Comments on: Broadcast TV audiences are aging

By: Linda

Linda — Fri, 28 Aug 2009 20:11:06 +0000

I LOL when I saw that Fox News had a median age “over 65.” That means more than half their viewers are over 65, lol.

They better hope they can start getting some younger viewers. I know MSNBC is number one among viewers 18-34.

By: NASAr

NASAr — Fri, 28 Aug 2009 19:55:04 +0000

We watch Netflix on-line to get commercial free programming. If FOX wanted to get real, it would put it’s cable programming on broadcast. As I recall, they have ratings. Sandwich throughout the day. No time to fold now, time to EXPAND!

By: kariato

kariato — Fri, 28 Aug 2009 18:12:56 +0000

Not really surprising. Given alternatives and the aging of america this will continue to accelerate to even higher ages. Given that networks current focus on younger demographics for advertisers but the actual viewers are older this is a really bad situation. If advertisers(customers) don’t like the product(audience) then either the advertisers have to shift to another medium or shift their focus to an older audience. Ad revenue will continue to drop if actual product (viewers 18-49) continues to decline faster than the total audience.

By: Catherine

Catherine — Fri, 28 Aug 2009 16:56:06 +0000

I’m 58. My family always had a TV so my parents were watching almost from the beginning. I grew up with TV; I got my news from TV. I still get a lot of my news on TV but I also read a lot of more in depth news on the Internet rather than the magazines like Time and Newsweek who keep changing so often to attract readers who do not read print. I have had access to all new entertainment technology as it has come along. But my preference, over watching TV on the Internet or watching a DVD, is sitting on the couch and watching a show. It isn’t laziness, it isn’t because I am too old. I’d just rather watch television on my large TV in HD (which we can get over the air) or on cable in a relaxed manner with others and maybe with a snack. The fact that the median age is increasing is a no brainer because those of us who are the mainly the first generation of television viewers are getting older. As for cable networks skewing lower, well, how many cable networks are geared towards kids? A lot from what I see and when I watch those, which I do, I’m messing with their demographics too. So what is their solution? Stop broadcasting altogether? And I am sure the FOX affiliates would appreciate FOX becoming a cable channel. Sure they will.

By: Scott Jensen

Scott Jensen — Fri, 28 Aug 2009 16:17:16 +0000

What I wonder is what is the growing entertainment of the young people. Computer games? YouTube.com? Having an actual life?

By: James

James — Fri, 28 Aug 2009 16:03:49 +0000

Not really a surprise from what I saw working for a retailer of those Government TV boxes before the DTV transition. Most purchasers were above the 50+ age level. I personally don’t watch ANY broadcast TV (except local news, and much of the time that is even DVR’d for later), and it was enlightening to see what a core audience of broadcast TV looked like, as I have had cable for years. With the DTV transition, if the Govt would have pushed instead for a “Freesat” system as in the UK, the broadcasters could attempt to curb the demo erosion by using the time-shifted models used in the UK and Canada. Possibly then, they could have shored-up the erosion … for awhile at least.

By: Network Audiences Put the “Old” in Oldteevee

Network Audiences Put the “Old” in Oldteevee — Fri, 28 Aug 2009 15:15:17 +0000

[...] dip slightly with CBS at 54, ABC at 50, NBC at 47 and FOX at 44 and the CW at 33. Robert Seidman over at TV by the Numbers explains why DVRs don’t have a bigger [...]

By: Grady

Grady — Fri, 28 Aug 2009 13:47:27 +0000

Could Fox become a cable network, Tom? I’m really asking. I mean, I know Fox wont go the cable route so long as American Idol is on the air, but I’m asking a general question. How would a network go about becoming a cable channel, and could they have the same distribution to as many homes? If they could, someone needs to tell the CW, so they can build their niche-ish shows to a cable network, because that seems like a much better fit to me!

By: cody

cody — Fri, 28 Aug 2009 13:14:48 +0000

thats so sad. the big three have such histoical significance

By: Kermonk

Kermonk — Fri, 28 Aug 2009 13:07:29 +0000

Just you wait until Jay gets back, then its all going to change!

By: Robert Seidman

Robert Seidman — Fri, 28 Aug 2009 08:19:23 +0000

good points Karl, and Tom. Jackie, the focus on 18-49 is not about purchasing power/disposable income.

By: Tom

Tom — Fri, 28 Aug 2009 08:14:11 +0000

Karl, don’t forget that FOX doesn’t have morning, day time and late night line-up.
FOX could save a ton of money if they become a cable network.

By: tdot

tdot — Fri, 28 Aug 2009 07:47:31 +0000

we still have all the money

By: Jackie

Jackie — Fri, 28 Aug 2009 07:26:21 +0000

Is the 18-49 demo still what it used to be? Has the purchasing power/desire migrated upwards with the median age of the viewer, or do the kids still have all the money?

By: Dan

Dan — Fri, 28 Aug 2009 05:51:41 +0000

Thats why its still calld the Big 3 but in terms of ratings FOX ABC and CBS are the Big 3 while NBC seems like the little brother.

By: Karl

Karl — Fri, 28 Aug 2009 04:52:42 +0000

I have no problem with them still using the big 3. Fox still only programs 2 hours a night on weekdays.