Hello!
The comments on this profile are unclaimed and thus are unverified.
Do they belong to you? Claim these comments.
Emily
Is this you? Claim Profile »
10 months ago
in Mad Men Ratings for Sunday August 17, 2008 on TVbytheNumbers
Oh Oh. Are you still of the opinion that it will go another season? I hope so for you, I know you are enjoying it immensely.
1 reply
Robert Seidman
Em, I am still of the opinion there will definitely be a third season. But it's just an opinion and if it goes down under 850K, I reserve the right to change my mind. And worry not, although I am enjoying it, cancelled TV series don't devastate me. I'm a tiny bit sad, for example, that SciFi is cancelling Stargate Atlantis after this season, but only a tiny bit.
10 months ago
in More on NBC’s TAMi on TVbytheNumbers
Hi Robert, If you posted 'NewTeeVee.com' as a link it isn't working. No way were sick of you, we enjoy all your thoughts.
1 reply
Robert Seidman
Em, my brain is fried today -- all links should be working now and thanks for the kind words.
10 months ago
in CBS’ Swingtown: Wanting to Believe in Santa Claus on TVbytheNumbers
Thanks Robert, I knew my business degree was going to be good for something. I've actually had economics classes and I do play around on the web for additional info. My point remains, if the largest audience is over 49 and the biggest advertising budgets are for services or goods in that range why place so much emphasis on the younger crowd, regardless of scarcity. IMO not all shows should be gauged in that demo. A number of other sites agree that the way the numbers are calculated is flawed and the age range goofy. My other point is about CBS. Ms. Tassler has indicated that she is returning to sitcoms and procedurals. While I find them boring they do seem to work for CBS. Still I think it's one reason why cable is picking up viewers and the nets, at least this net, losing some.
1 reply
Robert Seidman
Em, factoring out the emotion and whether Nielsen itself is flawed out of the mix (because whether it is or isn't is not relevant so long as it is how the networks make decisions) your question to me amounts to this: why are advertisers willing to pay more for people they have trouble reaching than people they can reach easily?
I am comfortable with how to answer this question and my answer remains the same.
I am comfortable with how to answer this question and my answer remains the same.
10 months ago
in CBS’ Swingtown: Wanting to Believe in Santa Claus on TVbytheNumbers
Ok, But in the case of Swingtown, which I also didn't watch, cable saw it b/4 CBS and passed. Moonlight has been 'shopped' around to cable and so far no one is snapping it up. It's annoying to watch a show on CBS that probably will have an extremely short viewing period. 13 episodes for Swingtown and 16 for Moonlight. Jericho didn't fare much better. I don't mean to turn this into a bash on CBS but their track record is horrible when you're outside of their core programming. In the case of the coveted demo please explain again if there are fewer of them, with less dollars why are they so desirable? You'd think that raw numbers would count as much if not more. Why fight over a small percentage of the viewing audience when you could attract a larger percentage? Why isn't more better? More numbers should equal more spending power. Or at least 2 over 49 viewers should equal 1 in the demo. It's really annoying when the two largest advertisers are drug companies, selling to the 50+, and investment groups. Neither sounds like my 23 year old type of products. Ok. I'm done now...off the soap box.
1 reply
Robert Seidman
I'm thinking of Mad Men, The Wire, Dexter, Damages, great shows that are on cable that probably wouldn't have made it on broadcast. I am glad this programming exists and that I get to see it. I'm also glad Lost and House exist on broadcast, but I don't believe the shows I love on cable would likely have made it on broadcast.
As for the 18-49 year olds, it's *not* an issue of there being fewer of them with less dollars in general. It's an issue that there are fewer of them WATCHING TV and so it's harder for advertisers to reach them. Because it's harder to reach them, the ability to reach them pays more than those who are easily reached. Reaching wealthy older people is much, much, much easier than reaching say, middle-class 30 year olds. Advertisers want to reach both of course, but one is much easier to reach than the other.
It's simple supply and demand economic theory and there are far better places on the Internet to read about that than from this site! :-)
As for the 18-49 year olds, it's *not* an issue of there being fewer of them with less dollars in general. It's an issue that there are fewer of them WATCHING TV and so it's harder for advertisers to reach them. Because it's harder to reach them, the ability to reach them pays more than those who are easily reached. Reaching wealthy older people is much, much, much easier than reaching say, middle-class 30 year olds. Advertisers want to reach both of course, but one is much easier to reach than the other.
It's simple supply and demand economic theory and there are far better places on the Internet to read about that than from this site! :-)
10 months ago
in Nielsen Ratings Friday, August 8: Olympics Net 35 Million in PrimeTime on TVbytheNumbers
Hi Robert, I'm not sure if its ok to relay a post here or not but Mediaweek is reporting Swingtown as 3.66 million viewers 18-49 demo 1.1/3 at 10:00 and 3.26 million 18-49 demo 1.1/3 at 10:30. Pretty sad numbers. CBS is behind an ABC movie rerun.
1 reply
Robert Seidman
Em, first -- it's always OK! And thank you. We were on the same wave length though, I entered it about 30 minutes ago (see update 2 above), but much appreciated!
The numbers did stink, even worse than ABC for the hour. While I already felt Swingtown doomed, CBS airing an original episode up against the opening ceremonies removes any doubt. Not that there was any doubt!
The numbers did stink, even worse than ABC for the hour. While I already felt Swingtown doomed, CBS airing an original episode up against the opening ceremonies removes any doubt. Not that there was any doubt!
11 months ago
in Mad Men Ratings Down in Week 2? on TVbytheNumbers
Ok Robert, I tried...I really did. It's just not my cup of tea. I think maybe its the era. I was never really fond of the 60's. I also read a number of reviews including Ken Tucker's, and he liked MM, 'sexual banter isn't yet harassment' and Missy Schwartz commenting 'June Cleaver as domestic perfection'. I thought June Cleaver was science fiction or maybe that was Donna Reed? I'm really glad for you though and for AMC, I hope MM continues to do well! So their season two premier had 1.9 million viewers, 955,000 under 50. This is good? Is this because the show costs are low or because they have low expectations for numbers? What would be too low?
1 reply
Robert Seidman
As I said, I had to watch the first 4 or 5 episodes before I got reeled in. I don't blame someone who isn't running a blog about TV Ratings for not sticking with it that long. June Cleaver is definitely not the reality of Mad Men!
the final numbers for last week were ~2.1 million which for AMC is stellar. Because of the critical acclaim and press it generates for AMC, it probably has to do worse than last year to be in the realm of "too low". But that's pure conjecture on my part. I'm not privy to production costs -- and I also have no idea how the actor's contracts were done and whether Jon Hamm and the rest of the cast will be asking for fat raises soon.
the final numbers for last week were ~2.1 million which for AMC is stellar. Because of the critical acclaim and press it generates for AMC, it probably has to do worse than last year to be in the realm of "too low". But that's pure conjecture on my part. I'm not privy to production costs -- and I also have no idea how the actor's contracts were done and whether Jon Hamm and the rest of the cast will be asking for fat raises soon.
11 months ago
in Nielsen Ratings Friday, August 1: Few Watched Swingtown Or Anything Else on TVbytheNumbers
Hi Robert, excuse my ignorance, as a newbie here, but is it unusual for the cable nets to pass on a show and then have it picked up by one of the big 5?
1 reply
Robert Seidman
@Em, my ignorance on the development end of the business may surpass your own. :) My limited experience with it is that sometimes networks themselves commission a pilot, and other times studios create the pilots on their own and pitch them to anyone who'll listen. My guess is that it is rare where a cable net passes on something that a broadcast network picks up.
11 months ago
in More Number Noodling On CBS’ ‘Flashpoint’ on TVbytheNumbers
Ok, so the 50+ may not be scarce but we (ok I'm in that group) have a lot more available income to spend. I also disagree with the thought that we spend more time in front of the TV set, I think its less. Also Robert, watch The Burn Notice if you get a chance. It's fairly good. Flashpoint, I havn't seen and can't find the time to bother.
1 reply
Robert Seidman
Em, I'm a big fan of Burn Notice and have watched all the episodes except last night's. it's on the DVR though and will get watched by Monday...
11 months ago
in Nielsen Ratings Thursday July 31: Big Brother Likes Thursdays, Flashpoint a Hit…With Older People on TVbytheNumbers
So Robert, If the Crime Procedurals attract the older crowd and CBS is trying to make inroads into the 18-49 demo why start with another CP? When I look at the top 20 shows I only see one CP. I guess I don't get what CBS is trying to do. Or are they really trying to retain the 50 + crowd and just don't want to say it?
1 reply
Robert Seidman
Em - I think it's possible to both not alienate your aging audience (and CBS isn't the only one with this issue, it's just perhaps more pronounced at the Eye net) and attract younger viewers and do it with crime procedurals.. CSI, and CSI: Miami both have healthy 18-49 audiences for original airings, as does Law & Order: SVU. So I think CP just are a comfort zone. The devil you know, dance with the one who brung you, pick your cliché.
