The Tail Section

Lately, there has been a movement by ABC brass and LOST production staff to educate the rerun averse masses on the necessity of the frequent, and painful, hiatuses. The question is, does this understanding help? Should frustrated viewers feel better about the “cool off”, knowing it is necessary for the networks to calculate their advertising rates?

Are the business aspects of LOST more important than presenting the story in an optimal way? LOST is, after all, a cliff-hanger styled serial.

According to the approximately six-million viewers who have tuned out, permanently, the answer seems to be no. Sadly LOST has developed an attrition in season two that is enormous. If the trend were to continue on track through season three, the show will be history by season four.

Surely, part of the drop off is due to frustration over the answers given, and what is apparently an uneven season in a sense of quality. (While consistently good, there have been a few boners this year.) The problem is compounded when one of these elements is left to resonate around the water coolers.

In averages, Fox’s 24 has now surpassed LOST in loyal viewers, (around 14 million to LOST’s 12), and this success is attributed largely to the networks no rerun policies.

Of course the big question is, would LOST viewers do better with a longer hiatus between seasons, and no reruns?

Source