TV Ratings: CBS edges out NBC Friday

what ever happened to when Friday everyone watched TV

I believe, the king, that went the way of the Pinto, disco balls and Pet Rocks. Lots of us go out and do things on Friday night, whereas back in the old days (say, around 1982), there wasn't quite as much to do...or at least nothing worth leaving home for if you were over the age of 22.

Also, most of Friday's shows are boring and need to go bye-bye.

@Hahn: SOmehow, Who Do You Think You Are got the mention when it's really Dateline that gave NBC an honorable mention.

More preoccupying for observers who care about the future of network television is the impression of complete abandonment that Friday gives (except for CBS).

It's exactly what happened to Saturdays where CBS kept the flag flying until it bent (wrongly I think) to the negativity of the whole industry.

@Aaron: I think that it's what you mentioned last that is the most important factor.

I really don't think that people's patterns have changed that much.

I believe that the networks are looking for nights to abandon as their management is so awful, they can't see their way through their self-inflicted decline.

There's no question Fridays and Saturdays are harder nights, but that's exactly where USA and Disney are ruling, proving that there is no such thing as a cursed night.

The only curse is that of executives deciding it's not worth to even try.

I just can't understand why CBS is cancelling Numbers when it is consistently the ratings winner on Friday nights.

I think ABC could post decent numbers on Fridays if they scrapped the SuperNanny/Wife Swap junk and did a redo of it's TGIF Comedy lineup (not the old shows, just the format and energy level.

Looks like Supernanny is about to get the boot.ABC really sucks these days. Pretty soon NBC will pass them.

The reason why Numbers is likely being let go is not because of ratings. If the creators/writers are to be believed, it's because they've really done as much with a show like Numbers that can be done, and they'd like the show to go out on a high note, rather than slog along for another three seasons basically repeating the same storylines (dear goddess, but that was a long sentence!). Most showrunners and network execs don't get the idea that a show is about to pass its built-in expiration date (such as in the case of CSI, The Office and ER, which ran on way too long), keeping it on longer than they should. Some of this is pure laziness, but a lot of it is the presumption that a proven name will continue to bring in a dribble's worth of ratings. Therefore, why should the networks try out new shows that may or may not blow the roof off of primetime?

The timidity with which networks approach their own shows would be hilarious if it weren't so bloody annoying. Back in the earlier eras of television, keeping a show like Gunsmoke on for 20 years made sense because a lot of people were still watching it even in its final season. These days, as soon as the quality of storylines starts to drop, the networks need to make the decision to either light a fire under the creators, or dump the show altogether. The wiggle room that existed in 1971 does not come into play these days, and the networks should be adapting, rather than trying (and failing) at the same terrible business models.

In my opinion, Numbers has reached its peak. Bringing on new characters or (goddess forbid) a baby will not make the show better. They have said all they can say about the use of math in law enforcement. Time to close up shop and try something new. It was a great run, but all good things and so on...

i wounder how nbc feels that medium a show they cancelled is beating them in the ratings

@AaronR: Call me cynical :) but I don't quite buy the Numbers producers trope.

They would be the only producers in Hollywood willing to let go of their big, fat salaries and pension contributions because they fear not leaving on a high note.

Maybe they are. I don't know what's in their head, but an indication is that they accepted doing 22 episodes this season and now are doing only 18.

It IS indeed the ratings. The fact that CBS runs essentially unchallenged on Fridays (still think it was a wise move to sabotage Women's Murder Club ABC?) doesn't mean they don't need to bring in the ratings.

CBS is not quite as un-aggressive as the other networks in renewing its stable of shows and that is what it's doing by letting go of Numbers. It's the same thing it did with Without a Trace.

It is something that, as we talked about many time, would have been done routinely in years past when major hits that started faltering were axed, sometimes before their time.

Now we are in the opposite era, as you very rightly pointed out ("hilarious if it weren't annoying" :) ), where shows with no sign of life whatsoever are renewed because renewing is the path of least resistance and least job-security risk for executives as the people in charge seem to have internalized the false trope of "the business is dying so losing our audience is a good result" (which is what Jeff Zucker keeps saying any time he gets a chance).

To his great credit, Les Moonves of CBS doesn't believe that. He is still not aggressive enough to really grow the network (and the field is wide open were he to do it) in my opinion, but his market analysis is heads and shoulders above the competition.

Now you would ask, why axe only Numbers, why not the other Friday shows? And you'd be right. The whole night is under-performing, especially in the absence of significant competition.

Cost may be a factor, or actor contract renewals (CBS may still have bad memories of negotiating with Rob Morrow on Northern Exposure for instance...) Internal politics may also play a part.

But in the end, there is no question in my mind that adding at least one new show to Fridays is the right move for CBS (something NBC with its hilariously ridiculous renewal of Parks and Recreations could learn from).

"Numb3rs" had its order cut, and cancellation announced, back in the fall when "Ghost Whisperer" and "Medium" were outperforming it, however slightly, in the ratings. As the season wore on, and "Numb3rs" regained its footing, CBS backed off, saying that they might still renew the procedural, despite its shortened season. I think it's fair to say that it's very much "on the bubble," and dependent on how this year's crop of pilots develops.

Should CBS take more risks and be more aggressive? Sure, that'd be invigorating to watch. But when the competition is this weak (ABC is very hit-or-miss, Fox is still too quick to buy weak, hopeless shows - though they have gotten better about exiling them to the summertime, and NBC is just pathetic, going zero for three this year in new dramas), it's hard to argue for a revolution.