More dreary ratings news

[CaseyAbell]

The drip-drip of lower numbers continues. Variety says GSN dropped 13% of its primetime viewers for the full year of 2007 vs. 2006. After all the dismal news I was expecting a bigger drop. A few winners like High Stakes Poker apparently kept the full-year decline from getting too horrendous.

In other game show news, Deal or No Deal helped spike CNBC's primetime viewership up 35% for 2007 over 2006. This property could have done wonders for GSN, but I doubt that they ever had a chance for it. Maybe they can scoop up rerun rights after the network run ends.

In general, not many cable nets saw double-digit declines, and lots of them recorded big gains. ESPN was the most notable double-digit decliner, but otherwise the cable world was generally flush with viewership increases. Cable continues to eat broadcast's lunch. Now if GSN could only get in on the meal...

[clemon79]

[quote name=\'CaseyAbell\' post=\'174023\' date=\'Jan 6 2008, 01:07 PM\']
After all the dismal news I was expecting a bigger drop.[/quote]
Expecting, or hoping for?

[CaseyAbell]

Definitely not hoping for. GSN is the only outlet around for lots of game shows I like to watch. Anyway, the 13% figure was actually a bit of relief. I remember a thread earlier this year that shouted about a 50% drop in ratings for third quarter 2007. That was actually a decline from a "low" 0.4 to a "high" 0.2. So things ain't great, but they're not that bad.

Just found the thread. The subtitle was "Lower, Jim!" The numbers are lower, but they could have been worse.

[tyshaun1]

[quote name=\'CaseyAbell\' post=\'174025\' date=\'Jan 6 2008, 04:18 PM\']
Definitely not hoping for. GSN is the only outlet around for lots of game shows I like to watch. Anyway, the 13% figure was actually a bit of relief. I remember a thread earlier this year that shouted about a 50% drop in ratings for third quarter 2007. That was actually a decline from a "low" 0.4 to a "high" 0.2. So things ain't great, but they're not that bad.

Just found the thread. The subtitle was "Lower, Jim!" The numbers are lower, but they could have been worse.
[/quote]
Casey, is there anything else you're good for on here besides GSN rating watches (and stating that the presidential elections are game shows)?

Tyshaun

[dzinkin]

[quote name=\'tyshaun1\' post=\'174032\' date=\'Jan 6 2008, 04:52 PM\']
Casey, is there anything else you're good for on here besides GSN rating watches (and stating that the presidential elections are game shows)?
[/quote]
I remember Casey deliberately misrepresenting very recent game shows and ten-time repeats of Friend or Foe as "old game shows and traditional originals," but they were still game shows, at least.

Is there a link to a post where he called the elections game shows?  Not saying it didn't happen, but that sounds Wurtzelian, not Abellian.

[CaseyAbell]

I'm good for listening to whines.

Funny thing, I was thinking about the list of shows I watch on GSN that I couldn't get anywhere else. It got to be pretty long: Match Game, old versions of Family Feud, Lingo, versions of Password, Blockbusters, Trivia Trap, I've Got a Secret, Beat the Clock, Chain Reaction, That's the Question, Newlywed Game, Let's Make a Deal, Greed, Regis Millionaire. Among the non-traditional shows I watch are High Stakes Poker and...well, I guess there aren't any other non-traditional shows right now. I'll watch the WPT when it comes over.

If this network goes away, a lot of my TV viewing goes with it. So, yeah, I'm happy that the viewership decline wasn't as severe as previous threads made it appear.

UPDATE: Um, Friend or Foe? The only "deliberate misrepresentation" anybody could make about that piece of crap is that it was worth watching. And I've never been guilty of that crime. God knows, I stand accused of every offense in the book, and I'm guilty of most. But I think Kennedy should sue for career damage from that hunk of junk.

And come to think about it, presidential debates may not be game shows, but the pundits sure talk about them as if they were. The contestants, er, candidates should be given buzzers to ring in when they think they know the answer.

[dzinkin]

[quote name=\'CaseyAbell\' post=\'174035\' date=\'Jan 6 2008, 05:06 PM\']
UPDATE: Um, Friend or Foe? The only "deliberate misrepresentation" anybody could make about that piece of crap is that it was worth watching.
[/quote]
Emphasis mine:

[quote name=\'CaseyAbell\' post=\'61861\' date=\'Oct 25 2004, 08:08 AM\']
Star Search, Hollywood Showdown, Jeopardy, Match Game, All New 3's a Crap, Newlywed Game, Love Connection, Friend or Foe, Whammy, Family Feud, Russian Roulette, Lingo, Win Ben Stein's Money, Weakest Link, Who Wants to be a Millionaire, Street Smarts, Name's the Same, What's My Line.

Except for Star Search, it looks like...old game show reruns and traditional originals.
[/quote]

[CaseyAbell]

Friend or Foe? was a traditional original. It was also garbage, and I never said anything else. So what am I misrepresenting?

[Jimmy Owen]

Casey is provocative, ya gotta give him that.  Noticed NFL Network is down as well, but I don't think they're gonna change their focus from football.

[CaseyAbell]

Silly provocative me. Yeah, I noticed that NFL Network decline, too. Must be something screwy, not an apples-to-apples comparison. I know the network had all sorts of disputes with carriers, so maybe they got dropped from some systems and that affected their numbers. They're not on my local system any more.

ESPN's drop is harder to figure. Maybe they finally cannibalized the brand too much, with ESPN2, ESPN Classic, ESPNU, ESPNNews, ESPN Honey Roasted, ESPN and the Bobbsey Twins...

[clemon79]

[quote name=\'CaseyAbell\' post=\'174039\' date=\'Jan 6 2008, 02:27 PM\']
ESPN's drop is harder to figure. Maybe they finally cannibalized the brand too much, with ESPN2, ESPN Classic, ESPNU, ESPNNews, ESPN Honey Roasted, ESPN and the Bobbsey Twins...
[/quote]
I know it's not the reason, but certainly when they dropped the NHL it pretty much became Dead To Me. I *very rarely* watch ESPN anymore.

[CaseyAbell]

They also lost the baseball playoffs (TBS made a killing with them) and I think their NBA ratings are down. But there are so many ESPN networks now that the mothership was probably bound to lose a number or three eventually.

[dzinkin]

[quote name=\'CaseyAbell\' post=\'174037\' date=\'Jan 6 2008, 05:20 PM\']
Friend or Foe? was a traditional original. Itr was also garbage, and I never said anything else. So what am I misrepresenting?
[/quote]
As Matt pointed out later in the thread:

[quote name=\'Matt Ottinger\' post=\'61869\' date=\'Oct 25 2004, 10:57 AM\']
Not a single item on that list is an original, except in the broadest definition that everything was original at one time.  Some of them are reruns of originals that were part of GSN before the change we're talking about.  GSN is currently not creating "traditional" originals, and that was one of my points.
[/quote]
But you knew that when you made your post, and you know it now.  Nothing's changed.

[quote name=\'Jimmy Owen\' post=\'174038\' date=\'Jan 6 2008, 05:23 PM\']
Casey is provocative, ya gotta give him that.
[/quote]
Being provocative per se, I have no problem with.  Deliberate distortion in the service of provocation is something else.  But I don't think we need to relive that long, documented history.

[CaseyAbell]

Oh man, we're getting into semantics now. Friend or Foe? was an original production of GSN's. Of course, it got rerun. That didn't make any less of an original. Is Lingo not a GSN original any more because it's in reruns now? If so, you better tell everybody on the GSN Originals board. They're still talking about Lingo as a, you guessed it, GSN original. Here, for instance.

Come on. I wasn't misrepresenting anything.

[dzinkin]

[quote name=\'CaseyAbell\' post=\'174044\' date=\'Jan 6 2008, 05:42 PM\']
Oh man, we're getting into semantics now. Friend or Foe? was an original production of GSN's. Of course, it got rerun. That didn't make any less of an original. Is Lingo not a GSN original any more becuase it's in reruns now?

Come on. I wasn't misrepresenting anything.
[/quote]
Yeah, you were.  You knew it then and you know it now.  And it wasn't the first time you'd done it, nor was it the last.

But back to my question, which was an attempt to defend you against a charge which, unlike the countless others that were proven, I'm pretty sure is baseless: the idea that you'd called the elections game shows.  I'm less interested in recounting your past proven distortions than in figuring out where this alleged one came from.