Showing posts with label demographics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label demographics. Show all posts

Wednesday, March 30, 2011

We'll always have Paris! The Bold and the Beautiful


B&B is on a creative high these days, in part by fully embracing its identity. It plays adults (and senior adults) more than kids. It does bit of socially relevant stuff. It centers on the never ending drama of Brooke Logan and her Ridge. It knows that camp, vague incestuousness, vague perversity, and constant partner switching is its RECIPE...and it's doing it just fine. This week, the luminous Heather Tom's Katie is in the midst of (I think) a re-awakening triangle with ex-lover Nick (who is also the ex-husband of her sister and her niece) and Bill Spencer Jr. (my fave, Don Diamont). Ridge and Brooke--a "destiny/westiny" couple according to her son Rick--had an ultimate over-the-top moment in Paris (see image at top)...and then seconds later Brooke undermined her reunion with husband Ridge by having a flirtatious Skype session with his drop-dead-gorgeous son Thomas. We won't even mention the fact that my favorite, Amber, is in a three-way-who's-the-daddy tale (and I don't think she realizes her baby is going to be African American!). The show is firing on all cylinders.






Why are its ratings not good? Why are its demos so awful? Oh well...even if B&B is not long for the world, we'll always have Paris!



Thursday, February 24, 2011

Daytime on the Bubble: Renew/Cancel Index for Daytime

TVByTheNumbers has accurate "renew/cancel" index for primetime. A show's 18-49 rating is divided by network's average. See http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/the-renew-cancel-index for details.



I computed a renew/cancel for daytime,, dividing each show's 18-49 rating by the average of all 6 soaps. I couldn't really do a network-by-network renew/cancel (like the parent site does) because the pool of soaps is too small. I guess I could use the network daytime average (if I could find equivalent ratings for The View and the Talk, etc)...but I think what I did is already pretty informative.

In the Renew/Cancel index, numbers above 1 (the further above, the better) are "safe", around 1 are "bubble" and below 1 are "likely to be cancelled.

Renew/Cancel Index for Daytime, as of last week:
Y&R 1.43;
DAYS 1.05;
GH 1.05;
OLTL 0.95;
B&B 0.76;
AMC 0.76




Now, what makes this intriguing is the rumor, at Daytime Confidential, that ABC is seriously considering the future of its daypart, and whether to cancel a soap to make room for a talk show.

As once-stalwart (now lapsed) viewer of all ABC soaps, but especially AMC, this would make me sad.

Looking at those numbers, one wonders by B&B isn't similarly on the bubble?

Well, first of all, maybe it is. But, secondly, Les Moonves last year implied that it was one of the "special soaps", and therefore might survive. What could save B&B? Presumably the fact that it is the world's #1 most watched soap, and the international revenue helps the Bell family keep licensing costs extra-low for CBS? With a brand-new high tech opening sequence and a recent two-year renewal, B&B will survive at least as long as Stephanie Forrester (who currently has Stage IV lung cancer).




Sunday, May 31, 2009

The Old and the Restless? Who skews older?


On SON's message board today, user CSF (Classicsoapfan) asked about my expression of the legend that B&B skews older than all of the other soaps. So, I decided to look at that using this week's data.

In the table below, I used the data provided by Toups at Soap Opera Network. I took this week's total viewers and subtracted women 18-49, girls 12-17, and men 18+. The "residual" in the second-from-right column is the leftover viewers. While a few boys under 18 and girls under 12 might be included in the residual numbers. These would be negligible. So, the column on the second-from-right mostly represents older women. What it shows us is that B&B is second only to Y&R in absolute number of these (mostly) older women. More importantly, the right-most column shows is the PROPORTION of all viewers that are older. This is a fascinating number, no? It does show in absolute terms, at least last week, that B&B has highest proportion of older viewers. But its' number is only 1% greater than its next neighbors.

The implication is definitely this: If the advertisers truly only value the 18-49 demographic, we can see that CBS has a serious problem...and we have an understanding of why (despite lower numbers) Days remains alive. It is the youngest of ALL the soaps. Why would NBC want to kill that?

One hopes that CBS is able to show the marketing value of reaching such a strong older audience. After all, ads for Depends and Centrum Silver have to run somewhere (just joking)!


SHOWTOTAL18-4912-17MENResidual (mostly women over 49)% of viewers who are older
Y&R4,874,0001,085,00018,0001,104,0002,667,00055%
B&B3,369,000691,00017,000718,0001,943,00058%
OLTL2,560,000848,00027,000411,0001,274,00050%
GH2,550,000905,00049,000386,0001,210,00047%
DAYS2,527,000802,00042,000470,0001,213,00048%
AMC2,518,000793,0008,000461,0001,256,00050%
ATWT2,394,000530,00017,000488,0001,359,00057%
GL1,951,000434,00015,000396,0001,106,00057%







ETA: Carolyn1980 at SON tells me that the 18+ male figure includes men over 50 (of course) which, she says, constitute the MAJORITY of the male soap viewers. Thus, she is saying the proportion of older viewers is even higher than my right column would indicate. You could probably inflate those numbers by a substantial percentage. Wow...that is definitely an aging genre.

ETA2: I added the figure above to help visualize.

Tuesday, July 1, 2008

It's population aging, stupid!

Since the population is aging, why are we so worried if the TV audience is aging with it? That is my current headscratcher after reading a New York Times article linked by the incredible Roger Newcomb at his blog today.

It started with the recent report that median age of TV viewers had gone up to 50. This is a huge problem, because advertisers are usually only interested in viewers aged 18-49 (and they'd really prefer 18-34 or 18-39).

Now, the oft-repeated reasons for this preference for younger viewers have to do with brand preferences. Even though older viewers might have more disposable income to actually spend on advertised products, the story goes that they are "set" in their desired brands and products. Thus, to the extent that advertising shapes lifetime buyer behavior, it is the young and malleable eyeballs one wants to attract.

I know a thing or two about aging research, but I am not familiar with the basis for this assumption. I am going to assume that this is more than an old chestnut...that current research backs this up. There may also be other reasons for the preference for younger targets than I am aware of.

In the NYT article linked by Roger, the demographics of the daypart are reviewed. Among the key findings:

The NBC soap opera “Days of our Lives” has the youngest average audience (49) and the CBS game show “The Price is Right” has the oldest average audience (64).

The implication, of course, is that TV is becoming an old-person's medium. The younger viewers must be FLOCKING to other new media....internet and cell phones and videogames (oh my!). TV is not replacing its' audience. All is lost.

For me, who is often a Chicken Little, I think the story is a lot more complex and interesting and not necessarily cause for alarm. I think we can draw at least three conclusions:

1. The TV audience should be getting older, because the population is getting older! It may not just mean that younger viewers are abandoning television. Since the turn of the 20th century, and certainly since the post-WW2 era, we have had a phenomenon in the western world of population aging. Here are a couple of key quotes.

From wikipedia:

Population ageing is constituted by a shift in the distribution of a country's population towards greater ages. Thus an increase in the population's mean or median age, a decline in the fraction of the population composed of children, or a rise in the fraction of the population that is elderly are all aspects of population ageing.

Population ageing is a highly generalized process. It is most advanced in the most highly developed countries. Among the countries currently classified by the United Nations as more developed (with a population of 1.2 billion in 2005), the median age of the population rose from 29.0 in 1950 to 37.3 in 2000, and is forecast to rise to 45.5 by 2050.
Says the US Administration on Aging:

The older population--persons 65 years or older--numbered 37.9 million in 2007 (the latest year for which data is available). They represented 12.6% of the U.S. population, more than one in every eight Americans. By 2030, the number of older people is expected to increase by 88.6% over the 2007 figure to 71.5 million older persons (20% of the total population)

Indeed, the now 8-year old US 2000 decennial census said:

The median age in America reached its highest point ever at 35.3 years, up from 32.9 years in 1990, according to recently released data from Census 2000. By "median age," the Census Bureau means that half of the American people are now older and half younger than 35.3 years.

Now, admittedly, the average TV viewer is 15 years older than the average citizen. But maybe that's just because we've successfully trained our kids, in their first fifteen years of life, to play outside and ignore the boob tube? (Yeah, right!) :-). But the central fact remains, as the population ages, so too should the tv audience.

2. Much more interesting than the mean and the median is the standard deviation! What is the RANGE of ages watching different programs? This report doesn't tell us, but that seems essential for judging whether shows/dayparts/networks attract niche audiences or broad audiences. Smart advertisers, it seems to me, will want to target different messages for different audiences.

3. In knowledge is power, if you're willing to change. Let's now turn away from discounting the data. Let's accept that younger viewers are turning away from traditional television.

Younger viewers are not, however, abandoning entertainment. They are just getting it in different ways (computer, personal audio/video devices, video games, etc.). Because content for these devices can often be cleverly yoked to advertising (forced/no-fast-forward commercials, surrounding banners, ads with links), this is actually highly desirable. You can FORCE ad viewing. You can do so in a relatively uncluttered environment (not in a spate of 16 minutes of commercials every hour). You can target the ads, sometimes, to the viewers cookies or preset preferences. And you can achieve a 100% count of viewership (not like the oft-derided Neilsen ratings system).

Hallelujah. If I were an advertiser or a content programmer, I'd be investing in interactive media so heavily your head would spin. And I would be actively and aggressively trying to lure my traditional TV viewers to the new media, while doing everything I could (viral marketing, etc.) to lure new eyeballs.

With regard to the soaps, only CBS (ironically, the network with the oldest viewers) seems to be fully on this bandwagon. NBC puts Days on I-tunes, and ABC...well their strategy is still 90% TV. Big mistake...

===

Now, the power of the new media is beyond exciting. Take this simple comparison.

Last week, according to Toups at Soap Opera Network, the Number One soap averaged 4,851,000 viewers and the bottom-ranked soap averaged 2,288,000 viewers.

Now, in about the same period, the soap-star laden Imaginary Bitches got 1.5 Million views. So, for a fraction of the cost, promotion, etc., a good proportion of the TV audience could be had on the internet. Imagine what would happen with a little effort!

This is the future, and lovers of soaps need to encourage the networks to continue to pursue this frontier.