Comments on: DVR Killed the TV Star

By: Bethie R

Bethie R — Thu, 22 Oct 2009 15:45:45 +0000

I'm the same way. Shows I love or expect to love often stack up on the DVR while ones I'm more lukewarm about get watched and erased fairly quickly. Part of the reason for this is that I've become spoiled by TV shows on DVD, wherein I'm not left hanging at the end of episodes waiting until the next week for the cliffhanger to be resolved. I love the marathon-ability of watching many episodes in a row. When I get three or four episodes of "Glee" or "Supernatural" stacked up, I can settle in for a nice, long viewing experience.

I think it's going to reach the point that the networks are going to have to find a new way of gauging success of a show. Immediate or even within-7-day viewership numbers just don't cut it. I didn't discover Firefly until it had been canceled, yet I love that show with a passion, and I'd tune in to new episodes or buy more DVDs if they were made. If the networks aren't willing to invest in a show to the degree that some time can be taken for it to find its footing, then they are doomed to have failure after failure.

By: Cat

Cat — Wed, 21 Oct 2009 16:50:46 +0000

I was under the impression that even with a DVR, you still needed to be a Neilson box owner for those numbers to be taken into account?

By: Barb

Barb — Wed, 21 Oct 2009 16:00:51 +0000

It's not the DVRs that are the problem – it's how they're counted. A couple years ago, there were absurd "winnings" for Grey's Anatomy versus CSI because only the program watched live was counted, while the one being recorded wasn't.

DVR viewings are starting to be counted, but it's not 1:1 like viewings at time of broadcast.
As if I was going to watch those ads anyway. That's what the mute button is for.

By: Teresa

Teresa — Wed, 21 Oct 2009 15:09:42 +0000

Now, I have heard that networks do take DVR and online viewing into account, and that they usually allow for a 7 day window to allow for people to watch it. Of course, this doesn't take people like you into account if you're letting them stack for weeks. But it does take people like me into account who will save the shows I can't get to for a night of the week when nothing's on, and usually I'll find time to watch something I've DVRd before next week's episode so I can be caught up. I think network television will always be a step behind its audience, because they're kind of designed to act based on "what works" not "what they think will work", but I do think they're at least starting to realize that it's not just about the old-fashioned ratings system anymore.

Don't blame yourself for these good shows being canceled! This is the thing about us geeks. We mistake our passion for these shows, and the way we talk about them to "all our friends" as popularity. When it comes down to it, even if you watched everything you liked the night it was on, that doesn't change the fact that not that many OTHER people are watching certain shows.

By: @Amy_said

@Amy_said — Wed, 21 Oct 2009 15:03:49 +0000

I know, I have the same problem! I have Glee stacked up for three weeks, although at least that has enough momentum at this point. But I imagine I would have done the same thing with Firefly, and look what happened there despite "real-time" viewing. I think it's funny that viewers complain about a show when they haven't figured out the entire plot and character development within the first 2 episodes. Why would you want to? What, then, would be the point of watching it? As you said, we already have enough of those brain candy fillers to watch at the end of a long day!__ I wonder, too, how Hulu impacts this. How do networks count those viewings into ratings?__________