Ratings roundup: 'Glee,' 'Sons of Anarchy,' 'Top Model'

Great news for Sons of Anarchy.. What a fantastic start to the new season

I tuned in to Sons of Anarchy looking for a Rescue Me replacement.

Rick, you did a great job not falling prey to FOX's PR spin. Apparently your colleagues unfortunately fell for it.

The problem with playing the expectations game (as FOX is doing with Glee) or the statistics game (as FX is doing with Sons of Anarchy) is that it obfuscates reality.

Anything that is under 10 million viewers is something that should be unacceptable to any network that wants to call itself "major", and predictably that's when the spin doctors start their work.

You should also keep in mind that advertisers don't pay more for 18-49 viewers. It's a misconception (and an ageist one at that!) that PR spin doctors love to play on, and that has led only to ratings (and ad sales) disaster when executives end up believing it too (see NBC for proof!)

As for the premiere of Sons of Anarchy, the pattern for most low-rated cable shows that are renewed again and again in spite of their bad results is that the networks spend more and more to relaunch them each year and not surprisingly manage to get bumps in their ratings for the premieres.

The proof in the pudding, as you said, is whether SoA will keep those viewers. My guess is that it won't.

As for Glee, even if it keeps all its premiere viewers (which I'll wager it won't) it still would be a huge disappointment.

The fact that FOX claims it was expecting an outright bomb is really only indicative of either spin in action or goals that are in line with losing another 10% of its audience this year (which is hard to believe, CW notwithstanding).

Speaking of CW, Vampire Diaries only got about the same ratings as SoA... Is that really something to be so positive about?

Regardless, you have my heartfelt kudos for resisting the hype machine on Glee. I hope you will continue on this streak of quality writing, even if it gets you annoyed phone calls from network PR people.

You are doing a great service to your readers by looking past the PR smokescreen.

Rick Porter has been doing a bang-up job on his reports. Rick, your efforts are appreciated.

As to Glee's ratings, I also would tend to think they will settle somewhat downward as the big "premiere" promotion also settles down, as well as competition heats up from other networks' new seasons kicking off. Glee wasn't up against much competition as the major networks haven't kicked off the new season yet. Notice that the early premiere strategy was also used by the CW this last week, perhaps to get a little boost for its ratings PR. But even that couldn't save 90210 or Melrose Place!

The fanz, you are absolutely right.

Most shows decline after their premieres and the only question is "by how much".

Occasionally, some shows that aren't promoted much (or right) end up climbing.

CSI, of course, is the most glaring example as it tripled its premiere ratings after a couple of years. House also doubled its opening ratings over time.

But in the case of well promoted shows like Glee, it's extremely rare to see the ratings pick up.

As for 90210 and Melrose Place, I'm still baffled why Dawn Ostroff thought that 90210 would do better this year given how horribly it performed last year, and Melrose Place is essentially a clone of 90210 so it's really no surprise it couldn't even get people curious.

Once again zap2it's board is giving me error messages because I have posted TWO (2!!!!) posts in less than ten minutes...

Again how is that conducive to interesting discussions?!

You asked, I'll answer.

Because ANYTHING that discourages YOU from posting is a good thing, Ms. Moretti. Honestly, I am so sick and tired of your constant, long-winded blathering, I rarely read your posts anymore.

To me, Ms. Moretti, you come off like a know-it-all windbag: Sounding like you know the industry from experience, but more likely just a lonely old woman whose sole daily activity is watching WAAAAY too much television, and nothing else.

If you really work(ed) in the industry or at least have a much-read blog or something I'll change my opinion.

On the bright side, at least you can spell.

Moretti's comment was really interesting. Which is rare on the internet--and I learned from it. Why the hate, Seer? Go find a genuinely self-aggrandizing person who seems uninformed to lambaste, and leave the intelligent, informed people alone so they keep posting.

Thank you for the kind comments Max. :)

I do try. :)

I found that certain fans of shows think that they have to try and bully any comment that does not support "their" show even if you are merely pointing out the obvious.

It is quite sad, especially when it is accompanied with unabashed ageism.

But I am glad that you are getting something out of my posts. :)

Thank you for proving my point, Ms. Moretti. Max, that's the most insidious thing about her comments: They LOOK interesting, it LOOKS like she knows what she's talking about, when in reality she talks a lot without saying anything.

Case in point, her last post:

"I found that certain fans of shows think that they have to try and bully any comment that does not support 'their' show even if you are merely pointing out the obvious."

Two things wrong here. First, where in my post did I say I liked any of the shows mentioned in the article? That's right, I didn't. In fact, I don't watch ANY of them. I just read the article and Ms. Moretti's comment was the last straw for me. Second, where did I 'bully' you? I didn't use profanity or incendiary language, nor did I didn't call you names. I merely stated my opinion with the mildest of words.

"It is quite sad, especially when it is accompanied with unabashed ageism."

What's sad is that's your stock response every time someone calls you on your BS. Yes, it's sad you can't come up with anything intelligent in response. It's sad you apparently don't know the difference between name-calling and satire. I didn't CALL old, I said you came off LIKE you're a lonely old woman. One is name-calling, one is caricature.

The main point of my post was that Ms. Moretti is well-known for posting multiple comments daily on Zap2it. Really, Ms. Moretti, can't you restrain your posting at least so you don't run up against the board's posting limits? Can't you take the hint?

"But I am glad that you are getting something out of my posts. :)"

Indeed. I should revise my original comment: I should have said Ms. Moretti watches WAAAY too much television AND posts WAAAY too much on zap2it.

Also, in addition to her spelling ability, she can punctuate correctly; the lack of which when reading comments is my biggest peeve.

Once again, Seer, whatever your motivation, whether your are a paid street teamer, a trufan, or just someone who gets their jollies trying to stir up trouble, the point remains:

You won't succeed in bullying me.

The more falsehoods you write, the more I will write what I think about what I want to write about.

If I want to comment on CW, then I will comment on CW. If I want to comment on CBS, then I will.

You are not my Boss, and yes, your comments are steeped in ageism, even if you don't like to hear it.

And yes, what you are trying to do is bullying (for instance trying to dictate how many posts I make is bullying, plain and simple), even if you don't own up to it. Call it whatever you want but a skunk by any other name... ;)

Also, isn't it more than a little ironic for you to spend your time bullying (instead of contributing) on a board the subject of which you claim not to have any interest in...

This board is for people who want to discuss ratings. If the idea of discussing ratings is abhorrent to you and all you want to read is love-poems to people's favorite shows, then don't read it...

Now back to our regular programming:

Glee is a ratings disaster and Rick did a great job not falling for the network PR. It's the truth no matter how unhappy it makes street-teamers. ;)