Well, now that I made my great prediction that the ratings would be down for episode 207, thus continuing the downward ratings trend starting with 205 and continuing with 206 (after following what seemed to be tremendous upward momentum from the first four episodes this season), I am now all of a sudden really into TV ratings. LOL!
Anyway, before I talk about Chuck ratings, just a side bar here to let everybody know that, in my Chuck ratings research, I ironically happened upon a really great show that I had heard about before, but only really just discovered yesterday -- Terminator: The Sarah Connor Chronicles. I've only watched the first four episodes of season 1, (yeah, illegally online -- shhh, don't tell anybody), and it is pretty damn fantastic, I think. It doesn't have the comedy and quirkiness of Chuck, but it matches the action and then some (for those of you into that), and like Chuck, it has a kick-ass lead female character named Sarah. LOL! The one big advantage it has over Chuck (at least from the buzz -- I may change my mind after I've gotten through all the episodes) is that the Sarah Conner show runners can apparently run a series without allowing for lazy writing to sneak in and mercilessly kill off fantastically developed characters right and left (my prediction is the Sarah Walker character is next up on the chopping block in upcoming episodes of Chuck, as the writers have her inexplicably pine after a closeted gay DICKWEED named Chuck, who will be back to wanting to use Sarah again to cover and hide his latent homosexuality very soon, I am sure), but I digress...
Okay, back on the topic of Chuck ratings... I feel in my heart that 205 killed the momentum of the show (along with the Jeff character), then 206 actually murdered the show (along with the Chuck character) in such a way that there may have been a glimmer of hope of reviving the show (and the character Chuck) with a miracle "rise from the dead by cheating, but nevertheless acceptable" episode, that is, if a certain plot line was followed, but then 207 did not provide the miracle -- it instead put the nails in the coffin. I'm guessing we cremate the series in 208 with 0% chance of it coming back from the dead, at least not in any recognizable, likable form.
I guess all this interest in ratings all of a sudden is because I am hoping that the Chuck ratings actually reflect this trend in lazy writing (followed by show runners not on top of the situation to fix the minor problems) so that it is 100% unambiguous exactly how, when, where, and why this show was brutally murdered. It would be an awful waste if this show gets canceled this year due to waning interest and bad ratings, yet it is never made clear exactly where things went wrong so that the guilty party or parties (whoever they are) escape unscathed only to go on and murder other TV shows. In fact, I hope Chuck is used as a primary example in "how not to handle a hot, budding TV romance in the second season of what would easily have been a top-20 mega-hit if done properly" in TV production classes for centuries to come.
With that said, I first want to say that I am having a hard time believing that the number of viewers went up this week from last week -- or at least that the shares went up so that Chuck was stealing a larger percentage of viewers from other shows. Either way, I will withhold judgment until I see the final "live numbers" and "share numbers" for episode 207, and I have no idea where to get these numbers consistently.
From what I gather, Nielsen puts out many different ratings statistics for any given TV show, but the three most common raw data numbers seem to be:
1) Live (viewers who watched the show as it aired)
2) Live + SD (live viewers plus people who recorded the show, but nevertheless still watched the show on the "same day" that it aired)
3) Live + 7 (live viewers plus people who recorded the show and watched the show some time within 7 days after the show aired)
And the most common "worked up" numbers seem to be:
1) points (the percentage of TV's tuned in to the show relative to all TV's in the US, regardless of whether the other TV's are on or off)
2) shares (the percentage of TV's tuned in to the show relative to all TV's in the US that are actually on at the time the show airs live)
The "points and shares" numbers are usually broken down further into various age ranges so that you get more detail about the demographics of your audience.
The Nielsen numbers we keep seeing posted here seem to come mostly from "TV By the Numbers" available at
http://tvbythenumbers.com/2008. They usually post somewhat rough "Live + SD" raw numbers, and somewhat rough "points and shares" numbers the day after Chuck airs.
The problem is, I really don't trust the "SD" fudge factor -- mostly because it just seems like a number that can be too easily manipulated, at least much more so than the classic "live" number alone. I'd rather just look at the live numbers, especially if I am just trying to track a possible trend in episode viewership within a series, without worrying about what the competition is doing.
I also don't like the rough "points and shares" numbers that come out before all the raw live numbers are in, but as stated above, I'm just working with what I have from the TV by the Numbers web site, which only seems to give raw points and shares numbers the day after airing, plus the more accurate "total live viewing" numbers a week later, but never both (i.e., never rough, live viewing numbers the day after or more accurate points and shares numbers a week later).
Anyway, from a purely statistical point of view, I only really want to look at two numbers to see how Chuck is doing:
1) Accurate, complete live numbers only (no SD or 7-day factors). This is to spot any potential trends from one episode to the next within the Chuck series, without really worrying about the competition and without the extra added complication of what I think may be relatively inaccurate SD or 7-day numbers.
2) Accurate, complete share numbers based on the accurate live data only. It is always great if your live numbers go up, but it is a little less great if live numbers went up for everybody else as well, causing your show to get the same -- or possibly even lower -- share of the viewer audience despite the increase in live viewers.
So without further ado, here are the numbers I have so far this season for Chuck.
Ep., Live, 18-49, 18-35
____________________________
201, 6.136, 2.6/7, 2.4/7
202, 5.298, 2.2/6, 2.1/6
203, 5.520, 2.3/6, 2.2/6
204, 6.226, 2.5/6, 2.4/6
205, 5.892, 2.5/6, 2.4/6
206, -----, 2.3/6, 2.0/5
207, -----, 2.6/7, 2.1/6
The live viewer numbers are in millions and are final, accumulated a week after the airing of the episode. The points and shares are displayed, respectively, as X.X points/X shares under the age range and are based on over night "live + SD" numbers, not accurate live numbers.
The fishiest number in the table is the 2.6/7 points/shares for the 18-49 age range for episode 207. It is by far the most dramatic increase in ratings over a previous week, and the same trend is not reflected in the 18-35 age range, thereby raising a statistical red flag. Either it is a mistake (an overestimation) or there are an unprecedented number of middle-aged men (35-49) tuning in to see Yvonne Strahovski make eyes at them while dressed as a call girl and then get naked in the shower. If so, I doubt these men will be tuning in next week since Yvonne doesn't seem to be getting dressed as a call girl nor getting naked in any way in 208!
Adieu, Chuck fans -- possibly forever from these boards. You've been great, but I think I may be defecting to Sarah Connor. Wasn't really planning on it, but I always follow my heart, and right now it is telling me I want to see what happens next over in SC world.