Go  |
New |
Find |
Notify |
|
Reply |
|
Admin |
New PM! |
|
quote: Originally posted by Chimera:
I agree that if they stick to W18-49 they won't try to go after the NFL package. But they already seem to be realizing they targeted too narrowly, as their development slate seems to have broader appeal, with only a couple of shows targeted mainly for women (Cupid and Leap), and several of their most buzzworthy shows being broader or even male-skewing: Life on Mars and Section 8. Like NBC, CBS, and FOX before them, they have or will realize that you can't be a successful Big-4 network without some sort of NFL package.
Of the 3 networks that have lost/given up on the NFL package, ABC has been the more successfull in filling the gap without it. I am still not sure that Disney wants to pay for two NFL packages betwenn ABC and ESPN. Your looking at about $600 million+ a year to do that. Thats a lot of eggs in one basket. Especially since the NFL is a "Loss Leader" for the nets. ESPN's telecast can serve for both ABC and ESPN in the promotion of other programming. post 9800
|
| |
| Posts: 13423 | Location: Indiana | Registered: 20 September 2006 | |
|
|
Folks, the fast affiliate results for Sunday are currently delayed. I will post them as soon as they come in. Sorry.  Chat live with me in P.I. Feedback's TV Talk chat room on Wednesday, September 3 @ 12 Noon eastern time to discuss all things television, especially the series premiere of 90210 (CW). Hope you all can join us!
|
| |
|
|
I just heard that the 80th Annual Academy Awards averaged a 21.9 rating/33 share in the overnights from 8:30-11:38 p.m. Here is the five year overnight track: 5 Year Track: 2007 = 27.7/42 2006 = 27.1/40 2005 = 30.1/43 2004 = 29.8/43 2003 = 25.5/37 Chat live with me in P.I. Feedback's TV Talk chat room on Wednesday, September 3 @ 12 Noon eastern time to discuss all things television, especially the series premiere of 90210 (CW). Hope you all can join us!
|
| |
|
|
Agreed. I enjoy Eli Stone, but if it didn't return (or any other show for that matter), I'm happy to say I can continue on with life. Except maybe for Dirty Sexy Money, which would take about a week longer for me to get over. The drama queen mentality sprinkled in attempted jest is worse than any of the humor in Welcome To The Captain. And what's worse is that the same opinion seems to be repeated by the same person in hundreds of posts. quote: Originally posted by Chimera:
The overwhelming need for attention by some people on this forum is incredible... :shrug:
|
| |
| Posts: 5514 | Location: Chicago, IL | Registered: 20 September 2006 | |
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Marc Berman:
I just heard that the 80th Annual Academy Awards averaged a 21.9 rating/33 share in the overnights from 8:30-11:38 p.m. Here is the five year overnight track:
5 Year Track:
2007 = 27.7/42
2006 = 27.1/40
2005 = 30.1/43
2004 = 29.8/43
2003 = 25.5/37
Is that a typo? If not, it would be an all-time low by far, previous low being 2003. Did you mean 31.9 perhaps, or is the strike still taking victims even after it's over? |
| |
|
|
|
quote: Originally posted by TV-aholic:
I wonder were NBC will place it once ER comes back.
A little surprised at the addtional episodes given the poor ratings the series has gotten so far.
Technically speaking, they wouldn't be "additional" since NBC had given it a 13 episode order in the first place (that and they're not yet episodes), although it's hard to argue with the surprising/poor ratings observation. "Cashmere Mafia" -- which also stopped after 7 out of 13 -- won't be as lucky.
--
pearl clutcher-free since 2008
|
| |
|
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Chimera: quote: Originally posted by Marc Berman:
I just heard that the 80th Annual Academy Awards averaged a 21.9 rating/33 share in the overnights from 8:30-11:38 p.m. Here is the five year overnight track:
5 Year Track:
2007 = 27.7/42
2006 = 27.1/40
2005 = 30.1/43
2004 = 29.8/43
2003 = 25.5/37
Is that a typo? If not, it would be an all-time low by far, previous low being 2003. Did you mean 31.9 perhaps, or is the strike still taking victims even after it's over?
Clearly, the Oscars were no match for the big draw that is "Big Brother." Or perhaps viewers were freaked out when they saw an albino winning best supporting actress?
--
pearl clutcher-free since 2008
|
| |
|
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Marc Berman:
I just heard that the 80th Annual Academy Awards averaged a 21.9 rating/33 share in the overnights from 8:30-11:38 p.m. Here is the five year overnight track:
5 Year Track:
2007 = 27.7/42
2006 = 27.1/40
2005 = 30.1/43
2004 = 29.8/43
2003 = 25.5/37
No crowd pleasing films like TITANIC to boost interest in the show. Maybe it wouldn't have mattered if the strike hadn't ended and they hadn't gone on as scheduled.... |
| |
|
|
quote: Originally posted by A.C.: quote: Originally posted by Marc Berman:
I just heard that the 80th Annual Academy Awards averaged a 21.9 rating/33 share in the overnights from 8:30-11:38 p.m. Here is the five year overnight track:
5 Year Track:
2007 = 27.7/42
2006 = 27.1/40
2005 = 30.1/43
2004 = 29.8/43
2003 = 25.5/37
No crowd pleasing films like TITANIC to boost interest in the show. Maybe it wouldn't have mattered if the strike hadn't ended and they hadn't gone on as scheduled....
I agree -- I thought it would be towards the low side of the spectrum for that same reason, but this would be taking a dramatic drop even from 2003, when those same factors of little-known films dominating the competition caused it to drop to that level. I would also be a shame for host Jon Stewart, who so far this morning has been getting overwhelmingly positive reviews for his second stint as host. |
| |
|
|
|
Somehow you can see this coming. I thought this would be one of the lowest viewed Oscar's ever. All the movies didn't really generate that buzz that viewers wanna tune in for. I personally liked Juno, eventhough it made $130 mil+, it's not like Titanic or no marquee movie star like Tom Hanks or Julia Roberts. It just seems like nothing is safe on Broadcast TV anymore. The only thing that they will watch is NFL football. It all started last spring. I wonder what happened, even DVR can't be blamed for this. quote: Originally posted by Marc Berman:
I just heard that the 80th Annual Academy Awards averaged a 21.9 rating/33 share in the overnights from 8:30-11:38 p.m. Here is the five year overnight track:
5 Year Track:
2007 = 27.7/42
2006 = 27.1/40
2005 = 30.1/43
2004 = 29.8/43
2003 = 25.5/37
|
| |
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Ratings Junkee: Somehow you can see this coming. I thought this would be one of the lowest viewed Oscar's ever. All the movies didn't really generate that buzz that viewers wanna tune in for. I personally liked Juno, eventhough it made $130 mil+, it's not like Titanic or no marquee movie star like Tom Hanks or Julia Roberts. It just seems like nothing is safe on Broadcast TV anymore. The only thing that they will watch is NFL football. It all started last spring. I wonder what happened, even DVR can't be blamed for this. quote: Originally posted by Marc Berman:
I just heard that the 80th Annual Academy Awards averaged a 21.9 rating/33 share in the overnights from 8:30-11:38 p.m. Here is the five year overnight track:
5 Year Track:
2007 = 27.7/42
2006 = 27.1/40
2005 = 30.1/43
2004 = 29.8/43
2003 = 25.5/37
Yes, Juno was really the only broad-appealing film nominated for any major awards, and I don't know if it won any of them. No Titanic, no LOTR, and Pirates of the Caribean was only in technical awards. The Academy really needs to stop being in love with those little films and show some love to at least some of the films the general audience is actually interested in. |
| |
|
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Ratings Junkee:
I wonder what happened, even DVR can't be blamed for this.
Why not blame DVRs? If you want to watch John Stewart, DVR the whole 3&1/2hours and see all of his 'role' in 20 minutes. If you want to hear the musical numbers, same thing: 3&1/2hours shortens up to 20 minutes. If you want to see the pretty dresses, again, DVR the whole thing and then shorten it up to under a half hour. How many people actually want to hear all those acceptance speeches besides those hoping to be mentioned? |
| |
|
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Chimera:
Yes, Juno was really the only broad-appealing film nominated for any major awards, and I don't know if it won any of them.
It won the one it deserved the least -- original screenplay. I'm glad the Academy finally woke up and realized what we've been telling them all along: strippers deserve Oscars.
--
pearl clutcher-free since 2008
|
| |
|
|
|
Well, Pirates was not worthy of a best pic nod this year, but it still would of garnered more viewers. They should of put a movie like Ratatouille, Knocked Up, I Am Legend, or even Hairspray. It would of made things more interesting. Felt like the BAFTA awards last night. Must admit though, loved some of the acceptance speeches last night. Some people were truly surprised. quote: Originally posted by Chimera: quote: Originally posted by Ratings Junkee: Somehow you can see this coming. I thought this would be one of the lowest viewed Oscar's ever. All the movies didn't really generate that buzz that viewers wanna tune in for. I personally liked Juno, eventhough it made $130 mil+, it's not like Titanic or no marquee movie star like Tom Hanks or Julia Roberts. It just seems like nothing is safe on Broadcast TV anymore. The only thing that they will watch is NFL football. It all started last spring. I wonder what happened, even DVR can't be blamed for this. quote: Originally posted by Marc Berman:
I just heard that the 80th Annual Academy Awards averaged a 21.9 rating/33 share in the overnights from 8:30-11:38 p.m. Here is the five year overnight track:
5 Year Track:
2007 = 27.7/42
2006 = 27.1/40
2005 = 30.1/43
2004 = 29.8/43
2003 = 25.5/37
Yes, Juno was really the only broad-appealing film nominated for any major awards, and I don't know if it won any of them. No Titanic, no LOTR, and Pirates of the Caribean was only in technical awards. The Academy really needs to stop being in love with those little films and show some love to at least some of the films the general audience is actually interested in.
|
| |
|
|
|
Don't agree. This is one of the few events that is live on both coasts. People usually want to see this live. It looks like it will get 34-37 million viewers. I know it was well above 40 million last year, and that's a huge drop, even for DVR excuses. If this was the grammy's or emmy's I'd say yeah, but not the Oscars. This is the next biggest thing to the Super Bowl and those numbers were obviously up, due to a great game. This shows people were not interested in the Oscar's this year, the strike, and maybe TV in general. quote: Originally posted by Obveeus: quote: Originally posted by Ratings Junkee:
I wonder what happened, even DVR can't be blamed for this.
Why not blame DVRs? If you want to watch John Stewart, DVR the whole 3&1/2hours and see all of his 'role' in 20 minutes. If you want to hear the musical numbers, same thing: 3&1/2hours shortens up to 20 minutes. If you want to see the pretty dresses, again, DVR the whole thing and then shorten it up to under a half hour. How many people actually want to hear all those acceptance speeches besides those hoping to be mentioned?
|
| |
|
 | Please Wait. Your request is being processed... |
|
