TV ratings: CBS tops a soft Sunday - '60 Minutes,' 'Big Brother...

By the way, news was announced that Ben Silverman was let go by NBC after two unproductive years.

You may remember that Jeff Zucker fired the executive he had just hired so he cold get Mr. Silverman, who was supposedly "red hot" from supposed hits The Office and Ugly Betty and was re-inventing the paradigm of telelvision by making remakes of foreign hits (or some such nonsense).

The result is what happens when you rely on hype to hire people instead of numbers.

"The Office," "Ugly Betty" and "The Biggest Loser" are mentioned as "hits" Ben Silverman produced, but The Office is not a hit. It needs to be constantly propped up and hyped at great cost to deliver mediocre ratings.

Ugly Betty may have been promising, but it started to so-so ratings and slid afterwards into mediocrity.

And those are Silverman's two biggest shows.

Is it really a surprise to anyone but Jeff Zucker (who is the man who really needs to be given the boot) if Mr. Silverman could not help NBC..?

In memory of Ben Silverman's passing from the NBC and hopefully entire television broadcasting scene, let us revisit his stellar lineup of shows under his aegis for which he'll be long remembered:

Jan-Aug 08
American Gladiator
Amne$ia
Monk repeats
My Dad Is Better Than Your Dad
Psyche repeats
Quarterlife

2008-09
America’s Toughest Jobs
Crusoe
Howie Do It
Kath & Kim
Kings
Knight Rider
Momma’s Boy
My Own Worst Enemy
Parks and Recreation
SNL Weekend Update Thursday
Superstars of Dance
The Chopping Block

Did I forget anything?

There was also Lipstick Jungle which was one of the first shows he added to his schedule, but it had been originally picked by Kevin Reilly, as well as Southland, but that show, coming as late as it did, may've been beyond Silverman's influence, especially since new programmer Angela Bromstad was the one who scheduled both Parks and Recreation and Southland. Parks and Recreation, though, was being discussed and was eventually picked during the Silverman tenure.

Looking at that mind-jarring list, one can only hope that NBC bans anyone else named Silverman from ever running its prime-time again.

Well, thankfully, CW already has a complete idiot in charge of that network, so Silverman would just be superfluous there. I hear that Cuba is looking for a leader to take over after the Castro brothers bite the dust...who knows, maybe Silverman would do well there. He couldn't do any worse than during his stint at NBC.

Now if Zucker would accidentally fall into a volcano during his next trip to Hawaii, perhaps NBC could turn around and go back to the success it had during the late 80s through around 2002. Unfortunately, I don't believe we're that lucky.

EDell wrote:

In memory of Ben Silverman's passing from the NBC and hopefully entire television broadcasting scene, let us revisit his stellar lineup of shows under his aegis for which he'll be long remembered:
Jan-Aug 08
American Gladiator
Amne$ia
Monk repeats
My Dad Is Better Than Your Dad
Psyche repeats
Quarterlife
2008-09
America’s Toughest Jobs
Crusoe
Howie Do It
Kath & Kim
Kings
Knight Rider
Momma’s Boy
My Own Worst Enemy
Parks and Recreation
SNL Weekend Update Thursday
Superstars of Dance
The Chopping Block
Did I forget anything?

Ben Silverman's Wall Of Shame!!

The good news..The weekly Top 20 Network Primetime Series and Cable Series are back. The bad news...They are ranked by viewers, not ratings. Any chance to get the Household ratings/shares back on the weekly charts?

"The good news..The weekly Top 20 Network Primetime Series and Cable Series are back. The bad news...They are ranked by viewers, not ratings. Any chance to get the Household ratings/shares back on the weekly charts?"

I don't know why Zap2it keeps messing around with the numbers lately, but if you want to figure out what the household rating is, just multiply the total viewers by 66 - i.e. 5.1 (for 5,100,000 viewers) x 66 = 3.366, or 3.3. It's not precise, but it's accurate enough within a few + or - decimal points on average.

EDell wrote:

In memory of Ben Silverman's passing from the NBC and hopefully entire television broadcasting scene, let us revisit his stellar lineup of shows under his aegis for which he'll be long remembered:
Jan-Aug 08
American Gladiator
Amne$ia
Monk repeats
My Dad Is Better Than Your Dad
Psyche repeats
Quarterlife
2008-09
America’s Toughest Jobs
Crusoe
Howie Do It
Kath & Kim
Kings
Knight Rider
Momma’s Boy
My Own Worst Enemy
Parks and Recreation
SNL Weekend Update Thursday
Superstars of Dance
The Chopping Block
Did I forget anything?
There was also Lipstick Jungle which was one of the first shows he added to his schedule, but it had been originally picked by Kevin Reilly, as well as Southland, but that show, coming as late as it did, may've been beyond Silverman's influence, especially since new programmer Angela Bromstad was the one who scheduled both Parks and Recreation and Southland. Parks and Recreation, though, was being discussed and was eventually picked during the Silverman tenure.
Looking at that mind-jarring list, one can only hope that NBC bans anyone else named Silverman from ever running its prime-time again.

I'd lay some blame on him for Bionic Woman. He didn't pick it, but he launched it and wasted oodles of money of it while a more discerning executives would have sweeped that one under the rug and tried to push Life, the only quality show he had on that year (IMO)

The problem of course, is that as long as Jeff Zucker calls the shots, the same bad shows produced by bad producers with connections will continue to be produced.

dougc wrote:

The good news..The weekly Top 20 Network Primetime Series and Cable Series are back. The bad news...They are ranked by viewers, not ratings. Any chance to get the Household ratings/shares back on the weekly charts?

I second that motion.

Make sure to use the "Send us your feedback" link at the bottom of the page to let them know.:)

It wold also be great to get the Top 30, as it would allow to see the ratings for the not-quite-hits Drop Dead Diva and others.

EDell wrote:

I don't know why Zap2it keeps messing around with the numbers lately, but if you want to figure out what the household rating is, just multiply the total viewers by 66 - i.e. 5.1 (for 5,100,000 viewers) x 66 = 3.366, or 3.3. It's not precise, but it's accurate enough within a few + or - decimal points on average.

My guess is that the networks have made another try at wiping household numbers from the world of reported ratings.

The reason? Millions of viewers yield a higher raw number that looks better in the PR release and makes it very difficult to establish comparisons over time because of baseline population increases.

zap2it kindly invited our feedback and to my extremely pleasant surprise followed our advice. Let's hope they'll do the same for the cable ratings.:)

EDell wrote:
I don't know why Zap2it keeps messing around with the numbers lately, but if you want to figure out what the household rating is, just multiply the total viewers by 66 - i.e. 5.1 (for 5,100,000 viewers) x 66 = 3.366, or 3.3. It's not precise, but it's accurate enough within a few + or - decimal points on average.

Rena wrote:
My guess is that the networks have made another try at wiping household numbers from the world of reported ratings.

The reason? Millions of viewers yield a higher raw number that looks better in the PR release and makes it very difficult to establish comparisons over time because of baseline population increases.

EDell writes:
Well, that doesn't quite make sense because why then would they bother to allow 18-49 demos be published when those ratings are even less than the household numbers? If bloating the scores, as with total viewers, is what it's all about, then one would think that the networks wouldn't want the public to know the demo scores. Seriously, am I at all impressed that Whatever Show had a 1.2 rating in 18-49? Why weren't the other 98.8 not watching that show?

EDell wrote:

Rena wrote:
My guess is that the networks have made another try at wiping household numbers from the world of reported ratings.
The reason? Millions of viewers yield a higher raw number that looks better in the PR release and makes it very difficult to establish comparisons over time because of baseline population increases.
EDell writes:
Well, that doesn't quite make sense because why then would they bother to allow 18-49 demos be published when those ratings are even less than the household numbers? If bloating the scores, as with total viewers, is what it's all about, then one would think that the networks wouldn't want the public to know the demo scores. Seriously, am I at all impressed that Whatever Show had a 1.2 rating in 18-49? Why weren't the other 98.8 not watching that show?

one reason i can suggest is that often a show will not be the hour's overall highest-rated, but it will get the most ratings in that "all-important demo" category. thus, the network can spin some victory out of the ratings numbers, even without bringing home the grand prize.(and then they can even go one step further to claim that such demo IS actually the grand prize). it's a form of the "if we make enough categories, maybe we can find a prize for everyone" mentality. so yes, despite the low-looking number, if it was in fact the highest of the hour in that demo category, then the network can still claim a (so-called) victory. anyway, that may be one reason and i'm not even sure how well i explained it (i tried), maybe Rena can do better.:)

I perfectly understand that as a possible reason, OCGirl, but that reliance on 18-49 as some sort of measure of ultimate success is really delusionary, especially when they boast of numbers that add up to very little. I mean, a lot of those 18-49 numbers are at The CW's household ratings level, and that's pretty low, regardless if the show wins its time slot or not. Besides, that demo count is meant to snare in advertisers more than show how successful, or not, a show is among the general viewing public. My interest is in the latter, especially since I'm not an advertiser.

EDell wrote:

I perfectly understand that as a possible reason, OCGirl, but that reliance on 18-49 as some sort of measure of ultimate success is really delusionary, especially when they boast of numbers that add up to very little. I mean, a lot of those 18-49 numbers are at The CW's household ratings level, and that's pretty low, regardless if the show wins its time slot or not. Besides, that demo count is meant to snare in advertisers more than show how successful, or not, a show is among the general viewing public. My interest is in the latter, especially since I'm not an advertiser.

OCGirl did a great job explaining I think.:)

The idea is that you boost the appearance of overall numbers (ie. it's easier to produce something over 10 with millions of viewers than with a percentage) by using millions of viewers for the overall numbers and you use the more "mysterious" (in the PR people's view) to spin defeats into pseudo-victories.

To be fair, when you have very few viewers, I am sure it is helpful to have them concentrated (so to speak) in a demo, any demo (but of course Hollywood (and the press)'s ageism makes it that only younger viewers are hyped with impunity from the press).

In other words, if the networks trying to spin their numbers used millions of demo viewers, comparisons would be too easy and while the overall number would be higher, it would also be debunked much more easily (as in "you're really giving away 8 million viewers for free?")

Generally speaking, what is really reprehensible on the part of the press is that they're supposed to serve the reading public not the networks. Their job is to present reality with as much context as possible to make it as clear as possible.

Instead, they work like boom boxes for the PR spin.:(

Alas, spin and buzz are epidemic in all forms of media, even in science circles. Results are published before any secondary or tertiary testing is done to verify data; statistical analysis is condensed, manipulated and outright changed to meet some corporation's "vision"; and outlets such as the New York Times and the Oprah Winfrey Show give such watered-down versions of various so-called "discoveries" that they are quickly debunked by people who actually know what they're talking about, once it's noted that the information was wrong, sometimes dangerously-so.

Unfortunately, in a militantly-capitalistic society, where the bottom line is everything, such things are common to the point of becoming acceptable. So what if a study published twenty years ago is still being used as the basis for funding for (fill in the blank), even if the data is so out-of-synch with modern realities that one wonders how those signing the checks can do so with a straight face. Worse yet, with no way to verify research data, due to proprietary rules and regulations that prevent such investigations, the need to assure that a study was done properly is shoved aside in order for the product to hit the marketplace as soon as possible.

I only half-blame the press for engaging in such practices, in that they are no longer equipped or willing (in many cases) to get into an in-depth investigation to determine if what they're reporting is truly accurate. While the outright lies fomented by PR firms when it comes to television ratings are, by comparison, relatively-benign, such practices are now commonplace. There is an attitude of "everybody else is doing it, so why should we try to be better than them?" in journalism, in all areas, and I don't see this changing anytime soon. People don't want to lose their jobs, and so they sometimes sell their morals in order to keep them.

Or, to put it more snidely, when a dog is gnawing on your leg, you're not likely to smack it on the nose for piddling on the carpet a few minutes earlier.

Aaron R wrote:

Alas, spin and buzz are epidemic in all forms of media, even in science circles. Results are published before any secondary or tertiary testing is done to verify data; statistical analysis is condensed, manipulated and outright changed to meet some corporation's "vision"; and outlets such as the New York Times and the Oprah Winfrey Show give such watered-down versions of various so-called "discoveries" that they are quickly debunked by people who actually know what they're talking about, once it's noted that the information was wrong, sometimes dangerously-so.
Unfortunately, in a militantly-capitalistic society, where the bottom line is everything, such things are common to the point of becoming acceptable. So what if a study published twenty years ago is still being used as the basis for funding for (fill in the blank), even if the data is so out-of-synch with modern realities that one wonders how those signing the checks can do so with a straight face. Worse yet, with no way to verify research data, due to proprietary rules and regulations that prevent such investigations, the need to assure that a study was done properly is shoved aside in order for the product to hit the marketplace as soon as possible.
I only half-blame the press for engaging in such practices, in that they are no longer equipped or willing (in many cases) to get into an in-depth investigation to determine if what they're reporting is truly accurate. While the outright lies fomented by PR firms when it comes to television ratings are, by comparison, relatively-benign, such practices are now commonplace. There is an attitude of "everybody else is doing it, so why should we try to be better than them?" in journalism, in all areas, and I don't see this changing anytime soon. People don't want to lose their jobs, and so they sometimes sell their morals in order to keep them.
Or, to put it more snidely, when a dog is gnawing on your leg, you're not likely to smack it on the nose for piddling on the carpet a few minutes earlier.

I entirely agree. What is tragic is that the newspapers hire people who don't care about reporting the facts, don't know the subjects they're reporting on and don't care to learn about them.

But the rot is really at the top. Editors make a lot of grandstanding about "reporting standards" to fight cutbacks, but those standards don't actually exist in the actual pages of their papers (or sites).

What is truly sad is that it doesn't have to be that way. Newspapers don't have to be compendiums of PR releases and thus lose their readership.

Looking at last week's ratings, it was amazing to see that Gossip "CW tentpole" Girl was the second lowest-rated show on CW (with 500,000 viewers!) and thus on network television.

I would love to hear what Dawn Ostroff has to say about that one! ;)

About spin: I really don't blame the people trying to spin so much as the journalists willingly being spun.

Rena Moretti wrote:

<quoted text>
I entirely agree. What is tragic is that the newspapers hire people who don't care about reporting the facts, don't know the subjects they're reporting on and don't care to learn about them.
But the rot is really at the top. Editors make a lot of grandstanding about "reporting standards" to fight cutbacks, but those standards don't actually exist in the actual pages of their papers (or sites).
What is truly sad is that it doesn't have to be that way. Newspapers don't have to be compendiums of PR releases and thus lose their readership.

I think you make a good point about editors "grandstanding" about "standards." on the cover page for the latimes.com the other day, there was a story link about Madonna's arms (that's right, her ARMS), and which linked to what is basically a rag. when i clicked, i also saw a few angry coments from LA Times readers basically saying "this is news?!" i think that is the relevant question for these editors these days. and then they wonder why circulation is in a death spiral.

Yes, i also would love to hear what Ostroff has to say about that (GG's abyssmal ratings). some reporter should try to pin her down.(maybe she would run away and say call for an appointment.)

and re spin: Yes, it is some ppl's job to "spin" info, and it is other ppl's job to cut thru the BS, in this case as you are talking about, journalists.(similarly, that's what i was saying the other day about bosses and Boards who believe their own co.'s spin.)

OCGirl wrote:

<quoted text>
I think you make a good point about editors "grandstanding" about "standards." on the cover page for the latimes.com the other day, there was a story link about Madonna's arms (that's right, her ARMS), and which linked to what is basically a rag. when i clicked, i also saw a few angry coments from LA Times readers basically saying "this is news?!" i think that is the relevant question for these editors these days. and then they wonder why circulation is in a death spiral.
Yes, i also would love to hear what Ostroff has to say about that (GG's abyssmal ratings). some reporter should try to pin her down.(maybe she would run away and say call for an appointment.)
and re spin: Yes, it is some ppl's job to "spin" info, and it is other ppl's job to cut thru the BS, in this case as you are talking about, journalists.(similarly, that's what i was saying the other day about bosses and Boards who believe their own co.'s spin.)

About newspapers (and news in general) the mental process is the same as the one that befalls a lot of network Tv and the movie studios: in short, they think the audience is made up of morons who wouldn't know good quality if they saw it.

They feel vindicated when they put non-news on the front page (or the endless "Do you know where your kids are partying on loval news) and get a ratings bump from people who are not interested in news.

They don't seem to get that the more they get addicted to "the bump" the more they lose their real potential audience/readership.

The practice of spin is so ingrained in today's media that they refuse to look at the numbers and (as Jeff Zucker keeps doing) blame the internet for all their ills, in spite of the fact that (for newspapers) distribution has been on a death spiral since the mid-70s and (in the case of networks TV) CBS and USA prove again and again that if you put solid programming on, people (not critics) will watch it in droves.