<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" version="2.0"><channel><title>BuzzerBlog - Latest Comments in Amazing Race Ratings</title><link>http://buzzerblog.disqus.com/</link><description></description><atom:link href="https://buzzerblog.disqus.com/amazing_race_ratings/latest.rss" rel="self"></atom:link><language>en</language><lastBuildDate>Tue, 19 Jul 2005 20:01:00 -0000</lastBuildDate><item><title>Re: Amazing Race Ratings</title><link>http://buzzerblog.flashgameshows.com/amazing-race-ratings/#comment-10114321</link><description>&lt;p&gt;From my perspective: .4 may have improved demos and the median age, but in terms of overall numbers it's still pretty bad - particularly for the money GSN paid for it.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;As some may recall, back in the "old days" of the network, the...&lt;i&gt;Fantastic 4&lt;/i&gt; originals (Whammy!, Friend or Foe, Russian Roulette, and Lingo) all did AT LEAST a .6 to .8 in HH numbers when new, and still around a .4 even after several rerun cycles.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;.4 for a show GSN paid the amount they did (Relative to total amount taken in) is pretty bad, regardless the spin&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">Seth</dc:creator><pubDate>Tue, 19 Jul 2005 20:01:00 -0000</pubDate></item></channel></rss>