Last week was historically bad among adults 18-49 for the broadcast TV networks.
How bad is network* television getting already this summer?
The answer: the worst it has ever been, at least among those younger viewers three of the four networks are always saying they are most avid to reach. Last week, the networks performed abysmally across the board among viewers ages 18 to 49, posting their lowest combined rating in that category ever.
As bad as the total number was, ABC won the most dubious achievement award. ABC’s 18-to-49 rating of 1.1 was the worst performance ever for that network.
Lots more tales of woe where that came from at the NYTimes.com.
*It is a bit confusing when the NYT refers to "broadcast network television" as simply "network television", as if "cable network television" was some sort of oxymoron. In fact, what the NYT is really referring to by "network television" here is "big English language broadcast network television", but I'm a quibbler!
I think the DTV Transition had a bigger impact then previoulsy thought
abc just doesn’t repeat well at all. ever.
If DTV transition has that big of an impact then the viewers who were watching those networks weren’t the brightest of the bunch. It could be some other reason, but that is a different topic.
Just for fun, I added the totals for 18-49 for the five nets (7.79 million) and all the broadcast nets you guys had in your weekly average chart, 11.51 million.
I have a 58” HD TV that I almost never watch. First off there are almost no shows on the networks for a 33 year old guy with a brain. I love How I met your mother but beyond that comedy is a wasteland for me and I’m not into proceduals, aka the new era matlock.
I watch most shows off Hulu or other streaming sites. I get to watch what I want when I want, same as with my DVR, but my selection is much better.
Networks I’ll come back but only if you make better shows and I might come back but as season after season passes and you put out more drek or ripoff procedurals it’s becoming less likely that I will. Your last hope is to spend the money on good writers and take chances with some new types of stories.
And go ahead and put in as many commercials as you like, I fast forward through them anyway.
It is the New World. It’s like we talked about in the recent discussion about technology advancing at geometric rates, so that ten years from now video viewing habits will be unrecognizable from what they are today. Part of that is technology advancing at geometric rates, and part of that is viewing habits altering at rates faster than ever seen before. I think we all (myself included) underestimate just how little interest that 18-34 demo has in television as a whole. That audience is looking for specific programming, and they are not sampling much else. Pretty much every network is fast becoming a niche network, whether broadcast or cable, because people are tuning into specific shows for specific reasosn, rather than simply mass sampling whatever is out there. The days of mass sampling and lead-in power are ending, if not over already. Before a show even airs, I would bet the vast majority of those 18-34′s have already decided whether to even sample it at all.
Even at my age (and I remember the days of 5 channels—ABC, CBS, NBC, PBS, and one local broadcaster) I rarely sample just to sample. I tune to what has peaked my interest based on what I already know about it before it even airs. Whether it’s due to the cast, the writer-creator, or because of advance buzz (or lack thereof), I make most of my decisions before a new show even gets a minute with my eyeballs.
This is just going to continue to accelerate. Look at average rating per network over the past ten years and I think you will see an accelerating declination curve.
Don’t believe me? Look at any show cancelled pre-2006 and tell me that each network wouldn’t die to have those ratings now. Hell, stuff they cancelled last year is probably starting to look good to them.
Yes, more people are watching TV as a whole, but that’s a bogus stat. There are more choices for people, thus deflating the average hugely, and, as with every other aggregate metric today, there are simple more PEOPLE in the world. So, sure, more people are watching televsion because more people exist in the world, but that total isn’t helping any individual network. The fact that more people are watching television as a whole isn’t helping any one network.
You want to see panic? Wait until cable nets peak and start to decline. They are riding a false positive wave because of their youth, so they are just catching up to the average and that looks good now, but their decline will come as proliferation continues. Then we will see some serious panic.
The ultimate answer is simply the same as it is in any business: costs must be reduced. The wave of the future will be cheaper programming. Right now that means reality, but eventually scritped programming will follow suit in a big way if it wants to survive.
Schmoker, you misread the overall TV viewing data. Households on average are currently still (very slowly) increasing their viewing of TV, but they’ve been flat or very slowly increasing their viewing of TV for 20+ years.
Broadcast share has been crushed over the last 25 years, but cable has picked up all of that, and a tiny bit more.
I didn’t express it properly, Bill, but I was trying to acknowledge that fact. However, I’m talking averaging rating per network. Yes, the cable nets have picked up the people the broadcast nets have lost, but none of the cable nets has come close to the average viewing levels of what the broadcast nets had ten years ago, and they never will. And I believe eventually the cable nets average will also peak and begin to decline.
My point is that no network is getting the type of viewing levels that the broadcast nets earned in years past, thus the level of revenue will never reach those past levels either. Eventually, the cable nets will start to decline, too. The average household viewing level will never go down (as long as new media is included), but average network viewing levels will never again rise. They will only continue to sink as they are spread further and further over the proliferation of networks.
I cannot see Cable/Satellite TV continue increasing their number of viewers much longer. With the Economy doing the way it is, people are going to need the money thay are currently spending on Cable for other things that are more important. On top of that when was the last time you ever heard anyone say something good about the programming on Cable lately? What good are 180 Channels when most of them basically show the same stale shows repeatedly? The amount of time devoted to commercials is insanity, at least one network has decided that 20 minutes of Commercials per hour was not enough, so they now let each show “Bump” the next show by five minutes, the extra minutes are, what else/ ADVERTISING. 30 Months ago I decided enough was enough, and I cancelled my Subscription. After all the Networks are making more money by selling more Commercials, so why should I pay to watch them? I now use the money formerly used to pay my Subscription Fee to Purchase favorat shows on Home Video, which I watch at my own convenience each evening. There are NO Advertisments to Butt-In to my Entertainment, and best of all, after I finish watching a Program, I GET TO KEEP IT!
Bill’s ire is raised by any improperly worded assertion, I’ve noticed. I myself got a garbled emotionally-colored by basically true statement swatted a while ago which dealt with ABC’s plight. Their flagship scripted shows while almost assured of renewal for a few more years are losing the 18-49 ( Not as much as some others, and they did have a hefty slice to start with,) can’t without help do the future of ABC much good. Hits historically like Andy Griffith, All in the Family and MASH, Happy Days, Cosby and Seinfeld meant the network concerned could group a whole nertwork philosophy of shows around that. CBS’ policy of a comedy block one night a week is a pale imitation of that strategy, and so far thery have failed to extend comedy to more rthan one night. ABC’s philosophy of ” Ladies Behaving Badly ” just to throw out a phrase has done about as well: successful, but not enough to keep ABC from bleeding viewers. ( If I say so myself, a pretty good post!)
jay, “Bill’s ire is raised by any improperly worded assertion, I’ve noticed.”
Less improperly worded than simply wrong. I make it a priority to correct factual errors in the comments, lest other readers mistakenly take them as truth.
And I do my best to be ire free!
Have to agree to disagree then, Bill, because I think my post is factually accurate. Or are you trying to say that average network ratings aren’t declining?
Schmoker, Broadcast network ratings are declining. Cable network ratings are rising. Overall television viewing by individual and household is slowly rising.
Bill, since Robert is not here, does that mean that the ratings for Real World: Cancun aren’t going to be posted today?
Green, no ala carte cable ratings while I’m on my own.
Overall television VIEWING increasing does not help help any one individual network. There is a giant disconnect between total viewing and average rating. One is not related to the other—not even remotely. Thus, viewing is higher than ever before, yet still networks are in massive financial trouble (as defined by lower profits, as opposed to actual losses—this is TV, after all).
Cable nets are loving life at the moment, but they have a lower bar to cross, thus they are happier with less. Soon, however, they won’t be able to cross even that lower bar. When? I’m not certain. Probably not a for at least a few more years, but soon.