Friends - Ratings

Hi! I'm new here. I've been a Friends fan from the beginning! I'm a college student in Madison, Wisconsin.

I've been tracking the ratings for Friends for awhile. I have a page detailing Friends' ratings and how it fares each week against Survivor. It can be viewed here: http://www.angelfire.com/mi/planetdan/friendsratings.html

If people are interested, I could post The Friends vs. Survivor Ratings Battle here each week. (Of course, there's only one week left until next season, anyway.)

I also attended the taping of 814 (The One with the Secret Closet). You can read all about my experience here: http://www.angelfire.com/mi/planetdan/friendstaping.html

I guess that's all for now. I look forward to wasting even more time online than I already do by checking back here from time to time. :P

--DanG

In article , [email] (Dan Ginsburg) wrote:

Welcome to ATF, Dan. :)

Yes, I've been following it, although I have to scroll down to the table at the bottom, since the text above it is full of spoilers. I still don't see why you need to discuss future plots along with past ratings.

Yes please, but just the figures, especially since on ATF an episode is spoilerish until it airs on British network TV. S8 begins here in July.

Hehe. BTW, is the number of viewers correct for 11-08-01 & 11-22-01? Both are given as the same amount 24,236,000 which is itself suspicious, plus the Rating/Share and Audience figures are very different.

Tennant

Thanks. :) (As if I didn't spend enough time posting about Friends already...)

That text is the NBCMV previews. They are usually pretty good about not providing "spoilerish" material. I don't read spoilers myself, but I do read those previews. I put them there because a lot of people enjoy reading them. It never dawned on me that some people were having to scroll down past them to the table. Sorry! I guess it'll all be a moo point after Thursday's episode, anyway. You know, a cow's opinion. It doesn't matter. It's moo. :P

I'll keep that in mind. I'll make sure to remove anything from the articles that implies what happened before posting it here (or provide a warning if it gives anything away).

I just double-checked to make sure the numbers are correct, & indeed they are. :) I remember noticing this & finding it very strange, considering how different the rating/share & audience numbers are. I'm assuming the reason for this disparity is because the 11-22-01 episode aired on Thanksgiving. The rating/share & audience are based on households, not viewers. Since many people were spending the holiday with a large group in front of the television together, this can explain why the viewers were so much higher. The entire group is counted as one household, but many viewers. As for the fact that they ended up exactly equal (to the nearest thousand), that can be chalked up to coincidence. ;)

--DanG

In article , [email] (Dan Ginsburg) wrote:

Grin.

It won't be a moo point for me until sometime next week, and it won't be a moo point for ATF until just before Christmas.

Thanks.

Well, it's a bit weird that the circumstances were so different, and yet they all cancelled each other out to the exact thousand. Can you be sure that the published Nielsen figure didn't get repeated?

Tennant

I rechecked the Nielsen ratings with the Associated Press, Variety, & Zap2it, & all three had the same numbers. Nielsen is VERY careful with the numbers they release, so I'd be shocked if they repeated the figure, especially considering it wasn't in back-to-back weeks. When there is an error in the data, I have always found the error was made by the site publishing the data, not Nielsen itself. (For example, Zap2it & Yahoo! TV accidentally posted the ratings from two weeks ago in place of last week's ratings. All other sites have the correct data.) Considering that these three different sources all have the same number, I think it's safe to assume it's right.

Zap2it is the only one that provides the thousands digit. Every other source I've seen goes no farther than four significant figures. I post the thousands digit on my site, but I wouldn't give it much value. Either way, barring an unheard of mistake on Nielsen Media's part, the numbers are correct. ;)

I can't believe I just wrote that much about one number! :P

--DanG

In article , [email] (Dan Ginsburg) wrote:

Grin. Well, thankyou for going to so much trouble, Dan.

I'll take your word for it that it was just a coincidence.

And thanks for the fifth significant figure.

Tennant

Tennant Stuart wrote in message news:...

No problem. Season finale tonight! A-WOOHOO!

--DanG

In article , [email] (Dan Ginsburg) wrote:

Yay! But please don't forget the spoiler space...

Tennant

No need to worry. I won't. ;)