Analysts have stopped telling clients to wait for more data before they worry about the lousy early ratings for the major networks’ primetime shows. Although “it is probably too early to panic, there are several areas of concern,” Nomura Securities’ Michael Nathanson says this morning. That’s a shift from a few weeks ago when he called the initial ratings figures “disappointing” but possibly the result of quirks in this year’s schedules. The new conventional wisdom is that the major broadcast networks have a serious problem as the latest so-called C3 ratings (those who watch a show’s commercials live and as much as three days after they air) show ABC -15% this season vs the same period last year with CBS -23% and Fox -28% — but NBC +12%. RBC Capital Markets’ David Bank said last week that “our best ‘experts’ tell us that it’s realistic to expect ratings for the Broadcast Year 2012/2013 to decline ~5%-10%.” And all eyes are on CBS, which depends on the performance of its broadcast network more than its rivals at Disney, Comcast, and News Corp. CBS shares are down 10.5% over the last 30 days, far more than the benchmark Standard & Poor’s 500 which is -1.8%.
Nathanson says broadcasters are partly to blame for their ratings losses: too many of their new shows are stiffs. The fall offerings are “shaping up to resemble the Yankees’ batting success during the recent ALCS: a lot of swings and just about as many misses.” But it isn’t just new shows that are failing to connect. Investors “should be concerned about the impact of future syndication profits as many returning shows (e.g., Blue Bloods, The Good Wife, Private Practice, Grimm) are at dangerously low ratings levels, and we just don’t see massive bidding wars breaking out” when they hit the market, Nathanson says.
Where are the viewers going? That may be the most worrisome question for TV execs because many people appear to be leaving the TV ecosystem entirely, Nathanson says. The total number of Live+Same Day primetime viewers (at least among the 18-49 demo that advertisers covet) is -4% for the major broadcasters and basic cable networks combined thus far this season. But there’s no simple explanation. Part of the drop can be attributed to Nielsen’s recent 1% reduction in its count of TV households. (More likely due to lack of housing formation in a weak economy than to pay TV cord-cutting.) Researchers will have a field day figuring out where others went. Meanwhile, Nathanson warns that the combination of falling ratings in a weak ad market “could be a brutal and unforeseen combination.”
Recent Comments
Ironically, the only real hit for network TV this fall is an NBC show about a post-apocalyptic world with no network television…
Ratings are down beause networks and advertisers only want to please certain age groups.They have ignored there biggest viewers,Less good scripted shows for more reality.Daytime is more and more talkers.TNT,USA and others have went more scripted and less reality and talkers.When you ignore the biggest veiwing audiences we just go somewhere else where we are apprenticed.CABLE.
network dinasours afraid of content slowly sinking to extinction. revitalizing their shrinking audiences would require severe and wholesale replacement of the executives in charge of programming. not going to happen because it would ask of them to fire themselves!
Audiences want great shows. Period. What’s so difficult to understand about that? The last few years of Network development haven’t offered anything as exciting and groundbreaking as HOUSE, 24, or LOST. If you build it, they will come. If you don’t, the audience goes to cable where sophisticated fare like GAME OF THRONES, HOMELAND, THE WALKING DEAD, and BREAKING BAD are changing all the rules.
It’s a sad state of affairs when the best new show this season is REVOLUTION. Revolution SUCKS!
All of these well-meaning development hacks who buy crap and/or overdevelop material into hackcrap need a wake up call. NO ONE is watching your lousy shows. Do better.
One has to wonder, do the executives who select the shows to broadcast for the general television audience ever ask themselves, “Would I watch this show?”
With so many options for viewing available now, I think we have to start asking the question “Does syndication even matter anymore to the habits of viewers?” I know that my own viewing habits include watching a lot of original fare at the time it airs and not looking at it again after that. Many of my friends and family members are the same way. I think that most people want to see something they haven’t watched before and if they can’t, they’re happy to turn the TV off altogether. If they are interested in revisiting something they’ve already watched, they buy the DVDs or catch an episode on Hulu or Netflix. Concurrently, most of the basic cable networks that traditionally aired past seasons of shows from the majors have moved to producing their own prime time line ups, leaving little room outside of the middle of the day (when no one is watching) for shows that people have already seen. There’s further evidence that when new episodes aren’t available to watch, viewers look elsewhere for something to fill this void. It’s called the rise of original shows on the internet. All you have to do is look at the success of shows like White Collar and Justified and The Walking Dead on cable and shows like The Guild and Husbands online to know that people mostly don’t care about repeats. When will the business model shift to represent this?
Adding to what you have said: For the most part, television has a serialized component to it now, regardless if it is an hour-long drama, half-hour sitcom or reality show. That serialized nature makes watching a show in syndication a challenge. If you miss some shows or don’t get in at the beginning, it becomes pointless to continue trying to watch the series. Back when shows were more self-contained, it made it easy to start watching a show. With DVDs, VOD and online sources, it is a lot easier to watch a series at YOUR convenience and unedited.
We are in the beginning of changes to how we consume our entertainment. Television execs better get on board and figure out what they need to do.
“I think we have to start asking the question “Does syndication even matter anymore to the habits of viewers?”
Your example doesn’t match what most viewers are doing, though: time-shifting and NOT watching shows when they air on broadcast TV schedules. Most viewers want marathons of shows. They want to mainline them 20 episodes at a sitting. Syndicated marathons can give them that, so I’m not sure what your point is.
My point was not about timeshifting, which is obviously the preferred viewing method these days. My point is that people like new episodes not reruns. Syndication is, by nature, repeats. That’s why cable networks have shifted to airing their own programming and filling up their air with a different series every 13 weeks. It’s more attractive because it’s new. People who watch marathons fall into two camps: those who are watching timeshifted programming that they haven’t seen before and those who are old, sick, or unemployed who watch Law & Order or CSI from 10am to 4pm because they have nothing else to do. Granted there are a lot of old people and a lot of unemployed people right now, but the trend is not toward more people who fit into the second category, it’s toward more people who fit into the first.
People still care about and watch repeats. TNT, TBS and USA still thrive on off-network repeats of LAW AND ORDER, LAW AND ORDER: SPECIAL VICTIMS UNIT and NCIS. The ION network is built on off-network syndication. Antenna, ME TV and THIS TV are continuing to clear in additional markets and generate attention from viewers.
The broadcast networks have moved away from summer reruns because they think they can do better with original programming year-round. But they just offer up cheap-to-produce unscripted programming. A lot of hit shows such as ALL IN THE FAMILY, THE ODD COUPLE and CHEERS have benefitted greatly from summer reruns.
Some of the old business models are outdated (such as A1849) and the networks stick with them. Some of them have been abandoned and could use a revisiting.
But the biggest problem is that a creative business is run by number crunchers.
What is funny about all the Network/Sponsors hand wringing about dropping ratings is that they only have themselves to blame. The reason for the drop is self evident. Only they are too stupid/vain to see it.
This is no surprise, considering that this new season’s lineup is the weakest in decades.
Aside from the ubiquitous reality crap, returning tired old crime procedurals and legal/medical dramas, a few (YES, A FEW!) new silly sitcoms about dysfunctional people raising children, a remake of an old series, a spinoff from an old series, a bad “Coneheads” ripoff, a couple new young female doctor shows and a new young female lawyer show, yet another series set in Las Vegas and still another set in Chicago, and talentless dog and pony “musical” competition shows (DWTS, AI, etc.), what does this season offer?
With so many Americans in the 18-49 age group back living in their childhood homes with their parents, perhaps programmers should take that into consideration when tailoring their schedule. The family unit that watches tv in the 8pm and 9pm time periods is more multi-generational than in the past. The most popular broadcast tv shows are programs that appeal to the entire family or most of the family. The focus of the programming on the broadcast stations is off kilter, therefore they aren’t attaining the success they could reach if they just tailored their focus better.
Where are the viewers going? Same place Newsweek subscribers went. Network TV has gotten cheapshotting, badly written, and playing to a demographic that doesn’t sit in front of the tube anymore. Cable TV is hit or miss – You got Breaking Bad and then you got Terriers. Then you got stars going on twitter with their 140 character rants and viewers are just “I work to hard to put up with this”.
I love how people just say “we need better shows,” like you can just pull them out of your ass. Pulling them out of our asses is the problem. The real deal that no one wants to talk about is the continuing bigotry and nepotism that is the foundation of the hiring and promotion practices in Hollywood. We cannot keep giving all of the opportunities to the same group of people (white men) without demanding that they have actual talent. The result has been the last three generations of Hollywood have been the hackiest dumbest and most untalented we’ve ever seen. And so we double down by lowering the bar for quality and now all of a sudden, we worry that people don’t want the shitfest we present each fall, where the title of every new show has Sh*i Fu*k B*tch and Hate in the title.
Good news is, we are almost there, almost at rock bottom, where Animal Practice won’t get cancelled but get a 22 episode order… oh, I forgot we’re already there with Mindy
Of all the new shows there isn’t one thats really watchable.Just give me cable. Network TV needs to come up with a Homeland- Game of Thrones – Broadwalk Empire – Spartacus . People go where the good shows are and its not on basic tv . If they’re worried about TV standards change them.This isn’t 1950. People mores change and TV should reflect that
Where are the viewers going? Anyone notice the huge ratings on cable? The Walking Dead, Sons of Anarchy, American Horror Story…what do they have in common? Not quality, those three run the gamut. The answer is, they are not about the usual shit, cops and lawyers and doctors, snore. And they are not the kind of weak tea that broadcast serves up that’s putting audiences to sleep.
So far the broadcast networks have been greenlighting development that is far too vanilla and samey as past seasons. CBS in particular needs to wake up to the fact that their viewers have finally aged enough that business as usual is no longer working,
Maybe 2013 will be the year that, to cut expenses, the “big three” broadcast networks reduce prime-time from 22 to 15 hours a week, giving back the 10-11 P.M. (ET/PT) half-hour to local stations while reclaiming the 11-11:30 P.M. (ET/PT) half-hour so their late-night programming can be moved up.
The idea is that late local newscasts would be broadcast for a full hour from 10 to 11 (except for small markets, this could be done without significant increases in local station news department budgets), and the network late-night shows would begin a half-hour earlier than they do now.
For the networks, they would have nearly one-third fewer commercial spots to sell, so they could charge more per spot.
For most local stations (except for small market ones), the expansion of their late news from 30 or 35 minutes to an hour would only involve minimal expense. And with more spots, and with late news being broadcast an hour earlier, local affiliates would probably make more money.
The big losers might be program producers, who would see 21 fewer hours of broadcast-network prime-time programming. But in the end, maybe the better shows would get on, the not-so-good shows wouldn’t, and the reduced prime-time schedules might have more appeal for viewers.
No one under 40 watches the “big four”. And I think I’m being generous
What brings me to TV? Writing.
Scan down through Deadline’s list of TV deals. What do you see? The same producers, the same show runners. Can these guys write two shows at once? Three? No, of course not.
So you take a great writer and somehow imagine that if he wrote X he can write Y at the same high level and simultaneously. Sorry, but JJ Abrams (or pick a name) cannot somehow magically transfer his talent to someone else. Abrams cannot hire Abrams to write an Abrams show. He can only hire someone sub-Abrams. Of course in reality, several sub-Abramses, which despite the apparent arithmetic, will not add up to an Abrams. Multiplying Abramses actually reduces the total available Abramitude. And it shows. And then I go watch cable or Netflix.
Syndication still pays big $$
But frankly, networks target to narrow of demographics. New Girl, Happy Endings, etc are not going to grab ten million viewers. As Alyssa Rosenberg pointed out in her article “Four Ways Network Television Can Save Itself—And Distinguish Itself From Cable”.(http://thinkprogress.org/alyssa/2012/10/09/977811/network-television-cable/?mobile=nc)
Networks are not utilizing the 8pm time slots for family shows, as she points out, “The 8 PM hour is considered a dead zone on broadcast television right now, which is too bad. There’s no reason to waste the hour after homework and before a reasonable bed time.”
Ratings in decline, viewers dispersing to alternative viewing formats, and Nielsen… reduces the number of households it surveys. BRILLIANT. #fail
Broadcast network ratings may be going down, but is the overall TV viewing down? I wouldn’t think so. It’s just that we’re no longer dependent on the nets to supply it, especially when their content is lacking & filled with a ridiculous amount of advertising. There are so many other options, including cable & satellite, DVDs, the Internet, etc.
I, for instance, have a collection of thousands of episodes of classic TV on home video. I didn’t have that 10 years ago. Today, I can simply ignore all those karaoke shows and crap sitcoms they’re churning out, and come up with my own ad-free schedule and it’s all a couple of clicks away.
I’m just happy that Fringe gets a planned series finale. Sorry Fox… but once it’s over, I’m off to cable…
Or let’s talk about how the Neilsen Rating System is a flawed system and non-representative of the mass TV audience in 2012. The landscape has moved beyond 4 major networks — therefore, we should have a system that reflect this change. People are watching, it’s just the sampling isn’t representative anymore.
I cut the cord 3 years ago. If I want to watch something it’s borrowed from the local community college on DVD. What a great selection and no commercials. Network and Cable can do what they want. I don’t want it, need it or miss it!
Why I am making a comment on this topic is anybody’s guess. I am not in the demographic that advertisers covet. Despite that, I am pleased to say that Television and I grew up together. From the age of 5, my brain was programmed to love the exciting new world of television and I still love it. However, television does not love me. Television would never come knocking on my door to solicit me as a writer, a commentator or even a viewer. They don’t care what I think, because they perceive that I am too old to think, I guess. They have been told that I don’t buy new stuff. They think that I have used the same brands of all the stuff I use for 30 years, and and that I am “set in my ways”. Are they crazy? No, they just listen to the same old market survey psycho-babble, rooted in the 1950’s, that tells them exactly what they want to hear, year after year, so they can continue to believe their party will go on and on forever.
Sorry guys…that 1950’s manipulative, market-projection stuff just doesn’t apply any more. In case you were wondering, the 49+ age group is your largest television viewing group. We have more discretionary cash than any other viewing group and we were raised to love t.v. and crave novelty. (In other words, we will try and buy your advertiser’s new stuff, regardless of what you have been led to believe.)
But, of course, you want our kids and grand-kids to be your viewers. Yes, those would be the ones who Don’t Watch much Network T.V. My sons watch a little on cable…but, mostly they have other hobbies. (Online gaming, books, music, their personal dvd collections, among others.) Our grandson visited us the summer before last. He lives on the east coast and was 14 that year. We wanted to take him to see the movie “Cowboys and Aliens”, which was in the theaters at the time. He didn’t want to go. He said he had never seen a “Western” before and that it didn’t sound very interesting to him. I asked him, “Haven’t you ever seen any old Western shows on t.v.?” He said the only t.v. show he ever watched was “Mythbusters”. Well, the next day, I bought the graphic novel of “Cowboys and Aliens” and carelessly left it lying around on the coffee table, not far from where his laptop and ipod were kept during his visit. When the week-end came around, he announced, to our surprise, that he had changed his mind and decided he would like to go to the movie, after all. We took him and he loved it. “I never knew ‘Westerns’ even existed”, he said…
O.K., all you Network Guys…my grandson, and millions of kids like him, are who you are going to inherit for your coveted 18-49 demographic in only a few years. Are you ready for them? (By the way, they don’t watch much t.v……)
The truth of the matter is multi-faceted. Networks started years ago with reality television shows such as Big Brother and Survivor. Once these shows became popular and ratings soared America was hooked, and the networks gave us more like the Bachelor, The Amazing Race and the Bachelorette.
On the other side of the spectrum are the scripted shows that gained popularity and high ratings: CSI,Law and Order,Cold Case and. NCIS. The problem with CSI and Law and Order comes in when there are so many spin off’s that almost every night in the week it was either CSI,CSI MIAMI,CSI NEW YORK, Law And Order, Law and Order SVU.
With all these shows on the air every night in the week viewers started to venture to other stations, thus making Honey Boo-Boo, Toddlers and Tiaras, and Dance Mom’s huge hits. It is going to take new ideas and innovation on the network’s part to regain their share of viewer’s. They cannot rely on re-inventing shows that are very similar to past sitcoms that had a broad viewing base. Shows that are doing well right now are those whose characters represent the true demographics of America.
We pretty much only watch cable now (actual scripted shows), because there are way too many talk/reality/lifestyle shows on. ABC sucks for canceling iconic One Life to Live and All My Children, for generic, cheap talk shows, and so their ratings suck now too.