TV ratings: 'Big Brother,' crime pays for CBS Thursday - CBS dr...

Full story: Zap2it.com

Fast National ratings for Thursday, July 9, 2009 The ratings were all about CBS on Thursday night, even though its fresh material didn't fare as well as one of its tried-and-true crime procedural repeats, but when it came to the demographic crown, FOX owned that.

Comments

Showing posts 1 - 20 of21
< prev page
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
yoda

Edison, NJ

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1
Jul 10, 2009
 
you know its not that hard to just give us the viewers and rating. put the viewers/rating and in parenthesis the demo. like 8.7viewers/4.5rating (2.5) ur already giving the viewers and demo so its not that hard to add the regular household rating again and just make everyone happy. i never wanted the viewers. i do like the demo being added. please put back the regular household rating by the new fall season. i'm much more lost this way.
Flipper

Merced, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2
Jul 10, 2009
 
No, keep it the way it was. household numbers are better.
John

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#3
Jul 10, 2009
 
Please bring back the old ratings system, or at least supply the old info (rating/share) along with the total viewer data...
david

Denver, CO

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#4
Jul 10, 2009
 
Why are you always changing things when you can't keep up with the weekly and season to date info? They are still from 6/21/09
Chuck

Merrifield, VA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#5
Jul 10, 2009
 
Go back to the old way!! I like having the household numbers.
Rena Moretti

San Gabriel, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#6
Jul 10, 2009
 
What I think is that zap2it has just lost half of its interest to me. Household ratings are harder to find and zaqp2it not giving them to us is just lowering the quality of the information they provide.

As to giving more 18-49 info, not only is it ageist (again why not give the "all-important" white male demo information then?) but it's also a way for networks not doing well to pretend they're doing better than they are, thus obfuscating the numbers.

Why not instead, give the household AND viewers info at the same time? It's really not all that difficult and your readers aren't idiots who can't handle more information.
Rod

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#7
Jul 10, 2009
 
I liked the way you reported the ratings before, been a follower for 9 years now, please no changes
Pilkdownman

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#8
Jul 10, 2009
 
I think this sight is alot faster then it used to be and giving the total viewers is the most important rating. 18-49 might be discriminatory but it's all about the money baby. It ain't personal. Younger folks are cash poor and older folks are very careful with their spending and harder to sway with advertising. I appreciate this sight being available for free.
Pilkdownman

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#9
Jul 10, 2009
 
Ooops, sorry folks I meant site not sight !
Richard

AOL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#11
Jul 10, 2009
 
This shows how well private Practice is doing...terrible! Dead last in their time period. What nonsense and garbage!
redlock

Ingelheim, Germany

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#12
Jul 11, 2009
 
Flipper wrote:
No, keep it the way it was. household numbers are better.
I have to concur.

And I am saddened that zap2it seems to abandon them.
Rena Moretti

San Gabriel, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#13
Jul 11, 2009
 
redlock wrote:
<quoted text>
I have to concur.
And I am saddened that zap2it seems to abandon them.
I'd like to suggest to the people that have expressed the desire that zap2it not drop the household ratings and share direct a comment to the "Send us feedback" link at the bottom of the page.

It seems that the networks are doing one more effort to wipe household ratings off the face of publications but perhaps zap2it will listen to its readers instead.:)
Rena Moretti

San Gabriel, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#14
Jul 11, 2009
 
Pilkdownman wrote:
I think this sight is alot faster then it used to be and giving the total viewers is the most important rating. 18-49 might be discriminatory but it's all about the money baby. It ain't personal. Younger folks are cash poor and older folks are very careful with their spending and harder to sway with advertising. I appreciate this sight being available for free.
As we've discussed before, the idea that 18-49 is some kind of "magical" demographic group is quite absurd as various products need various demos and 18-49 is quite a radically disparate group.

As I see you read before, it is just en expression of Hollywood's ageism that it chooses "younger viewers" to try and spin bad results into hits and not some other, equally meaningless, group.
Pat

AOL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#16
Jul 12, 2009
 
I am not sure how to use the new rating system and it makes it hard to compare the shows on a daily basis. Really don't like the new format and will likely stop visiting the site on a daily basis since to info I like is no longer available.
Pat

AOL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#17
Jul 12, 2009
 
The main reason I started visiting this site was for the ratings. Since the info I like is no longer available to me I will likely stop coming to the site on a daily basis since all the other news I can get on other sites like tvguide.com .
Rena Moretti

San Gabriel, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#18
Jul 12, 2009
 

Judged:

1

John wrote:
Ageist comments deleted
To address your point, what "research" are you talking about exactly?

There is no research that I know of that back the idea that 18-49 is some sort of magical demo.

Various advertisers pay more for various demos depending on what they are selling.

And it's true that some advertisers, like the movie studios, ARE ageist and undercut the range of their own products by targeting age groups based on prejudice and not market research (CW apparently has "market research" to back the lineups that lost 40% of their audience in two short years apparently... ;)). That doesn't mean that all advertisers are prejudiced.

Also the fact that "all-important" is repeated again and again in relation to the "18-49 demo" doesn't mean that it's a fact. It just means that the networks' PR machine keeps repeating the same piece of information. Whether it's true or not has never been shown.

The way some networks act as if older viewers don't count is clearly not based on advertising rates, and is clearly backed solely by their own ageism combined by the need to spin bad numbers.
Rena Moretti

San Gabriel, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#19
Jul 12, 2009
 
Pat wrote:
The main reason I started visiting this site was for the ratings. Since the info I like is no longer available to me I will likely stop coming to the site on a daily basis since all the other news I can get on other sites like tvguide.com .
Please make sure to use the "send us your feedback" link at the bottom of the page and let them know Pat.:)
hiya

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#20
Jul 13, 2009
 
Oh, I love the new numbers instead of ratings points. It makes much more sense. But where are Friday ratings? I don't see them anywhere. People do watch TV on Fridays, ya know....
Aaron R

Decatur, IL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#21
Jul 13, 2009
 
True, hiya, people do watch TV on Fridays...but apparently not in the "all-important 18-49 demo that advertisers crave." After all, you do know that they're the only people on the planet who matter, don't you?

*sarcasm concluded*
Rena Moretti

San Gabriel, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#22
Jul 14, 2009
 
Aaron R wrote:
True, hiya, people do watch TV on Fridays...but apparently not in the "all-important 18-49 demo that advertisers crave." After all, you do know that they're the only people on the planet who matter, don't you?
*sarcasm concluded*
*sarcasm stars* Personally I think they should only report the ratings for Thursday, which is the only day that really matters after all *sarcasm concludes*

This is reminiscent to me of those sports writers who hate basketball and yet are hired to cover it, who every year plead for fewer regular season games and fewer playoff games.

If you listened to them, you'd have two teams playing three games each year and be done with it.

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 1 - 20 of21
< prev page
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Other Recent Samantha Who? Discussions

Search the Samantha Who? Forum:
Topic Updated Last By Comments
Anyone knows the song Samantha sings on the epi... (Nov '08) Nov '11 fifi 2
11 Celebs Who Survived Breast Cancer (Oct '09) Oct '09 debbie 1
Christina Applegate Joins Twitter to Save Samat... (May '09) Sep '09 Denise M 3
'Modern Family' review: One big happy (Sep '09) Sep '09 gunbound 1
First Lady Anong People's 'Most Beautiful': Mic... (Apr '09) Aug '09 kidritalin 155
TV ratings: 'Mentalist,' Katie Holmes win Thurs... (Jul '09) Aug '09 Aaron R 46
POLL: Which ABC canceled show will you miss the... (Jun '09) Aug '09 Rena Moretti 12
•••
•••
•••