CNBC Viewership Down 28%
The bloodbath at GE's propaganda station has reached critical levels: according to Nielsen, CNBC has lost 28% of viewers year over year, and 24% in the 25-54 age group category. This is obviously a stunning failure in an environment where the top stories on any other medium are finance and economy related. Maybe if they were to actually report objective news, Jeff Immelt would not have to scratch his head in wonderment, pondering how to generate ad revenue and something even remotely resembling positive cash flow. Then again what are the poor anchors to do since the infamous Immelt memo made the rounds. At least GE stock is up: and for that GE, Barney Frank and Goldman Sachs, deserve a golf clap.
Oh, and Larry, with a 46% drop, you may want to reevaluate your content strategy.
But for all intents and purposes, CNBC's core viewership has spoken and it openly demands more of Amanda Drudy's enhanced cleavage.
(42 votes)
on Thu, 07/30/2009 - 12:27
#19562
Better than expected. ;-)
on Thu, 07/30/2009 - 12:31
#19571
LOL
on Thu, 07/30/2009 - 12:40
#19583
Excluding 'displaced viewers' who can no longer afford a cable package, and those 'no-longer investing in the market aka gun & bible nuts' - viewship was actually up 13%.
on Thu, 07/30/2009 - 12:42
#19586
I'm sure they'll go apeshit hedonic on Nielsen.
on Thu, 07/30/2009 - 14:26
#19749
If you pay Nielsen more money they will do "enhanced" studies to make your numbers look better.
So you see it's everywhere in every industry.
And throwing money at it won't increase your ad revenue. Cable Ad revenue will continue to drop.
on Fri, 07/31/2009 - 13:47
#20909
I'm a "gun & Bible nut," well, 'least the Bible part. I'm still in the market.
on Thu, 07/30/2009 - 12:40
#19584
CNBC BEATS ESTIMATES! S&P futures soar! Special report to air tonight. "Dennis and Suze: Just two gay chicks hanging out and talkin' finance."
on Thu, 07/30/2009 - 12:43
#19587
What's the difference between Dennis Kneale and Suze Orman? One is a gay chick and the other one is Suze Orman.
on Thu, 07/30/2009 - 13:00
#19622
lol, that made my day
on Sat, 08/01/2009 - 18:12
#22003
it made his day too
on Thu, 07/30/2009 - 13:11
#19643
Hilarious!
on Thu, 07/30/2009 - 16:39
#19952
Thanks!!
Now I have to clean coffee off my keyboard and monitor.
on Thu, 07/30/2009 - 22:05
#20288
10-1 odds Suze can kick the living crap out of DK. BTW- Is Kudblow gay? Or is he just feminine acting?
on Fri, 07/31/2009 - 18:25
#21419
Yes he is. It was quite well known when he went through his public disgrace as a cokehead.
on Thu, 07/30/2009 - 15:32
#19840
rofl. nice one MD
on Thu, 07/30/2009 - 12:29
#19564
Tyler your methodology is all wrong.
Just like with the unemployment report, you IGNORE the number of viewers who DROPPED OFF.
on Thu, 07/30/2009 - 13:47
#19697
Correct. TD, you should have adjusted for birth-death ratios as the number of people who have died laughing at CNBC over the past year.
on Thu, 07/30/2009 - 14:27
#19752
Or choked on their own vomit.
on Thu, 07/30/2009 - 15:46
#19863
"He actually choked on someone else's vomit."
You can't dust for vomit, can you?
on Thu, 07/30/2009 - 12:30
#19567
Even Margaret Brennan jumped ship.
Got a Nielsen for Bloomberg?
on Thu, 07/30/2009 - 13:55
#19704
Marge was my favorite CNBC "personality."
on Thu, 07/30/2009 - 14:38
#19766
Caruso has both of my favorite CNBC "personalities".
on Thu, 07/30/2009 - 15:33
#19844
Tits Cabrerra is my favorite CNBS Rack
on Thu, 07/30/2009 - 12:34
#19569
CNBC still hasn't figured out, that after 3 bubbles in 10 years, people want the truth, reality, realism, not sugar coated BS hosted by loud mouthed cheerleaders.
on Thu, 07/30/2009 - 13:04
#19633
Bravo!!
on Thu, 07/30/2009 - 12:31
#19570
how's bloomie doing?
on Thu, 07/30/2009 - 12:33
#19573
From this we can gather
1. "Fast Money" running out of gas, which might explain why they brought in Rick Santelli to prop it up
2. People clearly find DK more annoying than Suze Orman
And yes, I'd like to see more of Amanda Drury
on Thu, 07/30/2009 - 12:45
#19589
Time to bring in the Big Guns. Oriel.
on Thu, 07/30/2009 - 15:35
#19845
Bigguns, wasn't that Al Bundy's favorite magazine.
on Thu, 07/30/2009 - 12:49
#19596
Fast Money has Santelli on it now? That might actually be interesting.
I haven't watched that station in months. No informational content at all - useless.
on Thu, 07/30/2009 - 13:00
#19621
Santelli filled in for a couple of days while Melissa Lee is on vacation, as I understand it.
Fast Money has become awful, their ratings should continue to fall. I used to like it when Ratigan and Macke was on there. Now I can't bear to watch it. Ratigan, ego aside, asked good questions, and Macke told it like it was most of the time. Now all we have is a clueless M. Lee and Joe "buy every stock in the world" Terranova, the new shining star of the show. If anyone says something that doesn't fit the pump game, Lee calls them out for being a Debbie Downer.
What used to be a decent show, has now become as big of joke as the rest of the station. I quit watching them after Macke left, just couldn't stand it anymore. I did tune in to see Santelli. He was ok, but let the traders do most of the talking. I don't think that is his element. He should stay in the pits and go on the occasional rant when they allow him to.
Kudlow down over 40 percent is good, but not good enough. Turn his blowhard ass off. What a tool.
As I type this CNBC is touting the best DOW gain (per month) since 1939. Humm....
on Thu, 07/30/2009 - 13:02
#19625
Too bad we can't post pictures here....a side by side of that friggin' idiot Terranova and Eddie Munster would be hilarious
on Thu, 07/30/2009 - 16:25
#19931
throw neil cavuto in there too!
on Thu, 07/30/2009 - 20:12
#20197
"I haven't watched that station in months. No informational content at all - useless."
ghost
========================================
EXACTLY why I stoppped watching.
Those girls can go topless if they want ...
they'd still be useless.
I don't consider "active" stock trading entertainment or
a joke.
CNBC = not serious.
on Thu, 07/30/2009 - 13:19
#19655
I would rather be waterboarded than watch a Suze Orman show.
on Thu, 07/30/2009 - 22:07
#20292
Yep, we are forunate in Asia to see Mandy's jugs everyday. That is one sassy lady
on Sat, 08/01/2009 - 18:17
#22005
sure sign that all the money moved overseas
on Thu, 07/30/2009 - 12:46
#19594
Who was the journalist who called out zero intelligence for being anonymous cowards?
The funny thing is that who really remembers the names of cheerleading financial
blowhards? They might as well be anonymous. I think it should be a requirement to
give pom-poms to every male CNBC 'analyst'.
on Thu, 07/30/2009 - 14:31
#19757
some pom poms or a lobotomy. Either one or both. Who cares. They are irrelevant.
on Thu, 07/30/2009 - 12:50
#19597
I'd rather read about your opinion to the auction today. Is that forthcoming?
on Thu, 07/30/2009 - 13:01
#19623
I second that!I want T-Bill auction analysis!
on Thu, 07/30/2009 - 12:50
#19598
If nobody's watching CNBC then why is the market skyrocketing? When the viewers return from vacation things should really take off!
on Sat, 08/01/2009 - 01:17
#21701
Computers don't watch television.
on Thu, 07/30/2009 - 12:50
#19599
That's it. Adios. One CNBC column too many. You used to be the man, TD. Now you're just acting like some jilted lover. Goodbye.
on Thu, 07/30/2009 - 12:56
#19614
WTF
on Thu, 07/30/2009 - 13:03
#19629
Najerian, is that you? et tu John/Pete
Regards, Jeff Immelt
on Thu, 07/30/2009 - 13:06
#19636
Come on give TD a break. He went from zero readership in January to being mentioned and targeted on CNBC by Charlie Gasparino. Let him have his fun! He deserves it, his hard work continues to pay off, so he's allowed to get his shot in.
on Thu, 07/30/2009 - 13:23
#19662
Hey, That WAS Charlie Gasparino - he just wants to be anonymous.
on Sat, 08/01/2009 - 18:18
#22008
some dickweed!
on Thu, 07/30/2009 - 13:36
#19681
Vaya con dios anon. One less useless comment to thumb thru (although I have a feeling you won't really go away and leave the most insightful site on the web). All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.
on Thu, 07/30/2009 - 12:52
#19602
How long before ZeroEdge loses all its viewers ?????
on Thu, 07/30/2009 - 13:20
#19657
Our forays into TV land have been (post facto and otherwise) abysmal. InWestors have advised us blaring a test screen 24/7 is not a reputable business model. Go figure. As such we must bow our heads in shame and admit all our viewers are as gone now as they have always been.
on Thu, 07/30/2009 - 14:27
#19751
Up 28%, relative to CNBC.
on Thu, 07/30/2009 - 15:50
#19868
I thought you might provide the speech in V for Vendetta for a little inspiration, but perhaps the fire sale warning test means we are too late to save it.
on Thu, 07/30/2009 - 12:52
#19604
Yep....I used to keep it on all day (7AM - 8PM), if for no other reason than for background noise during my trading day. As a 46 year-old millionaire private investor, I think they would like me to stay. But as of 2 months ago I turned it off for good. Reasons: [1] Carusso-Cabrera's insidious grin as well as her twisted view on all thing logical, [2] Krudlow's ridiculous flip flopping, [3} Creamers....well lest just say the guy is an incompetent dolt (don't worry Jimbo, I still say hi to you if I see you at Plaza Lanes in Madison NJ, [4] Sue "I have a penis" Herra's constant "the market is up" echo, Dennis "Rat Face" Kneale is just insufferable to watch or even listen to....the list is long I have already wasted too much time on this comment. But god damn, I DO love Amanda!! Oh, and I'd like to slip it to the ever annoying porn star wanna be Merisa Rhee.
on Thu, 07/30/2009 - 12:55
#19612
UR a douchbag---Mr "Millionaire"--that cant spell
on Thu, 07/30/2009 - 12:57
#19616
you mispelled something
on Thu, 07/30/2009 - 13:03
#19626
Sorry Dennis!
on Thu, 07/30/2009 - 14:34
#19762
Boy I bet they will be sorry to see someone of your "magnitude" go. How is that "rent a friend" deal working out for you?
on Thu, 07/30/2009 - 16:48
#19965
Just when I had all the coffee cleaned up from the keyboard and monitor ... Thanks!
on Thu, 07/30/2009 - 20:16
#20204
I think Mandy would look great in a Zero Hedge cap.
on Thu, 07/30/2009 - 12:53
#19605
Hopefully this will show Bloomberg and other potential competitors that even though most viewers like sexed up cheerleading, a little relevant news is good.
That being said, nothing beat Bloomberg's Italian reporter, Flavia Rotondi, reporting the other day on the Vatican's comments about greed with a cleavage shot down to her bellybutton.
Classic.
on Sat, 08/01/2009 - 18:22
#22011
'just jerkoff and buy"
on Thu, 07/30/2009 - 12:53
#19606
"At least GE stock is up: and for that GE, Barney Frank and Goldman Sachs, deserve a golf clap."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I smell anudder t-shirt. Or the name of a new std?
"MARK IT ZERO, DUDE"
on Thu, 07/30/2009 - 12:53
#19607
Rick Santelli got a raise....period.
All of a sudden? He's a roaring bull!
Probably got a three year extension on his contract.....
He isn't popular---what he has been SAYING is popular--that the whole game is bullshit
on Thu, 07/30/2009 - 12:53
#19608
That would also include me, I'm about 95% off from where I was at one time.
on Thu, 07/30/2009 - 12:54
#19610
I'm a bit surprised, comedy usually soothes depression.
I get a chuckle and it lifts my spirits whenever CNBC is on.
on Thu, 07/30/2009 - 12:55
#19613
Fawk yeah... Off to DinosaurVille !!
on Thu, 07/30/2009 - 12:56
#19615
I do think that most on CNBC are clowns and shills... however I do think the dramatic YOY change is more of a tell on sentiment (and a decent contrarian indicator) than a pure measure of the channel's suckiness.
What I mean is, last year (and the year before) ...at around this time of the year... I think most people knew something big & bad was coming ... and were tuning into basically the only pure "business" channel that most people get on cable... just to see what was happening. And I think now... people feel that there is no reason to tune in. What I mean is, the reduction is viewers is more about people being suckered into the imminent recovery story & going back to their regularly-scheduled reality shows. And again in other words, I think the viewers will be coming back... soon.
People I have liked on CNBC:
- Rattigan
- Macke
- Olick
on Thu, 07/30/2009 - 12:57
#19617
You just made my day...
Maybe I should keep CNBC on as I almost had to pull out a calculator to answer the captcha question.
on Thu, 07/30/2009 - 12:58
#19619
Wait, where did Margaret Brennan go?
They spend too much time on off topic subjects, their interviewers are all sycophants, and their reporting sucks. If I want to watch financial TV, I'll watch Bloomberg.
Not to mention they get bottom of the barrel advertisers now. Lots of Shamwow and Billy Mays (God rest his soul). At least the Extenze commercials make sense-how many of their viewers feel like Big Swinging Dicks these days?
on Thu, 07/30/2009 - 13:03
#19631
Well you're in luck because the lovely Ms. Brennan is now on Bloomberg
on Thu, 07/30/2009 - 13:06
#19635
She jumped to Bloomburger....she's a hottie with a rack I'd like to attack
on Thu, 07/30/2009 - 13:03
#19628
Margaret Brennan, my personal favorite, is gone to Bloomberg and anchors the 10am hr I think. God she is so hot.
Anyway, you know CNBC is shitting their pants right now. Those numbers are utter devastation, and there are no green shoots that I can see. Last July wasn't anything special so the fact that sheer viewership is down is completely significant.
I wonder if this explains the drop in volume in the NYSE as well.
on Thu, 07/30/2009 - 13:12
#19646
If Suze and Maria Barfiromo make out on Closing Bell and no one's watching to witness it, did it ever happen?
on Sat, 08/01/2009 - 18:25
#22012
if maria is on top, they'll just think she passes out
on Thu, 07/30/2009 - 13:13
#19647
Looking at the ratings, looks like they will be going all-Cramer all the time.
I would tune into that. See Cramer start at 6 AM ET, goes for 18 hours a day. By the end of the day it would get really interesting. Like Jack Nicholson, in the Shining, interesting.
on Thu, 07/30/2009 - 13:15
#19648
I will not ever again watch NBC, CNBC or MSNBC. Surprisingly some of the segments on CNN are not too bad now. In fact they may have become the least biased of all the news networks. Go figure.
Today I sold the GE stock that has been in my portfolio for 30 years (Thank you GS/Frank).
on Thu, 07/30/2009 - 13:20
#19656
Fox and Bloomberg need to lean on Comcast to get their shows broadcast to those that do not have a cable box. If that happens CNBC will go to zero.
on Thu, 07/30/2009 - 13:21
#19659
I laughed my ass off when your remarks on female pattern baldness first hit my eye level. I have noticed that the advertising has started to fall in line with CNBC's content. Shows on porn, marijuana and prostitution and the shouting matches amongst guests tie in well with the new advertisers. Maybe Michele C-C could put on her skimpy porno naval outfit to go with her sailor's mouth and re-inact the battle of Trafalgar in a made for CNBC commercial for Cutty Sark. This is one of your best posts ever.
on Thu, 07/30/2009 - 13:23
#19663
I personaly prefer:
THE LADIES OF BLOOMBERG.
http://www.gogomag.com/talkingheads/misc_bloomberg_f.php
on Thu, 07/30/2009 - 22:32
#20323
Think I might have to increase viewership of Business Turkey (no, that's a real show I guess - not the nickname of Mark Haines).
http://www.gogomag.com/talkingheads/bios/females/Seda_Domanic.php
on Thu, 07/30/2009 - 13:25
#19666
Looks like "Tits" Cabrera may soon be modeling bikinis on the Afternoon Power Lunch Brunch Show.
on Thu, 07/30/2009 - 13:27
#19669
donny deucichea (sp) is the only show that didnt get slaughtered ROFL thats scary
on Thu, 07/30/2009 - 13:27
#19670
With Billy Mays gone, they need to make the anchors hawk for the infomercials on late night.
on Thu, 07/30/2009 - 13:29
#19672
OK, where are the ratings for Bloomberg TV (full disclosure: I watch it when I can) and FBN?
Theory is that when the financial markets/economy tanks, viewership of financial shows goes down. I want to see all the numbers to check that theory.
on Thu, 07/30/2009 - 13:47
#19698
FBN has about 10,000 viewers a day last I saw about 3 months ago. So its like a pimple.
on Thu, 07/30/2009 - 13:33
#19674
I just gotta say that the blogosphere obsession with CNBC's wretchedness is the equivalent of 24/7 MSM Michael Jackson coverage.
I don't give a flying rip about either one. I never knew MJ, he was not my friend, nor did I buy his products. CNBC doesn't care about me at all -- they just want me to buy the stuff their ubiquitious advertisers sell.
CNBC is a for-profit, broadcast entertainment enterprise. And today we learned that 28% fewer people find their entertainment product as good as the entertainment product they sold last year. Perhaps Tyler could dig-up viewership changes for "The Cartoon Network" year over year. I suspect they haven't seen a 28% slide, which would substantiate my theory that when you are up-front with your audience that your product is total harmless nonsense, you don't disappoint viewers who believe otherwise.
on Sat, 08/01/2009 - 18:31
#22016
go buy a drudge report or something
on Thu, 07/30/2009 - 13:33
#19678
CNBC has a rating's problem? Who would have guessed that what with continually hyped porno documentaries and the regular drafting of Amanda Drury from Oz?
Hard to believe Dennis Kneale can't pull the viewers from C-Span or Jerry Springer, and folks don't get all warm and fuzzy over that May-December romance between Becky Quick and Warren Buffett. I would have thought some people would stay tuned just to see how big Maria Bartiromo's butt has gotten this week.
Pretty soon Gasparino will have to take his own advice (he doesn't listen to nobodies on Wall Street after all), and turn himself off.
on Thu, 08/06/2009 - 21:06
#28693
I always wondered just what Rebecca Quick has to do to get so many interviews with the notoriously reticent Great One. He sure looks a randy old dude when he's around her.
on Thu, 07/30/2009 - 13:35
#19680
The only way to save GE/CNBC and the liberal world as we know it is for Amanda Drury to tear off her blouse and grab those hefty funbags and start shaking them in a hypnotic fashion in front of the cameras while moaning 'Come here cowboy, oh you big bull you. mmmmmmhmmmmm....'
on Thu, 07/30/2009 - 22:16
#20304
I'm thinking they should promote a tit-off competition. Check out Mandy, MCC, the tiny's, Erin and Melissa and then move on to the old saggers, Maria and Sue. This may get some of the viewers back.
We know DK would win the pindick competition as long as whisky dick Gasbag didn't participate
on Thu, 07/30/2009 - 13:39
#19683
Ha - why's the midnight showing of Mad Money not lost a single viewer? Insomniacs in da house!!!
on Thu, 07/30/2009 - 13:40
#19684
Why would anyone still be watching CNBC? As a former watcher myself, i have to say that it is the worst financial channel around.
on Thu, 07/30/2009 - 13:40
#19685
Tyler, I'm with you on CNBC patrol but to be fair a year ago we were in full crisis mode - I believe banning financial shorting and fannie and freddie takeovers were about 1 year ago, etc
same issue with fall sweeps this year.
I hope it is more than that however!
on Thu, 07/30/2009 - 13:42
#19690
As a former viewer myself, I have to say that CNBC is the worst financial station ever. Totally biased reporting, but that is no surprise, since GE owns them. CNBC Sucks!
on Fri, 07/31/2009 - 15:05
#21119
Ditto!
on Thu, 07/30/2009 - 13:45
#19691
It's time for a "STOP WATCHING!!!" thread...
on Thu, 07/30/2009 - 13:48
#19699
Wow, fast money really lost viewers
on Thu, 07/30/2009 - 13:59
#19716
If you have watched it lately, you would understand why. Truely awful. Kudo's for not watching.
on Thu, 07/30/2009 - 15:42
#19857
That's cause all the viewers money disappeared, fast.
on Thu, 07/30/2009 - 14:25
#19747
I just hope they keep the talking hand puppets on long enough to look really stupid when the market has a "soft crash landing" and listen to the clowns Kudlow & Cramer try to explain what went wrong when things were getting so good.
on Thu, 07/30/2009 - 14:29
#19753
I honestly don't know how they have any viewership whatsoever. I stopped watching that garbage years ago and am a lot happier because of it.
Just seeing the 3 or 4 minutes clips which are posted here gets my blood boiling over.
Perhaps enough people have figured out listening to those shameless criminal shills is injurious to their financial (and mental) well being.........
on Thu, 07/30/2009 - 14:33
#19760
That implicit credulity is the mark of a feeble mind will not be disputed.
–Sir William Hamilton
on Thu, 07/30/2009 - 14:41
#19769
http://project000.typepad.com/photos/uncategorized/2008/07/07/michelle_carusocabrera_bikini.jpg
on Thu, 07/30/2009 - 14:42
#19772
CNBC just annouced they will be changing their format to boost ratings.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=92W0suKkLLA
on Thu, 07/30/2009 - 15:02
#19809
Wow. What has been seen, can't be unseen.
on Thu, 07/30/2009 - 14:47
#19777
Ja, dog got da bone. ,"
on Thu, 07/30/2009 - 14:48
#19781
The only reason I ever select the channel for CNBC is because it falls in sequence between CNN, The Weather Channel, and Fox news. So for a few seconds I catch a glimpse of CNBC.
34-CNN
35-CNN HLN
36-CNBC
37-Weather
38-Fox News
on Thu, 07/30/2009 - 14:53
#19790
Why do you watch Fixed News? As Vince Vaughn would say, "you're better than that!"
on Thu, 07/30/2009 - 14:55
#19793
You mean Faux News?
on Thu, 07/30/2009 - 15:17
#19827
Foxy News, morning only though.
on Thu, 07/30/2009 - 14:51
#19787
I do have to admit that I did love watching Donnie Deutsche slap Dennis "Rat Face" Kneale in the face on the few occasions he visited "POWER LUNCH", interestingly Donnie's show seems to have a solid viewership. I wonder if there's correlation between honesty and viewership? Glad to see the "market" mechanism is working and these jerks are getting the kick in the nuts they deserve!
on Thu, 07/30/2009 - 21:03
#20229
Deutsche is a no talent blowhard that if it wasn't for his dad, he would be milking cows.
on Fri, 07/31/2009 - 15:02
#21111
Indeed. The only business smarts Deutsche has was to sell the company, take his money, and RUN! If not for that, he'd have RUN it into the ground!
I genuinely pity anyone who watches that program!
on Thu, 07/30/2009 - 14:54
#19791
Think they are only allowed to say what the producers tell them they are allowed to say, (Dylan Ratigan alluded to this fact). Apparently, there is a certain "mantra" which may have to do with the closeness of the parent company to the guys in the big house in DC. Erin Burnett routinely crosses the line and is probably sorry she didn't say yes to Bloomberg. Dylan has a new program "morning meeting" on MSNBC opposite Erin Burnett and the old guy, he was great in the first week or so, but now, he has just become another CNBC chump. Too bad he can't go bac on his hands and knees and beg Bloomberg to take him back.
on Thu, 07/30/2009 - 22:20
#20312
What's the story on that grumpy old nutsack that's on with Erin? Is he for real? That guy must arrive in an ambulance
on Thu, 07/30/2009 - 14:56
#19795
I thought something was amiss when they were putting ads for what states viewed the most porn.
on Thu, 07/30/2009 - 14:56
#19796
seems like they need a major selloff to boost the ratings....
on Thu, 07/30/2009 - 16:15
#19907
Like the Weather Channel needs a hurricane.
I bet TWC has better ratings than CNBC. Let's look it up.
on Thu, 07/30/2009 - 14:57
#19799
Which "infamous Immelt memo" do you refer to?
on Fri, 07/31/2009 - 15:00
#21103
I was wondering this too!
on Thu, 07/30/2009 - 14:59
#19801
I removed the TV from my office about 4 months ago and I'm a much happier person for it...really. I'm not nearly as angry at the world. Thanks Tyler et al...and my friends and family thank you too!
on Thu, 07/30/2009 - 15:04
#19812
I think Radigan is trying:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wDhKWaSAVe8
on Thu, 07/30/2009 - 15:09
#19818
Can anyone translate this first sentence of this article into English, from CNBC speak? Seriously...it doesn't even make sense!
"After a year and a half of declining payrolls, economists are more certain there will be modest job creation than either a "jobless recovery" or an outright jobs boom."
http://www.cnbc.com/id/32220390
on Thu, 07/30/2009 - 15:15
#19823
"After a year and a half of declining payrolls economists are certain there will be modest job creation."
Well I took a shot at it...
on Thu, 07/30/2009 - 23:41
#20360
"After a year and a half of declining payrolls
there will be more blow jobs."
on Thu, 07/30/2009 - 15:23
#19833
That made a heck of a lot more sense than what followed it:
"There are signs the decline in unemployment is over," says David Resler, chief economist at Nomura International, reflecting the general view of half a dozen economists.
So, he's saying we're done with lower unemployment - and here comes the higher unemployment?
That's what one gets for clicking on a cnbc link, I guess.
on Thu, 07/30/2009 - 15:30
#19839
They can raise ratings from doing Porn "specials" to just
doing straight Porn.
on Thu, 07/30/2009 - 15:40
#19853
Besides, it's all about ball bearings these days!
on Thu, 07/30/2009 - 16:16
#19909
And 30 weight oil
on Thu, 07/30/2009 - 15:44
#19862
"GE's propaganda station"
lol. exactly.
on Thu, 07/30/2009 - 15:52
#19870
I just stumbled across this site from another blog.
I gotta say, while the numbers are bad, CNBC is still raking in the dough (revenues were UP +7% in the 2nd quarter, despite the down ratings)....so while you guys laugh at their numbers, they're still cashing in so I doubt they care what some people on a blog think about their numbers...just food for thought.
on Thu, 07/30/2009 - 16:14
#19905
revenue =/= income
on Thu, 07/30/2009 - 16:21
#19921
What?
If CNBC made $250 million+ in PROFITS with *lower* revenues LAST YEAR, then I'm sure they're AT LEAST making the similar profits this year. Even if expenses, for whatever reason, shot up BIG TIME in 2009, they're still massively profitable.
I don't work for CNBC or anything (IP trace me if you want), but honestly - while you collect your 10 cents per ad on this blog, CNBC is laughing all the way to the bank. They made HUGE profits in '03-'04, even when viewership was LESS THAN HALF of July '09.
Again, don't let the real "facts" get in the way.
on Thu, 07/30/2009 - 16:24
#19928
speaking of "facts", please provide a link for the $250 million in profit last year.
on Thu, 07/30/2009 - 16:28
#19938
With pleasure:
http://money.cnn.com/2008/03/31/news/companies/cnbc_pain.fortune/index.htm
BTW I was wrong - CNBC actually made $333 million in profits last year.
OUCH!
on Thu, 07/30/2009 - 16:29
#19940
Here's the EXACT quote btw, in case you miss it:
Profits have increased 36% to $333 million since Hoffman joined, according to media research firm SNL Kagan, making CNBC the second most profitable of NBCU's 13 cable channels, after USA Network. Says Jeff Immelt, CEO of CNBC's parent, GE (GE, Fortune 500), "The business model of CNBC is what we'd like to see play out across NBCU."
on Thu, 07/30/2009 - 16:35
#19947
then being the expert I am sure that you have then seen this report which ironically ignores "shared" corporate overhead... Which is quite useful when the upstream parent is General Electric providing a few externalities.
on Thu, 07/30/2009 - 16:43
#19957
LOL ok now you're just nit-picking, and you know it.
CNBC *used* to house some of their WeatherPlus network under the same umbrella as CNBC, but since they purchased "The Weather Network" and are winding down their MONEY LOSING WeatherPlus project, there's likely no "shared" corporate overhead going on.
Even if there was a HUGE amount of "shared" corporate overhead, I HIGHLY doubt that CNBC as a "standalone" is losing money (which you seem to think it is...).
You must not know how the cable industry works - each network gets a SET fee, per subscriber, per month. Considering CNBC is in NEARLY 100 million homes, even from carriage fees ALONE they are likely making money (assuming they have ZERO ads). Of course, with their ad space being highly valuable (due to their high income viewership), I don't think that every advertiser in the world would run away from CNBC.
Trust me, I know this is a punch to the gut to you, especially after all of your CNBC bashing around here. I don't think they're perfect either (!!!), but really...they're extremely successful, very valuable and as a GE cash cow, they're definitely on the right track.
on Thu, 07/30/2009 - 16:44
#19958
I can stomach the punch to the gut of their losing 28% viewership quite well... as for cash cow... alas you really have no idea what you are talking about
on Thu, 07/30/2009 - 16:48
#19967
LOL I don't, huh?
Fact is, I have the feeling you think CNBC was losing money. Now, you're facing reality, judging by your weak responses.
Oh well....
BTW - Reuters seems to think CNBC is a cash cow...lemme guess, THEY don't know what they're talking about either, huh?
http://www.reuters.com/article/industryNews/idUSN0339023620070104
on Thu, 07/30/2009 - 16:51
#19974
I think january 2007 does not go far back enough - can you find something from the 90's? can you rerun that "CNBS and profits" google search again please. (P.S. look at a chart of the NYT, GCI or OMC stock at January 2007...let me know how it compares to today).
on Thu, 07/30/2009 - 16:56
#19983
WOWWWW!!!
January 2007 doesn't go far enough, huh?
LOL you're such a JOKE!
Is FUCKING 1995 far enough for you???
"Indeed, CNBC's business is based on niche economics. At $145 million, its revenues are puny compared with NBC's billions. ***But because it's nonunion and production costs are low, its operating margins are fat.***"
>http://www.businessweek.com/archives/1995/b343187.arc.htm
And I don't know if you'll have access to these articles (since they're SO OLD), but feel free to click through ALL THESE ARTICLES, dating back as early as 1992
> http://news.google.ca/archivesearch?q=CNBC+%2Bprofitable&btnG=Search&hl=en&ned=ca&um=1&scoring=a
Are you done whining now?
on Thu, 07/30/2009 - 16:59
#19991
good work with the google. as for the age of the references, alas you missed the point (and sarcasm) of the exercise.
on Thu, 07/30/2009 - 17:09
#19999
Whatever, Tyler.
Facts are:
-CNBC, the network where Dennis Kneale draws in BARELY 100k a night, is wildly profitable - profitable beyond your wildest dreams (...just a hunch).
-They're viewership can sink to ZERO, and they'll still likely break even.
-You've argued like a child with me over, and over again...with nothing substantive to add.
Alas, you've lost. There's really nothing for you to say/add anymore. Hey by all means, you and your ZH friends should take INCREDIBLE PRIDE in knowing that CNBC's viewership is down. I don't care - I have nothing personally invested in CNBC's success/failure.
But - as any idiotic business student knows - the only thing that matters is the bottom line. And in that respect, CNBC is kicking ass (corporate "overhead" allocation or not...lol)
It must really grind your gears that Charlie Gasparino, with his smug and arrogant face, works for one of the (few) GE/NBCU success stories (even though YOU apparently don't think CNBC is a "cash cow").
And I *HIGHLY* doubt you'll admit it, but I wouldn't be surprised if these numbers came from someone in (or related to) that piece of s**t "Fox Business".......again, just a hunch ;)
on Thu, 07/30/2009 - 17:15
#20007
nailed it again - there is nothing substantive for me to add.
on Thu, 07/30/2009 - 17:21
#20018
"Facts are...
-They're viewership can sink to ZERO, and they'll still likely break even."
How is that a "fact"? "Likely"?
How is that "substantive"?
on Fri, 07/31/2009 - 08:21
#20496
As long as CNBS is in the basic tiers for pretty much every pay tv provider in the nation, yes they would break even.
on Fri, 07/31/2009 - 08:26
#20500
Also advertisers would be willing to pay a lot for that type of national reach, think about the weekends on CNBC.
On the other hand you have a network like Bloomberg which doesn't even subscribe to Nielsen, but has been estimated to be much lower than CNBC's ratings. It has slightly higher ratings than another actual informative business channel (Cnbc World), which in turn has higher ratings (same distribution, though) than Murdoch's FBN crap.
on Thu, 07/30/2009 - 16:57
#19987
Although profits are important to GE, a rapidly declining viewership is not what the Wall Street puppeteers of CNBC want, as this means that there are less suckers to buy the latest paper rubbish that CNBC shills.
on Thu, 07/30/2009 - 16:44
#19953
You fucking idiot, that article is from March 2008. How does that have any relevance to their declining ratings a year later?
Their declining ratings are due to totally missing the crash, and in fact laughing and mocking contributors who warned the crash was coming.
No one I know watches them anymore, the channel is useless and has been exposed for the shills they are.
The will be one of the last victims of the crash.
on Thu, 07/30/2009 - 16:45
#19959
Hey asshole, you honestly think that if their viewership dropped from 330k to 205k, they're going to go from $333m in PROFITS to LOSSES? As I told your buddy Kevin above, clearly you don't understand the cable business either. A huge chunk of a cable network's revenues come in REGARDLESS of ratings.
And for a point of interest:
2007 - when they averaged 250k in daytime (read: DAYTIME - NOT total day), they STILL managed to make $240 million in PROFITS
http://www.broadcastingcable.com/article/110759-Inside_Ailes_Plan_To_Blow_Away_CNBC.php
on Thu, 07/30/2009 - 16:49
#19969
easy with the double posts.
on Thu, 07/30/2009 - 17:12
#20005
Sorry.
on Thu, 07/30/2009 - 16:54
#19978
Did anyone say they are going to go to losses immediately? They probably could make money just on the inter-company ads alone.
They are losing viewership, that is a fact. The only reason anyone watches them anymore is because they are available on most basic extended cable packages and Bloomberg is not. Once Bloomberg becomes more widely available, they are done.
Bloomberg puts out a quality, professional product, and will roll over these guys just like they rolled over Telerate/Reuters in the terminal market.
And why don't you register a screen name instead of being such a pussy? Don't answer, I think I know who you work for (oh, but feel free to follow my IP address to my mom's house).
on Thu, 07/30/2009 - 16:57
#19988
The only reason I didn't "register" is because:
a) I'm at work
b) I just read this blog properly for the first time today.
But, in case you care...here's my IP address:
173.35.192.140
on Thu, 07/30/2009 - 17:56
#20057
seriously dude u lose right there. game over.
if you think that he didn't know your IP address the second u left your first comment than you severely underestimated your competition (which i believe was beautifully displayed with your well argued and coherent understanding of the material displayed herein).
on Fri, 07/31/2009 - 08:33
#20508
I believe that he was talking to the regular registered user not an Admin level user like TD.
The fact is that as an entertainment property of GE CNBC has been doing well.
on Thu, 07/30/2009 - 16:45
#19960
Hey asshole, you honestly think that if their viewership dropped from 330k to 205k, they're going to go from $333m in PROFITS to LOSSES? As I told your buddy Kevin above, clearly you don't understand the cable business either. A huge chunk of a cable network's revenues come in REGARDLESS of ratings.
And for a point of interest:
2007 - when they averaged 250k in daytime (read: DAYTIME - NOT total day), they STILL managed to make $240 million in PROFITS
http://www.broadcastingcable.com/article/110759-Inside_Ailes_Plan_To_Blow_Away_CNBC.php
on Thu, 07/30/2009 - 16:10
#19899
Oh and btw, the Dow also sank from 12,600 (June 1) to 11,350 (June 30) - that's a HUGE nosedive and likely lead to the beginning of the increase in market interest.
In June 2008, the market volatility was the lowest we've seen in over a year, with only a 400 point swing in the Dow from top to bottom = YAWN. July '09 has been UP, but the market has been inching up day by day...no big volatile swings like we saw last summer. Why people would be interested in a boring market like this is a question to ponder...
But of course, don't let the facts get in the way of a good CNBC bashing...
on Thu, 07/30/2009 - 16:50
#19972
your loyalty will be awarded Dennis
- J.Immelt
on Thu, 07/30/2009 - 16:18
#19912
Jon Stewart exposed Cramer and CNBC for what they really are. Thank you Jon.
on Thu, 07/30/2009 - 16:21
#19920
How are these numbers calculated?
Although I have a TV right next to me, I stopped using it for CNBC when I got thinkorswim. They have a CNBC feed that strips out commercials. I mean how cool is that?
on Thu, 07/30/2009 - 16:29
#19943
CNBC is a non-stop commercial for GE and Obama's green scam.
on Fri, 07/31/2009 - 14:51
#21086
That's another reason I hit the "off" button!
on Thu, 07/30/2009 - 20:12
#20195
It would be nice if TOS would can CNBC in favor of something else. Who, I don't know, but nothing is better than CNBC. Won't happen, they are a contributor as well. <frown>
on Thu, 07/30/2009 - 16:25
#19930
No wonder people are not watching--they're giving Steve Liesman more and more time and he talks so fast that nobody can understand what is being said (and when he is understood, it's clear he the Administration can do no wrong).
on Thu, 07/30/2009 - 16:47
#19964
That is part of the problem, why I stopped watching - they don't provide any decent analysis.
Bloomberg has a bunch of pumpers, too, but at least you get decent analysis every once in a while, plus you can see the international news in the evening, instead of whatever porn expose CNBC shows.
Can't stand Fox, either, that long-haired dude bugs the shit out of me.
on Fri, 07/31/2009 - 14:50
#21083
Steve Liesman -- last name appropriately spelled -- Lies, man!
on Thu, 07/30/2009 - 16:34
#19946
If CNBC would be objective in their reporting and not so opinionated, their ratings may improve..."Just the facts Mam."
on Fri, 07/31/2009 - 14:49
#21079
Exactly. They treat their customers like they're a bunch of stupid children that need to be brainwashed! It's condescending and sends their customers (us) looking for a better news source!
on Thu, 07/30/2009 - 17:09
#19998
ChickaBOOMer -- CNBC: Kneale and Pray
http://chickaboomer.blogspot.com/2009/07/cnbc-kneale-and-pray.html
on Thu, 07/30/2009 - 17:15
#20008
Good grief - some asshole posting articles about how "profitable" a news station is from 2008 and 2007. So was WaMu and Lehman.
April 2008 - from jerky's first post: SPX is at ~1350
January 2007 - from jerky's second post: SPX is at ~1400
July 30, 2009 - today when jerky posted: SPX is at 986.
Now that being said, bubblevision may not be getting slaughtered because they may not have sold all their advertising inventory anyways.
....and by shared corporate overhead, I don't think he was talking about physical space, I think he was talking about accounting tricks, where you can hide your production, HR, finance, and sales costs under the larger corporate umbrella.
on Thu, 07/30/2009 - 17:38
#20034
And if you has listened to CNBS commentators, you would have bought BSC and WB (just recalling two Cramer calls) right before they crashed. They both also made money in 2007, I think.
But be easy on the Canadian, I am betting he can't get Bloomberg TV in Toronto, and his BNN mostly covers the Canadian market, which is mostly irrelevant to the rest of the world.
on Thu, 07/30/2009 - 17:45
#20045
So you're comparing a cable news network to a bank.
Yet I'm the "asshole", huh?
OK.
And I think you're the 3rd person who I've told this to, but again, you don't seem to understand how cable networks work either. Did you ever wonder why nearly ALL cable networks are profitable? Did you ever wonder why media companies have been dumping more resources into CABLE networks as opposed to broadcast? It's because even the shittiest cable shit out there can make money. Hell, even "Fox Business" is projecting to become profitable in a few years.
Accounting tricks or not, cable is vastly more profitable than you believe - "accounting tricks" or not.
Man this place attracts so many clueless morons....but considering the staff/mods around here, I'm not surprised.
Read:
Disney cable networks (FROM FUCKING 2 HOURS AGO):
"Disney’s cable networks posted profit of $1.12 billion, with sales falling 1 percent to $2.56 billion. The Disney Channel and ABC Family have taken ad sales from broadcast networks"
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601103&sid=aetD0z00UpsI
NBC Universal:
"The unit's cable networks, which have become its most reliable sources of revenue, saw their profit rise 7% to $595 million."
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/nbc-universal-profit-drops-41
Time Warner:
"One bright spot was the group's television division – which includes HBO, the maker of the new vampire-centred televisual hit Tru Blood – which saw **profits** rise by 17pc on the back of a 4.8pc increase in sales, largely due to the strength of its cable networks. "
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/mediatechnologyandtelecoms/media/5933650/Time-Warners-profits-slide-as-restructuring-continues.html
P.S. Yeah I get Bloomberg.
and LOL at all of you saying "once they [Bloomberg] get more viewership they'll wipe CNBC off the map"
Bloomberg has been on cable since 1994! If they haven't been able to make a dent in CNBC's status in FIFTEEN years, what makes you think they will anytime soon?
Maybe Maggie should pull that top down a bit more, that'll get them a few dozen more eyeballs....
on Fri, 07/31/2009 - 01:45
#20398
With that much energy in conjunction with your disdain for the proprietors and ardent followers of this site it might be prudent to redirect yourself to an activity that is more constructive and perhaps therapeutic. Have you ever made soap?
on Fri, 07/31/2009 - 15:22
#21152
Aw c'mon Mrs. Kneale, you're making it too obvious.
on Thu, 07/30/2009 - 19:11
#20127
Not even the unemployed are watching. Passed out in vodka comma.
Bottoms in so bottoms up!!
on Thu, 07/30/2009 - 19:16
#20131
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
Green shoots growing out of bulls butts everywhere!
on Thu, 07/30/2009 - 19:24
#20137
Since CNBC wants to cheerlead, I vote to put Erin and Becky in tight cheerleader outfits everyday. I'd put Cramer in a cage with a ball in his mouth hung up in the corner. Wishful thinking.
on Thu, 07/30/2009 - 20:25
#20210
Donny Douche is up 100%???? Amazing!
on Fri, 07/31/2009 - 14:26
#21018
I surmise that this is because his program is relatively new. It's easy to grow from one viewer -- to two! :)
on Thu, 07/30/2009 - 21:01
#20227
CNBC rocks. You go DK, tell 'em like it is. All of this negativity is causing my makeup to pancake.
Even a cable network can make money with a steep, upward sloping stranglehold on local cable contract rates.
Signed,
Mean Mr. Mustardseed
on Thu, 07/30/2009 - 21:06
#20230
CNBC is the worst station with the worst anchors.
on Thu, 07/30/2009 - 21:40
#20250
by Anonymous
on Thu, 07/30/2009 - 20:25
#20210
Donny Douche is up 100%???? Amazing!
----------------------------------------
No dumbass, learn to read. The time slot Donny used to have is +89% and +42% now that CNBC is NOT showing his show and instead showing those documentary reruns.
on Thu, 07/30/2009 - 22:30
#20320
just look at the shooting star as of today
short GE!!
on Thu, 07/30/2009 - 22:45
#20330
When Margaret B. left...I left for good..and she was right. Unless my brother or dad is on the show..I'm long gone...bbb
on Thu, 07/30/2009 - 22:53
#20335
Does anyone watch TV anymore? I have been living off the internet and cell phones for 2 years now. Access to information is quicker and more relevant, ads are easily ignored, and this mode provides complete mobility. You also get to skip the talking heads.
As a bonus, if you know how to use a SQUID proxy, you can block 90-95% of ad providers for even less irritation.
I won't call the end of cable or print media anytime soon (too much infrastructure and investment), but for a news medium, those venues are mostly irrelevant to the fast flow of information, and almost all the same content can be perused at the consumers leisure through some other portal.
The biggest reason to care about CNBC losing share is that they will most likely clean house (whether it is fair or not to current crew).
I did some poking around trying to dig up Bloomberg or Fox data without having a Nielsen account and could not find anything. It would be interesting if your source for the other data could provide Bloomberg and Fox data, or if someone could link that data.
on Fri, 07/31/2009 - 00:17
#20380
THEY DEZERVE IT 100%, IT IS ABOUT TIME THEY GET THE SHUT UP RATING, THEY ASKED FOR IT ALL. AND I HOPE THEY CHANGE THE WAY THEY TALK AND COMMENT ON EVERY THING THEY COVER. CHANGE YOUR SMILLES AND CHANGE YOUR DICUSTING COMMENTS, WE DO NOT NEED TO HEAR THAT. JUST STIK TO COVERING THE STORY AND DO NOT GIVE ME YU DISCUSTING OPION, JUST KEEP IT TO YOUR SELF.
on Fri, 07/31/2009 - 06:58
#20444
wait till you watch a CNBC Africa show..its takes CNBC to a new low. The presenters cant even spell "stock" but are regardless the biggest bulls around. They make DK seem neutral.
on Fri, 07/31/2009 - 06:58
#20445
Maybe if Kudlow comes out of the closet with his cross-dressing it might pick up ratings?
on Fri, 07/31/2009 - 07:45
#20471
Watching this morning. Joe just welcomed in Rick Santelli as "negative rick". Rick is the one guy that I trust listening to. I don't get Bloomberg w/ my cable package otherwise I would switch.
on Fri, 07/31/2009 - 08:17
#20492
Man there's a ton of comments even with the AD rack!
Bloomberg can be gotten on internet TV but they have the
most horrible racks, faces, and sloppy voices.
It is the best content. Fox biz doesn't cut it.
on Fri, 07/31/2009 - 14:36
#21025
I stopped watching CNBC 4 months ago. I got sick of the constant Keynesian Koolaid! I even sent them an e-mail telling them my reason.
I've been trading better ever since! :)
on Fri, 07/31/2009 - 15:00
#21102
I will explain this to you, and you just nod your head.
The explanation is very simple: after they let Macke go, the car people stopped watching.
on Fri, 07/31/2009 - 23:55
#21672
Yo people, at CNBC, financial firms pay for "premium air time" that is really advertising cloaked as "professional" journalism. Guests are actually paying customers. They pay when they have something to say, or when a firm selects them and wants them there.
Here is the real reason CNBC ratings are down:
http://7712151725921304556-a-1802744773732722657-s-sites.googlegroups.com/site/socialistjournalisminamerica/Premise/SoJo_Favorits.pdf?attredirects=0&auth=ANoY7cqWuNO5YBEqwwIwyC14UbVtK0vrrFBKmOd3IOCegw8NWhnqFUYjyyeS9fxxGJN_Q6qhRm2traF7EjY0KbMAxpUaDwt3cNQb_3E86Bl0IY3Icx8qQEiPIMw2_ry6kuJkcjrSzY0wjSSy0kA1m9bY7kcvonLfzAlbTZbHY5ub1MMD4HMCJ252Xwbc5GDWKdZ9h4Zh4TmqkCKecxPVXk1ZtWvhLalGpe5jJbqlt6M31u87AkoAt7o%3D
on Fri, 07/31/2009 - 23:57
#21673
OH i thy this again ... The real reason CNBC ratings are down:
http://tinyurl.com/n9xfcq
on Fri, 07/31/2009 - 23:58
#21674
try* I try this again.
http://tinyurl.com/n9xfcq
Post new comment