CNBC’s numbers since FBN launched…
Here is a long chart of CNBC’s ratings since FBN launched. Any rating with a “< <" indicates a scratch. CNBC scratched 28% (69 out of 244 hours) of the time with P2+ and 32% (77 out of 244 hours) of the time with A25-54. The network's highest rated program in both total viewers and demo happened to be Deal or No Deal.
(numbers are Live)
That’s a very interesting breakdown, but incredibly difficult to follow! I wish it was in order by date instead of 25-54 demo. But what I CAN tell is that people seem to LOVE CNBC in the mornings (9-12pm)…check out some of those numbers! I was also curious about WWEX and what kind of numbers it pulls in at 4 am…guess it doesn’t even rate most of the time.
Comment by Anonymous — October 30, 2007 @ 7:33 pm
Ratings brought to us by FBN, in a poor attempt to take attention away from FNC’s declining 25-54 demo.
Comment by RC — October 30, 2007 @ 8:03 pm
Hahaha… great conspiracy theory RC… you guys crack me up.
Comment by ImNotBlue — October 30, 2007 @ 8:22 pm
More Fox propaganda - this is nothing new, CNBC shows scratch all the time and has nothing to with FBN. It has to do with the fact that CNBC reaches a small niche audience. For CNBC its about quality of audience, not quantity. I doubt that they even care about these dumb charts. Why can’t Fox put out data on their shows and leave the other networks alone???
Comment by Alex — October 30, 2007 @ 9:11 pm
Alex, you might want to try out a pair of glasses… note that little bit where it says, “Source: Nielsen Media Research” and not “FOX News”?
So where did you see FNC’s finger print? Anywhere? No? Well, it’s been fun watching you guys make things up, but I think I’m going to go back and join the real world now.
Comment by ImNotBlue — October 30, 2007 @ 9:17 pm
Well to be fair INB…Nielsen didn’t send these numbers to Spud. It was obviously Fox Biz who did so, trying to stir up some trouble with CNBC.
Comment by Anonymous — October 30, 2007 @ 9:19 pm
And what’s your evidence?
Why is it obvious? And how do you “stir up some trouble” with a presentation of the facts?
Comment by ImNotBlue — October 30, 2007 @ 9:29 pm
Well it’s obvious because CNBC would NOT be sending these numbers to Spud…why would they do that? Think about it. And the “stirring of trouble” comes because Fox likes to poke at CNBC for their multiple “scratchings” across the day, their low ratings, etc. etc. Don’t act all dumb like you don’t know what’s going on (well maybe you aren’t acting, but still…)
Comment by Anonymous — October 30, 2007 @ 9:41 pm
Nielsen would never send these charts to Spud, even if he was a Nielsen client…which he is not. So it is obviously coming from Fox. Just like the ranking charts that have FNC in bold but not CNN…are those coming from Nielsen too? Give me a break.
Comment by Alex — October 30, 2007 @ 10:00 pm
Wow, Alex… you seem to know a lot about Spud. Care to share?
So far, nobody has given any actual evidence… just theory. Which I guess is fine for you guys… you already know what you want to believe… just gotta make up the rest to fit it.
But hey, if you come up with some real evidence… not just stuff you’ve assumed, theorized, decided, and otherwise made up… I’ll be listening.
Comment by ImNotBlue — October 30, 2007 @ 10:15 pm
Man it must really burn up the Fox haters each and every day to see nothing but good news for Fox and bad news for the rest of the liberal media. So much that they have to make up a fantsy world and live in it.
Comment by foxmeansbusiness — October 30, 2007 @ 10:17 pm
What EVIDENCE are you looking for INB? I mean honestly, why would a network be “showing off” their soggy ratings? Give me a break! I swear you’re like the bastard child of Mary Snow or something…geez.
As for you mr. foxmeansbusiness, what “good news” has come out of Fox Biz lately? Nielsen doesn’t even measure it’s ratings!
Comment by Anonymous — October 30, 2007 @ 10:27 pm
It is difficult to follow. Is there a similar chart where they compare numbers to the week before the FNC debut. Still without having Ratings for FBN it is just too hard to know to what extent impact the launch of FBN has had on CNBC.
Comment by myview — October 30, 2007 @ 10:35 pm
Well I messed up that last sentence but you get my drift.
Comment by myview — October 30, 2007 @ 10:37 pm
“Anonymous” makes a charge that something is white, and when he’s challenged to substantiate his claim, it’s “well, it’s not black, therefore it must be white!” What about red, blue, green, and have we forgotten yellow, brown, magenta and orange?
A person whose only basis for making scurrilous allegations is HIS ABSENSE OF EVIDENCE to the contrary, is a very illogical person, and dangerous to listen to. Everything I’ve read from “Anonymous” previously confirms this desperate lack of logic in his reasoning, and he just made it (no pun intended) black and white for all of us to see, when he stated that if these Nielsen numbers didn’t come from CNBC, they HAD to have come from FOX Business, which ignores the fact countless people have access to Nielsen data, and any one of them whom Spud has a good relationship could have easily provided it to him.
That said, the notion that anything is wrong with cable networks providing negative ratings data about their competition is senseless. People can only know how well you’re doing by comparing you to the competition. To somehow imply that’s immoral is… well, immoral.
Also, I agree with myview, the chart is difficult to follow. Some clarification might help.
Comment by Haile Welde — October 30, 2007 @ 10:42 pm
I think alot of fnc/fbc must have or are still riding the little yellow school bus. I think it’s pretty obvious WHO sends spuds the charts and stuff poking at MSNBC, CNN and CNBC. Sure it says nielson as the source BUT who made the chart and feeds it to Spud. If ya’ll are that slow you need to get back on the bus and get some sense.
Comment by Me — October 31, 2007 @ 12:48 am
I’m honestly, truly, flabbergasted at the comments made by Haile Welde and INB….can two people really be so dim?
Comment by Anonymous — October 31, 2007 @ 9:03 am
Anonymous: Surely you know the old saying about the word assume.
Comment by Ira — October 31, 2007 @ 9:43 am
WOW I was flippin channels and stopped at KO show, I havent seen him in a LONG time but what happened? This guy looks 20 years older than last year! So freakin grey and mean lookin! I guess this is what happens to people who are left wing lunatic’s and their WHOLE LIVES are consumed with hatered of FNC and Bush. Are they still mad FOX took over as #1 in news and Bush won in 2000 and 2004?
Comment by foxmeansbusiness — October 31, 2007 @ 10:57 am
Still waiting for some actual evidence… anybody… anybody… no? Well, clearly that’s my fault… I should just “take you word for it” from now on.
Naaah… I’ll still wait until you can prove it. Waiting… waiting… waiting…
Comment by ImNotBlue — October 31, 2007 @ 11:29 am
Well we’ll just have to agree to disagree, because to be fair, you have no proof that Fox didn’t provide the numbers. So we’ll just leave it at that.
Comment by Anonymous — October 31, 2007 @ 1:09 pm
Anonymous are you serious?! YOU HAVE THE BURDEN OF PROOF! Not me!
You’re making a claim, based on no evidence… just something you’ve determined to be true, but with no actual support behind it!
I don’t have to prove anything! I’m not making a claim! I’m just rejecting your claim, because it has no evidence or proof behind it!
Comment by ImNotBlue — October 31, 2007 @ 2:05 pm
Anonymous, please try to follow along with me. It doesn’t make any difference who GAVE the numbers to ICN, it’s the numbers stupid. Now, try and tell us who made up the numbers. Was it Fox or Nielsen? Honestly, I guess it’s true that sometimes it’s better to be thought dumb then to open your mouth and remove all doubt. By the way, the sun is not shinging today so that proves it’s raining.
Comment by Dee — October 31, 2007 @ 3:36 pm
Boy, I can’t spell either! Pardon me, I meant the sun is not shining today.
Comment by Dee — October 31, 2007 @ 3:39 pm
Go Blue!! Anonymous is turning “blue” trying to make any sense.
Comment by Jim Rucker — October 31, 2007 @ 3:51 pm
I think this thread proves why political parties will always have a base level of support. There are just too many stupid people out their who, despite logic and common sense, will follow their teams play book to the very end no matter how idiotic it is.
Comment by Steve — October 31, 2007 @ 5:39 pm
Oh boy Dee…I don’t know why you got in this. “Jim Rucker” just sounds like a bad spinoff of INB, so I’ll just ignore him.
Anyways, of COURSE it matters who gave the numbers to Spud. Fox’s playbook ALWAYS includes running negagtive campaigns against their competition, and this is no different. We saw this negative campaign against CNBC in the press leading up to the launch of Fox Biz (i.e. CNBC is boring, “First In Business. Soon” ad, Jim Cramer is too loud [yesterday] etc. etc.). We all know by now that Fox provides Spud with quite a bit of information on this blog (just as MSNBC is cozy with TVN). Fox gave these numbers to Spud so he can post them on his blog & people can see how poor CNBC’s ratings are. Is it a coinicidence that these numbers came out just a day or two after CNBC put out that glowing press release touting their impressive October numbers? This blog is obviously read by a lot of insiders and people in the biz (I’ve checked out the webstats), so it isn’t out of the question for Fox to pull this “stunt” in order to take the gleam off of CNBC’s good month, and dupe uninformed people like yourself. Don’t forget that Fox CONSTANTLY used to do this with CNN (it’s tapered down as of late).
I’m not saying the numbers are wrong, fake, bad etc. — but I’m trying to look at WHY these numbers were even published here in the first place. Why didn’t we ever see these numbers in the 15 year history of CNBC before this? Really now…use some common sense.
Comment by Anonymous — October 31, 2007 @ 6:03 pm
Hey Anonymous, is there some reason I shouldn’t be getting in on this? You just spent an entire paragraph saying NOTHING and admitting “I’m not saying these numbers are wrong, fake, etc.” Besides trying to spin his way out of foot in mouth disease, and trying to blame Fox for anything and everything he disagrees with, does anyone know what Anonymous just wrote his thesis about?
Comment by Dee — October 31, 2007 @ 8:20 pm
THAT’S why I said you shouldn’t have gotten involved…clearly this stuff is above your head. Don’t embarass yourself further, Dee.
Comment by Anonymous — October 31, 2007 @ 8:37 pm
Anonymous, you may be impressed with yourself but do not ever think it rubs off on others. I will get involved in whatever I choose and your condescension and arrogance are just another example of a disagreeable person who lacks respect for any one but themself. No reasonably intelligent person would ever decide who should speak out and who should not. But please, feel free to keep digging yourself into a deeper hole. If we’re lucky, we won’t even hear the echo.
Comment by Dee — October 31, 2007 @ 9:53 pm
Dee… don’t worry. Anonymous believes he/she is right, and really that’s all there is to it. There doesn’t need to be any more… facts and evidence get in the way of a good assumption.
Just don’t tell him/her about those other numbers that game earlier today that have “MSNBC” in bold. That messes with the theory.
Comment by ImNotBlue — November 1, 2007 @ 12:45 am
Please Dee…you aren’t the prime example of “intelligence” and tolerance anyways…your above comments prove that. Come join me in that big hole…there’s room for plenty here.
Comment by Anonymous — November 1, 2007 @ 7:34 am
INB…why do you even try? Of course the MSNBC debate was in BOLD because that’s the debate the ranker is trying to highlight.
Won’t you come join us in this wonderful hole?
Comment by Anonymous — November 1, 2007 @ 7:37 am
INB I believe you are right. Anonymous has a serious problem with reality and you know what it’s like trying to have an intelligent conversation with someone like that. I guess the best we can hope for is that the hole is deep enough.
Comment by Dee — November 1, 2007 @ 8:43 am
INB - Who do you think supplied Spud with these charts? Waiting, waiting, waiting….
Comment by alex — November 1, 2007 @ 10:30 am
Well, all I can tell, alex… is that they say they’re from Nielsen… any other information is just assumptions and theories. And I refuse to watch people get all hot under the collar for something they can’t actually prove, because they WANT to believe it.
Call me a fool… but I try to actually use evidence… not just shouting and insults to prove what I’m talking about.
Comment by ImNotBlue — November 1, 2007 @ 12:13 pm
Anonymous… so MSNBC is highlighted because it’s the one being talked about in the original article… says you. So perhaps that’s why FNC is always highlighted. The article that it come from (as posted on Nielsen) was talking about FNC… probably how FNC was first out of the other cable news networks!
Woooo… and explanation that isn’t some big bad conspiracy theory… woooo! Think about that while you there in “the hole.”
Comment by ImNotBlue — November 1, 2007 @ 12:18 pm