Is it finally going to happen? And which two networks will it be?

[michael hagerty]

Tell ya what. Go ask the nets if they want to make money or say "We're #1" in press releases.

They will say "We're #1" regardless of whether or not they make money. They will also tell you they're losing money on most first run series. So for them, the press release is worth more, because it helps them sell the brand rather than the show.

People don't watch brands, they watch shows.

Ratings are not a reward in themselves.

And again, factor out the OTA homes that don't watch you, don't speak your language and/or are made up of viewers north of 80 years old, and it's doubtful you'll lose the #1 slot anyway.

 

[TheBigA]

Rather than try to make up what they should do, just watch what they ARE doing.

 

[michael hagerty]

Rather than try to make up what they should do, just watch what they ARE doing.

BigA, I don't make stuff up and I do watch and study how people use the medium, which I've worked in for a shade over 30 years.

Absent a quote, it's hard to tell, but the only part of my last post that your response might make any sense in response to is "People watch shows, not brands". That one has proved itself week in and week out since the dawn of television. It's how the #5 network can have a hot show or two and how the #1 network can have some stiffs.

Nobody watches a show they don't like because a network PR flack put out a news release saying that show or another show on that network was #1 in its timeslot last week.

 

[TheBigA]

it's hard to tell, but the only part of my last post that your response might make any sense in response to is "People watch shows, not brands".

My comment was about advertising. When CBS does a campaign about being the #1 network, that helps them sell their brand to ADVERTISERS. That point is aimed at building a network presentation for their sales staff, as well as the affiliations staff. Of course, when it's all said and done, it comes down to spots and dots, the specific numbers and demos. But an overall campaign about being the #1 network is the foot in the door, especially in an environment where advertisers are predisposed to write the TV networks off as complete dinosaurs.

As I said, watch what they do. There's a reason they're still concerned about OTA TV viewing. The show producers may not care. They care more about +3 and +7, because they know that's how shows are being consumed, and they was to grab every last viewer.

 

[bpatrick]

You're all right that advertisers don't really care which network is
#1 in the overall ratings. It's the makeup of the audience that
matters and has since the late '60s; Jackie Gleason and Red Skelton
used to be the last two shows to sell out for CBS, simply because
of their demographics. If a show can cross demographic lines, and
I think "NCIS" might be an example, then promotion of it as the
#1 show is valid.

But the other fact is that the ratio of cable to broadcast viewing
is now about 60/40, so it's not hard to understand if the ad agencies
think the broadcast networks are dinosaurs.