• Get involved.
    We want your input!
    Apply for Membership and join the conversations about everything related to broadcasting.

    After we receive your registration, a moderator will review it. After your registration is approved, you will be permitted to post.
    If you use a disposable or false email address, your registration will be rejected.

    After your membership is approved, please take a minute to tell us a little bit about yourself.
    https://www.radiodiscussions.com/forums/introduce-yourself.1088/

    Thanks in advance and have fun!
    RadioDiscussions Administrators

Curtains For Katie?

@NMCBK: I remember Rush's old TV show. Problem is many of its affiliates scheduled it at the most inconvenient times, including right up against his live radio show.
 
I think it was half a season, as I have an April 1986 listing that doesn't list it. I can't remember what 3PM's replacement was on KIRO at the end of the season.

-crainbebo
 
DToTheJ said:
@NMCBK: I remember Rush's old TV show. Problem is many of its affiliates scheduled it at the most inconvenient times, including right up against his live radio show.

conspiracy by the liberal media? They claim it failed because it was on to late for his listeners had had jobs. ;D
 
EZway2go said:
FRR said:
Why would anyone think it would have succeeded ?
I was thinking the same thing. Granted, it's not the same type of show, but there's a reason why she's not doing the news anymore. I can't quite put my finger on it, and maybe I'm wrong, but there's a quality about her that's not the same as, say, a Jane Pauley or a Robin Meade.






I was thinking the same thing. She just as always seemed a little.......Smug might be the word, I don't know. I think viewers generally "liked" Jane Pauley, and Jane was smart enough to keep her politics out of her shows for the most part. Katie never did figure that out, and she wore her politics on her sleeve and I can't help but think that put a lot of folks off.
 
Five weeks. But, it was an awful show.

-crainbebo
 
I predict two years and out for Katie. The problem is high overhead and ratings that won't support the prime real estate ABC cleared for her. Expect lots of time period downgrades (except maybe the O&Os) in year two. Katie EP Jeff Zucker is being considered to run CNN. If he leaves, Katie may not see a second season.
 
She saw it in the window and just had to have it.

Oh, we're not talking about her wardrobe...
 
newsbot said:
I predict two years and out for Katie. The problem is high overhead and ratings that won't support the prime real estate ABC cleared for her. Expect lots of time period downgrades (except maybe the O&Os) in year two. Katie EP Jeff Zucker is being considered to run CNN. If he leaves, Katie may not see a second season.

http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/20...k-to-earn-its-2nd-highest-rating-ever/150357/

According to this article, she is fine. I think she can float longer as long as her ratings don't go below Rachael or Ricki's show. She floated at CBS for 5 years. It's also worth mentioning that for the ABC O&Os - for example WPVI in Philadelphia (3.3/9), Katie's show does better than nationally. It's a win win for ABC to keep her show, which is an ABC show around.

In DC, WJLA experimented with Anderson at 4, and it didn't perform well. So Anderson moved up to 3 and Katie is at 4. It's possible it might reverse the two if Katie declines, but Anderson's show wasn't so hot either.

What's better out there? Perhaps Queen Latifah next year.
 
That's not an article; it's an ABC press release trumpeting ratings for a single episode with a big "get" (Barbra Streisand.) Of course they're going to spin the numbers in the most favorable manner. What will make or break "Katie" is what numbers the show delivers week in and week out. After all, there are only so many blockbuster guests to go around. BTW, "Ricki" seems to be in much bigger trouble; she's already on her second EP (the old one from her 90s show, in fact.)
 
I can't believe Ricki Lake was given another show. Actually I can with some of the value's in this country now.

I wasn't a regular veiwer to the today show when Katie was there, the times I did watch I liked her. I haven't seen her new show, so I can't judge that. The CBS evening news was terrible with her. I was surprised because I did like her when I saw her on NBC. She just never clicked on the evening news.

As for Ricky Lake, Springer and Maury, people do watch this trash or it would not be on. They would not continue to launch these type of shows if nobody watched them.

That is the sad part, how can anyone watch these shows? I occasionaly get the first few minutes of Maury when I am not able to change the channel right away. It airs after a news program for me. If I'm actually off and at home, before it even starts at 2 pm I am on Antenna or Me tv.

Every time that I've had Maury on because I was working and couldn't change the channel, his show is the same junk every single day! DNA test who is the baby daddy. That has been the topic every single time in over 3 years of me catching the first few minutes.

I don't see how anyone could watch this stuff everyday. Does the audience these shows target really attract advertisers? If I was an advertiser I would not want this audience to even know my product existed!

I don't like to pass judement, is there anyone but the lowest possible life forms or high school kids playing hookie that watch these shows.

I just can't imagine how any one could watch this stuff everyday.

From what I've read, Katie and Steve Harvey seem to be doing a little more of a respectable show. Ricki and Maury and Jerry are just bottom feeders.

I never watched Oprah much, I got it though, she was in touch with her audience and seemed to do a show that was very relevent, classy and educated, aimed at intelligent women. I could see an advertiser knocking on her door to get on her show. Not to mention the size of her audience.

Can't tv execs come up with something better than these Maury type shows? This really does say something about our society and it is not a good thing.
 
Going back to Nashville said:
I never watched Oprah much, I got it though, she was in touch with her audience and seemed to do a show that was very relevent, classy and educated, aimed at intelligent women. I could see an advertiser knocking on her door to get on her show. Not to mention the size of her audience.

Wasn't Queen Latifah's show from a decade ago like that too? I don't know much about it, only that I saw it now and then when I happened to be home during the day. But I remember she had NJ Senator Bill Bradley on as a guest, which gave it an air of respectability. And there was another segment where her crew was on location in a Target store paying for everyone's purchases... I don't remember why, but it was obviously for something charitable.
 
Going back to Nashville said:
I can't believe Ricki Lake was given another show. Actually I can with some of the value's in this country now.

And here's the exact problem with why Ricki Lake's show isn't doing too well; it isn't the current content of this iteration of the program at all. It's that viewers still hear her name and think "oh, they brought back her trash show from the 90's that my kid watched in 1998? No way I watch that!"

The new show is NOT that way at all, it's all light lifestyle topics and the usual assortment of psychics, self-help experts and such. There is no sign of any kind of confrontational talk to be found in her new series. The producers have attempted to put in so much transparency in that they stream show meetings and have Lake do plenty of Facebook chats with viewers, but sadly they have a large hump to cross to make people believe that she should not be lumped in with the bottom filler Kyle/Cunningham/Goddard/Springer/Wilkos sector of daytime talk.

Now there may be a move to that place if there's desperation, but right now there's still the 'perception' issue that Ricki has to get over. I had no problems with the show; it's fine, if a little boring, and if you watch, there's no way to confuse it with her in 1996.
 
Going back to Nashville said:
That is the sad part, how can anyone watch these shows? I occasionaly get the first few minutes of Maury when I am not able to change the channel right away. It airs after a news program for me. If I'm actually off and at home, before it even starts at 2 pm I am on Antenna or Me tv.

Every time that I've had Maury on because I was working and couldn't change the channel, his show is the same junk every single day! DNA test who is the baby daddy. That has been the topic every single time in over 3 years of me catching the first few minutes.

I don't see how anyone could watch this stuff everyday. Does the audience these shows target really attract advertisers? If I was an advertiser I would not want this audience to even know my product existed!

I don't like to pass judement, is there anyone but the lowest possible life forms or high school kids playing hookie that watch these shows.

the 18-49 viewers at home during the day don't have refined tastes, probably due to lack of education, not many educated 18-49 viewers with refined tastes at home during the day, trash TV for the uneducated trash
 
I wonder how many months it will take for Ricki to go the "whose your daddy" route. Next season?

-crainbebo
 
Going back to Nashville said:
I don't see how anyone could watch this stuff everyday. Does the audience these shows target really attract advertisers? If I was an advertiser I would not want this audience to even know my product existed!

I don't like to pass judement, is there anyone but the lowest possible life forms or high school kids playing hookie that watch these shows.

This is the reason why most of the advertisers for shows like Maury, Jerry, etc. are considered "low brow" (i.e. vocational schools, structured settlement/loans, rent-to-own stores, injury/class action lawyers, etc.). They seem to work for these advertisers, and since the rates are probably reasonable, they keep returning to advertise on these shows. The advertisers are a reflection of the audience (see all the products for the elderly being advertised on "The Price Is Right" or "Matlock" reruns), but if the salespeople are getting results and are happy, they keep airing them.
 
nomadcowatbk said:
the 18-49 viewers at home during the day don't have refined tastes, probably due to lack of education, not many educated 18-49 viewers with refined tastes at home during the day, trash TV for the uneducated trash

Perhaps, but think about all the waiting rooms around the country with captive audiences. Hospitals, doctors and dentists offices, car repair shops etc. I would not think most of those people fit your description.
 
Speaking of TV talk programs, how many of you remember Jenny Jones?

Her program started out like Oprah. But when the ratings started to tank Jones' show morphed into another tabloid-trash show similar to Maury.

Yes there is an audience for these types of shows. But let us remember these are the same folks who most likely also buy those supermarket tabloids when they are grocery shopping.
 
mrschimpf said:
And here's the exact problem with why Ricki Lake's show isn't doing too well; it isn't the current content of this iteration of the program at all. It's that viewers still hear her name and think "oh, they brought back her trash show from the 90's that my kid watched in 1998? No way I watch that!"

I think Ricki's reach was for that 20 yr old in the 90s who is now in her mid 30s, more than the mom of the kid who would be 60 years of age.

Anyways while her prior show had trashy guests and topics, it was actually milder than Jerry Springer and the like. Also, she has been around from 'Dancing with the Stars', Oprah's last year and reruns of 'Mrs. Winterbourne' and 'King of Queens' on cable.

If her show doesn't do well in this format, it's probably because it's too boring or there is too many competing options on TV.
 
Status
This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.


Back
Top Bottom