GSN Acquires "Dancing with the Stars"

[ChrisLambert!]

I think it is safe to assume that GSN wanted to, at the very least, get better numbers for DWtS than they get for anything currently on their schedule - especially after buying the EW ad.

The question is whether this was a worthy gambit in the first place considering (a) the franchise is waning in popularity in first-run, and (b) BBC America already tried early-series reruns and had decided it wasn't worth their while to keep airing them even though they still have the rights.

[Matt Ottinger]

I think it is safe to assume that GSN wanted to, at the very least, get better numbers for DWtS than they get for anything currently on their schedule - especially after buying the EW ad.

The question is whether this was a worthy gambit in the first place considering (a) the franchise is waning in popularity in first-run, and (b) BBC America already tried early-series reruns and had decided it wasn't worth their while to keep airing them even though they still have the rights.

In their defense (hey, somebody has to), it's possible they're bringing a different (i.e. "younger and female") audience to the channel with DWTS.  And while full page magazine ads and the like are probably expensive, they also got a lot of intangible free advertising from news stories about the acquisition.  It's always good to have your name out there, and high-profile pickups are just about the only thing that gets the media interested in GSN stories anymore.  Still, it's hard to imagine anybody at GSN is happy with the early returns.

[chad1m]

In its second week, its best showing was 62nd place, with 264,000 viewers.

[Matt Ottinger]

In its second week, its best showing was 62nd place, with 264,000 viewers.

To be clear for people who perhaps aren't following this as closely, that's 62nd place when compared to other programs on the same network, including a decades old 10am rerun of Card Sharks which did not have massive, national, full-page advertising support behind it.

I'd love to know what they paid for the acquisition, and how much original programming could have been created for that sum.  They're still feasting (well, snacking anyway) off of Woolery Lingo after how many years now?

[TLEberle]

I'd love to know what they paid for the acquisition, and how much original programming could have been created for that sum.  They're still feasting (well, snacking anyway) off of Woolery Lingo after how many years now?

At least eight.

EDIT: First episodes of the GSN version began in 2002. So up to ten years old, depending on which episodes are shown.

[Jimmy Owen]

Normally, I would say these are only the prelims on DWTS.  People don't really start watching until the final four.  But, yeah, that wouldn't really matter in this case because anybody who wanted to watch it watched it in first-run.  No rerun value for DWTS.

[catnap1972]

In its second week, its best showing was 62nd place, with 264,000 viewers.

I just wonder if GSN is going to try that old trick of adding A+B+C to come up with "LOOK!  500,000 viewers!", no matter what the ratings actually imply.

[chad1m]

Week three is a slight improvement (highest ranking for GSN shows in this week was #50, 292,000 viewers) but apparently it's too little, too late for GSN. BuzzerBlog

the Friday night slots are going back to The $100,000 Pyramid.

[xavier45]

Buzzerblog now reports that it will be Dancing with the Stars once again this Friday, with an extra airing at 6:00pm-1:00am.

New ratings show that it did a little better this past Saturday, but not out of the park ratings to warrant all of these airings. Karn, O'Hurley, and Foxworthy continue to impress with well over 500,000 viewers in their respective marathons. Even the morning Card Sharks did well with over 300,000 viewers on a couple of its 10:00am airings. Even the Wednesday airing of Card Sharks came just above Dancing getting 340,000 viewers, with Dancing getting 336,000 viewers for its highest rating for the week.

http://thevoiceoftv.com/nielsen-tv-ratings/gsn-ratings-february-6-12-2012/?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter