Are You Surprised At How Bad The Ratings Are For MY NETWORK TV?

[radioboss]

It (the ratings) almost reminds you of how the WB and UPN ratings were.

Can the CW fare better with the "best of shows" on the CW?

 

[mr_mark_taylor]

they're worse than UPN aren't they?

The CW will do fine, since it's more connected to the network it replaced (The WB) versus MyNetwork's connection to UPN (MyNet more relied on stations to promote the changes)

 

[Nertz!]

The CW has something that My does not - an established viewer base.
Now if an entire week of shows can be condensed into one hour, that should tell you something about My's shows.

 

[network]

The creation and some responses in this thread are simply hysterical and solidifies that some of you haven't a clue and really should refrain from commenting. Unless you enjoy looking like uneducated fools.

The network has only been on the air for a few freaking weeks. And now we're talking about "how bad the ratings" are. UPN and WB didn't do all that great either. At least MYNET has a focus. Nothing wrong with that.

And as far as summing up an entire week...again, so what?! Nothing wrong with that and actually a good programming move. Some of you need to get a clue. Really. :

 

[radioboss]

Network,
I agree it's only been a couple of "freaking weeks" since My Network TV has been on the air.

But, I was trying to show that even though MNT only has two shows airing; that, it hasn't shown that much of an improvement from the two networks (WB & UPN) from the last several years.

I do think that The CW will give NBC a challenge for the No. 4 slot eventually. But, it will take time.

 

[ultravox]

Ya know I give everything a chance. I dont coment on anything unless I seen or heard it. Ok saying that. This is the sadest excuse for a network that I ever saw. the few shows they have suck.. majorly I was surprised since Fox was heading it up I thought it might be entertaining. Its actually worse then PAX (I) But PAX Lives on so i guess with Foxes deep pockets it will last awhile. and also the stations that sighned on.. did they actually watch the shows they were gonna broadcast.

 

[mjlarochelle]

It doesn't surprise me because in today's TV climate, a new network (whether cable or traditional) isn't going to make much of a dent, unless like the CW, it has a lot of familiar, established shows.

The thing is though, those stations that didn't get the CW affiliation were doomed anyways. Making a go as an independent station was going to be too difficult. It used to be that an independent station meant nightly primetime movies, but look at what WSBK has in primetime as a UPN-turned-independent-instead-of-MNT. Dr. Phil, and classic Jeopardy repeats. Hardly worth my time. And the Boston ratings agree - although TV38 is doing better than WZMY in primetime, probably because WZMY isn't even a Boston station but just happens to be the MNT station in that market.

 

[TexasTom]

Keep in mind that the success of an independent TV station needs to be evaluated on the basis of the entire day's schedule, and not just on primetime ratings. Even back in the golden days of independent TV stations (the seventies and eighties), many of these stations did great in the afternoon and evening, but lost most of their audience once primetime programming started on the network affiliates. An occasional blockbuster would break that pattern, but more often than not, those primetime movies were getting a third of the audience (or less) than what the same station had been getting with their evening sitcom reruns or afternoon kids block.

 

[Markxxx]

Keep in mind that the success of an independent TV station needs to be evaluated on the basis of the entire day's schedule, and not just on primetime ratings. Even back in the golden days of independent TV stations (the seventies and eighties), many of these stations did great in the afternoon and evening, but lost most of their audience once primetime programming started on the network affiliates.

I think this is an excellent point, but the one thing today that is different is infomercials. Innovative programming isn't needed when you can have cheap programming that makes the station a lot of money.

There is no long such a thing of a program that is made to show that the network has "class" and "culture."

I recall reading that Orson Wells credits his success on radio to the fact the network had to have programming to fill. Since they could only air so many commercials. They knew the show wouldn't be a commercial success so they let him do his shows and gave him free reign, PROVIDED it was done with taste, and would appeal to an audience that would NOT be listening. In other words capture the niche audience.

So he was allowed to develop different programs some were hits, most were not but almost all were critically acclaimed and that acclaim gave the network something to crow about.

Now with Six Sigma techniques it's not about making a profit, it's about making THE MOST profit. If you make a profit but could've made more, Six Sigma sees it as a failure. And this is the business model for most of the country

 

[Nertz!]

I thought the whole point of the ratings system was to have the ad buyers effectively spend their ad money on shows that reach a certain audience. It makes no sense to have an ad for a luxury car on a high rated show that doesn't have the demographic pull you need to sell your car. Smart money would put the ad on the niche show where the right demographic is.

 

[4dude]

Not 1 bit surprised........

Nothing but garbage to air so what can 1 expect??

 

[bpatrick]

Keep in mind that the success of an independent TV station needs to be evaluated on the basis of the entire day's schedule, and not just on primetime ratings. Even back in the golden days of independent TV stations (the seventies and eighties), many of these stations did great in the afternoon and evening, but lost most of their audience once primetime programming started on the network affiliates.

I think this is an excellent point, but the one thing today that is different is infomercials. Innovative programming isn't needed when you can have cheap programming that makes the station a lot of money.

There is no long such a thing of a program that is made to show that the network has "class" and "culture."

I recall reading that Orson Wells credits his success on radio to the fact the network had to have programming to fill. Since they could only air so many commercials. They knew the show wouldn't be a commercial success so they let him do his shows and gave him free reign, PROVIDED it was done with taste, and would appeal to an audience that would NOT be listening. In other words capture the niche audience.

So he was allowed to develop different programs some were hits, most were not but almost all were critically acclaimed and that acclaim gave the network something to crow about.

Now with Six Sigma techniques it's not about making a profit, it's about making THE MOST profit. If you make a profit but could've made more, Six Sigma sees it as a failure. And this is the business model for most of the country

At the time Welles did his "War Of The Worlds" broadcast in 1938, CBS had him on Sunday nights at 8 (Eastern), against the number-one
radio attraction of that year, Edgar Bergen and Charlie McCarthy. Welles was unsponsored at that point, but he was presenting some of
the most innovative productions (including "War") being heard in those days. The publicity "War Of The Worlds" received finally got
Welles a sponsor--Campbell's Soup--but no diminution in the quality of his programs.

I think a major change in thinking came with the shift from full sponsorship to spot buys. In the '50s companies like Firestone, Westinghouse,
Kraft, Alcoa, Philco, etc., wanted to be associated with high-quality programs, which didn't hurt sales any. But when advertising
shifted to spot buys, with the emphasis on gross rating points, it became important to reach as many households as possible, and most
of those households weren't watching Studio One, Voice Of Firestone, See It Now, etc. Also, the first sets were purchased mainly by
high-income families; as sets became more affordable, people with lesser incomes tended to favor sitcoms, Westerns, cop shows, etc.
(and I realize I'm generalizing here, but the fact is that most of the prestige programs were gone by 1960).

 

[Al Timiter]

I think a major change in thinking came with the shift from full sponsorship to spot buys. In the '50s companies like Firestone, Westinghouse,
bpatrick writes:Kraft, Alcoa, Philco, etc., wanted to be associated with high-quality programs, which didn't hurt sales any. But when advertising
shifted to spot buys, with the emphasis on gross rating points, it became important to reach as many households as possible, and most
of those households weren't watching Studio One, Voice Of Firestone, See It Now, etc. Also, the first sets were purchased mainly by
high-income families; as sets became more affordable, people with lesser incomes tended to favor sitcoms, Westerns, cop shows, etc.
(and I realize I'm generalizing here, but the fact is that most of the prestige programs were gone by 1960).
Posted on: November 02, 2006, 03:54:07 amPosted

This is an absolutely excellent point and one that I had never though of. Thanks for a thought-prvoking post. Definitely one to ponder. I miss the US Steel Hour, Alcoa Presents, and Armstrong circle theater. O-K, we're officially off-topic.....

 

[willcail]

My Network TV is primary brodcast digitaily in certin markets. My city, Columbus, Ohio brodcast on WSYX-TV6 subchannel. The local CW affilate is still brodcasting over an analog signal. Don't forget that the CW is the merger of UPN and the WB. Fox/News Corp. does own some local TV stations that does not air FOX programming. In turn News Corp decides to create MNT for those stations.

The CW is still loosing to Univision in the ratings.

 

[rch66]

Univision is in the Spanish broadcaster category. It's ratings about as relevant as comparing Yahoo!'s visitor traffic, or Comcast's success with its On-Demand.

 

[sctvman]

NO, NO, NO!

I am not surprised about MyNetworkTV's ratings! I think they (News Corp.) went too fast into launching the network last year. I think they should have wanted a year to develop quality productive shows even though more of the UPN/WB stations would have gone independent anyway. News Corporation will find a way to improve ratings, but it is not going to take overnight. Look at Fox in 1987, a new network that only aired one night a week. If you look at Fox now, they are almost #1 in the ratings. I think the major difference between the launching of Fox and MyNetworkTV is this: MyNetworkTV is aired six nights a week. I heard that most local MyNetworkTV stations are losing money (especially during prime-time).

As for the CW, I don't watch the network as much as I should. However, they have established shows (which was mentioned by a previous message member) and will have greater success than MyNetworkTV in the short time.

 

[stefanokills]

No I'm not surprised. There's too many channels as it is nowadays.

It takes a long time to introduce a new network and they make not make
it with crappy programming on top of it.