Made first for older men 1
Chicago Fire's audience scores lean most toward older men at 78 of 100, with comparable appeal to young men 1. Its overall reach is rated targeted — targeted reach aimed at a specific demographic segment 2. Relative to the expected cast make-up for its production origin, on-screen representation registers below the baseline for Black and White 3. On content balance it reads entertainment-first at 0 of 100, weighting storytelling over explicit messaging 4.
- 1Audience scoreolder men 78 of 100 is the top quadrant, with young men 71 close behind.WhatSphere audience model, score_version 1
- 2ReachAudience breadth rated targeted.WhatSphere audience model, score_version 1
- 3RepresentationRepresentation vs production-origin baseline: Black 31, White 32.WhatSphere representation model, score_version 1
- 4Content balanceContent balance entertainment-first at 0 of 100.WhatSphere content-balance model, score_version 1
WhatSphere presents the sourced record; it does not cast the judgement. Every statement above is drawn from a stored, sourced row — shown beside it — and nothing is asserted beyond what those receipts support.
Synopsis
An edge-of-your-seat view into the lives of everyday heroes committed to one of America's noblest professions. For the firefighters, rescue squad and paramedics of Chicago Firehouse 51, no occupation is more stressful or dangerous, yet so rewarding and exhilarating. These courageous men and women are among the elite who forge headfirst into danger when everyone else is running the other way and whose actions make the difference between life and death.
Age: 54 — age-balanced
Quadrant Scores
Audience Representation
Where to Watch (US)
What did the audience think? Rate Chicago Fire — every voice counts equally, no account needed. Clean reviews appear instantly.
Put its audience profile side by side with any other title.
Advocacy Over Time in Drama
The average advocacy score of Drama titles by release year, with this title marked. Higher is more advocacy-driven.
| Year | Average advocacy | Titles |
|---|---|---|
| 1920 | 0 | 2 |
| 1925 | 0 | 2 |
| 1927 | 0 | 2 |
| 1928 | 0 | 3 |
| 1929 | 2 | 2 |
| 1930 | 0 | 6 |
| 1931 | 1 | 4 |
| 1932 | 0 | 5 |
| 1936 | 0 | 2 |
| 1937 | 0 | 3 |
| 1939 | 7 | 2 |
| 1940 | 0 | 3 |
| 1941 | 0 | 2 |
| 1942 | 0 | 5 |
| 1943 | 0 | 3 |
| 1944 | 0 | 7 |
| 1946 | 1 | 3 |
| 1947 | 0 | 2 |
| 1948 | 2 | 4 |
| 1950 | 2 | 6 |
| 1951 | 1 | 5 |
| 1952 | 1 | 6 |
| 1953 | 0 | 10 |
| 1954 | 1 | 4 |
| 1955 | 1 | 8 |
| 1956 | 2 | 7 |
| 1957 | 1 | 10 |
| 1958 | 3 | 6 |
| 1959 | 1 | 9 |
| 1960 | 0 | 12 |
| 1961 | 1 | 7 |
| 1962 | 2 | 12 |
| 1963 | 0 | 14 |
| 1964 | 1 | 8 |
| 1965 | 2 | 11 |
| 1966 | 0 | 10 |
| 1967 | 0 | 7 |
| 1968 | 1 | 9 |
| 1969 | 0 | 10 |
| 1970 | 1 | 10 |
| 1971 | 0 | 8 |
| 1972 | 0 | 9 |
| 1973 | 0 | 14 |
| 1974 | 1 | 15 |
| 1975 | 2 | 13 |
| 1976 | 1 | 20 |
| 1977 | 0 | 8 |
| 1978 | 0 | 5 |
| 1979 | 1 | 11 |
| 1980 | 1 | 13 |
| 1981 | 0 | 8 |
| 1982 | 1 | 13 |
| 1983 | 0 | 15 |
| 1984 | 1 | 14 |
| 1985 | 2 | 11 |
| 1986 | 2 | 12 |
| 1987 | 1 | 19 |
| 1988 | 2 | 13 |
| 1989 | 1 | 16 |
| 1990 | 0 | 14 |
| 1991 | 2 | 14 |
| 1992 | 2 | 18 |
| 1993 | 1 | 23 |
| 1994 | 2 | 25 |
| 1995 | 2 | 26 |
| 1996 | 2 | 29 |
| 1997 | 2 | 23 |
| 1998 | 3 | 24 |
| 1999 | 3 | 42 |
| 2000 | 1 | 41 |
| 2001 | 2 | 41 |
| 2002 | 2 | 41 |
| 2003 | 2 | 36 |
| 2004 | 2 | 65 |
| 2005 | 2 | 66 |
| 2006 | 1 | 80 |
| 2007 | 1 | 68 |
| 2008 | 1 | 49 |
| 2009 | 2 | 28 |
| 2010 | 5 | 21 |
| 2011 | 3 | 24 |
| 2012 | 2 | 19 |
| 2013 | 4 | 24 |
| 2014 | 6 | 22 |
| 2015 | 8 | 18 |
| 2016 | 5 | 23 |
| 2017 | 7 | 30 |
| 2018 | 5 | 35 |
| 2019 | 7 | 36 |
| 2020 | 3 | 34 |
| 2021 | 7 | 34 |
| 2022 | 11 | 33 |
| 2023 | 8 | 18 |
| 2024 | 8 | 17 |
| 2025 | 2 | 9 |
| 2026 | 0 | 6 |
| This title (2012) | 0 | 1 |
● This title (2012): advocacy 0 · explore Drama →