Everyone should take a look at this; it shows what 30-second advertising slots in the Fall schedules went for this this year. Most expensive show is Friends (obviously), followed by “Will and Grace” (surprising?). I don’t really have a handle on US media, but I can’t believe that a lame one-joke effort like W&G is pulling in the ratings, so it must have really good demographics (the pink economy, I guess). I’m also surprised that Monday Night Football is only in the middle of the table and cheaper than “The Simpsons”. Anyway, enjoy.
Update: Closer perusal shows that the priciness of Will & Grace is unlikely to have anything to do with the pinkness or otherwise of its viewers. It’s just that CBS seems to totally own Thursday night, and W&G is in a slot between “Friends” and “ER”. The mystery is actually why “Scrubs” and “Coupling” are comparatively weaker; they’re both pretty bad, but I wouldn’t have said that they were between 10% and 30% worse than Will & Grace.
You forgot the link :)
Interesting, especially W&G. I’ve never seen more than a few snippets of the show, as it never appealed to me. As for MNF, not surprising that it’s not that expensive. They’ve got two announcers off-screen and just film a live sporting event.
Hmmmm yes a link, that might be a good idea ….
James: sorry, this is the cost of buying a 30-second advertising slot rather than the cost of production
I’m surprised “60 Minutes” is so cheap, considering that show continues to draw big ratings and the demographics of the viewership is probably desirable.
It would probably be an error to assume that W&G’s appeal is from the “pink economy.” To many of us in the “pink economy,” its joke grew stale years ago. I suspect its appeal is its draw to the female audience.
If you look at it closely, W&G is nothing more than an updating of I Love Lucy.
You’re underestimating W&G’s ratings. Some slightly outdated data:
http://www.usatoday.com/life/television/ 2002/2002-05-28-top-tv-shows.htm
Note especially its high ranking in the (as it’s always phrased) coveted 18-49 demographic.
Christ, I’d never have guessed. It irritates the crap out of me. Though thinking about it, the missuss watches it religiously.
Actually, “Will and Grace” does does quite well in the ratings. The thing is, over here it’s on the same stations as “Friends” and airs right afterwards.
I’m not disputing the fact that W&G is highly rated. What I am disputing is the assertion that its high advertising price is due to the “pink economy.” I suppose it’s possible. But I tend to doubt that there are enough members of the “pink economy” who watch it to make much of a difference.
We haven’t watched it in some time.
Nah, Kevin’s got the answer; it inherits the Friends audience, so it has massive non-pink ratings due to the pure luck of scheduling. You could put “Half an Hour of Someone Talking Very Slowly About NAFTA” in that time slot and it would still be the second most expensive.
I’m surprised “60 Minutes” is so cheap, considering that show continues to draw big ratings and the demographics of the viewership is probably desirable.
Desirable demographics are generally “young enough to be affected by advertising”, with the added factor that the younger a consumer is, the more years they’ll spend as a consumer of the product if they become convinced of its worth.
Old people have proven spending power, but advertisers don’t focus on that so much as potential. Kind of like the Tampa Bay Devil Rays.
The reason MNF’s advertising price is so low has nothing to do with ratings. MNF, although it’s ratings have dropped off compared to earlier years, still rates in the top 10 or even top 5 every week. Last week MNF was rated number one with about 4 million more viewers than the next closest, CSI.
I believe that advertising price is decided by a combination of the overall rating and the demographics of regular viewers. Companies pay a lot more to advertise to the prime audience - 20 year olds. Corporations feel like they can still influence the tastes of younger viewers, while the typical MNF viewer, middle-aged man, probably has a fairly stable set of preferences. MNF advertising is dominated by beer companies, vying for the preferences of younger beer drinkers.
Friends, on the other hand, is watched by young people of both sexes. There is more competition for advertising space - more than just beer companies want in. I hate to sound like an economist, but the tight competition for advertising space elevates the prices. W&G has a very similar audience - lots of young college kids or married couples.
I’m a little surprised that Scrubs doesn’t have a higher price. It directly follows Friends, and I can’t imagine the audience demographic changes much. Besides, I personally like Scrubs. Why wouldn’t everybody?
I should find it disturbing that it takes a discussion of sitcoms to make me feel knowledgeable in the Crooked Timber crowd, but I’ll take what I can get. Anyway:
1. NBC, not CBS, on Thursday nights.
2. Will and Grace doesn’t follow Friends directly; it’s actually the second anchor of NBC’s “Must See TV”, at 9:00. Seinfeld used to hold that spot down, and it did a rather better job of it. (ER takes the 10:00 slot to finish the night strong, although its ratings are declining, too.)
3. The middle shows, at 8:30 and 9:30, almost invariably suck (“30 Minutes of NAFTA” couldn’t be worse than “Suddenly Susan”), but get decent ratings because of their sandwiching.
“Scrubs” is a funny show, and anyone who thinks otherwise is, depending on their political leanings, either a pinko commie, or a yellow-bellied fascist.
I quite liked “Suddenly Susan”, if it was the one with Brooke Shields in it.
D-squared, I think that’s the first time I’ve ever heard anyone admit that.
There was a good NYT article on the phenomenon of the crappy-Thursday-at-8:30/9:30 show last year. The anchor shows— 8 and 9— have to be appealing to the audience in their own right. But they tend to get very expensive, very quickly, as the producers and the actors realize that they’re indispensable— they extract almost as much out of NBC as NBC makes on them. So the juicy profits are to be had in the carry-over shows between the anchors. C’mon, you know the list: Good Morning, Miami. Suddenly Susan. Boston Common. Jesse. Veronica’s Closet. On and on it goes… When a show in the 8:30 or 9:30 slot gets sufficiently popular in its own right, it’s farmed off to another anchor slot (Tuesday at 8 or 9, for example). Otherwise it’ll grow expensive and eat up the profits.
So the goal is, roughly, to have a show that’s just-barely-not-crappy-enough to force vast quantities of intertial viewers to change the channel. If it’s better than that, the producers will start to believe that the good ratings have to do with the show, and not with its surroundings, and ask for more money. If it’s worse than that and actually starts making viewers rip out their eyeballs in the few seconds it takes them to reach the remote, it’s counterproductive and gets cancelled.
I find Scrubs very funny in its own right— funnier than either Friends or WG, at this point— and expect it to be farmed off to Tuesday night at some point, unless they’re grooming it to take one of the Thursday anchor slots when Friends ends.
Jacob, I think it’s probably that last one. Scrubs was a Tuesday night show, IIRC, for it’s premier year. They moved it to Thursday last year, probably to strengthen it for the future and may indeed be intending to ‘promote’ it to the 8:00 slot. Personally, I was disappointed in the move to Thursday, as that conflicts with the CBS ‘reality’ show (Survivor, Amazing Race) and means I never watch it. I do like the alternative ‘just-barely-not-crappy-enough to force vast quantities of intertial[sic] viewers to change the channel’ theory, tho. But isn’t that most of sitcom-land?
Scrubs is one of the few sitcoms worth watching.
I, too, must take exception to your description of “Scrubs” as “pretty bad” and “weaker” than W&G.
I’m coming late to this, but who can disagree with Jacob T. Levy and Walt Pohl? Scrubs was just about the only funny network show on the tube all last year, as well as the year before. Not getting Scrubs puts one perilously close to being a bonehead, in my book.
I don’t know why I am surprised that television shows with mainly black actors are less than half the price. I shouldn’t be.
The eternal optimist in me, I suppose.
What, have I stumbled upon some sort of humourless alternative universe here? Will and Grace is very, very funny. OK, it’s not Frasier funny. But it IS funny. I know people from all walks of life who enjoy it. What’s NOT to enjoy?
jazzhands
<>
You really don’t have a handle on US media, then. ;-)
I don’t really have a handle on US media, but I can’t believe that a lame one-joke effort like W&G is pulling in the ratings
You really don’t have a handle on US media, then. ;-)
Another hand raised for Scrubs. :-)
Oh, yes, definitely Scrubs. I thought W & G started off pretty well and has grown increasingly shrill and unfunny, with zero character development. I suspect there are a fair number of people who keep it on out of habit but don’t actually watch it like they used to. (By “I suspect,” I mean, of course “this is what me and my friends do.”)
I seem to recall that when Scrubs was moved to thursdays, the network said that they thought it was a show with promise that had been in a bad time slot, so they were trying to protect it and give it the better exposure of the thursday slot. Clearly with an eye toward promoting it to be an anchor show at some point in the future.
Is this an appropriate time for a regular UK visitor to “CT” to mention how fun this thread is? Or is this yet another disgraceful example of academia “dumbing down” ?
BTW, have US viewers had the chance to watch “Father Ted” (RIP) yet ? I presume that the most likely home would be BBC America.
Hey, I liked “Suddenly Susan” too, but I don’t get “W&G” at all.
I’d love to know what advertising during “Father Ted” costs: I don’t see the US getting it. If it is on the BBC in the States, I can all to easily see idiots like Andrew Sullivan taking it as evidence of systematic anti-Catholic bias.
To throw my 2 cents in, I don’t know what NBC has managed to do it, but the original British “Coupling” —it’s been running for several seasons on the BBC in the UK — is hilarious. It made its way like wildfire around a local university campus. I highly recommend that you give it a try; the 1st season’s episodes are available now on DVD. The Britishisms can be a little off-putting at first, but once you get used to them, you’ll laugh pretty hard.
Yeah, let me join the chorus too. I saw a few episodes of Scrubs on Dutch TV and I liked it too. My wife is a Brooke Shields fan, so I’ve actually seen just about every excrutiatingly painful episode of “Suddenly Susan.” Lord, it was bad.
I’m indifferent to Will & Grace, but my understanding is that it has a good audience with younger viewers. Only old people watch 60 Minutes, so its revenue’s been falling for years, even though its market is pretty large. Getting to that youth market is very important if you sell tampons or Clearasil.
Figuring out what age group is a programme’s target demographic is pretty easy: Look at the ads. Tampons: 8-20. Music: 15-35. Small cars: 25-40. SUV’s: 30-45. Lexus: 45+.
The comment re the shows on the half-hour needing to be in a lesser league than the 8 and 9 o’clockers rings true.
I suspect that another distinction between Friends and W&G could be found in their respective (female-targeted) ad contents. Friends ads (I’m guessing) would target the zippy, achieving modern woman, while W&G ads would spruik chocolate and “now with 71% more shiny effervescence!” shampoo to her rather less secure, pyjama-clad alter-ego.
In other words, “pinkness” be damned - W&G is comfort food for everyone’s inner frump.
“I quite liked “Suddenly Susan”, if it was the one with Brooke Shields in it.”
This is the first time I’ve felt comfortable declaring an opinion of yours TOTALLY INSANE.
À Gauche
Jeremy Alder
Amaravati
Anggarrgoon
Audhumlan Conspiracy
H.E. Baber
Philip Blosser
Paul Broderick
Matt Brown
Diana Buccafurni
Brandon Butler
Keith Burgess-Jackson
Certain Doubts
David Chalmers
Noam Chomsky
The Conservative Philosopher
Desert Landscapes
Denis Dutton
David Efird
Karl Elliott
David Estlund
Experimental Philosophy
Fake Barn County
Kai von Fintel
Russell Arben Fox
Garden of Forking Paths
Roger Gathman
Michael Green
Scott Hagaman
Helen Habermann
David Hildebrand
John Holbo
Christopher Grau
Jonathan Ichikawa
Tom Irish
Michelle Jenkins
Adam Kotsko
Barry Lam
Language Hat
Language Log
Christian Lee
Brian Leiter
Stephen Lenhart
Clayton Littlejohn
Roderick T. Long
Joshua Macy
Mad Grad
Jonathan Martin
Matthew McGrattan
Marc Moffett
Geoffrey Nunberg
Orange Philosophy
Philosophy Carnival
Philosophy, et cetera
Philosophy of Art
Douglas Portmore
Philosophy from the 617 (moribund)
Jeremy Pierce
Punishment Theory
Geoff Pynn
Timothy Quigley (moribund?)
Conor Roddy
Sappho's Breathing
Anders Schoubye
Wolfgang Schwartz
Scribo
Michael Sevel
Tom Stoneham (moribund)
Adam Swenson
Peter Suber
Eddie Thomas
Joe Ulatowski
Bruce Umbaugh
What is the name ...
Matt Weiner
Will Wilkinson
Jessica Wilson
Young Hegelian
Richard Zach
Psychology
Donyell Coleman
Deborah Frisch
Milt Rosenberg
Tom Stafford
Law
Ann Althouse
Stephen Bainbridge
Jack Balkin
Douglass A. Berman
Francesca Bignami
BlunkettWatch
Jack Bogdanski
Paul L. Caron
Conglomerate
Jeff Cooper
Disability Law
Displacement of Concepts
Wayne Eastman
Eric Fink
Victor Fleischer (on hiatus)
Peter Friedman
Michael Froomkin
Bernard Hibbitts
Walter Hutchens
InstaPundit
Andis Kaulins
Lawmeme
Edward Lee
Karl-Friedrich Lenz
Larry Lessig
Mirror of Justice
Eric Muller
Nathan Oman
Opinio Juris
John Palfrey
Ken Parish
Punishment Theory
Larry Ribstein
The Right Coast
D. Gordon Smith
Lawrence Solum
Peter Tillers
Transatlantic Assembly
Lawrence Velvel
David Wagner
Kim Weatherall
Yale Constitution Society
Tun Yin
History
Blogenspiel
Timothy Burke
Rebunk
Naomi Chana
Chapati Mystery
Cliopatria
Juan Cole
Cranky Professor
Greg Daly
James Davila
Sherman Dorn
Michael Drout
Frog in a Well
Frogs and Ravens
Early Modern Notes
Evan Garcia
George Mason History bloggers
Ghost in the Machine
Rebecca Goetz
Invisible Adjunct (inactive)
Jason Kuznicki
Konrad Mitchell Lawson
Danny Loss
Liberty and Power
Danny Loss
Ether MacAllum Stewart
Pam Mack
Heather Mathews
James Meadway
Medieval Studies
H.D. Miller
Caleb McDaniel
Marc Mulholland
Received Ideas
Renaissance Weblog
Nathaniel Robinson
Jacob Remes (moribund?)
Christopher Sheil
Red Ted
Time Travelling Is Easy
Brian Ulrich
Shana Worthen
Computers/media/communication
Lauren Andreacchi (moribund)
Eric Behrens
Joseph Bosco
Danah Boyd
David Brake
Collin Brooke
Maximilian Dornseif (moribund)
Jeff Erickson
Ed Felten
Lance Fortnow
Louise Ferguson
Anne Galloway
Jason Gallo
Josh Greenberg
Alex Halavais
Sariel Har-Peled
Tracy Kennedy
Tim Lambert
Liz Lawley
Michael O'Foghlu
Jose Luis Orihuela (moribund)
Alex Pang
Sebastian Paquet
Fernando Pereira
Pink Bunny of Battle
Ranting Professors
Jay Rosen
Ken Rufo
Douglas Rushkoff
Vika Safrin
Rob Schaap (Blogorrhoea)
Frank Schaap
Robert A. Stewart
Suresh Venkatasubramanian
Ray Trygstad
Jill Walker
Phil Windley
Siva Vaidahyanathan
Anthropology
Kerim Friedman
Alex Golub
Martijn de Koning
Nicholas Packwood
Geography
Stentor Danielson
Benjamin Heumann
Scott Whitlock
Education
Edward Bilodeau
Jenny D.
Richard Kahn
Progressive Teachers
Kelvin Thompson (defunct?)
Mark Byron
Business administration
Michael Watkins (moribund)
Literature, language, culture
Mike Arnzen
Brandon Barr
Michael Berube
The Blogora
Colin Brayton
John Bruce
Miriam Burstein
Chris Cagle
Jean Chu
Hans Coppens
Tyler Curtain
Cultural Revolution
Terry Dean
Joseph Duemer
Flaschenpost
Kathleen Fitzpatrick
Jonathan Goodwin
Rachael Groner
Alison Hale
Household Opera
Dennis Jerz
Jason Jones
Miriam Jones
Matthew Kirschenbaum
Steven Krause
Lilliputian Lilith
Catherine Liu
John Lovas
Gerald Lucas
Making Contact
Barry Mauer
Erin O'Connor
Print Culture
Clancy Ratcliff
Matthias Rip
A.G. Rud
Amardeep Singh
Steve Shaviro
Thanks ... Zombie
Vera Tobin
Chuck Tryon
University Diaries
Classics
Michael Hendry
David Meadows
Religion
AKM Adam
Ryan Overbey
Telford Work (moribund)
Library Science
Norma Bruce
Music
Kyle Gann
ionarts
Tim Rutherford-Johnson
Greg Sandow
Scott Spiegelberg
Biology/Medicine
Pradeep Atluri
Bloviator
Anthony Cox
Susan Ferrari (moribund)
Amy Greenwood
La Di Da
John M. Lynch
Charles Murtaugh (moribund)
Paul Z. Myers
Respectful of Otters
Josh Rosenau
Universal Acid
Amity Wilczek (moribund)
Theodore Wong (moribund)
Physics/Applied Physics
Trish Amuntrud
Sean Carroll
Jacques Distler
Stephen Hsu
Irascible Professor
Andrew Jaffe
Michael Nielsen
Chad Orzel
String Coffee Table
Math/Statistics
Dead Parrots
Andrew Gelman
Christopher Genovese
Moment, Linger on
Jason Rosenhouse
Vlorbik
Peter Woit
Complex Systems
Petter Holme
Luis Rocha
Cosma Shalizi
Bill Tozier
Chemistry
"Keneth Miles"
Engineering
Zack Amjal
Chris Hall
University Administration
Frank Admissions (moribund?)
Architecture/Urban development
City Comforts (urban planning)
Unfolio
Panchromatica
Earth Sciences
Our Take
Who Knows?
Bitch Ph.D.
Just Tenured
Playing School
Professor Goose
This Academic Life
Other sources of information
Arts and Letters Daily
Boston Review
Imprints
Political Theory Daily Review
Science and Technology Daily Review