Better Without The Bear: How The Cancellation Bear Damages Ratings Culture

CancelBearWantedOver the past year or so, I’ve engaged with what I would call a friendly feud with the Cancellation Bear, the—as far as we know—fictional mascot of ratings site TV By The Numbers. In truth, I have no substantive beef with the Bear or its overlords as individuals, but the Bear and I disagree on a number of issues tied to how ratings are reported and enjoy the occasional repartee. I will admit that it’s a silly thing, filled with wildly exaggerated responses—reflected in this Wanted poster—and certainly among the simpler, more juvenile pleasures one can partake in.

However, over the past year, my feud with @TheCancelBear has been tinged with a degree of legitimate concern for the state of the discourse. Originally, the feud emerged from an ambivalent relationship with the site and its approach to ratings reporting. The site’s role in making ratings data both highly visible and highly accessible makes it a valuable tool for teaching about and researching the television industry, but the Cancellation Bear represents the site’s other role: actively inciting fear and uncertainty among fans of series struggling in the ratings in an effort to both drive traffic and—especially in the past two years—crusade against what they see as “fan excuses” that have no traction compared to their sure-fire prognostications. The former has helped make it possible for a “ratings culture” to exist; the latter has made that “ratings culture” unnecessarily combative and unpleasant.

This ambivalence resulted in a rather epic conversation myself and Tyler Dinucci had with a representative of the site last year. Based on a consideration of Last Resort’s ratings, the conversation wasn’t really about the fate of Last Resort (and I’m not just saying that because I was on the side of optimism and the series was canceled after 13 episodes). The conversation was actually about how TV By The Numbers frames its analysis of ratings not simply as good on its own merits, but rather uses the Cancellation Bear as a front behind which it can insult “desperate fans” who would choose to look on the bright side.

More troll-like than ursine, the Cancellation Bear is the site’s Id, framing the site’s largely measured—and unquestionably educated—predictions through the contempt the site’s creators seem to have for many of their readers and fellow reporters/journalists; it’s a frame that risks turning TV By The Numbers into a disruptive force within ratings culture, more interested in loudly performing its distinction than participating in a meaningful discourse central to TV’s future.

The Cancellation Bear is built around a fairly innocuous metaphor and a logical read on how the television industry works. It’s a metaphor that frames series on the same broadcast network against one another, being chased by a bear: in order to survive, a show doesn’t need to outrun the bear, but simply needs to outrun the other shows the bear will stop to devour first. It’s built around the relativity of television ratings, which TV By The Numbers argues is best considered within—rather than between—individual broadcast networks. The site uses this logic—and current and historical ratings data and patterns—to continually keep track of whether shows are safe, on the bubble, or “certain to be canceled” in each new television season through the Renew/Cancel index.

My objection to the Cancellation Bear is not about whether the Bear is right or wrong when it predicts which shows are “certain” to be canceled. It’s not even about whether it’s possible for anyone outside of the closed loop of broadcast television can ever speak with certainty about network decision making on the level the Cancellation Bear chooses to (a point we disagree on, but a point where their record makes such claims viable in and of themselves). Rather, it’s the underlying condescension within that certainty: rather than simply proving its authority by offering comprehensive and conclusive predictions, TV By The Numbers has used the Cancellation Bear to pronounce its superiority above anyone else who deigns to analyze television ratings.

While fans make “excuses”—represented by the “Fan Excuse Bingo” game—when they choose to emphasize strong Live+7 DVR lifts or the lack of lead-in support, the Cancellation Bear’s different reading of the same basic data is—based on their enlightened perspective—an inherently more valid interpretation. When other journalists like Vulture’s Joe Adalian offer even a shred of optimism about low-performing shows that the Bear has designated certain to be canceled, they are insulted by the Bear and written off as industry stooges unwilling to tell truth to power at the risk of burning bridges with publicists.

Screen Shot 2013-10-23 at 2.14.49 AM

Shortly after the Cancellation Bear went after Adalian, the show in question—NBC’s Ironside—was canceled. The Bear took this as vindication, but the issue at stake was never a disagreement over the likely future of Ironside when it was drawing a 1.1 rating. It was over a single piece of tweeted language—“hanging tough”—that the Cancellation Bear latched onto as evidence of what separates their anti-establishment philosophy from the clueless mendacity of the “Hollywood suck-ups” analyzing ratings elsewhere. Forget that Adalian neither suggested Ironside’s ratings were good nor defended the series’ future prospects beyond noting that stabilizing is better than falling further; what matters is that the Cancellation Bear is not to be associated with—to quote one of its followers—those who “suck up to masked execs for minor casting scoops.”

On the one hand, I find it difficult to take this anti-establishment narrative seriously when the Cancellation Bear spouts this rhetoric while the majority of the site’s content is reprinted press releases directly from networks and channels. However, on the other hand, even if we accept the site’s disinterest in direct engagement with the industry as a major point of differentiation, I don’t understand how not making bold, antagonistic predictions based on ratings data makes someone a “suck-up.” Adalian has since written a piece analyzing the prospect of 11 shows that remain on the bubble; the only difference from TV By The Numbers’ philosophy is that he poses his title as a question rather than a statement or provocation, reflecting the industrial uncertainty the Bear believes it has conquered.

Let’s be clear: TV By The Numbers is entitled to its predictions, and its opinions, but I’m not convinced they’re entitled to dismiss the opinions of others. In this piece on Live+7 ratings, there’s a basic truth that we can’t overvalue something that has no determined value, and a rightful acknowledgment that networks are ascribing value to Live+7 ratings in press releases without a clear picture of how this value translates back into network decision-making. But the piece—written by Bill Gorman, who to my understanding plays the role of the Cancellation Bear on Twitter—uses its Star Wars analogy to position those who report those numbers as dupes, when in most cases they’re simply curious about tracking changing patterns of TV viewership. It’s a curiosity that responds to networks continually adjusting to understand what it means for a television show to be successful, and a curiosity that used to drive TV By The Numbers’ use of ratings data to predict the future of broadcast television series.

Instead, bolstered by the success of its curiosity in previous years, the Cancellation Bear functions as an antagonist for reasons I don’t understand. When you are running a site that analyzes statistical patterns in conjunction with industrial context and has a reputation for doing it well, what is the point of dismissing those who interpret that data differently? When that industry is an evolving entity where logics are both obscured behind closed doors and changing on a year-to-year basis, why so vociferously perform one’s superiority as opposed to letting your impressive record speak for itself? When you have a site that wants to serve as a resource for rabid television fans, why present a persona that actively insults those fans for allowing their affect to inform their interpretation of data that’s open to interpretation?

The answer to these questions is that it’s a business model that works for them, one built on antagonizing and building fear among fanbases in order for them to be hitting refresh on the site every morning waiting for that week’s ratings on pins and needles about their show’s fate (with Chuck and Fringe cited by the Bear as huge traffic sources that helped build the site’s reputation). It’s also because it’s cultivated a specific ratings culture that continually feeds the bear, validating its brave stance against “PR Jedi Mind Tricks” by supporting the Bear’s willingness to “tell it like it is.” I found out this morning, for example, that my objections to the Bear mean I “Prefer to read delusional sycophants to the realistic voice of the @TheCancelBear” and prove academics live “in a white tower far away from reality.” It’s here where I almost think of the site as ratings culture’s Fox News, the Cancellation Bear reflecting Bill O’Reilly and others’ strident belief that they are the only ones who know how to serve the public interest, and who spread that belief onto their viewers/readers.

I should acknowledge that such a comparison is inherently unfair to TV By The Numbers (if not the Cancellation Bear). The basic analysis the site offers, unlike the “fair and balanced” coverage of Fox News, is at its core an interesting and often effective way to understand the TV industry. Its attempt to turn an unscientific process into a science is admirable if also foolhardy, an exercise that makes visible the moving target of televisual success in an era where that target is moving faster than ever before. Not unlike how Nate Silver’s methods bring to life the intricate multitudes of electoral polling, TV By The Numbers is in a position to serve as a key site in which the Nielsen ratings can be demystified (or, rather, mystified within the proper context, given that mysticism often seems the central force behind the Nielsen metrics).

So why does it need the Cancellation Bear? It’s possible that much as I enjoy my juvenile feud with the Bear, the Bear enjoys its juvenile feuds with CW viewers and “Hollywood suck-ups,” but I would argue there are consequences that come from this. If I’m telling students to go to TV By The Numbers as the most comprehensive database for ratings information, I’m also telling them to go to a space where fan affect is ridiculed and where journalists are claiming absolute authority over a practice—interpreting ratings—that we teach students is continually under negotiation. As much as the Cancellation Bear’s stated goal— speaking truth within a system often driven by spin and misinformation—reflects an important lesson about the television industry (one that it often, between snarkier remarks, explains to people on Twitter in a more measured fashion that absolutely has value), the way it has tried to declare itself the arbiter of what counts as truth is destructive, and entirely unnecessary to the site’s future success.

I am not against the Cancellation Bear because it unfairly judges the success of shows that haven’t yet found their feet—they can judge whatever they want. I am also not against the Cancellation Bear because it refuses to count metrics like Live+7, because they’re entitled to their own interpretive lens. I am against the Cancellation Bear because it obscures the site’s utility by drowning it in ugly hubris, and because it has helped turn “ratings culture” into a rabid game of provocation instead of a meaningful analytical space. Ratings can be interesting, compelling, and useful without the need for an imaginary bear to chase after low-rated series, just as patience can be as productive an analytical strategy as swift judgment; it is my hope that, despite the Cancellation Bear’s existence implying otherwise, we’ll remember this as ratings culture continues to evolve both inside and outside TV By The Numbers’ ursine metaphor.

About these ads

14 Comments

Filed under Ratings

14 responses to “Better Without The Bear: How The Cancellation Bear Damages Ratings Culture

  1. A Person Named Ivy

    You touched a bit upon this here, but I also wanted to air some grievances I have with the culture of overnight ratings.

    When we talk about “drops”, we’re talking about numbers that are (usually) within a tenth of a point of each other. If, over a 10 episodes, we see a consecutive drop from episode to episode that is small from week to week but is large in the grand context of a show’s performance, then yes, we can take something from that. But that also should be simultaneously married with the knowledge that numbers that actually matter, the L+3/C3 numbers that are now more than ever made public, can vary wildly. If a show drops a tenth of a point, it could conceivably make that up, or even slightly outperform last week’s numbers.

    We see this a lot. When we first get our numbers, there’s a bit of an initial reaction towards how we did here or there in what demos (and when you’re talking about cable, people will throw out wild percentages that actually only account for a few tenths of a demo point). But that all can change once we get our L+3 numbers, which give a better picture in terms of we’re growing, or how we’re not growing. A drop from week to week might now be a success. When we premiered our fall season, our demos were down significantly in the fast overnights from our summer season. But when we factored in L+3s? It was a negligible drop and pretty much matched our summer season premiere. But the narrative on TVBTN was that our show had an awful season premiere and we’re dead, or flop flop flop etc etc etc.

    Another point of contention I have with the concept of up, drown, and “flat” is that these are rounded demos. SHIELD did a 2.6 in overnights A18-49 this week. I believe it did the same last week, but was rounded up to a 2.7. Suddenly, that’s a drop. But what if SHIELD got a 2.64 this week and did a 2.65 or 2.66 last week? That’s a difference not even worth talking about. And if a show is “even”, maybe it did a 1.46 last week but a 1.54 this week. That would be something, normally, we’d talk about, but because of rounding, both numbers are logged as a 1.5.

    It’s important for people to get ratings, both inside and outside the industry, because it elevates the level of discourse you can have and you can also have an idea if you should be looking for a new job or not. But it’s way too reactionary and knee-jerky at the present. And the TVBTN culture of labeling certain shows a FLOP! before all of the data comes is concerning. Seeing that attitude seep elsewhere is frustrating.

    Basically, everyone should chill.

  2. Tom

    I don’t understand why you have beef (serious or not) with the Bear. I love to pay attention to TV ratings, and the Cancellation Bear is a big part of that. I usually find the Bear’s comments on “Fan Excuse Bingo” and the like quite humorous, rather than contemptuous, which you seem to suggest.

    I must take the Bear’s side here. Long live the Bear.

    • Tyler

      Okay, so, right now, Dads and Brooklyn Nine-Nine are getting almost identical ratings in the A18-49 demo. Dads is owned by 20th and undoubtably has the worse timeslot of the two. TVBTN has both as predicted cancellation, I believe.

      That prediction doesn’t take into account B99′s huge DVR jump and critical acclaim, not to mention it’s now out drawing New Girl in total viewers (and last night, within 2 tenths of a rating point from New Girl’s 18-49 demo). The knee-jerk reaction by TVBTN is that these things don’t matter, DVR numbers don’t matter, and that both will end up canceled.

      So, why was B99 given a back order ahead of Dads? Why was B99 given the post-Super Bowl slot instead of Dads? And why does most industry chatter suppose that Brooklyn Nine-Nine will probably be around longer than TVBTN suggests?

      Because it’s not all “fan excuses”, because these are legitimate concerns that network execs need to take into considerations, and sometimes, sometimes, the haughty attitude of TVBTN doesn’t reflect reality. B99 is getting a huge DVR boost. It’s doing well with men. It has a high-income audience. And it has the critical acclaim that could allow it to become a show that travels well with word-of-mouth. And that’s why B99 will, at the very least, stick out this season and probably get renewed. You don’t really see that nuance on TVBTN. That’s fine. But their insistence that THIS IS THE WAY NUMBERS ARE DONE AND THIS IS THE ONLY WAY TO LOOK AT THEM is asinine and makes people who interpret numbers differently frustrated.

  3. geekfuriouscom

    Positivity for the sake of being positive is delusion. Why should someone who understands the industry, ratings, and TV executives, respect blind devotion and conjecture? TVBTN utilizes “the Bear” to forecast based on trends. Not trends for the industry exactly, but trends for SPECIFIC NETWORKS. That’s why you can’t compare what happens on one network to what happens on another.

    Also, their method doesn’t exist to make you feel better or worse. You feel better or worse because you don’t like the reality of what is happening to a show you like. And THIS IS THE WAY NUMBERS ARE viewed by network executives and it is virtually the ONLY WAY TO LOOK AT THEM since their thought process is what makes or breaks the future of a show.

  4. I think that most of the complaints about the cancellation bear stems from general illiteracy and, specially, math illiteracy. If it is a useful site as a source of data for TV studies, the combination of the raw data with the press releases makes it a very useful site for examples of how statistics can be misused to manipulate the masses.

    General illiteracy because the Cancellation Index specifically says it predicts the risk the show is up to the last ratings published. If a shows cumulative ratings puts it at the bottom its network’s rooster, it is at risk of cancellation, at that moment. It doesn’t predict future behavior. It’s a snapshot. All things being equal, if the season ended at that moment those are the shows more at risk. Anyone with a little experience of reading the numbers knows that it only takes a show that started better to crumble in the ratings for everything to change. Which makes the bear image so correct. It’s a race against being last. A long distance race for shows that at the beginning of the season are in the bubble. Not even a race for shows, like Lucky7, don’t even get out of the starting blocks.

    I follow that site since 2007, and seen the index been bashed by every delusional fan of every ratings challenged show or stars of ratings challenged shows. I would be rich if I had penny for every time i have read “X (insert the name of ratings challenged show) is not going to be canceled because critics love it” . Or ” X is not getting canceled because it wins overall viewers”. Or “X is not going to be canceled because it grew 50% in DVR.”

    DVR growth brings us to math illiteracy. Percent growth is really Jedi Mind tricks. If you have a show that is making 1.1 in A18-49, growing 50% in L+7 means that it grew 0.55. If every show ahead in L+SD of it grows the 0.55 points in A18-49, they are still better performing than that one show in L+7 even it they have a smaller percent growth. A 1.5 show that grows 37% in L+7 is looking healthier in that a 1.1 show that grows 50%, both grew 0.55 in points, there wasn’t really much change in the relative position to the bear if you consider ratings and aren’t fooled by percentages. In the 1st week, MJF show grew 39% in L+7. Ironside would have had to grow 69% in L+7 to be par to the MJF show in L+7. Would still be more likely to be canceled because advertisers rather have live viewers than canned viewers, all things considered.

    Of course press releases make a fuss about those numbers, it’s their job say nice things about their shows, anything goes, and if they have to use percent growth instead of ratings increase to make the show look better, again it’s their job, and they would be woefully incompetent if they didn’t. At least press releases are honest in the motivations behind Them. Better than giving a shinning armor to Joe Adalain, about his ratings analysis. Joe, that will go on and on about season percent losses from premiere for shows he doesn’t like, but when his favorite new show hits the same losses, and beats them, he keeps very quiet. The Ironside incident is not the first time Adalian as tried make the numbers of a show he claims he likes look less awful than they are. “Holding though” like it mattered. When the show is lowest rated drama on NBC it doesn’t, but it is enough to fool people that don’t know that. You have to ask what does Adalian win by trying to fool the ignorant?

    Ratings knowledge given by the Cancellation Bear doesn’t really poison the viewers overall. US population is 313M, 81% have Internet, 19,130 follow the Cancellation Bear. Admitting that those 19130 are all in the US (they are not), it’s 0.006 overall population that is getting first knowledge that show X is #bearchow. In all fairness, Adalian’s Twitter Id matters even less, and maybe the reaction to his sideline job as a promotional tool was disproportionate.

    Lets admit, for the sake of argument that all the 19,130 are in the US and are in 126,960,000 adults 18-49 in the United States. It’s 0.015% of the demo. The lowest rated scripted show on CW, Beauty and the Beast, has around 380,880 viewers in the A18-49. That is 20 times more people watching the least watched scripted show on network TV than paying attention to the Bear. If all those people that follow the Bear were, like I said before, in the A18-49, and were influenced in to stop watching the Beauty and the Beast because they knew it was dead, its ratings would go from 0.3 to 0.3 when rounded up for tabulation. It would only be noticeable if the original 0.3 was actually 0.26 rounded up, but would that change the fate the show? It’s not losing 0.015 that is going to kill the Beauty and The Beast, it’s being 0.1 behind Heart of Dixie that is killing it. It’s performing at 35% of the network’s average that is killing it.

    That is the beauty of numbers, they can be used to fool the mathematically least inclined, they can be used debunk subjective bias. When the Cancelation Bear has 761760 followers we can discuss if and how the Bear is influencing the fate of TV shows and a bad overall influence on TV landscape. It’s 0.06, enough to pull any rounded ratings down by 0.1.

    Maybe when the Bear has 761760 followers we can stop news sites that live out of the fears of fans by giving them false hopes. Making them believe that that if they repeatedly click on their save our show poll their doomed show has a chance.

    • Tyler

      The entire second half of the comment has nothing to do with what Myles posted, and is a completely separate criticism that, I agree, has little merit.

      How is baiting fans of bubble shows through clickbait polls and editorials any better than Joe making an offhand comment about a show he doesn’t even watch that was “hanging tough”? Also, let’s look at what Joe posted, 20 minutes ago:

      @TVMoJoe 19m
      IRONSIDE exited NBC in 7th place from 19-10:30 p.m. among A18-49. Behind DUCK D, AHS, BBT reruns, SOUTH PARK, NASHVILLE, CSI

      Ah yes, the fanboy in him is staying silent!

      The problem with your analysis is that numbers are up for subjective interpretation with a myriad of factors and context that must be valued before a renewal or a cancellation is made. Completely logical people who, yes, have the ability to understand and analyze the data, come to differing conclusions. That’s why renewals and cancellations aren’t done by an automized machine and which is why there are multiple factions and people that could decide if a bubble show will come back or not. That’s why, when a show like Brooklyn Nine-Nine, that will tie/beat Bones/Glee and trounce on Dads and Mindy in the L+3s must be looked at as a serious contended for another season. That’s why there are people hired to understand the context of these numbers.

      You may argue that those who criticize TVBTN are mathematically illiterate. I would argue that the (rational) criticism of TVBTN stems from people wishing to have a more nuanced and contextualized conversation about the state of television, and not just live in a world where up, down, or flat is our only analysis.

      • Most of those that criticize TVBTN are the fans of the bottom rated shows, and Myles thinks that calling a bottom rated show dead is detrimental for that show. For those, not matter of nuanced analysis is going to save them or giving them time to survive.

        As for the others, TVBTN gives odds on survival. Saying it shouldn’t be done would be the equivalent of telling government not to calculate life expectancy, fearing that if you said that it’s 70, people would just decide to keel off at 70. We all know that all people don’t die at 70, and that there are life style and genetic factors that enter in to play.

        Even without the C3 and L+7 data, B99 was already ahead of Dads in Mindy the week before it got the back 9 and the post Super Bowl. L+7 would have been unnecessary for FOX’s to arrive to decisions they took about B99. It’s not an example that it TVBTN is wrong, it’s an example that it’s right.

        Another good example that L+7 are irrelevant is Scandal during the first season. It never entered the top20 tables for L+7. If you gave it the same gain as the last entry, it was beaten by Private Practice in L+7 that also performed better in the first half of the season in the same time slot. Poor L+7 didn’t drag it down, because it had decent, albeit not exciting, L+SD numbers. Nor much higher L+7 helped Private Practice or Body of Proof get a full season commitment or in getting renewed ahead of Scandal.

        TVBTN does factor in the nuances in it’s raking of the shows, if it didn’t there would be only 2 categories, dead/alive. That you have 3 intermediary categories creates the space for that nuanced discussion. We look at the numbers and start looking elsewhere for aspects that will put a show ahead or behind his brethren in the same odds bracket.

        The problem I see with TVBTN is not the information, or the Cancel Bear, is that by becoming popular attracted to it’s commentaries people that are illiterate in the general sense and in the mathematical sense that don’t grasp the numbers or the nuances between likely to be canceled, toss up or likely to be renewed. Nor the meaning of the words “likely” and “toss-up.”

        That is also really actually the core Matt’s problem with the site, that information is being to the uneducated masses. He is implying that only the enlighten, with the appropriate qualifications, should be allowed to delve in such delicate matters. That it should be filtered appropriately by people that have perspective of the industry’s inner workings.

        People like Adalian, that unfortunately is not alone, just the most recent example, are the reason why TVBTN is necessary. So people can tell when the Adalians of this world are trying to fool them.

  5. John

    Myles, you lost me on the Fox News comparison. Yes, I agree that there is an element of stridency in some of their shows (it’s not an accident that their most watched show is O’Reilly’s). But that is just as true (and perhaps more so) of MSNBC, and yet I don’t see you calling them out. Perhaps because you may agree with their politics (given that you’re a TV critic, it’s a fair guess)? I think you would have been better served to identify offenders on both sides (since you picked O’Reilly, you could couple him with, say, Chris Matthews, who is at least as bad as O’Reilly), or just issue a general statement about cable news shows in general. Failing to do either undermines the objective veneer you generally maintain.

    Overall, I think you do make a good point about TVBTN’s tone, though I must admit that I enjoy the cancellation bear and his disdain for “delusional” fans playing “fan excuse bingo.” But you are right that there is definitely something unnecessarily mean-spirited about it.

    • Chris Matthews is a blowhard. So is Ed Schultz! But I would argue there are clear distinctions between FOX’s rhetorical performance of superiority—the “Fair and Balanced” mantra, the “truth to power” rhetoric positioned against the dominant liberal media—that much more clearly connect with this particular example. Its politics may make this rhetoric more odious to those of us who disagree with those politics—and yes, this includes me, but more because I’m Canadian than because I’m a TV critic—but I would argue their rhetorical position is far more reflected in FOX News specifically than in cable news more generally.

      • bigbuffguy95

        I suppose you have a point on the “Fair and Balanced” sloganeering. I don’t really view that seriously, as it’s just a slogan, albeit a self-important one. And you do make a good point about the “us versus the world” dynamic that is certainly present on Fox. This is largely due to the fact that most of the media *does* lean left (I don’t think this is really arguable, as it’s not an accident that most reporters vote the same way–I’m not saying there’s anything inherently wrong with this, just that it is what it is, and that inevitably seeps into news judgment), but the point is well taken.

        • Sorry, when I hit reply, it auto-filled the name with a different screen name than the one I used in the first post, and I didn’t realize it until it had been posted.

  6. Pingback: TV Networks: Turn Off vs Tune In | Textifying

  7. 5654funny

    I think its time for the cancellation to stop airing the oldest shows on the cw network what I am seeing is two of half men, how you met your mother and friends are repeating their season from the begining and thous shows have highter raitings and therefore the cw shows ratings have been leaking on these following shows Tommrow People Hart of Dixie Beauty And The Beast and star crossed

    And the nelison raitings are way off

  8. Annie

    SERIOUSLY?!?!?! I don’t understand why this stupid bear is still around chowing down on perfectly good shows like Red Band Society when there are other shows on TV that should have been cancelled to begin with and nobody had the guts to say anything to the broadcasting companies about it. This is absolutely ridiculous that the bear would predict Red Band Society as “likely to be cancelled”. I’m sick and tired of watching new content get cancelled because of some stupid Cancellation Bear. I’m also sick and tired of messed up rating systems and critics who think they wanna dictate on the kinds of shows that they believe are “not appropriate” for TV. If they think Red Band Society is not appropriate for TV, then this world is screwed up because Red Band Society IS appropriate for TV and I don’t care what people think about this show. #GetRidOfTheCancelBear!! We don’t need it devouring our TV shows that the viewers choose to watch!! >:(

    Therefore, if you agree with me, then please help me save Red Band Society. This show deserves to be renewed and continue on with more seasons in the futures. Help me by signing this petition and spread the word! #SaveRedBandSociety!!! #SupportRedBandSociety!!! #KeepRedBandSociety!!!

    http://www.thepetitionsite.com/187/311/285/save-red-band-society/

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s