There are a few different reasons. In general, it’s expected that shows that run for more than a season or two are going to dip in the ratings. Most shows don’t gain new viewers after the second season, and most shows don’t remain completely steady in ratings over the course of 5, 6, or 7 years. When a show that’s been on the air for six seasons is getting two and a half million viewers, it’s in its later years and that’s a decline that’s happened over many seasons. If a show in its first season gets about two and a half million viewers, it’s already starting low, and that means that over the course of subsequent seasons it’s just going to drop lower and lower. 

And a show that’s averaging two and a half million that’s been on for seven seasons is at the very least going to have a dedicated fanbase that developed over the years who will spend money on things related to the show, who will rewatch through streaming, etc. Even if they’re not consistently keeping up with the current season. A show that starts out at two and a half million isn’t going to build up the same kind of fanbase. 

Also, when ABC was canceling Selfie a few years ago, the guy running the network at the time was very open with fans about what was going on and how the ratings couldn’t justify keeping the show around. When a network has a new show, they have to come up with an estimate of how many viewers they think they’re going to be able to pull in. Those are the numbers they go to advertisers with. They’re basically promising advertisers that they’re going to deliver x amount of viewers who will see those ads. They base how much the ad space costs on those numbers. When the ratings don’t match those numbers, that promise has essentially been broken, and the advertisers aren’t getting what they expected or what they’ve paid for.. That’s very different from an ongoing show, which has several seasons of ratings, declines, etc., that show the advertisers a pretty good idea of what they’re going to get. A network and its advertisers are going to have a pretty good idea (within 1 million viewers most of the time) what the ratings will look like, so they’re getting what they paid for. When the network promises a certain amount of viewers, charges the advertisers based on that, and then the show doesn’t deliver, the advertisers aren’t getting what they paid for. So a an ongoing series with lower numbers is generally more likely to stick around than a brand new show that does roughly the same numbers.

Listen, guys. The only thing you have to do to be a fan of something is to love a thing. That's it.

One of the unfortunate byproducts of fandom culture is this sort of competitive notion of being a "fan", that you have to do certain things to be a fan, that some fans are better than others because of what they're willing to do, or even what they can pay to do, that not fitting a certain set of criteria means you aren't a good fan, or that you're a bad fan.

If you love a thing, or a performer, and you enjoy seeing them work, you're a fan. The idea of a "bad" fan is relatively arbitrary and a little silly, as the only thing that can really qualify you as a "bad" fan is doing something that might actively hurt the person.

Of course, in this culture of fan competitions, the idea of what is actively harmful has been inflated to the point where a person not watching something, or criticizing it, or being open about the problems something has makes them a "bad fan".

You are not obligated to watch something you don't enjoy in order to be a "good fan".

You are not obligated to support something that you believe is actively harmful in order to be a "good fan".

You are not obligated to support a particular project in order for you to be happy about the career opportunities and advancements the person you're a fan of gets.

You are not a "bad fan" if you criticize a piece of media or something that the person you're a fan of is in.

You are not a "bad fan" if you recognize how a piece of media or something that the person you're a fan of is in is harmful and dangerous.

You are not a "bad fan" for wanting that thing to not be around anymore so that it can't hurt people.

You are not a "bad fan" for wishing that the performer you love was involved in a project that isn't actively harmful.

You are not a "bad fan" for wishing that the performer you love was in the project that you enjoyed more.

You are not a "bad fan" for discussing the structures in Hollywood and the entertainment industry in general, which are sexist, racist, homophobic, etc., and how they might lead to the performer not having as many opportunities and being tied to projects that perpetuate those problems.

You are not a "bad fan" for wishing that a performer that you feel represents or supports you in some way had the opportunity to do different projects.

Do you love the thing? Do you love the performer? Do you want the best for them professionally? Do you want to see them in things you enjoy? Do you want to see them in socially responsible projects? Are you respectful to the performer and their personal life? Do you treat other fans well?

If the answer to those questions is 'yes', then you're a good fan. Don't let people try to tell you otherwise. As long as you're treating other people well, the only thing that matters in regards to your fan relationship to the performer is you, how you feel, and how they respond to fans. If your behavior is well within the parameters of what they feel is cool and what they're comfortable with, you're good. What other people think makes a "good" fan does not matter. Like the thing, be decent to other fans, be respectful of the wishes and boundaries of the performer, and you're a good fan. That's it. There's no other list of arbitrary criteria of things you have to do. Furthermore, it's important to remember that while these things and these people can be incredibly important to us, that we do not actually have a personal relationship with them. So while a level of investment on a personal level is fine and good, not investing on a personal level like that with an actual performer doesn't somehow make you less of a fan.

The idea that there are terms, conditions, and obligations that must be fulfilled in order to be a "good" fan is antithetical to the idea of fandom in the first place.

Okay, let's do this. A deeper analysis of the ratings and some of the claims against noting that OUAT is now the network's lowest rated series.

To start with, there's this idea that Friday night shows automatically are assumed to be lower rated and that this somehow negates the idea that OUAT being the network's lowest rated scripted means much.

The issue of Friday nights is complicated and depends largely on the overall consistent number a network does on that night, especially compared to their other nights, and demographics the networks courts and does well with. For example, CBS often courts an older demographic with many of their shows, and as such, it does relatively well on Friday nights in overall ratings, with the 18-49 demo being on the lower side, but still decent, especially as it's not as relevant for them. Hawaii 5-0 is one of it's top scripted shows in terms of overall ratings, and is about on average with the network's scripted shows in the demo. Blue Bloods is also one of their highest rated shows in overall viewers, and Macguyver does really good numbers as well, even though they're on the lower side of the demo.  In relation to other networks, CBS does INCREDIBLY well on Fridays.

Fox and NBC are pretty middle of the road for Friday nights, with shows averaging between 3 and 5 million each week. ABC is the lowest rated of the big 4 networks, with its shows rarely cracking 2.5 million. So even if we're looking at it through some kind of "Friday Night" lens, ABC and OUAT's ratings are still low.

Furthermore, ABC is coming off of five years of having very strong Friday nights. Last Man Standing was among the highest overall rated shows on the network, and it's numbers in the demo (also not as important as ABC Friday night courted older viewers for a number of years) were decent, and other shows on the night did well, too. The cancellation of these shows was largely based around the network not being able to afford to shoulder the entire cost of production for Last Man Standing, as the deal with Fox had been that Fox would pay for production through season 5, and after that it would all be on ABC. The cancellation of that show led to the restructuring of the night and the decision to court a different audience. So if anything, these very low ratings, when compared to the strong ratings they had for years, is going to be a signal that this restructuring and courting of a younger demo (especially when combined with the numbers for other shows on the night) wasn't successful.

As for taking into account cancelled series... When it comes to a show like Ten Days in the Valley, which was cancelled a few months into the season and had its episodes burned off through January... it could enter the conversation, but perhaps not in a way that is favorable to OUAT, as it's average amount of viewers could have largely been impacted by the fact that it was moved to Saturday nights. It's overall average, including both the episodes aired on Sunday nights and the episodes aired on Saturday nights, ended with an average of 2.155 viewers. But if it had maintained its Sunday night average it would have been around 2.5-2.7, which would have either put it even with OUAT, or made OUAT definitively the lowest rated scripted series. Plus, the numbers that it got on Saturday nights aren't ultimately going to be particularly relevant as the show had already been cancelled at that point.

Another of ABC's cancelled series, The Mayor, did much better in the demo than OUAT and had a higher overall average viewership. As far as I can tell, The Mayor and Ten Days in the Valley are the only scripted shows that have been cancelled so far, with both Scandal and The Middle ending. (And, technically, I don't know if The Mayor and Ten Days in the Valley have officially been cancelled, but they're clearly not getting another season). Of all the shows that are currently ending this season, only one officially had lower ratings than OUAT. So even if we are bringing "cancelled" or ending shows into the discussion, it's not exactly a good thing for OUAT, but they really aren't that relevant to the discussion, outside of the possibility that the more shows ending the more likely the network is to keep around other shows. But ABC has cancelled or ended fewer shows than what usually gets cancelled in a season so far.

Furthermore, ABC has consistently canceled it's lowest rated scripted show at the end of the season. And I'm not talking about shows that were the lowest rated overall that were cancelled earlier in the season. I'm talking about the shows that run through to the end of the season and have the lowest average at that time. This is pretty bad for OUAT as, if it continues the way it has been, it will be second only to an already cancelled show in terms of lowest ratings, as well as being the lowest rated scripted series at the end of the season. We'll see how shows that premiere in the winter and spring do, but when those have low ratings they tend to get pulled quickly rather than sticking around until the end of the season. But those shows and how well they do in comparison to OUAT will have some impact, and certainly more than already cancelled series.

OUAT might have a few things going for it. Depending on how much they cut the budget, and how much merchandising they're pulling in, in addition to what they're making from streaming deals, it's possible that it's still making more money than a higher rated show that might cost more or not bring in as much merchandising and streaming money. There's also the fact that, while the idea that Friday night is automatically a handicapped death spot, they're flailing a little bit after doing away with their older-viewer-centric lineup, so they might be more comfortable keeping a known property, however poorly it did, than try to restructure again. And, of course, there was a brand new show (Inhumans) on the same night that didn't do particularly well. Even though it technically averaged better than OUAT, its numbers dropped to the point where it generally did worse than OUAT week to week. And networks are more likely to cancel a new show that has poor ratings than a veteran show with comparable ratings.

While the possibility of not getting a renewal at this point is probably way more likely than it ever had been for the show, I still don't think it's a sure thing, and there's a possibility it's still making enough money for them to want to hang on to it. However, the discussion of the fact that it is now ABC's lowest scripted series, that it's unambiguously their lowest script multiseason series, and how important those facts will be in regards to the network's decision, especially when taking into account how these sorts of things have played out in the past and the general success and history of the timeslot.... it's all incredibly relevant and not to be dismissed. And bringing them into the discussion and treating them with that level of relevance certainly isn't "stupid", or silly, or whatever.

Well... I don't think the show will be CANCELED, in that, at this point, I really doubt they'll either cancel the episode order or pull the finished episodes from the schedule.

As for whether or not it will be renewed... I absolutely wouldn't be surprised if they decide not to renew their lowest rated scripted series. But I also wouldn't be surprised if it was still bringing in more of a profit than some of the other low-rated-but-not-as-low-rated-as-OUAT shows, which might make them more interested in keeping it around.

Lots of misconceptions here...

To start with, there are really two different versions of "support" going on here. In regards to the "support" that means "I ship it", "I want it to be canon", or even "I'm comfortable with it being canon", and in regards to Swan Queen, I would say that I don't and never have "supported" SQ in that way. I don't ship it. I never have. And I've been vocal about the fact that I'm not going to ship ANY canon ship with Regina that presented a being healthy and positive as long as the fact that she raped and killed Graham remains unaddressed. I'm simply not comfortable or okay with a character who is unambiguously a rapist in canon being presented as a part of a healthy romantic relationship without that fact being addressed and playing a significant part in the character's development, redemption arc, and the development of their romantic/sexual relationships. So, in that way, I don't "support" SQ and I never have. Just as I don't support any potentially canon relationships with Regina that would be framed as positive and romantic.

And in regards to this potential new relationship between Regina and Facilier, I don't "support" it in that way either. At this point, I don't ship or "support" and OUAT pairings that are canon as, at best, they're going to be poorly written and develop and, at worst, demonstrate serious problems with a whole host of issues, from consent, to heteronormativity, to racism, and so on.

But there's a different version of "support" here, where you can support ships and what they mean to other people with shipping it, without personally being comfortable with it being canon. There are a lot of marginalized people who look at SQ and see representation for themselves within fandom, who look at the pairing and see what could be or could have been the potential for representation of themselves in canon. I support the discussion surrounding the heteronormativity of the writing, the refusal to create queer main characters, and the prejudices that lead to the writers and some cast members dismissing SQ and its fans.

And at the end of the day, that's what this whole discussion is about. Recognizing the importance of a pairing that will or would give a marginalized group representation and supporting what that would mean for them even if it's not something I personally want, even it's something I'm personally not particularly comfortable with for various reasons. It about recognizing that while my concerns and feelings on the matter are valid, so are the concerns and feelings of those marginalized groups who so badly need that representation, and not acting like my side of things is somehow more important or valid than theirs

The fact that you see behaviors and thought processes that are simply just not self centered and selfish and that consider the needs of other people as some kind of ploy to gain favor or as some kind of shield to hide behind really says more about you than anything, and that makes me sad for you.

I had a lot to say about this back during the hiatus. It's just not okay to insist that people trust writers and a show that has consistently hurt them, that has consistently treated them like shit, regardless of who they're casting or what they're promising. When you're dealing with writers who spent six years demonstrating how deeply entrenched racism, homophobia, misogyny, and ableism are in their mindsets, those aren't people who are suddenly going to learn how wrong they are, unlearn all their problematic beliefs, and learn how to write in a sensitive and inclusive way over the course of a summer.

If you pay close enough attention to who’s visiting what posts, when certain IPs visit those posts, etc., you can see pretty clearly when visitors are directed to a certain post and where they were directed from. And if you keep an eye on these things a sort of pattern of interaction starts to show itself where a certain IP will visit either the exact same post or a post that was on one of the pages another IP visited not long before them over and over and over. 

There are ways that people can get to individual posts without referring links. If the search for posts on google and then copy and past the url, for example. But when a clear pattern of interaction emerges between two different IPs, it’s pretty obvious something hinky is happening.

Yes, they were going through my archive, and it looks like they were sort of going in chronological order. Their first visit (in this spree) was a super old post with no referring link, and then they started looking at a bunch of recent posts through the archive.

Send me an ask or message off anon and we can talk.

I accept your apology, and it makes me happy to see that you were able to admit that you were incorrect, that you didn’t know something, and that you did something wrong. That a really important thing that so many people need to learn to do, and unfortunately it’s not a thing that a lot of people in your ship are capable of. Hopefully you’ll be able to find a place in that community where you don’t have to deal with those kind of people.