Based on what I've read here, the only meaningful comparison that can be made is Leno vs. Conan in 18-49 at 11:35 p.m. (although if I were doing the numbers crunching, I would not dismiss any information provided by total viewers, not just 18-49). Everything else seems to be a stretch to prove a point, and I don't believe the numbers support the conclusion that the main reason Conan's 11:35 ratings were down was because Jay's 10 p.m. ratings were down. It's really not a strong argument. When a hugely major switch is made (Conan for Leno) one cannot expect there to be no impact on the ratings. The ratings would either go up or down. Sure, you can make the (valid) argument that NBC should have given Conan more time to build an audience, but the bottom line is that the switch in hosts is a far more likely explanation for the ratings decline at 11:35 than the ratings decline in the 10 p.m. hour. BTW, Zucker is still an asshole.
________________________________ From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of PGage Sent: Saturday, January 30, 2010 2:25 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [TV orNotTV] Oprah/Jay Blow-by-Blow Melissa... I am not sure if you are missing it, but you are not placing the excerpt you give below in the context of Leno's remarks in his Oprah interview, where he argued that Conan was a ratings failure by comparing Leno's rating decline from 11:35 to 10:00 with Conan's ratings decline at 11:35 from Leno's 11:35 number. The point Aaron is making is that, if you look at the Demo, Conan was down the same percentage over Leno's number last year as Leno was against NBC's average performance at 10:00 last year (i.e they were both down 30%). Put it yet another way, Leno got 30% more younger adults than Conan did, and he also had a primetime lead in that got 30% more younger adults watching than Conan did. This is not experimental evidence that would support a technical sense of "proof" of course, but it is more supportive of the conclusion that Conan's rating decline was significantly due to a weaker primetime lead in than Leno had than it is of Leno's conclusion that Conan was a ratings failure and Leno is not. If you want to make the point that it is difficult if not impossible to make well supported claims on the basis of the available evidence, I would agree with it. But NBC and Leno have been waging a concerted PR campaign designed to implant the perception that Conan was let go because he was a ratings failure. On Sat, Jan 30, 2010 at 10:44 AM, Pollak, Melissa F. <[email protected]> wrote: I must be missing something. The correct comparison is 18-49 for Leno at 11:35 and Conan at 11:35. I don't know what those numbers are, but no other comparison (e.g., 11:35 p.m. vs. 10 p.m.) is meaningful (just as comparing Jay's numbers for 11:35 and 10:00 p.m.) is "pointless." In other words, it may be true -- but one cannot conclude -- from the numbers below -- that "Conan was being hurt by his low-rated, non-traditional lead in." As I said, I must be missing something. ________________________________ From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of PGage Sent: Friday, January 29, 2010 7:22 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [TV orNotTV] Oprah/Jay Blow-by-Blow Actually, what Leno's boss, NBCU entertainment chief Jeff Gaspin, told us on Jan. 10 at TV critics' tour was that the 10 p.m. hour (9 Central) had declined 30 percent year-to-year. The 14 percent figure, obviously, is Leno comparing his old 11:35 numbers to his 10 o'clock numbers, which is pointless, and comparing total audience figures instead of the demo, which is doubly pointless. He also compares his old 11:35 numbers to Conan's 11:35 numbers, which would be acceptable except that, again, he is measuring the total audience figures for "The Tonight Show," which went from 5 million under Leno to 2.5 million under O'Brien. NBC has not used total audience figures in any meaningful way since the 1990s, when it began pushing aggressively for advertisers to rely on the 18-to-49 demographic. So this is a bogus comparison in several ways. The correct way to measure is 18-49, comparable time period, year to year. And as I wrote <http://www.kansascity.com/entertainment/story/1691791.html> last week: Conan's "Tonight Show" rating among adults ages 18-49, a key group for advertisers, has declined by the same amount, 30 percent, as NBC's rating at 9 p.m. (10 Eastern), when "The Jay Leno Show" airs. In other words, Conan was being hurt by his low-rated, non-traditional lead-in ... the star of which was then asked to take Conan's place at 11:35. And people wonder why he's pissed. -- TV or Not TV .... The Smartest (TV) People! You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "TV or Not TV" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/tvornottv?hl=en -- TV or Not TV .... The Smartest (TV) People! You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "TV or Not TV" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/tvornottv?hl=en -- TV or Not TV .... The Smartest (TV) People! You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "TV or Not TV" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/tvornottv?hl=en -- TV or Not TV .... The Smartest (TV) People! You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "TV or Not TV" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/tvornottv?hl=en
