ABC Ratings - The Sweeps Have Begun!!

[Another Voice]

Well the ratings for the first week of the first sweeps of the new year are in and…

…ABC is back down in fourth place again for the season.

For the season so far, CBS is averaging 13.25 million viewers per hour, NBC is at 12.50 million, Fox at 10.09. ABC is coming in at 9.85 million, WB at 4.77 and UPN at 4.12. The even worse news is that the numbers for Fox have been significantly hurt by the worst ratings in history for the baseball playoffs and for the World Series. Now that those are over Fox’s series are back to a normal schedule and their ratings will improve. Meanwhile ABC’s ratings are front weighted early this season due to Monday Night Football and the limited run ‘The Bachelor’ (a spin-off women-picks-a-man version won’t premier until next spring).

Just looking at last week however (Nov. 4-10) ABC did a little better and managed to beat Fox on the strength of the interview with The Osbournes on ‘20/20’. The news magazine show pulled its best numbers in 2 years, placed 18th overall and more than doubled the ratings of the show that’s usually in the time slot, ‘M.D.s’ (expected to be cancelled any day now).

Despite all the forced happy talk around last week’s earnings announcements, ratings at ABC remain flat from last year. The “hit new shows” are only modest success at the very best; none are truly ratings hits. In fact, none of the new shows have cracked the Top 20 which is a key dividing line between “hits” and “also-rans”.

Last week, ABC’s highest rated new show remained ‘8 Simple Rules’ which came in at 27th place with 12.75 million viewers – between CBS’s ‘The District’ and ‘The Simpsons’ over at Fox. The number one show overall last week was ‘CSI’ (from CBS) with 27.86 million viewers; number two was ‘Friends’ (from NBC) with 27.51 million viewers. As you can see, it’s a long long drop from Number 1 down to ABC’s best series.

ABC’s highest rated show overall was Monday Night Football at #6 with 19.43 million viewers. The limited series ‘The Bachelor’ came in at #13 with 16.30 million (that show ends this week I think). Other ABC shows include ‘The Practice’ (#29/12.45), ‘According to Jim’ (#30/12.33), ‘My Wife and Kids’ (#34/11.72) and ‘Beauty and the Beast’ (#38/11.45). ‘Alias’ came in at #50 with 9.33 million; the new ‘Less than Perfect’ was #67 with 7.06 million watchers.

The lowest rated ABC shows were two episodes of ‘The Drew Carey Show’ at #79 & #80, ‘Primetime Live’ at #81 and a showing of ‘Galaxy Quest’ at #88 with 4.7 million viewers. Just to feel good, the lowest rated show of the week was UPN’s screening of ‘Ace Ventura: When Nature Calls’ at #103 with 2.96 million viewers; the lowest rated series also belonged to UPN: ‘The Twilight Zone’ at # 102 and 3.17 million viewers.

While it’s still early in the season, most people are now predicating that ABC will remain the fourth rated network and will loose a substantial amount of the money for the year.

 

[EUROPA]

Holy crap throw this one on the fire too...

http://www.forbes.com/2002/11/13/cx_cd_1113disney.html

Eisner stated that he did not see the third-ranked network being around in "four to five years."

 

[raidermatt]

Pilot to co-pilot: "What the 'bleep'?, over"

The article seems to say that Eisner doesn't believe ABC will be around at all in 4-5 years.

At this point, I have to give him the benefit of the doubt and think he just maybe meant at Disney...

But either way, if ABC is not seen as part of Disney's future even 4-5 years from now, why in the name of Sherwood Schwartz are they still messing around with the thing?

If the ABC brand is not differentiated, whose fault is that? Disney has owned it for 7 years now. If they didn't think it was differentiated when they bought it, and differentiation is a key goal, why have they done so little to accomplish that? And, if they couldn't do it in 7 years, and don't think it will be done in 4-5 years, why pour more resources into something you view as a bottomless pit?

Its funny how 2 months ago Eisner wasn't making these comments. Is this being done now to deflect blame for the insufficient improvement in ratings? After all, he has said in the past that he was personally very involved in helping ABC dig out of its self-dug hole... (ok, HE didn't say 'self-dug', but its true.)

 

[mjstaceyuofm]

The article seems to say that Eisner doesn't believe ABC will be around at all in 4-5 years.

At this point, I have to give him the benefit of the doubt and think he just maybe meant at Disney...

That was my read on it too. The article is not very clear on that point. I can only echo what you've already said - why fiddle with it for the next few years then? My response: The article went on to say that,

Eisner did talk up ABC's news division, which is ranked first among network news broadcasts.

Maybe he's trying to find a way to capitalize on the brand identity of ABC news while scrapping the rest and is finding that may take some time - thus the 4-5 years...

 

[mjstaceyuofm]

I personally liked it better when the article intimated that Disney would get rid of ABC in 4-5 years...

 

[RyMickey]

Despite all these "total viewers" numbers, isn't ABC consistently 1st or 2nd on many nights in the coveted 18-49 bracket? Mondays, Tuesdays, Wednesdays, and often Saturdays and Sundays are nights that ABC succeeds with that coveted group of people. Now, I have no idea how well they were doing last year in this age group, but despite not having the "total viewers" doesn't the 18-49 age group mean anything (and don't say that it doesn't...we all know that's what the networks desire)?

As an added note, I must whole-heartedly agree with Scoop about Life with Bonnie. The show consistently makes me laugh. Bonnie, along with Alias, are the two shows that I consistently watch every week.

RyMickey

 

[raidermatt]

Interesting, it now says the 4-5 years comment was incorrect, and that Eisner did not imply ABC was "irrelevant".

It now says this:

When pressed about ABC's future by Auletta, Eisner responded that he didn't see it as having a unique brand identity. As a television network, ABC is not a standalone brand.

You think somebody at Disney put a call into Forbes?

 

[EUROPA]

Pulled the link from Drudge so I'm sure somebody jumped on it real quick. That site rules !!!

 

[Bstanley]

For those who didn't see the original article:

NEW YORK - This morning as guests gathered at a media breakfast to hear Michael Eisner, chairman and CEO of the Walt Disney Co., the weather outside was cold and nasty. But, if you were an employee of Disney subsidiary ABC, the biggest chill was
inside when the raspy-voiced Eisner stated that he did not see the third-ranked network being around in "four to five years."

Eisner has been under increasing pressure from shareholders to bolster the company's stock price, which is trading in the $17 range, lower than where it was five years ago and more than 60% off its April 2000 high of $43.65. Like all media companies, Disney (nyse: DIS - news - people ) has been hit by the advertising slowdown over the last couple of years. While Eisner is optimistic that business will improve for most Disney properties, he is less sanguine about ABC.

"Some of our entertainment hasn't been entertaining enough. This is particularly true at our ABC network," he said at a Goldman Sachs (nyse: GS - news - people ) conference last
month.

Disney bought ABC in 1995 for $19.6 billion and rode high for a while thanks to the success of such programs as Who Wants to Be a Millionaire. Since then, it has seen ABC's ratings slump, and its new roster of programming has failed to attract new viewers. Even worse, many ad buyers don't think the network's hit bottom yet

During the course of questioning by mediator Ken Auletta of The New Yorker magazine, Eisner praised several Disney properties, particularly the flagship Disney brand and sports cable channel
ESPN. He called them "differentiated products" and said that when he looked into the future he could see them "20 to 25 years down the road."

When pressed about ABC's future by Auletta, Eisner responded that he didn't see it as having a unique brand identity. ABC is "not relevant and unique," like former media giants Paramount and Warner Bros.

Eisner did talk up ABC's news division, which is ranked first among network news broadcasts. But when asked about the possibility of combining ABC's news division with AOL Time Warner's (nyse: AOL - news - people ) CNN subsidiary, he said he
gave it only a "50-50" chance.

At Disney's board meeting in late September, Eisner made promises that he would return the company to "double-digit growth" in 2003. He has already explored selling the company's World Series champion Anaheim Angels as well as its professional hockey team, the Mighty Ducks. Disney is also reported to be considering a sale of its radio stations.

ABC's future is central to the question of succession at Disney. Eisner has been running the Burbank, Calif.-based entertainment and travel giant for 18 years, and his presumed heir is Robert Iger, Disney's president and COO. Eisner has tasked Iger with turning ABC around.

If he fails to do so, or if Disney's board and shareholders don't see the promised increase in the stock price, it is possible that Eisner may consider putting ABC on the block.

 

[raidermatt]

Forbes would only change the article if the copyed felt in needed changed for factual accuracy. I seriously doubt anyone at Disney could pressure Forbes into a clarification unless it was warranted.

Did not mean to imply otherwise.

 

[Bob O]

Drudge has a update on his site!!!!
And it would be nice if true if eisner would admit he made a mistake acquiring ABC and would get rid of it!!!

 

[EUROPA]

Originally posted by raidermatt
Did not mean to imply otherwise.

*The original version of this story incorrectly stated that Eisner did not see the third-ranked network being around in four to five years.

**The original version of this story incorrectly suggested that Eisner thought ABC was irrelevant.

***The last paragraph of the original story speculated that Eisner might consider putting ABC on the block. Disney categorically denies this.

Well something smells fishy with the last statment. Sounds like a call or two was made to me. Is the reporter that bad??

 

[d-r]

Just one thing about fox. Last year, the world series games counted in the first week of sweeps, this year they didn't. Fox won big on the first Sunday night of sweeps when the Simpsons Halloween episode, ToH-13 was the #1 show at the time slot. This past Sunday night though, the season premiere of the Simpsons was 3rd. Sunday is a really weird night - CBS wins with 60 minutes, but most people in my demographic are caught taping and tivoing between sapranos, alias and malcom in the middle. I think Alias could be a success, but putting it against sopranos and malcom really tear up the audience it appeals to.

ABC has tied with CBS for monday night, but CBS wins most nights, except NBC's Thursday.I think this past Wed. night ABC tied with CBS? Not sure, thought I remembered that. Wed. is getting weirder, too, especially for my demographic, between west wing, lowly enterprise, and the abc sitcoms. When I look at the numbers, it seems to me that ABC has "stopped the bleeding" and it is a little more positive. Drew Carey jumped the shark of course, and they can't do a lot about that black hole with the contractual obligations.

That said I wouldn't mind disney selling abc.

Here are the results of last week from http://www.mediaweek.com/mediaweek/columns/prog_insider.jsp?vnu_content_id=1757657

Here are the results by category (with change versus the year-ago week in parentheses):

-Households:
CBS: 9.3/15 (-1 percent), NBC: 8.6/14 (+2), ABC: 6.7/11 (-12), Fox: 4.5/7 (-26), WB: 3.1/5 (+7), UPN: 2.5/4 (-19)

-Total Viewers:
CBS: 14.18 million (-2), NBC: 13.32 (+6), ABC: 10.45
(-8), Fox: 7.35 (-23), WB: 4.98 (+16), UPN: 4.19 (-14)

-A18-49:
NBC: 5.1/14 (+4), CBS: 4.4/12 (-4), ABC: 4.0/11 (-5), Fox: 3.2/8 (-30), WB: 2.2/6 (+22), UPN: 1.8/5 (-18)

-Winners By Night:
Monday -- Viewers: CBS, A18-49: ABC
Tuesday -- Viewers: CBS, A18-49: Fox
Wednesday -- Viewers: CBS, A18-49: ABC
Thursday -- Viewers: NBC, A18-49: NBC
Friday -- Viewers: NBC, A18-49: NBC
Saturday -- Viewers: CBS, A18-49: ABC
Sunday -- Viewers: CBS, A18-49: CBS and NBC (tie)

Quick Bites:
-CBS had five of the top 10 shows in total viewers, NBC four and ABC one.

-NBC had four of the top 10 shows among adults 18-49 with ABC and CBS three each.

-Five of the most-watched shows were on Thursday.

-Six of the top 10 shows among adults 18-49 (including the top five) were also on Thursday.

-The Osbournes on ABC's 20/20 Wednesday (#18: 15.35 million; A18-49: #8, 7.7/19) was the most-watched newsmagazine of the week with the highest adult 18-49 rating for any newsmagazine in over two years.

-The animated Beauty and the Beast on The Wonderful World of Disney was the #1 show for the week among kids 2-11.

-Fox's The Simpsons and 24 led the network among adults 18-49, tied at #14 with a 5.9 rating each.

-The Simpsons was Fox's most-watched show at #28 with 12.51 million viewers.

-Fox's Malcolm in the Middle is losing steam with 9.64 million viewers (#46) and a 34th place tie among adults 18-49 (4.0/9).

-The WB's most-watched show was Smallville at #48 with 9.38 million viewers.

-UPN's most-watched show was WWE Smackdown! at #77 with 6.20 million viewers.

-Four shows on the WB (Smallville, 7th Heaven, Gilmore Girls and Everwood) attract more viewers than UPN's most-watched show.

-Five of the six least watched shows -- Do Over, Family Affair, Jamie Kennedy Experiment, Gilmore Girls: Beginnings, Greetings From Tucson -- were on The WB.

-Ready to call it quits: the season premiere of Fox's Futurama (#95: 4.15 million; A18-49: #91T: 1.8/5).

-There is life on Saturday: CBS's The District (#26: 12.85 million; A18-49: #64T: 2.8/9)

-ABC's Future:
8 Simple Rules (#27: 12.75 million; A18-49: #28T: 4.7/12)
According to Jim (#30: 12.33 million; A18-49: #25T: 4.9/12)
My Wife and Kids (#34: 11.73 million; #30T: 4.6/13)
George Lopez (#39T: 11.43 million; A18-49: #28T: 4.7/12)

-ABC's Past:
Drew Carey (#79T: 5.90 million; A18-49: #73T: 2.3/7)

-ABC's Disappointment:
Alias (#50: 9.33 million; A18-49: #38T: 3.8/9)

-Unprecedented on NBC:
Law and Order (#8: 18.44 million; A18-49: #12, 6.2/16)
Law and Order: SVU (#12: 16.83 million; A18-49: #17T, 5.6/18) Law & Order: Criminal Intent (#15: 15.88 million; A18-49: #20, 5.4/12)

They don't count HBO (or the Disney Channel, for that matter) in the cable ratings because they are not commercially sponsered; I bet that HBO is hitting the demographic hard on Sunday night though - Alias just isn't going to compete with it (and Malcom isn't either, for that matter).

DR

EDIT - When I say "my demographic" I really mean people that I hang out with, hear opinions from, not an age-range. It is a poor choice of words.

 

[Another Voice]

As with any numbers, it’s important to understand what they mean rather than what they are.

ABC’s current strength in the formerly coveted Adults 18-49 group is due to only two programs – Monday Night Football and ‘The Bachelor’. Both these shows only last just a small part of the season so the big worry is that ABC’s demographics will tank this year just like they’ve tanked the last three years. What really amazes everyone is why ABC doesn’t tie a demographic friendly show in the MNF (like ‘Alias’ anyone?) to a) keep all those young eyeballs glued all Monday night and b) keep them on ABC after New Year’s. Instead ABC went with the cheapest shows it could find (first ‘Drew’ and now ‘Monk’) as way of cashing in on the perceived “brand value” they have on Monday nights. It’s been yet one more disaster for them.

‘The Bachelor’ is even more problematic. On the positive side it seems like ‘The West Wing’ is quickly becoming irrelevant television as it takes on a more overt political tone. And it’s generally considered this season’s Bachelor is more popular with young women than last seasons (and Disney has obviously saved money on wardrobe this season by eliminating the guy’s shirt at every possible opportunity). But that cuts both ways. The show is entirely dependent on the appeal of the central character and one wrong Bachelor could send the show off to Temptation Island. And the next version of ‘Bachelor’ will feature a women selecting from a herd of wantabe guys. There are a lot of very smart people who think that won’t work at all.

The key to running a Big Time Network is in using high rated series to launch other high rated series. Broad overall ratings are nice, but the real bucks come having a couple of very strong series in the line-up. Those shows boost the fortunes of other shows around it and make huge amounts of money in repeats, cable and syndication. Look at what happened with ‘Millionaire’; ABC took one little show, zoomed to #1 overall and made a fortune. BUT they failed to follow-up and the network has crashed in the ratings and financially. CBS used ‘Survivor’ to launch ‘CSI’; NBC is currently using ‘Friends’ to launch ‘Scrubs’.

ABC lacks a hit show to use as a launching platform to start new shows and lacks the courage to risk putting on a show that could break out on its own (by the way, Eisner personally turned down both ‘CSI’ and ‘Scrubs’). Much like the parks, the attitude is that all Disney has to do is to wait for it to become ABC’s turn again as #1. The world doesn’t work that way and until someone at Disney has the courage to actually run ABC instead of waiting for things to happen, the business will continue to bleed away WDW’s money.

P.S. – The wild rumor this morning is that all those “corrections” to the Fortune article yesterday might, maybe, possibility, could-‘ave-been due to a phone call from Iger’s office. It seems that the campaign to blame him for all the troubles at ABC is in full force again.

 

[mattjs]

NY Post article:

...in an effort to boost ratings at its ABC television network, Disney has apparently discussed airing "Sopranos" reruns. CEO Michael Eisner reportedly made the comments yesterday in New York at a breakfast hosted by Syracuse University's Newhouse School. But he added that selling ads for the gangster chronicles on ABC, which has pushed itself as a family-friendly network, would be difficult because of the sex, violence and foul language on the HBO hit.

However...

Zenia Mucha, a Disney spokesperson, disputed that the comments were made, and said the company is not considering paying for the syndication rights for "The Sopranos."

What kinda media event was this? Are reporters just wildly spinning everything Eisner says? Did he say a few things maybe he wished he hadn't? Were his comments just totally misconstrued? Is it much ado about nothing? Were they in the Twilight Zone?

 

[raidermatt]

This does seem to be getting very strange.

I'd be surprised if the changes to the Forbes article made yesterday were the result of anything other than a call from somebody at Disney. The only question is did Forbes make the changes because:

1- The reporter was clueless
2- The reporter believes their interpretation was correct, but can't prove it.
3- Whoever called from Disney had enough pull to get the changes made even if the original story could be substantiated.

#2 is probably the most likely, but the others have to at least be considered possible.

Certainly the denials about the Sopranos lends more credibility to the original story. I believe the Sorpranos comments were reported by several sources, and I don't think anybody has retracted them.

What kinda media event was this? Are reporters just wildly spinning everything Eisner says? Did he say a few things maybe he wished he hadn't? Were his comments just totally misconstrued? Is it much ado about nothing? Were they in the Twilight Zone?

It probably is much ado about nothing, but at the very least it appears that Eisner did do a little talking out of an orifice other than his mouth...

 

[Another Voice]

Well I sense some quick phone calls were made over the Fortune article. It’s been well known all over town that Disney would be more than happy to sell ABC for a high enough price. And in Hollywood a “categorical denial” is taken as seriously as a marriage vow.

And it could very well be that Eisner actual implied all these comments, but that the “corrections” were put by someone else. Eisner always travels with spin masters. There have been a couple instances out here were they physically kept the press away from Eisner at events to prevent questions (including one that was billed as a press conference but suddenly became a photo op after the first question). It’s extremely likely that Eisner would make a comment and then another company spokesperson would offer “additional” comments on what the boss just said. Again, a very common practice in Hollywood.

And Disney has already hired HBO to produce programs. HBO is also looking for additional outlets for ‘The Sopranos’. It makes complete sense that the two groups actually discussed showing repeats on ABC or ABC Family. It’s no different than what Disney is doing with ‘Monk’ and ‘7th Heaven’. And “being a family network” hasn’t stopped ‘NYPD Blues’ from flashing a lot of unclothed rear ends nor from pushing the "family values" of ‘The Bachelor’ nor the graphic violence of the uncut showings of ‘Saving Private Ryan’.

 

[KNWVIKING]

"But, if you were an employee of Disney subsidiary ABC, the biggest chill was
inside when the raspy-voiced Eisner stated that he did not see the third-ranked network being around in "four to five years."

....Isn't Fox the #3 network ?? Could he have been implying maybe Fox would be gone in 4-5 years ?

 

[EUROPA]

Originally posted by KNWVIKING
"But, if you were an employee of Disney subsidiary ABC, the biggest chill was
inside when the raspy-voiced Eisner stated that he did not see the third-ranked network being around in "four to five years."

....Isn't Fox the #3 network ?? Could he have been implying maybe Fox would be gone in 4-5 years ?

Nope Esiner just seemed confused as to where they really stand!

 

[larworth]

When talking about their growth plan ME clearly calls out "Disney" and "ESPN" as the two brands they will be investing in for the future. The ABC brand being conspicuous by it's absence. These retracted comments just seem to reinforce that thinking.

ABC not being around in 4-5 years could be a signal they will try to dump it. It would still make sense for them to try and turn things around so they can get a decent price for it.

Maybe, they have plans to discard the ABC name and relaunch it under some new Disney Channel branded name??

I hope it is the former and we can have that multi-page debate about the synergy that never was, whether ABC really saved them from being acquired, and about blind squirrels finding an acorn in ESPN.