PDA

View Full Version : 36% growth for SciFi Channel


MediaSavant
03-27-2003, 05:08 AM
From the Hollywood Reporter, a general report on the state of cable:

Turner touts cable's gains
March 27, 2003
By Andrew Grossman

NEW YORK -- Turner Broadcasting System came out swinging Wednesday, crowing over TNT and TBS Superstation's ratings successes in first-quarter 2003 and stressing that the broadcast networks continue to lose market share to cable networks.

"The gap still remains but is getting shorter and shorter," TBS chief research officer Jack Wakshlag said of the competitive landscape between broadcast and cable networks in a conference call with reporters. "The trends do not appear to have been affected by any significant degree by reality programming or anything else the broadcast networks seem to be doing. They do seem to be losing two share points a year to cable."

Those remarks drew a scoff from David Poltrack, executive vp research and planning at CBS, as well as from an unlikely source: Lifetime Television senior vp research Tim Brooks. Both executives argued that Turner's comparisons were misleading.

"I wouldn't rule broadcast out as a competitive threat," Brooks said.

Poltrack was even harsher, saying the year-to-year statistics "have become more and more meaningless" because of the advent of the 200-plus channel universe. Outside of the news networks this quarter, he argued that among the top 10 ad-billing cable networks, "You have a couple of networks doing well and a couple of networks not doing well."

Wakshlag also made note of Lifetime's 25% plunge in primetime viewership from first-quarter 2002. Brooks responded by saying the reality shows that have done so much business lately for the broadcast networks -- including Fox's "American Idol" and ABC's "The Bachelorette" -- skew heavily female and thus draw from Lifetime's target audience.

Wakshlag did have plenty to brag about for TNT and TBS. TNT, which is well ahead in the primetime ratings race, grew by 14% in viewership and ratings to a 1.6 rating, averaging 2.36 million viewers. As usual, Nickelodeon is the top cable dog in the total-day measure.

TNT has benefited heavily by its six runs of "Law & Order" reruns in primetime, the success of a strong theatrical movie package and its huge NBA All-Star Game ratings, which Wakshlag said gave the network's regular NBA game coverage a shot in the arm.

As for other cable networks, A&E continues to slide, losing 9% of its audience in the quarter. Wakshlag blamed broad losses for "Biography" and sluggish ratings for the network's mysteries and such off-network shows as "Third Watch" and "Crossing Jordan."

USA Network lost 12% of its audience, primarily because of weak theatrical movie ratings and lower ratings for original series "The Dead Zone" from a year ago, he said.

By contrast, FX rose 14% as "The Shield" performed well among younger demos. Replacing such older sitcoms as "M*A*S*H" and "Married ... With Children" with movies helped the network as well.

Sci Fi Channel had an especially strong quarter, growing 36% with its original shows like "Stargate SG-1" performing strongly.

TBS was flat, but Wakshlag said it was skewing young with an average age of 33.4.

Otherwise, Wakshlag said MTV's "The Osbournes" faded somewhat "but is still strong," and TLC's "Trading Spaces" continues to carry that network.

There were other downward surprises among the cable nets: TNN's World Wrestling Entertainment programming lost 22% from a year ago. ABC Family continued its slide, losing 35% of its primetime audience, according to Wakshlag. Movies and repurposed shows from the ABC broadcast network are performing poorly on its cable cousin.

Kids programming continued to perform well across the board as Nickelodeon and Disney Channel were up -- Disney Channel in particular is enjoying strong numbers from its new live-action comedy "That's So Raven." Cartoon Network slid a bit, but Wakshlag says ratings among boys 6-11 are stronger.

According to Turner's figures, ad-supported cable channels are beating ABC, CBS, NBC and Fox combined in the quarter, with cable averaging a 46.7 share to the Big Four's 43.7. Cable's share rose from 44.8, while the broadcasters' share fell from 45.2. Compared with the seven broadcast networks (including the WB Network, UPN and Pax TV), cable closed the gap from 5.7 share points to 2.1 points, according to Turner's analysis of Nielsen Media Research figures.

VBKatLou
03-27-2003, 05:26 AM
MS - what months constitute the first quarter? For example, at my company, our fiscal year starts November 1st. Therefore, our first quarter is Nov. - Feb. Is this the same for the television industry or does their quarter start on a different month?

My real question is: Does the 36% increase have something to do with the high numbers for 'Taken' or was that reflected in the previous quarter.

Dominar of Action
03-27-2003, 07:30 AM
And how much of that 36% is due to the fact that they ran their original programming during sweeps this year instead of punting like they usually do?

MediaSavant
03-27-2003, 08:27 AM
Originally posted by VBKatLou
MS - what months constitute the first quarter? For example, at my company, our fiscal year starts November 1st. Therefore, our first quarter is Nov. - Feb. Is this the same for the television industry or does their quarter start on a different month?

My real question is: Does the 36% increase have something to do with the high numbers for 'Taken' or was that reflected in the previous quarter.

Turner, who appears to be the source of the data, is jumping the gun a bit. The "official" broadcast first quarter is December 30th through March 30th.

Even before Taken, SciFi was tracking much higher than they did last year. Stargate Mondays are doing a lot better than whatever their Monday programming last year. Those reruns are pulling ratings over 1. Last year's Friday night shows included original episodes of Invisible Man, Chronicle, and Lexx, which were no match for the Farscape/Stargate/Tracker combo.

Taken may have been a small part of the increase. But, last year, they had a "Firestarter" mini-series whose ratings weren't that shabby in March.

and

And how much of that 36% is due to the fact that they ran their original programming during sweeps this year instead of punting like they usually do?

They ran original episodes during sweeps last year too. It was the first time they tried it. They noticed it didn't really cause a decline in the ratings for the shows they ran, so it emboldened them to do it this year too. The main difference is that none of the shows were as strong as Farscape, Stargate, and Tracker in the ratings to begin with.

LadyCrais
03-27-2003, 09:09 AM
Does this 36% exclude the increase in SciFi penetration or is it primarily a result of the increased penetration?

Demonique
03-28-2003, 03:54 PM
Is this a 36% growth in audience numbers or a 36% growth in the amount of crap they show?

MediaSavant
03-29-2003, 06:18 AM
Originally posted by LadyCrais
Does this 36% exclude the increase in SciFi penetration or is it primarily a result of the increased penetration?

Alas, as SciFi has neared the highest level you can get for penetration, it's penetration growth year-to-year has slowed.

While the total number of households in the U.S. increased 1% from 2002, the total number of households that get the SciFi Channel increased 4%. (based on Jan-through mid March figures)

So, their growth in ratings is primarily due to viewership increases, not penetration increases.

LadyCrais
03-29-2003, 06:55 AM
Originally posted by MediaSavant
Alas, as SciFi has neared the highest level you can get for penetration, it's penetration growth year-to-year has slowed.

While the total number of households in the U.S. increased 1% from 2002, the total number of households that get the SciFi Channel increased 4%. (based on Jan-through mid March figures)

So, their growth in ratings is primarily due to viewership increases, not penetration increases.

(sigh) I was afraid of that, but thanks for the specifics. We need to know the situation even when it isn't to our liking.

I don't know if you can answer this one, but do you have an idea of how these numbers are calculated? Is it some kind of average over the course of the entire quarter? What I'm getting at is whether or not an event like Taken for 10 days or whatever it was totally skews the number. That while daily scheduling has remained more-or-less static in numbers, it is these "events" pulling in unusually large numbers for brief spurts of time that are responsible for the figure, not an actual increase in week in and week out viewers who will become regular viewers of the network.

MediaSavant
03-29-2003, 03:44 PM
Originally posted by LadyCrais
(sigh) I don't know if you can answer this one, but do you have an idea of how these numbers are calculated? Is it some kind of average over the course of the entire quarter? What I'm getting at is whether or not an event like Taken for 10 days or whatever it was totally skews the number. That while daily scheduling has remained more-or-less static in numbers, it is these "events" pulling in unusually large numbers for brief spurts of time that are responsible for the figure, not an actual increase in week in and week out viewers who will become regular viewers of the network.

What Turner did was average 12 weeks of the 1st quarter. Taken wasn't in first quarter, but fourth. But, I think you meant that as an example. I've looked at it and while events like Children of Dune help, they are up with regular programming also. I believe that if were due to just one event bringing up the average, the person writing the article would have noted it.

With a 12-week average, it would be extremely difficult for even a 3-part mini-series like Children of Dune to influence the average to be up by 36%.

Stargate Mondays is kicking butt relative to whatever was on Monday nights last year. And, as you know, Fridays were successful. I know some people here liked Invisible Man, but it wasn't a ratings powerhouse relative to any of the shows that have been on Friday this year.

I don't think SciFi has ever had three shows performing ratings above a 1.2 on Fridays before. When Farscape was their #1 show, the other two shows usually did ratings of 1 or below. This quarter, Farscape averaged a 1.2 or so and it was occasionally the 3rd place show on the night. That's going to increase your whole average when it happens for eleven weeks out of 12.

Of course, there were a few disappointments and failures, but by and large, the network's performance is making Bonnie look pretty good to the industry right now.

The article's reference to Lifetime's ratings problems now is interesting because a year ago, they were riding so high, their head of programming got hired by UPN to run their programming. Since she left, Lifetime has problems, but UPN didn't necessarily have a great year either.

This business is fascinating.

waltersgirl
03-29-2003, 05:55 PM
while i despise Skiffy for their actions, i'd love to see them return to a true science fiction/speculative fiction/genre channel and really kick butt.

MediaSavant
03-29-2003, 07:08 PM
Originally posted by waltersgirl
while i despise Skiffy for their actions, i'd love to see them return to a true science fiction/speculative fiction/genre channel and really kick butt.

When were they ever that completely?

Despite all their statements otherwise, their schedule still has plenty of true SF. Last week alone, they had two originals on air based on SF literature: Riverworld and Children of Dune and they got decent ratings. My TiVo also picked up a broadcast of TXS 1138 they telecast.

They always will have a large portion of their schedule that fits what you described.

And their #1 show Stargate is no less SF than Farscape is. It's kicking butt. That's positive reinforcement that SF can work for them.

waltersgirl
03-29-2003, 07:26 PM
when it first started. and i'm a big fan of Stargate and always have been.

Vampgrrl
03-29-2003, 08:31 PM
Well their 3 new heavily promoted shows..one of them is dead, a la Dream Team...it will be interesting to see how Scare Tatics and Tremors does. I know that I will not be watching..not because of Farscape but because those 2 shows do NOT interest me.
Riverworld was thought to be utter shit by most who watched it.
Frankly from what I've heard outside of Farscape and the occasional SG1 episode, the channel just turns me off...it's a joke station and any viewership increases are only due to heavy promotion (which Farscape did not get during the end of season 3 and the first 11 of season 4...it just disappeared).
And no MS a large part of their schedule is not what you describe either...have you seen any of their "oringal" movies? They are terrible...plus they routinely show sequels to movies I havent heard of the first of the movie.
SciFi sucks..not because of the Farscape debacle, but because they 1. alienate their core viewership without realizing what they show and their very public committments, are like customer service...give bad service, people don't come back. 2. half of what they show is no scifi stuff and worse yet it's not scifi and it's B grade quality as well. I still am pulling for Mr. Redstone at Viacom to buy up that channel and put Mrs. Hammer out on her ass with Mr. Jackson.

Stargate2077
03-29-2003, 08:37 PM
What is TXS 1138 about?

grinner
03-29-2003, 08:46 PM
I think MS might have meant THX 1138. If so, then that is George Lucas' first film.

MediaSavant
03-30-2003, 07:19 AM
Originally posted by waltersgirl
when it first started. and i'm a big fan of Stargate and always have been.

I didn't get SciFi until 96 or 97 and there weren't many shows they were rerunning that I would watch. They had a few really geeky cheapo shows like "SciFi Buzz" and "SciFi Trader" that were almost embarassing to watch. I think those shows got 0.1 ratings. Don't get me wrong. I AM a geek in my own way, but I didn't want to watch a show about Star Wars models and how much they cost. (and similar stories)

Does anyone besides me recall SciFi's first two "original" scripted series? Mission Genesis and Welcome to Paradox?

The latter had a noble idea. It was based on real SF short stories.

But, few people watched it. Anyone here besides me?

grapeshot
03-30-2003, 10:59 AM
Since she left, Lifetime has problems, but UPN didn't necessarily have a great year either.


Well, it seems to me that it takes some time to turn around a failing network. (By failing, I mean a network that's losing viewers, not necessarily money.) Look at Les Moonves and his move from NBC to CBS. Although CBS is doing much better since he took over, he didn't accomplish that in one year. And look at how long it's been taking ABC to come back after their mistake with "How To Be A Millionaire".

You're right, this is a fascinating business to watch. It strikes me that a few mis-steps can quickly bring a network down, but it takes a long time to bring a network back up.

LadyMulder42
03-30-2003, 06:01 PM
It will be interesting to see what the numbers are going to be for the 2nd, 3rd and 4th quarters. The only strong show skiffy has left is SG-1. So you can almost imagine that it's going to be round after round after round of new shows that don't last at most a month because they are absolute dren.

Personally, I'll still be watching SG-1 because I've been a fan from the beginning when it started out on Showtime. AND I will still watch the re-runs of Farscape because no matter how pissed I am over this whole thing, I still need my Farscape fix and I want to record those episodes I don't currently have. Frankly, the day that skiffy decides to cancel SG-1 will be the last day I ever watch that channel. Hopefully at that time, I'll be happily watching new Farscape eppys on another network with the rest of you! :aok:

waltersgirl
03-30-2003, 06:07 PM
welcome to the board.;)

vacantlook
04-06-2003, 10:18 AM
Does anyone besides me recall SciFi's first two "original" scripted series? Mission Genesis and Welcome to Paradox?

I remember them. I loved Mission Genesis, what little of it existed. It seemed to be kind of a space scifi show for teens, which I was at the time. The basic premise for it was Earth's population was wiped out by a plague. These six teenagers were being sent to Earth to repopulate it by being cloned once their spaceship arrived there.

Only two of the people that were in it do I know from other scifi shows. Nicole deBoer ("Yuna" on Mission Genesis) played Ezri Dax in the final season of Deep Space Nine. Gordon Michael Woolvett ("Reb" on Mission Genesis) is now one of the stars of Gene Roddenberry's Andromeda.

It had a wickedly cool theme song; well, I liked it at least. You can go download the openning credits as a Quicktime MOV from http://www.scifi.com/missiongenesis/

The name Welcome To Paradox is familiar, but I don't think I ever watched it way back when.

grinner
04-06-2003, 10:25 AM
Originally posted by vacantlook

Only two of the people that were in it do I know from other scifi shows. Nicole deBoer ("Yuna" on Mission Genesis) played Ezri Dax in the final season of Deep Space Nine.
Nicole deBoer is now on The Dead Zone.
She was one of the more believable actors in The Cube, and was good in National Lampoons 'Senior Trip'.