"Men of a Certain Age," starring Ray Romano, Andre Braugher and Scott Bakula premieres Monday night on TNT.
I'll watch it even though I have now read a number of reviews that indicate the first two episodes don't find the show at the top of its game, but that by the fourth or fifth episode it is more entertaining.
The thing I wondered though, ever since I saw the show promoted heavily during the baseball playoffs in October is why exactly TNT went for the show. Really liked it? A chance to have Ray Romano? Hopes of having a show that is highly critically acclaimed with a chance at prestigious awards? Something else?
Because in a world focused on adults 18-49 ratings (AKA the world of television advertising), "Men of a Certain Age" is almost certain to draw in viewers of a certain age. That is viewer over the age of 50. That's true for most shows from "Burn Notice," to "The Closer," to "Monk." But those shows are based on a premise -- the crime procedural - that has wide ranging appeal.
Both "Burn Notice" and "The Closer" can regular pull in 2.5 million or more adults 18-49 (around a 1.9 adults 18-49 rating), though they need six or seven million overall viewers to achieve it. The series finale of "Monk" pulled in 3.2 million adults 18-49 or a 2.4 adults 18-49 rating, but needed 9.4 million viewers to achieve that. By contrast, the season two finale of FX's "Sons Of Anarchy" averaged 2.99 million adults 18-49 (2.3 rating) on only 4.29 million viewers.
Is it possible that young people who grew up on "Everybody Loves Raymond" will watch a show focusing on the lives of middle-aged men just because Ray Romano is in it? Is it possible that young "Homicide: Life on the Street" fans will tune in just because of Andre Braugher? Is it possible young science fiction aficionados will watch a show about middle-aged men just because of a deep-seated fondness for Scott Bakula? Sure, those things are possible, but seem extremely unlikely
With the typical network goals of skewing younger and having more adults 18-49 viewers, this show making it to the air at all seems unlikely. So I can only conclude TNT has other motives in mind with this show, or will have a "what the hell were we thinking?" moment.
Or I'm completely wrong and a show that focuses on the lives of middle-aged men will be a hit with younger viewers.
"Men of a Certain Age" premieres Monday night at 10pm on TNT following a new episode of "The Closer."
I believe it will get a high premiere rating (for TNT standards anyway) out of curiosity to see Ray on a new role, after that well I think the show will definitely skew older and I think it could go to the same path with Trust Me last season.
I’m 25, good tv is good tv. Plus Ray Romano is awesome, I’ll be checking it out, as well as some of my buddies, which belong to the 25-30 demo
all this time on our blog FringeFan, and you’re really so naive as to believe what happens in your little circle projects out to the whole TV viewing audience?
Though I agree good TV is good TV, good TV doesn’t have anything to do with the size (or age composition) of the audience. See award winning Mad Men, Breaking Bad, Damages, etc…
Being a man of a certain age why am I so undesirable to advertisers?
Granted I am not going to change habits for certain products but does that mean that I am immune to advertising?
I have more disposable income than at any point in my life, I have no car payment, I have no mortgage payment.
I buy more upper end quality products that I did when I was younger and supporting a growing family.
To me this is a failure in advertisers to be able to deliver the right type of advertising that will appeal to me as a consumer and target those companies that will benefit. I buy stuff, lots of stuff, lots of discretionary stuff!
All those eyeballs and an industry that is unable to capitalize on this?
I keep reading about the aging of the population and how old age security will not survive, does this not mean that there should be more targeting of advertising towards product that old people need.
Oh wait, I can just see all the Viagra and Depends and arthritis medicine commercials now
Yah- I loved the episode of Boston Legal where they riffed on why the young people were the only attractive demographic, despite oldies making up a progressively larger percentage of viewing audience while controlling more disposable income.
Then again, I’m almost out of the 18-34 demo (doesn’t feel like it), so I’ll be in the back 15 shortly. More Shatner, I say.
I’m pretty sure the issue isn’t so much that advertisers don’t care about the eyeballs of >50 viewers, but that that population watches so much TV as it is that it is unnecessary to cater to those viewers. The attention of 18-49 year olds is much harder to capture, so more effort has to be expended to win them.
Something like that. It’s been a long time since I heard anyone explain it.
But Robert, didn’t you say cable networks don’t necessarily target the demo? Total viewers matter aswell, no?
Rich, though different networks and different shows target different demos (MTV for example is more typically targeting 18-34), the under 50 demos are what matters.
Omega’s explanation is correct. 50+ viewers watch a lot more television than under 50 viewers. It’s not that advertisers don’t want 50+ viewers to see their ads, and indeed some products specifically at them. But the 50+ viewer is relatively so abundantly available to the point of practically being free to the advertisers and adverting rates are set based on under 50 viewing (typically 18-49).
Viewers under 50, particularly under 35 are much harder to reach. The scarcity of their eyeballs (not their disposable income) makes them relatively more important to advertisers.
Think about the demographics of people who vote. The 18-34 crowd doesn’t vote. Somebody could get themselves elected President by promising older viewers that he would protect their favorite TV shows. Network executives would think twice before canceling good shows that skew older if they had to worry about an unplanned vacation in Gitmo!
I’ll check the show out, but I have a feeling it won’t last more than one season. It’s weird for a show to advertise just how unattractive and grotesque its cast is as ths selling point for a show.
Read somewhere the demos they want to reach these days are more like 25-54.
two words….
golden girls…
remarkable and unlikely hit for the times…
mabey this will be the male version.
mark-allen
Is it possible young science fiction aficionados will watch a show about middle-aged men just because of a deep-seated fondness for Scott Bakula?
Check! Although, I will be TIVOing it since I have to watch my other favorite space captain at that time.
Good! because developing shows to appeal only to a younger demographic is what is making much of television unwatchable. I’m sure many younger people get sick of the usual junk that programmers think that younger people appeal to.
mark-allen, I’ll bet you that Golden Girls was the oldest skewing show in the top 20 when it aired. Even more than Murder, She Wrote.
@TomKH
actually i am not sure, but i remember talk at the time that it covered a broad and varied audience…
anyone know for sure?
mark-allen
You could have made the same argument before Golden Girls came on, and that show lasted quite a long time.
18-34 is gold, anything older is iron.
Gold is rare so it costs more. The 18-34 demo watches less tv and is more costly to advertisers.
Iron is common so it’s relatively cheap. The older demos are watching so much tv that it doesn’t matter if a show caters to them because they’ll just watch something targeted to the 18-35 crowd if nothing else is on.
Rare = expensive. Common = cheap. This analogy belongs in every TVBTN thread about about older viewers.
The ads single the show clearly doesn’t want anyone under 40! These men, it says, could be your “husband, brother, friend.” Um, if you’re 50. My brother is 19, my friends are in their 20s and 30s. Oh well, I never understood the whole Ray Romano thing anyway.
What about nkinsey’s question? Did they just not track the demos when Golden Girls was on?