Fresh Meat II - Ratings

Anyone remember what the ratings were like around the Battle of the sexes 1/Gauntlet 1 era??? I'm curious to see how it compares to the fresh meat II ratings.

Okay here are the share ratings for the 18-49 target demographic, I didn't graph them because I have no idea what they mean, but others who understand this stuff more than me can still compare them: [url=http://vevmo.com/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=6588][img]http://vevmo.com/imagehosting/33534bff626094bd1.jpg[/img][/url]

[QUOTE=CharR;180162]Okay here are the share ratings for the 18-49 target demographic, I didn't graph them because I have no idea what they mean, but others who understand this stuff more than me can still compare them: [url=http://vevmo.com/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=6588][img]http://vevmo.com/imagehosting/33534bff626094bd1.jpg[/img][/url][/QUOTE] Looks like they really need to revamp the shows format..and their marketing....sad numbers:(

Is anyone surprised by these numbers? I've stopped watching FM2 because it's just gotten annoying how it's always Kenny VS Wes. I honestly don't care anymore. Also, as much as I watch MTV I never see any advertisements for FM2. That could have something to do with it.

I think a huge issue will arise with the newest challenge. A lot of the cast is Real World DC and Fresh Meat II people. These two seasons had low ratings, meaning less people will know who they are and may tune out. But maybe this will work in MTV's favor with having new faces as opposed to the more familiar ones. Either way, LOL at the ratings. It may be too little too late.

[QUOTE=andrew;180206]I think a huge issue will arise with the newest challenge. A lot of the cast is Real World DC and Fresh Meat II people. These two seasons had low ratings, meaning less people will know who they are and may tune out. But maybe this will work in MTV's favor with having new faces as opposed to the more familiar ones. Either way, LOL at the ratings. It may be too little too late.[/QUOTE] I don't know much about ratings, but with the internet, on demand, and TeVo I would say that ratings for a lot of shows have dropped. What though would be considered good or decent ratings for FM2 particularly in a pretty bad time slot.

[QUOTE=cashmachine;180312]I don't know much about ratings, but with the internet, on demand, and TeVo I would say that ratings for a lot of shows have dropped. What though would be considered good or decent ratings for FM2 particularly in a pretty bad time slot.[/QUOTE] The time slot has been the same, it's the constant. The slack in ratings is competition of other shows attracting MTV's viewers. The viewers who used to sit at the edge of their seat waiting for a challenge to start have been yawning instead....flipping channels and eventually finding something else that peeks their interest. MTV needs to pick up the pace, get more creative, bring in old blood, or fresh meat....not change the time slot:(

Wow, death is really knocking at the door of the challenges :-(. I just can't see how they can be saved. They have to do A LOT of changes.

Its not like the shows in its third season..how many shows do you know that go on for 21 seasons? Maybe its just the shows time...

[QUOTE=tjhallow;180526]Its not like the shows in its third season..how many shows do you know that go on for 21 seasons? Maybe its just the shows time...[/QUOTE] it's been on this long why would it go out just like that!

[QUOTE=tjhallow;180526]Its not like the shows in its third season..how many shows do you know that go on for 21 seasons? Maybe its just the shows time...[/QUOTE] Possibly. I do agree that the time slot is horrible. Remember when they had it on Mondays!?

[QUOTE=tjhallow;180526]Its not like the shows in its third season..how many shows do you know that go on for 21 seasons? Maybe its just the shows time...[/QUOTE] Survivor is about to go into it's twenty-first season and it's still doing well with ratings. But comparing Survivor to the Challenge isn't a fair competition at all. Survivor is STILL good. I think it's time for the Challenge to go bye bye.

[QUOTE=Lamb Chop!!!;180573]Survivor is about to go into it's twenty-first season and it's still doing well with ratings. But comparing Survivor to the Challenge isn't a fair competition at all. Survivor is STILL good. [B]I think it's time for the Challenge to go bye bye.[/B][/QUOTE] Never :devil1:

[QUOTE=producer88;180532]Possibly. I do agree that the time slot is horrible. Remember when they had it on Mondays!?[/QUOTE] Mondays, was much better timeslot because the wait was "shorter" (I know what you're thinking, "its still 7 days") but its the truth.

Primetime Mondays are a horrible time slot for anything MTV-offered, second probably only to Tuesdays in springtime (powerhouse duo of Idol/DwtS).

This is pathetic. They really need to get it together. I think The Challenge needs to go on a year hiatus so they can figure this out and revamp the show, because it's really turning to **** :/

I'd also like to see the challenges back on Mondays in the 10 slot. Aren't The Hills ending anyway? I agre with iRyan - I think perhaps going a year without filming a challenge and trying to make more positive changes (not drastic, completely "different show feeling" ones like they did with RR) could be what needs to happen. I think RW should be on its last legs and about to wrap up soon, but I think the challenges could possibly go on a bit longer if they fix things. There are old school fans who feel like they are about done and ready to move on, but there are obviously people who started watching with the FM generation and RW seasons 18 on, and I think the show could still go on a little while with these later cast members if BMP/MTV worked on the quality and marketing of the challenges.

[QUOTE=Old Friend;180624]Mondays, was much better timeslot because the wait was "shorter" (I know what you're thinking, "its still 7 days") but its the truth.[/QUOTE] that makes absolutely no sense. I still think internet watching on the main mtv site should be factored into the ratings, as for dvr.

I work in TV marketing and I do know a lot about ratings and MTV's ratings. MTV in general has been getting killed this year, except for Jersey Shore. New episodes of, for example, The Hills are doing 1.1s in the Demo (and far worse with men) and they've stopped reporting ratings for many of their other shows. 3 reasons for this: 1) People under 30 are dropping cable in blistering numbers and watching online like crazy. 2) People who DVR a show are only counted if they watch within a few hours, and young people are far more likely to delay watching a show until the next day or later 3) Young people spend less time with their TVs than they used too. (who ever thought that would happen?) So how do you account for all of this? Well you need to look at online viewership; on MTV.com FMII has between 150,000 and 400,000 views per episode according to the counters on the page; that doesn't include paid iTunes downloads. MTV makes money either way. Advertisers know that people aren't watching commercials on shows like the challenge anymore, we actually often prefer that a young person watch our ad online because they cant skip it (the top advertisers like P&G and Unilever understand this). Also, you need to take MTV's overall ratings trend into account, yes the ratings are awful, and would have had the show cancelled mid-season in 2006 and dumped onto the MTV2 schedule, but in 2010 a new episode of The Challenge is still one of MTVs better rated hours. So what does all of this mean for The Challenge? Well I can't say that things look good. The really telling sign is that MTV has stopped airing repeats of the show at all hours. Actually, if you look at their weekly schedule, they're airing it only 2-3 times a week, all on Wednesdays. Also telling; they've dumped the aftershow, only a few seasons ago it was an easy boost to ratings. MTV is clearly displeased with how things are going in.re. The Challenge. MTV has four options here. They can see these season as an aberration and just power through with another season. They can try to revamp the format and use a mostly new cast (this appears to what they're trying). They can try to reach backwards and go with what they used to do, which would be very un-MTV. Or they could see their overall declining ratings as a sign that they need to start over and rebuild their network from the ground up; it seems unlikely that The Challenge will survive the next network rebuilding unless ratings improve. Actually, it seems unlikely that [I]anything[/I] will survive the next network revamp at MTV. The Hills is ending, their docu-drama's are doing awful, and Jersey Shore doesn't make any sense as a multi-season show. If the ratings recover even a little for The Challenge 20, we'll probably see a 21. If the show is getting 0.6s and 0.5s A18-45s without a correlating online viewership increase, *ckkkktt*.

Alright, I've been a LONG time lurker of the website. I was never more interested in joining in on a discussion on this website than this one, simply because I am obsessed with these shows, watch episode re-runs at every opportunity (which I DO admit is a little sick) and seeing this staple in pop culture end would kill me. Anyways, as much as I love The Challenges, I think that they should stop airing two challenges a year. Also, they should probably film in in the spring or summer in a hot location because obviously seeing the castmates wearing close to nothing is a lot more enticing than seeing them wearing sweaters in the cold Canadian weather. They need to take sometime to regroup and make up a game play (possibly a new Challenge idea completely different from The Gauntlet, The Inferno etc.). As much as having one challenge a year would drive me insane, it is nothing in comparasion to having no Challenges or Real World seasons at all and it would keep everyone on the edge of their seats, anticipating another challenge. The time at which they air new episodes and lack of re-runs in the States is probably a part of the problem. I know that here in Canada they air the new episode at 10:00PM on Sunday nights and re-runs Monday at 3:00PM, Monday at 9:00PM, Tuesday at 12:00AM, Saturday at 10:00AM, Sunday at 3:00PM and Sunday at 9:00PM (right before the new episode). I could be missing a couple, but those are all of the ones that I watch. It seems like MTV isn't putting that much effort into the Challenges anymore. Lack of advertising and lack of re-runs and sinking this ship. If they advertised the Real World and The Challenges half as much as they did for the Hills and the City here in Canada, it would be smooth sailing. I think that, in combination with bringing back some older players (Coral, Beth, Alton etc.), better advertising and a better time slot in the USA might just be the defibrillator for this show.

[QUOTE=CastAStone;180989] 1) People under 30 are dropping cable in blistering numbers and watching online like crazy. 2) People who DVR a show are only counted if they watch within a few hours, and young people are far more likely to delay watching a show until the next day or later 3) Young people spend less time with their TVs than they used too. (who ever thought that would happen?) [/QUOTE] CastAStone, Welcome to Vevmo and thanks for weighing in... It seems to me that #s 1 and 2 require only a solution of communication... if Neilsen explains to the people who have their equipment in their home that they need to record/report ALL television programs they watch and how they view it (ie via smartphone, pc connection, dvr etc, as well as possibly viewing any shows at others' homes), that would go a long way toward a more accurate ratings picture. Feasible? You could answer better than I. #3 is a harder issue to tackle. Their target demo is more ADD than ever before, and shows no signs of trending away from that general behavior. It is hard to believe there is a shrinking market for RW because it is such a unique show, being a strictly sociological experiment rather than a hybrid reality/game show (Survivor, Amazing Race, the Challenges, etc). I wonder how much the switch to 1 hour episodes has impacted peoples' desire to watch (ie is 1 hour programming possibly too long for young people to pay attention to in 1 sitting these days?).

[QUOTE=Aereas;181062]CastAStone, It seems to me that #s 1 and 2 require only a solution of communication... if Neilsen explains to the people who have their equipment in their home that they need to record/report ALL television programs they watch and how they view it (ie via smartphone, pc connection, dvr etc, as well as possibly viewing any shows at others' homes), that would go a long way toward a more accurate ratings picture. Feasible? You could answer better than I.[/QUOTE] The problem is that the journals/books were phased out a few years ago. Virtually everything is done electronically now. So a Neilson box sits in (or outside, depending on your cable provider) of your house, and just monitors. Most boxes work with a special remote that you push a special button to tell them who exactly in your house is watching. Advertisers just don't care who watches a DVRd show more than a few hours later, because the chances they're watching the ads are virtually zilch. As for the internet watching, the ads are bought separately, so it only makes sense to report separately. I have never bought on The Challenge but its common for me to pay more for 15 seconds in an online airing than in a TV airing in terms of cost per viewer. Of course, there are far fewer ads in an online airing, so MTV makes off worse, at least for now. The Challenge is one MTVs best viewed shows online, and FMII views are actually up from The Ruins. Thanks for the welcome.

What I've noticed with MTV is that all they seem to rerun are Jersey Shore, Teen Mom, 16 and Pregnant, True Life, and Made. I never see the Challenges rerun and occasionally the Real World will be on (when the season is going on obviously). I got into the Challenges back when the first Gauntlet was on in 2003 and I saw it because they had an all day marathon airing. They haven't done stuff like that for the challenges in ages.

[QUOTE=CastAStone;181070]The problem is that the journals/books were phased out a few years ago. Virtually everything is done electronically now. [/QUOTE] This is not actually true. I have been sent a Neilson journal 3 times in the last two years. Unfortunately those times did not coincide with a Challenge but I believe they got my watching of Real Word DC one week. The Neilson journals do take into account DVR watching as long as it is a show that aired during the week that the journal covers. Each journal covers one specific week.

[QUOTE=drkthund;181336]This is not actually true. I have been sent a Neilson journal 3 times in the last two years. Unfortunately those times did not coincide with a Challenge but I believe they got my watching of Real Word DC one week. The Neilson journals do take into account DVR watching as long as it is a show that aired during the week that the journal covers. Each journal covers one specific week.[/QUOTE] I believe you, but cable ratings are finalized within 24 hours now. [I]The books aren't used for ratings[/I], they're used to double check the box results. I know that at least a few years ago in some small markets they were still the primary mode of measurement, but in those cases the cable finals you saw 24 hours later used an algorithm to predict what the book results would be. It's possible that this is still the case, but the books aren't used to correct existing results, they're used to adjust the models to make future predictions, and they're being phased out entirely. The newer boxes can monitor the exact number of commercial minutes watched, so the diaries are becoming more and more of an antiquity. The ratings you all see take into account SAME NIGHT DVR viewing only, the definition of which varies by time zone. While Neilson does compile up to 7 days, no one cares about DVR viewing after the first night for a variety of reasons.

The challenges just needs something extreme, over the edge crazy. Remember Gauntlet 3 when E was having an attack. That was intense trailer, and A LOT of people tuned in. Another example Jersey Shore. When Snooki got punched on the face, it sparked something, and ratings sore. My generation, we like to say we seen it all, and now we want to see more "extreme action" (if that makes any sense lol). Another example would be Bad Girls Club, that's an intense show. Now I'm not saying a male castmember should punch a girl on the face, but they need something to give the show that spark, and have people talk about it. Frankly, Falva of Love has change the reality game, and making my generation want intense shows (or whatever I'm trying to explain).

[QUOTE=CastAStone;181338] The ratings you all see take into account SAME NIGHT DVR viewing only, the definition of which varies by time zone. While Neilson does compile up to 7 days, no one cares about DVR viewing after the first night for a variety of reasons.[/QUOTE] That's sort of funny, it basically means that for ratings purposes I wouldn't exist at all since I just about never watch stuff on the night it actually records. [QUOTE=producer88;181340]The challenges just needs something extreme, over the edge crazy. Remember Gauntlet 3 when E was having an attack. That was intense trailer, and A LOT of people tuned in. Now I'm not saying a male castmember should punch a girl on the face, but they need something to give the show that spark, and have people talk about it. [/QUOTE] Every time CT is on a Challenge, he ends up or comes close to laying someone out. Last season's challenge hyped up the Brad/Darrell fight. It's not really working. The name "The Real World" has at some point acquired a stigma to it that turns young people off to the show and they won't give it a chance now or ever, though they might check out a clip on YouTube if they hear about something intense via word of mouth. Probably the actual best thing BMP could do is switch networks, rebrand the show a bit, find someone who will get behind it with proper advertising and call it something completely different, and they would probably have a hit because it does have all the elements to make a successful show.

[QUOTE=producer88;181340]The challenges just needs something extreme, over the edge crazy. Remember Gauntlet 3 when E was having an attack. That was intense trailer, and A LOT of people tuned in. [/QUOTE] No matter how extreme, if you don't care about the participants you are probably not going to watch... Honestly, I think FM2 is a fine series but nothing special, although I do feel the introduction of Fresh Meat was the death of the series and this incarnation is somewhat a reflection of that. MTV broke away from the core formula and the downward spiral took hold. Sure, it could be argued that this is just a natural progression of the series (dying a slow death) but I've always stated (and believe) that it was the dilution of the cast that was the death knell of The Challenge (which in effect also tarnished The Real World brand.) MTV basically ****** off the core audience (i.e. those that had been watching for years, by no longer bringing aboard their favorite cast members and instead replacing them with randoms) and then got a cold shoulder from the younger audience who would rather, for the most part, watch fauxality shows like The Hills - because oddly enough, they seem more "real." If they would have kept their shows relevant (mainly The Real World being that is the anchor, but Road Rules as well) they would still be in the game, but rather they joined the "race to the bottom" and instead of series about living with AIDS, or race relations or a group of people being challenged together, we got a continuous dorm party filled in by (many) moments of sheer boredom, a cancelled show and a Challenge that has more people who never participated in the original shows in the first place than actual legacy cast members. For instance, I would not have to read anything about New Orleans 2, to guess (you guys can call me Nouveau-Nostradamus later...) there will be drunken fights and someone will hook up with another roommate, but they won't get along later and then roommate A and B will get into a confrontation and, Oh...Noooo! Someone might be leaving the house! And so forth and so on... It is like Hell's Kitchen, but even more predictable (Oh my, is Chef Ramsey going to throw someone out of the kitchen? OH S***! HE DID NOT!) Anyway, they can probably salvage the show if they get rid of the entire production team and bring in some new talent that is willing to take all the preconceived notions off the board and rebuild the series from the ground up. As they say in the movie industry, it needs to be rebooted. Beyond that, The Real World and The Challenge series are Dead Shows Walking... [B]Edit:[/B] I just wanted to mention that I agree with those that have messaged me about Vegas. It [I]was[/I] the begining of the end (in hindsight.) Of course, it was novel programing at the time and very highly rated. Had the show continued to transform and continued to provide engaging programming, it would be in solid shape today. Instead they took Vegas as the casting mold and built just about every subsequent season after Vegas, with an unchanging blueprint which did not stay current nor innovative (Say what you want, but having a reality show in a Casino at the time was quite innovative for the genre.) The difference, in my opinion between Vegas and Fresh Meat is that Vegas was water cooler television and it was culturally relevant. Fresh Meat, was the end. The end in that it was neither relevant nor consistent with the core of the series, which was to see our favorite Real World and Road Rules cast members battling it out. It forever changed the series and decimated the brand, which leads us to the ratings we see today.

[QUOTE=Aereas;181062]CastAStone, Welcome to Vevmo and thanks for weighing in... It seems to me that #s 1 and 2 require only a solution of communication... if Neilsen explains to the people who have their equipment in their home that they need to record/report ALL television programs they watch and how they view it (ie via smartphone, pc connection, dvr etc, as well as possibly viewing any shows at others' homes), that would go a long way toward a more accurate ratings picture. Feasible? You could answer better than I. #3 is a harder issue to tackle. Their target demo is more ADD than ever before, and shows no signs of trending away from that general behavior. It is hard to believe there is a shrinking market for RW because it is such a unique show, being a strictly sociological experiment rather than a hybrid reality/game show (Survivor, Amazing Race, the Challenges, etc). I wonder how much the switch to 1 hour episodes has impacted peoples' desire to watch (ie is 1 hour programming possibly too long for young people to pay attention to in 1 sitting these days?).[/QUOTE] Based on this, every show (cable or network) is getting its ratings the same way. Even if you allowed new tracking methods, it would not matter. The Real World franchise would still be one of the lower performing shows. They have used this methods for years (not sure how far back it goes) and it has worked. It's not a tracking issue as to why the shows aren't getting viewers. It's the quality of the show.

[QUOTE=Bacchus;181370]No matter how extreme, if you don't care about the participants you are probably not going to watch... [/QUOTE] This is such a well-written and TRUE post. You said everything I think about the challenge and RW but can't put into words properly. People started tuning into the challenge to see their favorite Real world and Road Rules cast mates again. They don't tune in JUST to see challenge drama with people they've never seen before. And since even the Real World isn't good anymore, and less people are tuning into that, that translates to even worse ratings for the challenge. It's so formulatic now and not interesting. [QUOTE=Aereas;181356]That's sort of funny, it basically means that for ratings purposes I wouldn't exist at all since I just about never watch stuff on the night it actually records. Every time CT is on a Challenge, he ends up or comes close to laying someone out. Last season's challenge hyped up the Brad/Darrell fight. It's not really working. The name "The Real World" has at some point acquired a stigma to it that turns young people off to the show and they won't give it a chance now or ever, though they might check out a clip on YouTube if they hear about something intense via word of mouth. [B]Probably the actual best thing BMP could do is switch networks, rebrand the show a bit, find someone who will get behind it with proper advertising and call it something completely different, and they would probably have a hit because it does have all the elements to make a successful show[/B].[/QUOTE] I actually think the show COULD be (relatively) successful if it found a home on a different network, because the numbers it pulls would still be considered a success by other cable networks. However, I think the problem with that idea is that the cast wouldn't come back. None of the current cast members who've been "MTV stars" for some years now, would switch over to a smaller, less notable network to continue doing challenges, they'd quit before that. (in my opinion). So maybe the Real World could keep going on a different network but the challenges would be over.