NBC - Nothing But Collapsing ratings
Sir WQ
it’s gotten in just the third week of the new season? At this plummeting
rate, what are they going to actually end up with before the return of
American Idol? Below are the latest household ratings covering the week
between last Friday and last night. These are the final numbers except
for the Thursday shows which are preliminary for now, but it’s unlikely
that they’ll be that much different in the finals.
12.5 Sunday Night Football
6.0 Law & Order: SVU
5.5 Law & Order: LA
4.9 Football Night in America
4.6 The Event
4.4 Dateline
4.1 The Biggest Loser
4.0 The Office
4.0 Undercover
3.7 Chase
3.3 Parenthood
3.2 Chuck
3.2 Outlaw
3.2 Outsourced
3.0 30 Rock
2.7 Community
2.4 The Apprentice
This is not good. In fact, I think it’s worse than last year at this
time. Thursday night, in particular, is showing a total collapse with
2.7, 3.0, 4.0, 3.2 and 2.4 for its respective shows with a 3.0 average for
the night. A 3.0!
The problem is that short of major reconstructive surgery with its lineup
in the weeks ahead, the network is stuck with all its losers for most of
the season because it really has nothing to replace any of them with.
There’s a handful of scripted and reality shows that are planned to debut
or return in the coming months, but none of them scream “Humongous Hit,”
and that’s what the network needs right now. It’s only going to get much
worse for them in January once football ends because that’s the only thing
that’s delivering them big numbers.. Along with a pair of Law & Orders and
one of those has been around for 11 years already while the other is
little more than a reworked version of the 20-year-old original. Without
football and the L&O’s, they’d be well on their way to CW status
So, if NBC were to make drastic changes in the hope of scoring just a bit
higher than what they’re getting now, how could they do it? WQ’s mock NBC
reconstructive surgery sked to the rescue! This time with rationales.
MON
8:00 Undercover
9:00 Outlaw
10:00 The Apprentice
This would work favorably for all 3 shows here. Even if Undercovers holds
to its current 4.0 rating, that's still better for the lead-in hour than
what Chuck has been doing. Outlaw, too, could see itself edge up to 4.0
or maybe even 5.0, since the pilot did appear to hold viewers’ interest in
a special pre-season Wednesday airing when it got a 6.8, and the show
really isn’t that bad and Jimmy Smits is a recognizable face in a familiar
lawyer role again, so it’s a win-win. As for The Apprentice, people may
be tiring of that show, but I think it’s more because NBC overplayed its
work-theme hand on Thursday with 3 hours of office/work place sitcoms and
the office premise of The Apprentice. Outlaw would seem to be a good
enough lead-in for The Apprentice here where it could also see its numbers
climb to maybe 3.5, still a point better than where it is now and just a
shade under what Chase gets.
TUE
8:00 Community
8:30 30 Rock
9:00 Law & Order: SVU
10:00 Dateline
Let’s face it, on Thursday Community and 30 Rock are living on borrowed
time. Since there’s nothing to lose, why not switch them to a night and
hour that could use sitcoms rather than pit them against stronger CBS
sitcoms on Thursday? The only slot open for that is Tuesday 8-9 pm. They
couldn’t do much worse and they might actually do a bit better. Law &
Order SVU airing at 9 also couldn’t do much worse, especially since it
seems to do well in just about any time slot, at least in the sense that
it continues to rate in the network’s Top 5 shows each week. Over the
2-hour 8-10 pm block, the average should work out to be at least .5 better
than what The Biggest Loser is doing now. At 10, Dateline should easily
outperform Parenthood by at least a point, since Dateline often scores a
4.0-4.5 on Fridays, so that’s another plus for the night.
WED
8:00 Parenthood
9:00 Law & Order: LA
10:00 Chase
Solid drama should be the focus on this night. I toyed with the idea of
having Chuck in at 8 since that hour could use an action show, but
Undercovers isn’t working there and Human Target is likely to be slipped
into that spot when it returns on FOX. So having Parenthood lead the
night would serve as good counterprogramming. If it holds the 4.0 that
Undercovers presently has, then that’s .7 better than where Parenthood
gets on Tuesday. Law & Order: LA moves into the earlier 9 pm slot for the
vacating SVU. It made an eye-opening drop of 1.3 between its premiere and
second episode, but I figure it could level off at around 5.0 at 9 pm,
which would be less than SVU, but it’s worth it if that’s going to mean
it’d be the only hour so far that would do noticeably worse than what’s
already now there. Chase at 10 could see the numbers fall in that hour as
well from what LOLA gets, but with a very weak Whole Truth on the verge of
cancellation and a gradually weakening Defenders, Chase could see it take
advantage of that as an action cop show countering a pair of courtroom
dramas and one with a more compatible lead-in with LOLA, another cop show,
than The Event is. It’s not inconceivable to see it rise to about a 4.5
from where it is now. Chase also would play off CBS’s Criminal Minds in
that both shows are about creepy villains, so I can see a viewer
switchover from CBS to NBC at 10 that would be in Chase’s favor.
THU
8:00 Chuck
9:00 The Office
9:30 Outsourced
10:00 The Event
I guess you can call this the young demos dream night for NBC – sort of.
These are all shows with a generally youngish cast or headed by a youngish
lead. There would seem to be a certain synergy among them. Chuck
couldn’t do worse than what it’s doing now, which is just a tad better
than what Community and 30 Rock are doing, so the effect is about neutral,
although I can see it tick up a few decimal points more here. The Office
and Outsourced, being the only ongoing shows left in the same time periods
besides football, are probably slotted in the only hour that works for
them anyway. And The Event could probably find a stable viewership with
lighter competition here at 10 as Private Practice is vulnerable and now
even The Mentalist seems to be sliding, with both being nowhere near as
potent to deal with as Dancing and CBS’s sitcoms on Monday. So, overall,
8 pm could see a slight incline, 9 pm looks even, and The Event a t 10 pm
could do about twice as well as The Apprentice while still keeping the
same numbers for itself.
FRI
8:00 School Pride
9:00 The Biggest Loser
Beats me why NBC is even bothering with airing School Pride which begins
this week, but that’s the more colorful peacock for you. Meanwhile, now
that it looks like Biggest Loser is on its way to becoming just that on
Tuesday, then just get it away from there and dump it here and then
finally kill it once and for all. But sometimes you can’t underestimate
some shows and Loser has been around for quite a while and has done fairly
well for the network so maybe all it needs to get its juice back is a new
time slot. The 4.1 it gets on Tuesday can work better still for it on
Friday, especially since across the 2-hour time period it would average
out to .5 better with Loser than what NBC does now with Dateline and
Outlaw.
SAT
I’d really go radical here, but NBC doesn’t have anything for me to work
with except reruns and movies.
And there you have it.
If I were running the show, I wouldn’t waste any time and I’d get these
changes to take affect next week while the season is still fresh.
-------
: the next generation of web-newsreaders : http://www.recgroups.com
Robin Miller
> How does a network like NBC continue to survive with the kind of numbers
> it’s gotten in just the third week of the new season? At this plummeting
> rate, what are they going to actually end up with before the return of
> American Idol? Below are the latest household ratings covering the week
> between last Friday and last night. These are the final numbers except
> for the Thursday shows which are preliminary for now, but it’s unlikely
> that they’ll be that much different in the finals.
>
> 12.5 Sunday Night Football
> 6.0 Law& Order: SVU
> 4.9 Football Night in America
> 4.6 The Event
> 4.4 Dateline
> 4.1 The Biggest Loser
> 4.0 The Office
> 4.0 Undercover
> 3.7 Chase
> 3.3 Parenthood
> 3.2 Chuck
> 3.2 Outlaw
> 3.2 Outsourced
> 3.0 30 Rock
> 2.7 Community
> 2.4 The Apprentice
Well, this is good news for fans of The Event, if it's NBC's
third-ranked non-football show, and its top-ranked non-football, non-L&O
show.
--Robin
cloud dreamer
Hear! Hear!
:]
--
We must change the way we live
Or the climate will do it for us
David
<Not_My@Real_Address.com> wrote:
>Well, this is good news for fans of The Event, if it's NBC's
>third-ranked non-football show, and its top-ranked non-football, non-L&O
>show.
Don't bother with WQ's "analysis." 10 years after he started he's
still too bullheaded to look at the numbers the networks base their
decisions on.
wolfagain
Only the Fools who actually watch commercials remain....little fem
boys and women...except for Football of course.
Sir WQ
What David fails to recognize is that 90% of shows that return do so
with high household ratings with acceptable demos. It's the other 10%
that return due to high 18-49 demos but lousy overall ratings. So 9
times out of 10 I'm right and David is only right 1 out of 10 times.
Obveeus
"David" <diml...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:jipua69ioq4r63lku...@4ax.com...
Exactly. There is little point in ranking the shows based upon irrelevant
data.
Sir WQ
> "David" <dimla...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
Obveeus is a loon who thinks Hellcats is the best show on TV.
shawn
So lets use more relevant data. :)
Using Berman's numbers from this past week I get the following (some
are rough averages):
when ranked by viewers:
viewers A17-49
18.5 million 7 /17 Sunday Night Football
8.66 million 2.5 /7 Law & Order: SVU
8.23 million 2.4 /7 Law & Order: LA
9.72 million 3.47/9 Football Night in America
7.46 million 2.5 /7 The Event
6.48 million 1.3 /5 Dateline
6.80 million 2.45/7 The Biggest Loser
6.89 million 3.4 /9 The Office
6.24 million 1.5 /4 Undercovers
5.83 million 1.7 /5 Chase
5.15 million 2.0 /6 Parenthood
5.36 million 1.9 /5 Chuck
4.70 million 1.0 /4 Outlaw
5.23 million 2.5 /7 Outsourced
4.91 million 2.1 /6 30 Rock
4.29 million 1.7 /6 Community
3.76 million 1.3 /4 The Apprentice
when ranked by demo:
A17-49
7 /17 Sunday Night Football
3.47/9 Football Night in America
3.4 /9 The Office
2.5 /7 Law & Order: SVU
2.5 /7 The Event
2.45/7 The Biggest Loser
2.4 /7 Law & Order: LA
2.5 /7 Outsourced
2.1 /6 30 Rock
2.0 /6 Parenthood
1.9 /5 Chuck
1.3 /5 Dateline
1.7 /5 Chase
1.7 /6 Community
1.5 /4 Undercovers
1.3 /4 The Apprentice
1.0 /4 Outlaw
The only things that radically change is that The Office moves well up
in the rankings and Outlaw drops down to rock bottom. It's close in
total viewers but it absolutely controls the bottom in the
demographics. It also shows that the Event is still doing well for NBC
in the demos being the 3rd highest non-football related show.
Sir WQ
> On Fri, 8 Oct 2010 15:09:30 -0400, "Obveeus" <Obve...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> >"David" <dimla...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
Well, I just posted a new thread earlier called The Importance of
18-49 Demos which gives another comparison between households and
18-49 for the Top 58, being every show with a 2.0 rating or better in
18-49. I explain everything in that one, but yeah, generally, most of
what's at the top in households, viewers and demos will be the same
show in all 3 categories. The point is more about showing that you
can try to go after the 18-49 crowd as much as you want, but without
the households or total viewers, a network's chances of having
successful scheduling on a long-term basis without being in the
ratings cellar is pretty well next to zilch.
rwgibson13
>
> If I were running the show, I wouldn’t waste any time and I’d get these
> changes to take affect next week while the season is still fresh.
Talk about shuffling deck chairs on the Titanic...moving all the crap
from one night to another night would just as likely make for a
stinkier pile of crap.
RWG (and it's hard enough remembering what where the crap is now - I'm
not going to go searching for it)
Obveeus
"shawn" <nanof...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 8 Oct 2010 15:09:30 -0400, "Obveeus" <Obv...@aol.com> wrote:
>>Exactly. There is little point in ranking the shows based upon irrelevant
>>data.
>>
>
> So lets use more relevant data. :)
>
> Using Berman's numbers from this past week I get the following (some
> are rough averages):
> when ranked by viewers:
Viewers are not relevant data.
> when ranked by demo:
> A17-49
> 7 /17 Sunday Night Football
> 3.47/9 Football Night in America
> 3.4 /9 The Office
> 2.5 /7 Law & Order: SVU
2.6 for L&O:SVU in the finals
> 2.5 /7 The Event
The Event dropped to a 2.4 in finals.
> 2.45/7 The Biggest Loser
The Biggest loser was a 2.5 in finals...and I call foul for using extra
'significant digits' to make it look lower.
> 2.4 /7 Law & Order: LA
> 2.5 /7 Outsourced
Why is Outsourced down here instead of up with the other 2.5 demo shows?
> The only things that radically change is that The Office moves well up
> in the rankings and Outlaw drops down to rock bottom. It's close in
> total viewers but it absolutely controls the bottom in the
> demographics.
Yes, and the same comparative analysis would show even bigger differences
between demo/viewers/households if CBS were being looked at. The point
remains that there is no reason to use irrelevant data when better data is
available. We may not have the 'C3' data that actually matters, but the
18-49 data is closer than anything else we have to look at. For future
reference if you want to see finals data, tvbythenumbers is organizing it
well here:
http://tvbythenumbers.com/category/overnight-tv-ratings/tv-ratings-nielsen-final-broadcast-tv-show-ratings
> It also shows that the Event is still doing well for NBC
> in the demos being the 3rd highest non-football related show.
I'd call it 5th bellow Biggest Loser and Outsourced, but it is really a
three way tie. Of course, The Event is the one of those three shows most
likely to drop even more demo next week.
Sir WQ
> "shawn" <nanoflo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > It also shows that the Event is still doing well for NBC
> > in the demos being the 3rd highest non-football related show.
>
> I'd call it 5th bellow Biggest Loser and Outsourced, but it is really a
> three way tie. Of course, The Event is the one of those three shows most
> likely to drop even more demo next week.
No doubt, Obveeus persists in being a dickhead parrot of David about
these things, the two are so incestuous with each other over this.
Here's a trick question for you, Obveeus, if you dare to answer it:
Which has a better chance of seeing see next fall, Chuck with a 2.0
[3.2 HH] or 60 Minutes with a 2.0 [7.8 HH]?
Let's take it further. Which has a better chance of seeing see next
fall, Parenthood with a 2.0 [3.3 HH] or Blue Bloods with a 2.0 [7.1
HH]?
Let's take it up a notch more, why don't we? Which has a better
chance of seeing see next fall, Good Wife with a 2.5 [8.3 HH] or The
Defenders with a 2.5 [5.9 HH]?
Hmmm?
shawn
>
>"shawn" <nanof...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 8 Oct 2010 15:09:30 -0400, "Obveeus" <Obv...@aol.com> wrote:
>>>Exactly. There is little point in ranking the shows based upon irrelevant
>>>data.
>>>
>>
>> So lets use more relevant data. :)
>>
>> Using Berman's numbers from this past week I get the following (some
>> are rough averages):
>> when ranked by viewers:
>
>Viewers are not relevant data.
But it's relevant to the conversation.
>
>> when ranked by demo:
>> A17-49
>> 7 /17 Sunday Night Football
>> 3.47/9 Football Night in America
>> 3.4 /9 The Office
>> 2.5 /7 Law & Order: SVU
>
>2.6 for L&O:SVU in the finals
>
>> 2.5 /7 The Event
>
>The Event dropped to a 2.4 in finals.
>
>> 2.45/7 The Biggest Loser
>
>The Biggest loser was a 2.5 in finals...and I call foul for using extra
>'significant digits' to make it look lower.
Boo me for not rounding up. Yea me for actually doing the work. ;)
>
>> 2.4 /7 Law & Order: LA
>> 2.5 /7 Outsourced
>
>Why is Outsourced down here instead of up with the other 2.5 demo shows?
Because I made a mistake and didn't copy it up. This was all done by
hand.
Here's the version using the TVByTheNumbers site for the 18-49 demo.
Sunday Night Football (8:31pm, 163 minutes)-
8.0/20 A18-49
Football Night in America Part 3 (7:56pm, 24 minutes)-
3.9/11 A18-49
The Office 3.5/10 6.95
Pre-Kick (8:20pm, 11 minutes)-
5.6/16 A18-49
Law & Order: SVU- 2.6/7 A18-49
Outsourced 2.5/7 5.22
The Event 2.4/6 A18-49
Law & Order: Los Angeles
2.4/7 A18-49
30 Rock 2.1/7 4.90
Chuck 1.9/5 A18-49
Football Night in America Part 2 (7:30pm, 26 minutes)-
1.9/6 A18-49
Community 1.8/6 4.20
Chase 1.7/5 A18-49
Undercovers 1.5/5 A18-49
Dateline (120 minutes)- 1.3/5 A18-49
Outlaw 1.0/4 A18-49
John McWilliams
Can someone explain what causes the absolute and virulent hatred of that
network on the part of a few posters here?
--
john mcwilliams
cloud dreamer
Think it's because one of them cancelled Smith.
Or something to that effect.
..
Sir WQ
It's not hating the network as hating the culture of ineptitude that's
so ingrained within the network and one that's exacerbated by Jeff
Zucker's reign of it over the last decade. Even as he now prepares to
leave NBC by around year's end, the fact that he's still there working
his slow death magic on the peacock is insane. I don't think the
network can truly free itself of Zucker's shackles until he is finally
out the door once and for all and hopefully that'll come before they
have to begin to decide on next fall's pilots and what kind of
schedule they'll have to reconstruct from the tatters it's been in
every year for about the last ten.
I mean, seriously, this is one of the Big 3 granddaddy networks and
Zucker's been treating it like a CW wannabe, ultimately reaching the
pinnacle of his ineptitude by slotting Jay Leno every night at 10 last
year which backfired big time on him and thankfully so because that's
contributed to his downfall in the eyes of Comcast. But on top of
that, he gets to walk away from the network with a $15 million bonus.
For what? Give me $15 million, hell, just give me $1 million and I'll
get NBC back into being a real network again.
One would like to think that once Comcast takes over, then new head
guy Steve Burke will come in with the kind of vision needed that would
put an end to the kind of idiotic monkeying around the network has
been doing and focus on getting shows that tons of people will watch.
Because what good is a 2.5 demo rating when you're only getting a 4.0
household? You want a 2.5 demo with an 8.0 or better household. That
not only results in higher network visibility for viewers to help
perpetuate more hits on the network but there's also more money in it
that way. It's simple math that people who should know, better being
in the position they're in, can't seem to absorb at NBC. But when you
have the blind, like Zucker, leading the blind, or they'll lose their
jobs, what do you expect?
Sir WQ
Smith was on CBS. But that's another beef of a different sort. I
can't think of anything NBC canceled prematurely that I really liked
over the past decade.
rwgibson13
Did you look at the list of shows uptopic? And the ratings for each?
It's not just a "few posters here." NBC is run by idiots and has been
for almost a half decade now. I guess I could shorthand "NBC" = "NBC
Executives" but why bother?
Moving bad shows from one night to another night doesn't make them
better shows. And what NBC desperately needs now is executives who
can pick and choose better TV shows to air.
RWG (hopefully, with Zucker gone things will improve, but I don't
think one man was the problem)
David Johnston
> On Oct 8, 8:08 pm, John McWilliams <jp...@comcast.net> wrote:
> > On 10/8/10 PDT 3:36 PM, rwgibson13 wrote:
> >
> > > On Oct 8, 1:22 pm, "Sir WQ"<si...@post.com> wrote:
> >
> > >> If I were running the show, I wouldn’t waste any time and I’d get these
> > >> changes to take affect next week while the season is still fresh.
> >
> > > Talk about shuffling deck chairs on the Titanic...moving all the crap
> > > from one night to another night would just as likely make for a
> > > stinkier pile of crap.
> >
> > > RWG (and it's hard enough remembering what where the crap is now - I'm
> > > not going to go searching for it)
> >
> > Can someone explain what causes the absolute and virulent hatred of that
> > network on the part of a few posters here?
>
> Did you look at the list of shows uptopic? And the ratings for each?
Not really an answer to the question. It's something of a puzzle why
people are not merely indifferent but outraged. I mean, let's face it,
who really cares if NBC founders? The solution to that puzzle may have
something to do with that Jay Leno fiasco, but whatever.
Personally looking at that list the only shows on it I particularly like
are The Event and Chuck because they appeal to my niche interests. I've
been watching Law and Order for a long time and I suppose I'll continue
to...when it's convenient.
rwgibson13
> On Oct 8 2010 8:57 PM, rwgibson13 wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Oct 8, 8:08 pm, John McWilliams <jp...@comcast.net> wrote:
> > > On 10/8/10 PDT 3:36 PM, rwgibson13 wrote:
>
> > > > On Oct 8, 1:22 pm, "Sir WQ"<si...@post.com> wrote:
>
> > > >> If I were running the show, I wouldn’t waste any time and I’d get these
> > > >> changes to take affect next week while the season is still fresh.
>
> > > > Talk about shuffling deck chairs on the Titanic...moving all the crap
> > > > from one night to another night would just as likely make for a
> > > > stinkier pile of crap.
>
> > > > RWG (and it's hard enough remembering what where the crap is now - I'm
> > > > not going to go searching for it)
>
> > > Can someone explain what causes the absolute and virulent hatred of that
> > > network on the part of a few posters here?
>
> > Did you look at the list of shows uptopic? And the ratings for each?
>
> Not really an answer to the question. It's something of a puzzle why
> people are not merely indifferent but outraged.
heh, just speaking for myself, it's not "hatred" so much as
humiliating ridicule :-) Incompetence, I can understand, but
prolonged incompetence just leaves a bad taste in my mouth. It just
came to a peak with the whole Leno thing, then doubling down with
Conan.
I have a strange feeling that a lot of the creative folks in Hollywood
felt NBC execs were turning their backs on the idea of scripted
programming by eliminating five hours or so per week with the Leno
experiment. For whatever reason, NBC has had a hell of a time finding
even ONE "hit" out of all the new shows picked up since that fiasco.
In fact, I'm really surprised that NBC outbid ABC for that new JJ
Abrams/O'Quinn/Emerson show. But building a good relationship with
Bad Robot might end up paying for itself in the long run kinda like
CBS's relationship with Bruckhiemer has paid off for them.
RWG (Lord knows, they need a good relationship with SOMEONE other than
Jay Leno :-)
John McWilliams
Thanks for the reply. I've never heard a good word about Zucker, so I
wonder how he got in the position he holds?
Somehow, even with ratings and shows in a shambles overall, it's hard
for me to believe that Comcast is a white knight, except maybe on a donkey.
--
john mcwilliams
John McWilliams
Yes, well put; it's the rage/outrage that perplexed me. One is
disappointed that so few shows appeal, but Zucker or other brass must
have made statements or displayed hubris of large proportions.....
And to some degree, maybe not with posters in this thread, the whole
Coco-Jay thing seemed to pour fuel on the fire.
--
john mcwilliams
Obveeus
"John McWilliams" <jp...@comcast.net> wrote:
>And to some degree, maybe not with posters in this thread, the whole
>Coco-Jay thing seemed to pour fuel on the fire.
The part that annoyed me about the Jay Leno fiasco was that the network was
essentially giving up and admitting it...and failing to understand that a
dropping tide lowers all boats. If NBC was just going to give away their
viewers for 1/3rd of the night, how did they not expect the other 2/3rds of
the schedule to encur continued ratings drop as a resulting side effect?
Rich
> 12.5 Sunday Night Football - Good
> 6.0 Law & Order: SVU - Good
> 5.5 Law & Order: LA - poor
> 4.9 Football Night in America - good
> 4.6 The Event - mediocre
> 4.4 Dateline - absolute rubbish
> 4.1 The Biggest Loser - pure garbage
> 4.0 The Office - boring as all Hell
> 4.0 Undercover - don't know it
> 3.7 Chase - don't know it
> 3.3 Parenthood - don't know it, sounds like s---
> 3.2 Chuck - don't know it
> 3.2 Outlaw - don't know it
> 3.2 Outsourced - watched one ep, awful
> 3.0 30 Rock - overrated rubbish
> 2.7 Community - don't know it
> 2.4 The Apprentice - please KILL Donald Trump
John McWilliams
Right. One wonders about market research, both internally at NBC, as
well as with the affiliates....seems plain odd.
--
John McWilliams
Sir WQ
Not to mention also that Zucker is thoroughly disliked by the
Hollywood community, which makes it even more astounding that he has
lasted as long as he has. It probably explains why NBC wasn't exactly
the go-to network for a lot of producers to get their product on the
air and why it has had more than its fair share of stinkers as a
result.
>
> --
> john mcwilliams
shawn
Because he came up with the monster that is the Today Show. After
doing so well with that I'm sure the execs in charge at the time
thought he might be able to do the same with other programming so he
failed up the management chain.
>Somehow, even with ratings and shows in a shambles overall, it's hard
>for me to believe that Comcast is a white knight, except maybe on a donkey.
Who knows? It's unlikely that the changes Comcast makes in the next
two or three years will make the network any worse.
Obveeus
"shawn" <nanof...@gmail.com> wrote:
I expect that Comcast will spin off the NBC broadcast network and the local
affiliates into a separate entity inside of three years while keeping the
cable networks.
David
<a4a...@webnntp.invalid> wrote:
>On Oct 8 2010 8:57 PM, rwgibson13 wrote:
>
>> On Oct 8, 8:08 pm, John McWilliams <jp...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> > Can someone explain what causes the absolute and virulent hatred of that
>> > network on the part of a few posters here?
>>
>> Did you look at the list of shows uptopic? And the ratings for each?
>
>Not really an answer to the question. It's something of a puzzle why
>people are not merely indifferent but outraged.
Probably these are people who dream of being put in charge of a
network.
David
It's the same logic that would tell you combining the best of UPN and
WB should make for a stronger CW. Putting the best of a 15 hour
schedule into 10 hours should work in theory. But there are too many
other factors, such as people just not being attuned to switching to
NBC.
Sir WQ
> On Fri, 08 Oct 2010 20:19:15 -0700, "David Johnston"
>
Sort of the opposite of you - someone without any dreams at all?
Obveeus
"David" <diml...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 8 Oct 2010 23:32:17 -0400, "Obveeus" <Obv...@aol.com> wrote:
>>The part that annoyed me about the Jay Leno fiasco was that the network
>>was
>>essentially giving up and admitting it...and failing to understand that a
>>dropping tide lowers all boats. If NBC was just going to give away their
>>viewers for 1/3rd of the night, how did they not expect the other 2/3rds
>>of
>>the schedule to encur continued ratings drop as a resulting side effect?
>
> It's the same logic that would tell you combining the best of UPN and
> WB should make for a stronger CW. Putting the best of a 15 hour
> schedule into 10 hours should work in theory.
Not the same logic at all. With the UPN/CW merger the end result was (in
theory) a network with no weak hours on the schedule that contained few
viewers. In other words, no 'dead time' on the network that would be
useless as time to promote other shows. On the other hand, the Leno fiasco
was intentionally putting 1/3rd of the schedule into that weak/useless
category.
> But there are too many
> other factors, such as people just not being attuned to switching to
> NBC.
I agree that it is very hard to get people to actually use the remote
control. Still, NBC has the NFL platform to use as promotion and even with
that A+ venue (and it does give them the ability to get viewers to sample
their shows unlike CW which cannot get viewer sampling), they still fail to
get viewers to stay with their shows.
David
>
>"David" <diml...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 8 Oct 2010 23:32:17 -0400, "Obveeus" <Obv...@aol.com> wrote:
>>>The part that annoyed me about the Jay Leno fiasco was that the network
>>>was
>>>essentially giving up and admitting it...and failing to understand that a
>>>dropping tide lowers all boats. If NBC was just going to give away their
>>>viewers for 1/3rd of the night, how did they not expect the other 2/3rds
>>>of
>>>the schedule to encur continued ratings drop as a resulting side effect?
>>
>> It's the same logic that would tell you combining the best of UPN and
>> WB should make for a stronger CW. Putting the best of a 15 hour
>> schedule into 10 hours should work in theory.
>
>Not the same logic at all. With the UPN/CW merger the end result was (in
>theory) a network with no weak hours on the schedule that contained few
>viewers. In other words, no 'dead time' on the network that would be
>useless as time to promote other shows. On the other hand, the Leno fiasco
>was intentionally putting 1/3rd of the schedule into that weak/useless
>category.
And it theory it should've made the other two hours stronger, since
out of every night's 3 hours of programming they could choose the
strongest 2 hours.
Sir WQ
> On Sat, 9 Oct 2010 11:31:36 -0400, "Obveeus" <Obve...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> >"David" <dimla...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >> On Fri, 8 Oct 2010 23:32:17 -0400, "Obveeus" <Obve...@aol.com> wrote:
> >>>The part that annoyed me about the Jay Leno fiasco was that the network
> >>>was
> >>>essentially giving up and admitting it...and failing to understand that a
> >>>dropping tide lowers all boats. If NBC was just going to give away their
> >>>viewers for 1/3rd of the night, how did they not expect the other 2/3rds
> >>>of
> >>>the schedule to encur continued ratings drop as a resulting side effect?
>
> >> It's the same logic that would tell you combining the best of UPN and
> >> WB should make for a stronger CW. Putting the best of a 15 hour
> >> schedule into 10 hours should work in theory.
>
> >Not the same logic at all. With the UPN/CW merger the end result was (in
> >theory) a network with no weak hours on the schedule that contained few
> >viewers. In other words, no 'dead time' on the network that would be
> >useless as time to promote other shows. On the other hand, the Leno fiasco
> >was intentionally putting 1/3rd of the schedule into that weak/useless
> >category.
>
> And it theory it should've made the other two hours stronger, since
> out of every night's 3 hours of programming they could choose the
> strongest 2 hours.
Give it up, you haven't got a clue about scheduling strategy. You
live in a sequestered reality of your own creation that fails to
connect with any realistic theories, probabilities and outcomes.
Obveeus is right on this one.
John McWilliams
What caused him to be so on the outs?
--
john mcwilliams
Sir WQ
Who knows? I think he was just born that way. Some people are. And
people like that, through the mere force of their own arrogant will,
will still manage to plow through life and climb ladders and make
millions for themselves while demonstrating little more than inept
skills. The amazing thing is that noboy stopped him along the way
from creating further damage. Just like nobody stopped Hitler. It
probably says more about people in general than people like Zucker.
John McWilliams
Godwin!!
:-)
OK, thanks- so it wasn't a specific move or two that did it.....
--
john mcwilliams
David Johnston
Yeah but that's a stupid theory. In general the more shows you make the
more chances you have to make a good (or at least popular) show.
______________________________________________________________________
Sir WQ
> On Oct 9 2010 10:39 AM, David wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > >"David" <dimla...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > >> On Fri, 8 Oct 2010 23:32:17 -0400, "Obveeus" <Obve...@aol.com> wrote:
> > >>>The part that annoyed me about the Jay Leno fiasco was that the network
> > >>>was
> > >>>essentially giving up and admitting it...and failing to understand that a
> > >>>dropping tide lowers all boats. If NBC was just going to give away their
> > >>>viewers for 1/3rd of the night, how did they not expect the other 2/3rds
> > >>>of
> > >>>the schedule to encur continued ratings drop as a resulting side effect?
>
> > >> It's the same logic that would tell you combining the best of UPN and
> > >> WB should make for a stronger CW. Putting the best of a 15 hour
> > >> schedule into 10 hours should work in theory.
>
> > >Not the same logic at all. With the UPN/CW merger the end result was (in
> > >theory) a network with no weak hours on the schedule that contained few
> > >viewers. In other words, no 'dead time' on the network that would be
> > >useless as time to promote other shows. On the other hand, the Leno fiasco
> > >was intentionally putting 1/3rd of the schedule into that weak/useless
> > >category.
>
> > And it theory it should've made the other two hours stronger, since
> > out of every night's 3 hours of programming they could choose the
> > strongest 2 hours.
>
> Yeah but that's a stupid theory. In general the more shows you make the
> more chances you have to make a good (or at least popular) show.
Which is true. The problem, though, is that in making more shows you
need to be patient until traction takes hold, but then, how is that
any different than waiting 10 years for something to click when you
only put on 5 new shows each fall? It's different because you cut
down on your waiting time. A perfect example is NBC during the late
70s and early 80s when it was in pretty much the same hole it's in
now, though I think it's worse now. Soon as a new regime took over
from Fred Silverman, who came in 1978 with nothing to work with so he
had to start from scratch, which clearly wasn't his forte, the Tinker-
Tartikoff team exercised a great deal of patience as they introduced 8
to 10 new shows each season until finally, three years later, Cosby
did the trick for them and that led, for better or worse, to at least
15 years of their being No. 1. The same thing can be said of CBS in
the 90s until they clicked with CSI. Essentially, one big hit show
just perpetuates more of them. Then again, a network could get really
lucky and come up with 3 hits in one fall like ABC did back in 2004
with Desperate Housewives, Lost and Boston Legal, which in turn soon
resulted in hits out of Grey's Anatomy and Dancing with the Stars, all
in a single season. And that's what kept that network afloat for the
last 5 years or so.
The only way for NBC to get out of its rut is to put on at least 10
new shows each fall, along with a half-dozen in January and another
half-dozen as spring tryouts in order to increase its chances of
finding hits sooner. Of course, that would necessitate deep pockets
into producing so many new series, but as the old saying goes, it
takes money to make money. You just gotta be willing to spend it as
you think long-term, not save pennies as you think short-term.
Obveeus
"David" <diml...@yahoo.com> wrote:
But NBC still kept the other 1/3rd of the hours as near-dead air that had to
be maintained and was useless in promoting the other two hours on their
schedule. Now, they have an even bigger hole to try and dig themselves out
of.
rwgibson13
NBC started going downhill at just about the same time as they signed
that huge football deal with Notre Dame. And as fate would have it,
Notre Dame went into the crapper about just about the same time :-)
RWG (sometimes things just work out)
Sir WQ
> Just switching channels between college football games and realized
> NBC started going downhill at just about the same time as they signed
> that huge football deal with Notre Dame. And as fate would have it,
> Notre Dame went into the crapper about just about the same time :-)
>
Jeff Zucker - Dustfinger. Everything he touches turns to dust.
David
Putting out new shows and them turning into expensive cannon fodder is
a big reason why they went with Leno.
David
Yeah but I don't see how having a weak show at 10 would hurt the
ratings of the lineup from 8-10. Promoting shows during 10 o'clock
isn't a major factor of success.
Sir WQ
> On Sat, 09 Oct 2010 12:07:27 -0700, "David Johnston"
>
>
>
>
>
> <rgor...@telus.net> wrote:
> >On Oct 9 2010 10:39 AM, David wrote:
>
> >> >"David" <dimla...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >> >> On Fri, 8 Oct 2010 23:32:17 -0400, "Obveeus" <Obve...@aol.com> wrote:
> >> >>>The part that annoyed me about the Jay Leno fiasco was that the network
> >> >>>was
> >> >>>essentially giving up and admitting it...and failing to understand that a
> >> >>>dropping tide lowers all boats. If NBC was just going to give away their
> >> >>>viewers for 1/3rd of the night, how did they not expect the other 2/3rds
> >> >>>of
> >> >>>the schedule to encur continued ratings drop as a resulting side effect?
>
> >> >> It's the same logic that would tell you combining the best of UPN and
> >> >> WB should make for a stronger CW. Putting the best of a 15 hour
> >> >> schedule into 10 hours should work in theory.
>
> >> >Not the same logic at all. With the UPN/CW merger the end result was (in
> >> >theory) a network with no weak hours on the schedule that contained few
> >> >viewers. In other words, no 'dead time' on the network that would be
> >> >useless as time to promote other shows. On the other hand, the Leno fiasco
> >> >was intentionally putting 1/3rd of the schedule into that weak/useless
> >> >category.
>
> >> And it theory it should've made the other two hours stronger, since
> >> out of every night's 3 hours of programming they could choose the
> >> strongest 2 hours.
>
> >Yeah but that's a stupid theory. In general the more shows you make the
> >more chances you have to make a good (or at least popular) show.
>
> Putting out new shows and them turning into expensive cannon fodder is
> a big reason why they went with Leno.
You would've made a perfect minion for Jeff Zucker, that's for sure.
Bend over, David, here's your Jay Leno. Yes, Jeff, give it to me 5
times a week.
John McWilliams
>
> Obveeus sent the following on 10/8/2010 10:32 PM:
> their sets to one channel and leave them there for the evening, or
> something. Me, I have to really think about it before I can name what
> network carries each of my favorite shows. To this day, I screw up
> whether LOST was on ABC or Fox, for example, and I watched all six years
> of it. It was ABC, right? And FRINGE is now on Fox? Or do I have that
> backwards?
>
> In any case, the presence or absence of Leno at 9PM on NBC had
> absolutely zero impact on what other NBC shows I watched or didn't watch
> during that time.
Yes, but I am certain that almost nobody regular here matches the
"average", or, rather, typical viewer. Most are far more discerning and
discriminating- a few less so- that what the general public does or
prefers.
--
John McWilliams
Obveeus
Define 'major factor'. Does than mean that having the ability to promote
your programming for 15 hours per week as opposed to 10 hours per week isn't
a 'major factor' because it only causes a net negative 8-10pm audience of
10%? 20%? 25%?
Obveeus
"Jim Gysin" <jimg...@geemail.com> wrote:
> Apparently there are still a lot of people even in this DVR age who set
> their sets to one channel and leave them there for the evening, or
> something.
For the most part, they are called CBS viewers...and yes, millions of them
exist.
> Me, I have to really think about it before I can name what network
> carries each of my favorite shows. To this day, I screw up whether LOST
> was on ABC or Fox, for example, and I watched all six years of it. It was
> ABC, right? And FRINGE is now on Fox? Or do I have that backwards?
It doesn't much matte rif you know what network the shows are on. The
question is more about whether the viewer flicks on the TV to channel XX
because that is the one where they expect to find the shows they watch.
Obveeus
"John McWilliams" <jp...@comcast.net> wrote:
...yet there seems to be a rather significant number of people here that
seem to watch every single scripted show on USA Network or TNT network or
HBO or even Syfy. Even if they don't watch every one of those shows, they
will be sure to sample every new show from a certain network they deem as
their favorite.
rwgibson13
That's an interesting observation. All kidding about NBC aside, I
generally don't make any distintions among the "old big three" and
don't know that I ever had. I never thought of FOX as being one of
the "big four," and don't to this day. I dunno exactly why - it used
to be that was because you could't rely on good reception for FOX's
UHF affiliates without cable, but since I've had cable for decades now
(even though I stopped watching almost all TV for eight years during
the 00s) that's no longer valid. I dunno, why I think of it as
seperate, but I do...I can't really think of any non-sports shows I
regularly watch on FOX, so that may be part of it...
But a lot of the cable networks seem to be setting up "brands," and I
don't get that from the "big three." USA has their "characters
welcome" thing, and AMC has staked out a claim on edgy, heady shows
that win Emmy Awards. I guess HBO could be considered the grandfather
of that kind of programming due to the wider content of material they
can get away with showing for lack of reliance on traditional
advertising - in addition to the fact they're practically "boycott
proof" because subscribers CHOOSE the network. ABC Family has been
discussed here, Nick and Disney, likewise. They all have "niches," so
it's not surprising that certain people who like certain aspects of
television show will prefer one of those networks over another.
RWG (this could probably be a topic all its own)
Obveeus
"rwgibson13" <rwgib...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Oct 9, 10:03 pm, "Obveeus" <Obve...@aol.com> wrote:
>> ...yet there seems to be a rather significant number of people here that
>> seem to watch every single scripted show on USA Network or TNT network or
>> HBO or even Syfy. Even if they don't watch every one of those shows, they
>> will be sure to sample every new show from a certain network they deem as
>> their favorite.
>
>That's an interesting observation. All kidding about NBC aside, I
>generally don't make any distintions among the "old big three" and
>don't know that I ever had. I never thought of FOX as being one of
>the "big four," and don't to this day. I dunno exactly why
FOX doesn't really get to claim itself as an equal until the program 3 hours
of primetime instead of 2.
>But a lot of the cable networks seem to be setting up "brands," and I
>don't get that from the "big three."
CBS: procedurals about dead bodies killed in over-the-top ways and
comedies where people insult their friends/family.
ABC: chick shows and comedies that end with a 'and the moral of the story
is'.
NBC: shows that claim to be more highbrow because they appeal to so few
people.
FOX: animated sitcoms (and occasionally live action slacker sitcoms). The
one hour scripted shows are all over the map.
CW: younger chick shows, mostly about people that sleep around.
> RWG (this could probably be a topic all its own)
...or a can of worms.
Jim Gysin
rwgibson13 sent the following on 10/9/2010 3:15 PM:
> Just switching channels between college football games and realized
> NBC started going downhill at just about the same time as they signed
> that huge football deal with Notre Dame. And as fate would have it,
> Notre Dame went into the crapper about just about the same time :-)
I never did like you. :(
--
Jim Gysin, a huge ND fan
Waukesha, WI
rwgibson13
My sympathies :-)
RWG (but you need better recuiting coaches....and a better network)
Jim Gysin
John McWilliams sent the following on 10/9/2010 6:52 PM:
Perhaps, but I just don't buy the argument that people get many of their
viewing ideas from promos. I just don't see them as being very
effective in the first place, even when they're not being skipped
entirely by timeshifters or bathroom breaks. I don't know how much
promotions people earn for television work, but whatever it is, they're
overpaid, IMO. :)
--
Jim Gysin
Waukesha, WI
Jim Gysin
Obveeus sent the following on 10/9/2010 10:00 PM:
> "Jim Gysin" <jimg...@geemail.com> wrote:
>> Apparently there are still a lot of people even in this DVR age who set
>> their sets to one channel and leave them there for the evening, or
>> something.
>
> For the most part, they are called CBS viewers...and yes, millions of them
> exist.
Well, that just means that it's even less of a factor for NBC viewers.
>> Me, I have to really think about it before I can name what network
>> carries each of my favorite shows. To this day, I screw up whether LOST
>> was on ABC or Fox, for example, and I watched all six years of it. It was
>> ABC, right? And FRINGE is now on Fox? Or do I have that backwards?
>
> It doesn't much matte rif you know what network the shows are on. The
> question is more about whether the viewer flicks on the TV to channel XX
> because that is the one where they expect to find the shows they watch.
I honestly don't know of anyone in the real world who does that. They
may do it when it comes to news and a preference for, say, CNN as
background noise versus Fox or MSNBC, but I don't know anyone who
doesn't timeshift at least a *little* bit when it comes to primetime,
and I know of no one who turns their TV to a network station upon coming
home from work, presumably to leave the set tuned to that network
station for the rest of the evening. We're well past the point where
DVRs are only used by young, tech-savvy early adopters. So the fact
that someone didn't plan to watch Leno at 9 had *zero* impact on what
channel that person tuned to when they first fired up the set at the end
of the day, IMO.
Jim Gysin
Obveeus sent the following on 10/9/2010 10:03 PM:
> "John McWilliams" <jp...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> On 10/9/10 PDT 2:55 PM, Jim Gysin wrote:
>>> In any case, the presence or absence of Leno at 9PM on NBC had
>>> absolutely zero impact on what other NBC shows I watched or didn't watch
>>> during that time.
>> Yes, but I am certain that almost nobody regular here matches the
>> "average", or, rather, typical viewer. Most are far more discerning and
>> discriminating- a few less so- that what the general public does or
>> prefers.
>
> HBO or even Syfy.
I guess I'm the cynical curve-wrecker here, too. I rarely buy into any
hype, choosing instead to assume that most new shows are gonna suck and
be a waste of time, regardless of what the breathless promotions people
might say. So I'm very particular about what types of show I watch
right out of the gate, and those shows are inevitably of the SF variety,
and most of *those* don't last for long on my Season Pass Manager,
either. But I give 'em a shot. I figure I can always catch up on
missed eps of another show if that show actually lives up to its hype,
and we all know that there's no shortage of hype to begin with.
> Even if they don't watch every one of those shows, they
> will be sure to sample every new show from a certain network they deem as
> their favorite.
I just think that you're dead wrong about any "favorite network" in this
day and age. There are just too many choices. Someone may have a
network that carries most of their faves during any given season, but
that's not the same thing as a favorite network, which, to me, implies
that the person is going to be more willing to give that network's new
shows a look before another network's. And I just don't think that it
works that way anymore, if it ever did.
chicagofan
> NBC: shows that claim to be more highbrow because they appeal to so few people.
>
LOL... I love this!
bj
Remysun
> I honestly don't know of anyone in the real world who does that. They
> may do it when it comes to news and a preference for, say, CNN as
> background noise versus Fox or MSNBC, but I don't know anyone who
> doesn't timeshift at least a *little* bit when it comes to primetime,
> and I know of no one who turns their TV to a network station upon coming
> home from work, presumably to leave the set tuned to that network
> station for the rest of the evening.
You're on Usenet, Jim. You're as isolated as the rest of us : )
I don't know anyone who chooses a cable news show to watch. It's all
pick a channel and watch. Channel surfing is an individual's choice,
never by consensus, unless the purpose is to decide on something
mutually agreed to be better than what was previously on.
And in college, there was always someone who liked Beavis and Butthead
enough that we could never change the channel.
Obveeus
"Remysun" <remys...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>Channel surfing is an individual's choice,
>never by consensus, unless the purpose is to decide on something
>mutually agreed to be better than what was previously on.
That is a good point, The people diligently avoiding commercials by
flipping channels during them and even those working to zip past them on
DVR are far more likely to be watching TV alone. Maybe being alone is part
of why they are less happy?
David
>
>"John McWilliams" <jp...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> On 10/9/10 PDT 2:55 PM, Jim Gysin wrote:
>>> In any case, the presence or absence of Leno at 9PM on NBC had
>>> absolutely zero impact on what other NBC shows I watched or didn't watch
>>> during that time.
>>
>> Yes, but I am certain that almost nobody regular here matches the
>> "average", or, rather, typical viewer. Most are far more discerning and
>> discriminating- a few less so- that what the general public does or
>> prefers.
>
>...yet there seems to be a rather significant number of people here that
>seem to watch every single scripted show on USA Network or TNT network or
>HBO or even Syfy.
It's not really a cumbersome process to sample every new show on a
cable network when they run about 8 total shows a year. But yes based
on their past output I'm likely to sample every new show on AMC and
HBO and ignore almost every new show on USA and TNT.
David
>ABC: chick shows and comedies that end with a 'and the moral of the story
>is'.
It's the network whose dramas use sprightly soundtracks to emphasize
character action.
>NBC: shows that claim to be more highbrow because they appeal to so few
>people.
Or the right kinds of people. When you start winning awards and
getting critical acclaim you can claim to be highbrow too.
>FOX: animated sitcoms (and occasionally live action slacker sitcoms). The
>one hour scripted shows are all over the map.
They used to be known for being edgy. Since the success of "Bones" and
"House" they're trying to be CBS.
Obveeus
"David" <diml...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 9 Oct 2010 23:52:11 -0400, "Obveeus" <Obv...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>>ABC: chick shows and comedies that end with a 'and the moral of the story
>>is'.
>
> It's the network whose dramas use sprightly soundtracks to emphasize
> character action.
CW does that too, though.
>>NBC: shows that claim to be more highbrow because they appeal to so few
>>people.
>
> Or the right kinds of people. When you start winning awards and
> getting critical acclaim you can claim to be highbrow too.
Always the NBC apologist.
>>FOX: animated sitcoms (and occasionally live action slacker sitcoms).
>>The
>>one hour scripted shows are all over the map.
>
> They used to be known for being edgy. Since the success of "Bones" and
> "House" they're trying to be CBS.
Bones is an ABC-like show, but I agree that House is close to CBS in style.
Still, FOX is airing shows like Glee, Raising Hope, Running Wilde, Fringe,
The Good Guys, etc... I don't think you can say that their programming is
aiming at the CBS audience mindset at all. FOX is still trying to be
'edgy'/modern.
Obveeus
"David" <diml...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> It isn't like *nobody* watched Leno.
Close, though. The bigger problem was that a sizeable chunk of Leno viewers
are people that weren't interested in watching any of NBC's other offerings,
so any promo time fell of deaf ears (or blind eyes as the case may be).
David
>"David" <diml...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 9 Oct 2010 23:52:11 -0400, "Obveeus" <Obv...@aol.com> wrote:
>>>NBC: shows that claim to be more highbrow because they appeal to so few
>>>people.
>>
>> Or the right kinds of people. When you start winning awards and
>> getting critical acclaim you can claim to be highbrow too.
>
>Always the NBC apologist.
So what do *you* think a network would have to do to call themselves
highbrow, assuming you aren't just aimlessly attacking NBC. Again.
David
>"David" <diml...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> It isn't like *nobody* watched Leno.
>
>Close, though.
Not really. He'd have had to less than double his audience to get
ratings that would be considered respectable.
Obveeus
"David" <diml...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:j8h6b69rq5d2ueckr...@4ax.com...
So we agree that his show was pulling about half the ratings needed to be
considered respectable.
Obveeus
> On Mon, 11 Oct 2010 13:01:43 -0400, "Obveeus" <Obv...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>>"David" <diml...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Sat, 9 Oct 2010 23:52:11 -0400, "Obveeus" <Obv...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>>>>NBC: shows that claim to be more highbrow because they appeal to so few
>>>>people.
>>>
>>> Or the right kinds of people. When you start winning awards and
>>> getting critical acclaim you can claim to be highbrow too.
>>
>>Always the NBC apologist.
>
> So what do *you* think a network would have to do to call themselves
> highbrow,
I suppose they could air Opera and orchestra concerts and historically
accurate biographies, but just airing shows that appeal to fewer people and
spinning it as 'highbrow' programming isn't fooling very many people.
David
It's a far cry from you sounding like it's a black hole of viewership
in which no NBC promos were seen. Really NBC's advertising reach is so
vast and the difference between Leno's viewer totals and an acceptable
amount so comparably small that it's a non-issue.
Obveeus
"David" <diml...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 11 Oct 2010 14:25:56 -0400, "Obveeus" <Obv...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>>"David" <diml...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>> He'd have had to less than double his audience to get
>>> ratings that would be considered respectable.
>>
>>So we agree that his show was pulling about half the ratings needed to be
>>considered respectable.
>
> It's a far cry from you sounding like it's a black hole of viewership
> in which no NBC promos were seen. Really NBC's advertising reach is so
> vast and the difference between Leno's viewer totals and an acceptable
> amount so comparably small that it's a non-issue.
Leno hurt NBC when it aired...and it hurt the whole week, not just the 5
hours of primetime space it took up. It hurt the network reputation and it
hurt their ability to promote their other programming. Only an NBC
apologist would claim otherwise.
David
> "David" <dimla...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > On Mon, 11 Oct 2010 14:25:56 -0400, "Obveeus" <Obve...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> >>"David" <dimla...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> >>> He'd have had to less than double his audience to get
> >>> ratings that would be considered respectable.
>
> >>So we agree that his show was pulling about half the ratings needed to be
> >>considered respectable.
>
> > It's a far cry from you sounding like it's a black hole of viewership
> > in which no NBC promos were seen. Really NBC's advertising reach is so
> > vast and the difference between Leno's viewer totals and an acceptable
> > amount so comparably small that it's a non-issue.
>
> Leno hurt NBC when it aired...and it hurt the whole week, not just the 5
> hours of primetime space it took up. It hurt the network reputation and it
> hurt their ability to promote their other programming. Only an NBC
> apologist would claim otherwise.
You're really reaching to claim that a 10 pm show could hurt an 8 pm's
show's ratings.
David
> "David" <dimla...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> news:76h6b6t0gm0h4d08v...@4ax.com...
>
>
>
> > On Mon, 11 Oct 2010 13:01:43 -0400, "Obveeus" <Obve...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> >>"David" <dimla...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >>> On Sat, 9 Oct 2010 23:52:11 -0400, "Obveeus" <Obve...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> >>>>NBC: shows that claim to be more highbrow because they appeal to so few
> >>>>people.
>
> >>> Or the right kinds of people. When you start winning awards and
> >>> getting critical acclaim you can claim to be highbrow too.
>
> >>Always the NBC apologist.
>
> > So what do *you* think a network would have to do to call themselves
> > highbrow,
>
> I suppose they could air Opera and orchestra concerts and historically
> accurate biographies, but just airing shows that appeal to fewer people and
> spinning it as 'highbrow' programming isn't fooling very many people.
No one claimed the programs are highbrow because they appeal to fewer
people, aside from you to mock them.
Obveeus
"David" <diml...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Driving viewers away from the network 5 nights a week certainly didn't help
ratings for the remaining 10 hours on the schedule.
Sir WQ
> "David" <dimla...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >On Oct 11, 2:47 pm, "Obveeus" <Obve...@aol.com> wrote:
> >> Leno hurt NBC when it aired...and it hurt the whole week, not just the 5
> >> hours of primetime space it took up. It hurt the network reputation and
> >> it
> >> hurt their ability to promote their other programming. Only an NBC
> >> apologist would claim otherwise.
>
> >You're really reaching to claim that a 10 pm show could hurt an 8 pm's
> >show's ratings.
It can if it's not the right people. Those watching Leno probably
weren't the right people to promote whatever 8 pm show NBC had. You
should know all about that, Mr. 18-49.
>
> Driving viewers away from the network 5 nights a week certainly didn't help
> ratings for the remaining 10 hours on the schedule.
Don't worry, you're winning the argument. I know all about these
things. It's evident Leno did more harm than any good at all. The
fact they had to send him back to late night and get rid of Conan in
the process only 5 months after launching the fiasco is testament
alone as to how badly it hurt NBC. Even Zucker got fired over it.
Comcast wasn't too happy with the way he handled it all, so once they
finally take over, Zucker's out the door.
Obveeus
"David" <diml...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>No one claimed the programs are highbrow because they appeal to fewer
>people, aside from you to mock them.
You were the only kid in the room not to get the humor in that.
David
NBC didn't go dark at 10 pm. And I doubt that anyone was either too
outraged to watch NBC at 8 or forgot that 8 o'clock shows exist.
David
I was the only one too impolite to say something.
Jim Gysin
Remysun sent the following on 10/10/2010 11:23 PM:
> On Oct 10, 5:27 pm, Jim Gysin <jimgy...@geemail.com> wrote:
>
>> I honestly don't know of anyone in the real world who does that. They
>> may do it when it comes to news and a preference for, say, CNN as
>> background noise versus Fox or MSNBC, but I don't know anyone who
>> doesn't timeshift at least a *little* bit when it comes to primetime,
>> and I know of no one who turns their TV to a network station upon coming
>> home from work, presumably to leave the set tuned to that network
>> station for the rest of the evening.
>
> You're on Usenet, Jim. You're as isolated as the rest of us : )
Not anymore. Google ruined that for us long ago. :)
> I don't know anyone who chooses a cable news show to watch.
Really? Everyone I know has a favorite that they rarely vary from.
MSNBC for the loons, CNN for the moderates, and Fox for the 'wingers.
(I'm an equal opportunity labeler.)
> It's all
> pick a channel and watch. Channel surfing is an individual's choice,
> never by consensus, unless the purpose is to decide on something
> mutually agreed to be better than what was previously on.
Most people I know are couples, and whether they're watching something
together or separately, they timeshift, if only to be able to skip the
commercials. In fact, the only thing that most people I know *don't*
timeshift is live sporting events.
Jim Gysin
David sent the following on 10/11/2010 3:32 PM:
Obveeus seems to buy his straw in bulk. :)
Obveeus
You kick sand on people at the beach, don't you?
rwgibson13
> "David" <dimla...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > On Mon, 11 Oct 2010 14:25:56 -0400, "Obveeus" <Obve...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> >>"David" <dimla...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> >>> He'd have had to less than double his audience to get
> >>> ratings that would be considered respectable.
>
> >>So we agree that his show was pulling about half the ratings needed to be
> >>considered respectable.
>
> > It's a far cry from you sounding like it's a black hole of viewership
> > in which no NBC promos were seen. Really NBC's advertising reach is so
> > vast and the difference between Leno's viewer totals and an acceptable
> > amount so comparably small that it's a non-issue.
>
> Leno hurt NBC when it aired...and it hurt the whole week, not just the 5
> hours of primetime space it took up. It hurt the network reputation and it
> hurt their ability to promote their other programming. Only an NBC
> apologist would claim otherwise.
Something we've not even touched on yet was the pressure it was
putting on the NBC affiliates across the country, especially those
worried about how it affected the ratings of their local newscasts...
RWG (I'm thinking that hurt the network almost as much as the ratings
themselves)
Obveeus
"rwgibson13" <rwgib...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Something we've not even touched on yet was the pressure it was
>putting on the NBC affiliates across the country, especially those
>worried about how it affected the ratings of their local newscasts...
>
>RWG (I'm thinking that hurt the network almost as much as the ratings
>themselves)
Definitely. It negated the head office's whole shoveled argument that Leno
was making money.
John McWilliams
And some of us even do that. Right now I am watching the Giants-Braves
playoff (game 4). I started in an hour after the puck was dropped. Er,
kickoff, faceoff, whatever. That way my gf and/or son and I can ff
through commercials, pitching changes, etc. If I keep off parts of the
'Net, don't answer the phone, I won't get the score thrust at me
prematurely. It's pure heaven.
--
John McWilliams
Coach: "Are you just ignorant, or merely apathetic?"
Player: "Coach, I don't know, and I don't care."
JG
> On 10/8/10 PDT 3:36 PM, rwgibson13 wrote:
>
> > On Oct 8, 1:22 pm, "Sir WQ"<si...@post.com> wrote:
>
> >> If I were running the show, I wouldn’t waste any time and I’d get these
> >> changes to take affect next week while the season is still fresh.
>
> > Talk about shuffling deck chairs on the Titanic...moving all the crap
> > from one night to another night would just as likely make for a
> > stinkier pile of crap.
>
> > RWG (and it's hard enough remembering what where the crap is now - I'm
> > not going to go searching for it)
>
> Can someone explain what causes the absolute and virulent hatred of that
> network on the part of a few posters here?
>
> --
> john mcwilliams
General Electric, Huuuggge Outsourcers must be CRUSHED....HaHa we put
on funny show about your jobs being sent to Calcutta. Must see TV my
ass.
David
>
>"David" <diml...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On Mon, 11 Oct 2010 16:51:01 -0400, "Obveeus" <Obv...@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"David" <diml...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>No one claimed the programs are highbrow because they appeal to fewer
>>>>people, aside from you to mock them.
>>>
>>>You were the only kid in the room not to get the humor in that.
>>
>> I was the only one too impolite to say something.
>
>You kick sand on people at the beach, don't you?
And carry sand on me just in case a situation presents itself.
David
Why can't NBC make money and hurt affiliates at the same time? The two
are mutually inclusive more than they are exclusive, up to a point
where affiliates rebel.
David
It hurt ratings for the late local news, which is the reason why Leno
didn't last the full year NBC promised to give him.
Obveeus
"David" <diml...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Sure, 'making money' for the broadcast network (right pocket) while losing
even more money for NBC owned affiliates (left pocket). The end result is a
net negative, not a net positive. Calling it 'making money' when NBC was
really just pulling money out of one pocket, putting some subset into the
other pocket, and dumping the rest in the toilet doesn't make for a solid
claim by NBC about 'profit' with Leno.
David
Even adding up all the networks' owned affiliates, they can't equal
the money being made by the networks. And they're separate sectors of
the company. It isn't NBC's job to worry about affiliates unless it's
directly losing NBC money. If anything, the networks have to walk the
fine line of taking as much money from the affiliates' pockets as they
can while not crossing the line into the affiliates becoming vocally
unhappy.
Obveeus
"David" <diml...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 12 Oct 2010 13:20:04 -0400, "Obveeus" <Obv...@aol.com> wrote:
>>Sure, 'making money' for the broadcast network (right pocket) while losing
>>even more money for NBC owned affiliates (left pocket).
> Even adding up all the networks' owned affiliates, they can't equal
> the money being made by the networks.
We are only talking about the money supposedly being made by the 5x per week
airing of the Jay Leno show. The income from that show was defined as (ad
income from the show - cost to procure the show).
However, in larger terms, the parent company was also losing money from the
studio side (since Leno isn't a show that is going to have much potential
for DVD sales, rerun syndication, or even overseas firstrun syndication).
So, NBC Universal lost 5 shows (assuming the 10pm shows that NBC could have
aired would each be hourlongs) worth of that income. Also, NBC Universal
lost income from their owned affiliates having lower ratings (less ad money
coming in) during the 10pm hour AND lost significant ad income for their
news broadcasts (the prime source of income for affiliate stations) because
Leno was driving away those viewers from the network.
> And they're separate sectors of
> the company. It isn't NBC's job to worry about affiliates unless it's
> directly losing NBC money.
The parent company has to care, though, since it owns both pockets. The
parent company has to look for a total gain, not just a gain in one pocket
while the other pocket sustains an even bigger loss. This situation isn't
that different from the stuff going on at CW Network where the parent
companies are willing to see the network (CW) lose money because the parent
companies make back even more money through the studio projects created by
Warner/CBS Studios and aired on CW.
> If anything, the networks have to walk the
> fine line of taking as much money from the affiliates' pockets as they
> can while not crossing the line into the affiliates becoming vocally
> unhappy.
Yep...and NBC clearly failed that task.
Obveeus
"David" <diml...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 12 Oct 2010 13:20:04 -0400, "Obveeus" <Obv...@aol.com> wrote:
>>Sure, 'making money' for the broadcast network (right pocket) while losing
>>even more money for NBC owned affiliates (left pocket).
> Even adding up all the networks' owned affiliates, they can't equal
> the money being made by the networks.
We are only talking about the money supposedly being made by the 5x per week
airing of the Jay Leno show. The income from that show was defined as (ad
income from the show - cost to procure the show).
However, in larger terms, the parent company was also losing money from the
studio side (since Leno isn't a show that is going to have much potential
for DVD sales, rerun syndication, or even overseas firstrun syndication).
So, NBC Universal lost 5 shows (assuming the 10pm shows that NBC could have
aired would each be hourlongs) worth of that income. Also, NBC Universal
lost income from their owned affiliates having lower ratings (less ad money
coming in) during the 10pm hour AND lost significant ad income for their
news broadcasts (the prime source of income for affiliate stations) because
Leno was driving away those viewers from the network.
> And they're separate sectors of
> the company. It isn't NBC's job to worry about affiliates unless it's
> directly losing NBC money.
The parent company has to care, though, since it owns both pockets. The
parent company has to look for a total gain, not just a gain in one pocket
while the other pocket sustains an even bigger loss. This situation isn't
that different from the stuff going on at CW Network where the parent
companies are willing to see the network (CW) lose money because the parent
companies make back even more money through the studio projects created by
Warner/CBS Studios and aired on CW.
> If anything, the networks have to walk the
> fine line of taking as much money from the affiliates' pockets as they
> can while not crossing the line into the affiliates becoming vocally
> unhappy.
Yep...and NBC clearly failed that task.
David
>"David" <diml...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 12 Oct 2010 13:20:04 -0400, "Obveeus" <Obv...@aol.com> wrote:
>>>Sure, 'making money' for the broadcast network (right pocket) while losing
>>>even more money for NBC owned affiliates (left pocket).
>
>> Even adding up all the networks' owned affiliates, they can't equal
>> the money being made by the networks.
>
>We are only talking about the money supposedly being made by the 5x per week
>airing of the Jay Leno show. The income from that show was defined as (ad
>income from the show - cost to procure the show).
The money lost by local stations on the 11 o'clock news if they lost
an average few hundred viewers each because of Leno wouldn't equal
gains made by a major network in primetime.
>However, in larger terms, the parent company was also losing money from the
>studio side (since Leno isn't a show that is going to have much potential
>for DVD sales, rerun syndication, or even overseas firstrun syndication).
I don't know why you'd think that. Leno is shown in several other
countries. And lots of primetime shows don't do well on DVD and most
don't make it to syndication, while Leno makes money by having much
lower costs and heavy product placement.
Leno is no better or worse than any random new show if you're talking
about alternate revenue streams. They just make money in different
ways.
>> And they're separate sectors of
>> the company. It isn't NBC's job to worry about affiliates unless it's
>> directly losing NBC money.
>
>The parent company has to care, though, since it owns both pockets. The
>parent company has to look for a total gain, not just a gain in one pocket
>while the other pocket sustains an even bigger loss.
The networks aren't in business of looking out for local stations.
They'll only give the stations as little ad time as they can. They'll
preempt local programming as much as they can. They'll get stations to
psy for large sports contracts if they can. They'll try to get away
with anything up to the point where the stations are pushed to the
limit enough to gang up.
The parent companies will look at the total number, sure. But it's
your mistaken assumption that with Leno alone NBC could hurt their
affiliates by such a huge amount, and without balancing it out, that
all the way up the totem pole GE would care. NBC wasn't even planning
to evaluate Leno until after a full year so you can be sure they
weren't hearing anything from up high.
Obveeus
"David" <diml...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 12 Oct 2010 13:56:28 -0400, "Obveeus" <Obv...@aol.com> wrote:
>>We are only talking about the money supposedly being made by the 5x per
>>week
>>airing of the Jay Leno show. The income from that show was defined as (ad
>>income from the show - cost to procure the show).
>
> The money lost by local stations on the 11 o'clock news if they lost
> an average few hundred viewers each because of Leno wouldn't equal
> gains made by a major network in primetime.
A 'few hundred viewers'? Is that all you think watches the late news on
broadcast TV? Do you actually believe that the affiliates were crying foul
over lost income becasue of a few hundred viewers?
http://www.stateofthemedia.org/2010/local_tv_sidebars_backgrounders.php#ltv_aud_lenoeffect
-->Viewership for late local news on NBC - at 186 owned-and-operated
stations and affiliates
-->- in the November 2009 sweeps period fell by a striking 19.7% when
compared with the
-->same period in 2008. In all, the newscasts lost 1.8 million viewers. The
audience in November
-->2009 totaled 7.2 million.
That article makes it pretty clear that Leno as a lead-in resulted in a near
20% drop in the nightly news audience for NBC affiliates...and that was
during November sweeps when Leno was still a fairly new phenomenon.
>>However, in larger terms, the parent company was also losing money from
>>the
>>studio side (since Leno isn't a show that is going to have much potential
>>for DVD sales, rerun syndication, or even overseas firstrun syndication).
>
> I don't know why you'd think that. Leno is shown in several other
> countries. And lots of primetime shows don't do well on DVD and most
> don't make it to syndication, while Leno makes money by having much
> lower costs and heavy product placement.
You cannot possibly be claiming that Leno had more second run syndication /
DVD sales value than 5 *real shows*, can you? I know you want to be the #1
NBC apologist of all-time, but really...
>>The parent company has to care, though, since it owns both pockets. The
>>parent company has to look for a total gain, not just a gain in one pocket
>>while the other pocket sustains an even bigger loss.
>
> The networks aren't in business of looking out for local stations.
The networks' bosses are in that business, as well as the business of
keeping their studios profitable.
> They'll only give the stations as little ad time as they can. They'll
> preempt local programming as much as they can. They'll get stations to
> psy for large sports contracts if they can. They'll try to get away
> with anything up to the point where the stations are pushed to the
> limit enough to gang up.
NBC affiliates said enough was enough due to the Leno fiasco.
> NBC wasn't even planning
> to evaluate Leno until after a full year so you can be sure they
> weren't hearing anything from up high.
Do you honestly believe that all the bad press that came with the Leno
fiasco, none of the higher-ups were hearing anything from the even higher
ups?
David
>"David" <diml...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 12 Oct 2010 13:56:28 -0400, "Obveeus" <Obv...@aol.com> wrote:
>>>We are only talking about the money supposedly being made by the 5x per
>>>week
>>>airing of the Jay Leno show. The income from that show was defined as (ad
>>>income from the show - cost to procure the show).
>>
>> The money lost by local stations on the 11 o'clock news if they lost
>> an average few hundred viewers each because of Leno wouldn't equal
>> gains made by a major network in primetime.
>
>A 'few hundred viewers'? Is that all you think watches the late news on
>broadcast TV? Do you actually believe that the affiliates were crying foul
>over lost income becasue of a few hundred viewers?
I meant a few hundred thousand viewers obviously.
>http://www.stateofthemedia.org/2010/local_tv_sidebars_backgrounders.php#ltv_aud_lenoeffect
>
>-->Viewership for late local news on NBC - at 186 owned-and-operated
>stations and affiliates
>-->- in the November 2009 sweeps period fell by a striking 19.7% when
>compared with the
>-->same period in 2008. In all, the newscasts lost 1.8 million viewers. The
>audience in November
>-->2009 totaled 7.2 million.
GE only cares about the ten stations actually owned by NBC. Also
ratings decline every year. You have to separate what decline would've
been expected instead of blaming the whole thing on Leno.
>>>However, in larger terms, the parent company was also losing money from
>>>the
>>>studio side (since Leno isn't a show that is going to have much potential
>>>for DVD sales, rerun syndication, or even overseas firstrun syndication).
>>
>> I don't know why you'd think that. Leno is shown in several other
>> countries. And lots of primetime shows don't do well on DVD and most
>> don't make it to syndication, while Leno makes money by having much
>> lower costs and heavy product placement.
>
>You cannot possibly be claiming that Leno had more second run syndication /
>DVD sales value than 5 *real shows*, can you?
How many of NBC's new shows from last year or this year have or will
have back-end value? NBC doesn't know what to expect from a new show.
They knew what to expect from Leno. That's why they put him on. And of
course NBC doesn't owe all their shows, and co-owns other shows, while
they own Leno outright.
>I know you want to be the #1
>NBC apologist of all-time, but really...
I'm pretty sure I'm far from the only one tired of hearing your
favorite keyphrase. It's like your personal version of "lamestream
media."
Now just to recap, you've claimed that Leno was responsible for NBC's
Fall schedule, too many reruns in the Summer, declining ratings in
timeslots Leno had nothing to do with and catastrophic drops in local
station revenue (enough to set off alarms way way up the corporate
ladder). Given more time, will you also get to blaming Leno for the
stock market crash, Asian tsunamis, and claim that only swift action
by those heroic affiliates who spoke up prevented global famine?
(but as usual *I'm* the one with the problem)
>> They'll only give the stations as little ad time as they can. They'll
>> preempt local programming as much as they can. They'll get stations to
>> psy for large sports contracts if they can. They'll try to get away
>> with anything up to the point where the stations are pushed to the
>> limit enough to gang up.
>
>NBC affiliates said enough was enough due to the Leno fiasco.
Yes, and since NBC's affiliates are why Leno was cancelled you can
reason from that there was nothing happening that made NBC nor any of
NBC's bosses unhappy enough to not keep Leno on.
Obveeus
"David" <diml...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Now just to recap,
> Leno was responsible for NBC's
> Fall schedule, too many reruns in the Summer, declining ratings in
> timeslots Leno had nothing to do with and catastrophic drops in local
> station revenue (enough to set off alarms way way up the corporate
> ladder).
>
Enough said.
>>NBC affiliates said enough was enough due to the Leno fiasco.
>
> Yes, and since NBC's affiliates are why Leno was cancelled you can
> reason from that there was nothing happening that made NBC nor any of
> NBC's bosses unhappy enough to not keep Leno on.
Just because affiliates threatening to leave NBC was *the final straw* is no
reason to believe that it was the only straw.
David
>"David" <diml...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> Yes, and since NBC's affiliates are why Leno was cancelled you can
>> reason from that there was nothing happening that made NBC nor any of
>> NBC's bosses unhappy enough to not keep Leno on.
>
>Just because affiliates threatening to leave NBC was *the final straw* is no
>reason to believe that it was the only straw.
Affiliates ganging up on NBC is a really extreme action. You don't see
them having to force NBC to cancel "Outlaw," do you?
Jim Gysin
John McWilliams sent the following on 10/11/2010 7:54 PM:
> On 10/11/10 PDT 3:13 PM, Jim Gysin wrote:
>> Remysun sent the following on 10/10/2010 11:23 PM:
>>> On Oct 10, 5:27 pm, Jim Gysin <jimgy...@geemail.com> wrote:
>
>>> It's all
>>> pick a channel and watch. Channel surfing is an individual's choice,
>>> never by consensus, unless the purpose is to decide on something
>>> mutually agreed to be better than what was previously on.
>> Most people I know are couples, and whether they're watching something
>> together or separately, they timeshift, if only to be able to skip the
>> commercials. In fact, the only thing that most people I know *don't*
>> timeshift is live sporting events.
>
> And some of us even do that. Right now I am watching the Giants-Braves
> playoff (game 4). I started in an hour after the puck was dropped. Er,
> kickoff, faceoff, whatever. That way my gf and/or son and I can ff
> through commercials, pitching changes, etc. If I keep off parts of the
> 'Net, don't answer the phone, I won't get the score thrust at me
> prematurely. It's pure heaven.
If I'm watching a game from home (instead of a get-together or a bar),
I've usually got Trillian fired up, and am gooning and being gooned by
others doing the same thing I'm doing as a game progresses. But yeah,
there are still times when it's nice to, say, watch an entire college
football game in one hour. :)
Obveeus
NBC didn't commit in advance to 5 nights per week of Outlaw for an entire
year...and then sit on their butts telling everyone that Outlaw was
performing well despite all ratings evidence to the contrary.