'

Private Practice Tops New Shows, December 3-9

Categories: '

Written By

December 12th, 2007

Private Practice On Top As Samantha Who? Plunges

private-practice.gif

Oh how the mighty have fallen. Without its Dancing with the Stars lead, ABC's Samantha Who? ratings dropped 39% to a Live+SD viewership of 7.16 million, turning over the new show crown for the week to Private Practice which had a Live+SD viewership of 10.4 million and adult 18-49 viewership of 5.02 million for the week of December 3-9. Read on for the rest of the data.

120307topnewshows.gif

Bubble width = adults 18-49 viewership

ABC's Women's Murder Club had strong viewership gains, but its 18-49 viewership is extremely low. ABC's other new shows, Notes from the Underbelly and October Road are not looking good.

NBC's Chuck ratings stayed stable, cementing its position as NBC's fall winner, Life ratings shows strong growth.

CBS' Kid Nation ratings are finishing reasonably wekk, considering all the controversy.

CW's Gossip Girl and Reaper ratings may meet the low CW threshold for ratings renewal.

Our chart shows not only the viewership of the top 20 new shows, but also their week to week ratings momentum: shows gaining viewers [momentum > 1] and shows losing viewers [momentum < 1] over their last non-rerun airing. The bubble width is proportional to the 18-49 viewership.

 

Top 20 New Shows, Week of December 3-9

RANK PROGRAMS Network # OF PERSONS (LIVE+SD) (million) Week over Week Momentum Prior Week # OF PERSONS (LIVE+SD) (million) # of PERSONS 18-49 Live+SD (million)
1 Private Practice ABC 10.40 1.22 8.54 5.02
2 Women's Murder Club ABC 8.54 1.13 7.58 2.32
3 Chuck NBC 8.41 1.00 8.42 4.14
4 Life NBC 7.63 1.21 6.28 3.26
5 Samantha Who? ABC 7.16 0.61 11.69 3.74
6 Kid Nation CBS 7.10 1.00 7.12 2.82
7 Dirty Sexy Money ABC 6.75 0.96 7.04 3.03
8 The Big Bang Theory - R CBS 6.41 0.87 7.34 3.15
9 Back to You FOX 5.53 1.05 5.27 2.40
10 Kitchen Nightmares - R FOX 5.32 0.76 7.03 3.36
11 Notes From the Underbelly ABC 5.00 0.67 7.45 2.85
12 October Road ABC 4.94 0.91 5.43 2.85
13 K-ville FOX 4.82 1.03 4.69 2.00
14 Next Great American Band FOX 3.04 1.45 2.09 1.59
15 Reaper CW 2.62 1.17 2.24 1.56
16 Gossip Girl CW 2.44 0.83 2.93 1.58
17 Aliens in America - R CW 1.59 0.85 1.89 0.85
18 Life is Wild CW 1.11 0.88 1.26 0.53
19 CW Now CW 0.85 0.88 0.96 0.40

R = rerun

These shows did not make the Top 20 :

Pushing Daisies ABC not aired
Big Shots ABC not aired
Carpoolers ABC not aired
Cavemen ABC not aired
Cane CBS not aired
Moonlight CBS not aired
Journeyman NBC not aired
Bionic Woman NBC not aired

Nielsen TV Ratings Data: ©2007 Nielsen Media Research, Inc. All Rights Reserved.

 
  • Rena Moretti

    Amazing how well Women's Murder Club is doing with barely a pip from the Hollywood press.

  • http://tvbythenumbers.com Robert Seidman

    I'm not so amazed about lack of WMC coverage. Too may people 55 and above watching to get anyone excited. It had less 18-49 viewers than Notes from the Underbelly!

    Hopefully Bill will do a WMC, Renew or Cancel soon…

  • http://tvbythenumbers.com Bill Gorman

    Rena, I think it's the ageism at work, valid or not. My mistake in not labeling the WMC ball in the chart [to the right of Chuck], but its got the same overall viewership as Chuck, but a much smaller 18-49 viewership.

  • Rena Moretti

    Amazing how well Women’s Murder Club is doing with barely a pip from the Hollywood press.

  • Rena Moretti

    I definitely wasn't talking about you Bill.

    I agree it's the ageism at work, and also the perception on what “hip” in Hollywood (ie. ABC isn't spending a lot of money trying to make WMC “hip” to critics and other writers).

    As I wrote somewhere else, NBC is handing cash back to advertisers because its shows aren't delivering enough viewers, even though they have a higher proportion of 18-49 viewers.

    On the 18-49 slant in ratings reporting I think a lot of it also has to do with the fact it allows networks with smaller ratings to slice and dice their way to a “victory” of sorts.

    NBC is trying to sell Friday Night Lights as a “demo hit” when its ratings are lilliputian and have (predictably) shown no signs of improvement.

  • http://tvbythenumbers.com Robert Seidman

    I’m not so amazed about lack of WMC coverage. Too may people 55 and above watching to get anyone excited. It had less 18-49 viewers than Notes from the Underbelly!

    Hopefully Bill will do a WMC, Renew or Cancel soon…

  • http://tvbythenumbers.com Bill Gorman

    Rena, I think it’s the ageism at work, valid or not. My mistake in not labeling the WMC ball in the chart [to the right of Chuck], but its got the same overall viewership as Chuck, but a much smaller 18-49 viewership.

  • Rena Moretti

    I definitely wasn’t talking about you Bill.

    I agree it’s the ageism at work, and also the perception on what “hip” in Hollywood (ie. ABC isn’t spending a lot of money trying to make WMC “hip” to critics and other writers).

    As I wrote somewhere else, NBC is handing cash back to advertisers because its shows aren’t delivering enough viewers, even though they have a higher proportion of 18-49 viewers.

    On the 18-49 slant in ratings reporting I think a lot of it also has to do with the fact it allows networks with smaller ratings to slice and dice their way to a “victory” of sorts.

    NBC is trying to sell Friday Night Lights as a “demo hit” when its ratings are lilliputian and have (predictably) shown no signs of improvement.

  • Angie

    Yay PrP #1

  • Angie

    Yay PrP #1

  • Ike

    But Rena, advertisers' ageism leads them to spend far, FAR more money on programs that perform well among adults 18-49 than on older-skewing programs like Women's Murder Club. The 18-49 rating is thus more important to a show's survival than the overall number of viewers or the household ratings — it may not be morally defensible, but it's the reality of the situation. ABC gets far more money for an ad during Grey's Anatomy than CBS gets for an ad during CSI, even though CSI gets more viewers overall, because Grey's is much stronger in the 18-49 demo.

    And no, NBC is actually not doing better among adults 18-49 overall than ABC. Their programs aren't meeting the ratings they promised to advertisers. That's why they have to hand cash back.

  • Ike

    But Rena, advertisers’ ageism leads them to spend far, FAR more money on programs that perform well among adults 18-49 than on older-skewing programs like Women’s Murder Club. The 18-49 rating is thus more important to a show’s survival than the overall number of viewers or the household ratings — it may not be morally defensible, but it’s the reality of the situation. ABC gets far more money for an ad during Grey’s Anatomy than CBS gets for an ad during CSI, even though CSI gets more viewers overall, because Grey’s is much stronger in the 18-49 demo.

    And no, NBC is actually not doing better among adults 18-49 overall than ABC. Their programs aren’t meeting the ratings they promised to advertisers. That’s why they have to hand cash back.

  • Rena Moretti

    Ike, you make a good point, but based on a faulty premise.

    How do you know how much more money advertisers give for 18-49?

    I'm serious: I have never seen any studies (let alone credible studies) on the subject.

    The “all-importance” of 18-49 is taken as a given based on how many times it's been repeated.

    Isn't it time to question the reality of this?

    Also, NBC is doing poorly, even thought it's not doing so poorly in 18-49. That should tell you a lot.

    Finally, moral wrong IS important. Nobody would even dare to talk about a show getting higher ad dollars bacause its audience is mostly white.

    They also don't talk much about getting more ad dollars for rich viewers (even though THAT actually makes some sort of dollars and cents sense since richer people can buy more stuff!)

    It's time to call Hollywood on its ageism, especially that I think it is based not only on prejudice but also of spun info.

  • http://tvbythenumbers.com Robert Seidman

    Rena, the ageism isn't universal or completely across the board. There are some shows, cable channels etc that are targeted at older audiences and the advertising reflects it.

    But as long as it is true that more 18-49 year olds and 25-54 year olds go to the movies, buy trucks, buy light beer — and this is true — then I don't see it as a moral issue.

    If the younger demo is buying more of what the advertisers are selling (and they are), I'm not sure how you can call Hollywood on…reality. ;)

  • Rena Moretti

    Ike, you make a good point, but based on a faulty premise.

    How do you know how much more money advertisers give for 18-49?

    I’m serious: I have never seen any studies (let alone credible studies) on the subject.

    The “all-importance” of 18-49 is taken as a given based on how many times it’s been repeated.

    Isn’t it time to question the reality of this?

    Also, NBC is doing poorly, even thought it’s not doing so poorly in 18-49. That should tell you a lot.

    Finally, moral wrong IS important. Nobody would even dare to talk about a show getting higher ad dollars bacause its audience is mostly white.

    They also don’t talk much about getting more ad dollars for rich viewers (even though THAT actually makes some sort of dollars and cents sense since richer people can buy more stuff!)

    It’s time to call Hollywood on its ageism, especially that I think it is based not only on prejudice but also of spun info.

  • http://tvbythenumbers.com Robert Seidman

    Rena, the ageism isn’t universal or completely across the board. There are some shows, cable channels etc that are targeted at older audiences and the advertising reflects it.

    But as long as it is true that more 18-49 year olds and 25-54 year olds go to the movies, buy trucks, buy light beer — and this is true — then I don’t see it as a moral issue.

    If the younger demo is buying more of what the advertisers are selling (and they are), I’m not sure how you can call Hollywood on…reality. ;)

  • Rena Moretti

    Robert:

    Insert “all-important rich White demographic” every time you see “all-important 18-49 demographic” every time you see it and tell me again that it's not morally deficient.

    Also, the richest demographic is the 50 and over demographic. It's the prejudice of Madison Avenue and Hollywood that makes them think that they're “not worth advertising to”.

    One of the ways the ageism feeds on itself is that Hollywood movies are a major advertiser, and they think their target demo is 25 and under (not a very good business model but that's another discussion).

    But where it gets really bizarre is when auto manufacturers reportedly (who knows if it's really true) target 18-49, when the median age of buyers for most models is over 50 (ie. it's the the 18-49 demo that buys trucks, it's the 40-70 demo but Hollywood doesn't think that's a “hip” demo).

    Then again, nobody ever said ageism was going to save Detroit!

    Lastly (for now ;) ) there are no credible sources for how much advertisers actually pay for various demographics. Everyone goes on based on the endless PR releases saying 18-49 is “all-important”. The fact that those PR releases are trying to sell badly performing shows and networks as winners doesn't seem to bother anyone.

    If real data was available, I'd bet the most in-demand demo would be “rich White people” (especially rich people!) but it's not PC to talk about that.

    Somehow it's PC to say again and again that older people don't count.

  • Rena Moretti

    Robert:

    Insert “all-important rich White demographic” every time you see “all-important 18-49 demographic” every time you see it and tell me again that it’s not morally deficient.

    Also, the richest demographic is the 50 and over demographic. It’s the prejudice of Madison Avenue and Hollywood that makes them think that they’re “not worth advertising to”.

    One of the ways the ageism feeds on itself is that Hollywood movies are a major advertiser, and they think their target demo is 25 and under (not a very good business model but that’s another discussion).

    But where it gets really bizarre is when auto manufacturers reportedly (who knows if it’s really true) target 18-49, when the median age of buyers for most models is over 50 (ie. it’s the the 18-49 demo that buys trucks, it’s the 40-70 demo but Hollywood doesn’t think that’s a “hip” demo).

    Then again, nobody ever said ageism was going to save Detroit!

    Lastly (for now ;) ) there are no credible sources for how much advertisers actually pay for various demographics. Everyone goes on based on the endless PR releases saying 18-49 is “all-important”. The fact that those PR releases are trying to sell badly performing shows and networks as winners doesn’t seem to bother anyone.

    If real data was available, I’d bet the most in-demand demo would be “rich White people” (especially rich people!) but it’s not PC to talk about that.

    Somehow it’s PC to say again and again that older people don’t count.

© 2014 Tribune Digital Ventures