The "core SG audience" is, by definition, the audience that's sticking with SG:U. Estimating it as any larger is wishful thinking.
Stargate Universe Ratings Thread!
- Thread starter Snick27
- Start date
I'm just saying, if you could never like this show, don't bother with it. Why do I need to get "a grip" for something a common sensical as that?!
I agree, it's safe to say that the core SG audience is 1 million. This number stuck with SGU throughout S2, week in, week out.
Mr Awe
Saquist
Commodore
Because you're in my business and not your own.
Perhaps that's a misuse of the term "Core Audience". I've mulled it over since I requote myself as the possible reason for the schism between me and Mr. Awe.
What I'm trying to say is that there is number of people that are more than willing to watch Stargate and then there is a greater number of people that seem to enjoy Sci Fi realism. In the case of Stargate that number is at most 3.5 million as the Atlantis pilot showed the greater audience was shown by Battlestar Galactica who had pilot numbers in excess of that.
Fans are fans. I consider them the Core Fan Audience because the sci fi audience is much larger. Even the General Stargate Fan Audience is larger than it's Core or Hardcore fan audience. In other words you're right it is "wishful thinking" because I'm considering the largest effective audience that Stargate has ever pooled in.
This is something like the difference between the core and potential TV audiences for Star Trek.
At its greatest TV success, there were 12 to 13 million people in the U.S. who watched it regularly. When it contracted to the core audience, it was bumping along at (and sometimes below) 3 million.
It looks like the core Stargate audience is about 1 million.
Saquist
Commodore
Yeah, but they need to start tapping that potential. 3.7 million didn't tune into SGA:Rising just because it was a curiosity. SG-1 made a splash on it's 10 years and like all sequels people get hyped up about new but familar.
That's why I think the Core Audience is larger than 1 million. The Hardcores are 1 million. They'll watch untill it's canceled. But the Stargate Core Audience are just every day people that really like good sci fi. They don't thumb their nose at Star Wars or Trek. They like BSG and Farscape and Serentity...but they have standards too and won't waste their time with SGU.
Right now Stargate fans are divided. Some SGA fans refuse to watch the new show and Brad Wright knows it because they've made their voice known.
I want Stargate to recover but it may not be meant to be with SGU.
Alright, you really need to knock that off. Just because you don't like SGU doesn't mean the ones that do like it have low/ poor standards. It's getting annoying.
Yeah, I'll second that. I stopped watching SG:U after the first season because I think it's one of the worst shows I've ever seen, and even I'm getting annoyed by Saquist.
"Core" versus "hard core" is a meaningless semantic distinction used to press an unprovable point.
If they don't stick it out, they're not "core audience."
Core fandom shows up for a Nationals home game because the Nationals are playing.
If they don't stick it out, they're not "core audience."
Core fandom shows up for a Nationals home game because the Nationals are playing.
Saquist
Commodore
Unfortunantlyl you can't just strip the label of Core Fan because a large number have standards and aren't going to stick around while the true fanatics hang on tooth and nail.
If you do that you'll never recognize when you're loosing your "Core" group...you'll continually assume that core group was smaller then you originally thought and like Trek Producers believe...they thought they had burned out the franchise when that was far from the case. They merely failed to continually entertain those Core Fans.
The contraction of Trek from 13 million to 3 million raises another factor: what constitutes a "core" audience isn't just influenced by Star Trek, but by everything that competes with Star Trek. The audience contracted to some extent because they weren't liking what they saw on-screen but also because they were liking other things better. Giving people more TNG after the end of TNG's run wouldn't necessarily have changed the numbers.
The fact is, you're describing a group that cannot be quantitatively defined, and it's therefore meaningless in a discussion of ratings and financial viability for a TV show. "Core fans" could be an amorphous blob of 10 people or 10 million. There is no way to know, and so they don't matter. There are only two kinds of people that matter from a business standpoint: those who watch your show, and those who don't.
Sure you can, if you want the term to have any meaning beyond some kind of odd self-congratulation.
You're just rationalizing events to fit a weak argument, here. What Paramount eventually realized was that core fandom was not big enough to support Star Trek and that this fandom would come along for the ride if they simply recreated Trek into something that a whole lot of non-trekkies would enjoy. And that worked just fine.
Saquist
Commodore
With all do respect but it has meaning in the business perview. That is the idea behind targeted advertising and marketing. Understanding your maximum potential vs what you've already pulled in. SGU was pulling in 1 million people. If the number of people just willing to watch compelling Sci Fi from what just BSG pilot was 5.2 million then 1 million isn't tapping your audience very well. If SGA started off at 3.5 million on it's pilot then 1 million isn't even tapping the Stargate audience well.
I do not understand the term self-congratulation in the context of the discussion.
More importantly No Core Fandom is strong enough to support a franchise. If I may note that didn't support your "argument" very well.
I'm gonna say this again since you don't seem to get it: the audience consists of the people who watch the show. Anyone who doesn't watch the show is not part of the audience. Period. Yes, you use marketing to get people to watch your show, but they are not targeting former fans who gave up on the show because that group is neither big enough nor measurable enough. Instead, they target broader groups--males 18-35, sci-fi fans, etc. While it would be nice to get people back who have stopped watching, there is no way to identify them as a separate group from people who have never watched. That's why I say the notion of "Core Fans" consisting of people who don't watch the show is meaningless from a business standpoint.
People's tastes change over time, so it makes absolutely no sense to assume that because 3.5 million people watched your show 5 years ago and only 1 million watch it now, there is some magical way to get those 2.5 million back. It could be they just plain aren't interested anymore and that there is nothing that will bring them back. Marketers have no way of knowing either way so they don't attempt to target these people.
^^ Indeed. Franchise fatigue syndrom exists, in part, because people just plain get tired of something over time. They want something new. Even if the quality of your show remains the same season after season, you may well lose viewers. The trick is to change things up enough so that you keep it fresh. But, that is very, very difficult to do over a long time.
Mr Awe
Mr Awe
Indeed, that's exactly the same error in reasoning that Trek fans have indulged since before the turn of the century.
Paramount ultimately bit the bullet and reached out for a new audience even at the risk (but not with the intention) of alienating some old-time viewers
You also have to constantly attract new viewers. You'll notice that the most successful shows grow their audience, not just over the span of a single season but through most (or all) of their run. It's hard to find the right formula to accomplish this and very few shows manage to do it, but that's what TV networks are aiming for. It's not enough just to aim for a certain audience and hope they don't bleed away too quickly.
Of course they do, but then so do people who say what you said.
A little late to this part of the discussion I know but wanted to comment as I dont like this "ratings dont equal quality" argument.
Because it's all very well to say a terrific show can get god awful ratings while a crappy show gets great ones, but that is just because you like the low rated show and dislike the high rated show. It could be argued that because the show you like gets poor ratings, the majority of people dont share your opinion and dont consider it to be good, while your hating on the high rated show is because you are out of step with what a lot of people do like and consider to be good.
The point I want to make is that people only ever use the "ratings dont mean quality" argument when the show that gets high ratings is one they dont like while the shows they do like get poor ratings. It's a crutch to argue with.
If the show they loved got huge ratings they would never in a million years say "well I like it and its getting good ratings, but that doesnt mean its any good".