Comments on: Tuesday Ratings: NCIS and The Mentalist Get Viewers, House and Fringe Rock Demos

By: Carlette

Carlette — Mon, 03 Nov 2008 21:47:35 +0000

I really don’t understand why they use the age demographics. When your in your teens you should be too busy with school, friends, outside activities to watch much TV and in some households where there are not 2 TV’s teens have no choice but to watch what the parents are watching. When your building a career and have a family you are also so occupied with your life there is not much time for TV and when you are 50 and over maybe (keyword is maybe) you have more time to watch TV but that does not mean you are less discriminating as far as what you want and enjoy viewing. Also, not all have the same taste, some like comedies, some like dramas and some like reality shows, and therefore TV should have something for everyone. However, I do understand that the shows that get the best ratings stay on and that is how it should be businesswise so if you like a show and you want it to continue, I guess you have to watch it. Also, I read the the networks do not count shows that are taped. Lot’s of us tape shows because we like them but are unable to view them on the night or the time they air. They should take into consideration taped shows as well. People have busy lives, few of us are idle. Some of the shows are on the same night at the same time. So either you watch one and tape the other if you can, or you make a choice. Personally, I like The Mentalist, and I like Simon Baker and I find the show to my taste.

By: jords

jords — Sun, 19 Oct 2008 02:29:17 +0000

I’m actually pretty happy with the “Eli Stone” numbers. I’d be curious to know how it did vs. “Jericho”, which had that time slot last year, at least until the Evil Eye network killed it. (Not that I’m still bitter or anything.)

This week’s episode of “Eli Stone” was good, but definitely not the strongest of the show. (It had some pretty big shoes to fill after last season’s brilliant season finale.) However, Sigourney Weaver rocked and next week has Katie Holmes, who looks surprisingly awesome.

Yay Eli!

(Oh, and Yay Fringe!)

By: ryan

ryan — Thu, 16 Oct 2008 06:22:04 +0000

NCIS rates so high because its arwsome and every season it increases in total viewers i don’t think there are any other shows that are riseing every season, it proves that people love it then tell there friends who then start to watch it

By: Batman

Batman — Thu, 16 Oct 2008 02:58:28 +0000

Good thing Eli Stone wasnt bad as Pushing Daisies/Dirty Sexy Money/Opportunity Knocks

By: ScarecrowMrsKing fan

ScarecrowMrsKing fan — Thu, 16 Oct 2008 02:53:31 +0000

NCIS does well because many of us like the show. I watch all the repeats too. We will never agree which show is best, better than average, or what is garbage. Let companies spend as much as they want for ads. Since the invention of the remote control I believe most ads go unseen. Then you add going to the kitchen for snacks or maybe a bathroom break. I often put my headphones on during the commercials. It is no longer just NBC, CBS, and ABC. We watch what we want, when we want. I wish the advertising companies good luck they are going to need it.

By: Cameron

Cameron — Thu, 16 Oct 2008 01:08:09 +0000

Bill is this the highest rating for NCIS in terms of overnights so far this season? And why do you think it’s doing so well this season? Even CBS are surprised by how well it’s doing.

By: byeu

byeu — Thu, 16 Oct 2008 00:52:45 +0000

That’s interesting, as I had assumed that that the show already was slated for a full season. Of course, that is “this” season, so they are still hedging their bets and have not given it a go ahead-yet-for a second season. I guess that it and Fringe will certainly be battling it out to see if one or the other can win their place on next year’s schedule on their respective networks.

By: WED

WED — Thu, 16 Oct 2008 00:48:12 +0000

I am so happy the Robin Tunney’s show is doing so well.Afert what those idiots over on Prison Break did to her just kicking her out of the show now she’s on a hit one good for her!

By: Matej

Matej — Wed, 15 Oct 2008 22:16:06 +0000

Hi, please can someone explain me why cop shows on CBS get so much viewers? I love The Mentalist but I simply can’t believe that more people watch this over than something else like Lost or Heroes… any answers?

By: Cameron

Cameron — Wed, 15 Oct 2008 21:01:51 +0000

In the least surprising news of the day, after Madonn announcing her divorce to Guy Ritchie, The Mentalist has been picked up for a full series.

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/hr/content_display/news/e3ifa25645bfd6bcf911cd4fee9942c5b4c

By: BIG DADDY

BIG DADDY — Wed, 15 Oct 2008 20:34:09 +0000

“Robert makes the excellent point that “viewers over the age of 50 are abundantly available in the television viewing universe.” Yes, yes, yes. Remember, this means advertisers can reach them *cheaply* OUTSIDE of prime time. A lot of those NCIS viewers are also watching daytime TV, early evening news, cable TV news, late night TV, etc. Why not save money by reaching them *then* instead of during NCIS?”

(This might be the best post in awhile… concise and to the point) If you don’t get this you should stop posting.

By: Cameron

Cameron — Wed, 15 Oct 2008 20:26:00 +0000

Who was it that came up with the whole 18-49 demographic is the one to focus on? Somebody told me it was a guy at ABC in the sixties. Does anybody know? I think it’s ridiculous just to focus on that age range as people don’t stop buying things when they turn 50, and in some cases older people have more money than younger people.

By: Bill Gorman

Bill Gorman — Wed, 15 Oct 2008 20:17:07 +0000

JT, that ” cost effectiveness of television advertising” is something I, and I will let Robert speak for himself, think is just a bunch of smoke and mirrors.

I think for the most part advertisers have no idea how well their $ are spent on television advertising, Not compared to say how well their dollars are spent on personnel or raw materials or logistics. I think there are all sorts of rationalizations about the murkiness of the cost effectiveness, but in the end they just don’t know.

By: JT

JT — Wed, 15 Oct 2008 19:43:14 +0000

Thanks for everyone’s feedback. I understand the concept of supply and demand and the explaination Siedman provided makes perfect sense. However, I still wonder if it isn’t the advertisers who are creating a false demand for these viewers and hence overpaying. I know the company I work for doesn’t do this, but I wonder if other companies take the time to study the cost effectiveness of television advertising, and if they do I wonder how extensive their tests are. Something tells me that many companies don’t bother doing this. I don’t know, maybe I’m way off here.

By: Johnthemon

Johnthemon — Wed, 15 Oct 2008 19:41:39 +0000

yay Fringe!

I really don’t see what’s so great about the gazillion cbs procedurals.

By: Ike

Ike — Wed, 15 Oct 2008 18:39:45 +0000

Robert makes the excellent point that “viewers over the age of 50 are abundantly available in the television viewing universe.” Yes, yes, yes. Remember, this means advertisers can reach them *cheaply* OUTSIDE of prime time. A lot of those NCIS viewers are also watching daytime TV, early evening news, cable TV news, late night TV, etc. Why not save money by reaching them *then* instead of during NCIS?

Thus, the ad rate for NCIS (and similar shows) is only about $121,000 (lower than BBT or HIMYM), while the ad rate for House (based on last year’s ratings) is about $260,000.
http://adage.com/mediaworks/article?article_id=131471
(Note that ad rates for new shows are speculative and are subject to partial refunds a.k.a. “makegoods.” Also, Fringe’s rate is inflated because it has fewer commercials per hour.)

“…someone over 50 is more likely to rationalize whether they really need that it and (wisely) choose not to buy something on a whim.” Yep. This is also true.

By: byeu

byeu — Wed, 15 Oct 2008 18:38:40 +0000

It’s kind of like the opposite of the Mr. Everest clche’-because its there. Except in this case, its because they’re not “there.” They don’t neessarily have the money, or are easier to sway, but there are fewer of them, so the ad people have to reach at least the few of them who they can sell to. I guess that’s the reasoning. Ir still seems rather convoluted, but if its the truth, then its the truth.

By: John

John — Wed, 15 Oct 2008 18:25:43 +0000

im from ireland and were showing ep 4 of fringe tonight. its that good people. its mediocre at best. the pilot was ok but the 3rd ep was awful. the acting is terrible the story iss awful. the show deserves the axe.

im shocked NCIS does so well here it airs like 2am thursdays.

By: dennis

dennis — Wed, 15 Oct 2008 18:18:24 +0000

I cannot understand why “NCIS” and “The Mentalist” are so strong in viewers.

By: Anthony

Anthony — Wed, 15 Oct 2008 18:11:28 +0000

Looks like Fringe will go into a few more seasons.

By: Robert Seidman

Robert Seidman — Wed, 15 Oct 2008 17:51:28 +0000

Ariane, advertisers pay the bills and they care more about demos than total viewers. It has NOTHING to do with disposable income but availability (see above).

In its fifth season, and at 8pm, things definitely aren’t as good for House as they once were, but House had the most viewers that advertisers care most about. I’m sorry if that annoys you, but that’s the way it is.

By: Ariane

Ariane — Wed, 15 Oct 2008 17:44:57 +0000

Why is it the demos that pay the bills? NCIS beat House by 5 millions viewers, The Mentalist beat Fringe by the same amount. Why is Fox considered winning then?

The 18-34 group have lower paying jobs and young families. They don’t have the disposable income older viewers may have.

House is down 6 million viewers from two seasons ago, 1/3 of their audience. How are they considered a winner?

By: Robert Seidman

Robert Seidman — Wed, 15 Oct 2008 17:41:47 +0000

JT — it’s not about ageism, it’s about simple supply and demand economics. If you disagree with the theory of supply and demand, this blog is probably not the best place to voice that. If you agree with the theory of supply and demand this should make sense to you:

1. viewers over the age of 50 are abundantly available in the television viewing universe. LOTS of people over 50 watch TV, so they are very easy to reach

2. viewers under 50, and especially viewers under 35 do not watch as much TV relatively and so they are harder to reach because there are fewer of them available to advertise to. Because of this relative “lack of supply” advertisers are more interested in reaching these people.

while obviously some products are targeted specifically at older or younger people, the focus on the younger viewers is because of availability and not about spending habits or how much money they have to spend.

By: JT

JT — Wed, 15 Oct 2008 17:36:21 +0000

I really have trouble totally making sense of why advertisers favor the younger viewers over the 50+ crowd. I understand that ad rates are more for “House” than “NCIS” because of the desiere for younger viewers, but my question is why advertisers feel that the 50+ viewers are so worthless, especially since they typically have more disposable income. I guess it’s because the younger ones are stupid enough to buy what’s being pitched on TV, whereas someone over 50 is more likely to rationalize whether they really need that it and (wisely) choose not to buy something on a whim.

By: Ann

Ann — Wed, 15 Oct 2008 17:03:23 +0000

I love “House” and “Fringe,” so I’m pleased their winning the demos war, if not total viewers. CBS and their procedurals are just insane in regard to total viewers, but the demos don’t reflect that. It really does show how much older that network skews. Still, they have to be pleased with the numbers.