Originally posted by TravisYanan: Fast National Ratings for Wednesday, March 5th, 2008. ABC: 10:00pm Men in Trees
TIME NET HH A18-49 Viewers A18-34
10:00 ABC 4.1/7 1.7/5 5,836,000
10:30 ABC 4.0/7 1.5/4 5,640,000
I am both perplexed and downcast at last nights Men in Trees Nielsens.
While it is nice to see some viewer growth from last week (up 1.3% over last weeks FAST national number), the 6% dip in A18-49 is concerning.
I still think ABC needs to do an affiliate clipshow to help the uninitiated catch up on this wonderful dramedy.
And while Supernanny is a dependable ratings gatherer, I'm not sure that any ABC reality series (Dancing with the Stars included) is a good lead-in to their brand of relationship dramas. All last season, What About Brian suffered from a similar retention pattern following Supernanny.
And MIT will go the route of WAB. I think it's time for ABC to pull the plug on this series. I have listened for two years to every excuse possible to explain why people just arent interested in this show. Personnaly, I think people just don't like Anne Heche. That's the reason I have never wanted to see a single episode. To me, she is simply a turn-off, regardless of how cute or quirky or even good the show may be.
quote:
Originally posted by dumont:
quote:
Originally posted by TravisYanan: Fast National Ratings for Wednesday, March 5th, 2008. ABC: 10:00pm Men in Trees
TIME NET HH A18-49 Viewers A18-34
10:00 ABC 4.1/7 1.7/5 5,836,000
10:30 ABC 4.0/7 1.5/4 5,640,000
I am both perplexed and downcast at last nights Men in Trees Nielsens.
While it is nice to see some viewer growth from last week (up 1.3% over last weeks FAST national number), the 6% dip in A18-49 is concerning.
I still think ABC needs to do an affiliate clipshow to help the uninitiated catch up on this wonderful dramedy.
And while Supernanny is a dependable ratings gatherer, I'm not sure that any ABC reality series (Dancing with the Stars included) is a good lead-in to their brand of relationship dramas. All last season, What About Brian suffered from a similar retention pattern following Supernanny.
pisherafferty-free since 2008
Posts: 416 | Location: Los Angeles, CA | Registered: 01 December 2006
Everyone knows that being on any kind of reality show can make you famous (or infamous), at least for a few minutes. But fame isn't really the prize on most reality shows, and I think what the prize is in the minds of the viewers does make a difference.
When people watch Survivor, they aren't dreaming of singing on stage in front of thousands screaming fans, because that's not the prize on this show. The show is about going through hell to win lots of money and such. And, since someone does win the prize, viewers see it as something they can actually do themselves if they went on that show.
When someone watches AI, they are dreaming of being famous, having hit records, sold out concerts, etc. Or, at least, they dream of that happening for the person they spend weeks pulling for and supporting. (Whenever KC has another success, I bet the people who voted for her get a little vicarious thrill.) And, with the success of some of the AI contestants, viewers believe they actually could end up famous if they go on that show.
With ANTM, people watch that show with the idea that the prize is becoming a "top model," and that means being famous, having your name splashed all over the place, signing million-dollar contracts and being on SI covers, etc. And, when they don't see that actually happening with past winners, they start wondering what the point of the show actually is, because no one really seems to be getting the prize.
It's the same with game shows. Viewers watch those because they want to believe they could actually win the big prize (whatever it is) themselves. If no one actually wins, the viewer feels cheated.
Well last year its cycle started with. 5.36 4.46 and both were agains't idol. 5.16 not agains't idol.
In comparison to the two episodes against Idol the show is down 22.30%.
Now in comparison to other CW shows that (haven't changed day and timeslots and were onlast year for hour longs).
Smallville is down 20.21 % Supernatural is down 3.9%
Average viewers for the last thre originals comapred to the year ago. Top Model LY 4.99 million TY 3.74 million Smallville LY 4.80 million TY 3.83 million Supernatural LY 3.08 million TY 2.96 million
I could get WWE ratings and OTH as well, but I don't think either have had slides in viewers to the same degree (though I am less sure about OTH).
Originally posted by yankeesrj12: Just wondering, has ANTM been against AI in the past? If so, what has it's numbers been like?
I think America's Next Top Model's problem this season goes beyond American Idol. It obviously has Idol to deal with but it also has Big Brother pulling some of its 18-49 numbers and Wife Swap pulling on its female audience.
I'm afraid I agree -- MIT is not doing enough to get renewed, and at some point you gotta stop blaming lead-in or scheduling. It has had a chance, but has failed to catch on -- during the strike, there actually aren't many lead-ins better than Supernanny on ABC. It had been their 3rd or 4th highest show for a while.
MIT, WAB, and OR are similar in that they were intriguing at the start, but quickly became formulaic and not particularly appealing. I watched each for parts of their first season, but after a while I lost interest.
quote:
Originally posted by whatsonpop: And MIT will go the route of WAB. I think it's time for ABC to pull the plug on this series. I have listened for two years to every excuse possible to explain why people just arent interested in this show.
quote:
Originally posted by dumont:
quote:
Originally posted by TravisYanan: Fast National Ratings for Wednesday, March 5th, 2008. ABC: 10:00pm Men in Trees
TIME NET HH A18-49 Viewers A18-34
10:00 ABC 4.1/7 1.7/5 5,836,000
10:30 ABC 4.0/7 1.5/4 5,640,000
I am both perplexed and downcast at last nights Men in Trees Nielsens.
While it is nice to see some viewer growth from last week (up 1.3% over last weeks FAST national number), the 6% dip in A18-49 is concerning.
I still think ABC needs to do an affiliate clipshow to help the uninitiated catch up on this wonderful dramedy.
And while Supernanny is a dependable ratings gatherer, I'm not sure that any ABC reality series (Dancing with the Stars included) is a good lead-in to their brand of relationship dramas. All last season, What About Brian suffered from a similar retention pattern following Supernanny.
Originally posted by whatsonpop: And MIT will go the route of WAB. I think it's time for ABC to pull the plug on this series. I have listened for two years to every excuse possible to explain why people just arent interested in this show. Personnaly, I think people just don't like Anne Heche. That's the reason I have never wanted to see a single episode. To me, she is simply a turn-off, regardless of how cute or quirky or even good the show may be.
quote:
Originally posted by dumont:
quote:
Originally posted by TravisYanan: Fast National Ratings for Wednesday, March 5th, 2008. ABC: 10:00pm Men in Trees
TIME NET HH A18-49 Viewers A18-34
10:00 ABC 4.1/7 1.7/5 5,836,000
10:30 ABC 4.0/7 1.5/4 5,640,000
I am both perplexed and downcast at last nights Men in Trees Nielsens.
While it is nice to see some viewer growth from last week (up 1.3% over last weeks FAST national number), the 6% dip in A18-49 is concerning.
I still think ABC needs to do an affiliate clipshow to help the uninitiated catch up on this wonderful dramedy.
And while Supernanny is a dependable ratings gatherer, I'm not sure that any ABC reality series (Dancing with the Stars included) is a good lead-in to their brand of relationship dramas. All last season, What About Brian suffered from a similar retention pattern following Supernanny.
Men In Trees is dead. The only show with lower demos last night was a repeat of Pussycat Dolls. It is not building (or rebuilding) an audience and it's numbers would be bad on any network except the CW
Originally posted by channelserf: With ANTM, people watch that show with the idea that the prize is becoming a "top model,"
The prize is a modeling contract, a covergirl TV commercial , and a photospread spead in a magazine. The winner gets all of those things.
quote:
and that means being famous, having your name splashed all over the place, signing million-dollar contracts and being on SI covers, etc.
I don't buy that any more than the belief that people watching The Apprentice are disappointed when they don't see the winner getting signed on as a CEO of a fortue 500 company.
With all of these shows, the prize is just the prize. With all of these shows, the contestants hope for more...and yes, they almost all are hoping for stardom. With none of these shows, should the fans actually believe that they personally have any shot at winning (or even being on the show). For those that are delusional enough to believe they have an equal shot at winning as the people that make the show, they should have no problem believing that they will get more than the show promicss when they win.
Originally posted by channelserf: With ANTM, people watch that show with the idea that the prize is becoming a "top model,"
The prize is a modeling contract, a covergirl TV commercial , and a photospread spead in a magazine. The winner gets all of those things.
Maybe I should've said "perceived prize," then. No show can promise stardom, it's true. But, when you watch a show called America's Next Top Model, you expect at least one of the winners to go on to become a "top model." If they don't, what's the point.
As someone else said, part of AI's success came from the fact that some of their contestants did become "American Idols." If, after all this time, no one had gone on to achieve any kind of success, and they'd all disappeared into obscurity after being on the show, AI wouldn't have the kinds of ratings it does now.
True, it is only the fault of the people that steal. Unfortunately everyone paid the price.
The same price they were paying before MP3's, the inevitable result of an industry that only cared about money, and cultivated the IMAGES of artists far more than the music itself.
Don't ask me to weep for them--they reaped what they sowed. And things wouldn't be significantly better for most of us if illegal downloading had never caught on.
quote:
No one forced anyone to buy a CD i fthey didn't want to buy it.
True. But honestly, weren't people making mix tapes off the radio a long time before MP3's? Was that stealing too? At some point in time, somebody bought a CD. Then shared it with some people online. If that's stealing, are you guilty of food theft for enjoying the smell of a neighborhood bakery, without actually purchasing their wares?
quote:
If you don't want to own the CD, don't buy it.
Well, they didn't want to own the CD, so they didn't buy it. They did want to listen to one or two songs from it, and found a new way to do that. Some people took it way too far, I'll agree. I just don't agree this has anything to do with the quality of music, which was wretched long before MP3's, and precisely because of the music industry's obsession wit maximizing profits above all else. There used to be people in the music biz who really cared about music, and knew a great deal about it. That mainly isn't true anymore.
quote:
If you want to own a CD for just one song, then consider that tou are paying for the one song and getting the rest of the CD for free.
Wow--so if I just want one slize of pizza, but I have to buy a whole pie for 15 dollars to get it, I'm getting the slice for 15 dollars, and the rest of the pie for free? Great deal.
quote:
Why didn't you just buy the CD single if you honestly didn't want the other songs?
Again, I don't do the download thingy, but I'd imagine a major rationale is storage space. Honestly, much as I love collecting albums, I can see how seductive it is to be able to keep a vast music collection on a hard drive, instead of having it take up your whole house.
Why didn't the music biz recognize this right away, and get on the bandwagon in time to give people what they wanted? Because they were locked into an antiquated business mode, and were afraid of losing their strangle-hold on profits.
It's reminiscent of how The Catholic Church in some areas of Post-Gutenberg Europe, tried to suppress books they didn't like by buying up all the copies--which just allowed the printer to turn out twice as many with the profits. They didn't understand that things had changed. They couldn't adapt.
But please note, The Catholic Church is still around, and the Music Biz ain't going anywhere either.
quote:
People found a way to steal.
Sure, that's one way to look at it, and I have no problem with somebody refusing to do Napster and the like because they think it's dishonest.
But it's hard to persuade people they're committing theft by making a COPY of something. If I xerox a few pages of a library book for my personal use, am I stealing from the author and the publisher because I didn't go out and buy the whole book? Are you opposed to public libraries?
quote:
We are not talking about basic food/services here. We are talking about something that is a 'luxury item' unneeded in life.
We're talking, in many instances, about something that acutally diminishes our quality of life. Music is just BAD these days, Obveeus. And that's not the fault of downloaders.
quote:
I personally think that the cheesecake at The Cheescake Factory is overpriced. By your logic, it would be ok for me to just go in there and take some.
Well, if somebody gave you some Cheesecakes they had paid for, and you found a way to multiply them so that they could feed a vast multitude, would the Cheesecake Factory really be able to say you'd stolen from them?
A prominent religious figure is reputed to have done something rather comparable, first with wine, then with loaves & fishes. Not with Cheesecake, though.
The people were fed up paying $15+ for only one or two good songs and a bunch of filler. (for a CD that takes pennies to produce). People found a way to avoid the filler and just get the one or two good songs.
quote:
People found a way to steal. Qe are not talking about basic food/services here. We are talking about something that is a 'luxury item' unneeded in life. if you cannot afford to pay for it, the solution is to NOT own it. Stealing isn't 'ok' simply because you believe the product to be overpriced. I personally think that the cheesecake at The Cheescake Factory is overpriced. By your logic, it would be ok for me to just go in there and take some.
No Stealing involved - Instead of paying $15 for only one or two good songs on the only available medium at the time - CD. I and millions of people only pay $.99 for each good song.
quote:
The fact that you think $10 is overpiced for a CD full of music shows how cheap (or maybe just clueless) you are. What do you think people paid 20 years ago for an Album that had even less music on it? If you think it is overpriced, don't buy it. As a consumer, you are not entitled to set the price. You are only entitled to decide what you are willing to pay for a product. If you don't like the price that is offered, don't own the product.
20 years ago I could have bought an Atari for $130 and a Laserdiscs for $50 ,but I wouldn't pay that much for them now. Technology makes almost everything cheaper over time except in the music industry with their overpriced CDs, which is why they are struggling.
