The 18-49 demographic

[yankeesrj12]

Originally Posted by Regulus

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. 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.

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.

[James28]

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!"

[LUNCH]

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.

[yankeesrj12]

Originally Posted by James28

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.

[UMFaninMD]

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.

[LUNCH]

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.

[James28]

Originally Posted by yankeesrj12

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.

[James28]

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.

[James28]

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?

[Mr. Television]

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

[James28]

^^ 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")
Adults 55+ (a.k.a. the "people that are considered useless to the target audiences on any TV network in the U.S.")

[yankeesrj12]

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...v-spot/230547/
Here is the 2010-11 report: http://adage.com/article/ad-age-grap...e-time/146495/
Here is the 2009-10 report: http://adage.com/article/ad-age-grap...t-show/139923/

[Ryan Chamberlain]

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.

[Tobes]

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.

[James28]

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.