| Scoreboard |  |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Total Viewers (million) | 13.14 | 11.68 | 11.49 | 10.53 | 2.93 | .59 |
| Rating/Share: Adults 18-49 | 4.6/11 | 2.6/6 | 4.3/10 | 4.3/10 | 1.1/3 | 0.2/1 |
| Rating/Share: Adults 18-34 | 4.0/11 | 1.8/5 | 3.5/10 | 3.9/11 | 1.2/3 | 0.2/0 |
Fox won the night across the board in viewers, 18-49 year old viewers, and 18-34 year old viewers on the combination of a healthy chunk of NFL overrun that averaged nearly 18 million for a half hour, The OT, and Jack Bauer finally returning to the small screen — although it was obvious they intended for Africa to look verrrry yellowy on the 61″ big screen in HD. The numbers for 24 redemption were solid, averaging 12.04 million viewers from 8pm-10pm. But, it only won one half hour in total viewers (8p-8:30) and it led in neither age demo in any half hour.
I confess surprise to the interest in the American Music Awards. I’m not an award show guy, so that’s not a surprise. But between 8pm-11pm it won all the demos.
The flesh of Jack Bauer’s ears being seared with a hot knife was not as disturbing to me as a wincing, and grimacing San Diego Charger’s coach Norv Turner — and that was after he dropped a major F-bomb on the sidelines. We couldn’t hear it, but reading his lips wasn’t too difficult. I think Turner was more upset that his team hadn’t run more time off the clock before kicking a field goal than he was about not getting the first down. If so, his concern was reasonable as the Colts drove far enough down the field for Adam Vinatieri to kick a 51 yard field goal as the time ran out.
Last night was the last night of CW airing content on Sunday nights programmed by MRC (Media Rights Capital). Mercifully, this experiment is over. Next week at 7pm? Jericho, baby! Look for it to do better than anything that aired last night. Don’t look for it to perform so well that it gets picked back up for new episodes. Surely we’ll have to endure a week of that sort of foolish speculation, but next week when the rerun does under 2 million, such speculation will cease. And shift back to WTF is the CW doing?!?
If you want to compare with last Sunday’s overnight report, have at it.
Full details:
| Time | Net | Show | Viewers (Millons) | 18-49 Rating/Share | 18-34 Rating/Share |
| 7:00 | FOX | NFL Football Overun | 17.86 | 6.5/18 | 5.7/18 |
| CBS | 60 Minutes | 14.53 | 2.8/8 | 1.9/6 | |
| NBC | Football Night in America | 6.71 | 2.4/6 | 2.0/6 | |
| ABC | American Music Awards Red Carpet | 5.52 | 1.9/5 | 1.6/5 | |
| CW | In Harms Way (R) | 0.72 | 0.3/1 | 0.2/1 | |
| 7:30 | FOX | The OT | 12.81 | 4.9/13 | 4.5/13 |
| 8:00 | FOX | 24: Redemption | 12.64 | 4.2/10 | 3.6/10 |
| ABC | American Music Awards | 12.38 | 5.0/12 | 4.5/12 | |
| NBC | Football Night in America/Game | 11.51 | 4.2/12 | 3.5/9 | |
| CBS | The Amazing Race | 10.13 | 2.7/6 | 1.9/5 | |
| CW | Valentine (R) | 0.64 | 0.2/0 | 0.2/0 | |
| 8:30 | NBC | Sunday Night Football 8:30-11p | 12.29 | 4.7/11 | |
| 9:00 | ABC | American Music Awards | 13.04 | 5.4/12 | 5.1/13 |
| CBS | Cold Case | 12.07 | 2.7/6 | 1.9/5 | |
| FOX | 24: Redemption | 11.72 | 3.9/9 | 3.3/8 | |
| CW | Easy Money (R) | 0.41 | 0.1/0 | 0.2/0 | |
| 10:00 | ABC | American Music Awards | 11.17 | 5.0/12 | 4.7/12 |
| CBS | The Unit | 9.99 | 2.5/6 | 1.7/4 |
Shows are sorted by viewers in each time slot.
Nielsen TV Ratings: ©2008 The Nielsen Company. All Rights Reserved.
Definitions:
Fast Affiliate Ratings: These first national ratings, including demographics, are available at approximately 11 AM (ET) the day after telecast, and are released to subscribing customers daily. These data, from the National People Meter sample, are strictly time-period information, based on the normal broadcast network feed, and include all programming on the affiliated stations, sometimes including network programming, sometimes not. The figures may include stations that did not air the entire network feed, as well as local news breaks or cutaways for local coverage or other programming. Fast Affiliate ratings are not as useful for live programs and are likely to differ significantly from the final results, because the data reflect normal broadcast feed patterns. For example, with a World Series game, Fast Affiliate Ratings would include whatever aired from 8-11PM on affiliates in the Pacific Time Zone, following the live football game, but not game coverage that begins at 5PM PT. The same would be true of Presidential debates as well as live award shows and breaking news reports.
Rating: Estimated percentage of the universe of TV households (or other specified group) tuned to a program in the average minute. Ratings are expressed as a percent.
Share (of Audience): The percent of households (or persons) using television who are tuned to a specific program, station or network in a specific area at a specific time. (See also, Rating, which represents tuning or viewing as a percent of the entire population being measured.)
Time Shifted Viewing – Program ratings for national sources are produced in three streams of data – Live, Live+Same Day (Live+SD) and Live+7 Day. Time shifted figures account for incremental viewing that takes place with DVRs which are currently in approximately 24.4% of all U.S. TV households. Live+Same Day (Live+SD) include viewing during the same broadcast day as the original telecast, with a cut-off of 3:00AM local time when meters transmit daily viewing to Nielsen for processing. Live+7 Day ratings include incremental viewing that takes place during the 7 days following a telecast.
For more information see Numbers 101.
I’m really surprised 24 did as well in the 18-49 demo as it did, given the Sunday Night Football game AND the music awards. However, given that the shows I like tend to do poorly in the ratings, I’m grateful that 24 is going to buck my trend!
Jack’s the man!
I enjoyed the movie. However, if the show gets the same numbers when it moves to Mondays, it will still be #3 against Dancing with the Stars and the CBS comedies. However, that would be a vast improvement over FOX Mondays now.
Not a surprise that 24 got viewers, and not surprise that half a million or so tuned out by the second hour. I checked out it after having dumped 24 a while back, hoping it might be decent again. It wasn’t. In fact, it was more boring and silly than I remember when I stopped watching it. I have a feeling it’s in for a Heroes type decline this season, as it people will tune into the first few eps to see if the mojo is back, and then tune out just as quickly if it is not, which this lame movie appears to show it is definitely not.
Mr prediction: whatever number 24 starts with in episode one, it will bleed off 30% of by the end of its season.
Well – I’m glad Jack is Back! – I think this season will be bigger – and I hope it takes the legs off from CIRCUS WITH THE PRETEND STARS.
However my only disappointment last night was the “LOCAL” Fox affiliate is this: right when they finally (National Fox) was showing a promo of SARAH CONNOR – the local Fox News station popped on for a THIRD time IN THE LAST 30 MINUTES OF 24 promoting their “upcoming stoies” then cut back to FOX and the last 2 seconds as the SARAH CONNOR promo was ending —
So I’m beginning to think the “small minded” local Fox affiliates are part of the problem getting in the way of FOX programming…local affiliates need to STOP being part of the problem – to promote their little shows OVER the prime time shows promos…Their shooting themselves in the foot!
I hear other states have the same problem with CW and Smallville airings and promos.
“Next week at 7pm? Jericho, baby! Look for it to do better than anything that aired last night. Don’t look for it to perform so well that it gets picked back up for new episodes. Surely we’ll have to endure a week of that sort of foolish speculation, but next week when the rerun does under 2 million, such speculation will cease. ”
Robert, are you serious? Speculation will cease? Speculation by the hard core Jericho fans will run rampant until CW finds something better to replace it. The absurdity of CW producing an expensive show like Jericho is totally lost on the 200 or so Jericho junkies doing things like creating a commercial to Save Jericho on the Universal High Def channel. Of course the impending actors strike could make all that moot.
schmokey, I agree, but that’s probably not a tragic outcome for Fox if it starts with 12 millionish and bleeds down to 9 million…as long as the demo numbers are decent.
“The absurdity of CW producing an expensive show like Jericho is totally lost on the 200 or so Jericho junkies doing things like creating a commercial to Save Jericho on the Universal High Def channel.”
The interesting thing about the crazy fans of whatever show that find themselves together on the Internet is that they see hundreds or a few thousand crazy fans on the fan sites and project that to “there must be millions of us out there!”, when it’s in fact just those hundreds or few thousands “out there”.
perhaps just some pre-Thanksgiving wishful thinking on my part, “Joe Cool”. Sadly, I’m sure you’re correct…
SNF was way down.
Robert, I agree with you on that point, but I do think the bleeding will continue into next season, making next year the last year of 24.
Schmokey,
I think you’re bleeding your bias against the show into your comments.
But, alas, we all do this.
Julia, way down vs. last week, or any game featuring the Cowboys. “Down” against any game featuring New York or New England, but sort of average otherwise.
At the end of the day, FOX won the night, on a very competitive Sunday, so I think they are very happy.
The interesting thing about the crazy fans of whatever show that find themselves together on the Internet is that they see hundreds or a few thousand crazy fans on the fan sites and project that to “there must be millions of us out there!”, when it’s in fact just those hundreds or few thousands “out there”.
Bill, I’ve been trying to point this out to crazy fans even within fandoms I’ve been a part of. It never seems to get through to them.
It’s possible my bias is coloring my thinking, but if the numbers slip below 7-8 million, that’s pretty low for such an expensive show. And FOX has never shown patience when the numbers start to slide hard. They aren’t NBC either, having to keep the show on because they have nothing else. We shall see, but I’d be shocked if 24 finishes the season much over 9 million.
Okay – I guess no one stuck around long enough to se the extended 3 minute
(or longer) trailer to the upcoming 24 season…because you wouldn’t be talking “smack” if you did see the trailer…
…Many villians including Jon Voight is in this and their dealing with a “real life” problem that’s being ignored in Africa…
The ONLY reason this will be the last season is if Kiefer Sutherland decides no -more – FOX is going to want another season!
The trailer was awesome and it’s not all action but it looks gripping and has great drama…
The only people that don’t like 24 are the ones that probably can’t handle it’s intense gripping, nerve racking events that unfold!
Jack Bauer is back – and really the ONLY REAL “STAR” & “HERO” on Monday Nights!!!
(((oooh notice the “sarcastic” reference to “Dancing…Stars” & “Heroes”
in last line———-ouch ! )))
R.G. — the trailer was my favorite part of the night. But Schmokey was suggesting that season 8 would be the last season, not the season commencing in January.
Those are solid numbers for ‘The American Music Awards,’ and it was well deserved. ABC really stepped up their promo game for the show this year and they had such a big A list lineup that even MTV got jealous. At least now they know how they’ll need to keep the momentum going for next year.
Robert – I see that now – regarding Season 8…but still – I think it’s got a long run…
24 REDEMPTION was only to “wet the palatte” (spelling?) of the viewers anyways – and
“to better” set up the series in ‘09…
Can’t wait…and niether can most of my friends!
S&S carried the evening. Sports and Specials.
I love 24 but ‘Redemption’ was awful
I was suggesting Season 8 would be the last, and that’s no slam on 24. Staying on the air for eight seasons is a major accomplishment. I may have only enjoyed two of the six 24 seasons so far (although I didn’t watch Days 3 or 4, after bugging out on Day 2 three episodes in, coming back only when I heard Day 5 started with a bang, which it did), but I still have a lot of respect for a show that can stay on the air with such popularity for as long as has 24.
The show may be stupid more often than not, but the people behind it obviously are not. And still commanding a decent rating for a crappy tv movie almost ten years after the first episode aired is pretty impressive. But that doesn’t change the fact that it was a really crappy movie. People’s viewing habits have changed dramatically in the past three years, and bad television is finding itself abandoned in dramatic fashion these days. If 24 is as bad this season as it was last season, people will tune out in droves, and I think the fact that they lost over half a million viewers in just one hour last night bears that out.
If they can’t keep people tuned in past hour one, then a bad 24 episode run over the next six months will send people away in droves.
I really think the biggest problem for network television right now is people accepting just how much viewing habits and loyalties have changed the past three years. Three years has historically been a drop in the bucket, but we’ve never seen a three year period like the past three years. Nobody seems to want to admit that the television landscape has been altered permanently.
I’ll keep saying it: first net to realize it is not 1988 wins. Hell, it’s not even 2004 anymore.
I thought Redemption wasn’t great, but it really didn’t have to be. It just had to redirect itself back in the right direction after the bumbling Bauer family drama last season. I thought it succeeded in doing that. I liked the concept of a little 2 hour movie to set up the season since it gets to play a little looser with the timeline that way.
That being said, Cherry Jones is perhaps the worst actress I’ve ever seen and an even worse choice to be the president. She looked frumpy, delivered her lines awkwardly, and showed absolutely no charisma or force that would make me believe she could be president. She just looked goofy and lost.
My prediction is this season’s numbers will be better than the last one, although it will evitably shed some viewers over the season. They brought in some good people this year and I think the year off actually gave the audience a much needed break. I don’t think the reason season 8 may be the last season would be due to ratings. Kiefer is signed through season 8, so that would seem to be a logical place for Fox to put the series to bed. I can’t imagine they’d pony up another $40 million for him again, but I think that’s at the appropriate point in time for them to start making the 24 movie or movies.
“People’s viewing habits have changed dramatically in the past three years, and bad television is finding itself abandoned in dramatic fashion these days.”
What do you consider “bad” television? To me, Dancing with the Stars, American Idol, Grey’s Anatomy, DH (after the first season), and half the CBS procedurals are bad TV, and although they aren’t getting the numbers they once were, they are still leading the way in rankings.
“24″…is it January 11th yet ?
I find myself agreeing with much of Schmokey’s post.
Viewing has changed drastically, but not in the ways everybody predicted. Internet viewing impact has been non-existent. DVR impact has been noticable but not seismic.
What I think has really changed is the appetite for scripted, weekly series. It is vanishing and I don’t think it’s ever coming back. How many scripted shows that premiered in the last three seasons are currently averaging at least an 8.0 rating nationally? The answer is ONE. One!!
I think all the networks realize it’s not 1998 or 2004 anymore, but what’s the new model? Nobody knows. If you can figure it out you have a chance to become very, very rich.
Reality TV is a subset unto itself. I don’t like it either, but its return on investment is so high that it doesn’t need me to like it.
As for Grey’s, it’s been shedding viewers like an angora sweater the past two seasons. Yes, it’s still in the Top Ten, but it’s way down from it’s ratings high of two years ago. It’s definitely not exempt from my screed.
Nor are procedurals, which are also losing viewers. Yes, procedurals are among the top scripted programs left on television, but their cumulative numbers are significantly lower than what they were a few years ago. They simply appeal to a wider group of people than do serial shows, but overall they are shedding viewers as well, simply at a lesser rate.
By the way, all of this makes NCIS one of the most amazing and anamolous shows in television history. It is the only show on television right now whose ratings are increasing year-to-year. That is simply amazing.
I don’t like the procedural form either, Andrea, but that doesn’t mean procedurals are inherently bad. The well done ones do well, and the poorly done procedurals do not. What procedurals have going for them is that they really appeal to the over 50 crowd, which is the last demo left that has yet to fully discover and embrace the internet, and so are therefore the most dependable audience network television has left. Unfortunately, that over 50 group is also what procedurals have going against them, as the advertisers care nothing for that audience. Most of them need two to three times as many viewers overall to get the kind of demos that shows like The Office or Fringe or even Heroes attract.
Still, expect to see network television become increasingly reliant on both reality and procedurals as they continue to deny reality and try and remake the old model over and over again.
However, among the 18-49 group, and especially among the 18-34 group, shows that suck get turned off faster and faster these days. All the numbers back that up, I believe.
I watched the American Music Awards all the way through for the first time in years. I stunned that it was so well executed. Disney performers Miley Cyrus and the Jonas Brothers lit up the stage, and the Pussycat Dolls and Annie Lennox performances blew me away, but nobody tore it up like Beyonce and her Single Ladies anthem. That was a classic performance. Outstanding show!
That’s easy why ratings are down…because (now that there is soooo many “so-called” TV reality programs)…everyone is standing in a line somewhere for one of those shows…that no one is home watching regular TV….LOL!!
American Music Awards is a popularity program…all the winners know they are winners – that’s why they’re pretty much the only stars there – they know they already won…stupid show…and another stupid way for music stars to pat them selves on the back for their already ‘empty lives”…rich people with poor souls…
….it’s sad…really!
“What I think has really changed is the appetite for scripted, weekly series.”
A report has come out that there are more TV viewers than ever before, but there are more channels than ever before. The viewership has diversified beyond just NBC, ABC and CBS–there are competing networks with their own roster of shows, including scripted programs (USA, TNT, TBS, A&E, AMC, FX etc and the subscribed networks HBO, Showtime, Starz).
It may look like people are watching less scripted fare, but in reality they are just watching less network TV in general.
Bill Gorman says: “The interesting thing about the crazy fans of whatever show that find themselves together on the Internet is that they see hundreds or a few thousand crazy fans on the fan sites and project that to “there must be millions of us out there!”, when it’s in fact just those hundreds or few thousands “out there”.”
Well, Bill, I guess they just figure that if 5000 translates into millions for Neilsens . . . . .
One problem I think long-running shows has is with the aging of the demo. 24 has been on air for a generation and may not be “Must See TV” if you’re 18 and were 11 when it first premiered.
24 skews much older than the FOX Sunday animated shows in that category. This was represented when a poster on IMDB (who I assumed was young) got upset that ‘24′ had preempted Family Guy.
A baby boomer will hit 50 years of age approximately every 7 seconds until 2014. In 2008 alone, approximately 4 MILLION boomers will turn 50 – that’s 4 million TV viewers that move into the “undesirable demographic.”
So even if all 4 million of them watched the same show at the same time, it would count as no one having watched a show. Gee, where have all the TV viewers gone?
TV didn’t die; it was killed. RIP, I have a library card and a DVD player!
N2N2 — um….that was well put !!!
TV needs to re-tool it’s way of thinking…or just go way all together.
“The Boom” generation almost out numbers the last 2 generations combined…
I guess you do get wise with age!
R.G., and N2N2 — it doesn’t matter. That’s not the way markets work. The problem with the boomers is NOT their age. It’s that boomers watch WAY more TV than the younger demographics so they are much, much, much, much easier to reach. There’s no premium on boomers because they are everywhere.
Not so with the younger viewers, they simply don’t watch as much TV as the 50+ crowd and so there is a premium on their eyeballs. It really is just supply and demand — nothing nefarious or ageist about it.
N2N2…
It will be my turn – 2014 at 2am…Oct 31st…sooo I guess I won’t be the target audience…good that will save me money…nothing being advertised i will need or want…Hmmm i guess i do have something else now to look forward to!!!
Schmokey,
Like I stated, I agree the numbers for these shows have gone down as compared to past years, yet they are still top rated. At the point in time when a 5 million, 1.5 demo is what the top show gets, the network execs will consider it as success (unless a new medium is able to bring in more viewers and TV packs it in for good).
Also, I want to correct I don’t hate all procedurals. I like mine with a bit of a twist, thus my love for say New Amsterdam, and this year, The Mentalist and Eleventh Hour. I used to like CSI when it was fresh, but that episode with the people dressed as animals for sex play and the guy in the cat suit gets shot then left for road kill was too much!
Robert…that’s interesting – i didn’t know that – thanks!
“R.G., and N2N2 — it doesn’t matter. That’s not the way markets work. The problem with the boomers is NOT their age. It’s that boomers watch WAY more TV than the younger demographics so they are much, much, much, much easier to reach. There’s no premium on boomers because they are everywhere.
Not so with the younger viewers, they simply don’t watch as much TV as the 50+ crowd and so there is a premium on their eyeballs. It really is just supply and demand — nothing nefarious or ageist about it.”
Robert, the thinking goes that the 18-49 demo watches less tv but spends more and is more inclined to try new products. 50+ supposedly spends less and only on products that they have a loyalty to.
I’m sure this thinking has been challenged, but we do live in a youth-centered culture. If 50+ was actually prized, I’m sure the rationale would be different (premiums on shows with the highest viewership and demo over 50).
One thing I learned from the cancellation of Jericho (after a long string of other favorites being whacked Jericho was the last straw)is that the TV industry is not in the business of entertainment. It is in the business of advertising. PERIOD. Fans moan and groan when a favorite gets whacked and ask “how can they take such a good show off the air?” They are not in the business of producing “good shows.” TV is in the business of producing ANYTHING that gets people to watch so they can rake in the highest buck per advertising second.
So unless and until the ratings industry is overhauled, the TV industry doesn’t care if 11 million folks watch a show. They only care that 11 million and 1 people watch their show rather than shows on the other channels. It could be a total of 20 people. LOL. Like any game 21-20 gets you a WIN – and you get to rake in the biggest bucks for your advertising second.
This is why CBS found a formula and we can ridicule them for having 29 incarnations of CSI Anywhere and they laugh all the way to the bank – because it is the same folks with the same Neilsen boxes that watch the same formula show. They like it; they watch it and the rest of us can go . . . . fill in the blank. It’s not about a good plot line or a good story or good writing or good acting. It’s only about getting 21-20.
Andrea, I don’t believe the thinking is that they spend more. Only that they are less available. As long as they are less available, there will be some premium on them, regardless of how much they currently spend. I don’t see it as an issue of valuing a certain population more or less. I see it as simple supply and demand. As long as they are in less supply, advertisers paying premiums for them will stay in place. I think people get sensitive about it because ages come into play, and I find that unfortunate, but unavoidable.
Robert – although I’m commited to only 4-5 shows a week right now and some late night syndicated shows…I hear people waaaaay younger than me watch 8 shows a week.
I don’t see my self watching that much more TV in 6 years- if i do it’s DVD’s.
ooops – I think my last 2 comments were for Andrea…LOL…maybe I need glasses now…or I need to pay attention more…sorry Andrea!
Andrea…well I guess I won’t matter in 6 years…
Robert and Andrea, I understand the thinking about the 50+ crowd. Let’s take brand loyalty for example. My father was a “Chevy” man. One after another. He was born in 1916 and that is the generation these “prejudices” are based on. I bought a Chevy, then I was one of the first to buy a Mitsubishi, then I bought 3 Chryslers – not because it was a Chrysler but because I liked the convertible! Now I have a Toyota – I am 57 y.o. The theory doesn’t hold water.
My friends (who are the same general age) are the same way – more so than I – they rush out to get the latest and greatest gadget AND to buy them for their children. We all are way computer savvy; into cell phones and texting; and iPods; and digital cameras and the latest car – at the same time we are buying and selling houses and fixing them up and redoing this and that and taking vacations — we are spending and spending. And I can tell you, you won’t find many of them in front of the TV but you will find them out having dinner or dancing or at the movies; at concerts or sports events – that’s why we all have DVRs hooked up to our flat screen TVs!
The ratings “theories” are just wrong and need to be thrown out. I am NOT my parents. I watched TV last night – I watched DVDs that I purchased because there is not a darn thing on TV that I want to watch except the news and weather.
I liked New Amsterdam – but I watched it on my computer. I watch so much on my PC, I am thinking of hooking it up to the big screen.
I glad that 24 did good, but for being off the air so long, i expected a little bigger numbers.
Does anybody know what type of numbers 24 had 2 years ago? Anybody?
Those numbers are below the last seasons average: around 13 million. Why would FOX be happy if the big premiere last year garned 15.7million and this time garned 12.187(12.2)3.5million less than last season’s season premiere and this was a movie (which i bet was heavily advertised: it is in the UK).
During its sixth season (January to May 2007), 24 averaged roughly 12.7 million viewers, according to the numbers I have. Season Five (January to May 2006) averaged 13.8 million viewers. So, if Season Seven averages 11.6 million viewers, we’re all set.
Not wait that was season six’s premiere ratings sorry
And that was right… i’m sorry again… i should read further on the sources
N2N2, “the TV industry doesn’t care if 11 million folks watch a show. They only care that 11 million and 1 people watch their show rather than shows on the other channels. It could be a total of 20 people. LOL. Like any game 21-20 gets you a WIN – and you get to rake in the biggest bucks for your advertising second.”
Not so. They all want to get the most viewers they can get in any valuable age demo graphic category their advertisers want. The idea of “scoring” more than the competition might serve to motivate the troops, and provide fodder for folks like us to write about, but it’s not the networks real objective.
i doubt if the big movie can only hold 11.72 til 10:00pm the series can manage 11.6: but i guess we’ll have to wait til januray.
They all want to get the most viewers they can get in any valuable age demo graphic category their advertisers want. The idea of “scoring” more than the competition might serve to motivate the troops, and provide fodder for folks like us to write about, but it’s not the networks real objective.
Exactly so, Bill. Some people can’t grasp this and I’m not sure why. If ABC averages a million 18-49 year olds and CBS has only 200,000 — it’s not vastly different for ABC than if it had the same million while CBS had a million too. One scenario is very, very different for CBS, but for ABC, the story is almost (but perhaps not exactly) idenitical in both scenarios, at least beyond bragging rights.
Nice numbers for 24 considering the long layoff and stiff competition. Of the Fox drama shows, House took a bigger hit from the previous year. I believe they hit 16-18 million any given week last year to only premiere to 12 million this year. Anyway, can’t be a coincidence football took a hit the same night 24 was on. 24 could’ve nearly edged the 18-49 demo if SNF was off air. I’d be interested to see what the numbers will be like when the Live+7 Day is released. Those season viewer averages sound about right for 24. Season 6 took a huge hit during the later half of the season. I think the finale barley brought in 9-10 million viewers. If 24 can maintain 10-12 million viewers each week for a serialized show, Fox would feel grateful.
S, I think your cause and effect for the football ratings is questionable. More likely that “football took a hit the same night the Dallas Cowboys weren’t on“
“Andrea, I don’t believe the thinking is that they spend more. Only that they are less available.”
Robert, the following quote is from a CBS.com article that discusses this issue. It’s 3 years old, but I believe still relevant:
“In fact, some programs are positively 50-plus averse. If you have statistics that show you are watched by that demographic, it’s like kryptonite to advertisers. They don’t want to be uncool. The notion that one day is a knife edge between cool and uncool, between consumer and Alzheimer’s, is ridiculous.
But, says Bowen, it’s long been the reality for those who make and sell commercials, based on the belief that the 18 to 49 year old population, some 120 million Americans, is where the money is. Advertisers also believe younger viewers are more impressionable, more susceptible to advertising, and more willing than their parents to try new things.”
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/11/04/sunday/main1015763.shtml
It’s simple. All the hot female performers on a performance heavy AMA’s brought in the young males viewers. They promoted the ladies heavily and it worked.
Andrea, I believe that article was wrong even then. People stupidly (though quite naturally) get overly sensitive about the age issues and go looking for reasons based on ageism. But it’s not ageism, it’s supply and demand. People over 50 are sensitive about it, I’m not (quite yet) over 50, but I won’t be sensitive about it then either.
Robert,
maybe I’m not getting the supply and demand reasoning. The 50+ crowd is bigger, and according to this article, has more discretionary income and less brand loyalty than the 18-49 crowd. If 50+ makes up the majority of the viewing audience and it has the most money, why would you try so hard to market to a niche group that watches less TV, doesn’t have as much money to spend and is more brand loyal?
Andrea, it’s simply the availability of TV eyeballs.
For CBS, ABC, NBC, Fox and CW, this season to date, total average prime-time Live+SD:
Adults 18-49: 17.06 million
Under 18 + Over 50: 22.17 million (sadly, we don’t have the data to separate this group)
Does it make sense that it should cost more/member to reach the larger group or the smaller group?
Edit: And it’s the very fact they watch TV less than >50, that makes the 18-49 demo more expensive to reach.
Does it matter why the advertisers want that demo? The fact is they do, and that’s where TV success is decided. Arguing here that the advertisers are stupid for wanting 18-49 year olds is not going to make it any less of a fact.
Julia — no. It’s simple supply and demand. they are valued more *only* because of less availability. if there was as much 18-49 viewing as 50+, we probably wouldn’t make any distinction at all.
Bill, some people won’t get it because they can’t grasp the most SIMPLE economic theory. There is no helping them. Others won’t grasp it because they are over 50 and overly sensitive. We can try, and try, and try to explain it but people who can’t grasp it, won’t grasp it, and people who are overly sensitive about their age aren’t going to change either.
“Does it make sense that it should cost more/member to reach the larger group or the smaller group?”
The larger group if they are the ones with the purse strings. Sorry, I flunked the test. :/
Andrea, like I said, what does it matter if the reasoning doesn’t make sense to you? It is what it is and you saying how senseless it is won’t make it not true.
Andrea, stop a second and use your noggin, please. the larger group with the bigger purse strings are EASY TO ADVERTISE TO IN *EVERY* day part.
go take economics 101, the most very basic of economics courses and then think about the situation the way it actually is, instead of getting overly sensitive because you feel like you’re in an “excluded class”.
It’s *not* like that. you’re just in a very available class. it’s not your fault.
Speaking as someone in the over 50 crowd, I have to say the emphasis on 18-49 year olds hasn’t really caused me any grief. Yet. So far I haven’t had any trouble finding enough programming to fill three to four hours every Sunday thru Friday night. In fact, I usually record at least an hour or two every night Sunday thru Thursday (besides watching some shows on-line). However, I do find that the shows I like are tending to fall more and more on the Cancel side of the Renew/Cancel Index (go figure). Currently, there are 15 shows on the Renew side and 19 on the cancel side that I watch every week. That’s only for the scripted portion of the index since, other than the football related programs, I watch nothing on the unscripted list.
I only share this because I think it would be quite ironic if the networks/advertisers became so successful in their pursuit of the 18-49 demographic that the 50+ eyeballs become the hardest to reach. Admittedly, that’s not very likely to happen, especially when one considers the “Graying of America”.
This whole demographics discussion has been both entertaining and educational, but it brings to my mind one question. (If this has already been asked an answered on this site, please excuse the repeat.) If advertisers only worry about reaching the 18-49 year olds, why does Nielsen continue to measure and report the number of total viewers? Is it because it doesn’t cost any more to measure, tabulate, and report this info? Or is it because certain advertisers are actually seeking the older viewers? I mean, how much Viagra, Cialis, Fosamax, Boniva and Depends Undergarments can you sell to someone who is 18-49 years old?
Julia,
In the end, it probably doesn’t matter. These arguments are just academic until the ad industry decides to change.
Robert,
you can stop yelling through the screen. I understand what you and Bill are
saying. For example, McDonald’s has research showing those in the 18-49 demo are more likely to purchase Big Macs than those 50+. It would make sense to pay a premium for an ad spot for a show with a high percentage in the 18-49 demo.
However, what if most companies realize that, like TV viewership, their customer is the aging Boomer. What’s the point of advertising to the 18-49 if 1)that is no longer their customer base, and 2) it costs them more money?
Robert, I don’t want you to blow your top, so I’ll not speak anymore on the subject for now
Sorry I had to work and missed all this. I think you are all right in a way. Robert is right about it being easier to advertise to over 50’s than to get the eyeballs of the younger generation, but Andrea is definitely right that a lack of brand loyalty is one big reason why companies go after younger viewers in the first place. That is Advertising 101. People who are still drinking Coke at 50 are not going to switch to Sprite. There’s never been a soft drink commericial or a beer commericial made for people over 50 for good reason. People over 50 aren’t switching. If people over 50 were willing to switch, then with their numbers all advertising in the world would be devoted to them.
But Robert is right, too, when he says that reaching people under a certain age is darn near impossible these days, and that is what makes it worth paying a premium to those shows that can do so. Right now 18-49 seems to be the big number, but I bet a lot of companies are more focused on 18-34, and as the years go by, I predict that number will just get lower and lower.
And the people who say TV is fragmented are also right. However, while there are more people watching shows if you look across the board, and despite the rise in scripted programming on basic cable, people watching anything other than scripted shows predominate right now. Except for a very small portion of the day, all those hundreds of niche networks out there are combining to drain the broadcast nets to death. And that’s a huge number of people that the broadcast networks will never, ever get back.
But also remember that a lot of that increase in total eyeballs includes a lot of people who never watched much broadcast television to begin with. The people who watch wall-to-wall news, or who watch only Discovery type programming, or whatever subset of niche viewers who only really watch programming in their niche you want to pick, those are people who probably would not have watched a lot of television at all 30-40 years ago.
Any way you slice it, however, the reality is that broadcast networks have lost a gigantic slice of the pie that they will never see again, and that is going to continue to affect the amount of scripted programming we see, because scripted programming is far and away more expensive to produce and less likely to be sucessful over time than all the other forms of programming. It’s also the one form of programming that’s nearly impossible to schedule with any confidence. You just never know what scripted show is going to catch on with people.
Also, broadcast networks really are being hurt by the proliferation of networks that get cable fees on top of what is becoming a level playing field for ad dollars. That’s a valid obstacle for them, and one of the few that is not self created. A few of these cable nets are charging as nearly as much for their advertising time as are the broadcast nets, and during some hours they are able to charge more. Sometimes much more. And many of the other, smaller cable nets are simply much more profitable than the broadcast nets are from a return on investment perspective.
My opinion is that the only way the broadcast nets are going to survive long term at all is to radically alter their models. Right now they have the resources to corner the market on quality programming, but they are going to have to relax their broadcast standards as a first step, and hire more people in a network capacicty whose specialty is the creative side of the business. Throwing darts at the wall as a show development strategy is not going to work any longer. Nor will continuing to allow predominantly middle aged white men with specialty business backgrounds to make creative decisions. That combination has proven to be a recipe for disaster.
Will that happen? I don’t know. Probably at least one or two of them will manage to transform themselves and become a new kind of television juggernaught that we’ve never seen before. The others will eventually become smaller scale specialty networks more akin to a cable network, or they will go out of business entirely, perhaps to reemerge as an actual cable network at some point, so they can start getting those valuable cable subscription fees.
In the meantime, however, it sucks to be a viewer like me, because I like almost nothing on broadcast television, and everything I do like keeps getting canceled. I am defintely out of step with the mainstream broadcast television taste standard.
“Not so with the younger viewers, they simply don’t watch as much TV as the 50+ crowd and so there is a premium on their eyeballs. It really is just supply and demand — nothing nefarious or ageist about it.”
So in reality the advertisers make an educated guess on what the young viewers will watch. Now, I am 22, and watch maybe little to no tv. the shows I watch/watched are usually the lower in the young age demographics. And in my opinion my age group/ generation are some of the most worthless people, who want everything anyways, so why advertise? they are going to go after what makes them look good.
like al lot of people said before. the networks need to realize that we`re not in the 80’s anymore. back then , there were only 3 huge networks that EVERYONE watched. And even though cable existed, it wasn`t as popular as it is today.
I believe the networks should air more national programming, and relying less on the local affiliates (like UNIVISION does) That way they’ll be able to promote their shows nationally all day, every day.
Andrea, I’m sorry for shouting. I’ll just be blunt: I do find it somewhat annoying that sometimes people who over 50 feel put out (there is no outcry on this topic from the under 50 crowd). McDonald’s also has the research that shows more 50+ year olds eat Big Macs than 18-24 year olds, but McDonalds need do no advertising at all for that trend to hold for at least the next 10 years.
Targeted advertising existed long before the ability to measure it. 40 years ago, as now, toys were heavily pushed during Saturday morning programming for obvious reasons. Nielsen wasn’t measuring age demos yet, no senior citizens felt put out by it, and I doubt there was any relative premium paid for these eyeballs (I doubt it now, too)
But 40 years ago, you didn’t need to measure or pay premiums for targeting adults. There was ABC, CBS and NBC and some local independents and no matter where you advertised in network primetime, you automatically reached *all* adults!
I’ve always wondered if the Networks air a national feed “live”, or if they just send the signal to their affiliates with 2 or 3 hours of anticipation.(except for live broadcasts), so they (the affiliates) can have the time to include the local commercials, and not interrupt the national commercials.
I really want to know this, because sometimes I wonder, how is it that some affiliates manage to put local commercials in between national commercials, DO THEY INTERRUPT THE NATIONAL COMMERCIALS???? , DO THE NETWORKS LEAVE a 30 second “free” space for local commercials?????
I hope someone understands my question. (I’m still working on my english, haha)
Ljo, it’s not that the advertisers only worry about 18-49 year olds. I think it just shakes out (for now) that it is in the aggregate what drives success during primetime. Nielsen measures just about every age slice imaginable. We get access to some of the data, but not by every discrete age. But if you wanted to target 19 year olds, you could buy the data that would tell you the best shows to advertise on to reach them. I suspect Schmokey is right about it going younger. Even now, the 18-49 demographic is very misleading in that the 35-49 crowd tracks closer with the 50+ crowd than the 18-34 year old viewers do. But they are all mashed together into the 18-49, which at least for now generally seems to be how the networks (except the CW) set ad prices.
Cesarrr, back in the glory days when I could get the national feeds via satellite there was not “dead air” for the spaces that the local affiliates wind up programming. But I don’t know if that’s still the case these days.
I asked this because an earlier post said that one local fox affiliate dind`t show a promo for TERMINATOR:SARAH CONNOR, and instead showed a promo of their local news.
I am so glad that I found this site. I am 55 yrs old and live in England – I’m originally from the USA. I have gotten so frustrated these past couple of years when I would invest time in watching and getting to know an American series when it is shown on TV over here, only to find that it had been cancelled.
I understand the demographic/economic issues behind cancellation of shows and by using this site, I can decide whether or not to get involved with an American scripted show. I specifically am talking about Chuck, Sarah Connor and Pushing Daisies, here, among others. I have decided not to watch their new seasons.
The time lag is very short between 24 being shown in America and it being shown in England (Rupert Murdock owns Fox and Sky) and seeing that 24’s ratings are good, I’ll be investing my time in the news series in January. The reviews that I have read about the recent 2 hour ’special’ aren’t bad and I have recorded it on my Tivo, but I have’t watched it yet.
People like N2N2 talk about tossing out current ratings system. But they never say what it will be replaced with? Nielsen and other companies have continued to enhance ratings but so many of those projects failed because they cost too much to produce. Anyone expecting advertisers to simply dump Nielsen and rely on reading tea leaves, chicken entrails and a few hundred fans sending peanuts to a network are not being realistic. People have been moaning about the flaws of Nielsen for decades – they are still the gold standard in the ad world.
CSI is considered “entertainment” by 2-3 times as many people as Jericho was. Im not a fan of CSI but at least its entertaining and informative and makes people think by solving the crimes before the culprit is revealed; and not mindless reality drivel like American Idol, game shows or Dancing with C-list Stars. About the only shows I still watch are Fringe, LOST and the doomed Sarah Conner (which will only be around because T4 is coming out in the Spring). I still also watch Heroes but its become a total mess and Im not sure why I still watch it.
Serial dramas are having a hard time due to the ever shrinking attention spans of viewers – people want their shows wrapped up in 30-60 minutes. For serial dramas to survive they must cut costs drastically. People today are busy and dont want to have to remember what happened last week. I see this trend only getting worse. Even Cartoon network has adult cartoons that only 15 minutes long; wonder how long until this infects network TV.
Not trying to restart any fires around here, but when it comes to age demographics and advertisers, I was thinking about another factor that might be considered. Companies don’t just want to reach the biggest audience, they want to reach the biggest audience that is most susceptible to brand switching. Older viewers are most likely set in their ways, and while there may be more of them watching TV, they’re less likely to switch to brands they don’t know. I think that’s why shows that pull huge young audiences can charge so much for ads, these are potential new customers. For example, Apple can advertise the iPhone to baby boomers all day, but I would imagine it’s the younger crowd they have more luck in getting to drop their other cell phone provider and switch over.
Anyway, it’s a theory.
Robert, it’s not about being sensitive about being over 50; nor is it about not “getting it” – I understand the law of supply and demand. My point is that the population over 50 is greatly larger than the 18-49 demo, therefore, it stands to reason that there are more people of that age group watching a show simply because there are more of them.
My objection is that people who are in their 50s now are not like people who were in their 50’s 10 or 20 years ago. We do “change our ways” – we are much “younger” in attitude and behavior than folks in their 50’s were a couple of decades ago, but this is not recognized. I don’t really care which category I’m put into for advertisers except with regard to how it affects the life of a TV show.
If the TV/advertising industry can’t figure out that the 18-34 y.o. (which, as you point out, is where the break should be) can’t be reached by advertising on TV, then let me tell them – You can’t reach that demo because they are not watching TV in the conventional method. They either DVR it or watch online or download the content they are interested in, but that doesn’t count. So they continually whack shows because they are not being watched by a particular group in the conventional manner.
As you mentioned, the break should be 19-34; and then 35-60; 60+ Add to that, that DVR +3 and +7 should also count.
The fact that a smaller number of people garners more $$$ for an advertising second IS the reason TV shows are gettng whacked so quickly because the networks want to be the one that wins 20-21 in that category. I get it. All I’m saying is – go ahead networks; keep it up. A show gets whacked because it did not reach the 18-49 demo and therefore the network did not garner the biggest return on investment by charging the highest advertising dollar per second against the cost of producing the show. BUT they will never reach the 18-49 (18-34) demo because those folks don’t do TV by appointment.
Got news for you neither do I nor any of my friends. Why should we when all this technology is available to us?
Another thing that drives advertisers is the demographic makeup of their customers. Why do you see beer & truck ads during football? That’s when young male beer drinkers and truck buyers watch TV.
N2N2 — you feel unfairly excluded and as a result are sensitive about it — so sensitive that it muddles up your thinking. If you’re in denial about it, that’s fine.
My objection is that people who are in their 50s now are not like people who were in their 50’s 10 or 20 years ago. We do “change our ways” – we are much “younger” in attitude and behavior than folks in their 50’s were a couple of decades ago, but this is not recognized.
those are the words of someone who is sensitive about the classifications. I am not sensitive about the classifications. And that sensitivity leads your thinking to be cloudy and muddled and make the mistake of blaming the networks and make foolish statements like “go ahead networks, keep it up” as if it’s the *networks* who drive the advertising market, and not the advertisers themselves.
Bill, the NFL games are gold mines for *all* the adult male demos and all the age groups are nicely represented with advertising. You see beer, fast food, trucks, cars, financial services, insurance, viagra/cialis, iphones…
But not a tampon ad to be found. They are discriminating against us females! There are less of us so we should be the hot commodity! Or something.
Julia, you might actually be on to something. I skimmed at the gender data for Sunday Night Football (not last Sunday, but the week before — Dallas vs. Washington). In both the 18-49 and 18-34 female demos, Sunday Night Football beat everything on broadcast Sunday night *except* Desperate Housewives and Brothers & Sisters.
I too am glad that Jack is back. i hope this season rocks especially with the possibilities of a 24 movie looming larger than ever considering how well it did on Sunday. They have only had one really poor season(last) and should recover nicely. Just as long as they bring me in to write for it;)