? I didn't think so.
All in all, SCI FI, my advice to you is this: Be bold. Try something new and take some risks before you cancel the series that single-handedly made you a Top 10 cable network, risking it all on a craps shoot that
Eureka will not fade away, and the same ratings nightmare couldn't possibly befall
Battlestar Galactica. There is a lot of life left in this old gate. Just stop treating her like she's almost dead, and you might see what she can do.
Born to be a Stargate fan, Darren started GateWorld in 1999. In addition to personal and freelance
Web work he is also a writer, a graduate student in theology, a husband and a father of two. He is a big fan
of genre hits like Star Trek, Babylon 5, Farscape, LOST, and Battlestar Galactica.
Nice blog with some thoughts that I agree with and some that I don't. Either way, I'm looking forward to your next blog where you expound your advice to the folks at Bridge Studios. Scifi isn't the only culprit here.
Great blog entry, Darren. You said SciFi and Sony are to blame for this, I think your wrong on that because the last time I watched the End Credits of both shows this season, I don't recall seeing the logo for "Sony Pictures Entertainment," that we saw last season (and currently see during reruns of Dead Like Me on Tuesday Nights), the logos I see this season are ones for "Double Secret Productions" and "MGM." And last time I checked Sony no longer distributes our Stargate DVDs (Fox does it now). And last time I checked when MGM did the distribution of the SG-1 DVDs (and the SGA Rising DVD), they actually did some marketing for it (on SciFi and some other networks). And during the short time Sony did Stargate DVD Distributions they did no marketing for the release SG-1 Season 8 and the SGA Season 1 DVDs (because I honestly remember no TV ads for either DVD sets). The only marketing Sony has done for our DVDs is for the SG-1 Slim Case DVD.
In conclusion, SciFi and MGM (with a little falt to Sony) are to blame for our woes. If SciFi and/or MGM (along with Sony, who, if they don't get their act together, will enter bankruptcy because of the extremely priced PS3) don't begin marketing of both shows, let's just say SciFi will lose a show (SG-1) that put them on the map and (as you said Darren) made them a Top 10 cable network, and MGM (along with Vancouver BC) will lose a show that has made them a lot of Money over the last 10 years.
And that's the end of my rant, now I'll give you a moment to let it in. Moment over.
I too am puzzled as to why Scifi has neglected to push the return of RDA to Stargate. Honestly, the return of Jack O'neill is the only thing that most print media (including TV Guide) seems interested in. However, Scifi and the producers don't seem to want to admit that RDA is a huge reason that the show has been successful.
I can only imagine that the producers really are afraid that Jack O'neill's return will force a comparison with the Cameron Mitchell character that won't be pretty. The dumbing down of the original characters since Mitchell's introduction has been malicious and intentional. And after much warning from fans throughout season nine, the ratings are now bearing out just how bad things have become. I don't know that RDA can save the series. But the producers have got to try something drastic, even if that means swallowing their pride and trying to get RDA to do more episodes.
NIWDA, you are wrong about MGM. I worked for them on a freelance basis up until April '05, when Sony took them over and they let go pretty much the whole TV division. But, as has recently been reported, the take-over deal included a clause that allowed MGM to take back Stargate after one year. They just did.
MGM is now in the position of having nurtured a show for a decade, passed it off to Sony for a year, and are inheriting back bad ratings and little to no advertising from the people who were in charge when the advertising ought to have happened.
Where is the evidence that the advertising is so much lower than years in the past? (except when Atlantis first premiered) SG-1 is mentioned in TV Guide more than ever before.
I'm surprised you at least don't have a number 6 on your list that explains to Scifi that the changes TPTB have made have not been well received for a significant number of fans/viewers. They thought they needed to bring in so many new characters after RDA left AND then make those characters more front and center than the original characters that made the show successful. I would add this point to your list. Perhaps the changes themselves are an important reason why the show is not doing well now.
SG-1 used to be on at 8:00 for awhile and got fantastic ratings. It's also been on during the summer. They did have Eureka come before SG-1 and SGA, and still the ratings did not go up.
Supernova
I think that what I'm waiting on right now is to see how the ratings for 200 are. If the return of RDA can't bring back viewers then I'm going to start seriously considering holding a memorial service for the show. I know of a lot of fans that have given up on the show after the changes of last year who are going to be tuning back in for 200 just for him so it will be interesting to see how it goes ratings-wise.
Darren said:
MGM is now in the position of having nurtured a show for a decade, passed it off to Sony for a year, and are inheriting back bad ratings and little to no advertising from the people who were in charge when the advertising ought to have happened.
I'm not so sure that is the case. I saw an awful big push on Sony's part when it came to releasing the new slimline dvds for the ten year anniversary. There were commercials on networks like Fox and NBC, as well as most of the premium cable channels like Scifi, USA, Bravo, Spike, etc. I don't think it's fair to just lay the blame for bad ratings on Sony. I get that they're an easy target now that the company no longer has a stake in Stargate, but overall Sony owned the show for all of what, a year or a little more?
And as Supernova stated above, I think that SG-1 has gotten more advertising via the TV Guide channel, TV Guide's website, TV Guide's print magazine, Entertainment Weekly, etc, etc. That doesn't even mention all of the promotion that the show has been getting for its record breaking tenth season and 200th episode. Even the smallest of newspapers have been mentioning Stargate. There is also now an entire section of AOL Online that features exclusive SG-1 content. The bottom line is that SG-1 has probably never recieved the kind of promotion it's getting now, whether Scifi has become a little lax or not. How much promotion is enough before those evil "suits" aren't responsible for the failings of the show?
Nigel
I agree with Shipperahoy. I'm curious to also find out what the ratings are for the 200th. Who knows we might actually get a 2.0 rating or more.
Excellent comments Darren. But this should be front and center on Gateworld's homepage, not just in your blog.
As for those who say SciFi experimented with "Eureka" on Friday - that was a one-shot deal, it was a rerun, and it was not advertised that I remember. I was completely surprised when I saw it on Friday. I actually think "Eureka" right before SG1 would make Fridays a fun night, instead of the Tuesday night slot "Eureka" currently holds.
At the moment, SciFi is running the incredibly AWFUL remake of "Night Stalker" right before SG1. Talk about killing the mood.
While a lot of what you said makes sense, Stargate and other cable fare will never leave the relative safety of the summer debuts. They would get slaughtered if they premiered during the network debuts.
As for RDA. I think it's time for fans to realize he's moved on. He doesn't want to do a full time series and using his few guest appearances as a quick fix is not the answer. Improved writing is what will draw in new viewers.
You can advertise a show all you want, but if the viewer yawns and changes the channel and doesn't come back, advertising ain't gonna help.
I'm not talking about what Sony put behind the DVD releases. Clearly they had a big stake in that. I'm talking about advertising the premiere of the new season: "New episodes start July 14 on SCI FI!"
There is also a big difference between publicity success (editorial coverage in TV Guide, Entertainment Weekly, etc.) and spending money on ads (television, Internet, etc.). We have anecdotal evidence from what fans have said they have and have not seen, but ultimately only SCI FI and Sony know how this summer's ad budgets compared to past years.
While a lot of what you said makes sense, Stargate and other cable fare will never leave the relative safety of the summer debuts. They would get slaughtered if they premiered during the network debuts.
Ah, this is the $64,000 question! That's what they're doing with their number-one show in just two months. Will it get killed by the big network competition, or will it find more viewers because more people watch TV in the fall?
Darren said:
I'm not talking about what Sony put behind the DVD releases. Clearly they had a big stake in that. I'm talking about advertising the premiere of the new season: "New episodes start July 14 on SCI FI!"
There is also a big difference between publicity success (editorial coverage in TV Guide, Entertainment Weekly, etc.) and spending money on ads (television, Internet, etc.). We have anecdotal evidence from what fans have said they have and have not seen, but ultimately only SCI FI and Sony know how this summer's ad budgets compared to past years.
I get that the "Watch for new episodes on July 14th!" ads are what you think Sony should have done. But that's a bit of an unreasonable expectation. Sony was most likely well aware that MGM was going to exercise their option to reaquire SG-1 within a few months; I'm not sure, but MGM might have even taken control back months before the season premiers. How is it reasonable to expect any business to spend money advertising a show or upcoming season that will not make them any return? It's the same concept as saying that Showtime should have advertised season six. There's no point to it.
As far as Scifi's advertising goes, I can't really agree that the premier didn't get adequate ad time. The commercial for the SG-1 premier ran quite often, following every Scifi show and usually at least once during every programming hour. I can agree that the quality of that ad was quite low. There was no "hook" to the ad, nothing to entice longtime or new fans to tune in. Obviously Scifi sees Ben Browder as the poster child for the show, but given that the ratings have been freefalling for at least a year now, that doesn't seem to be working out too well. For myself, I'd like to see some ads that indicate that Carter or Teal'c will be playing a large role in things to come. I'm not holding my breath.
Other than advertising on Scifi, I think fans are being unreasonable when they demand off-channel advertising. For good or for ill, SG-1 has never recieved much off-channel advertising. To expect it now that things have gone sour is crazy. You've got to understand, from Scifi's perspective SG-1 has never needed a huge advertising push in order to succeed. It used to succeed on the strength of stories and characters. The low ratings were unexpected; had Scifi predicted a worse performance from SG-1 you may well have seen bigger and better ads. But this whole argument that Scifi has done the show a larger disservice or ignored them any more than usual is just not true. To expect them to fix a problem that has never existed before is putting the cart before the horse.
Perhaps it's reasonable to hope that Scifi will now increase Stargate's ad budget. But that's complicated and problematic too. Scifi won't want to throw money at a show that can't recover. I think it's likely that a renewal from Scifi will require one or two "big" changes in the shows production structure. Either production budgets will need to be cut or cast changes will need to be made that will bring more fans to the table. It might not be the craziest thing in the world to think that RDA might need to make some type of commitment to the show for a renewal to be considered.
Nigel
Maybe it's just time for fans to accept the fact that SG-1 had a great run and it's time to end it. Give the spotlight to Atlantis since it's still a semi-new show, although some of the plots lately feel like re-used SG-1 episodes...
Honestly, I would have been happy if SG-1 had gone out when it was on top. Back in Season 5 or 6, even 7 would have been ok, but now with Season 10, I think it's pushing it a bit. TPTB need to get over this "we must be X-Files" crap and think about a good way for the show to go out on top and not as some second rate piece of shit series it could easily become.
Nice blog
I hadn’t yet read your blog when I watched last night’s SG-1 episode, but I thought about the time slot issue as I waited until 9 for SG-1 to start. (And no, I didn't watch the 8 p.m. lead show. The TV was actually off until SG-1 came on.) Although I use to hate the 8 p.m. timeslot last season, I actually have come to appreciate it now, compared this season’s 9 p.m. slot.
I agree with moving it to a fall/winter programming slot to capture more of the U.S. viewing market and wonder what SciFi’s alleged 6-month mid-season hiatus will do to the ratings. The season is already short (20 episodes) and waiting 6 months to show the final 10 eps will do little for keeping those casual viewers ‘in the fold.’ Even as a non-casual, non-Neilsen fan it’s going to be hard for me to get enthused about waiting 6 months to watch the rest of a season that I’m not ‘feeling’ the way I use to ‘feel’ the series.
As a marketing tactic to increase Neilsen numbers to increase their advertising revenue and therefore their profit margin, I agree that promoting the hell out of RDA’s appearance is good for SciFi. But if I were a viewer, one who solely watched for RDA, I’d be pissed to watch said episode and find he’s back with mediocre dialogue for a mere 30 to 60 seconds of screen time, when the promotion made it seemed like he’d be fully utilized as he was pre-season 8. Bait and switch isn’t good for ratings since people don’t like to be burned repeatedly by false advertising. (Fortunately though for me, RDA wasn’t what pulled me to this series; the entire ensemble cast of original leads and the chemistry they *all* had was what “did it” for me.)
*checks birth certificate* Guess I fall into that middle-aged female demographic you were referring to Darren. And my own humble opinion, these days they’ve got a lot more to worry about with the quality of their product than with the advertising of it. If the product isn't good, then what incentive does a casual viewer have to tune in next week or the next? How enthused are viewers supposed to be about scenes of characters talking to each other on cell phones? (Casual viewers don’t know/care the budget was probably blown in SFX for the first episode – they just know its *boring.*) When basic script/story arc continuity isn’t kept? (Uh… like Jack’s cabin is in Minnesota, not Colorado… D’oh!) When no or very poor explanations are given for behavior changes of established characters? When TPTB even go on record in interviews saying they have no idea how to utilize certain characters in SG-1 anymore?
I love what a wonderful series as a viewer I’ve been given and will always be grateful for the hours of entertainment it has given me, but I do wonder how long the corporate PTB think they can go on without increasing production and ad budgets a bit, without giving the writers a freer hand, and dang it, speaking of writers - hiring more writers – how can they expect them to spread themselves that thinly over 2 series and still churn out a fresh, intelligent, and quality product for all the stakeholders in the show?
Nice entry though. I always enjoy reading your perspective on things and look forward to your next entry. :)
This is the best blog I have read
- I reeeeaaaally wanted to ctrl+c and ctrl+v into a mail and mail it to scifi. I didnt though. But I would have. Seriously. -Bernt 1.-
Since I have read what some humans have written above concerning Dick, the last time I saw him.. was like "Hello? Is there anybody in there? Have you become Slow-boy due to the ancient head-sucking-machine?' Like an empty shell. No, by God, it is just sad. And he used to be so fun too. *Now* on the other hand, SG1 is VITAL. VITAL.
I really don't think the changes at the beginning of season 9 could possibly be the explanation for the lower ratings in season 10, when season 9's own ratings were very good. I also don't think it could be something that happened within season 10, because the lower numbers were there from the beginning of the season. It's not as if they dropped off after the first few episodes of the season. Only then would it be from what they saw this season. Maybe it's from not liking how last season ended, but I doubt it. It's likely got to do with things outside the control of the studio, things like advertizing, the fact that there's no SciFi show on at 8:00, Monk, and the moving of Battlestar Galactica to the fall.
The 9pm time slot is the problem. Move it back to 8pm and you'll have viewers. Otherwise, fans on the east coast will skip the 9pm showing and catch it on replay at 11pm or, gasp!, TIVO it.
In addition, the Alantis francise placement was a poor decision. It oversaturates Friday with the SG universe. A smarter network official would weave in the Atlantis universe into the gaps between new espisodes of SG-1. That way the fans would have something new practically year round.
Alas, the network can't think out of the box. That's a surprise.
A few times the past few weeks, I have skipped SG-1 or Atlantis because they start so late... 7-8pm EST slot would be great.
Agreed on all counts. Shame on them for not listening and canceling this truly rare combination of wit, relevance and pure entertainment.
You have a very good way of writing what I'm thinking. I think you have been probing my brain. Or, perhaps I am telepathicly reading your thoughts before you have them...
Anyway, I agree with what you have written, again.
From my brain to your blog! I completely and totally agree with everything you have said in here!
Very good Darren! Righ on exactly! Why would they not advertise? Why would they try to dump a proven show? You've got me! I am completely baffled by it all...Thank you for writing this, I would have had said the same thing and asked the same questions.
Kudos to you.