And "focus groups" would be an improvement? Have focus groups ever improved anything? Look, I've said it before, and I'll say it again: We can't even agree on what we like and don't like about "House" on this one board which represents a miniscule portion of the viewing audience (whether that's 13 million or 17 million). If Shore & Co. were suddenly to start trying to play to every single element of fandom out there -- Cameron!Shippers, guys who want see Thirteen naked (and believe me, they exist out there in the wider Internet), HoYay!, stoner fans of Harold & Kumar movies! -- now that would be pandering.

I don' t think anyone asked Shore to pander to the H/W shippers. He made that decision all on his own at the start of season 1. I have no idea what to do with that. Are you being sarcastic to drive home the point that House/Wilson exists? If so, I didn't deny it exists. In fact, I said the House/Wilson relationship was the most important on the show. If you're being literal...you can't pander to something that isn't there. I can't imagine that they would allow the show to continue to drop in ratings and not try to do something about it at some point. It seems ridiculous to me that TPTB made a massive, unnecessary change while the show was at the very top of the ratings because they didn't want it to get stale and lose viewers, but when the good ship House is actually springing a leak and losing viewers (due, in large part, to those massive changes) they would do nothing. Fox isn't going to put together a focus group to find out what's wrong with a fifth season show that's still winning the night. That's a waste of time and money. It's not politics where you scramble around from poll to poll. I doubt they're crazy about any of their shows dropping, but they have bigger problems than, as Namaste said, a top ten show dropping to fifteen. They've got an already pulled show leaving an empty hole in the schedule and bigger things in the pipeline to both prop the network up further (and win February and possibly May, no doubt) and get completed before the winter season starts. Their researchers and their number guys are going to be spending more time looking at the entire landscape, not rushing out to see what tourists in Vegas think of the new season of "House". And "focus groups" would be an improvement? Have focus groups ever improved anything? This is random and not even particular pro or con wrt focus groups, but I wish I could remember Trey Parker's story about the results of the "South Park" focus groups. Something about some random woman telling them that SP was so offensive she hoped they died. It was kind of hilarious.

They've got an already pulled show leaving an empty hole in the schedule and bigger things in the pipeline to both prop the network up further (and win February and possibly May, no doubt) and get completed before the winter season starts I'm behind - what's the already pulled show?

Do Not Disturb

Wow - what did it get? 2 episodes? Now if only they would pull 'Til Death.

For something like a series, focus groups would be useless. By the time they had useful feedback there would be 10 additional episodes filmed. Plus they knew that the time change would cause a ratings hit. If the drop were much larger than expected, they'd be taking a good, hard look at why. But, yes, focus groups do serve a purpose. For example, after spending hundreds of thousands on filming a commercial, it's nice to know if it works before spending millions on airing it.

Wow - what did it get? 2 episodes? Now if only they would pull 'Til Death. I can't believe that they kept that one over the superior "Back to You". If they want traditional comedies, nurture the one that actually has the good jokes. It's baffling that TD has managed to survive. I know that DND got two eps. I have no idea if they aired one Wednesday night or not. I watched the pre-air pilot that everyone hated and even though it was awful it made me laugh a couple of times. I watched the pilot they went with and it was actually worse, imo. Good or bad, nobody was going to watch it anyway, but it's still weird that they tweaked it and turned in a show with less laughs than the first version.

Thanks misere. I hadn't heard that news. I think I saw all of 3 minutes of the first episode before I hit the channel change button.

It's baffling that TD has managed to survive. But we're in a world where According to Jim has survived how many years? Madness. (And don't even get me started on the killing of Everwood to bring back yet another season of 7th Heaven because it got good numbers on the series finale).

You know, it could be that there's nothing going wrong with House that needs to be fixed. Maybe this is just the natural evolution of the show. I've always thought it odd that House became such a huge, huge hit. It never struck me as the kind of show that would appeal to such a broad audience, and I somewhat agreed with HL when he said in interviews that he thought House might be too edgy a character and show to last for a long time. Being a hit with younger adults and pulling 12 to 14 million per episode may be just where it will settle for a while. As long as it is a strong pull for the demographic Fox wants to win it will do OK. It just won't be a mega-hit any longer. Not that I wouldn't love to see those big ratings come back, but it just might not be in the cards.

researchers and their number guys are going to be spending more time looking at the entire landscape, not rushing out to see what tourists in Vegas think of the new season of "House". This is an important point on FOX's perspective. If their only concern was maintaining boffo numbers for House, they wouldn't screw around with its place in the schedule. It would be on at 9 pm Tuesday. FOX is trying to win as many timeslots as possible in the key demos and grow new shows to keep doing so in the future. They knew House would take some degree of hit when they made a third time change in six months and moved it to the less desirable 8 pm. They knew that all network shows had taken a hit from the strike and no one really knew where things would be in the fall, so it's difficult to say how big a drop is too much at this point. What they hope is that House will still be a big enough show to win the key demo and be a helpful lead in for Fringe, so Fringe establishes itself. If both shows win the key demos in their timeslots, they're doing well for FOX. Then FOX further risks House's numbers by moving it yet again in January, and still to an 8 pm timeslot. If House is still able to win the key demo, then FOX wins Tuesday 8-10 pm and Wednesday at 8 pm. If 24 is able to to successfully launch Dollhouse, then FOX is in very good shape, winning key demos on Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday. It will have Bones on Friday, hopefully continuing its slow rise and the animated stuff on the weekend. If all that happens, then having House decrease in total numbers will be an acceptable sacrifice. FOX needs new shows and they want to win more than one timeslot. If House really tumbles, then I've no doubt discussions will be held, though I also have no doubt Fringe is going to get a LOT of backing, since the network placed a lot of its eggs in that basket. But the execs knew that the boffo numbers for House from before the strike were not a done deal.

Thursday nights shows were all down, some massively (Earl) some not as bad (The Office). Still...not a good start for any of them. I'm interested to see how CSI and "30 Rock" do when they return. http://www.thrfeed.com/2008/09/greys-ratings.html The comments are hysterical, though the idea that at least half of them are probably completely serious makes me a little sad. I actually watched CBS last night and I don't remember an extraordinary number of ads for Obama, but even if they were I'm not sure the posters understand the concept of paid advertising. Never mind that the only show on Thursday that I can think of where the actors are particularly outspoken about politics is "30 Rock" and it wasn't even on. I think the theory is flawed. I love the last one, too, which is almost unreadable, but is either about how broadcast networks will not be around next year or the list of misspelled comedians will not be around next year. It's hard to tell.

How much of these crappy ratings for all shows can we blame on the economy? It would seem to me that in a world where you can catch up on all your favorite shows via free wireless internet, the television would be the first thing to go.