Howard Stern Hasn't Been 'King of Prime Time'
TV writers are trying to be kind: "Howard Stern isn't the King of Prime-Time TV. At least not yet." Stern's debut as a panelist on NBC's "America's Got Talent" drew 10.5 million viewers, down sharply from the 15.3 million viewers who watched the season debut of the talent competition last year. Stern's debut was the least-watched season premiere of "America's Got Talent" dating back to 2006.
The writers blamed finales on other Monday night shows. But what about Week Two? Ratings went down again. It "dropped 16 percent in the demo but was still the top-rated show with a 3.1/9. It drew 9.5 million total viewers."
Isn't it quite possible that the Howard Stern superfan -- the ones that thrive on dirty sex talk during their morning commute -- are not going to follow Stern to a show where they can watch magicians and dancers? In that case, NBC has made another very expensive programming mistake.
Read Brent Bozell on the Stern experiment.
- Tim Graham's blog
- Login to post comments
Comments
for now Tim
Submitted by shawn. on Sat, 05/26/2012 - 5:55pm.
You are 100 percent right. I hope if AGT ratings climb you will have enough class to admit you were wrong.
Why?
Submitted by Chris Norman on Mon, 05/28/2012 - 10:04am.
I think his point was already proven - that adding Howard Stern didn't automatically boost the show's ratings. If the viewership does go up in the future - it could be for other reasons - like maybe one of the contestants is very talented or has a compelling story.
I disagree
Submitted by shawn. on Mon, 05/28/2012 - 10:13am.
Tim is saying ratings are down are somehow Sterns fault, that people don't want to see him. If the ratings pick up Stern has nothing to do with it. You can't have it both ways Chris.
Wrong. Tim is saying ratings
Submitted by jonota on Mon, 05/28/2012 - 1:40pm.
Wrong. Tim is saying ratings are down, therefore Howard Stern didn't automatically bring in the viewers. They may, in fact, be depressed due to his presence (although that is speculation). His "star power", aka being "King of Prime Time" did nothing for the show. IF the show picks up after this point, with Howard Stern being there both now, and in the hypothetical future, it is likely that he would NOT be the reason for such a boost - his presence didn't change.
To reverse things, YOU are in effect claiming that the ratings being low have nothing to do with Stern's presence, but if they DO go up, then it must be Stern's presence doing so (enough that the author should apologize). Hopefully you can see this.
The not so subtle jab of suggesting the author would have no class is very juvenile, as well. I'm supposing you're a Stern fan?
Yes I am a Stern fan
Submitted by shawn. on Mon, 05/28/2012 - 1:56pm.
I have never been disrespectful to Mr Graham. I am simply saying if the ratings go up, that Mr Graham will give credit where credit is due.
It seems many authors here love to tout Fox news ratings. I have no problem with this, but when they criticize shows like 2 and a half men, Modern Family or Performers like Rihanna, they conveniently ignore their ratings success.
In your first post you
Submitted by jonota on Mon, 05/28/2012 - 2:06pm.
In your first post you suggest that if the author does not concede any future ratings increase to Howard Stern, then he has no class. Since there is a clear, rational reason why one would NOT attribute a ratings increase to Stern (that being he is already there, and ratings are going down, not stable, and definitely not up - if they change, it will most likely be due to some other factor), I see nothing but a jab at the author's integrity. There would be no "credit" due Mr. Stern, necessarily.
Of course, one could conjecture a slew of possibilities that could certainly be plausible. However, the class diss has no legitimate place in the discussion.
That is your interpretation
Submitted by shawn. on Mon, 05/28/2012 - 2:48pm.
I find myself agreeing with many things Mr Bozell and Mr Graham say, I simply think it is silly the positions they take on more choices and variety when it comes to entertainment
It looks like you have already made up your mind on what you think I meant so unless you actually want to discuss Howard Stern, this is going nowhere.
It may indeed be silly.
Submitted by jonota on Mon, 05/28/2012 - 3:28pm.
It may indeed be silly. Personally, I'm a fan of "change the channel if you don't like it". However, it must be pointed out, in many cases shows like AGT have a viewership of young people that might not necessarily include the parents. If, in times past, the parents had briefly viewed the program and found it acceptable for their children to watch, and now we have Mr. Stern jumping in there doing the only thing he knows: sexually charging - which to many is offensive. As the parent of young boys, I do not want them to listen to Mr. Stern, nor do I feel I should need to monitor every second of their television viewing to ensure he isn't heard. He belongs exactly where he has been: on less regulated, viewer knows what their getting airwaves. As he said, he's Howard Stern, so he's going to be inappropriate - so why is he exalted and placed on what was previously a family friendly show?
As far as what I think, I think you threw out a thinly veiled insult because a celebrity you like isn't getting the support you'd like to see. That's childish. You do accept that the author may be right on the viewership - that's at least a positive step. Don't let hero worship get in the way of being rational. Another step in the right direction would be to recant your statement of classlessness should AGT's ratings increase and Mr. Graham not believe it was due to Mr. Stern.
Hey Tim
Submitted by shawn. on Wed, 06/13/2012 - 8:36am.
I am so sure Stern has NOTHING to do with it but looks like.the audience has increased by over two million viewers.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/entertainment/tv/a-list-of-the-top-20-prim...