'

Nielsen Ratings Thursday, Feb 7: Lipstick Jungle? Get Lost!

Categories: '

Written By

February 8th, 2008

Scoreboard for Thurs. Feb. 7, 2008 CBS ABC FOX NBC CW
Total Viewers (million) 11.98 10.31 9.04 8.53 3.32
rating/Share: Adults 18-49 3.5/9 4.1/11 2.9/8 2.9/8 1.4/4

CBS netted the most viewers of the evening on the strength of the season premiere of Survivor: Micronesia.  Even with the repeats of CSI, and Without a Trace that followed, CBS still had the most viewers.  While not "great" numbers for Survivor, good enough to win the 8pm hour by a fairly wide margin in both viewers and the 18-49 demo.

ABC won the 18-49 demographic because Lost scored big in the demo.  Last night's episode of Lost was outstanding ("I don't know Miles, how stupid are you?"), but shame on you ABC for deceptive marketing practices! During Lost ABC ran promos for Eli Stone.

"Last week 15 million of you watched..."

Lies, dag gone lies and statistics.  It's true 15 million people watched the Eli Stone premiere last week for about 2 minutes.  But it only "averaged" 11.14 million.  It got worse last night, and could do no better than averaging 9.38 million.  It would seem that the Lost viewers are in no way deceived by ABC's pretty vast stretch of the truth.

Eli Stone isn't going gangbusters.  But it could be worse, it could be NBC, where the premiere of Lipstick Jungle finished in dead last at 10pm.  Although Jungle finished 2nd in the 18-49 demo, a rerun of Without a Trace had the most viewers at 10pm.  Buck up, Eli.  Even though your Disney mothership has no problem at all with lying to the masses as far as the numbers go, Eli DID win the 18-49 demo for the hour, and that's no lie.

FOX had an OK night with a fresh episode of Are You Smarter than a 5th Grader? and a repeat of Don't Forget the Lyrics.  CW ran with new episodes of Smallville and Supernatural and averaged over 3 million viewers for the night for the first time since last Friday, but with Friday Night Smackdown! going away, Smallville and America's Next Top Model may be the only things that get the CW averaging over 3 million  in the future. 

Time for a shakeup of executives at the CW -- they have some quality shows (Smallville, Supernatural and One Tree Hill to name a few) but the powers that be fail miserably at getting anyone to watch.

See last night's full details:

Time Network Show Viewers (Millons) 18-49 Rating/Share HH Rating
8:00 CBS Survivor: Micronesia (Premiere) 13.87 4.8/13 8.1
  FOX Are You Smarter Than a 5th Grader? 9.51 2.7/8 5.7
  ABC Lost (Repeat) 6.5 2.2/6  
  NBC Deal or No Deal 9.31 2.7/7 6.2
  CW Smallville 3.97 1.8/5 2.7
           
9:00 CBS CSI (Repeat) 11.91 3.2/8 7.9
  ABC Lost 15.06 6.4/16 8.8
  NBC Celebrity Apprentice 8.66 3.3/8 5.7
  FOX Dont Forget the Lyrics (Repeat) 8.57 3.1/8 5.1
  CW Supernatural 2.67 1.1/3  
           
10:00 CBS Without a Trace (Repeat) 10.16 2.7/7 6.9
  ABC Eli Stone 9.38 3.6/10 6.0
  NBC Lipstick Jungle (Premiere) 7.62 2.9/8 5.3

Nielsen Ratings Source: Nielsen Media Research. Full night's results available via Marc Berman/Mediaweek.

Paid Advertisement
Looking to purchase a new DVD player or one of the many new LCD TVs available?  Check out this online shopping site and browse all of our electronics and televisions today!

 
  • Rob

    Those are great “live” numbers for Lost compared to last year. The 18-49 numbers still seem comparable to last year, but it looks like the older viewers returned to watching the show “live” again now that the show is back at the earlier time of 9 pm instead of 10 pm, helping to increase the total viewership by a couple of million older viewers with earlier bedtimes.

  • Angie

    I actually like Eli Stone, although the premiere episode was better than this week.

    Supernatural is shedding viewers like a long-haired cat. I am not surprised, though – this season has sucked a big A. Kripke has totally destroyed his show, a la Ron Moore and his dismemberment of Battlestar Galactica. The two of them should join a club: Producers Who Make Sucky Creative Decisions that Viewers Hate.

  • Angie

    Oh, and P.S. – when is Dawn Ostroff getting fired? What does it take to get her head out of Les Moonves' a**?

  • Jeff

    The writers strike is over!

  • Rob

    Those are great “live” numbers for Lost compared to last year. The 18-49 numbers still seem comparable to last year, but it looks like the older viewers returned to watching the show “live” again now that the show is back at the earlier time of 9 pm instead of 10 pm, helping to increase the total viewership by a couple of million older viewers with earlier bedtimes.

  • Angie

    I actually like Eli Stone, although the premiere episode was better than this week.

    Supernatural is shedding viewers like a long-haired cat. I am not surprised, though – this season has sucked a big A. Kripke has totally destroyed his show, a la Ron Moore and his dismemberment of Battlestar Galactica. The two of them should join a club: Producers Who Make Sucky Creative Decisions that Viewers Hate.

  • Angie

    Oh, and P.S. – when is Dawn Ostroff getting fired? What does it take to get her head out of Les Moonves’ a**?

  • Jeff

    The writers strike is over!

  • JOHN

    I THINK SUPERNATURAL SHOULD HAVE DONE BETTER BUT LOST WAS ON SO HALF ON THE SUPERNATURAL FANS WATCHED LOST SO WHATEVA BUT THIS SEASON HAS STARTED OFF SLOW BUT IT HAS GOTTEN BETTER AND ANYWAY SUPRNATURAL IS DOING BETTER THAN SMALLVILLE

  • JOHN

    I THINK SUPERNATURAL SHOULD HAVE DONE BETTER BUT LOST WAS ON SO HALF ON THE SUPERNATURAL FANS WATCHED LOST SO WHATEVA BUT THIS SEASON HAS STARTED OFF SLOW BUT IT HAS GOTTEN BETTER AND ANYWAY SUPRNATURAL IS DOING BETTER THAN SMALLVILLE

  • Jon V

    Hard to compete with the eloquence of John's CW analysis… so we'll try to dissect the 'Major Network' decisions. Firstly: 'Eli Stone' only gets its 5-13 weeks in the sun because of the writer's strike. Quirky and offbeat gets you a small, loyal following – but not for long if you can't connect with the larger 'demo' on some real basis (see 'Pushing Daisies). I'd probably rather watch 'Corner Gas' if forced to make a decision among these three. Secondly: 'Lipstick Jungle' is extremely off-putting to an increasingly growing, unhappy citizenry that is quickly becoming aware of the fact that the excesses of the wealthy are increasing the major rift between the 'haves' and 'have nots' – to the point of outright loathing. It's hard to sympathize with a housewife/mother who is having problems in her life while making $5-10-20 million a year.
    Numbers for both of these series will steadily decrease until the striking writers can get enough well-written dramas and sitcoms (ala Law & Order/CSI, Two & a Half Men/Big Bang Theory) in the can so we will not have to decide between the above drivel and reality shows. I am increasingly DVRing reruns on local stations and cable and replaying them between 8pm-11pm so as to delude myself into thinking I am watching Prime Time TV.

  • Jon V

    … By the way… when did the 'Baby-Boomer' demographic become irrelevant, and, is there any way to get a numbers breakdown on the all-important 57-59 year-old age group viewership? Just wondering…

  • http://tvbythenumbers.com Robert Seidman

    the 57-59 demographic information, if available, is not FREELY available, though I expect for the right price, it could be produced.

    I don't think it's valid to say that the 55+ are irrelevant, but there are still some boomers in the 25-54 demo, and this demo is certainly not irrelevant either.

  • Jon V

    Hard to compete with the eloquence of John’s CW analysis… so we’ll try to dissect the ‘Major Network’ decisions. Firstly: ‘Eli Stone’ only gets its 5-13 weeks in the sun because of the writer’s strike. Quirky and offbeat gets you a small, loyal following – but not for long if you can’t connect with the larger ‘demo’ on some real basis (see ‘Pushing Daisies). I’d probably rather watch ‘Corner Gas’ if forced to make a decision among these three. Secondly: ‘Lipstick Jungle’ is extremely off-putting to an increasingly growing, unhappy citizenry that is quickly becoming aware of the fact that the excesses of the wealthy are increasing the major rift between the ‘haves’ and ‘have nots’ – to the point of outright loathing. It’s hard to sympathize with a housewife/mother who is having problems in her life while making $5-10-20 million a year.
    Numbers for both of these series will steadily decrease until the striking writers can get enough well-written dramas and sitcoms (ala Law & Order/CSI, Two & a Half Men/Big Bang Theory) in the can so we will not have to decide between the above drivel and reality shows. I am increasingly DVRing reruns on local stations and cable and replaying them between 8pm-11pm so as to delude myself into thinking I am watching Prime Time TV.

  • Jon V

    … By the way… when did the ‘Baby-Boomer’ demographic become irrelevant, and, is there any way to get a numbers breakdown on the all-important 57-59 year-old age group viewership? Just wondering…

  • http://tvbythenumbers.com Robert Seidman

    the 57-59 demographic information, if available, is not FREELY available, though I expect for the right price, it could be produced.

    I don’t think it’s valid to say that the 55+ are irrelevant, but there are still some boomers in the 25-54 demo, and this demo is certainly not irrelevant either.

  • Ike

    Personally I don't think that viewers 55+ SHOULD be considered irrelevant, but unfortunately most advertisers DO consider them irrelevant, in terms of prime-time TV anyway. They are absolutely convinced that older viewers rarely switch brands or try new things. Their so-called research supposedly backs this up. Also, they know they can easily reach that audience by advertising much more cheaply during daytime TV and early evening newscasts, on older-skewing cable channels, on talk radio, etc. etc. So, for prime-time, the reality is that 55+ is irrelevant, unfortunately. (Although the importance of younger demos benefits some great shows like “Lost” tremendously, not to mention tons of cutting-edge cable shows.)

    If they valued viewers age 55+, then CBS's programs would be getting much higher ad rates. If you look at an ad rate chart, you can see that the rates roughly proportionately match the adult 18-49 ratings, making household ratings basically irrelevant to a show's survival:
    http://adage.com/images/random/0907/2007_Ad_Age
    (Note that rates for new programs as of fall 2007 were basically speculative on the parts of the networks and thus subject to “makegoods,” or refunds, to advertisers.)

  • http://tvbythenumbers.com Robert Seidman

    Ike, that's more analysis than I need. We live in a world where the competition is ALL about making more life, and competing to breed with the best (I'm acutely aware of this mostly due to my love of TV making me a miserable failure at most other things!).

    The 60 year old person can not be influenced by the GAME. And the game drives everything, including ridiculous crap like Under Armour blowing wads of cash on the Super Bowl so they can convince children they WILL NOT GET ANY SEX if they are not cool enough to sport UA.

    I'm 45, and I'm not swayed by that AT ALL! In ten years, if it's possible, I'll be LESS swayed.

    I know Rena is prone to compare ageism to racism, but it's a flawed analogy. There are at least a few good reasons to be ageist. There's never a good reason to be racist.

  • Lisa M

    Robert! That was AWFUL! Why so cynical?

  • http://tvbythenumbers.com Robert Seidman

    Lisa, I don't see it as cynicism so much as realism. I'm all about embracing the truth, even when it hurts. You can ask Bill, I think he'll vouch for that!

© 2014 Tribune Digital Ventures