Agents of SHIELD low figures?

[Scorpio616]

I'm sure that one of the main cast turning out to be a

Spoiler

Hydra operative

turned off a few viewers. Something like that is a great shocker for a finale, but it will also cost return viewers who liked that character the way they were. And no matter how many Freudian excuses a character has, siding with that group means there is only one way back to the

Spoiler

heroes'

side.

 

[Elf Witch]

I'm sure that one of the main cast turning out to be a

Spoiler

Hydra operative

turned off a few viewers. Something like that is a great shocker for a finale, but it will also cost return viewers who liked that character the way they were. And no matter how many Freudian excuses a character has, siding with that group means there is only one way back to the

Spoiler

heroes'

side.

To be honest for me Ward being Hydra made him so much more interesting he was so boring before.

 

[Elf Witch]

I'm sure that one of the main cast turning out to be a

Spoiler

Hydra operative

turned off a few viewers. Something like that is a great shocker for a finale, but it will also cost return viewers who liked that character the way they were. And no matter how many Freudian excuses a character has, siding with that group means there is only one way back to the

Spoiler

heroes'

side.

To be honest for me Ward being Hydra made him so much more interesting he was so boring before. Watching how John Garrity broke him as a teen and then basically rebuilt him into what he became was to me a fascinating development. I felt bad for him and because of that I could buy a redemption story line which I am always a sucker for.

 

[Umbran]

Well, from that quote I gather it's a 3.2% audience share of viewers watching TV at the time?

Yep, you pretty much got it.

I personally think there's a problem - with time-shifting and the correction, what that share means actually isn't all that clear cut, and possibly not as meaningful as is suggested by the constant reporting.

 

[Morrus]

Yep, you pretty much got it.

I personally think there's a problem - with time-shifting and the correction, what that share means actually isn't all that clear cut, and possibly not as meaningful as is suggested by the constant reporting.

I don't know that it's a problem per se -- ultimately, reporting figure to you and me is meaningless. The problem would occur if the actual studio execs fail to understand them (which is possible, of course).

 

[Umbran]

I don't know that it's a problem per se -- ultimately, reporting figure to you and me is meaningless. The problem would occur if the actual studio execs fail to understand them (which is possible, of course).

No, I mean, it is possible to construct a statistic that is not physically meaningful.

For example, "share" is originally defined as the percentage of people (actually screens) viewing *at the time of broadcast*.

Now, how does that change with time-shifting? Say I watch within the day + 3 range usually cited. Do you count me in with those who did watch the original broadcast? Or even just in a day +3 group? Well, then there's a problem - I can be in the viewer group for multiple shows, then. Basically, the share is not a percentage. Or, if you total all the shares, they can be over 100%, which doesn't make a whole lot of sense.

There are ways to manage that, statistically, but they generally bring the measure out of the realm of making intuitive sense, and into the realm of making only mathematical sense. So, a human, seeing that share number, won't be able to intuitively tell what it means. It doesn't matter if that human is out here among us viewers, or a studio exec - studio execs are generally not statisticians, after all.

So, yeah, I am concerned that the measure no longer reflects reality in a manner that a studio exec can intuitively handle. The Neilsen organization is notorious for being slow to adapt to changes in technology, and that impacts how well the studios deliver stuff we actually *like*.

 

[Morrus]

No, I mean, it is possible to construct a statistic that is not physically meaningful.

For example, "share" is originally defined as the percentage of people (actually screens) viewing *at the time of broadcast*.

Now, how does that change with time-shifting? Say I watch within the day + 3 range usually cited. Do you count me in with those who did watch the original broadcast? Or even just in a day +3 group? Well, then there's a problem - I can be in the viewer group for multiple shows, then. Basically, the share is not a percentage. Or, if you total all the shares, they can be over 100%, which doesn't make a whole lot of sense.

There are ways to manage that, statistically, but they generally bring the measure out of the realm of making intuitive sense, and into the realm of making only mathematical sense. So, a human, seeing that share number, won't be able to intuitively tell what it means. It doesn't matter if that human is out here among us viewers, or a studio exec - studio execs are generally not statisticians, after all.

So, yeah, I am concerned that the measure no longer reflects reality in a manner that a studio exec can intuitively handle. The Neilsen organization is notorious for being slow to adapt to changes in technology, and that impacts how well the studios deliver stuff we actually *like*.

Yeah, I understood you. Like I said, it's only a problem if studio execs (or more importantly, the analysis folks they hire) can't make meaningful sense of it. If they're just trying to do it intuitively then, yes, that's a problem for them. if they're hiring the right folks to generate conclusions form the data, then it's not.

Over here they use the day+7 figures, which includes timeshifting, iPlayer stats, and all that stuff. There are "overnights" which contain an audience % share, but hey are more a curiosity than anything else; the important stats are the day+7. It's all conducted by an organization called BARB.

 

[Nellisir]

I don't know what any of the Nielsen stuff means, but I was a "Nielsen household" for about two years. It was kinda interesting for a week, but we weren't really supposed to talk about it. After the first week we just ignored it. Got a little bit of money from it, I think.

I did make a point of watching the shows I wanted to see more of...but so did my wife, and she won. I think she might be solely responsible for HGTV nowadays. :/

 

[MarkB]

I stopped watching Agents of SHIELD because I'm fairly spoilerphobic, and hadn't caught Captain America the Winter Soldier at the cinema due to financial issues at the time. While I appreciate that the show could hardly ignore the implications of that movie, the fact remains that if I hadn't been watching it, I'd have still been largely spoiler-free when I finally caught up with the movie on DVD.

Well, that and the boring, under-developed characters.

 

[Tonguez]

I stopped watching it because it was boring and the characters flat. The civilian hacker was bleh and they favoured her at the expense of the only interesting character - The Cavalry. Whats worse the show couldn't work out whether it was a 'action' show (which is where having The Cavalry more prominent would have worked) or a secret agent/espionage show (which it did badly if at all - it could have been more Person of Interest maybe?). It was too much chasing McGuffin of the week with no suspense or purpose and no real tie in to the Marvel universe.

With Gotham and the Flash coming onstream, it looks like DC has won the TV market, with Arrow doing Comic book TV right including the awesome DC name-dropping game and a no/low powered first season building up to more super weirdness in season 2 and 3(?). Moreover Felicity does a much better job of Hawt Nerd than the Fitz-Simmons duo and Diggle is a more interesting ex-Soldier than Ward.