Nielsen THIS

So here are the top 10 viewed shows last week according to the Nielsen ratings:

1) Without a Trace
2) CSI
3) Dancing with the Stars
4) Grey's Anatomy
5) Dancing with the Stars (results show)
6) Desperate Housewives
7) NCIS
8) NFL: Colts v Chargers
9) House
10) CMA Awards

Seriously?!

When I saw this list this morning, I asked my friend Katie, "WHO are the Nielsen viewers?! People 55 and over? What the hell?!"

Katie's response: "Actually... my 80-year-old grandparents are Nielsen viewers." No joke.

When I heard that, I a) convinced Katie to hijack her grandparents' television and start watching my shows on it, and b) started complaining to Katie about why I hate Nielsen ratings. I learned in doing this that Katie, like a lot of people, had no idea that Nielsen ratings are how advertising prices get set and therefore determine which shows get the boot.

(Read my previous beefs with Nielsen ratings here and here. Or just have a conversation with me at all, and it will probably come up at some point. I have very strong feelings about Nielsen ratings.)

So basically, in case you're not grasping this, Katie's grandparents are deciding which shows stay on the air. Great. Programming schedules full of CSI, Without a Trace, and Diagnosis Murder.

In case you don't know anything about Nielsen ratings, here's a place to start: "How do television ratings work?"

Johnny-Come-Latelys

First of all, Wimbledon announced this week that it will finally start paying male and female champions equal prize money. HELLOOOO? Wimbledon hasn't been paying equal prize money?! You've got to be kidding me. Welcome to the 21st century, England. Supposedly the other tennis tournaments dispensed with the discrimintation years ago. Surprise, surprise... Wimbledon's just coming around. As my sister says, leave it to a bunch of old, white, elitists to be the last in line. ::sigh:: Oh well, at least they fixed it now.

Secondly, Nielsen Media Ratings announced this week that it will start putting ratings boxes in college dorms, college apartments, and frat and sorority houses. Thank you, Nielsen!!! I've said for years that it's completely absurd that college students aren't factored into TV ratings at all. I realize that college kids watch the least TV out of any age group, but knowing what TV they DO watch is really important!!! Not only do they make up the majority of the ever-sought-after 18-24 demographic... there are plenty of shows targeted specifically to college kids, including almost all the programming on the CW. After running a pilot group, Nielsen discovered that including college kids in the ratings increased Grey's Anatomy's numbers by 53% and America's Next Top Model's numbers by a substantial percentage I can't remember right now... not to mention its severe impact on televised sporting events! This is the stuff advertisers should want to know... and that's the reason Nielsen ratings exist in the first place! To set advertising rates. (And especially to capture the 18-24 market.) I don't understand why they haven't done this before, but I'm really glad they're finally doing it now.

So this blog entry is a shout-out to two Johnny-Come-Latelys. It's pretty disappointing you weren't on board sooner... but welcome, Wimbledon and Nielsen

Requiem

I just wanted to offer a requiem for Studio 60 as it goes the way of most of the rest of Aaron Sorkin's work. I'm sick of listening to people bitch about how it's too autobiographical and muttering about Sorkin's self-importance and megalomania. (Hello people, he's a writer/producer. And a good one, at that. What do you expect?) Granted, I'm slightly biased - I happen to be one of the biggest Sports Night fans you'll ever find. (For those of you who haven't had the pleasure, Sports Night is a brilliant 30-minute comedy Sorkin wrote in the late '90s that only survived two seasons. Dear smart people: get it from Netflix. You'll thank me.) But regardless, I love Sorkin's quick, witty dialogue - and I think he's a fricking genius.

I've read all the articles; I hear the complaints. "Why should we CARE about yuppie television writers on a Saturday Night Live- type show? It's a bad premise." I disagree. Why should we CARE about people who work in an office in Scranton, PA? Why should we CARE about fictitious people stranded on a fictitious desert island? Why should we CARE about doctors in love in a hospital? I mean, really? Is that the argument we're going to use? Why should we CARE about a group of friends who live in apartments? Why should we CARE about bizarre friends who live in New York City and talk about nothing? It doesn't matter why. Good shows are good shows, yuppies or not.

I'll concede that last week's episode was a little in-your-face with its point. (We GET it. The Hollywood Ten. We know. The history of the network. Great. Afghanistan. Okay. Moving on.) But as far as writing, pacing, and story arc, you can't deny it was a lovely work of craftsmanship. Plus, come on - these kinds of topics are smart. (Although, as I'll get to in the next paragraph, that's clearly the problem.) And if you're watching this show and not chuckling at or at least appreciating the dialogue, you're not paying close enough attention. Or you don't get the references. (In which case, your friendship with me is on the rocks.)

And here we are at the problem.

The rumors and articles say NBC is planning to replace Studio 60, as well as most of its shows in the 8-9 timeslot, with game shows and reality TV. Shoot me now. Seriously. We're canning smart, funny dialogue and complex characters for mindless game shows and people eating bugs?? Really?! I don't understand why people watch "Deal or No Deal," except possibly to witness Howie Mandel's obsessive-compulsive behavior first-hand. Besides that, it's a game that doesn't even require any skill! (At least on American Idol they have to sing something and on Millionaire they have to answer questions.) I've never understood it, and it's breaking my heart that those kinds of shows are getting the ratings at the expense of quality TV.

Speaking of quality TV - as I learned in Bob Thompson's quality TV class, the highest quality shows always take a long time to gain a fan base. "Long time," as in, years. Some of the best shows in television's history never would have made it past a season if the producers and network executives were trigger-happy and hadn't given them a chance despite dwindling ratings. (Steven Bochco, where are you?! Please go talk to someone at NBC.) But today quality doesn't matter. Game shows and bug eaters (much to my chagrin and utter disgust) are getting the ratings -- and thus are getting the highest ad revenue. Which is what it ultimately comes down to.

All I know is, the people participating in the Nielsen ratings are a bunch of idiots. And extremely infuriating.

The fact that Studio 60 (a show about bringing a network back from the depths of crappiness) is getting cancelled just says it all. Especially with SNL in its abysmal state. (I'm not getting the humor on there at all anymore. Seriously, I haven't laughed once. Oh Will Ferrell, where art thou?) Maybe Aaron Sorkin should take over NBC instead of writing a TV show about it.

In an episode a few weeks ago, Jordan (the producer on Studio 60, played by Amanda Peet) chose to buy quality programming over a crappy reality tv show. Sorry, Sorkin - wishful thinking.

NO DEAL. Ugh.