So what constitutes a good "rating" if 1.5 constitutes a bad one? I have no idea how those ratings things work, and I'm still confused on how they think they can establish said ratings.
Beats me. I've long tried to understand it myself. I just know that a rating below 2.0 isn't great for a major network in that timeslot (NBC at 8pm eastern).
Chuck had been hovering at ~1.8 for a while, and has been steadily declining to a 1.5.
This might explain the ratings :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nielsen_ratings#Ratings.2Fshare_and_total_viewers
Chuck has been progressively doing worse each season. I personally blame it mostly on a crappy time slot as the show is really good.
Yep, I totally agree. What's funny, is that nearly everyone I introduce the show to, loves the show. Too bad, that doesn't get reflected in the ratings.
But yea, Chuck suffers from a bad timeslot (competing with House and the CBS comedies) and a lack of advertising from the get go. Since Chuck is a serial, they had to build their viewer base from the beginning, and they never really did so.