GSN Acquires "Dancing with the Stars"

[clemon79]

GSN threw a lot of money to get these reruns, and it looks like they missed again. Maybe they need to work on, you know, some original programming?

Alternately, they could pick up. you know, some game shows.

[catnap1972]

GSN threw a lot of money to get these reruns, and it looks like they missed again. Maybe they need to work on, you know, some original programming?

Alternately, they could pick up. you know, some game shows.

"But those skew OLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLD....EWWWWWW!"

[clemon79]

"But those skew OLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLD....EWWWWWW!"

Looking at their current bottom line, they're really not in a position to make that argument.

[Matt Ottinger]

Looking at their current bottom line, they're really not in a position to make that argument.

It's odd what arguments networks can make with a straight face.  In the latest TV critics bash, Current TV made a presentation where they bragged about how they have the youngest skewing audience among the cable news networks.  While that sounds like a cool bragging point, the simple fact is that any of the other networks (even MSNBC) deliver far more of those sought-after viewers, they're just bundled in a MUCH larger audience.  Any given airing of Countdown gets around 50,000 viewers, and that's the network's top show by far.

[Chelsea Thrasher]

Any given airing of Countdown gets around 50,000 viewers, and that's the network's top show by far.

By comparison, the lowest-rated show on GSN's entire schedule for the most recent week posted was the 3:30a late-Monday airing of Card Sharks with Jim Perry with 85,000.

[PYLdude]

325,000 viewers for a GSN program is bad?

[chad1m]

325,000  viewers for a GSN program is bad?

When they likely spent a good  chunk of change to acquire it for its first series of off-network repeats and it is getting ratings similar to or  less than repeats of shows that have went around the network 20 times by now (and in one instance, is over 20 years older), yeah. It's not that good. It's been promoted in many different outlets and they've even bought 10 or 15 seconds of ad time on Wheel and Jeopardy to promote it. I'm guessing they didn't expect Dick Clark to beat out Julianne Hough.

[PYLdude]

325,000  viewers for a GSN program is bad?

When they likely spent a good  chunk of change to acquire it for its first series of off-network repeats and it is getting ratings similar to or  less than repeats of shows that have went around the network 20 times by now (and in one instance, is over 20 years older), yeah. It's not that good. It's been promoted in many different outlets and they've even bought 10 or 15 seconds of ad time on Wheel and Jeopardy to promote it. I'm guessing they didn't expect Dick Clark to beat out Julianne Hough.

Point taken, but seriously, what are you expecting it to draw? 5 million? It's GSN, not USA or TNT. You can't have a realistic expectation of assloads of viewers coming in because it's basically one of the nichest of niche channels. Not to mention that GSN, Wheel, and Jeopardy are under the same umbrella- maybe I might be missing something here but I wouldn't think the cost of promotion for those two shows would be anything more than drops in their collective buckets. Now, to promote the show on ET is a little more realistic cost wise (which I believe has been done), even though you can take the above statement I just made and remove GSN from it.

[Fedya]

Point taken, but seriously, what are you expecting it to draw?

More than what it's replacing?

but I wouldn't think the cost of promotion for those two shows would be anything more than drops in their collective buckets

I'd guess it's rather a bit more than the cost of promotion in general, seeing how little promotion they do.

[catnap1972]

You can't have a realistic expectation of assloads of viewers coming in because it's basically one of the nichest of niche channels.

Why not?  I'll bet that's the assumption they were going with when they emptied the bank accounts to buy this!

[jjman920]

Point taken, but seriously, what are you expecting it to draw? 5 million? It's GSN, not USA or TNT. You can't have a realistic expectation of assloads of viewers coming in because it's basically one of the nichest of niche channels.

My guess is that they were hoping for the same numbers, if not better than, Are You Smarter Than a Fifth Grader?, the top rated show for that week. 5 million? No, but I'd bet they were looking for half a million.

This just proves that GSN thinks they know what is best when in fact they don't. It also shows that they follow an old adage from Paul Williams and The Temptations...Don't Look Back.

"Reality didn't work the first time? Ah well. Things change, people change, we don't need Password back. Dump it all into Dancing with the Stars! We'll show those nuts on the message boards what's what!"

/Still bitter over the loss of Password (Classic/Plus/Super, I don't care, they were all great.)

[Matt Ottinger]

Point taken, but seriously, what are you expecting it to draw? 5 million?

Yes, eveyone here was expecting the show to claim 5 million viewers for GSN.  That's just how stupid we are.

[PYLdude]

Point taken, but seriously, what are you expecting it to draw? 5 million?

Yes, eveyone here was expecting the show to claim 5 million viewers for GSN.  That's just how stupid we are.

It's called exaggerating, Matt. My point is that people are drawing attention to the numbers that the reruns of DWTS are pulling in and are calling it a not-so-good thing but are expecting maybe a little more than perhaps they should be considering what GSN pulls in normally.

[JasonA1]

It's called exaggerating, Matt.

I can't tell if this belongs on Words Have Meanings, or that other show Matt did.

-Jason

[PYLdude]

It's called exaggerating, Matt.

I can't tell if this belongs on Words Have Meanings, or that other show Matt did.

-Jason

Wait a second...what is this referring to, Matt's response to what I said, or the exaggeration I made in the post he responded to?