Official TV Ratings Thread

[TonyWilson]

Well instead of paying for shit products I don't need I pay a yearly fee of £135 and get 4 main channels plus 24hr news and childrens tv too.

[magicmonkey]

Plus shit loads of ad free radio too! *swoon*

It even makes your cock hard and your ballz swing, and your teeth have never, never been brighter!

[papalazeru]

Sky has a sweet deal. They make you pay for their shit AND put more ads between their programmes than a Mexican Soap opera.

Fuck Rupert Murdoch!

[magicmonkey]

Murdoch is the emperor, he pulls the strings, controls reality and... and... he's Australian!!

[Zarles]

Advertising is what you make of it. Like that Simpsons episode says, 'Just don't look.' If you think the products are crap, don't buy them. Simple as that. It's funny - no one says boo to advertising when it's in the form of cool posters, t-shirts, and swag being doled out and sold at places like Comic-Con.

A rose is a rose is a rose...

[magicmonkey]

I like a pretty face to go with my suffering! Child labour, repressive slave drivers and regimes in actuality? Here, see some pretty folks dancing! Phew, I don't have to look at the child labourers or any reality at all. It's all like a dream, except for this dream I gotta pay, bummer.

[TonyWilson]

Advertising is what you make of it. Like that Simpsons episode says, 'Just don't look.' If you think the products are crap, don't buy them. Simple as that. It's funny - no one says boo to advertising when it's in the form of cool posters, t-shirts, and swag being doled out and sold at places like Comic-Con.

A rose is a rose is a rose...

Actually I think all that stuff is total crap too. Hell I don't even by clothes with large labels because I don't want to be advertising it myself.

[magicmonkey]

Yeah, I have a wicker basket that I take shopping with me to stop having to advertise the shop I just freaking shopped at. They should pay ME for that shit!





10% or more of this post may be untrue, especially that concerning a wicker basket... which also leads me to an anecdote about shopping at the low cost Scandinavian retailer, netto. Having combated my way through extremely low price food and shame faced members of the middle classes having to humble themselves, due to some family crisis, by shopping at the store, I finally paid for my goods and left, only to get called "Nettoooooooo" right there in the street by teenage girls.

Damn them! netto feta cheese is the bollocks!

[tapehead]

Murdoch is the emperor, he pulls the strings, controls reality and... and... he's Australian!!

What are you implying?

[magicmonkey]

Murdoch is the emperor, he pulls the strings, controls reality and... and... he's Australian!!

What are you implying?

Oh you know, only that being Australian ranks above the emperor of Star Wars in terms of being evil...

[tapehead]

Murdoch is the emperor, he pulls the strings, controls reality and... and... he's Australian!!

What are you implying?

Oh you know, only that being Australian ranks above the emperor of Star Wars in terms of being evil...

Murdoch is our major contribution to 21st Century Evil; him, and all the uranium we sell to other countries...

[bluebottle]

The BBC is an ideal template. Unfortunately, I live in Canada where the CBC is a mere shadow of the BBC. A large part of our taxes go to fund public television, but they still need advertising to cover the costs.

Now, we don't have television licensing, that has been proposed, but Canadian's won't have it.

And in the States, they have their "commercial free" television in HBO and Showtime by paying their cable/satellite fees. But even then you're subjected to product placement (my roommate has made "Spot the diet coke" a game when we watch Weeds).

I just think that it's sad when a network show gets canceled because , despite it being critically acclaimed, and loved by a hard core group of fans, it gets poor ratings - which means little advertising revenue.

Some shows are great, and deserve to be on the air, but because the advertisers are going to lose money, the show gets pulled.

[bluebottle]

Sorry if I think the world would be better off with advertising, lawyers and parking enforcers.

Sorry, I should have said "Defense Lawyers".

[DennisMM]

95 percent of advertising does one thing to me: make me avert my eyes/close my ears. Are there really people, short of those absorbed in Cosmo/Vogue/GQ who pay attention to ads while watching/reading/listening? Even if I'm entertained by an ad I see/hear I'm once again 95 percent unlikely to be swayed by it. My insurance isn't through Geico and I drink the same brands of soda I have for 20 years. About the only influence advertising has on me is alerting me to entertainment of one sort or another. I am the ratings system's nightmare.

[Zarles]

I'm a graphic designer, and I have to say that yes, I do sometimes pay attention to advertising. Not necessarily to see what it's selling, but mostly for how it's laid out and presented. There IS an art to advertising, no matter how many people try and deny it.

I'm the first one to agree that not nearly enough thought or dedication goes into 99% of ads these days, and that's little more than laziness on the designer's part. It's rather thoughtless to punish the ad companies for poorly-executed ad campaigns - they're just pushing what they're given by the design companies they hire. You can't polish a turd.

[bluebottle]

Again, I have nothing against ads, or advertising.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again: I've seen 30 second ads that have had more of an emotional impact on me than 90 minute films.

What I resent is the idea that a lot of what we do, a lot of what we watch "for entertainment" is in fact driven by big companies urging us to go out and "consume".

I think that is inherently fucked up.

I'm not saying it needs to change, but I don't think there's anything wrong with calling it for what it is.

[magicmonkey]

Amen brotha.

[Zarles]

Consumer culture/capitalism is what this country runs on, and that's never, ever going to change. However, I think where the real power lies is with us - the consumer. Companies can advertise and jam crap down our throats all they want, but in the end, we don't really have to buy anything. So there's a Nissan ad on during 'Heroes'. Big deal. Does that mean you have to go out and buy a Nissan? Of course not.

For example, shopping at Whole Foods or Wegman's instead of at Ralph's or Shop-Rite is in effect supporting the independent, organic farms that are run by real people. WE determine where our money goes, not them. Look inside your wallet the next time that Nissan ad starts to run, and I guarantee you that when it's over, you'll still have the same amount of money in there. Ads mean nothing if we don't act on them.

On the flipside, though, I'm not bashing advertising companies. As I've stated, they, too, have a job to do, and it's nothing but bleeding-heart fantasy-land bullshit rhetoric to fault them for that. I'd love to live in a world where I could trade a song for a sandwich, too, but unfortunately, the world doesn't run like that.

It's got Paul Anka's guarantee...

[bluebottle]

But how would you feel if Heroes was canceled because the viewers were down, sales of Nissan's weren't up, and it was just too expensive a show to maintain in spite of those things?

But (in this scenario) compared to other shows, it's numbers were quite good, just not good enough.

Sure, you and I and probably everyone on these boards ignore the ads, but we're not who the advertisers are targeting. We're not as impressionable as a lot of people.

Nissan is counting on the fact that if they advertise on Heroes, a large enough percentage of the people watching, will go out and buy a Nissan as their next car.

If that doesn't happen, clearly not enough people are watching Heroes.

In the end, we lose because a show we enjoy is canceled.

[Zarles]

That's a pretty extreme worst-case scenario there, man. I've never heard of a show being cancelled because not enough sport-utility vans were being sold.

That's why quality is important. You said it yourself - the show is really what matters. If that sucks, viewership goes down, and THAT'S what gets a show cancelled. Advertisers only start pulling out once the ratings start going down. To my knowledge, it's not the reverse, and never has been.

You also said it yourself when you stated that we're not the target audience. We're not. However, don't let that fool you into thinking that there aren't millions of other far less geeky people watching this show. MILLIONS. I'll bet that a good 2 out of 10 of them out there went to the Nissan website or dealership the next day to check out the van that the cute little cheerleader was driving.

Advertising works. It's a necessary evil, and it works.

[TonyWilson]

Consumer culture/capitalism is what this country runs on, and that's never, ever going to change. However, I think where the real power lies is with us - the consumer. Companies can advertise and jam crap down our throats all they want, but in the end, we don't really have to buy anything. So there's a Nissan ad on during 'Heroes'. Big deal. Does that mean you have to go out and buy a Nissan? Of course not.

For example, shopping at Whole Foods or Wegman's instead of at Ralph's or Shop-Rite is in effect supporting the independent, organic farms that are run by real people. WE determine where our money goes, not them. Look inside your wallet the next time that Nissan ad starts to run, and I guarantee you that when it's over, you'll still have the same amount of money in there. Ads mean nothing if we don't act on them.

On the flipside, though, I'm not bashing advertising companies. As I've stated, they, too, have a job to do, and it's nothing but bleeding-heart fantasy-land bullshit rhetoric to fault them for that. I'd love to live in a world where I could trade a song for a sandwich, too, but unfortunately, the world doesn't run like that.

It's got Paul Anka's guarantee...

Zarles, buddy you couldn't be more wrong here. Holding ad companies to account for the coruscating shit they put out is a fucking moral imperative. Ad companies would do anything they could get away with to sell a product. It's up to people to call them on it and pressure them to change. Throwing your hands up in the air and saying "oh it will never change" is defeatist crap, no major shake up of any large system would ever happen if people went around with that attitude.

[Zarles]

Consumer culture/capitalism is what this country runs on, and that's never, ever going to change. However, I think where the real power lies is with us - the consumer. Companies can advertise and jam crap down our throats all they want, but in the end, we don't really have to buy anything. So there's a Nissan ad on during 'Heroes'. Big deal. Does that mean you have to go out and buy a Nissan? Of course not.

For example, shopping at Whole Foods or Wegman's instead of at Ralph's or Shop-Rite is in effect supporting the independent, organic farms that are run by real people. WE determine where our money goes, not them. Look inside your wallet the next time that Nissan ad starts to run, and I guarantee you that when it's over, you'll still have the same amount of money in there. Ads mean nothing if we don't act on them.

On the flipside, though, I'm not bashing advertising companies. As I've stated, they, too, have a job to do, and it's nothing but bleeding-heart fantasy-land bullshit rhetoric to fault them for that. I'd love to live in a world where I could trade a song for a sandwich, too, but unfortunately, the world doesn't run like that.

It's got Paul Anka's guarantee...

Zarles, buddy you couldn't be more wrong here. Holding ad companies to account for the coruscating shit they put out is a fucking moral imperative. Ad companies would do anything they could get away with to sell a product. It's up to people to call them on it and pressure them to change. Throwing your hands up in the air and saying "oh it will never change" is defeatist crap, no major shake up of any large system would ever happen if people went around with that attitude.

Dude, that's what I just said. We can hold ad companies to account for their bullshit by not buying their product. THAT'S how we communicate with them, not by quoting Bill Hicks or saying endlessly how 'evil' advertising is. If I were being defeatist, I'd be saying, 'Oh, fuck it. It doesn't matter anyway, so let's all just go out and buy a Nissan.'

Ad companies aren't going to stop doing their jobs, period. However, if we don't buy their shit, maybe they'll listen. Money talks.

[bluebottle]

You're right, I painted a ridiculous worse case scenario.

But this thread started because of concern over the effect that downloads (illegal and legal) have on the viewer numbers.

Advertisers are panicking because they're worried that their ads aren't getting out there like they used to. I think we're going to see a shift in advertisings role in television, which is where I'm curious to see what will happen.

Network television can't exist without advertising. So, advertisers are going to get more and more pushy with the way they get their message into the programs.

It's also been said that network television will be extinct in the next ten years (can't remember if that's the right number, or who said it - but it was someone that was... in a newspaper... not some... guy)

[Zarles]

Advertisers are panicking because they're worried that their ads aren't getting out there like they used to. I think we're going to see a shift in advertisings role in television, which is where I'm curious to see what will happen.

It's already started. Why do you think advertisers are so hot to figure out a way to advertise effectively on YouTube?

[TonyWilson]

But your saying it's fantasy land to fault ad companies for what they do.
Holding them accountable is the same thing, what they do is highly fucking suspect and keeping a close eye on them is important. That's what Bill Hicks was doing, through the medium of comedy sure, but it he was trying to make more people aware of the insidious effects of this industry.

[Zarles]

But your saying it's fantasy land to fault ad companies for what they do.
Holding them accountable is the same thing, what they do is highly fucking suspect and keeping a close eye on them is important. That's what Bill Hicks was doing, through the medium of comedy sure, but it he was trying to make more people aware of the insidious effects of this industry.

No, what I meant is that it's fantasy-land rhetoric to just spout off about it and actually think it's going to have any effect. It won't. You can go stand on the street corner and yell about how many fucking billboards there are in Manhattan all day long, and it's not going to change the mind of a single Madison Avenue ad exec from going to work the next morning. That's what I meant.

If you want to hold them accountable, spend time thinking about where your money is going. Don't give money to companies you don't support. Support family-owned businesses. Independent record labels. Ad execs will listen when their bottom line starts to fall, and ONLY then.

[bluebottle]

Advertisers are panicking because they're worried that their ads aren't getting out there like they used to. I think we're going to see a shift in advertisings role in television, which is where I'm curious to see what will happen.

It's already started. Why do you think advertisers are so hot to figure out a way to advertise effectively on YouTube?

I didn't mean to imply it hadn't started. I'm saying that I don't think ads on web pages, or at the beginning of clips are going to be as effective as ads in the middle of programs.

If current trends continue, people will be downloading full episodes, ad free. Where do the ads go then? 1.99 cents per episode isn't going to cover the cost of producing the show. Or will it? I honestly don't know.

I imagine that this is where the networks get greedy. They could probably cover their costs and make a profit by selling the shows directly to the consumers (pay per download, pay on demand, dvd sales) but advertising allows them to make so much more money...

As for the boycotting...

It's easy to say, "I'm going to boycott Coke" and not drink Coke.

But it gets confusing with all the conglomerates and sponsorships... Who knows what companies Coke has given money too, or what films/television shows they've put money in. It's not as simple as not buying a coke. Because if they've invested in something without you knowing, and you purchase that product, or watch that film, you're supporting them.

[Zarles]

Oh, it's definitely not easy, and it's near impossible to be completely guilt-free about where your money goes. All I'm saying is to put in the tiniest amount of effort towards doing it. I'm sure that's much more than the average person does.

[DinoDeLaurentiis]

Network television can't exist without advertising. So, advertisers are going to get more and more pushy with the way they get their message into the programs.

Like a the Ford commercials inna the middle of a the "Alias" episodes or a the Nissan commercial inna the "Heroes" Season 2 opener, eh?

"Claire, you've a been a the good girl, which is a why I'm a gonna to give a you my car, eh?"

"Oh, Daddy! A the Nissan Rogue?!? Holy crappa, it's a like I died anna gone a to Heaven, no? Iffa I could a die, that is... a 'cos of a course, I canna be killed, eh? It's a my secret super power!!"

"Claire! Shh... donna forget, we're inna'cognito, eh? Donna make a me take a back a the Nissan Rogue... with a the rich a Corinna'thian leather inna'terior, eh?"

[Zarles]

I think I'd find Claire and HRG's characters a lot more believable than they are if they actually spoke like that.

[Peven]

on the one hand, while a Nissan commercial in the middle of a TV episode may be irriating, i don't find it dangerous to our society in any real way. that kind of advertising is rather innocuous imo.

the kind of advertising that should come under more influence than just consumer choice is the kind that makes unfounded or outright false claims, the kind that prays on the trust and ignorance of people. fuck the whole "buyer beware" mentality. you want "strongest survive" then go live out in the fucking forrest and make your clothes out of tree bark. in a society like ours we should make sure that our fellow citizens aren't being lied to and mislead.

personally, i would love to see some of these advertising execs who do whatever they can to manipulate kids pay a real price for the damage the have done to our society. they care nothing for the long term health and quality of our society, they only care about short term profit. but, that is a very subjective issue and my feelings may be way out of line with others.

[Leckomaniac]

So would you folks like to see how this whole debacle turned out? Sure you do.

Heroes was able to bump up its ratings from 14 million to 17 million with the additional viewing.

Heroes cracked the ranks of TV's most watched shows—and superpowers had nothing to do with it. A new ratings rule did.

Per the latest Nielsen Media Research rankings, the NBC show goes down in the books as having aired last Monday, having averaged 17 million viewers and having finished in seventh place for the first week of the 2007-08 season.

But to secure those enviable numbers, NBC aired Heroes twice.

The show repeated on Saturday night, attracting about 3 million new viewers. Following up on an NBC request, Nielsen added those 3 million viewers to the 14 million or so who tuned in last Monday, and just like that, Heroes had its 17 million. Along with its biggest season premiere.

As reported last week, NBC's trickeration was perfectly legal: The network took advantage of a new Nielsen rule that allows networks to combine numbers from multiple broadcasts of the same show, provided the same commercials are also aired.

According to Nielsen spokeswoman Anne Elliot, Heroes is the first prime-time show to gain from the recount process.

"They did it quicker than most people thought they would," Elliot said Tuesday of NBC.

The move has prompted grumbling from NBC rivals, who took pains to point out that NBC benefited not only from being able to count two Heroes as one, but by being able to not count Saturday's Heroes, which was relatively low-rated, at all. (In the Nielsen rankings, there is no record of Heroes having ever aired over the weekend—the Saturday broadcast was essentially a clone created to supply parts for the Monday mothership.)

The rule was under review Tuesday, Elliot said. But as of press time, it still stood. And as such, Elliot said she did not expect NBC to be the last network to take advantage of it: "I think we'll probably see a lot of others using it."

The new rule is part of an overall new direction at Nielsen, which is already folding DVR playback numbers into weekly ratings and developing systems that would measure how many eyeballs are watching shows via streaming video, podcasts and more.

"There are just so many different ways that television is watched these days," said Elliot.

In old-fashioned times, Heroes would have finished in about 14th place, which would have made for a still-solid premiere. Just not a superhuman one.

On Monday night, the show was back to its mere mortal self, averaging an estimated 12 million viewers.

You can find more information and see how other shows performed by clicking here

[Zarles]

I love how it got called a 'recount'.

[DinoDeLaurentiis]

BUMP!

Not a so fast, eh NBC?

Nielsen Media Research drops rebroadcast rule
By Paul J. Gough

Oct 9, 2007
NEW YORK -- Nielsen Media Research has dropped its newly established rule that allowed NBC to add ratings to "Heroes" in its premiere from an identical rebroadcast later in the week.

The move, announced Tuesday afternoon, will go a long way to satisfying Nielsen's network clients who were unhappy not so much that "Heroes" was boosted but that the network got to drop an hour of low-rated primetime ratings out of its weekly averages.

Now both the original and the repeat rating will be reported, unlike on Saturday, Sept. 29 when NBC's re-aired "Heroes" at 8 p.m. and the unduplicated viewing was added to its Monday premiere.

Nielsen said NBC followed the rules but that its other clients were upset about the consequences of the change. Talks began about what to do about the process, culminating in the change.

"Clients told us that it was essential for the ratings to the individual telecasts to remain available so that the viewing to each telecast can be analyzed separately and to ensure there is no ratings gap in any time period," Nielsen said. "In addition, clients commented the ability to combine two telecasts should not be allowed unless the option was available for all national media types."

Nielsen said it would continue to look at the issue, with the idea like previously to try to give the networks the ability to have flexibility in reporting in today's new landscape.

[Zarles]

Whoo!

[Leckomaniac]

We have an Official Box Office thread, so I figured why not have the TV equivalent? There may be an existing thread for this, but I haven't seen it and a quick search turned up nada.

So..click here for Monday ratings and commentary. The break down can be found below:

Monday's hourly results:

8 p.m.

ABC: "Dancing with the Stars" (17.1 million viewers, 11.0/16 households)
FOX: "House" (13.1 million, 7.6/11)
CBS: "How I Met Your Mother" (8.2 million, 5.4/8)/"Accidentally on Purpose" (7.2 million, 4.7/7)
NBC: "Heroes" (5.4 million, 3.3/5)
The CW: "One Tree Hill" (2.2 million, 1.5/2)

18-49 leader: "House" (5.1)

9 p.m.

ABC: "Dancing with the Stars" (18.5 million, 11.8/17)
CBS: "Two and a Half Men" (13.1 million, 8.3/12)/"The Big Bang Theory" (12.2 million, 7.7/11)
FOX: "Lie to Me" (8.1 million, 4.7/7)
NBC: "Trauma" (5.5 million, 3.6/5)
The CW: "Gossip Girl" (2.1 million, 1.5/2)

18-49 leader: "The Big Bang Theory" (4.5)

10 p.m.

CBS: "CSI: Miami" (13 million, 8.5/14)
ABC: "Castle" (11.6 million, 7.5/12)
NBC: "The Jay Leno Show" (4.3 million, 2.9/5)

18-49 leader: "CSI: Miami" (3.9)

Ratings information includes live and same-day DVR viewing. All numbers are preliminary and subject to change.

Moving, now, to cable TV below is the list of the top 20 shows for the week ending Oct. 4 (total viewers in parentheses):

Nielsen Television (TV) Ratings for Cable
Top 20 Cable Series
Week ending October 4, 2009

1 NFL REGULAR SEASON L (PANTHERS/COWBOYS) ESPN MONDAY 8:30 PM (15,705,000)
2 SUITE LIFE ON DECK DSNY FRIDAY 8:00 PM (6,808,000)
3 THE ULTIMATE FIGHTER SPIKE WEDNESDAY 10:00 PM (5,306,000)
4 SPORTSCENTER: L ESPN MONDAY 11:37 PM (4,119,000)
5 SUITE LIFE ON DECK DSNY FRIDAY 7:30 PM (4,817,000)
6 SPONGEBOB NICK SATURDAY 9:30 AM (4,129,000)
7 ICARLY NICK SATURDAY 8:00 PM (4,388,000)
8 WWE ENTERTAINMENT (WWE RAW) USA MONDAY 10:00 PM (4,586,000)
9 SPONGEBOB NICK SUNDAY 9:30 AM (4,147,000)
10 WWE ENTERTAINMENT (WWE RAW) USA MONDAY 9:00 PM (4,413,000)
11 SPONGEBOB NICK SATURDAY 9:00 AM (3,796,000)
12 PENGUINS OF MADAGASCAR NICK SATURDAY 10:00 AM (3,720,000)
13 SPONGEBOB NICK SUNDAY 9:00 AM (3,735,000)
14 HANNAH MONTANA DSNY FRIDAY 9:00 PM (4,137,000)
15 SONS OF ANARCHY FX TUESDAY 10:00 PM (3,763,000)
16 THE OREILLY FACTOR FOXNC WEDNESDAY 8:00 PM (3,561,000)
17 SUITE LIFE ON DECK DSNY FRIDAY 7:00 PM (3,674,000)
18 THE OREILLY FACTOR FOXNC TUESDAY 8:00 PM (3,527,000)
19 ARMY WIVES LIF SUNDAY 10:00 PM (3,331,000)
20 MONDAY NIGHT COUNTDOWN L ESPN MONDAY 7:00 PM (3,246,000)

[Lord Voldemoo]

Great idea for a thread Lecko. My initial thoughts...

Heroes is getting worked!
Leno isn't doing as well as I might have expected.
People really, really still like Spongebob.
I'm personally offended at how much of an audience "Dancing With the Stars" has. I hope that was the final episode of the season or something...

[Leckomaniac]

And SUITE LIFE ON DECK!

Seriously, it is no wonder the head of Disney Channel got himself bumped up to the top spot at Disney. That channel has been a hit machine.

[Lord Voldemoo]

And SUITE LIFE ON DECK!

Seriously, it is no wonder the head of Disney Channel got himself bumped up to the top spot at Disney. That channel has been a hit machine.

No doubt. I don't even know what Suite Life On Deck is...

[/old]

[Leckomaniac]

Holy crapolla who found this thread?

Damn, and I posted in it a lot.

[Lord Voldemoo]

Holy crapolla who found this thread?

Damn, and I posted in it a lot.

hahaha, wasn't me. I think it might have been ribbons.

[Ribbons]

I blame Herc.

Also this thread is probably going to depress the hell out of me as I watch scripted television slide further and further into oblivion

[/sad]

[Leckomaniac]

I blame Herc.

Also this thread is probably going to depress the hell out of me as I watch scripted television slide further and further into oblivion

[/sad]

I hear you.

here is a rundown of the first week of the season, which is fairly comprehensive.

Of interest:

One of the biggest winners in the first officially measured week of the 2009-10 may be ... "Manana Es Para Siempre."

The telenovela's Wednesday-night broadcast on Univision last week drew 6.28 million viewers, making it the 58th most-watched show of the week. What's more notable, though, is the list of shows "Manana" (translation: "Tomorrow Is Forever") beat: The Wednesday show finished ahead of such English-language shows as "Law & Order" (6.25 million), "Fringe" (5.73 million) and three of the five "Jay Leno Show" telecasts.

Ay Dios Mio!

[Leckomaniac]

Favre's return vs. Packers most watched show in cable TV history

21.8 million people watched it.

[Leckomaniac]

Tuesday ratings are in:

Fast National ratings for Tuesday, Oct. 6, 2009

The audience for "NCIS: Los Angeles" fell off a little bit Tuesday, which allowed "The Biggest Loser" to move ahead of it in the adults 18-49 demographic. In total viewers, though, it and the rest of CBS' lineup still dominated the night.

CBS averaged about 16.5 million viewers and a 10.4 rating/17 share for the night, nearly doubling the viewer total for second-place ABC (8.3 million, 5.6/9). NBC (8.1 million, 5.0/8) came in third. FOX was fourth with 6.4 million viewers and a 3.7/6, and The CW, per usual, was back of the pack with 1.9 million viewers and a 1.4/2.

CBS also led the 18-49 demo with a 3.6 rating, holding off NBC's 3.1. FOX, 2.8, took third in the demographic advertisers love, followed by ABC at 2.0 and The CW at 1.0.

Tuesday night hour by hour:

8 p.m.

CBS: "NCIS" (19.8 million viewers, 12.2/19 households)
NBC: "The Biggest Loser" (8.6 million, 5.2/8)
FOX: "Hell's Kitchen" (7.3 million, 4.1/7)
ABC: "Shark Tank" (5.4 million, 3.6/6)
The CW: "90210" 2.2 million, 1.6/3)

18-49 leader: "NCIS" (4.2)

9 p.m.

CBS: "NCIS: Los Angeles" (16.1 million, 10.1/16)
ABC: "Dancing with the Stars" results (11.8 million, 7.9/12)
NBC: "The Biggest Loser" (9.6 million, 5.8/9)
FOX: "So You Think You Can Dance" (5.5 million, 3.3/5)
The CW: "Melrose Place" (1.6 million, 1.2/2)

18-49 leader: "The Biggest Loser" (3.9)

10 p.m.

CBS: "The Good Wife" (13.4 million, 8.7/15)
ABC: "The Forgotten" (7.8 million, 5.2/9)
NBC: "The Jay Leno Show" (6.2 million, 4.0/7)

18-49 leader: "The Good Wife" (2.9)

\

Source

[Nick]

Favre's return vs. Packers most watched show in cable TV history

21.8 million people watched it.

It was a great game. And as a Packers fan: Fuck Brett Farve.

Not 100% sure why ABC would dump Monday Night Football to ESPN seeing as it would have probably been higher on broadcast. Is Dancing With The Stars really worth it?

[Leckomaniac]

Probably. I imagine it is cheaper to produce.

[Nick]

Probably. I imagine it is cheaper to produce.

You can put it on another night and no matter if ESPN pays for it or ABC pays for it the money still comes out of Disney's pocket.

[stereosforgeeks]

Favre's return vs. Packers most watched show in cable TV history

21.8 million people watched it.

It was a great game. And as a Packers fan: Fuck Brett Farve.

Not 100% sure why ABC would dump Monday Night Football to ESPN seeing as it would have probably been higher on broadcast. Is Dancing With The Stars really worth it?

A chi town packers fan!?!?!?

[Leckomaniac]

Probably. I imagine it is cheaper to produce.

You can put it on another night and no matter if ESPN pays for it or ABC pays for it the money still comes out of Disney's pocket.

Right, but it is about continuing to build the brand. Putting MNF on ESPN does wonders for that brand. It elevates the ratings of a cable channel to astronomical levels. At the same time, ABC has a monster on it's hands with DANCING WITH THE STARS. It is a franchise that has been a constant deliverer for ABC. Further, it is perfect counter programing. ESPN gets the adult males and ABC gets the teens and female audience.

Seems like a smart business move to me.