[Nirvana1]

Originally posted by Miranda Leigh: <STRONG>Which rating really matter? Because there is two different ratings for one episode. Overnight ratings? I'm sorry, I don't know much about ratings. [img]smilies/lol.gif[/img]</STRONG>

*puts hand on her shoulder* I am right there with you, my friend!

I say that abunch of us should get together and stop them from playing a Ball Game Series thingi at the same time as "Angel". If they continue to, we should threaten to streak riiiiight in the middle of it.

[Ksbnet]

RATINGS FOR 'LIFE OF THE PARTY'

On the WB, the relocated Smallville (5.9/ 9) bested UPN's fading Star Trek: Enterprise (3.9/ 6) by a considerable 51 percent. Year-to-year, Enterprise was off by 22 percent (5.0/ 7 to 3.9/ 6) while Smallville was up 47 percent from former occupant Dawson's Creek (4.0/ 6).

Sticking with the WB and UPN, the frog net's Angel at 9 p.m. (4.1/ 6) outdelivered UPN's struggling Jake 2.0 (2.6/ 4) by 58 percent.

- Mediaweek.com

[Nirvana1]

Originally posted by Ksbnet: <STRONG>RATINGS FOR 'LIFE OF THE PARTY' On the WB, the relocated Smallville (5.9/ 9) bested UPN's fading Star Trek: Enterprise (3.9/ 6) by a considerable 51 percent. Year-to-year, Enterprise was off by 22 percent (5.0/ 7 to 3.9/ 6) while Smallville was up 47 percent from former occupant Dawson's Creek (4.0/ 6). Sticking with the WB and UPN, the frog net's Angel at 9 p.m. (4.1/ 6) outdelivered UPN's struggling Jake 2.0 (2.6/ 4) by 58 percent. - Mediaweek.com</STRONG>

I thought "Smallville" was down as well as "Angel"?

[ROCKSTAR]

Originally posted by Nirvana1: <STRONG> I thought "Smallville" was down as well as "Angel"?</STRONG>

It is, but it's still performing better than "Dawson's Creek"

And an overnight of 4.1/6 is not good, the finals will be much lower..

The show is getting weaker, maybe the writers are struggling, but the (lack of) storyline isn't fooling anyone. I hope they get a direction soon! This 'motw' setting is beginning to lose attention.

[Ragnarok]

It's not as good as I'd hoped, but better than I expected. I've been worried that "The OC", pathetic as I think it is, would steal more of the "Smallville" crowd. It looks like AtS is still keeping about 70% of the "Smallville" lead-in. Not as strong as I'd like to see, but it could be a lot worse.

[Doogie]

These are preliminary fast national ratings for every half hour from thefutoncritic:

Smallville

8:00 3.9/6
8:30 4.4/7

Angel

9:00 3.2/5
9:30 3.0/4

So, if these hold up, Angel is continuing one of the major problems it had last year-- lost viewers in it's second half hour.

[ROCKSTAR]

Originally posted by Doogie: <STRONG>Angel 9:00 3.2/5 9:30 3.0/4 So, if these hold up, Angel is continuing one of the major problems it had last year-- lost viewers in it's second half hour.</STRONG>

With last night's episode I'm not shocked.

[crazy_diamond]

IMO I think the 4.1 was good, holds steady.

[Mim]

What people fail to realize is that Angel has way stronger competition than Smallville...just like 7th Heaven didn't have as much when Angel was on after it.

It's still doing better than stupid Tarzan and One Tree Hill.

[Doogie]

Well, Smallville, had direct competition from The 70's Show and still managed to hold it's own. It's ratings have remained stable and virtually the same since the premiere. The same cannot be said of Angel. 'Life of the Party' dropped almost 2 million viewers from it's lead in. That being said, Angel's ratings are nothing to scoff at. While they are not spectacular, they are certainly better than last year. Here are the final ratings for "Life Of The Party":

Angel
HH: 3.0/ 5 (#5),
Viewers: 4.72 million (#5),
A18-49: 2.2/ 5 (#5)

[ 10-31-2003: Message edited Doogie ]

[Cloudburst2000]

Also, you can't directly compare ratings on the WB and UPN networks because not near as many cable providers include the UPN network as they do WB. For example, where I live WB is included along with basic cable, but to get UPN you have to have the better cable package. And where I used to live in Kentucky, we got WB but UPN wasn't carried by that cable network at all. So direct comparisons of Angel's ratings to those of Jake 2.0 don't really work that well. UPN shows basically never have as a high ratings as WB shows because the shows are not available in near as many households. To really see how Jake 2.0 is faring, you'd have to compare it to the ratings of UPN's other shows. That's one of the reasons why BTVS had lower ratings on UPN than on WB because alot of die-hard viewers couldn't get the show anymore. Just thought I'd point this out *shrug*

[ 10-31-2003: Message edited Cloudburst2000 ]

[glory fades]

I'm not surprised that the ratings are bad with the episodes we've been getting this season. Honestly, if I didn't support AtS as much as I do, I would be tuning in to watch The OC as well.

The ratings are better than last season, though...

[ 11-01-2003: Message edited glory fades ]

[ROCKSTAR]

You know what?

After seeing all the slumping big names and seeing new shows on the bigger networks flop like its nobodys business, the fact that Tru Calling's pilot was watched by less people than Angel's last eppy, I think our ratings are good [img]smilies/lol.gif[/img]

I hope they only get stronger so it looks great on the eyes of the Frogg. With tomorrow's Pornville's(those last 3 promos have been red hot!) 1961 episode I would expect a small increase in our ratings.

[Devoted]

From USA Today: Are Networks loosing young male appeal?

"Fox's post season baseball coverage showed a sharp increase among young men and a handful of shows including WB's Angel and Charmed are up substancially."

Read the whole article here. http://www.usatoday.com/life/televis...e-appeal_x.htm

Actually I've been reading a lot about Angel hitting record highs in quite a few demographics this season.

[ 11-04-2003: Message edited Devoted ]

[ROCKSTAR]

I love that they are mentioning Ats in particular, means something.