Author Topic: Finally found some overall ratings for GSN (Read 11427 times)

Jimmy Owen · « **Reply #15 on:** March 11, 2005, 03:47:22 PM »

My thought is if a network is trying to attract people who do not like game shows, why would it continue to align itself with a name associated with game shows? GSN is trying to get an audience that thinks they are too cool to watch game shows. A new name would attract those folks and game show fans would go along with the change because we will take whatever crumbs we can get. Cable Health Network did it with great success that it enjoys today as the CableWorld rankings will attest.

CaseyAbell · « **Reply #16 on:** March 11, 2005, 03:56:59 PM »

A new name might get a little blip from viewers who wouldn't know what the hey this new network was. But it would quickly become clear to them that whatever the network is called, it's pretty much all game shows all the time. At that point, if they're "too cool for game shows," they would leave quick.

If they like game shows they might hang around. But if they like game shows they've probably watched some GSN already. After all, it's not like there are lots of competing networks devoted to grown-up game shows. It's not like there's one competing network devoted to grown-up game shows.

That's the problem - and opportunity - for GSN. They've got the niche all to themselves. So whatever they name the niche, it's not going to make that much difference. If the network was trying to distinguish itself from lots of competitors offering much the same material, a catchier name or slogan might be more significant.

Matt Ottinger · « **Reply #17 on:** March 11, 2005, 04:58:05 PM »

[quote name=\'CaseyAbell\' date=\'Mar 11 2005, 04:56 PM\']A new name might get a little blip from viewers who wouldn't know what the hey this new network was. But it would quickly become clear to them that whatever the network is called, it's pretty much all game shows all the time. At that point, if they're "too cool for game shows," they would leave quick.[/quote]
You're arging semantics because you can't be convinced that there's a difference between Celebrity Blackjack and reruns of Family Feud. What Jimmy's saying is that the average channel-flipper needs to learn that GSN is MORE than reruns of Family Feud. (Of course that's moot for the time being since they have precious little original programming of any sort.)

The TNN to Spike analogy is better than you think. The first major change in philosophy for that channel wasn't the change from TNN to Spike, it was the change from The Nashville Network to The National Network. However, they kept the TNN identifier and there were probably a lot of folks who didn't know what they had done because they already had an opinion of what TNN was. By comparison, the change from The National Network to Spike wasn't nearly as big a deal, but they packaged the change in such a way that it LOOKED like a big deal. That may be what GSN needs to do.

GSN would like people to know that they're running hipper shows and that the channel is more than reruns from the seventies. (Now it's reruns from the nineties -- whoo hoo!) Still, for a lot of people, those old reruns are the first thing in their heads when they think of GSN. A new identifier, especially when the next wave of original programming hits (whatever that wave may be), might be just the thing to catch people's attention. Also, the average viewer isn't going to care about our arguments over whether something is or is not a "traditional game show". They'll watch a show that appeals to them. And they won't watch a show about horse racing.

In other words, yes, a change would be cosmetic, but it still might not be inconsequential.

tyshaun1 · « **Reply #18 on:** March 11, 2005, 06:57:09 PM »

Matt, it's useless. I've explained it (even defined it) to him several times, but he believes what he wants to, so be it.
I think the worst thing GSN did (if they were trying to remarket themselves as a brand new network) is keep the original letters. I mean, what are people gonna mistake "GSN" for? Gizzle fo Shizzle Network? (Well, they DID have Snoop in CB1, but nevertheless.....)
Hardcore fans would've quickly identified the network, and a fresh new name (i.e. PlayTV) may have brought in new folks. But overall, GSN ratings are not too bad when you consider that it's in the digital tier of most cable systems.

Tyshaun

Fedya · « **Reply #19 on:** March 11, 2005, 11:05:14 PM »

[quote name=\'CaseyAbell\' date=\'Mar 11 2005, 03:14 PM\']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,
[/quote]
I think they did have a gradual overhaul of the network in mind. The only reason it hasn't gotten that far is because most of the more radical things they've tried have failed badly. There's a reason why GSN doesn't have a video-games block any longer, and it isn't because the honchos decided that they really wanted to be about traditional studio game shows after all.

DrJWJustice · « **Reply #20 on:** March 12, 2005, 11:55:02 AM »

[quote name=\'CaseyAbell\' date=\'Mar 11 2005, 03:14 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?

[snapback]77872[/snapback]

[/quote]

What are we going to do? Answer: Give you a Scarecrow Award as the theme 'If I Only Had a Brain' blares in the background. Now go back to the Lollipop Guild, since you're obviously incapable of getting back to Kansas or anywhere else in reality.

xibit777 · « **Reply #21 on:** March 13, 2005, 01:21:06 AM »

[/quote]
I think they did have a gradual overhaul of the network in mind. The only reason it hasn't gotten that far is because most of the more radical things they've tried have failed badly. There's a reason why GSN doesn't have a video-games block any longer, and it isn't because the honchos decided that they really wanted to be about traditional studio game shows after all.

[snapback]77929[/snapback]

[/quote]

You hit the nail right on the head. How soon people forget how the reality shows were starting to take away most afternoon and evening time slots for classics. Nipping away at each time slot.... 7pm gone, 6pm gone, later 5pm gone, even later 4pm gone. Bye bye Pyramid, make room for Star Search...

And people wonder why we are so happy when one of the reality shows fails. Like when American Dream Derby was determined to be a failure.... it's because we love game shows, and the reality shows were a huge threat to ever seeing many game shows on GSN again in the future. Luckily game show fans win, and reality loses.

Anyone think Lingo would even be getting a consideration if there were a Vegas Weddings 2, Fake A Date 2, paying for Mole, Average Joe, (insert any other bad reality show) .....?? Of course not.

sshuffield70 · « **Reply #22 on:** March 14, 2005, 05:59:45 PM »

[quote name=\'Jimmy Owen\' date=\'Mar 11 2005, 02:47 PM\']Cable Health Network did it with great success that it enjoys today as the CableWorld rankings will attest.

[snapback]77874[/snapback]

[/quote]

Don't know how that can be. CHN's last year was 1983.

CaseyAbell · « **Reply #23 on:** March 21, 2005, 01:21:38 PM »

Sorry to revive such an old thread, but Cableworld has put out the February ratings. GSN ran an average 0.4 rating and 228K households in prime time. Not great by GSN historical standards, but not horrendous, either. The numbers were well below February, 2004 levels, if Variety is to be believed.

Did the relatively poor ratings and the continued red ink (see my post on the Liberty 10-K) influence GSN's decision to go heavy on older shows? Oh, probably. If the network was solidly profitable and churning out big household numbers, I doubt we'd be seeing the programming change.

As things are, the network looks to have resigned itself to unfavorable demos in an effort to get cheaper and grow the household ratings. The poker and blackjack shows still have a solid perch in prime time. But most everything else that might be considered the tiniest bit non-traditional is getting dumped, or at least exiled to sleepy-time slots.

uncamark · « **Reply #24 on:** March 21, 2005, 06:05:06 PM »

I still say that the reasoning for the return to the oldies during the day is simply this: The ratings were same no matter what was on. They paid Fremantle good money to keep the *entire* (well, close to entire) G-T library. If they paid the money, they might as well use it, if the ratings will be the same no matter what and they're not going to shoo the Rascals and Hoveround ads over to American Life. Better to put the emphasis on prime time programming--if they knew what the hell they wanted other than more casino shows.

tyshaun1 · « **Reply #25 on:** March 22, 2005, 08:01:25 AM »

[quote name=\'CaseyAbell\' date=\'Mar 21 2005, 01:21 PM\']As things are, the network looks to have resigned itself to unfavorable demos in an effort to get cheaper and grow the household ratings. The poker and blackjack shows still have a solid perch in prime time. But most everything else that might be considered the tiniest bit non-traditional is getting dumped, or at least exiled to sleepy-time slots.

[snapback]78898[/snapback]

[/quote]

GSN, more than likely, will draw similar demos during the daytime as it is now. It's not like they've been running "Average Joe" in the daytime, they've been mainly shows they already own (Hollywood Showdown, AN3AC) to shore up some ad dollars. More importantly, it could be a sign that the returning shows will be......wait for it........interactive.
Of course, Casey makes it sound like GSN is reprogramming the entire network and is changing its name back to Game Show Network.

Tyshaun

CaseyAbell · « **Reply #26 on:** March 22, 2005, 09:57:12 AM »

The network is reprogramming daytime pretty thoroughly, and has reshaped prime time with mostly traditional material. I doubt they'll change the name back, but what's in a name?

I agree with uncamark that the network has decided to use what they have instead of spending big money on development or new licenses. Ratings seem to be a secondary consideration now compared to expense savings.

If the ratings collapse completely, maybe expense savings will start to seem penny-wise and pound-foolish. But if the ratings collapse completely, the network might have a tough time simply surviving.

A "ratings collapse" is a pretty large exaggeration, anyway. The last total day average published on the free web for GSN was 0.2 for October, 2004. They don't have far to collapse under any circumstances.

xibit777 · « **Reply #27 on:** March 24, 2005, 11:56:17 AM »

I don't see how bringing in shows that haven't been seen for years to replace shows that have 65 episodes cycling for years can lower ratings anyway.

They haven't gotten rid of the good preformers (FF, MG, Lingo, Millionaire) They're just replacing bad preformers. One huge question mark is why RR was taken off the daily schedule. Obviously they have the airing rights still (it is coming back)... it really doesn't make sense.

FeudDude · « **Reply #28 on:** March 24, 2005, 12:46:45 PM »

[quote name=\'xibit777\' date=\'Mar 24 2005, 11:56 AM\']They haven't gotten rid of the good preformers (FF, MG, Lingo, Millionaire) They're just replacing bad preformers. One huge question mark is why RR was taken off the daily schedule. Obviously they have the airing rights still (it is coming back)... it really doesn't make sense.

[snapback]79269[/snapback]

[/quote]

When/where did you hear that RR is coming back? I always assumed that they lost the rights to the show, since they seemed to take it off the schedule so suddenly, and from what I heard it was still getting good ratings.

EDIT: I now see that it's on the Perf's site...it's going to be on 6-7 pm Sunday nights. I would say that GSN wanted to give the show a rest, but it doesn't seem like Cronin and the gang can grasp that concept.