quote:

Originally posted by TV-aholic:
I wouldn't say that CBS is "Out of Touch" with the advertisers. This NY Times articel from last year places CBS on top going into this season ("CBS Leads in Ad Commitments for Fall Season")

I believe it was $2.5 billion in upfront money for this current season.

quote:

Originally posted by Obveeus:

quote:

Originally posted by TV-aholic:
A quote from Leslie Moonves

I guess this means that CBS will continue to be out of touch with the viewers that advertisers are willing to pay the most for.

I said they were out of touch with the viewers, not the advertisers. Your reference shows that a year ago (now obsolete), CBS was preceived to be giving the advertisers the viewers that those advertisers wanted. There will not be that preception this year at upfronts. Instead, CBS will have to spend its time explaining why it is bleeding those valuable demo viewers faster than the other big networks.

And both of those shows draw only about 4.5 - 5 million. T:SCC was drawing 8 million and GROWING from its lead in.

I would suspect that there is not 1 new show from this season that did not lose viewers over the course of the season.

quote:

Originally posted by robert:

quote:

Originally posted by TV-aholic:

quote:

Originally posted by robert:

quote:

Originally posted by TV-aholic:
Really? Was it really a bomb???

It did averge over 8 million viewers and over a 3.0 in the demo.

quote:

Originally posted by robert:
FOX must be drugged or something if they want to renew SCC which was the bomb of the season alongside VL

As i said before, from a 40 million lead-in to get in just 7 weeks to 8 million is a bomb. If SCC would've been treated like Canterbury and it would've got 8 million thatn i would've agreed with those saying it's a success

So, the real numbers don't matter, its how it got there that does matter?

No one is saying T:SCC is a hit or anything. It did well enough to get a second look and has the potential to grow.

I could easily name a dozen, or two, shows from this season that performed worse than T:SCC.

Of course that counts. Look at SW. It's pretty much dead without DWTS. Or look at B&S, is doing very bad without DH

If they are out of touch with the viewers, why do they draw more than ABC and NBC?

If they are out of touch with the Demo viewers, why are they only 0.1 ratings point behind ABC and NBC for the season, despite airing mostly repeats for the last 3 months?

quote:

Originally posted by Obveeus:

quote:

Originally posted by TV-aholic:
I wouldn't say that CBS is "Out of Touch" with the advertisers. This NY Times articel from last year places CBS on top going into this season ("CBS Leads in Ad Commitments for Fall Season")

I believe it was $2.5 billion in upfront money for this current season.

quote:

Originally posted by Obveeus:

quote:

Originally posted by TV-aholic:
A quote from Leslie Moonves

I guess this means that CBS will continue to be out of touch with the viewers that advertisers are willing to pay the most for.

I said they were out of touch with the viewers, not the advertisers. Your reference shows that a year ago (now obsolete), CBS was preceived to be giving the advertisers the viewers that those advertisers wanted. There will not be that preception this year at upfronts. Instead, CBS will have to spend its time explaining why it is bleeding those valuable demo viewers faster than the other big networks.

BTW when i first red today the news about CW's 90210 spin-off i was vey negative. But reading the media coverage of the news now i think this project might be a winning bet for CW. But only if CW is very clever about this project. And we all know who runs CW i'm afraid

quote:

Originally posted by Obveeus:

quote:

Originally posted by TV-aholic:
I wouldn't say that CBS is "Out of Touch" with the advertisers. This NY Times articel from last year places CBS on top going into this season ("CBS Leads in Ad Commitments for Fall Season")

I believe it was $2.5 billion in upfront money for this current season.

quote:

Originally posted by Obveeus:

quote:

Originally posted by TV-aholic:
A quote from Leslie Moonves

I guess this means that CBS will continue to be out of touch with the viewers that advertisers are willing to pay the most for.

I said they were out of touch with the viewers, not the advertisers. Your reference shows that a year ago (now obsolete), CBS was preceived to be giving the advertisers the viewers that those advertisers wanted. There will not be that preception this year at upfronts. Instead, CBS will have to spend its time explaining why it is bleeding those valuable demo viewers faster than the other big networks.

Out of touch with the viewers? Is this a joke? If the most watched network is out of touch with the wiewers what can you say about the other networks?

quote:

Originally posted by TV-aholic:
If they are out of touch with the viewers, why do they draw more than ABC and NBC?

As was stated: 'they are out of touch with the viewers that advertisers are willing to pay the most for'

[/quote]If they are out of touch with the Demo viewers, why are they only 0.1 ratings point behind ABC and NBC for the season [/quote] Because they are more out of touch than ABC and NBC.

When upfronts come around, CBS is going to be asked about trends. CBS is trending downward faster than the other big networks. No doubt, CBS will claim that the trend means nothing because of the writer's strike. Maybe the advertisers will buy that. Maybe it is even correct. In either case, Moonves will have to keep his mouth shut rather than spewing out his claim that the advertisers are wrong to value the younger demo. His spew won't change their mind about what to value, but it will change their mind about CBS's ability to counteract their current downward spiral with those valuable viewers. Upfront money is spent based upon perception for ratings going forward. Having a network lead claim that young viewers don't matter will not help CBS's cause.

quote:

Originally posted by mushu_jj:

quote:

Originally posted by robert:

quote:

Originally posted by Obveeus:

quote:

Originally posted by robert:

quote:

Originally posted by Obveeus:

quote:

Originally posted by TV-aholic:
A quote from Leslie Moonves

I guess this means that CBS will continue to be out of touch with the viewers that advertisers are willing to pay the most for.

CBS doesn't mind that but you are. Strange.

Do you have stocks or something? Are you losing money?

Your understanding of the world is limited if you believe that only people who own stock in CBS would be able to figure out that CBS is going to make less money with old folks shows than with shows that appeal to an audience that advertisers are willing to pay for.

But what i don't get is why DO YOU care about how well CBS does with the advertisers? As far as i know CBS won't go bankrupt anytime soon. So why are you happier if CBS does better with younger audiences than with older audiences

I don't think Obveeus cares that much. S/he is just stating the truth that CBS won't make as much money and MONEY is what its all about.

A question on this. While of course CBS doesworse in demo compared to its total viewers. But how much of that balances out with how well those shows repeat as well as typically sell better in syndication deals.

Obviously a high demo rated show (a grey's) does great immediately. But it sucks (in comparison) for its repeat, and I wonder how well something like that does in synidcation.

While CSi (for example) does worse int eh demos (though still well), plays strong on repeats, and I wouldn't be surprised if it did well in synidation.

So really which would be the better money maker for the network (on shows they produce)?

quote:

And both of those shows draw only about 4.5 - 5 million. T:SCC was drawing 8 million and GROWING from its lead in.

But SCC costs more to make, was far more expensively promoted, was up against easier competition, and ONLY RAN NINE EPISODES. It dropped very very quickly, and there's no reason to think it's stabilized, given that even its heavily hyped finale failed to rise significantly. There's just not a lot of interest in the general population. And there's no reason to think it's going to run long enough to have any kind of decent syndication package, particularly since it's serialized, which makes syndication prospects dodgy at best.

quote:

I would suspect that there is not 1 new show from this season that did not lose viewers over the course of the season.

How many fell from 18.36 million viewers and 7.7 in the demo to (for the penultimate hour) 7.75 million viewers and 3.0 in the demo--in the course of nine episodes? After being touted constantly during the most-watched Superbowl broadcast ever?

Honestly, it's WORSE than Viva Laughlin--nobody wanted to see that in the first place, or had ever heard of the British show it was based on.

This was something everybody had heard of, and lots of people were interested in, and it was the show itself that failed. And will go on failing. But this is the failure of the FOX execs who greenlit SCC, and gambled a lot of money on it, even more than it's the failure of the creative personnel, who could probably have made a perfectly decent mediocre action series for the SciFi Channel, though they'd have obviously had to cut costs by about two thirds.

SCC is a proven mistake--and TV execs don't like admitting their mistakes any more than online fangeeks.

Or politicians.

quote:

Originally posted by robert:

quote:

Originally posted by TV-aholic:

quote:

Originally posted by robert:

quote:

Originally posted by TV-aholic:
Really? Was it really a bomb???

It did averge over 8 million viewers and over a 3.0 in the demo.

quote:

Originally posted by robert:
FOX must be drugged or something if they want to renew SCC which was the bomb of the season alongside VL

As i said before, from a 40 million lead-in to get in just 7 weeks to 8 million is a bomb. If SCC would've been treated like Canterbury and it would've got 8 million thatn i would've agreed with those saying it's a success

So, the real numbers don't matter, its how it got there that does matter?

No one is saying T:SCC is a hit or anything. It did well enough to get a second look and has the potential to grow.

I could easily name a dozen, or two, shows from this season that performed worse than T:SCC.

Of course that counts. Look at SW. It's pretty much dead without DWTS. Or look at B&S, is doing very bad without DH

Why the audience fled after SAMANTHA WHO after DWTS ended remains a mystery with me. If they could be bothered watching it then why not a week later when the dancing was over?

SAMANTHA WHO is the best ABC sitcom to come out of the network since TOWNIES in 1996! Why it didn't do better is a complete puzzle.

Your comment was extremely flawed, so I corrected.

quote:

Originally posted by A.C.:
ABC is also giving DIRTY SEXY MONEY-the worst best show of the new season a relaunch this fall. Yeah!!!

quote:

Originally posted by robert:
BTW when i first red today the news about CW's 90210 spin-off i was vey negative. But reading the media coverage of the news now i think this project might be a winning bet for CW. But only if CW is very clever about this project. And we all know who runs CW i'm afraid

Dawn Ostroff...makes my blood boil she wants The CW a CHICKY network than being both (Male and Female)! I want "SmackDown!" on The CW, but where SD! is I will follow that show no matter what network it goes.

quote:

Why the audience fled after SAMANTHA WHO after DWTS ended remains a mystery with me. If they could be bothered watching it then why not a week later when the dancing was over?

SAMANTHA WHO is the best ABC sitcom to come out of the network since TOWNIES in 1996! Why it didn't do better is a complete puzzle.

It didn't have enough time with the DWTS lead-in to build an independent audience. It is a typical "hammock" show that holds a lead-in fairly well, but didn't draw the same amount of viewers on its own. NBC is the 90s was littered with such shows -- some good, some bad -- hammocked on Thursdays between their 8pm and 9pm hit comedies and 10pm hit drama. Shows like Wings, Different World, Suddenly Susan, etc. I think SW can do better than those shows on its own, but needs another full year before it's ready to stand on its own.

quote:

Originally posted by Josh_Kane:
Dawn Ostroff...makes my blood boil she wants The CW a CHICKY network than being both (Male and Female)!

Because our demographic is best represented by females.

quote:

Originally posted by xwiseguyx:
Your comment was extremely flawed, so I corrected.

quote:

Originally posted by A.C.:
ABC is also giving DIRTY SEXY MONEY-the worst best worst show of the new season a relaunch this fall. Yeah!!!

The best is PUSHING DAISIES!

90210 spinoff? Wow I need to start pitching my ideas somewhere. Sadly I know no one to pitch them to. Where is no longer bored striker at? I need him to be my in guy.