Yuku free message boards

beatles20147 wrote:

---

tullfan2 wrote:

---

Casting Russell for S20 more than makes up for Richard not being able to appear on S20. Rich would be completely overshadowed by Russell anyway because Rich is too old school survivor.

TULLLLLLLFAAAAAAAAANNNNNNN! [/Will Forte "Gillllllllyyyyyyyyyy" voice]

I don't think the Super Bowl would be the difference between there being a March Madness break or not--it's probably 14 episodes either way and they've had that break for four years now so I'd bank on it being there again.

The one real pro I think to not having a post-SB start would be the possibility of a "Countdown to Villains vs. Heroes" special the week before the premiere refreshing viewers on the contestants and explaining/justifying why each contestant is on their respective tribe and maybe some pre-game interviews like the ones they post online. But again, I don't think it'll happen, Super Bowl or not.

Given from what I've seen of the S20 cast, the reality of the situation is that Rich (taking the place of Randy) would be guaranteed to be voted out real early. He would be lucky to make it through 3 episodes.

The last Spring season to feature 20 contestants was Fans vs. Favorites. As I recall, Survivor did not go on hiatus that season. As with Samoa, I'm certain that S20 will have at least 15 episodes (16 if there is a recap). One or two of the episodes were shown on Wed. during March Madness and there was no recap episode for that season. An early start for Survivor would either introduce a hatus or possibly make the break even longer.

From the polls I've seen, people are voting for Big Bang theory, which is currently making new ratings highs, to get the post-Super Bowl spot. It is a lot easier for people to watch a comedy after 11 PM than have to concentrate on a dramatic program. For an immediate and possibly lasting ratings boost, it makes more sense for CBS to program NCIS: Los Angeles in that spot.

There is actually no benefit to the duration of Survivor to program it after the Super Bowl since Survivor has gone back to handily winning its time period in spite of FlashForward. If some other show(s) were beating it then I would support the post Super Bowl spot for S20 and the delayed start of the premiere which is a pain in the ass for me because I'm on the East Coast.

Mypoody2 wrote:

---

Youre an idiot if you cannot see how exposing the show to upwards of 10 million people who did not watch the show before is beneficial.

Of course the 2nd episode of All-stars wasn't going to be the same as the 1st episode with the superbowl lead in, any idiot knows that. But the high numbers of the second episode benefited from the exposure of the post-superbowl slot.

I mean look: This season was doing just okay until Russell's near death experience, because of that huge ratings boost and the intrigue surround it the rest of the season is steadily climbing in popularity ie: ratings.

If THAT small ratings boost alone was enough to bring the show back up to high numbers, than imagine what an audience of 25-30 million would do for the season. Even if only 5% of that new audience tuned in the following week, that would boost our numbers by 2 million, which is HUGE.

Except that the boost in viewers for All Stars was like the transient response to an input change in Electrical Engineering. It damped out very quickly and was completely gone by the second half of All Stars. The point is that if CBS scheduled the first All Stars after the Super Bowl for the purpose of raising the number of viewers closer to Borneo/Outback levels then ultimately that strategy failed. I would think that CBS would want to choose a show where the impact of the additional exposure would be longer lasting.

Actually your example of Russell's near death experience raising the ratings actually proves my point. This provided a ratings boost that has lasted for at least 4 episodes. The reason that the boost has lasted this long is because people like what they are watching and are coming back the following week. CBS was able to realize this increase by showing promos without having to schedule the show in a special time spot. Ultimately, a show will have a long lasting and meaningful ratings boost if people like what they are watching If the viewers do like S20 then perhaps the increased exposure from the post-superbowl will have a longer lasting impact; however, Pearl Islands's ratings consistently increased over the course of the season even after Rupert was voted out. No scheduling gimmick was needed for the success of that season. Bottom line is that if people enjoy what they are watching then high ratings will result.

I am not saying that scheduling the S20 premiere in the post-superbowl spot will definitely not have an impact. What I am pointing out is:

1. In the long term, it did not work for Survivor All Stars.
2. Meaningful and lasting ratings increase will happen if the viewers enjoy what they are watching (eg. Pearl Islands and Samoa, so far) without resorting to scheduling gimmicks.
3. Any benefit that is realized from scheduling S20 after the Super Bowl will have no impact on whether or not Survivor is renewed. The show continues to handily win its time period and will continue to be renewed until it is beaten out by at least one network on a consistent basis.

Since Survivor has been renewed for five years after the last season that topped 20 million viewers (Palau) even with consistent viewer erosion (which is happening with nearly all network shows), it is clear that levels of viewing that Borneo/Outback had are not necessary for CBS to renew the show for perhaps even another 5 years. If viewers find S20 to be a kickass season then it will have good ratings. The promos about the returning contestants alone will bring in some old viewers that haven't watched in a while. These additional viewers will be people who like the show not the people who just leave the TV set on after the Super Bowl ends which is what resulted in much of the All Stars premiere increase.