Season-to-Date Nielsens 2000-2006

For the first full week of March, this is how the nets have fared in
season-to-date numbers between 2000 and 2006.

ABC CBS NBC FOX UPN WB TOTAL
2000 9.2 8.9 8.8 6.1 2.7 2.7 38.4
2001 8.6 8.6 8.2 6.4 2.5 2.6 36.9
2002 6.5 8.2 9.2 6.1 2.8 2.5 35.3
2003 6.6 8.5 7.8 6.1 2.3 2.7 34.0
2004 6.2 8.8 7.2 6.2 2.4 2.5 33.3
2005 6.7 8.3 6.7 6.1 2.3 2.3 32.4
2006 7.3 8.2 6.5 5.9 2.1 2.2 32.2

Three observations:

NBC's Olympics did absolutely nothing for the network. All it got was
a measly .4 bump in its season-to-date numbers from its pre-Olympics
6.1 average. In 2002, the network did much better, pumping up its 8.0
pre-Olympic average to 9.2 two weeks later. Nevertheless, without the
Olympics, NBC might've registered only a 6.0 average for this season so
far, instead of 6.5, so in that sense it did a little something, but
still nothing to be proud as a peacock over, considering how much money
they spent on such a little or negligible return.

Obveeus...

So, you say they got nothing for the money they spent. You must have real
data to make that claim, right? So, how much did they spend for the
Olympics? How much would they have spent for all their regular programming
across several channels for that same period of time if they weren't showing
the Olympics? In other words, how much *MORE* did they spend showing
Olympics vs. regular programming?

It's clear by the steady annual declines for both UPN and The WB that
the only way for them to go from here is out of the picture entirely -
or at least morph into quasi-new networks, which is the route that has
been adopted.

Interestingly, the decline in the season average totals for all six
nets seems to have leveled off now, being only .2 off from last year,
whereas in each previous year it was anywhere from about a 1 to 1.5
drop. Could the networks finally be doing something right to stave off
viewer erosion? Beats me as to what it is.

Patrick Joseph McNamara...

I would say it's taking chances on shows such as Lost and Desperate
Housewives, though it would take a show-by-show analysis to say exactly
which ones. Note that ABC went up a little, while the others were dropping.
It also seems as if the networks are substituting new (different) programs
for reruns of some of the shows.

Of course they can only drop so much. It could be that the drop is part of
an overall trend that's been happening over time and the showdown is just
the end of it. Do these numbers factor in things such as VCR and Tivo usage?
It may not be that fewer are watching TV as much as fewer are watching LIVE
TV.

There may also be a shift of viewing habits. People don't just come home and
watch TV anymore, they tend to be more selective in their viewing. They
might turn on the computer first, and watch TV only if there's something on
worthwhile. I would also suspect that the drop could be influenced by the
nature of work; fewer people working the traditional 9-5 schedules and more
working shifts. With things such as Sunday shopping, there are definitely
fewer watching Sundays (particularly afternoons). Shift work would also
force people to watch recordings rather than live.

Steven L....

Judging by your own numbers, the "leveling off" for the six networks
combined is due entirely to ABC's remarkable comeback, from 6.7 in 2005
to 7.3 in 2006, a gain of 0.6 (and a gain of 1.1 in the last 2 years).
If it weren't for that, the total decline for all six networks in the
last year would still be a decline of 0.8, comparable to the total
decline of 0.7 from 2003 to 2004. And if in 2006, ABC were still stuck
in its 2004 slump of 6.2, then the total decline for all six networks
over the last two years would be 2.2, quite a large decline.

So the only network that has "done something right" is ABC--with
"Dancing with the Stars," "Lost," "Desperate Housewives," and "Grey's
Anatomy"--four new Top 15 shows in just the space of a year or two. But
I doubt ABC can pull that trick again next year. Let's see if NBC can.