Two episodes of “Rake” marked the official conclusion of the legal-themed Greg Kinnear drama on Saturday. And the pair, on average, scored a mere 1.02 million viewers and a 0.2 rating/1 share among adults 18-49 in the 8-10 p.m. block, according to Nielsen, which is now the lowest rated performance for a regularly scheduled series in the 27-year history of Fox. The first episode of “Rake” averaged 1.00 million viewers, while the official series finale scored 1.04 million, and both notched a 0.2/ 1 in the demo.
Source:
Oh dear, how embarassing
ReplyDeleteHaha, when you read record breaking numbers you almost never expect record-low numbers
ReplyDeleteGuess Fox won't be putting out a press release celebrating those numbers!
ReplyDeleteI read the headline and thought it was a positive record break...
ReplyDeleteWhat a record. lol.
ReplyDeleteI read the title and I knew this would be a negative one, lol.
ReplyDeleteDoes anybody know what the record was before this?
ReplyDeleteOut of curiosity does anyone know what the lowest rated shows (and their ratings) are for the other broadcast networks?
ReplyDeleteFor The CW I believe it might be Cult which hit a 0.1, I haven't seen anything lower from them at least.
This table shows the bottom 3 for each network for this season http://stvplus.com/ratings#bottomshows
ReplyDeleteNote: Those are the averages for the season.
ReplyDeleteMy first thought was 'guys, April 1st is already over' but holyshitballs this is hillriously low...
ReplyDeleteLOL, damn. That sucks.
ReplyDeleteABC would.
ReplyDeleteSeason to date for what? Final Adjusted numbers?
ReplyDeleteI think it would be a good idea for all involved to just pretend as if the show never existed.
ReplyDeleteFor one second I thought.....
ReplyDeleteNow, see, I hate to be the guy pointing this out, but the title of this article is just misleading and deliberately makes people click. I come to this site for more than one reason, but one reason is specifically because you guys post the titles without expecting an additional click. "Show - Episode - Press Release" explains whether or not I have an interest. This title is ambiguous, especially to those who do not keep track of RAKE's ratings. These kinds of titles, whether here on SpoilerTV or on a leading news magazine like BBC.com, is the reason I use AdBlock Plus so that the websites won't get any satisfaction if I click on an ambiguous title. I hope this is an isolated incident, though.
ReplyDeleteWell, it's still a record low ratings. :)
ReplyDeleteSorry but it's not mis-leading at all. It is a Ratings record.
ReplyDeleteSure, but the title doesn't even point in the direction of low :P You have to know the ratings of the show to even think it's the lowest record. That's my problem, specifically. I would be completely fine with "Rake - Series Finale - Breaks Lowest FOX Ratings", which is also the kind of title I have come to expect from STV - full-on honesty in titles and what you see is what you get. But I think most of us can agree that 95% of the times "Breaks Record" is used in a title, it's in the positive direction, and the rest of the time, it's used specifically to be confusing and get clicks.
ReplyDeleteActually, it is misleading. General society, logic and people's expectations, evident by other people here in the comments section who also thought it was misleading, would have "record" in a positive direction. It's a word used for bragging. This is entirely the opposite.
ReplyDeleteWell if you we're fooled into clicking the article then I apologize but for me it was the correct title and I would do the same again in the future as for me IMHO it's the correct title.
ReplyDeleteAnd FOX didn't even air the missing episode...
ReplyDeleteThis show needed to be on cable, not broadcast. No matter how 'tongue in cheek' FOX wants to be, RAKE was on the wrong network. Especially after the "It's totally like House", promotions.
I just told my friend, giving no information but the title, and he went "Wow, that must be great! Congratulations to them!" I then explained it was the lowest, and he replied: "Well, that's not a very good title! Extremely misleading!"
ReplyDeleteI believe general consensus is that "breaks ratings record" goes toward the positive, not the negative, as long as one is not familiar with a show's previous ratings. I have to say, though, the fact that you even write "would do the same again" says a lot about the differences between you and me, so I'm just going to stop this discussion now before I go on a rant.
Ok, and please pass my apology to your friend for being fooled
ReplyDeleteMountain and molehills spring to mind.
ReplyDeleteSurely there are more important things in like to moan about lol oh well each to their own.
It's a shame that a show which was pretty good gets ratings like this when drivel like The Millers gets great ratings.
ReplyDeleteOh, of course. END OF WAR! WORLD PEACE! FEED THE HUNGRY!
ReplyDeleteMeanwhile, back in everyday reality, I have severe OCD, and these things are a big issue to me. Having an unlocked door when I go outside can put me in panic mode. These situations are why I don't read the news, headlines precisely constructed to be misleading, intentional or not, and the companies refusal to change it because it works for them. It might not be a big issue to you, and it obviously isn't to DarkUFO, but it is to me. Thanks for trying to make my problems look minor and stupid, though, always appreciated!
Well, ratings are never fair. Firefly, Pushing Daisies, and several other great shows had poor ratings whereas Two and a Half Men gets great ratings.... Qualitywise there is not even how to compare those 3 shows...
ReplyDeleteThe original to Rake is quite good. The american one is a shamefull piece of boring garbage.
ReplyDeleteSorry to hear about your OCD, but surely there's no need to get so snarky. I'm guessing nobody here knew you had OCD. Kind of silly to blame people for making your "problems look minor and stupid" when no one was aware of your problem, wouldn't you say? :) You could have just said that you have OCD nicely. At first I thought it weird that someone would be bothered to complain about this, but since I know people with OCD, I get it.
ReplyDeleteAnyway, personally, I don't mind the title of this post at all. I think it's rather amusing!
A magazine show on the CW got a 0.0 one time
ReplyDeleteThat's an excellent point that didn't cross my mind. My apologies if I came off as snarky or overly critical. I'm used to the people surrounding me knowing about my OCD I forget others don't. It's a mistake I should get better at, and yes, I should point out right away in these situations. Thanks for the helpful hint, and thanks for understanding me! :)
ReplyDeleteThe original Australian version, going into it's 3rd season is really the >only< version of this series.
ReplyDeleteDuring the Americanization process, the soul of the show was lost in translation. Ideally, FOX would've just bought the rights to the original version and aired it in the states.
Sorry US audiences, you get the homogenized copy ;-)
I liked the ambiguity of the headline. It made the article all the more enjoyable to read.
ReplyDeleteIf you want deliberately misleading headlines used as clickbait, head over to product-reviews.net. There's a few of those over there.
how do these people know that such shows are gonna fail.... they want a good 18-25 or 18-49 audience always and then they lead with an actor such as Greg Kinnear, nothing against him, but he has to be someone really special and different for ppl to get to like him like House, Monk, Red. not about some dude with so many problems you just don't care about him.
ReplyDeleteAssuming those a L+SD. Clearly BB would be much higher if L+7, which is what's used for final season ratings. BTW - Does anyone have list of current season to date ratings?
ReplyDeleteI just saw your reply. Season to date numbers for each show, which includes current L+7 numbers, which, of course, lag a couple of weeks behind. This is the metric that is used at the end of the TV season to rank all the shows. Zap2it used to have that list until last year when it bought the other site and they decide to dump that metric, which is ironic considering it's the numbers site.
ReplyDelete