ABC's "Family" scores 18-49 win
David
'Family' premiere scores demo win
ABC's latest reality entry "The Family" debuted to a time-slot-winning
4.1 rating and 12 share among adults 18 to 49, according to Nielsen
Media Research fast affiliate data. It finished second in the 10
p.m.-to-11 p.m. time slot in total viewers with 9.1 million to NBC's
"Dateline" (10.2 million).
The debut of "Let's Make a Deal" on NBC finished in third place in
adults 18 to 49 from 8 p.m. to 9 p.m. with a 3.3/9, behind Fox's
"American Idol" (8.3/23) and reruns of "8 Simple Rules" and "According
to Jim" on ABC (3.9/11).
Fox won the night in adults 18 to 49 with a 7.3/19, followed by ABC
(4.1/11), NBC (3.6/10) and CBS (2.3/6). In total viewers, Fox placed
first with 15.9 million, followed by NBC (10.1 million), ABC (10
million) and CBS (8.1 million).
<cue James>
James
>
><cue James>
If you want me to make remarks, then you don't have a right to complain when I
do.
James
>
>From tvweek.com
>
>'Family' premiere scores demo win
>
>ABC's latest reality entry "The Family" debuted to a time-slot-winning
>4.1 rating and 12 share among adults 18 to 49, according to Nielsen
>Media Research fast affiliate data. It finished second in the 10
>p.m.-to-11 p.m. time slot in total viewers with 9.1 million to NBC's
>"Dateline" (10.2 million).
Since people (well, one person) was waiting with bated breath to hear my
comments, I can't help wondering how this will due against real competition,
and considering that there was no competition, why it didn't do even better in
18-49, since ABC likes to wrap itself in the 18-49 flag and do the press
release dance as often as they can.
David
>>diml...@yahoo.com (David) wrote
>
>
>
>>
>>From tvweek.com
>>
>>'Family' premiere scores demo win
>>
>>ABC's latest reality entry "The Family" debuted to a time-slot-winning
>>4.1 rating and 12 share among adults 18 to 49, according to Nielsen
>>Media Research fast affiliate data. It finished second in the 10
>>p.m.-to-11 p.m. time slot in total viewers with 9.1 million to NBC's
>>"Dateline" (10.2 million).
>
>Since people (well, one person) was waiting with bated breath to hear my
>comments,
You take things too seriously. Then again, you couldn't resist could
you?
>I can't help wondering how this will due against real competition,
>and considering that there was no competition,
If you mean "Judging Amy", I don't think JA is a big hit with young
adults. For all I know it could be but I don't see why.
>why it didn't do even better in
>18-49, since ABC likes to wrap itself in the 18-49 flag and do the press
>release dance as often as they can.
1. This isn't an ABC press release
2. It isn't a competition for bragging rights of having the most
viewers, it's a competition to make the most money. And I'm sure
advertisers have done tons of research to determine that this method
makes them the most money. This is the world, accept it already.
James
>
>You take things too seriously.
So do you. I've never seen you joke about anything, aside from rueful mockery
when anyone dares to criticize a program which airs on ABC.
>Then again, you couldn't resist could
>you?
After you baited me? No, because you obviously wanted a response.
>
>If you mean "Judging Amy", I don't think JA is a big hit with young
>adults. For all I know it could be but I don't see why.
Actually I meant whatever airs on NBC, although I can't remember what does.
>1. This isn't an ABC press release
I never said it was.
>2. It isn't a competition for bragging rights of having the most
>viewers, it's a competition to make the most money. And I'm sure
>advertisers have done tons of research to determine that this method
>makes them the most money. This is the world, accept it already.
I'm sure you don't believe me, because how dare I have an opinion which doesn't
resemble yours, but I realize this is "the world". I realize the demo is
important. I also realize that one demo doesn't mean a show is a big hit or a
"modest hit" and that demos can be manipulated and twisted around as any part
of the ratings can.
Alex Wai
"James" <tvfan...@aol.comnospam> wrote in message
news:20030305222741...@mb-cj.aol.com...
> >diml...@yahoo.com (David) wrote
>
> >ABC's latest reality entry "The Family" debuted to a time-slot-winning
> >4.1 rating and 12 share among adults 18 to 49, according to Nielsen
> >Media Research fast affiliate data. It finished second in the 10
> >p.m.-to-11 p.m. time slot in total viewers with 9.1 million to NBC's
> >"Dateline" (10.2 million).
>
> Since people (well, one person) was waiting with bated breath to hear my
> comments, I can't help wondering how this will due against real
competition,
> and considering that there was no competition, why it didn't do even
better in
> 18-49, since ABC likes to wrap itself in the 18-49 flag and do the press
> release dance as often as they can.
It actually did almost as well as the Charlotte Ross nude episode of NYPD
Blue which averaged a 4.3 in 18-49s.
James
Do you think this will go up in the ratings next week? I actually do, believe
it or not, especially since JAmy is an older-skewing show. Too bad they didn't
find someone besides George Hamilton to host.
James
>
>It actually did almost as well as the Charlotte Ross nude episode of NYPD
>Blue which averaged a 4.3 in 18-49s.
Well good for them. To be honest, aside from weariness over demo haggling and
whether a show is a hit because of this demo or that demo (I let myself believe
that Amazing Race would stick around because of demos, and that didn't seem to
be the case), I really don't care if the show is a hit or not. I may have been
more upset in the past but "Judging Amy" is so poor this season that seeing it
have some competition doesn't bother me. My problem here is that I don't think
most of the ABC reality shows have good enough production values to reach any
sort of real potential, and they also take themselves much too seriously. If
this show doesn't (I didn't watch the whole thing so I don't know), then maybe
it's a step in the right direction. I'd rather see this be successful than
something like "All-American Girl", which seems to be yet another variation on
we-humiliate-because-American-Idol-does.
David
>> diml...@yahoo.com (David) wrote:
>
>
>
>>
>>You take things too seriously.
>
>So do you. I've never seen you joke about anything, aside from rueful mockery
>when anyone dares to criticize a program which airs on ABC.
You say rueful mockery I say gentle teasing. And if you are going to
see it as rueful marketing then at least be fair that I do it for all
shows not just ABC's.
>>Then again, you couldn't resist could
>>you?
>
>After you baited me? No, because you obviously wanted a response.
Again, not baiting, teasing.
>>If you mean "Judging Amy", I don't think JA is a big hit with young
>>adults. For all I know it could be but I don't see why.
>
>Actually I meant whatever airs on NBC, although I can't remember what does.
Dateline does, which aired yesterday as well.
>>1. This isn't an ABC press release
>
>I never said it was.
>
>>2. It isn't a competition for bragging rights of having the most
>>viewers, it's a competition to make the most money. And I'm sure
>>advertisers have done tons of research to determine that this method
>>makes them the most money. This is the world, accept it already.
>
>I'm sure you don't believe me, because how dare I have an opinion which doesn't
>resemble yours,
Oh great this is turning into one of these usenet dealies
>but I realize this is "the world". I realize the demo is
>important. I also realize that one demo doesn't mean a show is a big hit or a
>"modest hit" and that demos can be manipulated and twisted around as any part
>of the ratings can.
Of course they can be. But I just post what I find.
PkJ0891
>I realize the demo is
>important. I also realize that one demo doesn't mean a show is a big hit or a
>"modest hit" and that demos can be manipulated and twisted around as any part
>of the ratings can.
Here's an interesting tidbit, comparing Judging Amy and Boston Public: Boston
Public garnered FOX a $13.2m cash flow and $58.5m in gross ad billings.
Judging Amy (CBS), which skews older but has more viewers, had $17.4m in cash
flow and $63.2m in gross ad billings. The "more viewers" approach isn't always
a disaster. I'm sure that CBS would like "younger" in addition to "more", but
their philosophy does make money.
PKJ
James
>
>Here's an interesting tidbit, comparing Judging Amy and Boston Public: Boston
>Public garnered FOX a $13.2m cash flow and $58.5m in gross ad billings.
>Judging Amy (CBS), which skews older but has more viewers, had $17.4m in cash
>flow and $63.2m in gross ad billings. The "more viewers" approach isn't
>always
>a disaster. I'm sure that CBS would like "younger" in addition to "more",
>but
>their philosophy does make money.
>PKJ
Thanks for the information. I've never inteded to claim (whether it came across
that way or not) that a show which is most notable for the 18-49 demo is
worthless or should not be counted, all I have ever said is that 18-49, no
matter how powerful a marketing tool or how good it is for publicity, should
not be considered the standard for whether a show is successful or not. I've
seen more than one show which had fairly good or strong younger demos replaced
or put on hiatus because the overall ratings weren't that good and the network
decided to take a gamble on another series. It gets people's hopes up, then
they are dumbfounded when this supposedly successful series vanishes (like
"Amazing Race" has, until summer or whenever). That's great that ABC and also
FOX are doing so well in the younger demos, but at times they use that to blind
people to the real problems they are having as networks, and people should take
more than one demo into account before they start branding anything that does
above-average in one demo a hit.
Bing
> 'Family' premiere scores demo win
Ok. I watched the show and I am completely mystified. The
whole time, I kept wondering, "What, the heck, were the
family members told about the game?" They certainly
weren't acting like rational reality-show players.
I mean, they are, apparently, told someone will win a
million dollars by being the last person not voted out
of the game by some mysterious panel. And they each
walk into the house and declare themselves to be the
biggest jerk in the family.
Hello? Did you miss the part where you were told that
you'd be judged by a secret panel? Shouldn't you go
ahead and try to be the sweetest person in the world?
If you'd watch any reality show, you'd know that you
have to, at least, pretend to be nice to survive
elimination when there is voting involved.
And then there was that fiasco with the paintings.
Again, they are told that the two paintings with the
highest bids would be put on the block for possible
elimination tonight.
Ok, maybe I'm too much of a strategist, but it seems
to me that the last two people to have their paintings
put up for auction are hosed. Whoever has the current
high bid on their painting just needs to bid more on
the last two than was bid earlier on his. The people
in the last two positions can't do a thing about it.
Yet, both Mike and Robert (the current high bids) sat
silent when the final two pictures went up, even
though they knew it would doom one of them to do so.
I'm thinking that the producers aren't telling us
something. Perhaps that the players were told that
they'd be judged on how ruthless they could be. Or
something. These people just aren't making sense.
-- Bing Monopoly Expansion Set
Visit us at http://www.paxentertainment.com
Default User
"pb..." wrote:
> Won? Who won? From what I see above we've all LOST.
Really? In what way?
Brian Rodenborn
Default User
"pb..." wrote:
>>> Won? Who won? From what I see above we've all LOST.
>>Really? In what way?
> Winning and/or losing...obviously a relative matter -- winning,
> as is beauty, to be found in the eye of the beholder. In my
> somewhat jaded and cynical view of today's TV fare, we're
> all losers...relatively speaking... ;-)
Non-responsive. You haven't explained WHY you think we have all lost.
Brian Rodenborn
Corwin2
pax...@yahoo.com (Bing) wrote:
>diml...@yahoo.com (David) wrote:
>
>> 'Family' premiere scores demo win
>
>Ok. I watched the show and I am completely mystified. The
>whole time, I kept wondering, "What, the heck, were the
>family members told about the game?" They certainly
>weren't acting like rational reality-show players.
>
>I mean, they are, apparently, told someone will win a
>million dollars by being the last person not voted out
>of the game by some mysterious panel. And they each
>walk into the house and declare themselves to be the
>biggest jerk in the family.
>
>Hello? Did you miss the part where you were told that
>you'd be judged by a secret panel? Shouldn't you go
>ahead and try to be the sweetest person in the world?
>If you'd watch any reality show, you'd know that you
>have to, at least, pretend to be nice to survive
>elimination when there is voting involved.
Maybe their interactions were too ingrained by that time.
This gave the outsider (the shaved head/bald guy) a huge
advantage in that he doesn't interact very much with the rest
of family plus he doesn't have a built-in set of kneejerk reactions.
He was actively feigning that he was nice to the servants.
>And then there was that fiasco with the paintings.
>Again, they are told that the two paintings with the
>highest bids would be put on the block for possible
>elimination tonight.
>
>Ok, maybe I'm too much of a strategist, but it seems
>to me that the last two people to have their paintings
>put up for auction are hosed. Whoever has the current
>high bid on their painting just needs to bid more on
>the last two than was bid earlier on his. The people
>in the last two positions can't do a thing about it.
My impression was that a single person could not raise the
bid above $5,000. What I could not keep track of was
whether a person could bid twice on a specific portrait,
i.e. whether a lone pair of people could keep driivng the
price up and up and up, $5,000 at a time.
>Yet, both Mike and Robert (the current high bids) sat
>silent when the final two pictures went up, even
>though they knew it would doom one of them to do so.
>
>I'm thinking that the producers aren't telling us
>something. Perhaps that the players were told that
>they'd be judged on how ruthless they could be. Or
>something. These people just aren't making sense.
If a single bid per person per painting was allowed, the
maximum price on a painting might be $55,000. (12
contestants, no bidding on your own painting.)
Otherwise it would behoove contestants to try to dry up the
bidding. Drive the price up to $340,000 for the first two
contestants. Ok, so you are only playing for $320,000
now. (Yeah, right.) The gimmick of claiming that the
bidding came out of the winnings worked to suppress the
bidding (with a little help from the uncle and aunt.)
(J)