[Spoilers] Season 12 Discussion Thread

[Mario D.]

29 minutes ago, Tensor said:

It's a combination of things.   You have to remember that early cable was mostly local over the air channels, a few superstations, and premium cable.  As more and more different channels were started, in the 90s, viewers had more and more choices as far as what to watch.   With so many different choices, there was bound to be something, besides broadcast that someone might wish to watch.     

You also have to factor in the internet.  As the internet matured and people connected to it, people were finding their entertainment on the internet, instead of on TV.   I am not talking about streaming here.    Using me as an example, at the height of this forum, and before I was even a mod,  I was spending 2-3 hours a night here, and 2-3 hours a night at a science forum, time I wasn't watching television.  Others have similar stories, but probably for different things.  On-line gaming also took away from people watching TV. 

Now, you have the cord-cutters who don't have cable, or antenna's, and get their TV through their streaming service, on their computer (my daughter is like this).   I have my streaming services, and some cable channels that I get from the streaming service, and I have an antenna).  But most of the cord cutters, don't have broadcast.

And then you have those that continue to watch  TV the way God intended, over the air, through an antenna, and on a television.  My neighbor falls into that category.  Most of these are elderly, and their numbers get fewer and fewer every year.  

So, here is the simplified reasons:

1. You have those who chose to watch various channels, (like TBS, TCM, BBC, HBO, ESPN, etc), through their cable system, rather than watching broadcast channels.

2.  You have those who are spending time on the internet, rather than watching broadcast networks.

3. You have the cord cutters, who don't watch or even have access to the broadcast networks (and if they do, they are probably streaming from the network archive), or are watching their streaming services.  

4. Finally, yo have those who actually watch the networks, but as these tend to be older, their numbers are getting smaller.  

Hope this makes sense.  

 

 

Yes  It makes perfect sense  Thanks for the insightful detail you always manage to advise

[joyceraye]

3 hours ago, Tensor said:

It's a combination of things.   You have to remember that early cable was mostly local over the air channels, a few superstations, and premium cable.  As more and more different channels were started, in the 90s, viewers had more and more choices as far as what to watch.   With so many different choices, there was bound to be something, besides broadcast that someone might wish to watch.     

You also have to factor in the internet.  As the internet matured and people connected to it, people were finding their entertainment on the internet, instead of on TV.   I am not talking about streaming here.    Using me as an example, at the height of this forum, and before I was even a mod,  I was spending 2-3 hours a night here, and 2-3 hours a night at a science forum, time I wasn't watching television.  Others have similar stories, but probably for different things.  On-line gaming also took away from people watching TV. 

Now, you have the cord-cutters who don't have cable, or antenna's, and get their TV through their streaming service, on their computer (my daughter is like this).   I have my streaming services, and some cable channels that I get from the streaming service, and I have an antenna).  But most of the cord cutters, don't have broadcast.

And then you have those that continue to watch  TV the way God intended, over the air, through an antenna, and on a television.  My neighbor falls into that category.  Most of these are elderly, and their numbers get fewer and fewer every year.  

So, here is the simplified reasons:

1. You have those who chose to watch various channels, (like TBS, TCM, BBC, HBO, ESPN, etc), through their cable system, rather than watching broadcast channels.

2.  You have those who are spending time on the internet, rather than watching broadcast networks.

3. You have the cord cutters, who don't watch or even have access to the broadcast networks (and if they do, they are probably streaming from the network archive), or are watching their streaming services.  

4. Finally, yo have those who actually watch the networks, but as these tend to be older, their numbers are getting smaller.  

Hope this makes sense.  

 

 

Thanks for the explanations. I don't know quite what the numbers 1, 2, 3, mean but it looks as though the number of TV viewers is dropping. If they depend on advertising revenue then TV companies will worry when they can't charge advertisers enough to make a profit. Competition from other activities means their income is diluted. They can't get money from overseas sales unless they can afford to make a show in the first place.

If I spend time on the internet rather than watching programmes when they're broadcast, if there's something I want to see I watch it later. I must admit that when I do this if it's  from a station that carries adverts, whether it's on TV or computer, I  just fast-forward through them.  Radio programmes I listen to don't have adverts so I don't need to do that with them.  Does it make a difference in the US where viewers watch a show ? Are the advertising rates at a different level according to whether it's watched on air, catch-up, cable, internet and so on ?

I know the TBBT crowd watch shows at different times.  They don't want to hear about an episode from one of them who's already seen it. When I first started work it was normal to discuss the previous night's TV in the tea break or lunch hour, just as we'd done at school. One of the two stations carried adverts so we talked about them as well.  Quite a bonding activity it was now I come to think about it. There was no way of recording something if you'd been out so that was when you found out what had happened. Radio programmes were repeated at least once during the week so it was less of a problem. Now I, and my friends of a similar age, tend to wait until all the episodes of a serial have been broadcast and watch them all at once via its station's player  on  the internet or  TV.  Some of the serials have all the episodes available before they're even broadcast weekly one at a time, so viewers have a choice how they take them. If the BBC and ITV had had all these facilities sixty years ago I'd have grown up with square eyes. Now of course there's still the chance to discuss what we've seen and heard via forums, message boards, facebook groups and so on, we just don't have to wait until it's the right time. Tomorrow season 12 of TBBT comes to Netflix. Yay !

[Die Zimtzicke]

21 hours ago, joyceraye said:

Are you saying shows going out on normal TV aren't getting enough viewers to make it profitable for companies to produce them ?

This is not just regular shows. The Emmy Awards this year only got 6.9 million viewers. It has never dropped below ten million before.

[joyceraye]

1 hour ago, Die Zimtzicke said:

This is not just regular shows. The Emmy Awards this year only got 6.9 million viewers. It has never dropped below ten million before.

If people watch later on catch-up TV or some other system ,does the advertising bring in the same money ? A drop of more than 30% of the viewing public must be a shock for whoever produces the Emmys. 

Could it be that US  viewers are using catch-up, recordings, players, etc to watch shows that are not current and realise there's nothing in this year's awards to interest them ? It's what I do. I don't watch BAFTAs much anyway as that sort of thing is too noisy for me these days.For instance, I've just had a notification from Netflix that the latest series has been added to Call the Midwife. Since it's some months since I've seen it, I may watch it over again. Netflix has an app on the TV so there's no difference in  the experience

OTOH I've  never seen Fleabag but now I've heard it has won an Emmy I'll probably take the trouble to watch it on ITV-player - which seems to be set up so you can't skip the adverts.

Pondering over this sort of thing, I'm realising something has got to be really really enticing for me to watch it at the time it's  actually going out. Last night I watched Pili Pala with English subtitles and the dialogue and audio description in Welsh as it was broadcast because I was anxious to know what happened after last week's cliffhanger I'd seen online only the night before. Usually, I set the set-top box to record and do something else.

[chucky]

54 minutes ago, joyceraye said:

If people watch later on catch-up TV or some other system ,does the advertising bring in the same money ? A drop of more than 30% of the viewing public must be a shock for whoever produces the Emmys. 

Could it be that US  viewers are using catch-up, recordings, players, etc to watch shows that are not current and realise there's nothing in this year's awards to interest them ? It's what I do. I don't watch BAFTAs much anyway as that sort of thing is too noisy for me these days.For instance, I've just had a notification from Netflix that the latest series has been added to Call the Midwife. Since it's some months since I've seen it, I may watch it over again. Netflix has an app on the TV so there's no difference in  the experience

OTOH I've  never seen Fleabag but now I've heard it has won an Emmy I'll probably take the trouble to watch it on ITV-player - which seems to be set up so you can't skip the adverts.

Pondering over this sort of thing, I'm realising something has got to be really really enticing for me to watch it at the time it's  actually going out. Last night I watched Pili Pala with English subtitles and the dialogue and audio description in Welsh as it was broadcast because I was anxious to know what happened after last week's cliffhanger I'd seen online only the night before. Usually, I set the set-top box to record and do something else.

Those are some interesting questions. I hardly ever watch live TV, except for The Weather Channel when storms are in the Atlantic Ocean or the Gulf of Mexico which may effect the Pensacola area. Other than that, I usually record and watch when time allows to do so.

[joyceraye]

5 hours ago, chucky said:

Those are some interesting questions. I hardly ever watch live TV, except for The Weather Channel when storms are in the Atlantic Ocean or the Gulf of Mexico which may effect the Pensacola area. Other than that, I usually record and watch when time allows to do so.

Do the recordings include adverts ?

[chucky]

26 minutes ago, joyceraye said:

Do the recordings include adverts ?

I record the whole show, regardless of the length of the show. So whatever you see live, I see it on a recording. But, I get to fast forward past what I don't want to watch! I did fast forward a lot of Shamy minutes the last two seasons! 

[Tensor]

12 hours ago, joyceraye said:

Thanks for the explanations. I don't know quite what the numbers 1, 2, 3, mean but it looks as though the number of TV viewers is dropping. If they depend on advertising revenue then TV companies will worry when they can't charge advertisers enough to make a profit. Competition from other activities means their income is diluted. They can't get money from overseas sales unless they can afford to make a show in the first place.

The numbers 1, 2, 3, and 4 were simply the numeration of the four different simply reasons for the loss of viewers, for broadcast.  Your point about charging enough to make a profit is true, to a point.  They could find ways such as creating less costly shows.  This is where reality show come in, those are relatively cheap to produce.  Or, new shows are generally cheaper than older shows.  If you have two shows, pulling in the same ratings, but one cost you twice as much to produce, its the more expensive one that gets cancelled.  

 

 

Quote

If I spend time on the internet rather than watching programmes when they're broadcast, if there's something I want to see I watch it later. I must admit that when I do this if it's  from a station that carries adverts, whether it's on TV or computer, I  just fast-forward through them.  Radio programmes I listen to don't have adverts so I don't need to do that with them.  Does it make a difference in the US where viewers watch a show ? Are the advertising rates at a different level according to whether it's watched on air, catch-up, cable, internet and so on ?

There are various ratings, but the three that are paid the most attention to are the 18-49 demo, for Live + same day,(SD), Live + 3 day and Live + 7 day.  Ad rates were originally based on who watched when it was on.   Then, they added  the Same Day.  That was simply those who watched the show by Video Tape or Digital Video Recorder, by 3 AM, the next dat.  If Big Bang was on at 8 PM on Thursday, if you watched it by 3 AM Friday, it counted as same day.   Those are the daily ratings you see (and I used to post).    Then with tape and digital recorders, the networks wanted to charge for the number of viewers for Live + 7, but the people buy the ads, didn't want to include anything except Live + SD.  So, they compromised on Live + 3, within the last few years, they went to Live + 7.  

Fast forwarding through them is considered the same as getting up to get a snack or going to the bathroom, with live ads.  You can't control what people do during ads, they pay for the number that are watching the show.  The ad rates for watching over the internet are different than watching over the air (Live + 3 and Live + 7 are considered watching over the air)

 

 

Quote

I know the TBBT crowd watch shows at different times.  They don't want to hear about an episode from one of them who's already seen it. When I first started work it was normal to discuss the previous night's TV in the tea break or lunch hour, just as we'd done at school. One of the two stations carried adverts so we talked about them as well.  Quite a bonding activity it was now I come to think about it. There was no way of recording something if you'd been out so that was when you found out what had happened. Radio programmes were repeated at least once during the week so it was less of a problem. Now I, and my friends of a similar age, tend to wait until all the episodes of a serial have been broadcast and watch them all at once via its station's player  on  the internet or  TV.  Some of the serials have all the episodes available before they're even broadcast weekly one at a time, so viewers have a choice how they take them. If the BBC and ITV had had all these facilities sixty years ago I'd have grown up with square eyes. Now of course there's still the chance to discuss what we've seen and heard via forums, message boards, facebook groups and so on, we just don't have to wait until it's the right time. Tomorrow season 12 of TBBT comes to Netflix. Yay !

Watching them all, say on Netflix, has no bearing on the cost of broadcast ads.  Netflix doesn't give out it's viewing figures, so there is no way to determine who is watching when.  Any streaming service has the same problem.  Netflix generally goes by what called complete viewing.  How many viewers watch all of the episodes of a particular series.  Those series that didn't pull in viewers for all of the episodes, generally had a better chance of being cancelled.  I read an article that mentioned the Netflix series GLOW, had a problem with that and may not get a fourth season.  They did, but it was also announced as their last.  See, another consideration is that the cost starts going up in the fourth season, because by SAG rules, the actors can renegotiate their salaries at that point.  So, if there isn't a fourth season (or if it's the last) Netflix wouldn't have to worry about the cost.

7 hours ago, joyceraye said:

If people watch later on catch-up TV or some other system ,does the advertising bring in the same money ? A drop of more than 30% of the viewing public must be a shock for whoever produces the Emmys. 

 

The ad cost is based on the number who watch, and as I pointed out above, as long as someone watches within seven days of it being broadcast, the viewer is counted int he ratings.    Yes, it can be a shock.  There are procedures for a make up, (what amounts to free advertising) if the number of people viewing isn't where it's expected, based on how much was paid for an ad.  But, that's something between the company buying the ad and the network as to when that kicks in and for how much.   

 

7 hours ago, joyceraye said:

Could it be that US  viewers are using catch-up, recordings, players, etc to watch shows that are not current and realise there's nothing in this year's awards to interest them ? It's what I do. I don't watch BAFTAs much anyway as that sort of thing is too noisy for me these days.For instance, I've just had a notification from Netflix that the latest series has been added to Call the Midwife. Since it's some months since I've seen it, I may watch it over again. Netflix has an app on the TV so there's no difference in  the experience

One of the problems that many are pointing out, is that with the rise of awards for premium cable, and or streaming services, people without those, have noting to be invested in.  There were eight series nominated for best drama, only one, This Is Us, was on broadcast.  Same with comedy, seven nominations, only one on broadcast, The Good Place.   From what I can find, all the streaming services (or premium cable, same thing really) together have less than the number of people watching broadcast TV.  If  you consider that most people who have one, have more than one streaming service the number of people watching the Emmy's for shows they might have seen is only about one third to one half of the people watching the Emmys.  And, ironically, the people most likely to have purchased access to those shows, and the most likely not to have a connection to the network broadcasting the awards.    Or, some, like me, don't really care about the Emmy's anymore.  I  lost interest when they awarded Orange is the New Black, the comedy award.  

 

7 hours ago, joyceraye said:

Pondering over this sort of thing, I'm realising something has got to be really really enticing for me to watch it at the time it's  actually going out. Last night I watched Pili Pala with English subtitles and the dialogue and audio description in Welsh as it was broadcast because I was anxious to know what happened after last week's cliffhanger I'd seen online only the night before. Usually, I set the set-top box to record and do something else.

This is the result of the myriad of choices we now have.  In the fifties, TV was new, and in the sixties it was still relatively new.   The seventies and eighties had some damn good shows.  It was in the nineties that viewership started to decline.  There had to be something really enticing, as you say, to pull people away from the other available things.  Now, with so many choices, it's even worse for the broadcast stations and networks.  

 

[chucky]

1 hour ago, Tensor said:

The numbers 1, 2, 3, and 4 were simply the numeration of the four different simply reasons for the loss of viewers, for broadcast.  Your point about charging enough to make a profit is true, to a point.  They could find ways such as creating less costly shows.  This is where reality show come in, those are relatively cheap to produce.  Or, new shows are generally cheaper than older shows.  If you have two shows, pulling in the same ratings, but one cost you twice as much to produce, its the more expensive one that gets cancelled.  

 

 

There are various ratings, but the three that are paid the most attention to are the 18-49 demo, for Live + same day,(SD), Live + 3 day and Live + 7 day.  Ad rates were originally based on who watched when it was on.   Then, they added  the Same Day.  That was simply those who watched the show by Video Tape or Digital Video Recorder, by 3 AM, the next dat.  If Big Bang was on at 8 PM on Thursday, if you watched it by 3 AM Friday, it counted as same day.   Those are the daily ratings you see (and I used to post).    Then with tape and digital recorders, the networks wanted to charge for the number of viewers for Live + 7, but the people buy the ads, didn't want to include anything except Live + SD.  So, they compromised on Live + 3, within the last few years, they went to Live + 7.  

Fast forwarding through them is considered the same as getting up to get a snack or going to the bathroom, with live ads.  You can't control what people do during ads, they pay for the number that are watching the show.  The ad rates for watching over the internet are different than watching over the air (Live + 3 and Live + 7 are considered watching over the air)

 

 

Watching them all, say on Netflix, has no bearing on the cost of broadcast ads.  Netflix doesn't give out it's viewing figures, so there is no way to determine who is watching when.  Any streaming service has the same problem.  Netflix generally goes by what called complete viewing.  How many viewers watch all of the episodes of a particular series.  Those series that didn't pull in viewers for all of the episodes, generally had a better chance of being cancelled.  I read an article that mentioned the Netflix series GLOW, had a problem with that and may not get a fourth season.  They did, but it was also announced as their last.  See, another consideration is that the cost starts going up in the fourth season, because by SAG rules, the actors can renegotiate their salaries at that point.  So, if there isn't a fourth season (or if it's the last) Netflix wouldn't have to worry about the cost.

 

The ad cost is based on the number who watch, and as I pointed out above, as long as someone watches within seven days of it being broadcast, the viewer is counted int he ratings.    Yes, it can be a shock.  There are procedures for a make up, (what amounts to free advertising) if the number of people viewing isn't where it's expected, based on how much was paid for an ad.  But, that's something between the company buying the ad and the network as to when that kicks in and for how much.   

 

One of the problems that many are pointing out, is that with the rise of awards for premium cable, and or streaming services, people without those, have noting to be invested in.  There were eight series nominated for best drama, only one, This Is Us, was on broadcast.  Same with comedy, seven nominations, only one on broadcast, The Good Place.   From what I can find, all the streaming services (or premium cable, same thing really) together have less than the number of people watching broadcast TV.  If  you consider that most people who have one, have more than one streaming service the number of people watching the Emmy's for shows they might have seen is only about one third to one half of the people watching the Emmys.  And, ironically, the people most likely to have purchased access to those shows, and the most likely not to have a connection to the network broadcasting the awards.    Or, some, like me, don't really care about the Emmy's anymore.  I  lost interest when they awarded Orange is the New Black, the comedy award.  

 

This is the result of the myriad of choices we now have.  In the fifties, TV was new, and in the sixties it was still relatively new.   The seventies and eighties had some damn good shows.  It was in the nineties that viewership started to decline.  There had to be something really enticing, as you say, to pull people away from the other available things.  Now, with so many choices, it's even worse for the broadcast stations and networks.  

 

I always learn something these posts. So thank you for providing this information.

[joyceraye]

4 hours ago, Tensor said:

The numbers 1, 2, 3, and 4 were simply the numeration of the four different simply reasons for the loss of viewers

Not those kind of thumbers, the ones in the sentences about ratings e.g 3.0 down to 2.1 kind of thing.

[Tensor]

2 hours ago, joyceraye said:

Not those kind of thumbers, the ones in the sentences about ratings e.g 3.0 down to 2.1 kind of thing.

Ahhhhhh, sorry.     The numbers depend on what they are describing.   Nielsen, the ratings company, figures there are 120.6 million households, that have a TV, in the US.  They also figure that there are 307 million viewers age 2 and above, in those households.    

I deal with total viewers first, as that doesn't need much explanation.  It is simply the total number of viewers, that watched that show.     

As for the rest, Nielsen breaks out a lot of information, such as Age, Sex, income, education, marital status, etc.  All of these breakouts are called a "demographic" or demo for short.  Generally, what is normally given out is the household rating/share, the 18-49 demo rating/share, and the  total number of viewers.  You can find out some of the other numbers if you know where to find it (mostly it's 18-34 demo, and 25-54 demo)

Let me start with differentiating between a ratings point and a share point.  A ratings point is the percentage of a particular demo.  For example, there are about 130 million viewers age 18-49.  So a 1.0 rating, in the 18-49 demo, would mean about 1.3 million viewers, age 18-49 watched the show.  A 2.0 ratings would mean 2.6 million of the 18-49 age group watched the show.  

Share is a bit different, although related.   A share point is the percentage of the number of people actually watching TV at the time.  So, ratings point is the percentage of all of a particular demo, a share point is a percentage of the number of people, of a particular demo, actually watching television.  

As a simple example, lets say there are 100 people in a particular demo.  Of those 100 people, 50 are actually watching TV.  Now of those 50, 10 are watching our program.   So, out of 100, 10 are watching our program, 10 is 10% of 100, so the rating for our demo, for our show is 10.  Since only 50 of the 100 are watching television, we use 50 for the share.  10 is 20% of 50, so the share for our demo, for our show, is 20 

So, hopefully that helps.  Now, let's use the numbers from Young Sheldon this past Thursday.  

YS had 5.8 household rating, with a 10.0 Share.   Remember what this means, 5.8% of the households were watching YS.  This means 6.9 million, out of the 120 million household, were watching YS.  With a 10 share, it means that the 6.9 million watching was 10% of the total number of televisions that were on.  I'll save you the math, the share works out that out of the 120 million household with a television set, 69 million were turned on, and of that 69 million, 6.9 million wee watching YS. 

The final ratings for the 18-49 demo, was a 1.1, and the total number of viewers was 8.23 million.   Again, saving you the math, that means that about only about 1.38 million, of the 8.23 million viewers were  between the ages of 18-49.  I will point out, the median age of those watching YS, last Thursday, was 62.  So, most of the rest of the viewers were in the 55+ demo.   That is not a just for YS, broadcast viewers, in general, are in the 55+ demo.  On Thursday,  the broadcast median age was 57 for all the broadcast shows.  

[chucky]

7 hours ago, Tensor said:

Ahhhhhh, sorry.     The numbers depend on what they are describing.   Nielsen, the ratings company, figures there are 120.6 million households, that have a TV, in the US.  They also figure that there are 307 million viewers age 2 and above, in those households.    

I deal with total viewers first, as that doesn't need much explanation.  It is simply the total number of viewers, that watched that show.     

As for the rest, Nielsen breaks out a lot of information, such as Age, Sex, income, education, marital status, etc.  All of these breakouts are called a "demographic" or demo for short.  Generally, what is normally given out is the household rating/share, the 18-49 demo rating/share, and the  total number of viewers.  You can find out some of the other numbers if you know where to find it (mostly it's 18-34 demo, and 25-54 demo)

Let me start with differentiating between a ratings point and a share point.  A ratings point is the percentage of a particular demo.  For example, there are about 130 million viewers age 18-49.  So a 1.0 rating, in the 18-49 demo, would mean about 1.3 million viewers, age 18-49 watched the show.  A 2.0 ratings would mean 2.6 million of the 18-49 age group watched the show.  

Share is a bit different, although related.   A share point is the percentage of the number of people actually watching TV at the time.  So, ratings point is the percentage of all of a particular demo, a share point is a percentage of the number of people, of a particular demo, actually watching television.  

As a simple example, lets say there are 100 people in a particular demo.  Of those 100 people, 50 are actually watching TV.  Now of those 50, 10 are watching our program.   So, out of 100, 10 are watching our program, 10 is 10% of 100, so the rating for our demo, for our show is 10.  Since only 50 of the 100 are watching television, we use 50 for the share.  10 is 20% of 50, so the share for our demo, for our show, is 20 

So, hopefully that helps.  Now, let's use the numbers from Young Sheldon this past Thursday.  

YS had 5.8 househad rating, with a 10.0 Share.   Remember what this means, 5.8% of the households were watching YS.  This means 6.9 million, out of the 120 million household, were watching YS.  With a 10 share, it means that the 6.9 million watching was 10% of the total number of televisions that were on.  I'll save you the math, the share works out that out of the 120 million household with a television set, 69 million were turned on, and of that 69 million, 6.9 million wee watching YS. 

The final ratings for the 18-49 demo, was a 1.1, and the total number of viewers was 8.23 million.   Again, saving you the math, that means that about only about 1.38 million, of the 8.23 million viewers were  between the ages of 18-49.  I will point out, the median age of those watching YS, last Thursday, was 62.  So, most of the rest of the viewers were in the 55+ demo.   That is not a just for YS, broadcast viewers, in general, are in the 55+ demo.  On Thursday,  the broadcast median age was 57 for all the broadcast shows.  

Very informative. As I have stated previously, I'm always learning things from your posts.

[JohnPhD]

On 9/30/2019 at 4:54 AM, Tensor said:

It's a combination of things.   You have to remember that early cable was mostly local over the air channels, a few superstations, and premium cable.  As more and more different channels were started, in the 90s, viewers had more and more choices as far as what to watch.   With so many different choices, there was bound to be something, besides broadcast that someone might wish to watch.     

You also have to factor in the internet.  As the internet matured and people connected to it, people were finding their entertainment on the internet, instead of on TV.   I am not talking about streaming here.    Using me as an example, at the height of this forum, and before I was even a mod,  I was spending 2-3 hours a night here, and 2-3 hours a night at a science forum, time I wasn't watching television.  Others have similar stories, but probably for different things.  On-line gaming also took away from people watching TV. 

Now, you have the cord-cutters who don't have cable, or antenna's, and get their TV through their streaming service, on their computer (my daughter is like this).   I have my streaming services, and some cable channels that I get from the streaming service, and I have an antenna).  But most of the cord cutters, don't have broadcast.

And then you have those that continue to watch  TV the way God intended, over the air, through an antenna, and on a television.  My neighbor falls into that category.  Most of these are elderly, and their numbers get fewer and fewer every year.  

So, here is the simplified reasons:

1. You have those who chose to watch various channels, (like TBS, TCM, BBC, HBO, ESPN, etc), through their cable system, rather than watching broadcast channels.

2.  You have those who are spending time on the internet, rather than watching broadcast networks.

3. You have the cord cutters, who don't watch or even have access to the broadcast networks (and if they do, they are probably streaming from the network archive), or are watching their streaming services.  

4. Finally, yo have those who actually watch the networks, but as these tend to be older, their numbers are getting smaller.  

Hope this makes sense.  

 

 

And there was I thinking I was normal. I watch only Freeview TV, but never live. If there's something I might want to watch I record it to the HD and watch it later, FF-ing over the ads. Then if it's something I might want to watch again (like TBBT) I copy it to DVD. Then I erase it. This pattern isn't one of those you mention.

[joyceraye]

1 hour ago, JohnPhD said:

And there was I thinking I was normal. I watch only Freeview TV, but never live. If there's something I might want to watch I record it to the HD and watch it later, FF-ing over the ads. Then if it's something I might want to watch again (like TBBT) I copy it to DVD. Then I erase it. This pattern isn't one of those you mention.

It seems normal enough to me. 

[chucky]

1 hour ago, JohnPhD said:

And there was I thinking I was normal. I watch only Freeview TV, but never live. If there's something I might want to watch I record it to the HD and watch it later, FF-ing over the ads. Then if it's something I might want to watch again (like TBBT) I copy it to DVD. Then I erase it. This pattern isn't one of those you mention.

Sounds like a doable option!

[Tensor]

2 hours ago, JohnPhD said:

And there was I thinking I was normal. I watch only Freeview TV, but never live. If there's something I might want to watch I record it to the HD and watch it later, FF-ing over the ads. Then if it's something I might want to watch again (like TBBT) I copy it to DVD. Then I erase it. This pattern isn't one of those you mention.

it’s going to depend on when exactly you watch the show. As long as you watched it within seven days, you would be in category four, and some in category 2.  Remember, these were just simple categories to explain the drop in TV viewing, not a comprehensive list of viewing habits. I used to record every episode, and keep it on my DVR, until the season came out on DVD.  These days, as it was available on streaming, so I don’t bother recording and make sure the DVDs I get have a digital version. 

[3ku11]

I was just curious. I know this has been answered before by mods. But in regards to the shelve life of this site. Naturally when a show ends. Activity declines after a show reaches its end. It’s natural. But at some point it’s like being on a merry go round. Gotta jump off at some point 

[chucky]

6 hours ago, 3ku11 said:

But at some point it’s like being on a merry go round. Gotta jump off at some point 

True, but I think I'll hang around till I'm pushed.  😊

[Tensor]

9 hours ago, 3ku11 said:

 But in regards to the shelve life of this site. Naturally when a show ends. Activity declines after a show reaches its end. It’s natural. But at some point it’s like being on a merry go round. Gotta jump off at some point 

While this is true, the forums here are not just TBBT, it's also Young Sheldon.  Some people on TBBT boards don't like or watch the show, and that's fine.  However, there are people who do watch the show.  While the YS forums are not as busy as TBBT forums were, there is traffic.  As far as the forums go, those who concentrate on TBBT may jump off at some point, while those who watch YS, may be here until that show ends.  Also, as a tribute to Walnutcowboy, the games section is also active.  

[Nogravitasatall]

7 hours ago, chucky said:

True, but I think I'll hang around till I'm pushed.  😊

I still haven’t seen the last maybe five episodes.

Reasons: Keeping the fires banked... waiting for Netflix... being in denial... waiting for the impeachment show to be over...  otherwise general procrastination. It no longer seems urgent, just something on the list.  L/P never held that pillow down or climbed over the wall to escape, they just waited him out. Not a dramatic crescendo, really. It reads like they just stopped. I had foolishly, and without reason, hoped for some demonstrations of gumption.

But if when I watch it and it lights some fire , I might come back to rail.  

(Otherwise my spouse has to hear it all, and golly, she’s over it.)

[chucky]

5 minutes ago, Nogravitasatall said:

 L/P never held that pillow down or climbed over the wall to escape, they just waited him out

Yeah, I'm upset they didn't use the pillow.

[Tensor]

13 hours ago, Nogravitasatall said:

I still haven’t seen the last maybe five episodes.

Reasons: Keeping the fires banked... waiting for Netflix... being in denial... waiting for the impeachment show to be over...  otherwise general procrastination. It no longer seems urgent, just something on the list.  L/P never held that pillow down or climbed over the wall to escape, they just waited him out. Not a dramatic crescendo, really. It reads like they just stopped. I had foolishly, and without reason, hoped for some demonstrations of gumption.

But if when I watch it and it lights some fire , I might come back to rail.  

(Otherwise my spouse has to hear it all, and golly, she’s over it.)

There are several enjoyable Lenny moments in the last few episodes.  And one really, really, really, REALLY, fun Leonard moment, that comes close to the pillow.  

[chucky]

3 hours ago, Tensor said:

There are several enjoyable Lenny moments in the last few episodes.  And one really, really, really, REALLY, fun Leonard moment, that comes close to the pillow.  

The best was Leonard's convincing Sheldon that he wasn't dreaming. I really, really loved that scene!

[Die Zimtzicke]

There is a page called "Ask Ausiello" on TVLine that talks about movies and tv shows and someone asked why Sheldon didn't thank Dr. Sturgis from YS  in his speech in the finale, since he was such on influence on Sheldon as a child. This was the response:
I’m gonna let former Big Bang EP/current Young Sheldon showrunner Steve Molaro field this one. “Sheldon’s speech was intended to honor the history of Big Bang,” Molaro tells TVLine.” It didn’t seem like the right time to invoke specific characters from Young Sheldon. He mentions ‘all the men in his life,’ which would include Dr. Sturgis.”
There was also a question about whether or not we'd see more TBBT kids on the show. This was that answer:
 Slim to none. “The goal in seeing the Big Bang characters as kids was to pay tribute to the Bang series finale, which also aired that night,” Molaro says. “So, it’s unlikely. But I’ll never say never."

The whole thing is here, under the Downton Abbey and some of the other show talk:
https://tvline.com/2019/09/18/downton-abbey-movie-spoilers-lady-mary-scene/

[chucky]

3 minutes ago, Die Zimtzicke said:

There is a page called "Ask Ausiello" on TVLine that talks about movies and tv shows and someone asked why Sheldon didn't thank Dr. Sturgis from YS  in his speech in the finale, since he was such on influence on Sheldon as a child. This was the response:
I’m gonna let former Big Bang EP/current Young Sheldon showrunner Steve Molaro field this one. “Sheldon’s speech was intended to honor the history of Big Bang,” Molaro tells TVLine.” It didn’t seem like the right time to invoke specific characters from Young Sheldon. He mentions ‘all the men in his life,’ which would include Dr. Sturgis.”
There was also a question about whether or not we'd see more TBBT kids on the show. This was that answer:
 Slim to none. “The goal in seeing the Big Bang characters as kids was to pay tribute to the Bang series finale, which also aired that night,” Molaro says. “So, it’s unlikely. But I’ll never say never."

The whole thing is here, under the Downton Abbey and some of the other show talk:
https://tvline.com/2019/09/18/downton-abbey-movie-spoilers-lady-mary-scene/

Very interesting indeed!