Comments on: Nielsen Ratings Thursday, Feb 7: Lipstick Jungle? Get Lost!

By: Nighthawk

Nighthawk — Mon, 18 Feb 2008 23:07:22 +0000

Well, I used to like Supernatural, but now it seems they’ve made it “all comedy – all the time”……and the storyline has all but vanished.

By: Nighthawk

Nighthawk — Mon, 18 Feb 2008 22:07:22 +0000

Well, I used to like Supernatural, but now it seems they've made it “all comedy – all the time”……and the storyline has all but vanished.

By: Robert Seidman

Robert Seidman — Wed, 13 Feb 2008 07:50:08 +0000

Ike, it didn’t used to be rare that we’d get the 18-34 (and 25-54) data, though we haven’t seen it since the week ending 1/27.

while I agree the entire span between 18-54 is more important to the networks than the 55+ viewers and we’ve been known to express the sentiment, I’m not sure standard boiler plate is required but I am open to it if more people suggest it.

We give both the 18-49 demo and total viewers focus with every overnight post, and we provide rankings by total viewers and the demo(s) weekly.

Some have suggested an “all in one ranking”, but there are some limitations. If we include 18-49 ranking for the top 20 most viewed shows, it won’t be the top 20 of the 18-49. We could still do both, but due to current web design we’re limited as far as the # of columns we can have in a table without running out of space and are trying to balance ease of reading the data and providing as much data as possible.

By: Robert Seidman

Robert Seidman — Wed, 13 Feb 2008 06:50:08 +0000

Ike, it didn't used to be rare that we'd get the 18-34 (and 25-54) data, though we haven't seen it since the week ending 1/27.

while I agree the entire span between 18-54 is more important to the networks than the 55+ viewers and we've been known to express the sentiment, I'm not sure standard boiler plate is required but I am open to it if more people suggest it.

We give both the 18-49 demo and total viewers focus with every overnight post, and we provide rankings by total viewers and the demo(s) weekly.

Some have suggested an "all in one ranking", but there are some limitations. If we include 18-49 ranking for the top 20 most viewed shows, it won't be the top 20 of the 18-49. We could still do both, but due to current web design we're limited as far as the # of columns we can have in a table without running out of space and are trying to balance ease of reading the data and providing as much data as possible.

By: Ike

Ike — Wed, 13 Feb 2008 03:48:06 +0000

Jon said: “Advertisers hit me with their best shot on Golf boadcasts, PTI and CNBC. …But I also love L&O, 2&1/2 and The Big Bang Theory, which makes me hard to pigeonhole.”

Right, so why should they pay extra to reach you during L&O or CBS sitcoms when they can advertise more cheaply during golf or on CNBC? Thus, the CBS sitcoms don’t get really high ad rates.

Robert, you might be even more cynical than me. Bravo! However, you still have plenty of readers of this site who mistakenly believe that the household ratings and total viewer numbers matter to a show’s survival. I wonder if there’s some standard disclaimer that can be appended on most pages to explain to fans that they should really pay more attention to those 18-49s. (And 18-34s on the rare occasion that those are available.) Also, you might want to keep this in mind for those “Renew or Cancel” articles. For instance, from a business standpoint, Women’s Murder Club was always a solid cancel when considering its demo numbers. Without the strike, it would’ve been yanked off the air by November.

By: Ike

Ike — Wed, 13 Feb 2008 02:48:06 +0000

Jon said: "Advertisers hit me with their best shot on Golf boadcasts, PTI and CNBC. ...But I also love L&O, 2&1/2 and The Big Bang Theory, which makes me hard to pigeonhole."

Right, so why should they pay extra to reach you during L&O or CBS sitcoms when they can advertise more cheaply during golf or on CNBC? Thus, the CBS sitcoms don't get really high ad rates.

Robert, you might be even more cynical than me. Bravo! However, you still have plenty of readers of this site who mistakenly believe that the household ratings and total viewer numbers matter to a show's survival. I wonder if there's some standard disclaimer that can be appended on most pages to explain to fans that they should really pay more attention to those 18-49s. (And 18-34s on the rare occasion that those are available.) Also, you might want to keep this in mind for those "Renew or Cancel" articles. For instance, from a business standpoint, Women's Murder Club was always a solid cancel when considering its demo numbers. Without the strike, it would've been yanked off the air by November.

By: Kat

Kat — Mon, 11 Feb 2008 15:41:24 +0000

I like Eli Stone but it gives me a toothache. Its a show I would expect to be on 8pm on a Sunday night.

I was prepared to hate Lipstick Jungle and I was surprised that I liked it. I’m going to be looking forward to the next episode and watch it like a guilty pleasure. Too bad I can’t imagine admitting to my friends that I’m actually watching it.

By: Kat

Kat — Mon, 11 Feb 2008 14:41:24 +0000

I like Eli Stone but it gives me a toothache. Its a show I would expect to be on 8pm on a Sunday night.

I was prepared to hate Lipstick Jungle and I was surprised that I liked it. I'm going to be looking forward to the next episode and watch it like a guilty pleasure. Too bad I can't imagine admitting to my friends that I'm actually watching it.

By: Jon V

Jon V — Mon, 11 Feb 2008 06:46:36 +0000

Was just kinda kiddin on the square with the ‘baby boomer’ quip but both Ike and Robert make good points.

Advertisers hit me with their best shot on Golf boadcasts, PTI and CNBC. I guess they know what they’re doin’ cuz that’s what I watch. It depends on what you’re selling, I guess.

But I also love L&O, 2&1/2 and The Big Bang Theory, which makes me hard to pigeonhole. I don’t think there are a lot of ‘ad actuaries’ staying up late to ‘catch me where I live.’

Thanx, Lisa, for trying to take Robert to task for us – but he is keeping it real and I get it. My feelings are NOT hurt by NOT getting pitched to in my strike zone. I consider it an ‘intentional walk’ cuz I’m a dangerous hitter.

By: Jon V

Jon V — Mon, 11 Feb 2008 05:46:36 +0000

Was just kinda kiddin on the square with the 'baby boomer' quip but both Ike and Robert make good points.

Advertisers hit me with their best shot on Golf boadcasts, PTI and CNBC. I guess they know what they're doin' cuz that's what I watch. It depends on what you're selling, I guess.

But I also love L&O, 2&1/2 and The Big Bang Theory, which makes me hard to pigeonhole. I don't think there are a lot of 'ad actuaries' staying up late to 'catch me where I live.'

Thanx, Lisa, for trying to take Robert to task for us - but he is keeping it real and I get it. My feelings are NOT hurt by NOT getting pitched to in my strike zone. I consider it an 'intentional walk' cuz I'm a dangerous hitter.

By: Robert Seidman

Robert Seidman — Mon, 11 Feb 2008 04:41:21 +0000

Lisa, I don’t see it as cynicism so much as realism. I’m all about embracing the truth, even when it hurts. You can ask Bill, I think he’ll vouch for that!

By: Lisa M

Lisa M — Mon, 11 Feb 2008 04:23:01 +0000

Robert! That was AWFUL! Why so cynical?

By: Robert Seidman

Robert Seidman — Mon, 11 Feb 2008 04:08:59 +0000

Ike, that’s more analysis than I need. We live in a world where the competition is ALL about making more life, and competing to breed with the best (I’m acutely aware of this mostly due to my love of TV making me a miserable failure at most other things!).

The 60 year old person can not be influenced by the GAME. And the game drives everything, including ridiculous crap like Under Armour blowing wads of cash on the Super Bowl so they can convince children they WILL NOT GET ANY SEX if they are not cool enough to sport UA.

I’m 45, and I’m not swayed by that AT ALL! In ten years, if it’s possible, I’ll be LESS swayed.

I know Rena is prone to compare ageism to racism, but it’s a flawed analogy. There are at least a few good reasons to be ageist. There’s never a good reason to be racist.

By: Ike

Ike — Mon, 11 Feb 2008 03:56:45 +0000

Personally I don’t think that viewers 55+ SHOULD be considered irrelevant, but unfortunately most advertisers DO consider them irrelevant, in terms of prime-time TV anyway. They are absolutely convinced that older viewers rarely switch brands or try new things. Their so-called research supposedly backs this up. Also, they know they can easily reach that audience by advertising much more cheaply during daytime TV and early evening newscasts, on older-skewing cable channels, on talk radio, etc. etc. So, for prime-time, the reality is that 55+ is irrelevant, unfortunately. (Although the importance of younger demos benefits some great shows like “Lost” tremendously, not to mention tons of cutting-edge cable shows.)

If they valued viewers age 55+, then CBS’s programs would be getting much higher ad rates. If you look at an ad rate chart, you can see that the rates roughly proportionately match the adult 18-49 ratings, making household ratings basically irrelevant to a show’s survival:
http://adage.com/images/random/0907/2007_Ad_Age_TV_Price_Survey.pdf
(Note that rates for new programs as of fall 2007 were basically speculative on the parts of the networks and thus subject to “makegoods,” or refunds, to advertisers.)

By: Robert Seidman

Robert Seidman — Mon, 11 Feb 2008 03:41:21 +0000

Lisa, I don't see it as cynicism so much as realism. I'm all about embracing the truth, even when it hurts. You can ask Bill, I think he'll vouch for that!

By: Lisa M

Lisa M — Mon, 11 Feb 2008 03:23:01 +0000

Robert! That was AWFUL! Why so cynical?

By: Robert Seidman

Robert Seidman — Mon, 11 Feb 2008 03:08:59 +0000

Ike, that's more analysis than I need. We live in a world where the competition is ALL about making more life, and competing to breed with the best (I'm acutely aware of this mostly due to my love of TV making me a miserable failure at most other things!).

The 60 year old person can not be influenced by the GAME. And the game drives everything, including ridiculous crap like Under Armour blowing wads of cash on the Super Bowl so they can convince children they WILL NOT GET ANY SEX if they are not cool enough to sport UA.

I'm 45, and I'm not swayed by that AT ALL! In ten years, if it's possible, I'll be LESS swayed.

I know Rena is prone to compare ageism to racism, but it's a flawed analogy. There are at least a few good reasons to be ageist. There's never a good reason to be racist.

By: Ike

Ike — Mon, 11 Feb 2008 02:56:45 +0000

Personally I don't think that viewers 55+ SHOULD be considered irrelevant, but unfortunately most advertisers DO consider them irrelevant, in terms of prime-time TV anyway. They are absolutely convinced that older viewers rarely switch brands or try new things. Their so-called research supposedly backs this up. Also, they know they can easily reach that audience by advertising much more cheaply during daytime TV and early evening newscasts, on older-skewing cable channels, on talk radio, etc. etc. So, for prime-time, the reality is that 55+ is irrelevant, unfortunately. (Although the importance of younger demos benefits some great shows like “Lost” tremendously, not to mention tons of cutting-edge cable shows.)

If they valued viewers age 55+, then CBS's programs would be getting much higher ad rates. If you look at an ad rate chart, you can see that the rates roughly proportionately match the adult 18-49 ratings, making household ratings basically irrelevant to a show's survival:
http://adage.com/images/random/0907/2007_Ad_Age...
(Note that rates for new programs as of fall 2007 were basically speculative on the parts of the networks and thus subject to “makegoods,” or refunds, to advertisers.)

By: Robert Seidman

Robert Seidman — Sat, 09 Feb 2008 20:39:33 +0000

the 57-59 demographic information, if available, is not FREELY available, though I expect for the right price, it could be produced.

I don’t think it’s valid to say that the 55+ are irrelevant, but there are still some boomers in the 25-54 demo, and this demo is certainly not irrelevant either.

By: Jon V

Jon V — Sat, 09 Feb 2008 20:21:35 +0000

… By the way… when did the ‘Baby-Boomer’ demographic become irrelevant, and, is there any way to get a numbers breakdown on the all-important 57-59 year-old age group viewership? Just wondering…

By: Jon V

Jon V — Sat, 09 Feb 2008 20:05:04 +0000

Hard to compete with the eloquence of John’s CW analysis… so we’ll try to dissect the ‘Major Network’ decisions. Firstly: ‘Eli Stone’ only gets its 5-13 weeks in the sun because of the writer’s strike. Quirky and offbeat gets you a small, loyal following – but not for long if you can’t connect with the larger ‘demo’ on some real basis (see ‘Pushing Daisies). I’d probably rather watch ‘Corner Gas’ if forced to make a decision among these three. Secondly: ‘Lipstick Jungle’ is extremely off-putting to an increasingly growing, unhappy citizenry that is quickly becoming aware of the fact that the excesses of the wealthy are increasing the major rift between the ‘haves’ and ‘have nots’ – to the point of outright loathing. It’s hard to sympathize with a housewife/mother who is having problems in her life while making $5-10-20 million a year.
Numbers for both of these series will steadily decrease until the striking writers can get enough well-written dramas and sitcoms (ala Law & Order/CSI, Two & a Half Men/Big Bang Theory) in the can so we will not have to decide between the above drivel and reality shows. I am increasingly DVRing reruns on local stations and cable and replaying them between 8pm-11pm so as to delude myself into thinking I am watching Prime Time TV.

By: Robert Seidman

Robert Seidman — Sat, 09 Feb 2008 19:39:33 +0000

the 57-59 demographic information, if available, is not FREELY available, though I expect for the right price, it could be produced.

I don't think it's valid to say that the 55+ are irrelevant, but there are still some boomers in the 25-54 demo, and this demo is certainly not irrelevant either.

By: Jon V

Jon V — Sat, 09 Feb 2008 19:21:35 +0000

… By the way… when did the 'Baby-Boomer' demographic become irrelevant, and, is there any way to get a numbers breakdown on the all-important 57-59 year-old age group viewership? Just wondering…

By: Jon V

Jon V — Sat, 09 Feb 2008 19:05:04 +0000

Hard to compete with the eloquence of John's CW analysis… so we'll try to dissect the 'Major Network' decisions. Firstly: 'Eli Stone' only gets its 5-13 weeks in the sun because of the writer's strike. Quirky and offbeat gets you a small, loyal following – but not for long if you can't connect with the larger 'demo' on some real basis (see 'Pushing Daisies). I'd probably rather watch 'Corner Gas' if forced to make a decision among these three. Secondly: 'Lipstick Jungle' is extremely off-putting to an increasingly growing, unhappy citizenry that is quickly becoming aware of the fact that the excesses of the wealthy are increasing the major rift between the 'haves' and 'have nots' – to the point of outright loathing. It's hard to sympathize with a housewife/mother who is having problems in her life while making $5-10-20 million a year.
Numbers for both of these series will steadily decrease until the striking writers can get enough well-written dramas and sitcoms (ala Law & Order/CSI, Two & a Half Men/Big Bang Theory) in the can so we will not have to decide between the above drivel and reality shows. I am increasingly DVRing reruns on local stations and cable and replaying them between 8pm-11pm so as to delude myself into thinking I am watching Prime Time TV.

By: JOHN

JOHN — Sat, 09 Feb 2008 04:13:05 +0000

I THINK SUPERNATURAL SHOULD HAVE DONE BETTER BUT LOST WAS ON SO HALF ON THE SUPERNATURAL FANS WATCHED LOST SO WHATEVA BUT THIS SEASON HAS STARTED OFF SLOW BUT IT HAS GOTTEN BETTER AND ANYWAY SUPRNATURAL IS DOING BETTER THAN SMALLVILLE