N
News4Boston
Guest
Anybody have the ratings from February sweeps?
-
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
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
F
fatbastard
Guest
> Anybody have the ratings from February sweeps?
>
http://www.thephoenix.com/MediaLog/PermaLink.aspx?guid=1f560735-59f1-4d3a-b754-6dda7413c347
>
http://www.thephoenix.com/MediaLog/PermaLink.aspx?guid=1f560735-59f1-4d3a-b754-6dda7413c347
F
fatbastard
Guest
> Fox25 already has a David Wade/Maria Stephanos promo running
> calling themselves "Boston's #1 late night newscast"
>
Yup. If you extrapolate the numbers further, there's no one even who comes
close second to Fox 25 in the 18-34 segment. 4,5 and 7 have only 20% of their
audience at 11 in the 18-34 bracket. They're all becoming news dinosaurs.
Pretty soon younger viewers will leave them for good. This slide has been
going on for the last 5-7 years and it's getting worse for all three.
Either 4 or 7 may go for the complete anchor overhaul within a year or two.
5 seems to be deeply entrenched in the older segment which they own
hands down.
> calling themselves "Boston's #1 late night newscast"
>
Yup. If you extrapolate the numbers further, there's no one even who comes
close second to Fox 25 in the 18-34 segment. 4,5 and 7 have only 20% of their
audience at 11 in the 18-34 bracket. They're all becoming news dinosaurs.
Pretty soon younger viewers will leave them for good. This slide has been
going on for the last 5-7 years and it's getting worse for all three.
Either 4 or 7 may go for the complete anchor overhaul within a year or two.
5 seems to be deeply entrenched in the older segment which they own
hands down.
J
Joseph_Gallant
Guest
Re: February Ratings
Two issues not brought-up in the Boston Phoenix web story:
(1) The Winter Olympics were underway for seventeen nights during the February sweeps, which meant that WHDH-7's late news was (with one exception I am aware of) on later than usual (11:30 P.M. or 12 Midnight) every night of the Olympics.
Not only did the late hour drag down's WHDH's numbers, the Olympics may have also dragged down WBZ's and WCVB's numbers since some who would normally watch the 11 P.M. news on either station were watching the Olympics instead. And Boston is a traditionally strong market for the Winter Games, since the Hub has always been a strong market for televised figure-skating, one of the major events of the Winter Olympics.
(2) WFXT-25 benefitted from having "American Idol 5" lead directly into it's 10 P.M. local newscast a couple of times during the sweeps. In young adult demographics, their 10 P.M. newscast on "Idol" nights probably outdrew anything else in it's time period, even the Olympics.
I'd also like to know if "Idol" helped WFXT's morning show or if the Olympics helped WHDH's morning newscast and the local ratings of the "Today Show".
Two issues not brought-up in the Boston Phoenix web story:
(1) The Winter Olympics were underway for seventeen nights during the February sweeps, which meant that WHDH-7's late news was (with one exception I am aware of) on later than usual (11:30 P.M. or 12 Midnight) every night of the Olympics.
Not only did the late hour drag down's WHDH's numbers, the Olympics may have also dragged down WBZ's and WCVB's numbers since some who would normally watch the 11 P.M. news on either station were watching the Olympics instead. And Boston is a traditionally strong market for the Winter Games, since the Hub has always been a strong market for televised figure-skating, one of the major events of the Winter Olympics.
(2) WFXT-25 benefitted from having "American Idol 5" lead directly into it's 10 P.M. local newscast a couple of times during the sweeps. In young adult demographics, their 10 P.M. newscast on "Idol" nights probably outdrew anything else in it's time period, even the Olympics.
I'd also like to know if "Idol" helped WFXT's morning show or if the Olympics helped WHDH's morning newscast and the local ratings of the "Today Show".
Re: February Ratings
> Two issues not brought-up in the Boston Phoenix web story:
>
> (1) The Winter Olympics were underway for seventeen nights
> during the February sweeps, which meant that WHDH-7's late
> news was (with one exception I am aware of) on later than
> usual (11:30 P.M. or 12 Midnight) every night of the
> Olympics.
>
> Not only did the late hour drag down's WHDH's numbers, the
> Olympics may have also dragged down WBZ's and WCVB's numbers
> since some who would normally watch the 11 P.M. news on
> either station were watching the Olympics instead. And
> Boston is a traditionally strong market for the Winter
> Games, since the Hub has always been a strong market for
> televised figure-skating, one of the major events of the
> Winter Olympics.
>
> (2) WFXT-25 benefitted from having "American Idol 5" lead
> directly into it's 10 P.M. local newscast a couple of times
> during the sweeps. In young adult demographics, their 10
> P.M. newscast on "Idol" nights probably outdrew anything
> else in it's time period, even the Olympics.
>
> I'd also like to know if "Idol" helped WFXT's morning show
> or if the Olympics helped WHDH's morning newscast and the
> local ratings of the "Today Show".
>
I have to agree with Joseph on this. Late news ratings are heavily dictated by lead-in. And, what better lead-in than American Idol? Combine that with the not so popular Olympics taking up ch 7's airtime until 11:30 or midnight and you've got a number one for Fox.
It does surprise me that ch.5 didn't do better at 11, but perhaps the lead-in issue enters into that as well. Frankly, channels 4, 5 and 7 do a far better job covering the news and weather than Fox 25; sports is a little closer. We often end up watching Fox 25's late news simply because it was next and nothing compelling was on elsewhere at 10. And, this despite the fact that they are the most Mass-o-centric of the newscasts...never bothering to mention anything occurring in the NH part of the market. That includes the weather.
Ironically, WCVB seems to do the best market-wide news gathering job - serving NH better than the other Boston signals, despite the presence of WMUR. And, it was true even before Imes sold out to H-A. They seem to always be where the news is - from Concord to the Vineyard. Historically, the ratings have rewarded them for it. Fox 25, on the other hand, seems to limit their best news gathering to a couple of counties around Boston...centered on Needham, no doubt.
Anyhow, I guess the best newscast doesn't always win....as is clearly the case here!
> Two issues not brought-up in the Boston Phoenix web story:
>
> (1) The Winter Olympics were underway for seventeen nights
> during the February sweeps, which meant that WHDH-7's late
> news was (with one exception I am aware of) on later than
> usual (11:30 P.M. or 12 Midnight) every night of the
> Olympics.
>
> Not only did the late hour drag down's WHDH's numbers, the
> Olympics may have also dragged down WBZ's and WCVB's numbers
> since some who would normally watch the 11 P.M. news on
> either station were watching the Olympics instead. And
> Boston is a traditionally strong market for the Winter
> Games, since the Hub has always been a strong market for
> televised figure-skating, one of the major events of the
> Winter Olympics.
>
> (2) WFXT-25 benefitted from having "American Idol 5" lead
> directly into it's 10 P.M. local newscast a couple of times
> during the sweeps. In young adult demographics, their 10
> P.M. newscast on "Idol" nights probably outdrew anything
> else in it's time period, even the Olympics.
>
> I'd also like to know if "Idol" helped WFXT's morning show
> or if the Olympics helped WHDH's morning newscast and the
> local ratings of the "Today Show".
>
I have to agree with Joseph on this. Late news ratings are heavily dictated by lead-in. And, what better lead-in than American Idol? Combine that with the not so popular Olympics taking up ch 7's airtime until 11:30 or midnight and you've got a number one for Fox.
It does surprise me that ch.5 didn't do better at 11, but perhaps the lead-in issue enters into that as well. Frankly, channels 4, 5 and 7 do a far better job covering the news and weather than Fox 25; sports is a little closer. We often end up watching Fox 25's late news simply because it was next and nothing compelling was on elsewhere at 10. And, this despite the fact that they are the most Mass-o-centric of the newscasts...never bothering to mention anything occurring in the NH part of the market. That includes the weather.
Ironically, WCVB seems to do the best market-wide news gathering job - serving NH better than the other Boston signals, despite the presence of WMUR. And, it was true even before Imes sold out to H-A. They seem to always be where the news is - from Concord to the Vineyard. Historically, the ratings have rewarded them for it. Fox 25, on the other hand, seems to limit their best news gathering to a couple of counties around Boston...centered on Needham, no doubt.
Anyhow, I guess the best newscast doesn't always win....as is clearly the case here!
F
fatbastard
Guest
Re: February Ratings
You're not getting it. Again, the story here is not one February sweeps month.
All 3 stations have been losing younger news viewers over years
which is a reflection of weak network TV programming, not because of the
Olympics. Younger demos are making Fox25 News as their local news destination, and not because of AI. November sweeps had the same story for Fox 25 and AI wasn't on. Advertisers want to sell their products to younger demos.
> Two issues not brought-up in the Boston Phoenix web story:
>
> (1) The Winter Olympics were underway for seventeen nights
> during the February sweeps, which meant that WHDH-7's late
> news was (with one exception I am aware of) on later than
> usual (11:30 P.M. or 12 Midnight) every night of the
> Olympics.
>
> Not only did the late hour drag down's WHDH's numbers, the
> Olympics may have also dragged down WBZ's and WCVB's numbers
> since some who would normally watch the 11 P.M. news on
> either station were watching the Olympics instead. And
> Boston is a traditionally strong market for the Winter
> Games, since the Hub has always been a strong market for
> televised figure-skating, one of the major events of the
> Winter Olympics.
>
> (2) WFXT-25 benefitted from having "American Idol 5" lead
> directly into it's 10 P.M. local newscast a couple of times
> during the sweeps. In young adult demographics, their 10
> P.M. newscast on "Idol" nights probably outdrew anything
> else in it's time period, even the Olympics.
>
> I'd also like to know if "Idol" helped WFXT's morning show
> or if the Olympics helped WHDH's morning newscast and the
> local ratings of the "Today Show".
>
<P ID="edit"><FONT class="small">Edited by Randy Simon on 03/03/06 02:30 PM.</FONT></P>
You're not getting it. Again, the story here is not one February sweeps month.
All 3 stations have been losing younger news viewers over years
which is a reflection of weak network TV programming, not because of the
Olympics. Younger demos are making Fox25 News as their local news destination, and not because of AI. November sweeps had the same story for Fox 25 and AI wasn't on. Advertisers want to sell their products to younger demos.
> Two issues not brought-up in the Boston Phoenix web story:
>
> (1) The Winter Olympics were underway for seventeen nights
> during the February sweeps, which meant that WHDH-7's late
> news was (with one exception I am aware of) on later than
> usual (11:30 P.M. or 12 Midnight) every night of the
> Olympics.
>
> Not only did the late hour drag down's WHDH's numbers, the
> Olympics may have also dragged down WBZ's and WCVB's numbers
> since some who would normally watch the 11 P.M. news on
> either station were watching the Olympics instead. And
> Boston is a traditionally strong market for the Winter
> Games, since the Hub has always been a strong market for
> televised figure-skating, one of the major events of the
> Winter Olympics.
>
> (2) WFXT-25 benefitted from having "American Idol 5" lead
> directly into it's 10 P.M. local newscast a couple of times
> during the sweeps. In young adult demographics, their 10
> P.M. newscast on "Idol" nights probably outdrew anything
> else in it's time period, even the Olympics.
>
> I'd also like to know if "Idol" helped WFXT's morning show
> or if the Olympics helped WHDH's morning newscast and the
> local ratings of the "Today Show".
>
<P ID="edit"><FONT class="small">Edited by Randy Simon on 03/03/06 02:30 PM.</FONT></P>
Re: February Ratings
> You're not getting it. Again, the story here is not one
> February sweeps month.
>
> All 3 stations have been losing younger news viewers over
> years
> which is a reflection of weak network TV programming, not
> because of the
> Olympics. Younger demos are making Fox25 News as their local
> news destination, and not because of AI. November sweeps had
> the same story for Fox 25 and AI wasn't on. Advertisers want
> to sell their products to younger demos.
>
Fox, as a network, tends to do better with younger demos - especially at 9 pm. Also, there is an inherent advantage to having a 10 pm newscast. Perhaps 11:00 is too late for many.
If you want to talk about obsolesence, let's discuss the late-afternoon, early evening newscasts (5,6, etc.). Modern commuters are often barely home in time for the local news - then they're grabbing dinner. For them, after a streesful day at the office followed by sitting in traffic, King of Queens, Seinfeld and the Simpsons are preferable to the latest newscast. Which are over by 6:30 (local) and 7 (national).
A lot of people simply aren't home in time to catch the news at 6 anymore. Not to mention that many have managed to peek at the headlines on the internet from the office.
It makes me wonder if the whole early newscast concept will soon be a quaint throwback to an earlier time. Nationally, the evening newscasts are slowly fading - to be replaced by the cable news networks, where you can get an instant news fix on demand. Local newscasts may end up being an "on demand" feature too.
Where's the growth going to be? Early morning.
> You're not getting it. Again, the story here is not one
> February sweeps month.
>
> All 3 stations have been losing younger news viewers over
> years
> which is a reflection of weak network TV programming, not
> because of the
> Olympics. Younger demos are making Fox25 News as their local
> news destination, and not because of AI. November sweeps had
> the same story for Fox 25 and AI wasn't on. Advertisers want
> to sell their products to younger demos.
>
Fox, as a network, tends to do better with younger demos - especially at 9 pm. Also, there is an inherent advantage to having a 10 pm newscast. Perhaps 11:00 is too late for many.
If you want to talk about obsolesence, let's discuss the late-afternoon, early evening newscasts (5,6, etc.). Modern commuters are often barely home in time for the local news - then they're grabbing dinner. For them, after a streesful day at the office followed by sitting in traffic, King of Queens, Seinfeld and the Simpsons are preferable to the latest newscast. Which are over by 6:30 (local) and 7 (national).
A lot of people simply aren't home in time to catch the news at 6 anymore. Not to mention that many have managed to peek at the headlines on the internet from the office.
It makes me wonder if the whole early newscast concept will soon be a quaint throwback to an earlier time. Nationally, the evening newscasts are slowly fading - to be replaced by the cable news networks, where you can get an instant news fix on demand. Local newscasts may end up being an "on demand" feature too.
Where's the growth going to be? Early morning.
J
Joseph_Gallant
Guest
Newscast Scheduling (Was: Re: February Ratings)
BRNout commented:
> If you want to talk about obsolesence, let's discuss the
> late-afternoon, early evening newscasts (5,6, etc.). Modern
> commuters are often barely home in time for the local news -
> then they're grabbing dinner. For them, after a streesful
> day at the office followed by sitting in traffic, King of
> Queens, Seinfeld and the Simpsons are preferable to the
> latest newscast. Which are over by 6:30 (local) and 7
> (national).
>
> A lot of people simply aren't home in time to catch the news
> at 6 anymore. Not to mention that many have managed to peek
> at the headlines on the internet from the office.
>
> It makes me wonder if the whole early newscast concept will
> soon be a quaint throwback to an earlier time.
Didn't an NBC affiliate in North Carolina recently shuffle it's early-evening local news schedule so instead of a 90-minute local news block from 5 to 6:30 P.M., they are now running an hour from 5:30-6:30 and another half-hour from 7 to 7:30 after the network news??
I could see more stations, especially ones deep in third place in their markets, following suit. I don't know where the NBC affiliate in question ranks in their market's local news ratings, so I can't tell you if this station is first, second, third or whatever in their city.
In fact, New Bedford/Provdience's WLNE-6 should adopt "non-traditional" scheduling for their early-evening news by moving ABC's "World News Tonight" to 7 and the early-evening local news to 7:30. Not only would they catch people not home to see early-evening local and network news on other stations, but they would probably attract more viewers for local news at 7:30 than they now get at 6, more viewers for "WNT" at 7 than it now gets at 6:30, and far more viewers for entertainment counterprogramming from 6 to 7 than they now get with news.
BRNout commented:
> If you want to talk about obsolesence, let's discuss the
> late-afternoon, early evening newscasts (5,6, etc.). Modern
> commuters are often barely home in time for the local news -
> then they're grabbing dinner. For them, after a streesful
> day at the office followed by sitting in traffic, King of
> Queens, Seinfeld and the Simpsons are preferable to the
> latest newscast. Which are over by 6:30 (local) and 7
> (national).
>
> A lot of people simply aren't home in time to catch the news
> at 6 anymore. Not to mention that many have managed to peek
> at the headlines on the internet from the office.
>
> It makes me wonder if the whole early newscast concept will
> soon be a quaint throwback to an earlier time.
Didn't an NBC affiliate in North Carolina recently shuffle it's early-evening local news schedule so instead of a 90-minute local news block from 5 to 6:30 P.M., they are now running an hour from 5:30-6:30 and another half-hour from 7 to 7:30 after the network news??
I could see more stations, especially ones deep in third place in their markets, following suit. I don't know where the NBC affiliate in question ranks in their market's local news ratings, so I can't tell you if this station is first, second, third or whatever in their city.
In fact, New Bedford/Provdience's WLNE-6 should adopt "non-traditional" scheduling for their early-evening news by moving ABC's "World News Tonight" to 7 and the early-evening local news to 7:30. Not only would they catch people not home to see early-evening local and network news on other stations, but they would probably attract more viewers for local news at 7:30 than they now get at 6, more viewers for "WNT" at 7 than it now gets at 6:30, and far more viewers for entertainment counterprogramming from 6 to 7 than they now get with news.
Re: Newscast Scheduling (Was: Re: February Ratings)
> BRNout commented:
>
> > If you want to talk about obsolesence, let's discuss the
> > late-afternoon, early evening newscasts (5,6, etc.).
> Modern
> > commuters are often barely home in time for the local news
> -
> > then they're grabbing dinner. For them, after a streesful
>
> > day at the office followed by sitting in traffic, King of
> > Queens, Seinfeld and the Simpsons are preferable to the
> > latest newscast. Which are over by 6:30 (local) and 7
> > (national).
> >
> > A lot of people simply aren't home in time to catch the
> news
> > at 6 anymore. Not to mention that many have managed to
> peek
> > at the headlines on the internet from the office.
> >
> > It makes me wonder if the whole early newscast concept
> will
> > soon be a quaint throwback to an earlier time.
>
> Didn't an NBC affiliate in North Carolina recently shuffle
> it's early-evening local news schedule so instead of a
> 90-minute local news block from 5 to 6:30 P.M., they are now
> running an hour from 5:30-6:30 and another half-hour from 7
> to 7:30 after the network news??
>
> I could see more stations, especially ones deep in third
> place in their markets, following suit. I don't know where
> the NBC affiliate in question ranks in their market's local
> news ratings, so I can't tell you if this station is first,
> second, third or whatever in their city.
>
> In fact, New Bedford/Provdience's WLNE-6 should adopt
> "non-traditional" scheduling for their early-evening news by
> moving ABC's "World News Tonight" to 7 and the early-evening
> local news to 7:30. Not only would they catch people not
> home to see early-evening local and network news on other
> stations, but they would probably attract more viewers for
> local news at 7:30 than they now get at 6, more viewers for
> "WNT" at 7 than it now gets at 6:30, and far more viewers
> for entertainment counterprogramming from 6 to 7 than they
> now get with news.
>
WLNE, in fact, had a 7pm local newscast some 25 years ago (yes, 25 years ago). Of course, since LNE had one, JAR had to add one. Guess what happened? Yes, the 7pm newscast disappeared (on both LNE and JAR).
In the 90's, a Seattle station tried a 7pm newscast with Aaron Brown. It flopped in the ratings and was cancelled. Around the same time, KTVT in Dallas tried a 7pm newscast and it flopped. More recently, in Seattle, powerhouse KING 5 tried a 7pm newscast on their sister station KONG and it didn't even register in the ratings from what I understand.
So, I'm not sure that WLNE would help themselves at 7pm or 7:30pm. Would Walter be willing to stay that late???
> BRNout commented:
>
> > If you want to talk about obsolesence, let's discuss the
> > late-afternoon, early evening newscasts (5,6, etc.).
> Modern
> > commuters are often barely home in time for the local news
> -
> > then they're grabbing dinner. For them, after a streesful
>
> > day at the office followed by sitting in traffic, King of
> > Queens, Seinfeld and the Simpsons are preferable to the
> > latest newscast. Which are over by 6:30 (local) and 7
> > (national).
> >
> > A lot of people simply aren't home in time to catch the
> news
> > at 6 anymore. Not to mention that many have managed to
> peek
> > at the headlines on the internet from the office.
> >
> > It makes me wonder if the whole early newscast concept
> will
> > soon be a quaint throwback to an earlier time.
>
> Didn't an NBC affiliate in North Carolina recently shuffle
> it's early-evening local news schedule so instead of a
> 90-minute local news block from 5 to 6:30 P.M., they are now
> running an hour from 5:30-6:30 and another half-hour from 7
> to 7:30 after the network news??
>
> I could see more stations, especially ones deep in third
> place in their markets, following suit. I don't know where
> the NBC affiliate in question ranks in their market's local
> news ratings, so I can't tell you if this station is first,
> second, third or whatever in their city.
>
> In fact, New Bedford/Provdience's WLNE-6 should adopt
> "non-traditional" scheduling for their early-evening news by
> moving ABC's "World News Tonight" to 7 and the early-evening
> local news to 7:30. Not only would they catch people not
> home to see early-evening local and network news on other
> stations, but they would probably attract more viewers for
> local news at 7:30 than they now get at 6, more viewers for
> "WNT" at 7 than it now gets at 6:30, and far more viewers
> for entertainment counterprogramming from 6 to 7 than they
> now get with news.
>
WLNE, in fact, had a 7pm local newscast some 25 years ago (yes, 25 years ago). Of course, since LNE had one, JAR had to add one. Guess what happened? Yes, the 7pm newscast disappeared (on both LNE and JAR).
In the 90's, a Seattle station tried a 7pm newscast with Aaron Brown. It flopped in the ratings and was cancelled. Around the same time, KTVT in Dallas tried a 7pm newscast and it flopped. More recently, in Seattle, powerhouse KING 5 tried a 7pm newscast on their sister station KONG and it didn't even register in the ratings from what I understand.
So, I'm not sure that WLNE would help themselves at 7pm or 7:30pm. Would Walter be willing to stay that late???
- Status
- This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.