My objection is that people who are in their 50s now are not like people who were in their 50’s 10 or 20 years ago. We do “change our ways” – we are much “younger” in attitude and behavior than folks in their 50’s were a couple of decades ago, but this is not recognized.

those are the words of someone who is sensitive about the classifications. I am not sensitive about the classifications. And that sensitivity leads your thinking to be cloudy and muddled and make the mistake of blaming the networks and make foolish statements like “go ahead networks, keep it up” as if it’s the *networks* who drive the advertising market, and not the advertisers themselves.

Bill, the NFL games are gold mines for *all* the adult male demos and all the age groups are nicely represented with advertising. You see beer, fast food, trucks, cars, financial services, insurance, viagra/cialis, iphones…

My objection is that people who are in their 50s now are not like people who were in their 50′s 10 or 20 years ago. We do “change our ways” – we are much “younger” in attitude and behavior than folks in their 50′s were a couple of decades ago, but this is not recognized. I don’t really care which category I’m put into for advertisers except with regard to how it affects the life of a TV show.

If the TV/advertising industry can’t figure out that the 18-34 y.o. (which, as you point out, is where the break should be) can’t be reached by advertising on TV, then let me tell them – You can’t reach that demo because they are not watching TV in the conventional method. They either DVR it or watch online or download the content they are interested in, but that doesn’t count. So they continually whack shows because they are not being watched by a particular group in the conventional manner.

As you mentioned, the break should be 19-34; and then 35-60; 60+ Add to that, that DVR +3 and +7 should also count.

The fact that a smaller number of people garners more $$$ for an advertising second IS the reason TV shows are gettng whacked so quickly because the networks want to be the one that wins 20-21 in that category. I get it. All I’m saying is – go ahead networks; keep it up. A show gets whacked because it did not reach the 18-49 demo and therefore the network did not garner the biggest return on investment by charging the highest advertising dollar per second against the cost of producing the show. BUT they will never reach the 18-49 (18-34) demo because those folks don’t do TV by appointment.

Got news for you neither do I nor any of my friends. Why should we when all this technology is available to us?

Anyway, it’s a theory.

CSI is considered “entertainment” by 2-3 times as many people as Jericho was. Im not a fan of CSI but at least its entertaining and informative and makes people think by solving the crimes before the culprit is revealed; and not mindless reality drivel like American Idol, game shows or Dancing with C-list Stars. About the only shows I still watch are Fringe, LOST and the doomed Sarah Conner (which will only be around because T4 is coming out in the Spring). I still also watch Heroes but its become a total mess and Im not sure why I still watch it.

Serial dramas are having a hard time due to the ever shrinking attention spans of viewers – people want their shows wrapped up in 30-60 minutes. For serial dramas to survive they must cut costs drastically. People today are busy and dont want to have to remember what happened last week. I see this trend only getting worse. Even Cartoon network has adult cartoons that only 15 minutes long; wonder how long until this infects network TV.

I understand the demographic/economic issues behind cancellation of shows and by using this site, I can decide whether or not to get involved with an American scripted show. I specifically am talking about Chuck, Sarah Connor and Pushing Daisies, here, among others. I have decided not to watch their new seasons.

The time lag is very short between 24 being shown in America and it being shown in England (Rupert Murdock owns Fox and Sky) and seeing that 24′s ratings are good, I’ll be investing my time in the news series in January. The reviews that I have read about the recent 2 hour ‘special’ aren’t bad and I have recorded it on my Tivo, but I have’t watched it yet.

I really want to know this, because sometimes I wonder, how is it that some affiliates manage to put local commercials in between national commercials, DO THEY INTERRUPT THE NATIONAL COMMERCIALS???? , DO THE NETWORKS LEAVE a 30 second “free” space for local commercials?????

I hope someone understands my question. (I’m still working on my english, haha)

Targeted advertising existed long before the ability to measure it. 40 years ago, as now, toys were heavily pushed during Saturday morning programming for obvious reasons. Nielsen wasn’t measuring age demos yet, no senior citizens felt put out by it, and I doubt there was any relative premium paid for these eyeballs (I doubt it now, too)

But 40 years ago, you didn’t need to measure or pay premiums for targeting adults. There was ABC, CBS and NBC and some local independents and no matter where you advertised in network primetime, you automatically reached *all* adults!

I believe the networks should air more national programming, and relying less on the local affiliates (like UNIVISION does) That way they’ll be able to promote their shows nationally all day, every day.

So in reality the advertisers make an educated guess on what the young viewers will watch. Now, I am 22, and watch maybe little to no tv. the shows I watch/watched are usually the lower in the young age demographics. And in my opinion my age group/ generation are some of the most worthless people, who want everything anyways, so why advertise? they are going to go after what makes them look good.

But Robert is right, too, when he says that reaching people under a certain age is darn near impossible these days, and that is what makes it worth paying a premium to those shows that can do so. Right now 18-49 seems to be the big number, but I bet a lot of companies are more focused on 18-34, and as the years go by, I predict that number will just get lower and lower.

And the people who say TV is fragmented are also right. However, while there are more people watching shows if you look across the board, and despite the rise in scripted programming on basic cable, people watching anything other than scripted shows predominate right now. Except for a very small portion of the day, all those hundreds of niche networks out there are combining to drain the broadcast nets to death. And that’s a huge number of people that the broadcast networks will never, ever get back.

But also remember that a lot of that increase in total eyeballs includes a lot of people who never watched much broadcast television to begin with. The people who watch wall-to-wall news, or who watch only Discovery type programming, or whatever subset of niche viewers who only really watch programming in their niche you want to pick, those are people who probably would not have watched a lot of television at all 30-40 years ago.

Any way you slice it, however, the reality is that broadcast networks have lost a gigantic slice of the pie that they will never see again, and that is going to continue to affect the amount of scripted programming we see, because scripted programming is far and away more expensive to produce and less likely to be sucessful over time than all the other forms of programming. It’s also the one form of programming that’s nearly impossible to schedule with any confidence. You just never know what scripted show is going to catch on with people.

Also, broadcast networks really are being hurt by the proliferation of networks that get cable fees on top of what is becoming a level playing field for ad dollars. That’s a valid obstacle for them, and one of the few that is not self created. A few of these cable nets are charging as nearly as much for their advertising time as are the broadcast nets, and during some hours they are able to charge more. Sometimes much more. And many of the other, smaller cable nets are simply much more profitable than the broadcast nets are from a return on investment perspective.

My opinion is that the only way the broadcast nets are going to survive long term at all is to radically alter their models. Right now they have the resources to corner the market on quality programming, but they are going to have to relax their broadcast standards as a first step, and hire more people in a network capacicty whose specialty is the creative side of the business. Throwing darts at the wall as a show development strategy is not going to work any longer. Nor will continuing to allow predominantly middle aged white men with specialty business backgrounds to make creative decisions. That combination has proven to be a recipe for disaster.

Will that happen? I don’t know. Probably at least one or two of them will manage to transform themselves and become a new kind of television juggernaught that we’ve never seen before. The others will eventually become smaller scale specialty networks more akin to a cable network, or they will go out of business entirely, perhaps to reemerge as an actual cable network at some point, so they can start getting those valuable cable subscription fees.

In the meantime, however, it sucks to be a viewer like me, because I like almost nothing on broadcast television, and everything I do like keeps getting canceled. I am defintely out of step with the mainstream broadcast television taste standard.

In the end, it probably doesn’t matter. These arguments are just academic until the ad industry decides to change.

Robert,

you can stop yelling through the screen. I understand what you and Bill are
saying. For example, McDonald’s has research showing those in the 18-49 demo are more likely to purchase Big Macs than those 50+. It would make sense to pay a premium for an ad spot for a show with a high percentage in the 18-49 demo.

However, what if most companies realize that, like TV viewership, their customer is the aging Boomer. What’s the point of advertising to the 18-49 if 1)that is no longer their customer base, and 2) it costs them more money?

Robert, I don’t want you to blow your top, so I’ll not speak anymore on the subject for now

I only share this because I think it would be quite ironic if the networks/advertisers became so successful in their pursuit of the 18-49 demographic that the 50+ eyeballs become the hardest to reach. Admittedly, that’s not very likely to happen, especially when one considers the “Graying of America”.

This whole demographics discussion has been both entertaining and educational, but it brings to my mind one question. (If this has already been asked an answered on this site, please excuse the repeat.) If advertisers only worry about reaching the 18-49 year olds, why does Nielsen continue to measure and report the number of total viewers? Is it because it doesn’t cost any more to measure, tabulate, and report this info? Or is it because certain advertisers are actually seeking the older viewers? I mean, how much Viagra, Cialis, Fosamax, Boniva and Depends Undergarments can you sell to someone who is 18-49 years old?

It’s *not* like that. you’re just in a very available class. it’s not your fault.

The larger group if they are the ones with the purse strings. Sorry, I flunked the test. :/

Bill, some people won’t get it because they can’t grasp the most SIMPLE economic theory. There is no helping them. Others won’t grasp it because they are over 50 and overly sensitive. We can try, and try, and try to explain it but people who can’t grasp it, won’t grasp it, and people who are overly sensitive about their age aren’t going to change either.

For CBS, ABC, NBC, Fox and CW, this season to date, total average prime-time Live+SD:

Adults 18-49: 17.06 million
Under 18 + Over 50: 22.17 million (sadly, we don’t have the data to separate this group)

Does it make sense that it should cost more/member to reach the larger group or the smaller group?

Edit: And it’s the very fact they watch TV less than >50, that makes the 18-49 demo more expensive to reach.

maybe I’m not getting the supply and demand reasoning. The 50+ crowd is bigger, and according to this article, has more discretionary income and less brand loyalty than the 18-49 crowd. If 50+ makes up the majority of the viewing audience and it has the most money, why would you try so hard to market to a niche group that watches less TV, doesn’t have as much money to spend and is more brand loyal?

Robert, the following quote is from a CBS.com article that discusses this issue. It’s 3 years old, but I believe still relevant:

“In fact, some programs are positively 50-plus averse. If you have statistics that show you are watched by that demographic, it’s like kryptonite to advertisers. They don’t want to be uncool. The notion that one day is a knife edge between cool and uncool, between consumer and Alzheimer’s, is ridiculous.

But, says Bowen, it’s long been the reality for those who make and sell commercials, based on the belief that the 18 to 49 year old population, some 120 million Americans, is where the money is. Advertisers also believe younger viewers are more impressionable, more susceptible to advertising, and more willing than their parents to try new things.”

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/11/04/sunday/main1015763.shtml

Exactly so, Bill. Some people can’t grasp this and I’m not sure why. If ABC averages a million 18-49 year olds and CBS has only 200,000 — it’s not vastly different for ABC than if it had the same million while CBS had a million too. One scenario is very, very different for CBS, but for ABC, the story is almost (but perhaps not exactly) idenitical in both scenarios, at least beyond bragging rights.

Not so. They all want to get the most viewers they can get in any valuable age demo graphic category their advertisers want. The idea of “scoring” more than the competition might serve to motivate the troops, and provide fodder for folks like us to write about, but it’s not the networks real objective.

Does anybody know what type of numbers 24 had 2 years ago? Anybody?

My friends (who are the same general age) are the same way – more so than I – they rush out to get the latest and greatest gadget AND to buy them for their children. We all are way computer savvy; into cell phones and texting; and iPods; and digital cameras and the latest car – at the same time we are buying and selling houses and fixing them up and redoing this and that and taking vacations — we are spending and spending. And I can tell you, you won’t find many of them in front of the TV but you will find them out having dinner or dancing or at the movies; at concerts or sports events – that’s why we all have DVRs hooked up to our flat screen TVs!

The ratings “theories” are just wrong and need to be thrown out. I am NOT my parents. I watched TV last night – I watched DVDs that I purchased because there is not a darn thing on TV that I want to watch except the news and weather.

I liked New Amsterdam – but I watched it on my computer. I watch so much on my PC, I am thinking of hooking it up to the big screen.

I don’t see my self watching that much more TV in 6 years- if i do it’s DVD’s.

So unless and until the ratings industry is overhauled, the TV industry doesn’t care if 11 million folks watch a show. They only care that 11 million and 1 people watch their show rather than shows on the other channels. It could be a total of 20 people. LOL. Like any game 21-20 gets you a WIN – and you get to rake in the biggest bucks for your advertising second.

This is why CBS found a formula and we can ridicule them for having 29 incarnations of CSI Anywhere and they laugh all the way to the bank – because it is the same folks with the same Neilsen boxes that watch the same formula show. They like it; they watch it and the rest of us can go . . . . fill in the blank. It’s not about a good plot line or a good story or good writing or good acting. It’s only about getting 21-20.

Not so with the younger viewers, they simply don’t watch as much TV as the 50+ crowd and so there is a premium on their eyeballs. It really is just supply and demand — nothing nefarious or ageist about it.”

Robert, the thinking goes that the 18-49 demo watches less tv but spends more and is more inclined to try new products. 50+ supposedly spends less and only on products that they have a loyalty to.

I’m sure this thinking has been challenged, but we do live in a youth-centered culture. If 50+ was actually prized, I’m sure the rationale would be different (premiums on shows with the highest viewership and demo over 50).

Like I stated, I agree the numbers for these shows have gone down as compared to past years, yet they are still top rated. At the point in time when a 5 million, 1.5 demo is what the top show gets, the network execs will consider it as success (unless a new medium is able to bring in more viewers and TV packs it in for good).

Also, I want to correct I don’t hate all procedurals. I like mine with a bit of a twist, thus my love for say New Amsterdam, and this year, The Mentalist and Eleventh Hour. I used to like CSI when it was fresh, but that episode with the people dressed as animals for sex play and the guy in the cat suit gets shot then left for road kill was too much!