February 12, 2008
18 Comments »
TrackBack: http://insidecable.blogsome.com/2008/02/12/top-25-cnbc-primetime-programs-for-the-past-five-years/trackback/
RSS feed for comments on this post.
TrackBack: http://insidecable.blogsome.com/2008/02/12/top-25-cnbc-primetime-programs-for-the-past-five-years/trackback/
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Get free blog up and running in minutes with Blogsome | Theme designs available here
In other words, none of their original programming made the cut.
Comment by Missy — February 12, 2008 @ 7:29 pm
Thanks for the numbers, FNC/FBN. Maybe next time you’ll have the courage to attach your logo, cowards.
Comment by Terance — February 12, 2008 @ 7:37 pm
Hilarious.
Terance, quit your whining… or unveil your proof it came from FOX.
Spud, any reply?
Comment by bigred — February 12, 2008 @ 7:40 pm
Bigred, its not wining, just taunting. It doesn’t take a pr hack to figure out CNBC didn’t release them. Oh and did I mention Bloomberg doesn’t even subscribe to Nielson data? Who does that leave, BigRed? CNN? MSNBC? HLN?
Comment by Terance — February 12, 2008 @ 7:41 pm
I think the posting of this is rather random and i too doubt CNBC put this out, but i could be wrong.
Comment by Sam — February 12, 2008 @ 7:52 pm
What does it matter who put it out (even though there is no evidence, just assumption)? What does it matter if the info is valid?
Seems like focusing on WHO takes away from the WHAT this info is saying.
HOWEVER, what is the impact or meaning of this info? On the surface, it looks like its “bad news for CNBC.” Their financial based programming doesn’t do as well as their game show rebroadcasts. But that’s only what’s on the surface. Does it really matter which programs win, or is their position against the competition the real point of interest?
For me, it’s the latter. It doesn’t necessarily matter what program’s ahead on the same network, rather the real question is, “How do they fair against similar programming?” That’s not here on this chart.
It doesn’t matter of the “Magic Bullet” infomercial gets the biggest peice of the network pie… only that it beats the competition.
Comment by ImNotBlue — February 12, 2008 @ 8:05 pm
Spud, any reply?
He may be too busy taking a spelling test!
Terance: You are beginning to sound a tad paranoid! I agree with Sam that the listing is likely random and had nothing to do with a CNBC competitor.
Normally the day after a Super Bowl or the Academy Awards, AP, perhaps in concert with Nielson, usually releases similar all-time rankings. Because they set a viewing record last night, Nielson likely did the same with CNBC.
Comment by Ira — February 12, 2008 @ 8:14 pm
Ira, you don’t even know how to spell Nielsen. Nielsen never releases charts for cable networks like CNBC. It simply doesn’t happen.
This chart came from Fox, like all random ratings information that casts CNBC in a bad light. There is simply no other source for it.
Please apply your critical thinking skills to these situations.
Comment by besmart — February 12, 2008 @ 8:37 pm
This is so random, why would CNBC release this knowing it makes them look bad. As Ira said, it must be because of the big night.
Comment by Aaron — February 12, 2008 @ 8:44 pm
Aaron: And I’ll add that the Dog Show topped the No.2 show on the list in P2 by nearly 50%!
It was a landmark night for CNBC.
Comment by Ira — February 12, 2008 @ 10:32 pm
Well Ira, this is the Westminster Dog Show, not just the Beetle Lake Kansas Middle School Parent Teacher Association Dog Show.
Comment by Aaron — February 12, 2008 @ 11:05 pm
I don’t have a problem with networks releasing something like, “AC360 spanks Greta in the 10pm key demo” or “Greta spanks AC360 in P2+” or “BO spanks everybody at all hours in both demos.” But, when you just basically exploit another network without a comparison, then the I wonder what the actual point is and who benefits or get embarrassed. And its not that hard to figure out. So, is it asking too much for all charts/pdf’s to have a company logo? And FTR, I watch more FBN than CNBC at this point.
Comment by Terance — February 13, 2008 @ 7:14 am
Fox News, BO, et al get torn apart in the MSM, media outlets, local newspapers, etc. on a daily basis without comparison. What is the actual point of that and who benefits.
Comment by Jim — February 13, 2008 @ 7:51 am
Thank you for validating this info with the name Nielsen as inaccurate and incomplete as they are, they are the industry standard bearers. Oh, for the return of Arbitron and other more truthful and accurate surveys. There are many obvious reasons for your tremendous “success” CNBC but, you wouldn’t wanna hear ‘em.
Comment by alphillips — February 13, 2008 @ 8:19 am
ImNotBlue
“It doesn’t necessarily matter what program’s ahead on the same network, rather the real question is, “How do they fair against similar programming?” That’s not here on this chart.”
That doesn’t even matter in the case of CNBC, it’s “How many eyeballs do they get in their target demographic.” If they deliver more people who make more than $100K than other networks, they can charge more for ads. Kind of like how “Boston Legal” doesn’t have to come in 2nd or 3rd in their time slot, as long as they are the top rated network show for people who make over $100K in order to stay on the air for five years or more.
Comment by Cory!! Strode — February 13, 2008 @ 8:55 am
fox’s ratings follow the same lead as cnbc. the top programs on fox news aren’t news programs at all, they’re bill o’reilly.
Comment by RC — February 13, 2008 @ 10:37 am
RC… there’s a big difference in what you’re suggesting. None of the networks top programs are their “straight news” programs. Those just don’t pull in the eyeballs.
But there’s a big difference between the networks top programs being “News Analysis,” versus “Reruns of a Game Show.”
Comment by ImNotBlue — February 13, 2008 @ 11:27 am
the problem is we don’t have ratings information for the top 25 straight cnbc programs since the action of releasing these ratings was underhanded. really, we’re not stupid. give us a top 25 ratings list of the straight cnbc programs, and let’s discuss.
Comment by RC — February 13, 2008 @ 11:46 am