Inside Cable News

May 1, 2007

April Numbers: Comparison chart…

Filed under: Cable News, Ratings - Spud

17 Comments »

TrackBack: http://insidecable.blogsome.com/2007/05/01/april-numbers-comparison-chart/trackback/

  1. Before the crows start… well… crowing… here’s the math for you.

    Primetime:
    MSNBC +35%, 370 to 500
    FNC +11% 1433 to 1584

    While the percentages show MSNBC the winner… look at the numbers:

    MSNBC +35% = 130 people
    FNC +11% = 151 people

    So before the MSNBC fans start strutting around ICN… do understand what the numbers really show.

    Comment by ImNotBlue — May 1, 2007 @ 8:42 pm

  2. welll thanks inb…wasnt able to decipher that for myself..im sure others will be just as gratefull. BUT look at cnn..up alot…I guess thanks to alot of news huh?

    Comment by Me — May 1, 2007 @ 9:08 pm

  3. Yeah… you and all those fawning tv critics seem to have the same problem.

    Comment by ImNotBlue — May 1, 2007 @ 9:10 pm

  4. I don’t see what’s so hard to understand. People who don’t ordinarily watch cable news between the ages of 25-54 turned to CNN first, MSNBC second, and Headline News third.

    Comment by RC — May 2, 2007 @ 10:43 am

  5. Proof positive that overblown rhetoric and absurd claims will only get you yet another third place finish.

    The Bush Derangement Syndrome crowd just isn’t that big….

    MSNBC needs to face the fact that they can’t force the Democrats to debate on their channel every day. At some point they need to provide real talent.

    Speaking of which, which one of the white males on MSNBC is going to give up their slot to a minority? :D

    Comment by Reality Hammer — May 2, 2007 @ 1:16 pm

  6. You see, RC… you’re the reason why I posted the first time. The percentages mean NOTHING! Here’s the real results:

    Daytime (Demo):
    FNC - +28% - +57 audience - 2nd gain
    CNN - +47% - +63 aud. - 1st gain
    MSNBC - +45% - +43 aud. - 3rd gain
    CNBC - +17% - +11 aud. - 5th gain
    HLN - +35% - +29 aud. - 4th gain

    Primetime (Demo):
    FNC - +21% - 64 audience - 2nd gain
    CNN - +58% - 100 aud. - 1st gain
    MSNBC - +40% - 57 aud. - 3rd gain
    CNBC - -2% - -2 aud. - loss
    HLN - +23% - 27 aud. - 4th gain

    SOOOO… in both Daytime and Primetime, we see the same thing… CNN had the biggest gain of ACTUAL PEOPLE, followed by FNC, then MSNBC, then HLN, and lastly CNBC.

    The percentages mean NOTHING!

    Comment by ImNotBlue — May 2, 2007 @ 3:03 pm

  7. And it’s a good thing that percentages mean nothing, ImNotBlue, because over at mediabistro — http://www.mediabistro.com/tvnewser/original/april07vs06.pdf — they have the show-by-show breakdowns for April ‘07 vs. April ‘06, and Olbermann was up by 60% in the demo and by 67% (!) overall. A little bit more of that kind of nothing, and… Oh, wait: It’s nothing. More nothing is just nothing. Whew!

    Comment by Keith — May 2, 2007 @ 5:13 pm

  8. Yeah, you’re right, Keith. Good thing you did the math.

    TOTAL
    O’Reilly: 2496 from 2102 - +19% - +394 aud.
    Olbermann: 755 from 452 - +67% - +303 aud.

    DEMO
    O’Reilly: 525 from 412 - +27% - +113 aud.
    Olbermann: 271 from 169 - +60% - +102 aud.

    Oh wait… even though the PERCENTAGE is greater for Olby… O’Reilly actually GAINED MORE PEOPLE in BOTH TOTAL AUDIENCE AND THE DEMO.

    See… you should have taken my advice. The percentages don’t mean anything… they just look pretty.

    Sorry Keith… try again.

    Comment by ImNotBlue — May 2, 2007 @ 6:38 pm

  9. The percentages don’t mean anything

    It’s like IBM & Microsoft, while Microsoft was coming up fast but was still behind. During periods that were good for the market, both went up, with Microsoft going up by much more in percentage terms. But since IBM had a bigger base, despite going up by less in percentage terms, they could easily go up by more in terms of gross difference in dollars of capitalization. IBM learned that you don’t ignore alarmingly high percentage increases in your opponent. (And I’d say +67% in one year is in alarming territory.) But you just keep telling yourself, “percentages mean nothing, percentages mean nothing…”. Maybe it’ll work out better for BOR than it did for IBM.

    Comment by Keith — May 2, 2007 @ 6:59 pm

  10. Feeling good about gaining a bigger percentage, but less people than your competition, is like buying a car because you like the color. Sure it looks nice… but it doesn’t disguise that you’re still driving a piece of crap.

    But perhaps that’s just me. So let’s solve this:

    If someone offers you 30% of their $10… or 50% of their $5… which do you want? Personally, I’ll take the $3… and methinks the advertisers would agree.

    Comment by ImNotBlue — May 2, 2007 @ 7:14 pm

  11. INB your beginning to sound ridiculous (nothing new), of course percentage increase mean something. It indicates growth, and growth is always better than stagnancy or retardation.
    Take for example if you are working at JC Penny as a store attendant or whatever and you get a 50% increase in your salary over the previous year- would you say that your pay increase was irrelevant because your friend who holds a similar job over at Sax Fifth Avenue is making more money than you; of course not.
    An increase in viewrship for a telvision station, means more advertisment dollars, greater profitability. I dont know which station in their right mind would say that the fact that their station is growing in viewrship is irrelevant.

    Comment by Sam — May 2, 2007 @ 7:37 pm

  12. If someone offers you 30% of their $10… or 50% of their $5… which do you want? Personally, I’ll take the $3… and methinks the advertisers would agree.

    INB your anology would make sense if it wasn’t fact that advertisers use viewrship more than ranking to determine the price they will pay for a spot. So while AC might be second in his time slot, that doesn’t mean his show rakes in as much Lou Dobbs who is also second in his time slot, it all depends on their viewership. So while a station might not be top ranking, or may be last in the ranking, if it improves its viewership, advertisers will have to pay them more, even if their overall ranking doesn’t change. Hence the reason why its good to get more viewers.

    Comment by Sam — May 2, 2007 @ 7:44 pm

  13. Yes, a station growing is terrific. The percentage going up is special. But it is all relative. And if (as MSNBC is known to do) going to talk about how great they’re doing… one must actually examine what they mean.

    When you meet with an advertiser, you going to tout your “percentage gains” or your “total viewers?” Growth is great, but unless you have the actual bodies in the seats to back it up, they’re just numbers.

    And as for the whole JC Penny/Sax example… sure I’m going to feel great if I get a 50% increase… but if I still can’t pay my half of the rent, then my friend as Sax is still doing better. That’s the bottom line. A moral victory, is still a loss.

    Comment by ImNotBlue — May 2, 2007 @ 8:03 pm

  14. INB, if it’s a matter of what advertisers will now pay, then neither way of measuring increase (gross difference, percentage differenc) matters. If two shows are now getting the same number of viewers, advertisers will pay the same for the two shows (well, here we’re ignoring that advertisers prefer viewers in certain demographics), and won’t care, for the purpose of what they’ll pay to advertise now, which show was lower a year ago. If A was much lower a year ago, while B was at the same level its at now a year ago, then A has come up more, both in terms of gross difference and in terms of percentage, but the advertisers will pay the same, because their commercials will be seen by the same number of viewers. One cares about increases in viewership for other purposes. The show that’s coming up faster has a brighter future, other things being equal. Those in charge have less reason to chenge it, to shake things up. It’s fans can be happier because it’s likely to stay on the air, etc. For these purposes, which are the purposes for looking at rate of change in the first place, measuring increase in percentage terms makes perfectly good sense. In fact, for many important purposes, it’s exactly what you want to look at — Which is probably why these charts actually list percentage change, while they don’t bother to list change measured in gross difference (though anybody who knows how to subtract can figure the latter out).

    Comment by Keith — May 2, 2007 @ 8:25 pm

  15. “The show that’s coming up faster has a brighter future…”

    What’s the evidence for this? Just because KO’s show is growing faster than Bill’s, what says that the two will ever reach the same plain? To just assume that the growth will continue indefinably is false logic. Judging from the past few months, it’s beginning to look like KO has hit is stride, and isn’t really making gigantic gains anymore.

    Just because a show goes from 2 viewers to 10… doesn’t mean that it’s job is safe. If producers think that instead of making big gains year to year, they can start off with a larger audience (but make slower gains), which do you think they’ll pick? There is no evidence that KO is going to catch O’Reilly… there is no evidence that he’s anywhere close to that… and to suggest that his ‘big gains’ are somehow more significant is simply false.

    Comment by ImNotBlue — May 2, 2007 @ 8:38 pm

  16. Alot of people were looking for MSNBC to fail, infact at one point they were contemplating dropping the operation, but they have find a way to climb out of that spot so good for them. They still have alot of improvement to do though.
    BTW a station doesn’t have to beat another to be succesful, they just have to reman competetive. So keith olbermann may never beat O’Reilly, but that really doesn’t matter, for as long as he can maintain a certain level of viewership he could very well end up staying on air just as long as O’reilly- the difference is that he just wont make as much money.
    BTW i wonder if you would maintain the position that percentage increase is irrelevant, if foxnews.com was to come out tomorrow boasting an increase in online hits, while they were still in third place.

    Comment by Sam — May 2, 2007 @ 9:03 pm

  17. Yes I would. If FNC came out and boasted about their website in ANY capacity, I’d be there. It sucks, and I’ve personally told a producer as much. But that’s neither here nor there. A percentage increase that is not backed up by the actual numbers would receive the same criticism from me… I can promise you that.

    And while I agree that MSNBC isn’t going to jump on the “fire Olbermann” bandwagon… I wouldn’t be so confident that MSNBC is doing well. Their numbers are still significantly lower than FNC AND CNN, and a consistent third place network can’t be making anyone happy. At some point the time will run out on their “rebuilding” phase, and investors may just give up.

    But we have gotten wildly off topic. The bottom line, MSNBC’s gains are greater for them… but in the realm of the other networks, they’re still trailing far behind.

    Comment by ImNotBlue — May 2, 2007 @ 10:23 pm

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Leave a comment



Anti-spam measure: please retype the above text into the box provided.

Get free blog up and running in minutes with Blogsome | Theme designs available here