Jump to content


Welcome to DBSTalk


Sign In 

Create Account
Welcome to DBSTalk. Our community covers all aspects of video delivery solutions including: Direct Broadcast Satellite (DBS), Cable Television, and Internet Protocol Television (IPTV). We also have forums to discuss popular television programs, home theater equipment, and internet streaming service providers. Members of our community include experts who can help you solve technical problems, industry professionals, company representatives, and novices who are here to learn.

Like most online communities you must register to view or post in our community. Sign-up is a free and simple process that requires minimal information. Be a part of our community by signing in or creating an account. The Digital Bit Stream starts here!
  • Reply to existing topics or start a discussion of your own
  • Subscribe to topics and forums and get email updates
  • Send private personal messages (PM) to other forum members
  • Customize your profile page and make new friends
 
Guest Message by DevFuse

Photo

Dish drops AMC (+WeTV, IFC & Sundance)


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
1921 replies to this topic

#801 OFFLINE   satcrazy

satcrazy

    Icon

  • Registered
  • 733 posts
  • LocationGreat lakes, NW Pa.
Joined: Mar 15, 2011

Posted 20 June 2012 - 01:50 PM

Yeah, that's never happened before. :sure:


Anyone remember Deadwood on HBO? [ one of my all time favs]



You're still not looking at the big picture.

IF AMC is in the top 25... then bet on all of those other channels asking for a similar rate increast if AMC gets to double their rates... then we aren't talking about pennies.

It isn't like this happens in a vacuum. The next channel will say "but people like us too" and people will post here "I'll leave Dish if they drop the yoga channel, how dare they" and then that channel goes up too... and on and on...

AMC doesn't have much to stand on to "demand" more money... just a handful of shows that they seem to be trying to strangle too. AMC is basically strangling for money at both ends here... Asking providers for more money AND asking their showrunners/producers to spend less money on those "award winning" shows... then the AMC folk get to pocket the difference.

People like to say that Dish doesn't care about the customers/viewers... Please don't make the mistake of thinking that AMC cares for you any more than Dish does. AMC probably cares less, since they get money by being in a tier whether you watch or not.


+1
I don't understand why some just don't get this. If everyone jumped on the "AMC got their increase, what about me" bandwagon, Dish could really become unaffordable for many.

Yeah, pay for performance would be ideal, I've Always thought sports should be handled the same, if you have a great season, you get a great salary. AFTER the season is overwith! Paying millions upfront guarantees nothing.

...Ads Help To Support This SIte...

#802 OFFLINE   hdaddikt

hdaddikt

    Legend

  • Registered
  • 197 posts
Joined: Jul 02, 2005

Posted 20 June 2012 - 02:07 PM

We could take tidbits of what Dish says, AMC says, what the media says, and piece it all together.

But let's face, unless we are flies on the wall in the negotiating room it's all conjecture.

#803 OFFLINE   steveT

steveT

    Legend

  • Registered
  • 167 posts
Joined: Jul 12, 2002

Posted 20 June 2012 - 02:54 PM

We could just be watching a Hatfields and McCoys event here with Dish taking their revenge for the whole Voom fiasco and AMC trying to stick it to Dish on cost.


I'd say that, more than anything, truly explains this whole fiasco.

#804 OFFLINE   SteveRS

SteveRS

    Mentor

  • Registered
  • 49 posts
Joined: Feb 07, 2004

Posted 20 June 2012 - 03:26 PM

If Dish drops AMC they would be dumber than Netflix.
Look what happened to Netflix when they messed with their programming. Their customers left and Netflix stock dropped like a rock.

I looked at my DVR Timers List and 5 of my top 10 programs are AMC.
I have been with Dish for about 12 years since the 6000 HD receiver.

If Dish drops AMC their stock will drop just like Netflix.
Big mistake because I will be gone along with thousands more.
Sorry Charlie.

#805 OFFLINE   James Long

James Long

    Ready for Uplink!

  • Super Moderators
  • 39,730 posts
Joined: Apr 17, 2003

Posted 20 June 2012 - 03:55 PM

I'd feel bad for any company that takes the attitude that customers are too expensive. We're the ones that made Charlie and his buddies rich.

Please don't take any post as reflecting the attitude of DISH ... I am just reflecting the common sense of the matter.

The people here that want to "stick it to the man" and hurt Mr Ergen and his company are only in a position to hurt themselves. They would be better off staying with DISH as they work this issue out with AMC.

If that's true (that Dish only has to pay AMC based on subscribers only in that tier), then all of the recent discussions we've been having here on the economics of this have been wrong! And it means that the cost of keeping AMC to Dish is substantially LESS than we've estimated, weakening Dish's case even further!

Not ALL of the economics posted are wrong ... some has been based on the less than 100% distribution of AMC by DISH to their subscribers.

There are solutions beyond AMC accepting their value and keeping their price low. They could move to a higher tier, which would save DISH a couple of million dollars and (if AMC is right) would encourage people to step up a tier. Or they could take up DISH's standard challenge of becoming an a la carte channel and make those interested in watching the channel pay for it themselves.

But there is value for AMC to being in as many DISH households as possible. If they allow their channel to be moved into AT250 they will have to reduce the number of households they claim when selling advertising. If DISH drops them they lose all of DISH's households. It doesn't matter if those customers want AMC or not ... if it is in a package it is "in" the homes of the customer.

It is a different number than ratings which reflects people actually watching. The Weather Channel nearly lost DISH's then 13 million customers a couple of years ago until they came to their senses and accepted a deal.

#806 OFFLINE   SayWhat?

SayWhat?

    Hall Of Fame

  • Registered
  • 5,580 posts
Joined: Jun 06, 2009

Posted 20 June 2012 - 04:22 PM

Big mistake because I will be gone along with thousands more.


Thousands? You really think that?

The Weather Channel nearly lost DISH's then 13 million customers a couple of years ago until they came to their senses and accepted a deal.


Which somebody renegged on since we still don't have the promised second channel and they are still not weather focused like they used to be.
Help stamp out Twits and Twitterers!

HD, SchmacHD!! Just be glad you've got a picture at all.

#807 OFFLINE   steveT

steveT

    Legend

  • Registered
  • 167 posts
Joined: Jul 12, 2002

Posted 20 June 2012 - 04:22 PM

Please don't take any post as reflecting the attitude of DISH ... I am just reflecting the common sense of the matter.

The people here that want to "stick it to the man" and hurt Mr Ergen and his company are only in a position to hurt themselves. They would be better off staying with DISH as they work this issue out with AMC.


Honestly, I've been one of Dish's biggest fans over the years. My only complaint comes around every 2 years, when my DVR craps out, like clockwork. And I've always thought Dish's support has generally been great, with a few exceptions. I posted a problem awhile back here, and Ray from Dish Network got me all fixed up in no time.

And every time Charlie Ergen asked us to write and call Congressmen, I always did, because I always believed he was right in those cases (I still miss my distant network signals...) Including the DirectTV acquisition, which the government ended up blocking.

So this is the first time in my 15+ years with Dish that I've actually been on the opposite side from them. I've read all the arguments, looked at it multiple ways, and I'm convinced Dish is the one in the wrong here. And I have been PARTICULARLY angered by Dish's public comments (which they again posted on their Facebook page today), that programs like "Breaking Bad", which I consider to be one of the top 5 programs of all time, are just "fringe," "niche," or "extraneous programming". How insulting to fans of those shows.

I would bet that the various options you detailed have been discussed in the negotiations, but it sure seems like the sides are so entrenched, that this is the one dispute that's not going to be resolved. I mean, AMC is now just running commercials telling people to just switch to DirectTV now. I'm sure that's not going over well in Charlie's living room. I'll be shocked if they actually come to terms.

#808 OFFLINE   SayWhat?

SayWhat?

    Hall Of Fame

  • Registered
  • 5,580 posts
Joined: Jun 06, 2009

Posted 20 June 2012 - 04:25 PM

that programs like "Breaking Bad", ... are just "fringe," "niche," or "extraneous programming".


Sounds pretty accurate to me.
Help stamp out Twits and Twitterers!

HD, SchmacHD!! Just be glad you've got a picture at all.

#809 OFFLINE   Hunter844

Hunter844

    Legend

  • Registered
  • 119 posts
Joined: Apr 26, 2007

Posted 20 June 2012 - 05:14 PM

It sounds like Dish is trying a Jedi mind trick on their subscribers. You don't need to watch that show...these aren't the droids you're looking for. This may not go over real well but you have to stand on their side of the fence. What are they supposed to say? That they are working really really hard to resolve the dispute? What then would be the bigger lie?

As has been discussed ad nauseum here...Dish is clearly willing to call AMC's bluff and is prepared to move forward without them. In reality most people's memory isn't that good...heading into a summer dead period will the masses remember that they are missing a channel in six to eight months? I'd bet AMC won't be missed nearly as much as some on her suggest. Personally I do enjoy that network and hope it stays and I don't watch a single one of their original content shows. I enjoy the old movies. Since these same old movies are bound to show up on other networks by default I'm not losing sleep over any of this stuff.
Dish Network 211k with EHD, AT250 with HDforLIFE
Eastern ARC DMA on 1000.4
Panasonic TC-P55GT50
LG 42'' 1080p LCD, Denon IN-COMMAND AVR-2112CI

#810 OFFLINE   Stewart Vernon

Stewart Vernon

    Excellent Adventurer

  • Moderators
  • 19,591 posts
  • LocationKittrell, NC
Joined: Jan 07, 2005

Posted 20 June 2012 - 05:18 PM

And saying this would happen for "200 channels" is purely a straw man argument. Given how contracts are determined in this industry, that outcome is utterly impossible.


Which is why I suggested other points... 100, 50, 25 channels... the line would get drawn somewhere. IF AMC is in the top 25, and AMC gets a rate increase of 200%... why would you not expect all the other channels in the top 25 to start talking about similar increases?

Where to draw the line? A channel that can show ratings increase, particularly in the 18-49 demographic desired by advertisers, has a legitimate argument that their product has more value, and therefore justifies a higher price


That's where you draw the line... but even at that, has AMC met your expectations?

Yes, they had one of the highest rated cable shows ever... but that was 9 million viewers roughly. That was a spike, not a maintained average... and it isn't even close to that on any other night than Sunday when their best shows air.

NCIS regularly pulls in 30 million viewers I believe on CBS... and that's on a Tuesday night. Just to have something to compare to...

So... AMC has increased their ratings for their best shows on one night a week for less than half of the year... but what has AMC done the rest of the week and year? Not much. Even AMC doesn't brag about anything outside of their 5 or so big programs.

Also... this dispute is about AMC, IFC, WeTV, and Sundance. Sundance went dark on Dish weeks ago and except for me and a couple of others reminding folk, there seems to have been ZERO complaints about that channel gone... and people only seem to be worrying about losing AMC... and yet, AMC wants you and I to pay for those other 3 channels for the right to get the stuff on AMC.

IF AMC cared, why wouldn't they ask Dish for more money on AMC and let Dish reject those other unpopular channels?

(this is how capitalism is supposed to work, for what its worth...)


Not exactly.

Capitalism allows you to ask whatever you want... and if you think you have something worth more, you can ask for more... but there is NO guarantee you will get more. Even if your product is worth more, if people don't want to pay it... then you can't get it.

AMC can always ask for more... Dish can always say "no"... that is how capitalism works.

And you would hold the line at networks that have no such argument.


We're getting into opinion here, though... which is fine... but it is opinion moreso than fact. How popular AMC (or any other channel) is largely is a discussion of opinion... especially since ratings aren't counted by official count but are extrapolated by samplings.

We know how many pay for AMC because we know what their revenue is and we can count the number of subscribers to pay TV from the various quarterly reports... and by AMC's own accounts, even their best rated show on one record-setting night only had about 10% or less of the number of people paying for AMC watching that night.

So... 90% of the people paying for the tier that includes AMC deserve to pay double for AMC that they don't ever watch? So that the 10% of people can still watch? How does that work?

For those who think that a deluge of networks would roll into Dish's headquarters, saying "you gave AMC a price increase, so you have to do it for me!", just think about that. They'd be laughed out of the building. This process is supposed to operate by business rules, not schoolyard rules.


Maybe... but then AMC is being laughed out of the building now and yet somehow has found supporters... so why do you think the next channel asking for a rate increase wouldn't also find online supporters like yourself to justify things?

And you can bet... every company does have "you did this for the other guy" in their back pocket at negotiations. If you go into Dish asking for a rate increase knowing that they just gave an increase to another top 25 channel... you have to feel your chances are better than IF they just denied them. Don't you?

And if Dish turns you down... you wouldn't mention that?

Imagine yourself... if one of your co-workers asks for and gets a raise... and you feel like you do just as much and just as good of a job... don't you also think about asking for a raise? And if your boss turns you down, you wouldn't ask why someone else just got a raise who you feel doesn't do as much work as you?

We aren't part of the business... so we are very much in the schoolyard here anyway :)

And I have been PARTICULARLY angered by Dish's public comments (which they again posted on their Facebook page today), that programs like "Breaking Bad", which I consider to be one of the top 5 programs of all time, are just "fringe," "niche," or "extraneous programming". How insulting to fans of those shows.


But they are niche shows. Why does that offend you? I like the Walking Dead... but its best airing only got 9 million of the 100+ million possible payTV customers in the US... that seems niche to me.

When NCIS gets 30 million (nearly a third of pay TV customers)... by comparison, shows on AMC are niche shows.

Shows on Syfy (like Eureka and Warehouse 13 that I enjoy) are also niche shows.

Battlestar Galactic and Doctor Who are niche shows.

Nobody should be offended by something being called "niche"... its actually a complement in a way, because often niche shows have more devoted fans and mainstream shows do... Mainstream shows also have a lot of casual fans who watch because nothing else is on... whereas a Niche show has dedicated viewers who seek out and wait for the next episode.

I would bet that the various options you detailed have been discussed in the negotiations, but it sure seems like the sides are so entrenched, that this is the one dispute that's not going to be resolved. I mean, AMC is now just running commercials telling people to just switch to DirectTV now. I'm sure that's not going over well in Charlie's living room. I'll be shocked if they actually come to terms.


Exactly... which is why you can't make this a Dish-is-evil one-sided thing.

AMC is telling people to ditch Dish and go to DirecTV or elsewhere... now, imagine in a couple of weeks IF they agree to an extension and Dish doesn't drop the channels... is AMC going to go on a "sign up for Dish, we are buddies now" campaign? Somehow I doubt it.

AMC is being every bit as petty as Dish has been accused of being... Dish didn't have to move the channels and screw up timers... AMC didn't have to start running scrolls telling people to bail on Dish and change providers. Those are both immature moves if you ask me.

I suspect Dish is unwilling to negotiate because of the lawsuit over Voom (it feels like deja vu to Dish... AMC says we make good programs and need more money to invest... but Dish remembers this deal with Voom and the money never went to improving content)... I also suspect AMC is unwilling to negotiate because of the lawsuit because AMC thinks Dish screwed them and doesn't want to get screwed again.

In truth the lawsuit shouldn't have anything to do with this... but I'm sure it is in the back of BOTH parties' minds... how could it not be?

But... Dish negotiated and paid for AMCHD a couple of years back at a time when they were still fighting with AMC/Rainbow over Voom... so clearly both parties were able to negotiate a fair deal back then even with the lawsuit ongoing... so no reason they couldn't now... but IF AMC digs in on a price increase, then I tilt the blame more to their side.

AMC's own financials show they made more money recently than ever before... without a price increase... so they can't argue a price increase is necessary... just desired... so they have to decide where they want to draw the line in the sand. Dish might pay more than they do now, but not if AMC digs in at double.

-- Respect the S.H.I.E.L.D.


#811 OFFLINE   phrelin

phrelin

    Hall Of Fame

  • Registered
  • 13,407 posts
  • LocationNorthern California Redwoods
Joined: Jan 18, 2007

Posted 20 June 2012 - 05:18 PM

And I have been PARTICULARLY angered by Dish's public comments (which they again posted on their Facebook page today), that programs like "Breaking Bad", which I consider to be one of the top 5 programs of all time, are just "fringe," "niche," or "extraneous programming". How insulting to fans of those shows.

Yeah....

I start threads here with reviews of "Mad Men" which is a show I love. But I have no delusions about its appeal as something other than "niche" or "cult." By cult I mean like movies that have strong cult followings, but aren't popular with the general public just to a particular fringe of the viewing public.

Nothing on AMC gets ratings even remotely comparable to "American Idol" or "NCIS".

So it's not insulting to me to use "fringe" or "niche." "Extraneous" on the other hand, seems like an odd adjective.:confused:

"In a hundred years there'll be a whole new set of people."
"Always poke the bears. They sleep too much for their own good."

"If you're good enough, they'll talk about you." - Tom Harmon
A GEEZER who remembers watching TV in 1951 and was an Echostar customer from 1988 to 2008, now a Dish Network customer.
My AV Setup
My Slingbox Pro HD Experience
My Blog: The Redwood Guardian


#812 OFFLINE   356B

356B

    Icon

  • Registered
  • 895 posts
  • LocationNorthern California
Joined: Oct 11, 2008

Posted 20 June 2012 - 06:16 PM

If it were not for "Mad Men" and "Hell on Wheels" I would not mourn the passing. Others have mentioned, "Breaking Bad", "The Walking Dead" and "The Killing" as favorites.
If AMC is dropped by Dish I imagine an online source perhaps already existing will be ready and able to feed the craving in some way....
As has been mentioned perhaps many times, AMC's programing is not mainstream stuff. They present interesting, provocative and thought provoking series, not really mainstream American shows, or so it seems to me...."Idol" or "Dancing with the stars" they ain't. In some cases AMC reminds me of a limited budget HBO, that could why they want the more money.

Edited by 356B, 20 June 2012 - 06:32 PM.
I'm a terrible proof reader

Thank you and
Best of luck

#813 OFFLINE   MCHuf

MCHuf

    Legend

  • Registered
  • 147 posts
Joined: Oct 09, 2011

Posted 20 June 2012 - 06:46 PM

Sounds pretty accurate to me.


Same thing could be said for all pay-tv programming, just like all the other examples you use to knock AMC. It puzzles me that you have such strong opinions about AMC programming when you've admitted that you haven't watched the channel for ten years. Say what you want about it's original programs and all the commercials the channel airs. But their popularity is higher now than when they were showing their commercial-less, but old and tired movies.

#814 OFFLINE   mike1977

mike1977

    Legend

  • Registered
  • 210 posts
Joined: Aug 25, 2005

Posted 20 June 2012 - 07:15 PM

http://www.variety.c...731?refCatId=14

#815 OFFLINE   phrelin

phrelin

    Hall Of Fame

  • Registered
  • 13,407 posts
  • LocationNorthern California Redwoods
Joined: Jan 18, 2007

Posted 20 June 2012 - 08:18 PM

http://www.variety.c...731?refCatId=14


While the article gets to the core of the matter, Sapan is still just a minion. We haven't heard from AMC until we hear from Charles Dolan.

"In a hundred years there'll be a whole new set of people."
"Always poke the bears. They sleep too much for their own good."

"If you're good enough, they'll talk about you." - Tom Harmon
A GEEZER who remembers watching TV in 1951 and was an Echostar customer from 1988 to 2008, now a Dish Network customer.
My AV Setup
My Slingbox Pro HD Experience
My Blog: The Redwood Guardian


#816 OFFLINE   Gloria_Chavez

Gloria_Chavez

    Godfather

  • Registered
  • 427 posts
Joined: Aug 11, 2008

Posted 20 June 2012 - 10:20 PM

Nothing on AMC gets ratings even remotely comparable to "American Idol" or "NCIS".


Phrelin, I think you're wrong regarding Walking Dead.

http://tvbythenumber...-family/135747/

http://tvbythenumber...elecast/125039/

Walking Dead, season 2, 18-49, average viewership of 4.6M

NCIS, last season, 18-49, average viewership of 5.1M.

Walking Dead outperformed NCIS:LA and House, among many others, in that key demo, over the last year.

In fact, if AMC didn't have Walking Dead, it would not be attempting to get that 75 cents a month.

I'm a HUGE fan of Mad Men (and I so love your analysis of each episode, Phrelin), but I will concede that it's a niche show (what were NBC and ABC thinking with Playboy Club and Pan Am!!!).

Walking Dead is not a niche show.
Since 1995 the average cable bill has increased 122%, while TV consumption per household just 13%.

http://www.multichan...1_Per_Month.php

http://blog.nielsen....-all-time-high/

#817 OFFLINE   inazsully

inazsully

    Icon

  • Registered
  • 781 posts
Joined: Oct 03, 2006

Posted 20 June 2012 - 10:40 PM

Sounds pretty accurate to me.


Since I had not ever watched Breaking Bad I thought that since they are showing the first 2 years over the next week or so I'd go ahead and record all 40 some shows anticipating that my wife and I would most likely enjoy it. We watched episode 1 tonight and I must say we were very impressed and greatly looking forward to watching the rest of them. They are doing this repeat thing again so you all might want to record a few or all and see what you think.

#818 OFFLINE   Stewart Vernon

Stewart Vernon

    Excellent Adventurer

  • Moderators
  • 19,591 posts
  • LocationKittrell, NC
Joined: Jan 07, 2005

Posted 20 June 2012 - 10:56 PM

While the article gets to the core of the matter, Sapan is still just a minion. We haven't heard from AMC until we hear from Charles Dolan.


I'm unclear what the Dolans' role is since the split. Since AMC Networks was split from Rainbow/Cablevision... I'm not sure if Charles Dolan is officially in charge of AMC Networks like he was Rainbow Media.

I'm trying to find some clarification, but it is all kind of murky.

Phrelin, I think you're wrong regarding Walking Dead.

http://tvbythenumber...-family/135747/

http://tvbythenumber...elecast/125039/

Walking Dead, season 2, 18-49, average viewership of 4.6M

NCIS, last season, 18-49, average viewership of 5.1M.

Walking Dead outperformed NCIS:LA and House, among many others, in that key demo, over the last year.


Going by the source of your numbers... NCIS last season averaged 19.4 million across total viewership (all ages) vs Walking Dead 6.9 million across all ages.

So... if you cherry pick one demographic, they are close... but you are choosing to ignore nearly 15 million other viewers of NCIS when you declare Walking Dead = NCIS in ratings by only counting your "key" demographic.

When the number of people you choose not to count (15 million outside that "key" demographic) are nearly 3 times the amount you choose to count in your key demographic... something says you aren't looking at the numbers correctly.

-- Respect the S.H.I.E.L.D.


#819 OFFLINE   phrelin

phrelin

    Hall Of Fame

  • Registered
  • 13,407 posts
  • LocationNorthern California Redwoods
Joined: Jan 18, 2007

Posted 20 June 2012 - 11:03 PM

Phrelin, I think you're wrong regarding Walking Dead.

http://tvbythenumber...-family/135747/

http://tvbythenumber...elecast/125039/

Walking Dead, season 2, 18-49, average viewership of 4.6M

NCIS, last season, 18-49, average viewership of 5.1M.

Walking Dead outperformed NCIS:LA and House, among many others, in that key demo, over the last year.

In fact, if AMC didn't have Walking Dead, it would not be attempting to get that 75 cents a month.

I'm a HUGE fan of Mad Men (and I so love your analysis of each episode, Phrelin), but I will concede that it's a niche show (what were NBC and ABC thinking with Playboy Club and Pan Am!!!).

Walking Dead is not a niche show.

Guess what, I don't watch "Walking Dead" probably because I'm outside its appeal zone - that 18-49 niche.

Remember, "NCIS" got its ratings for the season on 34 telecast (including reruns) of 24 new episodes pulling an average 5.12 million 18-49 demo viewers and 19.49 million total viewers.

The "Walking Dead" ratings are 4.6 million 18-49 demo viewers and 6.9 total million total viewers.

That kind of indicates an age niche in appeal. In its 13 new episodes "encored" in the same week it can only find an average 2.3 million over the age of 49, while "NCIS" averages 16.48 million over the age of 49 while getting 11% higher 18-49 ratings.

Not that it matters, but that's only 13 hours a year of new episodes out of 936 hours of available prime time.

I don't criticize AMC for their efforts. In fact, I really am not criticizing AMC.

What I recognize is that this is a fight between Rainbow Media's Charles Dolan and Dish Network's Charles Ergen. And personally, the way I see it Dolan cheated Ergen on the Voom deal and then is suing Ergen for $2.5 billion. That's my opinon and I'm sticking to it.

Of course this is the side effect of having billionaires own so much stuff in our country.;)

"In a hundred years there'll be a whole new set of people."
"Always poke the bears. They sleep too much for their own good."

"If you're good enough, they'll talk about you." - Tom Harmon
A GEEZER who remembers watching TV in 1951 and was an Echostar customer from 1988 to 2008, now a Dish Network customer.
My AV Setup
My Slingbox Pro HD Experience
My Blog: The Redwood Guardian


#820 OFFLINE   James Long

James Long

    Ready for Uplink!

  • Super Moderators
  • 39,730 posts
Joined: Apr 17, 2003

Posted 20 June 2012 - 11:09 PM

Going by the source of your numbers... NCIS last season averaged 19.4 million across total viewership (all ages) vs Walking Dead 6.9 million across all ages.

So... if you cherry pick one demographic, they are close... but you are choosing to ignore nearly 15 million other viewers of NCIS when you declare Walking Dead = NCIS in ratings by only counting your "key" demographic.

That pretty much defines "niche" show vs wide audience show.
Yes, the niche that Walking Dead attracts is a good one ... but better, non-niche shows appeal outside of the narrow definitions.




Protected By... spam firewall...And...