The 18-49 demographic is nothing but trouble. The reason that 18-49-ers are cared about by the networks and advertisers is because that age group is most likely to adopt new trends offered through marketing. They are also more impressionable and susceptible to advertising and more willing to try new things. The networks probably started caring about it is because of the baby boom generation. The first baby boomers turned 18 during the 1963-64 season, and the last baby boomers will exit the demo in 2014-15. If the term "18-49 demo" translated to "diehard fans of TV series", I would have been fine with it. I want to know this: Exactly what makes a TV series skew older?

Virtually, all of the advertisers have to covet the younger demographic. But one reason that the 18-49 demo is trouble is because younger viewers are hard to find nowadays, since they're going to movies, playing video games, listening to iPods. Point is, you're either 18-49, or you're dead to most marketers. Do the over-50s have to be discriminated and disrespected like this? Should every person over age 50 be banned from viewing or acting/appearing on any show from the five terrestrial broadcast networks? Advertisers over-50s are stuck in their old ways, this means we have to remain stereotypical?

It's quite funny. The networks are chasing the audience that doesn't want them and have no interest in the viewers that do.

The 18-49 demo is just hopeless. They won't watch anything unless it's filled with pointless partying and sex. Just look at the Jersey Shore.:rolleyes:

It's quite funny. The networks are chasing the audience that doesn't want them and have no interest in the viewers that do.
That is so true.

The 18-49 demo is just hopeless. They won't watch anything unless it's filled with pointless partying and sex. Just look at the Jersey Shore.:rolleyes:
The numbers don't agree with you...Jersey Shore is far from the highest rated show on TV.

I agree that the ANYONE OVER 50 idea is totally stupid though.

The 18-49 demo is just hopeless. They won't watch anything unless it's filled with pointless partying and sex. Just look at the Jersey Shore.:rolleyes:
Not true. I'm in the 18-49 demographic and I've only seen one episode of Jersey Shore.

I always thought it was silly for such a large age span.
It should be more like 18-29. Or 18-35.

The 18-49 demo is just hopeless. They won't watch anything unless it's filled with pointless partying and sex. Just look at the Jersey Shore.:rolleyes:

I think 18-49 is too broad. 18 year olds may watch "Jersey Shore" but 40-somethings certainly do NOT!

The numbers don't agree with you...Jersey Shore is far from the highest rated show on TV.

I didn't look at the numbers. There's something about the 18-49 demo that gives trash like the Jersey Shore a load of mainstream attention.

I think 18-49 is too broad. 18 year olds may watch "Jersey Shore" but 40-somethings certainly do NOT!

MTV is after 18-34

I always thought it was silly for such a large age span.
It should be more like 18-29. Or 18-35.
Advertisers also look at 18 - 34 demographics, but they're not as widely reported.

The 18-49 demo is just hopeless. They won't watch anything unless it's filled with pointless partying and sex. Just look at the Jersey Shore.:rolleyes:

talk about an over-generalization...

Can the 18-49 demographic view nothing but reality shows on terrestrial or cable television? I heard that reality shows are to blame for cancellation of scripted programs and 18-49-ers are more likely to watch reality shows than scripted shows.

Can the 18-49 demographic view nothing but reality shows on terrestrial or cable television? I heard that reality shows are to blame for cancellation of scripted programs and 18-49-ers are more likely to watch reality shows than scripted shows.
Ummm, I'm in the 18-49 range and I watch scripted series all the time. Where is this evidence that people in the 18-49 range are more likely to watch reality shows?

The 18-19 Demographic is NOT to blame for the infestation that is known as "Reality" Shows, it's the "One Percenters" that control the media. :angryfire In their pursuit of the almighty dollar they decided to spend as little as possible in producing TV Shows. But they are beginning to reap what they have sowed, as BOTH Broadcast and Pay TV are now LOSING Customers. Fed up with what's being offered (As well as ever-increasing Subscription Fees and "Adflation" (This is the term I've seen coined for increased advertising), people are seeking their entertainment needs elsewhere. :lol:

The 18-19 Demographic is NOT to blame for the infestation that is known as "Reality" Shows, it's the "One Percenters" that control the media. :angryfire In their pursuit of the almighty dollar they decided to spend as little as possible in producing TV Shows. But they are beginning to reap what they have sowed, as BOTH Broadcast and Pay TV are now LOSING Customers. Fed up with what's being offered (As well as ever-increasing Subscription Fees and "Adflation" (This is the term I've seen coined for increased advertising), people are seeking their entertainment needs elsewhere. :lol:
I don't think reality exploded because it was a cheap alternative to scripted series. CBS decided to try something like Survivor, and networks were shocked that it worked. So what do they do? Easy, they try to repeat that success. FOX struck gold with American Idol, and soon after all the imitators took the airwaves. The same thing is now going on with the comedy genre. CBS made The Big Bang Theory a huge hit, and now the networks are all trying their luck with the comedy genre. In a decade or two the comedy genre will begin to descend and something like reality or drama will take over. Its the cycle of television: if it works, keep making it - regardless of the cost. The executives give viewers what they want and for the past ten years they wanted reality. It's as simple as that.

Another question: If a person that is over 50 appears on one of the more-watched primetime TV programs (scripted or not scripted), then what if a person in the 18-49 who is viewing the program make this response?:

"Boooooo! Get that over-age person off the TV screen! He is sucking the demo right out of the program!"

I don't think the 18-49 demographic is the problem.They've had that for a long time.--Contemporary TV in general (not all of it,but most of it) just goes after the lowest common denominator. And notice as the amount TV advertising has skyrocketed the more dumbed down so much about TV has become.

Another question: If a person that is over 50 appears on one of the more-watched primetime TV programs (scripted or not scripted), then what if a person in the 18-49 who is viewing the program make this response?:

"Boooooo! Get that over-age person off the TV screen! He is sucking the demo right out of the program!"
I think I can make your question invalid:

American Idol was the NUMBER ONE SHOW FOR EIGHT SEASONS, yet has two people over the age of 50 - Randy Jackson (55) and Steven Tyler (64)
Shark Tank is the NUMBER ONE SHOW ON FRIDAYS, yet has three people over the age of 50 - Mark Cuban (53), Kevin O'Leary (57), and Barbara Corcoran (63).
CSI is the NUMBER ONE SHOW IN ITS TIMESLOT, yet has three people over the age of 50 - Paul Guilfoyle (63), Robert David Sanders (64), and Ted Danson (64).

I think that makes your point invalid as young people will watch shows will "old" people in them.

The 18-49 demographic watches both scripted and reality shows. It's just that it seems networks prefer to produce and promote the reality shows more. They're cheaper to produce, easier to "cast" and unlike most scripted shows, they can just about build a show around any ridiculous premise and know there's a built in audience who will probably watch.

You know what I find ironic about this demographic nonsense channels go after.They go after it because of advertisers.That may have been fine back when people actually watched commercials.However by all indications what with DVRs,over-advertising etc. etc. it seems to me commercials are not even being viewed that much anymore.So the whole thing does not make much sense.

I think I can make your question invalid:

American Idol was the NUMBER ONE SHOW FOR EIGHT SEASONS, yet has two people over the age of 50 - Randy Jackson (55) and Steven Tyler (64)
Shark Tank is the NUMBER ONE SHOW ON FRIDAYS, yet has three people over the age of 50 - Mark Cuban (53), Kevin O'Leary (57), and Barbara Corcoran (63).
CSI is the NUMBER ONE SHOW IN ITS TIMESLOT, yet has three people over the age of 50 - Paul Guilfoyle (63), Robert David Sanders (64), and Ted Danson (64).

I think that makes your point invalid as young people will watch shows will "old" people in them.

Error: The person you're looking for is Robert David "Hall", not Robert David "Sanders".

Also, Harry's Law parted ways with the NBC network because it couldn't pull at least a 1.5 in the 18-49 demographic despite being the most-viewed scripted series on the network.

Another one of my assumptions about the demo?

Nowadays, the big four networks are a lot more open about the 18-49 demographic than they were in the past because the audiences that are viewing new installments of the program live are getting smaller than what they were before the early 2000s decade.

I read a report on the site tvbythenumbers.com titled "Dear TV Fans: There is no TV measurement system that will make everyone happy". I took some notes from that report and made more assumptions about the dreaded 18-49 demographic:

* Under Any TV measurement system, low-rated (in total viewers, anyway) primetime TV shows on any terrestrial network will still be cancelled.
* TV ratings measurement exists for the purpose of selling TV advertising. Commercial television is supported by advertising.
* Primetime advertising is sold on the basis of adults 18-49 and the subsets of adults 18-49.
* The 18-49 demographic matters to a primetime TV show's revenue potential. But can the 18-49 demo alone even matter to renewal fates? What if either or both 18-49 and total viewers matters to renewal fates of primetime TV shows?
* It is true that the higher the program's 18-49 demo rating, the more expensive a commercial is on the program.
* The only reason ratings exist is to figure out how much to charge for advertising.
* The advertisers are the ones targeting the 18-49 viewers.
* Are advertisers disrespectful, especially to persons over 50 and those between 8-18?
* Even if there were a new TV ratings measurement system (it's implossible for a new system to exist, and I have heard complaints about the Nielsen system being "outdated"), would we still care about the 18-49 demographic?

If you go to tvbythenumbers.com a lot you're sure to get depressed. lol

^^ Especially if you do not like under-35s too much.

There are also several questions on my last post needing to be answered.

Another point is this: Younger viewers are harder to reach in TV advertising, so they are more expensive to reach, so the shows reaching the younger viewers have more expensive advertising and are therefore more valuable.

% of the age group that would watch television during primetime, and their estimated grup population:

Adults 18-34: 32% of an estimated 69 million
Adults 18-49: 38% of an estimated 133 million
Adults 55+: 52% of an estimated 74 million

Adults 18-34 are difficult to reach, so advertising that reaches them is expensive.
Adults 55+ are easy to reach, so advertising that reaches them is cheap.

Adults 18-34 (a.k.a. the "Under 35s") :lol:
Adults 55+ (a.k.a. the "people that are considered useless to the target audiences on any TV network in the U.S.") :lol:

Advertisers are paying the networks for those demographics (18-49). If you have to be mad at anyone, its the companies that are buying the commercial space. Just look for AdAge's annual report due out sometime in August/September. A show like NCIS will make half the money as Glee despite having twice the viewership - as was the case this year. Another example would be Harry's Law this season. From AdAge's report, it was making a mere $64k in its timeslot despite having the best viewership for an NBC drama. It's ad-rate was the lowest among any of the big four networks, including all freshman dramas (unless I missed one or two). You may not like it, but it's the way the system is run.

Here is the 2011-12 report: http://adage.com/article/media/chart-american-idol-nfl-duke-priciest-tv-spot/230547/
Here is the 2010-11 report: http://adage.com/article/ad-age-graphics/american-idol-spots-priciest-prime-time/146495/
Here is the 2009-10 report: http://adage.com/article/ad-age-graphics/tv-advertising-sunday-night-football-costliest-show/139923/

I'm 24 and pretty much all the crap they through out at my demographic I refuse to watch. I think it's lousy. Good TV ended in the 90s.

Are we talking ads or TV shows? Anyway, I see quite a number of TV shows in the primetime bracket that would appeal to over the 49s. The current affair type shows are very popular here (in Australia) and I can see alot of older people tuning in. If you're talking about the ads, it does seem that the 18-49 demo has a large share of the ad bracket for the reasons you mentioned.

One way for a network TV star to hit rock bottom is for him/her to star in a TV series that is the most-watched on a certain network, yet it skews too old because of low 18-49 demo numbers and is cancelled as a result.

Under the 18-49 Bracket as well. I used to look at the Nielson Ratings that were listed in my Paper when I was a kid, I'd see some of the shows I'd watch be in the top 20, or even the top 10, yet they'd get cancelled because "The Audience was too young". :mad:

It is unclear why:
People over 50 watch a lot more TV than people under 50.
People 35-49 watch more TV than people under 35.
People 50+ are readily abundantly available to advertisers.
Relative scarcity of under-50s (it's harder to get in front of them with one's ads).

Some more questions:
Do the people who work for the advertisers have to be between the ages of 18 and 49 themselves?
Why do over-50s have the money to spend on the advertisers' products rather than the 18-49s?
What if total viewers (especially alone) did matter (after all)?

And a few points I made:
A low 18-49 rating can almost certainly get any of the more-watched primetime terrestrial network TV shows (12 million or more) in trouble.
The 18-49 demographic can put any show on "the bubble" between renewal and cancellation.

The 18-49 demo is just hopeless. They won't watch anything unless it's filled with pointless partying and sex. Just look at the Jersey Shore

what a ridiculous comment. for one, the only people that matter are those with nielsen boxes. if you're not a nielsen family, then your viewing habits are irrelevant. ratings are nothing but arbitrary numbers based on the amount of nielson families tuned into a particular program (in actuality they monitor the amount of folks that don't change the channel during the bloody commercial breaks.) much like political polling, it isn't an exact science.

secondly, technology has put some power into the hands of the viewer and changed the way we consume entertainment. streaming services, dvr, and dvd boxsets have moved people away from 'must see tv'. the days where everyone gathered around their floor model tv sets to watch johnny carson and i love lucy are long gone.

thirdly, there are just so many outlets and networks available that it's hard to keep up with everything. people of my generation consume a ton of television, more so than our grandparents and parents, it's just that we have much more variety and options in how we consume it.

i just turned 30. i do not watch reality tv (oh wait, i do occasionally watch mythbusters and pawn stars). however, i watch a ton of sitcoms and animated comedies. it usually takes me a while to get around to a tv series, as my preference is dvd box sets, netflix and hulu as i like to watch a series consecutively, in chronological order. the only thing i watch on cable and network television is live sporting events, re-runs, and breaking news. much like the majority of those of my generation and those younger - we tend to consume much of our entertainment and news/information via the internet.

the fact is, nielsen is antiquated and flawed. i think the studios and advertisers need to find a more accurate, modern system to base their products around. the internet and television merging together seems like the logical progression of where technology is taking us.

1. Are over-50s a jinx to all primetime network TV shows?
2. Are 18-35s jealous of over 50s because the over 50s have the money to spend on the products being advertised?
3. Under 35s can't watch anything unless it's bad reality TV and animated sliding timescale junk.
4. A program has to skew old because the Baby Boomers outnumber any younger age group. The 18-49 demographic was cared about because of the baby boomers, and it was during the late 1960s that the networks came to define 18-49 as their (and the advertisers') main target age.

1. Are over-50s a jinx to all primetime network TV shows?
2. Are 18-35s jealous of over 50s because the over 50s have the money to spend on the products being advertised?
3. Under 35s can't watch anything unless it's bad reality TV and animated sliding timescale junk.
4. A program has to skew old because the Baby Boomers outnumber any younger age group. The 18-49 demographic was cared about because of the baby boomers, and it was during the late 1960s that the networks came to define 18-49 as their (and the advertisers') main target age.

outdated research says the 18-49 demographic is more easily conned by advertising, they might not have money for expensive things but they have money for cheap junk last soft drinks and fast food, they think people over 50 will keep eating and drinking the same junk until they die, since people over 50 have the money, maybe they should fund new research, or they can just spend it on DVDs, HULU, or HBO

Under the 18-49 Bracket as well. I used to look at the Nielson Ratings that were listed in my Paper when I was a kid, I'd see some of the shows I'd watch be in the top 20, or even the top 10, yet they'd get cancelled because "The Audience was too young". :mad:

that happened with Punky Brewster and Silver Spoons when they were up against your Grandparents before bedtime show 60 minutes

Get off my lawn you 18-49ers

What 18-49 demo ratings are best for a scripted network TV show:

ABC - 2.0 or above
CBS - 2.4 or above (for dramas), 3.0 (for comedies)
FOX BC - 2.0 or above
CW - 1.0 or above
NBC - 1.8 or above

Those numbers are pretty generous given the terrible season the networks are having. I'd say a 1.7 would be considered good on FOX and ABC these days, and on NBC a 1.3 will earn you a certain renewal if you're a sitcom.

In the old days of network television (between the 70s and 90s decades), if a network TV program has between 24 to 32 million viewers each week, what would their 18-49 demo ratings be like? (Estimates are alright.)

Demo numbers are pretty scarce for decades before the '00s. But I know the last few years of Friends regularly got demos in like...the 15.0 range. So maybe around there?

The 18-49 demo is just hopeless. They won't watch anything unless it's filled with pointless partying and sex. Just look at the Jersey Shore.:rolleyes:

Not true. My husband and I are in the demo they go after and we don't watch shows with partying and sex and we don't watch reality shows.

I wonder why do network television dramas skew old demo-wise, especially the crime dramas?

I wonder why do network television dramas skew old demo-wise, especially the crime dramas?


short attention spans?

If you watch the advertising on ME-TV, you can plainly see that they are going after the 65+ demo. :eek:

that happened with Punky Brewster and Silver Spoons when they were up against your Grandparents before bedtime show 60 minutes
The same thing with Misfits Of Science when it was Friday nights and young people would always go out on Friday nights.

Is it true that the advertisers are the ones who pay the costs to produce network TV shows' episodes?

Networks want to make money! The fact is in prime time viewership; 18-34 is the sweetheart or sweet spot in revenue generation age group. This 18-34 grouping receives twice as much per person then the 35-49 group in revenue from advertising agencies. The 50 and over group however receives nothing from the network from the advertisers. They are known as the "dead" in network marketing language because they are not followed by anyone in the network or advertising agencies or sponsors. And when a show becomes to weighted towards the 50 or over crowd; it usually cancelled even if it is number one in it time slot like "Murder She Wrote" TV show among others.

The new sub channels now are setup to address the 50 or over crowd with broadcasts of 50s, 60s, 70s and 80s TV shows with very little cost in programming expense for advertisers to reach this group. Basic advertising ads are for personal security items, medical devices, limited mobility help aids, death and funeral insurance, pills for improving your conditions, reverse mortgage ads, etc.... These new channels do not make much on each commercial but they do when it is done in series of 60-100 a week with each ad paying around $50 for a national broadcast of around 2-3 million viewers in 11PM-7A.M. Time slots prime time are much higher; $500-$2,500. It is pennies compare with the CBS, ABC, FOX or NBC ads.

If you watch the advertising on ME-TV, you can plainly see that they are going after the 65+ demo. :eek:

While it's true that their commercials are mostly for products for the elderly, I don't think MeTV is targeting any audience through them -- instead, those advertisers have found that Me is an affordable means of getting their ads aired.

My husband and I fall in the demo the networks supposedly aim for and we both think TV today is crap.

What 18-49 demo ratings are best for a scripted network TV show:

ABC - 2.0 or above
CBS - 2.4 or above (for dramas), 3.0 (for comedies)
FOX BC - 2.0 or above
CW - 1.0 or above
NBC - 1.8 or above

This season even CBS has lowered standards for dramas and comedies, I guess 2.0 for both dramas and comedies.

One of the reasons why A18-49 is low because only 55% of population is in desired demographics, in 2002 18-49 population was at 62%, now with over 200 channels, illegal download, Hulu, DVR and etc. no wonder that numbers are low, but I don't think that advertisers will change their mind.

For 1985-86 TV season Dynasty charged 247.000$ and Cosby 235.000$, while Dynasty fell from 1st to 7th place, Cosby had 50 million viewers and 26.0 A18-49, today 235.000 is about 500.000, and TBBT gets only low 5s in C+3 which only matter with 350.000$ for 30 seconds and has more ads than Cosby because then sitcoms were 24-25 minutes long, next season Cosby demanded 350.000-400.000$.

These are numbers for 84-85

A18-49 (only 22 weeks)
NBC - 11.2
ABC - 10.2
CBS - 10.1

What does pay scripted TV shows' production costs, anyway?

What does pay scripted TV shows' production costs, anyway?


Are you referring to cable channels like Bravo or a drama show like USA Network's Law & Order: Criminal Intent?

I meant who pays the production costs of the scripted TV shows on broadcast networks or cable networks (basic or premium)?

I meant who pays the production costs of the scripted TV shows on broadcast networks or cable networks (basic or premium)?

Will the networks pay for a partial season or a full season of the show. If the show does well; the network is reward since they get the rights to the show and if it runs for 4 or more season; it can be syndicated. Then after that; DVD releases and Netflix and Hulu! Actors/directors get a piece of it too when it is syndicated. But it a "big if". Not sure about the writers however.

Network pays production costs, including licence fee to production company, DVD, Hulu and syndication rights go to production company and writers and sometimes to actors (Friends).

Networks will get share of syndication if it's in-house production, example, if show on NBC is Universal production or show on ABC is ABC Studios production then NBC and ABC will have syndication rights and more reason to have more shows with 88 episodes.

NBC doesn't get any money from Seinfeld and Friends because first one is owned by Sony and second by Warner Bros.

^^ I thought all the production and syndication money went to a show's studio. How can a show's network itself get any money from the show, besides the fact that the show's network and studio are owned by the same conglomerate?

Seinfeld and Friends actually aired in an age where networks' in-house productions weren't even commonplace.

If there was a certain channel, and the commercial breaks for a program on that channel were entirely filled with commercials for personal security items, medical devices, limited mobility help aids, death and funeral insurance, pills for improving your conditions, and/or reverse mortgage ads, then I think that channel would be considered boring.

I know that the less a show's viewing figures are, the cheaper its ad rates. The manufacturers of the items mentioned above aren't willing to spend too much to advertise those items. Most of the CBS's programs aren't popular with the 18-49 demographic. The commercial breaks on CBS shows have to be filled with ads for those items. I wouldn't want to see ads for those items if i was a fan of, say, The Good Wife or Blue Bloods (whose demo ratings are in the lower 1s).

In the Coronavirus-shortened 2019-20 U.S. broadcast TV season,not one scripted broadcast TV show was able to crack a 3.0 rating in the coveted 18-49 demographic.

This Is Us, on NBC, got a 2.9 for its fourth season, followed by 9-1-1 on FOX-TV (for season 3), Grey's Anatomy on ABC (season 16), and Chicago P.D. on NBC (season 7), and even then, they're the only ones whose demo ratings surpassed the 2.0 mark. NBC Sunday Night Football remained the top-rated show overall in the demo, with a 5.9 rating (even with last year), followed by Thursday Night Football on FOX-TV (4.5), and The Masked Singer, also on FOX-TV (3.2).

Just when you thought U.S. commercial-broadcast television couldn't get any worse than it already is...:(

Source: Variety. (https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/live-feed/tv-ratings-7-day-season-averages-2019-20-broadcast-series-1297228)