"Out of sight, out of mind". Do the off-weeks cause casual viewers to tend to forget about Lost, not think as much about it, and perhaps lose some interest?

I am a die-hard, but a couple friends are casual fans, and they commented yesterday that they have no idea when the show will be on again, and they just say with the slow pace and all the off-weeks, they're not following it as closely anymore.

There's an expression "strike while the iron's hot". Viewership is red-hot right now, so I don't see why ABC is not capitalizing on that. On 'Dallas' after JR's shooting, they actually showed new episodes on back-to-back nights to capitalize on the craze. ABC seems to be doing the opposite.

Surely the ratings for the reruns were weak (I didn't watch last week). How many CASUAL viewers are losing track of all the unanswered questions, and are losing interest because of all the off-weeks?

Why would you lose interest just because it's not being shown?

It's the gaps that make us more determined to watch it when it does come back. It would only lose fan's if the show wasn't interesting anymore, but Clair's return is enough to bring everyone back for more.

The boards may thin out a little due to the gaps, but that's only because nothing new is being posted and sometimes it's not worth posting in them because the answers or advice have already been given.

Trueogre, you are confusing us die-hard fans with the casual viewer. Most Americans have short attention spans.

Television has changed in the last two decades. We have the internet, DVDs including entire series available, and a zillion other shows on a zillion other channels.

I'm going to watch every minute of Lost, regardless. I'm wondering about CASUAL viewers. It seemed like ABC had them, but may be letting some of 'em get away. My friends are prime examples.

I don't mean to be harsh, but if you lose interest after a few re-runs, then you're not much of a fan to begin with. That is, LOST just doesn't do it for you. If casual viewers lose interest, that's not a big deal to the network because those are not the bread and butter fans. The latter are the ones who come back every week, every other week, or every 4th week if that's how often the original eppys run, because LOST holds enough interest to make them want to continue the journey. There are always going to be re-runs - deal with it. ABC had no idea what they had on their hands with this show; I think they initially only ordered 1/2 seasons worth of shows. If we have to wait for an original eppy, then we have to wait. There are worse things in life.

Betsy, (that's my sister's name ;) ) You make some valid points, and then again, don't.

Casual viewers are the difference between a routine series and a blockbuster. And they are the viewers ABC might lose with the "filler" episodes and endless re-runs. If my math is correct, we had three weeks of re-runs over Christmas, three weeks of new episodes, then two weeks of re-runs now.

That's three new episodes in eight weeks :-\ (and, those three episodes were not the most exciting ones.)

As die-hards, WE have the patience to wait it out. But there are many other people (like my friends) who got caught up in the Lost craze, realized they were airing re-runs much of the time, saw the slow pace of plot development, then took a "maybe I will, maybe I won't" attitude toward watching future episodes.

Yes, Americans have short attention spans, especially in this day of immediate gratification. So to return the expression: Deal with it.

i think lost is the best thing to happen to tv in a very long time (if not ever), and i, too, am having 'lost withdraws'. but i'm a diehard fan, and always will be. there isnt really a good reason the writers or producers could come up with to justify the reruns...its just cruelty...exept for the fact that theres stuff we should be paying attention to that we might have missed the first time...other than that, it just hurts.

I know 4 people who stopped watching LOST after the Christmas reruns.

It's true though, LOST's ratings will go down as long as they keep doing this.

Anyone who stops watching Lost, or any other TV show for that matter, because of reruns is not someone I would personally consider a true fan. Reruns are a natural, albeit annoying, aspect of a TV season. As true fans we must deal with it, and content ourselves with thoughts of what to come. Lost is a brilliant show, and I plan on being around when the new episodes air, whenever, and however long that takes. I am a true fan, and I am here to stay.* :laugh:

Anyone who stops watching Lost, or any other TV show for that matter, because of reruns is not someone I would personally consider a true fan

I agree with that, but I don't think that Mickey Mouse was talking about true fans -- he (she?) was talking about potential fans who didn't get hooked enough to turn into fans because while Lost was repeating episodes, they wandered off to some other channel and didn't manage to wander back again.* *

If it were me, I'd save out something to add to the reruns... some previously unshown footage or the promise of some new piece of information (even if it's a ten-second statement in a voiceover) or something to make people think twice about changing the channel, especially with a show like this where the heroin-y aspect is the mystery.*

I agree with that, but I don't think that Mickey Mouse was talking about true fans -- he (she?) was talking about potential fans who didn't get hooked enough to turn into fans because while Lost was repeating episodes, they wandered off to some other channel and didn't manage to wander back again.* *


That is true as well, it was aimed more toward the casual viewers. Thanks for re pointing that out.* :)*I guess that* what*gets me, is the fact the anyone (not just Lost fans) can complain so much about reruns. If you have ever been into a show, then you know that this is a normal part of that. I am not saying I like it (far from that* ;)) I just know that I have to deal with it.* (This from a girl who watches each and every repeat)* :lol2:

Re-runs were a fact of life in the 70's and 80's -- before DVDs came out with entire series, before videos provided alternate entertainment, and before the explosion of cable with zillions of competing programs.

Yes, Americans have short-attention spans. Deal with it (wow, is that a popular expression on here).

It amazes me that ABC has a ratings hit on their hands -- and just lets it stagnate. Three new episodes in a period of eight weeks? (and making matters worse, those three episodes were largely 'filler')

Again: we die-hards will be here regardless. But among the casual viewers, the "buzz" about Lost is evaporating.

I watched the repeats too, Lostdreamer *:) *And I'm not complaining about them -- I only worry about this stuff because I want the ratings to be spectacular so that the show isn't yanked off the air and replaced with some stupid (but cheap) reality show. *And I also want Lost to be a huge roaring success so that more TV people decide to foot the bill for more scripted, plotted shows. *

And Mickey Mouse, I don't* think Americans have short attention spans so much as they have a lot of choices.* *And when you have a lot of choices, it takes more to inspire loyalty.*

Don't almost all tv shows have reruns right now? The not-Three networks have learned to stagger their reruns with other networks in order to pick up viewers with new episodes (ie., Gilmore Girls. (That's how I started watching Buffy years ago)). The big three tend to introduce mid-season replacements like Point Pleasant (well, that's Fox) and Numbers (99% of which never make it, so why even bother).

Personally, I find it infuriating. I would rather just watch a show every week. If I can't watch, I record it . They must think/know they can make more money with these bizarre breaks timed around holidays/sweeps weeks. But, there have been shows I've stopped watching because of this, because I could barely remember what was going on with only 3 new episodes in 8 weeks. It's ridiculous. I too, know people that have completely lost interest in Lost because of the breaks. I hope next time the networks do research groups I get to participate.

I actually like how shows like Monk and Stargate do their seasons: half a season in the summer and half a season starting in January - no breaks. I don't mind waiting 4 months, but I Hate waiting two weeks. *:)

It's not about who's a "true" fan. It's about the show being successful and on the air. Buffy could stay on the air on a not-Three network with less than 3 million viewers. Lost will not. Not on ABC. Period. I'm supposing there are market research people telling the suits that the shares will go through the roof in February. Yippee, but the market research people should be kidnapped and tickled until they admit that TV-loving people (as opposed to random people at the mall) would actually like to NOT wait, and WOULD actually like to know a reasonably simple thing like: when "their" show is on. Dammit. Sweeps be damned.

I have to agree with Spooky.

1) This is not a test of who is a "die-hard" fan and who is not. The question was asked of those who are more casual viewers and this board does not tend to reflect them.
2) As far as the "old days" of television, I remember a full season of new programs and then re-runs in the summers. This is not the structure of the mainstream broadcast networks today. They make fewer episodes and string them out. However, as with a soap opera, if a show like LOST has gaps in its story telling which is already paced in a slow, methodical way, its viewership WILL suffer to some extent.
3) As to the "die-hards," yes - I agree: they can wait it out during the week/weeks of no-new-episodes. I suppose the question might be, "Should they HAVE to?" A lot is assumed of viewers when producers make fewer episodes, always with profit margins in mind, and expect the shows' supporters to hang in there. True, a program like LOST is costly to produce and this IS a for-profit venture as well as artistic work. Nevertheless, this "Episodus Interruptus" isn't very satisfying..... :)

I watched the repeats too, Lostdreamer *:) *


Yay, so I am not the only one.* :laugh:

I channel hop when there is nothing on, and I tend to stop at something that looks interesting and keep the channel on it, but my attention isn't fully on the show. OC is one I have done this with. But I have never stopped and payed attention to it 100%.

If your friends are casual viewiers does it matter if their attention is moved onto other things? It's not going to be the end of the world if they do since most of the time it's the die hard fans that keep coming back. Fan's are integral to making a show a success. A show does not go out of it's way for casual viewers.

Repeats were always happening because it was a time when we did not have video recorders and repeats were a way of watching a show again and again. Also repeats are necessary when there is no programs to put on the screen so they use fillers until something new can be slotted in.

I don't think the networks are worried about casual viewers at all.

Betsy,* (that's my sister's name* *;) )* You make some valid points, and then again, don't.

Casual viewers are the difference between a routine series and a blockbuster.* And they are the viewers ABC might lose with the "filler" episodes and endless re-runs.* If my math is correct, we had three weeks of re-runs over Christmas, three weeks of new episodes, then two weeks of re-runs now.

That's three new episodes in eight weeks* :-\* (and, those three episodes were not the most exciting ones.)

As die-hards, WE have the patience to wait it out.* But there are many other people (like my friends) who got caught up in the Lost craze, realized they were airing re-runs much of the time, saw the slow pace of plot development, then took a "maybe I will, maybe I won't" attitude toward watching future episodes.

Yes, Americans have short attention spans, especially in this day of immediate gratification.* So to return the expression:* Deal with it.


Mickey, is Betsy your sister's real name? Mine is....I used to get asked whether I was really an Elizabeth!

You make good points, but the real fans of Lost enjoy the slow plot development. We've had less than 20 episodes, and the castaways have only been on the island in "their" time for about a month or so. Lost is in the top ten for the season; I can't believe that most of those viewers are simply casual fans. It's just too many. If your friends were speaking for the majority of the casual fans (and thereby the entire fanbase), the first original eppy after the Christmas break wouldn't have done as well as it did. I think most of the people watching Lost are devoted fans simply hooked on the premise, the acting and the mystery. Casual fans simply might have to follow another show if they want instant gratification. That's not the M.O. of Lost.

I have to agree that casual viewers could quickly lose interest. For example The OC - I used to watch it pretty much every week, but they had a really long break and my interest in the show just fizzled. I didn't love the show to begin with, I just watched it because, well, I have nothing better to do on Thursday evenings.

The only thing I'm worried about is that if casual viewers stop dropping off, and if the show progresses too slowly and takes too many breaks, some "die hard" fans will be more willing to miss a few episodes.

This "low attention" span stuff, I think it's sort of stupid. I mean after all, if you're watching a show for weeks waiting for something interesting to happen, after a while you'll start to think nothing exciting is going to happen and you'll stop watching it. That's how TV shows work - if they drag things out too much, or have nothing interest at all, people are guaranteed to stop watching it, thus killing it.

I know I'll continue to watch for the rest of the season. Things are starting to look up, so I'm really relying on that.

I've wondered the same thing as Mickey Mouse, myself, actually. Frankly, because I LOVE Lost and would probably pass out or vomit if it went off the air. So, it worries me that they are showing so many reruns and not enough new episodes at this point-- although, I think it's typical for any show.

The problem comes in where Lost is anything but a typical show. For people who haven't watched it from the beginning, it's a hard show to get involved in, regardless. It's a cronological show, and if you miss an episode and don't have the motivation to find out what happened, you're going to come into the next show missing things.

Many non-devotees just don't want to bother with Lost-- not because I haven't shoved down their throats what an excellent show it is and how they are truely missing out on the best hour of television-- but because they don't want to have to go through the trouble of figuring out what is going on with the show. Blasphemy?? Yes!!

But when it comes right down to it, the involvement you have to have in Lost in order to know what's going on, coupled with the slow pace it moves at, and throwing in many reruns and few new episodes, I truely think could potentially spell disaster to the ratings.

<prayer> Please, please, please let me be wrong!!!11! </prayer>

The question should we have to week two more weeks for a new episode, is NO.

Just coming off the holiday break, given two new episodes, then two week break is just to close together. I am a die hard fan, who watched American Idol instead of a repeat of Lost.
How sad is that. :( Today, I woke up and reailized my zeal for Lost was gone, this makes me sad.

Later.

State Girl, that is my point. I'm fearful that the ratings will drop. And my hypothetical question is still: ABC has a red-hot show on their hands, so why not capitalize on it?

I'm in real estate, and if a client is excited about buying a house, but I don't call them for three weeks... their interest may have fizzled.

I can understand taking a week or two off at Christmas. But this break is truly puzzling -- and it comes after three episodes which frankly, weren't among LOST's best.

I keep hearing talk about "sweeps" week, etc. etc. But why not go into sweeps week with momentum? Why show only 3 episodes in 8 weeks? How does that generate loyalty and excitement?

I suppose they can't show shows they don't have -- if they only had enough new episodes to cover Sweeps, then they'd have to save them for Sweeps.* It's the fault of whoever decides how many episodes to order that they're caught short now -- and not that I'm a TV historian or anything but it seems to me that the whole process is antiquated.* Budgets force people to have to gage how successful a show might be before the first episode is ever aired, and Sweeps forces them to anger the viewers with reruns because it would be financially even more suicidal to have reruns during Sweeps.

They need to rework the whole Sweeps system, and stop with the "let's throw it against the wall and see if it sticks" attitude towards coming up with new shows.* If they're going to back a show, back the show,* give it a decent chance by budgeting enough episodes so that it can get some momentum going.*

They have the shows.

Alias for example, didn't start in the fall, already taped their whole season, is now on a two week break. Alias was already losing views before this break.

The Lost rerun this week gathered 11 or so million viewers. The last new episode had 21.5 million viewers. How many viewers did Lost lose or will lose. The ratings will tell us.

That's three new episodes in eight weeks* :-\* (and, those three episodes were not the most exciting ones.)

Well I'm a "diehard" fan & I totally disagree with the above statement. But that's just my opinion. ;)

I don't know anyone who is a "casual" viewer. I doubt someone who has seen only like 3 or 5 episodes could truly understand what the show is about or the importance of each character. I tried getting my sister in law to watch a few times, but she doesn't understand what's going on because she hasn't seen any of the early episodes. But, she did say she would buy the DVD's when they came out so she could watch from start to end.

I personally think the re-runs are good for us true fans who might not have taped them when they first aired because watching them a second time brings forth a new light of questions AND helps us put pieces together that we might have missed. I mean think about it...what if you had never watched the show & started by watching "Heats & Minds". I know if it were me, I would have been totally confused & probably lost interest.

I don't think "casual" viewers exist when it comes to shows like Lost or Alias.

Aren't they called channel hoppers? In which case they seldom settle on watching a show unless it is interesting to them.

Casual viewers maybe....my house no way! It gives me a chance to read all the posts here and gather thoughts together (they tend to wander) and gives some a chance to re-watch if they have it available to do so, and see what little things that we might have missed the first time around. So I think it's not a bad thing, but it does make for a long wait...

Steady ratings of 18 to 21.5 million viewers are not channel hoppers. Lost was in the top ten shows for ratings the fall season.

Like I said the new ratings will prove whether the two weeks hiatus was worth it.

I want to clarify something, I want Lost to suceed, we need GOOD tv shows.

Maybe I'm over-analyzing it, lol

But if I'm an ABC exec, and I have a smash hit on my hands, why not milk it for all it's worth? Why not order more episodes and air them every week (except over the holidays) while the "iron is hot"? Then we all know there'll be a summer break, and hopefully the craze will still be there in the fall.

Or am I missing something?

Why spend time worrying about this stuff? Lost is an absolutely monster hit - it's not in any danger of losing a substantial amount of viewers. If you like the show enough, then you'll come back to it when the new episodes air, no matter how many weeks it's been. If you don't like the show enough, or if you've found other things to do with your time on Wednesdays at 8pm, then you won't come back - simple enough. Millions of viewers are still watching the show, so the writers are doing something rignt. As I stated earlier, they didn't produce enough episodes to last for a whole season; Lost was not exactly a guaranteed success. We're seeing re-runs now because they've had to catch up.

Personally, I don't much care about those viewers who are losing interest. If they're not patient enough to deal with this temporary blip (next year will be different, I'm sure), then so be it. I'm also not worried about the long term success of this show. There are always going to be re-runs on any network show, and I don't have a problem with that.

I was talking about the casual viewers who are channel hoppers, not the ones who religiously tune in and watch it when it's on.

Maybe I'm over-analyzing it, lol

But if I'm an ABC exec, and I have a smash hit on my hands, why not milk it for all it's worth? Why not order more episodes and air them every week (except over the holidays) while the "iron is hot"? Then we all know there'll be a summer break, and hopefully the craze will still be there in the fall.

Or am I missing something?


Um, yeah, you are missing something. TV shows aren't just miraculously created. They take time and a lot of work to create. Each episode has to be written (which I imagine takes at least a few days) and then filmed (8 days). So lets say you're looking at 12+ days for an episode. The problem lies in the fact that if you didn't have reruns, you'd have an episode every seven days (or, as somone suggested earlier, a couple a week if an episode is a big hit, a la J.R.)

Episode 1x18 is currently being filmed. If there weren't repeats, 1x15 would've just aired. Eventually, you'll come to a point where without repeats, you'll be sitting in front of your TV on a Wednesday night waiting for Lost to air... only nothing comes on. Why? The episode hasn't even reached final edits.

Are you saying they still haven't written future episodes, that they have no idea where it's going? I doubt that.

Also, we know that at least three, if not more episodes have been filmed and are in the can. We've seen the promotional spots for them.

ABC has known for a long time, several months, that they had a ratings hit. They've had plenty of time to produce more episodes. And the cast is so large that not everyone needs to be available at all times. Jin and Claire are barely on screen, and even Jack and Sawyer had limited appearances last episode.

What I know is: last Wed. ABC could've made millions more, had they aired a new episode. The ratings for the rerun was about half of the previous week. If I was a ABC shareholder I'd wonder why they let that week go to waste.

They have their outlines, but I don't think any of the episodes past 1x20 are written, at least not in full. In fact, a title hasn't even been released for 1x20. It has nothing to do with knowing where it's going- they do. However, the last few episodes of the season haven't been written for practical reasons.

Lost's an expensive show to film. So expensive, in fact, that even with its ratings, it's still in debt. (About $500K per episode). The show would become even more expensive if the episodes had to be out there quicker, and therefore were filmed quicker. Plus, the quality of each ep would be affected... the ratings would go down.

And yes, three future episodes have been filmed. ONLY three.

Do you understand how expensive it is and how much work it is to produce a full season (22-24 episodes)? They haven't had plenty of time to produce more episodes. They work at a steady pace, yes.

If ABC had aired a new episode last week, they may have made millions more that night, but lost much more in the long run. They're clearly saving "Homecoming" for sweeps for a reason.

It's not logical for a show to have more than the standard 22-24 episodes, especially a show like Lost. It's expensive to produce, time consuming to write, and the editors' jobs are quite complicated. Plus, as the show is already in debt, paying extras and SAG members for more episodes isn't wise.

As you've pointed out, the reruns do get lower ratings than new episodes. However, I'll point out that "Lost" reruns often steal the night anyway- they usually come in first or second for the time period anyway.

Obviously abc is following the time-honored tradition of viewer-bating until sweeps begin mid-february. Likely we'll see a whole slew of new episodes in about a week when the cost of airing a commercial will be cranked up to about double what it was in December. I mean, why air a new episode now when you can get twice as much bank for it if you wait a week or two?

It's just good business.

Hah! Mickey Mouse, I'm a Realtor, too... perhaps that's why we have the same fears??!

:lol2:

Can someone tell me what "Sweeps" means? I hear that term thrown around all the time. Is that when viewership is at its highest, presumably because the weather is so bad in February?

My original point was that this long layover could damage some of the excitement among the middle-of-the-road fans. I didn't say it would be the end of the show.. Just that there can only be so much teasing before some people find a new girlfriend ;)

Again, I can understand taking a couple weeks off at Christmas, but not in January. Again, what is the significance of "sweeps"? Maybe someone closer to the business can explain it better for me.

Basically sweeps are a time for the network to prove to everybody- especially advertisers- that the show's worth watching. Therefore, they'll give a show a buildup, a few weeks off, and put on a hopefully AMAZING episode that will bring in the viewers. That's why TV is so screwy in November, February, and May.

That being said, though, the hiatus before WTCMB certainly didn't hurt the ratings... in fact, it broke over 20 million.

Sweeps refer to 4 months in the year when ratings are produced for every local market in the U.S. Usually the broadcast networks hold their better programming for those months in order to give the local stations their highest ratings.

For the broadcast networks themselves, they get daily ratings and the sweeps are only minimally of impact. It's more a local station thing. With changes that are occurring in the local ratings, though, the concept of sweeps may change too. But not for years yet, if it does happen.

The sweeps months are November (follows the premieres and usually has audiences set by then), February (usually one of the highest viewing times because of bad/cold weather in the northern states), May (the traditional end-of-season) and July (this is not as important a measurement, but does help with those summer replacement shows).

Hope that helps.

I had no idea July was a Sweeps month.* And I call myself a TV addict!* *:lol2:

I think Sweeps ought to be random and secret, like drug tests.* That would keep everyone on their toes!

I just graduated with a communication degree, and in my mass comm class, we talked about Nielsen ratings and sweeps. Obviously the system has lost its effectiveness.

Lost is not doing anything different than other shows. Desperate Housewives is a rerun tonight, last week Veronica Mars was a rerun, and Gilmore Girls has been showing reruns a lot lately. Very few shows put on a lot of new episodes in January because they are waiting for sweeps. I always look forward to February, because the shows pull out all the stops. The episodes always seem better in February than they do in November. Of course, May sweeps are the best, because you get end of season cliff hangers!

Sometimes these two week breaks can actually help the show find a new audience because it allows people who have not watched to catch up a bit. I have become a fan of several shows while they were in a break like that, showing reruns that explained things better.

The thing to keep in mind is, in February we will see the best episodes yet, because they want to do well during sweeps. You will see lots of promos and the shows will be bigger, with more revelations. Just look forward to that.

I would think the opposite would be true.* Wouldn't the networks want their "best" shows immediately before sweeps?* That way, the momentum and excitement are built up, so the audience should peak perfectly for sweeps.

Lost did the opposite (please don't shoot me for saying this!)... I felt the three episodes in January were not really the show's strongest (still good, but a bit of a letdown from the November shows).

"Whatever the Case May Be":* In my opinion, the worst show of the series to date. (One of my friends stopped watching after this episode, saying nothing was really happening to advance major plotlines. I told him to stick with it.)

"Hearts & Minds":* An interesting episode, but Boone's hallucination ruined it for me.* It made me wonder what else we've seen so far was not real.* It annoys me no end when writers use dreams and hallucinations as a plot device (see "dream season" on Dallas).

"Special":* A good episode with Walt and Michael.

Ok, I don't mean to get off-topic here... My point is, the show has aired 3 new episodes in 8 weeks, and now we want everyone - casual and diehard viewers alike - to come back to it for sweeps week.* It doesn't make sense, but then again I'm not a network insider, lol.

Please don't stone me! I am as huge a fan as anyone :)

It's a formula that's worked in the past. Your claim that the January episodes were not the strongest, while possibly true for content, doesn't hold up when you look at the ratings. All three episodes averaged somewhere around 20 million viewers, which is impressive, even considering past episodes. (The first few were a few million lower, if I remember correctly).

"Special" did what it needed to. It got the viewers hooked in the last few minutes. People will be tuning in to see what's happened to Claire.

Special got my attention for sure! And it definately made me want to tune in for the rest of the season.

I will agree that the ending of "Special" grabbed me. Of course as a diehard fan, I'll be here no matter what!!

Still, the content of the previous two episodes, WTCMB and H&M disappointed me. I expected more plot development. Sure the ratings were up because November's shows were so strong. Then came the expected Christmas break. Everyone was excited about Lost's return.... Then back-to-back humdrum episodes.

Anyway, back to topic: I hope ABC is taking the right approach with this. It seemed that they risked losing some viewers with all the re-runs, but let's hope those viewers don't get discouraged and come back for the new episodes. I want to see this stay a ratings success!

People who stop watching a show because of re-runs are THE reason we have had crap tv the last few years with 5 Law and Orders, 3 CSI's and a BILLION reality shows(which don't rerun) because people want instant gratification and can tune into those crap shows at any point in the season wihout being Lost.(heh)



Doesn't anyone in this country pay attention to the presidential union address?!!? THAT is why Alias does not have a new episode on wednesday. IMO, they should've bumped the Lost re-run and shown the Alias ep but what do I know,, I'm just a fan.

And they have NOT taped the whole season. They have fewer episodes in the can then Lost does. Lost is filming episode 18 while Alias is filming like episode 16.

Eddy, without casting judgment, you it the nail on the head.* In this day and age, many Americans DO want instant gratification (or at the very least, not to wait weeks and months endlessly for some of the mysteries posed by the show to be solved).

I don't know if it's intant gratification per se, or just so many more alternate choices available nowadays with cable, Dvds, etc.

Regardless, ABC has to be aware of this.* We're not living in the 50's "I Love Lucy" era anymore.* The times, they are a-changing... Hopefully with 5 weeks of rereuns within an 8-week span, Lost's viewers haven't lost interest and jumped ship. But based on what friends have told me, I don't know if the show is maintaining its casual viewers.

I said this in another thread but if you thought December and January were bad, just wait til March. We'll be lucky to get one episode that month.

And hey at least we didn't have to do like Smallville with ONE episode in the last 9 weeks.

I don't think *"Americans want instant gratification" is really a fair representation of what's going on here. *First of all I don't think we're unique in wanting instant gratification, I think that's a human condition in general. *And, I don't think that's the reason casual viewers change the channel and (maybe) don't come back. *

Like you say there are all kinds of options these days, and if people lose interest in a show for whatever reason it's not acharacter flaw , TV is entertainment; if it ain't entertaining why on earth would someone subject themselves to it? *

But overall the problem rests squarely on Sweeps, because Sweeps forces this unnatural clumping of new episodes and reruns.

i'm so afraid ABC is gonna do this, because they've done it w/ "NYPD Blue" and now they're doing it w/ "Alias", they're gonna wait till midseason next year to start showing the new season of "Lost". if they do that, they'll be able to hear me screaming from space.

I would hate for LOST to take a huge hiatus like that too leesha but maybe it'd be for the best. its worked for alias and 24 so far.

it's a double edged sword eddy, in a way it works for the loyal viewers, but there will be some viewers who will stop watching. if ABC were smart, they'd wait (if they even think about doing this at all) until the third season.

I kind of understand the idea behind Sweeps, and I kind of don't.*

Don't advertisers know the networks hold their "best" shows for sweeps week?* Are the advertisers that stupid?* Why don't they look at the entire picture to determine ratings and, therefore, ad prices?

It's been stated that Lost has had excellent ratings so far.* So, why is sweeps suddenly so important?* In fact, don't advertisers get upset that the "poorer" espisodes (like WTCMB and H&M) are aired during non-sweeps week?* I don't get it.

And what I still don't get is the logic behind showing weaker episodes, sandwiched between two layoffs, and expecting casual fans to suddenly flock back en masse.

I think part of the rationale behind sweeps is that if the highest possible numbers are good, the show should stay on the air, but if the highest possible numbers still don't cut it, the show gets the axe. That's why sweeps is such an important time. If a show runs four of its best episodes in one month, all in a row, while promoting the hell out of them during other shows, and it still doesn't get the numbers the advertisers want, odds are it won't get them during months of reruns and weaker episodes.

Does that make sense? In a way it does, but in a way it doesn't. The ratings system is antiquated anyway, but there is also the problem that there is never a really random sample. After all, will a casual TV viewer take the time to fill out a diary for a month, telling Nielsen what they watched? Even more unlikely are the other methods of getting ratings numbers, methods like boxes on your TV that you have to enter in the number of people watching. The box is hooked up to a phone line and sends the info back to the company. Would a casual viewer agree to this for something like $5 a week? Not likely. So you don't get a random sample at all, but a very specific demographic of people who don't mind intrusion into their home and their TV habits. And they don't have to be honest either. I had a professor who said he just flipped through the TV guide and picked the shows that sounded stupid. They need a better way to measure TV viewing so they can get an accurate count. Maybe if the TV signal could send something back when it is tuned in or something, then they could tell down to the individual how many people were watching any given show at any given time.

Sorry. I got on a soapbox for a minute there. Ratings have killed some of the best shows on TV, and I think they need to change things.

for those who come here the off-weeks don't matter that much
we know we're going to get it, so we wait, even if it's painful

fo other viewers this might kill off the show
i don't know what airs at about the same time, since i don't care much, better a no lost week than a lousy tv show
but the effect might be that viewers addicted to lost might want to see if the grass is greener on the other side of the hill

furthermore, if the writers decide to build a momentum to the show, such as growing tensions, the off-weeks completely kill that
to make it short, i have better things to do than watch a rerun just to keep in the mood and ready for the premiere of the next episode

in france we don't have reruns
a rerun will only occur once the season or the whole series of seasons has been broadcasted, even for french shows
for US shows that's a bit different, they have to be dubbed, and they have the whole series on hand when they start broadcasting it (even though i think i heard that Lost might air this month here - hopefully we'll get one episode per week without a break)

Face it, runnig a tv network is not about pleasing the viewers, it's about making money, no matter what they say to you in their self promotng commercials

The CEO of the biggest french tv network declared recently that his job was to broadcast shows that rendered the viewers' brains available and receptive for the commercials

by the way, we only have one commerical break during an episode :) (we used to have none *sigh)

Of course making money is the most important thing to the networks. Not only are they in business, but they are big, expensive businesses. And the competition is incredible, especially here in the good ole' USA. The number of broadcast networks is three times what it was in the 70's.... and cable is taking big chunks of the viewing away.

And Charliesgal? Believe it or not, Nielsen has one of the best cooperation rates for samples. And as an added challenge, that national sample is more than doubling. It is one of the things they are constantly challenged on and even get audited on. Sounds like your classes were a bit lax in delivering the whole story. But Nielsen isn't the one that keeps a show on the air or takes it off. That is strictly the network's call. And they do make decisions that we sometimes scratch our heads over . (Hey, I'm STILL an Angel fan and haven't figured out that rationale yet on canning that show.)

But back on subject, balancing repeats and new episodes is a tough call. You have to anticipate what the competition is going to do as well as plan for pre-emptions (like the State of the Union). You don't want to go so fast that if someone missed an episode they will feel lost (no pun intended). The nets have been trying all sorts of things to find us, the viewer. Experiments like playing 24 in consecutive weeks (although note that they started with 2 days straight with 2 shows each to hook viewers). They have also been doing repeats within the week (hey, it works for cable). Tweaking program durations is another tactic. Overall TV viewership is up. Its just been very fragmented.

February is a crucial month ... right after it is when the upfront buying season for fall commercial time starts negotiation. With so much riding on commercial bucks these days, you better believe the big guys use all the episodes, not just sweeps. The local guys sell time differently, with a lot of emphasis being on the local programming (news).

Wow, you sound like you know what you're talking about. Wish you had taught that mass comm class. It is entirely possible that they were lax in giving the whole story. It happened more than once.

I was aware that Nielsen didn't make the final decision about which shows got cancelled, but my prof insisted that the sample really isn't random because of the types of people who actually agree to participate. He didn't say Nielsen didn't try to get a random sample, he just said it was hard to really make sure the sample was random because of the psychology involved. It may be random demographically, but it may not be random psychographically, if that makes any sense. As I said in my previous post, what kinds of people will take the time to fill out the diaries? I would certainly do it, but I'm a rabid fan of several TV shows, and that is not representative of the average viewer. My prof sort of proved his point by asking us to raise our hands if we would be willing to fill out a Nielsen diary. Five out of the 30 class members raised our hands. When he asked us about our television viewing habits, the five of us that raised our hands watched five or more shows every week when they came on. The rest of the class casually watched TV whenever they had the time and would watch certain shows if they were on when they turned the TV on, but they were not really "fans" of any shows. You said Nielsen has one of the best cooperation rates. I wonder what those numbers are? I'm curious, because it would completely disprove everything he said if the numbers proved that even casual viewers agree to be a part of the sample. I didn't really like him, so it would be funny to see that he was wrong! ;) I wonder if there is even a way to find out if those who participate are casual viewers or rabid fans. Of course, it also depends on if they are honest when they respond.

And I think Angel was cancelled because some of the people involved were ready for it to go. For one thing, Angel was beginning to look quite a bit older than he did when the series began, which was starting to shatter the illusion that he was an eternally hot vampire! As most of the actors have said they don't want to return for a movie, I'd say they were ready to close that chapter of their lives.

It was the cancellation of Firefly that hurt me the most.

But back to the subject at hand. As I said before, I like sweeps because you get the best episodes all in a row. It's something to look forward to. I have a feeling that it won't hurt Lost at all. They have already started the massive amounts of promos. I saw one last night during Desperate Housewives that said "It's never too late to get Lost" It was pretty cool.

Well, I'm certainly a die-hard fan, but when it's reruns, I'll watch if it's an episode I loved. For instance, I'll watch tomorrow because I thought Claire's episode was amazing. I kinda watched last week's, but Smallville was also starting up again so I focused on that. Plus, I'm a junior in high school so I've gotten loads of homework this year. :P Work comes first...

The only time I was ever really disappointed thus far was Kate's latest episode. I thought her background was interesting because my guess had been correct, but otherwise it left more questions and not many answers. Something I really don't mind, but I rather have answers. "Hearts & Minds" was pretty good IMO. I was looking forward to see Boone and Shannon in their former lives, and again my speculation proved true... What really got me was Shannon's "death," and "seeing" the monster. Holy smokes. I jumped when it appeared out of no where.

"Special" will definitely led to more viewers next Wednesday. Talk about a shocking ending... Walt and Michael's background was interesting, but of course more people are talking about Claire. I can't wait to see what will happen....

Edted because I posted twice by accident, please delete!!

And what I still don't get is the logic behind showing weaker episodes, sandwiched between two layoffs,


what makes you think that the writers or the network believe these episodes were bad? Sweeps isn't the only time you air great episodes. Buffy's Hush was aired during December. Raised By Another and All The Best Cowboys have Daddy issues was a december episode too. Alias' HUGE phase one episode was done during January.

The only people who should care about sweeps are the advertisers and studio heads. Its a time for the studio heads to get more money out of those advertisers.

Oh yeah and Buffy's highest ratings were in January and Lost's highest ratings(so far) were not during a sweeps month so far.

Its mostly the sitcoms which bring out movie stars to guest star that rely on sweeps for a "big" episode. You don't do that with serials like Lost, 24, and Alias.

Edited. "As most of the actors have said they don't want to return for a movie, I'd say they were ready to close that chapter of their lives."

Huh? I don't want to get off topic, but where did you read that? Boreanaz said he would return in a heart beat for a big screen movie, its a tv movie on WB that he doesn' t want to participate in.

My understanding about Angel was that there would never be a big screen movie, but the network wanted to do some TV movies, but David said he wouldn't do that. I also read somewhere (can't remember where) that he said he was ready to move on. But what a great series while it lasted!

But they could've done tv movies on other characters (spike, illyria, willow, etc.) and never did :(