-
CableWorld is once again publishing some very basic prime time ratings info for GSN. In case you're interested, the network did an average 0.5 prime time rating in both December, 2004 and January, 2005. Estimated average households were also about the same for both months: 259K in December and 268K in January. I believe these are pretty typical numbers for GSN over the past year or so, based on limited info available from various free web sources.
Looks like the next issue will publish the February numbers. Variety said GSN's average prime time viewers were down 33% in February compared to a year ago, but didn't give any actual ratings or household estimates.
The CableWorld numbers are here (http://\"http://www.cableworld.com/cgi/cw/show_mag.cgi?pub=cw&mon=012405&file=decemberratings.htm\") and here (http://\"http://www.cableworld.com/cgi/cw/show_mag.cgi?pub=cw&mon=022105&file=januaryratings.htm\"). It's really bare-bones information, but it does give you a quick idea of who's who in the cable kingdom.
-
Interesting...on my cable system, TVGC, Soap, WE, CMT, Oxygen and CNBC are all on basic cable, while GSN is on 2nd-tier digital.
Of course, this same cable system put RFD-TV [HOG AUCTIONS. WHOO!] on basic as well.
-
[quote name=\'Modor\' date=\'Mar 10 2005, 02:26 PM\']Of course, this same cable system put RFD-TV [HOG AUCTIONS. WHOO!] on basic as well.
[snapback]77767[/snapback]
[/quote]
Mediacom, eh?
-
[quote name=\'Modor\' date=\'Mar 10 2005, 04:26 PM\']Of course, this same cable system put RFD-TV [HOG AUCTIONS. WHOO!] on basic as well.[/quote]
Hog auctions? Dude, you have GOT to check out the reruns of the old Porter Waggoner Show, especially the ones with a teenaged Dolly Parton.
-
[quote name=\'CaseyAbell\' date=\'Mar 10 2005, 02:52 PM\']CableWorld is once again publishing some very basic prime time ratings info for GSN. In case you're interested, the network did an average 0.5 prime time rating in both December, 2004 and January, 2005. Estimated average households were also about the same for both months: 259K in December and 268K in January. I believe these are pretty typical numbers for GSN over the past year or so, based on limited info available from various free web sources.
Looks like the next issue will publish the February numbers. Variety said GSN's average prime time viewers were down 33% in February compared to a year ago, but didn't give any actual ratings or household estimates.
The CableWorld numbers are here (http://\"http://www.cableworld.com/cgi/cw/show_mag.cgi?pub=cw&mon=012405&file=decemberratings.htm\") and here (http://\"http://www.cableworld.com/cgi/cw/show_mag.cgi?pub=cw&mon=022105&file=januaryratings.htm\"). It's really bare-bones information, but it does give you a quick idea of who's who in the cable kingdom.
[snapback]77764[/snapback]
[/quote]
Thanks for that. It would be neat if the network were perched among higher profile nets like FX, Comedy Central, Discovery etc.
-
GSN will have to expand its household availability a lot - from the mid-50s to 80 or 90 million - before it can really move up the ladder. Trouble is, the demos remain less than desirable for most advertisers and system operators. The network has still managed to boost its availability from the mid-30s in 2001.
-
Let me preface this by saying that I like GSN as it is, with a mixture of old and new, but, if they want to change the demo, they will have to change the name of the network. Does anyone still think of SPIKE as The Nashville Network? That was a change that needed to be made to save the channel position. Yet, people still think of GSN as Game Show Network. There is a certain pre-judging of the channel without actually seeing it with that name. To reduce the demos they need to change the focus to total casino shows and change the name to the Las Vegas Network or be content with us old folks who like traditional game shows for grown-ups.
-
GSN has managed to expand its carriage. The demo skews haven't helped but they haven't killed. If you believe the Usenet archives (http://\"http://groups-beta.google.com/group/alt.tv.game-shows/browse_thread/thread/cef2bfa358e1a787/b76050ed7c4fa4c7?q=GSN+ratings#b76050ed7c4fa4c7\"), GSN was averaging about 100K households in prime time in early 2001, with a household availability of 35 million. (The network was also bleeding a Red Sea of losses.)
By the way, I agree with our own Chris Lambert in that Usenet thread. I like Newlywed Game.
Despite some setbacks along the way, particularly in 2003, the network has boosted its household availability and delivery. Not coincidentally, GSN's financial performance has also improved.
The network hardly seems to be going away from what almost anybody would consider game shows. Quite the contrary, if recent schedule changes in daytime and Saturday prime time are any indication.
One more schedule note: the Prof says Lingo will replace some of the late runs of WBSM. Interesting if true, and Mr. Steve has been pretty accurate about GSN schedule changes lately. Maybe he's not just fantasizing about that fourth season of Lingo. I also agree that GSN should pick up You Bet Your Life. Don't know about 11:00 PM, but somewhere in early morning, even B&WO, would be appropriate.
As for the arguments over classifying the poker, blackjack - and for that matter, acey-deucy - shows...nah, I ain't goin' there again.
-
Seldom does anyone on this forum talk about the multitute of shows set in a casino unless they happen to be on GSN. The poker shows on Travel Channel, Bravo, ESPN2, etc. are not game shows but the ones on GSN are? That does not compute.
As far as equating "Card Sharks" with the casino shows, just because TPIR has a hole-in-one game doesn't make The Golf Channel a 24-hr game show network.
-
The classification wars get funny after a while. Zap2it classifies GSN's second poker series as a game show, but not the first. They call celeb blackjack a game show, but not civvie blackjack. I don't know if this is just indifference (most likely) or if somebody actually used some distinguishing characteristics to make the Great Divide.
These arguments trail off into mysticism - or more accurately, personal preference. When I edited the wikipedia article on game shows, I just said that an "interesting controversy" had erupted. If there's anything that wikipedia takes seriously, it's the "neutral point of view" mantra.
-
Never have heard any controversy about it. The shows are pretty much clearly defined. The people on the poker shows are "professional gamblers" and hop from competition to competition, much as a NASCAR driver or PGA golfer, which would put it on a sporting event level. You won't see Joe and Mary Six Pack from Hoboken on these shows.
-
Oh, I have to disagree about that. Chris Moneymaker was an unknown accountant from South Carolina before he lived up to his name. Often on poker shows I'll see people who would pretty much qualify as civvies. They've played some computer or casual poker, and maybe even some live tournaments. But they've never gotten a sniff at the big money, and they sure don't make a living from the game.
I remember a WPT episode where a dentist showed up at the final table. Mike Sexton made so many lame gags about it, I wanted to drill him before the show was over.
Anyway, as I said, it's personal preference. I've learned the hard way that most people on this board want to exclude the poker and blackjack shows from game shows. I disagree, but there's no way to change personal opinion. The argument has become pretty much irrelevant to GSN, anyway. After the April 4 schedule changes, the network will either be overwhelmingly game shows (excluding) or more overwhelmingly game shows (including).
P.S. Google thinks Chris is from Tennessee, not South Carolina.
-
[quote name=\'CaseyAbell\' date=\'Mar 11 2005, 01:54 PM\']Oh, I have to disagree about that. Chris Moneymaker was an unknown accountant from South Carolina before he lived up to his name. Often on poker shows I'll see people who would pretty much qualify as civvies. They've played some computer or casual poker, and maybe even some live tournaments. But they've never gotten a sniff at the big money, and they sure don't make a living from the game.[/quote]
Once again, you're both right more than you're both wrong. Certainly there are poker shows that feature the same familiar "tour" players, which make those competitions similar to the PGA or NASCAR. On the other hand, some televised tournaments offer anyone the opportunity to play as long as they bring their substantial entry fee to the table.
Casey has proven several times that he is incapable of recognizing the difference between casino shows and traditional game shows, so it's really pointless to go there again. But there's clearly no reason why these shows can't be a part of a "network for games". I like Jimmy's idea that a name change could do some good, but keep in mind that they think they've already made their big name change simply by dropping references to "Game Show Network". The problem is that referring to themselves by a casino name (i.e. "Las Vegas Network") also limits the scope of what the channel is all about. What they need is something like "Spike", something fairly vague but catchy. Personally, I'd take a page from their past and rechristen the entire network "Win TV"
-
[quote name=\'Matt Ottinger\' date=\'Mar 11 2005, 02:21 PM\']I like Jimmy's idea that a name change could do some good, but keep in mind that they think they've already made their big name change simply by dropping references to "Game Show Network". The problem is that referring to themselves by a casino name (i.e. "Las Vegas Network") also limits the scope of what the channel is all about. What they need is something like "Spike", something fairly vague but catchy. Personally, I'd take a page from their past and rechristen the entire network "Win TV"
[snapback]77869[/snapback]
[/quote]
Is there already a GameTV, or something with just "Game" in its title. If not, perhaps, GSN could consider that. That way, you could please the die-hards, and not pull an MTV, and make the title irrelevant to programming.
-
Casey has proven several times that he is incapable of recognizing the difference between casino shows and traditional game shows, so it's really pointless to go there again.
Fair enough. I can't see some distinctions that other people think are clear, just as I make some distinctions that other people don't see. It's personal opinion, so what are you going to do?
To me the GSN name game (sorry) looks like another of those supposed distinctions that don't make any real difference. The Spike change was a complete overhaul of the network. GSN doesn't look to have anything like that in mind, so I think any name change would be purely cosmetic and inconsequential...except as a very mild irritant to some viewers who wouldn't find the network with its accustomed moniker in the program listings.
Well, maybe I should say that any reasonable new name wouldn't make much difference. "The Diseased Slut Network" would probably complicate marketing efforts.
-
My thought is if a network is trying to attract people who do not like game shows, why would it continue to align itself with a name associated with game shows? GSN is trying to get an audience that thinks they are too cool to watch game shows. A new name would attract those folks and game show fans would go along with the change because we will take whatever crumbs we can get. Cable Health Network did it with great success that it enjoys today as the CableWorld rankings will attest.
-
A new name might get a little blip from viewers who wouldn't know what the hey this new network was. But it would quickly become clear to them that whatever the network is called, it's pretty much all game shows all the time. At that point, if they're "too cool for game shows," they would leave quick.
If they like game shows they might hang around. But if they like game shows they've probably watched some GSN already. After all, it's not like there are lots of competing networks devoted to grown-up game shows. It's not like there's one competing network devoted to grown-up game shows.
That's the problem - and opportunity - for GSN. They've got the niche all to themselves. So whatever they name the niche, it's not going to make that much difference. If the network was trying to distinguish itself from lots of competitors offering much the same material, a catchier name or slogan might be more significant.
-
[quote name=\'CaseyAbell\' date=\'Mar 11 2005, 04:56 PM\']A new name might get a little blip from viewers who wouldn't know what the hey this new network was. But it would quickly become clear to them that whatever the network is called, it's pretty much all game shows all the time. At that point, if they're "too cool for game shows," they would leave quick.[/quote]
You're arging semantics because you can't be convinced that there's a difference between Celebrity Blackjack and reruns of Family Feud. What Jimmy's saying is that the average channel-flipper needs to learn that GSN is MORE than reruns of Family Feud. (Of course that's moot for the time being since they have precious little original programming of any sort.)
The TNN to Spike analogy is better than you think. The first major change in philosophy for that channel wasn't the change from TNN to Spike, it was the change from The Nashville Network to The National Network. However, they kept the TNN identifier and there were probably a lot of folks who didn't know what they had done because they already had an opinion of what TNN was. By comparison, the change from The National Network to Spike wasn't nearly as big a deal, but they packaged the change in such a way that it LOOKED like a big deal. That may be what GSN needs to do.
GSN would like people to know that they're running hipper shows and that the channel is more than reruns from the seventies. (Now it's reruns from the nineties -- whoo hoo!) Still, for a lot of people, those old reruns are the first thing in their heads when they think of GSN. A new identifier, especially when the next wave of original programming hits (whatever that wave may be), might be just the thing to catch people's attention. Also, the average viewer isn't going to care about our arguments over whether something is or is not a "traditional game show". They'll watch a show that appeals to them. And they won't watch a show about horse racing.
In other words, yes, a change would be cosmetic, but it still might not be inconsequential.
-
Matt, it's useless. I've explained it (even defined it) to him several times, but he believes what he wants to, so be it.
I think the worst thing GSN did (if they were trying to remarket themselves as a brand new network) is keep the original letters. I mean, what are people gonna mistake "GSN" for? Gizzle fo Shizzle Network? (Well, they DID have Snoop in CB1, but nevertheless.....)
Hardcore fans would've quickly identified the network, and a fresh new name (i.e. PlayTV) may have brought in new folks. But overall, GSN ratings are not too bad when you consider that it's in the digital tier of most cable systems.
Tyshaun
-
[quote name=\'CaseyAbell\' date=\'Mar 11 2005, 03:14 PM\']To me the GSN name game (sorry) looks like another of those supposed distinctions that don't make any real difference. The Spike change was a complete overhaul of the network. GSN doesn't look to have anything like that in mind,
[/quote]
I think they did have a gradual overhaul of the network in mind. The only reason it hasn't gotten that far is because most of the more radical things they've tried have failed badly. There's a reason why GSN doesn't have a video-games block any longer, and it isn't because the honchos decided that they really wanted to be about traditional studio game shows after all.
-
[quote name=\'CaseyAbell\' date=\'Mar 11 2005, 03:14 PM\']
Casey has proven several times that he is incapable of recognizing the difference between casino shows and traditional game shows, so it's really pointless to go there again.
Fair enough. I can't see some distinctions that other people think are clear, just as I make some distinctions that other people don't see. It's personal opinion, so what are you going to do?
[snapback]77872[/snapback]
[/quote]
What are we going to do? Answer: Give you a Scarecrow Award as the theme 'If I Only Had a Brain' blares in the background. Now go back to the Lollipop Guild, since you're obviously incapable of getting back to Kansas or anywhere else in reality.
-
[/quote]
I think they did have a gradual overhaul of the network in mind. The only reason it hasn't gotten that far is because most of the more radical things they've tried have failed badly. There's a reason why GSN doesn't have a video-games block any longer, and it isn't because the honchos decided that they really wanted to be about traditional studio game shows after all.
[snapback]77929[/snapback]
[/quote]
You hit the nail right on the head. How soon people forget how the reality shows were starting to take away most afternoon and evening time slots for classics. Nipping away at each time slot.... 7pm gone, 6pm gone, later 5pm gone, even later 4pm gone. Bye bye Pyramid, make room for Star Search...
And people wonder why we are so happy when one of the reality shows fails. Like when American Dream Derby was determined to be a failure.... it's because we love game shows, and the reality shows were a huge threat to ever seeing many game shows on GSN again in the future. Luckily game show fans win, and reality loses.
Anyone think Lingo would even be getting a consideration if there were a Vegas Weddings 2, Fake A Date 2, paying for Mole, Average Joe, (insert any other bad reality show) .....?? Of course not.
-
[quote name=\'Jimmy Owen\' date=\'Mar 11 2005, 02:47 PM\']Cable Health Network did it with great success that it enjoys today as the CableWorld rankings will attest.
[snapback]77874[/snapback]
[/quote]
Don't know how that can be. CHN's last year was 1983.
-
Sorry to revive such an old thread, but Cableworld has put out the February ratings (http://\"http://www.cableworld.com/cgi/cw/show_mag.cgi?pub=cw&mon=032105&file=februaryratings.htm\"). GSN ran an average 0.4 rating and 228K households in prime time. Not great by GSN historical standards, but not horrendous, either. The numbers were well below February, 2004 levels, if Variety is to be believed.
Did the relatively poor ratings and the continued red ink (see my post on the Liberty 10-K) influence GSN's decision to go heavy on older shows? Oh, probably. If the network was solidly profitable and churning out big household numbers, I doubt we'd be seeing the programming change.
As things are, the network looks to have resigned itself to unfavorable demos in an effort to get cheaper and grow the household ratings. The poker and blackjack shows still have a solid perch in prime time. But most everything else that might be considered the tiniest bit non-traditional is getting dumped, or at least exiled to sleepy-time slots.
-
I still say that the reasoning for the return to the oldies during the day is simply this: The ratings were same no matter what was on. They paid Fremantle good money to keep the *entire* (well, close to entire) G-T library. If they paid the money, they might as well use it, if the ratings will be the same no matter what and they're not going to shoo the Rascals and Hoveround ads over to American Life. Better to put the emphasis on prime time programming--if they knew what the hell they wanted other than more casino shows.
-
[quote name=\'CaseyAbell\' date=\'Mar 21 2005, 01:21 PM\']As things are, the network looks to have resigned itself to unfavorable demos in an effort to get cheaper and grow the household ratings. The poker and blackjack shows still have a solid perch in prime time. But most everything else that might be considered the tiniest bit non-traditional is getting dumped, or at least exiled to sleepy-time slots.
[snapback]78898[/snapback]
[/quote]
GSN, more than likely, will draw similar demos during the daytime as it is now. It's not like they've been running "Average Joe" in the daytime, they've been mainly shows they already own (Hollywood Showdown, AN3AC) to shore up some ad dollars. More importantly, it could be a sign that the returning shows will be......wait for it........interactive.
Of course, Casey makes it sound like GSN is reprogramming the entire network and is changing its name back to Game Show Network.
Tyshaun
-
The network is reprogramming daytime pretty thoroughly, and has reshaped prime time with mostly traditional material. I doubt they'll change the name back, but what's in a name?
I agree with uncamark that the network has decided to use what they have instead of spending big money on development or new licenses. Ratings seem to be a secondary consideration now compared to expense savings.
If the ratings collapse completely, maybe expense savings will start to seem penny-wise and pound-foolish. But if the ratings collapse completely, the network might have a tough time simply surviving.
A "ratings collapse" is a pretty large exaggeration, anyway. The last total day average published on the free web for GSN was 0.2 for October, 2004. They don't have far to collapse under any circumstances.
-
I don't see how bringing in shows that haven't been seen for years to replace shows that have 65 episodes cycling for years can lower ratings anyway.
They haven't gotten rid of the good preformers (FF, MG, Lingo, Millionaire) They're just replacing bad preformers. One huge question mark is why RR was taken off the daily schedule. Obviously they have the airing rights still (it is coming back)... it really doesn't make sense.
-
[quote name=\'xibit777\' date=\'Mar 24 2005, 11:56 AM\']They haven't gotten rid of the good preformers (FF, MG, Lingo, Millionaire) They're just replacing bad preformers. One huge question mark is why RR was taken off the daily schedule. Obviously they have the airing rights still (it is coming back)... it really doesn't make sense.
[snapback]79269[/snapback]
[/quote]
When/where did you hear that RR is coming back? I always assumed that they lost the rights to the show, since they seemed to take it off the schedule so suddenly, and from what I heard it was still getting good ratings.
EDIT: I now see that it's on the Perf's site...it's going to be on 6-7 pm Sunday nights. I would say that GSN wanted to give the show a rest, but it doesn't seem like Cronin and the gang can grasp that concept.