|
|
PLEASE NOTE: The Reality TV World Message Boards are filled with desperate
attention-seekers pretending to be one big happy PG/PG13-rated family. Don't
be fooled. Trying to get everyone to agree with you is like herding cats,
but intolerance for other viewpoints is NOT welcome and respect for other
posters IS required at all times. Jump in and play, and you'll soon find out
how easy it is to fit in, but save your drama for your mama. All members are
encouraged to read the
complete guidelines.
As entertainment critic Roger
Ebert once said, "If you disagree with something I write, tell me so, argue
with me, correct me--but don't tell me to shut up. That's not the American way."
|
|
"The Ratings History for On The Lot."
Sunny_Bunny 5581 desperate attention whore postings DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold"
|
07-25-07, 02:53 PM (EST)
|
"The Ratings History for On The Lot." |
I just thought you all would like to see how this show has done ratings wise since it began.Tuesday, May 22 - On the Lot (6.2/9 from 9:00-10:00 p.m.; 7.7/11 at 9:00 p.m.; 4.7/7 at 9:30 p.m.) Thursday, May 24 - On the Lot (4.1/7 at 9:30 p.m.) Monday, May 28 - On the Lot (2.4/4 from 8:00-10:00 p.m) Tuesday, May 29 - On the Lot (2.9/5 at 8:00 p.m.) Tuesday, June 5 - On the Lot (2.1/4 at 8:00 p.m.) Tuesday, June 12 - On the Lot (2.1/4 at 8:00 p.m.) Tuesday, June 19 - On the Lot (1.9/3 at 8:00 p.m.) Tuesday, June 26 - On the Lot (1.8/3 at 8:00 p.m.) Tuesday, July 3 - On the Lot (1.4/2 at 8:00 p.m.) Monday, July 9 - On the Lot (2.0/3 at 8:00 p.m.) Tuesday, July 17 - On the Lot (1.5/3 at 8:00 p.m.) Tuesday, July 24 - On the Lot (1.5/3 at 8:00 p.m.) Ratings Source: Nielsen Media Research Jeepers, at this rate it will have at most 20 people watching nation wide w/in a few weeks. And by the finale show, those viewers will be US.
|
Alert |
Edit |
Reply |
Reply With Quote | Top |
| |
Cathy the Canadian 599 desperate attention whore postings DAW Level: "Reality Show Commentator"
|
07-26-07, 07:22 PM (EST)
|
2. "RE: The Ratings History for On The Lot." |
I don't really get how to read those numbers. How many viewers does it all translate to?
|
Remove |
Alert |
Edit |
Reply |
Reply With Quote | Top |
| |
|
|
|
Sunny_Bunny 5581 desperate attention whore postings DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold"
|
07-26-07, 09:27 PM (EST)
|
4. "RE: The Ratings History for On The Lot." |
LAST EDITED ON 07-26-07 AT 09:39 PM (EST)Ok, lets take the first show on May 22. Tuesday, May 22 - On the Lot (6.2/9 from 9:00-10:00 p.m.; 7.7/11 at 9:00 p.m.; 4.7/7 at 9:30 p.m.) At 9 pm when the show started, 7 million Households tuned in to watch. By 9:30, 3 million had decided to change the channel dropping the number to 4 million actually watching the program. So, the average is pulled down to 6 By this weeks episode, the numbers are so bad that Neilson doesn't even bother to show the drop out rate: 1 million HH spells the end of On the lot. ETA: If you compare this weeks numbers from NBC who won the time slot with a 2 hour episode of America's Got Talent, they had 7 million households tune in, and by the midway mark the number dropped to 3 million, which still snuffed out On the lot, who ranked 4th in this time slot. you can see the ratings here.
|
Remove |
Alert |
Edit |
Reply |
Reply With Quote | Top |
| |
|
|
|
mistyrose52 795 desperate attention whore postings DAW Level: "Fitness Correspondent"
|
07-30-07, 12:33 PM (EST)
|
6. "RE: The Ratings History for On The Lot." |
Wow, anyone want to venture WHY it's gone so far down so quickly??My irritants are Gary Marshall, who is always quoting someone, and not really giving any constructive meat to chew on; Carrie Fisher, who is a no-name, wash out, that probably 1/2 the population doesn't even know, or barely remember as Princess Leah; and the hostess, whose clothes are so distracting, whose watching the show, anyway?? Second BIG problem: they show almost ALL of the 2 minute segment during the presentation! I have lost all imagination and/or interest by the time I actually have seen it! I think it was a very good pitch that just went downhill quickly by many of the above problems. There have to be more-what do YOU think???
|
Remove |
Alert |
Edit |
Reply |
Reply With Quote | Top |
| |
|
Sunny_Bunny 5581 desperate attention whore postings DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold"
|
07-30-07, 01:56 PM (EST)
|
7. "RE: The Ratings History for On The Lot." |
Yep, I can venture in this territory. (Are you surprised? lol)First, a sweeping generalization: The problem with this show was partly due to WHO was producing it. Obviously, with the names Burnett and Spielberg, viewers thought that this would be well thought out, that one or both of those names would actually show up once in awhile or at the very least would actually be doing the producing that the were pimping on all the adverts. It became painfully obvious that first hour of the premier, that they had shoved the production onto a staff that decided to imitate formula with no thought as to if that formula would work, and who didn't really think about the demographic for this show, which would be die hard fans of the CRAFT rather than the personality. The format for this show was wrong. They tried to run this show like American Idol, when it should have been formatted like Project Runway, or Design Star, with a mentor like Tim Gunn rather than a host or hostess. They should have had one permanent judge who had film director experience, and two "revolving" directors who gave contestants constructive critiques that they could actually USE when making their next movie. They started out with 50 filmmakers, in an attempt to give us "audition" footage similar to SYTYCD and AI. It got very boring, ever quickly. They should have simply started with 20 from the first day. They replaced the pilot hostess with Adrianna Costa, who may have been great sitting behind the desk at CNN, and who may be very talented in other venues, but is woefully wrong for THIS SHOW. She can't hit her marks, she has no talent for improved banter, and they dress her like Pornstar Barbie. I mean really, with the A list producers of this show, they couldn't find a couture house to dress her? Put her against Kat from SYTYCD, and it becomes very apparent that Adrianna is completely out of her element. To be fair, they really have found ways to fix (or camouflage) some of the more glaring problems with the show, but they waited until everyone watching had given up all hope. So it was to little, to late. Finally - get Spielberg into the room! Why on earth haven't they had him DO something ON the program? Well, these are my thoughts on the reason why this show tanked. Its a real shame too, I liked the idea of it.
|
Remove |
Alert |
Edit |
Reply |
Reply With Quote | Top |
| |
|
|
|
|
|
mistyrose52 795 desperate attention whore postings DAW Level: "Fitness Correspondent"
|
07-31-07, 10:13 AM (EST)
|
10. "RE: The Ratings History for On The Lot." |
Well, Burnett has so many reality shows on the burners, he's bound to have a burn out eventually. Sadly, it was this one, if not more. I don't watch a few of the other ones.This one had SO much potential-it is so unlike the others, and I really have grown to love the contestants. But I feel really bad for them. You can see them, week, after week, feeling like the wind is being taken out of their sails. Or is it sales? I guess THAT would be the show. Too sad! Maybe a re-group will help bring it back, bold and on the mark, next season! One can only hope.
|
Remove |
Alert |
Edit |
Reply |
Reply With Quote | Top |
| |
|
|
|
|
BlueLies 398 desperate attention whore postings DAW Level: "Cooking Show Host"
|
08-05-07, 10:23 PM (EST)
|
13. "RE: The Ratings History for On The Lot." |
LAST EDITED ON 08-05-07 AT 10:47 PM (EST)That's too bad. I'm surprised it's not doing better. Just as there are new directors starting out, all the peripherals are just starting out too. Peripherals? - advertisers - merchandisers - marketing people - graphic people - writers - business support (aka entrepreneurs) - manufacturers - builders - therapists for those who didn't make it - therapists for those who did make it - professors who teach economy - professors who teach... - and so on, and so on, and so on.... ----- "is if one of the cable networks (like say Bravo, who does inside the actors studio) took it over" Interesting take. So you think Fox hasn't done it justice? I wonder why Steven Spielberg went with Fox then? ----- I expected to see more of SS too, but as a producer, he may just be sending the message that he's not a mentor, but a producer giving them one shot in a million. We haven't reached the end yet, either. He may have something to say at the end. It may be that the viewers switched to online. I've often thought of dropping my cable in light of all of the online programming we can now watch just to save a buck or two. We don't have a Nielsens for online viewing. However, if online viewing replaced television viewing, online viewing would quickly evolve to become just like television. The saturation of advertising is amazing, but as a network, it would be impossible to say nay to the advertising revenue, but do they really need that much to cover the slot? vs more reruns of 24/House during the summer? I dunno, it's confusing. I personally love Gary Marshall, and the scripts Carrie Fisher has written. I think everything the judges say and do are intended to send a message to these contestants whether it be a conscious decision of theirs or not. Adrianna is still a puzzle to me, as she's getting a break too. As they say, "I'm just thankful to be working." Cleavage is part of the biz... if she didn't, she'd be slammed for not. It's a double-edged sword, I guess. Whose gowns is she wearing anyway? Another upstart designer maybe? I think for someone like Adrianna, she's going to act like her competition rather than reinventing the "spokeswoman wheel" -- it may be that she could not anticipate what her demographic was going to be, so she knows not how to relate and/or the casting director didn't know either, which would make Adrianna look as though she didn't fit in. It may be that she is just following direction and taking all the heat for bad direction.
|
Remove |
Alert |
Edit |
Reply |
Reply With Quote | Top |
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Sunny_Bunny 5581 desperate attention whore postings DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold"
|
08-07-07, 05:22 PM (EST)
|
16. "RE: The Ratings History for On The Lot." |
Interesting take. So you think Fox hasn't done it justice? I wonder why Steven Spielberg went with Fox then? No, it's not that Fox has not done it justice, it just seems that Fox isn't the place for the type of competition the show should be. For example, HGTV does Design Star, because the demographic who would watch that show ALREADY tunes in to that channel. Same thing with Project Runway, on Bravo. Were you to put On The Lot with Bravo who produces Inside the Actor's Studio, the demographic who already watches this channel to learn about the craft of acting, would automatically tune in to watch a show that centers around the craft of directing. But, the choice of cable/network is only the tip of the iceberg of problems with this show. As I said earlier, On The Lot,needs to be produced in a formula similar to Project Runway, with directors and writers competing together, a mentor similar to Tim Gunn rather than a hostess with no knowledge of the business other than being beautiful, and 3 rotating judges who actually know something about the craft beyond being a lead actress in a 30 year old epic blockbuster, and the patriarch of a well respected Television family. ... it may be that she could not anticipate what her demographic was going to be, so she knows not how to relate and/or the casting director didn't know either, If this is true, than someone in the production chain REALLY needs to be fired. First thing, it is their JOB to understand demographics. They HAD to know that the demographic for this show would be small -- only a handful of working, successful directors would be recognized on sight. We all know Hanks, Howard, Reiner, Brooks and Marshall because they were once actors. We know Spielberg and Lucas because of Star Wars. Not many people could pick many other directors out of a police lineup, because it is their name and not their face that is recognizable. As for the casting director, IF they were used at all, it was to find someone lovely to look at. It isn't their fault that the production staff SHOULD have told them to find someone who at least knew the craft. But to be honest with you, I think the current hostess auditioned for this on that age old show "On the casting couch," and it shows. The really bad thing about that, is that while they have camouflaged her inability to hit marks etc., they have not worked with her on banter, what to do with her hands, or even how to interact with the contestants. Production pretty much hung her out to dry, and if I were her, I would be royally ticked off about that.
|
Remove |
Alert |
Edit |
Reply |
Reply With Quote | Top |
| |
|
p l a c e h o l d e r t e x t g o e s h e r e - p l a c e h o l d e r t e x t g o e s h e r e - p l a c e h o l d e r t e x t g o e s h e r e -
p l a c e h o l d e r t e x t g o e s h e r e - p l a c e h o l d e r t e x t g o e s h e r e - p l a c e h o l d e r t e x t g o e s h e r e -
p l a c e h o l d e r t e x t g o e s h e r e - p l a c e h o l d e r t e x t g o e s h e r e - p l a c e h o l d e r t e x t g o e s h e r e -
p l a c e h o l d e r t e x t g o e s h e r e - p l a c e h o l d e r t e x t g o e s h e r e - p l a c e h o l d e r t e x t g o e s h e r e -
|
|