On January 16, 1995, UPN launched its brand new television network simultaneously with the 2 hour premiere of the new “Star Trek” series “Voyager.” An unprecedented 18 million viewers tuned in; and when “Voyager” ended in 2001, 8.81 million viewers watched. That same year, “Star Trek: Enterprise” debuted to 12.54 million viewers, which slid to 3.8 million viewers when it concluded in 2005. Even the popular “Star Trek: Next Generation” ended with a scant 4.0 million viewers in 1994 after a successful 7 year run during which it ratings fluctuated between 8.5 to 11.5 million.
With the proliferation of new television networks, increasing timeslot competition, and a larger variety of niche markets, it was believed that much of the failing science fiction audience retention could be blamed on a multitude of factors.
Yet despite the declining sci-fi audience, premiere ratings for sci-fi shows remained at an all-time high. In 2004, “Lost” premiered to 18.65 million viewers; in 2006, “Heroes” premiered to 14.1 million viewers; in 2008, “Terminator: The Sarah Connor Chronicles” premiered to 18.3 million viewers; and in 2009, “FlashForward” debuted to 12.47 million viewers. Remarkably, the premiere numbers for sci-fi series were still showing a strong interest in science fiction television.
But it is the end ratings that tell a startling story. When “Lost” concluded in May 2010, it pulled in 13.56 million viewers, a bump from its previous low of 8.7 million. When “Heroes” ended in February 2010, it only pulled in 4.41 million viewers. When “Terminator: The Sarah Connor Chronicles” ended in spring 2009, it got 3.6 million viewers. And when “FlashForward” ended in May 2010, it only got 4.96 million viewers.
How is it that sci-fi shows that debut to 18 million viewers end with less than one-half its original audience? Fans and non-fans are quick to point out the slip in writing quality, which creates retention problems. But I hazard to speculate that it is not merely a disillusionment with writing quality, but rather it is the lack of commitment by sci-fi fans.
As we have seen time and time again, there is a vast array of inferior television shows populating the TV landscape. There are shows that viewers lament over and over again that are not TV-worthy at all. Yet incredibly, they pull in high and consistent viewership. It is not quality that drives viewers away, it is the lack of commitment. Sci-fi fans are simply not willing to commit to their series. They do not have patience to allow storylines and characters to develop. They want their instant gratification and if it does not meet up to their impossibly high standards, then they are gone.
However, by doing so, they are virtually guaranteeing the death knell of sci-fi television. What television programmers are looking for is consistency. They want to know that the viewers they have lured into checking out a new show will stick around. They need to know that their product will provide a guaranteed number of viewers so that they can sell their advertising ad space. But because sci-fi shows start strong and then rapidly decline, it is difficult to find out what the average viewership base will be. It is that continual erosion that leads to quick cancellation, shifting timeslots and crazy gimmicks to attract back viewers.
Loyal fans of sci-fi shows want to blame studios for the lack of promotion of the shows, but if anything, studios have gone overboard to promote their shows. Premiere ratings validate that more than adequate promotion was given. When sci-fi shows debut to 14 to 18 million viewers, clearly the promotion machine has done its job.
What is not working is the dedication of the sci-fi fans. Current sci-fi shows such as “Stargate: Universe” and “Fringe” are at the top of their game. Creatively, they are providing some of the finest sci-fi stories ever to grace the television screen. Yet viewership is at an all-time low. “Fringe” went from a debut of 9.13 million viewers to an all-time time high of 13.27 to now only pulling in 5.13 million viewers. “Stargate: Universe” debuted at 2.34 million viewers and now only pulls in 1.09 million viewers.
As a fan, it does not matter how often the broadcast network may shift a show around, switching nights or timeslots — for I know, no matter when it is on, I will be there. Yet, clearly, the ratings show that not all viewers feel the same. For some reason, despite the writing quality becoming better, ratings continue to decline.
So it is not about the quality of the show. It therefore must be the viewers. Why are they not tuning in? Are they preferring to watch other non-science fiction shows? They cannot blame conflicting sci-fi loyalties as “Fringe” competes with “CSI,” “Nikita,” “Grey’s Anatomy” and “The Office.” “Stargate: Universe” competes with “Raising Hope,” “NCIS: Los Angeles,” and “Life Unexpected.” If anything, television programmers have made it easy for fans to watch sci-fi shows. So why aren’t the sci-fi fans tuning in? Surely, the 9:00 p.m. timeslot on Tuesdays and Thursdays is not so difficult a time to be home or to tune-in. Why did “Stargate: Universe” pull in over 1 million more viewers on a Friday night (a.k.a. “The Death Slot”) than on a Tuesday?
It is unfathomable. To each sci-fi fan who says that there are no good sci-fi shows on television, I respond: then you are just not watching.
And this is not the first time that sci-fi fans have cut-their-own-throat, so to speak. Iconic sci-fi shows such as “Star Trek,” “Battlestar Galactica” and even fan-favorite “Firefly” were all cancelled because of the lack of viewers. Yet years later, and sometimes decades later, these shows are the most consistently heralded “best science fiction” shows ever. So what happened? It is a simple formula: if the sci-fi fans do not watch, the show dies.
I am constantly amazed at the ratings for Syfy’s Saturday night sci-fi specials. While the concepts are cool, they really lack the storyline and character development that warrant rave reviews. Yet, incredibly, sci-fi fans are tuning-in on Saturday nights and watching the special of the week — in record numbers that put the ratings of finer sci-fi shows to shame. I posit that it is simply because it is low commitment that sci-fi fans are tuning in. If a serialized sci-fi series was put on at 9:00 p.m. on Saturday nights, the fans would avoid it like the plague. It would be too much commitment. But because they can tune in for just two hours, the average sci-fi fan figures it is okay to watch.
Since when did sci-fi fans have commitment problems? Has it always been an issue or is this a recent trend? Given the retention problems since the 1995 debut of “Star Trek: Voyager,” I am speculating that it has become a problem since 1995. The way we interact with the world has changed dramatically in the past 15 years. We have witnessed the launch and complete global domination of the internet, the growing popularity of video games, and economic recessions that have eradicated our faith in stability in the world. It has become all too easy to “check-out.” We are no longer glued to our television sets for entertainment with steep competition from internet entertainment and video games; and our viewing priorities have changed. With the world around us shifting with uncertainty at all times, many feel that they cannot take the time to commit to television shows. They want something mindless and easy to slip in and out of.
This is one argument. But it still does not explain why non-science fiction shows are still pulling in record numbers in the ratings. Why is only science fiction showing such dramatic retention loss? My speculation is: sci-fi viewers lack commitment. They are not patient. Science fiction is not all about action — explosions, gun fights, space wars. Science fiction is about stories and the characters we get to know along the way. That takes time to set-up and establish. Not each episode of a serialized sci-fi show will be action-filled. There will be times that episodes will be plodding, filled with exposition and yet at the same time laying the foundation and cookie-crumbs for later episodes. Story arcs take time to develop. Characters do not emerge as heroes in the first episode. The best science fiction shows took their time and unpeeled layer after layer until it revealed the hidden gem within. Did anyone know after watching one hour of “Battlestar Galactica’s” initial six hour mini-series that it would become the mesmerizing, gripping story that kept us enthralled for 4 seasons? If you are being honest, then the answer is “no.” It was simply too soon to tell. The same could be said of just about any other amazing sci-fi series. Good stories take time and commitment.
It is time that sci-fi fans realized this basic tenant of story-telling: all good things come to those that wait. It is time for sci-fi fans to embrace commitment and watch sci-fi shows with a tenacity that shows the world that we are behind our shows for better or worse. If we do not want sci-fi to die on television, we need to commit to it. Make time, make an effort and be a sci-fi fan dedicated to ensuring longevity for the entire genre — or it will be too late and there will be no sci-fi shows left to watch.
Do not let the curse of the vanishing 18 million viewers be the legacy of science fiction.
I watch the first two or three episodes. If the show is one that I like it is added to the list I subscribe to through iTunes or that I will buy on disc at the end of the season. I like to watch the shows at my own pace, often in marathons, and never with advertising. I support the shows I like with my $$$, but I am not the type of viewer that shows up in ratings.
I like this post. I’m a sci-fi fan, but don’t watch television. I prefer to read. Stargate Universe attracted my attention on Hulu and I stuck with it because it makes some attempt at character development and a more complex story rather than a focus on action and spectacle.
The series is not perfect and some of the writing comes across as quite ham-handed, but I have been pleased to see a television show attempt something better. Sadly, my viewing numbers don’t count because I use Hulu and won’t pay for satellite or cable television (and can’t get network television)
And perhaps the cancellation of this show may be a blessing. It will be remembered fondly with the idea of what could have been instead of dragging itself out until the writers are out of ideas and even the loyal fans are tired of the show. I would compare this with shows like “Firefly”, “the Sandbaggers” and others that were cut off in their prime and left behind a legion of fans.
I agree with a lot of what you’ve said. However, Syfy did NOT advertise the change over to Tuesday nights very well at all. I barely saw any advertising about it. I, like you, will follow my show no matter where it is. I always watch live unless some family emergency or other life matter has come up. We certainly can demand that they update their out-of-date ratings system. That is the power of the market.
Hardcore Sci Fi fans are intelligent people. They are the ones who remain. It starts out strong, but weaker minds move on, and there’s a lot of those. Most programs are an insult to intelligence and stupidity makes up most viewers. Thus, the shows die with intelligent viewers (which are few) and the shows are labeled “best ever” in retrospect. Unfortunately, numbers matter. What advertisers don’t know is the difference of what simple minds and intelligent minds buy. Thus is why the Internet will rule Sci Fi. Those metrics can be tracked. There will be a hiatus during which we will see a switch to full streaming Internet, until then, it’s a clusterf
LIVE-viewing is not the future, but it is the present. And right now, it is how networks make money that pay for the shows we love. We cannot demand that they live in a yet undetermined-future. The cold, harsh reality is that ad revenue from televised commercials is the only reason we get such shows as “Stargate: Universe.” If we cannot support the system as it is, until they can find a way to make money off DVR-viewing (which is pennies on the dollar) or online (also pennies on the dollar — assuming it was paid for and not downloaded/streamed via illegal sites), then great TV shows will continue to die simply because not enough people are watching under the current system. Sci-fi fans need to step up and show how passionate their really are but refusing to watch any way but LIVE. Otherwise, we have condemned the shows we love.
Great article, Tiffany. It was well researched and I do agree with most of your arguments except that I have a slightly different view on why scifi viewers lose interest.
For me it boils down to good writing. I think the scifi genre has suffered from average to mediocre writing for too long which has left the viewer feeling like they are being conned in some way.
Take a show like a Stargate Universe which has just been cancelled. As much as I liked it, I realized that the writing was getting stale. Every episode revolved between being stuck on a planet or the ship blowing up. I mean come on.
There are examples of really well written scifi shows and they tend to be UK shows like Doctor Who or Torchwood.
IMHO, what US shows need is some british therapy with shorter seasons (6-9 episodes max), fresh faces (cast some unknown actors for crying out loud) and some edgier storylines (ie Don’t be afraid to hurt/kill the good guy). It’s not a silver bullet but it’s a great start.
I have to think that there is always a way to make money if you have a product people want. I also think that advertisers may start to realize that quality of viewing will in the long run earn them greater profit. The only times I actually watch a commercial are when I’m fast forwarding the DVR or online waiting for the episode to start. I actually watch more commercials now than when I muted the TV and left the room during live viewing. I could time it perfectly so that I’d come back when the show started. But now with fast forward, some commercials actually catch my eye and I’ll watch them. Networks need to respond to DVR/online viewing habits because this is the reality now. And to not capitalize on it NOW is a short-sighted mistake. LIVE viewing is not the future.
dakinegirl – It is hard for networks to monetize non-LIVE viewing and as of yet the number viewers using DVR/online to watch shows does not bring in enough money to make it worth-while. LIVE broadcasts is still how networks make the money necessary to make the shows we love. If we cannot take the time to watch LIVE the TV shows we want to stick around, then cancellation becomes a harsh reality.
Tiffany, thanks for posting this and I agree with a lot of your thoughts. But I wonder about your stats. I posit that debuts are high for sci-fi shows because there’s no other way to watch a show.After premieres, the audience becomes split with DVR, online, hulu viewing. or a network not to count total audience figures & find ways to monetize alt viewing will be its own death. Networks need to think ahead and for the long-term because this technology won’t be going away and the era of watching live is quickly diminishing. Advertisers too need to realize that no one watches their ads even live. That actually the only time someone sits through a commercial is during the 30 seconds online. There’s simply no way to compare ratings from the 90s with present-time viewing habits. Debuts will always garner more ratings. If networks only want people to watch live then they need to take content offline. Or better, they need to count those viewers and figure out a way to make money…
I’ve been re-watching Deep Space Nine, arguably the “darkest” of the Star Trek series. I want to write a post comparing that show to the dark shows that have so far been cancelled in the 21st century. I think there are some lessons in that…
Thanks again for caring enough to write this piece…