[/QUOTE]I'm not trying to be argumentative, just bored. I wanted to point out that you make an excellent point about ratings BUT they didn't just compare the ratings to the other shows in the time period, they compared them to the ratings of the previous AG movie. One would assume (although this might not be true) that the ratings of the two movies they compare were among the same demographic. It would be pretty sneaky to say that the Felicity ratings were, say 6% (of age 18-49) but Samantha movie ratings were 72% (of age 5-9), and I assume (once again) that since the point of this article wasn't to mislead, the rating comparision of Felicity and Samantha were the same demographic (even if 18-49 is a silly one to look at for these movies) and that Felicity was lower.

Of course, the example I gave is exactly why you shouldn't blindly follow statistics.[/QB][/QUOTE]

It's true that generally speaking, one could compare this year's numbers and last year's numbers and get the results that Samantha outperformed Felicity. But again, those numbers are adults. Maybe last year more moms and dads watched with their kids. I haven't seen the full Nielsens yet, so I don't know the numbers on girls under 18 for this year or last year. The real value for AG will come on how many DVDs they sell and how much of an increase in Felicity-related items there is between now and Dec. 24.

I can give you a good example on ratings. There are very, very few people who watch golf. Yet one can turn on the TV almost any weekend and watch golf, and there is an entire golf channel. Why? because the people who ARE watching golf are men ages 18-49, whose per-capita income is above the national average - mainly c-level executives and upper management - who have a large amount of disposable income on their hands and like for you to know they're successful. If you watch the commercials during a golf game, you'll find luxury brands advertised.