CSI RATINGS

[justpassingthough]

While watching last night's episode of "CSI", which aired at 10pm, I started thinking about the ratings for the show. When the show premiered in 2000, it aired on Fridays at 9pm, sandwiched between "the Fugitive" at 8pm, which was supposed to be the big new premiere for the year and "Nash Bridges", which was already established.

"CSI" performed so well, though, that it finished the season at #10, and was moved to Thursdays and paired with "Survivor" to finally present a challenge to NBC's long dominance of Thursday night. It followed its stellar first season performance with several seasons as the most-watched show before being dethroned by "American Idol". Still, it has never had a season in which it finished outside of the top 10- and is on pace to be the #4 show for this season.

This is the tenth year of "CSI" and I'm trying to remember shows that had equally as strong runs inside the top 10- "ER" and "Friends" come to mind as recent shows that managed to stay inside the top 10 for a decade. Are there any other shows that have had an equally as impressive ratings run as "CSI"?

 

[Markxxx]

"60 Minutes" was in the top ten for 23 years in the row according to the Wikipedia (1977-2000).

"Gunsmoke" had 13 years in the top ten though they weren't consecutive.

It's hard to even think of shows lasting 10 or more seasons. Yet alone having ten seasons in the top 10. Though long runs aren't equal to high year end placements. For instance, "Fact of Life" ran nine seasons and never got above #24 for year end.

 

[bk77]

It's hard to even think of shows lasting 10 or more seasons. Yet alone having ten seasons in the top 10. Though long runs aren't equal to high year end placements. For instance, "Fact of Life" ran nine seasons and never got above #24 for year end.

One reason I have always heard why the Facts of Life lasted as long as it did was that the cast wasn't paid very much. I am sure Charlotte Rae and later Cloris Leachman made a pretty penny doing FOL but the girls....I can remember hearing interviews over the years with Mindy Cohn ( Natalie ) and Lisa Whelchel ( Blair ) both making a claim that they weren't paid very much for doing that show.

Of course the show did look like it was done on the cheap anyway.

 

[Markxxx]

"Facts Of Life," was similar to "Mr Belvedere," neither show set the world on fire, but it usually won its timeslot and was part of an overall group of similar shows. Like "Mr Belvedere" was part of the Friday night group of hits.

I was looking around and couldn't find any more shows that had ten years of top ratings.

I did find a lot of shows like "Maude" and "Sanford & Son," while they didn't last nearly ten years, they were in the top ten or top five for all but the last one or two years and then dropped quickly. Like "Maude" the first four years kicked everyone's butt then the last two years fell out of the top 30. And "Sanford & Son," with year end ratings of 6,2,2,2,7 then just fell to 27 and got cancelled. Though with "Sanford & Son," there were a lot of behind the scenes issues that helped wreck that show.

 

[bk77]

What about Alice and The Jeffersons? Both shows lasted 10 seasons.

 

[kenrayc]

Mash went for ten years and was at top 10 at least 7 of those years, All in The Family came close ,but if "Archie Bunker's place' is counted then it when 12 years was in the top 10 the first 6 years.
Frasier went 11 years,but only hit the top 10 3 years.

 

[landtuna]

TV today is a very different animal from what it was in the 60's, 70's and even 80's. I don't think competition for CSI is as strong these past few years as it would have been during the heyday of the big dramas or variety shows. Of course if you count cable offerings then there is more competition but the quality is definitely suspect. We may have seen the last of the "Dynasty's".

For me, an original avid viewer of CSI, it jumped the shark with the outlandish stories in the "miniature killer" theme. Totally unbelievable.

 

[imhomerjay]

Which one of their stories was ever "believable?" (this comes from a fan, mind you. But most of the stories are escapist fantasy.)

As for competition, yeah, going from being up against two major competitors and some minor independents to beiing against 300 channels, on demand and DVRs etc. qualifies as markedly increased competition.

 

[landtuna]

Which one of their stories was ever "believable?" (this comes from a fan, mind you. But most of the stories are escapist fantasy.)

In most programs of the CSI variety you always had to take it with a grain of salt. But the "miniature killer" episodes were just pure fantasy and completely abandoned the original emphasis upon technology to solve crimes. And the more they tried painting Grissom as an occult figure the worse it got. The first couple years set a standard that following seasons could not match.

As for competition, yeah, going from being up against two major competitors and some minor independents to beiing against 300 channels, on demand and DVRs etc. qualifies as markedly increased competition.

CSI's competition isn't against "300 channels" but maybe five. Somebody who is watching National Geographic or Versus isn't watching at the expense of CSI first-runs. With very few exceptions the major networks prime programs still attract the vast majority of viewers. After all, the repetitive nature of cable means you can virtually always catch a repeat. No need to miss the major network biggies to catch a show which will be repeated 3-4 times the following week.

 

[Markxxx]

The Jeffersons had mixed ratings

1974–1975 #3
1979–1980 #8
1980–1981 #6
1981–1982 #3

Click http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeffersons#Nielsen_Ratings for full details

I recall reading how "Laverne & Shirley" was the last of the really huge hits. While the raw numbers of TV viewers keeps growing simply because the population is, it's being divided up more and more. So it takes less viewers to hit number one. Indeed on average since Laverne & Shirley, each year the raw numbers of viewers needed to hit #1 at year end decreases. This is not only due to many networks but simply people aren't watching as much TV. The percentage of time watching TV has gone down as more people go onto the Internet. Still TV is doing well because the population as a whole keeps going up.

Same thing for #1 records, when 1979 saw a peak year for singles.

So you really can't compare TV shows so far apart. For instance, "I Love Lucy," achieved unmatchable numbers in part because in many places there were only one or two stations.

I recall reading a history of ABC-TV network and when you looked at the numbers what was very interesting was ABC was in 3rd place overall, but if you looked at cities where ABC had O&O (NYC, LA, Chicago, Detroit and San Fran) as well as other large cities, ABC would often come out as #1 and in every case was on competitive footing with NBC and CBS. It was only 'cause ABC lacked a base outside of the major urban centers that it lost out. At least until the mid 70s.

So you really can't compare shows from widely seperated eras. And in the end the only thing that matters is $$$. If you look at the Brady Bunch or Gilligan's Island they didn't set the world on fire, but more than made up for that in reruns.

 

[imhomerjay]

CSI's competition isn't against "300 channels" but maybe five. Somebody who is watching National Geographic or Versus isn't watching at the expense of CSI first-runs. With very few exceptions the major networks prime programs still attract the vast majority of viewers. After all, the repetitive nature of cable means you can virtually always catch a repeat. No need to miss the major network biggies to catch a show which will be repeated 3-4 times the following week.

Not really. The Nat Geo or Versus viewer might well be watching "at the expense" of CSI (or whichever show of your choice applies), because today they have the option; a generation ago, those options were far fewer. You picked from what was on back then; not so today. So while few individual shows are approaching that level of viewing, that misses the point--it's the splintering effect. There's also 'no need' to miss the network biggies with video on demand (how I watch most week's CSIs, actually), DVRs, iTunes, etc. It's not like you have just one shot to see it.

 

[LKellerIII]

"Facts Of Life," was similar to "Mr Belvedere," neither show set the world on fire, but it usually won its timeslot and was part of an overall group of similar shows. Like "Mr Belvedere" was part of the Friday night group of hits.

The champion in the "not setting the world on fire" category has to be According to Jim, which limped along with no better than middling ratings for 8 or 9 seasons. Critics universally despised the show, and I don't know anybody personally who claimed they liked it.

It wasn't original in any way. The first show I can recall with the same basic theme (big slob husband with hot wife) was the superior King of Queens which came along a couple of years earlier. Others like Still Standing only survived for a few seasons.

 

[dustintv]

I don't much like CSI or other shows like The Mentalist and Bones etc. Too much smugness clogging my TV screen.

 

[justpassingthough]

TV today is a very different animal from what it was in the 60's, 70's and even 80's. I don't think competition for CSI is as strong these past few years as it would have been during the heyday of the big dramas or variety shows. Of course if you count cable offerings then there is more competition but the quality is definitely suspect. We may have seen the last of the "Dynasty's".

For me, an original avid viewer of CSI, it jumped the shark with the outlandish stories in the "miniature killer" theme. Totally unbelievable.

Let's not forgot that "CSI" has spent the last four seasons going head to head with "Grey's Anatomy"- another show that has spent its entire life within the top 20. "Grey's" also routinely beats "CSI" in the 18 to 49 demo. It also faced off against "Will & Grace" while it was a top 10 and top 20 show, and would routinely lose to it in 18 to 49. So I think "CSI" has had its fair share of competition- and held up well....

 

[imhomerjay]

And like Will & Grace, Grey's Anatomy and CSI aren't sharing the same audience for the most part. CSI skews male, which is why ABC saw a good opportunity to put Grey's in the slot, and in the end, both performed well. Both may be seeing natural age-related erosion levels, but neither has taken significant share from the other.

 

[justpassingthough]

And like Will & Grace, Grey's Anatomy and CSI aren't sharing the same audience for the most part. CSI skews male, which is why ABC saw a good opportunity to put Grey's in the slot, and in the end, both performed well. Both may be seeing natural age-related erosion levels, but neither has taken significant share from the other.

True, but all of this begs the question, does any show really have head to head 'competition' anymore? With the advent of DVRs, free television on the internet and a million other ways to watch TV, the idea of 'competition' seems quaint. Even the least technologically advance home probably has a VCR on which to record one program while watching another.

 

[dmargalotti]

The first show I can recall with the same basic theme (big slob husband with hot wife) was the superior King of Queens which came along a couple of years earlier.

I think you've got to give credit to The Honeymooners for pioneering that theme...or maybe even The Life of Riley (with either Jackie Gleason or William Bendix).

 

[imhomerjay]

True, but all of this begs the question, does any show really have head to head 'competition' anymore? With the advent of DVRs, free television on the internet and a million other ways to watch TV, the idea of 'competition' seems quaint. Even the least technologically advance home probably has a VCR on which to record one program while watching another.

Compared to a time when you could count available viewing choices on one hand, indeed, competition may be a more quaint concept than it was, but overall, there is competition for the same--or very similar--slices of the pie. The thing is, it doesn't matter to viewers for the most part whether a show is on broadcast or satellite/cable, so those kinds of discussions are by definition missing the big picture (no pun intended).

Obviously the bigger channels can't possibly counterprogram 299 other networks, so they focus where they can get the biggest share of the pie, and if there's that glaring hole for a female-skewing drama up against CSI, it worked well for them to fill it. There's plenty of other female-skewing programming in that slot (as there is male-skewing), so they do have competition, but such is the real world in 2010. The advertisers who want to reach the demo will simply spread their money out over however many outlets fit their budget & objectives, with ABC getting the largest single slice of that Thursday night @ 9 pie.