This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
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.
»
- 34008 reads
- Printer-friendly version
- Send to friend
- advertisements -
"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"?
As long as CNBS is in the basic tiers for pretty much every pay tv provider in the nation, yes they would break even.
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.
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.
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.
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_Blo...
easy with the double posts.
Sorry.
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).
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
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).
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.
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_Blo...
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...
your loyalty will be awarded Dennis
- J.Immelt
Jon Stewart exposed Cramer and CNBC for what they really are. Thank you Jon.
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?
CNBC is a non-stop commercial for GE and Obama's green scam.
That's another reason I hit the "off" button!
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>
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).
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.
Steve Liesman -- last name appropriately spelled -- Lies, man!
If CNBC would be objective in their reporting and not so opinionated, their ratings may improve..."Just the facts Mam."
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!
ChickaBOOMer -- CNBC: Kneale and Pray
http://chickaboomer.blogspot.com/2009/07/cnbc-kneale-and-pray.html
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.
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.
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/mediatechnologyandteleco...
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....
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?
Aw c'mon Mrs. Kneale, you're making it too obvious.
Not even the unemployed are watching. Passed out in vodka comma.
Bottoms in so bottoms up!!
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
Green shoots growing out of bulls butts everywhere!
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.
Donny Douche is up 100%???? Amazing!
I surmise that this is because his program is relatively new. It's easy to grow from one viewer -- to two! :)
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
CNBC is the worst station with the worst anchors.
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.
just look at the shooting star as of today
short GE!!
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
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.
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.
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.
Maybe if Kudlow comes out of the closet with his cross-dressing it might pick up ratings?
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.
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.
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! :)
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.
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.co...
OH i thy this again ... The real reason CNBC ratings are down:
http://tinyurl.com/n9xfcq
try* I try this again.
http://tinyurl.com/n9xfcq
since the decline, money isn't fun anymore. many have 40% less and the crowd is just focusing on other things, like getting by. Moreover, who wants to watch mark haines slurp and swallow and be rude? Like I want to start my day watching a stupid attorney wipe his mouth and then interrupt someone? what a pig and a bore.
I knew something was up. Alot more people seemed to not know what to think lately. I guess they haven't been fed enough CNBC rhetorik.
Where are the sheep. I someone else fleecing them?
Last year at this time, Kudlow was foisting Sara Palin on us. Now, he's lined up with the birthers and the tea baggers. I want market news and commentary, not politics.
you give so many great tips especially since I use word press and the plug-in section of your blog is great. some of the tips i get here I can’t find anywhere else. health administration
Dude, the Star Wars is cracking me up. Thanks for the great post, these are my fav so far. xbox 360 slim
I found lots of interesting information here. The post was professionally written and I feel like the author has extensive knowledge in the subject. Keep it that way masters in sports
I recently came across your blog and have been reading along. I thought I would leave my first comment. I don’t know what to say except that I have enjoyed reading. Nice blog, I will keep visiting this blog very often.
minoteries a vendre