Anyone following our TV show DVD sales posts, our cable show ratings, or Robert’s foray into DVD sales sociology would know about the popularity and financial success of HBO’s True Blood, and now the New York Times has found it too, and provided some interesting numbers for us.
In the three episodes measured so far this, its second, season, “True Blood” has amassed viewer totals that any network, including broadcast networks, would be excited to own: 12.1 million, 10 million and 10.3 million. And HBO has attracted those viewers from an audience base about a third the size of fully distributed networks.
This season, “True Blood” has a first-run Sunday night audience of about 3.6 million, up from two million for last season.
Again with the claim of broadcast networks being exited about much lower numbers from a cable show. Robert pointed out earlier that was just silly. What’s the TV press drinking these days? Send a round over to us.
HBO counts audiences across all the platforms that wind up offering the episodes: a repeat on HBO itself, repeats on HBO2 and its video-on-demand channel, replays on digital video recorders and downloads from iTunes.
That is how the numbers grow to more than 10 million. (For perspective, “The Sopranos” finished its first run with a Sunday night audience of 11.9 million, which grew to 14.2 million with the extra viewers added in.
This point is an important one for folks to understand concerning where those big (10+ million numbers come from in HBO press releases and stories). It’s not individual episodes, but aggregate for an entire week. You can’t compare those numbers on an apples to apples basis with broadcast numbers, although occasionally advertising supported cable does quote aggregate numbers for their shows.
There is no direct relationship between successful shows on HBO and the network’s subscription base; that has remained relatively stable (about 29 million to 30 million) through the feast years of “The Sopranos” and the famine that followed.
But hit series are what keeps up HBO’s reputation as being talked-about around the water cooler, which is one crucial part of its business model.
That’s a relevant point about HBO’s business model, it cares only about getting subscriptions. If you subscribe to even watch a single show, they’re happy. What was also interesting to me, if it’s true, is that HBO’s subscriber base has remained relatively stable post-Sopranos. (however the number of people that *could* subscribe has increased, so their take up rate has fallen).
Showtime, HBO’s chief pay-cable competitor, draws much smaller audiences for its hits: about 3.3 million viewers this year (including all platforms) for the long-running comedy “Weeds,” and about 3.1 million for the critically lauded new half-hour series “Nurse Jackie” which features Edie Falco, a former “Sopranos” star.
Some perspective (and likely an HBO dig) on rival Showtime’s recent numbers. The NY Times story mentions that inside Showtime they’d begun referring to HBO as “HB-Over. HBO PR has got to be feasting on this story.
How many more subscribers does HBO have over Showtime? I have to imagine the number is substantial.
Both Showtime and HBO have great summer lineups. True Blood, Hung, and Entourage on Sunday. Then Weeds and Nurse Jackie on Monday. All great shows that I look forward to every week.
Chief, HBO 30.7 million, Showtime 19.2 million.
http://tvbythenumbers.com/2009/02/02/nielsen-cable-network-coverage-estimates-october-2008-update/11985
The only reason i would subscribe to showtime would be for Dexter, while HBO has alot of fantastic shows to watch (True Blood, The life and times of Tim, Big Love etc).
I am amazed Showtime can even continue as a channel after they lost access to Paramount movies. Showtime does not air any major movies anymore. They have great original tv series but the movies they air now have very limited appeal to the general public. HBO has access Warner Bros. 20th Century Fox, and Univeral movies. Has any heard anything new about Paramount’s new EPIX movie channel that is suppose to come this fall?
Instead of paying for Showtime, I just buy Dexter on DVD. Much easier IMO.
I just fear that this is going to usher in a whole new wave of vampire projects, despite the fact that the genre was really really tired even ten years ago…
And I literally heard an editor say, “The werewolf is the new vampire!”
Oh, Lord…
I Think that there are several interesting points in this article.
“But hit series are what keeps up HBO’s reputation as being talked-about around the water cooler, which is one crucial part of its business model. HBO’s profit is estimated at $1.3 billion a year.
The first signs that “True Blood” was working were evident in DVD sales of the first season, which, according to HBO executives, reached about one million, again HBO’s highest for a series since “The Sopranos.” ”
“Of course, as Mr. Baldwin pointed out, it did not hurt that “True Blood” came along exactly as another vampire series, the “Twilight” books and film, was exploding.
“I’d never even heard of the ‘Twilight’ books when we got started,” Mr. Ball said. But he added he is perfectly willing to run with the trend.
“It is sort of vampire time,” he said.”
lifetime had a vampire show that aired before Moonlight, before True Blood, and before Twilight that they turned their backs on. Hope their kicking their own butts as we speak. Can you say-Don’t know a trend if it kicked you in the ass?
Buffy and Angel anyone?
could it be shows about bloodsuckers always get decent numbers that can survive on a cable or niche network as long as it is not terrible, look moonlight got 7-8 million on cbs, years ago btvs got up 7 million and angel also got respectable numbers, there is just a dedicated fan base for these types of shows
Since I failed to mention it previously the show that lifetime turned their backs on was BLOOD TIES.
True Blood might go down in HBO’s history as its 3rd most successful show of all time. Maybe even a distant 2nd behind The Sopranos.
I’m serious about that!
maggiemay, bloodties was totally boring. even the vampire/romance thing couldn´t save it. (and the female pi going blind part was totally useless imho)
moonlight was not so great imho too.
true blood is kind of the only vampire show i have seen so far that brought new exitement to the vampire theme since the first seasons of buffy. it is a little strange and gritty and manages to surprise imho. the rest were all very predictable variations of the vampire/human romance plot that is the backbone of all vampire storys i know.
plus True Blood is better than all those other vamp shows as it adds the sex and erotic elements to it, unlike the other network and cable shows. It combines the alternate-reality just like Heroes and Kings with an added sexual and gritty element.
You all are entitled to your opinions but there are plenty of people out there that would disagree with you. I’ve read the True Blood books and HBO really hasn’t done that great a job with them. HBO fails to realize that sometimes less is more and that you don’t always have to get graphic even though you can. The main character in Blood Ties never whined about being turned which seems to be a common theme with some of the characters in most other shows, including True Blood. He had learned to live with it, wanted to be turned to be with the woman he loved and wanted to live forever.
Blood Ties offered an independent female role model, something that the others don’t seem to offer. Sookie is somewhat independent but ultimately she falls back on Bill to be her knight in shining armor.
Blood Ties wasn’t offed because the show was bad it wasn’t picked up by lifetime as they had no vision and it didn’t fit into the reality show niche they’ve developed. As far as ratings, it had the same ratings as another show that they picked up and expanded into an hour. As far as bringing something new to the game I doubt that you can say that True Blood honestly did it other than in your own opinion as the Blood Books written by Tanya Huff which Blood Ties was based on preceded Buffy, Angel, Moonlight, and True Blood. The airing of the show also preceded all of these other shows too. The problem was lack of promotion of lifetime’s part. HBO had enough money and good timing to cash in on a trend, that doesn’t make True Blood better or worse than any of the other shows that preceded it or that will follow after it’s off.
As a fan of the occult, I’ve always found vampires the least interesting genre, even with Bela Lugosi in them.( Funny,though,asa kid I ranked Dark Shadows right below Twilight Zone reruns and Star Trek.) The modern Harlequin Romance spin causes me to go from uninterested to repelled. But when nine of the top ten USA Today fiction sellers is a ” young adult vampire ” book, as has been the case since at least January, you know when the public is kicking your ass, as an amatuer critic anyway. As for HBO, I’m one of the few who actually did cancel after the Sopranoes ended. ( Also because it was implied Curb Your Enthusiasm was over,too, which turned out to be a false alarm.) I sometimes consider getting HBO back again, but the truly crappy comedy specials and the truly mediocre movie selections hold me back. Showtime? Weeds and Dexter are both way overrated,and that’s all they got.
Maggiemay is right, to each his own preference.
True Blood being considered “better than all the other vamp shows out there” is only relative to the person(s) sharing the opinion. So what may be considered “totally boring” for some was the opposite for others (and Blood Ties, like Moon light, has its own core of dedicated fans to prove it).It’s all a matter of individual tastes.
I was not a big fan of “MoonLight”, but I still watched it!
Besides, imagine this for exmaple, “Blood Ties” could have as easily ended up being done on/by HBO, as “True Blood” could have on Life Time, and then where would be we? If “Buffy” had stayed on the WB and not gotten transfered to UPN in (before UPN/WB became The CW)it’s latter years, might it have survived longer?
Hey, I love both Weeds and Dexter.
I love HBO, and I’m happy for their success with all their current shows, but it just makes me worry more and more about “In Treatment”. I hope they don’t turn their back on that amazing show now that they’re finding success again.
I’m still not seeing how those numbers can be discounted just because HBO repeats the show. While there may be some repeat viewers in there, if over 10 million individuals are watching the show, it is very possible that if viewers did not have the opportunity to catch it one of many times a week, that they would tune in on Sunday night for it’s single airing. Yeah, it’s not an apple to apple comparison, but it’s a far cry from the thought that the show would not be able to get 10 million viewers on a major network (of course, that’s if it could be aired as-is, which it can’t). If CBS aired each episode of NCIS 8 times a week, are the ratings for it’s first airing staying the same? No.
And to respond to the Buffy example… Buffy wasn’t cancelled by UPN as far as I can remember. Contracts were expiring, Gellar was done, and I’m not sure Whedon wanted to stretch it out much longer. Whether UPN would’ve renewed it or not is unknown.
Brandon, if you’re referring to the post, I didn’t mean to discount the numbers, I meant to explain them. Those 10 million-ish is what it is, a cumulative number. It just shouldn’t be compared to individual show airings which are what the vast majority of the numbers reported here, and elsewhere are.
MediaFan – good for you. I think: Weeds is a stupid eye view of the drug world. ( Great cast though, and the ” sexual situations” are some of the best on cable. Dexter? A cop serial killer,or a guy who works for the cops and decides to ” seek justice” is creepy,to say the least, and not in a good way. The lead actor – I forget his name – was fabulous on Six Feet Under. I can’t stand him in this role – because he IS a very goos actor.
BTW, ( didn’t know this category was active today) I am just about to sign up for HBO. This season has been execrable even by summer TV standards of yore. (I always sort of liked Entourage,anyway.) The combination of ” TruBlood(?)” and Hung,which I’ve been reading about, has just about got me opening my wallet, sort of against my better judgment. A comedy about a guy who does what? And his pimp is a sexy older woman? Whatever that says about me, … hey. Basic cable and networks, you’re loss is going to be HBO’s gain, and don’t think that’s not exactly how it is.