Author Topic: Finally found some overall ratings for GSN (Read 8240 times)

CaseyAbell · « **on:** March 10, 2005, 02:52:21 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 and here. It's really bare-bones information, but it does give you a quick idea of who's who in the cable kingdom.

Dbacksfan12 · « **Reply #1 on:** March 10, 2005, 03:26:29 PM »

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.

Chelsea Thrasher · « **Reply #2 on:** March 10, 2005, 03:37:56 PM »

[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?

Matt Ottinger · « **Reply #3 on:** March 10, 2005, 05:49:46 PM »

[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.

The Pyramids · « **Reply #4 on:** March 10, 2005, 06:41:34 PM »

[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 and here. 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.

CaseyAbell · « **Reply #5 on:** March 10, 2005, 07:52:54 PM »

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.

Jimmy Owen · « **Reply #6 on:** March 11, 2005, 11:26:01 AM »

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.

CaseyAbell · « **Reply #7 on:** March 11, 2005, 11:56:18 AM »

GSN has managed to expand its carriage. The demo skews haven't helped but they haven't killed. If you believe the Usenet archives, 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.

Jimmy Owen · « **Reply #8 on:** March 11, 2005, 12:03:28 PM »

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.

CaseyAbell · « **Reply #9 on:** March 11, 2005, 12:27:33 PM »

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.

Jimmy Owen · « **Reply #10 on:** March 11, 2005, 12:45:32 PM »

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.

CaseyAbell · « **Reply #11 on:** March 11, 2005, 12:54:26 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.

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.

Matt Ottinger · « **Reply #12 on:** March 11, 2005, 02:21:14 PM »

[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"

BrandonFG · « **Reply #13 on:** March 11, 2005, 02:50:54 PM »

[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.

CaseyAbell · « **Reply #14 on:** March 11, 2005, 03:14:12 PM »

Quote

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.