'

Nielsen Ratings Tue, April 8: Secret Talents of The Stars? So Secret Nobody Watched!

Categories: '

Written By

April 9th, 2008

Scoreboard for Tue. April 8, 2008 FOX ABC NBC CBS CW
Total Viewers (million) 17.85 10.75 8.91 8.26 1.77
rating/Share: Adults 18-49 7.2/18 2.5/6 3.4/9 2.3/6 0.7/2

American Idol was on and FOX won the night across the board.  American Idol is off its former glory but still commanding 24 million viewers and a 8.9/24 in the 18-49 demographic.  Later on FOX was Hell's Kitchen which had less than half the viewers as Idol, but retained more than 50% of the 18-49 demographic.  The 11.63 million viewers and the 5.4/13 rating/share in the demo may be adjusted downward in the finals as again, according to my DVR, Idol ran into the 9pm hour a little bit. But Gordon Ramsay is an 18-49 demo force, with almost five million fewer viewers than Dancing with the Stars, HK still won the age demographic.

Chef must know his status, he just does whatever he wants on the show - including ejecting someone who was not nominated for ejection.  Nonetheless, I find that I cannot "get out of Hell's Kitchen."

Over on ABC the aforementioned DWTS results show pulled in 16.54 million with a 3.5/9 demo rating/share, obviously its biggest show of the night, and significantly bigger in viewers and the demo than the hours worth of Just for Laughs (season finale) that came before it.  At 10pm Boston Legal was back and won the hour with 10.16 million viewers.  But it was beaten by a repeat of Law & Order: SVU in the 18-49 demographic.  BL's numbers will likely be adjusted down as well since DWTS ran a couple of minutes into the 10pm hour.

Over on CBS, NCIS raked in 13.88 million, but trailed both The Biggest Loser and of course Idol in the 18-49 demographic.  Big Brother gave another consistent Tuesday night performance (consistently under 6.5 million viewers).  But the verdict is in, not that many people want to watch Star Trek's Sulu (George Takei) sing country I guess.  Only 4.61 million tuned in for Secret Talents of the Stars, with a 1.5/4 in the demographic. And yes, that is significantly worse than Jericho performed in the same timeslot.

Over on NBC The Biggest Loser has to get a little love.  Two hours worth averaged 9.05 million viewers and a 3.7/9, leading NBC to second place for the night in the age demographic, despite the third place finish overall.  And a 3.0/8 in the demo for the Law & Order: SVU repeat was not shabby either.

Things are rough for the CW.  A repeat of Reaper did just about as well as a new installment of Beauty and the Geek.  Neither did very well at all.

See the night's full details:

Time Network Show Viewers (Millons) 18-49 Rating/Share HH Rating
8:00 FOX American Idol 8p-9p 24.00 8.9/24 14.4
  CBS NCIS 13.88 2.9/8 8.8
  NBC The Biggest Loser (8p-10p) 9.05 3.7/9 5.5
  ABC Just for Laughs 5.46 1.4/4 1.5
  CW Beauty and the Geek 1.80 0.8/2  
           
8:30 ABC Just for Laughs 5.64 1.5/4 3.4
           
9:00 CBS Big Brother 9 6.30 2.4/6 3.6
  ABC Dancing with the Stars 16.54 3.5/9 11.4
  FOX Hells Kitchen 11.63 5.4/13 7.0
  CW Reaper (Repeat) 1.74 0.6/2 1.2
           
10:00 CBS Secret Talents pf the Stars 4.61 1.5/4 2.9
  NBC Law & Order: SVU (Repeat) 8.62 3.0/8 6.6
  ABC Boston Legal 10.16 2.5/7 6.6

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!

 
  • http://tvbythenumbers.com Robert Seidman

    I agree Nielsen is a de facto monopoly. I believe what I believe doesn’t matter to the market any more than what you believe. I already spoke my piece/peace on this subject here.

  • david gifford

    well, I guess I’m not getting at our “beliefs”, it’s more in the words you use. That we use. We say “such and such a show had so many viewers”. Well, actually we have no idea. Nielsen told us that. It should be, “Nielsen says that there are 5.9 million viewers 18-49″. Who cares about what you believe? All that matters is what Nielsen says. Your whole operation is based on what Nielsen “says”.

    Which means, of course, that your whole operation is quite possibly based on lies, and in the end is a web site about the misinformation Nielsen puts out to keep the dough coming in. To report Nielsen’s “ratings” as though Nielsen is beyond reproach is ludicrous.

    Basically your web site and Nielsen’s work together to give us the internet version of WWF Wrestling. Looks real but it isn’t. But it’s entertaining. Nobody has any idea at all how many people watch anything. Nielsen pretends they do, and it’s lucrative, so they want to keep that facade going as long as they can. They’ve climbed into bed with the networks and everyone has a tacit agreement to admire the emperor’s new clothes because there’s a LOT of money to be made. The whole thing is a farce really.

  • david gifford

    well, I guess I’m not getting at our “beliefs”, it’s more in the words you use. That we use. We say “such and such a show had so many viewers”. Well, actually we have no idea. Nielsen told us that. It should be, “Nielsen says that there are 5.9 million viewers 18-49″. Who cares about what you believe? All that matters is what Nielsen says. Your whole operation is based on what Nielsen “says”.

    Which means, of course, that your whole operation is quite possibly based on lies, and in the end is a web site about the misinformation Nielsen puts out to keep the dough coming in. To report Nielsen’s “ratings” as though Nielsen is beyond reproach is ludicrous.

    Basically your web site and Nielsen’s work together to give us the internet version of WWF Wrestling. Looks real but it isn’t. But it’s entertaining. Nobody has any idea at all how many people watch anything. Nielsen pretends they do, and it’s lucrative, so they want to keep that facade going as long as they can. They’ve climbed into bed with the networks and everyone has a tacit agreement to admire the emperor’s new clothes because there’s a LOT of money to be made. The whole thing is a farce really.

  • http://tvbythenumbers.com Robert Seidman

    David, I’m certainly not a Nielsen apologist, and I’d love to see a true competitor that measured the whole television universe (rather than merely portions of it). If you have better data to provide, please point me to it. What’s that you say? It doesn’t exist? oh well.

    If nobody has any idea of how many people watch anything, then neither do you. But unlike you, I’m involved in a blog reporting on television metrics, so what would you have me do, not comment on the Nielsen ratings?? Would you have the USA Today and the New York Times not do that either?

    What’s the worst case scenario? Shows that don’t have enough viewers according to Nielsen don’t get brought back by the networks buying the Nielsen data? And something that people get for free…goes away?

  • http://tvbythenumbers.com Robert Seidman

    David, I’m certainly not a Nielsen apologist, and I’d love to see a true competitor that measured the whole television universe (rather than merely portions of it). If you have better data to provide, please point me to it. What’s that you say? It doesn’t exist? oh well.

    If nobody has any idea of how many people watch anything, then neither do you. But unlike you, I’m involved in a blog reporting on television metrics, so what would you have me do, not comment on the Nielsen ratings?? Would you have the USA Today and the New York Times not do that either?

    What’s the worst case scenario? Shows that don’t have enough viewers according to Nielsen don’t get brought back by the networks buying the Nielsen data? And something that people get for free…goes away?

  • http://tvbythenumbers.com Bill Gorman

    David, you’re not even close to the first Nielsen conspiracy theorist to visit, but I’d say you’re the most entertaining to have visited recently.

    What’s more likely:

    1. Nielsen has a measurement system that while imperfect is the generally agreed upon metric that the TV networks [sellers] and advertisers [buyers] have agreed to use until something better comes along.

    2. Nielsen, the networks, the advertisers [against their will or unknowingly?] are part of a huge carefully planned conspiracy to fool who into doing what? to take who’s money? to defraud who?

    Each other? So, they’re all both criminally clever and stupid at the same time?

    The public? When was the last time Nielsen asked you for money? Or NBC? ABC? CBS?

    Please readjust your tinfoil hat, it seems to be blocking your vision.

© 2014 Tribune Digital Ventures