This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
Days After Zero Hedge Report Of Its Plunging Ratings, CNBC Stops Using Nielsen
It was less than a week ago when Zero Hedge broke the news that for CNBC, 2014 Was The Worst. Year. Ever.
Much to the embarrassment of CNBC, its staunch defender David Rosenberg, and not to mention its advertisers who realized they overspent substantially for the reach they were promised and received instead, the report promptly went viral.
Rosenberg himself said, when referring to the report, that "Now they [Zero Hedge] have turned their attention to CNBC. I think these guys should subject themselves to a New Year’s resolution: show respect because there are in fact two sides to every debate."
Thanks for the advice, but we will actually continue doing precisely what we do: exposing lies, stupidity and fraud pretty much anywhere we see it. Here's why: five days after our Nielsen-sourced report before the Comcast-owned channel announced it would no longer be subject to the humiliation of Zero Hedge periodically revealing its crashing viewership and, as WSJ revealed today, "CNBC will no longer rely on TV ratings specialist Nielsen to measure its daytime audience, beginning later this year. Instead, it has retained marketing and research firm Cogent Reports for the task."
Two words: "seasonal adjustments"?
A few more words: why rely on a uniform, universally-accepted rating methodology when one can come up with one's own, bought and paid for "adjusted" ratings.
And here are CNBC's own words on why it is doing the stunning move which validates that its viewereship is indeed as low as it could get before the pain for Comcast became unbearable:
For years CNBC and its parent company, Comcast Corp. ’s NBCUniversal, have complained that Nielsen underreports the size and wealth of its audience by failing to track “out of home” viewing in places such as offices and airports.
CNBC’s switch to Cogent is the latest barb for Nielsen, which has faced criticism from media companies that it has been slow to adapt its traditional ratings to changing media consumption habits. While many media companies say they are frustrated with Nielsen, CNBC is the first network to opt out of its ratings.
Zero Hedge readers already know the facts. Here they are from the WSJ:
CNBC’s daytime Nielsen ratings, which always have been relatively small, have fallen sharply over the past decade. In 2014—its least-watched year since 1995—CNBC had an average audience of 177,000 people from the hours of 9:30 a.m. and 5 p.m., according to Nielsen. That is down 17% from an average of 214,000 viewers in 2004, and it is a drop of 13% from 2013.
It has gotten so bad WSJ is now actively losing leverage, and money, when discussing ads: "Executives at CNBC said they were leaving money on the table with advertisers and they needed to make a change. “Nielsen has never measured us accurately,” said CNBC President Mark Hoffman. “If we can’t count the people the right way we can’t get paid the right way.”"
For those who are unaware, Nielsen generates ratings from a panel of sample households, and those ratings are the currency used by networks and advertisers to determine the value of TV commercials. Which means that the simplest solution is the right one: households no longer watch CNBC for a whole host of reasons. But that is unacceptable, so time to change the methodology, and the ratings provider.
The CNBC arrangement marks the first time Cogent Reports, a unit of Market Strategies International, will be measuring the audience of a TV network. Cogent ratings will be used starting in the fourth quarter of 2015. The company will survey over 1,000 investors and financial advisers on their media habits during the day and use that data to provide ratings for CNBC.
“We talk to people once a week and ask them to report out their behavior,” said Christy White, managing director of Cogent Reports. Ms. White said many of CNBC’s advertisers are also Cogent clients. “They know and use and trust our data,” she said.
And then we send CNBC the invoice for the monthly "rating"?
How are CNBC's two main competitors handling the situation? Bloomberg TV isn’t measured by Nielsen, and never has been. Fox Business is measured by Nielsen and has no plans to change.
“Bloomberg has the most influential audience any cable TV network delivers,” Bloomberg Television said. “We’ve expanded our distribution to reach viewers on whatever platform they prefer.”
Explaining why Fox Business Network continues with Nielsen, Paul Rittenberg, executive vice president of advertising for the channel, said, “Only using the numbers you like is a little tough to sell.”
But the biggest trick will be convincing advertisers themselves why CNBC is changing the methodology. Needless to say, in a time when everything is moving to "native advertising" and distributed content, it will have a very tought time.
CNBC will still guarantee a rating to advertisers when it switches to Cogent, but it will need to persuade Madison Avenue’s advertising agencies that the numbers are trustworthy.
“Agencies have realized there is a lot of smart research out there that allows you to do business other than Nielsen,” said Sam Armando, a senior vice president at Starcom MediaVest Group Exchange, a media-buying firm. “We will definitely put it through the ringer to make sure what they are doing is sound and usable.”
Completing the picture is CNBC parent Comcast, which two months ago itself admitted advertising revenue is sliding rapidly.
Curious why Q3 revenue at the NBCUniversal segment of which CNBC is
part of at Comcast remained unchanged at $2.255 billion compared to
($2.239 billion in Q3 2013), and why advertising revenue actually dropped by a lofty 4.6% in the quarter compared to a year ago?Let's find out from the source, shall we. Here is the explanation from the company's earnings release: "For the third quarter of 2014, revenue from the Cable Networks
segment increased 0.7% to $2.3 billion compared to $2.2 billion in the
third quarter of 2013, reflecting a 5.1% increase in distribution
revenue, partially offset by a 4.6% decline in advertising revenue, primarily due to a decline in ratings."
Expect this trend to accelerate sharply in the current quarter.
Luckily, there is always hope that the future brings better ratings. Here is how CNBC is approaching that, via PageSix:
CNBC is trying to find a new audience on gay hookup app Grindr after ratings for the business channel fell to a historic low.
While the NBCUniversal-owned network’s audience has traditionally been Wall Street bankers and avid watchers of the financial markets, after a huge drop in ratings in 2014, television industry insiders are joking that CNBC is now being more creative about attracting hot new viewers.
It is currently running a banner ad for the “All-new CNBC app for iPhone & iPad” on Grindr, which helps users find available gay, bi or curious guys locally.
CNBC’s shiny app features a smiling picture of Carl Quintanilla, but bears little resemblance to Grindr’s app and its somewhat semiclad users with catchy profile names like “PreppyJockDad.”
Good luck CNBC.
- 19070 reads
- Printer-friendly version
- Send to friend
- advertisements -





CNBC should pay viewers to watch. That would be fair.
They could fund the payments with kickbacks from wall street and the zwo mafia who are all relying on mom and pop matrixtard viewer as new marks.
Just re-brand as the gay news business channel.
MSNBCLBGT-TV
Wouldn't be surprised to see Bartiromo back squawking "buy stawks" before the end of the year, they are that desperate.
"Wouldn't be surprised to see Bartiromo back squawking "buy stawks" before the end of the year, they are that desperate."
They're gonna need someone a lot younger, and probably topless too in order to win back all the fools who lost their money listening to the banal vapid vacuous wall street shill parade.
Jug titted "You Know I'm Right" SeaBiscuit isn't garnering eyeballs either.
those tits are hitting her waistline now. her ship has sailed
This is great news. It shows that television executives are capable of learning, too. When unemployment numbers need massaging, they are seasonally adjusted, and unemployment can improve just by having the unemployed stop looking for work. And economic indicators are massaged, too. Spending on Obama Care insurance coverage can shape last quarter’s economic growth, and stock buyback schemes can make moribund firms look hugely profitable. Even our census data is tweaked with multipliers for “undercounting” that are designed to adjust the numbers for certain racial and ethnic groups. Now the TV execs want in on the action. And, why not? Why keep reporting declining Nielsen ratings when everyone else gets to fudge their numbers? It’s time to count the undercounted in television land, too. They should count the number of people who visit the network’s Web site and the number of people standing in front of televisions while shopping at Wal-Mart. Why just keep reporting the bad old numbers? Nobody else does. Who cares that the numbers become meaningless? Besides, the only reason for collecting the numbers is to sell advertising. Advertising will sell better with cooked-up numbers. The question is, what took the TV execs so long? They must be among the slowest learners in town.
I scored 38% on my last maffs test but altered it to 88% and feel much better about myself.
one thing is sure, they're going to need higher quality beefcake than kernan and liesman if they want to make inroads with the gay audience. lulz
The gay ad stuff is hillarious! Hey CNBC just start streaming transgender S&M midget porn why dontcha!
The midgets would have more credibility! ROFL!
MINI ME
https://www.tmz.com/2008/06/25/mini-me-sex-tape-avert-your-eyes/
Rumor is there's going to be a CNBC nickel ETF machine at all the las vegas branch casinos.
I wonder if it ever occurs to these “capitalists” that without cable bundling (aka collectivism a true violation of antitrust laws: the injury is access) this channel (CNBC) would cease to exist as a capitalistic entity.
This TV existence is based upon a communistic style business model totally subsidized in the most socialistic manner possible. The 90 million who are forced to pay so 170 thousand can watch is capitalistic heresy. Meaning that 99.94% pay so that .0666% (imagine that) can have CNBC. (Same with FBN)
If we had the Laissez-faire Capitalism they all espouse, with an A Le Carte cable selection menu as they advocate for the wealthiest right to choose what to do with their wealth unfettered by regulation, they would be dismissed as the fringe lunatics they are: as would all the fanatic cable channels.
If you add up all the cable channel news audience it is a fringe even in aggregation. (Less than 1% of the population). If cable news wasn’t bundled with ESPN (as an example) it wouldn’t exist. The popular personality driven shows like Megyn Kelly and Stuart Varney, CNBC, FBN etc. could not survive capitalisms cruel realities. Big percentages of small numbers still amount to fringe audiences. Poisonous partisan feminists and poisonous partisan Politics. It is “A Face In The Crowd” reality.
All of which they claim to abhor, but it pays the bills.
Looking forward to Dish's new internet stream service, only a couple of crap channels bundled (CNN and HGTV).
http://about.dish.com/press-release/products-and-services/sling-tv-launc...
In Australia, the "merger" of Austar and Foxtel (buyoout by Foxtel - not a tweet from our "Regulators" of course) means we have just the ONE Provider. CNBC is part of their "standard package" so although no-one watches this channel, we all "have" to have it.
The "standard" is pretty crap even by our uniformly-dire Aussie TV standards (Australia - the cause of "Neighbours", and "Home and Away" - programmes that have as much relevance to the realities of Aussie life as a documentary series on penguins would have to life in the Serengeti! ).
21st Century Amerika in a nutshell.
Do not fix the problem, adjust the measurement, preferably late as possible on Friday night before a long weekend...
Previously they had to smear the blonde who went to Fox by caling her a "former child actress" even though she had worked for CNBC for ten years. What a class act.
Was that Mellisa Francis? She is fuggin hot!
Get to work Mr. Bullard!
I stopped reading after "gay hookup app".
Didn't you?
No, of course not.
You mean the Andrew Ross Sorkin app?
V shaped recovery in no time.
I say have the women go nude. Buck ass naked. "Open Leg" policy.
In fact, I would BROADcast cnipplenbc...a 24/7 investment show, anchored by MILF's, nude, and show porn porn during scrolling of data....
Ratings?
Through the ROOF!
Information...
Who gives a shit/who is listening?
Welcome to Fight Club.
And they're going to use "financial advisors".
We live in the twilight zone for real.
Why grinder? They already have Andrew for the gay crowd
Reminds me of the great racehorse trainer Woody Stephens, who won five consecutive Belmont Stakes, a feat that will never remotely be threatened.
Being a good representative of the Kentucky "hardboot" set, he liked his whiskey. When he was fairly old, and his health was slipping, his doctor told him to stop drinking. When asked by a reporter what he did, he replied, sensibly, "I found another doctor."
Fire the real estate agent when prices go down.
They will stop using the ratings companies. Instead they will call the four people who usually watch and ask them, "What up?"
ROTFLMAO LIES MAN LIES MAN LIES MAN LIES MAN LIES MAN
Cnbc stands for; can never be cogent.
Now that is some funny shit! Spot on.
They simply provide no value to anybody; their "talking heads" only talk their positions; the "money-honeys" act like they know something but read shit from a teleprompter; and the rest of the crew [excluding Santelli] are nothing but "toe-the-line-Wall-Street-perma-bullishness-forever" bullshit. Cogent will fix nothing ... but congrats on going after the "gay market" ... yea, that has real value. WTF.
www.traderzoo.mobi
'
'
'
Hey, if it's good enough for the BLS to restate and adjust their numbers, and it's good enough for the ratings agencies to produce the dodgey ratings they do, then why not for their lead cheering team?
•?•
V-V
The type of person, who is likely to watch Bloomberg or CNBC, is not the type of person who would follow through on the tedious and bothersome procedures involved in completing nielsen surveys.
I was asked once to join the nielsen ratings group in my area. Within 2 days, I called them and gave up trying to keep the records of my viewing practices. I -we at zh and at myriad other sites intending to provide information and insight- should consider our time too precious to spend on such inane activities.
s*it by any other name is still sh*t. bravo
Congrats Tyler(s)......sic'm boys...git at'em...goddam joo media lol
Moar Cramer.
congrats ZH !!!
Project Mayhem has been a success!!!!!!!1
Good Job Tyler! Keep hammering away at the scoundrels.
"There's 2 sides to every story." There's the truth side and then there's the NBC SIDE.
what a bunch of over paid, arogant know it all, tossers. The worst is that total twat Kiernan. it used to be that fat cunt, but thankfully, he died.
what a bunch of over paid, arogant know it all, tossers. The worst is that total twat Kiernan. it used to be that fat cunt, but thankfully, he died.
all of nbc programing has reached, the Goebbels pinnacle, we're here to stay, (via ge bail-outs), and we're tired of explaining of why we keep cnbc, msnbc, and nbc news programing in general, with no ratings, and profitable.
after the bail-outs, cnbc was placed in all airports, clinics, and doctors offices, along with an alinsky memo to read to all asking if they had fox-news, we don't have fox-news, it was considered to far right leaning, and cnbc was more neutral in reporting.
then their self-proclaimed popularity, was sheer alinsky, just as Obama-care, daily propagandizing how good it was, because of how many were viewing cnbc, and enrolling in Obama-care.
for 75% of america it was just fine, not thinking just doing, but for others, being forced into watching, and enrolling, is not a choice.
that's like saying the dmv is on the most popular destination list, or the irs has been the most popular mailing address on 4-14-forever, for American adults.
govt. is winning, when cnbc, and mbnbc can convince Americans mandatory actions are popular, and good for you.
REMEMBER THIS SHIT YO... BEAR STEARN YO
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V9EbPxTm5_s
4 words: cut the cord BITCHEZ
PS: time to think about ZH TV on the internet only
This is why I love you, Tyler(s)....
That's a great post. I love how so few of us can really piss them off so badly.
I loved this statement.
"Thanks for the advice, but we will actually continue doing precisely what we do: exposing lies, stupidity and fraud pretty much anywhere we see it."
I could not agree more and count me in. All of you ZHer's need to know that you possess special talents that are far beyond those of ordinary folks. I see this everyday that I log on. This site is about liberty and honesty. We are what Nock called "the remnant".
Didn't we know that the end was near when Cramer had Lenny Dykstra on numerous times explaining his fullpfoof guranteed secret way of making $$ in the mkt?
I think it was a combination of deep in the money calls/puts, Twizzler futures and Beanie Babies..
I still remember when they made Sylvia go and dry out.
Sorry for the dp.
Well done ZH. Keep up the good work.
Shoot the messenger!
Yeah, that should work.
Suck it up, Clubbers.
CNBC is a Government sponsored loss leader propaganda unit.
So it's not going anywhere.
Use it for the disinfo misdirection resource it is.
Looks like the supply of lipstick failed to meet piggish demand!
TROPHIES FOR EVERYONE!
I wouldn't pay money to advertise on CNBS to sell water to people in a desert, assuming there were many people in a desert watching half assed, fake, bought off, useless "financial media" on TV.
Surely no serious person that is into markets and financial matters pays any attention to them, except for maybe to keep it running for background noise in their offices, ect.
I'll bet 90% of the offices that have it on are watching the ticker only. nobody cares what the assclowns have to say. I would like to do Mandy Drury
ZH poking CNBC
Like a Bear poking a Bee Hive
"advertising revenue actually dropped by a lofty 4.6%"
Damn. They were leaving money on the table.
Nielsen always sent me cash
Typical US corporate behavior:
1. Profits too low: get another accountant. (One that doesn't use GAAP).
2. Sales too low: get the government to pass a law forcing everyone to buy your "product".
3. Ratings too low: get another rating agency.
Next step: CNBS will push for a law forcing everyone to watch for one hour each day. (The Affordable BS Act.)
It's so simple for CNBC to fix everything--try reporting the truth rather than Hopium 24 hours a day. People are just tired of the bullshit--it's not news, it's now just garbage.
In defense of CNBC: they may not have many viewers, but the ones they do have are really stupid. Grade A suckers.
Would it not be great to hear this kind of truth, all the time?
http://media.tfmetalsreport.com/audio/willienewyear.mp3
joe.kernen@nbcuni.com
I thought they were going to ask David 'Bloat Boy' Rosenberg to audit the numbers.
Bloat Boy looks like he might have a stroke or heart attack any day now.
CNBC: Please lie about our ratings and make them higher
Nielsen: No
CNBC: You're fired
Nielsen: Thank goodness you fucking losers
CNBC ditching Nielsen ratings is like obama saying after the election, "and for the 2/3 of you who didn't vote for me I'm still going to work on your behalf."
The Barry Effect.
Holy shit I missed the part about finding new audiences with the gay app. That's as bad as when teevee starting showing advertising for "guys gone wild". I grabbed my remote and said, "not paying for THIS shit anymore."
Cancelled my cable the next day and haven't looked back.
Hey CNBC, if you want to attract and audience try targeting a demographic that MOST people will watch.
Good God!
Seems to be a lot of people at CNBC that are really worried about what Tyler has to say.I didn't know Tyler was becoming such a growing concern amongst all the Keynesian scum over there.
re "there are in fact two sides to every debate":
yes - the right side and the wrong side