Q: SCI FI cited poor ratings as a reason for the cancellation. Aren't the ratings as high as they have ever been?
A: The fact is, ratings for the series have declined. Farscape's average primetime rating for original episodes in 2001 was a 1.4 [1,611,000 actual viewers] (Farscape's "rating" represents the percentage of homes that can get SCI FI Channel that tuned into the show). The show peaked in March 2001 with the season 3 premiere earning a 1.9. However, in 2002, season four's original episodes averaged a 1.2 [1,544,000 viewers]. Also, despite the fact that SCI FI is now available in nearly 3 million more homes than it was during season 3, the actual number of viewers for Farscape has gone down.
Additionally, in past seasons, Farscape had built upon its lead-in program (i.e., had more viewers than the program preceding it - a standard industry indicator of a show's success). For example, during the summer of 2001, Farscape increased 44% in ratings and 51% in households over its lead-in, The Invisible Man. However, this past summer, Farscape lost 29% of its lead-in program in terms of ratings, and 27% in households.
Q: SCI FI also cited "the rising cost of production" for the cancellation. Isn't it true that the costs have not changed between seasons 4 and 5?
A: While it is true that there was no rise in production costs between seasons 4 and 5, there was a very steep rise in cost between seasons 3 and 4. At that time, the cost-benefit ratio was far more equitable - Farscape was the highest rated original series on the Channel and it consistently performed well. In light of the fact that the ratings failed to maintain, and actually suffered a decline during season 4, the overall high cost to produce Farscape became an issue. We were faced with a show that was costing considerably more than it had during its first three seasons, while attracting a smaller audience. Farscape was failing to meet its advertising estimates and its continuation for a full 22-episode fifth season no longer made financial sense.
