(click the chart for the full-sized original)
Robert already has a post on a long NY Times article chronicling many things including the recent troubles at NBC.
My favorite part of that article is the very fine chart above. It's meant to demonstrate how far NBC has fallen lately, but if you step back from the current media frenzy of "Woe is NBC", what the top chart says to me is "Woe is Broadcast Television". (I have my own similar chart that I do annually with a bit more detail, but nobody does business graphics that look better than the NY Times)
And while the bottom chart says "NBC has really slid in the last 8 years", it also shows that NBC's been in worse relative shape before (as have the other broadcasters) and recovered from it, so their relative position among broadcast networks is almost certainly temporary. (I have my own chart showing the cyclical nature of the business in the Eras of Network Television, and while it's not nearly as fine as what comes from the NY Times, it was put into a recent book on the media industry).
Note that the ratings in the two big charts above are household ratings, not adults 18-49 ratings that we and the rest of the industry typically cite. Most of the long term historical Nielsen ratings we have are household ratings, and perhaps the NY Times is in the same boat. And it seems to me the text above the chart is in error, implying that NBC hasn't been this far behind in 15 years, when the chart shows they were #1 in 2002. I'll have to look and see if I have the same series of data to verify.
The gradual decline in primetime ratings for all networks is, I think, just a direct result of the American people having a much wider selection of things to watch. Back in the 60′s, broadcast TV was all the average consumer had.
Bill, I have to give you credit for pointing this out. Also they are counting viewers as opposed to demos. That is like counting popular vote in the presidential election.
Craig, much more recently than the 60s. In the early 80s, 90+% of the primetime audience was watching broadcast TV.
Good analysis except for that 3 points in 1950s was roughly 4.5% of the total audience. In 2010 3 points is 11.5%. (1970s: 6%)
In the % of total viewing audience game, NBC is roughly twice as far behind as they were in the 1950 and 70s.
They may only be 3 points behind but 3 points is a much wider gap in todays smaller audience.
The real question: how low can they go? I assume there’s got to be some minimum for the broadcasters, if only from inertia. After all, a small percentage of households only have over-the-air TV, and the broadcasters still generally get the better (lower-numbered) slots on most cable/satellite systems.
Maybe they’ll bottom out at 20% or so of the audience. That might still leave room for the broadcast model. After all, you’ve got a better shot if you share 20% of the audience with only a few broadcast competitors than if you share 80% with a couple hundred cable competitors.
Still, it’s like watching the dinosaurs get overtaken by all those primitive little mammals running around their feet.
NBC struck gold in the mid ’80s with several big hits rather than relying on two or three mega hits like they did in the ’90s. But evidently, cable took hold in the late ’80s and things have never been the same since.
Broadcast television will be a thing of the past. I don’t see in ten years how any broadcast network will be able to survive entirely on advertising revenue. More and more cable stations, the internet becoming more prevalent. I read that article and what Wright said about moving NBC to cable. I think it’s coming. Otherwise network television will primarily consist of low cost programming, talk shows, reality, game shows, sports, and news.
“I don’t see in ten years how any broadcast network will be able to survive entirely on advertising revenue.” Agree. That’s why the retrans fights are so important. If the broadcasters can corral the double-stream of revenue that the cable outlets have always enjoyed, I think they can live on 20% of the audience. And let’s face it, we’re at a cyclical low for ad revenue. Things will improve one of these days…I think.
“Otherwise network television will primarily consist of low cost programming, talk shows, reality, game shows, sports, and news.” I’m tempted to say this is the status quo. But that would be (a little) cruel. I don’t think the broadcasters will be able to afford many expensive Dollhouse-y flops, though. So the inexorable trend will run towards fewer scripted shows.
It’s sad to see the end of an era. What’s interesting about that graph is while ratings seemed to trend pretty stable from 1960 to mayb 1987, they then started trending down gradually. But the thing I find interesting is there has really been no trend upward really of any consequence over this timeframe(1960 – 1985), even with the population increase in this country. That kind of surprises me.
And while there may be hundreds of cable stations “competing” for that 80% you mentioned, that’s not really happening today. There are a few major scripted programming cable networks(TNT, USA), a couple of decent rated specialty stations(ESPN, DISNEY, SYFY) a few decent middle tier cable stations, and the rest that are so niche bsaed they aren’t worth a mention.
Vanity Fair, ratings are a percentage of the population (in this case the number of TV households), population growth would have no effect on this chart.
Bill, you said that NBC’s position now is “almost certainly temporary”. In your opinion, how many years do you think it will take for NBC to recover from their current position and be placed a respectable 2nd or 3rd among the broadcasters?
It’s the end of a lot of eras.
Like America being the top exporter, or no longer having ‘wonders of the world’. (The tower in Dubai, for example).
GM used to be a signifigant chunk of America; now it’s market cap is about that of Bed, Bath and Beyond.
I’ll bet that, though we can’t actually get good numbers, the change to other things like internet downloads makes a sizeable dent in there, too. And views coming from their own websites.
We don’t use lead in paint or gasoline anymore…but the people running the networks seem to have the same old mindset: “We’re the only game in town”. Clearly, there are other games, no?
Bill, in regards to your very last comment about the chart being in error, I don’t see what the issue is. If the NYT is saying NBC hasn’t been this far behind the ratings leader in 15 years, being #1 in 2002 doesn’t conflict with that at all. If NBC was the ratings leader that year then pretty much by definition it was exactly 0 points behind the leader!
“And while there may be hundreds of cable stations “competing” for that 80% you mentioned, that’s not really happening today. There are a few major scripted programming cable networks(TNT, USA), a couple of decent rated specialty stations(ESPN, DISNEY, SYFY) a few decent middle tier cable stations, and the rest that are so niche bsaed they aren’t worth a mention.”
Funny, but that’s how I bet broadcast execs looked at all the cable nets a few decades ago…so niche-based they aren’t worth a mention. Trouble is, all those niche-based networks piled up into one enormous problem for the broadcasters. Sooner or later, though, I think the broadcast nets have to hit some kind of rock-bottom minimum.
Oh, one other thing about the cable universe. It remains very fragmented. I just looked at Bill and Robert’s latest chart for 18-49 prime time in cable. USA led the way with a 1.4 million average. That’s nice, but it’s a small sliver of the total cable pie. Comedy Central, HGTV and Nick at Nite – hardly the biggest cable operations – combined for more viewers.
That’s the broadcasters’ saving grace, why they can claim that broadcast TV “aggregates audiences” better than cable. And it’s why the top hundred shows for any week are still dominated by broadcast shows.
If USA only had to worry about TNT, TBS and A&E, their share of the total viewing audience would be a lot more impressive. But USA has to worry about dozens of competitors claiming significant market share compared to their own.
At least in the broadcast universe NBC only has to worry about a few other players. And if the broadcast share of the audience finally stabilizes at around, say, 20%…well, maybe even NBC can live with that, especially if it gets serious retrans money from the system operators. So the dinosaurs might not be finished quite yet.
Yes, but because of the trend, broadcast nets are forced to charge less and less for ad revenues as time passes. Betcha they’re already straddling the line between net profit or net loss RIGHT NOW.
Yes, NBC experimented with Leno at 10PM, but given the above trend line, and the lack of viewers at the 10PM hour compared to 8 or 9PM, I think NBC was ahead of the curve hear. It’s only a matter of time before it becomes far more cost effective for a network to show unscripted fare at 10PM vs. a scripted show. So it won’t be a talk show, so what? Eventually you’ll see an hour of just reality fare/game shows at 10 for ABC, CBS, and NBC…
…or they’ll follow FOX and the CW, turning the hour over to their affiliates. Either way, the days of scripted programming at 10PM are numbered.
I’ve wondered why it is the networks don’t fight cable more. They could push for more competition – most areas have very little choice, and that drives up rates which helps fund the budgets of the shows competing with broadcast prime time. They could also push harder for a la carte being mandatory. If people could just order the handful of channels they want, a lot of channels would wither away.
Instead they make their own cable channels and get in bed with the enemy and look where that has gotten them.
Wow. NBC’s numbers are lower now than FOX’s when it debuted.
I’ll never forget the folks at NBC making fun of FOX for airing reality TV like COPS and WHEN ANIMALS ATTACK.
Who’s laughing now, Zucker?
The problem with exclusive cable retrans is that 20% is probably too high. Most of those that would leave would probably be in the demo because that is where you get grad students, married broke families and broke 18-25 yr olds that would opt out. The second that happens is the instant where even 5 days/week x 3hrs/night becomes untenable. If they go cable, may as well split off into subscription based TV. The problem is that scheduling and production models are based on a revenue model that won’t exist anymore.
Not only that but what would cable do to Today and week-end football (MNF is down versus ABC)? Retrans not only would kill the scripted side but would obliterate the biggest moneymakers on the nets.
Oh, how me loves a good graph like that. So here’s a question: the broadcast networks remain incredibly valuable properties nevertheless. Even adjusted for inflation, they’re worth more now than when they were reaching audiences five times the size in the 1960s. Could it be that today’s fragmented media environment makes the broadcast nets *more* valuable, per viewer, than when they owned the airwaves 50 years ago?