Ten Things to Consider about the Business of Duck Dynasty

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

TV shows make money. Who knew.

[Karee 4,191]

TV shows make money. Who knew.

Not all of them.

MSNBC Just Had Its Most Dreadful Ratings Period In 6 Years.

Jul. 3, 2013, 9:19 AM 54,797 141

AP

Despite a heavy period of news that included the Boston Marathon bombings and the Jodi Arias trial, MSNBC's second-quarter ratings plunged to their lowest level since 2007.

In primetime, MSNBC drew an average of 584,000 total viewers and 196,000 viewers in the key 25-54 age demographic. Those numbers were down 16% and 12%, respectively, from the second quarter of 2012. And they accounted for quarter lows not seen since the fourth and second quarters of 2007, respectively.

The network had seen signs of this coming in some dreadful monthly ratings, particularly in May. The same factors contributed to the network's ratings decline over the full quarter. "The Rachel Maddow Show" suffered its lowest-rated quarter in terms of total viewers since 2008. And June alone was the lowest rated month ever for Maddow in both total viewers and in the 25-54 group.

New host Chris Hayes continues to pull in sluggish ratings for "All In With Chris Hayes," which in its first full quarter on air provided MSNBC with the lowest-rated 8 p.m. hour in the 25-54 demographic since 2006.

It comes as a disappointment to a network that built much post-election hype while surging in the key 25-54 demographic immediately after President Barack Obama's re-election. BuzzFeed said MSNBC was poised to challenge Fox News, but that hasn't been the case.

Here's a look at the year-over-year plunge:

Business Insider (Data from Nielsen)

Fox News continues to remain at the top of the ratings among the cable networks, its 46th consecutive quarter there and 138th consecutive month. In total viewers, Fox News beat CNN and MSNBC combined in both total day and in primetime viewers, while surpassing both in the key 25-54 demographic.

The network also had the five highest rated cable news programs in the quarter: "The O’Reilly Factor" (2,859,000 total viewers); "Hannity" (2,107,000); "The Five" (2,096,000); "Special Report with Bret Baier" (2,071,000); and "The Fox Report with Shepard Smith" (1,814,000).

But Fox's total-day viewership gain is most owed to Megyn Kelly, who will soon be moving to primetime. "America Live," in the 1-3 p.m. ET hours, saw its second-best rated quarter ever.

Six months into new President Jeff Zucker's reign, CNN's second-quarter ratings were a bit of a mixed bag. The network did see surges in both total-day and primetime viewers compared to the second quarter of 2012, putting it in second place above MSNBC. Still, its June ratings dipped to the network's lowest point since last August, before Zucker came in.

Source: http://www.businessinsider.com/msnbc-ratings-fall-fox-news-cnn-rachel-maddow-chris-hayes-2013-7

Edited December 28, 2013 by Karee

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

Not all of them.

Probably FOX news propoganda, right?

Anyway, yes, it is the intent of the show to make money and when the show makes enough money the Network will tolerate the stars of that show because they want the money it makes. Sure, all shows come and go, even "I Dream of Jeannie" but why would a network pass on the money it is making now? To pander to Gays? Yeah, right.

I hope all Gay people that want to get married do so and have happy lives. Understand that not everyone is going to like the fact you're Gay/Lesbian...but who cares? They don't have to like it.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Not all of them.

Well MSNBC is a news channel, Duck Dynasty is an entertainment reality TV show on a network that does other entertainment reality TV shows. They all need to make money - but the target audience and the program makers considerations for attracting audiences.

Going back to the Martin Bashir story (I'd better bring it up before Gary does, since you know what he's like when he gets his teeth into a subject) what I noticed about that was how Bashir's style was very very different to how he was when he worked on UK TV. Obviously that's the sort of tone and style the network encourages to attract its audiences, which is not far removed from what Fox does, although they attract a partisan crowd from the other side of the fence.

What that tells me is that Fox' popularity has less to do with the quality of it's news programming than on the demographics of that audience - education level, political leaning, where they choose to get their news etc. Perhaps there isn't an audience for that style of journalism on the other side of the fence because those people choose to get their news in other ways.

If you're doing TV news in the US it's a given that it will be heavily biased.

Edited December 28, 2013 by Papa Lazarou

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Probably FOX news propoganda, right?

Anyway, yes, it is the intent of the show to make money and when the show makes enough money the Network will tolerate the stars of that show because they want the money it makes. Sure, all shows come and go, even "I Dream of Jeannie" but why would a network pass on the money it is making now? To pander to Gays? Yeah, right.

I hope all Gay people that want to get married do so and have happy lives. Understand that not everyone is going to like the fact you're Gay/Lesbian...but who cares? They don't have to like it.

Charlie Sheen might disagree with you on that.

[Karee 4,191]

Well MSNBC is a news channel,

I wouldn't consider MSNBC a news channel. By the same token I don't consider Fox a news channel either. I don't know if there is such a thing any longer. Maybe the BBC. I used to consider CNN a news channel, but they seem to have gone away from that type of programming recently.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I wouldn't consider MSNBC a news channel. By the same token I don't consider Fox a news channel either. I don't know if there is such a thing any longer. Maybe the BBC. I used to consider CNN a news channel, but they seem to have gone away from that type of programming recently.

Well the certainly market themselves as a news channel.

It's not news to me either - just a video version of a newspaper front page.

Whether either network makes money or has more viewers than it's competitors is only a victory for the people who work there. I don't get why some people see audience figures as an endorsement of their partisan world-view.

[Karee 4,191]

Well the certainly market themselves as a news channel.

It's not news to me either - just a video version of a newspaper front page.

Whether either network makes money or has more viewers than it's competitors is only a victory for the people who work there. I don't get why some people see audience figures as an endorsement of their partisan world-view.

Well as you said in your previous post, it is about making money. Unless it's PBS. What other metric would you use to measure the success of a network? It would seem that the amount of people that tune in to your network, which is directly related to how much money they make, would measure if they are successful or not.

If you have a television network that no one watches, how could that possibly be considered a success?

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

You misunderstand - I'm not disputing any of that.

It's my observation that a lot of the people who watch Fox news view audience ratings as an endorsement of their ideology - it's often quoted on VJ for just that purpose. Obviously, this is a very strange argument and very flawed.

Edited December 28, 2013 by Papa Lazarou

[himher 634]

But lots of $$$

Seems they have lots of supporters as well

[Karee 4,191]

You misunderstand - I'm not disputing any of that.

It's my observation that a lot of the people who watch Fox news view audience ratings as an endorsement of their ideology - it's often quoted on VJ for just that purpose. Obviously, this is a very strange argument and very flawed.

I personally don't think that ratings are an endorsement of anything. It means people like to watch it for whatever reason. How people can watch Honey Boo Boo or the Kardashian train wreck is beyond me. I'd say those two shows promote idiocy and obesity, but I don't think they should be suspended or cancelled over it. Just my opinion of course. Just like this guy on Duck Dynasty has his opinions about homosexuality and religion. So what? It's a big deal over nothing IMO.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I personally don't think that ratings are an endorsement of anything. It means people like to watch it for whatever reason. How people can watch Honey Boo Boo or the Kardashian train wreck is beyond me. I'd say those two shows promote idiocy and obesity, but I don't think they should be suspended or cancelled over it. Just my opinion of course. Just like this guy on Duck Dynasty has his opinions about homosexuality and religion. So what? It's a big deal over nothing IMO.

Yep, it is.

[Karee 4,191]

I wonder how many episodes of All in the Family or the Jeffersons would make it on today's television before all the sponsors pulled out?

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

All in the family, was that the show with Archie Bunker?

[GandD 5,966]

So you have donated all your wealth to the poor this year?

Me? No. But I'm not a follower of Christ as the savior. But, apparently neither is Phil. Btw, what I said was the words of Christ, not mine. Take it up with him.