For the first time since Jay Leno's Tonight Show overlapped with Conan's on a calendar week basis (2010 vs. 2009) his Tonight Show ratings tied Conan's Tonight Show ratings for the comparable calendar week (July 6-9, 2010 vs. July 6-10, 2009).
This could get interesting on a week to week basis going forward. Stay tuned.
The folks dwelling on Leno beating Letterman (which he did again last week) miss the point that beating the competition is important only in press releases (and to sites like ours that focus on the horserace) not to the network’s business. What matters to NBC are a show’s absolute ratings (and their trend) which correlate to its advertising potential. NBC’s ad revenue is based on the Tonight Show’s ratings, not whether it beat the Late Show or not.
CBS, of course, cares about Letterman's Late Show ratings and their trend. Although Letterman's Late Show has been at or above it's year ago ratings recently, last week it was in repeats and fell to a 0.7 adults 18-49 rating average.
The chart shows the late night adults 18-49 weekly average ratings for 2009 and 2010.
Note: The week ending 7/2/2010, the Tonight Show was in repeats, and was delayed by Wimbledon coverage. The week of 7/9/2010 the Late Show was in repeats, and both shows Monday airings were excluded because of the holiday.
No more chart of the sequential weeks comparison between Conan and Leno. That chart was always a bit apples/oranges because of the different seasons. While before the calendar runs of the shows overlapped we had to make do, now that we have some of the same time period to compare, the sequential chart has been retired.
Why do have to bring this crap up every time this is not news. Just gets the coconuts riled up. We have to here the same old dumb BS.
Intriguing. But just to get a sense of how things lie, those of you on the TV by the Numbers facebook fan page (which should be all of you) should go check out the 30 Rock facebook fan page, and read what the young people who are the most desirable demographic in the comments every time a video of a cast member's appearance on the Tonight Show with Jay Leno have to say. HUNDREDS of angry comments. Every time. In the most desirable demographic. There was one just today. Go read it.
People come here to this site to read this news, so what you are posting is 'Why do the runners of this site put up things that attract attention.' It has even gotten you, who think its stupid, to make a comment – loading up ads on the screen for the site and thusly making them money, all without them having done anything but provide a service that there was a large demand for.
Why go to the comment section of something you don't think is news and demand it not be posted, when all it does is provide people you don't like with facts that might make it harder to convince yourself that things aren't the way they are and give extra traffic to the site?
Well it should be mentioned that a desirable demographic is desirable because it means those people are the most likely to go out and buy the brands being advertised on TV. Unfortunately brand decisions for the people you refer to are almost certainly being made by the administrator of their respective mental institutions so their desirability is kind of moot.
Oh yeah, people reached by social media sites are all insane and have no disposable income, that's why there is such a rush to use things like twitter, facebook, and so on to reach consumers. Thanks for your flowery-worded statement that I don't understand.
You coconuts need to grow up and GET OVER IT. Your boy has his own show. I hope he crashes and burns.
Dammit I always click like instead of 'reply.' LOL What is the problem here, I am not mad about anything.
First person said 'WHY POST THIS CRAP'
I said 'because its news'
Second person said 'yeah, sure, social networking is a useful marketing idea,' or SOMETHING, lol I don't know if they were just joking or what.
You come back and say 'GET OVER IT.' LOL Do you realize that maybe you can get over it too?
Well it should be mentioned that a desirable demographic is desirable because it means those people are the most likely to go out and buy the brands being advertised on TV.
You might think so, but that's not the case. The demographic is desireable due to supply and demand, not buying power.
given the relatively stronger 10p NBC line-up (although SVU@10 would've made more sense), Leno 'needs' to beat Conan's #s in the fall.
about subsects of the viewing audience backlash against Leno, the chart above will not lie. it's all about ratings and 'saleability' of those ratings (for example, i believe upn/cw had a harder time capitalizing on relatively strong WWE ratings due to the content)
Not entirely true. The demo is desirable because advertisers want them to see their ads. One part of the puzzle as you mention is whether admen have something to sell to the demo. The more important part of the puzzle is how easy it is to get the ad in front of their eyes. The demo watches less TV than older viewers, so advertisers will pay more for shows that concentrate demo eyeballs.
Question about the chart, it has Letterman somewhat randomly jumping up to a 1.5 for a single week in December of last year. Is that a mistake? I went looking through the archive of ratings press releases from around that time, and I couldn't find anything indicating that number.
NBC's 10PM shows will be Chase, Parenthood, Law and Order: LA, Outlaw
CBS's 10PM shows will be Hawaii 5-O, The Good Wife, The Defenders, The Mentalist, Blue Bloods
I guess everybody can make the call o which network has a better 10PM shows.
I don't think this lead in matters at all but some do I guess
The point Nitish was making is whether NBC's 2010 10 pm lineup will do better than NBC's 2009 10 pm lineup. If Chase, Parenthood, LOLA, Apprentice and Outlaw can't beat Leno's ratings from last year, NBC is in even more trouble than anyone ever imagined.
You are 100% correct, it was an error on my part (always an option!). I have fixed the chart, both had 1.1 ratings that week. I checked the nearby weeks, and those were fine. Not sure how that error happened.
I suspect you are right. I couldn't find the report for the week of 12/28/2009 but from the rest of the NBC press releases for December the Late Show ratings were:
2009/12/07 1.0
2009/12/14 1.1
2009/12/21 1.0
2009/12/28 ?.?
http://tvbythenumbers.com/2009/12/17/conan-obri…
http://tvbythenumbers.com/2009/12/28/conan-obri…
http://tvbythenumbers.com/2010/01/04/conan-beat…
I think I had that wrong in my original graph eons ago. So it's actually my bad.
http://tvbythenumbers.com/2010/01/08/nightline-…
0.9 for week of 12/28
If this article is, as you refer to it, “crap”, why did you bother clicking on the link, reading the article, and posting a comment about it. Are you a big fan of “the same old dumb BS” or are you just really bored? Perhaps you have too much time on your hands. Regardless, it seems to me that the “coconuts” aren't alone in being upset over the subject matter.
Another week, another set of ratings which don't mean a great deal. Next week we get back to real comparisons
The “real comparison” here is vs. last year, Leno vs. Letterman is meaningless except for cheerleading.