"Bones" Out of "Idol" Plus

So David propelled me into doing some research on
post-Idol numbers since his earlier post about it with
respect to Bones did pique my own curiosity as to
which AI lead-outs fared best and which fared worst
over the last few years. An interesting conclusion
that can be arrived at is that based on the viewer
retention numbers alone, two of the shows that did
the best didn't last long as AI lead-outs. Could it be
because they were about ... blacks? Hmmm?????

David...

You got the answer to that below.

Anyway, digest these numbers as you see fit.
All reflect the first 5 airings of a show in the post-AI
time slot, unless the show lasted fewer than 5
airings. Overnight figures are used for the most
recent counts, otherwise these are all according
to final Nielsen figures. This does not include AI's
first season, which was in summer 2002 when it
aired as a lead-out

According to Average Percentage of Retention
of AI's Lead-in Audience through the First 5
Airings, unless otherwise noted:

77.7 House, M.D. [2006, 1 airing-Overnight]
71.6 Wanda at Large [2003, 3 airings]
66.0 24 [2003]
63.8 The Bernie Mac Show [2003]
53.6 The Simple Life [2005, 3 airings]
52.5 House, M.D. [2005]
46.4 The O.C. [2004]
46.4 Stacked [2005, 3 airings]
43.2 24 [2004]
42.4 Life on a Stick [2005, 2 airings]
40.6 Bones [2006, 2 airings-1 Nielsen/1 Overnight]

According to Average Rating through the First 5 Airings,
unless otherwise noted:

13.6 House, M.D. [2006, 1 airing-Overnight]
8.2 House, M.D. [2005]
8.1 The Simple Life [2005, 3 airings]
8.1 Wanda at Large [2003, 3 airings]
7.6 24 [2003]
7.2 Bones [2006, 2 episodes-1 Nielsen/1 Overnight]
7.2 Stacked [2005, 3 airings]
6.7 24 [2004]
6.7 The Bernie Mac Show [2003]
6.6 The O.C. [2004]
6.2 Life on a Stick [2005, 2 airings]

AI Numbers 2002-2006 through the First 5 Airings
Each Season, Regardless of Lead-Out:

2002 Tue: 6.1 Wed: 5.6 [as summer lead-out]
2003 Tue: 12.5 Wed: 11.7

David...

Obviously since "Idol" was getting comparatively low ratings its first
season (compared to years since then at least) it was easier for the
follow-up show to retain a bigger chunk of it.

David...

"House" is just one show, I wouldn't look at it to establish any
rules. But since any average show should be able to draw 7-8 million
viewers even without "Idol" it would be easier to look good after
"Idol" when it was drawing 8 million fewer viewers in 2003. And of
course if a part of a whole remains constant while the whole becomes
bigger the part becomes a smaller percentage of the whole.

David...

You're not using the right shows as examples. "House" and "Without A
Trace" are two shows that have caught on and have their own audiences.
Following "Idol"/"CSI" certainly helps but they could do almost as well
on their own, unlike "Wanda at Large," "Bernie Mac," or "The Agency,"
which were starting from scratch or only had small followings at the
time.

You can use "House" and "Without A Trace" as examples if you'd like but
you'd have to look at the way they performed when they first started
airing after "Idol"/"CSI".

"House"s first post-"Idol" airing (1/25/05):
"Idol" 15.7/24
"House" 7.9/12

"Without A Trace"s first post-"CSI" airing (9/26/02):
"CSI" 19.1/27
"WAT" 12.2/18

2004 Tue: 15.8 Wed: 14.9
2005 Tue: 16.3 Wed: 15.4
2006 Tue: 18.1 Wed: 17.3 [2 Nielsens/2 Overnights]