[QUOTE=V1man;310126]Guys, the question is what can MTV do now to improve ratings. [/QUOTE]
Have that Canadian Justin Bieber host a special 4th of July Real World event answering tweets on air during the breaks might help. LOL. I have seen lots of ads for episode 2 whenever I am on MTV (which isn't often) which surprised me. A 4th of July marathon of Brooklyn maybe to fit in the patriotic theme. I don't know that there is realistically anything they can do other than flood the off-peak slots with reruns and pray for the best,
[QUOTE=V1man;310126]Guys, the question is what can MTV do now to improve ratings. They can't go shoot new video and make up stuff that didn't happen to make it look like Vegas II (well, they can, but not to the extent of showing hookups that didn't happen). I've not seen any indication that the network is putting much effort into bringing in new viewers for the July 4 episode.
If I were MTV, I'd put episode 2 on line on Wednesday to capture in their own audience count the people who would not see it on satellite or cable at the normal time that evening.[/QUOTE]
Milk Brandon as much as possible.
He's the only one with anything that I'd consider unique this season. I mean I NEVER cared for this show in the past and only started regularly watching from Vegas 2 on because I was really hyped for Rivals and wanted to see Mike, Leroy, and Adam. I enjoyed Vegas because there was a lot of crazy stuff on it. I remember watching San Diego and saying "What's the point of watching any of this?" St. Thomas may suffer the same fate. Only instead of stupid people on San Diego, we get trashier people on St. Thomas.
[QUOTE=Npresh24;310040]From what I'm hearing from a lot of people is they actually are over seeing massive hook-ups every season because it kinda make's two people one. Which I absolutely agree with.[/QUOTE]
The biggest issue I have with massive hook-ups is that if there's nothing interesting about it then it gets boring and old. On LV2 all of the hook-ups that season were interesting because there was a story there -- Heather and Dustin, Dustin's past. Adam and Nani, Adam had a gf... Nani had a bf. Cooke and Dustin, Dustin was still seeing Heather. Leroy and Naomi, Naomi thinking she's pregnant.
This season (from what I saw in the previews) it doesn't really look like anything interesting. It's just cast members hooking up with the occasional "you lied to me, how could you!" etc. Maybe the preview is misleading but the hook-ups didn't really grab my attention.
[QUOTE=KevinW;310169]The biggest issue I have with massive hook-ups is that if there's nothing interesting about it then it gets boring and old. On LV2 all of the hook-ups that season were interesting because there was a story there -- Heather and Dustin, Dustin's past. Adam and Nani, Adam had a gf... Nani had a bf. Cooke and Dustin, Dustin was still seeing Heather. Leroy and Naomi, Naomi thinking she's pregnant.
This season (from what I saw in the previews) it doesn't really look like anything interesting. It's just cast members hooking up with the occasional "you lied to me, how could you!" etc. Maybe the preview is misleading but the hook-ups didn't really grab my attention.[/QUOTE]
I prefer to see the roommates hook up with each other rather than with strangers, because if it's with a stranger and they leave the next day, it's over and it's like "what now?" If it's with a fellow roommate then it's usually guaranteed to bring drama.
[QUOTE=arilicious;310181]I prefer to see the roommates hook up with each other rather than with strangers, because if it's with a stranger and they leave the next day, it's over and it's like "what now?" If it's with a fellow roommate then it's usually guaranteed to bring drama.[/QUOTE]
Or as in the case of San Diego, the outsider (Mike) seemed more interesting than the cast in at least having a well-rounded view of things.
[QUOTE=FishHooks;310186]Or as in the case of San Diego, the outsider (mike) seemed more interesting than the cast in at least having a well-rounded view of things.[/QUOTE]
There was no Mike in SD? You mean Vegas?
[QUOTE=FishHooks;310190]I was referring to Frank's BF whom I think was named mike[/QUOTE]
Oh! Him! I forgot about him, cause that season was so forgettable, lol.
Or even Pat and JR on Cancun. They weren't part of the cast and Pat still probably had more screen time that Derek.
[url=http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/2012/07/05/tv-ratings-wednesday-macys-fourth-of-july-special-leads-nbc-to-nightly-win/140510/] ‘Macy’s Fourth of July Spectacular’ Leads NBC to Nightly Win[/url]
Idk how good of a correlation this is but when the broadcast stations are all getting around a .6(What Real World got for the premiere) It doesn't sound good for the cable networks
[QUOTE=LaneV95;310399][URL="http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/2012/07/05/tv-ratings-wednesday-macys-fourth-of-july-special-leads-nbc-to-nightly-win/140510/"] ‘Macy’s Fourth of July Spectacular’ Leads NBC to Nightly Win[/URL]
Idk how good of a correlation this is but when the broadcast stations are all getting around a .6(What Real World got for the premiere) It doesn't sound good for the cable networks[/QUOTE]
First, this shows what I have been maintaining--Real World is doing okay compared to other cable shows.
I think media companies are in a catch 22--the internet is eroding their traditional television market (among other things) but they cannot ignore the digital opportunities. They might be shooting themselves in the foot when they go to the web, but they cannot afford not to. TV advertising and cable fees sustain them, but are getting thin. The internet, on the other hand, is really hard to monetize, especially when giants like google and FB ad services collect loaves and pay crumbs to internet sites. I suspect what might happen in the next 5-10 years is that a new arrangement will emerge where channels will try to either require subscription on cable (like HBO/Showtime) and or subscription to get the meat of web content (like xxx sites). The President of Time Warner was in Charlie Rose sometime in the last few months, and it was an interesting conversation about what is happening.
Good stuff. I definitely think that emerging technology is making the Nielson system more and more antiquated. It still serves it's purpose but they are going to have to find something better very soon.
REAL WORLD XXVII MTV 10p: 863,000 viewers, 0.5 A18-49 rtg.
I know it was a hoilday, but ouch. Is this the lowest rated episode in the history of everdom?
[QUOTE=Benfiquista;310533]REAL WORLD XXVII MTV 10p: 863,000 viewers, 0.5 A18-49 rtg.
I know it was a hoilday, but ouch. Is this the lowest rated episode in the history of everdom?[/QUOTE]
Now that's ugly...
Awesome showing. With those numbers, maybe MTV will consider finding the show a new time slot now. Like maybe 9 on Tuesday when there is less competition.
[QUOTE=FishHooks;310552]Awesome showing. With those numbers, maybe MTV will consider finding the show a new time slot now. Like maybe 9 on Tuesday when there is less competition.[/QUOTE]
They'd get hurt by Tosh.0 and Storage Wars reruns.
How bout next season Thursday at 10? Right before Jersey Shore? Or does Jersey Shore come on at 10? I can't even remember. Maybe right after Jersey Shore since SOOOOOO many people watch that still?
[QUOTE=FishHooks;310552]Awesome showing. With those numbers, maybe MTV will consider finding the show a new time slot now. Like maybe 9 on Tuesday when there is less competition.[/QUOTE]
If the show is good it'll get decent ratings at any time slot IMO. I stopped watching RW years ago, but I kept hearing people talking about how good RWLV2 was. I had already missed 3 episodes, but I jumped on board just off word of mouth. If its good folks will watch, trust me.
[QUOTE=JodyBreeze;310564][B]If the show is good it'll get decent ratings at any time slot IMO.[/B] I stopped watching RW years ago, but I kept hearing people talking about how good RWLV2 was. I had already missed 3 episodes, but I jumped on board just off word of mouth. If its good folks will watch, trust me.[/QUOTE]
I disagree. Timeslots matter. If they are targeting 13-17 years olds, 10 & 11 on a weeknight might not be the best time to be seeking your overnights when some of the lower end of that spectrum may be actually going to sleep or doing homework at that time.
Wow, I haven't been on this site in over 3 years and decided to login when I remember people discuss Real World a lot here.
I haven't posted in forever, so it's weird to be back. I just have a couple things to say on RW.
At this point... a lot of the original (and I mean us old school folks) have really moved on from RW. And it's crazy because I'm 25, the last age you could get on RW. But I know very few my age who still watch it. I had watched it faithfully since the FIRST NOLA season (season 9... such a long time ago lol, '99 I believe).
I watched it for a good 10 years, and stayed up with and talked about it with friends up until around Hollywood (I was 22 I believe). After that, it just didn't intrigue me as much anymore. And that's what's happening to MTV's '90s/'00s show audience. And RW is a staple of that time (along with TRL and Jacka**, but we know how those shows went).
So all I really want to say is that sometimes shows just run their course. I know the 13-21 crowd still find precedence in it, but shows like Jersey Shore and Teen Mom really reflect more of the times in two different ways. I had hoped RW would make a solid comeback, but I didn't like Vegas 2, NOLA 2, or San Diego 2 (their first seasons were ALL better). And for some reason, MTV refuses to touch certain cities (ATL, Houston, Tampa even after doing Key West, Nashville, Montreal, Portland, Phoenix, Dallas, etc.) even if they aren't known for party cities. As if DC is.
And someone brought up a good point. A lot of cities do not want RW filming in their cities anymore which I know brings a lot of frustration to making this show.
So in all, I checked out St. T's premiere and did not get interested. Back in the day, hookups made the show move along but they didn't become the focus that they do now. The shows before now always tackled bigger issues like racism (on NY 1, NOLA 1, Chicago, Denver), cultural differences (Vegas 1, NY 2 in '00, Austin, Paris), and dynamic issues (Tonya's alcoholism in Chicago, Davis' homosexuality and racism in Denver, the entire cast of Austin's issues, and even Hollywood addressed a lot). The last 3 seasons just seem... dry to me.
Thank you if you read all that, just making up for 3 years of lost time lol. All I can say is good luck to RW but the show is definitely a shell of its former shelf from a mid-20 year old's perspective.
I think location is the reason for this seasons lack of ratings. Why the hell did they go to St. Thomas? All I can think of is that they thought a private island would be cool. The Virgin Islands are a Challenge location, the Real World needs to stick to the big cities where the cast can actually do things.
I never expected such a ratings plunge. I wonder if BMP isn't pissed at MTV for the timing on this season. Premiering the week before July 4 just doesn't make sense to me. What I've seen in Ep 1 & 2 may not be Emmy-worthy TV, but it isn't bad. The cast is generally likeable, if not somewhat loveable. The storyline (storytelling) and editing, however, look like tech school quality to me. With this kind of editing, I'm not sure we would have connected with Pedro.
Help me out, you MTV PR staff reading this. Why this schedule? What is the plan to fix it? You're making it difficult to be loyal.
If these ratings are not artificial, then there is serious trouble in Reality Camelot.
[QUOTE=ILoveRW;310596]I think location is the reason for this seasons lack of ratings. Why the hell did they go to St. Thomas? All I can think of is that they thought a private island would be cool. The Virgin Islands are a Challenge location, the Real World needs to stick to the big cities where the cast can actually do things.[/QUOTE]
I think there could be better locations, but I don't think it is really that or the cast. I think they need to mix up the entire formula for the show and rebrand it as RW2.0. new & improved. For instance, instead on having a variation on the same type of crib--one season a teepee, next a cabin, next a doublewide--people will tune in not knowing what to expect for a house. As has been suggested many times, mix up the cast formula--anything different than what they are doing. I see so many interesting stories out there which would be great if they went after them. This formula feels more like Jon Murray repeatedly exorcising his high school demons than anything resembling a new thought--"Must always make the jocks and pretty girls they like look bad because the in crowd used to pick on me; must always make the gays look like misunderstood victims because that is what we all are".
[QUOTE=TwoStrikes;310562]How bout next season Thursday at 10? Right before Jersey Shore? Or does Jersey Shore come on at 10? I can't even remember. Maybe right after Jersey Shore since SOOOOOO many people watch that still?[/QUOTE]
IDK about you, but I normally go to bed at 11ish, unless it's the summer. I have sleeping problems though where it takes me hours to fall asleep, even with the lights off, so it's not like watching extra TV is good for my insomnia. And about Jersey Shore, the ratings for that have been down the past couple of seasons I think. They're still MUCHHHHHH higher than RW of course, but that's more because the cast have become celebs from the show, whereas RW people have not since it's different people every season.
[QUOTE=ATownBrown;310589]Wow, I haven't been on this site in over 3 years and decided to login when I remember people discuss Real World a lot here.
I haven't posted in forever, so it's weird to be back. I just have a couple things to say on RW.
At this point... a lot of the original (and I mean us old school folks) have really moved on from RW. And it's crazy because I'm 25, the last age you could get on RW. But I know very few my age who still watch it. I had watched it faithfully since the FIRST NOLA season (season 9... such a long time ago lol, '99 I believe).
I watched it for a good 10 years, and stayed up with and talked about it with friends up until around Hollywood (I was 22 I believe). After that, it just didn't intrigue me as much anymore. And that's what's happening to MTV's '90s/'00s show audience. And RW is a staple of that time (along with TRL and Jacka**, but we know how those shows went).
So all I really want to say is that sometimes shows just run their course. I know the 13-21 crowd still find precedence in it, but shows like Jersey Shore and Teen Mom really reflect more of the times in two different ways. I had hoped RW would make a solid comeback, but I didn't like Vegas 2, NOLA 2, or San Diego 2 (their first seasons were ALL better). And for some reason, MTV refuses to touch certain cities (ATL, Houston, Tampa even after doing Key West, Nashville, Montreal, Portland, Phoenix, Dallas, etc.) even if they aren't known for party cities. As if DC is.
And someone brought up a good point. A lot of cities do not want RW filming in their cities anymore which I know brings a lot of frustration to making this show.
So in all, I checked out St. T's premiere and did not get interested. Back in the day, hookups made the show move along but they didn't become the focus that they do now. The shows before now always tackled bigger issues like racism (on NY 1, NOLA 1, Chicago, Denver), cultural differences (Vegas 1, NY 2 in '00, Austin, Paris), and dynamic issues (Tonya's alcoholism in Chicago, Davis' homosexuality and racism in Denver, the entire cast of Austin's issues, and even Hollywood addressed a lot). The last 3 seasons just seem... dry to me.
Thank you if you read all that, just making up for 3 years of lost time lol. All I can say is good luck to RW but the show is definitely a shell of its former shelf from a mid-20 year old's perspective.[/QUOTE]
Very eloquently stated. I enjoyed reading your post and agree wholeheartedly.
[QUOTE=V1man;310598]I never expected such a ratings plunge. I wonder if BMP isn't pissed at MTV for the timing on this season. Premiering the week before July 4 just doesn't make sense to me. What I've seen in Ep 1 & 2 may not be Emmy-worthy TV, but it isn't bad. The cast is generally likeable, if not somewhat loveable. The storyline (storytelling) and editing, however, look like tech school quality to me. With this kind of editing, I'm not sure we would have connected with Pedro.
Help me out, you MTV PR staff reading this. Why this schedule? What is the plan to fix it? You're making it difficult to be loyal.
If these ratings are not artificial, then there is serious trouble in Reality Camelot.[/QUOTE]
I agree with you about this! I do think some of the ratings plunge has to do with the past season (San Diego), but the timing is awful.
I also like the cast. I don't think there is one "character" who I dislike. Completely. I am kind of happy the season didn't start off with hook-ups and fights. Brings back old memories. Hope it wont continue with its dismal ratings.
[QUOTE=V1man;310598]The storyline (storytelling) and editing, however, look like tech school quality to me. With this kind of editing, I'm not sure we would have connected with Pedro.
If these ratings are not artificial, then there is serious trouble in Reality Camelot.[/QUOTE]
The music choices over the past few seasons have also been horrendous. Pay for some legitimate music or stop doing the scenes where the music is used to narrate the scene. The song when Brandon was dancing with the girl the second go-around ("Hey Little Miss") made the show seem low-grade. Was horrible to hear.
Pages