The Challenge: Cut Throat - Ratings

I have wondered about the production/editing aspects versus the cast tolerance levels. I know that the Top Chef people have indicated that their judging tables take hours to film due to production shooting and resetting to shoot from multiple angles when they are all crammed into a small, hot room for most of the time mixed with alcohol being sometimes available which leads to a lot of the antics/drama people see on TV. I would guess that the Challenges could benefit from some completely unexpected format like divide the people in four teams and send the two sets in different directions to compete so they cannot see the final competitors and bring the winners from each set back together to face each other in the finals or something like that. I still do not see the series being canceled. I think RW and the Challenges are the main thing that bring the older part of the 18-49 demo back to the network periodically.

People ALWAYS remember old things to be better. I have watched a lot of those challenges in a short time, because they weren't shown here and I just found them online a year or so ago. And honestly, I don't see that much difference between those from the old days and the challenges of today, IMO this is just an imaginary, nostalgic differentiation.

[QUOTE=OrangeStar;216468]People ALWAYS remember old things to be better. I have watched a lot of those challenges in a short time, because they weren't shown here and I just found them online a year or so ago. And honestly, I don't see that much difference between those from the old days and the challenges of today, IMO this is just an imaginary, nostalgic differentiation.[/QUOTE] "People always" is a very broad generalization for which you offer no specific evidence. Perhaps people cling to characters who were original and not poorly constructed copies. When during casting one is asked "What RW, RR or Challenge person are you most like?," and the answer they seek is not "no one," then I think intelligent "fans" are on to something in their criticism. MTV is not alone in the dilemma. It happens in Survivor, too. Further, Webster defines nostalgia as "a wist ful or excessively sentimental yearning for return to or of some past period or irrecoverable condition." Thus, I don't see it as imaginary if one believes the challenges of Gauntlet 2, The Duel or Inferno were more compelling TV that those more recent ones. While there may be some who may appear excessive to you in their yearning for better players and better produced seasons, this is a thread about ratings. There are many committed "fans" who still watch season to season, while believing that there must be a better way. Would you simply have them disappear and with them a likely measurable segment of the 18-34 demographic cease to be a factor in any potential renewal where the only subjective measure is those who watch? My own view is that production really stopped being creative too long ago and the exterior game changes brought to Cutthroat are not going to bring back the viewers who deserted MTV for VH1, BRAVO, A&E, LOGO, Oxygen, SYFY, WE, etc. Some returned to watch Jersey Shore and Teen Mom because they are different and attractive to audiences, particularly to the older demographic. There is no evidence that those audiences watched RW or the Challenge shows. In fact, there is evidence among advertisers (and media buyers) that the opposite is true. Personally, I think I suffer from a need for quality reality and not from nostalgia. I've spent well over a decade (closer to two) working with reality "stars," producers and crew. The one thing that has become consistently clear to me is that reality TV is all-too-thinly spread these days. One particularly good example is Matt Kunitz who once was a producer and director for BMP. He was known to have a close, caring relationship with quite a few cast members, and his creativity, within his budget was legendary. You may know his work better as the Executive Producer for Fear Factor, a show which later became the first network reality show to be syndicated and earned NBC $600 million in ad revenue over six seasons. If there is only one more Challenge, then I'd love to see MTV bring in Matt to finish the show off with the quality and leadership he brought to the set in the 1980s. If Matt were to return, I know a bunch of "old heads" who would return too, for one more shot at the money... and at making good TV. [URL="http://vevmo.com/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=8033"][IMG]http://vevmo.com/imagehosting/1174cc5fd2f8ad83.jpg[/IMG][/URL] Matt Kunitz, Exec Producer and creator, Wipeout

[QUOTE=Entropy;216454]Then why do you keep watching then Debut Album? You are really negative towards the current challenges and you just admitted they aren't interesting..so why waste your time watching or talking about something you obviously don't like anymore?[/QUOTE] I still watch these things for 3 reasons. 1. Out of Habit 2. Hot guys 3.There are still some castmembers I like that still do the challenges(Brad Abram, Dan Cohautta) and I mainly watch to see them.

[QUOTE=V1man;216485]"People always" is a very broad generalization for which you offer no specific evidence. Perhaps people cling to characters who were original and not poorly constructed copies. When during casting one is asked "What RW, RR or Challenge person are you most like?," and the answer they seek is not "no one," then I think intelligent "fans" are on to something in their criticism. MTV is not alone in the dilemma. It happens in Survivor, too. [/QUOTE] I think I don't need to give evidence for that, because it is common knowledge. That's what nostalgia defines and why it exists. I'm just saying that I personally do not see much difference between the older and the newer challenges. With the Real World, it's another thing, even I, though watching most seasons in a rather short time, can see why older seasons brought better ratings and were "better", especially the first ten seasons. But I am not sure if even the older challenges would get the same rating today as they did back then. And I don't really see how the people back then were more original than those cast today, with a few exceptions.

RW & the Challenges are the only reason I even still watch MTV anymore, but I think they both could be better. When the Challenges started, there was less competition on reality TV. That it is the same old people and the same old format make it a bit harder to want to watch new Challenges. To me, if they are sticking with their cast pool, then the only way to spice up the show would be to somehow alter the format or come up with very extreme challenges. For me, the RR missions were more interesting--climbing on the sides of buildings and bungee jumping of buildings and bridges and such--than scooting around on a block of ice. I do think that the editing has really been poor the last few seasons of both shows. That the show is weaker, bad editing makes it worse.

I think at least they are trying to change things up at least format wise, in the past 5 years we've had..Duel, Island, Ruins and now Cutthroat.

[QUOTE=OrangeStar;216496]I think I don't need to give evidence for that, because it is[B] common knowledge[/B]. That's what nostalgia defines and why it exists. I'm just saying that I personally do not see much difference between the older and the newer challenges. With the Real World, it's another thing, even I, though watching most seasons in a rather short time, can see why older seasons brought better ratings and were "better", especially the first ten seasons. But I am not sure if even the older challenges would get the same rating today as they did back then. And I don't really see how the people back then were more original than those cast today, with a few exceptions.[/QUOTE] I'm reminded of something really nostalgic: "Common is as common does." It seems to fit here for some reason.

[QUOTE=OrangeStar;216496]I think I don't need to give evidence for that, because it is common knowledge. That's what nostalgia defines and why it exists. I'm just saying that I personally do not see much difference between the older and the newer challenges. With the Real World, it's another thing, even I, though watching most seasons in a rather short time, can see why older seasons brought better ratings and were "better", especially the first ten seasons. But I am not sure if even the older challenges would get the same rating today as they did back then. And I don't really see how the people back then were more original than those cast today, with a few exceptions.[/QUOTE] It's kinda odd to me that you can see t he diffrence with The Real World but you can't see the diffrence between the challenges who feature the same people that were on The Real World(and Road Rules).

[QUOTE=Debut Album;216510]It's kinda odd to me that you can see t he diffrence with The Real World but you can't see the diffrence between the challenges who feature the same people that were on The Real World(and Road Rules).[/QUOTE] Maybe because the Real World has always been more story-centered than the challenges? This is the only explanation I have for this. All I'm saying is that these shows had a long run already, and the declining ratings are not necessarily related to decreasing quality.

[QUOTE=OrangeStar;216572]Maybe because the Real World has always been more story-centered than the challenges? This is the only explanation I have for this. All I'm saying is that these shows had a long run already, and the declining ratings are not necessarily related to decreasing quality.[/QUOTE] I think the quality is a part of the low ratings but it's not the main reason. But that's my opinion. Think what you like.

[QUOTE=V1man;216504]I'm reminded of something really nostalgic: "Common is as common does." It seems to fit here for some reason.[/QUOTE] Ehm...no, it does not. But quoting that probably says more about you than me. And to your previous question - I don't care that much, whether the challenges continue. The show has been on tv far longer than most other shows, so for one thing it has to end sooner or later, and for another thing I worry about some issues, but surely not about a reality show.

[QUOTE=OrangeStar;216646]Ehm...no, it does not. But quoting that probably says more about you than me. And to your previous question - I don't care that much, whether the challenges continue. The show has been on tv far longer than most other shows, so for one thing it has to end sooner or later, and for another thing I worry about some issues, but surely not about a reality show.[/QUOTE] It had nothing to do with you. It's a non sequitur (a reply that has no relevance to what preceded it). I simply was reminded of the movie quote (Winona Ryder I believe) when reading your earlier reply. But back to the question of ratings... I reached out today to some reality TV production people for their take on the Challenge ratings (All of them grew up on RW/RR and the challenges). There reaction was universal: some networks and producers would love to have the ratings of the challenges. Reality TV is spread very thinly across the available channels, every network it seems is doing them because they are generally profitable, even with a small audience due to their production costs. They problem, they point out, is the rumored production costs of the challenges, which are believed high in comparison with other reality shows. One reality show is casting for a tattoo artist in the NY area willing to be cast for no compensation. Another classic show canceled a post-season cast party to save just a few dollars, while the booze still flows freely on the challenges. Their overall point is that there needs to be a balance among cost, ratings and ad revenue or no show is sustainable. There is no question that MTV has taken a look recently at the balance and at one point informed the historic cast members, through BMP, that the continuation of the challenges, based on many factors, was questionable. [SIZE=1][B][FONT=Comic Sans MS] [CENTER]"Don’t take things personally...most times things have NOTHING to do with you." Rebecca Cardon, The Amazing Race [/CENTER] [/FONT][/B][/SIZE]

Appreciate you reaching out to add to the discussion, V1man. From what I can tell, ad revenue is down all across the spectrum--from local papers and magazines on up--due to the economy. Sucks that the renewal decisions are being made in the midst of all this. To me, the Challenges are as much a way for the viewers to see reality stars back on their TV. Maybe, but doubtfully, BMP and MTV will come up with a way to cut costs and ride this trend out, or come up with a whole new format that will at least keep the casts around. If nothing else, then maybe a shorter term renewal with the hope the money will pick up later or some increased cost/better back-end profit sharing.

Wrote this on the Emilee thread but seems more fitting here... Truth is the ratings aren't that bad, I mean shows like TNA and Smackdown do around that range, although SD sometimes hits the low to mid 2s, but TNA is always in that same 1.2, 1.3, or even .9 bracket and that show is probably not as cheap to produce as a Challenge and they don't even make money from the live gate. I think the main factor is that compared to other MTV shows the ratings aren't as hot. I hope maybe giving a long break till summer like its rumored to happen this year, will make people miss it..sometimes having too much can over saturate the product, and with RW and Challenges constantly on TV it does get to that point.

Hopefully BMP and MTV can sit done and work some of the budgeting out and have their contract renewed. According to mtv.com, Cutthroat is their 4th top show under J.S., Teen Mom, and 16 and Pregnant. I kinda see Teen Mom, and 16 as one show so Cutthroat is in the Top 3 MTV shows. I was pretty worried about The Challenges being cancelled after season 21 but after seeing that, I'm feeling a little better.

[QUOTE=Entropy;216670]Wrote this on the Emilee thread but seems more fitting here... Truth is the ratings aren't that bad, I mean shows like TNA and Smackdown do around that range, although SD sometimes hits the low to mid 2s, but TNA is always in that same 1.2, 1.3, or even .9 bracket and that show is probably not as cheap to produce as a Challenge and they don't even make money from the live gate. I think the main factor is that compared to other MTV shows the ratings aren't as hot. I hope maybe giving a long break till summer like its rumored to happen this year, will make people miss it..sometimes having too much can over saturate the product, and with RW and Challenges constantly on TV it does get to that point.[/QUOTE] And TLC canceled Little People Big world with comparable numbers as that show has fallen steadily in the ratings even though they allowed the Roloffs to more or less make it seem like it was their decision due to some wiggle room in their contract. I don't think it is just a ratings issue, but also a relevance issue. I think RW is more relevant than the Challenges to the MTV line up. If the Challenges were to be canceled, they would likely take RW back to 1/2 hour episodes to stretch each season out longer IMO.

[QUOTE=OrangeStar;216496]I think I don't need to give evidence for that, because it is common knowledge. That's what nostalgia defines and why it exists.[B] I'm just saying that I personally do not see much difference between the older and the newer challenges.[/B] With the Real World, it's another thing, even I, though watching most seasons in a rather short time, can see why older seasons brought better ratings and were "better", especially the first ten seasons. But I am not sure if even the older challenges would get the same rating today as they did back then. And I don't really see how the people back then were more original than those cast today, with a few exceptions.[/QUOTE] I really don't know what to tell you if you don't see a difference. The shows weren't as predictable back then, and there wasn't the same level of scheming and conniving either. Also, the regulars back on the older Challenges were much more entertaining people. When you take people like Mike, Coral, Veronica, Rachel, Timmy, Theo, CT, Abram, Mark, etc. vis-a-vis the new wave of Challenge regulars, people like Johnny, Paula, Kenny, Dunbar, Jenn, Ryan, Sarah, and Evelyn there's no comparison at all, for example: -Mike was the great leader, the heart and soul of his team, and everyone loved him. Johnny is a great leader only in his own eyes, and everyone thinks he's an *******. -Coral was the original HBIC on the shows, always having hilarious commentary in her interviews, and none of her fights ever seemed contrived, unlike Jenn, who just likes to see if she can break the Guinness world record for most words said in a 15-second span. -Abram and CT were the original loose cannons, you never knew what to expect from them. Despite being hotheads, they were great competitors. Now the token loose cannons are Dunbar and Vinny, neither of whom bring much to the table as far as entertainment or competitive ability. I don't need to keep going here. Basically, the people they brought in to essentially "replace" all the old vets are not as fun to watch. I'm not faulting production for bringing in a lot of inexperienced people on Cut Throat, because if nothing else it gives them a chance to see who has a chance to be a new Challenge regular.

I think after 5 years IF Challenge still exist we will have another new Johnny, Jenn, Paula or Dunbar we will say same stuff like now you are saying [B]AJHill[/B] :)

I do not disagree with everything AJHill points out. To me the older challenge competitors seemed more good natured toward each other when the competition ended. Now it seems like they are in competition mode 24/7. I am not sure if it is the editing or if it is now all about the business, and why. I sometimes in the past felt like maybe Mark Long was working behind the scenes and is responsible for some of this conniving that is going on today. Cannot say now why specifically I felt that, but somewhere along the way I got the sense he was trying to become the liaison between the cast and the production as a defacto agent for all the big players.

How does that make any sense? Mark Long has been in 2 Challenges over the past 6 years and only 4 over all. Can't it be that Mark is just a nice guy and people get along with him?

[QUOTE=SeanDaniel;216802]I do not disagree with everything AJHill points out. To me the older challenge competitors seemed more good natured toward each other when the competition ended. Now it seems like they are in competition mode 24/7. I am not sure if it is the editing or if it is now all about the business, and why. I sometimes in the past felt like maybe Mark Long was working behind the scenes and is responsible for some of this conniving that is going on today. Cannot say now why specifically I felt that, but somewhere along the way I got the sense he was trying to become the liaison between the cast and the production as a defacto agent for all the big players.[/QUOTE] With regard to Mark: Simply not true. Mark has done a lot of production work outside of RR and the Challenge shows, so some cast members may look to him for advice now and then, but he isn't an agent, defacto or otherwise. He lives in CA and would need to be legally registered as an agent to represent anyone. He isn't registered and does not represent anyone. That is a thankless business I know all too well. I worked with Mark recently on a Red Carpet hosting gig in Vegas. I'm very certain that his vision of a good challenge is more "old school" with updated ideas. There's no question, however, that he gets along well with most past cast members and with production, but so do many others. Viewers just don't see it, and that is intentional for many.

[QUOTE=V1man;216830]With regard to Mark: Simply not true. Mark has done a lot of production work outside of RR and the Challenge shows, so some cast members may look to him for advice now and then, but he isn't an agent, defacto or otherwise. He lives in CA and would need to be legally registered as an agent to represent anyone. He isn't registered and does not represent anyone. That is a thankless business I know all too well. I worked with Mark recently on a Red Carpet hosting gig in Vegas. [B]I'm very certain that his vision of a good challenge is more "old school" with updated ideas[/B]. There's no question, however, that he gets along well with most past cast members and with production, but so do many others. Viewers just don't see it, and that is intentional for many.[/QUOTE] Now see that I would go for. If BMP could do that then I would be one happy viewer.

[B][U]Episode 4 ratings[/U][/B] Real World Road Rules Challenge - 1.436 million viewers - 1.0/2 HH - 0.9/3 A18-49 - 1.9/6 W18-34

suh-weet. Good increase.

At first glance i thought "Hey, hey they look like good.. in comparison to the average we have had in FM2".. but then it came to mind that those numbers will probably be even ok with a lot of long running series in a modest network like the CW.. i know MTV will like them to be more Jersey Shore-like.. but i dont get why each season we need to worry that is going to be the last.. can they keep it around around as it stays above 1.2 ? (and I agree it could do better on a less competitive night like mondays or fridays) is it a production cost issue ?

[QUOTE=RMD1;217399]I think if they put it on Fridays it will go down. We also need to realize about the online episodes and re-runs.[/QUOTE] Agree, Disagree, Agree. Disagree because they make very little money online in comparison to on TV. The major food company I currently work for advertises online and you wouldn't believe how little it costs to run an ad on something like that. A .9 average in the Demo should get the show picked up, so this is good. Now it needs to hold; if they go back to .7s that's a huge drop and is bad news bears.